Russia's protected areas: a survey and identification of development problems (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ambio, 2015
Increasing anthropogenic pressure on the largest remaining tracts of old-growth boreal forest in Europe necessitates additional conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity in northeastern European Russia. In a regional network comprising 8 % of the Nenets Autonomous District and 13.5 % of the Komi Republic, 248 areas have varying protected statuses as state nature reserves (zapovedniks), national parks, reserves/sanctuaries (zakazniks), or natural monuments. Due to increased natural resource extraction in this relatively pristine area, designation of additional protected areas is critical for the protection of key ecological sites. The history of ecological preservation in these regions is herein described, and recent recommendations for incorporating additional ecologically representative areas into the regional network are presented. If the protected area network can be expanded, the overall environmental stability in these globally significant ecosystems may remain intact, and ca...
The New Paradigm for Nature Protection: A Model for Russia’s High North?
2011
This article addresses whether the new Western paradigm for nature protection, combining conservation and local development, could serve as a model for nature protection in Russia, and for Russia’s High North in particular. The article introduces the new paradigm of protected areas and the Russian protected area (PA) system. Three different types of PAs in the Murmansk Oblast are then presented, focusing on the role protected areas can play in terms of local development. The new paradigm has been embraced in the West, but the dominant form of PA in Russia is still the strictly protected areas – zapovedniks - which do not allow any form of economic activity including nature-based tourism. The number of national parks and nature parks in Russia is slowly increasing, but to establish and develop these forms of PAs suited to promote local develop- ment is challenging. The situation in the Murmansk Oblast illustrates problems such as conflict of interest between different stakeholders, l...
Russian Zapovedniki in 1998: Recent Progress and New Challenges for Russia's Strict Nature Preserves
Zapovedniki are pristine ecosystems that restrict all economic utilization and are designed to act as areas for ecological research and "natural controls" for comparison to other land uses such as agriculture or resource extraction. The most recent threats to zapovedniki originate from the dissolution of the Soviet system and resultant economic instability. Since 1991, zapovedniki have maintained their role in Russian society by increasing contact with international nongovernment organizations, using legislation to increase their ability to enforce the law, expanding environmental education, and diversifying funding strategies. Despite their efforts, the reduction in federal support overrides most efforts to fulfill the mandate of biodiversity conservation, ecological monitoring, and environmental education.
2005
This paper analyses how transnational environmental non-governmental organisations, such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), have gained a role preservation policy in Russia and cleared themselves a space and legitimating as non state actors 'balancing' the domestic pressures of expansive resource extraction. In Russia, both Greenpeace and WWF promote the establishment of specially protected high conservation value forests. In order to import innovative approaches to Russia, management practices developed in the West must be adopted to Russia's unique post-Soviet context.
REVIEW OF VLADIMIR BOCHARNIKOV's BOOK "WILDLIFE RESERVES OF RUSSIA
Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Biology. Earth Sciences
At the end of 2021, the Moscow publishing house "Dialogue of Cultures" published a beautifully illustrated, informative, and simply wonderful book, an original, even unique album, an encyclopedic monograph, an illustrated catalog: "Wildlife Reserves of Russia". For the first time for the territories of Russia, the monograph provides calculations of the areas and preservation of the wild nature of our country based on GIS technologies and using computer mapping techniques. The book includes 2 parts: Reserves of Russia (total 118 - from A to Z) and Subjects of the Russian Federation (88 territories, also from A to Z). The author is Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor Vladimir Nikolayevich Bocharnikov, a leading researcher at the Pacific Institute of Geography of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a hunter, organizer of a number of scientific expeditions, Russian ecologist, geographer, international expert on biodiversity, writer. Initia...
Historically, while the United States and Russia have some policy similarities, each country has placed a unique cultural and political stamp on the role of their protected areas. Russian zapovedniki have existed since 1916 and are areas emphasizing preservation of typical or unique ecosystems primarily for ecological research (Weiner 1988). In contrast, American Wilderness Areas were set aside primarily for people to access and enjoy. This analysis compares Russian and American protected areas policies and concludes that the policies are converging. Russian zapovedniki have existed since 1916 as areas that protect typical or unique ecosystems primarily for ecological research (Weiner 1988). In contrast, American wilderness areas are set aside primarily for people to access and enjoy. Although the two systems are founded on much different societal values, they are comparable because they both represent relatively large, nonmilitary areas with the highest level of protection from development and economic use in their respective countries. This analysis compares converging Federal management policies for protected areas in Russia and in the United States. Three sources of empirical data were employed to conduct this analysis: (1) official document sources such as laws, agency policy statements, and legislative and professional society debates; (2) archival and dependable secondary sources; and (3) formal and informal interviews with policy leaders. Formal, open-ended interviews with zapovednik directors and officials provided data on the current status of Russian policy. This analysis also used informal interviews with officials, nongovernment organizations, scientists, and historians. Commonalities between the Russian and American conservation systems have received only brief mention in previous work (Pryde 1972, 1991; Weiner 1988), and a comparison of preservation policies is largely unexplored.