Converging Protected Area Policy: A Case Study of the Russian Zapovednik (Strict Nature Preserve) and American Wilderness Systems David Ostergren Steve Hollenhorst Abstract—Historically, while the United States and Russia have Policy Convergence _____________ some policy similarities, each country has placed a unique cultural and political stamp on the role of their protected areas. Russian Convergence theory in transnational comparative politi- zapovedniki have existed since 1916 and are areas emphasizing cal science is regarded as the tendency of societies over time preservation of typical or unique ecosystems primarily for ecological to solve similar problems with similar solutions, despite research (Weiner 1988). In contrast, American Wilderness Areas different political processes. In general, the literature fo- were set aside primarily for people to access and enjoy. This analysis cuses on democracies in Europe, Canada, and the United compares Russian and American protected areas policies and con- States (Bennett 1991). This comparison of Russia and the cludes that the policies are converging. United States allows for an interesting opportunity to inves- tigate convergence in two dissimilar nations. Policy convergence occurs when two countries become similar in terms of policy goals, content, outcomes, or style Russian zapovedniki have existed since 1916 as areas that (Bennett 1991). For the purpose of this discussion, analysis protect typical or unique ecosystems primarily for ecological is focused primarily on converging goals and content, or the research (Weiner 1988). In contrast, American wilderness coming together of intent to deal with common problems areas are set aside primarily for people to access and enjoy. (such as protecting natural areas). Policy content includes Although the two systems are founded on much different the statutes, administrative rules, and relevant regulations societal values, they are comparable because they both affecting the policy area. Seelinger (1996) suggests that represent relatively large, nonmilitary areas with the high- efforts to analyze convergence focus on a specific content est level of protection from development and economic use in area at two distinct periods of time. This article demon- their respective countries. This analysis compares converg- strates that Russian and American policies had distinct ing Federal management policies for protected areas in goals and content around 1930. Since the mid-1970’s, the Russia and in the United States. policies have converged, culminating in more similar policy Three sources of empirical data were employed to conduct goals and content by 1998. this analysis: (1) official document sources such as laws, agency policy statements, and legislative and professional society debates; (2) archival and dependable secondary Wilderness Policy in the United sources; and (3) formal and informal interviews with policy leaders. Formal, open-ended interviews with zapovednik States _________________________ directors and officials provided data on the current status of United States wilderness philosophy and legislation is Russian policy. This analysis also used informal interviews well documented (Allin 1982; Nash 1982). The early preser- with officials, nongovernment organizations, scientists, and vationist movement in America is characterized by the late historians. Commonalities between the Russian and Ameri- 19th century transcendentalists. They embraced the roman- can conservation systems have received only brief mention tic notion of the sublime; that is, the aesthetic, intrinsic in previous work (Pryde 1972, 1991; Weiner 1988), and a beauty of wild areas. Wilderness was viewed as a source of comparison of preservation policies is largely unexplored. inspiration. The motivation for the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture’s Forest Service to protect wilderness found voice with men like Aldo Leopold. Leopold reasoned that wilderness “serves as the highest recreational use,” and may serve the need for civilized people to experience out- In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- door, pioneer-type recreational activities (Leopold 1921). ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; Increasing demand for access to primitive recreation oppor- 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. tunities such as horse packing trips, big game hunting, and Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. David Ostergren is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, fishing influenced the Forest Service’s decision to designate Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Box 5694, Northern Ari- the Gila Wilderness Area in New Mexico in 1924. zona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]. The United States National Park Service Organic Act of Steve Hollenhorst is Professor and Department Head, Department of Re- source Recreation and Tourism, University of Idaho, College of Forestry, 1916 was passed amid growing popular support. The Act Wildlife, and Range Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844-1139 U.S.A. e-mail: stipulated the conflicting goals of “(1) conserving the scenery [email protected] and the natural and historic objects and wild life therein, USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 3 and (2) providing for the enjoyment of the same leaving them grizzly habitat) was much more suited to wilderness than unimpaired for future generations.” In the 1920’s, some Research Natural Areas (Cutler 1980). A gauge for the rise people supported scientific research on unmanipulated eco- of research in wilderness may be Butler and Roberts’ (1986) systems, some people supported the aesthetic and recre- report that between 1970 and 1980, 731 of the total 851 ational values of wilderness while others, such as the rail- research projects conducted in wilderness were on topics in roads and automobile industry, promoted easy access and the natural sciences. full visitor facilities. (Note: the terms “wilderness” and The Wilderness Society (1994) position is that wilderness “primitive areas” are used by the Forest Service and the is valuable for more than just recreation and aesthetics. National Park Service at various times to refer to basically Wilderness should be supported because it protects water- the same type of area. We use “wilderness” throughout the sheds for pure water, provides critical habitat for plant and rest of the document.) animal species, improves air quality through the filtering action of the plants and trees, maintains gene pools, and serves as unique and irreplaceable living “laboratories” for Science in Natural Areas scientific and medical research. In addition, baseline eco- Initiated in 1927, research reserves have been described logical research on wilderness areas appears to be expand- as “the most preservation-oriented land use category the ing as government agencies and the academic community National Park Service had yet devised” and as precursors to use large, relatively natural conditions (Meersman 1997). wilderness areas (Sellars 1993). Although in the early 1930’s Despite renewed science-based decisionmaking, it appears the National Park Service added wildlife biologists who that the funding for basic biological research remains inad- emphasized an ecosystem approach, in practice the natural equate (Kenner 1998; Sellars 1997). research reserves were unused and remained too small to protect pristine ecosystems. By the late 1930’s, the research Zapovednik Policy in Russia ______ reserve program had been largely abandoned and the Na- tional Park Service continued to emphasize recreation and Early 20th century zapovedniki were designated for developing roads for access (Sellars 1993, 1997). baseline ecological research and to protect habitat for en- The Forest Service alone maintained Research Natural dangered species. In the 1980’s, this policy was broadened to Areas over time. In 1925, the Forest Service designated include ecotourism and environmental education. these areas for research on land similar to timber producing sites. By 1953 there were 27 Research Natural Areas. However, the areas remained small, and large ecosystem The Formative Years of Russian Protected processes could not be studied. In the long run, the Forest Area Policy Service placed much more emphasis on Experimental Sta- tions and work in nurseries, management, and genetics Yanitsky (1993) notes that in the late 19th century, (Doig 1976). Clearly, scientific research was not used as a expanding Russian democratic associations were criticizing primary rationale for the creation of wilderness areas. the Tsar and speaking out against abuses resulting from development. An increased rate of exploitation and disinte- gration of species was attributed in part to an expanding Wilderness and the Hegemony of population and in part to the effects of capitalism (Bannikov Recreation 1966). Disappearing resources and an increase in public criticism prompted debate over Russia’s use of natural By the 1930’s, a small but visible role for wilderness resources. Within the Russian Academy of Science, various recreation was established in the Forest Service and in the scholars advocated land preservation for scientific purposes National Park Service. Advocacy for more areas culminated (Weiner 1988). In 1908, G. A. Kozhevnikov presented a with the 1964