Development. Newell, J. to circumvent this designation and log the territory. the log and designation this circumvent to ( refuge awildlife declared was Basin the While been not has issue settled. basin Bikin Upper the Meanwhile, Plastun. in venture Terneiles-Sumitomo exists—the venture joint forestry major one only date to Primorsky; in industry timber in the interest investor foreign cooled clearly has failure venture’s joint the reasons, the of less Regard- withdrawal. Hyundai’s for reason the as Russia within corruption general to point others Still purposes. sole their for facilities port Svetlaya renovated the use and enterprise the by left equipment other and harvesters timber the seize could they so bankruptcy into Hyundai “bleed” to sought who partners, Russian the to ruptcy bank- the attribute Others Svetlaya. near forests cessible ac- the of most clear-cut having Bikin, upper to access gain to venture joint the of failure the to point Some clear. un- are failure the behind reasons The bankrupt. gone has venture joint the then since and considerably, back — JN m annually. cu. 500,000 log to Hyundai for rights gave Kuznetsov nor Gover- Krai Primorsky then environmentalists, and Udege the from protests Despite Krai. Primorsky in watershed old-growth largest the is River Bikin The basin. Bikin Upper the log to access get to tried venture joint Hyundai the 1992, In government. Krai Primorsky the with ment agree- a30-year signed Terneiles) and (Primorlesprom enterprises timber regional Primorsky two and Korea) (South Corporation 1991, In Hyundai Venture. Joint Timber Svetlaya than community international the from attention more received has RFE the in venture joint no Perhaps operation in Svetlaya? logging Hyundai’s to happened Whatever mainly to Japan. logs, the selling and year mper cu. 200,000 approximately logging was 1990s, early the during and plateau, Svetlaya the on forestlands considerable the had still basin, Bikin venture the to joint access gain to failing Despite Svetlaya. to rights logging additional of transferal for standing legal no had governor the that ruled Court the consent, no granted had groups these As lands. traditional their onto encroachment any for consent formal of right the groups indigenous giving 1992, in passed Decree, aPresidential on based ruling aunilateral made Court Supreme The Udege. the of favor in overturned was decision court’s lower the where Court, Supreme Russian the to continued case The venture. joint international the with sided favorably which Court, gional Re- Primorsky’s to decision the appealed Svetlaya sion. deci- governor’s the overturning alaw passed Duma Krai zakaznik 2004. ) in 1998, there are regular attempts by industry industry by attempts regular are there 1998, ) in 9 The Udege protested and won; the Primorsky Primorsky the won; and protested Udege The McKinleyville, The 10 However, by 1997, logging was scaled scaled was 1997, by logging However, Russian Far CA: East: Daniel A & Reference Daniel. krai of the north the in areas forest the targeting are companies Terneiles, major other Primorlesprom, and forestlands. new, formerly undeveloped tosecure efforts timber accessible making is and lacks industry the that signs are There tofi of forty rate tion regenera- for anatural allows reportedly which diameter, in upto10 seedlings intact toleave required are esters for- method, logging By law, this under harvest. timber total 62 on conducted method, practiced widely most the is grading, of form high- the in usually logging, cover.forest Selective in changes irrevocable causing frequently transformations, ecosystem profound long-term caused have forests, spruce the in particularly techniques, Logging Sikhote-Alin. southern of belt the mountain upper the in largely zones, forest riverine protected in are of most which forests, spruce and ash of the many in occurs Overlogging species. by broadleaved replaced the in pine forests Korean of the fi considerably. past the In declined forests of those quality the and changed has composition ging, Logging practices. Upper Bikin basin and won. won. and basin Bikin Upper the tolog plans Corporation’s Hyundai protested Udege The percent of the territory and contributing about half of the of the half about contributing and territory of the percent , with strong support from akrai from support strong , with 75 percent of the krai of the percent 466 Guide Despite years of intensive industrial log- industrial of intensive Despite years pages fty years. Primorsky Krai Ⅲ Krai Primorsky for remains forested. However, the forested. remains Conservation rfe fty years, more than half half more than years, fty have been destroyed and and destroyed been have administration ready to14

cm and 133

Alexander Panichev

PRIMORSKY to overlook established environmental policy. This has been numerous gulfs and bays suitable for mariculture and coastal made all the easier since the dissolution of the Federal Com- fi shery farms. The most promising species for artifi cial mittee on Environmental Protection and the Forest Service reproduction are Japanese laminaria (Laminaria japonica), by presidential decree in March 2000. Primorsky crest, Pacifi c mussel (Mytilus trossulus), trepang, and salmon. Some of these species have been artifi cially PRIMORSKY cultivated for decades. Japanese laminaria (sea cabbage) has Fishing been cultivated in the krai since 1976. At one stage 5,000 Until the mid-1950s, Primorsky’s fi sh and invertebrate tons were produced a year, with a yield of twenty-six tons per harvest centered along the coast, mainly using a low-tonnage hectare. Today, enterprises lack equipment to produce dry fl eet. But by the late 1950s, the industry had developed a laminaria and, as a result, produce no more than several tons large-tonnage fl eet and greatly reduced the variety of species of this highly valuable product. Cultivation of Primorsky caught, focusing on the most commercially valuable. This led crest also began twenty years ago. Two crest farms oper- to rising fi sh harvests and the concentration of processing ated successfully in Minonosok Cove of Poset Bay and in enterprises in a few large cities, with the subsequent decline of Vladimir Bay. In 1989, 40 -ha plantations yielded 180 tons many coastal fi shing communities. However, with a declin- of crest, but production has since declined. However, there ing resource base in the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk, is interest in reviving these farms, and within fi ve to seven where about 80 percent of Primorsky’s companies obtain years, benthic cultivation of crest could produce nearly ten their catch, a new focus is being put on rejuvenating coastal tons. Preliminary estimates show that it may be possible to fi shing and on aquaculture. One of the major initiatives cultivate four thousand tons of Pacifi c mussels yearly. within the Committee of Fisheries is to develop a coastal Trepang has become the most prized product of Primor- fi sheries development plan. sky’s mariculture industry. High demand on foreign markets Harvest fi gures show that during the past fi fty years, the makes cultivation of this species potentially very lucrative. average annual catch in the Russian eez of the Sea of Japan Substances extracted from trepang are used to treat cardio- has been about 180,000 tons. The main varieties included vascular diseases and to slow the growth of some malignant fl ounder, herring, pollock, and sardines. Primorsky’s coastal tumors. The annual production of trepang could rise to waters are inhabited by nearly forty varieties of invertebrates between 300 and 500 tons per year and could reduce pressure that hold promise for future commercial harvest. Primorsky’s on stocks, which are being destroyed by poaching. Trepang coastline is nearly 1,200 km long. The coastal aquatic regions harvesting has been illegal since 1997 because of the alarming are divided into approximately 120 fi shing sites, which under decreases in the catch. The amount of illegal harvest is not current regulation are distributed among eighty companies well known; some put the fi gure as high as 400 tons annu- that are lessees. Lessees can, in addition, catch certain species ally. Also, the distribution of scientifi c quotas of trepang to at other companies’ sites. According to estimates made in the Pacifi c Institute of Fisheries and Oceanography (tinro) 1995 by the Pacifi c Institute of Geography, each kilometer of and other research institutes has fueled the harvesting of the Primorsky’s coastline yielded nearly u.s.$4,500 from mari- species, either by the institutes themselves or by the sale of culture activities and coastal fi shing; these estimates include these quotas to commercial fi rms. Most of the illegal harvest fi gures for illegal catches and smuggled sea foods. Never- is exported to China, where one kilogram of dried trepang theless the fi shery enterprises of Primorsky pay too little can command u.s.$60. attention to certain potential catch targets located in the There is also interest in establishing salmon hatcheries in coastal zone. As the 1995 data indicate, only 7 percent of the the krai. In 1994, the Federal Fisheries Committee, tinro, potential catch is actually caught. Fish harvests, as noted, and the Russian fi rm SS Lotiko developed and adopted a represent slightly more than one-third of the total available detailed program entitled “Primorsky’s Salmon,” which called catch. Flounder, pollock, and salmon found in Peter the for the construction of seven fi sh hatcheries and twelve fi sh Great Bay and near the northern coast of Primorsky account farms. There are two small-scale hatcheries in the Khasan for the increased number of fi sh caught. To increase harvest region (Ryazanovka and Barabashevka farms). If these two levels further, it will be necessary to revive the use of standing facilities prove successful, similar ones may be built along the seines, standing nets, and benthic traps in the littoral zone at Kievka, Narva, Margaritovka, Avvakumovka, Edinka, and depths of up to twenty meters. Pacifi c squid has the greatest Samarga Rivers and in the town of Ternei. There are also potential (300,000 tons) among the resources available. Real- hopes of harvesting two types of char, Dolly Varden (Salveli- izing this potential, however, will require a special resource nus malma) and kunja (Salvelinus kamchatica). Presently only development program. pink salmon, chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), and cherry Newell, J. 2004. The Russian Far East: A salmonReference (O. masu) areGuide harvested for on a Conservationcommercial scale. The and Aquaculture. Primorsky’s natural and climatic conditions are annual catch of pink salmon in the krai decreased from Development.well suited to the artifi McKinleyville, cial reproduction of different CA: forms Daniel 16&,000 Daniel. tons in the 466 early pages1940s to 9,000 tons in the 1950s and of mollusks, algae, and fi sh on an industrial scale. There are to 2,500 tons by the late 1980s. Primorsky is the main area for

134 Ⅲ THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Development. Newell, energy and transport costs, and export duties of duties export and costs, transport and energy equipment, outdated rising crisis, energy continued of the Yaroslavsky fl (zinc, silver, silver), gold, boron), Vostok copper, sulfur, (tungsten, (zinc, of Dalnegorsk cities the include centers Major mining and tungsten, 20 tungsten, and products, products, 100 produces Primorsky centuries. aprominent the role played in has sources re- fuel fossil and of mineral processing and extraction The Mining down. are Terneisky and Raions sky of Sovgavan- rivers of most the in populations salmon cherry Currently, despite aban, Koppi Rivers. and Botchi, Samarga, about 1 was Primorsky northern in catch World Before reproduction. annual salmon War the II, cherry J. CHINA 100 2004. KHASANSKAYA tons of cherry salmon were caught each year in the the in year each werecaught salmon of tons cherry 80 Au Razdolnoe percent of fl its percent JAO PAVLOVSKOE VLADIVOSTOK McKinleyville, percent of its tin, and 10 and of tin, its percent ! P The Voznesenskoe(Zn) ARTEMSKOE " uorspar), and Spassk (cement). Because Because (cement). Spassk and uorspar), Khanka Lake !. Artem Spassk-Dalny Au !. ! . Russian Nakhodka uorite, ! !. suideposits(Fe) Ussuri ! Partizansk ! ! ! ! S !. ! !

e Arsenev a PARTIZANSKY " GLUBOKAYA Khrustalnoe(Sn) !.

o Dalnerechensk BIKINSKOE

yNwl n hu/ Zhou and Newell By f , percent of Russia’s percent boric Gorny 200 40 Vysokogorsky(Sn)

iigdpst fPiosyKrai Primorsky of deposits Mining J

a " percent of its zinc, lead, lead, of zinc, its percent p Lermontovsky(W) Au Au a 1920 the In tons. n KHABAROVSK Far Dalnegorsk percent of its coal. of coal. its percent CA: krai " " Malinovskoe(Cu) Au,W,Sn " Sources: ’s economy for Vostok(W) " !. East: 6 " Dalnegorsk(B) SS(oepae) 98 G,20 ca) SI 2002. ESRI, (coal); 2000 AGI, 1998; (lode/placer), USGS Daniel . 5 uny Pristan Rudnaya percent percent " Au GLUBOKAYA Vostok(W) Au s, umtvkeA,Ag) Burmatovskoe(Au, A 01 & Reference ¯ Daniel. Pacifi to now exported is production of this Most year. previous the for production 2000 somewhat; profi illegal instances, many in and, quick togain tologging equipment turned have dated out- with faced enterprises mining nineties, the throughout though, Ironically prices. energy in and politics local intense the in toswings according awhole, varies as industry the todiffi addition in oftributor. coal, Production con- major the is supply, coal energy on astable of which economy, entire the relies argue, many and, industry lurgy the throughout struggled industry the products, mined on all soil fertility. decreases and lands degrades mining Open-pit landscape. the changes and reserves, groundwater decreases regime, hydrological the changes mining coal Underground waters. underground and surface pollutes polymetals and of tin ing Min- problems. environmental causes kind of any Mining " Placer Roads Coal ore Lode a 2.2 Map 1990 0 c Rim countries. c Rim 0 km s. Development of Primorsky’s mining and metal- and Developments. of mining Primorsky’s 466 Guide was terminated in in terminated was tons) (one million shaft Artemovskaya the at extraction and wereclosed, shafts) kaya Lipovets- and Predgorodnenskaya, kaya, Glubo- Khasanskaya, Dalnevostochnaya, Kapitalnaya, Primorskaya, (Ozernaya, tons over 600 of well capacity annual total 1997 1880 in debt. Those that do function are often often are dofunction that Those debt. in or heavily now bankrupt are enterprises of these but many supplies, coal erratic toavoid implemented,part, in was tion zao and Adams, Zenit, Diorit, Karbo, zao Sodruzhestvo, Ussurugol, Argillit, Razrezy, zao including coal, tomine now licenses have enterprises new several Energy), Fuel and Primorskugol (part of the of Ministry to addition In production. coal present represent much of Primorsky’s basins tovskoe, Partizansky, and Razdolnensky Pavlovskoe,Uglovsky, Shko- Bikinskoe, the in reserves coal brown The profi more favor of in curtailed been has mining coal Since began. Artem of town the site near coal brown of the 1931 In basins. coal Suifunsky Coal. pages 11 Primorsky Krai Ⅲ Krai Primorsky (closed joint-stock company) Malye Malye company) joint-stock (closed , eight underground coal mines with a with mines coal underground , eight s with mining of the Suchansky and and Suchansky of the mining s with Coal mining began at the end of the end of the atthe began mining Coal for Energia Vostoka, zao dv pikEnergia zao oao table techniques. From 1994 too ts. The industry is rebounding rebounding is industry The ts. (open joint-stock company) company) joint-stock (open was upby was Conservation (limited liability company) Lutek. This deregula- This Lutek. 1997 1994 . 18 , underground , underground percent from from percent culties facing , mining , mining

, and 000 to 135

PRIMORSKY operating at limited capacity and have no funds to implement 1999 the major tin-producing enterprises, oao Khrustalnen- environmental regulations. Environmental concerns related skaya Company (hok) and IC Vysokogorsky (Kavalerovsky to the coal industry include permanent land deformation over Raion), had ceased mining operations at most facilities. In mined areas, mine gas seepage, and inadequate slag and waste 1993, hok produced 24 percent of Russia’s tin concentrate, disposal. and because of its position as a strategic supplier, was to PRIMORSKY receive public fi nancing to construct the third phase of the Boron. AO (joint-stock company) Bor, Russia’s only producer Yubileiny mine and to explore and develop the Arsenievsky of boric acids and related compounds, operates near the city mine, but fi nancing never materialized. By early 1996, seven of Dalnerechensk. Most of the output, estimated at 80,000 of Khrustalnenskaya’s nine sites were unprofi table. Company tons yearly, is exported worldwide, especially to Japan (via executives started a new enterprise, zao grk Khrustalnaya, Marubeni Trading) and China. In 1998, the Moscow-based to continue production at the Iskra mine, with 51 percent of fi rm Energomashkorporatsia (ema) gained control over AO its capital belonging to hok. After termination of production, Bor.12 hok failed to protect the mine’s facilities. The site was looted, the ceilings of the shafts were destroyed at every mine, and Fluorite. Primorsky has reportedly the world’s largest deposits equipment was stolen. IC Vysokogorsky produced 346 tons of fl uorite, mainly at the Voznesenskoe and Pogranichnoe of tin in 1997 at the Vysokogorsky site, but production was reserves. Yaroslavsky Company is the main producer, and terminated in December of that year. The site has since been resources are estimated to last at least another fi fty years at fl ooded, and a number of the entrances and exits are in disre- present production rates. In the 1980s, production peaked pair and are inaccessible. Reportedly, existing commercially at 350,000 tons of fl uorite concentrate yearly and has since exploitable tin reserves are almost exhausted, and new mines declined, but is stabilizing. The company plans to produce will have to be developed if production is to reach previous fl uorite briquettes and export them internationally.13 levels.16

Tungsten. Primorsky traditionally produced a signifi cant Lead and zinc. Dalpolimetal, the oldest mining company percentage of Russia’s tungsten. Production peaked dur- in Primorsky, has fi ve mines and a factory and is the krai ’s ing the Cold War, when demand was high and the resource primary producer of lead and zinc. Most of the 60,000 to was harder to obtain. China, which produces 70 percent of 75,000 tons of zinc and lead concentrate produced annu- the world’s total, Kazakhstan, and Russia have fl ooded the ally is exported from the port of Rudnaya Pristan to Japan, market, and now the price of the mineral is ten times lower South Korea, and Thailand through Glencore International, than it was in the 1970s.14 Primorsky Company extracts which has a substantial stake in Dalpolimetal. Refi ned lead the ore and processes the concentrate mainly from a huge is also exported. The company also produces about 12 tons deposit near the village of Vostok, which was a restricted of silver annually. Dalpolimetal’s reported annual revenue in area until the late 1980s. The company ceased production 2000 was u.s.$14 million, but the actual fi gure is likely much between 1995 and 1998, but started up again and now exports higher. Yaroslavsky Company began to produce zinc concen- about 70 percent of its total output, primarily to Japan. A trate in 2000, and Primorsky Company produces and exports major importer is Marubeni Corporation, which then sells small quantities of lead concentrate to Japan. the product to Dowa Mining.15 The other major producer is Lermontovskaya Mining Company, which mines in northern Gold. Primorsky has never been a major producer of gold, Primorsky Krai at a deposit that reportedly has one of the its production ranging from 450 kg in 1993 to about 100 kg highest tungsten concentrations in the world. The company in 1999. Most gold is extracted from alluvial (placer) deposits, has an annual production capacity of 2,400 tons a year. The with the exception of small-scale extraction of ore deposits ores at these sites are complex and also contain copper, gold, by the fi rm Dalpolimetal. Part of this decline in production silver, sulfur, and bismuth. was caused by the closure of two of the region’s main enter- prises, AO Primorsky Priisk (now csc Imkar) and AO Russia Tin. In recent years tin extraction in the krai has accounted (now too Okean), and the closure of twenty smaller ones. for between 20 and 30 percent of Russia’s production (averag- Despite this modest production, the krai has some rich gold ing 27.6 percent in 1991–1996). Between 1946 and 1997, over deposits, particularly in the Svetlaya, Samarga, and Bikin 246,000 tons were extracted. Until 1993, tin was produced River watersheds and those of other northern rivers. In 1999, at the Khrustalnensky mining and processing plant, but Aldanzoloto, a huge gold-mining company from the Repub- between 1993 and 1996, four tin companies received licenses lic of Sakha, began mining a deposit (with gold density of Newell,to develop J. eleven 2004. bedrock The and Russianone alluvial tin Farsites. InEast: the A 24Reference grams per ton) onGuide Burmatov for Creek Conservation in northern Terneisky and 1990s, tin production plummeted. In 1997, for example, Raion. According to local environmentalists, the work began Development.production levels were McKinleyville, about 62.5 percent of 1989 CA: levels. Daniel By without& Daniel. any assessment 466 ofpages the impact of the operations on

136 Ⅲ THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Development. Newell, reserves, and the Malinovskoe deposit, with at least atleast with deposit, Malinovskoe the and reserves, that productionthat be 1 between will predict analysts begins, deposits of these mining full-scale If stock company) Diada ( Diada company) stock for 1999 producers main on on for hunting licenses issued Raions) Terneisky Pozharsky and krai the thoughout units hunting six to amounted area land hunting about with Glukhoe, are gold ore deposits biggest The Raion). (Pozharsky River Svetlovodnaya the in deposits placer include tenders Planned Raion. Krasnoarmeisky as Primorsky ( Primorsky volved in the industry in some form. In 1998 in- are areas hunting in region’s people living most as forests, on the effect adisproportionate has hunting product, regional krai of the portion asmall only Despite comprising Hunting tofi weretied of which both breeding), mink (mainly farming fur and husbandry animal large-scale including disappeared, virtually have industries other Many themselves. torestore swamps and lakes, wetlands, of the parts allowing farms, state producing rice- huge of the demise the expedited has markets, domestic fl price with coupled crisis, economic Russian The region. the in plants and of animals variety and number the reduced have that practices areas, wetland on vast pesticides and herbicides, of fertilizers, use ineffi extremely the from gravely destructive cientsuffered and have lowlands These forestlands. and meadows, wetlands, including landscapes, natural transformed has valley River Ussuri and lowlands Lake Khanka the in farming intensive “Ecology,” section the the toin alluded As patterns. land-use region’s on the and amajoreffect biodiversity has Agriculture Agriculture other upfor in exploitation offered being are deposits Similar grounds. salmon-spawning seasonal source of devastating fi of devastating source seasonal aconstant are and remain meadows unmown but the ceased, largely has and no economic longer is This regions. northern other and Chukotka, Magadan, in farms beef and dairy sent to was Primorsky of southwestern meadows the from rfe the in agriculture in cooperation of interregional loss the been has decline and restructuring of economic consequence unfortunate Another farming. poultry and husbandry, beef and dairy needs, local krai of the parts fodder. other In acheap as used been previously 74 , agriculture consists primarily of growing vegetables for vegetables of growing primarily consists , agriculture J. percent ( percent 2004. 20 kg) and ooo and kg) 11 McKinleyville, , 136 The , 800 . During Soviet times, hay harvested harvested hay times, Soviet . During shery enterprises, as fi as enterprises, shery 50 wereooo ha) of these lands. Economic crisis, crisis, Economic lands. of these ha) Russian uctuations on international and and on international uctuations kg), zao as Dalnevostochnaya Dalnevostochnaya res in the region. region. the in res 14 and 1 and , (limited liability joint- 984 raion (all regions except for except regions (all Pioneer ( , 140 . 5 s of the krai s of the tons per year. The The year. per tons Far CA: ha. In that year, year, that In ha. sh had waste , the krai , the zdk East: 20 Daniel 27 kg), zao ’s gross ( 26 . , such , such 5 5 tons of tons ’s total kg). tons. tons. A 17

& Reference Daniel. zakaznik more Finally, hunting. tohelp regulate forests the within settlements in organizations hunting public toestablish needs also industry The hunters. of local rights of the awareness agreater include needs Other lands. of hunting productivity 1988 in enacted pine, Korean of logging industrial on the ban The species. game other more for provides fodder snow and deer turn, in cover. This, vegetative the increases some forests in logging Restricting species. of game levels sustainable toensure curtailed to be needs lands on hunting Logging poachers. main the are they as line, poverty the below living for found those tobe need solutions economic To tigers. poaching, control of Siberian numbers optimum tomaintain particular, in bio- and, toconserve diversity primarily managed tobe needs Hunting control of hunters. effective and animals game oroutside scientifi fi a presents licenses to purchase necessity the that whocomplain hunters, local on unlicensed imposed are penalties and by licensing, regulated is hunting Amateur farms. hunting by supporting industry hunting of the structure management the preserving on focus and lands hunting leasing from towithdraw tion defi budget krai and federal between of powers division unclear of an because primarily process established in the mid- the in established process a sites, hunting for leasing procedures Additionally, Taiga for decades. Ussuri the from products with country entire the and population local the supplying been had that fi to aprivate 1996 In weresold atauction. others some went bankrupt, nerships: transformed into companies with limited liability and part- the of Primorokhota, establishment the krai the no guaranteed, longer products service and of hunting ing purchas- state traditional and support of state removal With Primorokhota. within into independent units transformed gospromhoz Primorsky’s protection. and use animal of game functions the of combining practice previous the ended enterprises, of hunting association industrial the hota, The animals. game of use the and resources hunting manage soundly and protect to body authorized for aspecially aneed been has there of Agriculture, Ministry of the formerly adivision Industry, Offi Chief of the dismantling the Since broken down. has production of forest nontimber system properly, the tofunction and resources the lack agencies tive administra- closed, have facilities Hunting sector. hunting the destroyed virtually have industry of the structure tive administra- the in changes and support, of government loss ’s ’s , the state enterprise, Primorokhota, was itself auctioned auctioned itself was Primorokhota, enterprise, state , the gospromhoz s need to be established to protect key hunting areas. hunting key toprotect established tobe s need cits in the late late the in cits nancial hardship. Most problematic is the lack of lack the is problematic Most hardship. nancial 466 rm. As a result the aresult As rm. Guide authorities for wildlife management. Severe Severe management. for wildlife authorities es began to dissolve. Several months after after months Several todissolve. began es c oversight to provide an accurate census of census accurate toprovide an c oversight pages 1994 Primorsky Krai Ⅲ transformation of Primorpromok- of transformation 1990 for , will, it is hoped, increase the the increase it hoped, is , will, s have led the the led s have 1990 krai Conservation s, remain unresolved, unresolved, remain s, lost hunting enterprises enterprises hunting lost gospromhoz ce of the Hunting Hunting of the ce krai administra- es were es were

and 137

PRIMORSKY PRIMORSKY

Newell, J. 2004. The Russian Far East: A Reference Guide for Conservation andYuri Shibnev Development.The Far Eastern leopard McKinleyville, (Panthera pardus orientalis) CA: lives Danielin southern Primorsky.& Daniel. 466 pages

138 Ⅲ THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Development. Newell, and nature use. The main focus of this program was, how- was, program of this focus main The use. nature and environment the toward wereoriented that institutions tal nongovernmen- and togovernmental provided was assistance fi and wereintroduced, regions model in of planning Some elements Krai. of Khabarovsk half southern the and of Primorsky all covered project The Independent States. Newly and Federation Russian the in Development projects for International projectfor U.S.Agency umbrella an Project, Technology and Policy Environmental of the auspices the ( program Conservation versity Biodi- the Sikhote-Alin was plan sustainable-development aregional toestablish attempt next The project. of this results the use of actually people ahandful only today And action. in than rather recommendations, in only project resulted the krai the Like diversity. of biological conservation on the conditional of all development, models possible several with people local the toprovide Basin, River Bikin of the Development Sustainable and Conservation Biodiversity In region. Sikhote-Alin the within system area protected existing the expanding of limited funds, the program focused to a large extent on of economy. Primorsky’s Because performance long-term the of development and types best the todetermine necessary projections of economic however, lack the was, program of the drawbacks One of the wererecommended. damage tolimit measures and considered, werethoroughly threats environmental future and Existing use. nature in priorities environmental and problems, environmental and sanitary fi littoral (including fi industry, hunting forestry, resources, water areas, protected tencomponents: had program The program. cal ecologi- long-term this tocreate together worked of Sciences Academy Russian of the Branch Eastern Far the and tection, (established in 1991 fi Primorsky’s governments. regional and federal by the recognized legally be would that use resource natural sustainable and tection pro- for nature program regional acomprehensive to create 1990 of the beginning the In conditions. natural and species research and information tocollect began of scientifi dozens as region, the in destruction environmental tohalt totry together working began lectuals intel- and scientists period, Soviet the During Program”). cal 1991 in Krai Primorsky Use in Nature Sustainable and Protection Environmental development for Long-Term of the was Program general in the and particular in event for Primorsky A remarkable Vladimir Aramilev development Toward sustainable J. 1993 2004. and 1994 and rst democratic legislative organ, the Krai Duma Duma Krai the organ, legislative democratic rst McKinleyville, The shing), agriculture, mining, recreation, recreation, mining, agriculture, shing), ), the Committee on Environmental Pro- on Environmental Committee the ), , the U.S. Forest Service funded a project, aproject, funded Service Forest U.S. , the (also called “The Primorsky Ecologi- Primorsky “The called (also

Russian 1996 – 1997 s, specialists decided decided specialists s, Far CA: ), drawn up under upunder drawn ), c institutes c institutes East: program, program, Daniel shing shing nancial nancial rfe A

& Reference Daniel. throughout Primorsky. Primorsky. throughout implemented tobe need practices management forest New Timber fi end of the the considered be can Panichev by Alexander Future the and book The peoples. indigenous of home toapopulation basin, River Samarga ment the in develop- sustainable on introducing working been has Japan Since opment of the nontimber forest product industry. devel- for the support and general, in diversity biological and species of rare conservation the education, environmental and ( ever, areas for protected support examples of such cooperation exist. cooperation of such examples some positive Already companies. and organizations foreign by joint participation and investment help of foreign the with realized be can projects Such economies. Russian and profi maximum and use, resource local for the ts sustainable benefi economic of long-term by considerations but rather authorities from toorders according not shaped be should projects Such resources. recreational including resources, of natural types development for of the different prospects should be identifi respectively, export, and processing, consumption, domestic for available resources of natural portion The plan. overall the with line in be should infrastructures their and agriculture, ing specifi development krai plan for the sustainable overall an needs Primorsky organizations. environmental international and state Russian the by both able development supported sustain- promoting weremore projects concrete there if useful It be would stopped. being are activities such that evidence also is but there use sphere of the nature in infringement law about of plenty information is There Krai. Primorsky in use development of and nature existence for the allow process of the regulation timely and base legislative the that forget one not should governments, Primorsky and Russian the toward directed is of criticism deal agreat Even though rfe nottothe suited were often and countries other in activities toduplicate simply tried not wereeither completelyfi but they some degree to territory Sikhote-Alin sustainable interregional development the of the encouraged also have activities Other activities. support of nature-use sustainable the development and on real focused been but has references analytical and of plans acompilation not been it has ning From begin- the over predecessors: its advantage important the federal government. At present, leskhoz present, At government. federal the pendence, inde- their tokeep as Ideally, so doreforestation. and tions opera- but simplymonitor should logging ofform logging, 1996 c industries. Potential development of industry, development Potential of industry, c industries. leskhoz as well as sustainable development projects target- development projects sustainable as well as 466 , the environmental ngo environmental , the Guide rst phase of this work. of this phase rst ed precisely. One also needs to evaluate toevaluate needs precisely.ed One also es should receive their funding only from from only funding their receive should es pages Primorsky Krai Ⅲ Leskhoz for Samarga: The Past, the Present, Present, the Past, The Samarga: es should not engage in any any in not should engage es . Conservation zapovednik 18 Friends of the Earth– of Friends the The project has one has project The es also receive receive also es s and zakazniks and nished or

and t, 139 s)

PRIMORSKY funds from logging leases sold to logging companies who bid it is profi table to cultivate rice and buckwheat, because these for rights to log a particular territory. crops cannot be grown in most other parts of Russia. Locally produced foods should take priority over imported foods. Small-scale farms need to be supported, particularly in the Hunting rich soils of the Lake Khanka lowlands and along the valleys PRIMORSKY Government regulation of other industries, such as forestry, of the Ilistaya, Arsenevka, and Partizanskaya Rivers. mining, and fi shing, was more successful in Soviet times as well. New progressive federal and regional laws that regulate relations among different types of land users need Recreation to be passed. Hunting organizations need to be fi nancially Primorsky’s tourism industry is developing slowly. But self-suffi cient and branch out into tourism to diversify their environmental, hunting, and fi shing tourism are hardly being fi nancial resources and to limit excessive hunting. Likewise, developed at all. Projects aimed at establishing the required the practice of logging to fi nance the hunting industry should tourism infrastructure could catalyze development of a sus- be banned. tainable tourism industry.

Fishing Other industries The control of amateur fi shing and strict limits on quotas Given Primorsky’s rich water resources, mink and otter for commercial fi shing can help preserve fi sheries resources breeding could become a signifi cant industry. Beekeeping in rivers and lakes, particularly on Lake Khanka and Razdol- was once a large industry and is now being undertaken naya River. Poaching, by nets, electric fi shing rods, explosive on a much smaller scale. Ginseng cultivation has almost substances, or any other method, needs to be eliminated. collapsed but holds great potential for both the domestic Sport fi shing should be limited in Primorsky’s northern and international market. Cattle, sheep, and goat herding rivers, including the Bikin, Iman, Kema, and Maximovka. are not promising; they can be viable only if located in the Sustainable use of fi sheries resources in the Sea of Japan re- suburbs of large cities, where their products can be consumed quires coordination by all neighboring countries and should quickly. include joint calculation of quotas, monitoring and control, and scientifi c research. To rejuvenate shellfi sh stocks, aqua- culture is necessary.

Mining Indigenous peoples Potential development of mineral resources undergoes an en- Anatoly Lebedev vironmental impact assessment under the supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Committee on Geology. Most of the indigenous people, the Udege, Nanai, and A usage plan is then established to assess potential damage Orochi, living in Primorsky belong to the Tungus- and compensation. But Primorsky lacks well-developed Manchurian group. Another small group, the Taz, represent principles and practices for land recultivation after mining. the intermarriage in the middle of the nineteenth century of However, in Primorsky, natural regeneration occurs relatively native women and Chinese men. The Taz live in southeastern quickly so it does not always make fi nancial sense to spend Primorsky, in the village of Mikhailovka in Olginsky Raion. funds on, for example, backfi lling sandpits. The money could Indigenous peoples in Primorsky number around two be better spent on improving the welfare of Primorsky’s thousand. In Pozharsky Raion in the north of the krai, people or on other environmental projects. about eight hundred indigenous people (Udege, Nanai, and Orochi) live in the Bikin watershed in the villages of Krasny Yar and Verkhne Pereval. To the south of the Bikin water- Water shed, in Krasnoarmeisky Raion, 129 indigenous people live A comprehensive project to supply all households and in Dalny Kut, Roshchino, Novopokrovka, and Ostrovnoe. industries with fresh water is necessary. This project is fi rst About 250 people live in Terneisky Raion, which stretches required for southern and southwestern Primorsky. along the northeastern coast of the krai; the largest concen- tration is in the town of Agzu in the Samarga River water- Newell, J. 2004. The Russian Far East: A shedReference (see map 2.3) . Guide for Conservation and Agriculture Traditional indigenous economic activities include hunt- Development.Primorsky needs agricultural McKinleyville, development consistent CA: withDaniel the ing,& Daniel.fi shing, and gather466 ingpages nontimber forest products. Most region’s climate and geography. For example, in Primorsky, of the Iman Udege group (Krasnoarmeisky Raion) are either

140 Ⅲ THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Development. Newell, cultural, and economic activities of the of the activities economic and cultural, for traditional, centers are communities these because and there living peoples of indigenous percentage high of the because Villages of National title the carry Agzu and (Terneisky Raion) Raion) Olon Yar (Pozharsky and Krasny service. domestic and employed agriculture in are Raion Olginsky in Nanai and Taz The enterprises. atforest unemployed or work part-time undermined. undermined. severely be will areas Samarga and Bikin the in activities economic indigenous future, intothe continue tendencies such If exported. and logged being are species tree individual as ecosystems forest productive toless leading is and patterns wildlife changing is watersheds River Samarga and Bikin the in industry timber by the Encroachment disappeared. dependent was group this upon which resources land-based the as group Udege Iman of the dispersal the forced (Krasnoarmeisky Raion) watershed Iman the in activities Logging peoples. J. CHINA 2004. JAO VLADIVOSTOK McKinleyville, ! P The Khanka Lake

Russian

Uss u . R ri nieoslnso rmrk Krai Primorsky of lands Indigenous ekn Pereval Verkhne Mikhailovka Taz krai’ ! Far

CA:

. R Iman ! s indigenous s indigenous Udege ! yNwl n hu/ Zhou and Newell By KHABAROVSK rsyYar Krasny ! East: an Kut Dalny

Daniel n S Biki e

a R. o n Nanai and Udege

aai,20;ER,2002. ESRI, 2001; Karakin, Sources: f

A J

a 0 p & Reference a n ¯ Daniel.

Udege Nature Use ( Nature or Territories of Traditional areas, protected Special ( Gospromkhoz Pozharsky designated Council Krai the as early dependent.As are they upon which lands the of resources the managing in voice adirect with peoples provide indigenous would ostensibly asystem Such lands. ties of indigenous peoples. In In peoples. of indigenous ties a 1 establish —to Fund) Forest (Federal Goslesfund the Using for Methods and Regime Special on the Regulations Basic Use Territories ( Nature on Traditional Regulation Provisional —the decisions two adopted Council Lower the year next The size. previous toits territory’s borders of the restoration the tojustify study a produced and Council Krai tothe appealed Primorsky of Populations Indigenous of Small Association The ha. to407 reduced was use nature for traditional designated 165 a 2.3 Map Samar 1 ,

384 , aR. ga basin River Bikin upper and central of the area the ), 250 Agzu 100 , ! km 000 -ha ha) as a territory designed for economic activi- for economic designed aterritory as ha) tnut 466 ttp Guide tnut in the upper and central Bikin River basin. basin. River Bikin central and upper the in s), are necessary to protect these traditional traditional these toprotect necessary are s), economic sectors of the of the sectors economic and regions other the and Primorsky tween be- coordination technical and industrial of integration end tothe an marked also came to an end in end in toan came Krai toPrimorsky government central the from subsidies of massive period The Jeremy Tasch issues Legal adopted a decision (No. (No. adecision adopted (of People’s Council also Deputies) Krai The area. of aprotected status the lacks still territory the Nevertheless, basin. River 1993 in regulation Provisional the in envisaged territory for this rights the all population azakazniknity, was commu- international the from pressure 1998 implemented. in been Only never has bodies legislative of the decision However, the permitted. been has lecting nut only col- and zone, this in banned 1970 the Since cluded the following: On Krai and Oblast Oblast and OnKrai following: the cluded more in- power.were given laws Notable legislation, of new awave through Russia, the regions ( regions the ethnic territories. 17, 1992 pages ) by Small Indigenous Populations and and Populations Indigenous ) by Small Primorsky Krai Ⅲ established in the upper part of Bikin of Bikin part upper the in established for ) to protect the Samarga and Bikin Bikin and Samarga the ) toprotect 1992 krai Conservation s industrial logging has been been has logging s industrial by krai by s, republics, oblast republics, s, 1990 giving the indigenous indigenous the giving —a date that regulation (No. (No. regulation rfe 120 . , November 19 In addition, addition, In , under , under s) of 1976

, and 800 141

PRIMORSKY to make decisions on issues of local relevance, but their ability to write and pass statutes was severely curtailed.22 Between 1995 and 1996, the PRIMORSKY krai Duma passed a number of laws regulating and defi ning relations between the krai and its municipalities, with particu- lar emphasis on the capital city of Vladivostok. The most sig- nifi cant of these laws included On Local Referendums in Primorsky, On Procedures for Registration of Statutes of Municipalities in Primorsky, and On Elections of the Major Municipalities (October 1995). On Local Self-Governance Within the Krai followed in

Alexander Panichev Alexander December 1995, On Citizenry Assembly in Primorsky in An Udege man returns home after an afternoon along the Bikin River in Primorsky. May 1996, and On the Status of Deputies of Representative Organs of Local Self-Gover- Soviet of People’s Deputies, and Krai and Oblast Administra- nance and of Elected Offi cials of Local Self-Government in tions (1992), and On Local Self-Governance (1995). In the Primorsky Krai in October 1996. Through these acts, the environmental sphere several federal laws were passed to shift krai administration effectively defi ned local self-governance: environmental management and protection from a tradition Local authorities could independently resolve only those of administrative command toward economic regulation.20 questions specifi cally within their jurisdiction, providing they Both these changes, one promoting economic regulation had the resources for their resolution. According to Article 33 of the environment and the other promoting decentral- of the krai law On Local Self-Governance, municipal powers ized regional administration, were incomplete and rife with included: the local budget, off-budget resources, munici- legislative contradiction. Much legislation designed to give pal property, municipal lands and their associated natural more power to the regions lacked clear demarcation between resources, businesses and organizations, residential and non- executive powers and, in Primorsky, between the krai and the residential properties, educational institutions, public health, municipalities, leading to jurisdictional confusion between cultural, and sport services. Vladivostok’s mayor and the krai ’s governor. Vladivostok’s Most municipal properties do not generate income, but city council and other municipal councils in the krai were left rather require spending. Municipalities were given jurisdic- to sort out gaps in the legislation, largely without success. In tion over institutions that required economic support, but 1993, the krai administration, through the draft law On the few municipal institutions can generate enough tax revenue Status of Primorsky Krai, sought to gain control over much to function independently. Regional laws perpetuate an of the krai’s important economic assets, particularly the ports excessively centralized krai budgetary system and an unfair and railroads, the military, the use and allocation of natural distribution of state treasury allocations.23 As cities of special resources, the issuing of export licenses, and the registering of importance to the krai, Vladivostok and Nakhodka were joint ventures.21 These efforts supported the early separatist singled out by the krai to receive 6 and 12.1 percent, respec- and demagogist tendencies of the powerful former governor, tively, of tax revenues collected on profi ts. Those two cities, Evgeny Nazdratenko. however, contribute a larger percentage of tax to the regional Enhancing the krai’s power was passage of the law budget than they receive in return. This underscores the On General Principles of the Organization of Local Self- more general problem common to practically all krai munici- Newell,Governance J. in2004. the Russian The Federation Russian (1995), Farby the East:federal A palities.Reference With conditions Guide of economic for Conservation crisis and instability, and Duma, which gave regional organs the power to write growing unemployment, a falling tax base, and production Development.normative acts and to McKinleyville, allocate funds to local, particularly CA: Daniel declines,& Daniel. almost all466 the municipalitiespages in the krai have been municipal, entities. These municipal entities were allowed operating with budget defi cits and are thus, largely dependent

142 Ⅲ THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST Development. Newell, clared invalid by the krai by the invalid clared de- was election Each Council. City aVladivostok to create failed former governor’s elections the sixteen tenure, During local. and central both authorities, competitive potentially Yeltsin’s from during away power tomaneuver term, second especially sought, Nazdratenko federation, the throughout 2001 in by President Putin aged 1993 appointment by former President his from Yeltsin ning in begin- former governor by Evgeny the Nazdratenko tested were Federation Russian the within as well as Primorsky The limits of gubernatorial and personal power within krai of the orwelfare for the sector of energy Primorsky’s sustainability long-term for the either regard little with power consolidate to institutions quasigovernmental and of governmental the within jurisdiction and resources 1990 The ernment. of gov- levels federal and regional between and government, regional the and councils municipal Primorsky, between within gridlock economic and political been has result The the upon the of interests best the toprotect necessary was this that tained but he norms, main- legal beyond extended have may actions allies.” business Russian their and shareholders foreign “greedy against Primorsky toprotect determination his about outspoken been had Nazdratenko tenure his During appointee. Since krai J. and continuing with his resignation strongly encour- strongly resignation his with continuing and 1997 . In one bankruptcy case Nazdratenko called police police called Nazdratenko case one. In bankruptcy 2004. krai Vladivostok’s mayor has been a gubernatorial agubernatorial been mayor has Vladivostok’s ’s citizens. and its executive offi executive its and McKinleyville, The s were marked by extended struggle over struggle by extended s weremarked -appointed elections commission. elections -appointed Russian . Like other elected governors governors elected other . Like ce, regardless of legislation. regardless ce, krai Far , and by attempts by attempts , and CA: East: Daniel 25 His His A 24

& Reference Daniel. than the current practice of popular election. of popular practice current the than rather governors appointment of regional executive direct the sanctioning powers, on law executive current the amended it passed, had have, would resignation Nazdratenko’s as month same the during introduced appointments presidential quence, promoting political and economic recentralization. recentralization. economic and political promoting quence, of Yeltsin’s conse- in half perhaps, is latter and the presidency toappropriate during of how managed muchgovernors power aware is Kremlin the that toappoint shows governors, efforts infl fl vertical the for strengthening Putin’s plans represents strategic wereheld in which elections,” early the in torun decided he have should Nazdratenko to oppose not suffi have did just Center, “Kremlin the Carnegie Moscow the with analyst Ryabov,Andrei apolitical lacked suffi center the that speculation been has there unclear, ment are appoint- Nazdratenko’s behind reasons the Although governors. appoint regional directly president again once the that proposing abill introduced Kremlin the and Committee, Fisheries State federal-level the of head the as appointed Nazdratenko had Putin February, Byend of President the a telephone Putin. with conversation after crises) energy worst and winters severe most Primorsky’s 2001 February in abruptly governor resigned but Primorsky’s Nazdratenko, tounseat Yeltsin failed “for the price of a second-hand foreign-made car.” foreign-made of asecond-hand price the “for of afi sale toprevent the court to amunicipal ow of power from the center to the regions. President Putin’s regions. tothe center ow the of from power uence over Nazdratenko’s resignation, combined with the the with combined resignation, overuence Nazdratenko’s cient power to oust him completely. According to completely. him cient According tooust power 466 Guide pages Primorsky Krai Ⅲ for Conservation 2001 cient resources cient resources . (during one of (during shing enterprise shing 28 27 The bill bill The The bill on bill The 26

and 143

PRIMORSKY