• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

TITLE : ENVIRONMENTAL NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA'S CONSERVATIO N MOVEMENT : IDEALS OF NATURE AND THE NATIONAL PARK S AUTHOR : RACHEL MAY, Macalester Colleg e THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FO R EURASIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H TITLE VIII PROGRA M 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W . Washington, D.C . 20036 LEGAL NOTICE The Government of the District of Columbia has certified an amendment of th e Articles of Incorporation of the National Council for Soviet and East Europea n Research changing the name of the Corporation to THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FO R EURASIANANDEAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, effective on June 9, 1997. Grants, contracts and all other legal engagements of and with the Corporation made under its former name are unaffected and remain in force unless/until modified in writin g by the parties thereto . PROJECT INFORMATION : 1 CONTRACTOR : Macalester Colleg e PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Rachel Ma y COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 812-23 G DATE : August 25, 1997 COPYRIGHT INFORMATIO N Individual researchers retain the copyright on their work products derived from research funded by contract or grant from the National Council for Eurasian and East Europea n Research . However, the Council and the United States Government have the right t o duplicate and disseminate, in written and electronic form, this Report submitted to th e Council under this Contract or Grant, as follows : Such dissemination may be made by the Council solely (a) for its own internal use, and (b) to the United States Government (1) for its own internal use; (2) for further dissemination to domestic, international and foreig n governments, entities and individuals to serve official United States Government purposes ; and (3) for dissemination in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act or other law o r policy of the United States Government granting the public rights of access to documents held by the United States Government . Neither the Council, nor the United State s Government, nor any recipient of this Report by reason of such dissemination, may use thi s Report for commercial sale . 1 The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract or grant funds provided by th e National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, made available by the U . S. Department of Stat e under Title VIII (the Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983, as amended). The analysi s and interpretations contained in the report are those of the author(s) . ENVIRONMENTAL NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA'S CONSERVATION MOVEMEN T Ideals of Nature and the National Parks Rachel Ma y EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y In the Soviet era, nature preserves (zapovedniks) and national parks were created by government decree and intended for limited scientific and educational purposes . Now Russia n conservationists recognize the need to build a broader base of popular, political, and financial support for the preserves and parks. Each site now has its own department of instructional activity , which works with school groups, local and governmental organizations, and the press, and which produces literature, signage for nature trails, nature museums and films . Two organizations i n Moscow are dedicated to promoting the parks and training park personnel in propaganda techniques . They have borrowed methods from U .S. and Canadian park organizations, including the successfu l "March for Parks" and a push for American-style interpretive tours and handbooks . However, the origins and locations of the parks and preserves, their administrative traditions , their lack of infrastructure, and many cultural factors create special barriers to raising publi c awareness and support, and in many ways the American model is inapplicable to Russian realities . The 93 nature preserves, which are meant to protect endangered species or pristine ecosystems, are generally off-limits to all but a few researchers; ordinary Russians can take pride in them only in the abstract. The national park idea, by contrast, arose in the 1980s to establish recreational sites , supposedly on the U . S . model . Nevertheless, in law and in practice the 32 parks give precedence t o scientific research and education and only promote limited, organized visits, primarily by schoo l groups . Park personnel speak disdainfully of those who would visit "merely to enjoy the scenery . " And in most cases such visits are nearly impossible, since access to the parks is very difficult, trail s are poorly maintained, often nothing but a modest sign and a list of forbidden activities identifies the site as a national park . Park administrators' reluctance to welcome the public, and public apathy toward the parks , have cultural explanations . In the Soviet Union all land was publicly owned, and Russians still tak e for granted that they can use woodlands and wetlands for their own purposes : gathering mushrooms , berries, and firewood, picking flowers, fishing, hunting, lighting campfires. They are not accustomed to staying on paths or "taking only pictures ." In fact, there is a general culture o f resistance to rules and regulations of any kind. These factors also restrict public desire to visit th e parks, as Russians may prefer to spend time "in nature" in unrestricted woodlands . In addition , many Russian parks are less attractive tourist destinations than American ones because they wer e chosen for other reasons than scenic beauty or grassroots support . Some were former tsarist-er a 1 hunting preserves or areas so remote that their ecosystems and traditional cultures were untouched , and therefore they were good candidates for further preservation . My research was based on a premise that Russian environmentalism differed from its America n counterpart by being more closely tied to nationalist sentiment, to a particular fondness for "Russia n nature" and a desire to preserve ancient symbols of Russian culture, rather than to a passion for wil d nature that transcends human civilizations . I hypothesized that this would limit the usefulness i n Russia of American models of park conservation and promotion . Russian conservationists strongl y refuted this argument, saying that they detect in American park literature a powerful undercurrent o f nationalism, and that they are trying precisely to raise national pride in Russian nature to America n levels . Historically, America's parks did grow out of a nationalist effort to assert superiority ove r Europe, but what Russians see as nationalist in current rhetoric lies in phrases like "This land is your land" and "The parks belong to the people of the United States ." These are less assertions of nationa l superiority than invocations of civic pride and responsibility, which are still essentially alien concept s in Russia, and so will not lend themselves as the basis for a new national symbolism . In addition, th e fact that Yellowstone, Yosemite, or the Grand Canyon have lodged themselves in the America n national psyche is partly due to an artistic tradition of painting and especially landscape photograph y devoted to natural landmarks . American landscape photographers speak of a uniquely inspirin g aspect of the national parks in the fact that they are public lands in which the photographe r "participates," or "re-creates." Since the idea of "public lands" is not particularly inspiring t o Russians, and since they feel the value of "participation" weakly at best, and since landscap e photography is by no means the national art form in Russia that it is in America, it will not be a n easy matter to produce equivalently memorable images of Russia's parks . Though they claim to be emulating American models, the proponents of Russia's parks an d preserves in fact have chosen a different type of rhetoric which acknowledges, if only tacitly, th e close connection for Russians between environmental protection and conservation of cultura l traditions . Park propaganda uses recognizable cultural imagery : citations from Russian poetry , references to fairy tales and legends, traditional woodcarving on signposts and visitor centers . Nature museums in the parks devote considerable attention to human culture in the area . Efforts to promote the parks as a national symbol include invocations of the "native land," the "Russian soul," and "th e pride of Russia ." One promising venture is an eco-ethnographic project to collect nature lore an d legends from local elders living near protected areas, in order to pass on to future generation s traditions that might help to protect vulnerable species or engender a sense of reverence for nature . Russian conservationists have developed a vocabulary for promoting the parks that combine s North American models with appeals to Russian traditions and local and cultural allegiances . International organizations should not be put off by the seemingly nationalist rhetoric in park 2 promotional materials, as this may be the best way to ensure popular support and the long-ter m health of the park system . Introduction The topic of my proposal, concerning the ways in which Russia's system of nature preserve s and national parks reflects and draws strength from cultural attitudes toward nature, turns out to be a preoccupation of many Russian conservationists today . Park administrators and rangers have awakened rather suddenly to the idea that they must promote and defend their parks among the loca l population, and some are also concerned with attracting ecotourists from outside the region . Two Moscow-based organizations are largely concerned with raising the profile of the parks, and severa l recent publications have been dedicated to questions of environmental education and propaganda . During a five-week trip to the Moscow region and Siberia I was able to collect a substantial amoun t of information on the topic from published materials (both scholarly and promotional), fiel d observations, and interviews . The results of my research confirm that a sensitivity to Russian cultural values and the appeal to national pride are likely to be pivotal in ensuring the future robustness o f the park system .

Load more

  19

Copy Link