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
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.
Zapovedniki are a unique contribution to the global wilderness community. They are specially protected natural
areas that restrict economic utilization or human activity
such as logging, mining, farming, hunting, fishing, firewood
gathering, or recreation. In theory, zapovedniki are pristine
ecosystems designed to act as areas for ecological research
and “natural controls” for comparison to other land uses
such as agriculture or resource extraction (Kozhevnikov
1908; Shtil’mark 1995; Shtil’mark 1996). The first preserve,
Barguzin Zapovednik, was established in 1916 by a regional
government to protect a sable population (Martes zibellina)
near Lake Baikal. Although several more zapovedniki were
established by local and provincial authorities, it was not
until 1919 that the first federal zapovednik (Il’menskii
Zapovednik) was established (Weiner 1988). This was the
first area in the world to be protected primarily for scientific
reasons. Since that time, federal, regional, and local government bodies, the Federal Forest Service, or the Russian
Academy of Science were authorized to designate ecologically, geologically, or biologically unique or sensitive areas
as zapovedniki (Pryde 1991). By the late 1950’s, zapovedniki
were established in many ecosystems throughout the Soviet
Union.
In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000.
Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II;
1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
David Ostergren is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science,
Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Box 5694, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011U.S.A., e-mail: david.ostergren@nau.edu.
Evgeny Shvarts is Professor, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of
Science. He is past Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Center and now
with the World Wide Fund for Nature in Moscow, Russia, e-mail:
eshvarts@wwfnet.org
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
Threats to Zapovedniki ___________
Throughout the decades, zapovedniki have survived a
variety of threats to their operation and existence. The
threats have included:
• Challenges to the original policies and intent (Shtil’mark
1995; Weiner 1988).
• Reductions and reorganizations by political leaders
(Boreiko 1993; Boreiko 1994; Pryde 1972).
• Alternative use and designation (Pryde 1991).
Nonetheless, zapovedniki persevered within the communist, centrally planned economy through 8 decades of shifting 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
conditions of economic downturn and social instability
(Ostergren 1997; Ostergren and Shvarts 1998; Stepanitski
1997). Until 1991 the zapovedniki were a line item budget
for the federal government. Each preserve was allotted
money for (1) government inspectors to protect the preserve,
(2) scientists to conduct research, (3) support staff, and (4)
materials and maintenance. The fall of the Soviet Union
changed the way zapovedniki are managed in that directors
now spend a significant amount of their time raising funds,
nurturing political support, and devising new strategies to
do more with less funding.
From 1991 to 1995, the zapovednik system struggled to
survive under difficult circumstances. Directors at the preserves found themselves with entirely different responsibilities. Because the management lacked sufficient federal
funding, government inspectors were paid infrequently or
not at all, trespassers poached wildlife for the newly accessible foreign animal parts market, research scientists moved
to other jobs to support their families, and essential equipment deteriorated. As one example of a change in support
and management techniques, during the Soviet era, helicopter support from the national air service (Aeroflot) was
common on established preserves. The Sayano-Shushenskovo
Zapovednik was allotted 150 flights to haul supplies to field
stations, conduct patrols, and support ground-based inspectors. Of those 150 flights, the scientific staff was allocated 40
helicopter flights a year at the scientific director’s discretion.
In 1995, they received five (5) helicopter flights to manage a
390,000 hectare preserve with virtually no road access.
These circumstances demand boat transport to the
zapovednik and then travel by horse or foot through the
preserve.
In Central Siberia, zapovedniki with a long tradition of
research have cut back on projects and have little or no
209
helicopter support for research or border patrols. New
zapovedniki established after 1991 have never had helicopter support (Ostergren 1998). As the funding levels dropped,
directors began to turn to alternative techniques for managing preserves. Each director sought outside funding with
varying degrees of success from local, regional, and international funding sources. This presentation will provide an
update on the challenges, status, and management conditions for zapovedniki in 1998. In particular, we focus on
zapovedniki located within Russia. In 1997, despite the
challenges in management and a chronic lack of funding, 22
preserves have been added since 1991 for a total of 99
preserves set aside from economic exploitation, protecting
over 31,000,000 hectares of diverse ecosystems across Russia. Figure 1 shows the distribution of Russian zapovedniki
in 1998.
that has been fundamental to progress in advancing protected area status is the Biodiversity Conservation Center
(BCC) of the Socio-Ecological Union. The BCC became an
advocate for protected areas serving as a consultation,
information, and fund-raising center for biodiversity conservation. An excellent source of information on the BCC and
related efforts is their web page, http://www.igc.apc.org/bccwest/, or for a more in-depth look at conservation efforts in
the 1990’s, the authors suggest referring to the English
language publication “Russian Conservation News” (RCN).
A subscription for RCN is available through the Pocono
Environmental Education Center PEEC/RCN R.R. 2, Box
1010, Dingmans Ferry, PA 18328. In Russian, an excellent
source for current information is “Informatsionii Bulletyen”
from the “Tsentr Okhrana Dikoi Priroda.” Both literature
sources address issues for zapovedniki, as well as national
parks and wildlife refuges.
Recent Progress for
Zapovedniki ____________________
Legislation
Shortly after the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) emerged into the political and
civil vacuum left by disappearing state committees. In the
field of biodiversity conservation and environmental protection, zapovednik directors, natural resource scientists, and
environmental activists needed a forum and central source
of information to coordinate their efforts. One organization
Directors and supportive NGOs requested federal legislation to provide a mandate and legal standing—an “organic act”—for their activities and enforcement (Ostergren
1997; Shtil’mark 1995). In 1995, “The Law on Specially
Protected Natural Areas” was passed by the Duma and
signed by President Yeltsin. This landmark legislation outlined the legal standing and goals for zapovedniki, including 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 natural areas for scientific research, (3) long—term ecological
monitoring, (4) providing conservation training for professionals, (5) initiating environmental education programs
(which may include limited tourism), and (6) providing
expertise in the environmental impact of regional development projects. For the first time in history, Russian legislation specifically described the rights and responsibilities of
zapovednik employees. The legislation consolidated and
legitimized a long history of protection and research on
zapovedniki located across Russia’s landscape (Federal Law
1995). The majority of zapovedniki are concentrating on the
first three goals that date to 1908, and more slowly incorporating the last three goals (Sobolev and others 1995).
future transition to active management much easier; (3) the
Russian government has repeatedly stated its intention to
have 5 percent of Russia protected by 2005—again a relatively cheap method for realizing this goal; and, (4) preserves
are political recognition for scientists and the environmental community, which may demonstrate that the Russian
government is still concerned about the environment. In a
process similar to the Soviet era, the 22 new preserves have
been established through the combined efforts of scientists,
local conservationists, and Russian conservation organizations. A post-Soviet addition is that international conservation organizations have donated time, money, and staff to
support initiatives to establish new zapovedniki (Sobolev
and others 1995).
Central Administration
International Conservation Organizations
In July 1995, after lobbying by zapovednik directors and
organizations such as the BCC, the Ministry of Environmental Protection established the Department of Nature Reserve (Zapovednik) Management. Vsevolod Stepanitski was
appointed to head the new department. Historically,
zapovedniki were spread out through various administrative authorities such as local and provincial authorities, the
Ministry of Hunting and Game Preserves, the Ministry of
Forestry, or the Russian Academy of Science. Although
associated with each other in many respects, the preserves
lacked a single, unified agency to lobby for their needs and
interests (Pryde 1991). Establishment of a centralized department in Moscow provided essential support for the
survival of zapovedniki in Russia. The initial focus for the
new department was protecting the borders and enforcing
laws that prohibited trespass or utilization of resources from
the zapovedniki (Williams 1995). Prior to 1995, employees
lacked the authority to make an arrest or file suit against
offenders. If an employee needed to arrest a poacher, they
enlisted the support from the local militia or police—an
awkward, time-consuming process. Although each
zapovednik is still struggling to pay salaries and maintain a
staff, the support from a central administration combined
with the 1995 Federal Law for Specially Protected Natural
Areas gives the zapovedniki a sense of direction and legal
strength.
Another positive result from the fall of the Soviet Union is
the increased contact with international conservation organizations. In April 1997, the British Environmental Know
How Fund supported the development of management plans
for two zapovedniki and one national park (Grigoryan 1997).
Organizations such as Pacific Environment and Resources
Center (PERC) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
have been donating time, staff, and funding for several
educational initiatives, computer support, training sessions,
and conferences. In December 1997, PERC and the Chazy
Ecofund in Abakan organized a conference for southern
Siberian protected areas. The conference concluded with a
master plan for the region to initiate a comprehensive
program of biodiversity conservation. Further evidence of
international assistance is that the World Conservation
Union (IUCN) has representatives in Russia; the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s
(UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere program has disseminated computer software and training to standardize information from the 17 zapovedniki that are biosphere reserves;
and cooperative projects and staff exchanges have been
organized through the U.S. National Park Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, international
research universities are working with zapovedniki and
have targeted investigations in areas of particular interest
such as the Russian Far East (Amur Leopard, Siberian
Crane, and Siberian Tiger) and migrating birds nesting in
the Arctic Tundra.
System-Wide Growth
Paradoxically, despite decreasing funding since 1991 there
has been a growth in the zapovednik system. In 1991, there
were 77 zapovedniki within Russia’s borders. In 1998, there
are 99 zapovedniki and 93 are active—a 30 percent increase
since the fall of the Soviet Union. Six preserves are so new
they are considered “paper preserves” (Stepanitsky 1998)
The paper preserves have no staff or a small volunteer staff,
no mechanism for conducting research, and no government
inspectors to protect their borders. Although some directors
and activists object to paper preserves, the benefits seem to
outweigh the drawbacks. Several benefits include: (1) property ownership has not been determined in many areas of
Russia, and therefore property is relatively cheap—essentially free—for the government; (2) endangered species need
habitat protection, and setting aside land now will make any
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
Environmental Education
A recent addition to management strategies for zapovedniki
is environmental education. The theory is to increase political support by educating young people about the purpose
and role of zapovedniki in Russian society. The long-term
expectation is that as adults the students will be less likely
to violate the zapovednik regime and more likely to support
helpful legislation. The scientific staff on Katun Zapovednik
indicated early successes in 1995 after they initiated an
outreach program to the schools (Ostergren 1995). In 1996,
with support from the World Wide Fund for Nature and the
Swiss government, a Zapovedniks’ Environmental Education
Center opened in Moscow. The goals are to develop funds
and contacts for education, create and adapt educational
211
methodologies, create vivid public education programs, and
support local initiatives in environmental education (Menner
1996). Because using the zapovedniki for educational purposes may open them up to the general public, some experts
caution against too much access. The primary function of the
preserves is protection and monitoring relatively pristine
ecosystems. On the other hand, education is viewed as a
service to society and necessary to generate and maintain
political support. The Education Center believes the
zapovedniki are still evolving and defining their role in
st
society as we enter the 21 century. Careful consideration
should be given to the advantages and disadvantages of
environmental education for zapovedniki (Danilina 1997).
New Challenges For
Zapovedniki ____________________
Despite the many positive steps for zapovedniki since
1991, most of the news is bad. The single largest problem for
zapovedniki is a lack of funds. From 1991 to 1995, the federal
budget shrunk by 60 to 80 percent for all zapovedniki. The
result was a cut in salaries for inspectors, scientists, and
staff, a shortage of equipment, a drop or elimination of access
to helicopters, a reduction in border patrols, a reduction in
the number of research projects, and a reduction in the
number of cooperative research projects with Russian universities. As directors reacted to the problem, they spent
more and more time raising funds from a variety of sources
including regional ecological funds, and international research and grantmaking institutions. Innovative solutions
included the Altai Zapovednik trading apples for gasoline,
inspectors in remote Arctic stations trading salted fish for
helicopter support, and the Putoranski Zapovednik helping
collect museum specimens on wildlands outside of the
zapovednik (Ostergren 1997).
In 1995, the Department of Zapovedniki in Moscow began
to keep records of violations on the regime of the protected
areas. In the 1997 reports of zapovedniki protection services
there were 3,503 formal charges (compared to 2,596 in 1996).
Violators received penalties in 1997 from administrative
fines of 246,745,000 rubles (U.S. $40,225—6.134 rubles/
dollar in May 1998) and 326,481,000 rubles (U.S. $53,225)
from suits in compensation for damages inflicted on the
nature complex (Stepanitski 1998). The 1995 Federal Law
on Specially Protected Areas has proved very useful by
authorizing zapovednik inspectors to make arrests and file
law suits. Table 1 provides a summary of violations for 1996
and 1997 (Stepanitski 1998). These reports are from 93
active zapovedniki.
Several reasons have been postulated for the increase in
violations. One is that government inspectors are becoming
more efficient at detecting and apprehending violators. In
addition, because inspectors are aware that the Department
of Zapovedniki in Moscow is interested in these statistics, an
increase may be due to increased reporting. However, the
largest proportion of increases is due to the social and
economic climate of Russia. Fewer restrictions on movement
across Russia’s borders mean that poachers have a greater
access to international animal parts markets and thus have
a greater incentive to violate the regime. The Altai Zapovednik
reported an increase in Musk deer poaching in 1993 and
1994 as the price for musk increased. As the price declined
in 1995, so did the poaching. Poachers have become more
bold as evidenced by an armed raid to steal horses at a
government inspector’s station on the Altai Zapovednik, and
on Lazovski Zapovednik two inspector stations were burned
down.
A significant motivation for poaching and trespass is
survival. As unemployment rises and food becomes scarce,
locals neighboring the zapovedniki turn to hunting and
gathering as a source of sustenance. At nearby settlements
and summer homes, people gather firewood, berries, mushrooms, and medicinal plants on a regular basis, although
they rarely venture far into the preserve. On the Stolby
Zapovednik, evidence of poaching elk and deer is increasing
on the periphery of the preserve. Despite increased poaching, Director Knorre believes that the interior of the preserve is largely untouched by poaching and trespassing. The
greatest strength for zapovedniki in times of economic stress
is their sheer size or remote location.
The Collapsing Budget
In 1998, the proposed budget for all 99 zapovedniki was
43 million rubles (U.S. $7 million). According to Vsevolod
Stepanitski in a recent press release, the Department of
Zapovedniki was informed that their budget has been
reduced to 12 million rubles (U.S. $2 million in a constant
exchange rate). This was before the devaluation of the
ruble in September 1998. The only item that is supported by
the federal budget is the salary line item. No money has been
Table 1—A summary of violations on 93 zapovedniki in 1996 and 1997.
Violation
Wood gathering and cutting
Haymaking and pasturing livestock
Hunting
Fishing
Collecting wild vegetation
Taking land and building
Travel by foot or automobile through the area or parking in the protected area
Pollution
Irresponsible fire and burning of forest on adjacent lands
Poaching ungulates
Poaching large predators
212
1996
171
80
439
712
219
38
710
58
41
94
1997
214
46
434
1,007
461
9
1,007
45
63
123
4 (including one polar bear and one Himalayan bear)
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
allocated for maintenance, research, or education. Stepanitski
suggests that even with some outside funding the system is
in deep trouble. A long-range, multi-pronged approach is
necessary to protect Russia’s environment. Federal funding
ought to be sufficient to keep the reserves functioning at
least on a maintenance basis. Now the directors are faced
with the choice of cutting meager salaries or letting some
staff go.
As of September 1998, several zapovedniki have reported
the worst conditions since the fall of the Soviet Union.
According to the director at the Kandalaksha State Nature
Reserve, they have only 20 percent of the budget of 1992. The
staff describes it as a catastrophic situation for the preserve.
The overall budget in 1998 consisted of 90 percent from
federal government, 0 percent from international NGOs,
and 10 percent from local governments. There is a 70 percent
reduction in the number of inspector stations on the borders,
and the number of government inspectors is down 50 percent. The staff at Kronotskiy Zapovednik report that the
1998 budget is 10 percent of 1992—a drastic reduction. They
had 27 inspectors in 1992 and now only 15. The budget for
Lazovski Zapovednik in 1998 is much worse than the budget
in 1992. Again the federal budget only provides funds for
salaries, and since June 1998, salaries have been reduced
yet again by 50 percent. Several government inspectors left
their jobs stating that the salary is just too low.
Conclusions ____________________
Since 1991, zapovedniki have maintained and promoted
their role in Russian society by:
• Contacting international NGOs.
• Using legislation to increase their legal status and
ability to enforce the law.
• Expanding their environmental education program.
• Diversifying their funding strategies.
Despite their efforts, the massive reduction in federal support overrides most efforts to fulfill their mandate of biodiversity conservation, ecological monitoring, and environmental education. Director Stepanitski has appealed to the
Duma for support, but the legislative body seems unlikely to
change this year’s budget.
In light of current conditions for zapovedniki the following
questions remain. What will zapovedniki do in the next 2 to
5 years to survive? How can the international community
support this unique system of wilderness preserves? In the
short term, the authors recommend that the international
community support the zapovednik system by:
• Recognizing its contribution to global biodiversity and
wilderness preservation.
• Encouraging international NGOs to support both small
and large zapovedniki.
• Promoting cooperative research projects on zapovedniki.
• Supporting ecotourism and scientific tourism that injects income or supports research on a wide range of
zapovedniki.
Zapovednik directors, administrators, scientists and nongovernment organizations concur that long-term solutions
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000
will come from within Russia. However, the international
community can support zapovedniki through a variety of
methods and send a message to the Russian government
that this unique system of protected areas is a national and
global treasure that deserves federal support and long-term
investment.
References _____________________
Boreiko, V. E. 1993. Razgrom zapovednikov: kak eto bilo (1951-?),
[Destruction of the zapovedniki: how it happened.] Energia.
2: 14-17.
Boreiko, V. E. 1994. 1961: Vtoroi pazgrom zapovednikov, [Second
destruction of the zapovedniks.] Energia. 1: 35-38.
Danilina, N. 1997. Environmental education for the 21st century:
shaping the concept. Russian Conservation News. 13: 15-17.
Federal Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas. 1995. (Federalnie
zakon ob osobo okhranyaemikh prirodnikh territoriyakh). Ekos
Inform. 6: 3-56.
Grigoryan, A. 1997. Opposing sides in Altai establish a dialogue.
Russian Conservation News. 13: 6-8.
Kozhevnikov, G. A. 1908. On the necessity of establishing reserve
plots in order to conserve the natural resources of Russia.
Reprinted in Bulletin No. 4: 73-78. Conservation of Natural
Resources and the Establishment of Reserves in the USSR.
Translated and published in 1962 by the Israel Program for
Scientific Translation, Jerusalem.
Menner, A. 1996. First environmental education center for
zapovedniki opens in Moscow. Russian Conservation News. 7: 21.
Ostergren, D. 1995. Two approaches to the same mission. Russian
Conservation News. 6: 5-6.
Ostergren, D. M. 1997. Post-Soviet transitions in policy and management of zapovedniki and lespromkhozi in Central Siberia.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University. 213 p. Dissertation.
Ostergren, D.; Shvarts, E. 1998. Protected areas in Russia:
management goals, current status, and future prospects of
Russian zapovedniki. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.;
Hendee, John C., comps. 1998. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress
proceedings on research, management, and allocation, Vol. 1;
1998 October 24-29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-4. Ogden,
UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station: 11-16.
Ostergren, D. M. 1998. System in peril: a case study of five Central
Siberian zapovedniki. The International Journal of Wilderness.
4(3): 12-17.
Pryde, P. R. 1972. Conservation in the Soviet Union. New York:
Cambridge University Press. 301 p.
Pryde, P. R. 1991. Environmental Management in the Soviet Union.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 314 p.
Shtil’mark, F. 1995. Pervimi zapovednikami v Rossii [First
zapovedniks in Russia]. Zapovestnik. 7-8(10-11): 6.
Shtil’mark, F. R. 1996. Istoriografiya Rossiskikh Zapovednikov
(1895-1995). [The Historiography of the Russian Nature Preserves]. Moscow: TOO, Logata. ISBN 5-900858-03-0.
Sobolev, N. A.; Shvarts, E. A.; Kreindlin, M. L.; Mokievskiy, V. O.;
Zubakin, V. A. 1995. Russia’s protected areas: base survey and
identification of development problems. Biodiversity and Conservation. 4(9): 964-983.
Stepanitski, V. 1997. Financing Russian Zapovedniki in 1996.
Russian Conservation News. 12: 30-31.
Stepanitski, V. B. 1998. Several results of work by the protection
service for Russian zapovedniki in 1997. [Nekotorii itogi raboti
cluzhb okhrani Rossiskikh zapovednikov v 1997 godu.]
Zapovedniki and National Parks Information Bulletin. May 29,
no. 24-25.
Weiner, D. R., 1988. Models of nature: ecology, conservation, and
cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 312 p.
Williams, M. 1995. A new department of nature reserve management for Russia. Russian Conservation News. 5: 3.
213