RUSSIAN MODEL FOREST IN LOCAL FOREST POLITICS:
Case Study of the Creation of a National Park within the Gassinski Model Forest
by
ICHIRO MATSUO BA, Osaka University of Foreign Studies, 1999 Graduate Diploma in Science, The Australian National University, 2000
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Faculty of Forestry) (Department of Forest Resources Management)
We accept this thesis as conforming
THE UMVERSITYOF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 2002
© Ichiro Matsuo, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.
The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada
DE-6 (2788) ABSTRACT
This thesis examines local people's perception of the Gassinski Model Forest's (GMF) projects and activities in relation to local involvement and public communication. The GMF is the first model forest in the Russian Federation. A case study describing the creation of a national park (NP) within the GMF territory has been adopted for designing this research.
The term "local involvement" for the purpose of this research, describes the inclusion of local people in the decision-making process and the term "public communication" refers to communication between the GMF and local people, including mass communication, a word-of-mouth communication and education. Public communication often accompanies local involvement.
This research consists of six main chapters: introduction, background, conceptual framework, research methods, results and discussion and conclusion. In the background, firstly the organizational structure and characteristics of Canadian-style model forest programs and the GMF program are described, and then the continuity between the GMF program and the NP is explained. The conceptual framework of natural resources management is created to explain the focus of the questionnaire survey for this research. In the chapters concerned with the questionnaire survey, the methodology of the questionnaire survey was initially explained and then the results and the analyses are presented.
According to the survey, more than 71% of the respondents are aware of the GMF. On the other hand, 71.8% of the respondents regard themselves as not being involved in the GMF. There are some statistical differences ( a =0.05) between groups (categorized by demographic information and responses to questions such as "Do you know anything about the GMF?" and "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"). Many people do not have clear idea of the GMFs boundary. The results of the survey infer the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication are perceived as insufficient by locals. The future National Park, which will be created within the GMF territory and the logical successor of the GMF, should learn from the GMFs experience in order to achieve the task of facilitating "ecological [environmental] education for locals."
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT u
TABLE OF CONTENTS Hi
LIST OF TABLES .viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF MAPS xiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiv
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction...... 2 1.1.1 Definitions of Local Involvement and Public Communication 4 1.1.2 Sustainable Forest Management and Local Involvement 4
1.2 Objectives and Research Process ...... —...... 6
2 BACKGROUND 8
2.1 Model Forest...... ~~—~ 9 2.1.1 Description of a Model Forest 9 2.1.2 Issues of Authority and Partnership for Model Forests 12 2.1.3 Local Involvement in Model Forests 12
2.2 Gassinski Model Forest...... 14 2.2.1 GMF after 2000 16 2.2.2 GMF in Local Forest Politics 16 2.2.3 Realization of GMF's Projects 19
iii 2.2.4 Indigenous Peoples in Nanaiski District 21
23 Establishment of National Park "Anyuski" within the GMF Territory „—23
2.4 Transition from GMF to National Park "Anyuski" ...... «....„...«...... 26
2.4.1 Continuity between the GMF Tasks to Future NP Task 27
2.4.2 Cooperation between a Model Forest and a National Park 27
2.5 Natural Resources Utilization in the GMF and NP Territory . 28
2.6 Need for Local Involvement and Public Communication.... .—...... 29
3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH 31
3.1 Conceptual Framework of Natural Resources Management and Focus of the Questionnaire Survey...... —..—...... —. . -• 32
3.2 Limitations of this Research...... —... 34
4 RESEARCH METHODS 36
4.1 Methodology of the Questionnaire Survey...... 37
4.1.1 Survey Design and Question Types 37 4.1.2 Translation from English to Russian 38 4.1.3 Preparation for the Questionnaire Survey 39 4.1.4 Sampling Locations and their Characteristics 39 4.1.4.1 Troitskoe 39
4.1.4.2 Arsenyevo 40 4.1.5 Sample Frame 40 4.1.6 Sampling Methods 41 4.1.7 Target Sample Size 42 4.1.8 Response Rates 42 4.1.9 Data Analyses 42 4.1.10 Limitations and Biases 43
5 RESULTS 45
iv 5.1 Summary of Results...... —....—...... —...... 46
52 Information of Respondents...... —...... —...... —...... 46
5.2.1 Gender 46 5.2.2 Age 47 5.2.3 Ethnicity 48 5.2.4 Occupation 50 5.2.5 Academic Background 51
5.2 Questions about the Gassinski Model Forest...... ™.....—...... ™...... 53
5.2.3 Q3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest (GMF)? 53 5.2.3.1 Overall 53 5.2.3.2 By Gender 54 5.2.3.3 By Age 55 5.2.3.4 By Ethnicity 57 5.2.3.5 By Occupation 59 5.2.3.6 By Location 61 5.2.4 Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in the GMF? 63 5.2.4.1 Overall 63 5.2.4.2 By Gender 64 5.2.4.3 By Age 65 5.2.4.5 By Ethnicity 67 5.2.4.6 By Occupation 69 5.2.4.7 By Location 70 5.2.5 Q 10. Do you live in the territory of the GMF? 72
5.2.6 Local People's Perception about the GMF 73 5.2.6.1 Overall 74 5.2.6.2 By Location 78 5.2.6.3 By Ethnicity 80 5.2.6.4 By Gender 82 5.2.6.5 By Age 84 5.2.6.6 By Occupation 86 5.2.6.7 Breakdown of Q6 by Q3 "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest ?" (ANOVA and Tukey's HSD) 88
v 5.2.6.8 Breakdown of Q6 by Q5 "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"(ANOVA and Tukey's HSD) 89 5.2.7 Correlations between Questions in Q6 (Kendall's taub) 90 5.2.7.1 Correlation between Q6a and j (Correlation coefficient = 0.444) and between Q6j and k (-0.434) 92 5.2.7.2 Correlations between b and d (Correlation coefficient = 0.425), b and j(0.569), b and k(-0.484) 92 5.2.7.3 Correlations between Q6c and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.458), c and e (0.485) 93 5.2.7.4 Correlations between Q6d and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.425) and Q6e and h (0.427) 93 5.2.7.5 Characteristic of Q6k in Correlation 94 5.2.8 Cluster Analysis 94
5.3 Questions about the National Park.... . 98
5.3.1 Q7. Do you know about the creation of a National Park within the GMF? 98 5.3.1.1 Overall 98 5.3.1.2 By Gender 98 5.3.1.3 By Ethnicity 99 5.3.1.4 By Location 100 5.3.2 Q8. If you answered "Yes" to Q7, do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? 100
5.3.2.1 Overall 100 5.3.2.2 By Gender 101
5.3.2.3 By Ethnicity 102 5.3.2.4 By Location 102
5.4 Questions about Local Concerns...... —...... —...... 103
5.4.1 Local People's Concerns in Daily Life 103 5.4.1.1 Overall 103 5.4.1.2 By Location 104
5.4.1.3 By Ethnicity and Location (Arsenyevo) 106 5.4.1.4 By Ethnicity and Location (Troitskoe) 108 5.4.1.5 Russians in Arsenyevo and Troitskoe 110
vi 6.1 Discussion...... 114
6.1.1 Objective 1: Learn about Local People's Perception about the GMF 114 6.1.2 Objective 2: Determine what the GMF Achieved to Facilitate Public Communication and Local Involvement 116
6.1.3 Objective 3: Recommendations for the Future National Park within the GMF 117
6.2 Conclusion ...... ^ —...118
7 REFERENCES 121
APPENDIX I: EVALUATION OF THE GMFA BY THE IMFNS 128
APPENDIX H: QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH . 135
APPENDIX HI: QUESTIONNAIRE IN RUSSIAN 140
APPENDIX TV: SURVEY COVER LETTER IN ENGLISH . 145
APPENDIX V: SURVEY COVER LETTER IN RUSSIAN. 147
vii LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Completed Projects of the GMF. 15
Table 2. Number of Nanai and Udege in the USSR in 1926, 1959 and 1989, in Khabarovsk Province in 1990 and in Nanaiski District in 2000 21
Table 3. Data of the National Park "Anyuiski" 24
Table 4. Characteristics of the GMF and the NP 25
Table 5. Commonalities between the GMF and the future NP. 27
Table 6. Population of Nanaiski District, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe and a Breakdown by Ethnicity (as of 1 January 2000) 41
Table 7. Number of Questionnaire Forms (Provided, Collected and Usable) 42
Table 8. Breakdown of the Respondents by Location and Ethnicity. 49
Table 9. Breakdown of the Respondents by Occupation and Location 51
Table 10. Breakdown of the Respondents by Academic Background and Location 52
Table 11. Number of Responces of the Question, "Do you Live in the Territory of the GMF?" by Location 72
Table 12. Grouping of Phrases (Q6) by General Agreement Level into "General Agreement," "TSIeutraL" and "General Disagreement." 75
Table 13. Kendall's taub Correlation on Phrases from Q6 91
Table 14. Final Cluster Centers 95
Table 15. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" 95
Table 16. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" 96
viii Table 17. Cluster Membership by Occupation 96
Table 18. Characteristics of Members from Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 97
Table 19. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Gender 99
Table 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Ethnicity. 99
Table 21. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Location 100
Table 22. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Gender. 101
Table 23. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Ethnicity. 102
Table 24. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Location 102
Table25. Ranking of Local Concerns by Location. (Evaluation Points) 106
Table 26. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo. (Evaluation Points) 108
Table 27. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Troitskoe. (Evaluation Points) 110
Table 28. Ranking of Local Concerns by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo (Evaluation Points). .112
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Two Aspects of a Model Forest Program 9
Figure 2. Relationship between GMF, IMFN, CMFN and McGregor Model Forest 10
Figure 3. Diagram of the Governance of the GMF in 1994 11
Figure 4. The GMF in Local Forest Politics 17
Figure 5. Concurrently Holding Two Posts (Two Examples) 19
Figure 6. Diagram of Governance for Program Realization 20
Figure 7. Transition from the GMF to the NP. 26
Figure 8. Diagram of Natural Resources Utilization in the GMF and the NP Territory. 28
Figure 9. Conceptual Framework of the Natural Resources Management in the GMF 33
Figure 10. Number of Responses by Gender. 47
Figure 11. Proportion of the Respondents by Age 48
Figure 12. Proportion of the Respondents by Ethnicity. 49
Figure 13. Number of the Respondents by Occupation 50
Figure 14. Number of the Respondents by Academic Background 52
Figure 15. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" 53
Figure 16. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Gender. 54
Figure 17. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Gender 55
Figure 18. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Age. ...56
x Figure 19. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Age 57
Figure 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Ethnicity. 58
Figure 21. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Ethnicity. 59
Figure 22. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anytfiing about the GMF?" by Occupation 60
Figure 23. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Occupation 61
Figure 24. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Location 62
Figure 25. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Location 63
Figure 26. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" 64
Figure 27. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Gender. 64
Figure 28. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any fo the GMF?" by Gender. 65
Figure 29. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Age 66
Figure 30. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Age 67
Figure 31. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Ethnicity. 68
Figure 32. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Ethnicity. 68
xi Figure 33. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Occupation 69
Figure 34. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Occupation. 70
Figure 35. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Location 71
Figure 36. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Location 71
Figure 37. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) 74
Figure 38. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Location 79
Figure 39. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Ethnicity. 81
Figure 40. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Gender. 83
Figure 41. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Age 85
Figure 42. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Academic Background 87
Figure 43. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" 98
Figure 44. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? 101
Figure 45. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points 104
Figure 46. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Location 105
Figure 47. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo 107
Figure 48. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Troitskoe 109
Figure 49. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo Ill
xii LIST OF MAPS
Map 1. Location of the Gassinski Model Forest in the Russian Far East 3
Map 2. Territory of Gassinski Model Forest and National Park "Anyuiski" 14
xiii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks the following individuals and organizations:
• Dr George Hoberg of the University of British Columbia for supervising this research and project, • Dr Robert Kozak of the University of British Columbia for his support in survey design, data analyses and thesis writing, • Dr John Innes of the University of British Columbia for his time and his advice, • Mr. Evegueny Zabubenin of the McGregor Model Forest Russian Office for arranging my Russian visa and organizing the fieldwork and interview survey, • Mr. Martin Hudson of the McGregor Model Forest for the kind arrangement with McGregor Model Forest Russian Office, • Mr. Kouzminkov Victor of the Moscow State University and Kobe University (PhD student) for his kind assistance in the fieldwork, Russian literature research and translation, • The Gassinski Model Forest Association and the Excectives for giving information and helping in the fieldwork, • Dr Hiroaki Kakizawa of the Hokkaido University for his support in gathering information and materials concerned with Russian forestry, • Dr Shiro Sasaki of National Museum of Ethnology for his advice on the fieldwork, • Prof. Shinichi Kohsaki of Osaka Univ. of Foresign Studies for his advice on the field work, • The Shiba Ryotaro Memorial Foundation for the financial support during this research, • Mrs Vera Herberger for her helping in the fieldworkan d interpretation in interviews, • Mr. Vladimir Vashiliev of the Gassinski Model Forest Association for his assistance with the fieldwork, • Dr Gordon Weetman of the University of British Columbia for giving the opportunity to do this research, • My friends in Minabegawa and NTtanabe for interactual communication during this research, • Many other people who supported this research project, and • My family and friends for supporting this research.
xiv CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
l 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Gassinki Model Forest (GMF), the first model forest in Russia, was established in October 1994 with the financial and technical support of the Government of Canada. The primary goal of the Canadian-style model forest1 was to achieve sustainable forest management. 2 The GMF program emphasizes partnership. Although the GMF has no authority over natural resources in the GMF territory, the GMF is expected to
Natural resources in the GMF territory are mainly utilized for activities such as logging, hunting, fishingan d gathering by both the formal and informal sectors. The formal sector is under official administration through concession or license systems. In contrast to the informal sector3 consists of local people who are not under official administration for natural resources utilization. Activities of the informal sector are hard to control from outside and legal enforcement is not effective in Russia due to a lack of funds, personnel and social norms. Local peoples' awareness of the environment and their attitude towards sustainable utilization is the only way to lead the informal sector voluntarily to the sustainable utilization of natural resources. Therefore, it is important to educate local people in the informal sector through "local involvement" and "public communication." Local
1 Model forests belong to the Canadian Model Forest Network or the International Model Forest. Network, which is oriented by the Government of Canada. 2 According to a presentation in 2000 given by Telitsyn in Akita, Japan, the goal of the GMF was "...to create an association of partners with the ability and interest to pursue the goal of sustainable forest management for increasing living standards of indigenous peoples and other residents by means of using forest resources"(Teltsyn 2000).
Also, the website of the Canadian Model Forest Network (n.d. http://www.modelforest.net/e/home_/abou_/faqe.html) provides the definition applied to the model forest projects as "managing the use, development and protection of forest resources in a manner or at a rate that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety while (l) sustaining the potential of forest resources to meet reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations! (2) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and (3) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment." 3 "Informal sector" refers to local people whose activity in natural resources management, is hardly regulated.
2 involvement and public communication are referred to in the Santiago Declaration of the Montreal Process, which is "the statement on criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests" signed by representatives of the Russian Federation and nine other countries (see 1.1.2) (Montreal Process Website 1998).
Gassinski Russian Federation / Model Forest
S.Korea N. Korea Map 1. Location of the Gassinski Model Forest in the Russian Far East. (Source^ adopted and modified from the International Model Forest Network Website. http7/www.idrc.ca/imfn/sites/russia.html)
On January 10, 2001, a large part of the GMF territory and area adjacent to the GMF in Nanaiski District were officially zoned for the national park (NP) "Anyuiski" by the resolution signed by the governor of the Khabarovsk Province. According to the document accompanying the resolution, when the NP is approved at the federal level and officially established, the NP will tackle " ecological [environmental] education for local people," which is one of six fundamental tasks of the NP (Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo
3 Kraya 2001). Facilitation of local involvement and of public communication is two of the GMFs fundamental tasks, as listed in the 1995 proposal (Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service 1995). The future NP will share everything including land, stakeholders and natural resources, with the GMF. Therefore, a future NP task will be to take over and take advantage of the achievements of the GMF, in particular, in public communication and local involvement towards the NPs task.
1.1.1 Definitions of Local Involvement and Public Communication
The term "local involvement" for the purpose of this research, describes the inclusion of local people in the decision-making process with other stakeholders, such as national and local administrations. The involvement should include feedback and it must be continuous. The expression "local involvement" is compatible with expressions such as "local participation" in decision-making process.
The term "public communication" in this thesis includes mass communication (e.g., publishing newsletters), a word-of- mouth communication, education (educational information) for local people provided by the GMF and a system of public feedback. Public communication sometimes includes peer-to-peer communication between a person or a partner of the GMF and a local individual. In principle, this research regards public communication as a tool to facilitate local involvement and, therefore, the term "public communication" often accompanies the term "local involvement."
1.1.2 Sustainable Forest Management and Local Involvement
After the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the concept of sustainable forest management became an international principle of forest management.4 The Russian Federation, whose forested land made up about 22% of the global forested land in 2000 (FAO 2001a; 2001b), shares the goal of sustainable forest management. Russia signed the Santiago Declaration of the Montreal Process in February 1995. The importance of local involvement and public communication is emphasized in Section 1.4 of the statement, "It
4 There are many definitions of sustainable forest management. This research does not refer to any particular definition.
4 should be emphasized that an informed, aware and participatory public is indispensable to promoting the sustainable management of forests." In the Section 4.1, Criterion T- Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management, there are also two indicators related to local involvement and public communication:
• Extent to which the legal framework Caws, regulations, guidelines) supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including the extent to which it:
c. Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decision making related to forests and public access to information; and
• Extent to which the institutional framework supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including the capacity to:
a. Provide for public involvement activities and public education, awareness and extension programs, and make available forest related information.
(Montreal Process Website 1998. http'//www.mpd.org/meetings/santiago/santiiigo7_e.htni])
As such, the sustainable forest management in the Montreal Process has close links with local involvement and public communication.
The importance of local involvement and public communication for conservation and sustainable utilization of natural resources at the local level is emphasized in many case studies. Brechin et al. (1991), discussing resident peoples and protected areas in developing and developed countries, stated, "If conservation is to become sustainable, approaches and methods must be developed that more actively involve resident peoples in the planning and decision-making process." Hales (1991), in his case study of the Pinelands National Park Reserve, concluded, "...effective and sustainable protection is dependent on a strong pubhc-involvement campaign that begins very early in the planning process" and " ...local participation should be a continuing element of the management regime." The common
5 reason why many case studies in developing countries and developed countries emphasize the importance of local involvement and public communication is that local people may be kept from local natural resources by a park and reserve system for the purpose of sustainable management and the exclusion of local people fromloca l natural resources may result in conflicts between locals and authorities (e.g., Wells and Brandon 1992). In developing countries, including Russia, poor rural people may more concerned with economic aspects of the land and natural resources than with the biodiversity conservation (FAO 2001b).
Gibson and Becker (2000: 139) summarized the required conditions for successful natural resources management with local involvement: "1) locals must value the resource, 2) they must possess some property rights to the resource, and 3) they must construct local-level institutions that control the use of the resource." Public communication, which includes mass communication, word-of-mouth communication and environmental education, can be useful in particular for meeting the first and third conditions.
Local involvement in the decision-making process in model forests is related to the third condition. Construction of local-level institutions, including local involvement, can refer to the experience of community-based forest management and conservation programs. Since the 1970s, developing countries in Asia and Africa such as India, Gambia and the United Republic of Tanzania, have conducted community-based forest management programs (FAO 2001b). FAO (2001b: 23) concludes from those past programs that "community-based management systems are still very much in a stage of evolution" and "there is little experience in collaborative management in which (multi-interest) stakeholders work effectively together in decision-making and implementation." There are few blue prints for local involvement at the local level and, therefore, the development of local involvement in model forests is dependent on the effort by each model forest program.
1.2 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH PROCESS
The objectives of this research are-' To learn local people's perception of the GMF and its projects; to determine what the GMF achieved regarding the facilitation of public communication and local involvement in and nearby the GMF territory from 1994 to 2001;
6 and to make recommendations for the future national park within the GMF.
This research project consists of background material (including a literature review), a conceptual framework, a questionnaire survey followed by discussion and conclusion. The introduction deals with the relationship between sustainable forest management and local involvement, as well as public communication. The background material, literature review and a framework development have been based on information gathered in Russia and materials either published in Russia, Japan or Canada. Gathering information about the GMF was the first step of this research. The background research provides a clear picture of the GMF, the future NP and the culture and history of indigenous peoples in Nanaiski District. Key concepts for this research, the role of the GMF in local forest politics and continuity of the GMF program and the NP, are also explained. The conceptual framework of the natural resources management in the GMF explains the focus of the questionnaire survey. The questionnaire survey is a core element of this research. The questionnaire survey of local people in and nearby the GMF aimed to reveal how local people perceive and evaluate the results of the GMFs projects and activities. The questionnaire forms contain questions about the following: l) recognition of the GMF; 2) knowledge about the future national park within the boundary of the GMF; 3) recognition of the NP; 4) the daily life concerns of local people; and 5) demographic information (sex, age, occupation, ethnicity and academic background). The local people's perception reveals how the GMF program has successfully involved local people in the GMF projects (local involvement) and communicated with local people (public communication). The discussion section of this thesis deals with results of the questionnaire survey and makes recommendations for the future national park in the context of local involvement and public communication.
This research examines how successfully, from the local people's point of view, the GMF has facilitated local involvement and public communication since its establishment.
7 CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
8 2 BACKGROUND
2.1 MODEL FOREST
2.1.1 Description of a Model Forest
A concept of a "model forest," was established in Canada by the early 1990s. According to the Canadian definition (CMFN Website n.d. http7/www.modelforest.net/e/home_/abou_/faqe.htmD, "a model forest is an example of leading edge forest management practices and research." The expression "model forest" often indicates a model forest program. Model forests, as an organization, take the shape of either associations or not-for-profit organizations (CMFN Website n.d.).
The word "forest" used in the expression "model forest" includes "people" as part of the forest (CMFN Website n.d.). Therefore, model forests are tightly connected to social sciences in addition to technology, ecology and other sciences. Model forest programs generally have two main aspects; technical and socio-economic (see Figure 1).
Model Forest (Concept) I Model Forest Program (Modal Forest Association)
Technical Aspect Socio-economic Aspect
(Technology in Forestry, (Indigenous People's Issues, Ecology, Wood Science Local Involvement and and Forest Inventry etc.) Publio Communication etc.]
Figure 1. Two Aspects of a Model Forest Program.
9 Due to the fact that the first model forest was started by Canadian initiative, tasks related to indigenous people (First Nations) are important factors in the socio-economic aspect of model forest programs.
Networking is an important characteristic of the Canadian-style model forest system. Each model forest belongs to a network of model forests and shares their experience with other model forests through workshops and conferences. There are two major model forest networks: The Canadian Model Forest Network (CMFN) and the International Model Forest Network (IMFN), which was initiated by Canada and is coordinated by the International Secretariat. The CMFN and the IMFN overlap considerably in membership. For example, the GMF belongs to the IFMN; however, it has a close link with the CMFN because the only financial source of the GMF 5 is Canadian financial aid and the McGregor Model Forest, which is a member of the CMFN and the IMFN, is the Canadian twin model forest of the GMF.
IMFN Main Financial Source: .CMFN Govt of Canada Main Financial Source: (EX.. Canadian Forest Service Twin f—"N ( McGregor A
Figure 2. Relationship between GMF, IMFN, CMFN and McGregor Model Forest.
5 Partners of the GMF such as former Russian Forest Service and the Administration of Khabarovsk Province contribute to the GMF program. However, their contribution is generally in the form of commodity or labor (Pominov 2000).
10 Model forests, which belong either to the IMFN or to the CMFN or both networks, have a common philosophy (IMFN Website n.d.). The common philosophy is:
1) Each model forest is established as a working-scale model aimed at effecting a transition from conventional forest management to management for sustainable forest production and environmental conservation. 2) Each model forest attempts to demonstrate sustainable and integrated forest management, to transfer the knowledge to forest managers and to have the applicable technology applied operationally as applicable. 3) Each model forest is managed through a partnership of stakeholders in the area. 4) Each model forest demonstrates the integrated management of key resources and utilizes state-of-the-art technology and ecologically sound forestry practices.
(IMFN Website.n.d. http7/www.idrc.ca/imfn/aboutus/mission.html)
The common philosophy affects the organizational structure of a model forest. For example, the structure and three divisions of the GMF cover subjects referred to in the common philosophy. (See Figure 3.)
I Meeting of the GMF Partners I I [ Council of Partners I Exective Board I
Division of Division of Division of Equipment, Information Planning and Technology and and Prognostication Scientific Studies Public Communication
Figure 3. Diagram of the Governance of the GMF in 1994. (Source^ redrawn and translated from Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service 1995:24. [In Russian])
11 Although the structure of governance of the GMF shown in Figure 3 was modified by 1997, the fundamental structure never changed. This research focuses on the results of activities and projects of the Division of Information and Public Communication.
2.1.2 Issues of Authority and Partnership for Model Forests
A model forest emphasizes partnership. Although territories of model forests are designated, model forests usually have neither management jurisdiction nor property rights. Model forests cannot restrict any activity within the territory. According to the CMFN website (n.d. httpV/www.modeEorest.net/e/home^abou^faqe.html), "model forests attempt to 'make a difference on the ground' by working with those who do have jurisdiction, namely private landowners or governments and forest industries." Canadian model forests are usually on crown land, which is not owned by any particular individual or enterprise or group. For example, the McGregor Model Forest is located on crown land with tenure, Tree Farm License 30, which was arranged between Canfor Corp. and the British Columbia Ministry of Forests (McGregor Model Forest Website n.d.).
Similar to Canadian model forests, the GMF has no management jurisdiction over land, forest resources or people. The land is owned by the Russian federal government and, in the same way, forest resources are managed by a department of the Ministry of Natural Resources (former Russian Federal Forest Service). 6
2.13 Local Involvement in Model Forests
In the explanation of an ongoing research project of the Sustainable Forest Management Network ("Public Participation and Canada's Model Forests: The case of Fundy"):
"While public participation in SFM [sustainable forest management] decision-making is not an explicit objective of the Model Forests,
6 According to FAO (2001a), ownership of forest and other wooded land in the Russian Federation is "entirely by the State" and 94% of the forests were controlled by the Federal Forest Service until the Forest Service was reorganized in 2000. However, there has been an argument over land and natural resources ownership among the federal government and its subjects since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
12 nevertheless each one has become a testing ground for means and mechanisms to improve stakeholder cooperation in discovering and implementing strong approaches to SFM."
(Sustainable Model Forest Network Website n.d. http7/smvl. biology, ualberta.ca/english/research/epubinv.htm)
In short, although local involvement is not clear objective of the model forests, is is an important factor of model fores programs, which aim at sustainable forest management.
In the case of the GMF, the initial proposal of the GMF, published in 1995, listed two tasks of local involvement and public communication:
• involvement of residents of Nanaiski District into realization of projects of the GMF and its governance; and • giving information concerned with all aspects of the GMF programs to residents of the GMF territory and Nanaiski District.
(Translated from Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest. Service. 1995: 22. [In Russian])
The first task is concerned with local involvement and the second is with public communication. In short, although the GMF does not regard local involvement as a goal of the GMF, local involvement and public communication are two of important tasks towards the goal of sustainable forest management.
13 2.2 GASSINSKI MODEL FOREST
The GMF or the GMF Association (GMFA) is a non-governmental organization, which is registered to the Administration of Khabarovsk Province as a social association. The GMFA is, as mentioned above, based on partnership without ownership or tenure of land or natural resources on the territory.7
Line - Boundary of Gassinski Model Forest Dotted line - Boundary of the future National Park " Anyuiski" Diagonal zone - National hunting zakaznik (IUCN Category IV, habitat/species management area)
Map 2- Territory of Gassinski Model Forest and National Park "Anyuiski''
(Source: redrawn and modified from PVEP DVO RAN et al., 2000; 3.1.1.)
7 Total land area of the GMF is 384,484 hectares, including 383,395 hectares of forested land (288,661 hectares for production and 94,734 hectares for protection.)
14 In contrast to Canadian model forests, the GMF has no domestic financial basis such as funds fromRussia n federal or provincial governments. 8 The GMF gives an opportunity to the partners, who voluntarily join the GMFA, to undertake the GMF projects and activities in practice. For example, forest management in the GMF territory is implemented by Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit) within its jurisdiction and, in the same way, much scientific research was undertaken by the Far East Forestry Research Institute and other research institutions (GMF Website). (See Table 1.)
The GMF partnership can coordinate interests among stakeholders. According to Telitsyn (2000), the best example of succesful coordination is the case of the NP establishment within and nearby the GMF territory. 9
Table 1. Completed Projects of the GMF.
Type of Projects Number Examples (Project Names and Developers) Scientific 24 "Study of the structure, the dynamics and the functional organization of natural ecosystems in the territory of the GMFA" by Far East Forestry Research Institute (DalNIILKh)
"Studies of cedar-pine forest stands impacted by multiple entries, and elaboration of measures for improving the capacity of the stands" by Chair of forests and parks management of the Primorsky Agricultural Academy
"Condition of game resources, and development of the principles of their sustainable taking in the GMFA" by The B.M.Zhitkov Far East Branch of the All-Russia Research Institute for Game and Reproduction of Wildlife Socio-economic 2 "Program for stable economic development of the GMFA territory" by the GMFA.
"Program for development of the economy of indigenous peoples of business between indigenous peoples of Canada and Russia" by the GMFA. (Source'- The GMF Website n.d. http7/www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/science_e.htm)
8 Main donor forCanadia n model forests is Canadian Forest Service. By the first quarter of 2001, financial support from the Government of Canada to the GMFA was significantly reduced. The Government of Canada provides funds to Russian program of McGregor Model Forest through a program of the CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). 9 However, some indigenous people are still against the establishment of the GMF. In this case, an expert group, consisting of the GMF partners, was established to solve issues related to the GMF. Some of the nine members from the expert group, who represent indigenous interests, have protested to the NP; however, the expert group made the decision to approve the establishment of the NP by collective will (Telitsyn 2000).
15 2.2.1 GMF after 2000
Although the GMFA still exists, activity of the GMF has declined. According to the people concerned with the GMF, the main cause of decline of activity is a lack of money, originating from the significant reduction of the Canadian financial support in 2001. However, the Government of Canada still continues to support the society and forest industry in the Nanaiski District. The McGregor Model Forest, a Canadian Model Forest, opened its Khabarovsk office10 and started the program "CIDA-McGregor Model Forest Russian Project " in collaboration with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The program focuses on:
• [t]he development of value-added wood processing capacity [in] the region; • [t]he development of non-wood forest products enterprises; • [t]he development of a regional tourism strategy, infrastructure and enterprises; • [t]he development of commercial projects between Canadian and Russian indigenous peoples; and • [t]he creation of specially protected areas.
(McGregor Model Forest Website n.d. http://www.mcgregor.bc.ca/russian_activities/about_ra.htm)
Canadian support of Russian forestry had largely shifted from the GMF (indirect aid via the GMF) to the CIDA-McGregor Model Forest Russian Program (direct aid via Khabarovsk Office of the McGregor Model Forest) by 2001.
222 GMF in Local Forest Politics
The GMF can impact natural resources through the GMF partners and local people (see 2.7).
The head of the McGregor Model Forest Khabarovsk Office is the former vice president of the GMFA.
16 Govt, of Canada Leading Committee International federal Russian Federal Level IMFN Forest Service McGregor MF (Ministry of NR) Local Level o Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association, 6 Gassinski Model Forest K Department of Forests. > Khabarovsk Province i z o Partners' Meeting D K H , 3 Partners Kg V c30 » Science and Technology Partners' Council Counoil NGOs 3 President Research '! Institutions 3 Coordination Group Association of ! People of the North Project Leaders Exective Director
Nanaiski Experimental K-Jp Leskhoz (Forestry Unit) o m oW 3 o o 3 a o_ _)£ o o" o 3 $ o < to s o o I 2 o m 3 o o o Local People (Indigenous +NorHndigenous)
Figure 4. The GMF in Local Forest Politics. (Source: redrawn, modified and translated from IMFN and GMFA 1997: 38. [In Russian])
According to Figure 4, the GMF has an interactive relationship with the GMF partners but not with local people! the relationship between the GMF and local people tends to be
17 one-way. The reason is that the role of local people is not clearly defined in the structure of the GMF, which must be officially announced by the GMFA. Therefore, a feedback system for local people to evaluate the GMFs projects and activities is lacking in the process of the program realization, as shown in Figure 4. Indigenous people may have the chance to give feedback to the GMF through a partner of the GMF, the Association of People of the North of Nanaiski District, which is an official representative of indigenous people. However, the majority of the population of the district, Russians and Ukrainians, do not have a direct representative in the GMFA, even though the Coordination Council (or the Coordination Group in Figure 4) is supposed to have local people's feedback on each project and activity to promote local involvement and public communication, which stated in the initial 1995 proposal.
The assessment team for the International Model Forest Network Secretariat Outcome Assessment (July 2000) points out, "...the Gassinski Model Forest benefits from strong government support and involvement, both at the state and federal levels"(Armstrong et al 2000. http://www.crdi.ca/evaluation/finalreport.htm). Although the GMF is a non-governmental organization, the GMF is under the strong influence of local administrations. For example, the president of the GMFA concurrently held the position of the head of the Department of Forests, the Khabarovsk Province (provincial administration in charge of forest resources management) by his retirement and the executive director of the GMFA concurrently holds the position of the head of the Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit) (see Figure 5). In the Information block, which is compatible with the Division of Information and Public Communication in Figure 3 and the Information Center in Figure 6, the head (Chief specialist of information and public communication) is the former chief secretary of the Nanaiski District. Taking up posts of the GMF are recognized as part of individual volunteer activities.
18 Concurrently holding two posts. . j i • GMF j Partners
Volunteer { j Official Post 1 : Head of Dept. of Forests, President ^ 1 Khabarovsk Province : J
Head Exective Director 4 - = ^ of Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz i !
Figure 5. Concurrently Holding Two Posts (Two Examples).
The influence of local authorities has also been observed in the management of the GMF facilities. For example, facilities of the GMF, such as the Canadian House in Troitskoe, are nearly common property with the Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz. The ground floor of the Canadian House is occupied by the office of the Leskhoz. In the same way, guests who stay in the guest rooms of the Canadian House have to pay a lodging fee not to the GMFA, but to the Leskhoz.11
23.3 Realization of GMF's Projects
The official concept of the realization of programs of the GMF is shown in Figure 6.
11 As a result, although the assessment team for the International Model Forest Network Secritariat Outcome Assessment (Armstrong et al. 2000) regards the GMF as successful, the GMF is the worst in local partners' evaluation of the assessment, "Achievement of Progress Markers by Local Communities," compared to four other model forests in developing countries (see Appendix I).
19 Department Administration of Forest, Administration Social Assocation of Khabarovsk Khabarovsk of Nanaiski Gassinski Province Province District Model Forest
T Experiments j«- Coordination Council Information Center
Center for Personnel Traning Exective Director of Programs Fund for the Development Tasks Including of GMF Territory Public Communication. Environmetal Education Enterprises and Local Involvements. with Various Specializations
Figure 6. Diagram of Governance for Program Realization. (Source: redrawn, modified and translated from IMFN and GMFA 1997: 38 [In Russian])
Projects for the GMFs tasks and goals are realized by decisions made by the Coordination Council (or sometimes called "Coordination Group"), in principle. Many projects are conducted by contracts with enterprises or organizations, which are usually GMF partners and have special skills and experience in the program. Contractors gain direct profits from projects. It is unclear whether the selection of contractors is based on competition or not.
Projects and activities related to public communication and local involvement are created within the framework of the Division of Information and Public Communication in Figure 3. Those projects and activities were conducted by the Information Center and the Center for Personnel Training in Figure 6.12 The activities and projects, in the past, were distribution of information bulletins, international exchange of students and environmental education
12 However, the Information Center and the Center for Personnel Training seem to be unsubstantial because, in reality, the personnel and facilities of those centers are common with those of the Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz.
20 for school children (GMF Website. n.d.).
According to the 1994-1997 and 1998-1999 reports of the GMF, the financial source for the GMFs projects and activities was fully dependent on Canadian aid. Although the Russian contribution, 3,066,753.3 rubles (834,024 Canadian dollars), was shown in the 1994-1997 report, the Russian contribution including the Leskhoz' day-to-day work was not given to the GMF in the form of money.13
2.2.4 Indigenous Peoples in Nanaiski District
Indigenous peoples living in and nearby the territory of the GMF and the future NP are mainly Nanai and Udege. Nanai and Udege are supposed to be regarded as important stakeholders in the GMF program. The percentage of indigenous people in the population of the area is not large. According to the Administration of Nanaiski District, there were 139 Udege people and 3,949 Nanai people in the district as of 1 January 2000, as compared to the total number of the population, 21,231 (as of 1 January 2000).
Table 2. Number of Nanai and Udege in the USSR in 1926,1959 and 1989, in Khabarovsk Province inl990 and in Nanaiski District in 2000.
1926 1959 1989 1990 2000 Nanai 5860 8026 12023 - - Udege 1357 1444 2011 - - Nanai (Khabarovsk Province) - • • 7067 - Udege - - - - (Khabarovsk Province) 328 Nanai - - - - (Nanaiski District) 3949 Udege - - (Nanaiski District) - - 139
(Sources: Vakhtin 1992; Gulevsky and Simchenko 1994; data from Administration of Nanaiski District)
The traditional occupations of both groups are fishing, hunting and gathering (Kato 1963;
13 In the 1998-1999 report there is no indication of the Russian contribution. In the 1999 2000 report there are indications of the Russian contributions.
21 Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). Historically, the Nanai lived along the Amur River and the Udege lived in the mountainous area (Sikhote-Alin) (Forsyth 1992). Nanai and Udege were under the influence of China and Korea before the establishment of Russian settlements. Those peoples, for example, paid homage to the Manchu dynasty, ChingiAS). 1644-1911), and traded with the dynasty in furs and craftworks (Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). In the mid-16th century, Russian colonization in Siberia started and, by the end of the 18th century, Russians and others were settled in Siberia, the Russian Far East and North America (MRG 1992). Primorye and surroundings were ceded from ChingXa the Russian Empire on the basis of the Beijing Treaty in 1860 (Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). Since then, indigenous peoples in the area including Nanai and Udege have been merged into Russian capitalism and governance (Sasaki 1997). After the establishment of the Soviet Union and following civil wars, the communist government adopted "Russification" policies. According to MRG (1992), there were three steps to the policy. First of all, shamanism, which was the basis for religions of most indigenous peoples, was prohibited. Second, native languages of indigenous peoples were alphabetized. Initially, the Roman alphabet was adopted; however, in 1937, the Cyrillic alphabet, an alphabet used for Russian language, was adopted (MRG 1992). Soon after that, Russian language was adopted for school curriculums instead of alphabetized native languages. As a result, indigenous peoples started to lose their native languages. 14 Thirdly, collectivization began to influence the lifestyle of the indigenous peoples. Nanai and Udege were semi-permanent settlement type peoples (Kato 1963; Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). Nanai in the Nanaiski District mainly lived along with rivers and Udege lived in the forested mountainous area. Neither peoples had a culture of farming and cultivation and, therefore, moved around in case of necessity. The collectivization policy in the 1930s forced indigenous people to settle down in villages and to work within the scheme of collective groups such as kolkhoz (Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992; MRG 1992). Tb date, it is hard to find differences among Russian and indigenous peoples in language, culture or life style. Although there is still a cultural socio-economic gap among Russian and indigenous people, many indigenous people are highly educated and work as white-collar workers, in positions such as an senior public servants and teachers. To summarize, all indigenous people have had an official school education and use the Russian language, and are part of the broader society.
14 In fact, only 24% of all Udege people in Russia Gn 1989) (Sasaki 1997) and only 44% of Nanai and Udege in Nanaiski District (GMF Website. n.d.) can speak and understand their native languages.
22 Political awareness of indigenous people in Siberia and the Russian Far East has risen since the Perestroika period in the mid-1980s (MRG 1992). In 1992, the ex-president of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin signed the presidential decree, "Concerning Urgent Measures for Protecting Places of Living and Economic Activity of the Native Minority Peoples of the North." Indigenous peoples won rights to have territories for traditional uses and priority in licensing for renewable natural resources (Wiget and Balalaeva n.d.). Today, according to local people, the Association of Peoples of the North, which represents the interests of indigenous people, is one of the most influential political groups in Nanaiski District.
2.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARK "ANYUSKI" WITHIN THE GMF TERRITORY
On 10 January 2001, the governor of the Khabarovsk Province, V.I. Ishaev, signed the resolution "About Organization, National Park Anyuiski, in Nanaiski District, Khabarovsk Province." 15 The resolution at the provincial level is the basis for the establishment of the NP as part of the GMF territory and its adjacent area. 16
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), as well as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Russian federal government, gave financial support for the establishment of the NP "Anyuiski" (IVEP DVO RAN et al. 2000; Tblitsyn 2000; Glushenko 2000).
15 The original name of the resolution in Russian is "Pastanovlenie- Ob Organizatsiya Natsionalinogo Parka 'Anyuiskii' v Nanaiskom Raione Khabarovskogo Kraya." 16 By the end of 2001, the establishment of the NP has not been approved at the federal level Some people in charge of the NP said that the Federal Ministry of Finance has not approved the expense ft>r the NP establishment and management from the federal budget.
23 Table 3. Data of the National Park "Anyuiski"
Location 49° 00' north latitude, and 136° 55' east longitude. On the western slope of SikhoteAlm Mountains. Altitude From 400 to 1000m above sea level. Topography Mountainous and hilly Land area 429,598 hectares (forest land 427405ha,99.48%; Lake Gassi 1965ha, 0.46%, and State Land Reserve 228ha, 0.05%) Forest cover 338,780.1 hectares Climate Monsoon-continental Temperature From-24.4t; in January to +16T; in July Annual Rainfall From 544 to 895 mm Manchurian, Ussurian and Boreal forest zones. Vegetation Boreal (larch, spruce and their attendants) and Ussurian and Manchurian (Korean pine, linden, yew, grape, Shizandra, Aralia, actinidia, eleuterokokk, etc.). Zoning Reserve; Special Protection; Traditional Extensive Use of Natural Resources; and Recreational Use. Towns and villages No towns or villages included. In adjacent area, 2 towns and about 20 villages. IUCN Category Category II
(Sources: IVEP DVO RAN et al. 2000; The GMF Website n.d. http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/h_05e.htm; Friends of the Earth-Japan 2000.)
Russian national parks including the NP "Anyuiski" meet "the IUCN (The World Conservation Union) Protected Areas Category II - "National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation." According to the IUCN definition, Category II is:
Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to:
• a. protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for this and future generations: • a. exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area: and • b. provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.
(Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia Website. n.d.
http: //www. ea. gov. au/parks/nrs/iucn/)
24 The CIDA-McGregor Model Forest Russian Project has supported the development of a regional tourism strategy, which aims at future ecotourism in the NP.
Characteristics of the GMF and the future NP are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Characteristics of the GMF and the NP.
—— Gassinski Model Forest National Park "Anyuiski" Typo of Noirgovernmental organization Part of the Federal authority (Ministry Organization registered to Administration of of Natural Resources), govenmental Khabarovsk Province as social organization. association. Basis of Partnership based on voluntary Official resolutions and federal laws. Organization membership. Financial Source Foreign financial aids. Federal budgets and self-funding. Authority No authority with the GMF. Authority Exclusive authority over the territory and belongs to local administrations such and natural resources with Ministry of Jurisdiction as Administration of Khabarovsk Natural Resources of the Russian Province, Forest Department of the Federation and the NP authority. Province and Nanaiki Experimental (Under the federal laws) Leskhoz (forestry unit). Ownership and Designated territory on forested land. Designated territory under the federal Tenure of Land No ownership and tenure- jurisdiction. and Natural Resources Related laws, Forest Code of the Russian Federation Federal law from 14 March 1995, N and regulations and other miscellaneous laws and 33-FZ "About Fundamental of regulations. Preserving Natural Territory" and other miscellaneous laws and Miscellaneous regulations and laws of regulations. Khabarovsk Province
Resolution or "Memorandum of Agreement, on the Resolution of Head of Khabarovsk Memorandum Establishment of the Model Forest Province administration dated on 10 for the within the framework of the January 2001 "About organization of establishment International Model Forest national park Anuiski in Nanaiski Programme" signed by representatives District, Khabarovsk krai." of Canadian and Russian forest services in 1993. No decision at the federal level as of the end of 2001. (Sources: Translated from Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 1995; Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo
Kraya 2001; IVEP DVO RAN et al. 2000; Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest
Service. 1995; Savchenko, A. 2001. [In Russian])
25 2.4 TRANSITION FROM GMF TO NATIONAL PARK "ANYUSKI"
According to the law of the Russian Federation, "About Specially Protected Territory,"17 authority over the NP territory will be transferred from provincial and local administrations to the federal authority at the time of the NP establishment (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii 1995). In the same way, jurisdiction of forest management in the NP territory, for example, will be transferred from current local authorities such as Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz, to the future NP authority under the Federal Ministry of Natural Resources. (See Table 4 and Figure 7.)
Controlled + Consumed by Various Organizations + Industries + Locals
Administered by Forest Service and Other Local Authorities Natural Resources Legislation for Forests on GMF and Other Natural Resources (eg. Forest Code)
Before
After Establishment of National Park within the GMF
Controlled + Consumed by National Park Authority (Federal Organ) Administered by National Park Authority Natural Resources (Federal Organ) on National Park Legislation for National Park and Other Environmental Protection
Figure 7. Transition from the GMF to the NP.
17 The original name in Russian is "Federal'nyi Zakon ot 14 Marta 1995 g. N33-FZ: Ob Osbo Okhranyaemnyikh prirodnyi territoriyakh."
26 After the establishment of the NP, all activities such as gathering and hunting in the NP territory will be restricted within zones designated by the NP authority consistent with the federal law and regurations.
2.4.1 Continuity between the GMF Tasks and Future NP Task
As mentioned above, two of the GMFs tasks are facilitation of local involvement and public communication. One of the future NPs tasks is compatible with those tasks of the GMF. The NPs task stated in the Resolution signed by the governor of the Khabarovsk Province is "ecological [environmental] education for local people" (Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo Kraya 2001).
Table 5. Commonalities between the GMF and the future NP.
Land Largely Same. NPs territory will be designated on large part of the GMF and adjacent area. (See Map 2.) Area of the GMF excluded from the future NP is heavily disturbed by forest fires. Natural Resources Same. Stakeholders Same. Except the future NFs authority, which will be a part of federal organ. The NP authority has not been established.
As shown in Table 5, both the GMFs tasks and the NPs task have continuity because both tasks overlap: the same people and natural resources on the same area. (See also Table 4 and Map 2.) The achievements of the GMF program in the category of local involvement and public communication can be immediately taken over by the NP.
2.4.2 Cooperation between a Model Forest and a National Park
According to many people concerned with the GMF, they regard the cooperation between the GMF and the future NP as possible. In a Canadian case, the Gros Morne National Park joined in the partnership of the Western Newfoundland Model Forest as a partner. The Gros Morne National Park expects that "the Model Forest program is seen as providing an opportunity for Gros Morne to network with its neighboring stakeholders in a collaborative and consensus based decision making process for ecosystem sustainability and maintenance
27 of biodiversity at the landscape level" (Western Newfoundland Model Forest Website. httpV/www.wnmf.com/html%20pages/Partners%20.htnx). Although the Canadian experience cannot be immediately translated into Russian context, the experience implies there is a possibility that the GMF and the future NP "Anyuiski" can collaborate in natural resources management.
2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES UTILIZATION IN THE GMF AND NP TERRITORY
Natural resources on the GMF are mainly consumed through logging, hunting, fishing and gathering. These activities are implemented by both the formal and informal sectors.
Formal Sector Informal Sector
Industrial + Commercial Uses Daily + Local Uses Local People Industries + inch Indigenous Administration and Non-Indigenous
Logging, Hunting. Fishing and Gathering
Figure 8. Diagram of Natural Resources Utilization in the GMF and the NP Territory.
The formal sector includes industries such as logging enterprises and administrations such as leskhoz. For example, 42 hunters who were granted hunting licences in the territory of the future NP by the hunting service are in the formal sector (rVEP DVO RAN et al. 2000).
28 In addition to the formal sector, an informal sector also utilizes natural resources on the future NP territory. The informal sector includes local people's activities such as non-commercial logging for fuel, gathering mushrooms and nuts, fishing and hunting without licences. The activities of the informal sector is hard to restrict by laws or regulations. For example, although fishingwithi n and nearby the GMF territory was prohibited in 1996, local people still continue to fish without official permission (Shmakov 2001). Legal enforcement of the informal sector does not work well because of lack of funds, personnel for surveillance, socio-economic factors and norms of local people.
Although both the formal and informal sectors utilize the natural resources in the GMF territory, they are different in their nature in the context of legal and socio-economic status.
2.6 NEED FOR LOCAL INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
As mentioned in 2.5, users of natural resources are not only from the formal sector but also from the informal sector. The lack of funds, personnel and norms disables authorities to regulate the informal sector. The norm issue in particular is important; when foreign journalists refer to Russia, they often cite the Russian proverb to describe Russian society, "law exists to be violated."18 In the Chapter 31 of FAO's Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, FAO (2001a: 221) points out that in it is unclear to what extent the expansion of protection forests are practical, "given the inadequacy of resources to monitor the forests and logging activities and the difficulties of ensuring that regulations are followed." For the realization of sustainable utilization of natural resources, mcluding sustainable forest management, each individual in both the formal and the informal sectors has to understand and practice sustainable utilization. Therefore, environmental education for the purpose of improving local people's norms in regard to sustainable natural resources utilization is as important as socio-economic support for local people. Local involvement and public communication, tasks of the GMF, can be important components of the education process.
18 Many illegal logging cases are reported by environmental non-governmental organizations (e.g., Friend of the Earth-Japan 1996).
29 The necessity of local involvement and public communication to the GMF is refered to in a number of documents related to the GMF. One of the GMF goals stated in the GMF profile on the International Model Forest Network website (n.d. http7/www.idrc.ca/imfi3/doc/Gassinski_E.html.) is:
"...to achieve and support sustainable forest management through decision-making processes that take into account the interests of the local people living in and around the Gassinski Model Forest..."
In practice, the Division of Information and Public Communication did organize activities, such as the installation of bulletin boards in schools and distribution of monthly information newsletters (until January 2001), for the purpose of facilitation of local involvement and public communication.
30 CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH
31 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH
This research is based on a conceptual framework developed from documents and ^information concerned with the GMF and the National Park "Anyuiski" This section explains the framework for this research and how it works.
3.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
Tb explain the focus of the questionnaire survey, which is intended to reveal local people's perception of the GMF programs and its projects, a conceptual framework of the natural resources management in the GMF was developed.
As indicated in Figure 9, the GMF partnership is connected to users in the formal and informal sectors. The GMF partnership can positively affect the entire utilization of the natural resources in so far as both groups of users (formal and informal) support the partnership. If users in the formal and the informal sectors stop supporting the partnership and participating in GMF activities, the partnership cannot positively affect the natural resources utilization in a sustainable manner because the partnership cannot coordinate the interests of both groups.
The aim of the questionnaire survey was to reveal how local members of the informal sector perceive and evaluate the GMF and its partnership. At the same time, the questionnaire survey gives an idea of how the GMF partnership works without a feedback system for local people. If it works properly, this research project will conclude that the lack of a feedback system for locals is not important in practice.
32 Bussiness I Chance* | Support* Funds for I Implementation of Projects I Projects
Formal Sector Informal Sector
Industrial + Commercial Uses Daily + Local Uses Local People Industries + inci. Indigenous Administration and Non—Indigenous
Logging. Hunting. Fishing and Gathering
Focus of Utilization Questionnaire Survey
Natural Resources in GMF+NP
Figure 9. Conceptual Framework of the Natural Resources Management in the GMF.
The focus of the questionnaire survey is the communication between the GMF partnership and the informal sector, as shown in Figure 9. There should be interaction between the GMF and users of the informal sector (local people) in the entity of the GMF partnership. On one
33 hand, the GMF provided information and education for local people through the GMF programs and activities, which were undertaken by the GMF partners from the formal sectors; and, on the other hand, local people attended the projects and activities, understood the GMFs tasks and goals, and practice sustainable utilization of natural resources. Local people's environmental enlightenment and high evaluation of the GMF can boost local people's sustainable natural resources utilization.
3.2 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
This research has been undertaken with various limitations originating from Russian socio-economic and administrative factors. First of all only a small amount of information about the GMF was available to the public from the Russian side. This research, therefore, started with gathering information and materials (e.g., official documents, information bulletins and manuals) from Russian and Canadian stakeholders.
Second, there were only a few previous research projects about the GMF in the context of social science. Therefore, a sufficient amount of data to design this project was not available in advance.
The third issue was the bureaucracy in relation to some local authorities. The bureaucracy made it hard to gather data, such as demographic information.
The questionnaire survey of the GMF was very challenging. A questionnaire survey about the GMF and its residents had not been done before this project. 19 The biggest impediment for the questionnaire survey was the lack of list of samples (local people). In addition, postal service and telephone communication service, two of the most common tools used for a questionnaire survey, are not well developed in Nanaiski District and, therefore, not available.
Generally speaking, public security is relatively low and bribery is rampant among police and public servants in Russia. Therefore, scrupulous preparation was required for the
19 Although one of the GMF personnel had conducted a questionnaire survey in 1996, it did not use adequate methodology.
34 questionnaire survey and interviews.
Those above-mentioned limitations affected the entire design of this research project.
35 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODS
36 4 RESEARCH METHODS
4.1 METHODOLOGY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
The survey was conducted from 13 August 2001 to 20 August 2001 in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo, in the Nanaiski District of the Russian Federation. Five people were hired to assist in conducting the survey (2 people in Troitskoe and 3 people in Arsenyevo). All questions were given in Russian (see Appendix III).
4.1.1 Survey Design and Question Types
The survey was designed with available information about the GMF and the NP. The primary aim of the survey was to know local people's perception of the GMF. There was no preceding research about this topic; therefore, the survey could not focus on any particular detailed case, rather the survey dealt with broader topics. The survey contained questions about: 1) perception of the GMF; 2) perception of the NP; and 3) information of demographics (gender, occupation, ethnicity, age and academic ground). The types of questions are: multiple choice (Ql, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11,12,13 and 14), rank ordering (Q3), 5-point-agreement scale (Q6a-k), descriptive (Q9) and multiple selection (Q6). (Questionnaire forms in English and Russian are shown in Appendix II and III.)
The core questions of this survey are Q2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In particular, Q6 provides an opportunity to explore underlying issues related to the respondents' attitude.
According to the results, all questions worked effectively except for Q4, Q5a, Q5b and Q5c. Q4, "If you answered YES to question 3, what program or programs of the GMF do you know about?" Q5a, "Have you worked for a company/organization related to one of the GMF projects?" Q5b, "Has someone from my family attended any GMF programs?" and Q5c, "Have you attended a GMF program through a social activity (school or group tour)?" were aimed at understanding and analyzing local people's perception of the details of the GMF and related projects; however, according to the results of the survey, those questions were inappropriate because most local people did not know anything about the details of the GMF and related projects. Therefore, Q4, Q5a, Q5b and Q5c were omitted from the survey
37 analysis.
In Ql, "What is your occupation?" the category Unemployed was intentionally excluded to reduce so-called prestige bias.20
Choices for Q2, Forest Management, Nature Conservation, Sawing Technology, Fishery, Education, Indigenous People's Culture, Tourism, Small Business, Hunting, Gathering and Other, were selected from topics and keywords related with the GMF and NP. However, Economy was not adopted for one of choices of Q2. The reasons for this decision are: 1) neither the GMF program nor the NP can improve economic condition directly and immediately; 2) the concept of economy is a complexity of issues and the meaning of the word, economy, is too broad; and 3) this research is more focused on the natural resources management in the GMF and the NP.
Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" was a question not only about the sampling location but also about the respondents' perception of the GMF boundary. Although Troitskoe is not included in the GMF territory, local people, including people related to the GMF, tend to misunderstand the town as being included in the GMF. There was no necessity to ask the sampling location on the questionnaire form; it was because the questionnaire forms were collected separately by location.
4.1.2 Translation from English to Russian
The original questionnaire was written in English. The English questionnaire was later translated into Russian. The Russian translation of the questionnaire was double checked and edited by Russian natives. Just as cultural gaps between Russians and Canadians, there are some differences in literal expressions between English and Russian. The differences originate in cultural, linguistic, social and attitudinal differences between Russian speakers and English speakers. Therefore, some parts of the original questions were modified to make sense to native Russian speakers without changing the fundamental meaning of the original questions.
20 For example, unemployed person is often ashamed about his or her occupational status and tells a lie to protect his or her prestige.
38 The basic principle of wording in the Russian translation was as simple as possible, to reduce bias from wording.
4.1.3 Preparation for the Questionnaire Survey
Pre-testing the questionnaire was desirable to ensure that the questions and information on the questionnaire forms were relevant. However, it was impossible to pre-test on a large scale due to limitations originating from budgetary and resource constraints. The only thing that could be done before administrating the questionnaire survey in the Russian Far East was to give the completed questionnare forms to people in the McGregor Model Forest Office and others in Khabarovsk, to ask their opinions about the survey contexts.
Prior to the survey, a preparation trip was organized to interview people connected to the GMF and the NP in Khabarovsk in June 2001. The subjects for the interview survey in Khabarovsk included the head of the McGregor Model Forest Khabarovsk Office, the president of the GMFA, a president of the NGO, which is a branch of the WWF and at the same time a partner of the GMF, and several bureaucrats. Suggestions and information from experts were useful in implementing the questionnaire survey.
4.1.4 Sampling Locations and their Characteristics
One town and one village, Troitskoe and Arsenyevo, were selected for the administration of the survey. The main reasons were: l) Troitskoe, which is the socio-economic center of Nanaiski District, is outside the GMF territory; and 2) Arsenyevo is the only village within the GMF territory (see Map2). In the context of the indigenous population, it is presumed that Arsenyevo is a village of Udege and Troitskoe is a town of Nanai.21
4.1.4.1 Troitskoe
Troitskoe is the socio-economic center of the Nanaiski District. There are administration of
21 Historically, Nanai people lived in the area along with the Amur River Oncluding Troitskoe) and Udege people lived in mountainous area (including Arsenyevo).
39 the district and headquarters of the GMF and Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit). According to the information from the Administration of Nanaiski District, the population of the district is approximately 6,500 people (as of 1 January 2000). The breakdown of the population is: Russians and Ukrainians (approximately 6000 people), Nanaians (475 people) and some others. Indigenous peoples of Troitskoe share 8% of the population. (See Table 6.)
Russian settlers established this town in 1859. This town was a base for the development of the Russian Far East since its establishment. According to press releases of the Administration of Nanaiski District (articles in a newspaper "Anyuiski Perekatyi" 2000; 2001) and local people, the formal industries of Troitskoe are logging, sawing, cargo handling at the river port of Troitskoe, construction and the public service sector, at present.
4.1.4.2 Arsenyevo
Arsenyevo is the only village in the territory of the GMF. There are 452 residents consisting of 342 Russians /Ukrainians, 101 Udege people and 9 Nanai people (as of 1 January 2000) (see Table 6). Those indigenous peoples share 24.3% of the population. The largest settlement of Udege in the Nanaiski District, Uni, which was officially established in 1994, is included in Arsenyevo. Detailed data and the history of Arsenyevo were not obtained. The village, located in deep forests, was developed in earnest during the 20th century by Ukrainian/Russian convicts or migrants. Arsenyevo was a base for logging at the time that a state-owned toggingenterpris e collapsed. Today, a logging enterprise, "Anyui," which is the only private enterprise in the village, employs about 25 people. Over the past 10 years, members of the Slav Principle (a sect of Christianity) formed a commune near the original Arsenyevo area. According to local people, the formal industries of Arsenyevo are logging, sawing, beekeeping and the public sector.
4.1.5 Sample Frame
The sample frame for this research is residents (or long-term visitors) of Arsenyevo and Troitskoe, Nanaiski District. The total population of Nanaiski District is 21,231 (see Table 6).
40 Table 6. Population of Nanaiski District, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe and a Breakdown by Ethnicity (as of 1 January 2000).
Indigenous Non-Indigenous Udege Nanai (Russian/Ukrainian) Indigenous Total Total Arsenyevo 101 9 342 110 452 Troitskoe 11 475 App. 6000 App. 520 App. 6500 Nanaiski District 139 3949 17016 4215 21231 App. stands for approximately. App. figures are due to information from Administration of Nanaiski District. The expressions, "Arsenyevo" and "troitskoe" in Table 6 indicate administrative units, which contain surrounding areas.
(Source: Administration of Nanaiski District, 1 January 2000.)
Indigenous peoples, mainly Nanai and Udege, make up 19.9% of the total. Russians, including people with Ukrainian and Belarussian origins, made up the majority of the population.
4.1.6 Sampling Methods
Random sampling was desirable to reduce bias for this project. However, genuine random sampling was impossible because in addtion to the lack of samples lists (lists of local people), telecommunication and postal service were not available (see 4.1.10). Therefore, sampling methods adopted forthi s research could best be characterized as semi-random/convenience sampling. In Troitskoe, survey administers visited all enterprises, adniinistrations, a newspaper publisher, a school meeting, some shops and libraries to distribute questionnaire forms. Volunteers from those organizations distributed questionnaire forms to employees of the organizations and visitors and then collected the completed forms. It took one week to complete this step. In Arsenyevo, surveyors visited all buildings (approximately 250) mcluding houses, warehouses and an electric power plant, in random order. They asked all people they encountered to answer the questionnaire on the spot and then the personnel collected the forms from respondents. It took two days fromFrida y to Saturday.
41 4.1.7 Target Sample Size
Constraints originating in limited budgetary and resource material were the main factors in deciding the target sample size. The size was determined to be 100 (45 in Arsenyevo and 55 in Troitskoe). The main reasons were, in addition to resource constraints, 1) some statistical tests require more than 30 samples in each location and 2) the response rates in two locations were expected to be relatively low.
4.1.8 Response Rates
Table 7. Number of Questionnaire Forms. (Provided, Collected and Usable)
Number of Provided N. of Collected N. of Usable
Arsenyevo 45 42 (93.3%) 41(91.1%) Troitskoe 55 46 (83.6%) 45(81.8%) Total 100 88 (88%) 86 (86%)
In Arsenyevo, the personnel in charge of distribution and collection of the questionnaire forms contacted about 200 people and 45 people accepted the questionnaire forms and 42 people returned the questionnaire to the personnel. There were 41 usable forms out of 45 provided forms and, therefore, the response rate was 91.1% in Arsenyevo. In Troitskoe, the personnel distributed 55 questionnaire forms to organizations and public facilities and collected 46 forms. Usable forms were 45 and, therefore, the response rate in Troitskoe was 81.8%.
4.1.9 Data Analyses
Data analyses were done with computer software packages: SPSS 10.0 and Microsoft Excel 2000 with a few add-in software programs. Statistical tests and techniques such as t-tests, one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance), a K-means cluster analysis and statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group were applied- Missing values were excluded from data analyses. Therefore, missing values have been excluded from the reported percentages and tallies.
42 4.1.10 Limitations and Biases
In Troitskoe, questionnaire forms were distributed to people through organizations or public facilities. Therefore, people who have no contact with those organizations and facilities may not have had a chance to answer the questions. Although, help from the GMFA in this research was generally effective at enhancing locals' credibility; some people, who dislike the GMFA might have been uncomfortable with the help.
All participatory organizations and public facilities returned at least two questionnaire forms to the surveyors in Troitskoe. There was no specific difference in the characteristics between the organizations that returned all the questionnaire forms to the surveyors and organizations that did not return all forms to the surveyors. The difference was a degree of each volunteer's enthusiasm.
In Arsenyevo, four aliens (one Japanese, one Moscow Russian and two from Troitskoe) distributed and collected questionnaire forms to local people. Although local people were generally supportive and friendly, people who were skeptical of the survey and surveyors did not respond. An explanation on the cover letters, which was attached to the questionnaire forms, and conversation with locals reduced local people's suspicion. As a result, only 3 questionnaire forms were not returned to surveyors in Arsenyevo. The reason stated was lack of time to fill and return the forms. People who did not receive the forms were generally at work. There is no difference in the characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity and occupation) between the respondents and people who did not answer the questionnaire.
The most expected bias in this stage of the survey design was prestige bias about occupation and recognition of the GMF. For example, jobless people might not answer, "I am unemployed," to Ql, which asks, "What is your occupation?" in order to protect his or her prestige.22 Therefore, intentionally, the category Unemployed was not added to the answer choices of Ql. Another expected bias was that the respondents may answer " Yes" whether one actually knows about the GMF or not, to Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?"
22 According to the GMF website, the rate of unemployment ranges from 46 to 52% (GMF Website, n.d.), even though date of this data is unknown.
43 because the questionnaire is about the GMF. To reduce this prestige bias, the answer choice "A little bit" was added to answer choices of Q3. The answer choice was expected to keep the respondents who only had heard the name of the GMF or its programs from misrepresenting their knowledge with the answer, "I know what the GMF is."
Local people in the Nanaiski District are unaccustomed to questionnaire surveys concerned with social and marketing research. Therefore, some may not understand how to answer the questions, especially, questions with ranking and pointing. Tb reduce missing values due to the respondents' misunderstanding in Q2, "Which of the following issues are of concern to you?" which adopts rank ordering, an arbitrary pointing system in analyses was adopted (see 5.4).
Despite the above-biases and sampling methods, the results of this survey can reveal tendencies of local people's perception about the GMF. The reasons are: l) samples include local insiders of the GMF and local outsiders of the GMF and cover all types of people in the context of gender, occupation, age, ethnicity and academic background; 2) while samples were not random, subjects were never intentionally included or excluded, but rather were selected based solely on convenience! 3) there is no known reason for respondents to misrepresent the truth — they had little to gain or lose and 4) the result of the survey was not contradict with the result of the IMFNS Outcome Assessment 2000.
44 CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
45 5 RESULTS
5.1 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The total number of usable questionnaire forms was 86 (41 in Arsenyevo and 45 in Troitskoe). An approximately equal number of males and females responded to the survey. The dominant age group was 18-49, which made up about 73% of the respondents. The respondents consisted of Nanai (9 respondents, 10.5% of total), Russian (57, 66.3%), Udege (12, 14.0%) and other (8, 9.3%). About 71% of the respondents answered that they had some knowledge about the GMF. However, about 72% of the respondents answered that they do not consider themselves to be involved in any of the GMF.23 According to the results of a cluster analysis of Q6 (see 5.3.8), the respondents can be grouped into two clusters^ Negative and Indifferent. According to the result of Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" many of the respondents in Arsenyevo (40%) and Troitskoe (64.4%) do not have a clear idea of the GMF boundary. About 68% of the respondents had some information about the creation of the NP within the GMF and about 71% of the respondents who answered "Yes" to Q7, "Do you know about the new creation of the national park within the GMF?" regarded the future NP as having a positive influence in their lives. The most important issue for the entire group of respondents was Nature Conservation followed by Education, Forest Management, Fishery, Indigenous People's Culture, Small Business, Tourism, Gathering, Hunting, Other and Sawing Technology.
Section 5.2 initially deals with information of respondents, followed by results and analyses of Q3, Q5, Q 10, Q6, Q7, Q3, and lastly Q2.
5.2 INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS
5.2.1 Gender
The number of respondents is 86 (44 females and 42 males) in total, 41 (21 females and 20 males) in Arsenyevo and 45 (23 females and 22 males) in Troitskoe.
23 The questionnaire asked respondents' perception about involvement in the GMF. To screen the degree of involvement, questions (Q5a, b and c) were given to respondents those who answered to Q5, "Don't know." (See Appendix II for Q5a,b and c.)
46 • Female BMale
Figure 10. Number of Responses by Gender.
Approximately equal numbers of males and females responded to the survey in both locations: 51.2% and 48.8% in total, 51.2% and 48.8% in Arsenyevo and 51.1% and 48.9% in Troitskoe.
5.2.2 Age
The largest age group is 40-49 (30.2%), followed by 18-29 (23.3%), 30-39% (19.8%), 50-59 (10.5%), Under 18 (8.1%) and 60 or older (&!%).«
24 School age (grade 1 to 11, elementary, middle and high schooD is from 7 (or 6) to 17 years old. The compulsory education period is 9 years (elementary and middle). Pensioners are generally over 60 years old. However, there were some exceptional rules about the reception of a pension.
47 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Under18 • 18-29 1130-3 9 • 40-49 M50-59 I 160 or older
Figure 11. Proportion of the Respondents by Age.
Respondents under 30 years old can be categorized as so-called post-Soviet generations, who graduated from high school around or after 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Members of this generation had less experience with strict communist society than members of any other generatioa Respondents from 30 to 59 years can be categorized as the post-World War II generation. Members of this generation experienced a strong communist society and the Afghanistan War, which has been called "the Vietnam War for Russians." Respondents who are 60 years old or older belong to the World War II generation. Members of this generation experienced a tough era during and after the war. Members over 75 years may have served in military service during the war. Members of this generation, in short, "survivors of wars and political purges," may harbor strong communist ideologies. 25
523 Ethnicity
Russians, including Ukrainians or Belarussians with Russian nationality on their domestic passports, made up the majority of the respondents (66.3% of the total), followed by Udege (14.0%) and Nanai (10.5%).
25 However, it was hard to observe any specific ideological difference from the result of this survey.
48 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Nanai • Russian • Udege • Other
Figure 12. Proportion of the Respondents by Ethnicity.
The category Other contains Ukrainians (5 people), who distinguish themselves from Russians, an unknown who answered as Soviet citizen (1 person), Tatar (l), and an unknown who answered the Slave Principle (l).26 The category Other was generally omitted fromdat a analyses in this research to decrease the level of complexity.
Table 8. Breakdown of the Respondents by Location and Ethnicity.
Count sampling location Arsenyevo Troitskoe Total Nanai .00 9 9 Russian 24 33 57 Udege 12 .00 12 Other 5 3 8 Total 41 45 86
The majority of respondents in both locations were Russian (58.5% of the population in Arsenyevo and 73.3% in Troitskoe). Respondents that were Nanai were observed only in Troitskoe and respondents that were Udege were only in Arsenyevo.
The formal English name of the Slave Principle is unknown. The Slave Principle is a sect of Christianity.
49 5.2.4 Occupation
The category Other is the largest group of respondents (20.9%) followed by Private Business Sector (20.9%), Forest Industry and Education (17.4%), Public Servant (16.3%), and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer (5.8%).
Figure 13. Number of the Respondents by Occupation.
The category Other includes pensioners, students (school, undergraduate and post-graduate), unemployed people, housewives, musicians and others. In short, people who do not have a stable income are categorized as Other. The second largest group is Private Business Sector, which includes self-employed or business owners and employees of other businesses. The category Forest Industry includes forest workers from the forest service, loggers and workers in the sawmill (including office work), a security guard of a sawmill and a truck driver. In the same way, the category, Public Servant includes public servants from the provincial or district government administration and a police officer; the category Education includes teachers and a helper at a school; and the category Fisher/Hunter/Farmer includes a beekeeper.
50 Table 9. Breakdown of the Respondents by Occupation and Location.
Count Sampling Location Arsenyevo Troitskoe Total Forest Industry 8 7 15 Public Servant 3 11 14 Private Business Sector 6 12 18 Education 9 6 15 Fisher/Hunter/Farmer 5 .00 5 Other 10 9 19 Total 41 45 86
The largest group in Arsenyevo is Other and the largest group in Troitskoe is Private Business Sector. Respondents in the category of Fisher/Hunter/Farmer lived in Arsenyevo only.
5.2.5 Academic Background
The largest group is High School Graduate/College Graduate/Undergraduate Dropout (54.6%) foUowed by University Graduate/Graduate School (25.6%), School (17.4%) and Other (2.3%). Thus, approximately 80% of respondents have had some formal education(in high school or higher educational institutions).
51 15
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• School (Elementary and Middle) • HighGrad/ColledgeGrad/Undergrad Dropout D UniGraduate/Grad Student • Other
Figure 14. Number of the Respondents by Academic Background.
In Arsenyevo, academic background, High School Graduate/College Graduate/Undergraduate Dropout is the most common. On the other hand, the number of High School Graduate/College Graduate/Undergraduate Dropout and University Graduate/Graduate Student is the same and the most in Troitskoe.
Table 10. Breakdown of the Respondents by Academic Background and Location.
Count sampling location Arsenyevo Troitskoe Total Scrioolfeernentary+Middle) 10 5 15 HighGrad/ColledgeGrad/U 28 19 47 ndergrad Dropout UniGraduate/Grad Student 3 19 22 Other .00 2 2 Total 41 45 86
52 5.2 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE GASSINSKI MODEL FOREST
5.23 Q3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?
In this section, the details of the results of Q3, "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?" are analyzed. Q3 is a direct question about the perception of the GMF. The given choices were: "Yes," "No" and "A little bit." The results are analyzed by categories such as gender, age, ethnicity, occupation and location.
Error bars shown on graphs of 5.2.3 are 95% confidence intervals. If there is an overlap between error bars, it means there is no statistical difference at 95% confidence level.
5.23.1 Overall
Overall, 35.3% of the respondents (30 respondents) answered "Yes", 36.5% (31) answered "A little bit," and 28.2% (24) answered "No" to Q3, "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?" (see Figure 15).
30
• Yes llNo DA little bit
Figure 15. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?"
53 About 72% of the respondents ("Yes" and "A little bit") have some idea of the GMF. According to my field experience, the respondents who answered "A little bit" tend to know only the name of the GMF and many local people said they came to know about the GMF from articles in newspapers.
5.2.3.2 By Gender
The most frequentanswe r of males was "Yes" (21 respondents, 50% of male respondents), and the most frequent answer of females was "A little bit" (20 respondents, 46.5% of female). The number of the respondents who answered "No" is 14 females (32.6% of the female total) and 10 males (23.8% of the male total).
Female it 20
Male m UL i
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Yes BNo DA Little Bit
Figure 16. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Gender.
The total number of respondents, who answered "Yes" or "A little bit," is not significantly different between the genders (female 29 and male 32). The results reveal that 67.4% of females and 76.2% of males have some idea of the GMF. Therefore, approximately 23.8% of males and 32.6% of females do not know the GMF at all.
54 By statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, a difference was found. The male respondents tended to answer "Yes" more than female (see Figure 17).
0 20 40 60 80
Figure 17. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Gender.
5233 By Age
The answer "Yes" was the most frequent in the age groups 40-49 (56%) and 60 or older (57.1%). In other groups, the answer "A little bit" was the most frequent. (See Figure 18.)
55 Under18 124
18-29
30-39
40-49
50-59 2[3|4
60 or older WJ2
Total 31
20 40 60 80 100 Frequency
I Yes HINo • A Little Bit
Figure 18. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Age.
According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, there is no statistical difference between age groups at a 95% confidence level.
56 60 80 100
Figure 19. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Age.
523.4 By Ethnicity
The answer "Yes" is the most frequent answer in the category Russian and Other. "No" is the most frequent in Udege and "A little bit" is in Nanai (see Figure 20).
57 Nanai 131 5
Russian I 22|
Udege 1
Other 14)13
Total 31
20 40 60 80 100 Frequency
I Yes HNo DA Little Bit
Figure 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Ethnicity.
According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, there is no overlap of the 95% confidence intervals for Udege and Russians in "Yes" (see Figure 21). Thus, Russian respondents (n=56, 65.9% of the total respondents) tend to answer "Yes" more frequently than the Udege (n=12, 14.1% of the total).
58 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
%
Figure 21. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Ethnicity.
There is no statistical difference among answers from all ethnic groups if "Yes" and "A little bit" are regarded as one category. Members of all ethnic groups have some idea of the GMF.
5.23.5 By Occupation
More than half of the respondents in the categories of Forest Industry (n=15) and Public Servant (n=13) answered "Yes" even though less than 40% of the respondents in other categories answered "Yes." It can be assumed that respondents in the categories of Public Servant and Forest Industry have more opportunities to have contact with the GMF program in their duties. The respondents who answered "Yes" and "A little bit" make up more than 50% of respondents in each occupational category.
59 Frequency • Yes HNo OA Little Bit
Figure 22. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Occupation.
According to Figure 23, the respondents who answered "Yes" in Education are statistically less frequent than respondents who answered "Yes" in the Public Servant category and in the Forest Industry category. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, the respondents in Education are more likely to answer "A little bit." As mentioned in the background, the Information Center of the GMF has conducted educational activities such as installation of information boards about the GMF in local schools and communication programs for school kids in collaboration with schoolteachers. The respondents in the category of Education may not appreciate those activities.
60 Forest Industry
Public Servant
Private Business Sector
Education
Fisher/Hunter/Farmer
Other
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Figure 23. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Occupation.
5.23.6 By Location
Fifteen respondents from Arsenyevo (36.6%) and nine respondents from Troitskoe (20.5%) answered "No" to the question, "Do you know anything about the GMF' This result suggested that 73.4% of respondents in Arsenyevo ("Yes" and "A little bit") and 79.5% of respondents of Troitskoe ("Yes" and "A little bit") have at least some idea of the GMF.
61 Arsenyevo IE | 19
Troitskoe 23 j 12
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Yes HI No DA Little Bit
Figure 24. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Location.
According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, respondents from Arsenyevo (the only inside village of the GMF) are less likely to answer "Yes" than respondents of Troitskoe (an outside village and center of the district) (see Figure 25). In the proportion of the respondents who answered "No," there is no statistical difference between both locations at a 95% confidence interval.
62 17.1 Arsenyevo
52.3 Troitskoe
0 20 40 60 80 %
Figure 25. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Location.
52.4 05. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?
Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" is a question about local people's perception about themselves in the GMF. Answer choices for this question are: "Yes," "No" and "Don't know."
Error bars shown on graphs of 5.2.4 are 95% confidence intervals. If there is an overlap between error bars, it means there is no statistical difference at a 95% confidence level.
5.2.4.1 Overall
In contrast to the results of Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" which are that 34.9% of the respondents in Q3 clearly know about the GMF and 36% of the respondents know a little bit about the GMF, 61 respondents (71.8% of the total) answered "No" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?' Only 17% of the respondents answered "Yes." These results mean that the majority, more than 70% of the respondents, do not consider themselves to be involved in the GMF.
63 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Yes • No • Don't know
Figure 26. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"
52.42 By Gender
Only 4 female respondents (9.1% of female total) and 11 male respondents (26.8% of male total) answered "Yes." On the contrary, 36 female respondents (81.8% of female) and 25 male respondents (61.0% of male) answered "No." (See Figure 27.)
Female a
Male KB & '
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
• Yes 11 No B Don't know
Figure 27. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Gender.
64 According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, there is no gap observed between 95% confidence intervals of female and male. In short, there is no statistical difference in answering "No" to Q5.
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Figure 28. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Gender.
52.43 By Age
In all age groups, the most frequent answer was "No." The proportion of "No" ranges from 64.7% to 100%. There were no respondents, who answered either "Yes" or "Don't know" in the 50-59 age group.
65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency
• Yes • No • Don't know
Figure 29. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Age.
According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, there is no gap between 95% confidence intervals. In Figure 30, there were no statistical differences (in "No") observed between 95% confidence intervals of all age groups excluding the 50-59 age group. The 50-59 age group was excluded because 100% meant that it was mathematically impossible to construct a confidence interval.
66 60 or
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Figure 30. Proportion of Response No to the Question," Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Age.
5.2.4.5 By Ethnicity
The most frequent answer in all of the ethnic groups was "No." The percentage of "No" in each ethnic group ranges from 66.7% to 73.2%.
67 Nanai
Russian
Udege 2§8§
Other 2|6|
Total •151
20 40 60 80 100 Frequency
I Yes UNo H Don't know
Figure 31. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Ethnicity.
There are no statistical differences observed in the answers by statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group.
66.7
73.2
66.7 H
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 %
Figure 32. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Ethnicity.
68 5.2.4.6 By Occupation
"No" was the most common answer in all categories except Forest Industry and Fisher/ Hunter/Farmer. The most frequent answer in Forest Industry was "Yes" (46.7%) because many of respondents in the Forest Industry category are supposed to be the GMF insiders.
Forest Industry
Public Servant
Private Business Sector
Education
-
Fisher/Hunter/Farmer 2 [l | 2
-
Other
10 15 20 Frequency I Yes • No • Don't know
Figure 33. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Occupation.
According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, respondents in the categories of Private Business Sector, Education and Other are less likely to be involved in the GMF than respondents in the categories of Forest Industry and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer (see Figure 34). Respondents in the Forest Industry category seem to have close contact with the GMFs projects and activities.
69 Forest Industry
Public Servant
Private Business Sector
Education
Fisher/Hunter/Farmer
Other
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 %
Figure 34. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Occupation.
52.4.7 By Location
"No" is the most common answer in Arsenyevo (73.2%) and Troitskoe (70.5%) (see Figure 35).
70 Troiskoe
Arsenyevo
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Frequency
I Yes • No • Don't know
Figure 35. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Location.
There is no statistical difference between in Arsenyevo and Troitskoe at a 95% confidence level by statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group (see Figure 36 as an example).
73.2 Arsenyevo
70.5 Troitskoe
0 20 40 60 80 100 %
Figure 36. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Location.
71 5.2.5 Q10. Do you live in the territory of the GMF?
Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" was to know respondents' recognition of the GMF boundary. Arsenyevo is the only village within the GMF and Troitskoe is an outside town.
Table 11. Q 10. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you Live in the Territory of the GMF?" by Location.
Count Sampling Location Arsenyevo Troitskoe Total Q10. Do you live Yes 24 17 41 in the teritorry of No 7 16 23 the GMF? Not sure 9 12 21 Total 40 45 85
According to Table 11, more than half of respondents in Arsenyevo, the only inside village, answered "Yes." However, 37.8% of respondents in Troitskoe, an outside town, also answered "Yes," which is a wrong answer to Q10. This result infers many of local people may not have a clear idea of the GMF boundary because of insufficient information.
72 5.2.6 Local People's Perception about the GMF
Q6. For each of the Following statements on the GMF, please circle the appropriate response.
a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment. b. The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making on issues related to daily life. c. The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia. d. The GMF is democratic. e. The GMF is based on partnership. f. The GMF was initiated by Russia. g. The GMF is a non-governmental organization. h. The GMF is part of an international network. i. The GMF earns money from logging. j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life, k. The GMF is bureaucratic.
Answer choices are:
1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree
Question 6 applies a five-point-interval Likert scale to assess respondents' levels of agreement on phrases given in questions 6a to 6k. Phrases are listed from Q6a to Q6k in random order.
In Section 5.2.6 and 5.2.7, each phrase of Q6 from a to k are categorized into four groups: "Impact," "Knowledge," "Image" and "Image/Knowledge." The category Impact includes Q6a, b, and j. The category "Knowledge includes Q6e, f, g and h. Image includes Q6d and k. Q6c and i can be categorized as Image/Knowledge.
The correlations between the responses to each phrase of questions of Q6 can reveal relationships between phrases in four categories and within the category (see 5.2.7).
Note: Error Bars on Graphs in 5.2.6
Error bars on the graphs of section 5.2.6 are 95% confidence intervals for each mean. If
73 there is an overlap between 95% confidence intervals for mean, it does not immediately mean there is no statistical difference between phrases at a 95% confidence leveL It is because one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and T-tests are adopted in examining results of this section at a 95% confidence level and the ANOVA results have priority to results shown in all graphs of this section because confidence intervals (error bars) are constructed in a different manner and less accurate than ANOVA results.
52.6.1 Overall
All means and 95% confidence intervals in Q6 range between 2 to 4. None of them are in either the zone of "strongly agree" (1-2) or the zone of "strongly disagree" (4-5) (see Figure 37).
3.53
H 2.94
Strongly Agree > < Strongly Disagree
Figure 37. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6).
74 As shown in Table 12, when the results of Q6 are grouped into three: General Agreement (<3), Neutral (Approximately 3) and General Disagreement (>3), the majority group is "General Agreement," which includes Q6c, e, g, h and i.
Table 12. Grouping of Phrases (Q6) by General Agreement Level into "General Agreement," "Neutral," and "General Disagreement."
General General Agreement Neutral Disagreement «3) (Approx. 3) (>3)
Q6c, e, g, h and i. Q6b, d, f and k. Q6a and j.
5.2.6.1.1 General Agreement (<3)
Members of the group, General Agreement, are Q6c, e, g, h and i. These questions in this group can be categorized as Knowledge or Knowledge/Image (see 5.2.6). This result implies that respondents of this group generally have the knowledge needed to agree these questions.
The details of members of this group are as follows:
Q6c. The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia. (Knowledge/Image)
Q6c is a question about the social status and image of the GMF and knowledge about the GMF governance. The mean for Q6c is 2.43 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.24 to 2.62. Therefore, respondents tend to agree with the phrase Q6c.
Q6e. The GMF is based on partnership. (Knowledge)
Q6e is a question concerning knowledge about the GMFs governance. The mean is 2.39 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.22 to 2.55. The respondents generally agree with the phrase.
75 Q6g. The GMF is a non-governmental organization. (Knowledge)
Q6g is a question about the GMFs governance. The mean is 2.67 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.48 and 2.86. Respondents tend to agree with the phrase.
Q6h. The GMF is part of an international network. (Knowledge)
Q6h is a question about the GMFs governance. The mean is 2.31 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.11 to 2.52. Respondents tend to agree with the phrase. The existence of the Canadian House in Troitskoe may work to advertise the international ties.
Q6i. The GMF earns money from logging. (Knowledge/Image)
Q6i is a question about the financialbasi s of the GMF. The phrase, "the GMF earns money from logging," is not true. The mean of Q6i is 2.56 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.33 to 2.79. About half of the respondents (53.8%) agreed with the wrong phrase. This fact implies that the information about GMFs financialbasi s is not sufficiently announced to local people and misinformation is given to locals by the GMF.
5.2.6.1.2 Neutral (Approximately 3)
Members of the group, Neutral, are Q6b, Q6d, Q6f and Q6k. This group consists of one from the Impact category, two from the Image category and one from the Knowledge category. The common characteristic of the members is, in particular, that those agreement levels may be dependent on the amount and quality of information. It can be assumed that the amount of information is not sufficient to make clear decisions about these questions.
The details of members of this group are as follows^
Q6b. The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making on issues related to daily life. (Impact)
The mean is 3.19 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.96 to 3.42. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents tend to have no idea about the phrase Q6b or tend to slightly
76 disagree with the phrase. It can be assumed that the respondents do not have sufficient information to make a judgment on Q6b.
Q6d. The GMF is democratic. (Image)
According to the background information, the GMF is supposed to be democratic. Q6d asked about respondents' perception of this point: whether the GMF is democratic or not. The mean is 2.86 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.67 to 3.04. This may suggest that the respondents tend to agree with the phrase of Q6d. However, insufficient information disclosure about the GMF governance and activities is assumable from the fact that missing value counts 8 (9.3%) and 45 respondents (52.3%) circled "Neither agree nor disagree" in Q6d.
Q6f. The GMF was initiated by Russia. (Knowledge)
Q6f is about the GMFs history. The mean is 3.06 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.9 to 3.22. The respondents in this question tend to have no idea. Missing value counts 8 (9.3%).
Q6k. The GMF is bureaucratic. (Image)
Q6k is about the image of the GMF governance. The mean is 2.94 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.75 to 3.14. The respondents in Q6k tend to have no idea about the phrase. Insufficient information may present that the GMF program from being strongly connected. Missing value counts 8 (9.3%).
5.2.6.1.3 General Disagreement ( >3)
Q6a and j belong to the group, General Disagreement. These questions can be categorized as Impact. Respondents generally regard the GMF as having a negative impact on their lives.
The details of members of this group are as follows:
77 Q6a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment. (Impact)
The mean for Q6a is 3.29 and the lower point of the 95% confidence interval is above the neutral point 3. The respondents tend to disagree with the phrase. According to the result of Q5 (see 5.2.4), approximately 70% of all respondents answered "No" and, therefore, it is assumable that the result in Q6a is appropriate.
Q6j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. (Impact)
Q6j is about the impact of the GMF on respondents' lives. The mean is 3.53 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 3.29 to 3.77. The respondents tend to disagree with the phrase. This result suggests that l) the GMF does not provide sufficient information concerning local's life and 2) respondents regard information provided by the GMF as useless information.
5.2.6.2 By Location
In Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network," there is a statistical difference between respondents from Troitskoe and Arsenyevo (t-test, a =0.05). According to Figure 38, the respondents from Troitskoe are generally more agreeable than the respondents from Arsenyevo. With the exception of Q6h, there are no statistical differences, which stem from location, at a 95% confidence level.
78 —13.33 6a —13.25 H 3.29
-<3.13 6b 3.19 3.23 H 2.5 6c -12.38 ••2.43
H2.9 6d H2.83 2.86 H2.53 6e H2.28 —I 2.39
H2.9 6f H 3.18 l.., v.;;.;:.:.,...... —•3.06 H 2.83 6g H 2.55 —'2.67 H2.57 6h H 2.13 2.31 H2.6 6i —I 2.53 12.56
H3.4 3.63 '3.53 —I 2.88
H 3.03 H2.94
1 4 5 Strongly Agree> Figure 38. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Location. 79 52.63 By Ethnicity A statistical difference among ethnic groups is found in Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network," by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD). The difference is between Nanai and Udege (ANOVA, a =0.05). With the exception of Q6h, there are no statistical differences, which stem from ethnicity, at a 95% confidence level. 80 2.75 H3.45 ^ 3.11 -i 3.13 6b HIllllilllBUfll H 3.28 2.25 H2.51 H 2.44 •i 2.88 6d ^.83 H3 1.88 6e H2.45 2.56 .2.88 13.22 H3.33 13.71 1 2 Strongly Agree> • Nanai • Russian • Udege Figure 39. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Ethnicity. 81 5.2.6.4 By Gender There is a statistical difference between female and male respondents in Q6a, The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment," (independent samples t-test, a =0.05). Female respondents agree less with the phrase given in Q6a. With the exception of Q6a, there are no statistical differences, which stem from gender, at a 95% confidence level. 82 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Strongly Agree> • Female IS Male Figure 40. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Gender. 83 5.2.6.5 By Age No statistical difference between age groups was observed by the ANOVA (a =0.05). According to Figure 41, the confidence intervals of the under-18 age group and the 60-or-over age group are two of the widest in each phrase of Q6 with some exceptions. It is due to small number of samples, 7 for both age groups. 84 Figure 41. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Age. 85 5.2.6.6 By Occupation There is a statistical difference between Education and Forest Industry in QGj, "The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life" (ANOVA, a =0.05). This result means that respondents in the Forest Industry category is more agreeable with the phrase in Q6j and implies that the respondents in the category of Education feel that the amount of information from the GMF is insufficient and information provided by the GMF is not of use. 86 2.9 H3.08 H 3.64 Q6a 3.55 H 3.4 H3.18 2.9 -13.08 Q6b H 3.5 »3.2 "*3.55 2.94 H2.1 )2.31 86 Q6c -12.5 T 'l 'l I'ji'i' I I Yi ilYl m'i'i" ' i ' '„ ,, '. ,, fTT ^.4 Q6d Q6e Q6f Q6g 12.6 Q6h Q6i 3.14 H3.$7 Q6j H4.08 |3.17 13.21 12.95 Q6k a.83 H2.76 2.8 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Strongly Agree> Figure 42. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Academic Background. 87 5.2.6.7 Breakdown of 06 by Q3 "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?" (ANOVA and Tukev's HSD) The purpose of the breakdown of the results of Q6 by the results of Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" is to understand differences between the groups categorized by answers of Q3 on knowledge level of the GMF, "Yes," "No" and "A little bit." For example, the group of "Yes" in Q3, whose members know something about the GMF, may have a different tendency in agreement levels with each phrase of Q6. ANOVA and Tukev's HSD were used for analysis. As a result, five differences were observed. (1) The first difference is between "Yes" and "A little bit" of Q3 in Q6a, "The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6a than respondents of "A little bit" (mean difference = -0.55). In short, respondents who clearly know about the GMF tend to regard the GMF as positive more than respondents who answered "A little bit." (2) The second difference is between "Yes" and "No" of Q3 in Q6c, "The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia"(ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6c more than respondents of "No" (mean difference = -0.75). In short, respondents who have a clear idea of the GMF tend to regard the GMF as a new type of organization. (3) The third difference is between "Yes" and "No" of Q3 in Q6e, "The GMF is based on partnership" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6e more than respondents of "No" in Q3 (mean difference = -0.54). In short, the respondents of "Yes" in Q3 have knowledge about governance of the GMF more than the respondents of "No" in Q3. 88 (4) The fourth difference is between "Yes" and "No" of Q3 in Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 more tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6h than respondents of "No" (mean difference = -0.82). In short, the respondents "Yes" in Q3 have knowledge about governance of the GMF more than the respondents "No" in Q3. (5) The fifth difference is between "Yes" and " A little bit" of Q3 in Q6j, "The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6c than respondents of "A little bit/' (mean difference = -0.70). The respondents who have a clear idea of the GMF tend to regard the GMF as positive more than the respondents who know a little bit about the GMF. 5.2.6.8 Breakdown of Q6 by 05 "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"(ANOVA and Tukev's HSD) In the same way as above 5.2.6.7, the results of Q6 were broken down by the results of Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" Answer choices of Q5 were "Yes," "No" and "Don't know." As a result, three differences are observed in Q6a, Q6b and Q6j. (1) In Q6a, "The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment," there are differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know." The mean differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know" of Q5 are significantly different (ANOVA, a =0.05). The group of "Yes" of Q5 is more likely to agree with the phrase Q6a than groups of "No" and "Don't know" of Q5. In short, respondents who are involved in the GMF tend to have a positive impact on themselves. (2) In Q6b, "The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making 89 on issues related to daily life," there are differences between "Yes" and "No" of Q5. The mean difference between "Yes" and "No" of Q5 is significantly different (ANOVA, a =0.05). The group of "Yes" of Q5 is more likely to agree with the phrase Q6b than the group of "No" of Q5. (3) In Q6c, "The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia," there are differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know" of Q5. The mean differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know" of Q5 are significantly different (ANOVA, a =0.05). The group of "Yes" of Q5 more likely agrees with the phrase given in Q6c than groups of "No" and "Don't know" of Q5. 5.2.7 Correlations between Questions in 06 (Kendall's tau b) As a result, nine strong correlations (correlation coefficient more than 0.4) were observed: a-j, b-d, b-j, b-k, c-d, c-e, d-e, e-h and j-k. (See Table 13.) 90 Table 13. Kendall's tau_b Correlation on Phrases from Q6. Q6a Q6b Q6c Q6d Q6e Q6f Q6g Q6h Q6i Q6j Q6k Q6a Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .377** .270*1 .331*1 .235* .132 .00 .151 -.1 .444*1 -.228* Sig .000 .006 .001 .018 .192 .985 .123 .132 .000 .022 (2-tailed) N 82 81 79 78 80 78 81 79 78 79 78 Q6b Correlation .569** Coefficient .377** 1.00 .332*1 .425*1 .345*1 .009 .019 .069 -.1 -.484*= Sig. .000 .001 .000 .000 .926 .844 .482 .255 .000 .000 (2-tailed) N 81 81 79 77 80 78 80 78 77 78 78 Q6c Correlation Coefficient .270** .332*1 1.000 .458*1 .485*1 -.011 .332*1 .390*1 .025 .373*1 -.331*' Sig .006 .001 .000 .000 .914 .001 .000 .805 .000 .001 (2-tailed) N 79 79 79 76 79 77 79 77 76 77 77 Q6d Correlation Coefficient .331*1 .425*1 .458*1 1.000 .425*1 .027 .113 .244* .065 .358*1 -.335*= Sig .001 .000 .000 .000 .796 .264 .016 .525 .000 .001 (2-tailed) N 78 77 76 78 i 77 76 78 77 75 76 75 Q6e Correlation Coefficient .235* .345*1 .485*1 .425*1 1.000 -.073 .218* .427** .063 .256* -.283*= Sig .018 .000 .000 .000 .482 .030 .000 .535 .010 .006 (2-tailed) N 80 80 79 77 80 78 80 78 77 78 78 Q6f Correlation .132 Coefficient .009 -.011 .027 -.073 1.000 -.12 .003 .196 .077 .050 Sig. .192 .926 .914 .796 .482 .236 .977 .055 .448 .627 (2-tailed) N 78 78 77 76 78 78 78 76 75 76 77 Q6g Correlation Coefficient -.002 .019 .332*1 .113 .218* -.120 1.00 .167 .0 .119 -.157 Sig .985 .844 .001 .264 .030 .236 .091 .879 .219 .117 (2-tailed) N 81 80 79 78 80 78 81 79 78 79 78 Q6h Correlation Coefficient .151 .069 .390*1 .244* .427*1 .003 .167 1.00 .0 .149 -.203* Sig .123 .482 .000 .016 .000 .091 (2-tailed) .977 .776 .128 .046 N 79 78 77 77 78 76 79 79 76 77 76 Q6i Correlation Coefficient -.148 -.11 .025 .065 .063 .196 -.02 -.03 1.0 -.10 .208* Sig. .132 .255 .805 .525 .535 .055 .879 .039 (2-tailed) .776 .306 N 78 77 76 75 77 75 78 76 78 77 76 Q6j Correlation Coefficient .444** .569*1 .373*1 .358*1 .256* .077 .119 .149 -.1 1.00 -.434*' Sig .000 .000 .000 .000 .010 .448 .219 .128 .306 .000 (2-tailed) N 79 78 77 76 78 76 79 77 77 79 77 Q6k Correlation Coefficient -.228* -.48*1 -.331*1 -.335*1 -.283*1 .050 -.16 -.20* .208* -.43*1 1.000 Sig. .022 .000 (2-tailed) .001 .001 .006 .627 .117 .046 .039 .000 N 78 78 77 75 78 77 78 76 76 77 78 **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). 91 5.2.7.1 Correlation between 06a and i (Correlation coefficient - 0.444) and between Q6j and k (-0.434) Q6a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment Q6j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. Q6k. the GMF is bureaucratic. Both of Q6a and j belong to the Impact category of the GMF on the respondents (see 5.2.6). The correlation between Q6a and j infers that the more positive the impact the respondents experienced, the more useful information the respondents have received. In short, respondents who have a sufficient access to useful information given by the GMF may evaluate the GMF highly. The correlation between Q6j and k infers that the respondents who are given a lot of useful information by the GMF are less likely to regard the GMF as bureaucratic. 5.2.7.2 Correlations between b and d (Correlation coefficient = 0.425), b and K0.569), b and k(-0.484) Q6b. the GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making on issues related to daily life. Q6d. The GMF is demographic. Q6j. the GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. Q6k. the GMF is bureaucratic. Correlation between Q6b and d infer that the respondents who think an equal opportunity is given to all stakeholders by the GMF think the GMF is democratic. Therefore, it can be assumed that the respondents regard providing an equal opportunity as a condition of democracy. Correlation between Q6b and j implies that the respondents, who have more opportunities to influence decision-making, have more information than others. 92 Correlation between Q6b and k whose correlation coefficient is negative implies the respondents think that giving an equal opportunity to all stakeholders makes the GMF less bureaucratic. 5.2.73 Correlations between Q6c and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.458), c and e (0.485) Q6c. The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia. Q6d. The GMF is demographic. Q6e. The GMF is based on partnership. Correlation between Q6c and d implies that the respondents who think the GMF is a new type of organization regard the GMF as democratic. In short, this result implies that respondents who have good knowledge and image about the GMF tend to have a democratic image of the GMF. Correlation between Q6c and e implies that respondents who regard the GMF as a new type of organization tend to know the GMF is based on partnership. In short, the correlation infers the respondents who regard the GMF as new tend to have knowledge about the GMF partnership. 5.2.7.4 Correlations between Q6d and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.425) and Q6e and h (0.427) Q6d. The GMF is democratic. Q6e. The GMF is based on partnership. Q6h. the GMF is part of an international network. Q6e and h in the category Knowledge, is about the GMF governance. Correlation between Q6d and e infers that the respondents who agree with the phrase, "The GMF is democratic/' tend to know about the GMF partnership. Correlation between Q6e and h implies that the respondents who know about the GMF partnership tend to know about the international partnership. 93 5.2.7.5 Characteristic of 06k in Correlation Q6k, "The GMF is bureaucratic," has a negative correlation efficient with all other phrases of Q6 except Q6g, "The GMF is a non-governmental organization" and Q6i "The GMF earns money from logging." This characteristic suggests that less bureaucracy make the phrases of Q6(a, b, c, d, e, h and j) more agreeable. The perception of the bureaucracy of the GMF can be a key factor (determinant) of the respondents' attitude in evaluating the GMF. 5.2.8 Cluster Analysis According to SPSS Inc. (1996:149), "cluster analysis is a multivariate procedure for finding groups of similar cases in a file." K-means cluster analysis of the SPSS 10.0 was applied for this research. Final cluster centers of Cluster 1 of Table 14 range from 2 (agree) to 4 (disagree). The cluster center of Clusterl in Q6a "The GMF has had a positive impact on my life" and b "The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making issues related to daily life" is 4, "disagree." The high agreement level in Q6a and b is generally regarded as a negative evaluation of the GMF. In the same way, the cluster center of Cluster 1 in Q6i, "The GMF earns money from logging" and Q6k, "The GMF is bureaucratic," is 2, "agree". Q6i is the wrong information about the GMF, and the expression "bureaucratic" in Q6k is generally regarded as negative. To sum up, Cluster 1 can be categorized as being "Negative." On the other hand, cluster centers of Cluster 2 range from 2 to 3. The cluster centers of Cluster 2 in Q6c, e and h are 2, "agree." Q6c, "The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia," Q6e, "The GMF is based on partnership," and Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network, " are about governance of the GMF. In other phrases in Q6 cluster center of Cluster 2 is 3, "neither agree nor disagree." Therefore, Cluster 2 can be categorized as being "Indifferent." 94 Table 14. Final Cluster Centers. Cluster 1 2 Q6a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life 4 3 since its est. Q6b. The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence 4 3 decision-making on issues related to daily life. Q6c. The GMF a new type Q n pf organization in Russia. 0 L Q6d. The GMF is 1 o democratic. 0 o Q6e. The GMF is based on <5 A partnership. O z Q6f. The GMF was initiated by Russia. o J Q6g. The GMF is a non-governmental 3 3 organization. Q6h. The GMF is part of an Q o international network. O L Q6i. The GMF earns money O O from logging. £. O Q6j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to 4 3 improve my life. Q6k. The GMF is o bureaucratic. i. 3 As shown in Table 15, 16 and 17, Cluster 1 and 2 were segmented by responses of Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" and Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" and occupations to group members of each cluster. The purpose is to reveal characteristics of each cluster's membership in responses of Q3 and Q5 and occupations. Table 15. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" Count Cluster Num ber of Case 1 2 Total Q3. Do you know anything Yes 7 19 26 about the Gassinski Model N0 11 7 18 FOREST? A little bit 15 10 25 Total W 35 69 95 According to Table 15 and statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, members of Cluster 2 (Indifferent), are more likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than members of Cluster 1 (Negative) are. Table 16. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" Count Cluster Number of Case 1 2 Total Q5. Do you consider Yes 2 11 13 N yourself to be involved Q 29 20 49 in any of the GMF? ' know Don t 3 4 7 Total 34 35 69 According to Table 16 and statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, members of Cluster 2 (Negative), tend more negatively to answer Q5 than members of Cluster 2 (Indifferent). Table 17. Cluster Membership by Occupation. Count Cluster Number of Case 1 2 Total Ql. What is Forest Industry 3 7 10 your Public Servant 5 8 13 occupation? Private Business Sector 7 7 14 Education 8 3 11 Fisher/Hunter/Farmer 2 3 5 Other 9 8 17 Total 34 36 70 In Table 17, more members in the categories of Forest Industry, Public Servant and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer belong to Cluster 2 (Indifferent). More members of the Education category belong to Clusterl (Negative). 96 The characteristics of members of Cluster 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 18. Table 18. Characteristics of Members from Cluster 1 and. Cluster 2. Cluster 1, "Negative." Cluster 2, Indifferent." • The number of members of Cluster 1 is • The number of members of Cluster 2 is 34 (48.6% of the total number of valid 36 (51.4% of the total number of valid samples, 70). samples, 70). • Sixteen members of Cluster 1 are from • Fourteen members of Cluster 2 are from Arsenyevo and 18 fromTroitskoe . Arsenyevo and 22, fromTroitskoe . • The number of female members is 18 • The number of female members is 17 and male, 16. and male, 19. • The cluster consists of 3 Nanai people, • This cluster consists of 5 Nanai people, 27 Russians and 3 Udege people. 20 Russians and 6 Udege people. • More respondents in Cluster 1 • More respondents who belong to Cluster answered "No" to Q5, "Do you consider 2 answered "Yes" to the Q3, "Do you yourself to be involved in any of the know anything about the GMF?" than GMF?" than the respondents in respondents belonging to Cluster 1. Cluster 2 did. • More respondents in the categories of • More respondents in the Education Forest Industry and Public Servant category belong to Cluster 1. belong to Cluster 2. 97 5.3 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARK 53.1 07. Do you know about the new creation of a National Park within the GMF? 53.1.1 Overall The most frequent answer to Q7, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" on wanting to know the NP establishment was "Yes" (36 responses) followed by "No" (27) and "I have heard something" (22). 27 0% 50% 100% M Yes a I have heard something. • No Figure 43. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" According to Figure 43, the group of "Yes" and "I have heard something" makes up 68% of the total valid counts of respondents. The percentage, 68%, is as high as that of "Yes" and "A little bit" to Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" (about 72%) and suggests that many people have some idea about the NP establishment. 53.1.2 By Gender More than a half of both female and male respondents answered "Yes" (36.4% of female and 98 48.8% of male) or "I have heard something" (27.3% of female and 24.4% of male). Table 19. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Gender. Count Q11. What is your gender? Female Male Total Q7. Do you know about Yes 16 20 36 the creation of a NP I have heard something. 12 10 22 within the GMF? No 16 11 27 Total 44 41 85 No statistical differences are observed between the properties of males and females at a 95% confidence level. 53.13 By Ethnicity More than half of respondents of all ethnic groups answered "Yes" or "I have heard something" (66.7% of Nanai, 69.6% of Russian, and 50% of Udege). Table 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Ethnicity. Count Q13. Do you consider yourself to be? Nanai Russian Udege Other Total Q7. Do you know • Yes 5 23 3 5 36 the creation of a t t have heard some 1 16 3 2 22 within the GMF? Nq 3 17 6 1 27 Total 9 56 12 8 85 No statistical differences are observed between the properties of each ethnic group at a 95% confidence level. 99 53.1.4 By Location The majority of respondents in both locations (60.0% of the respondents in Arsenyevo and 75.6% of the respondents in Troitskoe) answered "Yes" or "I have heard something" and thus have an idea of the NP establishment. Table 21. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Location. Count Sampling Location Arsenyevo Troitskoe Total Q7. Do you know about Yes 15 21 36 the creation of a NP I have heard something. 9 13 22 within the GMF? No 16 11 27 Total 40 45 85 No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Arsenyevo and Troitskoe at a 95% confidence level. 53.2 Q8. If you answered "Yes" to 07, do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? 53.2.1 Overall The number of respondents who answered "Yes" was 25, which was larger than that of "No," 10 (see Figure 44). 100 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% • Yes B No Figure 44. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? More than 70% of the respondents who answered "Yes" to Q7, "Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF? " think the future NP will have a positive impact on their lives. According to Q9, "If you answered No to Question 7 or either Yes or No to Question 8, please state the reason," which required descriptive responses, the reason why the respondents answered "Yes" to Q8 was mostly that the NP would help nature conservation. 5322 Bv Gender About 72% of the respondents to Q8, 73.3% of the female respondents and 70% of the male respondents think the future NP will make their lives better. Table 22. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Gender. Count Oil. What is your gender? Female Male Total Q8. If you answered Yes Yes to Q7, do you think that a 11 14 25 new NP will have positive Nc- impact on your life? 4 10 Total J5_ _2P_ 35 101 No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Female and Male at a 95% confidence level. 533.3 By Ethnicity More than 60% of the respondents to Q8 (80.0% of Nanai respondents, 63.6% of Russian respondents, and 66.7% of Udege respondents) regard the establishment of the future NP as preferable. Table 23. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Ethnicity. Count Q13. Do vou consider yourself to be? Nanai Russian Udege Other Total Q8. If you answered Yes Yes to Q7, do you think that a 4 14 2 5 25 new NP will have positive No impact on your life? 1 8 1 10 Total 5 22 3 5 35 No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Nanai, Russian and Udege at a 95% confidence level. 53.2.4 By Location The majority of the respondents (78.6% in Arsenyevo, 66.7% in Troitskoe and 71.4% in total) answered "Yes." Table 24. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Location. Count Sampling Location Arsenyevo Troitskoe Total Q8. If you answered Yes Yes to Q7, do you think that a 11 14 25 new NP will have positive No impact on your life? 3 7 10 Total 14 21 35 102 No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Arsenyevo and Troitskoe at a 95% confidence level. 5.4 QUESTIONS ABOUT LOCAL CONCERNS 5.4.1 Local People's Concerns in Daily Life Q2. Which of hie following issues are of concern to you? (Rank the top 3 issues from 1 to 3, with one being the issue of greatest concern.) Forest management, Nature conservation, Sawing technology. Fishery, Education, Indigenous people's culture, Tourism, small business, Hunting, Gathering, Other (Please specify) In Question 2 the respondents were required to rank the 3 issues of highest concern from 11 choices. In the procedure of coding, points (rank 1 = 3 points, rank2 = 2 points and rank3 = 1 point) were given to each answer. The common problems27 in ranking with respondents are: l) respondents often forget to rank and just check answers; 2) respondents rank only 1 or 2 choices; and 3) respondents check more than 3 answers. Solutions for these problems adopted for this research project are: l) when they checked a number of responses, 2 points were given to each question! 2) when they ranked issues correctly, 3 points were given to rank land 2 points to rank 2; and 3) if a respondent checked four choices, 1.5 points were given to each answer and if a respondent checked five choices, 1.2 points were given to each. Points in this section are arbitrary and therefore the scale on the graph is meaningless. However, it does give a sense of what the most important issues are. Statistical tests are not performed in Q2, because of the arbitrary nature of the points. 5.4.1.1 Overall The concern Nature Conservation won the largest amount of points (110.2) followed by 27 The problem was observed with about 25% of respondents. 103 Education (87.7), Forest Management (61.2), Fishery (48.2), Indigenous People's Culture (35), Small Business (34), Tourism (29.5), Gathering (19.2), Hunting (17), Other (ll) and Sawing Technology (7). Forest Management Nature Conservation Sawing Technology Fishery Education Indigenous People's Culture Tourism Small Business at™ Hunting Gathering Other 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Points Figure 45. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points. The top four concerns, Nature Conservation, Education, Forest Management, and Fishery scored more than 40 points, which were much more than the other choices. It is, therefore, assumed that these four topics are key daily life concerns of locals. 5.4.12 By Location The rank 1 concern in Arsenyevo is Nature Conservation (48.2 points) followed by Education (rank 2,36.2 points), Fishery (rank 3, 32.2 points), Forest Management (rank 4, 31.2 points), Small Business (rank 5, 16 points), Indigenous People's Culture (rank 6, 15 points), Gathering (rank 7, 12.2 points), Hunting (rank 8, 11 points), Tourism (rank 9, 6 104 points), Sawing Technology (rank 10, 2 points) and Other (rank 11, 3 points). In Troitskoe, the rank 1 concern is Nature Conservation (62 points) followed by Education (rank 2, 51.5 points), Forest Management (rank 3, 30 points), Tourism (rank 4, 23.5 points), Indigenous People's Culture (rank 5, 20 points), Small Business (rank 6, 18 points), Fishery (rank 7, 16 points), Other (rank 8, 8 points), Gathering (rank 9, 7 points), Hunting (rank 10, 6 points) and Sawing Technology (rank 11, 5 points). Forest Management • 31.2 |30 Nature Conservation 48.2 62 Sawing Technology Fishery 132.2 I 36.2 151.5 Indigenous People's Culture 23.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Points • Arsenyevo • Troitskoe Figure 46. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Location. 105 Differences in ranking (more than 3 ranks in Table 25) were observed in Fishery (Arsenyevo — rank 3 and Troitskoe - rank 7) and Tourism (Arsenyevo - rank 9 and Troitskoe — rank 4). Table 25. Ranking of Local Concerns by Location. (Evaluation Points) Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology Fishery Education Culture Tourism Business Hunting Gathering Other Arsenyevo 31.2 48.2 2 32.2 36.2 15 6 16 11 12.2 3 Rank 4 1 11 3 2 6 9 5 8 7 10 Troitskoe 30 62 5 16 51.5 20 23.5 18 6 7 8 Rank 3 1 11 7 2 5 4 6 10 9 8 Total 61.2 110.2 7 48.2 87.7 35 29.5 34 17 19.2 11 Rank 3 1 11 4 2 5 7 6 9 8 10 The respondents in Arsenyevo, who largely dependent on local natural resources in their daily lives, gave a higher rank to Fishery. On the other hand, the respondents in Troitskoe, who live in the center of the district and economy, gave a higher rank to Tourism, which would be a new industry of the district after the establishment of the NP. 5.4.13 By Ethnicity and Location (Arsenyevo) In Arsenyevo, nature conservation is the issue of most concern in total. 106 Forest 15 Management [ 1 —17? Nature 133 Conservation 12.2 Sawing Technology Fishery 25 Education Indigenous People's Culture Tourism 15 Small Business Gathering 8 6 "1.2 Other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Points I Russian • Udege • other Figure 47. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo. The differences in ranking (more than 3 ranks in Table 26) were observed in Nature 107 Conservation (Russian - rank 1 and Udege - rank 6), Tourism (Russian - rank 8 and Udege - N/A) and Gathering (Russian - rank 9 and Nanai - 3). Table 26. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo. (Evaluation Points) Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology Fishery Education Culture Tourism Business Hunting Gathering Other Russian 15 33 2 12 25 7 6 15 8 5 3 Rank 3 1 11 5 2 7 8 3 6 9 10 Udege 9 3 0 17 4 6 0 0 1 6 0 Rank 2 6 N/A 1 5 4 N/A N/A 7 3 N/A Total 24 36 2 29 29 13 6 15 9 11 3 Rank 4 1 11 2 2 6 9 5 8 7 10 Russian respondents gave a higher rank to Tourism and Nature Conservation than Udege people did. On the other hand, Udege people gave a higher rank to Gathering. Gathering is one of the traditional occupations of Udege people who traditionally live in forests. Udege people in Arsenyevo are more concerned with gathering than Russians are. 5.4.1.4 By Ethnicity and Location (Troitskoe) In Troitskoe, Russians and Nanai people share the same tendency in ranking. 108 14 Forest Management • 23 Nature Conservation 15 Sawing Technology £•3 Fishery 11 D2 18 Education Hi 36.5 17 Indigenous People's • 17 Culture Tourism H6.9 1 1 Small Business JO 16 11 31 Hunting 0 Gathering Other 10 20 30 40 50 60 Points • Nanai • Russian • other Figure 48. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Troitskoe. Differences in ranking (more than 3 ranks in Table 27) were observed in Indigenous People's Culture (Russian - rank 10 and Nanai - rank l). 109 Table 27. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Troitskoe. (Evaluation Points) Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology Fishery Education Culture Tourism Business Hunting Gathering Other Russian 23 48 5 11 36.5 3 16.5 16 3 7 7 Rank 3 1 9 6 2 10 4 5 10 7 7 Nanai 4 9 0 3 8 17 6 1 1 0 1 Rank 5 2 N/A 6 3 1 4 7 7 N/A 7 Total 29 57 5 14 44.5 20 22.5 17 4 7 8 Rank 3 1 10 7 2 5 4 6 11 9 8 Nanai people gave Rank 1 to Indigenous People's Culture. It is presumable that ethnic awareness of Nanai in Troitskoe is very high. 5.4.1.5 Russians in Arsenyevo and Troitskoe. Russians in both locations, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe, generally share the same tendency in ranking. 110 Forest Management Nature Conservation Sawing Technology Fishery Education Indigenous People's Culture Tourism Small Business Hunting Gathering Other 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Points ID Russian (Troitskoe) • Russian (Arsenyevo) Figure 49. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo. The significant differences in ranking (more than 3 ranks in Table 28) were observed in Tourism (Russians in Arsenyevo - rank 8 and in Troitskoe - rank 4) and Hunting (Russians in Arsenyevo - rank 6 and in Troitskoe - rank 10). Ill Table 28. Ranking of Local Concerns by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo (Evaluation Points) Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology Fishery Education Culture Tourism Business Hunting Gathering Other Russian (Troitskoe) 23 48 5 11 36.5 3 16.5 16 3 7 7 Rank 3 1 9 6 2 10 4 5 10 7 7 Russian (Arsenyevo) 15 33 2 12 25 7 6 15 8 5 3 Rank 3 1 11 5 2 7 8 3 6 9 10 Total 38 81 7 23 61.5 10 22.5 31 11 12 10 Rank 3 1 11 5 2 9 6 4 8 7 9 Russians in Arsenyevo gave a higher rank to Hunting. It may be because of the community's high rate of self-sufficiency. Russians in Troitskoe gave a higher rank to Tourism. This infers Russians in Troitskoe expect benefits from tourism. 112 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 113 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 6.1 DISCUSSION 6.1.1 Objective 1: Learn about Local People's Perception about the GMF The results of the questionnaire survey show that 34.9% of the total respondents answered "Yes" to Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" The total percentage of "Yes" and "A little bit" to Q3 makes up 70.9% of the total. This result suggests that local people have had a chance to hear the name of the GMF or about the projects through communications mcluding mass communication and word-of-mouth communication. Some local people mentioned that they came to know about the GMF from articles in newspapers and the GMF signboard installed in the garden of the Canadian House in Troitskoe. Some differences of recognition of the GMF have been observed from cross tabulations, which are segmented by gender, age, location, ethnicity and occupation. First of all, there is a gap of recognition between females and males. The male respondents are more likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than the female respondents. The female respondents tend to answer "A little bit" more frequentlytha n the male respondents do. This result implies the male respondents may recognize the GMF more clearly than the female respondents do. Second, there is a gap of recognition of the GMF between respondents in Arsenyevo and in Troitskoe. The respondents in Arsenyevo tend to answer "Yes" to Q3 less often than the respondents in Troitskoe. This tendency may stem from the fact that Arsenyevo is more distant. The third difference lies among ethnic groups. Nanai and Russian respondents are more likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than Udege respondents. Udege respondents were sampled only in Arsenyevo, which is an inland village. According to this difference, it is presumable that Udege people tend to be less informed about and left behind by the GMF program. 114 Lastly, differences among occupational categories are observed. The respondents whose occupation is in the category of Education are less likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than the respondents from the forest industry and in the category Public Servant. It can be assumed from today's local situation that people in the Forest Industry category may pay more attention to the GMF because they may regard the GMF as a provider of business opportunities or aid and people in the categories of Public Servant may have more access to the GMF program from their accompanied duties. The respondents of the category Education consist of teachers and helpers at schools, which include janitors. Although it is stated in reports that the GMF has installed information boards in schools, it is doubtful that the communication reached teachers and helpers. Although about 70% of the respondents know about the GMF to some degree, 61% of the respondents answered "No" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" In particular, respondents in the categories of Education and Private Business Sector are more likely to answer "No" to Q5 than respondents in the categories of Forest Industry and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer. According to descriptive analysis of the results of Q6i, "The GMF earns money from logging," local people may have the wrong impression of the GMF. The disclosure of information of the GMF and public communication at various levels from individual to community-wide may not be sufficient. In Troitskoe, many people do not have a correct idea of the GMF boundary. According to the results of Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" 37.8% of the respondents from Troitskoe chose a wrong answer. This result implies that the existence of the GMF may be insignificant for local people. It can be assumed fromth e results of the questionnaire survey that most of the local people know about the GMF to some degree, but, at the same time, they do not feel that they are involved in the GMF program. In short, the most significant result of the questionnaire survey is that local perception about the GMF is not positive. 115 6.12 Objective 2; Determine what the GMF Achieved to Facilitate Public Communication and Local Involvement As stated in 6.1.1, the survey suggests that most of local people know something about the GMF but the majority of local people do not feel they are involved in the GMF program. According to the results of the cluster analysis of Q6 (see 5.2.8), the respondents can be grouped into two categories: Negative (48.6%) and Indifferent (51.4%). There are no observed differences between Negative and Indifferent with respect to ethnicity, gender and location. However, more members of the category Education belong to the cluster, Negative, and more members of the categories Forest Industry and Public Servant, belong to the cluster, Indifferent. The members of the cluster, Negative, are less likely to answer "Yes" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" than the members of the cluster, Indifferent. Therefore, the respondents who do not feel involved in the GMF have a negative image of the GMF. In particular, the respondents in the category Education tend to have a negative image of the GMF, according to the results of Q5 and cluster analysis of Q6. It can be assumed that the GMFs activities and projects related to school education did not work effectively. According to Q2, "Which of the following issues are of concern to you?" Nature Conservation and Education are two of the biggest concerns (see 5.4). However, most of the completed GMFA's projects were concerned with technology, forestry and ecology (see Table 2). Although those scientific projects can be useful for planning a nature conservation program, the scientific achievements are not immediately connected to education at the local level. As discussed above, respondents in the Education category tend to poorly evaluate the GMF and its projects. This implies that the GMFA did not conduct projects and activities based on local issues. The separation between local concerns and contents of the GMFs projects infers lack of public communication and local involvement in decision-making process. As Telitsyn (2000) insists, the establishment of the GMF, which may have the function of coordinating the interests among stakeholders and making decisions dependent on the collective will was epoch-making in Russia! however, the GMF could not facilitate local involvement in the decision-making process, which lacks a feedback system for the public. 116 (See also Appendix I, International Model Forest Network Secretariat Outcomes Assessment.) To sum up, it cannot be concluded that the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication achieved positive result. 6.13 Objective 3; Recommendations for the Future National Park within the GMF As concluded in 6.1.2, it cannot be concluded that the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication achieved positive result. The future NP, the logical successor of the GMF, should learn from the GMFs experience to achieve good results in the context of local involvement and public communication. According to the results of Q7, "Do you know about the creation of a National Park within the GMF?" 68% of the respondents have an idea of the NP establishment to some degree. Most of the respondents who answered "Yes" to Q7 think the future NP (71%) will have a positive impact on their lives (see 5.3.2). According to opinions expressed in Q9, "If you answered "Yes' to Q7 or either 'Yes' or 'No' to Q8, please state the reason," the major reason the respondents who support the NP establishment is that they consider the NP useful for nature conservation. According to the results of Q2 on local concerns (see 5.4), the respondents are most interested in nature conservation. This tendency may reinforce the result of Q8. However, there is an underlying issue that Udege people in Arsenyevo are not interested in nature conservation, but they are rather interested in fisheries and gathering. This result implies Udege people do not share the same image of nature conservation with other ethnic groups and Udege people may be interested in natural resources management as a daily life occupation, but not in the literary concept of nature conservation. The future NP should fill the gap between ethnic groups through an adequate process of local involvement and public communication. According to the results of 5.2.7, Kendall's taujb correlation on phrases of Q6, the respondents who have access to information and equal opportunities to influence to 117 decision-making by the GMF regard the GMF as less bureaucratic. Although the word "bureaucratic" is not synonymous with "negative," a bureaucratic image may mean a perception that there is a lack of local involvement and public communication. Locals want information and an opportunity to join the decision-making process as much as possible. The future NP should tackle the problems of providing sufficient local involvement and public communication. This research recommends that the future NP authority should-- • involve local people in the projects and activities of the future NP at the decision-making process leveL' • define the role of local people in the natural resource management; • provide sufficient information about the governance, projects and activities of the NP; • adopt more projects and activities, which have a close link with local people's lives; • focus on inland communities and the people, especially Udege people! • have close communication with school teachers towards a goal, "facilitation of environmental education"; and • have an evaluation system of activities and projects including feedback from local people. 6.2 CONCLUSION According to the results of this research, most local people are aware of the GMF, but they do not feel like they are involved in any of the GMF. The number of people who have access to detailed information about the GMF is small. There is a possibility that the GMF has become an aid program among the limited stakeholders in Russia and Canada since the establishment in 1994. The weakest point of the GMF is that the GMF has no control over land and natural resources and no domestic financial basis. It is impossible to conduct projects without money and authority. In addition, the GMF projects, in the context of sustainable utilization of natural resources, could not meet any of the Gibson and Becker's required conditions for successful natural resources management with local involvement (2000: 139): "l) locals must value the resource,' 2) they must possess some property rights to 118 the resource; and 3) they must construct local-level institutions that control the use of the resource." The GMFs failure to meet these conditions is due to insufficient information for locals and insufficient public communication. It is, therefore, doubtful that the basic model forest concept was adequately explained in the Russian context and that Russians understand and accept the concept. The lack of an evaluation system of the projects and activities by local people kept them from the GMF. The partnership of the GMF, as far as it is reported in official reports, seemed to be superficial because none of the partners offered monetary support to the GMF. It must be true that the GMF introduced a great opportunity for bureaucrats, academics, NGOs and business people to work more closely together. However, service clubs, such as the Rotary club, may also be able to offer an opportunity to socialize with those people. The important thing that only the model forest can do is to build a partnership among all stakeholders, including local people. Since 1996 insiders of the GMFA had realized that the association lacked an effective communication system (Canadian Forest Service and IMFN 1996). The former vice president of the GMFA pointed out "...many people do not understand the concept of the model forest and do not see how they can influence their own future" (Canadian Forest Service and IMFN 1996). The GMFA could not establish an effective communication system until today. Although the assessment team of the International Model Forest Network Secretariat Outcomes Assessment regards the GMF as a successful model forest (Armstrong et aL 2000), the achievements can be limited to the scientific projects. At interviews, many insiders of the GMFA praised the scientific achievements of the GMF such as a forest inventory making with the Geographic Information System. However, none of the interviewees referred to the achievements of projects or activities related to local involvement or public communication. The establishment of the GMFA could have been epoch-making. However, the initial tasks, in particular, those related to local involvement and public communication, were not achieved during the first 7 years, which is too long to be regarded as the start-up or trial period. Unfortunately, the GMFs activity has declined due to lack of funds. Therefore, it may be hard to reorganize the projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication. When the establishment of the NP is approved at the federal level, 119 the future NP will assume all authority from the GMF partners in the territory. Therefore, what the GMF can do for the NP in the context of local involvement and public communication is to transfer their experience. The NP should learn from the GMFs experience in order to achieve the task of facihtating "ecological [environmental] education for local people." 120 CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES 121 7 REFERENCES Resolution, Regulation and Law Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 1995. Federal'nyi Zakon ot 14 Marta 1995 g. N33-FZ: Ob Osbo Okhranyaemnyikh Prirodnyi Territoriyakh [In Russian] Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo Kraya, 2001. Pastanovlenie: Ob Organizatsiya Natsionalinogo Parka "Anyuiskii" v Nanaiskom Raione rvhabarovskogo Kraya., 10 January . [In Russian] Reports, Books and Article Armstrong, J. 2000. Toward a Framework for the New International Model Forest Network. IMFN website. Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/imfi3/doc/framework-Eng.htmL Accessed 17 March 2002. Armstrong, J. et al. 2000. IMFNS Outcomes Assessment'- July 2000. The Governance Network. Available at: http://www.crdi.ca/evaluation/finalreport.htm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Brechin, S. et al. 1991. People and Protected Areas. Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. West, P. and S. Brechin, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 5-28. BROC and FSF. 2001. Siberian and RFE timber market for China: criminal and official technologies, volumes and trends in 2000, BROC, Available at: http://www.forest.ru/eng/pubHcation8/wildeast/. Accessed 15 March 2002. Canadian Forest Service and International Model Forest Network (IMFN). 1996. NEXUS: The Model Forest Network Bulletin for Ontario. Volume 1, Number 1. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Ottawa. Available at: http ://www. glfc.cfs.nrcan. gc.ca/index-en/programs-e/modelf-e/nexus-e. html Accessed 13 122 March 2002. FAO. 2001a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, FAO Forestry Paper 140. FAO, Rome. pp. 217-222. Available at: httpV/www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/m Accessed 13 March 2002. FAO. 2001b. State of the World's Forest 2001. FAO, Rome, pp.22-24; 80-82:150-153. Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/SOFO2001/sofo2001-e.stm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Friends of the Earth-Japan. 1996. The Russian Far East: Forests, Biodiversity, Hotspots and Industrial Development, Friends of the Earth-Japan, Tokyo. Friends of the Earth-Japan. 2000. Saving Russia's Far Eastern Taiga: Deforestation, Protected Areas, and Forests 'Hotspots', J. Newell, ed. Friends of the Earth-Japan, Tokyo. Available at: http://www.shonan.ne.jp/~gef20/gef7news/taiga_e.html. Accessed 17 March 2002. Forsyth, J. 1992. A History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia's North Asian Colony, 1581-1990, Cambridge University Press, New York. Japanese Edition translated by K Morimoto. 1998. UNI Agency, Inc., Tokyo, pp. 223-250; 291-293:354-357. [In Japanese] Gibson, C.C. and CD. Becker. 2000. A Lack of Institutional Demand: Why a Strong Local Community in Western Ecuador Fails to Protect Its Forest. People and Forests: Communities, institutions, and Governance. Gibson, C.C, M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom. eds. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 135-162. Gulevsky, A. and Y. Simchenko. 1994. Administrative Units of People of Russian North: Economy and Social Development in the Last Decade of the 20-th Century, Institut etnologii I antropologii im. Miklukho-Maklaia RAN, Moskva, pp. 133,195. Hales, D. 1991. The Pinelands National Reserve: An Approach to Cooperative Conservation. Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international 123 conservation. West, P. and S. Brechin, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 239-250. International Model Forest Network (IMFN) and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest (GMFA). 1997. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski za 1994-1997 Finansovyi God, Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest. 1999. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski za 1998-1999 Finansovyi God, Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest. 2000. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski o Rbotakh, Vyipolhrnnykh za Schet Sredstv IMFNS/IDRC v Period s Iyulya 1999 g. po Iyuf 2000 g. Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest. 2001. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski za 2000 God, Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] IVEP DVO RAN (Institute of Water and Ecology Problem, Russian Academy of Science Far Eastern Branch) et al. 2000. Ekologo-ekonomicheskoe obosnovanie natsiohal'nogo parka «Anyuiskii», Khabarovsk. [In Russian] Kato, K 1963. Shiberia no rekishi, Kinokuniya Shoten, Tokyo. pp30-33; 159-177. [In Japanese] 124 Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service. 1995. Gassinski Model Forest: Preserving Nature for Future Generations - Proposal, Minister of the Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. [In Russian] Pominov, V 2000. The Influence of the Gassinski Model Forest on the Economic Policy of the Territory. IMFN Website, Documentation Centre. Available at-' http://www.idrc.ca/mfii/doc/pominov-Eng.html. Accessed 13 March 2002. Sasaki, S. 1997. Kouikikeizaishisutemu to udehe no shuryou, Shakaijinruigakunennpou Volume 23, Tokyotoritudaigaku Shakaijinnruigakugakkai, Tokyo, pp. 1-28. [In Japanese] SPSS Inc. 1996. Survey with Confidence: A Practical Guide to Survey Research Using SPSS, SPSS Inc., Chicago, pp. 149-156. Vakhtin, N. 1992. An MRG International Report;92/5: Native Peoples of the Russian Far East, MRG (Minority Rights Group), London. p8. Wiget, A. and O. Balalaeva. n.d. Government Deception Threatens Destruction of Eastern Khanty Traditional Culture, Arctic Circle, University of Connecticut. Available at: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Khanty/eastkhanty.html. Accessed 17 March 2002. Wells, M. and K Brandon with L. Hannah. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank; World WMlife Fund; U.S.Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. Newspaper Articles Anyuiski Perekatyi. 2000. Statisticheskii otchet. Anyuiski Perekatyi, Troitskoe. 16 December 2000. [In Russian] Anyuiski Perekatyi. 2001. Sotsiahno-ekonomicheskoe Polodzenie Nanaiskogo Rainona za 2000 god. Anyuiski Perekatyi, Troitskoe. 24 March 2001. [In Russian] 125 Glushenko, E. 2000. Budem po-prezhnemu druzhit' lesami, Gazeta PRIAMUESKIE VEDOMOSTI, Khabarovsk, 7 July 2000. Available at: http://www.pv.khv.ru/archive/00/07/07/a4.htm. Accessed 26 January 2002. [In Russian] Shmakov, Y. 2001. Ekoregion: Tovarusch prints, myi vam dokladyivaem, Molodoi dal'nevostochnik Online Number 4 (12686)., Khabarovsk, 24 - 31 January. Available at: http://www.khv.ru/md/12686/interthemesl9.htm. Accessed 26 January 2002. [In Russian] Savchenko, A 2001. Anyuiskii "kapital": Reshit li vse problemyi prirodhyi park?.Gazetyi «VEK» No 37, 21-28, Moscow, 21-28 September. Available at: http://www.wek.ru/archive/2001/374115.txt. Accessed 26 January 2002. [In Russian] Websites Administration of Khabarovsk Province. n.d. Available at: http://www.adm.khv.ru/invest2.nsf/pages/sights/anuy_en.htm. Accessed 17 March 2002. Canadian Model Forest Network. n.d. Available at: http://www.modeKorest.net/e/home_/indexe.html and http://www.modelforest.net/e/home_/abou_/faqe.html. Accessed 17 March 2002. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia. Last Updated: 05 September 2001. Available at: http://www.ea.gov.au/parks/nrs/iucn/. Accessed 17 March 2002. Forest Club of Russian Non-governmental Organizations. n.d. Available at: http://www.forest.ru/. Accessed 17 March 2002. Gassinski Model Forest Association. n.d. Available at: http://www.gassikhv.ru, http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/science_e.htm, http7/www. gassi.khv.ru/MLG/h_03e.htm and http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/p_05.htm. Accessed 14 March 2002. 126 International Model Forest Network. Available at: http ://www. idrc. ca/imfh/ doc/Gassinski_E.html, htt4)7/www.idrc.ca/imfn/doc/reports-Eng.html#russia and http://www.idrc.ca/imfh/doc/seeds-Eng.html. Accessed 16 March 2002. McGregor Model Forest. n.d. Available at: http://www.mcgregor.bc.ca/ and http://www.mcgregor.bc.ca/rxissian_activities/about_ra.htm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Montreal Process Website. 1998. Available at: http://www.mpci.org/home_e.html and http://www.mpci.org/meetings/santiago/santiago7_e.html. Accessed 9 March 2002. Western Newfoundland Model Forest. Available at: http://www.wnmf.com/html%20page8/Partners%20.htm. Accessed 8 March 2002. Publishing House "Preamurskie Vedomosti." The Anyui National Park. n.d. Available at: http://www.phpv.khv.ru/chents/natipark/en. Accessed 17 March 2002. Sustainable Forest Management Network. n.d. Available at: http://8fin-l.biology.ualberta.ca/engh8h/re8earch/epubinv.htm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Presentation Telitsyn, G.P. 2000. Gassinski Model Forest Association as a Boost for Development of the Nanaiski District. 31 October. The International symposium on Grand Design for Forest Resources in Akita "Promotion of Sustainable Forest Management in Akita," Akita Prefecture, Japan. Available at: http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/Projects/En^lish/Proect_[lO-15].htm. Accessed 17 March 2002. 127 APPENDIX I EVALUATION OF THE GMFA BY THE IMFNS 128 RESULTS OF THE IMFNS OUTCOME ASSESSMENT, JULY 2000. (Source: adopted from Armstrong et al 2000. IMFNS Outcomes Assessment: July 2000. The Governance Network, http://www.crdi.ca/evaluation/finalreport.htm) Outcome Challenge and Progress Markers for Local Communities Outcome Challengat TMFNS intends to see local communities who recognize the importance of, and I are engaged in, planning resource management activities in partnership with other resource users j in their region. They have gained the trust of the other members of the partnership and the j recognition of government officials so that they can contribute constructively to debates and < decision-making processes. They are able to clearly plan and articulate a vision of their forest ! management activities and goals that is relative to their context and needs. They call upon external j technical support and expertise as appropriate. They act as champions for model forest concepts j in their communities and motivate others iti the partnership to continue their collaborative work. 1 Expect to see Local Community Progress Markers j 1 Participate in regular model forest partnership meetings j 2 Establish a structure for cooperation in the partnership that ensures all local interests j are represented (mechanics of setting up the structure) j 3 Acquire new skills for involvement in the model forest j 4 Contribute the human and financial resources needed to get the model forest operational 1 Like to see Local Community Progress Markers | 5 Articulate a vision for the model forest that is locally relevant j 6 Promote the model forest concept, their experiences, and results j 7 Expand the partnership to include all the main actors j 8 Call upon external experts when necessary to meet information or technical needs ) 9 Request new opportunities for training and extension j 10 Produce and disseminate concrete examples of benefits from model forest activities j 11 Identify opportunities for collaboration with other institutions and actors j 12 Identify opportunities for and successfully obtaining funding from a range of sources j 129 Love to see Local Community Progress markers j 13 Play a lead role in resource management with a view to long and medium-term benefits j 14 Share lessons learned and experiences with other communities, nationally and i internationally, to encourage other model forests j 15 Influence national policy debates and formulation on resource use and management ! Achievement of Progress Markers by Local Communities Progress Chile Russia - Mexico - Mexico - Calakmul Mexico - ] Marker -Chiloe Gassinski Chihuahua Monarch i Expect to see i ! • • • • : • • • • • 'I • • • ! • 3 i . _..._j i • • • • • 4 1 Like to see 1 5 I • • • • | ! • • • • 6 l —. -j I | 7 1 • • • j J • _ _ _ _ • j « 1 • x 1 X X j X j _ J • X X X X 9 ! » I • X • j • • 11 1 Potential X • 1 X X j 12 ! X X X | X X i 130 Love to see 13 ! X x J X X 1 _ _ ll X X | • • " i _ _ ll ,5 | • 1 X X X 1 1 131 Outcome Challenge and Progress Markers for Government Officials & Policy Makers Outcome Challenge- IMFNS intends to see government officials and policy makers who are committed j to the model forest concept and the principles of its partnership. They support the development j of local capacity and consult non-traditional groups when planning and making decisions about forest j resource management. They are actively involved in the model forest partnership and draw lessons j from the experience that are relevant and can be used to inform national policy debates and policy j formulation. They champion the model forest concept and seek funding from national and international j sources to ensure the continuation and success of the model forest in their country/region. ! Expect to see Government Officials & Policy Makers Progress Markers j 1 Designate a country representative for the national and international model forest j program who will have clearly defined responsibilities (will be more than a mailbox) i 2 Identify internal resources (human, financial) and, where feasible, external donors j to support model forest program (develop a strategy) j 3 Participate in regular model forest partnership meetings at the provincial/state level j 4 Organize and/or participate in internal meetings and discussions on sustainable forest | management at the ministry level j 5 Create mechanism to support decision-making processes at the local level j Like to see Government Officials & Policy Makers Progress Markers | 6 Promote the program and concept as a viable mechanism to bring about change nationally j to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable forest management j 7 Disseminate results and share experiences (good and bad) internally and nationally ; (via workshops, conferences) < 8 Facilitate and promote networking between national model forest sites and j international sites (creating an enabling environment through which they can network) 1 9 Engage donors to financially support the model forest program (new and incremental) i and earmark internal funds for the medium-term. Sources of funds are diversified beyond i forestry or environment ministries (3-5 years) j 10 Participate actively in the IMFN Steering Committee (e.g. attend meetings, engaging \ others outside the meetings, etc.) ! 11 Technical staff begin to share data with model forests and provide technical support i (linking back to national program) j 132 12 Willing to listen and establish fora to promote experimentation within their realm j of influence with ideas raised by local/national partners j 13 Expand number of model forest sites in the country j Love to see Government Officials & Policy Makers Progress Markers 1 ) 14 Promote and support the model forest concept in international forest policy fora 1 (become advocates) i 15 Incorporate model forest principles in national and regional policies and legislation j 16 Take longer-term perspective (5+ years) in financial planning (invest incremental j resources (internal and external) into model forests and IMFNS activities) 1 17 Collaborate with other relevant Ministries for planning and managing the land base/ j integrated land use planning j 18 Use consultation mechanisms with non-traditional groups before establishing policies j on national resource management strategies (as well as on other themes) j Achievement of Progress Markers by Government Officials & Policy Makers Progress Chile -Chiloe Russia - Mexico - Mexico - | Mexico — Marker Gassinski Chihuahua Calakmul Monarch j Expect to see | i 1 • • | • I 1 2 • • • • I • „. . . ) 5 3 • • • : • I _ .' 1 I 4 • j • • • 1 • j i _ „J • | ! • 1 • I ! • J 1 1 Like to see j • • • ) 6_ 1 • ! 1 jI 7 • • • • j ! 8 • • • X | I 133 9 X X X x ! _ JL _ J 10 X X • X x ! • 11 X • • • • j _ - ._ 12 X « ! X x 1 x : 13 Potential X X X i Love to see j „ | X • X x i _ . . _ _ ! 15 X • ! X X j xJ X X X X X j 17 X • X X X j 18 X • 1 X x 134 APPENDIX n QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH 135 Questionnairelon^hejGassinski|Model Forest Note: The Gassinski Model Forest or the GMF is taken to mean both "physical forest" and "the Gassinski Model Forest Association." I. OPINIONS CONCERNING THE GASSINSKI MODEL FOREST. 1 .What is your occupation? (Please check one 0) • Forest worker of forest service. • Logger • Worker in sawmill (including office work) • Teacher • Self-employed or business owner • Farmer • Employee of other businesses • Pensioner • Police / military personnel • Hunter • Student (school, undergraduate and post-graduate) • Fisher • Public servant of provincial/district government administration • activist of NGO • Other (Please specify) 2. Which of the following issues are of concern to you? (Rank the top 3 issues from 1 to 3, with one being the issue of greatest concern.) Forest management, Nature conservation, Sawing technology, Fishery, Education, Indigenous people's culture, Tourism, small business, Hunting, Gathering, Other (Please specify) 3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest (GMF)? (Please check one 0) • Yes (Go to Question 4) • No (Go to Question 5) • A little bit (Go to Question 5) 4. If you answered YES to question 3, what program or programs of the GMF do you know about? (Check all that apply. 0 If you did not answer YES, please skip to Question 5.) • The development of value-added wood processing capacity • The development of non-wood forest products enterprises • The development of a regional tourism • The development of commercial projects between Canadian and Russian indigenous peoples • The assistance in the creation of specially protected areas/National Park • Other (Please specify) 5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF? (See Question 4 for reference) (Please check one 0) • Yes (Go to Question 6) • No (Go to Question 6) • Don't know (Answer the following 3 questions) 136 a. Have you worked for a company/ organization related to one of the GMF projects? • Yes • No • Don't know b. Has someone from my family attended any GMF programs? • Yes • No • Don't know c Have you attended a GMF program through a social activity (school or group tour)? • Yes • No • Don't know 6. For each of the Following statements on the GMF, please circle the appropriate response. a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree b. The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making on issues related to daily life. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree c. The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree d. The GMF is democratic. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree e. The GMF is based on partnership. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree f. The GMF was initiated by Russia. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree g. The GMF is a non-governmental organization. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree h. The GMF is part of an international network. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree i. The GMF earns money from logging. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree k. The GMF is bureaucratic. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree 137 7. Do you know about the new creation of a National Park within the GMF? (Please check one 0) • Yes (Go to Question 8) • I have heard something (Go to Question 10) • No (Go to Question 9) 8. If you answered YES to Question 7, do you think that a new National Park will have a positive impact on your life? (Please check one 0) • Yes • No 9 If you answered NO to Question 7 or either YES or NO to Question 8, please state the reason. [ ] II. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES. 10. Do you live in the territory of the GMF? (Please check one 0) • Yes • No • Not sure If you answered NOT SURE, do you live in Nanaiski District? (Please check one 0) • Yes • No 11. What is your gender? (Please check one 0) • Female • Male 12. What is your age? (Please check one 0) • Under 18 years old • 18-24 • 25-29 • 30 - 34 D35-39 D40-44 D45 -49 • 50-54 • 55-59 • 60-64 • 65 or older 13. Do you consider yourself to be (Please check one 0): • Nanai • Russian • Udege • Other (Please specify) 14. What is your academic background? (Please check one 0) • School • High School Graduate/College Graduate/Undergraduate Dropout • University Graduate/Graduate Student • Other (please specify) 138 III. ANY OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THE GMF OR OTHER RELATED TOPICS? Thank you very much for your cooperation 139 APPENDIX HI QUESTIONNAIRE IN RUSSIAN 140 Ameera MHeHHfl 06 opraHH3ai|HH «MoAejibHi>iH Jlec «raccHHCKHH» npHMenaHHe: nofl opraHH3aaHeH «Moflejii>HbiH Jlec «raccHHCKirii» noHHRtaerca He TOJII>KD opi^iminra, HO H jiec, KaK dpH3HqecKaa e^HHHita. 1. Bawa npocbeccHH? (OTMCTBTC OAHH BapnaHT 0) • Pa6oTHHK jiecHoro xo3aficTBa • JIecopy5 • Pa6oHHH jiecoirajiOK (BKjnonaa cnyacauiHx O(]>HCOB) • Ywrejib • PaGoTHHK nacTHoro ceicropa, 6H3HecMeH • OepMep, npeflnpHHHMaTejib • Pa6oTHHK flpyrHx oTpacjiefl • ITeHCHOHep • MttJlHlTHOHep, BOeHHWH • OXOTHHK • CiyzieHT (BKjnoqafl acnnpaHTOB) • Pbi6ajiOB • rocyaapCTBeHHHH cjiyacamiiH • AKTHBHCTHTIO* HenpaBHTejttCTBeHHMe opraHmaianf) 2. K KaKHM H3 cjie^yioinHx OTpacjieft BM HMecre Hirrepec? (Bw6epeTe 3 oTpacjin B y5wBaiomeM nopa^Ke OT 1-ro no 3-x, Tax qro6w nepBaa HHrepecoBajia 6ojibine ffpymx) JlecHoe XO3«HCTBO, OxpaHa npHpoaw, TexHOJioraa pynHOH pa3flejiKH 6peBeH, PBIGHMH npoMbiceji, 06pa30BaHHe, KyjibTypa icopeHHbix jKHTejieft, TypH3M, MejiKHH 6H3Hec, OxoTa, Co6HpaTejn>CTBO, flpyrHe (yTOHHHTe) 3. Staaere JIH BM HTO-HHuyflb 06 opraiimauHH < • JJ,a (ecjiH "«a", TO nepexoflHTe K Bonpocy J\r°4), • HeT (ecjiH "HCT", TO nepexoflHrre K Bonpocy N°5), • HeMHoro (earn "HeMHoro", TO nepexo^HTe K Bonpocy N°5) 4. ECJIH BM OTBeTHJiH "aa" Ha Bonpoc JV»3, TO Kaicyio nporpaiwMy, HJIH nporpaMMbi MJir HJIH ApyrHx Mo^ejibHbix jiecoa BU 3HaeTe? (OTMeTbTe Bee BEM H3BecTHbie 0. ECJIH BH He OTBCTHJIH "aa" Ha Bonpoc N°3, nepexoflHTe cpa3y K Bonpocy N°5) • Pa3BHTHe npeflnpHaTHH no yrjiyfjjieHHOH ,a;epeBonepepa6oTKe • Pa3BHTHe npeflnpHHTHH no nepepa6oTKe HeflpeBecHoii npoayKUHH • Pa3BHTHe peraoHajibHoro Typn3Ma • Pa3BHTne KOMMepnecKHx CB»3CH M&KMy KOpeHHbiM HacejieHHeM peraoHOB KaHaflbi H POCCHH • CoaencTBHe B co3flaHHH oco6o oxpaHaeMbix TeppHTopHH/HauHOHajibHoro napna 141 • TJpyrHe(yTOHHHTe) 5. CHHTaere JIH BU ce6fl BOBjieHeHHbiiviH B KaKHe-JiH6o npoeicrbi MJIT? (JSjin cnpaBKH CMOTpHxe Bonpoc JV°4) (OTMeTbTC OJJHH BapnaHT 0) • 74a (ecjiH "aa", TO nepexoflHTe K Borrpocy JNb6), • HeT (ecjiH "Her", TO nepexojjHTe K Bonpocy JV26), • He 3Haio (ecjiH "He 3Haio", TO OTBeTbre Ha TpH cjie/ryKHHHx Bonpoca) a) PaGoTajiH JIH BW B KOMnaHHH HJIH opraHH3auHH, HMeiomeH OTHOineHHe K npoeicraM MJir? • fla D HeT • He3Haio 6) BHJI JIH Kro-HH6yzn> H3 Bauinx PO^CTBCHHHKOB 3aHHTepecoBaH B KaKHx-jiH6o nporpaMMax MJIT? • JJ,a • HeT • He 3Haio B) FIpHxoflHjiocb JIH BaM BCTpeiaTbCfl c nporpaMMaMH MJTT nepe3 coiTHaribHyK) AeaTejibHOCTb (B iiiKDJie, MaccoBbix MeponpHflnwx)? • JJ,a • HeT • He3Haro 6. BbiSepeTe O#HH, npaBHjibHbiif Ha earn B3rjiHA, OTBCT RJIH Ka>K#oro H3 cjieyjyioiiuix yTBepjKneHHH 06 MJIE (TJo/jHepicHHTe OAHH BapnaHT) a) MJir c MOMeuma ceoezo ocnoeamisi OKa3cuia 6jiaeomeopuoe ejiwuue HCIMOIO oicmHb. 1. IIojiHOcmbH) coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio He coznacen 6) MJTT aaer Bceivr ee ynacTHHicaM paBHyro B03M0»cH0CTb BJiHHTb Ha rrpouecc rrpHHHTHH peuieHHH, HMeiomHX OTHOineHHe K HX MCH3HH. 1. TlojiHocmbK) coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. He yeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nojiHOcmbto ne coznacen B) MJir - HOBHH -ran opraHH3au,HH B POCCHH. 1. nonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen z) MIIT- deMOKpamuHua. 1. nonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen a) MJir ocHOBaHa Ha npHHHHne napTHepcTBa. 1. nonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen e) MJir 6buia UHUUuamueoii Poccuu. 1. Honnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen 142 JK) MJir - HenpaBHTejibCTBeHHaa opraHHsairHH. 1. Ylomocmwo coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznaceH 5. Honnocmbm ne coznaceH 3) MJir- Hcicmb Mej/cdynapodHou cucmeMbi. 1. riojiHOcntbio coznaceH 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznaceH 5. Tlomocmbio ne coznacen u) MJir 3apa6ambieaem denbzu na 3azomoeKe u mpaHcnopmupoerce Jieca. 1. IJojiHOcmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. YIonnocmbK) ne coznaceH K) MJir flaer MHe MHOTO HHdpopManHH o TOM, KSK yjryHiiiHTb MOK> »CH3Hb. /. Honnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocntbio ne coznacen JI) MJir - GropoKpanraHa. A JJonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen 7.3Haere JIH BM O C03#aHHH HauHOHajibHoro napica BHVTPH MJir? (OnvieTbTe O#HH BapnaHT 0) • Ila (ecjiH "aa", TO nepexQznTre K Bonpocy JN28), • ^TO-TO cjibiinaji (ecjiH "^TO-TO cjiwinaji", TO nepexoflHTe K Bonpocy JNklO), • HeT (ecjiH "HeT", TO nepexpziHTe K Bonpocy N°9) 8. ECJIH BM OTBCTHJIH "#a" Ha Bonpoc JXs7, TO KHK BM /ryMaere, OKaaceT JIH noji05KHTejibHoe BJIHHHHC Ha Baiuy 3KH3Hb co3#aHHe HOBOTO HauHOHajibHoro napica? • fla • HeT 9. ECJIH BM OTBCTHJIH "HCT" Ha sonpoc JVe7, HJIH "aa", JIH6O "HeT" Ha Bonpoc JV28, 06l>HCHHTe npHHHHV. Comiajibiio-iieMorpadpHMeckHC AaiiHbie 10. BM >KHBeTe Ha TeppHTopHH MJir? (OnvieTbTe OAHH BapnaHT 0) • /4a • HeT • HeyBepeH ECJIH BM OTBCTHJIH " He yeepeH", TO Homere JIH BM B HaHaflcKOM pafioHe? (OnvieTbTe O^HH BapnaHT 0) • fla • HeT 11. Bam noji? • 5KeHCKHH • MjOKCKOH 143 12. Bain B03pacr? (OrivieTbTe OAHH BapnanT 0) • flol8jiex • 18-24 • 25-29 • 30-34 D35-39 D40-44 D45-49 • 50-54 • 55-59 • 60-64 • 65HCTapme 13. KeM BU ce6n CHHTaere? (OTMerbTe O/JHH saptiaHT 0) • HaHafiueM • PyccKHM • yoareiiueM • JJUpyroe (yTOHHHTe) 14. Kaieoe y Bac o6pa30saHHe? (OTMerbTe O/JHH BapnaHT 0) • HenojiHoe cpeaHee • CpeaHee • Bwcuiee • flpyroe (yTOHHirre) BauiH KOMMeHTapHH 06 MJTT H noxcejiaHHH Eojibiuoe cnacn6o 3a same yqacTHe! 144 APPENDIX IV SURVEY COVER LETTER IN ENGLISH 145 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Department of Forest Resources Management Faculty of Forestry 2045-2424 Main Mall Vancouver, BC CANADA V6T 1Z4 Fax +l(604)-822-9106 Dear Residents in the Gassinski Model Forest and People involved in its projects, As part of a Masters thesis at the University of British Columbia entitled "The Russian Model Forest in Local Forest Politics: A Case Study of the Creation of a National Park within the Gassinski Model Fores f, we are gathering information from residents in the Gassinski Model Forest and people involved in related projects. The main purpose of this research is to examine and define the Gassinski Model Forest in local forest politics with a case study. We would like to know what you think of the Gassinski Model Forest and its projects. We assume that the Gassinski Model Forest and its projects are important experiments towards socio-economically sustainable forest management in the Russian Far East. This survey is conducted in cooperation with the Gassinski Model Forest Association and Russian Program of McGregor Model Forest. Data collection and analyses will be performed at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The collected questionnaires will be analyzed and stored out of the Russian Federation, and will not be used for a purpose other than the above-mentioned research. The enclosed questionnaire are being sent out or handed directly to unintentionally selected residents of the Gassinski Model Forest and people involved in the projects. After you fill in the questionnaire form, please return it to us, as investigators will direct when you receive this questionnaire. Although participation is obviously not mandatory, we would be very grateful if you take your time to complete this time. You will need 5-8 minutes to answer this questionnaire. Completion of the survey is your assurance to us that we may use the valued information you have given in aggregate form only. You can be assured of complete confidentiality. Your name will not appear on the survey itself. Collected original questionnaires will be securely stored in a locked box or drawer exclusively controlled by Ichiro Matsuo. The original questionnaires will be shredded and discarded five years after the work is presented. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have. If you have any questions, please ask Ichiro Matsuo when he provides this questionnaire to you or by email after that. The email address for the inquiry is [email protected] . Also you can reach Ichiro Matsuo at +1-604-202-1031 when he is in Canada. If you are interested in the results and have an access to the Internet, please send an email to the above address. We will send back the results by email when they are available. We will also arrange that you can obtain the results from the Gassinski Model Forest Association. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Ichiro Matsuo, George Hoberg, M.Sc. Candidate Associate Professor 146 APPENDIX V SURVEY COVER LETTER IN RUSSIAN 147 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (YHHBEPCHTET BPHTAHCKM K0J1YMBM) Department of Forest Resources Management Faculty of Forestry 2045-2424 Main Mall Vancouver, BC CANADA V6T 1Z4 Fax+l-(604)-822-9106 yBaaeaeMbie acirrejiH paiioHa MoAejibHbra Jlec FaccHHCKHH H JUORH, BOBjieHeHHbie B ero npoeKTM, KaK lacrB MarHCrepcKOH jj;HCcepTanHH B yHUBepcirrere BpjrraHCKaji KojiyMOHH Ha Teiwy "PoccHiicKaH MO^ejiB jieca B pernoHajibHOH jiecHoft nojiHTHKe- cjryiaH co.wanHH nanunmui biioro naprca BHyrpH panoHa Mo#ejibHHH Jlec raccHHCKHii" MM co6HpaeM HHCpopMainno OT scHTaneH paiiona MOAGJIBHBIH JleC TaCCHHCKHH, H JIKWeH, BOBJie^eifflLlX B CBfl3aHHMe C HHM npoeKTM. Mtl XOTCJIH 6U 3HaTb, TITO Bbl flyMaeTe o Mo/jejibHOM Jlece FaccHHCKHH H ero npoeKxax. OcnoBHaa u,ejn> HCCJieAOBaHira paccMOTperb H oxapaicrepH30BaTB MoaejitHMH Jlec racramcKHH, KaK iipiunep per-HOHajibHOH jiecHOH IIOJIHTHKH. MBI npejuiojiaraeM, ITO MojjejibHMft Jlec raecHHCKHH H ero npoeKTM HBJIHK>TCH BaatHMMH 3KcnepHMerrraMH pjia coiaiajiBHO-3KOHOMireecKOH ycTOHHHBocxH jiecHoro MeHejracMeHTa Ha POCCHHCKOM JJajiBHeM BOCTOKR. 3TOT onpoc npoBOAHTBCH B coTpynHH^ecTBe c AcconHainieH MoflejiBHsra Jlec FaccHHCKHH H POCCHHCKOH LTporpaMMOH MoaejibHMH Jlec MaK-Fperop. 06pa6oTKa jiaHHMx H aHajiH3 Syayr npoBejj,eHM B yHHBepcHreTe BpuraHCKaa KojiyM6nH B ropoae Barney sep B KaHaae. CoSpamibie amceTM Qypyr npoaHajiH3HpOBaHM H BWBe3eHH H3 POCCHHCKOH CnacHOb 6oJibraoe 3a same coipy/i rnraecrBO. Manyo HTHPO JJacopx XoSapr AcnHpaHT \ Ilpocbecco 148