May 1999 – The Russian Federal Forestry Service held a Board meeting
to discuss the state of national parks. The Board’s Resolution noted that,
in spite of positive changes in the work of the parks, there are still
problems, especially in protecting restricted territories, as well as
in developing tourism and recreation. Unfortunately, due to the recent
reorganization of the nature protection administration, a thorough analysis
of the activities of national parks is impossible today. However, even
the data currently available affords a basis on which to evaluate the
effectiveness of reserve staff.
In 1999, the combined number of national park staff rose from 3,577 to
4,188 (17%). At the same time, the inspectorate increased by only 6% (to
1,986 people). Given that only some of the violations committed in national
parks are reported, one important way to estimate the parks' efficiency
is by the number of violation reports file. A total of 2,462 reports were
drawn up in 1999 (or 298 more than in 1989). The number of spot-checks
increased substantially, as well (from 3,050 in 1998 to 5,228 in 1999).
More spot-checks, however, do not necessarily mean more violations reported.
For example, although Valdaysky National Park checked almost twice as
many spots in 1999 as in 1998, there were 27% fewer reports in 1999. In
Nechkinsky National Park, only 84 violation reports were filed after 722
checks. The overall effectiveness of the checks dropped as compared to
1998, to as little as 0.47 reports per check. To be fair, not all the
parks are so inefficient. For instance, a total of 57 reports were filed
after 28 checks in Pribaykalsky National Park, 85 reports after 40 checks
in Ugra National Park, 131 reports after 36 checks in Vodlozersky National
Park.
It is not enough to file a violation report; one must also find the culprit,
bring him or her to account, and impose a fine. Only 700,000 rubles in
fines were collected in 1998, and that was only 27% of the fines claimed.
In 1999, this sum rose by as much as 62%; but the amount of the fines
collected increased insignificantly, by only 41 thousand rubles.
What are the violations most often committed in national parks? About
a third of the reports deal with violations of fishing and hunting regulations;
another third with unauthorized logging and violations of fire regulations
in forests; and the rest with other violations of the parks' nature preservation
regulations. This is, however, just the overall picture. For instance,
a total of 38 violation reports were filed in Chavash Varmanye National
Park in 1999, 36 of which deal with violations of fire regulations. There
are hardly any objections to checks for this type of violation, but it
is definitely not the only violation that the park's administration should
check for!
National park rangers confiscated a total of 109 firearms and 2,070 prohibited
fishing gears in 1999 (as opposed to 21 and 1,263 units, respectively,
in 1998).
The efficiency of national park rangers depends largely on the equipment
they use. The situation here improved overall in 1999; however, it is
still far from satisfactory. More than half of all park rangers still
have no uniforms. This is due not only to a lack of funding but also to
a lack of will on the part of the parks’ directors. The Ugra National
Park solved its uniform problem though it has no more money than other
parks.
In 1999, the national parks received a total of 46.3 million rubles from
the federal budget (33% more than the previous year). Including the parks'
own funds and other sources of financing, their total outlay reached 102.8
million rubles as opposed to 72.1 million rubles in 1998. Most of the
money went to pay salaries and cover general production costs (more than
54% of the total sum). This means that the actual cost of maintaining
national parks (56.1 million rubles) exceeds the amount allotted for this
whole system both from the federal and regional budgets (53.3 million
rubles). Such a large appetite on the part of national parks is understandable
when their costs are repaid with usury with their own funds. For example,
the Sochinsky National Park receives 3.5 million rubles from the budget
and spends twice that (7.4 million rubles); however, this amount is a
little over half its total budget. Therefore, there is enough funding
left for the fundamental work the park was actually established for. It
is harder to understand the administrations of the Zabaikalsky and Kurshskaya
Kosa National Parks that use all the funding they receive plus a large
share of their own funds (69.6% and 76.5% of total expenditure, respectively).
Kurshskaya Kosa national park has repeatedly been cited as a notable one;
indeed, it is one of the best parks in the country. The park’s director
should not take offence at these words, but he should analyze and adjust
the structure of outlay. This national park is the country's smallest,
but only one other park spends more on its maintenance (not counting the
park's museum) – the Sochinsky National Park.
From the above it should be clear that the expenditure for nature conservation
enterprises, education and area development average out to less than a
half of the total expenditure. In all the parks on average, the expenditure
for landscape, environmental enterprises and enterprises for establishment
of tolerant green plantations totals 18.5%; for anti-fire measures, pest
and disease control measures in forests, 9.9%; for development of recreational
zones, ecological and tourist routes, 7.4%; for bio-technical enterprises,
4.9%.
Expenditures for different kinds of activities vary greatly. For instance,
landscape, environmental enterprises and enterprises for establishment
of tolerant green plantations amount to 41.6%, 45.3% and 51.8% of the
total expenditure in Meshchersky, Prielbrusye and Meshchera National Parks,
respectively. On the other hand, the same enterprises amount to as little
as 0% to 2% of the expenditure in Vodlozersky, Zabaikalsky and Paanayarvi
National Parks. The highest relative amounts are allotted for area development
in Paanayarvi (22.3%), Sochinsky (19.3%) and Bashkiria (16.1%) National
Parks.
The data cited here is by no means a way to evaluate the work of each
national park. However, even this brief analysis shows the difference
of approaches to park management in some of them.
V. Popov,
Member of the Biodiversity Conservation Center staff
