«DECISION-MAKING ISSUES»

NATURE RESERVES AND NATIONAL PARKS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM:
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

I. RESERVE SECURITY SERVICE MANAGEMENT

STRENGTHS:

1. Basic legislation now exists (including “police” rights, without which efficient control and inspection are impossible).
2. Techniques for stopping poachers have improved (operative groups now work on a permanent basis).
3. New methodical guidelines have been published; a number of qualification upgrade seminars and workshops for security services staff (local and federal level) have been held.
4. Collected fines and damages may now be disposed of independently (including as bonuses for security guards).
5. The courts have begun deciding in favor of conservation plaintiffs in damage suits.
6. The activities of security services have been paid greater attention, especially by the state conservation agency:

• Security service activities were the main topic of a national meeting of the reserves’ directorate;

• These activities were given great attention at other reserve directorate meetings as well;
• A review of the results of security service activities is published and distributed annually. It has been proposed that nature reserves and national parks discuss this issue at the meeting of the Scientific and Technical Board;
• A National Ranger of the Year Contest has been held twice.

WEAKNESSES:

1. Professionally poor security service personnel (due mainly to low wages).
2. Poor professional training.
3. Poor technical equipment.
4. Poor possibilities to lease aircraft.
5. Agencies responsible for legal inquiries have no rights.

II. CONSERVATION OF NATURE COMPLEXES AND RESOURCE USE REGULATION

STRENGTHS

1. Satisfactory legal base.
2. Nature reserves and national parks have managed to “repel” most of the attempts by different authorities and economic units to infringe on their natural complexes.
3. The volume of timber felling has been reduced (especially in Voronezhsky, Khopersky, Teberdinsky and Kavkazsky).
4. Hunters who claim to be hunting only wolves in nature reserves have been stopped.
5. Regular shooting of hoofed animals in European nature reserves has been stopped.
6. Biosphere co-operation has been tried in a various model areas.

WEAKNESSES

1. Considerable volume of timber felling in national parks.
2. Unregulated use of lands in most national parks.
3. Legal collision as regards legalization documents for timber felling in nature reserves.
4. No coherent policy for increasing the number and density of animals and birds in national parks, especially for showing them to park visitors.
5. Highly insufficient and inefficient measures to conserve rare and endangered species in some nature reserves.
6. Poor registration and monitoring of most valuable species in most nature reserves and national parks.
7. No long-term licenses permitting the use of fauna resources in most national parks that allow hunting.
8. No up-to-date and well-thought-out strategy as regards natural forest fires in nature reserves.
9. No criteria for assessing the condition and long-term developmental changes of nature complexes in nature reserves and national parks.

III. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

STRENGTHS

1. Increasing numbers of graduate students and PhD students among research department staff in nature reserves and national parks.
2. Increasing numbers of advanced degrees: PhD or Doctor’s (a level higher than a PhD).
3. Better cooperation between nature reserves and national parks and outside scientific research organizations.
4. More publications prepared by reserve specialists, including articles in foreign and national scientific journals and books.
5. More monographs and books.
6. Reserve and park research staffers participate more actively in scientific conferences and meetings, including foreign events.
7. Goal-oriented financing for research in nature reserves and national parks from budget and non-budget sources.
8. Allocation of goal-oriented funds for research based on the results of well-organized and objective contests.
9. Development of long-term research data processing and database, and application of GIS (geological and information system) programs.

10. Better quality and level of scientific and research works done in nature reserves.

1. Development of scientific research in national parks.
2. Greater percentage of young people among reserve research department staffers, including in the position of deputy director of scientific work (in recent years).
3. In the last two years a number of skilled professionals from Moscow became deputy directors of scientific work (including those combining this job with other work) in the following reserves: Gydansky, Rdeysky, Putoransky, and Pechero-Ilychsky.
4. Development of informational communications (80% of all reserves and national parks have access to e-mail); more websites at nature reserves and national parks.
5. More students are doing fieldwork in nature reserves and national parks. The number of term papers, graduate and PhD theses dedicated to PNAs has also increased.
6. Research department staffers have gained practical experience in working with grants. Reserves’ own funds have increased due to developed scientific work (e.g. recommendations, expertise, analyses and pressing topics).

WEAKNESSES

1. No systematic practice of using the results of scientific and research work to develop and improve protection and conservation of natural complexes and ecological education. On the one hand, this lessens the efficiency of the reserve’s main functions, and on the other, it has made top managers and state conservation authorities uninterested in providing research in reserves.
2. No centralized system of research planning taking into account objective priorities of different levels; chaotic formation of research departments and operative plans (including monitoring programs), implemented generally “from the bottom to the top” in accordance with reserve traditions, research department staff composition and individual scientific interests of the staffers.
3. Imperfect methodical basis; no scientific data collection standards. Ecological monitoring data are not properly adjusted to European standards.
4. Insufficient legislative base, ensuring scientific and research activities, particularly in national parks. The problem of nature reserves and national parks accreditation as scientific research organization remains.
5. Staff composition of research departments does not satisfy reserve (park) priority directions of research; most research specialists are poorly qualified.
6. No general policy for attracting qualified researchers to work in PNAs, especially young specialists.
7. Absence or lack of coordination between reserves in the field of scientific research and monitoring, especially as regards methodical support and collected data analysis.
8. No unified system of data archiving and precise procedures for receiving and keeping information in reserves.
9. Submitted and kept data does not correspond to advanced informational technologies, which prevents the access of a wider range of potential users to the information. The data is not fit to be used operatively. The way it is stored and submitted endangers data safety.
10. Insufficiently active, even where facilities allow, introduction and application of advanced informational and telecommunication technologies in reserves (GIS, Internet).
11. Inertness of reserves in promoting their research products and searching for potential clients in the regions, in federal agencies and abroad;
12. No efficient federal agency responsible for coordination and support of scientific research in reserves.
13. Virtual absence of a Board of Experts responsible for regular examination of scientific research plans and scientific projects done by the reserves.
14. Little understanding at most reserves and among park directors of the role and significance of scientific research.
15. Dearth of conferences, seminars and meetings between reserve and park deputy directors on scientific research, particularly at the federal level.
16. No work exchange and upgrading system (particularly urgent for young staffers) at reserves and parks.
17. No system for enhancing the prestige of scientific research, for example, special contests for reserve and park research department staffers.

IV. ECO-EDUCATION AND ECO-TRAINING

STRENGTHS:

1. Substantial legislative base (primarily for nature reserves).
2. Goal-oriented eco-education in reserves and national parks on a major scale and with a large social orientation.
3. Special departments responsible for eco-education in most nature reserves and in many national parks.
4. Annual participation (since 1995) by nature reserves and national parks in the March for Parks campaign to promote conservation of nature complexes and objects.
5. Regular participation (since 1994) of reserve and park specialists working in national and regional eco-education methodical workshops and upgrading courses, including study-tours abroad. NGOs played an important role in organizing the events; they worked in close collaboration with state agencies and regional associations of nature reserves and national parks.
6. Considerable methodical basis and experience exchange system in eco-education between reserve and park specialists.
7. Goal-oriented financing of eco-education activities at nature reserves and national parks from the budget and from non-budgetary sources.

In general, eco-education in nature reserves and national parks at the current stage has a strong social aspect. As a result, it receives positive feedback at the local, regional, national and international levels.

WEAKNESSES:

1. Historically, reserves are in contraposition to the society in Russia.
2. Poor qualifications of most reserve and park specialists responsible for eco-education.
3. Shortage of eco-education staffers at reserves and national parks to fulfill stated aims and objectives.
4. Insufficient level of generalizing and using own and foreign experience.
5. Many directors of reserves and national parks do not fully understand the significance and possibilities of eco-education.
6. Poor planning of relevant activities.

V. FINANCIAL POLICY

Over the last 10 years the financing of state nature reserves has been very unstable and under-funded by the federal budget. At the same time:

STRENGTHS:

1. Russia has developed a system of financing nature reserves and national parks from other sources (apart from the federal budget): regional and local budgets and non-budgetary sources, Russian sponsors, PNA earnings, foreign grants.
2. Federal financing has increased in recent years.
3. In 2001, the share of federal financing increased considerably for nature reserves (18% as compared with 2000); less considerably for national parks (2 % as compared with 2000).
4. Considerable foreign grants were allocated for direct support of nature reserves and national parks, in particular for the development of their material and technical base.
5. A law regulating generation of nature reserves’ and national parks’ own earnings was adopted.
6. The financial state of nature reserves and national parks is analyzed and published annually (and has been for the last 6 years).

WEAKNESSES:

1. Appreciable deficit (no less than 30%) of operational costs funds to be allocated to nature reserves and national parks from federal budget.
2. Acute federal investments deficit (in 2002, investment funds were allocated to 4 organizations out of 130).
3. Bureaucratization of the procedure of using non-budget accounts.
4. Insufficient use of federal budget financing from additional sources (allocations for conservation, Baikal sub-program, Russian Forests sub-program, allocations for forest fire protection).
5. Unwillingness and inability of a number of nature reserves to adjust their economic policy to present circumstances.
6. Great share of funds coming from timber felling in the total budget of national parks.

VI. PERSONNEL POLICY
(as applied to the directorate)

STRENGTHS

1. Over the last 10 years, directors (of nature reserves, primarily) have significantly increased their professionalism and business administration skills.
2. Between 1992 and 2001, no less than 20 “strong” directors were appointed to replace “weak” ones.
3. Several important workshops and meetings of reserve and park directors were held.
4. Positive foreign experience was introduced (reserve and park directors visited foreign PNAs to study their experience).
5. Corporate culture continued to be developed.
6. A special system of bonuses for directors, based on integrated reserve activities indices, was introduced. A Manager of the Year Contest was also introduced into the reserve system.

WEAKNESSES

1. Low salaries make it extremely difficult to attract qualified managers.
2. No full-value system for upgrading professional qualifications of reserve and park directors.
3. At least 19 reserve and park directors must be replaced.
4. The appointments of 6 directors of nature reserves and national parks are being held up.
5. No opportunity for personnel rotation.

VI. MANAGEMENT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL

STRENGTHS

1. Considerable experience (both positive and negative) was gained in managing subordinate nature reserves and national parks over the last 10 years.
2. Centralization of state nature reserves and national parks management in one federal executive body.
3. Transfer to direct park management.
4. Development and adoption of program documents (Main Aims of State Nature Reserves and National Parks until 2010; Russian National Parks Management Strategy Project).
5. Regular publication of collections of documents on reserve legislation and regulation (3 editions).
6. Support and development of activities of regional associations of nature reserves and national parks for the last 7 years.
7. Support and development of the idea of developing integrated management plans for nature reserves and national parks; approval of management plans for 6 national parks and 4 nature reserves at the federal level.

WEAKNESSES

1. Acute lack of qualified specialists.
2. Weak management structure.
3. Low attractiveness of state service due to material and moral problems.
4. Successive reorganizations of relevant executive authorities; loss of accumulated experience and qualified personnel.
5. No supplementary department responsible for coordination and methodical support.
6. Insufficient use of modern telecommunications.
7. No reserve and park federal management system on an interdepartmental level.
8. No special methodical guidelines to develop management plans; lack of experience in implementing such plans.
9. No departmental reserve periodical or other informational and propaganda opportunities (e.g a website).
10. Insufficient manpower and means to carry out systematic, comprehensive on-site checks of PNAs and their activities.

V.B. Stepanitsky,
WWF Russian Office

N.I. Troitskaya,
Partnership for Nature Reserves (a non-commercial alliance)

<< | contents | top | >>