RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1

Home , Alaniya National Park, Altai Nature Reserve, Baikal Nature Reserve, Barguzin (river), Bastak Nature Reserve, Belogorye Nature Reserve

No. 33 Summer 2003

Special issue: The Transformation of Protected Areas in Russia A Ten-Year Review

PROMOTING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN RUSSIA AND THROUGHOUT NORTHERN EURASIA RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 2

CONTENTS CONTENTS

Voice from the Wild (Letter from the Editors)...... 1 Ten Years of Teaching and Learning

in Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik ...... 24

BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION The Formation of Regional Associations

A Brief History of Modern Russian Nature Reserves...... 2 of Protected Areas...... 27

A Glossary of Russian Protected Areas...... 3 The Growth of Regional Nature Protection:

A Case Study from the Orlovskaya Oblast ...... 29

THE PAST TEN YEARS: Making Friends beyond Boundaries...... 30

TRENDS AND CASE STUDIES A Spotlight on Kerzhensky Zapovednik...... 32

Geographic Development ...... 5 Ecotourism in Protected Areas: Problems and Possibilities...... 34

Legal Developments in Nature Protection...... 7 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE Financing Zapovedniks ...... 10

The Future We Choose...... 36 Ranger Services...... 11

New Methods for a New Era CONSERVATION CONTACTS of Conservation in Lazovsky Zapovednik ...... 13 Helpful Resources...... 39

Science in Zapovedniks and National Parks...... 16 Table of Russian Zapovedniks and National Parks...... 40

A View on Science from Voronezhsky Zapovednik...... 19 Contact information for RCN authors

Environmental Education...... 22 and contributors ...... Back cover

The mission of the Center for Russian Nature Russian Conservation News is produced with support from Conservation (CRNC) is to promote the conservation of many wonderful conservation-minded people! Special thanks nature in Russia and throughout the former Soviet to: the Weeden Foundation, World Wildlife Fund, Bill Union, and to assist conservation groups in that region Eichbaum, Harriet Crosby, Winslow Duke, Geoffrey Harper, through information exchange, coordination of profes- Joan Hoblitzell, Eliza Klose, Juliana Williams, Andrea Williams sional and education exchanges, and provision of tech- & Chas Dewey, Bernie McHugh, John Hemenway, W. Horton nical assis- Beebe-Center, Lisa Woodson, Rodney Cole, David Ostergen, tance to pro- Phillip Pryde, and Jack Padalino. tected areas. CRNC is a We’d like to thank all of our subscribers and special contributors, project of the especially the following: Matthew Auer, Cynthia Barakatt, Gerard Tides Center. Boere, Joan Bridgwood, Bill Chandler, Dave Cline & Olga Romanenko, Evelyn Cochran, Wallace Cole, Mary Cooper, Jane Costlow, Susan Helms Daley and Sean Daley, Nicholas Day, Andrew Durkin, William Fuller, Kevin Gilligan, Ken Harte, Nancy © Copyright 2003 CRNC/Tides Center. Hopps, Freeborn Jewett, Jr., George Johnson, Nadezhda Kavrus- Hoffmann, Mary Anne Mekosh, Rick McGuire, Kazuo Morimoto, Lois Morrison, Douglas Murray, Edward Mulrenin, John Prentice, Guido Rahr of the Wild Salmon Center, Thomas Rainey, Nicholas RCN has many partners and friends in Russia, including Robinson, David Sears, Brooke Stevens, Fred Strebeigh, Gregory the Partnership for Zapovedniks, whose mission is to offer Streveler & Judy Brakel, Michael Thoma, Peter Ward, and William organizational, technical, Wasch, Jr., Gary Waxmonsky. and financial help to zapovedniks and national parks in Russia. ISSN 1026-6380 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1

Voice from the Wild (A letter from the Editors)

his September, thousands of delegates from throughout the world will T descend upon Durban, South Africa to attend the Fifth World Parks Congress (organized by the World Conservation Union, IUCN). Experts from parks and protected areas, representatives of biodiversity conservation organizations and many others will meet to discuss the current needs, EDITORIAL BOARD problems, and challenges of protected areas. They will pay particular attention to role parks and reserves play outside of the territories they protect. Executive Editor: Margaret Williams The theme of the Congress is “Benefits beyond Boundaries.”

Editor: Lisa Woodson Russian delegates at the conference will have an important opportunity to showcase Russia’s system of protected areas and the intellectual power that Managing Editor: Nikolai Maleshin fueled the system’s creation. No other country in the world has devoted Graphics Artist: Maksim Dubinin more land to strict nature protection. Few countries have developed an ecological monitoring program that has operated as long, or has been as Design and Layout: Design Group A4 extensive and detailed as the “Chronicles of Nature” program in Russia’s strictly protected nature reserves, called zapovedniks. Today this valuable Environmental Education Advisor: system is imperiled by lack of funding and needs international support. Natalia Danilina These are the well-kept secrets that should be shared in Durban. Translation: Lisa Woodson, Nadia Maleshina Because the zapovednik system was established with the purposes of biodiversity conservation and scientific monitoring (and to a limited degree Copy Editing: Laura Trice education), for much of the Soviet period, many regarded these nature reserves as scientific laboratories which offered little to the broader public. Subscriptions Manager: Elizabeth Upon first learning of the restrictive conservation regime of zapovedniks, Hermsen people may judge the nature reserves to be outdated in their apparent lack of inclusion of human communities. Contributing Authors: E. Amirkhanova, R. Cole, M. Fedotov, M. Kreindlin, A. Laptev, E. Ledovskikh, Y. Likhatsky, N. Moraleva, But interpreting zapovedniks only in this light would be to undersell and S.Popova, V. Stepanitsky, M. Stishov, undervalue the contributions zapovedniks have made to Russian society N.Troitskaya, A. Troitsky, L. Woodson and to the world as well. Throughout their history zapovedniks have helped to restore depleted wildlife and game species valued by indigenous Contributing Artists and and local people. They have protected headwaters of rivers which provide Photographers: A. Ananin, drinking water and irrigation sources to towns and cities. They have served A. Kuznetsov, E. Ledovskikh, Y. Likhatsky, as archives of rare ecosystems and species whose ranges around the world N. Maleshin, V. Nikolaenko, A. Pribytkov, G. Rusanov, K. Tkachenko, S. Shestakov, have been severely diminished. And they have been an educational labora- L. Woodson tory for some of Russia’s best and brightest scientists. In short, Russia’s zapovedniks, while being closed to human visitation, have provided ON THE COVER numerous benefits to humans beyond their boundaries. Moreover, especially in the past decade these closed nature reserves have begun looking directly outward to the communities and regions that surround them. The political and economic upheaval that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 created many new challenges and opportunities for zapovedniks and other reserves, and conservationists are still adjusting to and learning from these changes. One of the major trends in this time period has been the formation of new partnerships that cross the borders of protected areas.

At Russian Conservation News, we take pride in sharing this little-known and surprising story about Russia’s protected areas. In the following pages, we present the story of Russia’s zapovedniks and the more recently created national parks. Our summary articles and case studies from the field focus in particular on the past decade, a time of great transformation for both Russia and the country’s unique system of nature reserves. We hope the delegates of the Durban Congress and others reading this issue will be intrigued and inspired by the lessons and stories from Russia’s protected areas system. Most impor- Amur wildcat (Felis cuptilura). Cover tantly, we hope the Congress delegates will pledge support for this global treas- drawing by K. Tkachenko ure, recognizing a shared responsibility to preserve it for future generations.

Summer2003, No. 33 1 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 2

By Way of an Introduction By Way of an Introduction

In the 1930s and 1940s, the zapoved- A Brief History of Modern niks took a turn from bad to worse. Russian Nature Reserves Joseph Stalin ruled the country, bringing a reign of terror and all-encom- hough protected areas have either their nature preservation or passing plans to build socialism in the T been a part of Russia’s history scientific functions. Nonetheless, country. Many scientists were impris- since medieval times, the country’s zapovedniks had the support of oned, exiled, or killed. Zapovedniks modern system of nature reserves enthusiastic naturalists, who often themselves were labeled hoarders of began in 1916, with the founding of worked on a purely volunteer basis. natural resources that “forbade” the Barguzinsky Zapovednik on the And though the reserves themselves progress of socialism, and the nature shores of Lake Baikal. The logic were cut off from the general popu- conservation media was indicted with behind creating zapovedniks was to lation, these naturalists saw value in infecting the population with false reserve models of intact nature – liv- working with local communities. propaganda. At the same time, many ing laboratories – to preserve and They actively publicized the newly scientists found the zapovedniks a study ecosystems. The word formed zapovedniks, which began place of refuge, and were able to con- zapovednik comes from the Russian popping up in the Russian Far East, tinue their work and studies relatively word zapovedny, ‘forbidden,’ or ‘pro- the Volga Delta, the Sayan beyond the reach of political turmoil. tected,’ and accordingly, the general Mountains, the Caucasus Mountains, population was strictly forbidden and the steppes of western Russia, Bending with the tides of contem- from setting foot in these nature not to mention present-day Ukraine, porary political and scientific reserves. then part of the Soviet Union. thought, new leaders appointed to Lectures, seminars, publications, govern the system of zapovedniks The 1920s were difficult years for libraries, posters, and brochures suggested that rather than serving both the zapovedniks and the coun- were intended to teach people the goals of nature protection, try as a whole, which was struggling about zapovedniks and their impor- zapovedniks should inform society to adapt to a new socialist govern- tance. Ordinary civilians even of how best to transform and ment. They lacked adequate fund- joined in the zapovedniks’ scientific manipulate nature to serve the pur- ing, and were often unable to fulfill research. poses of socialism. Despite scien-

Barguzinsky Zapovednik was Russia’s first modern nature preserve, founded in 1916. Photo by A. Ananin.

2 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 3

By Way of an Introduction

Glossary

Russia has several different forms of specially protected natural areas defined by law:

Zapovedniks are strictly protected nature reserves with three primary functions: conservation of ecosystems and ecosystem processes, scientific research, and environmen- Russian protected areas include not only important wilderness tal education. In Russia today there are 100 zapovedniks, areas, but also historic sites, such as Pleshcheevo Ozero National covering 337,000 square kilometers, or 1.56 percent of Park. Photo courtesy of Pleshcheevo Ozero National Park the territory of Russia. They are created by order of the federal government and managed by the Department of ticular object as small as an ancient tree or small island Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation, which is bird rookery. Any activity in the natural monument or its housed in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Zapovedniks buffer zone that threatens the preservation of the monu- are classified as Category I nature reserves by the World ment is forbidden. Nature monuments are classified as Conservation Union (IUCN). Category III nature reserves by the IUCN.

National parks are areas established for recreation, Nature parks are areas designated for nature protec- nature conservation, and environmental education. They tion, education, and recreation that include natural encompass natural complexes and sites that have a par- complexes or sites that have significant ecological and ticular ecological, historical, and aesthetic value. National aesthetic value. They are established only at the region- parks have the right to use the natural resources within al level. In recent years, conservationists have increas- their territories in accordance with special legislation. ingly looked towards nature parks as a conservation National parks are established at the federal level and are tool, finding them more expedient to establish than managed by the Department of Protected Areas and other categories of protected areas. Biodiversity Conservation. Today Russia’s national parks number 35 and cover 70,000 ha (0.41 percent of the Arboretums and botanical gardens are nature pro- country’s total area). National parks are classified as tection institutions that contain special collections of Category II nature reserves by the IUCN. plants with the goal of preserving biodiversity and enriching the plant world. Arboretums and botanical Zakazniks are areas set aside as nature preserves with gardens may be under either federal or regional man- a special purpose involving preserving or restoring nat- agement, but belong to various institutions, such as the ural complexes and supporting ecological balance. Russian Academy of Sciences, The Russian Academy of Zakaniks may be established at the federal or regional Agricultural Sciences, the Ministry of General and level. These special purpose preserves fall into several Professional Education, Ministry of Health, etc. categories, depending on what they are intended to protect: landscape, biological (botanical and zoologi- Natural health spas and resorts are intended as cal), paleontological, hydrological, and geological. sites for people to visit for rest, recreation, and holistic Regional zakazniks are usually established for a set medical treatment. Natural health spas and resorts per- period of time; federal zakazniks are established indefi- mit only limited human activities, enabling the preser- nitely. Zakaniks are generally classified as Category IV vation of medicinal natural resources. They may be nature reserves by the IUCN. under federal, regional, or local management.

Nature monuments are sites recognized for their The government of the Russian Federation as well as uniqueness as well as their ecological, scientific, cultural, regional and local governments have the right to insti- and aesthetic value. They may be given federal or region- tute other kinds of protected areas, such as “green al status, but can be managed by people or organizations zones,” city forests, city parks, protected river systems, outside of the government. For example, the All-Russian biological stations, protected landscapes, areas for tra- Society for Nature Protection, the Soviet Union’s largest ditional land use, and others. In total the Russian nature protection organization, managed and continues Federation has more than 250 designated categories of to manage many nature monuments. Nature monuments specially protected natural areas, many of which are may vary in size, and may be established to protect a par- found in only one republic, krai, okrug, or oblast.

Summer2003, No. 33 3 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 4

By Way of an Introduction

tists’ heroic attempts to defend their weathered a difficult battle for sur- munities and cities nearest them. protected areas, in 1951, 21 Russian vival during much of their history, Protected areas are rethinking their zapovedniks (88 in the entire Soviet zapovedniks were inwardly focused, traditional roles of nature protection Union) were closed, and many oth- centering their activity on guarding and science: “education” is now a ers were reduced in size. their territories and conducting sci- third officially stated purpose of all entific research. Even though the zapovedniks. Moreover, nature The meaning and purpose of country had been in a state of eco- reserves are beginning to look for – zapovedniks and nature protection nomic decline for many years, as well as provide – aid not from the as a whole continued to change zapovedniks received regular and federal government, but from through the 1970s and 1980s. This adequate financing for all their regional governments and local time was a period of relative stability needs. But protected areas – and communities. for the zapovedniks system, which zapovedniks in particular – had to grew significantly. Attitudes about reinvent themselves again when The past decade of history for pro- science in the country had changed, political and economic changes tected areas in Russia has been and zapovedniks no longer contend- swept over the country, affecting another chapter in story of their ed with the idea that they existed for every sphere of life. struggle for survival, a chapter the utilitarian purpose of learning about how the protected areas are how to manage nature, but instead When the Russian Federation once again changing their purpose could focus on ecology. At this time, declared independence from the in response to political, social, and it was only the rare enthusiast or Soviet Union in 1991, a wake of economic changes. This metamor- zapovednik staff member with extra chaos followed in its trail. Two phosis has not come easily, and time on his or her hands who trends in particular that accompa- many have complained that focused attention on the educational nied the collapse of the Soviet Union zapovedniks have lost sight of their role that zapovedniks could play. By have had primary importance for mission, selling out to the highest and large people both inside and Russia’s protected areas. One was bidder in a new age of capitalism. outside the protected areas consid- the overnight disappearance of the Others have defended the changes, ered zapovedniks to be institutions financing on which the protected suggesting that the time has come that need have nothing to do with areas had come to depend. The sec- to see nature protection in a new local populations. Hostilities grew ond was the decline of centralized light. No one wants to “pour new on both sides as each saw the other’s (Moscow-based) power and the wine into old wineskins,” but nei- existence as a threat to its own. simultaneous rise of regional author- ther does anyone wish to “throw ity and autonomy. These trends out the baby with the bathwater.” Such was the state of nature protec- have forced zapovedniks and other As protected areas wrestle with tion when Soviet power began to fall nature preserves to begin looking forming a new identity for a new apart in the late 1980s. Having outside of their borders to the com- time, they are navigating uncharted waters; but these early steps are crucial because they may determine the direction nature protection in Russia will take for years to come.

Compiled from materials provided by the Department of Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation of the Ministry of Natural Resources as well as Feliks Shtilmark’s History of the Russian Zapovedniks, 1895–1995, Geoffrey Harper, trans, (Edinburgh: Russian Nature Press, 2003). Also, for more information, read A Little Corner of Freedom, by Douglas Weiner (University of California Press, 2002).

Scientists in Altaisky Zapovednik. Photo by E. Ledovskikh

4 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 5

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies Geographic Development vatization arising in the country. Worried that a time would soon ne of the most conspicuous area of the Russian Federation. That come when Russian land – which O developments in protected figure may not sound large, but it is during Soviet times had always areas since 1992 has been their rapid greater than the combined areas of belonged to the state and did not expansion: within a decade, 26 new Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, need to be bought in order found zapovedniks, 18 national parks, 7 fed- and Hungary. And when you add in nature reserves – would be sold to eral zakazniks, and 3 federal nature other kinds of protected areas, such as the highest bidder, they began an monuments were founded in Russia. regional zakazniks, that figure active campaign to found as many Together these new protected areas becomes 1,400,000 square kilometers, protected areas as possible. When cover 27,000,000 ha (270,000 square an area larger than the entire changing politics allowed new faces kilometers). Moreover, during the last Midwestern United States. and new ideas into the government ten years, the area of protected areas bureaucracy, plans for many already in existence was expanded by The 1990s were a very special period zapovedniks and national parks 2,600,000 ha. In total, Russia’s federal in history indeed, one which allowed were pushed through the necessary protected areas now include 100 so many protected areas to be estab- channels and brought to life. Many zapovedniks, 35 national parks, 69 lished in such a short space of time. had already been in the plans for zakazniks, and 28 nature monuments, Already during the perestroika years years, and just required some covering a total area of 532,000 of the late 1980s, many conservation bureaucratic maneuvering in govern- square kilometers, 3.1% of the total scientists saw the trend towards pri- ment offices to be established; others

For details on the size and date of establishment of individual reserves, please see the numbered table on pp. 40–41. Map by M. Dubinin

Summer2003, No. 33 5 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 6

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

20 percent of the world’s ocean shelf Is it all so rosy? and has shoreline in 13 seas, but until recently comparatively few Even among conservationists, not everyone has been a supporter of the rapid marine areas were officially protect- appearance of zapovedniks across Russia in the past decade. Feliks Shtilmark, ed in Russian nature reserves. the noted historian of Russian protected areas, has been among the outspoken Together the marine territories of 13 opponents of current trends in zapovednik development and management. zapovedniks (Astrakhansky, He argues that the desire for “quantity” has overcome “quality”; that more and Dagestansky, Kandalakshsky, more reserves are being founded even as existing reserves are loosing the abili- Nenetsky, Bolskoi Arktichesky, ty to guard their territories because of low funding. Moreover, in some cases, Koryaksky, Komandorsky, Kronotsky, particularly in Arctic regions, setting up a zapovednik has actually diminished Dzhugzdhursky, Kurilsky, Sikhote- the goals of conservation by introducing human presence where one there Alinsky, Dalnevostochny Morskoy, was little or none. Finally, he claims that the legislation intended to guide pro- and Wrangel Island) cover an area of tected areas in the post-Soviet era is so vague that its stipulations can be inter- 6,500,000 ha. If marine buffer zones, preted in any number of ways, leaving the fate of individual zapovedniks rest- zakazniks, and other protected areas ing on the honor (or lack thereof) of its managers and the regional authorities. are included in this figure, the total marine area under protection jumps From Feliks Shtilmark’s History of the Russian Zapovedniks, G.H. Harper, to 9,100,000 hectares. trans. (Edinburgh: Russian Nature Press, 2003). The last zapovednik to be founded in Russia, Erzi Zapovednik, was were founded on the basis of com- pre-existing nature reserves. established in December 2000. Plans pletely new local initiatives. Establishing zapoveniks requires exist – and have existed for some overcoming numerous bureaucratic time – to establish many more Thanks in large part to this work, hurdles and finding funding to cre- zapovedniks, but have been delayed today zapovedniks are spread ate infrastructure. A fully functional by bureaucratic problems, in particu- throughout most of the country, zapovednik requires staff workers, lar the dissolution of the State found in 19 of Russia’s 21 republics, 5 office space, computers and other Committee for the Environment in (of 6) krais, 35 (of 50) oblasts and necessary equipment. In the mid- 1998 and subsequent reshufflings autonomous oblasts, and 7 (of 10) 1990s, nature protection leaders within the Ministry of Natural autonomous okrugs. National parks, realized that in many cases it would Resources. In the past few years, the on the other hand, with their empha- be more expedient to expand the most active geographic development sis on providing places of recreation, area of existing zapoveniks instead in the system of protected areas has are concentrated mostly in European of founding completely new been in uniting various protected Russia and the Ural Mountains, with reserves. On average, two or three areas into larger biosphere reserves. just six in all of Siberia. zapovedniks were expanded by 130,000 hectares annually. Materials for this article were prepared Beyond founding new protected by Mikhail Fedotov, Head of the areas, a completely new trend has A second major trend in expanding Organizational Division the appeared in expanding the network Russia’s system of protected areas Department of Protected Areas and of Russia’s protected areas over the over the past decade is preserving Biodiversity Conservation of the past decade: increasing the area of marine areas. Russia governs nearly Ministry of Natural Resources.

Comparative areas of nature preserves and parks. Source: Russian Growth of Russian protected areas, 1917-2003. Source: Russian Ministry of Natural Resources Ministry of Natural Resources

6 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 7

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

zapovedniks, ensuring their long-term Legal Developments protection. Subsequent legislation, including the 1993 Constitution of in Nature Protection the Russian Federation, further clarified the specifics of different kinds of ne of the most important ele- strong legal foundation for nature protected areas and their manage- O ments in securing the long- protection. Another reason is the ment. All the while, then-President term protection of natural areas and steadfast support a number of non- Yeltsin and his government passed ecosystems is ensuring that protect- governmental agencies gave to the decrees encouraging the creation of ed areas stand on a strong legal foot- creation of solid environmental legis- new protected areas. ing. The past decade has brought lation. tremendous legal reform as environ- The 1995 law “On Specially mental issues have gained impor- Legislation on nature protection in Protected Natural Areas” was a tance and Russia’s system of protect- Russia falls into three broad cate- watershed for nature protection in ed areas has been streamlined and gories: federal (nationwide) laws, Russia. Besides further clarifying how strengthened. Well-constructed laws regional laws (created by and to found and manage protected and legal definitions have brought applied in Russia’s individual admin- areas, the law offered the first formal order to a formerly vague and hap- istrative regions: republics, oblasts, legal definition of what protected hazard system of environmental pro- krais, and okrugs), and international areas were, and broadened the list of tection, building a strong base to environmental agreements. different types of protected areas to help Russia’s protected areas weather include not only zapovedniks, the storms to come. On the federal level, progress began in national parks, zakazniks, and nature 1992 when a law from the very end monuments, but also nature parks, As the Soviet Union fell apart and the of the Soviet period, “On arboretums, botanical gardens, natu- new Russian Federation took over the Environmental Protection” (12 ral health spas, and resorts. The law responsibilities of the RSFSR (Russian December 1991) came into force in also introduced the possibility of Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), the Russian Federation. This law was reserving tracts of land that could be the young government began the task the first to include a section specifical- later designated as protected areas as of reorganizing government structures ly about protected areas, defining a well as creating new buffer zones. It and offices. Beginning in the late number of types of protected areas, also gave rangers more police 1980s, people who had never been clarifying their purposes and obliga- authority and clearly defined regula- allowed into the government because tions, and prescribing methods for tions about trespassing and poach- of their political leanings suddenly founding them. The law also placed a ing on protected areas and their found themselves before an open ban on withdrawing territory from buffer zones. door. Environmentalists such as Nikolai Vorontsov left behind careers The new law on protected areas also in science to build environmental affected other federal laws. The 1995 consciousness into the new country’s Water Code of the Russian Federation legislation. The integrity and diligence introduced the concept of of such people is one of the main rea- “specially protected sons that Russia now has such a aquatic sites,” bringing regulations on

Russia’s historic landscapes are preserved in Vodlozersky National Park, also a UNESCO biosphere reserve and World Heritage Site. Photo courtesy of Vodlozersky National Park

Summer2003, No. 33 7 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 8

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

marine areas, lakes and rivers in pro- Russian Protected Areas Achieve tected areas into accordance with the protected areas law. The law “On the International Notice Animal Kingdom” of the same year performed a similar function for pro- UNESCO Biosphere Reserves tecting animals and their habitats. The The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s 1997 Forest Code of the Russian Program on Man and the Biosphere (UNESCO-MAB) created the bios- Federation guaranteed protection of phere reserve concept as an effort to establish nature reserves that forests in all protected areas. would protect the planet’s main ecosystems (and their genetic resources) and allow for environmental monitoring and other research. The Russian Federation’s “Code on In time, promoting sustainable development through these reserves Misdemeanors,” brought into force became an increasingly important emphasis, particularly following the in 2002, established official penalties drafting of the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves (1995). In the for breaking environmental laws. For past decade both the number and the area covered by biosphere ordinary citizens, fines for breaking reserves in Russia has more than doubled: today Russia’s 30 biosphere protected areas regulations were set reserves cover over 130,000 square kilometers. Many more zapovedniks at five to ten times the monthly and national parks fulfill the functions of biosphere reserves even minimum wage, plus confiscation of though they lack official UNESCO status as such. For more information illegal goods and equipment; RCN’s on biosphere reserves in Russia, please refer to special issue on depending on the level of responsi- biosphere reserves, No. 27 (Fall 2001). bility the individual bore (i.e. how much he or she should have known World Heritage Sites about laws in protected areas), the The World Heritage Convention was ratified in 1972 and came into fine might rise as high as 400 times force in the USSR in 1975. Russia’s first World Heritage Site in a wilder- the monthly minimum wage. ness area was named in 1995, and since then the number of such sites in Russia has grown quickly, rising to eight by 2003 and covering an At the same time, similar processes area of nearly 200,000 square kilometers. World Heritage Sites include were at work on the regional level, as the Virgin Komi Forests, Lake Baikal, Volcanoes of Kamchatka, Golden Russia’s republics, krais, okrugs, and Mountains of Altai, Western Caucasus, Curonian Spit, Central Sikhote- oblasts began passing their own envi- Alin, and Uvs Nuur Basin. All of these include at least one zapovednik ronmental legislation with various or national park, and many incorporate several protected areas. A purposes. As Russia’s regions gained number of other sites, ranging from Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean autonomy, an interesting develop- to the dry Daurian Steppes to the Ural Mountains and the forests of ment in environmental politics was Karelia, are being considered for future inclusion in the list of World the emergence of joint federal-region- Heritage Sites. al agreements on protected areas. In earlier years, protected areas were Important Wetlands (Ramsar Convention) either strictly federal or strictly region- The Convention on Wetlands signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an inter- al, but now Russia’s regions began governmental treaty supporting the conservation and wise use of wet- asserting more authority in the man- lands and their resources, particularly where waterfowl are concerned. agement of federal protected areas. Three sites in Russia were designated Important Wetlands in 1976; 32 For example, in June 1999, the sites were added to this list in 1994. Altogether, Ramsar sites in Russia Republic of Bashkorostan and the cover 53,000 square kilometers. The presence of twelve zapovedniks sup- State Committee on Environmental port the protection of these sites, along with one national park, ten fed- Protection signed an agreement estab- eral zakazniks, and eight regional zakazniks. lishing rules for cooperative management of Shulgan-Tash Zapovednik. A European Council Diploma similar agreement in 1997 between Nomination by the European Council is a sign of awareness that a partic- the State Committee on ular site presents a particular interest for preserving Europe’s natural her- Environmental Protection and the itage and is protected at a high level. Four zapovedniks – Osksky and Administration of the Autonomous Teberdinsky in 1994 and Tsentralno-Chernozemny and Kostomukshsky in Okrug of Chukotka transferred some 1998 – have received European Council diplomas. federal powers in protected areas management to the regional govern-

8 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 9

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

Natural and Cultural protect Lake Khanka on both sides Heritage and the Ramsar of the Russo-Chinese border. Convention on Wetlands on International Of course, laws are only effective to Importance. Though the extent that they are enforced. In both conventions were Russia to this day zapovednik direc- signed in the Soviet tors wring their hands over the lack of period, they have police and judicial support they become far more influ- receive in apprehending poachers and ential in the past other law-breakers. Moreover, envi- decade. For example, ronmentalists have noted that recent Russia had only three legislation on penalties for breaking Ramsar sites until 1994, regulations on protected areas has when 32 new sites actually decreased the power of The Lypya River flows through Vishersky Zapovednik in based in various kinds of zapovedniks and their rangers by the Ural Mountains. Photo courtesy of Vishersky protected areas were making maximum penalties less strin- Zapovednik added to the List of gent than zapovednik officials would Wetlands of prefer. President Putin’s dissolution ment. Altogether nearly 30 of Russia’s International Importance. The and rearrangement of environmental 89 regions have passed special laws renewed interest in these two con- government structures such as the regarding the organization and activi- ventions carries with it a renewed State Committee on Environmental ty of their protected areas. commitment to caring for sites of Protection has called into question declared international significance. both the rights and the future of gov- The final ingredient in the develop- ernmental protection of nature. ment of protected areas legislation Russia has also signed agreements Nonetheless, without the environ- in Russia over the past decade has with individual nations to form mental legislation passed in the previ- been the influence of international international nature reserves, such as ous decade, the chances for stable environmental acts and agreements. the 1994 agreement with The long-term development of healthy Russia inherited all of the Soviet Ministry of Environment of Mongolia nature reserves would be far less cer- Union’s environmental accords and and Environmental Agency of the tain than they are today. agreements, a number of which have People’s Republic of China to found had particular significance for pro- an international nature reserve on Materials for this article were prepared tected areas. Then in 1992, Russia the steppes along borders of all by Vsevolod Stepanitsky, the deputy signed the International Convention three nations. A similar agreement in head of the Department of Protected on Biological Diversity, obliging itself 1996 with the Chinese government Areas and Biodiversity Conservation of to fulfill the Convention’s protocols. created an international reserve to the Ministry of Natural Resources. Similarly, the 1995 Pan-European Strategy for Preserving Biological and Landscape Diversity has com- pelled Russia to join in the work of building ecological networks that incorporate protected areas.

Ironically, among the most influen- tial pieces of international environmental legislation were two conventions signed in the Soviet period: the Convention on Protecting World

Losiny Ostrov (literally ‘Moose Island’) National Park preserves forests and their inhabitants amid sprawling Moscow, a city of over 12 million people. Photo by A. Pribytkov

Summer2003, No. 33 9 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 10

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

Kandalakshsky Zapovednik on the White Sea led the pack, earning Financing Zapovedniks 4,124,000 rubles (about $140,000) – 32 percent of its total budget – off of its own activities in 2002. hen the economy of the for- The ways that zapovedniks have W mer Soviet Union collapsed, learned to survive are as diverse as In the 1990s many zapovedniks protected areas suddenly found the zapovedniks themselves, spread received grants from international themselves without the steady across steppe, forest, tundra, and charitable organizations, especially income they had enjoyed for years. mountains, but almost all received the Global Ecological Facility (GEF). The most difficult times came supplemental funding from a combi- But one of the interesting trends between 1992 and 1997: according nation of four sources: regional and over the past few years is the rise in to Biology Professor Alexander city governments, Russian sponsors, domestic sponsorship. Zapovedniks Nikolsky (Peoples’ Friendship foreign grants, and income generat- such as Kavkazsky, Laplandsky, and University of Russia), the actual level ed by the zapovednik itself. Oksky managed to secure up to 23 of financing for zapovedniks in 1995 percent of their 2002 budget from was twenty times less than what The realization that zapovedniks and such sources. In 1999, Russian they received in 1990. In 1995, national parks can themselves begin sponsors donated about $188,000 President Yeltsin issued a decree to generate their own income (in to Russia’s zapovedniks; by 2002, promising increased funding to 1999 zapovedniks collectively this figure had grown to nearly zapovedniks and national parks earned nearly 20,000,000 rubles (a $380,000. Similarly, financial sup- through the year 2000, but in fact little over US$700,000) more than port from regional and local gov- this promise was never fulfilled. It ten percent of their annual budget ernment bodies has grown steadily did, however, prompt regional gov- that year) comes as a surprise to with each year. ernments to begin funding federally many. Selling scientific expertise has managed protected areas, which proven the zapovedniks’ greatest Materials for this article were provid- became an important source of moneymaker, followed by tourism, ed by the Department of Protected financial support. Even so, zapoved- limited economic uses of natural Areas and Biodiversity niks had to learn to subsist on less resources, fines for trespassing and Conservation of the Ministry of and seek other sources of funding. poaching, and selling firewood. Natural Resources.

Note: the ruble crash in August 1998 caused a severe dip in actual financing for zapovedniks. Source: Russian Ministry of Natural Resources

10 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 11

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

legislation has given rangers more rights and responsibilities, particular- Ranger Services ly regarding enforcing nature protection legislation. Rangers once had the right only to tell a wayward s in the past, guarding and ing oneself and one’s family, in some mushroom-hunter, for example, that A keeping watch over protected circles it has become a lucrative busi- he or she was illegally collecting areas remains one of the most ness that has allowed poachers to mushrooms in a zapovednik; but a important responsibilities of manag- purchase advanced weaponry and ranger could not issue a legitimate ing nature reserves. The difference communications equipment. In Soviet citation or, in the case of more seri- today is that rangers (and their times, rangers were almost always as ous crimes, bring a suspect to the employers) have had to adapt to the well equipped than the perpetrators local police station. As occasionally significantly new conditions and they chased. But today the tables have happens in history, a single passion- challenges that have arisen in Russia turned, and in ate individual has played a tremen- after the fall of Soviet many zapovedniks, dous role, this time in changing power. Being a ranger working conditions for rangers in Russia has always across Russia. As a young man, been a dangerous Vsevolod Stepanitsky worked as a business, but con- Sturgeon ranger in the fish inspec- temporary condi- and caviar. tion service, and was tions in many pro- Poachers can familiar with the frustra- tected areas have make a lucrative business tions rangers faced made the job much out of hunting and fishing in because of they lacked more perilous. As a protected areas by selling valuable the authority to result, a trend in the animal products. Photo by A. Pribytkov enforce regulations. past several years is When he became a that rangers are now being trained rangers armed only with binoculars, leader in government environmental on a more professional level than walkie-talkies and perhaps a rifle face agencies, Stepanitsky made improv- they were in the past. poachers boasting speedy all-terrain ing ranger services a priority. vehicles and semi-automatic Poaching, for example, though always weapons. The list of legislation affecting an issue in Russia’s zapovedniks, has rangers over the past decade is sig- taken on a new character. Where But where economic shortfalls have nificant, as are the results of this poaching used to be a matter of feed- weakened ranger services, stricter legislation. Until 1995, trespassing

Rangers and other staff often stay in isolated outposts in or nearby their nature preserves. Photo courtesy of Vodlozersky Natonal Park

Summer2003, No. 33 11 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 12

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

on foot or by vehicle, though offi- have begun to look at being a Year” award has been granted to cially illegal, was a crime that ranger as a professional occupation exceptional rangers. rangers rarely pursued: but when for which employees must receive new legislation declared trespassing substantial training. Methodological These measures have had an effect, a serious violation and gave rangers training manuals have been pre- as protection of zapovedniks and the new right to search, apprehend, pared and published for rangers in national parks has improved over and in some cases fine or arrest all zapovedniks and national parks, the past decade. Unlawful timbering trespassers and other lawbreakers, addressing how to administer tick- in zapovedniks has declined. Rangers rangers stepped up to their new ets, handle misdemeanors, and con- have put a stop to the “War against position. A law that came into force duct raids and other strategies that Wolves” (killing wolves in an in July 2002 gave rangers many of the special operations patrol groups attempt to reduce their numbers) in the same powers as police officers. use. In 1995, the Department of zapovedniks, and in many of the As of January 1, 2003, 32 national Protected Areas held two-week zapovedniks in European Russia the parks and 82 zapovedniks had spe- courses to raise the qualifications of practice of shooting moose (Alces cial operations groups designed as deputy directors responsible for alces) and deer (Cervus elaphus) is a progressive form of patrol squad. guarding zapovedniks. Similar now only an occasional phenome- As recently as 1996, there were courses have been held with financ- non instead of a regular occurrence. only 46 such groups. ing from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). A series of seminars Nonetheless, significant problems Managers of protected areas are for rangers held under the auspices still remain. Despite measures to also beginning to address other of regional associations of protect- raise the qualifications and profes- problems relating to ranger services. ed areas have been particularly sional level of rangers, much work Throughout Russian history, one of helpful. remains to be done in this regard. the primary problems was the low The low salaries rangers receive level of professionalism in rangers. Moreover, the importance of quali- often discourage highly qualified and This fact is all the more problematic ty ranger services has gained talented people from becoming because protected areas often hire increased notice at national and rangers. And even when rangers are people from local villages to regional protected areas meetings. highly qualified, zapovedniks and become rangers, meaning that it is Each year, information about national parks can rarely afford to not uncommon that trespassers and ranger services is collected, pub- equip them adequately for the chal- poachers are the rangers’ friends lished, and sent to zapovedniks and lenges they face against modern and neighbors. But in the past national parks for discussion. And poachers. In order to ensure the decade, managers of protected areas beginning in 2000, a “Ranger of the long-term protection of Russian nature reserves, managers and friends will have to continue search- ing for ways to produce rangers who are better equipped physically, legally, and intellectually for the difficult task of guarding protected areas in today’s Russia.

Materials for this article were prepared by Mikhail Kreindlin, an expert with Greenpeace-Russia, and Aleksei Troitsky, the Deputy Head of the Organizational Division of the Department of Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The long-term protection offered by Laplandsky Zapovednik has helped restore reindeer populations in the far northwest. Photo by S. Shestakov

12 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 13

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies New Methods for a New Era of Conservation in Lazovsky Zapovednik

ing economic depres- Back then (now it seems so long Map by M. Dubinin sion of these towns ago) we had no idea that we would has led to an need to seek contact with and sup- increase in poaching port from people in nearby towns. and other offenses For many years the zapovednik had in the zapovednik. been a closed institution: its work, For many, hunting and role, value, and uniqueness were lit- gathering plants, mush- tle known among local residents, but rooms and berries are the rumors of how to steal from it only forms of income they spread very quickly… receive besides a small unemployment compensation. And in The year 1995 was a turning point the Ussuriskaya Taiga where for Lazovsky Zapovednik. The feder- Lazovsky Zapovednik is located, al “Law on Protected Areas” gave there are definitely things worth tak- rangers and the entire system of ing: the legendary ginseng root zapovednik protection stronger (Panax ginseng), tiger (Panthera rights. In the same year, new leader- tigris), bear (Ursus arctos, U. ship came to the zapovednik, mak- tibethanus) and its derivatives, sika ing improving protection of the By Alexander Laptev deer (Cervus nippon), pine nut zapovednik their highest priority. It (Pinus spp.) and other plant prod- was necessary to improve working hen you watch the way the ucts that grow naturally here are in conditions, bringing greater organi- W rolling mountains of Lazovsky heavy demand in China and other zation, and making sure the rangers Zapovednik slip into the Pacific countries on the black market. had the needed automobile trans- Ocean, knowing that tigers still roam portation, equipment, uniforms and through the taiga and eagles soar Ten years ago, the zapovednik’s fatigues; they also needed radio com- above the sea, you know that your attempts to protect these riches munication, and finally – simply struggle to preserve them is not in were weak. The rangers patrolled more rangers in their ranks. Our first vain. At other times, it’s not so easy. specific trails, one or two at a time, act was deciding to put an end to This nature reserve is located in a according to a schedule, with hardly the ineffective single-ranger patrols rather developed region and is sur- any equipment to help them fulfill along trails and create special patrol rounded with well-used roads on all their task. The salaries were low and sides, one of which runs directly the turnover rate was high. along the border of the zapovednik. Trespassers could easily evade the The largest town in the district, rangers, leaving the zapovednik Preobrazhenie (population 12,000), unable to deal with the grow- is located right next to the zapoved- ing level of poaching. Even nik, as are the towns of Glazokva, worse, weak control over Lazo, and Svobodnoe. These towns the zapovednik’s own are large, and they have high unem- rangers allowed several ployment levels; 100 kilometers of them to break away there is another old mining zapovednik rules town called Partizansk, which has unhindered, even let- the highest level of unemployment ting them get away in the Primorsky Krai. The increas- with poaching.

Brown bears (Ursus arctos) are one of many species protected in Lazovsky Zapovednik. Photo by V. Nikolaenko

Summer2003, No. 33 13 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 14

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

Picturesque shorelines characterize the Pacific coast where Lazovsky Zapovednik is located. Photo by N. Maleshin

groups that together would cover the entire 120,000 hectares of the zapovednik. The next challenge was finding the financial support to implement our first decision. But where could we find funding for these needs at a time when there was not even enough money to pay people’s salaries?

Here fortune began to smile on us: in October 1995, we made an agreement with the German branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature sons, and in 2000 to 12. At the pres- acquired 44 Motorolla ultra short (WWF) to create a special opera- ent time the special operations patrol wave radios, so rangers working in a tions patrol group to protect the group works in two alternating teams group can communicate with each Amur tiger and its habitat. Instead of that spend 20 days patrolling the for- other and the patrol vehicle. using the old system of following est and then have 10 days off. Indeed, trails according to a schedule, the using surprise patrols in the forest In subsequent years grants allowed group traveled through areas where instead of scheduled routes along us to obtain eight Russian jeeps, they were more likely to find poach- trails was so effective that we trans- weapons and special equipment, ers, hiding in the taiga and using sur- ferred the majority of our rangers (the such as bulletproof vests, handcuffs, prise to their advantage. WWF number of whom had increased from and batons. At night the rangers use financed not only the creation of 30 to 58 over a few years) to this tac- battery-powered miner’s lanterns. All this patrol group, which initially tic. Later on, rangers also began the rangers now have the use of comprised four rangers and one sen- patrolling areas outside the zapoved- tents, sleeping bags, and backpacks; ior ranger, but also its activity. WWF nik to curtail poaching on species the four chainsaws and thirteen blast supplied the funding for field gear zapovednik fought to protect. engines are on hand to fight forest and fatigues; the rangers also fires. The rangers also have two received personal grants and field The next important step was creat- computers to use for managing the allowances. ing a system of radio communica- paperwork of violations, including tion in the zapovednik. Given the keeping a database of people who The results were visible immediately. mountainous terrain of the zapoved- have broken zapovednik rules. In all, In 1996, the first year the new patrol nik, it was necessary to set up at between 1995 and 2002 the group was active in the zapovednik, it least two retransmission towers. That zapovednik received 21 grants (a issued 37 (of 53 total) citations for kind of project is not inexpensive, total of $505,000) to improve vari- poaching, confiscated 25 (of 34) guns, but once again we found support ous aspects of protection. including 6 (of 6) threaded rifles. from WWF and the Global Members of the special operations Environment Fund (GEF), who gave Equipment, however, is not the only patrol group focused primarily on cur- us more than $90,000 in 1998 and important element in improving the tailing gross violations of zapovednik 1999 through project “Creating a protection of a nature reserve. rules and nature protection legislation. Model Ranger Service in Lazovsky Working as a ranger, especially in the Though members of the special oper- Zapovednik.” Though we still do not special operations patrol group, wears ations patrol group are in the minori- have round-to-clock contact with all heavily on morale. People often expe- ty of our rangers, they handle 65 to 70 of the ranger stations in the rience burnout after working in the percent of incidents of poaching and zapovednik, it is possible to commu- group for one and a half to two years, 73 to 80 percent of weapons confis- nicate with the central station from making it necessary to bring fresh cation. In 1997 we increased the 70 percent of the territory at any people into the group. We have membership of the group to 6 per- time. In addition, the zapovednik has implemented new ideas for motivat-

14 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 15

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

ing rangers to greater achievements, district (and sometimes regional) activity, the rangers immediately bring such as offering bonuses for high- prosecutor. These efforts have the offender to the police station, quality work, but these measures have brought some success. In 2000, for where the on-duty investigator begins not struck the heart of the matter. At example, a case involving illegal questioning. An inspection group is the present time, hiring rangers is the hunting of sika deer and goral then organized to visit the scene of zapovednik’s single greatest problem. (Naemorhaedus caudatus) – an the offense, and when warranted, We are not looking for people who endangered species of mountain conducts a search using the zapoved- will be loyal to the zapovednik’s lead- goat – was closed twice by district nik’s automobiles and video cameras. ers; we pay attention to their relation- police, but after a battle that lasted ship to their work and their integrity. over a year and drew in the media The next major step in our work at and the regional prosecutor’s office, protecting the territory of the Beyond the zapovednik’s internal the three offenders were convicted. zapovednik is, and will continue to struggles, the increase in catching Before 1998 almost no one was even be, education. Though increasing poachers created new exterior tried for crimes against the zapoved- the strength of ranger services was challenges for the zapovednik. nik, but in the five years between a necessary step, it should not be Today the district prosecutor and 1998 and 2003 there have been 32 seen as definitive: far better than the chair of the district court and convictions. Today 80 percent of all arresting criminals and issuing cita- Ministry of Natural Resources rec- the cases the zapovednik opens are tions for misdemeanors is convinc- ognize the contribution the brought to trial. The zapovednik has ing people not to commit these acts zapovednik’s rangers are making to earned authority in the district court, in the first place. In 1998 we enforcing nature protection legisla- where rangers often have to give tes- formed an environmental education tion, but such has not always been timony. Our on-staff lawyer has been department in the zapovednik. The the case. A period of conflict began a great help, especially in complicat- department has quite a few chal- when, for the first time, rangers ed cases in the regional court in lenges before it, but one of the began apprehending all offenders Vladivostok: indeed, in the five times most important is forming a posi- (including police officers!), disre- in 1999 and 2000 that cases went to tive image for the zapovednik in garding rank and status. In the regional court, the zapovednik the eyes of the local population, as response, the police began interfer- won each case. well as interesting people in offering with the special operative ing practical help to the zapovednik patrol group, performing document In time we developed rules that in its scientific and nature protec- checks, checking the registration of helped us work together with the tion activities. the zapovednik’s weapons, and police. Now, regardless of where an generally trying to create bureau- offender is apprehended, if his or her Alexander Laptev is the Director of cratic obstacles to the patrols’ actions cause suspicion of criminal Lazovsky Zapovednik. work. When rangers would bring offenders or confiscated weapons to the police station, the officers on duty often refused to write up the incidents. Evidence, such as confiscated weapons, was often damaged before it could be examined so that a case could not be brought to trial. But the regional press and the district prosecutor supported the zapovednik’s position.

Because of the increased number of criminal cases that zapovednik employees were bringing to light, the zapovednik took on a legal con- sultant as an official staff member. When the police stop investigating a case without proper basis for doing The effective work of special operations patrol groups is making single-man ranger so, the zapovednik appeals to the patrols obsolete in Lazovsky Zapovednik. Photo by N. Maleshin

Summer2003, No. 33 15 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 16

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

the shelves of these libraries for Science in Zapovedniks years; for anyone outside the zapovednik itself, attaining access to and National Parks these folders and the data held therein meant leaping through a cientific research has always Zapovednik on the shores of Lake maze of bureaucratic hurdles just to S been at the core of the mission Baikal. At that time, monitoring enter the zapovednik library, then of Russia’s zapovedniks, a purpose included occasional observations as hours or days of pouring over the mandated long ago by legislation on well as in-depth research on individ- unorganized pages. In short, the protected areas. Today nearly all of ual species. Later, in the 1940s, a zapovedniks’ invaluable data were Russia’s zapovedniks and national specific program was initiated for housed in a virtually unusable form. parks employ a fulltime staff of sci- making observations of various natu- entists to conduct year-round obser- ral sites and phenomena; over the Then towards the end of the 1980s, vations and special research projects. years this program underwent a political and economic changes in But even though zapovedniks have a series of transformations as guide- the Soviet Union sent a shock to sci- long history of supporting scientific lines for data collection became entific institutions all across Russia – activities, the nature of these activi- more orderly. In this way, huge col- including zapovedniks – as govern- ties has changed dramatically over lections of valuable data on the nat- ment funding disappeared nearly time, and especially in the past ural world of zapovedniks accumu- overnight. There was now almost decade. One of the most visible lated over the course of many years. no money even for meager salaries, trends is the opening up of these much less ambitious research proj- previously closed protected areas to But these collections – which in the ects. Some scientists abandoned a broader audience. Once isolated older zapovedniks cover 30–70 years their careers, and today many fewer on remote “islands,” as protected – were simply lists of figures and young people are entering the sci- areas are sometimes called, today observations that were in great need ences, preferring more lucrative zapovednik scientists are increasing- of analysis, both locally and interna- careers in the expanding fields of ly forming partnerships and learning tionally. Even worse, these figures business and economics. And how to share the results of their were inaccessible to practically any- though the inertia of life in the research with and thereby benefit one who might undertake the country has kept many zapovednik the world. daunting task of analyzing them. scientists from leaving their posts, Zapovedniks began acquiring com- many have been forced to take on Traditionally their research has puters only in the mid-1990s, so additional work, such as farming, in revolved around gathering data for throughout most of their history, order to survive. annual reports called “Chronicles of “Chronicles of Nature” were written Nature.” Data collection began right on a typewriter and stored in folders These economic changes have from the start in 1916 with the in zapovednik libraries. These yel- brought many fundamental organization of Barguzinsky lowing pages of text sat, unused, on changes to the way zapovedniks and national parks now approach science. One of the key aspects has been learning to fight for extra sources of funding. In the past ten years, a new system for distributing the little available federal budget funding amid zapovedniks has created competitions for the best scientific projects. These competitions have forced science departments to learn to formulate scientific problems, as well as developing skills and methods for solving

Scientific research has been an essential part of Astrakhansky Zapovednik since the 1920s. Photo by G. Rusanov.

16 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 17

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

rently working on this project together. New features of the project include methods for prioritizing potential objects of observation, standardizing methods for field observations and preliminary data processing, and standardizing the form in which these data are recorded and analyzed. In the early 1990s the first computers began appearing in the science departments of zapovedniks, and Sources of funding for zapovednik science in thousands of rubles. Source: Russian only a few employees knew how to Ministry of Natural Resources use them. In contrast, today the majority of zapovednik and national them as a team. As a whole, sci- conduct new field research, scientists parks have computers that all of their ence departments have become are now organizing and analyzing scientists make good use of on a reg- more creative. In the course of this data gathered in the past. Moreover, ular basis. process, they discovered they pos- now that zapovedniks have begun sessed the ability to attract funding publishing their data, scientists in Another related field growing rapidly from extra-budget sources that Russia and abroad have new access to in zapovedniks and national parks is encourage broadening fields of formerly “hidden” information, and the development and practical use study, attaining and using new can include it in their own analyses. of geographic information systems technologies, and strengthening As a result, scientists outside of (GIS). In recent years intensive work their methodological base. Outside zapovedniks are beginning to appreci- has begun to develop and expand grants now make up a sizeable ate the value of the data zapovedniks databases so that they meet with (and stable) percentage of the have collected. global standards and are compatible zapovedniks’ funding. with widely used information sys- One of the greatest challenges tems throughout the world. More The nature of scientific work in zapovednik science currently faces is than 20 zapovedniks and national zapovedniks has also changed. developing a new federal “Chronicle parks have undertaken such work, During the Soviet period, regular field of Nature” creating systems that range from research was standard fare for program that general carto- zapovednik scientists. Today, with tiny would bring graphical research budgets, scientific expedi- the models to tions have fallen short, and zapoved- “Chronicles” in detailed stud- nik employees have begun a long- line with contempo- ies of particu- overdue process of revamping the rary standards for data lar sites or “Chronicles of Nature,” including sort- processing and presentation. species. These ing through data gathered over the The best specialists in Russia’s kinds of GIS course of the past several decades. zapvoedniks, national parks, and have been applied Though no one can say that the eco- other scientific institutions are cur to record, for exam- nomic turmoil of the past decade has ple, information about been a boon to zapovednik science, the locations of polar the silver lining on this dark cloud is that, lacking the resources to

Long-term observation of species such as the osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in zapovedniks have created a wealth of data, much of which has yet to be analyzed. Photo by A. Kuznetsov

Summer2003, No. 33 17 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 18

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

bear dens in Wrangel Island into climate change. Observations in on the number of hunting licenses Zapovednik, Argali migrations in zapovedniks across Russia have docu- to give out each year. Some Katunsky Zapovednik, and tiger trails mented not only an apparent change zapovedniks offer similar services for in Sikhote-Alinsky Zapovednik. in climate in Russia, but also the early berry and mushroom hunters. In Work has also begun on creating a effects of climate change on plant and this way, the zapovedniks directly unified federal GIS of the protected animal communities. In Barguzinsky participate in government hunting areas that would integrate all the Zapovednik, for example, long-term regulation and support sustainable individual GIS that zapovedniks and environmental monitoring has uses of natural resources. Moreover, national parks are currently creating. revealed increased spring and summer almost all zapovedniks and national temperatures and a longer frost-free parks help put together regional Red Despite these new innovations, period accompanied by lower produc- Data Books of Endangered Species. zapovedniks have also continued their tivity levels of the Siberian pine. traditional scientific research, applying Scientists have in turn linked these The list of new and creative ways that new methods whenever possible. findings to the resulting decrease in zapovednik employees have used Taking inventories of flora and fauna sable and squirrel populations, as well their scientific expertise beyond the has always been an important area of as higher mortality rates among bears. borders of their own reserves could go scientific research in zapovedniks, but Scientists at the zapovednik have also on and on. Some zapovedniks have over the past decade inventories have documented a higher incidence of developed emergency plans for forest become an even greater focal point. forest fires, which they attribute not fires on protected areas. Others have Research aimed at resolving practical to human activity, but increasing aridi- supported education and general problems in the field of nature pro- ty of climate. Other zapovedniks have environmental consciousness. Still tection is also among the most impor- offered other data that together make others have fostered sustainable natu- tant components of contemporary for a more complete picture. ral resources management through scientific activity in zapovedniks and goal-oriented and economically effec- national parks. As a whole, the research and analy- tive projects. Meanwhile, some have ses from zapovedniks have proven found ways to install new technolo- Environmental monitoring, a tradi- that beyond directly preserving the gies that preserve resources, and some tional component of the “Chronicle natural systems within their borders, have focused attention on the effects of Nature” program, provides detailed, zapovedniks can also offer a signifi- of tourism and recreation on various year-to-year information about natural cant investment to making decisions ecosystems and developed recom- conditions within zapovedniks and on nature protection locally and mendations on the basis of their national parks. In recent years, envi- nationally. They play an important observations. In these and many ronmental monitoring in zapovedniks role in protecting the biosphere other ways, zapovedniks are learning has become especially from negative human influence and to weather the current economic cri- valuable for the aid in the study of global climate sis by reinventing themselves and insight it offers change. The required winter census their purpose. of game animals in the zapovedniks is particularly important, for exam- Materials for this article were pre- ple, in creating recommendations for pared by Mikhail Stishov, the local hunting and wildlife services deputy director of the Partnership for Zapovedniks, and Natalia Troitskaya, the Head of the Division of Nature Protection, Science, and Environmental Education for Zapovedniks and National Parks within the Department of Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Scientists often travel on horseback to conduct their research. Photo by E. Ledovskikh

18 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 19

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies A View on Science from Voronezhsky Zapovednik

A note from the editors: Yuri goals were more idealistic, at times In the 1990s, we focused a good part Likhatsky is one of the foremost spe- more pragmatic. The past ten years is of our research on the ecology of cialists in communities of ungulate no exception. the ungulates of the Russian forest- species (animals with hooves) and steppes: moose (Alces alces), forest succession in central Russia. His In the more than 70 years that European red deer (Cervus elaphus), research is a classic example of the Voronezhsky Zapovednik has existed, sika deer (Cervus nippon), wild boar achievements of science in protected its scientific staff has managed to (Sus scofa), and roe deer (Capreolus areas, and has been an invaluable gather quite a collection of scientific capreolus). In earlier decades, contribution to the field. In the follow- Voronezhsky Zapovednik had invest- ing article, however, he focuses less ed considerable effort to introducing on his research itself and more on and trying to encourage the develop- the complicated changing relation- ment of European red deer herds. ships between science and policy Zapovednik staff put out in zapovedniks. special food for the deer, shot wolves By Yuri Likhatsky (Canis lupus), the deer’s main predator, ou can’t help but feel young and regularly tran- Y when you walk through our quilized and transported deer to pine and oak forests. Some of other locations to start new herds. these trees saw Peter the Great. And even the zapoved- The focus on the European red deer nik itself, founded in 1927, is in Voronezhsky Zapovednik was already older than all of its part of a trend in zapovedniks employees. As a scientist who throughout the Soviet Union. The has studied these forests for idea was that zapovedniks, as nature over 20 years, I’ve learned to protection institutions, would serve watch for changes in the for- society best by increasing popula- est, even though in my life- tions of valuable species, such as the time I’m seeing just a small Voronezhsky and Khopersky Zapovedniks. Map by deer, which can be used for hunting, window of the forest’s life. M. Dubinin meat, leather, etc. A similar project I’ve also seen how the pur- in nearby Khopersky Zapovednik poses of the zapovednik have information about the zapovednik’s was aimed at increasing herds of changed, and more than once: ini- natural complexes and their condi- sika deer. tially Voronezhsky Zapovednik was tion. Having made inventories of flora founded to protect the European and fauna and studied the population But our scientific observations were beaver (Castor fiber), but since then groupings of individual species during changing our opinions about how it has become one of the largest the first 50–60 years of research, sci- we, as a zapovednik, ought to reserves for ungulates (hoofed ani- entists recognized the need to begin approach the European red deer and mals such as deer and boar) in evaluating broader tendencies and ungulates in general. Having studied Central Russia. Some people think changes in natural systems. But the the nature of ungulate communities, that we scientists are the most stub- existing data did not always allow for inter-species competition, and pre- born people on earth; but the fact is this kind of analysis. In the past dation, we realized that the young that we are changing too. Scientific decade scientists realized that in woods that grew up in areas that research has always been an essential order to move forward in this direc- had been logged made an ideal – element of zapovedniks, but the tion, they would have to move on to but temporary – habitat for ungu- approach to science – priorities, a new kind of research that focuses lates, allowing for unusually high directions, methods – has changed on entire ecosystems rather than indi- numbers of European red deer to considerably over time. At times vidual species. inhabit the forest. Offering food to

Summer2003, No. 33 19 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 20

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

the deer, killing their predators, and tively new trend in zapovednik sci- new method of using the program, releasing captive animals into ence. This new direction of we too began using the same pro- zapovedniks only exacerbated this research, in turn, demanded that we gram, this time to study the rooting imbalance. But as forest succession unify our methodological approach- behavior of wild boars. continued, biological diversity es. Scientists at Voronezhsky increased, and ungulate communities Zapovednik and Tsentralno- It’s one of the wonderful ironies of began a process of stabilization. Chernozemny Zapovednik devel- our work that in the course of fulfill- Species that had once dominated oped a unified program for monitoring what we think is the best course now held stable populations at ing the forests of the central Russia. – in our case, giving special atten- lower levels: roe deer and wild boar The unification of methods for tion to supporting the European red (both of which can live almost any- studying protected forests has deer – that we come to the conclu- where, eat almost anything, and opened the door to forming a single sion that we were in some way mis- reproduce well), overtook the computer database. Now specialists taken. Our data now lead us to European red deer in Voronezhsky who are interested in studying the believe that as a forest grows older, Zapovednik and the sika deer in forests of the entire region are able populations of Cervus species will Khopersky Zapovednik. to exchange initial findings and naturally decline, stabilizing at a watch the computer system format lower level. But convincing people The significant decrease in the num- their data automatically. that we ought to change our convic- bers of both of these Cervus species, tions about nature protection on the the European red and sika deer, The formation of the Association of basis of new scientific evidence is no piqued heated discussions among Nature Protected Areas of Central easy task. In the past decade I’ve both the employees of zapovedniks Russia was a great boost in this seen that even among zapovednik and the bureaucrats that oversaw direction. Thanks to financial and staff there are people who have them. In both groups there were technical support from this organi- completely misunderstood the devel- people ready to fight for a return to zation, the zapovedniks were able to opment of ungulate communities, the practice of shooting wolves in attain many more computers and, as and among government bureaucrats zapovedniks with the goal of “saving a result, the speed of data analysis there are people who have com- valuable species.” In the past we had rose considerably. The computers pletely misunderstood the develop- tried to manipulate populations of also gave us more hope that our ment of protected ecosystems. If the certain species, and now we faced a materials would be preserved in a species were rare or endangered, similar question: should we or more durable and accessible form that would be one matter, but in shouldn’t we (and if so, how?) try to than the old type-written these cases people were debating the prevent the decrease in populations “Chronicles of Nature.” Moreover, fate of animals such as the European of deer that we were observing? when Nikolai Maleshin (the former red deer, which are legally and Attempts to use individual biotechni- executive director of the association) unapologetically hunted outside the cal measures to support a particular obtained support from a Global borders of protected areas. species at a certain population level Environmental Facility (GEF) project Nonetheless, government officials in are almost always insufficient to the that gave internet access to all the particular are still convinced that in task. We would have had to find a zapovedniks in the association, the a zapovednik, stocks of a given way to return the entire ecosystem level of informational exchange resource (in this case a specific ani- to an earlier stage of succession, between scientists in different mal population) should only which would fundamentally destroy zapovedniks rose even higher. increase, never decrease. the ungulate community structure that had developed. Indeed, the introduction of comput- The question at hand is really ers is may be one of the most influ- whether zapovedniks, as nature pro- The plot thickens at this point in the ential changes over the past ten tection institutions, should act as story, because we realized that a years. Take the example of Oleg agencies for increasing the popula- number of different zapovedniks in Ryzhkov in Tsentralno-Chernozemny tions of specific species, or whether the region were encountering similar Zapovednik, who developed a new they should be outdoor laboratories dilemmas with ungulates and forest method of using an architectural for observing ecosystems and their succession. The nature and com- computer program to make vector dynamics. But do zapovedniks really plexity of problems we all faced maps of forest plant communities. have to choose only one of these two made it imperative that we collabo- When we in Voronezhsky options? Protected areas – and espe- rate on our research projects, a rela- Zapovednik heard about Ryzhkov’s cially zapovedniks – can distinguish

20 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 21

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

between two aspects of their work, years confirms the reality of the over the past decade. But it is the “interior” and the “exterior.” In demand for this application of scien- important to note that although the this case, “interior” means the work tific research. In recent years we zapovednik itself no longer artificial- conducted directly on the territory of have used the Alexandrovsky Forest ly supports European red deer on its the protected areas. The “exterior” within the Rostov State Game territory, the lessons we learned and aspect involves using zapovednik Management Agency as a site for the methods we developed were not resources (expertise, equipment, etc.) observing ungulate communities in vain. So maybe there is a time and outside the boundaries of the protect- under conditions of exploitation. a place for all things. ed area. Voronezhsky Zapovednik The European red deer – from has been an obvious proponent of Voronezhsky Zapovednik stock – is An important trend in the present and the “exterior” form of resource the dominant species there. The test the future involves allowing zapoved- restoration: over a 30-year period, area has a system of protection and niks to exercise both their “interior” from 1966 to 1995, the zapovednik exploitation aimed at doing every- and “exterior” roles. Monitoring the has sent 3,228 European red deer to thing possible to increase stocks of dynamics and development of pro- 33 different regions across Russia and deer and manage the herd to keep tected ecosystems can and should the countries of the former Soviet the population at maximum levels. exist alongside the exterior use of the Union, forming successful daughter Beyond methodological materials, data gathered in zapovedniks for con- populations in many places. the zapovednik also offers the game sulting, developing systems of rational management agency tranquilizers to use of natural resources, and regional Meanwhile, the function of increas- transfer the animals to pens or other systems of biodiversity conservation. ing deer populations is being trans- locations for resettlement. In 2002, But even when zapovedniks are eager ferred from zapovedniks to game more than 90 deer were resettled to share their knowledge, they can do management agencies. Using the from the Alexandrovsky Forest to so only when they have a willing wisdom zapovedniks have gained, other areas of Russia, while the local audience: especially in the case of these game management agencies deer population remained at a high regional systems of biodiversity con- can incorporate many new ideas level. In essence, the resource pro- servation, use of the zapovednik’s into their work: taking account of tection and restoration function that knowledge and expertise will depend the particulars of the development once belonged to Voronezhsky directly on the level of interest of the of ungulate communities, developing Zapovednik now continues here on regional government administration. and implementing systems for pro- the basis of the scientific informa- Wise administrations will recognize tection and rational use of specific tion the zapovednik gathered over they benefit from the scientific lessons species. Zapovednik employees serve the years. of zapovedniks, and zapovedniks can as experts and consultants for devel- be free to keep exploring the myster- oping such systems. Scientific research at Voronezhsky ies of nature. and other zapovedniks in central The experience of Voronezhsky Russia has caused a complete change Yuri Likhatsky is a head scientist at Zapovednik over the past several in the approach to nature protection Voronezhsky Zapovednik.

Voronezhsky and Khopersky Zapovedniks found working together helpful because they faced similar issues with populations of Cervus species, such as the sika deer, shown above. Photo by A. Pribytkov

Summer2003, No. 33 21 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 22

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

Environmental Education

In recent years, protected areas have given more attention to teaching children about nature. Photo courtesy of Vodlozersky National Park

n the early 1990s, as federal fund- zapovedniks worked with local popu- bases for environmental education. I ing disappeared zapovedniks lations, the more they began to see a One of the most important develop- began looking to local and regional crucial lack of environmental educa- ments in protected areas over the government agencies for support. tion in the regions: local residents past decade has been in exactly this These agencies, themselves strapped opposed the zapovedniks because field: with each passing year, for financing, generally saw little need they did not recognize their true zapovedniks and national parks to help a nature reserve that did importance. Moreover, the zapoved- learn better how to teach and how nothing but hinder local residents niks themselves were doing little to to support teachers who teach peo- from using the natural resources of change this opinion. ple about nature and its importance. the region. Zapovednik employees began to realize, sometimes for the The solution that emerged now By 1993, the Russian Ministry of first time, just how unpopular they seems obvious. Zapovedniks, pos- Environmental Protection had were with local residents, who often sessing a wealth of knowledge and noticed this trend, and sent a letter to failed to recognize the importance of expertise as well as passionate and all of the directors of Russia’s the nature reserves. The more the dedicated employees, could become zapovedniks instructing them to cre-

22 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 23

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

ate special educational departments organizations facilitated the rapid had visitors’ centers to visit, that fig- within the infrastructure of their development of environmental educa- ure had jumped to nearly 30,000. In reserves. The letter, however, was tion programs in nature reserves all recent years, educational depart- largely ignored. In 1995, a federal law across Russia. ments have begun publishing their described zapovedniks and national own newspapers and magazines or parks for the first time as “education- And that development has indeed including regular supplements in al institutions” and listed environ- been rapid. In 1995, the first educa- local newspapers. A new field – the mental education among the three tional departments were founded in Internet – is just beginning to open primary duties (alongside nature pro- 25 zapovedniks; by 2003 90 (of 100) to zapovedniks: just six years ago not tection and scientific research) of the zapovedniks and 30 (of 35) national a single Russian nature reserve had nature reserves. Official legislation to parks had actively functioning educa- its own website, but now 18 facilitate this new role followed soon tional departments, employing more zapovedniks and 6 national parks after. In the years 1998 and 1999, than 450 people with degrees in have their own pages on the national plans and recommendations environmental education. Moreover, Internet. for environmental education in at a time when many zapovedniks zapovedniks and national parks were find that their employees are aging Working with children may be the ratified, defining goals, challenges, and young people are not entering single most important function directions and methods; requirements zapovedniks, educational depart- zapovedniks’ educational depart- for the qualifications and salaries of ments are an exception, with special- ments have, teaching a new genera- employees in the educational depart- ists whose average age is a mere 34. tion of Russians about the natural ments were also clarified. riches of their country and the Environmental education depart- importance of preserving them. The role that non-governmental and ments have many different spheres of Children learn how to conduct sci- non-profit organizations played in the activity, ranging from publicity to entific observations of plants and development of environmental educa- offering lessons to schoolchildren: animals, participate in expeditions, tion should not be ignored. The you might say they are a zapovednik’s and also have fun with contests and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), public relations department. They competitions involving environmen- the Environmental Education Center work with the mass media, publish tal themes. Thirteen zapovedniks “Zapovedniks,” and the Biodiversity informational books and brochures, and six national parks now have reg- Conservation Center were instrumen- make educational films, organize ular courses on environmental tal in training zapovedniks and museums and visitors’ centers, work themes, and 57 hold occasional national parks in their new role as with local schoolteachers, hold class- classes and lectures. Between 1997 educational institutions. The Global es and camps for children, and initi- and 2001, more than 150,000 Environment Facility (GEF) and ROLL ate festivals and demonstrations to schoolchildren participated in such (Replication of Lessons Learned) proj- acquaint the public better with their courses. During the same period, ects and programs were also instru- zapovedniks and national parks. more than 3,500 children went to mental in this regard. Books, method- camps held in or by nature reserves. ological guidebooks, and training As nature reserves learn from each seminars made possible by all of these others’ experiences, the breadth and Though individual environmental frequency of educa- education activities in nature reserves tional activities has may seem like small steps, they are grown quickly. In actually an important factor in edu- 1996 there were less cating the public and changing public than 100 radio pro- opinion about the importance of pre- grams aired in Russia serving Russia’s islands of wild nature. about protected areas; by 2002, the Materials for this article were provided figure was over 550. by Elena Amirkhanova, who works In 1997 approxi- for the Division of Nature Protection, mately 100 people Science, and Environmental Education came to visitors’ cen- for Zapovedniks and National Parks ters in zapovedniks; within the Department of Protected by 2001, when many Areas and Biodiversity Conservation of Source: Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. more zapovedniks the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Summer2003, No. 33 23 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 24

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies Ten Years of Learning and Teaching in Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik

A note from the editors: Over the Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Photo work is informing the public about past decade the author of this article courtesy of Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik the zapovednik, its mission, and the has become one of the leading challenges it faces, reaching every- specialists on environmen- religion involved spirits one from preschoolers to senior citi- tal education programs and deities associated zens. When we started out, we knew in Russia, paving the with the air, rivers, almost nothing about environmental way in what is a lakes, trees, and ani- education; in fact, we hardly realized new field for mals. Even so, what an important aspect of our Russia’s zapoved- nature protection work environmental education niks. In addition to has not always been would soon become. their work in the a primary concern Republic of Mari El, of people in the When one is just beginning a new Svetlana Popova region. In Soviet field, a good place to start is to learn and her husband times, there were only from others. When I visited the United Aleksei have also won two major protected States in the early 1990s to observe the the respect of environ- areas in the republic, one American National Parks system, I saw mentalists across Russia with of which was closed down the attention given to education and their monthly newspaper after forest fires consumed it in realized that education could and Zapovedny Vestnik.. 1972. When Bolshaya Kokshaga should be an important part of Zapovednik was founded in 1993 on Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik’s work By Svetlana Popova the shores of the Bolshaya Kokshaga as well. Of course, Russia is a very dif- River, the level of environmental ferent place than the United States, istorically the Mari people – education in the republic was low, and a zapovednik is not a national H the indigenous residents of the and no one knew about the found- park. Much of the past ten years has Republic of Mari El, 800 kilometers ing of the new nature reserve. been spent experimenting and trying east of Moscow in the forests around to find the best methods for environ- the Volga River – have been consci- From the very beginning of the mental education both in the Republic entious of nature. Traditional Mari zapovednik’s existence, one of our of Mari El and all of Russia. major efforts has been promoting environmental Our work began with local com- education. The munities, the villages located near primary goal the borders of the of this zapovednik. Conflicts had erupted between the zapovednik and locals as soon as they realized they could no longer enter the territory of the new nature reserve. We hoped that by working with the local population, by teaching people about the protected area and its importance, these conflicts would diminish. Our rangers learned Map by M. Dubinin to double as tourguides, leading peo-

24 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 25

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

ple along nature trails we designed and television stations that broadcast niks attended the camp. In recent through the zapovednik’s buffer zone. across the Republic of Mari El. In years, the number of people seeking We also sent them out into the vil- 2000 zapovednik staff began pro- careers in zapovedniks has fallen lages to give lectures and hold discus- ducing a 15-minute radio program, sharply, and the camp was specifi- sions, hoping people would begin to “Zapovednik News Bulletin,” that cally designed to give these children see the rangers in a new light, not just airs regularly on the republic’s public the encouragement and training as the officers who patrolled the radio station. Bolshaya Kokshaga they would need to follow in their zapovednik against trespassers and Zapovednik’s website, parents’ footsteps. poachers. http://www.kakshan.ru, has been up and running since 2002. In 2000 the zapovednik began In time we realized that we should holding inter-district fieldwork con- be working not only with local com- Publicity and publishing for the ferences for ecology students on munities, but also with other cities in zapovednik are also as old as the protected areas. Participants are the Republic of Mari El, including reserve itself. Since 1993 the mostly schoolchildren from the the capital of Yoshkar-Ola, where zapovednik has regularly published Republic of Mari El, but students our zapovednik headquarters was informational brochures, calendars, from Moscow, St. Petersburg, and located. (Indeed, when we recently academic planners for children, as other cities across Russia also send analyzed our rangers’ information well as books, methodological in their papers for the conference. about the citations for zapovednik guides, and anthologies. When the In 2002 we even had students from violations they had handed out in zapovednik finally attained its own Ukraine and Kazakhstan. This con- the past seven years, we noticed an semi-professional video camera in ference, which was planned as a interesting trend: the average offend- 1998, we began accumulating program for our little republic, is ers were not local villagers, as we footage of nature and the zapoved- gradually turning into an interna- had expected, but 40-year-old males nik’s projects and events. In late tional congress! from Yoshkar-Ola.) The challenge of 2002 we finished our first full film environmental education in a place about people and nature in the The most exciting new turn in our like Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik zapovednik. programs has been the opening of – where entering the nature reserve our new Environmental Education itself is strictly forbidden to all but a Working with children is a particu- Visitors’ Center “Komino,” which has few staff members – is finding a way lar priority. Zapovednik staff began to introduce people to the zapoved- this work by visiting urban schools nik itself, not just its staff, or its in Yoshkar-Ola and other towns goals, but the land that we are work- and cities around the Republic of ing so hard to protect. Until just a Mari El. Our “March for Parks,” part few years ago, even if people came of an international movement, has to visit zapovednik headquarters, grown each year since we began the they would find a rather ordinary celebration in 1995. We started office in the city of Yoshkar-Ola. We another annual tradition in 1996 couldn’t bring people to the with our children’s art contest, zapovednik. But could we bring the sending the winners to the repub- zapovednik to people? lic’s environmental summer camp along the Bolshaya Kokshaga River. One way to achieve this goal was In addition to working at this camp, through the press. Working with the zapovednik employees have been media was one of the earliest moves invited to work at summer camps our zapovednik made after its cre- in the countryside since 2001, usu- ation. Our employees published ally leading special sessions with their first articles in the newspaper environmental themes. In 2001 The Echo of Nature (an organ of the educational staff from Bolshaya Ministry of Ecology of the Republic Kokshaga Zapovednik organized a of Mari El), and in 1994 the newspa- summer camp – the first of its kind per began a special monthly column in all of Russia – for the children of called “News from the Zapovednik.” zapovednik employees. Forty-five We also began working with radio children from 43 Russian zapoved- Photo by A. Pribytkov

Summer2003, No. 33 25 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 26

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

nik’s forest, complete with a fir tree, birch, aspen, and even a 10-foot tall oak. The oak has a large hollow into which kids can (and do, without fail!) crawl, and toy models of several kinds of animals are found on the tree trunk, in the canopy, the hollow, and among the roots. During classes, we ask the children to find and identify all the animals that the oak shelters. A model river also flows through the room, with its own inhabitants: a frog, duck, and several fish. Berries, mushrooms, and ferns grow all around. The room is cleverly arranged with sound equipment, allowing the actors from zapovednik’s ecological theater (middle-school and high- school aged children dressed as forest animals) to take center stage.

Ten years is not a long time in the

Bolshaya Kokshaga has encouraged the “March for Parks,” an international movement, scheme of educational work, but the past decade has shown positive and other children’s environmental activities in the Republic of Mari El. Photo courtesy of results. In order to find out how Vodlozersky National Park effective our work is, we conduct periodical surveys every two to four increased the effectiveness of our the local Mari language, komino years. The results of these surveys are work with children of all ages. Judge means ‘otter.’ According to Mari folk sometimes difficult to analyze, but at for yourself: before the opening of legend, the otter is the keeper of the least they show us that the number the center, our work with children forest, the patroness of all the other of people who know about the was generally limited to visiting their animals; and ecologically, the otter is zapovednik is rising. Our 2002 sur- schools and organizations. We could a species with particular sensitivity to vey gave us particular hope, because give lectures and have discussions changes in the environment. The half of those who answered our with the aid of only those materials center includes a classroom that questions knew about Bolshaya that we could carry with us, such as accommodates 30 people, and has Kokshaga Zapovednik; of those, photographs and drawings. Now overhead projectors, a computer, more than half had heard about it that we have the center, our options video projector, musical center, and from the media. Even so, we still are much broader. Even simple sta- special map of the Republic of Mari El have much to do. We will consider tistics show a change. In 2000 we showing all of the protected areas in our work successful only when you reached 533 people though our vis- the republic. We have about 100 films can ask anyone in the Republic of its. By 2002 this number had grown about environmental themes in the Mari El, “What do you know about to about 900; meanwhile, about center’s video collection; we also have the zapovednik?” and hear the 2,500 people came through our visi- over 3,000 photographs and a library answer, “Quite a bit.” tor’s center. with, among other books, hard-to- find literature on protected areas in Svetlana Popova is the Editor of We built our visitor’s center specifical- the Republic of Mari El, Russia, and Zapovedny Vestnik and former head ly with the hope that it would help us the world. of the Department of Education in bring the zapovednik to the people, Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik. at the same time fulfilling the needs Next to the classroom we have a Additional informational materials of many educational institutions in “Wilderness Corner,” as we call the were provided by Olga Pavlova and Yoshkar-Ola and the rest of the room we made specially for our Elena Nechiporuk, who work as republic. The name of the center, younger children. The room looks environmental educators in Bolshaya Komino, has specific significance: in like a small corner of the zapoved- Kokshaga Zapovednik.

26 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 27

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies The Formation of Regional Associations of Protected Areas

By Rodney Langdon Cole trifugal tendencies that attended reserves and other forms of environ- the shaking of central authority. It mentally protected or supervised uring the Soviet period, formal was self-evident that the reserves of areas. Increasingly, the conservation D and extensive collaboration that region shared a commonality of regional biodiversity necessitates between reserves and specialists at of interest, including a focus on the the involvement of all forms of pro- the regional and local levels was not western Pacific, that contrasted tected areas, not just the zapoved- easy, for a variety of reasons: the cul- with the perspective of other niks, and therefore regional endeav- ture of an age when individual initia- zapovedniks located across Russia. ours to protect and enhance the nat- tive could be unwise, the physical By 2000, nineteen zapovedniks had ural environment need to be inclu- difficulties of joint activity across joined the association. sive. Accordingly, what started out as extensive regions, and the lack of associations for zapovedniks have the more sophisticated communica- Three more regional associations come to address other forms of pro- tions that have revolutionised the emerged in 1995. The Association of tected areas. past decade. But in the early 1990s, the Middle Volga region now com- confronted with new crises as well prises nine zapovedniks and five Moreover, an important part of the as opportunities, some of the national parks, while the Union of work of the regional associations lies zapovedniks started to collaborate Protected Areas of the Urals includes in collaborating with regional gov- together in a manner that had not within its membership ten zapoved- ernments, arguing for the necessary been practicable hitherto. niks, two national parks and a local political and financial support nature park. The membership of the while also addressing the more glob- The first regional association of Association of Zapovedniks and al dimensions of preserving the zapovedniks emerged in 1992, National Parks of the Northwest is planet’s biodiversity. At present, the when the Coordination Council of correspondingly varied, with seven zapovedniks and national parks are the Zapovedniks of the Southern each of both zapovedniks and administered centrally from Moscow, Far East was set up, based upon the national parks. whereas regional governments bear rich variety of reserves in the responsibility for other kinds of pro- Primorsky and Khabarovsky Krais Fundamental to these organisations tected areas, but distinctions are and adjacent areas. The initiative is the idea that “specially protected blurring: some oblasts and republics came from within the region itself, natural areas” include not only already provide a measure of support and was possibly a reflection of the zapovedniks but also national parks, to their zapovedniks and national distance from Moscow and the cen- nature parks, zakazniks, museum- parks, and the legislation on this could well change over the next year. Close cooperation between protected areas staff and regional politicians and officials is a key means of extending the responsibilities of the regions in conservation and environmental education.

By 1998 the effectiveness of the four Map by M. Dubinin regional associa-

Summer2003, No. 33 27 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 28

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

tions had been demonstrated. The extent to which member scientific data and the coordination Moves to create more such group- reserves have become involved in of the content of the Chronicles of ings received a powerful boost their associations varies considerably, Nature that are compiled by when the Global Environmental as does the likelihood of vigorous zapovednik scientists and that are Facility (GEF) sponsored a process activity continuing under its own increasingly relevant to the other of bidding for resources aimed at momentum now that the GEF sup- forms of protected areas. stimulating regional collaboration. port has come to an end. The release of financial support Nevertheless, it is clear that a great The emphases upon environmental depended upon acceptance of proj- deal has been achieved, ranging the education and regional integration ects that would address a wide vari- entire spectrum of zapovednik and are additional inspiring develop- ety of activities for which the national park activities. ments of the past decade in region- regional associations were well suit- al associations. Many associations ed. The Association of Yenisei One of the most fundamental have undertaken close collabora- Zapovedniks and National Parks, activities in recent years has been tion with local governments, comprising eight zapovedniks and the holding of regional conferences emphasizing the role such agencies one national park, was the first of and training sessions that brought are able to play in conservation and three such organisations that together specialists from the vari- ecological education. Under the emerged in 1998, followed by two ous protected areas, in a manner auspices of the GEF scheme, the more in European Russia. The that contrasted with their normally Association of Far East Zapovedniks process continued on into 1999, scattered and isolated condition. began a particularly successful eco- with associations set up in the There were sessions devoted to sci- logical camp for children. Similarly, Baikal region, the Southern Urals entific research and ecological the Yenisei Association held a semi- and the Northern Caucasus, while monitoring, publication of a range nar addressing the new idea of the two more were established in 2000 of reports and handbooks, training local population participating in in Buryatia (east of Lake Baikal) and of state inspectors and other zapovednik management, an issue Central Region of European Russia. nature-protection staff, ecological that was not addressed during the education, eco-tourism and finan- Soviet era. As more people become Thus a dozen of these regional asso- cial management. Several of these knowledgeable and active on ciations now exist. Together they sessions involved the participation behalf of environmental issues, and include a substantial number of of specialists from outside the asso- thoroughly conversant with their Russia’s zapovedniks and national ciations’ membership, not least the own regions, such integration into parks: it would appear that at least scientific and technical staff of the regional community will secure 77 zapovedniks are in at least one regional institutions. A notable the protected territories’ position in regional association, while several of example was the utilisation of uni- an important way. these hold memberships of two dif- versity expertise from St. Petersburg ferent associations. to train scientific staff from the It is clear that the regional associa- North West Russian Association in tions have achieved a remarkable The list of those zapovedniks that the use of GIS technology, a amount already, and the recent GEF are not apparently members of process echoed elsewhere in the help has been an extremely valuable regional associations makes interest- Central Russian Association. bonus. Altogether, the GEF spent US$ ing reading. Remoteness is an impor- 305,000 on the associations – a tant consideration. Five large but far- Indeed, as befits such organized modest investment, yielding a mas- flung zapovedniks in the high Arctic activity in the current age, a consid- sive dividend, and pointing the way enjoy no such membership, and nei- erable proportion of the resources forward: carefully targeted funds and ther do the two located on remote made available under the GEF other resources can generate such island groups, nor some of those scheme – some 27 percent of the profound returns. Or, as Winston that are particularly remote in total budget – was spent on com- Churchill once put it, “Give us the Siberia and Kamchatka. Astrakhansky puter technology, in some cases tools, and we will finish the job”. Zapovednik on the Caspian seems simply acquiring the necessary com- similarly isolated from most other puter equipment to enable regular Rodney Langdon Cole, Deputy zapovedniks. Kedrovaya Pad and contact with other members of the Head at the FitzWimarc School in Ussurisky Zapovedniks are harder to associations. Yet the same equip- Essex, England, is currently writing a explain, given their proximity to the ment also serves to revolutionize doctoral thesis on the Russian Far East Association. the accumulation and storage of zapovednik system.

28 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 29

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies The Growth of Regional Nature Protection: A Case Study from the Orlovskaya Oblast

Note from the editors: Though Polesye National Park, the oblast’s first in neighboring oblasts. A 1997 GEF regional associations of protected federal protected area, was created project facilitated an agreement areas are gaining popularity and only in 1994 on a territory of 33,032 between the Orlovskaya, Bryanskaya, influence across much of Russia, they hectares; in 1995, the park’s area was and Kaluzhskaya Oblasts to support are not the only attempt at organiz- increased to 84,583 ha. inter-oblast nature protection net- ing and unifying nature protection on works. A prime example of this kind the regional level. Orlovskaya Oblast A new direction for protected areas of cooperation is the buffer zone of is one of a growing number of regions came in 1996. Working with nature Kaluzhskie Zaseki Zapovednik. The across Russia that is trying to develop protection specialists, the Orlovskaya zapovednik, founded in 1992, was a regional network of protected areas. Oblast administration began to see that located along border between two even without large zapovedniks, there oblasts, but had no protection from ocated south of Moscow in the was still much that could be done to the Orlovskaya Oblast side. In 1998, L forest-steppe regions near the improve the effectiveness of protected the Orlovskaya Oblast borders of Ukraine and Administration created a buffer zone Belarus, Orlovskaya Oblast for the zapovednik in the northwest has only a few intact natu- corner of the oblast. Similarly, in ral areas left. Most of the 2000 and 2001 the three oblasts oblast’s land was long ago began working together to com- transformed by farming and pile a unified geographic infor- logging. Canals were built mation database of information and wetlands were drained. from three oblasts. Today forests cover only 9.3 percent of the region, and Meanwhile, Orlovskaya Oblast nearly 80 percent of the continues to demonstrate oblast’s total land has been its commitment to plowed under. Altogether nature protection by the growth of agriculture forming new protected brought considerable harm areas. By January 1st of to the biological diversity of this year, the percent of the region’s natural flora land preserved in a pro- Map by M. Dubinin and fauna. But the past tected area had risen to decade has seen significant 6.1 percent of the oblast’s total changes in environmental politics as areas in the oblast. By creating an inter- area. Plans through the year 2010 the Orlovskaya Oblast Administration locking network of intact natural areas, call for creating about 200 new pro- seeks to improve nature protection migration routes could be reopened to tected areas whose individual areas and make agriculture more efficient. animals such as the European bison would be at least 100–150 ha. (Bison bonasus), moose (Alces alces) Together these protected areas Through the early 1990s, the basic and wolf (Canis lupus), and broader would reestablish safe migrations for form of protected area in this region tracts of landscapes could be preserved. many species of animals by creating was the nature monument. But even The first step in this direction was a “ecological corridors” between larger though there were 130 nature monu- project called “The Green Wall of protected areas. ments in the oblast in 1996, not one of Russia,” which included planting 20-ha them was sufficiently enabled to pro- tracts of trees to connect fragments of Compiled from materials provided by tect the expansive landscapes native to forests in the southern part of the Vsevolod Stepanistky, Deputy Head of the Orlovskaya Oblast. Moreover, the oblast. the Department of protected Areas and nature monuments were insufficient to Biodiversity Conservation of the Russian protect animal species: they were too The administration of Orlovskaya Ministry of Natural Resources, as well as small and too dispersed to ensure suffi- Oblast also began to take note of press-releases from the World Wide cient habitat protection. Orlovskoye nature protection efforts underway Fund for Nature (WWF).

Summer2003, No. 33 29 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 30

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

It would be naїve to wait for region- Making Friends al officials – and all the more so the Russian population at large – to beyond Boundaries become convinced on their own of the importance of protected areas. istorically, Russia’s zapoved- the removal of sections of forest But such is exactly the logic that has H niks had little to do with the from it. Similarly, in 1998, the governed the management of pro- lives of people living in nearby President of the Komi Republic tried tected areas for decades. As long as communities. As a result, conflicts to remove 200,000 ha of land from authoritarian Soviet power ruled the regularly developed between the Yugyd Va National Park, a World country, protected areas could get by ideals of zapovednik employees Heritage Site, in order to mine gold without paying attention to local and the desires of local residents. there. Meanwhile, government-sup- conditions, but in today’s Russia, People who worked in zapovedniks and national zapovedniks were concerned parks are gradually waking up only about protecting and to the reality that they must studying their isolated “islands” gain the support of local popu- of nature; people outside lations and regional authorities understood little of why they in order to survive. The best were forbidden to enter the way of achieving this goal may forests where their parents and be to become a vibrant and even grandparents had gathered essential part of the local berries and mushrooms. By and region, to prove that the pres- large, these mindsets and the ence of a protected area does conflicts they produce have not depress a region, but on prevailed over the past decade, the contrary, can help it to though ideas about the role and thrive. The experience of sever- purpose nature reserves play in al protected areas in Russia has the lives of local regions are shown that when a nature beginning to change. reserve focuses on long-term cooperation with local popula- Though regional governments tions, regional officials and still tend to support the founda- local officials alike are forced tion of nature preserves, most to take the protected area’s people believe that preserving interests into consideration, Some zapovedniks are learning to support rural agricul- nature automatically means tak- recognizing that the nature ture among local populations. Photo by I. Shpilenok ing an economic loss because reserve’s development will natural resources will be made bring with it positive econom- off limits. For this reason, there have ported construction projects contin- ic, environmental, educational, and been several examples of regional ue unchecked along the Belaya River scientific benefits for the region and governments opposing nature con- Reservoir in the Republic of its population. servation in zapovedniks and nation- Bashkorostan, threatening to harm al parks. In 1994, officials in the ecosystems in both Bashkiria Thus the past decade has witnessed Voronezhskaya Oblast ordered the National Park and Shulgan-Tash several new trends as zapovedniks directors of Voronezhsky and Zapovednik. And in nearly every pro- have intensified their efforts to inte- Khopersky Zapovedniks to decrease tected area there are incidents of grate themselves into the socio-eco- populations of moose (Alces alces), local residents trespassing, poaching, nomic structure of their local roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), and cutting forests, and setting fires. regions. So far protected areas have red deer (Cervus elaphus) because These conflicts often arise because only taken their first steps in this they were interfering with the people fail to understand that pro- direction, and much work remains regional forestry industry. In the tected areas are not just areas of to be done. Nonetheless, these first same year, a mayor near Kurilsky land cut off from economic uses, but steps have revealed distinct possibili- Zapovednik wrote a letter to the also institutions dedicated to nature ties for successful and mutually ben- Russian government requesting the protection, scientific research, and eficial integration into the lives of dissolution of the reserve, or at least environmental education. local regions.

30 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 31

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

The first aspect of this integration is regional authorities by patrolling local schools, institutes of higher edu- economic. Zapovedniks and nation- other protected areas in the region. cation, and governmental educational al parks can offer residents of rural Vodlozersky National Park in north- agencies. Utilizing the media is also villages a number of jobs, a particu- western Russia has set a particularly an important means of offering local larly important plus for villages with good example of putting its expert- residents a better understanding of high levels of unemployment, as ise to work outside of its borders: in the purposes and benefits of protect- often occurs where a Soviet-era fac- 1994, scientists from the national ed areas. tory or forestry enterprise has park joined with colleagues from closed. Some nature reserves have Moscow and Arkhangelsk to put Russia’s biosphere reserves, with also become a boon to tourism, together plans to found another their increasing emphasis on sup- bringing more money into econom- national park by nearby Lake Onega. porting the sustainable develop- ically depressed rural areas. National Then in 1997, under the aegis of the ment of local regions, have led the parks can aid their regions’ Association of Zapovedniks and way in resolving conflicts with local economies through developing National Parks of Northwestern communities, but they are by far environmentally friendly agriculture Russia, they organized an interna- not the only of Russia’s protected methods and produce, sustainable tional expedition along the Onega areas with the ability to do so. fishing and hunting practices. peninsula, a trip that served as the Though the mentality of many gateway to joint environmental pro- zapovednik employees is that they Some zapovedniks and national tection programs for the need have little to do with nearby parks are discovering how to use Arkhangelskaya Oblast and a num- communities, these ideas are slowly their knowledge and interest in ber of northern nations. changing. Pilot projects in many nature protection to the benefit of zapovedniks and national parks local regions or oblasts. With their Many zapovedniks and national parks have shown that mutual benefits expertise in ecology, environmental have also discovered that education is come when protected areas look monitoring, and nature protection, a key to supporting and befriending out beyond their borders to the sur- scientists in some protected areas local regions. Protected areas are rounding regions. have become consultants for region- unique, an excellent base camp for al government environmental agen- regional environmental education Compiled from materials provided by cies. In other cases, zapovednik programs. More and more, protected the Department of rangers have become an aid to areas are also learning to work with Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation of An important aspect of working with local communities the Ministry of is supporting indigenous peoples who live Natural near nature reserves. Photo by E. Resources. Ledovskikh

Summer2003, No. 33 31 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 32

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

fish, and gather berries and mush- Spotlight on Kerzhensky rooms on a 9,000-hectare tract of land called the “biosphere polygon.” Zapovednik Nonetheless, the residents had to receive special passes to enter the bios- another loca- phere polygon, and they were forbid- tion. They den from setting foot on the strictly began simply protected “core area” of the reserve. living off the land, growing These restrictions caused an uproar potatoes and from the residents of Rustai, who felt other vegetables, that their freedom had been restrict- keeping a few cows, ed and their livelihood put in dan- goats, sheep, and chick- ger. Following the lead of a few out- ens, and gathering berries spoken members of the population, and mushrooms from the people began to flood local adminis- marsh and forest. It was clear trative offices and newspapers with that if a zapovednik were complaints about the zapovednik, established in the area, spe- and even collected signatures in an cial attention would need to effort to close down the reserve. be given to the village of Residents were even worried about Rustai and its inhabitants: the mysterious biosphere polygon, without being able to whose name sounded too much like use the resources of the the Russian terms “nuclear polygon,” land, the people would be or “military polygon,” where nuclear unable to survive. waste might be deposited. Meanwhile, zapovednik employees Map by M. Dubinin For this reason, Kerzhensky had numerous cases of poaching to Zapovednik was founded with the deal with, not to mention occasional By Lisa Woodson intention that it would become a bios- arson and crimes aimed specifically phere zapovednik, a reserve whose at zapovednik employees. cientists first proposed founding a charter allowed local populations limit- S zapovednik in the forests and ed and managed use of natural “Had circumstances not necessitated wetlands along the Kerzhenets River resources. In the case of Kerzhensky it,” recalls Kerzhensky Zapovednik’s east of Moscow in the 1920s. Delays Zapovednik, residents of Rustai were to director Elena Korshunova, “We stalled the founding of the zapoved- be allowed to graze livestock, cut hay, would not have chosen to work with nik for nearly seventy years, however, and by the time Kerzhensky Zapovednik was finally established in 1993, a sizeable village called Rustai lay on its borders. Rustai was a logging town that grew up after the Second World War, filled people who had come to the settlement expect- ing to abandon the town for another locale after the nearby forest had been effectively cleared. Chances are good that that is precisely what would have happened, had not the Soviet Union collapsed at just the wrong time, leaving more than 300 loggers and their families stranded in the village without jobs and without Over 300 families live in the village of Rustai, part of Nizhegorodskoye Povolzhe the financial resources to move to Biosphere Reserve. Photo by L. Woodson

32 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 33

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

the local population.” But given local But even though education is an of the region), and actually guarded residents’ conviction that the effective tool in changing public their livelihood by preventing out- zapovednik was their enemy, opinion, it is a gradual one. As siders from collecting the famous Korshunova realized she had to try to protests and violence continued Rustai cranberries in the biosphere prove that the zapovednik could be through the early years of the polygon. their friend. It was not enough for the zapovednik’s existence, leaders began zapovednik to protect nature: in looking for effective – if unorthodox Problems still exist, and animosities order to survive next door to a hostile – ways to be helpful neighbors. continue to smolder between the local population, the zapovednik Transportation can be a problem in zapovednik and the village of Rustai. went out of its way to become a good the remote village, especially in the Just last year a villager burned down neighbor. The following years proved muddy “roadless” season, so zapoved- one of the ranger’s homes. Yet par- to be a learning experience for peo- nik employees used their trucks and ties on all sides agree that the situa- ple on both sides of the conflict. all-terrain vehicles to help the vil- tion is improving. Residents have lagers. They also helped with snow grown accustomed to the idea of Promotion and environmental edu- removal each winter and bridge using the biosphere polygon but cation were among the first tools the building as needed. staying clear of the strictly protected areas of the reserve. And zapovednik leaders have grown accustomed to the fact that making peace with villagers is an ongoing process.

Last fall, the zapovednik and sur- rounding areas – together called “Nizhegorodskoye Povolzhe” – were granted the status of a UNESCO biosphere reserve, meaning the zapovednik’s mission to support local sustainable development will only grow in upcoming years. Plans for the future include, for example, using forest tracts around the reserve to test and model optimal use of timber resources. They also include Kerzhensky Zapovednik is named for the Kerzhenets River that flows along its western composing a council of different border. Photo by L. Woodson resource users to coordinate the work of the biosphere reserve. zapovednik used to make peace with In time this care for the village local villagers. A leader at the local began to turn public opinion. After Nonetheless, the zapovednik’s main school became a long-standing the initial shock of having their concern will remain the preservation friend of the zapovednik, organizing movement through the forest of the forests and wetlands it was classes and excursions to teach local restricted, locals began to see that founded to protect. By now, howev- children about the zapovednik and where traditional government chan- er, it is clear that this work must also its importance. Today this process nels were unwilling or unable to aid figure in the needs of the village of has come full circle, as two graduates the village, the zapovednik lent a Rustai, for unless the villagers sup- of the school have become environ- hand. One of the most important port the zapovednik, the reserve will mental educators in the zapovednik. factors was that the zapovednik fight an uphill battle. “Lots of visitors The zapovednik also began printing offered new job openings to a local say this place is beautiful,” says a free local newspaper designed to population that had been left unem- Korshunova, watching the sun cast be of interest to local families. And ployed after the collapse of the gov- orange beams into a marsh. “But each holiday season, the rangers – ernment timber industry. Villagers when a local villager says it’s beauti- usually known for handing out tick- also saw that the rangers protected ful, that’s when I pay attention.” ets for poaching and trespassing – the forest from fires (many residents started distributing free calendars to still remember the forest fires of Lisa Woodson is the Editor of each family in the village. 1972 that spread through 90 percent Russian Conservation News.

Summer2003, No. 33 33 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 34

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies Ecotourism in Protected Areas: Problems and Possibilities

Medvezhi Lake, Bureinsky Zapovednik. Photo courtesy of Bureinsky Zapovednik

Note from the editors: In a recent Altai and Sayan Mountains, the of Russia’s zapovednik system encour- issue of RCN we focused on the devel- Caucasus… In these places the Amur aged the development of tourism in opment of ecotourism in the countries tiger and snow leopard still prowl, protected areas, often pointing to the of the former Soviet Union. For this walruses and polar bears thrive in United States’ National Parks System reason we offer only a brief introduc- the Arctic cold, rare cranes and birds as a successful model. In 1929, during tion to the topic in this issue. If you of prey soar through the skies. the All-Russian Congress of Nature would like more information on the Protection, Ecology Professor D.N. subject, please contact us about The question of how and to what Kashkarov noted that if Russia’s receiving a back issue of RCN #31 ends to preserve these places has reg- nature was to be protected, it would (Fall/Winter 2002–2003). ularly been a matter of debate in be only with the support of a broad Russia. People often assume that the sector of the population: “If we pro- By Natalia Moraleva current controversy over whether or mote only the interests of pure sci- and Elena Ledovskikh not tourism should be allowed in ence, we will never achieve broad zapovedniks and other protected sympathy.” His words caused uproar at o one will deny the aesthetic areas is a new phenomenon, brought the meeting, but he and other sympa- N beauty of Russia’s wild land- about by the opening of the Soviet thizers clung to their belief that allow- scapes. Zapovedniks and parks have Union and onset of capitalism. Little ing people to see and visit their coun- preserved some of the most attrac- do they know that current discussions try’s natural treasures would produce tive places on earth: the volcanoes are really just the present manifesta- in them a love for nature and a desire and geysers of Kamchatka, the tion of a dispute that has been going to preserve it. Nonetheless, for many shores of Lake Baikal, the steppes of on for nearly a century. In the early years tourism was a regular part of life Khakassia, the deserts of Tyva, the 1900s, many supporters and founders in zapovedniks such as Kavkazsky,

34 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 35

The Past Ten Years: Trends and Case Studies

Crimean, Ilmensky, Teberdinsky, and for friends in local communities, still has to determine how many peo- Stolby. The 1940 Decree on Russian which in turn has opened the door to ple and how much recreation different Zapovedniks even listed “acquainting tourism in a number of reserves. natural areas can handle. Few publica- people with zapovedniks and their Ideally, local tourism initiatives create tions exist to give tourists adequate purpose by organizing tourism and jobs for local people, bring money information about the places they are scientific expeditions through into depressed villages, and acquaint going and things they will see there. zapovedniks” among the fundamental local populations more intimately assignments of zapovedniks. This pur- with the natural treasures of their To this day there is still no single defi- pose was restated in 1962. The close regions. But the fact is that in Russia, nition of what “ecotourism” means in of the Soviet Era, however, saw con- tourism around zapovedniks often Russia. Nor is there a government- servation opinion swing heavily to the develops spontaneously and without sponsored strategy for developing this side of keeping zapovedniks “pristine,” careful considerations of its purpose kind of tourism. Nonetheless, some- that is, without tourists. and proper organizational principles. thing like ecotourism is clearly grow- Often zapovednik staff look at ing in protected areas across the But over the past decade the pendu- tourism primarily as a means to country: certainly interest in visiting lum has been swinging back as people receiving additional funding, a view Russian protected areas is growing. argue over the purpose of nature which carries with it a terrible danger. Twenty years ago, the idea of vaca- reserves and how to protect them. A Without the necessary planning and tioning in Russian nature reserves was new approach to tourism in zapoved- management, without knowledge of virtually unheard of: Soviet citizens niks has come more recently, as theo- this particular field, ecotourism will usually went to resorts, and strict rules ry on environmental tourism – or not bring either the protected area or for foreigners made it nearly impossi- “ecotourism” – has developed into a local residents significant economic ble for international citizens to vaca- philosophy of environmentally sound benefits. Even worse, it might bring tion in zapovedniks. Though Soviet observation and enjoyment of nature. irreversible harm to the region’s backpackers and hikers did cross As talk of keeping protected areas unique ecosystems and discredit the through protected areas, it was with- strictly off limits to visitors fades into very idea of ecotourism. These very out tourist infrastructure and often the past, the new direction of eco- real threats are what the opponents of against the wishes of the zapovedniks. tourism involves dialogue and part- ecotourism fear most, and due not in But as of 1999, 76 zapovedniks had nerships that are mutually beneficial. small part to these objections, many created nature trails in special regions New legislation in the early 1980s zapovedniks have hidden the fact that of their protected areas; 64 zapoved- paved the way for the founding of they allow and support tourism. Only niks had visits from tourist groups. In national parks, protected areas specifi- in the past few years have multiple total more than 140,000 people visit- cally aimed at giving people access to zapovedniks begun to admit their past ed zapovedniks that year, including beautiful natural areas for the purpose and continuing involvement in tourist more than 5,000 foreigners. These are of tourism and recreation. Reasons activities. just the first baby steps of a develop- exist for promoting environmentally ing ideology and industry. In forth- sustainable tourism not only in The major struggles facing the devel- coming years, protected areas and the national parks, but also in zapoved- opment of environmental tourism in local communities around them must niks and other protected areas. Russia are related to the lack of struc- choose the best way to handle this ture to accommodate tourists: the very burgeoning interest in tourism. Their The fact that people both inside and idea of bringing tourists – from decisions in this transitional period outside zapovedniks regarded them regional capitals, from across Russia, will determine the path of tourism in as closed territories created a serious and especially from abroad – to some protected areas, either towards harm- problem: the zapovedniks became of the most remote parts of Russia is ful exploitation of aesthetic natural separated from the socio-economic still rather new. Federal legislation, tax resources that bring little lasting eco- development of the regions and lost codes, etc., do not promote investment nomic growth to impoverished the support (when they had ever in tourism. On the local level, infra- regions, or towards a more environ- had it) of local populations. The eco- structure requires significant improve- mentally sustainable tourism. nomic troubles of recent decades ments: guest houses, hotels, and bed have made this situation all the and breakfasts are still lacking in many Natalia Moraleva is the President of more problematic. areas, transportation can cause difficul- the Association for Ecological Tourism. ties, and few trails and observation Elena Ledovskikh is the President of On the other hand, zapovedniks’ own sites exist in the necessary places. the Dersu Uzala Ecotourism financial crises have led them to look Often it is the protected area itself that Development Fund.

Summer2003, No. 33 35 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 36

A Look to the Future A Look to the Future

The Future We Choose being “foreign bodies” in their regions, but strive to flow organically By Vsevolod Stepanitsky to improve the effectiveness of pro- into the infrastructure of the region, tected areas. In April of this year, the making the most of their environ- he past decade has clearly Ministry of Natural Resources ratified mental, recreational, scientific, and T shown the strengths and weak- its plans for protected areas develop- intellectual potential. nesses of Russia’s system of zapoved- ment for the next twelve years, niks and national parks. We have focusing on both general guidelines Changes to environmental legislation uncovered a number of serious for growth and specific measures will facilitate this move. Seven years problems that prevent protected needed to realize this growth. have passed since the groundbreaking areas from functioning effectively in 1995 law “On Specially Protected the new political and socio-econom- The common theme in many of Areas,” and the time has come to ic conditions that characterize these measures is paying more atten- make a number of urgent changes today’s Russia. Some of these prob- tion to the local regions in which and additions to the law. For exam- lems – such as improving legislative the protected areas are located. ple, it is necessary to clarify the prop- groundwork and ranger services – Today Russia’s protected areas, in er procedure for creating parts of can be solved in the near future. particular zapovedniks, suffer from protected areas that can be used for Meeting other challenges will require the fact that for so many years they purposes beyond strict nature protec- broad changes in public opinion and existed with little if any account of tion, such as biosphere polygons and government management structures, the needs of their regions. In order buffer zones. Similarly, there are legal two institutions whose inertia can- to quell the conflicts that have aspects of tourism and recreation in not be turned overnight. increased in recent years, it is neces- national parks that require immediate Nonetheless, there are many areas in sary to strike at the heart of the attention. The mechanism for setting which we can take steps even today problem: protected areas must stop aside areas on which to found pro-

Efforts are currently underway to form an international agreement between Russia and Kazakhstan to ensure that the high mountains of Katunsky Zapovednik (Republic of Altai), which straddle the border between the two nations have protection from both sides. Photo courtesy of Katunsky Zapovednik

36 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 37

A Look to the Future

And the network keeps growing…

In recent years the network of protected areas has grown dramatically, but has not reached its climax. Even though some criticize the establishment of new reserves in difficult economic times, the hazards raised by privatization, which may one day prevent the foundation of any new nature reserves, could be a far more serious threat. Plans are currently in the works to found 9 new zapovedniks and 12 new national parks by the year 2010. Moreover, international agreements are being sought to found more transboundary nature reserves with Russia’s neighbors – Mongolia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, China, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Finland, Norway, and the United States – to ensure dual-sided protection of existing and planned nature reserves in Russia.

Map by M. Dubinin Zapovedniks 8. Shaitan-Tau National Parks 22. Onezhskoye Pomorie 1. Sailugemsky 9. Yuzhnotaiozhny Pikhtovy 15. Russkaya Arktika 23. Kalevalsky 2. Utrish 10. Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina 16. Pridesnyansky 24. Zavolzhye 3. Stavropolsky Lesostepnoi 11. Bryansky Les 17. Buzuliksky Bor 25. Udegeiskaya Legenda 4. Eltonsky 12. Pasvik 18. Sengileevskie Gory 26. Zov Tigra 5. Kologrivsky Les 13. Dagestansky 19. Beringia 27. Anyuisky 6. Ingermanlandsky 14. Katunsky 20. Shantarskie Ostrova 7. Barabinsky 21. Paanayarvi

tected areas in the future must also priority of zapovedniks and nation- ers. All protected areas should begin be reexamined. Moreover, many al parks in the near future. Ensuring using the proven effective methods regional laws (recall that Russia has protection means resolving a num- of special operations patrol groups, 89 regions, each with its own envi- ber of smaller issues, such as the and send their rangers to training ronmental legislation) must be salaries that rangers receive: the courses to increase their qualifica- brought into accordance with federal dangerous work these people do tions. It is also imperative to create legislation on protected areas. should be compensated (and a system by which rangers can insured) in terms that are at least exchange their experience with one Organizing effective protection for on par with the risks they take in another, both in Russia and abroad. nature reserves is the fundamental trying to apprehend armed poach- Ranger services should search for

Summer2003, No. 33 37 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 38

A Look to the Future

ways to coordinate their efforts tional tourism face many additional for regional offices of federal envi- with local police and border guards. challenges and opportunities. ronmental agencies; these agencies But all of these measures will be Educational initiatives will provide a should similarly consider transfer- insufficient unless we are able to tangible result if they touch both ring the management of some outfit our rangers with the neces- people’s intellect and emotions, regional protected areas to zapoved- sary special equipment, transporta- ensuring that zapovedniks and niks and national parks. They should tion, and weapons. national parks receive active social also make use of the skills that support because people regard them zapovedniks’ rangers have, hiring Each individual zapovednik and as a source of national pride. them to guard areas requiring pro- national park must also take into tection outside the zapovedniks and account the needs of regional and All of these fields figure in a key area national parks. federal government agencies when for growth and development in the planning their scientific activity. next decade: integration into the There are also a number of issues While continuing all three of the socio-economic life of the regions. within the management of protected essential components of their scien- The four key aspects of this work areas themselves that the Ministry of tific research – inventory, monitor- include the local economy, nature Natural Resources and individual ing, and problem-based research – protection, education, and science. reserves must address in the near protected areas should also consider Protected areas can be a great help future. These include improving how to apply the results of their to areas plagued with unemploy- working conditions for nature research in their local regions. There ment by offering jobs, or by bringing reserve staff, recruiting young peo- is need not only for studies of rare tourists and stimulating local tourist ple, and offering staff continuing species and changes in the ecosys- infrastructure, including traditional education seminars. The federal gov- tem, but also for determining allow- crafts and souvenirs. Some protected ernment must find ways to increase able levels of human influence in areas can contribute to agricultural and improve its financing of protect- ecosystems and creating a scientific development (including producing ed areas (more run for the ruble), foundation for future work in envi- environmentally friendly grain, pro- and protected areas must continue ronmental education and tourism. duce, eggs, and dairy products), and learning how to find supplemental sustainable game management and income from other sources. Some Because environmental education is fishing. As important nature conser- creative ideas in this regard include so crucial to long-term support and vation institutions, zapovedniks and offering zapovedniks and national understanding of protected areas national parks – especially those parks monies from the federal budg- and their mission, both zapovedniks with international status – should be et that are earmarked for fighting and national parks must devote able to attract investment, Russian forest fires or environmental subsi- increased attention to this field, and foreign, to a region. dies, or reducing the tax burden of including educational tourism. protected areas. Protected areas must learn to reach With their great scientific out to all sections of the population, resources, zapovedniks and nation- It has become clear that the break- collaborating with educational insti- al parks can offer significant help down of Soviet power and the tutions, regional and local govern- to Russia’s regions. Working with inception of capitalism have set ments, the media, and other interest- schools, educational institutions, into motion processes that will not ed organizations. Part of this work and the media is just the beginning. wait until nature protection institu- will involve creating an information- Zapovedniks can and should be tions adjust to the new realities of al network that allows for the centers for regional environmental life in Russia. The time to act is now exchange of educational information monitoring, offering information to if we want to ensure that both and experience both within Russia those who need or want it. And Russia’s wilderness areas and the and around the globe. Moreover, one way that protected areas can unique system of nature reserves environmental education initiatives break down the invisible walls that that protects it are preserved for must incorporate the entire staff of surround them is by inviting more generations to come. protected areas – particularly university students to conduct rangers, of whom local residents research in the zapovednik. Vsevolod Stepanitsky is the Deputy often have a negative image – and Head of the Department of Protected they must encourage volunteer Especially given their ability to help Areas and Biodiversity Conservation groups that want to help. Protected in environmental assessments, they of the Russian Ministry of Natural areas that choose to develop educa- can become a major axis of support Resources.

38 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 39

Conservation Contacts Conservation Contacts

Helpful Resources Russian Governmental Environmental Bureaus Interested in learning more about or becoming involved in Russian Protected Areas? The resources at your disposal Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. are too many to list, but here are some helpful starting points to Bolshaya Gruzinskaya Street 4/6, Moscow 123812. help guide you. Tel: +7 (095) 254-82-77. Fax: +7 (095) 254-43-10. Department of Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation. Tel: +7 (095) 125-56-88. Fax: +7 (095) 254-43-10. Protected Areas on the Internet

Wild Russia. If you would like to learn more about individual Moscow-based Non-governmental nature reserves in Russia, Wild Russia is your first stop for beauti- Environmental Organizations ful photographs and helpful information. For detailed information about individual zapovedniks and national parks, including (a very short list) history, wildlife, plants, and geography, as well as contact infor- Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental Protection Projects mation and other resources, visit http://www.wild-russia.org. Biodiversity Conservation Center. Aleksey Zimenko, General Wild Russia is a production of the Center for Russian Nature Director. Vavilova Street 41, office 1, Moscow, 119312 Russia. Conservation (CNRC). Tel/Fax: +7 (095) 124-7178. E-mail: [email protected]. The Protected Areas Web Project of the Biodiversity Website: http://www.biodiversity.ru. Conservation Center (BCC), though currently available only in Greenpeace-Russia. Novaya Bashilovka Street 6. Moscow Russian, has exceptional stores of information about individual 101428. Tel: +7 (095) 257-41-16. Fax: +7 (095) 257-41-10. protected areas, including hard-to-find data on federal E-mail: [email protected]. zakazniks. The project, located at http://reserves.biodiversity.ru, Website: http://www.greenpeace.ru. includes maps and brief descriptions of all the protected areas, Socio-Ecological Union. PO Box 211, Moscow 119019. as well as links to the protected areas’ own websites and other Tel: +7 (095) 124-7934. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]. websites particularly pertaining to each protected area. Website: http://www.seu.ru. National Nature Portal “Priroda.ru.” An official server of World Wide Fund for Nature Russian Program Office. Igor the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, this Russian-language Chestin, Director. Nikolyamskaya St. 19-3, Moscow, 109240 website is run by the autonomous non-profit Natural Resources Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 727-0939. Fax: +7 (095) 727-0938. National Information Agency. The website http://www.priroda.ru E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://www.wwf.ru. delivers information from the MNR about environmental protection and natural resource use, including access to news briefs Education Environmental Education Center “Zapovedniks,” Natalia and press releases, information about federal management of Danilina, Director. Insitute of Economics, Nakhimovsky Prospect natural resources, protected areas, science, education, business, a 32, 117218, Moscow, Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 332-48-28. variety of links, and access to related literature online. Fax: +7 (095) 129-06-88. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://www.wildnet.ru/about/index.html.

Russian Offices of United Nations Facilitating technical and financial support Organizations and Programs Partnership for Zapovedniks Non-profit Organization. Nikolai Maleshin, Director. Nakhimovsky prospect, 32, The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Room 802. P.O.Box 71. 117321, Moscow, Russia. Organization (UNESCO) Moscow Office. Uli Grabener, Tel\Fax: +7 (095) 332-40-66. Associated Expert for Science and Ecology. 15/28 Bolshoi E-mail: [email protected] Levshinsky per., bld. 2 119034 Moscow, Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 202-80-97. Fax: +7 (095) 202-05-68. Policy and Analysis E-mail: u.grabener@unesco.org. Website: http://www.unesco.ru. Center for Russian Environmental Policy. Alexei Yablokov, Russian National Commission for UNESCO. Oleg President. Vavilova Street 26, Moscow, 117071 Russia. Vasnitsov, Executive Secretary. Smolenskaya-Sennaya ul. Tel: +7 (095) 952-2423. Fax: +7 (095) 952-3007. 32/34, Moscow, 121200 Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 244-24-56. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://www.ecopolicy.ru. Man and Biosphere Committee, Russian Federation. Tourism and Development Valery Neronov, Deputy Chair. Fersman Street 13, Moscow, Association for Ecological Tourism. Natalia Moraleva, 117312 Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 124-60-00. President. IUCN Office for the Commonwealth of Independent Fax: +7 (095) 129-13-54. E-mail: [email protected]. States. P.O. Box 265, Moscow, 125475, Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 190- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 7077 / 4655 / 4675. Fax: +7 (095) 490-5818. E-mail: [email protected]. Russian Federation. Elena Armand, Head of Environment Dersu Uzala Ecotourism Development Fund. Elena Programs. 28 Ostozhenka, 119034, Moscow, Russia, Ledovskikh, President. Khamovnichesky Val, 6; Moscow, Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 787-2100. Fax: +7 (095) 787-2101. Tel/fax: +7 (095) 242-74-06. E-mail: [email protected], E-mail: [email protected]. Website: http://www.undp.ru. [email protected]. Website: www.ecotours.ru.

Summer2003, No. 33 39 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 40

Conservation Contacts Table of Russian Zapovedniks and National Parks

Zapovedniks Year Area* Address, telephone number, e-mail 1. Altaisky 1932 881.0 649154 Republic of Altai, Turochaksky District, Artybash; +7(388-43) 2-74-35; [email protected] 2. Astrakhansky 1919 66.8 414021 Astrakhan, Tsarevskaya Naberezhnaya, 119; +7(851-2) 3-01-64 [email protected] 3. Azas 1985 334.0 668530 Republic of Tyva, Todzhinsky District, Toora-Khem, ul. Zelenaya, 14; +7(394-50) 2-12-99; azas@tuva.ru 4. Baikalo-Lensky 1986 660.0 664050 Irkutsk, ul. Baikalskaya, 291 b, P.O. Box 3580; +7(395-2) 3-06-90; [email protected] 5. Baikalsky 1969 166.0 671220 Republic of Buryatia, Kabansky District, Tankhoy; +7(301-38) 9-37-20; [email protected] 6. Barguzinsky 1916 374.0 671710 Republic of Buryatia, Severo-Baikalsky District, Nizhneangarsk, ul. Kozlova, 61;+7(301-30) 5-19-92; [email protected] 7. Basegi 1982 38.0 618276 Permskaya Oblast, Gremyachensk, ul. Lenina, 100;+7(342-50) 2-70-49; [email protected] 8. Bashkirsky 1930 49.6 453592 Republic of Bashkortostan, Burzyansky District, Sargaya;+7(347-55) 3-34-46; [email protected] 9. Bastak 1997 91.8 679000 Yevreiskaya AO, Birobidzhan, ul. Pionerskaya, 67;+7(426-22) 4-16-03; [email protected] 10. Belogorye 1999 2.1 309340 Belgorodskaya Oblast, Borisovka;+7(072-46) 5-06-16; [email protected] 11. Bogdinsko- 1997 18.5 416501 Astrakhanskaya Oblast, Akhtubinsk, ul. Melioratorov,19; +7(85-141) 3-14-94; [email protected] Baskunchaksky 12. Bolonsky 1997 104.0 682640 Khabarovsky Kray, Amursk, ul. Amurskaya, 14;+7(42-142) 2-76-89; [email protected] 13. Bolshaya Kokshaga 1993 21.6 424038 Republic of Mari El, Yoshkar-Ola, ul. Voinov Internatsionalistov, 26;+7(836-2) 22-02-33; [email protected] 14. Bolshekhekhcirsky 1963 45.4 680502 Khabarovsky Kray, Bychikha, ul. Yubileynaya, 8;+7(421-2) 97-44-38; [email protected] 15. Bolshoy Arktichesky 1993 4169.0 647000 Taimyrsky АО, Dudinka, ul. Begicheva-10, office 29; post address: P.O.Box 126;+7(391-11) 5-67-24; [email protected] 16. Botchinsky 1994 267.0 682880 Khabarovsky Kray, Sovetskaya Gavan, ul. Sovetskaya, 28-b;+7(421-38) 4-69-90; [email protected] 17. Bryansky Les 1987 12.2 242180 Bryanskaya Oblast, Suzemsky District, Nerussa; +7(083-53) 2-57-74; [email protected] 18. Bureinsky 1987 358.0 682030 Khabarovsky Kray, Verkhnebureinsky District, Chegdomyn, ul. Lesnaya, 3;+7(421-49) 5-29-51; [email protected] 19. Cherny Zemli 1990 122.0 359240 Republic of Kalmykia, Chernozemelsky District, Komsomolsky, ul. Nekrasova, 31;+7(847-43) 9-12-54; [email protected] 20. Dagestansky 1987 19.1 367010 Republic of Dagestan, Makhachkala, ul. Gagarina, 120;+7(872-2) 62-85-07 21. Dalnevostochny Morskoy 1978 64.3 690041 Vladivostok, ul. Palchevskogo, 17;+7(423-2) 31-04-59; [email protected] 22. Darvinsky 1945 113.0 162723 Vologodskaya Oblast, Cherepovetsky District, p/о Ploskovo, Borok;+7(820-2) 66-69-70; [email protected] 23. Daursky 1987 44.8 674480 Chitinskaya Oblast, Ononsky District, Nizhny Tsasuchei, ul. Komsomolskaya, 50; PO Box 50;+7(302-52) 7-15-59 [email protected] 24. Denezhkin Kamen 1991 78.2 624480 Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Severouralsk, P.O. Box 345;+7(343-10) 2-75-63; [email protected] 25. Dzherginsky 1992 238.0 671636 Republic of Buriatia, Kurumkansky District, Maisky, ul. Lenina, 7;+7(301-49) 9-47-99 26. Dzhugdzhursky 1990 860.0 682470 Khabarovsky Kray, Ayano-Maisky District, Ayan, ul. Sovetskaya, 8;+7(закз по 8-13) 2-13-47; [email protected] 27. Erzi 2000 6.0 386101 Republic of Ingushetia, Nazran, ul. Naberezhnaya, 6;+7(873-22) 2-67-25 28. Galichya Gora 1925 0.23 399240 Lipetskaya Oblast, Zadonsky District, p/o Donskoe;+7(074-71) 3-33-65; [email protected] 29. Gydansky 1996 878.0 629350 Yamalo-Nenetsky АО, Tazovsky, ul. Geophizikov , 18;+7(034-940) 2-10-91 30. Ilmensky 1920 30.4 456301 Chelyabenskaya Oblast, Miass-1;+7(351-35) 7-46-32; [email protected] 31. Kabardino-Balkarsky 1976 82.7 361800 Kabardino-Balkarskaya Republic, Chereksky District, Kashkatau, ul. Kezima Mechieva, 78; +7(through operator number 8-13) 6-17-18; siak [email protected] 32. Kaluzhsky Zaseki 1992 18.5 249750 Kaluzhskаya Oblast, District center Ulyanovo, ul. B.Sovetstkaya, 75;+7(084-43) 1-19-32; [email protected] 33. Kandalakshsky 1932 70.5 184040 Murmanskaya оblast, Kandalaksha, ul. Lineinaya,35;+7(816-33) 2-23-19; [email protected] 34. Katunsky 1991 152.0 649490 Republic of Altai, Ust-Koksinsky District, Ust-Koksa, ul. Zapovednaya, 1;+7(388-48) 2-29-46; [email protected] 35. Kavkazsky 1924 280.0 354340 Sochi, Adlersky District, ul. K. Marksa,8;+7(862-2) 69-20-03; [email protected] 36. Kedrovaya Pad 1916 18.0 692710 Primorsky Kray, Khasansky District, station Primorskaya;(through operator number 8-13) 5-43-26; [email protected] 37. Kerzhinsky 1993 46.8 603134 Nizhny Novgorod, ul. Kostina, 2, room. 162;+7(831-2) 34-09-51; [email protected] 38. Khakasky 1999 268.0 655017 Republic of Khakasia, Abakan, P.O. Box 189, ul. Viatkina, 4 А;+7(390-22) 6-42-23; [email protected] 39. Khankaisky 1990 39.3 692245 Primorsky Kray, Spassky District, Spassk-Dalny, ul. Yershova, 10;+7(423-52) 2-31-38; [email protected] 40. Khingansky 1963 97.2 676741 Amurskaya Oblast, Arkhara, Dorozhny per., 6;+7(416-48) 2-12-03; [email protected] 41. Khopersky 1935 16.2 397418 Voronezhskaya Oblast, Novokhopersky District, Varvarino;+7(073-53) 4-81-34; [email protected] 42. Kivach 1931 10.9 186200 Republic of Karelia, Kondopozhsky District, Kivach;+7(814-51) 3-32-20; [email protected] 43. Komandorsky 1993 3649.0 683006 Petropavlovsk-Kamchtsky, Pr-t. К. Marksa, 29/1, office. 213;+7(415-22) 5-54-18; [email protected] 44. Komsomolsky 1963 64.4 681000 Khabarovsky Kray, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Komsomolskoe shosse, 59;+7(421-72) 2-18-23; [email protected] 45. Koryaksky 1995 327.0 688800 Koryaksky АО, Olyutorsky District, Tiplichki, ul. Naberezhnaya, 8; (through operator number 8-13) 5-23-38; [email protected] 46. Kostomukshsky 1983 47.6 186930 Republic of Karelia, Kostomuksha, ul. Priozernaya, 2;+7(814-59) 9-13-85; [email protected] 47. Kronotsky 1934 1142.0 684010 Kamchatskaya Oblast, Elizovo, ul. Ryabikova,48;+7(415-31) 6-17-54; [email protected] 48. Kurilsky 1984 65.4 694500 Sakhalinskaya Oblast, Yuzhno-Kurilsk , P.O. Box 42, ul.Zarechnaya, 5;+7(424-55) 2-15-86; [email protected] 49. Kuznetsky Alatau 1989 413.0 652888 Kemerovskaya оblast, Mezhdurechensk, pr-t Shakhterov, 33, apt.1;+7(384-75) 3-27-28; [email protected] 50. Laplandsky 1930 278.0 184506 Murmanskaya Oblast, Monchegorsk, Zeleny per., 8;+7(815-36) 5-80-18; lapland@monch.mels.ru 51. Lazovsky 1957 121.0 692890 Primorsky Kray, Lazo, ul.Tsentralnaya, 56;+7(423-77) 9-11-30; [email protected] 52. Magadansky 1982 884.0 685000 Magadan, ul. Koltsevaya, 17;+7(431-22) 5-76-51; [email protected] 53. Malaya Sosva 1976 226.0 628240 Khanty-Mansiysky АО, Sovetsky District, Sovetsky, ul. Lenina, 46;+7(346-75) 3-25-83; [email protected] 54. Mordovsky 1936 32.1 431230 Republic of Mordovia, Temnikovsky District, Pushta;+7(834-45) 2-19-57 55. Nenetsky 1997 313.0 166002 Nenetsky АО, Narian-Mar, Fakel, ul. Gazovikov, 2; (through operator number 8-16) 4-46-00; [email protected] 56. Nizhnesvirsky 1980 41.6 187700 Leningradskaya Oblast, Lodeinoe Pole, ul. Pravy Bereg reki Svir, 1;+7(812-64) 2-63-61; [email protected] 57. Norsky 1998 211.0 676572 Amurskaya Oblast, Selemzhinsky District, Fevralsk, ul. Sayanskaya, 4; P.O. Box 66;+7(416-55) 3-11-85; [email protected] 58. Nurgush 1994 5.7 612636 Kirovskaya Oblast, Kotelnichsky District, Borovka, ul. Sadovaya, 37;+7(833-42) 2-92-13; [email protected] 59. Oksky 1935 55.7 391072 Ryazanskaya Oblast, Spassky District, p/о Lakash, Brykin Bor;+7(091-35) 7-15-13; [email protected] 60. Olekminsky 1984 847.0 678100 Republic of Sakha +7(Yakutia), Olekminsk, ul. Logovaya, 31;+7(411-38) 2-19-56; [email protected] 61. Orenburgsky 1989 21.7 460023 Orenburg, P.O. Box 12 ul. Magistralnaya, 9;+7(353-2) 56-76-79; [email protected] 62. Pasvik 1992 14.7 184404 Murmanskaya Oblast, Pechengsky District, Rayakoski;+7(815-54) 2-13-65; [email protected] 63. Pechero-Ilychsky 1930 721.0 169436 Republic of Komi, Troitsko-Pechorsky District, Yaksha;+7(821-38) 9-56-99 64. Pinezhsky 1974 51.5 164610 Arkhangelskaya Oblast,Pinezhsky District, Pinega, ul. Pervomaiskaya, 123-а;+7(818-56) 4-24-93; [email protected] 65. Polistovsky 1994 38.0 182849 Pskovskaya Oblast, Bezhaninsky District, Tsevlo, ul. Sovetskaya,5, apt. 21;+7(811-41) 9-53-22; [email protected]

40 Russian Conservation News RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 41

Conservation Contacts

66. Poronaisky 1988 56.7 694220 Sakhalinskaya Oblast, Poronaisk, ul. Naberezhnaya, 15;+7(423-31) 5-03-72; [email protected] 67. Prioksko-Terrasny 1945 4.9 142200 Moskovskaya Oblast, Serpukhovskoi District, Danki;+7(0967) 70-71-49; [email protected] 68. Prisursky 1995 9.1 428024 Republic of Chuvashia, Cheboksary, p. Lesnoy;+7(835-2) 41-48-49; [email protected] 69. Privolzhskaya Lesostep 1989 8.4 440018 Penza, ul. Lodochny proezd, 10;+7(841-2) 59-61-31; [email protected] 70. Putoransky 1988 1887.0 663302 Norilsk, ul. Komsomolskaya,1;+7(391-9) 46-86-84; [email protected] 71. Rdeisky 1994 36.9 175270 Novgorodskaya Oblast, p. Kholm, ul. Chelpanova, 27;+7(816-54) 5-14-08; [email protected] 72. Rostovsky 1995 9.5 347510 Rostovskaya Oblast, p.Orlovsky, Chapaevsky,102;+7(863-75) 3-14-10; [email protected] 73. Sayano-Shushensky 1976 390.0 662710 Krasnoyarsky Kray, p. Shushenskoe, ul. Zapovednaya, 7;+7(391-39) 3-23-00; [email protected] 74. Severo-Osetinsky 1967 29.5 363200 Republic of Severnaya Osetia – Alania, Alagir, ul. Ch.Basievoy, 1;+7(867-31) 2-45-89; [email protected] 75. Shulgan-Tash 1986 22.5 453588 Republic of Bashkortostan, Burzyansky District, Gadelgareevo;+7(347-55) 3-12-22; [email protected] 76. Sikhote-Alinsky 1935 401.0 692150 Primorsky Kray, Terneysky District, Terney, ul. Partizanskaya, 46;+7(423-74) 3-15-59; [email protected] 77. Sokhondinsky 1973 211.0 674250 Chitinskaya Oblast, Districtal center Kyra, ul.Cherkasova, 1;+7(235) 9-15-59; [email protected] 78. Stolby 1925 47.2 660006 Krasnoyarsk, ul. Kariernaya, 26-а;+7(391-2) 61-17-10; [email protected] 79. Taimyrsky 1979 1782.0 647460 Taimyrsky АО, Khatanga, ul. Sovetskaya, 18; P.O. Box 31;+7(391-76) 2-10-97 80. Teberdinsky 1936 85.0 269310 Karachaevo-Cherkesskaya Republic of, Karachaevsky District, Teberda, per. Baduksky, 1; (through operator number 8-13) 5-12-61; [email protected] 81. Tigireksky 1999 40.7 656049 Altaisky Kray, Barnaul, ul. Internatsionalnaya, 83;+7(385-2) 23-33-98; [email protected] 82. Tsentralno-Lesnoi 1931 24.4 172513 Tverskaya Oblast , Nelidovsky District, Zapovedny;+7(082-66) 2-24-33; [email protected] 83. Tsentralno-Sibirsky 1985 1022.0 663196 Krasnoyarsky Kray, Turukhansky District, Bor, ul.Gribnaya, 1; (through operator number 8-13) 73-71 84. Tsentralno-Chernozemny 1935 5.3 305528 Kurskaya Oblast, Kursky District, Zapovedny;+7(071-2) 37-72-94; [email protected] 85. Tungussky 1995 297.0 648490 Krasnoyarsky Kray,Tungussko-Chunsky District, Vanavara, ul. Moskovskaya, 8;+7(391-2) 2-32-39; [email protected] 86. Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina 1993 323.0 667007 Republic of Tyva, Kyzyl, ul. Komsomolskaya, 122;+7(394-22) 5-37-70; [email protected] 87. Ussurisky 1932 40.4 692519 Primorsky Kray, Ussurisk, Nekrasova St.,19; +7(423-41)2-01-07; [email protected] 88. Ust-Lensky 1985 1433.0 692519 Primorsky Kray, Ussurisk, P.O. Box 34, ul. Nekrasova, 19;+7(423-41) 4-49-15; [email protected] 89. Verkhne-Tazovsky 1986 631.0 626740 Yamalo-Nenetsky АО, Krasnoselkup, ul. Stroiteley, 18;+7(349-32) 2-14-84; [email protected] 90. Vishersky 1991 241.0 618590 Permskaya Oblast, Krasnovishersky District, Krasnovishersk, ul. Gagarina 36 Б;+7(342-43) 2-21-40; [email protected] 91. Visimsky 1971 13.5 624140 Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Kirovograd, ul. Stepana Rasina, 23;+7(343-57) 3-36-56; [email protected] 92. Vitimsky 1982 585.0 666910 Irkutskaya Oblast, Bodaibo, ul. Irkutskaya, 4а;+7(10-75-17-20-23) 6-96; [email protected] 93. Volzhsko-Kamsky 1960 10.1 422537 Republic of Tatarstan, Zelenodolsky District, p/o Raifa, pos. Sadovy;+7(843-71) 3-47-20; [email protected] 94. Voronezhsky 1927 31.1 394080 г. Voronezh, station Grafskaya;+7(073-2) 27-05-42; [email protected] 95. Voroninsky 1994 10.3 393310 Тambovskaya Oblast, Inzhavino, ul. Bratskaya, 23;+7(075-53) 2-18-05; [email protected] 96. Wrangel Island 1976 2226.0 686830 Chukotsky АО, Chaunsky District, Pevek, ul. Obrucheva, 4/1 building. 2, apt. 14;+7(427-37) 2-43-92; [email protected] 97. Yugansky 1982 649.0 626422 Khanty-Mansiysky АО, Surgutsky District, Ugut;+7(346-2) 73-78-34 98. Yuzhno-Uralsky 1978 253.0 453570 Republic of Bashkortostan, Beloretsky District, Revet, p/о Inzer; (through operator number 8-13) 7-22-66; [email protected] 99. Zeisky 1963 99.4 676246 Amurskaya Oblast, Zeya, ul. Stroitelnaya,71;+7(416-58) 2-17-53; [email protected] 100. Zhigulevsky 1927 23.2 445362 Samarskaya Oblast, Zhigulevsk, Bakhilova Polyana;+7(848-62) 5-13-38; [email protected]

National Parks Year Area* Address, telephone number, e-mail 1. Alania 1998 55.4 362040 Republic of Severnaya Osetia-Alania, Vladikavkaz, ul. Nekrasova, 7; +7(867-2) 33-98-09 2. Alkhanai 1999 138.0 687200 Chitinskaya Oblast, Aginsky Buryatsky АО, Duldurga, ul. Gagarina, 47;+7(302-56) 3-44-58; [email protected] 3. Bashkiria 1986 82.3 453870 Republik Bashkortostan, Meleuzovsky District, Nugush, ul. Khudaiberdina, 15;+7(347-64) 4-07-34,ext.3-93 4. Chavash Varmane 1993 25.2 429170 Republic of Chuvashshia, Shemursha, ul. Kosmovskogo, 37;+7(835-46) 2-10-90 5. Kenozersky 1991 140.0 163061 Arkhangelsk, ul. Vyuchejskogo, 18; +7(818-2) 28-18-67; [email protected] 6. Khvalynsky 1994 25.5 412780 Saratovskaya Oblast, Khvalynsk, ul. Oktyabrskaya, 2b;+7(796-40) 2-17-98; [email protected] 7. Kurshskaya Kosa 1987 6.6 238535 Kaliningradskaya Oblast, Zelenogradsky District, Rybachy,ul.Lesnaya, 7; +7(011-50) 4-13-46; [email protected] 8. Losiny Ostrov 1983 11.6 107113 Moscow, Poperechny prosekt, 1А;+7(095) 268-60-45; [email protected] 9. Mari Chodra 1985 36.8 425090 Zvenigovsky District, Krasnogorsky, ul. Tsentralnaya, 73;+7(836-45) 6-45-72 10. Meshchora 1992 119.0 601554 Vladimirskaya Oblast, Gus-Khrustalny District, Urshel, ul.Matrosova, 12 А;+7(092-41) 5-86-17; [email protected] 11. Meshchorsky 1992 103.0 391030 Ryazanskaya Oblast, Spas-Klepiki, Pl. Lenina, 20;+7(091-42) 2-62-75 12. Nechkinsky 1997 20.8 427413 Udmurtskaya Republic, Votkinsky District, p.Novy;+7(341-45) 7-21-13; [email protected] 13. Nizhnyaya Kama 1991 26.5 423887 Republic of Tatarstan, Tukaevsky District, p/о Khaloshilnenskoe, Belous;+7(855-2) 72-17-53; [email protected] 14. Orlovskoye Polesye 1994 84.6 303943 Orlovskaya Oblast, Khotynetsky District, Zhudro;+7(086-42) 2-56-18; polesie@valley.ru 15. Paanayarvi 1992 105.0 186667 Repunblic Karelia, Louchsky District, Piaozersky, ul. Druzhby, 31;+7(814-39) 2-86-88; [email protected] 16. Pleshcheevo Ozero 1988 23.8 152020 Yaroslavskaya Oblast, Pereyaslavl-Zalessky, ul. Sovetskaya, 41;+7(085-35) 2-29-88; [email protected] 17. Pribaikalsky 1986 418.0 664049 Irkutsk, m/r Yubileiny, 83 А +7(for letters -P.O. Box 185);+7(395-2) 38-53-00; +7(395-2) 38-53-87; [email protected] 18. Prielbrusye 1986 100.0 361603 Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, Elbrussky District, Elbrus, ul. Lesnaya, 2;+7(866-38) 7-82-65 19. Pripyshminsky Bory 1993 48.7 623640 Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Talitsa, P.O. Box 29;+7(343-71) 2-58-78; [email protected] 20. Russky Sever 1992 166.0 161100 Vologodskaya Oblast, Kirillov, ul. Siverskaya, 9 А;+7(817-57) 3-23-83; [email protected] 21. Samarskaya Luka 1984 128.0 445350 Samarskaya Oblast, Zhigulevsk, ul. Tkacheva, 109 а;+7(848-62) 2-10-63; [email protected] 22. Sebezhsky 1996 50.0 182250 Pskovskaya Oblast, Sebezh, ul. 7th Noyabrya, 22;+7(811-40) 2-14-22; [email protected] 23. Shorsky 1989 338.0 852990 Kemerovskaya Oblast, Tashtagol, ul. Sadovaya, 9;+7(384-73) 2-16-03; [email protected] 24. Shushensky Bor 1995 39.2 662710 Krasnoyarsky Kray, Sheshensky District, Shushenskoe, ul. Lenina, 158;+7(391-39) 3-20-61; [email protected] 25. Smolenskoe Poozerye 1992 146.0 216270 Smolenskaya Oblast, Demidovsky District, Przhevalskoe, ul. Gurevicha, 19;+7(081-47) 4-62-04; [email protected] 26. Smolny 1995 36.4 431660 Republic of Mordovia, Ichalkovsky District, Smolny;+7(834-33) 2-74-67; [email protected] 27. Sochinsky 1983 194.0 354000 Krasnodarsky Kray, Sochi, ul. Moskovskaya, 21;+7(862-2) 92-15-05; [email protected] 28. Taganay 1991 56.8 456209 Chelyabinskaya Oblast, Zlatoust, ul.Ostrovskogo, 13;+7(351-36) 3-76-88; [email protected] 29. Tunkinsky 1991 1184.0 671010 Republic of Buryatia, Tunkinsky District, Kyren, ul. Lenina, 69;+7(301-47) 9-13-01 30. Ugra 1997 98.6 248007 Kaluga, pos. Prigorodnoe Lesnichestvo;+7(084-2) 72-57-91; [email protected] 31. Valdaisky 1990 159.0 175400 Novgorodskaya Oblast, Valday, ul. Pobedy, 2;+7(816-66) 2-18-09; [email protected] 32. Vodlozersky 1991 468.0 185007 Republic of Karelia, Petrozavodsk, ul. Parkovaya, 44;+7(814-2) 76-43-79; [email protected] 33. Yugyd Va 1994 1892.0 169570 Republic of Komi, Vuktyl, ul. Komsomolskaya, 5;+7(821-46) 2-47-63; [email protected] 34. Zabaikalsky 1986 267.0 671623 Republic of Buryatia, Barguzinsky District, Ust-Barguzin, per. Bolnichny, 3G; (through operator number 8-16) 9-15-75; [email protected] 35. Zyuratkul 1993 88.2 456910 Chelyabinskaya Oblast, Satka, ul. Sovetskaya, 15;+7(351-61) 3-21-83;[email protected] * – thousands of hectares

Summer2003, No. 33 41 RCN #33 21/8/03 13:58 Page 42

CONSERVATION CONTACTS

Association for Ecological Tourism. Natalia Moraleva, Division of Nature Protection, Science, and Environmental President. IUCN Office for the Commonwealth of Independent Education for Zapovedniks and National Parks, Natalia States. P.O. Box 265, Moscow, 125475, Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 190- Troitskaya, Head; Elena Amirkhanova. Tel: +7 (095) 125-42-01. 7077 / 4655 / 4675. Fax: +7 (095) 490-5818. Fax: +7 (095) 254-43-10. E-mail: [email protected]. E-mail: [email protected]. Organizational Division. Mikhail Fedotov, Head, Aleksei Troitsky, Deputy Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik. Olga Pavlova and Elena Head. Tel: +7 (095) 125-61-33, 125-42-01. Fax: +7 (095) 254-43-10. Nechiporuk, environmental educators. Voinov Internatsionalistov St.,26, E-mail: [email protected]. Yoshkar-Ola, 424038, Mari El Republik. Tel: +7 (836-2) 22-17-11. Fax: +7 (836-2) 22-02-33. E-mail: [email protected]. Kerzhensky Zapvoednik. Elena Korshunova, Director. Kostina St. 2, room 162, Nizhny Novgorod, 603134. Tel: +7 ( 831-2) 34-09-51. Rodney Cole. PhD Candidate, Centre for Russian and East European E-mail: [email protected]. Studies, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, England. Tel: 44 (0)1268 553149. E-mail: [email protected]. Lazovsky Zapovednik. Alexander Laptev, Director. Tsentralnaya St., 56, Dersu Uzala Ecotourism Development Fund. Elena Ledovskikh, Lazo, 692890, Primorsky Krai, Russia. Tel: +7 (423-77) 9-11-30, President. Khamovnichesky Val, 6; Moscow, Russia. Fax: (423-77) 9-11-37. E-mail: . Tel/fax: +7 (095) 242-74-06. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]. Partnership for Zapovedniks. Mikhail Stishov, Deputy Director. Website: www.ecotours.ru. Nakhimovsky prospect, 32, Room 802. P.O.Box 71, 117321, Moscow, Environmental Education Center “Zapovedniks.” Natalia Russia. Tel/Fax: +7 (095) 332-40-66. E-mail: [email protected]. Danilina, Director. Insitute of Economics, Nakhimovsky Prospect 32, Voronezhsky Zapovednik. Yuri Likhatsky, senior scientist. Grafskaya 117218, Moscow, Russia. Tel: +7 (095) 332-48-28. Station, 394080 Voronezh. Tel/Fax: +7(073-2) 27-05-06, Fax: +7 (095) 129-06-88. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: +7(073-2) 27-08-40. E-mail:

TWELVE MONTHS OF RUSSIAN WILDERNESS… ON YOUR WALL!! RUSSIA’S WILD SPACES… A 2004 color calendar devoted to Russia’s national parks and nature reserves Russian Life is donating 10% of net sales of this calendar to the Center for Russian Nature Conservation (CRNC), a US non-profit working to preserve the wilderness areas that the calendar highlights. The CRNC also publishes Russian Conservation News. The calendar features 12 remarkable photos by Russian nature photogra- pher Igor Shpilenok. It also highlights important environmental dates and holidays, important Russian historic anniversaries, Russian environmental dates of note, and all US and Russian holidays. Nature writer and researcher Laura Williams is the author of the text. PLAN AHEAD – PURCHASE YOUR COPIES NOW! The price of the “Wild Spaces of Russia” calendar is $13 per copy, plus $5 shipping and handling. For shipping costs on multiple copies, please contact the publisher, or order online. The publisher, Russian Life, will begin shipping in mid-September, but copies can be reserved anytime. To order online: www.russian-life.com; by phone: 800-639-4301; by mail: Russian Life, PO Box 567, Montpelier, VT 05601 Russian Life magazine, founded in 1956, is a bimonthly color magazine on Russian culture, history, travel and life. The September/October 2003 issue of the magazine will feature an article on Russia’s zapovednik system.

Subscribe to Russian Conservation News! LETTERS TO THE EDITOR can be mailed to: Margaret Williams • Foreign subscriptions: add $6 Sponsor...... $500 PO Box 57277, Washington, DC 20037-7277 for Canada and $15 for all other Tel.: (202) 778–9573 Patron ...... $100 countries E-mail: • Back issues available for $5 each Supporter ...... $75 In Russia our address is: • Make check or money order in Institute of Economics, Nakhimovsky Prospect Organization..$45 U.S. currency payable to CRNC/ 32, suite 802 117218, Moscow, Russia Phone/Fax: +7 (095) 332–4066 Tides Center and send to: Individual ...... $30 Russian Conservation News Mailing address: Box 71, 117321, Moscow, Russia PO BOX 57277 Student...... $20 E-mail: Washington, DC 20037-7277