Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA 340 J. Ⅲ 2004. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE Krutogorovsky Bolsheretsk McKinleyville, Sobolevo Kirovsky SOBOLEVSKY Ozernovsky The Ust-Bolsheretsk

BYSTRINSKY UST-BOLSHERETSKY Apacha Russian Malki

Dalny KORYAKIA Ganaly Paratunka Koryaki Esso Anavgai Milkovo Sharomy ELIZOVSKY !. MILKOVSKY Elizovo Kirganik P ! Dolinovka Maiskoe Far CA: PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY Krapivnaya Atlasovo Kozyrevsk Klyuchi UST-KAMCHATSKY East:

Daniel P Kurilskoe ! Lake A Ust-Kamchatsk

C A Krutoberegovo I & Reference

F ! acak Oblast Kamchatka Daniel. 100 ¯ I C yNwl n hu/ Zhou and Newell By km

466 O Guide C E Sources: pages A iityo aua eore,20;ER,2002. ESRI, 2002; Resources, Natural of Ministry ALEUTSKY

080s.km sq. 70,800 N

for C

a 10.1 Map o

m

m a

Conservation

n d

usa a East Far Russian

e

r

I

s

l

a

n

d s and Development. Newell, J. 2004. McKinleyville, The Russian line. Sparse stone Sparse line. birch ( ( pine fi Infl many places. shoreline downto the in reaching cliffs steep more with is mountainous, coast eastern The of fi forest risk the increasing droughts, from suffer regions summer, group In of these volcanoes. Klyuchevskoi-Tolbachinsky from the snow ice and glacial melting and rainfall on depends summer ofwater level its tributaries stretches which river, peninsula’s the is Kamchatka, largest the river valley Valley. broad this Feeding Kamchatka the lies ranges, mountain eastern and central the Volcano, rises north, the in it world the second in to Yellowstone United Klyuchevskoi the Park National in States. making geysers, hundred two almost has Zapovednik, of Kronotsky part and peninsula of the part eastern the in Valley The ofGeysers, the center of peninsula. down the the stretches which Range, Mountain tivity. Volcanic (Central) Sredinny formed eruptions the other of forms ac- and volcanic vents, fumaroles, steam mud cauldrons, boiling countless CHAPTER 10 Located on Pacifi the Located 29 has of Fire, Kamchatka c Rim ecology and Geography fromranging – of the parts continental than milder The infl Climate 70 Size northeastern in located is which peninsula, upsouthern the portion of Kamchatka the makes Oblast Kamchatka Location Kamchatka Oblast pressure are common. Annual precipitation is common. Annual are pressure atmospheric in suddenchanges fogand rainy. cool, short, and Heavy are summers and territory. its administrative within Islands (Commander) Komandorskie the includes also Kamchatka of peninsula. section Autonomous coversnorthern the the which Okrug, To west. to the of Okhotsk Sea the and the north, the east the elds, coastal sands, and tundra dominate the landscape. In the north, Japanese stone Japanese north, the In landscape. dominate the tundra and sands, coastal elds, , 800 Pinus pumila Pinus uenced by its latitude and long oceanic coastline, wetlands, stony barrens, lava stony barrens, wetlands, coastline, long by and uenced oceanic its latitude sq. km ( sq. km uence of Pacifi uence the Far CA: 11 17 East: ° c Daniel . 2 ) and shrub alders ( alders shrub ) and in February to 14 February in million ha). ha). million Betula ermani c Ocean and the Sea of Okhotsk makes Kamchatka’s climate climate Kamchatka’s makes of Okhotsk Sea the and c Ocean rfe A 4 , . It by Pacifi the washed is 688 & Reference m above sea level. In the heart of the peninsula, between between of peninsula, the heart the mabove level. In sea Daniel. rfe ° c Alnus fruticosa, A. sinuata A. fruticosa, Alnus ) forests form the typical Kamchatka landscape. landscape. Kamchatka typical form the ) forests in July. . In general, winters are long with heavy snows, heavy long with are winters general, . In res. Vast lowlands defi Vastres. lowlands 50 1 466 – 100 Guide cm, with average temperatures temperatures average cm, with active volcanoes, active c Ocean and Bering Strait to Strait Bering and c Ocean pages for borders the Koryak borders Koryak the oblast ) run down shore- to the ) run ne the western coast. coast. western ne the Conservation 186 720 geysers, geysers, km. The The km.

341 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA gray ( ( snow sheep ( include Kamchatka species endangered and rare aeetus pelagicus percent of world’s the Steller’s ( eagles sea shoreline. the now More along and feed than the in be extinct rivers. crab ( Kamchatka Pacifi Pacifi of species for all grounds spawning are rivers one of world’s the fi salmon richest at least numbering sis larch ( fl grow in trees suaveolens 342 ( ( Blue whales fl ( tions of brown bear popula- one of highest has the Kamchatka endangered. cetaceans, and 2 are also 240 There dolphins). and whales migrating cluding oblast the inhabit species mammal Forty-three endemic to Kamchatka. are species of four these fumaroles; and hot springs mineral found around are of plants species endangered and rare Forty woodlands. tundra and ranges coverstone mountain shrubs pine alder and Japanese center of the peninsula. grow in the ( birch. Willows stone is species forest main The plants. vascular The fauna and Flora not world. if the of Russia, all in most pristine one of the environment remains chatka’s natural Kam- valley. Overall, River Kamchatka central the in lie forests most valuable Kamchatka’s arctic fox ( arctic and ourish in the waters off the northeastern coast. coast. northeastern the off waters the in ourish J. Grampus griseus Megaptera novaeangliae Megaptera Betula maximovitschii birch (Betula monarch and ), Ⅲ 2 has about one thousand species of about species one has thousand oblast c salmon population spawns in its pristine its pristine in population spawns c salmon Up ofworld’s the toc salmon. one quarter 2004. , nine of which are marine mammals (ex- mammals marine of are , nine which species of amphibians. About of amphibians. species Eschrichtius robustus Eschrichtius Larix gmelini THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE ), aspen ( aspen ), Alopex lagopus mednovi lagopus Alopex species of species birds, Ovis nivicola nivicola nivicola Ovis Balaenoptera musculus McKinleyville, oodplains along rivers. Dahurian rivers. Dahurian along oodplains ) nest on the peninsula. Other Other on) nest peninsula. the The terrestrial mammals are rare or rare are mammals terrestrial Salix ), bowhead), ( 1970 P. tremula P. 7 ), Ayan spruce ( spruce Ayan ), , 650 Ursus arctos Ursus ), aromatic poplar ( s, have partially recovered recovered s, have partially Russian ) whales, Copper Island Copper Island ) whales, . The peninsula is also also is peninsula . The Paralithodes kamchatica ), blue,), humpback and 3 Eubalaena glacialis ), alders, and other and alders, ), species of bats, of bats, species ) in the world, the ) in ), gray dolphin dolphin gray ), ), Asian harbor harbor Asian ), sheries; the sheries; ), thought to thought ), Picea ayanen- Picea 40 birds, 12 birds, Far CA: Populus Populus Hali- 50 2 East: )

) Daniel ), A being developed irrationally (see pp. 362–63). pp. (see irrationally developed being are projects energy planned and current some that fear experts Local use. energy ofsustainable amodel become could Kamchatka sources, energy natural immense With Energy development 368–69). pp. (see organs bear for market Asian the satisfy to poachers by killed regularly are bears brown huge Kamchatka’s revenue. inlost ayear dollars fi Illegal fiRampant poaching wildlife and sh ecosystems of global signifi fragile destroy to threatening is Geysers Valley ofthe the as such places ofcharismatic use intensive controversial; been has oftourism development the but regions, RFE the of potential tourist greatest the perhaps has Kamchatka Tourism 361–62). pp. (see mine this for (OPIC) Corporation Investment Private Overseas agency government U.S. the by funding halted resolution IUCN An Park. Nature ofBystrinsky border the on mine gold Aginskoe at developments the are controversial ticularly Par- lifestyles. people’s indigenous and ecology region’s the to threats serious pose miningactivities Proposed Gold mining 370–72). pp. (see conservation forest much-needed on than rather development tourism on focused are funds and Efforts all. at protection no places insome and zoning inadequate is there inpractice but logging, from forests Kamchatka’s protectedareas should shelter valuable areas protected and Forestry 369–70). pp. (see organizations mental environ- international from support future jeopardizing properly, managed being not are site this within areas fi the However, Kamchatka. on development veprotected balanced for possibilities good offers designation This Site Heritage World Kamchatka of Volcanoes Key andprojects issues & Reference shing costs Kamchatka hundreds of millions Kamchatka of shing costs Daniel. 466 Guide cance (see pp. 372–73). pp. (see cance pages for Conservation and Development. Newell, J. nutilpouto nKmhtaOls,1999 Oblast, Kamchatka in production Industrial 10.1 Figure Source: 2004. ihproducts fish okmtt 2000. Goskomstat, ihand Fish McKinleyville, 61% The Russian of Kamchatka’s international airport. international of Kamchatka’s was about the same, 5 about same, the was 13 wickii seal ( seal ments could result in mutually benefi mutually in result ments could govern- their between cooperation of economymuch terms common ecology; in in and The peninsula. entire to the gateway but the Petropavlovsk remains 1990 In unit. administrative a single Autonomous were once Okrug Koryak the and Oblast Kamchatka interests. business local since place in been has administration current Kamchatka’s status Political 384 Population 256 (pop. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Largest cities fi and good perks to come to Kamchatka are now returning to European Russia. In Russia. to European now are returning to come goodperks and to Kamchatka jobs high-paying with who were once encouraged Ukrainians and Russians the ic decline; shank ( shank Steller’s eagle. sea kamtschatica shing industry, and a nuclear submarine base. Nearby Elizovo (pop. Elizovo Nearby base. submarine industry, anuclear and shing , 440 Other , 9% 200 Phoca vitulina steinegeri Phoca vitulina Electricity Falco rusticolus (Falco gyrfalcon ), people the left Tringa guttifer Tringa 20% as of January 1 of January as Precious metals Far CA: 7% Machinery ), osprey ( 3% East: Daniel ), spoon-billed sandpiper ( ), spoon-billed , oblast 962 Pandion haliaeetus Pandion , 2001 . 5 A

, resulting in an overall decline of decline overall an in , resulting ), whooper swan ( ), whooper swan . 4 production in 1999 in production are minimally developed. See fi See developed. minimally are resources geothermal to support it. substantial Kamchatka’s improved an infrastructure become more with promising Development decline. in ofcould are tourism ber industries industry. most fi the important The by crab, is far for and salmon, pollock, particularly Fishing, Main industries the world. some in are of richest the seas surrounding in rivers and here. fi The discovered recently also fi Oil at estimated are adjacent to Kamchatka shelf on Okhotsk the reserves Gas reserves. mof gas cu. up to with Kamchatka western deposits in gas ral coal deposits total 273 brown and Coal resources. copper,nickel, other mineral and signifi has Kamchatka resources Natural & Reference The population is steadily decreasing as a result of econom- aresult as decreasing steadily is population The ), peregrine falcon ( falcon peregrine ), Daniel. elds, elds, with confi , they became independent regions, became , they administrative cial strategies for sustainable development. for strategies sustainable cial 3 , 000 ), white-tailed eagle ( eagle white-tailed ), ) is the administrative center, ahub of rfe the administrative the ) is Cygnus cygnus Calidris pygmaeus 466 . Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ rmed of reserves 360 Guide cant deposits of deposits gold, silver,cant platinum, million tons. There are sixteen natu- sixteen are tons. There million F. peregrinus F. pages 1991 g ), Bewick’s ( swan 5 for Haliaeetus albicilla , 10 801 , developing close ties with with , developing closeties sheries in Kamchatka’s Kamchatka’s in sheries sh-processing and tim- and sh-processing . ), Aleutian tern), Aleutian ( 1 ), Nordmann’s green- ; in 1999; in for the total industrial industrial for total the okrug Conservation 46, 732 million tons, were million 000 have oblast and billion cu. m. cu. billion , the decline decline , the ) is the site the ) is C. be- 70 ), and and ), 1998 Sterna Sterna billion billion

, 343

and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA

A. D. King Kamchatka’s primary import, accounting for u.s.$32 accounting import, primary Kamchatka’s ( include machinery exports Other trade. involved fi the are in enterprises Kamchatka Sixty consumers. largest were the the United ( the States 344 Development and for Reconstruction Bank European by the part in power funded plant, of Mutnovsky geothermal the Construction to domestic sources. increasingly now looking to fi diesel) and (oil, on relied coal, fuel imported traditionally has Kamchatka years. few for past the occurrence adaily blackouts) (scheduled rationing regular have made Fuel average. shortages national the times four of Russia, all in costs fi crisis its energy to address needs Kamchatka outlook General In RFE the in importance Economic 1999 in products fi exported more more Reported economy and onKamchatka’s relying trade. foreign is trade Foreign underdeveloped. are to support tourism but services Elizovo, hotels and in airport the serve airlines International Raion). (Bystrinsky central-west to the Esso and northeast the in out to Ust-Kamchatsk heading and forking ofpeninsula, the middle the major only from Petropavlovsk Kamchatka’s goes road up by only air; accessible is sula equipment. and foodproducts, fuel, Much port. Petropavlovskof penin- the main the is diffi creates remoteThe ofpeninsula location the Infrastructure ofPetropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. city tothe backdrop adramatic provide volcanoes Nearby totaled totaled of the athird much it as produced as years used as targets for test missiles launched from other regions of Russia. of fromother regions Russia. launched missiles for test targets as used were on peninsula the bases Avacha in Bay. based seaboard military Other on eastern the base Russia’s outpost, submarine with nuclear largest military UnionSoviet astrategic as J. 1998 Ⅲ 2004. , Kamchatka accounted for 6 accounted , Kamchatka 782 THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE , 000 McKinleyville, The metric tons, or metric 25 amounted to $242 27 . 4 percent), ( Japan Russian percent ofcatch. the . 3 . 2 million ( million percent of industrial production the in percent of industrial Far 21 CA: 3 . percent) and timber ( percent) timber and 7 rfe percent), and South Korea ( Korea South percent), and rst. Currently, it has the highest electricity electricity Currently,rst. highest the it has ’s fi ’s East: 3 . Daniel 3 culties in supplying regular shipments of regular supplying in culties sh catch; in in sh catch; percent less than in 1998 in than percent less . 2 million in 1999 in million 7 The peninsula served the former the served peninsula The A & Reference re its power stations and is is re its power and stations 1997 4 Daniel. percent). Bunker fuel is is fuel percent). Bunker , Kamchatka’s portion, Kamchatka’s . 21 . ), of), which 2 percent) sh product rfe 466 Guide . 6 In past In past pages sh for Conservation and Development. Newell, J. tourist industry. tourist awell-developed with RFE ofthe part only the it made have ofKamchatka landscapes Scenic 2004. McKinleyville, The Russian and to construct a to construct and ( as beautiful as Kamchatka, either in Russia or abroad.” Russia either in Kamchatka, as beautiful as 2000 of spring the in a visit during Putin, Vladimir landscape. the with familiar intimately locals requires tourism experts, outside technical requires which people. mining, Unlike of local employing abroad range industry sustainable environmentally for an opportunity present does best the ecotourism ecosystems, fragile adversely affect could which activities, concept of the azapovednik that argue many Although areas. revenue helpedneeded to bring protected has Development Kamchatka in of tourism shelf. on Okhotsk the reserves gas tion ofand oil the exploita- pipeline pave way the for could the future that fear and byposed its construction point to threats environmentalists economic feasibility; and impact environmental the about despite concerns proceeding pipelineis Kamchatgasprom of this Construction lovsk. economic conditions within the oblast put project gold has development prices, global on hold, temporarily but depressed the coupled low with resistance, projects. This investment foreign for gold mining attract to administration by the efforts resisted groups have strongly international and Local diffi are ideals these for protected areas, funding scientifi particular of areas attractions—while other tourist hotand springs, landscapes, other breathtaking plenty of are there Kamchatka outside protected areas—on should beencouraged tourism support hampers real enforcement of park boundaries and effective monitoring of illegal monitoring of illegal effective and enforcement boundaries of park real support hampers cover 27 protected areas Although improve. soughtwhen prices beaggressively will investment foreign for goldthat mining ebrd , suggested that tourism be expanded, remarking that he “had never seen anywhere anywhere never seen he “had that remarking beexpanded, tourism that , suggested ), was recently completed. There are plans to build two hydroelectric power hydroelectric plants two to build plans completed. are There recently was ), Far CA: East: c value remain strictly protected. Given the virtual withdrawal of federal of federal withdrawal Given protected. virtual the strictly remain c value Daniel 414 -km gas pipeline from gas fi pipeline from gas gas -km A & Reference percent of the territory, the perpetual lack of fi lack percent ofterritory, the perpetual the Daniel. and recent statements by recent statements government and offi cult to uphold. 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ elds in western Kamchatka to Petropav- Kamchatka western in elds Guide 8 pages Regional experts believe that that believe experts Regional — Emma Wilson — Emma and overall criminal activity. criminal overall and poaching in utes increase to the contrib- which state, a desperate people many have left in stuffs of food- costs high extremely unemployment,industries, and the fi of decline The unprotected. remain levels, water regulate and runs salmon healthy ensure to vital are which Peninsula, the center of the in forests conifer the as such areas, important of protected land, percentage Despite large the activities. does not does include tourist for sh-processing and timber timber and sh-processing Conservation cials mean mean cials nancial nancial

345 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA

NASA 346 winter. in Peninsula Kamchatka ofthe image A satellite J. Ⅲ 2004. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE McKinleyville, The Russian Far CA: East: Daniel A & Reference Daniel. 466 Guide pages for Conservation and Development. Newell, J. in airborne particulates (to particulates airborne in However, in levels. pollution In health. public impaired have activity by volcanic caused cals of chemi- release the and pressure, atmospheric in variability of climate, effects the with combined pollution, water and air Excessive Elizovo. of Petropavlovsk and vicinity the in parent ap- especially is This toll. their taken have practices land-use extensive nature, pristine relatively Despite Kamchatka’s Olga Chernyagina, Vladimir Zykov Ecology the unique role that Kamchatka plays in maintaining the the maintaining in plays Kamchatka role that unique the of because regulations of environmental strictest the within come should extraction mineral any that concluded delegates Petropavlovsk in held in Oblast, Kamchatka in ing at ascientifi region’s the tobolster economy. resources However, mineral oblast The 60 than more generated have alone Bay. region’s The installations naval Avacha of in disposed been has amount same about the and 100 More than or reused. recycled is waste of industrial percent 1997 in produced 280 of the half Almost systems. river nearby in runoff of toxic quantities large in resulting systems, collection drainage storm has peninsula the of None settlements of the facilities. treatment sewage lack la peninsu- on the towns and cities Several logging. and activity by agricultural primarily degraded are River, Kamchatka the peninsula, on the river largest the and Paratunka— and cha fl rivers two the Petropavlovsk, near tries, as well as fi fi the include polluters worst The rivers. and bays via primarily of disposed supply. is water Sewage acentralized with ments settle- in systems drainage and of pipelines condition poor of diffi because critical is situation the some locales, In problematic. is use commercial supply for the householdand resources, spite In of these applications. medicinal have springs natural peninsula’s of the many in found waters mineralized The aquifers. in supply water inexhaustible apractically with year, each 220 world. Approximately the around equals few know springs many peninsula’s the in found waters of mineral variety the and lakes clear of pure, abundance The endowments. natural precious most Kamchatka’s among are Water resources increased by 200 also mobile sources from pollution tosupply it. Air used being oil of fuel quality the in adecrease and grid sk’s heating of development of Petropavlov- aresult observed, was sources sh-processing, shipbuilding, and energy-production indus- energy-production and shipbuilding, sh-processing, 2004. , cu. km of runoff empties into the surrounding oceans oceans surrounding into the empties of runoff km cu. 000 1992 tons of scrap metal litter the peninsula’s coastlines, coastlines, peninsula’s the litter metal of tons scrap McKinleyville, , the economy entered a recession that did improve did that economy entered arecession , the c conference, Problems and Priorities of Min- Priorities and Problems c conference, The administration increasingly wishes toexploit wishes increasingly administration , 000 shing shing fl tons to tons consists of household waste. Only Only waste. of household consists tons of scrap metal. of tons scrap Russian eets and military bases. Avacha Bay, Avacha bases. military and eets culties with water treatment and the the and treatment water with culties 26 , 000 , 50 700 1997 , 000 tons of solid waste that were that waste of tons solid tons per year. per tons a six-hundred-ton increase increase asix-hundred-ton tons) from stationary stationary from tons) owing into it—the Ava- owing into it—the Far CA: East: Daniel 1997 10

, A & Reference occupy central Kamchatka’s lowlands and extend to an toan extend and lowlands Kamchatka’s central occupy forests larch Dahurian peninsula. of the parts mountainous of zone the middle the in and lowlands the in dominant are four-fi comprise and widespread most the low. are considered is Stoneforests birch coniferous, cu. m, of which 178 m, of which are cu. reserves timber estimated Kamchatka’s 10 fund, forest of the area remaining the cover forests Group III enterprise. in the resources base of Kamchatles, the the of Kamchatles, base resources the in included been had earlier, that, areas in and rivers, spawning of basins the in by development, located threatened deemed forest coniferous toinclude created was group this areas, ging of log- designation the and logging To commercial regulate Elizovo. Forests within Group II amount to Groupamount II within Forests Elizovo. Petropavlovsk and around zones green and roads along and include protective strips along spawning rivers ( rivers spawning along strips protective include forest, Source: 15,046.3 Total Group III II Group I Group Category 1995 category, land by Oblast Kamchatka in stock Forest 10.1 Table to of January (as stock forest Kamchatka’s Forests pp. (see averted was koe Agins- work on exploiting continued and canceled, site was the todevelop company’s initiative mining the in investment large-scale aresult, As gold deposit. Aginskoe the developing table Private Investment Corporation ( Corporation Investment Private of U.S.environmental number A parks. nature regional for establishing particularly zations, infl from support substantial received have organizations related and istration admin- Kamchatka the aresult, As Kamchatka. in servation con- resource and problemsof nature tothe attention great paid have abroad and Russia in groups interest Public resources. of marine its ity Pacifi northern of the stability ecological Daniel. 15 , 046 10 Kamchatka Forest Service, 1996. Service, Forest Kamchatka 3 . , 1 470 , ). Of 8 these, 300 107 , 000 ha, or 87 ha, , . 466 74 152 uential international environmental organi- environmental international uential Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ ha designated as Group I forests. These These Group Iforests. as designated ha deciduous). The productivity of the forests forests of the productivity The deciduous). Guide , 300 million may be harvested ( harvested be may million fths of all of Kamchatka’s forests. They They forests. of Kamchatka’s of all fths . . ha. ha. 95 8 pages percent of the total land area (see (see area land total of the percent 6–62 361– million ha are actually covered by covered actually are ha million for Area (000 ha) (000 Area ngo 10,152.3 ). 3,470.0 1,424.0 opic s pressured the Overseas Overseas the s pressured Conservation ) to halt its support for support its ) tohalt c and the productiv- the c and 1 oblast , 1998 1 , 424 510 ’s logging main ) amounts ) amounts 70 3 , . 448 .26 0 , 000 million million million million , 800

ha. ha. ha) ha) 347 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA in highly localized habitats. Communities in the vicinity of vicinity the in Communities habitats. localized highly in burning In rfeof the , fi by cut 30 be regions only forests, coniferous Kamchatka’s Of harvested. are species coniferous of more valuable amounts excessive while altogether, ignored are species desirable less of the many Therefore, productivity. forest high with regions Cut ( Allowable spite In low the ofproductivity, the tundra. forest and ranges mountain the all practically covering widespread, also is alder shrub and stone pine of Japanese consisting vegetation Dwarf rivers. of banks the along strips narrow in stretch poplar aromatic ( of chosenia forests plain Flood- there. much rarer are forests aspen peninsula; of the part central the in widespread also are forests birch Silver Island. Conifer toas referred commonly is forests, spruce Ayan including of Kamchatka, part central the in of larch altitude of 200 forward a resolution in 1997 aresolution in forward put Autonomous Okrug Koryak and of Kamchatka services forest the larch, and of spruce reserves todwindling response In enterprises. for logging accessible most are grounds, ing for spawn- by salmon extensively used are which basins, or fi by logging undisturbed remains ha) 348 grostis langsdorfi bluejoint ( rough alder, and stone birch, shrub pine, oblast the inhabit plants of vascular species oneAbout thousand fauna and Flora Valley. Geyser in concentrated is Kamchatka on oftourism impact ofthe Most J. 1998 Ⅲ 2004. . The most widely distributed species are Japanese stone Japanese are species distributed widely most . The alone, ninety-seven individual fi 37 THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE , 700 res also bring enormous damage to the forests. forests. tothe enormousdamage bring also res ha of forest. of ha forest. – McKinleyville, i aac 300 ). Other species occur quite rarely, often quite rarely, often occur species Other ). The ) is set at a level more characteristic of more characteristic atalevel set ) is percent. Meanwhile, as in other regions regions other in as Meanwhile, percent. m in the ranges. The geographic area area geographic The ranges. the min Chosenia arbutifolia Russian insisting that the aac the that insisting oblast res were recorded, wererecorded, res re. Forests in river river in Forests re. 2 . 1 Far percent ( percent CA: ’s Annual Annual ’s ), willows, and and willows, ), for both for both East: Calam- Daniel 350 , 000

A extending a total of atotal extending ( salmon cherry and eye ( zibellina gramma annually: Pacifi of tons fi million two more than fi In resources. fi in rich no seafood less and are peninsula the surrounding seas The Siberia. or Russia European in here than much higher remain basins 1950 the since declining been have rates Productivity year. each grow and hatch of salmon incubator, millions where gigantic substantial: are rivers by Kamchatka’s offered ( trout rainbow rare species: salmonid other several are there ( chum rivers: of Pacifi species six All ing year. pass- each with declining are also populations Reindeer head. thousand three now total numbers the years; recent in erably consid- declined have snow sheep of Kamchatka Populations Zapovednik. of Kronotsky territory the within live of which 1995 In bear. brown on the primarily focus abroad, from coming those including hunters, Sport due topoaching. exceeded, typically are ( reindeer and showed that there was a minimum of aminimum was there that showed conducted an oblast Protection on Environmental Committee Kamchatka the Use ( Nature and Ecology of Institute Kamchatka the Kamchatka, in of bear brown harvest sustainable on the Fund program a World Wildlife & O. mykiss Reference s, but catch quotas (in terms of fi terms (in quotas buts, catch O. nerka Daniel. ), Pacifi ), river otter ( otter river ), ) and chars ( chars ) and ), chinook ( chinook ), Oncorhynchus keta Rangifer tarandus c salmon, walleye pollock ( pollock walleye c salmon, c cod ( c cod 466 -wide census of the animal. The results results The animal. of the census -wide O. masu 42 Lutra lutra Guide Gadus macrocephalus , Salvelinus birds, birds, mammals. Quotas on ( sable Quotas mammals. fi mals, ani- land fourteen include species Game mammals. terrestrial two and cetaceans, twelve birds, thirty-nine Book Data Red Russian the in listed all, In of amphibians. sis ( beaver Canadian and vison ( mink American introduced: 3 and whales), ing (excludingmarine migrat- mammals oblast the inhabit species mammal Forty-three Kamchatka. to endemic are of which four cies, spe- endangered and rare forty host fumaroles and hot springs mineral 689 c salmon spawn in Kamchatka’s Kamchatka’s in spawn c salmon O. tschawytscha ). There are also 240 also are There ). kiep sheries off Kamchatka’s coasts coasts Kamchatka’s off sheries km. The entire peninsula acts as a as acts peninsula entire The km. pages ), muskrat ( muskrat ), ). Along with the Pacifi the with Along ). 3 fty-six birds, and six marine marine six and birds, fty-six species of bats, and and of bats, species ), Kronotsky Zapovednik, and and Zapovednik, Kronotsky ), ) are strictly limited, but these sh and seafood are caught caught are seafood and sh ), pink ( ). The spawning grounds grounds spawning The ). ), brown bear, snow bear, sheep, brown ), for sh overall) from river river from overall) sh 7 , 650 Ondatra zibethica , 9 O. gorbuscha ), coho ( of which have been been have of which Conservation Theragra chalco- of which are are of which – individuals, 650 ), saffron cod cod saffron ), 1996 53 1 Castor canaden- species of species , species are are species 852 O. kisutch , as part of part , as rivers 2 c salmon, c salmon, species species Martes Martes Mustela Mustela ), sock- ), sh : ),

and Development. Newell, J. Reka Reka (River) (Southwestern) Tundra Udochka Yugo-zapadnaya Source: b a Komandorsky Zapovedniks name and Type Oblast Kamchatka in areas Protected 10.2 Table Bsrnk 13348 ytisy 1995 Ichinsky Bystrinsky Zakazniks Regional 1926 Kamchatka) (Southern 1,333,478 Yuzhno-Kamchatsky Elizovsky, Malkovsky, Milkovsky Zakazniks Federal Nalychevsky (Southern 1,308,854 Kamchatka) Yuzhno-Kamchatsky Bystrinsky Nature Parks Biosphere Kronotsky Station Station Sobolevskaya Scientifi Surchinsky Valley) (Reindeer Dol Oleny Timonovsky ee hbk Cuu’ os) 49,100 50,000 Tayozhny (Taiga) Coast) (Chubuk’s Chubuka Bereg Volcanoes) Tri (Three Vulkana Bobrovy (Beaver) Nalychevskaya Tundra Total Zhupanovsky Liman (Slough) (Point) Mys Nalychevsky Ozero (Lake) Kharchinskoe 2004. Total includes aquatorial area. area. aquatorial includes Total Includes 185,379 ha of land and 3,463,300 ha of aquatorial area. aquatorial of ha 3,463,300 and land of ha 185,379 Includes b 8,503,261 Kamchatka Committee on Environmental Protection, 1999. Protection, Environmental on Committee Kamchatka cResearch McKinleyville, The a 3,648,679 1993 Aleutsky

Russian Far CA: 8,0 Elizovsky 980,000 225,000 225,000 285,970 Elizovsky Elizovsky 285,970 183,400 Bystrinsky Bystrinsky 183,400 123,000 Size (ha) (ha) Size 490 Milkovsky 64,900 55,000 Sobolevsky Sobolevsky 55,000 69,600 69,600 99,000 Elizovsky Elizovsky 99,000 72,000 Elizovsky Elizovsky 72,000 500 Milkovsky 15,000 10,000 100 Milkovsky 51,000 41,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 East:

Daniel A Ust-Bolsheretsky Elizovsky Elizovsky Elizovsky Raion Raion Milkovsky, Bystrinsky

Ust-Bolsheretsky Ust-Bolsheretsky Elizovsky Elizovsky Ust-Kamchatsky Elizovsky Elizovsky Elizovsky, Ust-Bolsheretsky Elizovsky, Ust-Bolsheretsky & Reference Daniel. 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide pages Established for 1990 1983 1994 1996 1985 1994 1994 1995 1994 1994 1994 1994 1996 1986 1982 1972 1976 1978 Conservation

349 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA fl because quotas and geographical and seasonal limitations are depleted being are resources These crab. and pollock, ing profi productus dae and Elizovo. of Petropavlovsk zones green-belt the and Malkinskaya), and (Paratunskaya zones resort two reserves, forest twenty-eight fi parks, nature regional three federal Today two are there existed. staff or research no rangers and area, the in regime protection the toenforce allocated money was 52 – pp. 351 (see provided frequent the valley. Rare species include black brant ( brant black include species Rare valley. the frequent forty-fi for and snow sheep. One hundred Point providehabitat of Nalycheva cliffs and cones volcanic river. The of the reaches upper the in common very is bear Brown area. the in found are species mammal Thirty-three River. Nalycheva of the reaches upper the in concentrated are springs mineralized cold and hydrothermal hundred few A valley. River Nalycheva the surround volcanoes Dzenzur Zapovednik is provided (see pp. (see provided is Zapovednik parks. nature three 55 – pp. 353 (see provided is nik 350 Nature Parks. Zapovedniks. habitat. sable important toprotect century nineteenth end of the the in Kamchatka in v. zykov ezvekova, e. area system Protected ( site—Volcanoes of Kamchatka. site—Volcanoes two In objects. recreational and of historical register on the placed oblast ratifi and decree committee) executive by a designated offi was Zapovednik reindeer. Kronotsky and sheep, of decree imperial an in attention government. Russian by the abiosphere reserve as notsky, recognized is mchatka Oblast executive committee. executive Oblast mchatka agrantly disregarded. J. Eleginus gracilis Eleginus 1996 Nalychevsky. Bystrinsky. Komandorsky. Kronotsky. ), Pacifi table species, including certain salmon species, roe-bear- species, salmon certain including species, table Ⅲ zapovednik 2004. ’s total land area. In addition, sixty objects have been been have objects sixty addition, In area. ’s land total zakaznik , unesco ). Fishing enterprises focus their efforts on the most most on the efforts their focus enterprises Fishing ). THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE c herring ( 11 One of Kamchatka’s two zapovednik two One of Kamchatka’s The Kamchatka administration has established established has administration Kamchatka The In all, protected areas occupy 27 occupy areas protected all, In A complete description of Kronotsky Zapoved- of Kronotsky Acompletedescription A complete description of Bystrinsky Park is is Park of Bystrinsky Acomplete description McKinleyville, s and three nature parks, as aWorld as Heritage parks, nature three s and 1926 The Zhupanovsky, Koryaksky, Avacha, and and Avacha, Koryaksky, Zhupanovsky, The , fi ), fl designated part of the oblast of the part designated The A complete description of Komandorsky of Komandorsky Acomplete description fteen regional ( regional fteen ounder and halibut species ( species halibut and ounder Dalkraiispolkom (Far Eastern regional regional Eastern (Far Dalkraiispolkom Clupea pallasi —The fi zapovednik 9 The Kronotsky area received special special received area Kronotsky The ) and so is omitted here. omitted is so ) and Russian fty-nine natural monuments, monuments, natural fty-nine ). rst protected areas appeared appeared areas protected rst 12 5–56 355– oblast 1882 s in Kamchatka, one Kamchatka, s in ), and hake ( hake and ), ed in 10 to protect sable, snow sable, toprotect Until June 1934 June Until ). -level) ve species of birds of birds ve species Far 1929 CA: , including the the , including percent of the of the percent zakaznik Pleuronecti- Merluccius Merluccius by the Ka- by the s, Kro- East: cially cially Daniel Branta , no s, A peregrine falcon, and golden eagle. and falcon, peregrine nigricans waters here. surface and underground the studies and Bay Russkaya in facility pumping water experimental an pany, manages Friod, com- joint-stock The hot springs. of Khodutka vicinity the in operates Krechet company camp aviation-tourism tothe Atourist belonging park. the in exist areas hunting Eight colonies of slaty-backed gull, murres ( ( lets fi one is of between colonies these shore. Among near islands Pacifi on found be the can of seabirds colonies nesting hundred two About golden eagles. and ospreys some and of Steller’s eagles, sea pairs nesting twenty least at has it also peninsula; Kamchatka on the falcons egrine of per- populations one largest of the boasts park The ( tufted puffi fi for habitat spawning provides River Nalycheva The Zakazniks. well maintained. In not have been buildings the years few last for the funding, tounstable Due valley. of the part central the in located are Tourist year. cabins every valley the through pass tourists of Hundreds Kamchatka. in areas natural visited frequently population. indigenous local for the park the in fi one for and indigenous hunting for indigenous areas Six hot springs. around areas bathing toimprove the used werealso Funds facilities. campground Center, some and Semyonov Ecological Vladimir the people, for four quarters living tobuild Fund of Kamchatka cal wwf from funding used Parks of Nature such as fi as such of Kamchatka typical animals other valuable; most the ter are ot- sea and Snow bear, brown sheep, park. the inhabit species mammal Fifty-nine activity. of geothermal abundance an Mutnovsky, and active, most one of Kamchatka’s including volcanoes, extinct and active several encompasses territory within the lake watershed, as do hundreds of whooper swans swans of whooper do hundreds as watershed, lake the within nest Steller’s eagles sea runs. salmon massive on the feed which ofbears, brown hundreds with teem area the in rivers the and shores lake the fall, the In Kosheleva). Greben, and Diky Ilinsky, (Kambalny, volcanoes ofby agroup active zakaznik federal this zakaznik table here. See described is squirrel ( ( wolverine & ve thousand and six thousand pairs of long-billed murre- of long-billed pairs thousand six and ve thousand ve species of Pacifi ve species Phalacrocorax pelagicus Reference Yuzhno-Kamchatsky (Southern Kamchatka). (Southern Yuzhno-Kamchatsky Yuzhno-Kamchatsky (Southern Kamchatka). (Southern Yuzhno-Kamchatsky Brachyramphus perdix Daniel. ery fox ( ery ), Steller’s and white-tailed sea eagles, gyrfalcon, gyrfalcon, eagles, sea Steller’s), white-tailed and s. Spermophilus parryi Only the federal zakaznik, Yuzhno-Kamchatsky Yuzhno-Kamchatsky zakaznik, federal the Only Gulo gulo ns ( Fratercula cirrhata Vulpes vulpes kamchatica c salmon. This park is one of the most one most is of the park This c salmon. 466 1997 is Kurilskoe Lake, which is surrounded surrounded is which Lake, Kurilskoe is ), American mink, and Arctic ground ground Arctic and mink, American ), Guide ). – ), the largest in Russia, and large large and Russia, in largest the ), 1998 10 pages ) are also represented here. represented also ) are .2 for a list of the regional regional of the for alist the Kamchatka Directorate Directorate Kamchatka the shing have been designated designated been have shing ), and pelagic cormorants cormorants pelagic and ), 13 for Uria aagle Uria and the Ecologi- the and ), sable, river otter, river sable, ), Conservation c shores and on and c shores The park’s park’s The The gem of gem The U. lomvia , U. 14

), and Development. Newell, J. Vast wetlands of Kamchatka. The threat. aserious is bear, brown and salmon of sockeye cially espe- here. Poaching, found also are tern Aleutian and eagle, ( goose white-fronted lesser loon ( yellow-billed as such birds of signifi worldwide area an this make snow sheep of population acoastal and of seals, for hundreds grounds of population otter Asea ducks. many and built in the buffer zone of Kurilskoe Lake (see p. (see Lake zoneof Kurilskoe buffer the in built being hotel already tourist for the necessary particularly is assessment an Such assessment. impact adequate an without place taking is Development of tourism activities. recreational zakaznik staff; of the concerns one of the also is tourism in increase problem. An this with 2004. zakaznik McKinleyville, The does not have the necessary funds to deal todeal funds necessary notthe have does Russian Anser erythropus Anser regulations explicitly prohibit explicitly regulations Gavia adamsii Far CA: 1 ), osprey,), golden , 500 East: ), black brant, brant, black ), Daniel , breeding , breeding 373) cance. Rare . A & Reference included in the unesco 1995 by governor’s August in decree oblast An park. the within located are Anavgai, and Esso ments, Two herding. reindeer and settle- mushrooms, and berries subsistence activities such as fi traditional practicing park, the in live Koryaks and Itelmens, Evens, Indigenous Raion. Bystrinsky within falls Park Nature Bystrinsky Peninsula, of Kamchatka heart the in Located (forest) Park Nature 1. Bystrinsky Biodiversity hotspots Daniel. -administered protected area, the park was established established was park the area, protected -administered 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide pages exceeding peaks several are there park the In 183 zakaznik azoological also is There Kamchatka. Three bat species ( batspecies Three high. unusually is beaver Canadian and mink, American muskrat, duced of intro- density The populations. sable snow bear, and sheep, brown home is tosizable territory This conservation and tourism. and conservation for value park’s tothe add hot springs, numerous and activity area’s volcanic the from resulting them, within nities commu- of ecological mosaic the and ecosystems of these biodiversity high more The pronounced. are effects whereanthropogenic regions similar of for analyses baselines important as serve and state virgin their in park the in represented are Kamchatka central in found ecosystems of the All Rivers. Oblukovina and Tvayan, Icha, of the Ozernaya, valleys the in and Rivers Saichik and Sopochnaya, Yamme, Tkhonma, Rassoshina, of the headwaters the in located are wetlands Large Rivers. Sopochnaya and Tigil, Icha, Bystraya, Tikhaya, the including peninsula, the side of western on the rivers spawning important for several and longest, peninsula’s the River, Kamchatka the for headwaters the as serves River, river, Bystraya largest park’s The park. of the summit highest the is Volcano, at Ichinsky active M. brandti World site, Volcanoes of Heritage , 400 shing, hunting, gathering of for ha. , Ichinsky, with a land area of area aland with , Ichinsky, 2 Eptesicus nilssoni , Eptesicus , . In 1996 . In 000 Conservation m; the seismically seismically the m; Myotis daubentoni Myotis , the park was was park , the 15

3 , ), 607

m, m, 351 , and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA in the oblast the in nowhere found else are Fifteen distribution. geographical species’ of many extent southern the forms park The cliffs. jagged the among populations insular in found are species steppe and cryophilic relict and terraces, and plateaus high the inhabit species alpine of arctic variety its Awide illustrate plants distinction: territory’s vascular of the studies Initial malma tion and regulation of natural resources in the park, prospects prospects park, the in resources of natural regulation and tion ’ Kamchatka Project joint expedition, of their University. results The Cambridge slopes of the Sredinny Ridge, the park’s eastern boundary. eastern park’s the Ridge, Sredinny of the slopes on grow the Island) Conifer of Kamchatka’s (part larch rian Dahu- and spruce of Ayan Tall stands peaks. mountain the dominates lichens) and species (shrub tundra Alpine appears. vegetation; at elevationsprimary below 600 grayling ( Arctic as well as rivers, park’s the in found be can salmon of Pacifi species All park. the inhabit that species rare the Social and Ecological Priorities, was conducted by conducted was Priorities, Ecological and Social fi cause for concern. for concern. cause oblast of the another Nalychevsky, in of tourism growth by the Judging nentially. expo- increase will biodiversity park’s tothe posed threat the communities, ecological attractive and unique most park’s fl of the inventories detailed ing includ- for tourists, capacity carrying park’s of the appraisal apreliminary without conducted is planning If tourism. development is of uncontrolled hazard potential Another here. rise that headwaters the infl important stabilizing an is territory the time, same the At interests. by mining of protection, insuffi degree aminimal only provides area protected administered ally aregion- as status land’s The Koryaks. and Evens, Itelmens, area: the in living peoples native of the economies subsistence for the foundation the as serves which bio- park’s potential, the resource threatens activity mining planned The by fi scorched being continually are tems ecosys- tundra and forests park’s the time, same the At tion. bordermodifi another for yet lobbying interests mining development, with pending also depositis nickel-copper River Shanuch the boundaries southwestern park’s the Along atAginskoe. room for mining tomake Zakaznik Zoological of Ichinsky size the reduced and sites Baranyevskoe and skoe Agin- atthe extraction toallow boundaries park’s the redrew administration The gold deposits. richest one of Kamchatka’s 352 measures. protection Existing Threats. Kamchatkan marmot ( ( lemming Siberian nancing or staff. A joint program, People and the Park— People the Ajoint and program, or staff. nancing J. Ⅲ 2004. ). The boundaries of the park lie almost exactly over exactly almost lie park of the boundaries The Thymallus arcticus THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE . Japanese stone pine and shrub alder are the the are alder shrub stone pine and . Japanese McKinleyville, The Lemmus sibiricus 98 ’s regional nature parks, there is certainly certainly is there parks, ’s nature regional , include fi , include Marmota kamtschatica Marmota uence for adjacent ecosystems due to for ecosystems adjacent uence Russian cient to stave off the threat posed posed threat the off cient tostave ) and Dolly Varden Dolly ) and ( Bystrinsky Nature Park has no has Park Nature Bystrinsky ora and fauna inhabiting the the inhabiting fauna and ora ndings on the administra- on the ndings ), wild reindeer, and wild ), re. Far m, stone birch m, stone birch CA: ) are among among ) are Salvelinus kiep East: Daniel ca- with c A biodiversity of the park’s fl park’s of the biodiversity on the of astudy conclusions the and planning, land-use in experience and needs of local appraisal an residents, for local meaning its and development park of continued the for the Ⅲ Ⅲ essential: are measures following the Therefore, boundaries. of its location of the unaware is population local the and unresolved, remain issues Zoning on paper: only exists Park Nature Now Bystrinsky priorities. conservation and use land (native) traditional both intoaccount takes that pattern ing azon- toestablish wererecommendations ignored Also park. wereunjustifi activity by human altered signifi been already had that of areas anumber time, same the At stands. spruce Ayan werealpine ignored Also River. Kirevna the along peninsula, on the hot springs est larg- nor of the weremost park, the within not included was Volcano of slope Ichinsky western The status. regional only one having than rather area protected administered federally a as envisioned initially was territory the intoaccount; taken scientifi several from suggestions and Recommendations. Klyuchevskoi ( of Eurasia- all in volcano active highest the ity, includes and activ- volcanic by considerable characterized is region of this 2 exceeding elevations maximum with Vostochny and (Eastern), two Sredinny between ridges, wedged mountain is basin River Kamchatka The century. eighteenth the in Kamchatka of part this visited who Ditmar, Karl botanist, by aGerman originally, named, so Island,” “Conifer toas referred monly com- is region This peninsula. of the part central the in basin River Kamchatka the in primarily located are Kamchatka g. lazarev (forest) Island Conifer 2. of their geographical distribution. These forests are generally generally are forests These distribution. geographical of their extents northeastern atthe predominate larch Dahurian and by a lack of podzol by alack characterized are stands coniferous in Soils ash. with layered and volcanic are soils The for along time. infl activity been volcanic has basin River Kamchatka The region’ssnow. months. the June are and May driest of amounts small relatively and precipitation annual minimal in results ridges mountain two by the caused area shadow & Reference Resolve the socioeconomic problems of the area. Condi- area. of problems the socioeconomic the Resolve of ecologi- anumber toincorporate borders park Change a whole must be evaluated. a whole be must as Raion for Bystrinsky and park the in base resource and characteristics natural the To this, economies. accomplish for subsistence resources on torely continue natural can residents native and local that so created be must tions boundaries. new the with residents local acquaint and areas valuable cally Daniel. —The only tall coniferous stands found on found stands coniferous tall only —The 4 , 688 When the park was created, many ideas of ideas many created, was park the When 17 466 and are highly permeable. Ayan spruce spruce Ayan permeable. highly are and m). The climate is continental. A rain Arain continental. is climate The m). Guide ora. pages 16 , 000 for c organizations werenot c organizations m. The northern part part northern m.The ably included in the the in included ably Conservation uenced by uenced cantly and Development. Newell, J. Harvesting is also prohibited within within prohibited also is Harvesting areas. these prohibited in is logging Commercial Zakaznik. Tayozhny and Zapovednik, Kronotsky Park, Nature sky Bystrin- areas: protected within included are Island Conifer least At sites. logging and onareas old burn stands immature or as areas, of logging remains degraded in fragments, isolated in either found are doremain that forests The no longer exists. Existing protection measures. protection Existing Threats. Between fi resources of these harvesting Commercial peninsula. on the of timber source only the are Island of Conifer forests the general, In peninsula. on the not elsewhere found cies spe- of taiga avariety host also They forests. ancient typical represent They activity. by human impacted fore minimally diffi are basin River in stands Kamchatka the birch-dominated and coniferous of the Many grounds. spawning salmon as extensively used are which tributaries, its and River Kamchatka for the water been thoroughly fi it has after of moisture slow release this June, of and May months dry the During rate. stable ataslow and headwaters area’s into the released is moisture the thaws, earth frozen the As moisture. toconserve helps which season, growing the into well lasts soil the in permafrost seasonal the snowmelt, region’s of the extended Because rivers. Kamchatka’s in levels water for regulating value aunique have forests These regeneration. natural their for unfavorable are conditions climatic Modern glaciation. Pleistocene during preserved been having nature, in relict another fi Roads, larch. occasional the with peppered sometimes ties, communi- or aspen birch intosecondary transformed cably than 1 from reduction percent cover, of forest amount a the in decline asteady been atartifi attempts after fi slowly very regenerate of Kamchatka part this in forests region, the in climate natural of the Because use. mercial for com- logged was as year each much timber as consuming region—in the near future. near the region—in Kamchatka entire the and basin— River Kamchatka to the damage it irreversible with bring would logging river, this of the stability hydrological the maintaining in plays area the role that key of the Because for export. exclusively logging, commercial widespread however, for future afoot, are Plans considerably. declined has logging commercial climate, forests) in in forests) re, logging, and other human depredations have degraded degraded have depredations human other and logging, re, 2004. 200 350 re and other disturbances, with no known successful successful no known with disturbances, other re and The natural complex once evident at Conifer Island Island atConifer complex once evident natural The 200 , , 1953 000 000 McKinleyville, rst began in 1930 in began rst 1996 , The 000 and 1993 and ha (of which which (of ha ha of mature coniferous forest are now irrevo- are forest coniferous of mature ha . cial regeneration. For these reasons there has has there reasons For these regeneration. cial ha. Because of the unfavorable economic economic unfavorable of the Because ha. ltered through volcanic soils provides clean clean provides soils volcanic ltered through Russian , 3 .2 , 300 million ha sixty years ago to less toless ago years sixty ha million 125 , with fi , with At present, portions three of individual fi , 000 ha are protected Group I protected are ha cult to reach and there- and toreach cult re a frequent occurrence. occurrence. re afrequent 1 km of spawning riv- of spawning km Far CA: res were recorded, wererecorded, res East: Daniel 300 - A & Reference al concentrations of brown bears and the bird-nesting sites. sites. bird-nesting the and ofbears brown concentrations al activity change the vegetative dynamics and affect the season- infl volcanic The formations. volcanic other and vents, thermal of mud amultitude pots, and springs, thermal hundred over two geysers, large twenty rare: are localization and phenomena scale whose oftion volcanic acollec- is Geysers of Valley the famous The value. aesthetic ha of open dry range, and and range, of opendry ha the in found be can objects natural of unique Anumber reserve. the of within water bodies hundred koe, covers Kronots- Lake Kamchatka, in lakes largest One of the lakes. Pacifi intothe drain rivers 650 about creeks, and of rivers grid water-protection zones. these tonarrow trying is Resources on Natural Committee administration’s Kamchatka but the Group in Iforests, ers includes Recommendations 31 14 cover largest, peninsula’s some of the including glaciers, well; here as is landscapes alpine of glacial prevalence greatest The springs. of thermal amultitude and formations topostcaldera volcanoes, active twelve found—from is ity activ- of volcanic diversity full Here the apparent. readily infl whose belt, volcanic Kamchatka’s eastern within located v. mosolov, rassokhina l. wetland) and forest, (volcanic, Zapovednik Biosphere Kronotsky 3. Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ three-mile ocean buffer zone. buffer ocean three-mile Daniel. Resolve a variety of socioeconomic problems besetting the the besetting problems of socioeconomic avariety Resolve of Kamchatka; ecosystems forest the tostudy Continue forests covering areas protected of small, aseries Establish Bystrin- and of Tayozhny forests Zakaznik the Designate Bolster air patrols to help protect these forests from fi from forests these tohelp protect patrols air Bolster , , 720 uence on the territory’s on topography,uence the fl 000 economic activities in the past focused on timber harvest. on timber focused past the in activities economic where basin, River Kamchatka the in of villages residents Forest Institute.Eastern Research Far by the operated once Station Forestry Experimental of the closure by the toahalt brought been work has this logged. being vent their administered federally as aside set be should region the in forests ancient remaining The basin. River Kamchatka the in found nity commu- birch and spruce, of larch, type each representing Group Iforests. as Park sky no funding. almost with operated have patrols these years recent in top priority; the be must This zapovednik ha under rivers and lakes and 135 and lakes and rivers under ha ha of the zapovednik of the ha 640 242 , 960 that have great scientifi great have that 466 sq. km. All together, there are about eight about eight are together, there All sq. km. Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ zakaznik ha of forest, of ha forest, Guide . The following actions should be taken: be should actions following . The pages c Ocean. There are numerous small small numerous are There c Ocean. s and natural monuments topre- natural s and 166 —Kronotsky Zapovednik is ’s territory. zapovednik The 18 , 16 720 for The zapovednik The , 847 ha under water, including water, under ha including m per 100 mper ha of wetlands, 484 of wetlands, ha uence and thermal thermal and uence Conservation c, recreational, and and c, recreational, , 000 ora, and fauna is is fauna and ora, ha within the the within ha ha. All of the of the All ha. has a dense adense has rfe

’s area area ’s re. re. ’s ’s , 327 353

and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA meadows and associated fl associated and meadows coastal and forest, tundra, awhole: as peninsula of the typical communities of natural diversity entire home tothe are lands zapovednik The mild. is autumn and cool, and short mer is dry, sum- and cold snowy, is are spring Winters temperature. annual average high cover, cloud arelatively fog and and frequent winds, strong with along characteristic, cipitation is of pre- amount Alarge production. for timber unfavorable considered and unstable is territory of the climate The zapovednik the inhabits also Kamchatka of on sable population protected largest The Kamchatka. in elsewhere declines despite severe high and stable remain tions popula- snow sheep and population reindeer wild peninsula’s zapovednik the in foothills on volcanic areas tundra winter, the alpine in snow little torelatively thanks Also, hunting. from pressures despite increasing populations, bear of Kamchatka’s health continued the guarantees virtually this Kronotsky; inhabits (comprising peninsula of the population bear brown largest the example, For much more important. become has species animal many preserving in area role protected of the the years, recent In zapovednik the inhabit species mammalian here.Sixty live tern of Aleutian tions popula- one largest of and the of Steller’s eagle population sea protected largest The peninsula. on the nowhere found else is 354 The over. donot freeze that River Kronotskaya of the parts those in winter of swans numbers large and colonies, The communities. biological specialized of highly avariety create watercourses ground under- warm and mud pots, hot vents, springs, Vast thermal processes. microbiological and mineralization, geological, its ( Uzon Caldera massive The vicinity. enter the whenthey toperish mammals and birds, of insects, avariety cause soil of the layers upper the in metals heavy occurring of naturally abundance an sulfi hydrogen monoxide, (carbon gases of volcanic concentration a high Volcano. Here, foot of Kikhpinych atthe Valley of Death zapovednik the spot in uncommon Another roads. and trails along and dwellings human near growing species 49 other the habitats, pristine in grow species nine fl the of representing ( gull of slaty-backed anumber support lake the in Islands salmon. sockeye land-locked and of char fi remarkable of toanumber habitat as serves also lake The taiga. coniferous of dark more typical home of communities toanumber are larch of Dahurian forests relict of these canopies The Island). Conifer of Kamchatka’s (part conifers of tall stand J. Ⅲ 2004. 19 ora found in eastern Kamchatka. Six hundred seventy- hundred Six Kamchatka. eastern in found ora Sixteen are endemic to Kamchatka, and one species one species and toKamchatka, endemic are Sixteen zapovednik zapovednik THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE serve as winter pasture for upto pasture winter as serve 15 303 de, and carbon dioxide), a lack of wind, and and of wind, alack dioxide), carbon and de, percent of all brown bears in Kamchatka) Kamchatka) in bears brown of all percent McKinleyville, sh species, including two endemic species species endemic two including species, sh 108 genera and 86 and genera The sq. km) is also unique on a global scale for scale on a global unique also is sq. km) ’s fl ’s arare hosts basin ’s Lake Kronotskoe ora ora include , including nine cetaceans. nine , including ora. Forests are dominated by stone dominated are Forests ora. Russian families, a full representation representation afull families, 745 vascular plant species species plant vascular Larus schistisagus . Far is the so-called so-called the is 90 CA: percent of the of the percent are weedy weedy are East: Daniel ) ’s ’s A chik Estuary. Semya- the in and Rivers Olga and Bogachyovka, notskaya, fi licensed Limited cultivated. be can vegetables and collected, be can wood fuel picked, be can mushrooms and berries where staff,” by the use resource for “limited designated are zapovednik tothe According zapovednikborder of the Sakhalin fi Sakhalin of grove only Kamchatka’s valley. River Kamchatka the in spruce of Ayan groves and Kronotskoe Lake near larch hurian Da- include forests of conifer patches Isolated marshes. large with interspersed alder shrub stone and pine, Japanese birch, between between zapovednik the and conducted, was plants vascular of Kronotsky’s inventory Threats. Existing protection measures. protection Existing expected to increase unless the protection of the of the protection the unless toincrease expected zapovednik asignifi caused 1976 since by tourism caused age dam- and toll, its took also area the in stations of military presence long-lasting The some degradation. experienced zapovednik of center the the in once destroyed, can never be regenerated be never can destroyed, once which, ecosystems, unique of these preservation the threatens activity of human expansion careless Bay. all, In Kronotsky commercial fi and counterparts, wild their with reindeer of domesticated interbreeding basin, River Kamchatka the in logging include threats Other ecosystem. fragile this threaten assessment, along this route without a preliminary environmental impact center of avisitor construction the and Geysers, ofValley the the through path well-trod the along particularly tourists, by overuse Nonetheless, animals. other and of bears season breeding the for toMay aboutone month during April from forbidden are Visits year. each valley the visit people can dred hun- eighteen Not more than maintained. is trail boardwalk wherea Geysers, of Valley the route tothe tourist helicopter the since place in been had that system research and of insuffi improved. Aresult is monitoring of its population continues. From continues. of population its monitoring and compiled, been has for sites Steller’s eagles sea of nesting the in ungulates and predators between relationships on the undertaken was the of azapovednik status and regulations federal tothe contradiction direct in development is recreational gone. Although practically is sifi fl of the cation clas- afull including conducted, was inventory geobotanical & shing of salmon for food is allowed on the Chazhma, Kro- Chazhma, on the allowed is for food of salmon shing Reference zapovednik Daniel. Because of exploratory mining from from mining of exploratory Because 1978 r ( ’s borders are virtually unenforced. Poaching is is Poaching unenforced. ’s virtually are borders shing and the hunting of marine mammals in in mammals of marine hunting the and shing Abies sachalinensis Abies 20 and 1984 and cant decline in patrols and staff, and now the now the and staff, and patrols in decline cant to help supplement the budget. There is one is There tohelp supplement budget. the

, ecotourism development was organized in in organized development was , ecotourism ora of the territory. The larch forests near near forests territory. oflarch ora the The zapovednik ’s mammals and birds were inventoried wereinventoried birds and ’s mammals 466 Guide . From 1982 . . Over the past ten years, a survey asurvey tenyears, past the . Over pages Between 1979 Between cient funding, the monitoring monitoring the cient funding, , protected ecosystems have have ecosystems , protected ) grows near the southern southern the near ) grows ’s regulations, a few areas areas afew ’s regulations, is visible. Budget cuts have have cuts Budget visible. is to1991 for . , complex research research , complex Conservation and 1982 and 1940 1990 zapovednik to1970 to1994 1970 a full afull s

, a

and Development. Newell, J. Ocean. includes reserve of the area total The round. year all almost ice-free remain oceans the and coastline the wash currents Warm, level. deep-water sea exceeding depth maximum the with trenches, todeep lagoons shallow from varies islands of the shores the Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ and is on land temperature annual erage av- The cool. and short summers and mild relatively winters with maritime, is climate The Island. of Medny shores the form zone littoral narrow avery with cliffs Steep beaches. gravel and sand with intermingled sea, intothe dropoffs steep ing reach- Island) on Bering Steller point (Mount highest their with origin, in volcanic are islands The Sea. Bering southern Pacifi into the miles aboutthirty spreading pings outcrop- and of reefs aseries (Murre’s and Stone), Kamen Toporkov islets, smaller (Puffi two per) Island, (Cop- Medny and Island Bering islands, large of two consists grouping The chain. Island Aleutian of the acontinuation is archipelago the Geographically continents. American North Pacifi the meets Sea Bering renkova n. tata- ivanyushina, e. o. chernyagina, belkovsky, a. (marine) Zapovednik Komandorsky 4. Recommendations. World site. Heritage of Kamchatka’s part as included was Zapovednik Kronotsky zapovednik the in objects natural of unique multitude of the Because mulated. 1967 since monitored annually been have of ungulates migrations winter out in carried was species plant for rare conditions in wereevaluated Lake Kronotskoe and monitor the natural processes in the pristine conditions conditions pristine the in processes monitor natural the and Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ 2004. Provide adequate patrols of the of the patrols Provide adequate other and poaching tohandle team operative an Organize staff. ranger new Hire patrols. airborne Establish Reconstruct ranger stations. Return the Finance environmental education to increase awareness awareness toincrease education environmental Finance includ- Geysers, of Valley the atthe monitoring Increase Finance monitoring efforts. the along zone abuffer create and Plan illegal activity. funding. available by increasing strength and appreciation of the of appreciation the and use. of control tourist careful ing boundaries. western and southern 744 3 , 463 21 m. Bering Island’s shoreline consists of fl consists shoreline Island’s m.Bering Komandorsky Zapovednik was created to preserve topreserve created was Zapovednik Komandorsky —The Commander Islands are located where the wherethe located are Islands Commander —The , and an enormous amount of valuable data accu- data of valuable amount enormous an and McKinleyville, 300 The ha of waters in the Bering Sea and the Pacifi the and Sea Bering the in of waters ha zapovednik resulting from the area’s volcanic activity, activity, area’s the from volcanic resulting The following actions should be taken: be should actions following The Russian ’s protection regime to its earlier earlier toits ’s regime protection c Ocean between the Asian and and Asian the between c Ocean zapovednik zapovednik 1986 2 and its mandate. its and . 5 Far ° CA: c , and an appraisal of appraisal an , and 185 . The sea bottom off off bottom sea . The zapovednik , 379 ’s aquatoria. ’s ns) and Ary Ary and ns) East: 6 ha of land of land ha Daniel , at reefs with with at reefs c Ocean and and c Ocean 500 1990 m below mbelow ’s ’s . The . The A c & Reference mammal. Ticks brought over with domestic and introduced introduced and domestic over with brought Ticks mammal. land only the fox was arctic the wherepreviously islands, the on balance ecological the disturbed has Island ondeer Bering tilus fox, sea otter ( otter fox, sea ic infl Pacifi northern of the ecosystems on marine for research baselines as valuable especially are Island of Bering portion southern the and Island on Medny colonies bird The populations. bird overall high the and species, Eurasian and American of intermingling note the Of is routes. migratory on their stopovers as islands the ap- more one use hundred proximately Commanders; the in nest species bird sixty About Threats. sparse. are or shrubs but trees occur, also Some grasslands islands. macranthon ( quillwort Maritime introduced. been have species of these Thirty-fi of endemism. alow degree with archipelago, Approximately mammals. marine thousand hundred three about ( emperor goose and Sea and Pacifi and Sea Bering the between of which, location the islands, of these isms. microorgan- of marine productivity high and for avariety tat provide habi- shelf continental of the extent the biotopes and of marine diversity The Russia. in nowhere found else cies remain in their natural condition. natural their in remain Pacifi North of the all throughout ecosystems only the harbor may Commanders the reason For this by humans. exploitation spared been world mostly tohave the in grounds breeding such one hunted, afew of only seriously been never here has rookery seal Afur regimes. protection marine and fox ( arctic ( seal fur otter, of sea Northern ing hunt- on prohibitions the been have there times various At century. nineteenth late the since restricted sharply been have fi here probably found because are species Pacifi northern of the characteristic fauna of the all —virtually of cetaceans variety awide and seals, of true rosmarus ( walrus include Commanders of the fauna The archipelago. the in communities benthic the about learned tobe much more needs It probable that is planet. on the else nowhere exist groupings the cases, many in and manders, living here is also a goal of the zapovednik of the agoal also here is living Aleuts of the lifestyles traditional of the Preservation tance. impor- biogeographical of great here found are ecosystems terrestrial and marine the Therefore, ecosystems. between Daniel. Isoetes maritima ), Norway rat ( rat Norway ), c as they have been minimally affected by anthropogen- affected minimally been have they c as 24 uences. Rare species include the Copper Island arctic arctic Island Copper the include species Rare uences. Many marine taxa werefi taxa marine Many 23 The islands are, however, rich with a variety of spe- avariety however, with rich are, islands The The introduction of the red vole red ( of the introduction The ), sea otters, two species of eared seals, three species species three seals, of eared species two otters, sea ), Alopex lagopus Alopex ) are rare. Mountain tundra covers most of the of the most covers tundra Mountain rare. ) are c Ocean, makes them signifi them makes c Ocean, Enhydra lutris 466 ) and pink lady’s ( pink slipper ) and Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide 480 Rattus rattus Anser canagicus Anser vascular plant species inhabit the the inhabit species plant vascular pages ) and a variety of other terrestrial terrestrial of other avariety ) and ), gyrfalcon, peregrine falcon, falcon, peregrine gyrfalcon, ), for ), American mink, and rein- and mink, American ), rst discovered in the Com- the in discovered rst Callorhinus ursinus Callorhinus ). The shores teem with with teem shores The ). Conservation shing and hunting hunting and shing . cant as a bridge abridge as cant Cypripedium 22 Clethrionomus ru- c. So many Odobaenus ve c that c that ), and

355 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA

Vladimir Dinets food. for mammals of sea hunting and eggs, of their gathering of seabirds, hunting as such activities subsistence traditional zapovednik the between risen have Disputes Zapovednik. Komandorsky within even islands, tothe threats gravest the are grazing cattle and of harbors, pollution the birds, of rare hunting illegal the all general, in fauna terrestrial and marine of both Poaching perch. and halibut as species fragile on such focused particularly been has activity this years recent —in biomass of of tons of hundreds removal the in problem,the resulting fi semilegal and Illegal threatened. newly are salmon, coho and chum like others, by hunting; ( Steller’s cow sea spectacledeagle, cormorant ( leucopareia ( geese Canadian Aleutian including species, of of anumber populations Entire grounds. breeding mal mam- marine and colonies, nesting bird grounds, spawning toprotect staff by the attempts hinders which materials, 356 endangered mammals in Asia. fox Arctic Island Copper The nets of drift use world, the of the parts most prohibited in Although islands. the zonesurrounding no-trawl thirty-mile fi salmon Japan exclusive granted recently Russia laws, federal Ignoring comprise now species Exotic Island. on foxes Medny of the all killed nearly that pandemic arecent probably caused animals wild Currently Currently the to J. 10 Ⅲ percent of its vascular plants. of vascular its percent 25 2004. 17 THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE staff and indigenous Aleuts over the regulation of regulation over the Aleuts indigenous and staff ), bald eagle ( eagle bald ), percent of the archipelago’s bird species and up and species bird archipelago’s of the percent McKinleyville, Hydrodamalus gigas The zapovednik shing rights to waters that include the the include that towaters rights shing Haliaeetus leucocephalus shing in nearby waters exacerbates exacerbates waters nearby in shing Russian (Alopex lagopus(Alopex mednovi) has insuffi has Phalacrocorax perspicillatus Phalacrocorax ) have been extirpated extirpated been ) have cient fi Far CA: Branta minima Branta nancing and nancing ), Steller’s ), sea East: is one of the most critically critically most ofthe one is Daniel ), and A Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ suffi from far is efforts of these effectiveness the personnel, and of funding of alack Because ago. years several liquidated the since broader area They also fulfi waters. adjacent the and colonies, bird grounds, spawning rookeries, mammal monitor marine (Kamchatrybvod), bvod of Glavry- branch Kamchatka the from specialists with tion Recommendations. measures. protection Existing and the variety of marine mammals inhabiting the area. the inhabiting mammals of marine variety the and stock salmon the affect severely could and allowed be would & Reference Provide funding to relocate residents of the town of Nikol- town of the residents torelocate funding Provide Continue research on the fl on the research Continue zapovednik for provision the Improve technical resulted have problemsthat socioeconomic other Resolve Resolve problems of cooperation between between of problems cooperation Resolve survey, upto survey, toarecent it. According whowish Island) (Bering skoe resources. natural islands’ of the use for subsistence implement guidelines and develop islands; the inhabiting Aleuts native and mander Islands and publish existing materials; provide materials; existing publish and Islands mander items. essential other and cations, communi- radio motorboats, vehicle, all-terrain an vessel, aseagoing include needs agencies; nature-protection local in increased poaching. leave. cient. Daniel. ll the role of environmental inspections in a in inspections role of the environmental ll 50 percent of the population is prepared to prepared is population of the percent The following actions should be taken: be should actions following The 466 science staff. zapovednik for the funding stable an annual outfl bay, into the empty producing length been deposited to a depth of toadepth deposited been has gravel and sand of coarse composed bay, of the portion silt central the In in June and minimums in March. Pacifi and to south 13 baymeasures The channel. along but narrow through ocean the with connecting Peninsula, of Kamchatka coast southeastern the Pacifi of the inlet an is Bay o. selivanova v. rivkin, o. chernyagina, n. klochkova, marine) and (wetland Bay Avacha 5. forty-fi and Paratunka, the and Avacha the totaling raion Guide c, with maximum rates observed observed rates maximum with c, ’s environmental inspectorate was was ’s inspectorate environmental pages ve streams less than than less ve streams

Zapovednik ora and fauna of the Com- of the fauna and ora 262 sq. km. Two sq.rivers, km. large 17 for ow ow of km from east to west, towest, east from km staff, in coopera- in staff, km from north north from km Conservation 6 cu. km into the intothe km cu. zapovednik —Avacha c Ocean on c Ocean 10 and other other and 20 km in m. ’s ’s 26 staff staff

and Development. Newell, J. oxygen over the past fi past over the oxygen dissolved in decrease Pollution show asteady Environmental for of Center Monitoring by the Analyses wastes. untreated with basin the entering pollutants and substances organic of oxidation biochemical of the baybecause of the waters of between ciency defi oxygen an autumn, and summer the - in year Every biota. of marine extirpation the and signifi irreversibly, with degraded been has shoreline eastern The manifest. increasingly ing becom- are bayecosystem on the of this effects The bottom. atthe sediment the in accumulated have substances harmful infl these able towithstand bay was the For some time shoreline. the along ent developments from effl agricultural and household, of industrial, because tion Threats. Kamchatka. southeast in found fauna fl coastal and marine the all by practically inhabited bay, the is which characterized diversity and productivity biological high years, past In coast. southeastern peninsula’s for Pacifi ground spawning tant impor- into it an form empty that rivers the bayand The waterfowl. for habitat important an are northwest the in wetlands The navigability. ofand protection, degree of size, its because best world’s the among considered bayis the general, In harbors. fi Petropavlovskaya—making and eninnikova Krash- —Rakovaya, some shoreline, the along scattered are coves Small Rivers. Paratunka and Avacha of the mouths atthe alow shore wetland is northwestern the bay; of the 500 400 from elevation in ranging Volcanic mountains declines in industrial output. spite in of projected decrease bay will of the quality water the so not expected, bay are the around facilities waste-treatment But improvements in discharge. of accidental probability the will as toincrease, expected bayis the in bilge oily and volume of pollutants the shipping, international handling now Petropavlovsk’s harbor With zones. of hydrosulfuric appearances occasional with null, toapproach areas these in of oxygen amount the causes this center. From totime, time the in bay’s portions atthe deepest seabed the are in found of pollutants accumulations greatest the general, In located. are facilities, naval bay,the fi wheremost shore of eastern the along occurs pollution worst The tions. concentra- allowable times four and two between on average totaling years, several past for the stable tobe shown been Avacha’s in products has of petroleum waters amount The coastline. the along Cove, Krasheninnikov in and toperish, organisms bottom-dwelling of abroadspectrum caused water the in of oxygen shortage 2004. m form the southern, southwestern and eastern shores shores eastern and southwestern southern, the mform 3 , The aquatorium of the bay is threatened by degrada- threatened bayis of the aquatorium The 600 McKinleyville, dead Kamchatka crabs were discovered scattered scattered werediscovered crabs Kamchatka dead The 20 and 30 and Russian shing and commercial ports, as well as as well as ports, commercial and shing ve years. In October October In ve years. percent is noted in the bottom bottom the noted in is percent c salmon migrating on the on the migrating c salmon cant declines in biodiversity uences, but over the years but years over the uences, Far CA: 1993 ne natural ne natural East: a severe asevere Daniel ora and ora and mto u- A & Reference Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ was published in 1999 in published was Bay Avacha in conditions and dynamics the describing ies of stud- acompilation Ports), and Cities among Cooperation for Association Japanese the and of Kamchatka Study on the (Committee organizations Japanese of two initiative the At Bay’s Avacha in quality. ofwater trends determination curate insuffi is of observation level This surface. water’s on the slicks for oil monitoring visual conduct stations Two of funds. meteorological of shortage because year per 1994 November. and Since April between year each taken readings 1961 since Bay atAvacha conducted been have Russia. of parts other and Kamchatka” in objects of hazardous tion rehabilita- ecological to“facilitate (Minatom) Energy Atomic of Ministry for the plans announced government Russian bay’s the fl harming be also may bay the in anchored submarines decommissioned leaking from waste on Bay. Avacha located is Radioactive seaboard of Russia’s base eastern submarine nuclear largest The exceed acceptable norms. substantially accumulations toxic the baybecause the in ing harvest- on amoratorium seaweed recommended strongly has Selivanova damage. external showing without substances of toxic quantities substantial accumulate hold can pollution house- and of industrial concentrations higher baywith the Recommendations. measures. protection Existing ( ( kelp in ceae accumulations on chemical Research health. environmental bay’s the in overall factors other and quality water in of changes indicators important represent data These cycles. reproductive their in deviations marked bution and including algae,bristleworms ( bay, the in organisms population of for indicate marine anumber declines analyses quality water Long-term ( Daniel. kiep Echinoideae Remove oil slicks from the bay’s surface using booms booms using bay’s the from surface slicks oil Remove wastes agricultural and industrial of the Properly dispose toxins for removing Implement methods biorecultivation and collection for bilge system effective an Construct systems. drainage and sewage Expand and facilities treatment of existing capacity the Increase and pumps and make these oil wastes available to available wastes oil these make and pumps and shoreline. on the accumulate that of toxic substances. disposing and of accumulating ameans of as kelp disposal subsequent and harvesting bay, the the from including treatment. ones. new construct ) taken from Avacha Bay, Avacha from by O. conducted N.Selivanova ) taken these measurements have been reduced to two or three or three totwo reduced been have measurements these ) in 1998 ) in 27 ), as well as changes in their geographical distri- geographical their in changes as well as ), , has shown that specimens growing in areas of areas in growing specimens that shown , has 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide The following actions should be taken: be should actions following The . pages Hydrochemical observations observations Hydrochemical for Polychaetae ora and fauna. Recently the the Recently fauna. and ora Conservation cient to make ac- cient tomake ), and sea urchins urchins sea and ), , with eight eight , with Phaeophy-

357 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA ture of considerable funds to protect the environment. the toprotect funds of considerable ture expendi- the with even effective cost be would sources these tapped, If cesium. and lithium, of boron, arsenic, sources important also are waters mineral and thermal Kamchatka’s future. the in toincrease expected be can share but their sources, alternative now met by these are needs energy of the proportion power.asmall Only geothermal and hydroelectric togenerate capacity the todevelop begun but work has satisfi been usually have requirements 358 273 total Kamchatka in deposits coal brown and coal data, latest tothe According explored. well but not have been resources, in rich are hydrocarbon Seas Bering and Okhotsk of the shelves The resources. mineral of exploration and study for the made been have investments signifi years, recent In Kamchatka. hibited in pro- is mining Placer far. exploited thus been has deposits metal none precious of and the Fund, Resource Federal the within protected are deposits of these Dozens minerals. other and mercury, signifi nickel, with rich, cobalt, of silver, gold, platinum, geologically is Kamchatka remote fi supply could which annually, energy of kWh cheap million fi toproduce it possible makes potential energy Wind la. peninsu- on the tides highest the experiences which Okrug), Autonomous Koryak the (in Bay Penzhina in built be could with of energy, source fl apotential also are rivers Kamchatka’s producing provide 10 could heat of underground sources of these accessible most The energy. thermal totap opportunities are there means activity asignifi seismic become high Kamchatka’s industry. cant component economy. could oftant the production Energy impor- an becoming are role. Joint ventures a supporting economy. and food Forestry production play (except seafood) 80 constitutes industries, related its with on fi based is livelihood economic Kamchatka’s Evgeny Shirkov Economy Ⅲ Ⅲ J. Research the Avacha Bay ecosystem and publish the ac- the publish and ecosystem Bay Avacha the Research Bay. Avacha monitor in pollution The Systematically cumulated studies of the bay’s of the biodiversity. studies cumulated u.s.$52 of suffi cost estimated organisms. micro- and bacteria employ oil-dissolving slicks, smaller On plants. power and heating Petropavlovsk’s central Ⅲ 2004. ows reaching reaching ows shing villages and reindeer herding camps. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE , 1 000 , 400 McKinleyville, per year. per , MW of electric power. The of electric MW The 000 172 gigacalories daily; some are capable of capable some are daily; gigacalories billion kWh a year. Power stations Power ayear. kWh stations billion million tons and estimated reserves reserves estimated and tons million cient monitoring is approximately approximately cient is monitoring Russian ed by imported fuel, fuel, by imported ed percent of the of the percent Far CA: cant foreign cant oblast cant deposits cant shing, which, shing, ’s energy energy ’s East: Daniel 28 fteen A in the Okhotsk and Bering Seas Bering and Okhotsk the in materials hydrocarbon of raw exploitation planned ment. The manage- resource natural in of leadership poor because part in lacking, currently is monitoring and use for resource base Aproper legal region. the in activity of seismic prevalence and about proper technologies of ignorance because damage increases of ecological risk the use, resource expanded With harmed salmon habitat. also have expeditions, geological numerous as well as villages, of purifi use or insuffi lack the construction, road lands, agricultural fi on the effect potential their against weighed be must industries recreational and energy, on it. Development depends mineral, region of the of the future the development,and economic to Kamchatka’s salmon. More than More than salmon. not in only rich are Kamchatka around and in oceans and lakes, rivers, The market. international and interregional the in specialization for economic direction sound mentally environ- an and potential export important represent an waters mineral and Fresh concentrated. are resources such where Federation Russian of the part only the is and thermal, are of which many springs, known hundred resources, water over three with mineral in rich extremely is Kamchatka ecology. toKamchatka’s threat primary the sents repre- use, tomonitor resource state’s the inability and base, legal existing the technologies, extractive of modern and, because beginning just is resources of these exploitation The ecosystems. totheir harm irreparable and areas these in pollution oil ous more than total to Kamchatka are estimated at estimated are to Kamchatka Pacifi of populations natural no healthy virtually are where there Japan, and United States of the experiences sad the to mirror come may and way under is resources energy and of mineral development The path. destructive same this follows chatka fi development modern of The commercial by overlogging. destroyed been practically has valley River Kamchatka the in Island on Conifer growing larch Dahurian century. eighteenth the in campaigns hunting massive from not recovered still have whales and walrus, otter, sea of seals, populations Local extinction. toits led that Steller’s cow of the sea hunting rapacious the was exploitation ineffi and destructive been already development has recently. only Much of this began development region of the but industrial for over years, three ofhundred Russia apart been has Kamchatka codfi herring, crab, valuable cially commer- including here, concentrated are of Russia resources of gas reserves. of gas upto70 with Kamchatka, western in deposits discovered here. fi & elds with a projected stock of 360 stock aprojected with elds Reference Daniel. c salmon. cation facilities in commercial enterprises and and enterprises commercial in facilities cation 29 31 30 Salmon fi Salmon Gas and gas condensate on the shelf adjacent adjacent shelf on the condensate gas and Gas 20 billion tons. There are sixteen natural gas gas natural sixteen are There tons. billion 466 60 Guide percent of all the marine biological biological marine the of all percent shing industry. The development of The industry. shing shing has always been important important been always has shing cient. The fi cient. The pages 732 32 sh, fl and practically guarantees seri- guarantees practically million tons were recently wererecently tons million billion cu. m. Several oil oil m.Several cu. billion for rst and most infamous infamous most and rst Conservation ounder. sheries Kam- in billion cu. m cu. billion cient and Development. Newell, J. of Okhotsk and the American nomadic pollock in the Bering Bering the in pollock nomadic American the and of Okhotsk overfi fi fi fodder. This to chicken additive an as or for fertilizer only used and inedible considered previously afi of pollock, concentrations gigantic discovered fi waters Kamchatka’s In shores. own toits return eco- late the nomic in zone two-hundred-mile of the introduction the after Only food of whales. main the krill, tocatch of Antarctica coasts went tothe that, tofi for Hawaii headed destroying after and, pristipoma sh mid- the In fi other fiof the catch wecan no salmon, are there If stock: sh fi of the administration The activities. unlawful these confront to equipped ill are agencies Fish-protection legally. catch much fi as catch today Kamchatka s. vakhrin Fishing diversifi and avast such in protection environmental and management Resource fi of valuable harvesting game. and sh illegal the increased other, on the substantially and, environment of the pollution agricultural and industrial reduced one on hand, the has, economy of Kamchatka’s branch decline every in production in adramatic in resulted has that crisis economic The fund. forest the fi forest and logging by commercial unaffected forest of coniferous area total The basin. its in grounds spawning of salmon area aconsiderable destroyed but valley, also River Kamchatka the in of larch stock the not undermined only has particular, in Forestry, peninsula. of the ecology of the deterioration to the substantially contributed nonetheless, have, But they dustry. fi tothe subordinates as scale, on asmaller developed been have transportation and agriculture, construction, production, energy forestry, as such industries Other the fi fi tothe damage rable the in toarrive started refrigerators) and freezers (with trawlers safe and sustainable development in the future. development the in sustainable and safe environmentally economy tomove toward Kamchatka’s assist to needed is institutions of international part on the sistance fi and technical, methodological, legal, Practical requirements. these ensure cannot Russia in administration economy of and the state Unfortunately, the decisions. tegic of stra- evaluation the topermit appropriate tools and sponse, re- for early means adequate monitoring, remote control and and fl shery from disaster, but in gratitude, the industry began began industry the but gratitude, in disaster, from shery sea. the in then rivers, the not in if sh; state the about concerned not is particularly industry shery 2004. rfe shing shing fl shing both the Russian roe-bearing pollock in the Sea Sea the in pollock roe-bearing Russian the both shing ounder, destroying those stocks as well. The fl The well. as stocks those ounder, destroying res amounts to just tojust amounts res . In just two years, they managed toinfl managed they years, two just . In McKinleyville, —According to experts’ estimates, poachers in in poachers estimates, toexperts’ —According eet moved to the coasts of America tofi of America coasts tothe moved eet The 1950 33 s, a new fl anew s, Russian sh stocks of Kamchatka’s coasts. So So coasts. of Kamchatka’s stocks sh 1970 ed territory require effi require territory ed 350 s did the Far East fl East Far the s did again once eet eet of medium-sized fi , 000 sh as licensed fi licensed as sh : 2 . Far 1 sh saved the Russian Russian the saved sh CA: percent of the area of area of the percent cient for tools East: ict ict irrepa- nancial nancial as- Daniel sh that was was that sh shermen shermen eet then shing shing sh sh perch shing in- A & Reference and animal husbandry account for account husbandry animal and are places for pasturing in other other in for pasturing places are there although Raion, Bystrinsky within found mainly are limitations related to the availability of fodder; these areas defi clearly has breeding Reindeer husbandry. animal and cultivation land and peoples, of indigenous ity activ- economic atraditional breeding, reindeer Kamchatka: zykov v. Agriculture 130 fi companies main The fi harvesting are companies foreign and of Russian Currently, hundreds Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ include: ecosystems environment and fi the that threats main The those offi as large as twice approximately quantities in It harvested is it found. is wherever destruction wholesale facing and market Japanese on the valued highly is which crab, Kamchatka the fi Russian of the Yet target low level. another adangerously now is approaching latter of the stock The Sea. of the resources in Kamchatka’s waters. waters. Kamchatka’s in resources of the of destruction threat the tocounter unable are today Service Border Federal by the inspections regional and Protection, on Environmental Committee the within Service Inspection Marine Special the and Committee Fisheries Federal the as such agencies protection Fish year. each violated are rules but these areas, particular in species of certain catch on the pollock, of stocks Kamchatka crab, topreserve and nothing salmon. doing is government The There are limitations fi of several fi collective and neries 1950 the in once, happened already has This Autonomous Okrug. Koryak the and economy for of the Kamchatka consequences harmful fi of the Deterioration fi totheir only thanks crisis energy of the periods in Koryakia—survive and chatka, fi main The targeted. aggressively are crab) Kamchatka and of Okhotsk, Sea the in pollock roe-bearing salmon, (sockeye currency of foreign terms in valuable most species Those fi collective toformerly state-run sors Daniel. shing regions of the rfe of the regions shing The pollution of the sea by oil products and biological biological and products by oil sea of the pollution The of the aresult as population mammal of sea reduction The products food valuable of such of reserves destruction The waste. tenfold. decreased have tions Steller’s ( lion sea ten years, past the in eat; animals these that food ofdepletion the pollock. and salmon as , 000 tons a year) are stock companies, formed as succes- as formed companies, stock are ayear) tons cially permitted. cially —Two types of production represent agriculture in in agriculture represent of production types —Two shing villages. shing villages. sh and seafood products in Kamchatka’s waters. waters. Kamchatka’s in products seafood and sh 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ s, and forced the closure of dozens of can- of dozens closure the forced and s, Guide shing shing resources. shing enterprises and the abandonment abandonment the and enterprises shing shing Kamchatka’s salmon (upto salmon Kamchatka’s shing pages sh reserves could have extremely extremely have could reserves sh —Primorsky, Sakhalin, Kam- Sakhalin, —Primorsky, Eumetopias jubatus shing industry presents to the for raion 90 shing enterprises. enterprises. shing Conservation s. Land cultivation cultivation Land s. percent of the gross gross of the percent shing industry is ned geographic ned geographic ) popula-

359 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA prices. fi cannot producers Livestock increased. drastically have fodder, prices forimported which on dependence industry’s of the output aresult is husbandry animal Declining costs. transport tohigh owing products it diffi makes center the from some enterprises of remoteness The for machinery. lubricants and fertilizers, the in oblast expanding annually is land of unused area The in need of drainage and liming. acidic, too and wet too low.is is ka’s land of the Most lands As of 360 200 1928, in began Kamchatka in ging log- for development.Commercial its any or investments received never loans has industry forestry Kamchatka’s in climatic indicators are occurring. changes and erosion, sandstorms, logging, intensive following However, functions. ecological critical these perform ticular, par- in of Kamchatka, part central the in forests The wind. from protection providing erosion, and soil preventing rivers, fl water the regulating as such tions func- ecological indispensable perform all but they larch), for (except timber for their valuable not particularly are forests Kamchatka’s standpoint. acommercial from valuable most are forests stone birch and spruce, Larch, forests. restore and topreserve need the underscores which exploitation, of century low, of aquarter result the critically is density rfe toother comparison e. ogulia Timber mink. cultivated and meat, eggs, milk, products, fodder cabbage, potatoes, being products main the with agriculture, output in gross of the 70 produces region central output. The agricultural 57 organizations, and citizens amounted to Kamchatles has logged between 550 between logged has Kamchatles lespromkhoz of several consisted which Kamchatlesholding, company) oao Kamchatles, was Kamchatka in enterprise logging main the years, thirty For more than of logging. rounds or three totwo weresubjected areas consequently, many and areas, logged topreviously returned often depletion, loggers resource With trees. larch quality fi werethe tributaries its and 1950 the in stood at 349 the company was logging upto logging was company the the But in forests. coniferous in annually respectively. 18 J. , , 300 400 , Ⅲ 000 2004. , primarily because of lack of funds for buying seeds, seeds, for buying of funds of lack because , primarily ha included plowed fi ha pasturage. By comparison, in 1993 in By comparison, pasturage. ha cu. m were logged annually, rising to rising annually, mwerelogged cu. 1998 THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE —The density of Kamchatka’s forests is low in low is in forests of Kamchatka’s density —The s. The coniferous forests near Kamchatka River River Kamchatka near forests coniferous The s. es ( 35 , 000 In general, the agricultural value of Kamchat- value agricultural the general, In , agricultural lands belonging to enterprises, toenterprises, belonging lands , agricultural McKinleyville, lpx ha, 64 ha, The s) and one timber transit base. On average, Onaverage, base. transit one timber and s) 34

, regions. In mature forests the the forests mature In regions. 000 Russian elds, rst targets, especially the high- the especially targets, rst ha, 71 ha, nd customers at the suggested suggested atthe nd customers 1 , 6 000 and during World during War and II, ow of salmon spawning spawning salmon of ow , 700 , , 000 (open joint-stock 000 , 000 ha hay fi ha, and 214 and ha, and 600 and 82 1970 cu. m in these these min cu. , Far 400 CA: these fi cult to sell s and 1980 s and 500 elds, and and elds, ha, of which of which ha, , 000 , East: 000 percent percent gures , Daniel 000 cu. m cu. cu. m cu. s, ha, ha, A and tin. In addition, Kamchatka has mineral raw materials materials raw mineral has Kamchatka addition, In tin. and copper, nickel, silver, gold, platinum, alluvial ore and sources: re- of mineral its diversity and wealth the are of Kamchatka wilson e. v. o. zykov, chernyagina, Mining ply fi ply tosup- cut long been have forests stone birch of activity, focus 10 than more by declined exploited has of being capable trees coniferous volume of the alone, years twenty past the in and drastically, decreased has forests Kamchatka’s in stock timber The wood. fi toprocess factories created and methods, logging selective introduced and machinery logging gregated of ag- use the ended Group in Iforests, prohibited logging by river, of timber transporting the outlawed have authorities Government better. for the some changes been have There fi of forest danger high is there and ensured, not been has trees of young protection high, outrageously is fi atlogging abandoned volume of timber The of larch. stock entire the and defects, with trees coniferous trees, small over passing fully, resources timber the enter- used never have poor.prises been Logging always have practices Logging Nizhne-Kamchatsk. and Krapivnaya, Bystry, Shchapino, Kravcha, as such activities, on logging dependent of villages closure consequently, the forced and, resources forest the Prolonged depleted exploitation forests. supply oblast toother timber (on the average average (onthe timber of to amaximum needs for internal volume of the logging mended reducing oblast of the support the with Service, Forest Kamchatka’s tooperate. ceased practically has of fi producer main the was changed the logging practices in the the in practices logging the changed drastically has instability Russia’s economic current Chukotka). main goal throughout the peninsula. the throughout goal main the be should quality cover of forest Preservation extraction. not on timber only focus development should Further community. the support can that industry functioning only the remains logging settlements, unemployment. many In resulting and industry of the collapse following situation ous seri- extremely an in are Maiskoe and Atlasovo, Kozyrevsk, as to from ranged has years recent in of timber production Actual surviving. barely solved. dis- practically has enterprise logging main The burden. tax insurmountable the and costs, transport in increases costs, energy of high because dramatically fallen have volumes ging & Reference 9 . 7 rewood for the for the rewood Daniel. percent to22 percent ’s administrative bodies, has on many occasions recom- occasions on many has bodies, ’s administrative Lespromkhoz percent. While coniferous forests have been the the been have forests coniferous While percent. 140 500 percent of the aac of the percent 466 es have become stock companies, but are but are companies, stock become have es oblast , 000 s ( , Guide 000 100 40 to420, ’s internal needs. Kamchatlesprom Kamchatlesprom ’s needs. internal , cu. m, terminating the export of export the m, terminating cu. , rewood, but today the company company the but today rewood, 000 000 pages – cu. m a year), and ending ending and m ayear), cu. 50 000 , for 000 oblast cu. m, which amounts amounts m, which cu. . Certain villages such such villages . Certain —Among the riches riches the —Among cu. m a year go to go mayear cu. Conservation rewood and scrap and scrap rewood . Since 1994 . Since res as a result. aresult. as res , log- elds and Development. Newell, J. ration ( Corpo- Investment Private U.S.Overseas the while Kamgold, joint venture Kamchatka-based the in shares had which (Toronto, GoldCorporation Canada), byexploited Kinross tobe was mine Aginskoe mine. the order toaccommodate 1994 (in decree by gubernatorial werechanged Park Nature Bystrinsky and Zakaznik Ichinsky of both boundaries the controversy, of considerable as source the been has Park, Nature borderof Bystrinsky southern the to close gold mine, Aginskoe The by geologists. gold province a considered is which Raion, Bystrinsky in are of these Three Ogancha. and Sukhariki, Baranevskoe, Balkhachskoe, skoe, Gold. prohibited. is Kamchatka in 10 from of gold ore (varying concentrations high with deposits developing particularly goldmining, around center industry mining for Kamchatka’s plans However, main industry. the materials construction alocal develop would mined, if that In 2004. to43 1996 There are fi are There KRUTOHOVSKOE opic international environmental organizations wrote wrote organizations environmental international g per ton). The development of alluvial gold deposits gold deposits development The ton). of gper alluvial McKinleyville, ) had agreed to provide political risk insurance. insurance. risk toprovide political agreed ) had The onkveA,Ag) Rodnikovoe(Au, unvkeA,Ag) Mutnovskoe(Au, sciso(u Ag) Asachinskoe(Au, ve main gold reserves on Kamchatka: Agin- on Kamchatka: gold reserves ve main KORYAKIA i Fe Ti, Au " " Russian gnh(u Ag) Ogancha(Au, gnkeA,Ag) Aginskoe(Au, " aaeso(u Ag) Baranevskoe(Au, Au " " uhrk(u Ag) Sukhariki(Au, " Milkovo " ! P P and 1996 and i Fe Ti, iigdpst fKmhtaOblast Kamchatka of deposits Mining PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY yNwl n hu/ Zhou and Newell By A Klyuchi

C Au

I Fe Ti, ! Far

CA: F Ust-Kamchatsk

, respectively) in in , respectively) I

Sources: C East: SS(oepae) 98 G,20 ca) SI 2002. ESRI, (coal); 2000 AGI, 1998; (lode/placer), USGS Daniel ! " Au URGALSKY Aginskoe(Au)

A O C 0 & Reference E Placer Roads Coal ore Lode A to residents of Milkovsky Raion. For the same reason, service service reason, same For the Raion. of Milkovsky to residents go naturally will mechanics and for jobs drivers that expected it is and Milkovo, from directly is mine tothe road only The Magadan. e.g., from specialists, upby incoming taken to be more likely are which and skills necessary do notthe have residents local for jobs which be will However, of these many Raion. Milkovsky neighboring and Raion of Bystrinsky toresidents going priority with mine, Aginskoe by opening 220 that estimates gold reserves, district’s the favor of developing in whois Devyatkin, tion, Gennady administra- Raion of Bystrinsky employment. head The much-needed with itprovide them would because only if ing min- gold now welcome would people local many that critical so is Raion Bystrinsky in Today situation economic the go. would funds where these is question The area. local the undp by the generated funds the much more than be would exploitation resource from revenues that claiming ( undp the in Park Bystrinsky of inclusion the opposes Resources of Natural Ministry the Furthermore, boundaries. present park’s the within explore Daniel. N ¯ gef a 10.2 Map ) program for conservation of Kamchatka’s biodiversity, of Kamchatka’s for conservation ) program 100 km 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide mining developers would be allowed to allowed be would developers mining other Goldand Kinross ahead, goes plan the If park. of the south the in reserves mineral rich for of exploitation the allow time about 50 more, once this borders park’s the shift to government regional for the calling now is matters, over environmental ity author- given has Putin which Resources, of Natural Ministry the However developmentproposal. of the no further be would there if as it seemed gold prices, tofalling Due it could. that advised was and park tothe risk environmental an pose would Park Nature toBystrinsky mine proposed of the proximity the whether and asked government Canadian The opic that project tion about export fi Development Corpora- Export Canadian early In sites. to the adjacent but also within only not activities industrial destructive tially notpoten- tosupport pledging sites, tage World toward Heri- policy its changed and mine for Aginskoe support its withdrew opic aresult, Worldthe As sites. Heritage to close are that gold mines Kamchatka the fi in iucn An decision. its reconsider toopic a letter nancial institutions not invest in any of any in not invest institutions nancial 1996 iucn pages recommended that international international that recommended for their scientifi for their Global Environment Facility Facility Environment Global 1998 for km northward, in order to in northward, km recommending that it that recommending , Kinross approached the approachedthe , Kinross had rejected in in rejected had nance for the same same for the nance Conservation jobs will be created created be will jobs c opinion on c opinion project for resolution 1996 unesco

. 361

and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA 362 monopoly, energy Kamchatkaenergo. regional by the controlled still is production energy of Kamchatka’s development.Most energy in investing of whom are both ebrd the World and the of both Bank concern amajor is which this, compounds sector energy the in monopolization infl unduly interests cal politi- and personal that it appears Instead, considerations. toenvironmental due without attention and sector of the framework economic overall the within feasibility economic of their proper assessment without irrationally, developed ing be- are projects energy that fear experts However, Kamchatka Types of Fuel. Local and Sources Energy Renewable tional Supply Heat toNon-Conven- System and Electric Regional Kamchatka the for Converting Program its implementing 1995 Since regions. sian Rus- among use energy of amodel sustainable Kamchatka become could sources, energy natural immense its With hours. forty-eight every electricity of hours two only wherepeople werereceiving were periods of 1999 spring the In crisis. energy solutions tothe local tofi need urgent increasingly an is there and fuel, porting of im- costs huge the from greatly suffered has Kamchatka distribution, control over fuel of central collapse the With about up only power,makes atpresent that geothermal hydro, and wind, including use, energy for alternative potential despite the tofi diesel) and coal, (oil, fuel imported e. wilson Energy order tosurvive. simply in fi use— resource natural more more torenewable and looking the in crisis economic acute Giventhe alike. hunters nonnative and by native used grounds hunting and herds remaining last by the used pastures reindeer threatens fi of lifestyle toatraditional returned and settlements their from of now whom moved have away many residents, indigenous tothe vital are that rivers spawning threatens Gold mining subsidies. of federal withdrawal the and herding of reindeer collapse of the effects the suffering currently is and Itelmens), and some Koryaks Evens is with (mostly Raion origins of indigenous of Bystrinsky population of the one-third Over bankrupt. went subsequently that abank in invested money was of the rest the and ity), government’s the be should responsibil- (which salaries get” “bud- local off topay partly used was administration Raion Bystrinsky by the gold bonusreceived last the reports, local to economy. local According improve the will budget local into the payments “bonus” direct even that It unlikely is Milkovo. in todevelop more likely on) are so and servicing, mechanical cleaning, (laundry, industries shing, hunting, gathering of nontimber forest products— of forest nontimber gathering hunting, shing, J. shing and hunting in the forest and tundra. Mining also also Mining tundra. and forest the in hunting and shing Ⅲ 2004. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE —Kamchatka has traditionally relied heavily on heavily relied traditionally has —Kamchatka percent of the region’s of the 2percent production. energy McKinleyville, The uence projects. The high level of level high The projects. uence , the regional government has been been has government regional , the Russian re its power stations, stations, power re its Far CA: raion , people are are , people East: Daniel , there , there nd nd , A cost coast. fi fi the is pipeline the of construction the that concern also unproven. is There is project of the feasibility economic The of Kamchatka. part western on the ecosystems pristine the degrade will and stocks salmon damage irreversibly will construction pipeline the that fear Experts rivers. smaller many and wide 150 about cross will line pipe- The years. for twelve capital supply the would gas the a414 build and ayear gas 450 at estimated are where reserves condensate fi 1999 In coast. western fi gas Natural currently in progress. Local experts completed apublic completed experts Local progress. in currently expertiza Afederal bank. of the demands ecological and economic strict the satisfying by the rejected was project pipeline gas The fuel-fi damaging environmentally decommission generation, power of cost the reduce for stations, power fuel for imported need the reduce base, energy Kamchatka’s todiversify intended is project site. The bore work atthe and for construction signed 2000 spring In document. summary project 176 – u.s.$150 is project of the cost company. project total the lentto be The toGeoterm, approved a ebrd The toexploitation. aview with studied been has fi hydrothermal one major is of four Power Mutnovsky Plant. Geothermal ya Mutnovska- the is project majorenergy other Kamchatka’s exploitation. gas and for oil locally support Moscow. growing in is There enemies him however, earned stance, This shore exploration. off- approving document interregional on an deputies of his of one signature the he recalled Biryukov; governor, Vladimir but by Moscow favored not former Kamchatka is by the fi gas and oil offshore Development of Kamchatka’s process. tiza spawning rivers, and offshore oil and gas exploitation would would exploitation gas and oil offshore and rivers, spawning countless damage would contrast, in pipeline, gas The year. of snow meters for of most the several beneath lies and tundra site mostly is Mutnovsky the point out that ronmentalists envi- repair, beyond destroyed been already has site itself the around landscape the Although region. foroptions the energy other than destructive environmentally less being as project favor the also environmentalists development. Local energy sound of ecologically example an as project novsky proud Mut- tobe of the reported World is The Bank region. the in producer power & elds on the shelf of the Sea of Okhotsk, off Kamchatka’s Kamchatka’s off of Okhotsk, Sea of the shelf on the elds Reference , federal of the part as reviewed be will , which 000 u.s.$162 Daniel. red power stations, and develop the fi the develop and stations, power red 36

tons of condensate was prepared. The project, to project, The prepared. was of tons condensate u.s.$99.9 elds (Kshukskoe and Nizhne-Kvachinskoe) Nizhne-Kvachinskoe) and elds (Kshukskoe million, is to produce toproduce is million, elds in central and eastern Kamchatka that that Kamchatka eastern and central in elds elds have been discovered on Kamchatka’s on Kamchatka’s discovered been have elds rst step toward the development of gas development of the gas toward step rst 466 million loan to the Russian Federation, Federation, Russian tothe loan million , a project to develop two gas- two todevelop , aproject Guide rivers that are between 20 between are that rivers (environmental expert review) is is review) expert (environmental -km gas pipeline to Petropavlovsk; toPetropavlovsk; pipeline gas -km pages ebrd tothe according million, 15 billion cu. m of gas and and mof gas cu. billion for 750 million cu. mof cu. million Conservation rst rst independent , contracts were ebrd expertiza and 70 and for not elds

has has exper- m

and Development. Newell, J. The Kamchatka administration hopes to greatly expand production of geothermal power. power. ofgeothermal production expand togreatly hopes administration Kamchatka The systems. heating thermal and power hydroelectric totheir thanks year, of the for most heat and supply of electricity consistent relatively enjoy a however, already Raion, of Bystrinsky residents The Rivers. Tolmachova on the Bystraya plants power and tric hydroelec- tobuild way under projects two also are There considerations. ecological and economic are than priority ahigher given being are interests political that feel and project, Mutnovsky not tothe and project pipeline gas tothe government federal by the relief of tax granting the question ecologists research, environmental money for adequate enough have not does apparently project Mutnovsky the Giventhat standards. environmental ebrd the and law Russian both contradicts This fl into the research completion of baseline site without Mutnovsky on the constructed been already have station power of the blocks two and line, transmission road, done adequately. not access is being The this ecologists, local fi It toimplement Geoterm’s is and responsibility consultants. monitored be by the will it and plan, implementation of on the the toreport obliged is Geoterm project. of the requirement alegal is that Plan Action Environmental for an basis the form actions these and identifi study The project. Mutnovsky for the study environmental out an carried have consultants Independent international Kamchatka shelf. threaten the valuable fi nance environmental measures. However, according to However, according measures. environmental nance 2004. es actions to be taken during project implementation, during taken tobe actions es McKinleyville, The Russian sheries and marine ecosystems of the of the ecosystems marine and sheries ebrd with the assistance of project assistance the with Far CA: ora of the area. area. ofora the East: Daniel ’s own strict ’s strict own A & Reference and political will have been lacking. been have will political and but fi known, well is need of onedently This another. indepen- not decided problems should be social and nomic, eco- ecological, important most The use. resource sustainable to gradually, albeit shift, should industries energy and ing, fi The use. tonature approaches and principles new on so requiring and tendencies, demographic relations, of economic property, foreign system the state, of the zation dramati- 1990 the in changed cally Kamchatka economically, and Socially plant. processing and gold mining Aginskoe proposed the as such environment, on the impact aconsiderable with ones larger and projects small-scale included have able Kamchatka development in fi the ecology will depend upon limiting economically inef- of preservation The unsustainable. is use resource Current Moisseev Robert development Toward sustainable and develop Kamchatka’s economy. aserious is Kamchatka’s But develop there and help restore will use for recreational zoned areas protected that assume also Many areas. degraded restore and complexes natural topreserve it possible make will policy this that assume some Many of form under protection. is Kamchatka of territory of the one-third Almost tool. conservation cepted Daniel. cient and destructive activities. Planned models of sustain- models Planned activities. destructive cient and The development of protected areas has become an ac- an become has areas developmentThe of protected 466 s, with the changes in public life, the organi- the life, public in changes the with s, Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide pages for ral gas. Toward these ends, Toward ends, gas. these ral natu- extent, toacertain and rivers, small from generated energy, hydroelectricity energy, wind geothermal renewable include of energy sources cleaner These use. of nature model anew ward to- region the toshift effort the in important is of energy sources cleaner tolocal, coal and fuel, diesel, from away Kamchatka’s energy industry of diverting idea The ecological requirements. as on strict compliance with well as designs project and scientifi on depends areas protected Effi effi for an facilities recreational and of infrastructure lack cient tourism industry. industry. cient tourism cient management of the of the cient management Conservation c feasibility studies studies c feasibility shing, min- shing, nancing

363 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA 364 development. sustainable for model full-scale a as adopted be could program energy the Then, complexes. economic and social, on natural, effects negative and positive effi economic regional on but also not on institutional only focuses that ment program develop- for acomprehensive need urgent an is There study. additional requires issue can be more economically effi resources energy of local types not all show that and sistent incon- however, are institutions, by various Calculations ka. Kamchat- in produced services and of goods competitiveness the increase and growth toeconomic contribute sources also may of local costs heating and lower electricity The imported fuel. on dependence its reduce and sustainable tobecome industry energy Kamchatka’s allow will sources These Raion. bolevsky fi gas natural development of the the and stations hydroelectric Bystrinsky and Tolmachevsky the and station geothermal Mutnovskaya on the begun has construction J. Ⅲ 2004. oykadEven and Koryak ! Ust-Bolsheretsk THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE McKinleyville, Esso The KORYAKIA

Kamchatka R. Byst

!

Avach raya R. aR. ! Anavgai ! Elizovo ! P ! ciency and takes into account all all into account takes and ciency PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY Russian Klyuchi nieoslnso acak Oblast Kamchatka of lands Indigenous cient than those used now. This P ! A

C

I F I Far

CA: C yNwl n hu/ Zhou and Newell By elds in So- East: Daniel Sources:

O 01 yo,20;ER,2002. ESRI, 2000; Zykov, C

A E ! Commander Nikolskoe a 10.3 Map A ¯ Islands and the volume of yasak the and dramatically, so decreased had Kamchatka southern in tion By the scattered. became settlements and signifi decreased population indigenous Kamchatka’s lecting col- Kamchatka, in policy colonial abrutal empire pursued fi the In Russian the century, seventeenth of the decades rst one from another. aday’s walk not more than were of them many valleys; river and coasts the dotted nities commu- Small inhabited. densely rather was Kamchatka ing, gather- and on hunting economy For based an Lopatka. Cape near south far the in lived Ainu and Itelmens indigenous fi Russians When years. for over tenthousand Kamchatka on southern living been peoplehave that shows evidence Archeological Moisseev Robert Indigenous peoples &

Reference N Aleut 0 Daniel. 0 km yasak rst arrived at the end of the seventeenth century, century, seventeenth end of the atthe arrived rst (fur tribute) and violently suppressing uprisings. uprisings. suppressing violently and tribute) (fur linguistic exchange, but it is known that that but it known is exchange, linguistic and economic, of cultural, processes these on conducted been has research Little ofods storing food. meth- equipment, and sledding breeding, dog developed and population indigenous the from largely borrowed hunting and on fi based took on of away life turn in settlers of Russian Descendants cation. stratifi tosocial contributed plots of land - homes on individual separate in of living practice This homes. communal large the replaced gradually families huts for nuclear separate weresocial; introductions Other fi and traps, steel nets, of fi types New breeding. poultry and sians such as gardening, animal husbandry, Rus- the from activities of economic types new learned population indigenous The activities. economic in sphere, particularly social the in exchange mutual through but also marriages mixed tion, not through only popula- Russian into the assimilated been had of Kamchatka south the in Ainu and Itelmens century, twentieth of the ginning be- By the communication. and transport of regular organization for the required settlements or weremoved tonew disease by ravaged regions left families as resettled wereoften Itelmens diseases. introduced inadvertently Russians as increased rates ty 1 atabout stabilized population Itelmen The methods of governance to be began used. , 466 500 Guide – fallen so drastically, that softer softer that drastically, so fallen 2 , 000 pages people. Periodically, mortali- Periodically, people. for rearms were used. wereused. rearms 1730 Conservation s, the popula- the s, cantly, shing shing shing shing and Development. Newell, J. population. mixed this among developed Russian of dialect Kamchadal a particular after assimilated; fully likely were most of Kamchatka tip southern on the ing liv- Ainu population. mixed new the as well as tribes Itelmen separate fact, werein who of Kamchadals, tribe simplytoasingle referred data census to the 1980 to the From policies. 1930 by special targeted whowere people, of indigenous tions condi- economic and social the in changes radical saw era Soviet The literature. or other data census the in alized regions of the country. of the regions alized more of industri- the population the among than Kamchatka in peoples indigenous the among more rapidly decreased have for survival economy, toamarket resources the shift the With of life. ways donot traditional continue and against, ed discriminat- regularly are population, of the percentage small a form but they towns, and cities in live Others activities. subsistence traditional topractice continue majority, they and the form wherethey villages, small in live natives some of the Today, Oblast. now Kamchatka is towhat indigenous ered consid- Evens are and Koryaks, Aleuts, but Itelmens, only North,” Russian of the peoples “indigenous as themselves people identifying including minorities, different to many home is heterogeneity. Kamchatka ethnic togreat led has Union former Soviet the in people all among Mobility entire native population. the of almost psychologically) and socially, (physically, displacement the in resulting ones, large into afew lages collectivization consolidated small vil- Soviet for atatime. months families that separated children from their educational system boarding-school and fi hunting as such pursuits traditional in toadecline led eventually which subsidies, on state based services of social asystem economy and of the management upstate set Soviets The dramatically. decreased has peoples for indigenous activities of traditional importance The overall. population 1 only comprised they century twentieth end of the at the but absolute terms, in increased tion ussr of the immigration from European areas by mostly tenfold, increased tion 2004. shing. They also developed a developed also They shing. 1897 they were rarely mentioned wererarely they McKinleyville, . The indigenous popula- indigenous . The s, Kamchatka’s popula- Kamchatka’s s, 37 The Nineteenth-century Nineteenth-century Russian percent of the of the percent 38

Far CA: Kamchadal chapel in Esso. in chapel Kamchadal East: Daniel A & Reference as compared to an outsider. The mixed Russian population population Russian outsider. mixed The toan compared as aresident of Kamchatka characterizes merely and population indigenous tothe no applies longer term The Kamchatka. in for some time remained have and who wereborn persons all Currently, term the population. Russian intothe assimilated long ago have and nor anthropologically ethnographically neither latter the from differ they since tion popula- Russian the intoone with group united are Raion, 5 number who and of Paleo-Asians group American tothe belong who authority, “Kamchadals, time. In 1925 that from material by written illustrated as ambiguous, was 1920 the In complex. are North Russian people ofenous the Kamchadals. Daniel. s the defi s the The politics of ethnic identity among indig- among identity of ethnic politics The , according to the Far East Oblast East Far tothe , according nition of the term Kamchadal 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide pages for , 716 Conservation in Petropavlovsky Kamchadal as an ethnicity ethnicity an as statistical statistical means means

365

Vladimir Dinets and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA live in the revived traditional villages of Lauchan, Tvayan, of Lauchan, villages traditional revived the in live also families Afew more Anavgai. in and Esso in fewer with 30 only prise now com- but they Raion, Bystrinsky in Esso and Anavgai of villages the in living groups indigenous one main of the now tofi continue they where basin, River Bystraya tothe migrated region Okhotsk fi the In zapovednik of the those with interests their link that activities economic and protection of nature projects implementing in lie Aleuts for the prospects best The development of transportation. the complicated has but also resources of natural use tence considerable limitations on the Aleuts’ capacity for subsis- azapovednikdeclared were them around zone marine thirty-mile the and Islands dal term the century, twentieth of the middle By the century. twentieth the end of uptothe distinctions of these many retained they and newcomers, Russian the from greatly differed of them both However, werequite similar. features some anthropologic even and nature toward attitudes and dialect, ofway life, Their ways: many in identical practically marriages, mixed of aresult as particularly were, of settlers ancient descendants On March offi in category ethnic an as Kamchadal to“delete” policies tuted 1980 the In Peoples North. of the Indigenous of the List the from wereexcluded why Kamchadals one reasons be ofmay the This people. toindigenous not referring as term this regard now Russia in elsewhere and Kamchatka peoplein Many 366 indigenousOther groups. Itelmens.” itself calls also Raions Okhotsky and Gizhiginsky of Anadyrsky, Islands, Nikolskoe on Bering Island. on Bering Nikolskoe Islands, Commander on the settlement only the in peoplelive Aleuts Today, islands. over the tosovereignty claims Russian bolster and trade fur Russian the toexpand Islands mander Com- uninhabited previously tothe wereresettled Islands oped areas of Kamchatka. areas oped devel- industrially and agriculturally in mainly reside today Kamchadals as use, resource tonatural rights with nection con- in particularly Kamchadals, as tothemselves who refer East. Far Russian or the North, Russian the Siberia, in live which of twelve others, fourteen with together Peoples) of Russia, (Small-Numbered Minorities of Indigenous List more tothe once wereadded Kamchadals the government, Federation benefi of corresponding provision the with List the in inclusion J. cial records. cial referred to a variously defi toavariously referred Ⅲ s, Kamchadals residing in Kamchatka gained offi gained Kamchatka in residing Kamchadals s, 40 Kamchadal ts, but in the late late but the in ts, 2004. Diffi THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE 39 rst half of the nineteenth century, Evens from the the Evens from century, nineteenth of the half rst . culties arise with the identifi the with arise culties The indigenous peoples of Kamchatka and and of Kamchatka peoples indigenous The percent of the total population in both villages, villages, both in population total of the percent 24 McKinleyville, although it has no relation to the ancient ancient tothe no relation it has although , 2000 The in 1993 sh, hunt, and herd reindeer. Evens are herd reindeer. Evenssh, hunt, and are 1990 , however, by a decree of the Russian Russian , however, of the by adecree In 1825 Russian s, the oblast the s, ned and shifting population. population. shifting and ned . This has not only placed not placed only has . This , Aleuts from the Aleutian Aleutian the from , Aleuts 41 The Commander Commander The cation of persons persons of cation administration insti- administration Far CA: East: Kamcha- Daniel cial cial 277

A Nature Park. Nature development of Bystrinsky further in included be should and landscape of the knowledge best the has population enous indig- The Kamchatka. central and western development in undp planned the support Raion Bystrinsky people Most in attention. special require park development of the the and peoples indigenous of the those and interests these between link the and projects mining of proposed feasibility economic and ecological of the vision super- public regard, this In park. nature for the planned are Conservation activities, tourism, and recreational activities activities. of economic types new the with peoples enous by indig- of nature use development of traditional the ing justifi ecologically and fair, socially tofi is Raion problem for Bystrinsky fi and hunting, breeding, reindeer their and peoples indigenous of the use nature traditional of the regions the harm will Raion of Bystrinsky part mountainous the gold depositin development Aginskoe of the Planned population. indigenous of the conditions living the and 1996 in established whenit Park was Nature Bystrinsky in included was Raion of Bystrinsky territory of the all Nearly rise. on the Unemployment is decreased. also have resources important Other numbers. previous their half than tofewer decreased for the Even population, but in the but Even the for in the population, base economic important an been had breeding Reindeer to1 amounts Raion of Bystrinsky population indigenous Raion as well as 155 1998 In Kekuk. and of the North. Peoples Indigenous of the Physicians and of Lawyers zation Organi- Public the Eyek, and Zavina; club ethno-ecological the Ethno-Initiative; organization youth the Groups; Ethnic Peoples Development and Fund for of the Minority national Inter- of the branch Kamchatka the Kamchatki; Aborigenka native’s the women’s Peoples North; ofthe the organization for Fund Compensation Public the Culture; Traditional for Center the “Kamchatka-Ethnos,” include organizations Such created. been development public have and cultural in peoples indigenous of Kamchatka’s interests for the advocate to organizations public addition, In Raion. Elizovsky in operate Aleskam and of Pimchakh enterprises commercial native The Sosnovka. and Vilyuchinsk, Klyuchi, Bolsheretsk, raipon Bystrinsky. and Sobolevsky, Aleutsky, Milkovsky, Elizovsky, raion following the Kamchatsky, Petropavlovsk- in Peoples North of the oftion Indigenous their respective raion ( Peoples North of the of Indigenous Association the in active Russian are of Kamchatka peoples indigenous The people, or 37 & raipon Reference 1995 , but this has had little impact on the raion on the impact little had has , but this Daniel. and included in Kamchatka’s World Site Kamchatka’s in in Heritage included and fi ), and they have established fi established have they and ), lials are active in the following towns: Elizovo, Ust- Elizovo, towns: following the in active are lials percent of the raion of the percent 42 Koryaks and 23 and Koryaks 466 , there were 813 , there s and villages. Beside the Oblast the Beside villages. s and Guide pages ’s population. population. ’s s have local organizations: organizations: local s have project for sustainable project for sustainable ed possibilities of combin- possibilities ed Evens living in Bystrinsky Bystrinsky in Evens living Itelmens. In total the the total In Itelmens. for 1990 nd economically sound, sound, economically nd lial organizations in in organizations lial shing. The main s, reindeer herds herds reindeer s, Conservation ’s economy Associa- , 009

and Development. Newell, J. the Federal Border Service ( Service Border Federal the of activities for the contribute tofunding violations for the qualifi require which vessels, of abandoned discovery the and spillage of oil cases numerous as well as vessels, abandoned and products by pollution oil of environmental threat potential the in reliance on an obsolete fl fi the vessels, of small of owners number the in increase the with recently acute become has adivision such for need The created. be should pollution marine monitoring to dedicated adivision addition, In encouraged. be should on fi commissions intergovernmental of the annual proceedings the during media of mass participation The violations. fying for identi- system information auniform tocreate necessary scientifi an not have passed programs their if for scientifi of permits issuing toprohibit and Rules, Fishing new of adoption the and ation consider- the Water the toexpedite and Code, Constitution the with line in RF of Zone the Economic Exclusive On the eez the protect specifi problems address branches Someof these Glavrybvod. and Environment, of Monitoring the and on Hydrometeorology Authority Resources, of Natural Ministry Resources, Land on Committee Service, Hunting the including Kamchatka, branches of several federal-level agencies are established in agency is a unit of the fbs of the aunit is agency Regional Inspection of Marine Biological Resources. Biological Marine of Inspection Regional Service. Inspection Marine Special Kamchatka Glavrybvod. complexes. natural and sites, natural resources, of natural use of the protection and regulation clude the in- powers Their protection. environmental in engaged are Kamchatka in agencies Ten governmental regional Olga Manzhos issues Legal suffi and of regular issue tosolvethe it necessary is activities, ing To effi the increase Resources. of Natural Ministry of the adivision Service, Inspection Marine Special of the branch Kamchatka the is other listed legislative acts. legislative listed other all in it included is although agencies, of protective list the Economic Zone ( Exclusive Onthe entitled law new the in seen be proof can The inconsistency. its and irrelevance, its legislation, existing of the inadequacy the with connected are duties its ing 2004. cient fi c toKamchatka. c programs often mask commercial activities, so it so is activities, commercial mask often c programs McKinleyville, nancing for leasing vessels and aircraft used to used aircraft and vessels for leasing nancing The diffi The The ed investigation and urgent action. Fines paid paid Fines action. urgent and investigation ed and shelf, to bring the adopted federal law law federal adopted the tobring shelf, and eez) ciency of the Inspection Service’s monitor- Service’s Inspection of the ciency culties that Glavrybvod faces in fulfi in faces Glavrybvod that culties Russian , which omitted Kamchatrybvod from from Kamchatrybvod omitted , which eet, and the consequent increase increase consequent the and eet, . It was established in 1998 in established . It was 44 fbs) c fi sh quotas to organizations toorganizations quotas sh . expertiza Far CA: shing shing industry’s . In practice, practice, . In This agency East: 43 Daniel Regional This topro- shing shing ll- A & Reference must be developed. The law On the Onthe law The developed. be must Kamchatka and Federation Russian the between relations information. insuffi the and Autonomous Okrug, Koryak the and Oblast of Kamchatka agencies protection nature the between and Seas Bering and Okhotsk the bordering regions in agencies governmental between of coordination on lack ecology, the policy federal of aunifi lack the services, supervisory state by the oftion activities coordina- inadequate the are protection to environmental obstacles main the Protection, on Environmental Committee tooffi According needed. urgently is bodies of these activities the regulating system legislative Acoordinated important. especially are agencies dent on fi Russian Russian the waters, territorial and marine internal the in habitats their and bioresources of marine use the monitor,tect, regulate and Kamchatrybvod and from Spetsmorinspektsia. from and Kamchatrybvod movedtothe staff of the Most fi of marine protection the in exclusively engaged of the functions of the all performed bvod ties among the agencies. responsibili- and of powers division strict excessively an and laws protection nature the among of coordination lack the is resources consequently, of natural protection and, monitoring of quality the problemsaffecting legal main One of the General issues

terprises that avoid conducting an an avoid conducting that terprises of en- liability tothe paid be should attention Special for nature-protection activities. earmarked of funds use inappropriate for the and violations for rule introduced be liability criminal that time It high is pollution. for environmental proce- penalties establishing for norms collecting dures legal tospecify It necessary is legislation. existing problemsof the solvethe temporarily would and them contradicting without laws ofment norms federal the comple- and specify could agreement of the provisions The Oblast. Kamchatka and bodies executive federal the between agreement an by concluding or solved mitigated be could problem This extraction. begin will and drilling oil offshore governor against the and population of the protests the ignore will government the that some danger is There population. entire of the rights constitutional of the violation adirect is This shelf. continental on the situated resources natural all touse right exclusive an for itself secured has Moscow Kamchatka. case, periphery, this of the in interests upon the infringes of center how the example agood as serves eration Daniel. An effi ed and consistent regional policy related to the tothe related policy regional consistent and ed eez, shing that the activities of the three last-mentioned last-mentioned three of the activities the that shing cient legal mechanism of economic and ecological ecological and of economic mechanism cient legal 47 and on the continental shelf. Previously, Glavry- shelf. continental on the and cient and uncoordinated provision of provision scientifi uncoordinated cient and 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide cials from the now-dissolved Kamchatka Kamchatka now-dissolved the from cials pages 46 Kamchatka’s industry is so depen- so is industry Kamchatka’s for fbs from former divisions of former divisions from expertiza eez Conservation of the Russian Fed- Russian of the fbs and those that that those and . The fbs . The 45 sh resources.

is 367 c and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA 368 of the representatives Certain it status logging. Its toprotect from time in not extended example: was atypical is Tayozhny The Zakaznik fi an nothave passed that projects destructive environmentally and forefront, the at often problemsare But economic of of acertain protection. need in degree Kamchatka in places many are There depleted. being are resources the that fact the toacknowledge except reserves these protect done is to nothing level, governmental atthe and force, powerful this toconfront legislation) current (under tunity no oppor- have agencies protection The year. each violated fi on the pressure great is There toKamchatka. adjacent waters in products other fi harvest companies Russian and of foreign hundreds present, At resources. of biological use development and on the based been always economy has Kamchatka’s without conducting the expertiza activities economic of certain initiation the about decisions offi authorities, of relevant instruction on direct positive fi developed but has not been enforced. not been but has developed been has Protection OnAir law The develops. transport road as Petropavlovsk, and Elizovo in increasing is pollution of air level The encouraged. be should activities inspection in possible as people, young especially citizens, many of as involvement the and adopted, be should Inspectors On State law The legislation. nature-protection entire of the pendium acom- be would which Code, Ecological ofadoption the the be would improvement. forward Amajor step needs and not is viable Offenses Economic entitled Code Penal of the do not fulfi offi prosecutor’s tion protec- nature The legislation. nature-protection existing with noncompliance is problems biggest One of the areas. ecological fragile gold in for mining technologies no suffi are there and enterprises, of such erations op- the tosupervise no inspectors are Wealth,there Mineral Use of Deposit for the Insurance Onthe no law is There the mining industry in Kamchatka. in industry mining the todevelop aplan adopted development economy and of the of directions one main of considered the be should materials raw and resources of mineral use the that effect tothe lation On September court. void the and in null as recognized be should agreement the and legislation, existing contradicts deal This of illegality. notoriousexample another is Geysers of Valley the intothe for excursions Krechet company aviation-tour the and Zapovednik Kronotsky the between agreement on. so The and budget, the in of funds problems of unemployment, lack by citing trees of unique ing nanced. fi without facilities construct and nance J. Ⅲ 2004. expertiza THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE ll their obligations to the full extent. The section section The extent. full tothe obligations their ll McKinleyville, . Because this review process is often ignored ignored often is process review this . Because The 29 expertiza ce and nature protection organizations , 1997 oblast sh reserves and fi and reserves sh Russian , the administration passed aregu- passed administration , the administration justifi administration are being implemented and being are should be held liable. held be should 48 This is premature. shing regulations are are regulations shing rst obtaining a obtaining rst Far CA: cials making making cials ed the fell- the ed ciently clean ciently clean East: Daniel sh sh and A spawning run, where run, spawning phenomenon: salmon Asia’s biggest annual astonishing of an 2000 salmon from roe rip poachers Russian Geoffrey York Perspective for their red caviar, a delicacy that sells for sells that adelicacy caviar, red for their illegally salmon the harvest gangs river. Organized a single fi one hundred as many much as chatka u.s.$7 as fi Illegal peril. in be could survival its wildernesses—but unspoiled greatest It one world’s is of the rivers. pristine its in spawns population world’s of the Pacifi one About quarter of geysers. valley aspectacular even and species, of endangered dozens birds, rare hot springs, volcanoes, erupting forests, rivers, wild of peninsula alush of Kamchatka, wonderland tothe ecological threats growing one fastest is of the Poaching said. Mr. Leacock breaks,” population wherethe threshold a reach “It could eggs. for their killed of salmon thousands of tens seen he has he said, summers, previous In occur. yet may much worse He fears peninsula. remote Kamchatka of tip Russia’s southern on the Lake, Kurilskoe around creeks the near corpses salmon of discarded hundreds he saw the fi On poachers. from area the toprotect trying is that group environmental York–based aNew Society, Conservation Wildlife the from aresearcher Leacock, here,” William said werealready poachers the began, run salmon the after hours out. “Not twenty-four ripped roe even open, slit their bodies their salmon, of dead hundreds are creeks around Scattered prey. their harvesting brazenly are poachers the already and begun, barely has Russia’s in East Far season spawning summer’s This slaughter. of illegal weeks two just with river fl poachers, of knife-wielding gangs criminal organized tor: preda- amore ruthless phenomenon nowthis is attracting However, pass. they as eagles sea rare and bears brown giant of of hundreds attention the attracting creeks, and rivers dropped by 50 by dropped has Kamchatka in population bear the to some estimates, According use. for medicinal bladders gall animals’ for the of dollars thousands pay Koreans and where Chinese Asia, in market bear-organ the tosatisfy year every by poachers killed grizzly—are American North the as species same bears—the brown huge of Kamchatka’s Hundreds animals. ter other too, slaugh- numbers, massive in Poachers shops. Russian in to from range (estimates wilderness Kamchatka the roam still bears how many knows Nobody poaching. and hunting & own in by helicopter and capable of devastating an entire entire an of devastating capable and by helicopter in own Reference 25 rst day of the spawning season that began on 21 July began that season spawning of the day rst , Daniel. 000 : The windswept waters of Kurilskoe Lake are the site the are Lake of Kurilskoe waters windswept : The ), but poachers are killing as many as 2 as many as killing are but), poachers shing and poaching is believed to cost Kam- tocost believed is poaching and shing percent since the 1960 the since percent 466 1 Guide . 7 shing companies can be licensed on licensed be can companies shing million salmon fi salmon million billion a year in lost revenue. As As revenue. lost in ayear billion pages for s, the result of excessive of excessive result the s, ght their way up way their ght Conservation u.s.$22 , c salmon c salmon 000 a kilogram akilogram annu- 6 , , 000

and Development. Newell, J. $60 fi of number offi and rivers, thousand fourteen Kamchatka’s to watch helicopters two only have They poaching. the tocombat powerless almost about it.” fi Russia’s totalk even federal I’m business. afraid it’s because acriminal details the know fl and ahelicopter totake them “It’s for easy Kamchatka. in activist environmental a leading Chernyagina, Olga said big business,” avery is “Poaching ruthlessness. of and power reputations with comes that of atmosphere fear on the taken have brigades poaching illegal The people. to aboriginal to go supposed are that quotas of salmon exploitation the allowing afrontman, as person aboriginal aRussian hire sometimes of poachers toreproduce.” salmon’s the away Gangs ability They’re taking runs. tosome salmon threat areal are ers now,” Griffi Jeffrey said but “It’s it’s pressure resource, arich unprecedented under for survival. capacity long-term their reducing and salmon of the diversity the ing weaken- run, year’s entire salmon an strip can poachers nets, with rivers story. By blocking adifferent is though, poaching, organized Large-scale families.” their tosupport to poach diffi very here is situation economic “The governor, deputy Timoshenko. Sergei Kamchatka’s said “We can’t efforts. people reproach for poaching,” small-scale offi government Even local survival. of economic means acceptable an as seen often is poaching undp tothe consultant Ottawa-based it,” Grigoriev, an Paul said to threats many so are but there place, untouched amazingly an is “Kamchatka planning. forefront of the atthe are ans undp the tosupport on studies spent has Development Agency International Canadian The located. is Lake whereKurilskoe park, nature Yuzhno-Kamchatsky the including areas, of protected four as undp by the launched being is reserves nature tohelp project Kamchatka’s Anew fi electri- an behind compound isolated an in live They Lake. of Kurilskoe wealth salmon the guard ashotgun, with armed each wardens, park federal two it. Only toprotect staff the lacks government Russian Site. Yet impoverished Heritage an aunesco as designated been have reserves of nature its fi that region unique and aspectacular such is Kamchatka [ decimated tobe going is population the it continues, “If said. Mr. Leacock killed,” bears of the age and size the in decline “There’s adramatic hunters. been by local shot legally be will bears one thousand as many As abear. of bagging u.s.$13 much as as whopay Canadians and Americans wealthy including by trophy hunters, year this legally killed be also will bears hundred three ally. More than ed fence designed to keep out the bears. bears. out the tokeep designed fence ed 2004. u.s.$15 a month, many wardens are unable to resist the tempta- the toresist unable are wardens amonth, many project. Because of the post-Soviet economic collapse, collapse, economic post-Soviet of the Because project. million for a plan to strengthen the management management the tostrengthen for aplan million McKinleyville, shing wardens. With salaries of only of only salaries With wardens. shing The cials say they need a major increase in the the in amajorincrease need they say cials Russian n, a undp , which hopes to raise as much as toraise hopes , which y it to any river. Few people people river.y it Few toany project, and several Canadi- several and project, consultant. “The poach- “The consultant. cials are sympathetic to sympathetic are cials shing regulators are are regulators shing Far , CA: 000 cult. People have cult. for the privilege privilege for the u.s.$100 East: Daniel u.s.$50 sic , World 000 ].” or or ve A

& Reference year, 972year, fi the In red-handed. caught is poacher the fi recovery” “damage only about about only rubles, less than u.s.$5 than less 83 rubles, fi basic The lax. too are on poachers imposed penalties the admitted has government Russian The wecan’t whenwesee situation.” improve the discouraged fi the away throw and by helicopter, caviar out comein the strip They system. nized Kamchatrybvod. “They havein Kamchatka, a well-orga- fi federal of the director Rezvanov, “It’s tofi of bribes. tion hard The offi Kamchatka on Heritage World Bruce Rich Perspective fi maximum the by by upto fetch aram’s can though head even the are there convention. Currently tothe parties world ( of the countries the all cooperate.” Nearly awhole to as community international of the duty it the is protection whose “for aworld heritage constitute will that and perspective or natural acultural from value” universal of “outstanding are that territory on sites their to identify agree nations Under treaty, the Heritage. Natural and tural World of the Protection the Cul- Convention Concerning by unesco promulgation the in of concept World The originated Heritage it presents. opportunities the maximize offi government and communities if only realized be will potential However, this development. economic friendly socially and environmentally for balanced, prospects enhanced greatly offers Kamchatka, undp condonesit,” aCanadian inadvertently but rather poaching, not inhibit does “Clearly, legislation such market. black the natural sites. They should: They sites. natural World for Heritage selecting major criteria four are There scientifi totheir according nominations the evaluates scientifi and organizations international other with unesco of tothe sites submit nominations governments National and sites, historical Daniel. unesco unesco 23 consultant concluded. are so-called mixed cultural and natural heritage sites. sites. heritage natural and cultural mixed so-called are cial designation of fi designation cial World Heritage Committee in Paris, which, together together which, Paris, in World Committee Heritage fi shing infractions were recorded in but Kamchatka, in 1996 u.s.$6 World Heritage List, of which of which World List, Heritage 466 144 ne for killing a snow sheep is about asnowis sheep ne for killing Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide , 300 are natural sites (such as Kamchatka), Kamchatka), as (such sites natural are as the World the site, Volcanoes of as Heritage cials in Kamchatka work together to work together Kamchatka in cials ne, but this too tends to be small unless unless small tobe tends too butne, this sh. Sometimes we feel helpless and and helpless wefeel Sometimes sh. worth offi worth pages an infraction. There can also be a be also can There infraction. an ght the poachers,” said Vladimir Vladimir poachers,” said the ght ve protected areas on Kamchatka on Kamchatka areas ve protected of an international treaty, the the treaty, international of an for nes were collected. Likewise, Likewise, werecollected. nes sh-protection department sh-protection ne for an individual is is individual ne for an Conservation u.s.$10 rst half of this of this half rst 554 721 are cultural, cultural, are 1972 , sites on sites 157 000 c bodies, u.s.$150 c value. ) are now ) are with on on

369 , and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA 370 environment. natural the protect suffi that the offi suggests This i.e., illegally. reviews, these without occurred has Park Nature Nalychevsky and Zakaznik, Kamchatsky Yuzhno- Zapovednik, Kronotsky in infrastructure of tourist construction that It appears areas. protected in developed is expertiza an requires law Russian confi confl potential important an it poses for administering responsible of those World any site inside part on the Heritage interests business Direct business. company’s the tourism and toKrechet links close tohave reported are Biryukov, Vladimir Kamchatka, former governor of the and Zapovednik Kronotsky of the head the Both Zapovednik. World site, Kronotsky Heritage of the jewel crown tothe access controls effectively Krechet company helicopter the that known It widely is observers. the of attention tothe come has coherently.developed This and managed World not being site are Heritage Kamchatka fi the Currently sites. the develop and protect, manage, toeffectively cooperate can authorities and communities local on whether depends izes material- support international and tourism Whether park. to the threats environmental posed have would gold mine proposed a because aWorld Site Danger in Heritage declared was Park Yellowstone when ago, National years several United States the in occurred This ment concerned. government for the embarrass- international considerable creates danger,” which unescoa site, the endangers development inappropriate or management If poor sustainable. culturally and environmentally is foster can tion designa- the development that economic the that to ensure site and the toconserve authorities national and of local part on the commitment and responsibility agreat entails It also organizations. development environmental and international fi attracts some cases, in and, tourism for of attention focus international an area an makes clusion in- because for World designation, selected sites have Heritage to regions and nations among competition great is There fi ful- that site one few is of the Volcanoes ofThe Kamchatka Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ lls all of these criteria. of these all lls J. Contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of excep- phenomena or areas natural superlative Contain of endan- habitats natural important most the Contain ecological ongoing representing examples exceptional Be of the majorphases representing examples outstanding Be tional natural beauty. natural tional value. of universal species gered processes. biological and earth’s history. ciently concerned with their obligations to preserve and and topreserve obligations their with concerned ciently unesco Ⅲ dence in site in management. dence 2004. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE cials responsible for the construction are not are construction for the responsible cials committee and other international and foreign foreign and international other and committee ict of interest that can undermine international international undermine can that of interest ict McKinleyville, The committee can declare that the site is “in site “in is the that declare can committee ve protected areas constituting the Russian before any infrastructure infrastructure any before nancial support from from support nancial Far CA: East: Daniel A coordinated management and protection. and management coordinated adequate lack areas protected existing the while to proceed but counterproductive it probably be would areas, protected of system toKamchatka’s addition awelcome be future the in could parks of these creation The volcanoes. skoy Klyuchev- and Kirinsky the around for example on Kamchatka, parks nature new tocreate proposals also are There slum. arural resemble attimes season tourist peak summer the in that area the in sites upother toclean used been have could money spent of there the amount asmall while Park, Nalychevsky in built been has Village Potemkin of tourist akind that it appears far So management. and use resource of rational programs todevelop and watersheds important toscientifi according established were all parks nature three The Park. Nature Yuzhno-Kamchatsky the and Bystrinsky parks, nature other two the in servation or con- plans management in no investments tobe appear There condition. toalamentable todeteriorate allowed been have hikers, more by local used toPetropavlovsk, back leads that trail on the pass the spot near resting overnight at the ists fl tour- Russian elite and whereforeign pad helicopter the near all sites, hot spring atseveral cabins changing elaborate rather including facilities, other and upamuseum toset expended wwf by part in amounts—contributed cant signifi Park Nalychevsky In - activities. conservation real tosupport toKamchatka come actually howabout much has signifi raised has Germany World questions site, are but there Heritage Kamchatka WWF– center of the peninsula (Conifer Island), make up less than than upless make Island), (Conifer peninsula ofcenter the the in only found are These spruce. and of larch forests conifer Kamchatka’s topreserve is Amajorconcern grounds. play in mitigating fl role to aspecial have and peninsula of the balance ecological the for preserving important vitally are forests Kamchatka’s areas protected and forests for Recommendations Emma Wilson Perspective forests—is decreasing every year. However, economic year. the every decreasing forests—is toKamchatka threat main logging—the commercial that given atpresent not is critical situation Yuri the Nechitailov, Protection, on Environmental Committee Kamchatka the at department areas protected of the head to the experts. local According among of concern levels varying are There years. sixty past the in over two-thirds by area in decreased cover, have forest and total of the percent & Reference y in and out. But other facilities in the park, for example for example park, the in out.facilities But other and y in Daniel. oods and protecting salmon spawning spawning salmon protecting and oods 466 Guide pages for cant funds for the for the funds cant c criteria to protect toprotect c criteria Conservation —have been 6

and Development. Newell, J. of small private logging ventures. In In ventures. logging private intoanumber of small collapsed has today industry timber The communications, fi of fi threat the against forests for all protection toprovide adequate need urgent an sees fi of forest frequency atthe concerned is Avramenko, Alexei Service, Forest Kamchatka of the head The areas. of protected creation now through forests for these protection profi atamoment’s cut be forests their for let aquick notice will ( Station Forestry Experimental the of director the Lazarev, Gennady that severe so is situation covered themselves, enterprises logging on the for by atax tion, paid as of 1 area mover an cu. Today Today fulfi from it far is that agree many though forests, of the protection the role in toplay important an has (PAs) areas of protected system Kamchatka’s present. for the lifted been has threat the an topass failed factory plywood The forests. birch toKamchatka’s threat aserious pose would ally, which touse intending was plant proposed but the idea, agood tobe seemed for plywood plant wood-processing ahuge tobuild industrialists by Kamchatka plans Recent processing. for more local aim should tion, and consump- internal for Kamchatka’s yields provide sustainable however, should, able to be timber industry The banned. of be Kamchatka should export that agree specialists Forest apart. fallen now practically has Kamchatlesholding contract. zone. water-protection the in forests logging 10 only years recent ing to protect the whole region effectively. Meanwhile, funds funds Meanwhile, whole effectively. region the toprotect ing fund- notenough have does service PAs. However, forest the outside and inside both forests, Kamchatka all for protecting responsibility entire the bears still Service Forest Kamchatka the parks, nature Kamchatka the manage and to control Parks of Nature Directorate Kamchatka of the creation Despite the protection. forest toPAs and the when turns discussion on Kamchatka raised quickly are Passions actual protection provided by PA status. of but quality on of the PAs not number be created, on the 31 it make will Park Nature Klyuchevskoi new the PAs, and in tried to contract the efs (formerly Kamchatles) Kamchatlesholding company) stock it to toreduce made being are efforts from stages in reduced been has zone protection water The for logging. requirements legal the fi commercial logged, been have ests for- more accessible the As reassessed. be should and high too ( 2004. aac percent. However, ecologists argue that the focus should should focus the that argue However, percent. ecologists 1 million cu. m. were logged annually.) Forest regenera- Forest annually.) m.werelogged cu. million t and therefore efforts should be made to provide legal toprovide legal made be should efforts therefore t and ) has actually been taken, but experts believe the the believe but experts taken, been actually ) has 27 5 percent of the territory of Kamchatka is set aside aside set is of Kamchatka territory of the percent , 413 McKinleyville, The ha in 1998 re-fi – Russian 11 , percent of the Annual Allowable Cut Allowable Annual of the percent 914 ghting equipment, and so on). so equipment, and ghting toprovideascientifi (over three times the area logged). In In logged). area the times three (over ha. (In previous years as much as years previous (In ha. 70 res (with air patrols, rangers, rangers, patrols, air (with res , 000 lling this role adequately. this lling cu. m of birch wood annu- wood mof birch cu. efs) rms are trying to soften tosoften trying are rms 1998 500 5 Far km to 1 CA: , believespeople that , they cut 169 cut , they m. The AO m.The (joint- c justifi efs expertiza , so East: km, and now and km, Daniel refused the the refused cation for cation res res and aac , 000 is A

& Reference Ⅲ Recommendations. January January on passed was Code Forest Federation Russian The code. forest national on the law PAs and the between consistencies due toin- use for Park long-term Nature to Nalychevsky offi not been still has land Forquate. example, inade- is protection for forest framework legislative The ecosystems. natural of the protection the is PA Russia in in priority creation whenthe and system, PA the outside destinations tourist attractive equally many are PAs, whenthere within on tourism emphasis undue such toplace it wrong is believe ecologists Kamchatka zones. and intoconfi than money intotourism toput prefers directorate parks The binding. legally made not have been and on paper remain but Protection, these tal kiepby the parks for the long ago weredetermined borders and zoning scientifi The protection!” special mind don’t never They protection, providenormal even areas! ed protect- called “They’re exclaims: Avramenko, Service, Forest Kamchatka of the head The atall. no PAs if existed as ted permit- are of activities kinds all that means parks the within or zoning borders park of properly determined lack The Service. Forest Kamchatka offi will control and Service Forest Federal the through channeled be money would that so park, national into afederal-level made be Park Bystrinsky that fi of local capacity the PAs or the toincrease within regime tion protec- the tostrengthen than rather Park, Nature chevsky Naly- in notably parks, nature the in infrastructure tourism todevelop exclusively almost used being are of Kamchatka, wwf the as such support, PA and protection for forest region into the coming are that priorities for protection.” protection.” for priorities real the are Wewhat todetermine need areas. up protected setting about togo way right not is the This of volcanoes? group Klyuchevskaya the weprotect it. about How can thing not able todo any- be wewill then it erupts, If anywhere. not go will Avolcano avolcano? around area a protected create “Why ecologist. of one words local the in but rocks” “not on forests protecting afocus created has nomination World Heritage Volcanoes of Kamchatka The mchatka. on protection Ka- for forest support muchprovided real not has intervention international hopes, Despite initial Oblast. Leningrad and Oblast, Sakhalin Krai, for Khabarovsk acode such is there although for Kamchatka, specifi local sibly embrace Daniel. re-fi Protect the old-growth conifer forests of Conifer Island Island of Conifer forests conifer old-growth the Protect threats from logging companies. logging from threats future against protected legally are they that so possible as soon as territories these aside setting remained, have that ghting and fi and ghting 22 , and the Kamchatka Committee on Environmen- Committee Kamchatka the and 1997 466 , but local specialists agree that it cannot pos- it cannot that agree specialists , but local Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide re-prevention services. Specialists suggest suggest Specialists services. re-prevention The following actions should be taken: be should actions following The pages cs. There is no regional forest code code forest no regional is There cs. program Protection of the Forests Forests of the Protection program for cially remain with the the with remain cially rmation of boundaries Conservation c justifi cations for the for the cations cially allocated

371 and

KAMCHATKA Development. Newell,

KAMCHATKA and animals, typical and unique ecosystems. unique and typical animals, and fl of pool gene the occurrences, and processes of natural study and 372 scientifi zapovednik of the goal the contradicts allowed in zapovednik option. By law, not obvious is however, an to be tourism seems tourism areas, Western for protected Using models asystem? such tosupport found be funds wherecan for science, support of state withdrawal world. Giventhe the in elsewhere from experience to draw models no comparative are economy wherethere market the in survive can howasystem is such today question The of azapovednik goal the Areas, Protected OnSpecially law federal tothe According populations. ral natu- their and territories of the made inventories regular and protection for strict aside wereset of land areas Huge protection. nature and for science support state guaranteed was world, there the in nowhere else when, as Soviets, the of system Russian The zapovednikone oldest of the BiosphereReserve, State Kronotsky in tourism of developing of azapovednik concept the and tourism that argue Kamchatka in Ecologists zapovednik the and Tourism Emma Wilson Pespective Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ Ⅲ J. Direct Direct fi heav- so focusing than PAs outside rather tourism Develop transport helicopter and monopoly the on tourism Break aac the toreassess forests the Survey protection, PAs provide adequate existing the that Ensure large than PAs, rather (properly protected) smaller Create Develop a regional forest code for Kamchatka. code forest aregional Develop ven- timber-processing local sustainable small, Develop by forests on Kamchatka demand export the Reduce ily on tourism within PAs. within on tourism ily in PAs. and technology. apriority. PAs as the within proper zoning and of boundaries delineation including ecosystems. tonatural protection provide no real PAs that tures. timber. of Kamchatka consumption their toreduce Koreans and Japanese the with working PA the structure. through than rather Service Forest Kamchatka the through tion ora and fauna, specifi fauna, and ora Ⅲ 2004. c researcher, “In order “In for a c researcher, THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST FAR RUSSIAN THE nancial and technical support for forest protec- for forest support technical and nancial McKinleyville, are incompatible, and there should be no talk no talk be should there and incompatible, are The s, nor is any other type of activity that that of activity type other nor any s, is c species and communities of plants of plants communities and c species Russian zapovednik s in Russia. Russia. s in —a natural monopoly? zapovednik s was developed under under developed s was . According toone . According , using new methods methods new , using is “the preservation “thepreservation is Far CA: 49 to survive, you tosurvive, East: Daniel A the helicopter fi helicopter the of the kov, director the and Kovalen- G. A. of Sogzhoi, director the between friendship cil without being told the reason. told the being without cil coun- the wereremoved from years, for twenty there worked 1999 In recommendations. of their consideration without ahead zapovednik the in activities the that concerned is fi on the ture signa- not his it was that claimed time, atthe director still whowas Alexeev, amendments. of their any without signed fi the with agreement draft the ed zapovednik the in happens that approveshould all zapovednik the from ers The scientifi agreement. about this controversy considerable is There of Krechet. consent the toobtain it has Geysers, ofValley the tofl company, wants helicopter for example, within the zapovednik toactivities rights) exclusive practice, (in “priority rights” the between signed been has agreement by Kovalenkov. An there Komarov, Valery placed apuppet, director, is new the that it said is director’s post, the removed from been has Alexeev A. S. Although Today irreversible. is dependency the dependent fi on the became zapovednik the on), so and on credit, trips helicopter urgent (allowing weregranted that favors special and Elizovo, in ters the where Raion, Scientifi allowed.” is else everything and hunting and tourism where parks nature of our level the it azapovednikto call you but won’t then there, tourism able be mass develop can former State Resource Enterprise ( Enterprise Resource former State of the basis on the established was toKrechet) birth gave dawn of perestroika atthe originated reserve nature the and company helicopter the between Relations peninsula. on the activities tourist major all on virtually as well as reserve, nature the from and to travel monopoly the on all has which Krechet, helicopter company tothe soul sold its has Zapovednik Kronotsky areas enjoy. protected Kamchatka which World the status, ens Heritage threat- indeed and legislation, of Russian framework side the out- clearly is Zapovednik Kronotsky in developed been has education”) “ecological (or tourism that way the practice, In for scientifi used is conservation. and activities these c research by money generated that ensure and of activity type this nize orga- could Zapovednik Kronotsky in department education ecological the theory on. so In and ornithologists, amateur toscientifi refers generally law. This by permitted are which excursions,” or “ecological education” of “ecological totalk instead word “tourism,”the preferring & Reference zapovednik , two researchers from the zapovednik the from researchers , two Daniel. c researchers in the zapovednik the in c researchers c advisory council—a body of scientifi body council—a c advisory nal agreement. The scientifi The agreement. nal and Krechet that gives the helicopter company company helicopter the gives that Krechet and rm’s proximity to the rm’s tothe proximity zapovednik . The joint-stock company Sogzhoi (which (which Sogzhoi company joint-stock . The 466 —it will lose its status. It will be on be It will status. its lose will —it for a period of ten years. If any other other any If of tenyears. for aperiod Guide and independent scientists that that independent scientists and rm. zapovednik pages is situated, and on the personal personal on the and situated, is rm, but claims that it was it was that butrm, claims Gospromkhoz c exchanges, visits from from visits c exchanges, for zapovednik , S. A. Alexeev. With With Alexeev. A. , S. c advisory council council c advisory try not to use not touse try , one of whom has , one of whom has Conservation y into the famous famous y intothe ) in Elizovsky Elizovsky ) in are going going are ’s headquar- ’s —amend- c research-

and Development. Newell, J. should remain ascientifi remain should it that believe for example, Caldera, Uzon in worked have who Scientists places. of these ecosystems fragile on the ism tour- of increased impact the fear Site. Researchers Heritage World of the part also is which south, the in Lake Kurilskoe fi (for licensed Lake Kronotskoe and Volcano, Uzon Caldera, Burlyashchy zapovednik the within places other in tourism of allowing talk also foot is route. There the of reopening talk is there by helicopter. only But is now. access far, So Geysers of the Valley the visiting notostopfrom people way is There period. this within for dates company tour to aforeign sold been already had some tickets as interrupted month tobe Last year offi banned. are visitors and valley the in mate whenbears period “quiet springtime month,” the the is which of abolishing now talking is of Krechet, head butited, as Kovalenkov, lim- is Geysers of Valley the tothe access present, At athome. washed be would dishes with them, and then fl fl would visitors and groups research apicnic bringing y in, water. Previously, volume of dirty increased this withstand not able to be will ecosystem the that afraid are Ecologists River. Geyser unique intothe valley of the slopes the down if that pit weretooverfl that if but water, it treated, is and dirty the tocontain constructed been Apit has toilets. the use all visitors the generally and fl and pans, glasses, dishes, the all then valley, the in there cooked and prepared is food the All lunch. have all they then and valley, the around walk tourists fl helicopter The people. of forty atotal is which day, per excursions two generally are there season, tourist the out. During carried being are Geysers of Valley the the into how about excursions concerned are Now ecologists review. expert environmental an obtaining fi the topay for Kovalenkov no trouble about it. It was anything not hetended did know fl just wereapparently materials by law. required Building is that (expertiza review expert environmental the without so—all or of tenyears for aperiod toKrechet leased is center, which scientifi fi Now the Geysers. of the Valley the in bridges and paths the all constructed Krechet business. lucrative very of control this full tohave wants and Krechet wants to develop mass tourism in the the in tourism mass todevelop wants Krechet 2004. own into the reserve, and the director, Alexeev, pre- Alexeev, director, the and reserve, into the own c researchers and forest rangers, as well as a visitors’ avisitors’ as well as rangers, forest and c researchers McKinleyville, cials, including the governor, the quiet ordered the including cials, The shing.) Krechet is now looking to “develop” to“develop” now looking is Krechet shing.) Russian y out again with all their waste; dirty dirty waste; their all with y out again ow, all the wastewater would fl would wastewater the ow, all c laboratory, and access should be be should access and c laboratory, rm has built two houses there, for there, houses two built has rm ne for building on land without without on land ne for building atwares are washed there, there, washed are atwares Far CA: East: ies ies in, the Daniel zapovednik ow ow — A )

& Reference tourism and conservation on Kamchatka. conservation and tourism of over control amount adisturbing whohas businessman he can’t law.” problem that the only follow is it this is And whose boss, astrong man, business “a good as described is Kovalenkov article newspaper alocal In administration. regional the and regulators protection nature including ships, relation- of dependency awhole involves network that system conservation anature of dependency, relationship within nal zapovednik the Instead, grounds. on legal protested be could agreement the believe experts Legal monopolization. against astand make could reserve the changed; be could agreement The collectively. sible toact fi yet jobs, their of losing for fear individually toact apparently, afraid are, They agreement. the to oppose but fi reserve, nature of the over management profi aboutlosing on Krechet, The colonies. bird the or disturbing land on stepping without views, coastline enjoy wonderful and the binoculars through wildlife other and birds watch where they toabout liner cruise the from sengers pas- bring boats Small popular. but increasingly tourists, for expensive are These cruises. environment: damage natural to the minimal causes that of aform tourism is There scientifi into directly fed be would that income an tocreate reserve of the territory the from away processing) timber small-scale the that suggested been way. right also to spendit the in It has it of getting amatter just is money—it has also government federal The administration. regional the money from ting for get- possibilities are There of income. source sustainable toprovide a going never are these though programs, grant scientifi international other are There nik. Zapoved- Kronotsky includes component that protected-area a with for Kamchatka, developed being just is program The of tourism. from sources other apart income are There alternatives? the are What center. avisitors’ including Caldera, Uzon in buildings seven toconstruct plans are But there ground?” into the trodden just he has that togrow fern that how long just it for took toatourist you explain How can point of view.point of view, atourism not much from so ascientifi from unique “Uzon is commented, researcher Volcano. one Mutnovsky As as such on Kamchatka, places interesting equally other are There totourists. denied Daniel. zapovednik c research and conservation. and c research zapovednik develop its own production activities (e.g., (e.g., activities production own its develop 466 Kamchatka Oblast Ⅲ Guide staff complain about their dependency dependency about their complain staff pages ts from tourism and control control and tourism from ts for remains stuck in an irratio- an in stuck remains undp Conservation 300

gef c and conservation conservation c and m from the shore, the mfrom biodiversity biodiversity nd nd it impos- nd it diffi nd cult

c 373 and

KAMCHATKA