Russian Zapovedniki in 1998: Recent Progress and New Challenges for Russia’S Strict Nature Preserves

Russian Zapovedniki in 1998: Recent Progress and New Challenges for Russia’s Strict Nature Preserves

David Ostergren Evgeny Shvarts

Abstract—Zapovedniki are pristine ecosystems that restrict all Threats to Zapovedniki ______economic utilization and are designed to act as areas for ecological research and “natural controls” for comparison to other land uses Throughout the decades, zapovedniki have survived a such as agriculture or resource extraction. The most recent threats variety of threats to their operation and existence. The to zapovedniki originate from the dissolution of the Soviet system threats have included: and resultant economic instability. Since 1991, zapovedniki have • Challenges to the original policies and intent (Shtil’mark maintained their role in Russian society by increasing contact with 1995; Weiner 1988). international nongovernment organizations, using legislation to • Reductions and reorganizations by political leaders increase their ability to enforce the law, expanding environmental (Boreiko 1993; Boreiko 1994; Pryde 1972). education, and diversifying funding strategies. Despite their ef- • Alternative use and designation (Pryde 1991). forts, the reduction in federal support overrides most efforts to fulfill the mandate of biodiversity conservation, ecological monitoring, Nonetheless, zapovedniki persevered within the commu- and environmental education. nist, centrally planned economy through 8 decades of shift- ing prosperity and turmoil. The most recent threats to zapovedniki originate from a more profound source—the complete dissolution of a political system and the associated Zapovedniki are a unique contribution to the global wil- conditions of economic downturn and social instability derness community. They are specially protected natural (Ostergren 1997; Ostergren and Shvarts 1998; Stepanitski areas that restrict economic utilization or human activity 1997). Until 1991 the zapovedniki were a line item budget such as logging, mining, farming, hunting, fishing, firewood for the federal government. Each preserve was allotted gathering, or recreation. In theory, zapovedniki are pristine money for (1) government inspectors to protect the preserve, ecosystems designed to act as areas for ecological research (2) scientists to conduct research, (3) support staff, and (4) and “natural controls” for comparison to other land uses materials and maintenance. The fall of the Soviet Union such as agriculture or resource extraction (Kozhevnikov changed the way zapovedniki are managed in that directors 1908; Shtil’mark 1995; Shtil’mark 1996). The first preserve, now spend a significant amount of their time raising funds, Barguzin Zapovednik, was established in 1916 by a regional nurturing political support, and devising new strategies to government to protect a sable population (Martes zibellina) do more with less funding. near Lake Baikal. Although several more zapovedniki were From 1991 to 1995, the zapovednik system struggled to established by local and provincial authorities, it was not survive under difficult circumstances. Directors at the pre- until 1919 that the first federal zapovednik (Il’menskii serves found themselves with entirely different responsibili- Zapovednik) was established (Weiner 1988). This was the ties. Because the management lacked sufficient federal first area in the world to be protected primarily for scientific funding, government inspectors were paid infrequently or reasons. Since that time, federal, regional, and local govern- not at all, trespassers poached wildlife for the newly acces- ment bodies, the Federal Forest Service, or the Russian sible foreign animal parts market, research scientists moved Academy of Science were authorized to designate ecologi- to other jobs to support their families, and essential equip- cally, geologically, or biologically unique or sensitive areas ment deteriorated. As one example of a change in support as zapovedniki (Pryde 1991). By the late 1950’s, zapovedniki and management techniques, during the Soviet era, helicop- were established in many ecosystems throughout the Soviet ter support from the national air service (Aeroflot) was Union. common on established preserves. The Sayano-Shushenskovo Zapovednik was allotted 150 flights to haul supplies to field stations, conduct patrols, and support ground-based inspec- In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000. tors. Of those 150 flights, the scientific staff was allocated 40 Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- helicopter flights a year at the scientific director’s discretion. ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. In 1995, they received five (5) helicopter flights to manage a Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 390,000 hectare preserve with virtually no road access. David Ostergren is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, These circumstances demand boat transport to the Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Box 5694, Northern Ari- zona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]. zapovednik and then travel by horse or foot through the Evgeny Shvarts is Professor, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of preserve. Science. He is past Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Center and now with the World Wide Fund for Nature in Moscow, Russia, e-mail: In Central Siberia, zapovedniki with a long tradition of [email protected] research have cut back on projects and have little or no

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 209 helicopter support for research or border patrols. New that has been fundamental to progress in advancing pro- zapovedniki established after 1991 have never had helicop- tected area status is the Biodiversity Conservation Center ter support (Ostergren 1998). As the funding levels dropped, (BCC) of the Socio-Ecological Union. The BCC became an directors began to turn to alternative techniques for manag- advocate for protected areas serving as a consultation, ing preserves. Each director sought outside funding with information, and fund-raising center for biodiversity conser- varying degrees of success from local, regional, and interna- vation. An excellent source of information on the BCC and tional funding sources. This presentation will provide an related efforts is their web page, http://www.igc.apc.org/bcc- update on the challenges, status, and management condi- west/, or for a more in-depth look at conservation efforts in tions for zapovedniki in 1998. In particular, we focus on the 1990’s, the authors suggest referring to the English zapovedniki located within Russia. In 1997, despite the language publication “Russian Conservation News” (RCN). challenges in management and a chronic lack of funding, 22 A subscription for RCN is available through the Pocono preserves have been added since 1991 for a total of 99 Environmental Education Center PEEC/RCN R.R. 2, Box preserves set aside from economic exploitation, protecting 1010, Dingmans Ferry, PA 18328. In Russian, an excellent over 31,000,000 hectares of diverse ecosystems across Rus- source for current information is “Informatsionii Bulletyen” sia. Figure 1 shows the distribution of Russian zapovedniki from the “Tsentr Okhrana Dikoi Priroda.” Both literature in 1998. sources address issues for zapovedniki, as well as national parks and wildlife refuges. Recent Progress for Zapovedniki ______Legislation Directors and supportive NGOs requested federal leg- Shortly after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, nongovern- islation to provide a mandate and legal standing—an “or- ment organizations (NGOs) emerged into the political and ganic act”—for their activities and enforcement (Ostergren civil vacuum left by disappearing state committees. In the 1997; Shtil’mark 1995). In 1995, “The Law on Specially field of biodiversity conservation and environmental protec- Protected Natural Areas” was passed by the Duma and tion, zapovednik directors, natural resource scientists, and signed by President Yeltsin. This landmark legislation out- environmental activists needed a forum and central source lined the legal standing and goals for zapovedniki, includ- of information to coordinate their efforts. One organization ing six primary responsibilities: (1) the conservation of

Figure 1—Distribution of Russian Protected Areas.

210 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 biodiversity, (2) the preservation of unique or typical natu- future transition to active management much easier; (3) the ral areas for scientific research, (3) long—term ecological Russian government has repeatedly stated its intention to monitoring, (4) providing conservation training for profes- have 5 percent of Russia protected by 2005—again a rela- sionals, (5) initiating environmental education programs tively cheap method for realizing this goal; and, (4) preserves (which may include limited tourism), and (6) providing are political recognition for scientists and the environmen- expertise in the environmental impact of regional develop- tal community, which may demonstrate that the Russian ment projects. For the first time in history, Russian legisla- government is still concerned about the environment. In a tion specifically described the rights and responsibilities of process similar to the Soviet era, the 22 new preserves have zapovednik employees. The legislation consolidated and been established through the combined efforts of scientists, legitimized a long history of protection and research on local conservationists, and Russian conservation organiza- zapovedniki located across Russia’s landscape (Federal Law tions. A post-Soviet addition is that international conserva- 1995). The majority of zapovedniki are concentrating on the tion organizations have donated time, money, and staff to first three goals that date to 1908, and more slowly incorpo- support initiatives to establish new zapovedniki (Sobolev rating the last three goals (Sobolev and others 1995). and others 1995).

Central Administration International Conservation Organizations

In July 1995, after lobbying by zapovednik directors and Another positive result from the fall of the Soviet Union is organizations such as the BCC, the Ministry of Environmen- the increased contact with international conservation orga- tal Protection established the Department of Nature Re- nizations. In April 1997, the British Environmental Know serve (Zapovednik) Management. Vsevolod Stepanitski was How Fund supported the development of management plans appointed to head the new department. Historically, for two zapovedniki and one national park (Grigoryan 1997). zapovedniki were spread out through various administra- Organizations such as Pacific Environment and Resources tive authorities such as local and provincial authorities, the Center (PERC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Ministry of Hunting and Game Preserves, the Ministry of have been donating time, staff, and funding for several Forestry, or the Russian Academy of Science. Although educational initiatives, computer support, training sessions, associated with each other in many respects, the preserves and conferences. In December 1997, PERC and the Chazy lacked a single, unified agency to lobby for their needs and Ecofund in Abakan organized a conference for southern interests (Pryde 1991). Establishment of a centralized de- Siberian protected areas. The conference concluded with a partment in Moscow provided essential support for the master plan for the region to initiate a comprehensive survival of zapovedniki in Russia. The initial focus for the program of biodiversity conservation. Further evidence of new department was protecting the borders and enforcing international assistance is that the World Conservation laws that prohibited trespass or utilization of resources from Union (IUCN) has representatives in Russia; the United the zapovedniki (Williams 1995). Prior to 1995, employees Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s lacked the authority to make an arrest or file suit against (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere program has dissemi- offenders. If an employee needed to arrest a poacher, they nated computer software and training to standardize infor- enlisted the support from the local militia or police—an mation from the 17 zapovedniki that are biosphere reserves; awkward, time-consuming process. Although each and cooperative projects and staff exchanges have been zapovednik is still struggling to pay salaries and maintain a organized through the U.S. National Park Service and the staff, the support from a central administration combined U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, international with the 1995 Federal Law for Specially Protected Natural research universities are working with zapovedniki and Areas gives the zapovedniki a sense of direction and legal have targeted investigations in areas of particular interest strength. such as the Russian Far East (Amur Leopard, Siberian Crane, and Siberian Tiger) and migrating birds nesting in the Arctic Tundra. System-Wide Growth Paradoxically, despite decreasing funding since 1991 there Environmental Education has been a growth in the zapovednik system. In 1991, there were 77 zapovedniki within Russia’s borders. In 1998, there A recent addition to management strategies for zapovedniki are 99 zapovedniki and 93 are active—a 30 percent increase is environmental education. The theory is to increase politi- since the fall of the Soviet Union. Six preserves are so new cal support by educating young people about the purpose they are considered “paper preserves” (Stepanitsky 1998) and role of zapovedniki in Russian society. The long-term The paper preserves have no staff or a small volunteer staff, expectation is that as adults the students will be less likely no mechanism for conducting research, and no government to violate the zapovednik regime and more likely to support inspectors to protect their borders. Although some directors helpful legislation. The scientific staff on Katun Zapovednik and activists object to paper preserves, the benefits seem to indicated early successes in 1995 after they initiated an outweigh the drawbacks. Several benefits include: (1) prop- outreach program to the schools (Ostergren 1995). In 1996, erty ownership has not been determined in many areas of with support from the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Russia, and therefore property is relatively cheap—essen- Swiss government, a Zapovedniks’ Environmental Education tially free—for the government; (2) endangered species need Center opened in Moscow. The goals are to develop funds habitat protection, and setting aside land now will make any and contacts for education, create and adapt educational

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 211 methodologies, create vivid public education programs, and authorizing zapovednik inspectors to make arrests and file support local initiatives in environmental education (Menner law suits. Table 1 provides a summary of violations for 1996 1996). Because using the zapovedniki for educational pur- and 1997 (Stepanitski 1998). These reports are from 93 poses may open them up to the general public, some experts active zapovedniki. caution against too much access. The primary function of the Several reasons have been postulated for the increase in preserves is protection and monitoring relatively pristine violations. One is that government inspectors are becoming ecosystems. On the other hand, education is viewed as a more efficient at detecting and apprehending violators. In service to society and necessary to generate and maintain addition, because inspectors are aware that the Department political support. The Education Center believes the of Zapovedniki in Moscow is interested in these statistics, an zapovedniki are still evolving and defining their role in increase may be due to increased reporting. However, the society as we enter the 21st century. Careful consideration largest proportion of increases is due to the social and should be given to the advantages and disadvantages of economic climate of Russia. Fewer restrictions on movement environmental education for zapovedniki (Danilina 1997). across Russia’s borders mean that poachers have a greater access to international animal parts markets and thus have a greater incentive to violate the regime. The Altai Zapovednik New Challenges For reported an increase in Musk deer poaching in 1993 and Zapovedniki ______1994 as the price for musk increased. As the price declined in 1995, so did the poaching. Poachers have become more Despite the many positive steps for zapovedniki since bold as evidenced by an armed raid to steal horses at a 1991, most of the news is bad. The single largest problem for government inspector’s station on the Altai Zapovednik, and zapovedniki is a lack of funds. From 1991 to 1995, the federal on Lazovski Zapovednik two inspector stations were burned budget shrunk by 60 to 80 percent for all zapovedniki. The down. result was a cut in salaries for inspectors, scientists, and A significant motivation for poaching and trespass is staff, a shortage of equipment, a drop or elimination of access survival. As unemployment rises and food becomes scarce, to helicopters, a reduction in border patrols, a reduction in locals neighboring the zapovedniki turn to hunting and the number of research projects, and a reduction in the gathering as a source of sustenance. At nearby settlements number of cooperative research projects with Russian uni- and summer homes, people gather firewood, berries, mush- versities. As directors reacted to the problem, they spent rooms, and medicinal plants on a regular basis, although more and more time raising funds from a variety of sources they rarely venture far into the preserve. On the Stolby including regional ecological funds, and international re- Zapovednik, evidence of poaching elk and deer is increasing search and grantmaking institutions. Innovative solutions on the periphery of the preserve. Despite increased poach- included the Altai Zapovednik trading apples for gasoline, ing, Director Knorre believes that the interior of the pre- inspectors in remote Arctic stations trading salted fish for serve is largely untouched by poaching and trespassing. The helicopter support, and the Putoranski Zapovednik helping greatest strength for zapovedniki in times of economic stress collect museum specimens on wildlands outside of the is their sheer size or remote location. zapovednik (Ostergren 1997). In 1995, the Department of Zapovedniki in Moscow began to keep records of violations on the regime of the protected The Collapsing Budget areas. In the 1997 reports of zapovedniki protection services In 1998, the proposed budget for all 99 zapovedniki was there were 3,503 formal charges (compared to 2,596 in 1996). 43 million rubles (U.S. $7 million). According to Vsevolod Violators received penalties in 1997 from administrative Stepanitski in a recent press release, the Department of fines of 246,745,000 rubles (U.S. $40,225—6.134 rubles/ Zapovedniki was informed that their budget has been dollar in May 1998) and 326,481,000 rubles (U.S. $53,225) reduced to 12 million rubles (U.S. $2 million in a constant from suits in compensation for damages inflicted on the exchange rate). This was before the devaluation of the nature complex (Stepanitski 1998). The 1995 Federal Law ruble in September 1998. The only item that is supported by on Specially Protected Areas has proved very useful by the federal budget is the salary line item. No money has been

Table 1—A summary of violations on 93 zapovedniki in 1996 and 1997.

Violation 1996 1997 Wood gathering and cutting 171 214 Haymaking and pasturing livestock 80 46 Hunting 439 434 Fishing 712 1,007 Collecting wild vegetation 219 461 Taking land and building 38 9 Travel by foot or automobile through the area or parking in the protected area 710 1,007 Pollution 58 45 Irresponsible fire and burning of forest on adjacent lands 41 63 Poaching ungulates 94 123 Poaching large predators 4 (including one polar bear and one Himalayan bear)

212 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 allocated for maintenance, research, or education. Stepanitski will come from within Russia. However, the international suggests that even with some outside funding the system is community can support zapovedniki through a variety of in deep trouble. A long-range, multi-pronged approach is methods and send a message to the Russian government necessary to protect Russia’s environment. Federal funding that this unique system of protected areas is a national and ought to be sufficient to keep the reserves functioning at global treasure that deserves federal support and long-term least on a maintenance basis. Now the directors are faced investment. with the choice of cutting meager salaries or letting some staff go. As of September 1998, several zapovedniki have reported References ______the worst conditions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Boreiko, V. E. 1993. Razgrom zapovednikov: kak eto bilo (1951-?), According to the director at the Kandalaksha State Nature [Destruction of the zapovedniki: how it happened.] Energia. Reserve, they have only 20 percent of the budget of 1992. The 2: 14-17. staff describes it as a catastrophic situation for the preserve. Boreiko, V. E. 1994. 1961: Vtoroi pazgrom zapovednikov, [Second The overall budget in 1998 consisted of 90 percent from destruction of the zapovedniks.] Energia. 1: 35-38. Danilina, N. 1997. Environmental education for the 21st century: federal government, 0 percent from international NGOs, shaping the concept. Russian Conservation News. 13: 15-17. and 10 percent from local governments. There is a 70 percent Federal Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas. 1995. (Federalnie reduction in the number of inspector stations on the borders, zakon ob osobo okhranyaemikh prirodnikh territoriyakh). Ekos and the number of government inspectors is down 50 per- Inform. 6: 3-56. cent. The staff at Kronotskiy Zapovednik report that the Grigoryan, A. 1997. Opposing sides in Altai establish a dialogue. Russian Conservation News. 13: 6-8. 1998 budget is 10 percent of 1992—a drastic reduction. They Kozhevnikov, G. A. 1908. On the necessity of establishing reserve had 27 inspectors in 1992 and now only 15. The budget for plots in order to conserve the natural resources of Russia. Lazovski Zapovednik in 1998 is much worse than the budget Reprinted in Bulletin No. 4: 73-78. Conservation of Natural in 1992. Again the federal budget only provides funds for Resources and the Establishment of Reserves in the USSR. Translated and published in 1962 by the Israel Program for salaries, and since June 1998, salaries have been reduced Scientific Translation, Jerusalem. yet again by 50 percent. Several government inspectors left Menner, A. 1996. First environmental education center for their jobs stating that the salary is just too low. zapovedniki opens in Moscow. Russian Conservation News. 7: 21. Ostergren, D. 1995. Two approaches to the same mission. Russian Conservation News. 6: 5-6. Ostergren, D. M. 1997. Post-Soviet transitions in policy and man- Conclusions______agement of zapovedniki and lespromkhozi in Central Siberia. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. 213 p. Dissertation. Since 1991, zapovedniki have maintained and promoted Ostergren, D.; Shvarts, E. 1998. Protected areas in Russia: their role in Russian society by: management goals, current status, and future prospects of Russian zapovedniki. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; • Contacting international NGOs. Hendee, John C., comps. 1998. Personal, societal, and ecologi- • Using legislation to increase their legal status and cal values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress ability to enforce the law. proceedings on research, management, and allocation, Vol. 1; • Expanding their environmental education program. 1998 October 24-29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-4. Ogden, • Diversifying their funding strategies. UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 11-16. Despite their efforts, the massive reduction in federal sup- Ostergren, D. M. 1998. System in peril: a case study of five Central port overrides most efforts to fulfill their mandate of biodi- Siberian zapovedniki. The International Journal of Wilderness. 4(3): 12-17. versity conservation, ecological monitoring, and environ- Pryde, P. R. 1972. Conservation in the Soviet Union. New York: mental education. Director Stepanitski has appealed to the Cambridge University Press. 301 p. Duma for support, but the legislative body seems unlikely to Pryde, P. R. 1991. Environmental Management in the Soviet Union. change this year’s budget. New York: Cambridge University Press. 314 p. Shtil’mark, F. 1995. Pervimi zapovednikami v Rossii [First In light of current conditions for zapovedniki the following zapovedniks in Russia]. Zapovestnik. 7-8(10-11): 6. questions remain. What will zapovedniki do in the next 2 to Shtil’mark, F. R. 1996. Istoriografiya Rossiskikh Zapovednikov 5 years to survive? How can the international community (1895-1995). [The Historiography of the Russian Nature Pre- support this unique system of wilderness preserves? In the serves]. Moscow: TOO, Logata. ISBN 5-900858-03-0. short term, the authors recommend that the international Sobolev, N. A.; Shvarts, E. A.; Kreindlin, M. L.; Mokievskiy, V. O.; Zubakin, V. A. 1995. Russia’s protected areas: base survey and community support the zapovednik system by: identification of development problems. Biodiversity and Con- • Recognizing its contribution to global biodiversity and servation. 4(9): 964-983. Stepanitski, V. 1997. Financing Russian Zapovedniki in 1996. wilderness preservation. Russian Conservation News. 12: 30-31. • Encouraging international NGOs to support both small Stepanitski, V. B. 1998. Several results of work by the protection and large zapovedniki. service for Russian zapovedniki in 1997. [Nekotorii itogi raboti • Promoting cooperative research projects on zapovedniki. cluzhb okhrani Rossiskikh zapovednikov v 1997 godu.] Zapovedniki and National Parks Information Bulletin. May 29, • Supporting ecotourism and scientific tourism that in- no. 24-25. jects income or supports research on a wide range of Weiner, D. R., 1988. Models of nature: ecology, conservation, and zapovedniki. cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Indianapolis: Indiana Uni- versity Press. 312 p. Zapovednik directors, administrators, scientists and non- Williams, M. 1995. A new department of nature reserve manage- government organizations concur that long-term solutions ment for Russia. Russian Conservation News. 5: 3.

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 213