Russian Zapovedniki in 1998: Recent Progress and New Challenges for Russia’s Strict Nature Preserves David Ostergren Evgeny Shvarts Abstract—Zapovedniki are pristine ecosystems that restrict all Threats to Zapovedniki ___________ economic utilization and are designed to act as areas for ecological research and “natural controls” for comparison to other land uses Throughout the decades, zapovedniki have survived a such as agriculture or resource extraction. The most recent threats variety of threats to their operation and existence. The to zapovedniki originate from the dissolution of the Soviet system threats have included: and resultant economic instability. Since 1991, zapovedniki have • Challenges to the original policies and intent (Shtil’mark maintained their role in Russian society by increasing contact with 1995; Weiner 1988). international nongovernment organizations, using legislation to • Reductions and reorganizations by political leaders increase their ability to enforce the law, expanding environmental (Boreiko 1993; Boreiko 1994; Pryde 1972). education, and diversifying funding strategies. Despite their ef- • Alternative use and designation (Pryde 1991). forts, the reduction in federal support overrides most efforts to fulfill the mandate of biodiversity conservation, ecological monitoring, Nonetheless, zapovedniki persevered within the commu- and environmental education. nist, centrally planned economy through 8 decades of shift- ing prosperity and turmoil. The most recent threats to zapovedniki originate from a more profound source—the complete dissolution of a political system and the associated Zapovedniki are a unique contribution to the global wil- conditions of economic downturn and social instability derness community. They are specially protected natural (Ostergren 1997; Ostergren and Shvarts 1998; Stepanitski areas that restrict economic utilization or human activity 1997). Until 1991 the zapovedniki were a line item budget such as logging, mining, farming, hunting, fishing, firewood for the federal government. Each preserve was allotted gathering, or recreation. In theory, zapovedniki are pristine money for (1) government inspectors to protect the preserve, ecosystems designed to act as areas for ecological research (2) scientists to conduct research, (3) support staff, and (4) and “natural controls” for comparison to other land uses materials and maintenance. The fall of the Soviet Union such as agriculture or resource extraction (Kozhevnikov changed the way zapovedniki are managed in that directors 1908; Shtil’mark 1995; Shtil’mark 1996). The first preserve, now spend a significant amount of their time raising funds, Barguzin Zapovednik, was established in 1916 by a regional nurturing political support, and devising new strategies to government to protect a sable population (Martes zibellina) do more with less funding. near Lake Baikal. Although several more zapovedniki were From 1991 to 1995, the zapovednik system struggled to established by local and provincial authorities, it was not survive under difficult circumstances. Directors at the pre- until 1919 that the first federal zapovednik (Il’menskii serves found themselves with entirely different responsibili- Zapovednik) was established (Weiner 1988). This was the ties. Because the management lacked sufficient federal first area in the world to be protected primarily for scientific funding, government inspectors were paid infrequently or reasons. Since that time, federal, regional, and local govern- not at all, trespassers poached wildlife for the newly acces- ment bodies, the Federal Forest Service, or the Russian sible foreign animal parts market, research scientists moved Academy of Science were authorized to designate ecologi- to other jobs to support their families, and essential equip- cally, geologically, or biologically unique or sensitive areas ment deteriorated. As one example of a change in support as zapovedniki (Pryde 1991). By the late 1950’s, zapovedniki and management techniques, during the Soviet era, helicop- were established in many ecosystems throughout the Soviet ter support from the national air service (Aeroflot) was Union. common on established preserves. The Sayano-Shushenskovo Zapovednik was allotted 150 flights to haul supplies to field stations, conduct patrols, and support ground-based inspec- In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000. tors. Of those 150 flights, the scientific staff was allocated 40 Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- helicopter flights a year at the scientific director’s discretion. ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. In 1995, they received five (5) helicopter flights to manage a Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 390,000 hectare preserve with virtually no road access. David Ostergren is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, These circumstances demand boat transport to the Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Box 5694, Northern Ari- zona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]. zapovednik and then travel by horse or foot through the Evgeny Shvarts is Professor, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of preserve. Science. He is past Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Center and now with the World Wide Fund for Nature in Moscow, Russia, e-mail: In Central Siberia, zapovedniki with a long tradition of [email protected] research have cut back on projects and have little or no USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 209 helicopter support for research or border patrols. New that has been fundamental to progress in advancing pro- zapovedniki established after 1991 have never had helicop- tected area status is the Biodiversity Conservation Center ter support (Ostergren 1998). As the funding levels dropped, (BCC) of the Socio-Ecological Union. The BCC became an directors began to turn to alternative techniques for manag- advocate for protected areas serving as a consultation, ing preserves. Each director sought outside funding with information, and fund-raising center for biodiversity conser- varying degrees of success from local, regional, and interna- vation. An excellent source of information on the BCC and tional funding sources. This presentation will provide an related efforts is their web page, http://www.igc.apc.org/bcc- update on the challenges, status, and management condi- west/, or for a more in-depth look at conservation efforts in tions for zapovedniki in 1998. In particular, we focus on the 1990’s, the authors suggest referring to the English zapovedniki located within Russia. In 1997, despite the language publication “Russian Conservation News” (RCN). challenges in management and a chronic lack of funding, 22 A subscription for RCN is available through the Pocono preserves have been added since 1991 for a total of 99 Environmental Education Center PEEC/RCN R.R. 2, Box preserves set aside from economic exploitation, protecting 1010, Dingmans Ferry, PA 18328. In Russian, an excellent over 31,000,000 hectares of diverse ecosystems across Rus- source for current information is “Informatsionii Bulletyen” sia. Figure 1 shows the distribution of Russian zapovedniki from the “Tsentr Okhrana Dikoi Priroda.” Both literature in 1998. sources address issues for zapovedniki, as well as national parks and wildlife refuges. Recent Progress for Zapovedniki ____________________ Legislation Directors and supportive NGOs requested federal leg- Shortly after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, nongovern- islation to provide a mandate and legal standing—an “or- ment organizations (NGOs) emerged into the political and ganic act”—for their activities and enforcement (Ostergren civil vacuum left by disappearing state committees. In the 1997; Shtil’mark 1995). In 1995, “The Law on Specially field of biodiversity conservation and environmental protec- Protected Natural Areas” was passed by the Duma and tion, zapovednik directors, natural resource scientists, and signed by President Yeltsin. This landmark legislation out- environmental activists needed a forum and central source lined the legal standing and goals for zapovedniki, includ- of information to coordinate their efforts. One organization ing six primary responsibilities: (1) the conservation of Figure 1—Distribution of Russian Protected Areas. 210 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 biodiversity, (2) the preservation of unique or typical natu- future transition to active management much easier; (3) the ral areas for scientific research, (3) long—term ecological Russian government has repeatedly stated its intention to monitoring, (4) providing conservation training for profes- have 5 percent of Russia protected by 2005—again a rela- sionals, (5) initiating environmental education programs tively cheap method for realizing this goal; and, (4) preserves (which may include limited tourism), and (6) providing are political recognition for scientists and the environmen- expertise in the environmental impact of regional develop- tal community, which may demonstrate that the Russian ment projects. For the first time in history, Russian legisla- government is still concerned about the environment. In a tion specifically described the rights and responsibilities of process similar to the Soviet era, the 22 new preserves have zapovednik employees. The legislation