I. P. Kulyasov Research associate

Centre for Independent Social Research,

St. Petersburg, Russia



The concept of «sustainable forest management» is deeply rooted in forestry, both in Russia and in foreign countries. However, a modern interpretation of this concept came after the International Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At that time, expert communities and civil society organizations have decided on the necessity of mankind's transition to sustainable development at the State level. The latter is understood as development, balanced in terms of ecology, economy and society; the harmonious development of society and nature, taking into account the interests of future generations; the regulation of the socio-economic development in opportunities of the restoration of the natural environment and assimilation; taking into consideration of the nature and adaptive capacity of local communities.

The concept of sustainable development was a response to firmly established in historical ideas about economic development, its factors, indicators and mechanisms that did not provide adequate solutions to the pressing issues of social development in the conditions of growing environmental problems. Currently, economic development cannot be considered without taking into account the environmental realities. Environmental blessings are transmuting into a variety of economic benefits, and environmental needs become clear economic content. Opportunities of economic growth are closely interwoven with the problems of environmental restriction. At the same time powerful transformational processes in the world economy, the basis of which performs a change of technology and the mode of production, the unfolding process of humanization and greening economy, demand new approaches [9].

Following the conference in Rio de Janeiro interpretation of the concept of sustainability has begun to elaborate for the different areas of social activities and sectors of society. Within the scope of this process it has been worked out the principles of sustainable forest management, which were to become the basis for an International Convention on Forests [2]. However, forest convention has not been adopted because of fundamental differences in the interests of countries on the highest level. At the same time the very set out principles of sustainable forest management have become the basis for non-governmental non-commercial legal systems and codes. An example is an International Voluntary Forest Certification in the first place by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which moved forward by the alliance network of civil society organizations and associations of socially and environmentally responsible companies [4]

In 1993, in Helsinki in the draft of the Declaration of the Ministerial Conference [3] were given basic concepts and definitions of sustainable forest management – the management of forests and forest land (forest governance) and their use in a manner and with such intensity (forest management), which provide them with biological diversity (biodiversity), productivity (productivity), recovery (resilience), viability (sustainability), and the ability to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions on local, national and global levels, without prejudice to other ecosystems (non-vulnerability). Forest resources and forest lands should be used in a sustainable manner to meet the social, environmental, economic, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations of mankind.

One of the problems of institutionalization of sustainable forest management in Russia is the difference between the old conventional forest management practices that emerged in the Soviet period (30.12.1922 –  26.12.1991), and the new international standards and practices of sustainable forest management. This difference can be traced in the analysis of public laws and regulations, documents of forest companies, FSC and other public organizations, as well as the practices themselves lumbering.

Important is the analysis of the discourses of experts in forest area – representatives of public organizations, public authorities (state), forest management, forest managers and employees of logging companies, scientific advisors and auditors.


Methods and theoretical framework

Qualitative sociological methods have been used for collecting empirical material – research of particular case (case study) and participant observation (participatory observation). This is an empirical study of various sources of information, in which the phenomenon is studied in existing context, where there are no boundaries between the researcher, the phenomenon and context.

The theory of path-dependency was selected as a theoretical frame of articles. This theory distinguishes between two tendencies in the development of social institutions. On the one hand, social institutions, inherent the very society, is constantly reproduced in the way of its development and prevent their own transformation and the emergence of new institutions, which creates the effect of motion on the same ‘path’. On the other hand, this theory suggests that through the work of various social actors, we can get out of the ‘path’ (path shape) and the new way to go. It is important that social actors have created a strong new direction, which leads to the creation of new institutions. Thus, there is happens ‘wobble’ of the old ways (‘path-shaping’) and the yield on a new path, forming a new ‘path’ [11].

Existing from the Soviet period, the practice of forest management in the article will be considered as a movement within the beaten path. During this period, only the state was the basic social institution defining the practice of forest management. It is determined by its laws and regulations, planning and financing of forest structures. Nowadays, the reform of state legislation defining the practice of forest management has influenced to the market requirements [13]. On the one hand, these requirements are expressed in market demand for timber and profit maximization, on the other hand, in globalization of the market and the emergence of new international requirements for sustainable forest management [7]. The transition to sustainable forest management practices, expressed in voluntary forest certification by FSC scheme, is an attempt to exit from the beaten path.

Institutionalization of sustainable forest management practices will be analyzed by using the theory of ecological modernization as well [8], leading to the expansion of adaptive capacity of forest ecosystems and local communities (adaptive capacity). Ecological modernization is amended in accordance with the latest, modern environmental requirements and regulations, the implementation that leads to the elimination of problems between man and the environment, society and nature. In recent years, global environmental changes constrain local communities to seek and use new adaptive features that are often associated with the major factors in the development of society [5]. They imply the same conditions that are recommended for achieving sustainable development. Ecological modernization is one of the basic mechanisms of sustainable development, including sustainable forest management [6].

The theory of ecological modernization blends harmoniously as in the concept of sustainable development, and the concept of adaptive capacity. The concepts of sustainable development and adaptive capacity, ecological modernization theory are applicable to the search for new solutions to the social and ecological crisis. They can be used to solve problems on local, national and global levels, reducing environmental risks and sensitivity of socio-ecological systems to negative influences.

Currently, the accomplishment of the principles of sustainable forest management practices is just beginning. Modern forest management standard practice of Russian timber enterprises is not sustainable, because the economic interests entirely precedence over environmental and social. This situation has been formed since the Soviet period. Thus, the activities of majority Russian timber enterprises are developing in the framework of the beaten path, despite the adoption of new logging technologies.


Discourse on the prevailing practices of forest management in Russia

In this section it will be used copyrighted materials, interviews with employees of the forest sector. It has shown that how it has being constructed in the forest management practice in their discourse, retold the history of the Soviet period and the present reforms.

The purpose of forestry in Soviet period, defining the practice of forest management was to ensure the needs of the state timber. One of the key concepts that define the volume of timber enterprises is the ‘prescribed cut’, that the state normalized and is normalizing the volume of possible logging. In the Soviet period, these calculations are adjusted to the economic needs, including the war period (1941–1945) and the post-war period (1945–1953) leaving out of account the environmental dimension. Under socialism, prescribed cut was conducted on consumption, that is calculated, what capacities are developed in the country, on regional and local level. Nobody considered how it affects the environment and forests. Forestry was completely dependent on the party directives. Modern forestry standards are based on the norms of the Soviet period and are not precise.

In the Soviet period up to 1960s despite the ever-growing demand for timber, the volume of timber harvesting had no significant impact on the environment. Logging, largely conducted random, manually plots were small, if along the rivers in the summer and was an alloy rafts if the winter, then hauling performed by horses. Then the timber was not only manual labor, but also forced labor in most cases. As it was planned collective farmers from the proximate villages or inmates of the camps under order were sent on logging.

From the 1960s to 1980s there was a technical and technological modernization. There appeared chainsaws and tractors, narrow-gauge railways and diesel locomotives, began to build a lot of roads year-round. Total amount of harvesting started to increase. During this period the volume of logging doubled. In 1980–1990s there was the peak of the volume of logging in the country. There was a planned government support for the development of forestry then and constant investment as well. And there was a new round of upgrading equipment and technologies, adoption of modern technologies, and an expansion and deepening of the beaten path based on economic growth. Both phases of the modernization of increased economic efficiency but also increased the burden on nature, conduced to the development of unsustainable forest management.

Collapse the timber industry was characteristic to the turn of reform period (1990), as economic ties of the USSR were severed. The results in deep forest products in many forest areas went down. Public financing of logging enterprises ceased. Jobless people of forest villages massively left their places. Subsequently, the timber industry was privatized and capitalized, it was started to establish economic ties again, increase exports, recover and modernize forest products. Unprofitability and bankruptcy of local logging companies, in most cases were clarified by the necessity of creating new logging technology roads and wide apart transportation, lack of investment and poor potential of local market and removals outside the area. Majority of them have either disappeared or went into timber processing holdings exporting products to foreign countries.

Russian state system reform of forest management implemented in 2000, led to the actual liquidation of the state system of forest management. New Forest Code of the Russian Federation, adopted in late 2006, impose all responsibility for forest management on the logging operator –  the tenant. This responsibility is associated primarily with high financial costs, which requires forestry. If we consider that in the last few years there has been a sharp decline in the profitability of logging companies in the North-West of Russia, and they are not practically gaining profit, it becomes clear that they do not actually have funds for conducting of forest management. Therefore, ensuring the sustainable forest management at the expense of reforestation and other activities in the forest, including fire precautions, are being brought into question in many logging companies. It does not only sum up the current state of forest management in Russia, but also serves as a forecast of the future depletion of the forest as a resource, even potentially renewable.


Discourse on sustainable forest management practices

In the previous section it was given a picture from the historical retrospective review and the current state of forest management in Russia as a whole, as forest industry workers see it. Then, it will be used copyrighted material interviews with representatives of environmental organizations. It has shown that how forest management is being constructed in their discourse, retold the history of formation and institutionalization of sustainable forest management in the world and Russia.

It should be noted that impoverished forest management practiced in the 20th century virtually in all industrialized countries. Gradually, this practice has moved to developing countries. This is connected with increasing consumption within countries, and with the ever-increasing level of exports of wood products in developed countries. Of course, in developing countries the forest industry is always modernized, and stimulus for modernization was the demand of the population in developed countries.

Progressively the practices and attitudes towards forests in developed countries have changed and become more stable, especially modernization has become ecological. However, the practice of logging industry majority woodlands of the planet, such as the Amazon rain forest, South Africa, Southeast Asia, North-West Russia, Siberia and the Far East, still be led to the depletion of forest resources and the destruction of forest-related traditional cultures of indigenous and smaller peoples.

In contrast to the current practice of forest management, international environmental movement has established mechanisms to motivate the transition to sustainable forest management. Already in the 1980–1990s began to take form environmentally sensitive market in Europe and the United States. International environmental social organizations take into account the preferences of the market and the use of market mechanisms. A mechanism of non-state promoting market for forest management has been created [1]. The first stage was publicly known environmental actions and organization of international consumer boycotts of large trading companies, buyers of wood products that brought them considerable losses. This caused business to reckon with the requirements of the public.

Simultaneously, civil society organizations and networks of experts in the field of forest management have been established international and national system of voluntary forest certification, based on internationally accepted principles and criteria for sustainable forest management, which legitimized the practice of leading forest companies. They confirmed that the timber is harvested in compliance with environmental regulations, the rights of local and indigenous population, without the oppression of the working people, that the manufacturers of the products are ecologically, economically and socially responsible.

By the end of the 1990s in Russia and international environmental public organizations also actively promoted the principles and practice of sustainable forest management. The main organizations were WWF, Greenpeace, IUCN, Conservation Center, Socio-Ecological Union, as well as a number of regional organizations such as the SPOC in Karelia and BROC in the Far East. For this purpose it was used a wide range of methods –  fax ‘attacks’ of environmental activists, direct action to save old-growth and unique forests from logging operators, international consumer boycotts of trading companies with world-renowned brands. At the same time Russian NGOs started to move forward the international system of voluntary forest certification within the framework of FSC. It was formed a group of timber merchants, who have a direct interest in changing their own practices of forest management – Association of Environmentally Responsible Lumbermen.

At the same time, WWF funded jointly with timber merchants two drafts of model forests, where, in practice, worked out methods of sustainable forest management in Russia. One of the main objectives of these projects was preparation for forest management certification within the framework of FSC. In the case of Pskov Model Forest was certified forest company STF Strug, while using a unique scheme of forest planning for 100 years ahead. In the case of Model Forest «Priluzye» was certified by Priluzian forestry, and with it a regional standard was developed, approved by the Government of the Komi Republic and regional public authorities on forest management. At the same time, both forest project models have become centers of study and the promotion of voluntary forest certification in Russia.


Promotion of sustainable forest management in Russia

Different methods of the public (from confrontation to partnership) gradually began to form new discourses and practices of timber merchants. [10] The main method of introducing new practices became the very FSC-certification, and all the other listed methods have helped to create the motivation and demand for certification. The concept of ‘sustainable forest management’ and ‘sustainable forest exploitation’ successively started to enter the discourses of Russian timber merchants and government employee – forestry workers. However, the specificity of these actors has led, in the first place, to the economic interpretation of the concept. Hereby, environmental non-governmental organizations were the main actors contributing to the change of the rut, the transition to sustainable forest management and ecological modernization of forest industry to expand adaptive capacity of forest ecosystems and local communities. International Institute for Sustainable Forest Management was introducedt into Russia.

Institutionalization of sustainable forest management occurs through adaptation of international standards efforts of the National Initiative FSC, FSC National Office and regional workgroups to promote forest certification. Consultants from various scientific organizations and audit firms including joined to the process. However, the guidelines were created, explanatory and informational materials are often not consistent with the National Initiative of FSC. Such effort is to support the institutionalization of sustainable forest management, however, different interpretation of the concepts were confusing.

FSC National Initiative was to adapt the international standards in multiclimatic regions of Russia, to fill the concept of international content relevant to Russian specifics. To meet these challenges, it was formed a community of experts who are concerned with the development of sustainable forest management. It consisted of representatives of public organizations, academic institutions, government and commercial organizations. Thus, the main actors from the public sector, promoting sustainable forest management, began its institutionalization in Russia and in 2005 created a special ‘legislative’ body – the National Initiative FSC. The National Office FSC which formed in that year assumed the role of the executive body. And with this supervisory role performed accredited auditing companies, which in turn controlled the Special Branch FSC International, experts of scientific organizations, forestry state bodies and companies controlling of forest holdings themselves (internal audit). In the control group also participated stratified group of villagers local level (local community), who knew about the benefits and advantages of voluntary forest certification, and popularized its principles among the various groups of local forest users.

One of the constituents in the creation of Russian Institute for Sustainable forest management is the FSC National Standard [12]. It was developed and approved for more than eight years, after which on November 11, 2008 was accredited, in 2009 came into operation for loggers and lumbermen, modify, and was approved by FSC International 08.10.2012. As far as in accordance with the international rules of the FSC the FSC National Initiative was included with the representatives of public, academic and business organizations, representing different interests and the process of development of national standards has become a platform for a broad discussion on the interpretation of the concepts, principles and criteria for sustainable forest management. As a result, national standards have unfolded and consistent with the interests of the various groups of non-state version of the international forestry law, adjusted for Russia.

The second component of the Institute for Sustainable Forest Management in Russia and the new actor in his promotion was the Russian national office FSC. Its necessity dictated by the fact that FSC certification Russian forest companies and their businesses become popular. International auditing company accredited by the FSC– the third component of the Institute for Sustainable Forest Management and actor of his promotion. Because the rules of FSC approval to the national version of the international standards of sustainable forest management certification audits are based on interpretations of the international standard, existing in different audit firms, one of the problems of institutionalization in the beginning was the difference in their approaches and requirements.

Collision of the discourses and practices of foreign and Russian auditors, management of forest companies, the views of officials of forest management government agencies, as well as a variety of local forest users has led to the fact that the quality and content of certified forest management system was utterly different in various forest companies. As a result, some companies came to conflicts with indigenous peoples, communities and organizations.

Constantly, there was a problem of unifying the requirements of auditors and their interpreted concepts of FSC-certification (eg, ‘forests of high conservation values’, ‘indigenous peoples’, ‘local population’ and others). For this purpose, the National Office of FSC in cooperation with the FSC National Initiative began to hold regular meetings, seminars, round tables, sessions and conferences with representatives of the audit firms, where they discussed the most problematic aspects of certification. It was offered a certain interpretation of concepts that inherently, the formation of a new discourse on Russia for sustainable forest management practices. As a result, elaborated a general idea of how to engage in sustainable forest management, which then popularized through audits and practices of forest companies. Much attention has been given to the publication of manuals and placing them on the website of the National Office of FSC, sending in conducting audits of the company and responsible for the FSC-certified forest companies.

Additionally, nearly ten year period of FSC-certification development Russia there are many scientific organizations and individual experts providing consulting services come into service. Experts have influenced more and more on the practical implementation of the criteria of FSC, that is, they have become important actors. However, the quality and content of the consultation and expert services differed greatly. It depended largely on both the experience and education of the expert, and how it closely collaborated with FSC National Initiative and separated the elaborating interpretation and views, was included in their discursive group.

In this situation, the institutionalization of sustainable forest management has gone through the creation of documents as appendix to the national standard of FSC – in fact ‘by-laws’ of the certification scheme. For instance, were recorded and append key requirements for the isolation and preservation of the forests of high conservation values to the standard, including recommendations on the implementation of the social bloc certification. These documents were created by the experts of the FSC National Initiative, after that they were discussed among auditors and timber merchants, finalized and timber merchants were offered as a guide to action in preparation for certification and audit.

A great attention has been paid to the training of specialists in the field of voluntary forest certification. In Moscow and most of the regional forest departments of universities students were offered specialization in this area. Thus, the views and experience of the experts were included in the formation of the Institute for Sustainable Forest Management. In addition to the above documents, the experts have prepared a series of detailed regional guidelines for the accomplishment of the various principles of FSC for timber merchants, forests management government agencies and other forest users.

At the same time the National Office of FSC conducted a survey, selection and registration of national expert advisory of FSC. Such listing should be isolated for lumbermen experts who can advise in accordance with the position of FSC national authorities. Creation of special documents, guidelines, meetings with auditors and consultants registration led to improvements in the quality of audits in certification, unification and formalization of sustainable forest management practices of forest companies.

Institute for Sustainable Forest Management with a well-developed structure was established with general efforts in Russia. It exists in parallel with the state system of forest management and duplicated it. It can be drawn parallels between the Forest Code, with its by-laws and the standard of FSC National Initiative with its applications and recommendations, the hierarchic structure of government agencies for forest management and networked monitoring and implementing the principles of FSC.

This new institutional structure is operating in Russia on the basis of market and globalization mechanisms, established for conservation and reforestation. As far as the new Institute for Sustainable Forest Management contributed ecological modernization and made timber merchants change the usual way of activities, came into conflict with the old system of state control over forest management and forest management. Because the old Russian system has been shown to serve as a basis to unsustainable forest management, and its transformation in the reform period, especially since 2000, looks like the destruction of national forest monitoring and management.


Clash of discourses of government, business and the public

The first principle of FSC provides for compliance with the laws of the country where certified forestry enterprise or company. However, international environmental and social certification requirements exceed the requirements of the Russian legislation, thereby contradicting the specific provisions and rules of forest management. Simultaneously, the interpretation of the national state legislation can often be multi-valued. Therefore, the construct of the contradiction between the requirements of Russian legislation and FSC is based primarily on differences in perception and discourse of those who promote FSC-certification, and those who are compliance with the Russian forest, environmental, labor and tax laws. However, if the representatives of government agencies related to forestry, imbued with the ideas of certification, almost all conflicts can be removed.

The absence of the concept of sustainable forest management at the national level leads to the absence of such a discourse in government officials as well. The new Forest Code that entered into force in January 2007 has not filled the gaps, because the idea of promoting sustainable forest management of public organizations and advanced forestry business has not been considered in it. Consequently, the word ‘sustainable’ is found only for three times in collocations ‘sustainable forest management’, ‘sustainable timber production’ and ‘sustainable development’ in the Forest Code. In this case, it does not include the concept of sustainable forest management, it is not written about and how to realize it. Meanwhile, the final institutionalization and common everyday practical application of requirements for sustainable forest management is only possible with the state participation. This creates barriers to those timber merchants who want to work due to international principles of sustainable forest management.

The process of certification of the Russian logging enterprises that have become the part of large international forest companies is going on more consistently and systematically. Because these companies have already been working in the world in a new way, taking into account aspects of sustainability, sustainable forest management has become part of their official policies. At the same time the business culture of these companies require that the general policy and the new practices were assimilated, digested and accepted by all the staff from management to workers. Thus forest certification is introduced in this way. In this case, their Russian daughter company is no longer combat of discourses and barriers to implementation of the new practice of sustainable forest management.

We will consider how discourse and practices of the different actors clash by the example of a few specific ideas.


Old-growth forests

One of the requirements of FSC is to preserve the different categories of forests of high conservation values. One of the categories of those is old-growth forests. Sometimes referred to as old-growth or virgin forests. There is a clash of opinions about this concept and proposed forest management practices in these forests. Preservation of old-growth forests was in the focus of attention of international environmental and social non-governmental organizations before the introduction of voluntary forest certification around the world. On the subject of logging in these forests, on the legitimate point of view of national legislation, were the actions of Greenpeace and consumer boycotts.

The concept was new to the Russian public, loggers and government agencies. On the contrary, such forests are called ‘ripe’ and ‘overripe’. And the discourse was that – ‘they must be cut’. Embarked on the path of FSC-certification of forest companies faced with misunderstanding of their own leadership and a lack of understanding of forest management governmental agencies, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the government and the Duma. Conducted environmental informing with social organizations about the necessity of preserving old-growth forests as a rule reached to the government agencies of the federal and regional levels, and to a lesser extent with to local authorities. However, logging companies working with forestry namely in the regions.

Discourse of local employees of forestry enterprises and the preservation of old-growth forest areas is as follows: lack of understanding of the benefit; the deprivation of the population of economic benefits; this is an excessive environmental requirement; it is a special strategy of competitors to weaken of the Russian economy. As a result, the economic factor – underutilization of forest resources plays the most important role for government agencies. Thus, the International Institute for Sustainable forest management makes certified forest enterprises save old-growth forests, but the state agencies that do not contribute in any way – enterprises pay for the rent of these rather large areas and penalties for undercut.


Key biotopes

Another example of the clash of the old and new social institutions is the isolation and preservation of key biotopes. This practice and the concept did not also exist till the FSC-certification, as in forest enterprises, forest management government agencies. It was also included in the discourses and practices owing to a variety of seminars on the subject of voluntary forest certification, organized by international environmental public organizations, in which the representatives of forest management government agencies and timber merchants attended.

In some regions, especially where once there was a demand for FSC-certification, environmental public organizations conducted much information works (for example, in the Arkhangelsk region), regional state authorities were willing to legitimize the allocation of key habitats within the law, that is, to consider them as noncommercial forest land. Customized loyally to the state bodies certification immediately found an opportunity to fit into the legislation. However, key biotopes could be an operating highly productive land. Sometimes, logging company just tried to leave all kinds of key biotopes and pay fines for undercut. But here, a compromise is possible: the legislation deems it undercuts and fines the company. But at the same time, the company temporarily benefits from the fact that the conditions of certification, and received a certificate for it, with all its benefits. Or for all that such plots are drawn up by forester in place as a group of seed bearers or seminal clump.

Complicity causes abandonment and dead trees, as here involved two Russian laws –  Forestry (cutting-practice rules) and labor (safety regulations), as leaving the deadwood is dangerous to workers in the plot. But there can be an exception by this. Such trees with decorative crown and hollows can be left as an exception. The decision to leave them or not, not only forestry makes decision but also forest warden on the spot in allocation the plot. However, they usually do not want to take responsibility.

If regional state agencies recognize the need of leaving the key biotopes, then, as a rule, local forestry also follows it. On the contrary, in the areas where certification was not a mass phenomenon, where environmental public organizations did not conduct a special operation with the regional state authorities of forest management, and local forestry enterprises and forestry manifested their negative attitude to the isolation of biotopes there. In the documents of plot of lands is not mentioned anything about leaving the habitats, but it is written that the tenant should all cut down. If there is something called habitat left, then it will be penalized. It is clear for foresters what it is, but they cannot work with biotopes because they are not legalized yet. Some representatives of government agencies of forest management believe that observing all the rules of certification in terms of leaving the biotopes is out of reality.

By the example of the collision of opinions and practices on two concepts – ‘old-growth forests’ and ‘key biotopes’, it becomes clear that the introduction of new rules and concepts using FSC-certification is difficult to happen. The absence of many concepts in legal system that operates certification hampers its accomplishment. At the same time, non-state actors, involving state agencies that studying the programs, organizing study tours to their representatives around Russian and international model forests, a large number of cross-cutting seminars, conferences and meetings, create a new channel of informal institutionalization of sustainable forest management.

Formal law informally reconsiders and adjusts to meet the international requirements for sustainable forest management. In this case, the formal harmonization of national laws and international requirements will not occur. Indeed, despite all the efforts of the public, business and loyal to the voluntary forest certification of state authorities, in the new Forest Code, the rules of timber harvesting and other bylaws, new concepts of sustainable forest management have not been introduced in recent years.



Modern forest management standard practice of Russian timber enterprises and their management companies is not sustainable because the economic interests take entirely precedence over environmental and social interests. By virtue of the international environmental public organizations the beaten path that operated the wood industry, as a result, the introduction of voluntary forest certification has been changed. A new path in the form of new timber business practices affected the discourse of state authorities. However, the forestry legislation, enforcement of which lies on the government agencies of forest management, despite the radical change (it has become over the last decade much more marketable), it remains in the same rut. Thereby, the first barrier to the institutionalization of sustainable forest management is state laws and state agencies, which are more than anything else, impede the institutionalization of sustainable forest management and ecological modernization of the forestry sector in Russia.

The introduction of new concepts is often hampered by the certification management and themselves staff of Russian forest enterprises. Managers and employees who have extensive experience in the forest enterprises in the Soviet and post-Soviet period, and learned in the tradition of the ‘old’ forest management, frequently perceive the environmental requirements of the international forest certification with difficulty, do not understand and do not accept environmental and social requirements, based on consultations with local communities and indigenous peoples, with all different groups of forest users and stakeholders. Thus, there is a clash of discourses and practices of those managers who are agents of certification and its opponents, who suppose the certification as a next formal procedure. The struggle between two approaches inside the timber business is the second barrier for the development of sustainable forest management in Russia.

Adoption of FSC-certification in Russia is the incentive for forming a new Institute for Sustainable Forest Management. About for ten year certification period it took place the institutionalization and adaptation of sustainable forest management in Russia. However, it shouldn’t be asserted that the certification is completely led to sustainable forest management. In practice, there are only fragments in the form of areas of sustainable forest management and fragmentary social networking space systems for sustainable forest management, which are available for replication at the present level of legislation, economic practices and education of personnel. Introduction of sustainable forest management in the education of Russian forest industry personnel will increase institutionalization of sustainable forest management practices in the future.



  1. Cashor B., Auld G., Newson D. 2004. Governing Through Markets: Forest Certification and the Emergence of Non-State Authority. New Haven, L.: Yale Univ. Press.
  2. FAO Corporate document repository. 1999. Issues and options for international instruments to support sustainable forest management. State of the world forests. http://www.fao.org/docrep/w9950e/w9950e10.htm
  3. Forest Europe. http://www.foresteurope.org/docs/MC/MC_helsinki_gral_declaration.pdf
  4. FSC Russia. http://www.fsc.ru
  5. Keskitalo C., Kulyasova A.A. 2009. The role of governance in community adaptation to climate change // Polar Research. Vol. 28. № 1. p. 60-70.
  6. Kotilainen J., Tysiachniouk M.S., Kulyasova A.A., Kulyasov I.P., Pchelkina S.S. 2008. The potential for ecological modernization in the Russia: Scenarios from the forest industry // Environmental Politics. Vol. 17. № 1. p. 58-77.
  7. Kotilainen J., Kulyasova A.A., Kulyasov I.P., Pchelkina S.S. 2009. Re-territorializing the Russian North through hybrid forest management // The changing governance of renewable natural resources in North-West Russia. Ed. S. Nysten-Haarala. Farnham: Ashgate. Chapter 7. p. 131-147.
  8. Kulyasov I.P. 2005. Ecological modernization: Theoretical aspects // The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. № 3. p. 100-113. (in Russia)
  9. Kulyasov I.P. 2010. Building trust in the process of localization of global forest certification // Russia and Europe: from mental images to business practices. Kymenlaakson: Univ. Appl. Sci. p. 110-130.
  10. Kulyasov I.P., Kulyasova A.A. 2010. Construction of Trust in the Process of Forest Stewardship Council Certification: Role of NGOs and Experts // The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. Tysiachniouk M.S. (ed.), Special Issue: Internationalization, trust and multistakeholder governance of natural resources, St. Petersburg, p. 282-311. (in Russia)
  11. North D.C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance: A new economic history. Cambridge: Cambr. Univ. Press.
  12. Russian National FSC Standard. Version 6_01_Ru. 08.10.2012. (in Russia) http://www.fsc.ru/upload/file/Russian_National_FSC_Standard_v_6_01_Ru_itog.pdf
  13. Strategic Choice and Part-Dependency in Post Socialism. 1995. Institutional Dynamics in the Transformation Process. Hausner J., Jessop B., Nielsen K. (eds.). L.: E. Elgar Publ.


Ваш ник:
Ваш email:
Текст комментария: