RESULTS OF EFFORTS TO PROTECT STATE NATURE RESERVES IN 2001
Analysis of security service activities at state nature reserves in 2001 has allowed us to assess the work done in the reserves, in their buffer zones, and in supervised nature sanctuaries.
In 2001, security services existed at all 100 state nature reserves and employed a total of 2,077 persons.
According to the reserve directors’ reports, 79 reserves (versus 62 in 2000) had specially created operative groups within their security services.
State nature reserve security services filed 6,094 reports (versus 6,057 in 2000) of various violations, including 222 instances of illegal timber cutting (versus 234 in 2000); 68 of illegal haymaking and cattle grazing (versus 65); 505 of illegal hunting (versus 605); 1,498 of illegal fishing (versus 1,425); 914 of illegal collecting of wild plants (versus 1,264); 30 of illegal squatting and construction (versus 53); 2,463 of trespassing on foot or in a car (versus 1,880); 47 of environmental pollution (versus 34); 174 of breaking fire regulations in forests (versus 220). Officially, 104 hoofed animals (versus 83 in 2000) and 7 large predators (1 polar bear, 5 brown bears and 1 wolf) were confiscated from poachers (versus 1 brown bear and 2 polar bears in 2000).
In 2001, violators paid a total of 1,913,800 rubles in fines (versus 1,475,900 rubles in 2000) and 2,687,200 rubles in damages caused to natural complexes and sites (versus 1,839,400 rubles in 2000). The most considerable sums (fines and damages) were collected from offenders in the following reserves: Chernye Zemli (757,300 rubles), Kurilsky (580,500), Dalnevostochny Morskoy (119,000), Stolby (198,300), Lazovsky (60,600), Astrakhansky (98,200), Kuznetsky Alatau (83,600), Voroninsky (43,800), Privolzhskaya Lesosteppe (33,600), Kavkazsky (32,600), Baikalsky (31,900), Voronezhsky (55,100), Khakassky (46,600), Khankaisky (41,100), Yuzhno-Uralsky (52,000), Volzhsko-Kamsky (58,500), Severo-Osetinsky (130,000) and Ussuriysky (44,100). Thus, the combined share of these 18 reserves (18 % of all Russian reserves) amounted to 84% of all the fines and damages collected in 2001.
In 80 cases (versus 96 in 2000), offenders were tried in criminal court. Thirty-one persons were found guilty of environmental crimes (versus 37 in 2000) and sentenced. These suits were brought against persons apprehended by the security services of Lazovsky (8 persons), Astrakhansky (1), Baikalsky (4), Bolon’sky (4), Darvinsky (4), Sokhondinsky (4), Dalnevostochny Morskoy (2), Kavkazsky (2), Kerzhensky (1) and Sikhote-Alinsky (1).
In 38 reserves (the same number as in 2000) the apprehension of offenders was accompanied by the confiscation of rifles (68 in 2001versus 92 in 2000) and smoothbore weapons (240 in 2001 versus 213 in 2000).
Thus, 234 (77%) of 305 confiscated firearms were confiscated by the security
services of 12 (out of 100) reserves: Khankaisky, Bolon'sky, Kavkazsky, Daursky,
Khingansky, Tsentralno-Chernozemny, Malaya Sos’va, Stolby, Lazovsky, Severo-Osetinsky
and Kuznetsky Alatau.
In 2001, moreover, security guards confiscated 2,130 fishing-nets, drags and sweep nets (versus 1,822 in 2000); 283 trap and bow nets (versus 278); 1,269 traps, chokers and the like (versus 1,540).
Of the 13 reserves that include water areas, the following ones made the greatest progress in water area protection in 2001: Kurilsky and Dalnevostochni Morskoy.
Reports of environmental pollution, squatting and illegal construction were
filed by the security services of only 19 reserves (versus 18 in 2000): Baikalsky,
Volzhsko-Kamsky, Dagestansky, Darvinsky, Daursky, Denezhkin Kamen', Kavkazsky,
Komandorsky, Komsomolsky, Kostomukshsky, Kurilsky, Putoransky, Severo-Osetinsky,
Stolby, Khankaisky, Khingansky, Tsentralno-Chernozemny, Chernye Zemli and Yuzhno-Uralsky.
This suggests that in the other 81 reserves, the eco-systems (at least within
the buffer zones) are not being properly protected.
Moreover, the security services of Gydansky, Ostrov Vrangelya, Olekminsky,
Taimyrsky, Tungussky and Yugansky did not report a single violation.
Bureinsky reported only one minor offence, and Tsentralno-Lesnoy –
2 offences. In Botchinsky, 3 out of 4 reported offences were unsolved,
in Tsentralnosibirsky – 3 out of 6.
The security services of Tsentralnosibirsky reserve did not file a single trespassing report with regard to its subordinate state refuge.
A number of reserves have been lax about prosecuting offenders. This allows
offenders to act with impunity while discrediting the security services. In
Bureinsky, Botchinsky, Bolshoy Arktichesky, Magadansky, Tigireksky, Tsentralno-Lesnoy
and Erzi, offenders were let off without a fine. The fines collected
in Tebersinsky reserve amounted to a mere 100 rubles (and not a single
ruble from offenders brought to justice); the same amount was collected in Verkhne-Tazovsky
reserve; 200 rubles in fines were collected in Dzherginsky; 200 rubles
in Shulgan Tash; 300 rubles in Basegi; 400 rubles in Pinezhsky;
and 500 rubles in Azas.
The minimum fine that a reserve security officer could legally impose in 2001 was 100 rubles. Meanwhile, in Prioksko-Terrasny an average fine amounted to a mere 19 rubles; in Il’mensky — 21 rubles; in Shulgan Tash — 25 rubles; in Katunsky — 47 rubles; in Bolshekhehtsirsky — 70 rubles, and in Teberdinsky — 72 rubles, or less than the minimum fine that a reserve security officer can legally impose. In Prioksko-Terrasny reserve, of 164 detained offenders, only 31 were brought to justice.
In Il'mesky (a reserve under the Russian Academy of Sciences), most reports of violations were never formally filed. Therefore, the offenders were never prosecuted.
State inspectors at Astrakhansky, Kavkazsky, Kuznetsky Alatau, Oksky, Stolby
and Khankaisky detained violators who turned out themselves to be law
enforcement officials, state fishing inspectors, state hunting inspectors and
other authorities. This fact suggests that the reserves’ security officers were
firm and principled in protecting the reserves’ regime.
At Stolby, Khankaisky and Il’mensky, state inspectors were assaulted
by the offenders they were detaining.
Of those reserves whose security services were most successful in catching
violators (including armed poachers), in bringing them to justice and collecting
the fines or damages, the following deserve special mention: Astrakhansky,
Baikalsky, Bolon'sky, Vplzhsko-Kamsky, Voronezhsky, Voroninsky, Kavkazsky, Kuznetsky
Alatau, Kurilsky, Lazovsky, Malaya Sos'va, Sokhondinsky, Stolby and Khankaisky.
