INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly fium the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from 1 ^ to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Infimnation Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 The Emergence of National Parks in Russia With Studies of Pribaikalski and Zabaikalski National Parks In the Lake Baikal Region of South-Central Siberia by Michael William Tripp B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 1968 M.A., San Francisco State University, 1980 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Department of Geography We accept this dissertation as conforming to the required standard Dr. M.C.R. Edgell, Supervisor (Department of Geography) . Porteous, Member (Department of Geography) Dr. C.J Member (Department of Geography) DfTV. epartment of History in Art) Dr. D. R. r. External Member (Department of History, University of Arizona) © Michael William Tripp, 1998 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced in whole or part, by photocopying or other means, without the permission of the author. Supervisor: Dr. Michael C.R. Edgell ABSTRACT The recent establishment of an impressive network of national parks within first the Soviet Union and then post-Soviet Russia can be viewed as representative of ongoing shifts in relationships between valuations of nature and of societal organization and empowerment. With dissipation of the country's centralized administrative structures, the designation of national parks has repeatedly been used to support regional claims to territorial autonomy under the auspices of environmental protection. Site selection, however, has been motivated primarily by attachments to the specifics of place and attendant proclamations of self-identity rather than to normative ecological or recreational national park criteria. As a consequence, Russian national parks embrace complex matrices of historical, cultural and natural landscape characteristics reflective of their respective constituencies. Appearing first in the outlying Republics, the national park formation process diffused inwards to the Russian heartland and eastwards into Siberia. This sequential development, not by chance, has mirrored the devolution of Soviet sovereignty and the deconstruction of its empire. Two national parks, Pribaikalski and Zabaikalski in the Lake Baikal region of south-central Siberia, have served as primary research sites for examining the validity of the above concepts and for observing and analyzing the processes involved. To maximize informational and perceptual access and to study site/societal interactions, a variety of constituencies have been incorporated into the study through extensive multi­ tiered participatory roles. At an operational level, these activities have emphasized Ill international agency/NGO consultancies, the development of a park-directed, village- based ecotourism program and the founding of a wider-ranging "Friends of the National Parks Society." Research results have supported the contention that Russian national parks are primarily a product of regional socio-political forces intent on preserving representative natural/cultural landscapes rather than the result of centralized decision-making processes prioritizing recreation, education, or biodiversity objectives. Given the persistence of societal flux, the sites will continue to be highly susceptible to the influences of stakeholder/constituency interests and empowered individuals. Examiners: Dr. M.C.R. Edgell, Supervisor (Depprtoent of Geography) orteous, Departmental^ember (Depaithicut of OeS^^phy Dr. C.J^^f?Wo<âri5épartmental Member (Department of Geography) Dr. V. Wyatt, Outside Member o f History in Art) Dr. D. R. Werner, External Examiner (Department of History, University of Arizona) IV CONTENTS Abstract ii Contents iv Tables v Figures vii Acknoweidgements viii Foreward x Chapter I: INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter II: PRECURSORS: TRADITIONAL PROTECTED AREAS 16 Chapter III: BEGINNINGS ABROGATED 32 Chapter IV: RESURGENT IDEALS AND COMMON INTERESTS 42 Chapter V: RUSSIAN ADOPTION AND ADAPTATIONS 71 Chapter VI: THE LAKE BAIKAL REGION 98 Chapter VII: PRIBAIKALSKI AND ZABAIKALSKI NATIONAL PARKS 115 Chapter VIII: EXTERNAL INPUTS 152 Chapter IX: TRENDS, PROGNOSES AND CONCLUSIONS 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY 196 Interviews 219 APPENDICES 221 A. Projected Principles for Legislation in the USSR 221 & the Republics for Specially Protected Nature Areas, Section 111: National Parks, 1991 B. Federal Statute on National Nature Parks 223 of the Russian Federation, 1993 C. Federal Statute on Specially Protected Natural 231 Territories, Section 111, National Parks, 1995 D. Status of Zabaikalski State Natural National Park, 236 Federal Forest Service, 1987 E. Friends of the Russian National Parks Society 245 Documents of Incorporation F. FRNPS Ecotourism Contractual Agreement 246 G. NGO Biographies 249 H. FRNPS "Travel Siberia" Brochure 252 VI LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1. Field Research Timeline 14 Table 2.1. Russian Federation Zapovedniki, 1994 25 Table 5.1. Soviet Era National Parks, 1971-1991 74 Table 5.2. Russian Federation National Parks by 85 Administrative Region Table 5.3. Organizational Structure, Ministry of 89 Environment and Natural Resources, 1995 Table 5.4. Bioregional Versus Industrial-Scientific Paradigms 94 Table 7.1. Site Characteristics: Pribaikalski and 118 Zabaikalski National Parks Table 7.2. Site Issues: Pribaikalski and Zabaikalski 124 National Parks Table 8.1. Typology of Non-Govemmental Organizations 166 Active in the Baikal Region National Parks Table 8.2. Biodiversity Conservation Grants in the 167 Baikal Region, 1994 Table 8.3. Irkutsk Tourism, 1990-1994 174 Table 8.4 Baikal Ecotourism Constraints 176 vu LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Russian Federation Zapovedniki, 1994 19 by Year of Establishment Figure 2.2. The Abatis Lines Region 21 Figure 4.1. Distribution of Soviet Era National Parks: 59 1971-1981 Figure 4.2. Landscape Characteristics of Lahemaa 60 National Park, Estonian Republic Figure 5.1. Losiny Ostrov National Park, 72 Moscow Municipality Figure 5.2. Russian National Parks of the East 82 European Forest Bioregion Figure 5.3. Distribution of Russian National Parks 84 Figure 6.1. The Lake Baikal Region 100 Figure 6.2. Canadian and U.S. National Parks: 112 Rates of Establishment, 1950-1989 Figure 6.3. Russian National Parks: Rates o f 113 Establishment, 1983-1997 Figure 7.1. Pribaikalski National Park 116 Figure 7.2. Zabaikalski National Park 117 Figure 7.3. Circulation Gyres and Principle 121 Pollution Sources Figure 7.4. Tunkinski National Park 130 Figure 8.1. Proposed Davis Plan National Parks 158 vni Acknowledgements This work has been a multi-generational, as well as a lifelong process—multi- generational in its setting within the traditions and lineage of a my academic ancestry- lifelong in the time that it has taken to produce from the same considerably mythologized past a present reality. Many have contributed along the way. The presence and bearing of grandparents and great-grandparents, especially those long-lived, strong-willed matriarchs (affectionately Pra-Baba, Hi-Baba,and Tookie Lynn) steadfastly reinforced a sense of mission. My mother too remained faithful to the cause, if often overwhelmed by the complexities of its implementation. Fate in the form of an unknown functionary also needs mentioning. A mis-processed scholarship application deflected my course of higher education from UCLA to the Berkeley campus, its tumultuous political climate, and eventually its geography department. Within this field, 1 have been very fortunate to have found the companionship and support of many like-minded individuals, most notably those whom 1 consider my mentors—Roy Gordon, Deryck Lodrick, Hans Meihoefer and Georg Treichel. Each has contributed uniquely to my academic and personal enrichment. Specific to the task at hand, 1 first must thank the many Russians who unstintingly gave of their hospitality, assistance and knowledge throughout this work. Without the sponsorship of Vladimir Melnikov and Yevgeny Ovdin, Director and Deputy Director of Zabaikalski National Park, this work could not have been completed. Without Olga and Volodya Podshumnaya, their family and friends,