«NEWS FROM NATIONAL PARKS»

WHAT TO TEACH A NATIONAL PARK WORKER

The Biodiversity Conservation Center – in cooperation with the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) and with the financial support of Britain’s Department of International Development – has created a Management Strategy for Russia’s National Parks. The Strategy is the product of a new national policy with respect to park management. Its implementation will be a difficult process and require that all those involved, regardless of their position, not only accept this new approach but put it into practice effectively.

Although some progress in national park management has been made in recent years, most NP staffers do not have a proper sense of their mission or the necessary knowledge and skills. Given that this sense requires specific training, the Biodiversity Conservation Center and the MNR have launched an additional project to develop a system for training NP staff.

During the first stage of the project we analyzed the existing upgrade curricula and educational systems for NP staff; determined the requirements for the main groups of NP staff; and outlined the knowledge and skills needed for different activities and jobs.

Most of our data was gathered with the help of questionnaires. We used two types: a general questionnaire to collect data on the staff upgrade process in each national park, and an individual questionnaire to identify the training needs in specific areas among different groups of NP staff.

General questionnaires were sent to the directors of national parks. They filled in the forms together with their top specialists. Individual testing was done at the national parks by the project specialists. We received completed general questionnaires from 20 national parks; individual testing took place at 12 national parks. As a result of individual testing, we collected an additional 335 questionnaires: 120 from junior staff, 185 from specialists, and 30 from top managers.

Our analysis of the existing NP staff upgrade system shows that in recent years specialists did not have access to vocational training on a regular basis. In seven years (1993-2000) only 129 NP staffers completed training programs at the All-Russian Institute of Upgrade Training for Forestry Top Managers and Specialists. Most of these people were NP directors (approximately 70%) and Chief Foresters. Many NP specialists upgraded their qualification in the Forest Economy groups; however, the number of those who have received relevant training does not exceed 10 specialists per year.

Some NP staff took training courses in the Siberian and the Urals branches of the All-Russian Institute of Upgrade Training for Forestry Top-Managers and Specialists (5 national parks) and in other forestry institutes. The upgrade curricula for NP specialists included topics typical for forestry economy: fire prevention, protection of forests from vermin and diseases, forestry legislation enforcement (14 out of 20 national parks reported this information). Only 5 national parks provided ecological education for specialists, while only three provided training for tourism specialists.

Those national parks whose top managers understand that it is necessary to maintain standards in ecological education, tourism and scientific research, try to arrange for training and find the appropriate government institutes or NGOs themselves. Many national parks praised the work of the Zapovedniki Eco-Training Center. Workshops and seminars dedicated to scientific research and NP protection issues sponsored by regional associations of PNAs have become increasingly popular.

NP junior staffers normally receive upgrade training at the local level. However, the upgrade curriculum at only 4 out of 20 national parks went beyond the topics typically found in forestry-economy curricula. In the last three years, 1,265 people from 20 national parks received upgrade retraining. Most NP employees (796 persons, or 63%) are junior staffers who have received training in national parks; 23% upgraded their qualification at regional centers; 6% at federal MNR upgrade centers; and 8% elsewhere. Of the topics on the curricula, most concerned the Protection of Natural Complexes (75%); a few touched on Tourism (5%); and fewer still on Eco-Education and Scientific Research (2% each).

NP staffers consider courses in upgrade centers and 2-3 day training workshops the most useful. They also prefer to receive training in the national parks. Opinions as to what topics should be given top priority in the upgrade curricula differed greatly. But most NP managers agreed on the importance of Eco-Education, Tourism and NP Protection modules.

Although all 20 national parks that completed the general questionnaires have operative job descriptions, they are mostly copied from job descriptions for forestry staff. Since their job descriptions have not been reviewed for many years, they do not reflect the specific needs of a National Park given its status of a Protected Natural Area. Only 25% of the respondent NPs had developed job descriptions for NP fauna conservation, recreation and tourism, ecological education and scientific research specialists.

The opinions of the respondents during the individual testing regarding the required level of skills also differed greatly. That is why, when we were choosing the methods of processing the collected data, we decided that we should transform the collected data into indicators not dependent on the number of respondents in each staff group. The collected data are given in the Table.

The results of the questionnaires suggest that nearly all NP staffers need to upgrade their skills. The strictest requirements apply to NP deputies (Chief Foresters), foresters, inspectors and eco-education specialists. All staff groups need additional training in Legislation and Law Enforcement, Tourism and Eco- Education. Assistant foresters and recreation and tourism staff underestimate the amount of knowledge and number of skills they need.

Two larger staff groups (foresters and gamekeepers), whose members vary greatly in age and level of education, were also analyzed. The skills, expertise and knowledge required of those foresters we interviewed did not vary significantly. Yet foresters aged 30 and under said they should have the highest level of knowledge and skills in most of the areas of expertise cited in the questionnaire (27 out of 31). For foresters aged 31 to 45, this index was significantly lower (6 out of 31); they also said that the requirements in 11 areas of expertise should be minimal. Foresters over 45 said they needed the highest level of expertise only in two areas, while a minimum level of expertise in 22 areas would be sufficient for their purposes. Since foresters make up one of the most numerous, significant and influential categories of specialists in National Parks, their differences of opinion on the issue of necessary expertise will require an additional in-depth study in order to improve the job descriptions for foresters.

Gamekeepers of all age groups, meanwhile, gave roughly the same answers. Any differences of opinion resulted from different levels of education. Gamekeepers with the proper qualifications showed a better understanding of their duties. They said that they would require a medium level of expertise in 12 out of 31 areas. Foresters who had only high school educations said that they would need a medium level of expertise in only 4 areas.

During the second stage of this project we plan to draw up new vocational training and upgrade programs for NP staff. We hope that the data collected during testing will help us to make these programs as relevant as possible.

V. Popov,
Biodiversity Conservation Center

Table. Level of expertise required of different groups of NP staffers

<< | contents | top | >>