ssia

Russia Case Study Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology Ru Percentage of Protected Areas in

0 km 1000

Federal Protected Areas in the Russian Federation

Tyrlyshkin, V, Blagovidov, A and Belokurov, A. 2003 Russia: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology WWF Gland, Switzerland

Front cover photograph: Pechora-Ilychskiy – mixed boreal forest, Pechora River, , Russia © WWF/Hartmut Jungius RUSSIA

Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology

Vyacheslav Tyrlyshkin, WWF-Russia Alexey Blagovidov, IUCN CIS Alexander Belokurov, WWF Forests for Life Programme CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

IMPLEMENTING THE METHODOLOGY 6

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES 9

RECOMMENDATIONS 28

FOLLOW-UP ACTION 31

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 32 RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

PROTECTED AREAS

The 1995 Russian federal law defines protected history of management. The vast majority of them areas (PAs) as “areas of land and water surface (95 , 35 national parks, 11 federal and the air space above them, where natural , and 28 nature monuments) are under complexes and objects of special nature the control of the Ministry of Natural Resources, conservation, scientific, cultural, aesthetic, and with the remainder (55 federal zakazniks) under the recreational importance are located. These areas responsibility of the Hunting Department of the are fully or partly withdrawn from economic use on Ministry of Agriculture and other ministries. the decision of state authorities, and a special regime of protection is established for them”. The The IUCN and the Russian Russian national protected area system includes: categories do not correspond exactly. Broadly speaking, zapovedniks fall within IUCN category Ia 100 zapovedniks – strict nature reserves (strict nature reserves managed mainly for science), 35 national parks all national parks fall within IUCN category II 69 federal zakazniks – wildlife refuges (protected areas managed mainly for ecosystem more than 3,000 regional zakazniks protection and recreation), and federal zakazniks fall more than 10,000 nature monuments, including within IUCN category IV (protected areas managed 28 of federal importance mainly for habitat or species conservation through more than 40 regional nature parks. management intervention).

Protected areas (both federal and regional) cover The legislative basis of protected area management around 190 million hectares, or about 11 per cent of is enumerated in a series of federal laws and the whole territory of Russia. Of this, 135 million regulations (e.g. Federal Environmental Protection hectares, or about 7.8 per cent, could be Law 2001, Federal Law on Specially Protected Areas considered to be within IUCN's protected area 1995, Federal Forest Code 1997); numerous sub- categories I–IV. There are substantial differences in ordinate legislative documents (e.g. decrees, the area covered by protected areas between the resolutions, executive orders); and departmental regions (see maps on front inside cover). In regions legislative documents (e.g. guidelines, instructions, with a high degree of anthropogenic pressure and instructive letters). The network of zapovedniks forms transformation (e.g. Central Russia), the percentage the core of the Russian protected area system. A is lower than the national average. In regions with a is an organizational entity that manages a low degree of pressure, and with intact ecosystems, territory excluded from any form of economic activity, protected area percentages are the highest (e.g. is managed for strict environmental protection, and Kamchatka Region, Sakha, and Altay republics). conducts research and educational activities.

The federal-level protected areas (zapovedniks, The protected area system and management national parks, and zakazniks) are most important regime has developed under conditions of strong for biodiversity conservation and have a long centralized state power over all aspects of social INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

3 and economic life. Zapovedniks received central protected areas. Departmental control is ineffective support, and were relatively independent from and irregular, and does not take into sufficient regional and local pressures. As a result, consideration the goals of nature protection. historically, local interests were not sufficiently taken Hence, protected area management throughout into account, nor were the social and economic Russia is problematic, as evidenced by numerous importance of federal protected areas for local violations of protected area regulations. populations considered. With the radical changes in the social, economic, and political conditions in In light of the current economic and political Russia, there is now growing recognition that these situation, WWF-Russia and IUCN believed that a new realities should be included in protected area comprehensive assessment of protected area management. management status, based on an international methodology, with a broad participatory approach, The centralized system of natural resources would be very useful, not only for state management, which was based on clear national management bodies and environmental NGOs, but policies that advocated environmental protection, is for everyone interested in sustainable development no longer present. Ministries responsible for in Russia. resource exploitation now also manage all federal

BIODIVERSITY AND MAJOR ECOSYSTEM TYPES

The Russian Federation occupies a territory that International Recognition for Russian Federal covers more than 11 per cent of the Earth’s land Protected Areas surface. Nine terrestrial biomes are represented in International Category and Number of Protected Areas the country: polar deserts, arctic and sub-arctic UNESCO-World Heritage 17 tundra, boreal and semi-tundra larch forests, boreal “Man and Biosphere” Site 25 and temperate coniferous forests (), temperate Ramsar 24 broadleaf and mixed forests, forest-steppe and Important Bird Area 77 steppe (temperate grasslands, savannahs, and shrublands), semi-deserts and deserts. fragmented virgin forests is found in Russia. More Forests cover about 69 per cent of the Russian than 90 per cent of the Russian federal protected landmass. More than one-fifth of the world’s forests areas contains forests. The mountain forests of the and half of all boreal coniferous forests are found in Russian Caucasus and Far East (Sikhote-Alin) have Russia. Much of this area is considered globally the highest levels of biodiversity of the world's significant – a quarter of the world’s non- temperate forests.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

Socio-economic conditions vary greatly between resources, through hunting, fishing, timber the regions. Average incomes in Moscow and St harvesting, non-timber forest product collection Petersburg are double the national average, while (e.g. berries, mushrooms, medicinal plants), and incomes in economically undeveloped regions are traditional agriculture (e.g. grazing, hay making) less than a quarter. In such a situation, forests have provides a subsistence living. Almost all of the 45 tremendous economic value, with more than officially registered indigenous nationalities depend 2,000,000 people employed in the forestry sector. on the use of forest and other wild natural For most indigenous and local people in Russia’s resources (tundra, marine, freshwater) for their undeveloped regions, the direct use of wild natural subsistence. RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

4 annual allowablecut(170–180 millioncubicmetres timber extractionis,onaverage, wellbelowthe timber extractionandother forestry activities.While The mainpressure onRussianforests iscausedby people. natural resources byindigenous andotherlocal management mustalsoconsidersustainableuseof high proportion ofnatural landscapes,protected area as attemptecosystemrestoration. Inregions witha aswell habitat loss,andlandscapetransformation, must alsoprevent furtherecosystemfragmentation, high populationdensity, protected area management areas. Inregions withindustrialdevelopmentand the manypressures andthreats facingprotected In allregions, managementmustmonitorandreduce Urals, Siberia,andtheFarEast. partsofthe European partandinthesouthern 20 percentofRussia,andare mainlyfoundinthe been highlydegraded.Theseregions coverabout are situatedinregions where naturalresources have More thanhalfofallRussianfederalprotected areas can befound,includingecologicaldisasterzones. (e.g. Kemerovo Region)highlymodifiedlandscapes where there are highconcentrationsofindustries landscapes are generallynotfragmented.But, than onepersonpersquare kilometre, natural of theFarEast,where populationdensitiesare less natural sitesprevail. regions InSiberia andnorthern (30–60 peoplepersquare kilometre) andisolated landscapes withrelatively highpopulationdensities transformed. Inthelatter, extensivelymodified while theEuropean parthasbeengreatly ecosystems are locatedintheAsiaticpartofRussia, The overwhelmingmajorityofintactnatural varieswidelyacrossland usepatterns thecountry. but thedistributionofdifferent landscapesand undeveloped andunmodifiedbyhumanactivities, Up to60percentofterrestrial areas remain MAIN PRESSURESANDTHREATS TOFORESTECOSYSTEMS actually withinthem. indigenous peoplelivenearprotected areas or use, religious customs,andlifestyle).Many maintenance ofindigenouspeople'straditions(land Forests are alsoespeciallysignificantforthe 5 r (Panthera tigris) provide the mainhabitatforAmurtiger high levelsofbiodiversityandendemism, cedar-broadleafEastern forests have extremely and biologicallyvaluable.Forinstance,theFar occurs inforests thatare themosteconomically according toWWFestimates.Illegalfellingmainly volume (insomeregions upto70percent), now accountsfor30percentofthetotalfelling the sametime,illegalfellinghasincreased, and have increased by10to20percentyear. At felling volumesdecreased, butinrecent yearsthey territories). Atthebeginningof1990s,annual (e.g. IrkutskRegion,Khabarovsk, andPrimorsky North-West, aswellinregions adjoiningChina Export-oriented operationsare concentratedinthe industry isunevenlydistributedacross thecountry. versus 450millioncubicmetres), theforestry r and doesnotenablethestatetoinvestsufficient Russia isunfavourableforbiodiversityconservation In general,thecurrent socio-economicsituationin agricultural landuseisless significant. pollution are also substantialpressures. Therole of (especially open-castmining), aswellindustrial Road constructionandmining operations and decreased forest resilience. increased frequency anddestructivepoweroffires, had anindirect effect byleadingto desertification, Regional andglobalenvironmental changeshave ineffective duemainlytoalackofresources. prevention, andfire-fighting are verydifficult and fireto heavysocialconsequences.Earlywarning, of animalandplantpopulationshabitats, they leadtomassiveecosystemdestruction,loss fires (especially intheFarEast)are catastrophic, as forest fires inRussiaare humaninduced.Some close tofivemillionhectares). Ninetypercentof forests (in someyears,suchas1998,thetotalwas fires inRussia damagearound amillionhectares of The impactsoffires are alsowidespread. Annually, loss ofhabitat. ecent yearshasresulted ina30to40percent esources forprotected area management. . Illegalloggingintheseareas in

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND WWF RUSSIA CASE STUDY H METHODOLOGY THE IMPLEMENTING The majorgoalsoftheassessmentwere: institutes, anduniversities. national parks,otherRussianNGOs,research associationsof governmental protected area managementbodies,non- included EcoCentre Zapovedniks,regional state of IndependentStates(CIS)office. Otherpartners Russia incooperationwithIUCN'sCommonwealth exercise wasconductedin2001–2002byWWF- The managementeffectiveness assessment BACKGROUND The assessmentanalysedthefollowingissues: are notincludedinthisanalysis. r r national parks,49federal assessed included89statenature seven federalregions ofRussia.Protected areas conducted in197protected areas, locatedinall assessment workshops.Thewas area specialistsparticipatedintheregional More protected than 270Russianandinternational eserves, andrefuges). Regional protected areas egional protected areas (naturalparks,resources significance andmanagement effectiveness prioritization ofprotected areas basedontheir including theirstrengths andweaknesses management effectiveness ofprotected areas, and pressures the scope,severity, andprevalence ofthreats protected area factors vulnerabilitytoexternal protected areas the ecologicalandsocialimportanceof protected area management. proposing specificmeasures forimproving participation using aparticipatoryapproach toincrease civic management effectiveness assessing protected area conditionsand zakazniks zapovedniks zapovedniks , and24 and , 35 6 r protected areas inRussia.Theparticipantsfeltthe assessing managementeffectiveness ofalllevels Management (RAPPAM) Methodologyfor Assessment andPrioritizationofProtected Area supported thefurtheruseofWWF’s Rapid approved ateachworkshop.Participantsalso The assessmentprocess andtheresults were Methodology were: The perceived strengths ofWWF’s RAPPAM levels. international and otherexpertsatregional, national,and and cooperationbetweenprotected area managers methodology willenhancemutualunderstanding recognizedRussia. Applicationofthisinternationally area managementassessmentundertakenin This isthefirstlarge-scale,comprehensive protected management ofregional protected area systems. practical valuefororganizingandplanningthe area agenciesnotedthattheresults havea weaknesses. Representatives ofregional protected common protected area strengths and area management,andaccuratelyhighlighted esults accuratelyreflected thereality ofprotected assessment. protected areas requiring more detailed overall situation,andgenerates newinformation. Provides arapidanddetailedanalysis ofthe protected area management. takes intoaccountallofthe mainaspectsof Provides acomplete andthorough toolthat be carriedoutregularly. assessments are possible,andthattheymust Demonstrates todecisionmakersthat management. cooperation inimproving protected area comparable datathatwillpromote international Provides easilyunderstandableandreadily Is sufficiently universal to enable comparison Provides visual, graphic information to support between protected areas of differing legal data and trend analysis. Such data helps to status, objectives, and management conditions. convince high-level decision makers to The questionnaire serves as a guideline to study reallocate funding. management conditions and improve The participatory approach leads to consensus management. amongst participants, and enables further work Helps to reveal management weaknesses and on protected area related issues. problems as well as find ways and measures to Discussions during the assessment help to strengthen the former and solve the latter. establish new contacts, as well as improve communications and management capacity.

IMPLEMENTATION

SELECTION OF PROTECTED AREAS COLLATION OF EXISTING Federal-level protected areas were chosen for BACKGROUND DATA assessment due to their biological importance, long Information about management conditions, main management history, and data availability. activities, and finances of zapovedniks and national Furthermore, those areas that possessed their own parks was gathered from the Ministry of Natural staff, resources, and facilities were in a better Resources. For federal zakazniks, information was position to incorporate the findings of the gathered from the Game Department of Agricultural assessment to improve management. The majority Ministry. Information from these sources did not of these protected areas were established primarily cover all aspects of the Rapid Assessment for biodiversity conservation, and mostly include Questionnaire; additional background information forest ecosystems. Several protected areas contain was collected directly from protected area some marine areas and others contain fresh water, managers during the workshop preparations. wetlands, and grassland ecosystems. The regional assessments consisted of three-day During the assessment, protected areas of different interactive workshops with protected area categories (zapovedniks, national parks, zakazniks) managers, regional protected area policy makers, were assessed in joint working groups. While and other stakeholders. The workshops involved combining categories sometimes caused an evaluation of management effectiveness for misunderstanding, such an approach proved to be each protected area, an analysis of the results, and helpful in generating critical debate and exchange an identification of next steps and priorities. of views and experiences, thereby improving the professional capacity of the participants. The Typical Workshop Agenda protected areas assessed were divided into seven groups in accordance with the existing federal Day 1 • Project background regions (okrugs). • Definition of main tasks and workshop objectives The project included eight workshops, five of them • Presentation and discussion of WWF's co-hosted with IUCN. During the first workshop, RAPPAM Methodology the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire was adapted •Facilitated working groups for and the workshop facilitators trained. Adaptations questionnaire included the development of a general list of Day 2 • Completion of questionnaire and pressures and threats to be assessed at all processing of results subsequent workshops. Day 3 • Presentation and analysis of results followed by discussion of next steps. IMPLEMENTING THE METHODOLOGY

7 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES A few difficulties occurred in answering questions, For the majority of questions in the questionnaire, a including the following: consistent approach was adopted at each regional workshop. However, in some working groups, a Lack of data: many participants did not have few questions were interpreted differently. Also, adequate information on questions regarding there were a few cases where external, awareness and support of local people towards independent opinion could not corroborate an protected areas, levels of biodiversity and answer, and the collision of different – even endemism within protected areas, and impact irreconcilable – views was a common phenomenon and degree of pollution on protected areas. at each workshop.

Inappropriate questions: participants were As a result, the assessment of some indices may uncomfortable with questions of a sensitive or be less reliable, and in several cases seem at least political nature, such as bribery and corruption. doubtful. But the overall average estimates of each The following are actual quotes from of the elements of protected area management are workshops; “We can only answer the question reliable, and adequately reflect reality. about bribery and corruption if we have the results of a special investigation.” and “Only the Sometimes the validity of answers for highly court has the right to establish the fact of threatened protected areas came into question. For bribery.” example, Centralno-Lesnoy zapovednik was evaluated as one of the most problematic at the Misunderstanding over terms: some terms are regional workshop. The level of threats and little known in Russia (e.g. critical management pressures was estimated extremely high for this activities, key species, umbrella species, critical protected area because experts did not compare landscape function) and required group their assessment with average values in the region. discussion. At the final workshop, the assessments by other experts were taken into account, and the Inapplicable questions: some of the questions in necessary adjustments were made. In such cases, the WWF questionnaire were felt to be testing and correlating doubtful or erroneous inappropriate to the situation in Russia. For assessments is recommended by engaging a example, “management plans” as such are not broad range of experts, weighing the various a common protected area management practice opinions, and assessing available, objective data. in Russia. At present, only ten federal protected areas have approved management plans. RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

8 IDNSADANALYSES AND FINDINGS by Region Biological ImportanceofProtected Areas protected areas inbiologicalimportance,whilst Zapovedniks than theirsocialandeconomicimportance. of Russianprotected areas is,ingeneral,higher The assessmentshowedthatbiologicalimportance BIOLOGICAL ANDSOCIO-ECONOMICIMPORTANCE Biological ImportanceofProtected Areas byCategory Average Score Average Score 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Ecosystems Threatened Ecosystems Threatened Globally Globally are higherthanothertypesof Threatened Threatened Globally Species Globally Species Threatened Regionally Species Threatened Regionally Species Biodiversity Biodiversity Level Level Endemism Level Endemism Level Landscape Function 9 Critical Landscape Function Critical Zapovedniks of protected areas ofothercategories. federal The biologicalandsocio-economicimportanceof national parksare higherinsocialimportance. Ural North-Western P opulation Viability P opulation Viability zakazniks Ecosystems Exemplary/ Intact National Parks Ecosystems Exemplary/ Siberian Central Intact is lowerincomparisonthanthat Representa- tiveness Representa- tiveness Far-Eastern Southern Habitat Quality Zakazniks Habitat Quality Average V olga Average

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE The high biological importance of Russian The social importance of Russian protected areas, protected areas is mainly a factor of their role in except for national parks, is considerably lower conserving rare and endangered species of global than their biological importance. At the same time, and national importance, providing a high level of both the socio-economic and biological importance representativeness and ecosystem integrity, and increases from the west to the east, reaching its representing high levels of biodiversity. Federal highest levels in Siberia. The socio-economic zapovedniks have the highest levels of biological importance of protected areas in the central and importance, followed by national parks, and then southern European parts of Russia (except for the zakazniks. Biological importance increases from the Caucasus) is assessed lower than average. northwest to the southeast, reaching the highest levels in the mountain regions of Siberia, the The highest scoring elements of socio-economic Caucasus, and Far East, and the lowest levels in importance included: Central Russia. The protected areas of the Far East, Siberia, and the north and south of the the conservation of species with high socio- European part of Russia, as well as the mountain economic importance and steppe protected areas of the and Ural ecological functions and services to society regions play an essential role in the conservation of scientific and educational value globally threatened ecosystems (e.g. WWF Global spiritual and aesthetic value. 200 ecoregions, Ramsar wetlands sites). In addition, protected areas in the Caucasus, Siberia, The lowest scoring elements included: and the Far East are characterized by high levels of endemism, including local endemics with a range potential for protected areas to demonstrate limited to the protected area itself. models of sustainable development subsistence importance The ability of most Russian protected areas to tourism and recreation. independently maintain minimum viable populations of key species is assessed to be rather low. Such However, a number of protected areas, even those ability depends on the size of the protected area that had low scores for socio-economic and having adequate habitats within it. importance, faced high levels of degradation from Corresponding indices are especially low in the recreational and developmental pressures. zapovedniks of Central Russia.

Socio-Economic Importance of Protected Areas by Category

Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

5

4

3

2 verage Score verage Score A 1

0 Benefits for Sustainable Sustainable Spiritual/ Valuable Scientific/ Recreation Ecological Other Social Other Average Local People Development Level/ Aesthetic Species Educational Value Services Importance Economic Traditions Significance Value Importance RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

10 North-Western Central Southern Volga Socio-Economic Importance of Protected Areas by Region Ural Siberian Far-Eastern 5

4

3

2 verage Score verage Score A 1

0 Benefits for Sustainable Sustainable Spiritual/ Valuable Scientific/ Recreation Ecological Other Social Other Average Local People Development Level/ Aesthetic Species Educational Value Services Importance Economic Traditions Significance Value Importance

These data highlight one of the major weaknesses but at the same time, these protected areas are of the protected area system – socio-economic inappropriately pressured to provide an array of benefits and services are systematically under socio-economic benefits. valued, under recognized, and poorly managed,

PRESSURES AND THREATS

OVERVIEW OF PRESSURES AND Cumulative Pressures and Threats THREATS SYSTEM-WIDE Pressures Threats The protected area system in Russia faces numerous pressures and threats. 70 60 Tourism – visiting protected areas for a variety of 50 purposes (research, education, religious). 40 Specific activities, planned and unplanned, include illegal encroachment, road building, and 30 infrastructure development. Tourism and related 20 activities not only result in the degradation of 10

plant communities and disturbance of wildlife, and Threats of Pressures otal Degree 0 T National Parks Zakazniks Zapovedniks but also require additional rangers’ resources.

Hunting – direct hunting and fishing, as well as other pressures on wild animals. Examples Logging – felling and forestry-related activities, include species introduction for sport hunting, such as forest thinning, soil preparation, destruction of burrows, and other habitat fertilization, and tree planting. These activities changes. Legal as well as illegal activities were cause direct impacts on forests by degrading considered as a threat or pressure, although large areas, destroying natural plant poaching is the main problem. Examples of communities, and impeding natural processes. threatened species include the Russian desman Such practices also create favourable conditions (Desmana moschata), Far East leopard for invasive species introduction. (Panthera pardus ussuriensis), and the saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica). Collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) includes the collection and harvesting of all plant FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

11 Total Degree of Pressures and Threats National Parks Zakazniks Zapovedniks

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2 otal Degree of Pressures and Threats of Pressures otal Degree T 0 Catastrophes Pollution Hunting Logging Tourism Water Use NTFP Agriculture Settlements Mining Average

Occurrence of Pressures and Threats National Parks Zakazniks Zapovedniks

100

80

60

40

20

0 Hunting Tourism Catastrophes NTFP Pollution Settlements Logging Agriculture Mining Water Use Average Occurrence of Pressures and Threats (%) and Threats of Pressures Occurrence

materials from the protected area (food, medicinal, landscape degradation and fragmentation, and resins, herbarium specimens). These activities habitat destruction. cause damage to and elimination of plant species, for example species of ginseng family (Araliaceae) Pollution – pollution stems from a variety of in the Far East, and rose-root stone-crop sources (industrial, agricultural). The type of (Rhodiola rosea) in the Urals and Siberia. pollution varies from protected area to protected area, although the most important type is trans- Agriculture – agriculture ranges from swidden border pollution. Information on pollution is agriculture to industrial farms (inside and outside incomplete and generally unavailable. protected areas), as well as grazing and harvesting of any resources within the protected Water use – direct use of water from rivers and area for animal feed or fodder. lakes, and the associated changes in hydrological regimes, including water pollution, Settlements – settlements range from individual small-scale dam building, and large hydro- temporary huts to large housing developments, power projects and reservoirs. The negative including infrastructure-related development consequences of water use leads to degrad- (e.g. farms, enterprises, roads, pipe and power ation of natural ecosystems. For instance, in lines, and other communications) that cause Laplandsky zapovednik, water level fluctuations RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

12 Cumulative Pressures and Threats by Region connected to hydro-power plant activity have

caused severe mortality of salmon eggs. Pressures Threats 120 Mining – use of underground resources and related activities (drilling, exploration) as well as 90 surface destruction of soils, plants, and rock outcrops. 60

Natural catastrophes – while natural 30 catastrophes include fires, floods, earthquakes, and avalanches, the most common catastrophe

otal Degree of Pressures and Threats of Pressures otal Degree 0 in the assessments was anthropogenic fires. T Central Southern North- Volga Siberian Far- Ural Average Western Eastern According to the Global Forest Watch, the frequency of fires in forests with human activities The primary pressures and threats to all categories is ten times higher than in the forests without of protected area are: natural catastrophes them. Only fires (natural and human induced) (primarily fires), pollution, hunting and other having a negative influence on protected area pressures on wild animals, and logging. objectives were considered. Catastrophes and pollution cause the most damage to zapovedniks and national parks, while forestry activities and hunting cause the most DEGREE OF PRESSURE AND damage to national parks and zakazniks. THREAT The overall degree of pressures and threats among In national parks, real and expected damage from the protected areas varied greatly, from 0 to over tourism and encroachment exceeds the damage 150 for pressures and from 4 to over 200 for from logging, catastrophes, or pollution. The total threats. Although in a few cases estimates of the damage from all threats and pressures as well as degree of pressure and threat may be inflated, their occurrence is highest in national parks. participants felt that overall scores generally reflected reality. Zapovedniks are least exposed to pressures and threats; each zapovednik in general experiences a The estimates of pressures and threats inevitably narrower spectrum of critical pressures and threats. reflect the specific goals and tasks of protected areas of different categories, as well as specific The degree of pressures and threats is highest in regional and local conditions of protected area the Central region, followed (in declining management. Nevertheless, general trends have importance) by the Southern, North-Western, been identified. Volga, Siberian, Far Eastern, and Ural regions.

Degree of Pressures and Threats by Region Central Sourthern North-Western Volga Siberian Far-Eastern Ural

24

20

16

12

8

4

otal Degree of Pressures and Threats of Pressures otal Degree 0 T Catastrophes Pollution Hunting Logging Tourism Water Use NTFP Agriculture Settlements Mining Average FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

13 WWF RUSSIA CASE STUDY widespread: In addition,thefollowingpressures andthreats are regionin theNorth-Western are notcritical). regioncollection intheSouthern and catastrophes 90 percentofallprotected areas (thoughNTFP threats. Theseactivitiesare registered inmore than collection are themostwidespread pressures and Hunting, tourism,nature catastrophes, andNTFP region.use isimportantintheNorth-Western pollution intheFarEastandVolga regions. Water r on wildanimalsare mostimportantintheSouthern and Siberianregions. Huntingandotherimpacts the three keypressures fortheCentral,Southern, all regions Loggingisoneof excepttheSouthern. another criticalpressure andthreat, are similarfor and threats inallsevenregions. Catastrophes, Pollution isoneofthethree mostcriticalpressures European partofRussia. the southern hunting andotherkindsofimpactsonanimalsin V We threat andNorth- toecosystemsintheFarEastern Catastrophes are themostseriouspressure and zakazniks more thanathird of and/or threat inthemajorityofnational parks,in activities. Nonetheless,mining isareal pressure hydrology violationsare theleastwidespread Mining, wateruse,andother soilsurfaceand egion, andholdthird placeaftercatastrophes and olga regions; loggingintheCentralregion; and from othercategories. parks, aswelltwo-thirds ofprotected areas damages orthreatens practicallyallnational protected areas andadjacentterritories, Agricultural landuse(grazing,haymaking)inthe environmental degradation). economically driven,andcauseshighlevelsof (logging innationalparksisusuallylegal,butit zapovedniks cent ofnationalparks,more thantwo-thirds of Logging andotherforest useoccurin97per quarters of than 9outof10nationalparksandinthree- natural ecosystems(orthreaten them)inmore developments, whichdamagetheintegrityof Settlements andcorresponding infrastructure stern regions; pollutioninUral,Siberianand stern . zakazniks , andthree-quarters of zapovedniks and zapovedniks , andinhalfthe zakazniks . 14 (Pressure) General Trends byDegree ofPressure (Region) General Trends byDegree ofPressure did increase. Especially visiblewasthegrowth of several otherFarEastprotected areas pressures Though inmostofKhabarovsk, Kamchatkaand observed inalltheregions exceptfortheFarEast. mining decreased slightly. Growth ofpressures was r noticeable, whilethelevelofdamagefrom pollution pressures. Thegrowth oftourismwasespecially An increase wasregistered formosttypesof while in grew considerablyinnationalparksand the Russianprotected area system. Pressures In thepastfiveyears,pressures haveincreased on TRENDS ANDOUTLOOK emained thesame.Impacts from agriculture and Degree of Threats and Pressures Degree of Threats and Pressures 1 3 5 7 9 15 25 35 45 55 65 ,e ,h g, e, d, zapovedniks ,d a, Past c b a b k a c j f i Past Logging Hunting T g b h e c f ourism f e d they havedecreased slightly. Pollution Agriculture NTFP c b a Southern Central North-Western rsn Future Present rsn Future Present i h g Mining W Settlements ater Use f e d Siberian Ural V olga zakazniks h g k j g e a k b, c f ,i h, j d A Far-Eastern Aver Catastrophes verage ,d f d, c, b g h a e age , areas are: The factorshavingthemostimpactonprotected MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS EXTERNAL FACTORS REDUCING MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS degree ofthreats andtheirfrequency oroccurrence W r pressures andSouthern intheNorth-Western egions ofRussia. Local ContributingFactorstoProtected Area Threats ithin thenextfiveyears,anincrease inthetotal Average Score and surrounding areas leadingtodifficulties in Layout andcharacteristicsofprotected areas poverty, lackoffoodproducts andothergoods). services andproduction, unemploymentand surrounding protected areas (lowlevelof Difficult social andeconomicsituationinareas levels, particularlyfor situation isaggravatedbythecriticallylowsalary protected area staff from surrounding areas (the Lack ofpersonnelsuitableforrecruiting as national parks). protected areas, butismore importantfor is oneofthethree criticalfactorsforall their paucityinsurrounding territories(thisfactor High valueofresources inprotected areas and 0 1 2 3 4 5 in Monitoring Difficulties Pressure P olitical/ Users zapovedniks Corruption Bribery/ ). Unrest Civil T Conflicts raditions with 15 Resources V alue r general andparticularlyintheUralCentral is expectedfortheprotected area systemin less important. introduction ofalienspecieswere considered trans-boundary atmosphericpollution,and significant. Theimpactofglobalclimatechange, sustainability ofnaturalecosystemswere most scale ofnaturalcatastrophes, anddecrease in hydrological regime, increased frequency and protected area management,changeof Among regional andglobalfactorsaffecting strong influenceonmanagementeffectiveness. management; evidentlythesefactorsmayhavea threatened protected areas withweak less important,theybecamecriticalforthemost authorities andcorruption.Whilethesefactorswere on protected area administrationfrom local local culturalpracticesandtraditions,pressure Other lessimportantfactorsincluded:conflicting expected forpollutionandcatastrophes. types willincrease. Especiallysharpincreases are egions. According toforecasts, pressures ofall of roads). configuration, extensiveborders, andabsence their remoteness, fragmentation,complicated management (e.g.largesizeofprotected areas, Accessibility National Parks Area Resources Demand PA Economic/ P Pressures opulation Zakazniks Manpower Narrow Zapovedniks Average

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES Regional and Global Factors Affecting Ural Southern Far-Eastern Siberian Protected Areas Central Volga North-Western

5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Nature Catastrophes Climate Changes Air Pollution Invasive Species Hydrology Changes Average

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS COMPARED The sum of mean scores for planning, inputs, and practices varies: Management Effectiveness Practices by Region Inputs zapovedniks: 7–36 points Planning national parks: 13 – 35 points 30 federal zakazniks: 6 – 32 points.

25 An overview of the scores for the main 20 management components across different 15 protected area categories and for each of the seven federal regions is presented here. Roughly 10 one-third of all Russian protected areas and less 5 than half of zapovedniks are managed well (with 0 scores above 3), while one out of six protected North- Central Southern Volga Ural Siberian Far- Average Sum of Mean Scores (max = 45 points) Sum of Mean Scores Western Eastern area (mainly zakazniks) is poorly managed or not managed at all. One zapovednik had no inputs at all (the score was 0) and four zakazniks had neither Practices Management Effectiveness inputs nor practices (i.e. they were essentially by Protected Area Category Inputs “paper parks”). Planning 25 Management components (planning, inputs, and 20 practices) of zapovedniks scored highest among the different protected area categories and did not 15 differ greatly between regions. National parks in general received similar scores, but decreased 10 from northwest to southeast. Management scores 5 of the federal zakazniks varied greatly between the regions. One reason for this variation is that 0 Zapovedniks National Federal Average management of zapovedniks is much more Sum of Mean Scores (max = 45 points) Sum of Mean Scores Parks Zakazniks centralized, while zakazniks are managed regionally. RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

16 Overall Management Effectiveness in Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks Protected Areas 5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Staff Status Design acilities

Average Average Average Planning F Practices PA PA Objectives Monitoring

Management Management PA Research and Communication

Planning Inputs Practices

Planning Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Size Staff Siting Nature Layout/ Average Average Average ermanent P Short Term Boundaries Demarcation Surroundings Configuration Medium Term Local Support State Funding Understanding Settling Disputes Land Use Around Land Use Law Enforcement

PA Objectives Legislative Protection PA Status PA Design

Inputs Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Skills Salary Support Number Average Average Average ield/Office Conditions Equipment F Data Quality Employment Organization Maintenance Staff Facilities eld Equipment Visitor Facilities ransport Means Fi Locl Community Locl Data Processing T Staff/Administration Staff Communication Facilities FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

17 Practices Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Average Average Average Actuality Priorities Common Common Economy inancing/ Research Education Education Pressures Evaluation F Prevention Monitoring pplicability Restoration Restoration A Adaptiveness Prevention and

Management Planning Management Practices Research and Monitoring

STRENGTHS OF THE RUSSIAN protection practices in zapovedniks and national PROTECTED AREA SYSTEM parks, and eventually to the improvement of Planning was the strongest component of protected area ranger service operations. protected area management, including the formulation of strategic goals, integration of goals Most attempts to encroach upon ecosystems in with management planning, legal status, design, zapovedniks and national parks, from local and planning of protected area sites. Site design authorities and business, have been stopped. One and planning scored as the strongest element of indicator of this change is the greatly diminished protected area planning as a whole with protected volume of “permissible” felling. area location receiving the highest scores. Representativeness, biological importance, and The practice of creating multiple-use zones undisturbed ecosystems also contributed to the continues to be developed and tested. Such zones high scores. For most protected areas, the choice allow new possibilities for developing models of of location is the result of long-term biological and sustainable resources use and local development other research, detailed surveys, careful design and in conformity with principles of the Seville Strategy planning, as well as complex coordination of the for Biosphere Reserves, and may increase interests of different stakeholders. Usually such protected area socio-economic significance, status, planning provides the necessary balance of and prestige at regional and international levels. biological and socio-economic value, as well as the external and internal conditions necessary for Research and monitoring in zapovedniks scored effective protected area management. Protected higher in comparison with protected area of other area objectives, especially for zapovedniks, provide categories. The zapovedniks have maintained their for the maintenance of biodiversity, are clearly long tradition of scientific research. Moreover, formulated, fixed by the legislation, connected with certain measures were undertaken to adapt the current planning, and understood by protected system to present conditions, and to attract new, area staff. Federal protected areas, particularly qualified scientific staff. The use of modern zapovedniks, have a sound long-term legal basis. information technology and communications has also increased: 80 per cent of zapovedniks and Despite the critical shortage of inputs, positive national parks use e-mail, more and more changes in the management practices of zapovedniks and national parks have websites, and zapovedniks and national parks are occurring. The geographical information system applications are creation of a federal management body has led to used in protected area monitoring and management RUSSIA CASE STUDY an atmosphere of heightened attention to nature more frequently. WWF

18 Protected Areas SystemDesign 2001 was79percenthigherthanin2000. parks. Forexample,thefederalcontributionin individual budgetsof hasincreased itscontribution tothe government based revenue. Inthelasttwoyears,federal foreign charities andsponsors,protected area- includes regional andlocalbudgets,Russian federal sources ofrevenue. Thisfinancingsystem national parkshasbeendeveloped.Thistapsnon- A newfinancingsystemfor national parks. have beenapproved forten In addition,newcomprehensive managementplans for NaturalResources incooperationswithNGOs. have beendevelopedandapproved bytheMinistry Management StrategyforNationalParksofRussia, Zapovedniks Activitiesuntil2010 Development andOrganizingoftheState programme documents, planning andpracticeshavealsoimproved. Two The fundamentalsofprotected area management distributed andfreely availabletothepublic. activities in analyses theresults oftheoperationalandfinancial been strengthened. Anannualpublicationthat and nationalparks,itssocialrelevance has Ecological educationhasimproved in Average Score (max 5 points) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Representa- tiveness zapovedniks Protection Species zapovedniks and nationalparksisfreely The MainDirectionsof Ecosystems zapovedniks zapovedniks Intact and and national Critical Sites The zapovedniks and and Processes Natural 19 T ransition Areas for effective managementofprotected area system. In general,thepoliticalenvironmentisunfavourable 1.37): weaknesses (averagescore ofthe10indiceswas the policyenvironment identifiedthefollowing At theprotected area systemlevel,assessmentof PROTECTED AREASYSTEM WEAKNESSES OFTHERUSSIAN Ural North-Western score 1.17). development inpolicy(average environmental protection andsustainable Insufficient considerationofthegoals unstable statefunding. score 1.07),includingcriticallyinsufficient and management ofprotected area system(average We (average score 0.55). private mechanismsoflandconservation Low levelofpoliticalsupportforpublicand (average score 0.18). employees and educationforgovernment An absenceofadequateenvironmental training forestry management(averagescore 1.46). Insufficient politicalsupportforsustainable Successional ak politicalguaranteesforsustainable Stages Biodiversity Siberian Central Sites High Endemism Sites High Far-Eastern Southern Configuration V olga Average

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES WWF RUSSIA CASE STUDY Protected Areas PolicyEnvironment Protected Areas SystemPolicies weaknesses (averagescore 1.66): Protected area policiesexhibitedthefollowing Average Score (max 5 points) Average Score (max 5 points) protection (averagescore 1.53). Inadequate percentage oflandcoverunder 1.47). inventory throughout theregions (averagescore Low levelofthecurrent biologicaldiversity and biodiversity(averagescore 1.32). historical rangeofvariabilityecosystemtypes An absenceofadequateassessmentthe (average score 1.06). under-represented and/ordegradedecosystems An absenceofclearrestoration targetsfor administrators (averagescore 0.78). building forprotected area managersand An absenceofadequatetrainingandcapacity- 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Coordination Objectives Clear Low Commitment P Protected ercentage Land Commitment Integration Clear Biodiversity Interaction Inventory Agencies Enforcement Biodiversity Historical Range Low 20 Restoration Education T argets 16 indiceswas1.97): had thefollowingweakpoints (averagescore of Management inputsattheprotected area sitelevel was 2.33): following weaknesses(averagescore of10indices Protected area system-leveldesignhadthe Ural Ural North-Western North-Western visitor facilities, inadequatetransportation – order: lackoffieldequipment,inappropriate T system (averagescore 1.84). Unsatisfactory configurationofprotected area (average score 1.71). maintain naturalprocesses ataregional level The protected area systemwasnotableto absence incertainregions (averagescore 1.82). protected area systemingeneral,andevenan Incomplete andirregular assessmentofthe ransportation andfacilities(in descending Sustainable Research F orestry Mechanisms Analyses Siberian Central Siberian Central Market Gap Officials T T raining raining Far-Eastern Southern Far-Eastern Southern Management Assessment Involvement Public V V olga olga Average Average indices was3.30: weaknesses were revealed (averagescore of15 In protected area siteplanningthefollowing behind inallaspects. r ecological education,andoutreach. In especially forprevention and restoration practices, planning andimplementationofplansscored well, national parksand Management practicesare mosteffective in of 15indiceswas2.49): had insufficient levelandqualityof(averagescore Management practicesatprotected area sitelevel by fartheweakestmanagementcomponent. For protected areas ofallcategories,“inputs”was esearch andmonitoringwasstrong. management, andeducationoutreach. and restoration, naturalandculturalresources weaknesses were identifiedregarding prevention Management practices(averagescore 2.57); the majorityofprotected areas. planning, i.e.absenceofmanagementplansfor there isanabsenceofsystematicmedium-term Management planning(averagescore 2.48); practices. integration withmanagementplanningand there isinsufficient research, prioritization,and Research andmonitoring(averagescore 2.41); and filing(averagescore 2.25). a lackofcentralizedsystemfordatacollection of up-to-datesystemsfordataprocessing, and shortage andpoorqualityofinformation,alack Communication andinformationsystems– staff (averagescore 2). of staff, causingfewandinadequatelyqualified employment conditionshamperfullrecruitment Staffing –criticallylowsalarylevelsandother and care ofequipment)(averagescore 1.66). and housingshortage,inadequatemaintenance especially opportunitiesforflying–staff facilities zapovedniks . Innationalparks Zakazniks zapovedniks lag 21 r those withhighfinancialandorganizational hampers alotofmanagementactivities,especially adequate fundingcausesinsufficient inputsand primary weaknessforallprotected areas. Lackof Insufficient andunstablestatefundingisthe planning andinputsare higher. management practicesscore higherwhere interconnected. Underthesameconditions, management componentsandindicesare From theassessmentresults itis clear thatall weak points. configuration oftheprotected area are additional poorly marked.Forseveral borders between zonesinnationalparks,are zakazniks borders of and landuserights.Asarule,external have adequatelegalsecurityregarding landtenure disputes withlandusers,asnationalparksdonot The statusofnationalparksisthreatened by and communicationwithlocalcommunities). equirements (e.g.research, monitoring,education, (average score 2.29fornationalparks). Unsettled landtenure oruserightsdisputes (average score 2.29for planning withmainprotected area objectives Insufficient accordance ofmedium-term areas and2.15for people (averagescore 2.66forallprotected protected area managementobjectivesbylocal Insufficient understandingandsupportofthe areas and2.33for objectives (averagescore 2.40forallprotected surrounding territorieswithprotected area Inadequate coordination oflanduseinthe 1.01). Scant andunstablestatefunding(averagescore and nationalparks,aswellinternal zakazniks zapovedniks zakazniks zapovedniks ). ). ). size and

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES CORRELATION BETWEEN "pay" for this seemingly higher social-economic PRESSURES AND THREATS AND value by having lower degrees of ecosystem BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC integrity and species viability. IMPORTANCE The assessment results show that increased The social and economic importance of protected pressures generally lead to decreased biological areas also decreases with increased pressures, values of protected areas. Those with the highest which may be less obvious. A decrease in the levels of pressures and threats have low scores in biological importance of protected areas is such indices as viability of animal populations and connected with the ability to regenerate and the ecosystem integrity. exhaustion of natural resources beyond protected area borders. Such degradation inevitably reduces They also have the highest indices of social and the potential ability of a protected area and economic importance, in comparison with other surrounding lands to satisfy various social territories. It may appear that a territory that is (scientific, spiritual, cultural, aesthetic, recreational) exposed to intensive pressures from people serves and economic needs (resources), and does not them more fully. But this is only a superficial lead to sustainable development at local and assessment. The more threatened protected areas regional levels.

Least/Most Threatened Protected Areas: Management Conditions and Components 10 Least Threatened 10 Most Threatened

5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Local Inputs Global Average Average Average Planning Practices Biological Regional and Socio-Economic Total Importance External Factors Management

Least/Most Threatened Protected Areas: External Negative Factors 10 Least Threatened 10 Most Threatened

5

4

3

2 verage Score A 1

0 Area Nature Climate Species Invasive Average Demand raditions Changes Changes Pressure RUSSIA CASE STUDY Resource Biological T Pressures Hydrology

Monitoring Civil Unrest Air Pollution Accessibility PA olitical/Users Difficulties in Catastrophes Conflicts with P Resource Value WWF Bribery/Corruption Narrow Manpower Economic/Population Local Contributing Factors Regional/Global Influences 22 Management Indices Least/Most Threatened Protected Areas: showed: Analysing thecorrelation betweenvariables factors. and external socio-economic importance,pressures andthreats, between managementeffectiveness, biologicaland determine thedegree ofconnection,orcorrelation, From theassessmentresults, we canalso EXTERNAL FACTORS PRESSURES, THREATS AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESSAND CORRELATION BETWEEN federal inputs, andbetterpracticesincomparisonwith zapovedniks pressures andthreats isconsiderablylowerin conditions,thedegreeunfavourable external of This isthereason whyevenunderequally allocated, andare purposefullyandrationallyused. (financial, human,material,andtechnical)are observed inplaceswhere adequateresources Relatively highmanagementeffectiveness is achieves protected area objectives. importantly, onthedegree towhichmanagement other specificsoftheterritoryitself,andmost economic, political),onthebiologicalvaluesand condition ofitsenvironment (natural,social- in certainprotected areas dependsonthe The characteranddegree ofpressures andthreats Average Score (max 5 points) biological valueandsocialimportance for There wasapositivecorrelation betweenthe 0 1 2 3 4 5 zakazniks

Land Use

, whichhavestronger planning,more Around PA

. PA Size

PA Surroundings

Community Support

Financing/Logistics

Short-Term Objectives

Employment Conditions

Use Disputes Settling

Staff Salary 23

Low Enforcement Local People and adequateinputs(onlyin management practices(exceptnationalparks), protected areas ofallcategories),strong influences, strong protected area planning(for positively correlated withregional andglobal The biologicalvalueofprotected areas is 0.69. In coefficient of0.69,andpracticesinputsis zakazniks effectiveness are highlyinterdependent. In The maincomponentsofmanagement components ofmanagementeffectiveness. mainly negativecorrelation withthemain positive correlation withsocialimportance,but a The degree ofpressures andthreats hasa stronger management. importance isalsohigherinprotected areas with communities, andhighmarketdemand.Social value, proximity ofresources tolocal factorssuchashighresourcelevel ofexternal pressures andthreats, aswellwithahigh positive correlation withahighdegree of The socialimportanceofprotected areas hasa between biologicalvaluesandsocialimportance. areas. Nationalparkshadanegativecorrelation the latter–0.73)aswellforallfederalprotected zapovedniks practices 0.86. practices haveacoefficient of0.71, inputs and inputs is0.74.Innationalparks, planning,and a coefficient of0.64,whilepractices and Communication

Boundaries Demarcation zapovedniks , practicesandplanninghavea Threats Prevention and 10 Least Threatened State Funding zakazniks PA Layout/ , planningandinputshave Configuration

Research

(especially strong for Evaluation

zakazniks Staff Communication

Legislative 10 Most Threatened Protection ). Permanent Goals

PA Siting

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES CONSERVATION PRIORITIES

The more than 200 Russian federal protected areas areas, primarily in the northeast European part of vary greatly in their management conditions and Russia, and in some parts of Siberia and the Far effectiveness. While each of those protected areas East. In addition, these protected areas are had an individual strategy for improving generally large, have optimal layout and management effectiveness, a general configuration, are surrounded by lands with similar categorization of conservation priorities will help to natural conditions and land use, and have low set general goals and prioritize categories of levels of external negative influences, pressures, management and policy interventions. Protected and threats. As a result, they have higher indices of areas can be divided into six categories: most population viability, habitat quality, security and conserved, most effectively managed, most integrity of ecosystems. National parks with a full threatened, least threatened, least conserved, and set of similar characteristics do not exist; the most least effectively managed. conserved and biologically valuable national parks (e.g. Yugyd-Va and Zabaikalsky) have rather weak management, experience critical external MOST CONSERVED PROTECTED influences, and so demand more attention and AREAS support from top-level management bodies and These protected areas, which are relatively secure, other stakeholders. generally have high biological and social-economic importance, low levels of external negative Generally, in this category mean scores for influences, low levels of pressures and threats, and management are not particularly high. The also rather high management effectiveness. infrastructure and facilities, research and monitoring, as well as management planning are The protected areas in this category are in relatively assessed as middling or slightly above. The visitor remote, under-developed and sparsely populated facilities, equipment maintenance, staff salaries,

Categories of Protected Area

Type of Total External Pressures Management Examples of Protected Area Importance Factors and Threats Assessment Protected Areas Scores

Most Conserved High Low Low High Baikalo-Lensky, Verkhne-Tazovsky, Vitimsky zapovedniks; Phrolikhinsky, Tofalarsky zakazniks

Most Effectively High High Low High Teberdinsky, Malaya Sos’va zapovedniks; Managed¸ Vodlozersky national park; Verkhne- Kondinsky

Most Threatened High High High Low Putoransky, Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina, Bolshekhekhtsirsky zapovedniks; Sochinsky national park; Khekhtsirsky, Samursky zakazniks

Least Threatened Low Low Low High Bryansky Les, Bolshaya Kokshaga, Central’no-Chernozemny zapovedniks; Paanayarvi national park; Bairovsky, Remdovsky zakazniks

Least Conserved Low High High Low Chernye Zemli, Voroninsky zapovedniks; Russky Sever, Alkhanay, Tunkinsky national parks; Tsasucheisky Bor, Mekletinsky zakazniks

Least Effectively Low Low High Low Darvinsky, Zeisky zapovedniks; Priazovsky, Managed Kletnyansky zakazniks

RUSSIA CASE STUDY Note: Total Importance is biological and social importance combined. Management Assessment Score is the combined score of all three components of management effectiveness – planning, inputs, and practices. “High” means above the average and “low” means lower than average for that protected area category. WWF

24 quality of research and monitoring, integration of high levels of cultivation and economic development, management objectives with management planning overuse of natural resources, and/or contain and practices, data processing means, data ecosystems extremely vulnerable to negative quality, and field equipment scored below the pressures and threats (e.g. arctic coastal tundra). average level for protected areas as a whole. Most of them fall within a threatened ecoregion.

To summarize, such protected areas do not Management of the most threatened protected demand urgent attention for management and areas is considerably more vulnerable to pressure policy interventions. from local authorities and corruption, to air pollution and to natural catastrophes, while the most effectively managed protected areas are more MOST EFFECTIVELY MANAGED vulnerable to area accessibility, as well as to PROTECTED AREAS regional hydrology and global climate changes. The most effectively managed protected areas are those which experience pressure from external Compared with all other categories, this category negative factors, but, despite those pressures, of protected areas has the highest scores in socio- have high scores of biological and social-economic economic importance, is the most heavily importance, low level of pressures and threats, and influenced by external factors, and has the highest also the highest scores of management degree of pressures and threats. Because of this, effectiveness. and their high biological importance, this category requires the most urgent management and policy Those protected areas which are under unfavourable interventions. In particular, a deeper, more detailed environmental conditions (e.g. difficult socio- assessment of management conditions, and an economic situation, lack of qualified manpower, analysis of mechanisms for improving management large-scale natural changes in surrounding territories, are warranted. high value of protected area natural resources, and strong demand for and trade in products from the According to the results of the comparative protected area), have high scores in practically all analysis, the most striking difference in remaining indices of management conditions and management effectiveness between the most results, especially in comparison with other effectively managed protected areas and the most protected areas. The only index which scored below threatened ones is in the following aspects: average and is a general weak point for all protected area system is staff salary levels. staff facilities and housing (for protected areas of all categories) Most effectively managed protected areas in systems for data processing (for protected areas comparison with most conserved ones have higher of all categories) scores of external negative factors as well as a restoration practices (most essential for higher degree of pressures and threats. As a result zapovedniks) they have lower scores of habitat quality and coordination of land use in the surrounding population viability. So, the main focus of protected territories with protected area objectives (most areas management in these areas is improving site essential for zapovedniks) design and planning. conditions for equipment maintenance financial and economic management (mostly for national parks and zakazniks) MOST THREATENED PROTECTED demarcation of boundaries (mostly for AREAS zapovedniks and zakazniks) The most threatened protected areas have a high threats prevention (most essential for zapovedniks) biological and socio-economic importance, as well staff employment conditions (especially in as high levels of pressure from external factors and a zapovedniks and national parks) low score in management effectiveness. Such communication between administration and protected areas are mainly situated in regions with other personnel (most essential for zapovedniks). FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

25 The critically important indices of management They have a relatively low biological value because effectiveness are as follows: they do not contain or belong to globally threatened ecosystems, do not play an essential In national parks and zakazniks role in the protection of globally threatened research applicability (connection with species, and generally do not have high levels of management planning and practices) biodiversity and endemism. At the same time, they education and outreach practices are representative enough and contain relatively monitoring of legal and illegal uses of the intact ecosystems. However, the size of these protected area protected areas, as a rule, is insufficient for research programme and its consistency with maintaining minimum viable populations of large the pressures and threats predators and herbivorous species. The low socio- management planning. economic importance of these protected areas means a generally low level of pressures and In zapovedniks threats. visitor facilities staff salary levels The least threatened protected areas do not require transportation means. immediate attention at the system level. Nevertheless, the following steps may help to In national parks strengthen the role of protected areas within the research priorities and evaluation surrounding communities: communication with local people regarding all aspects of protected area management. promoting the creation and development of a system of regional (local) protected areas In zakazniks expanding the rights to manage that system adaptiveness of management planning and its increasing the socio-economic importance of conformity to reality the protected area by creating better local community support employment and sustainable development accordance of prospective and current planning opportunities with main protected area objectives. integrating these protected areas into the regional socio-economic context. These indices are critical for ensuring the effective management of the most threatened protected areas. LEAST CONSERVED PROTECTED AREAS The least conserved protected areas are those that LEAST THREATENED PROTECTED have low importance, high external factors, high AREAS pressures and threats, and low management The least threatened protected areas have rather effectiveness. These protected areas are the low scores for biological and socio-economic opposite of the most conserved protected areas. value, do not experience essential external negative influences, are not subjected to considerable The least conserved protected areas are located pressures and threats, and have fairly high mainly in regions with high population density, management indices. These protected areas are developed industry, and high levels of agricultural mainly situated in ecologically intact regions in the development. The socio-economic importance of European part of Russia and Western Siberia. these protected areas is scored relatively high; overall they have the highest recreational value in RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

26 comparison with other groups, and play an important The most important strategies for improving role in satisfying the needs of local communities. management effectiveness of the least conserved protected areas include strengthening management External factors such as the pressure of local systems, mitigation of pressures and prevention of authorities and business, conflicts with local threats, and restoration of degraded natural people, trans-boundary air pollution, invasive complexes. species, and fires spreading from surrounding territories have the most critical negative influence on the management effectiveness of protected LEAST EFFECTIVELY MANAGED areas in this group. PROTECTED AREAS The least effectively managed protected areas are All the management components in this group of very similar to the least conserved; they have low protected area scored considerably below the importance, a high degree of threats and average level. The lowest scores included facilities, pressures, and a low level of management transportation, staffing (particularly salaries), effectiveness. The only difference is that they have practices of all types (especially prevention and lower external contributing factors. Like the least restoration), communication, and conformity of land conserved areas, these areas are in critical need of use in surrounding territories with protected area management strengthening. management objectives. FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

27 RECOMMENDATIONS

he analyses show that the main conditions critically insufficient inputs, especially state-level that hamper protected area management in funding T Russia are the following: several gaps in practices, which are caused mainly by a lack of resources. a generally unfavourable political environment inadequate and weak protected area system A number of recommendations to improve the policies management of protected areas can be made.

INTEGRATION OF PROTECTED AREAS INTO THE REGIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

This is the primary recommendation for improving DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONAL the protected area policy environment. This PROTECTED AREA NETWORK AND integration policy should include measures to ENTIRE NATURE PROTECTION increase and demonstrate the socio-economic SYSTEM importance of protected areas for regions and local Use the experience and lessons learned from communities. While such policies could provide zapovedniks and national parks more widely for additional resources for improving management the development of a regional protected area effectiveness, they should not result in increased network. Qualified experts from zapovedniks and negative pressures or threats, nor in a decrease in national parks should be involved in this the biological value, function, or integrity of process. protected areas. The following specific measures are recommended as part of this integration policy. Expand the practice of transferring protected areas with an under-developed management system to the jurisdiction of neighbouring SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL zapovedniks and national parks. RESOURCES AND PROMOTION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Create multiple use zones for all protected areas Provide assistance to develop sustainable that have UNESCO biosphere reserve status, tourism and related infrastructure in the regions. and modify the federal law on protected areas to expand this practice for all protected areas. Create and demonstrate other models of sustainable natural resource use (e.g. of hunting, fishing, agriculture, NTFPs). ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION Promote the development of innovative mechanisms of land conservation at regional Zapovedniks and national parks should be level, such as voluntary restrictions on economic involved in the regional ecological monitoring activities and protected area support measures and inventorying of important species (rare and from companies. endangered, game, medicinal plants) as well as RUSSIA CASE STUDY in environmental impact assessments. WWF

28 independent, federalmanagementbody protected area rights andactivitiesinan policy systeminRussiaistoconcentrateall The keytoimproving theentire protected area IMPROVING THEPROTECTEDAREAPOLICYSYSTEM STAFFING ANDCAPACITY BUILDING FUNDING IMPROVING PROTECTEDAREAMANAGEMENTINPUTS seminars forkey protected area staff underthe conducting short-termtraining coursesand Continue andbroaden thepracticeof scale forprotected area staff, particularlyrangers. Re-examine andfundamentally changethepay improving protected area managementfacilities. Implement investmentprojects directly aimedat and otherdonors. projects financedbyforeign agencies, funders, national parksinimplementingnature protection Extend theinvolvementof charitable funds. businesses, includingthecreation ofspecial financial supportfrom regional andlocal of Analyse, summarize,andshare theexperience privileges provided forunderthefederaltaxcode. area managementbodiesthebenefitsand zapovedniks Analyse, summarize,andimplementfor area management. with clearlineitemsearmarkedforprotected Increase thefederalbudgetforprotected areas, universities, astheymayassistwithresearch, strengthen linkswithlocalhighschoolsand Zapovedniks management attheregional andfederallevels. monitoring datatoaidnaturalresource Zapovedniks zapovedniks , nationalparks,andotherprotected and nationalparksshould and nationalparksshouldpublish and nationalparksinobtaining zapovedniks and 29 of suchabody. The nationalecologicalpolicydictatesthecreation authorized tomanageforenvironmental protection. r bodies abouttheirachievementswithinthe inform localauthoritiesandothergovernmental Zapovedniks programmes withlimitedstaff andfunds. prioritizing theimplementation oftheir areas sitelevelto developclearstrategiesfor Improve theabilityofmanagersat the protected “Ranger oftheYear,” andsoon). and titles,suchas“BestintheProfession”, orNGOawards,staff (e.g.government honours Provide innovativeincentivesforprotected area and rangers). area staff employers(particularlyfor fieldstaff Introduce specialstateinsuranceforprotected for keyprotected area staff. Create central and/orregional trainingcentres management). protected area networks,andfinancial planning, developingregional andlocal comprehensive medium-termmanagement management improvement (particularly manuals onkeyissuesofprotected area Prepare andpublishrecommendations and financial/logistic managers,accountants). (e.g. directors, deputydirectors, chiefrangers, programmes forkeypositionsandspecialities Develop trainingandcapacitybuilding and otherauthoritativeNGOs. aegis ofregional protected area associations employees inthefuture. and willprovide abaseofwell-trained egion. and nationalparksshouldregularly

RECOMMENDATIONS IMPROVING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND PRACTICES

MANAGEMENT PLANNING Develop and implement protected area policies Ensure the development, approval, and regarding fires and other natural catastrophes, implementation of individual management plans taking into account all the essential ecological for all federal protected areas. A detailed and economical aspects, as well as international assessment should be conducted that takes experience. into account both the main objectives as well as the existing conditions and management regime Develop and implement policies aimed at of the protected area. These plans should form conserving threatened species, including special the basis and main tool for improving protected measures for regulating and improving habitats. area management at the site level. Define clear restoration targets for under- represented and/or degraded ecosystems RESEARCH AND MONITORING throughout the regions. Conduct research to gauge the conformity between management goals and objectives, ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION and their connection with management Assess (with the participation of independent planning. external experts) the effectiveness of educational programmes. Fill the gaps in biological inventory and monitoring data that are necessary for effective management (especially regarding endangered, PROTECTED AREA SITE DESIGN valuable and other important species). AND PLANNING Systematically engage protected area staff in Expand the application of modern methods of improving site design and planning, status and data collection and processing (especially GPS security (e.g. creating buffers, developing data collection and GIS mapping). multiple use and similar zones with restricted or regulated land use, and drafting and approving documents and policies). PREVENTION AND RESTORATION Decrease commercial logging in protected areas (particularly, in national parks and zakazniks). RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

30 FOLLOW assessment. best useoftheresults andexperiencefrom the implementation. Theserecommendations make process andproviding foritssystematic Below are thenextstepsaimedatcontinuingthis re management effectiveness assessmentatnational, used inRussiaasthebasictoolofprotected area A gional, andlocallevels. systematically regulate protected area documents shouldbedevelopedthat protected area managementbodies,official approval byMNRandother authorized On thebasisofWWF’s Methodology, andupon management. r Adopt WWF’s Methodologyforapplication at the assessmentresults andexperience. area managementexperts,toinformthemabout at protected area managersandotherprotected Prepare andpublishareport addressed mainly protected areas. Federation, whichisresponsible forallfederal Natural Resources (MNR)oftheRussian well asWWF’s Methodology, totheMinistryof endations obtainedfrom theassessment,as Provide allthedata,results, andrecomm- egional andlocallevelsofprotected area Methodology shouldbesystematically supported duringtheassessment,WWF’s s wasclearlyandwidelysuggested - PACTION UP 31 effectiveness thefollowingactionsare suggested. improving protected area management In order tofurthertheprocess ofassessingand and practices). implementing, monitoring,andotherpolicies management aspects(e.g.planning, strongly linkassessmentswithallother the protected area managementcycle,and effectiveness assessmentasanintegralpartof Introduce regular protected area management protected area managementeffectiveness. Create andmaintainsuitabledatabaseson r andFar-Easternfor this,(e.g.North-Western assessments insomemodelregions mostready Conduct regional protected area system the mostthreatened protected areas. comprehensive managementplanforeachof would result inthepreparation ofa improving management.Suchanassessment threatened) todefinesite-specificmeasures for prioritized protected areas (i.e.themost Conduct amore detailedassessmentofthe management improvements. wide managementprioritization,andatsite-level documents shouldbeaimedatbothsystem- national, regional, andlocallevels.These management effectiveness assessmentat egions includingfirstlySakhaRepublic).

FOLLOW-UP ACTION REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1997. Biodiversity Conservation in Russia. First national report. Moscow. Ervin, J. 2003. WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. Hockings, M, Stolton, S and Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management of Protected Areas. IUCN Cardiff University Best Practice Series, IUCN Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland, Switzerland.

Acknowledgments to WWF-Netherlands, Canada International Development Agency, WWF Forest for Life Programme, WWF-Russia, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Canada and IUCN CIS, EcoCentre Zapovedniks, Russian regional protected area management bodies, non-governmental associations of zapovedniks and national parks, other Russian NGOs, research institutes and universities and, personally, to Devendra Rana, Jamison Ervin, Danielle Cantin as well as to all other sponsors, contributors, and reviewers who helped conduct Russian protected areas management effectiveness assessment and prepare this report.

ACRONYMS

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States IUCN World Conservation Union MNR Ministry of Natural Resources NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product WWF World Wide Fund For Nature RUSSIA CASE STUDY WWF

32 Russia

Protected Areas Initiative Forests for Life WWF International

Avenue du Mont-Blanc 1196 Gland Switzerland

This package is printed on Context FSC paper supplied by Paperback Ltd. Chain of custody number SGS-COC-0621. Tel: +41 22 364 9009 Context FSC is made from 75% de-inked fibre and 25% FSC Fax: +41 22 364 0640 certified pulp from well-managed forests independently certified in accordance with the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council. www.panda.org/parkassessment/