ssia
Russia Case Study Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology Ru Percentage of Protected Areas in Russia
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 Nature Reserve – mixed boreal forest, Pechora River, Komi Republic, 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 zapovedniks, 35 national parks, 11 federal and the air space above them, where natural zakazniks, 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 These areas responsibility of the Hunting Department of the are fully or partly withdrawn from economic use on Ministry of Agriculture and other ministries.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 protected area 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 zapovednik 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 (taiga), 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.