Forest Certification in Eastern Europe and Russia: Rationale and Impacts

1. Forest Certification in Eastern Europe and Russia: Rationale and Impacts Vilis Brukas, PhD The Southern Swedish Forest Research Centre vilis.brukas@ess.slu.se

2. Sustainability of forest management in different regions – the public opinion in the main EU countries (Rametsteiner 1999) Question to EU citizen: How sustainable do your consider forest management to be in the following forests of the world?

3. Eastern European versus Scandinavian forestry

4. How FC has developed (Bass 2001)

5. Judging the level of SFM in the case countries from an environmentalist’s stance PL, LV, EE Sweden Russia

6. Judging the level of SFM in the case countries from an economist’s stance Sweden PL, LV, EE Russia

7. Looking for a rationale for FC • If we recognise that the major aim of FSC certification is to make forest management more sustainable with emphasis on environmental considerations - does Polish and Baltic forestry needs FC, having environmental practices above standard? - thinking of equity along the West-East axis, why should the Eastern countries suffer relatively higher FC costs and ’freeze’ their restrictive practices? • However, if objectives of ’improved’ SFM can be set aside, but FC could improve communication and learning - FC still might be relevant for Baltic and Polish forestry - FC might be important tool in Russia on both accounts

8. Driving forces behind FC F - major force f - secondary force

9. Poland, Latvia and Estonia • Direct costs of FSC certification - No data in case studies - Semi-confidential data from Lithuania, in USD: getting the certificate, holding of 200,000 ha: 0.15/ha getting the certificate, holding of 20,000 ha: 0.60/ha • Indirect costs - No estimates but should be low (given the ease with which FC standards were fulfilled)

10. Poland, Latvia and Estonia • Power effects - Poland: State forestry reinforced its image and dominance - Estonia & Latvia: voice of ENGOs better heard, improved communication between stakeholders Additional research is needed to separate effects of certification from other influences, e.g. development of the National Forest Programme in Estonia

11. FC in Poland, Latvia and Estonia • Economic effects - No price premium - Better market position questionable (additional research needed) • Social effects • - Benefits for forest workers • Environmental effects • - Marginal

12. Concluding remarks Eastern Europe • FC is not a tool to contribute to SFM in Eastern Europe • But can be a tool to empower ENGOs, facilitate dialogue and open up decision-making • The main venue for this is the standard development process but not the certification itself • FC is embraced by State forestry, private forestry issues remain unresolved • FC is largely driven by (perceived) market forces from the West, but the true market advantages remain doubtful

13. Concluding remarks (2) • Russia • FC might become an important vehicle in inducting policy change, in particular at regional level • Direct SFM impacts will likely remain localised at the Western boarder and be dependent on external aid