«DECISION-MAKING ISSUES»

GENERAL COMMENTS ON NATURAL RESERVES, ESPECIALLY ON THEIR MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND PARTICULARLY ON SICENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL MATTERS

It seems feasible to begin the discussion of such an acute topic as our natural reserves management structure with some sort of introduction or an extended epigraph. Irrelevant as it may seem, in fact it has a direct bearing on the issue under consideration.

Currently, there is a wide-spread talk about a so-called “noospheric development” of certain regions of this country and of their strife to attain some new spiritual and ecological essence. Judging by the available literature, the right to “noospheric leadership” is claimed by Altai and Taimyr, the Barentz region and Beringia, i.e. territories with mostly intact (at least relatively) natural landscapes. There are plenty of publications devoted particularly to the noospheric role of natural reserves. It would seem natural to support this promising and evolving area by citing fundamental works of V.N. Vernadsky and his most close follower N.N. Moisseev, but they are so well-known that it would seem enough just to mention them. Apparently, it is preferable to cite less known ideas of one of the famous Russian philosophers N.A. Berdiaev - ideas that despite their seeming irrelevance have a direct bearing on this topic.

Although Berdiaev expressed these thoughts as early as at the turn of the last century his ideas focus on modern times and apparently have an element of foresight in them. From the very start one should understand that Berdiaev, same as the majority of Russian philosophers, always separated the material side of human being from its spiritual one and opposed culture to civilization (this thought frequently crossed my mind when I took part in the organization in 2002 of a Center of Arctic Culture and Civilization being established at that time in Taimyr autonomous district).

“The entire material life is only an internal realization of spiritual life and is rooted in it. Economic activity being the result of spiritual forces realization, organization and regulation represents an act of human spirit. Labor is a manifestation of spirit rather than that of matter and has spiritual foundations… Material consumption cannot be the only goal of economic activity. Here we face extreme exaggeration of the role of economy, its domination over the entire life… An arrogant dream of the human being to subjugate nature will lead to ugliness, elimination of beauty and destruction of the glory of life…Therefore, the fruits of nature subjugation are so bitter and ugly...”

“…Spiritual attitude to economy suggests asceticism and limitation of want. Unlimited requirements and population growth has created an industrial capitalist civilization fraught with shocks and calamities and reflects a complete loss of spirituality… And if peoples want to revive spiritually they will have to choose the track of ascetic self-limitation and spiritualization of economic life”.

“Transformation of culture into civilization is connected with radical changes in people’s attitude towards nature… The era of civilization started with a victorious introduction of machines. Life seizes to be organic and looses its link with the rhythm of nature. The human being is separated from nature by an intermediate layer of artificial tools and machines, with the help of which he tries to subjugate nature… Civilization has a machining, rather than a natural or spiritual foundation. The spirit of civilization becomes narrow-minded; it is introduced in and attached to perishable and transient things; it is alien to eternity. Civilization is incapable of realizing its dream of an achieving an ever-increasing world power. But Babylon tower will never be built… Civilization has been born out of the strife of the human being for real power, for real happiness contrasting to symbolic and contemplative nature of culture. This is one of the ways leading from culture to “real life”, to its transformation, to its technical reorganization. The human being had to follow this track and to develop this technical potential to the fullest extent. But in doing so he will not achieve genuine being and this way leads to the loss of human character…”

“…In the history of mankind one can distinguish four époques or four stages: barbarity, culture, civilization and religious transformation… Russia has been a strange country with an unclear fate and a passionate dream of religious transformation of life. The strife for culture in this country has always been over-flown by the strife for “life”… We have started to experience the crisis of culture without tasting the fruits of culture. Russians have always been dissatisfied with culture… Civilization we have created is ugly. Barbarian elements have always been too strong while our commitment to religious transformation has been affected by some unhealthy dreams. However, Russians are able to understand the crisis of culture and the tragedy of historic fate deeper than more prosperous people of the West. Russian people have possibly retained a stronger ability to display belief in the miracle of religious transformation of life. We need culture same as all other peoples of the world and we will have to go all the way with civilization. However, we will not be chained by cultural symbolism and civilization pragmatism in the same way as the peoples of the West are. Commitment of the Russian people needs to be refined and strengthened, and our people should undergo a great confession. Only then his strife for the transformation of life will give him the right to understand his mission in the universe”.

Can you imagine the Tsar’s ruling Senate, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or the RF Duma adopting regulations on the establishment of state natural reserves with the aim of ecological and moral improvement of society? Meanwhile it is our domestic natural reserves that were intended to become some sort of models and symbols of compensation for damages caused to nature by civilization. Deep emotions, “best intentions” and manifestations of the strongest human feelings do not usually inscribe in legal acts and paragraphs of different codes. Natural reserves represented a real way of limiting of economic desires described by Berdiaev. However, the term “ideals” implies that they can never be accomplished in real life (at list not immediately) and frequently they only reflect the course of desirable direction. Let us look at how the first natural reserves were born early in the 21^st century. Initially, landlord Falts-Feign, counts Pototsky and Sheremetiev, duke San-Donato, countess Panina and other wealthy people started to withdraw some forest and steppe areas from agricultural production with the assistance of scientists, subsequently several research stations requiring some sort of protection regime were opened (Dokuchaev’s – in the Ukrainian steppe regions, ornithological stations in the Baltic region, etc.) and only then did official “sable reserves” were established with a particular mission – i.e. to save disappearing fur animals. Caucasian aurochs were not that lucky. Senate rejected the proposal of the Russian Academy of Science to establish a national park within the limits of Kubansky hunting area. Until recently the entire history of our conservation system evolution represented a history of struggle with producers and search for compromise solutions. I employed past tense here because now the situation has changed drastically: first, no new natural reserves have been established for a long time and, second, the existing reserves are being gradually turned into economic units.

I can put forward many strong arguments in favor of establishing natural reserves as research institutions, hubs for collecting useful information, monitoring, education, etc. However, deep inside each person who have succeeded in conserving a certain site of this country has been, first and foremost, guided by love and tenderness to a piece of nature chosen by him. As an experienced designer and founder of natural reserves I realize (judging by my own and others experience) that until you do not thoroughly explore the area chosen yourself no aviation surveys or statistics will make you look for and find arguments in favor of practical implementation of certain projects. A genuine environmental advocate is always guided by feelings rather than by reason. This is why a good journalist can sometimes provide stronger arguments in favor of natural reserves establishment than a scientist.

The irony of natural reserves development in the Soviet period was that nearly utopian ideas of complete non-interference of the human being in the natural reserves operation were mainstreamed by environmental advocates into some scientific casing and were even partially implemented. However, in 1930s these environmentalists were roughly “corrected” and were forced to renounce such “non-interference”, although, as D. Winner neatly put it, this was some sort of “mimicry” that allowed them to preserve the “rules of the game” for some time. All this ended during the full swing of Lysenkovshina in 1951 when a well-known “reorganization” or rather a complete destruction of the entire conservation system occurred. Then, 1960s-1980s marked a certain “reconstruction period” that continued with different degree of success until 1990s.

Now in the light of all the above we can consider natural reserves management evolution in more detail. From the moment it was born the first natural reserve was included in the structure of a national-level agency – the Ministry of Farming. Later, in the upcoming soviet period this function was rendered to the People’s Commissary on Education (its internal structures were modified as rapidly as in our “troubled times”). In 1933 a Committee on Natural Reserves was set up under NCEC, which was later transformed into the Chief Administration on Natural Reserves under the CNC (the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR). The early 1950s marked a period of “multi-agency approach” when natural reserves did not have a single authority and when different reserves reported to the USSR Ministry of Agriculture, the RSFSR State Hunting Committee, the Academy of Science, selected institutes, etc. A promising and principally sound attempt to concentrate natural reserves and national parks in the hands of the State Committee on Nature Protection was soon closed down by further transformations that finally resulted in the disruption of the conservation system management at the federal level. Today, each natural reserve and national park, in fact, operates on its own depending on circumstances. In this context it seems relevant to refer to an aphorism attributed by Diogen Laertsky to Platon: “Disorder prospers when the laws are bad, when the existing laws are not complied with and when the laws are lacking”.

The essence of transformations that occurred in the Russian conservation activities in the last decade and a half can be illustrated by a brief citation from a scientific paper written on Wrangell Island - the most valuable Arctic natural reserve of this country:

“By its 25^th anniversary (i.e. by the year 2000 – F.S.) the reserve has been turned from a genuinely research institution into a predominantly commercial structure mainly concerned with organization of commercial film-shootings to make money required for further similar shootings (M.S. Stishov. Wrangell Island – Model of nature and natural anomaly). Instead of explaining negative processes related to this period I would rather make use of direct testimonies of those who work in the field – particularly in natural reserves. Though I will not give their names or geographical locations, please, believe me that the texts of letters that I have received are genuine, although slightly edited.

So let us give floor to one of employees of our natural reserves. His first letter was addressed to a newspaper (and apparently was not published) while I received a copy of this letter, which began with the following epigraph:

“We are in need of an alliance among philosophy and religion against the freedom of scientific reason” (B. Boreiko. “Zapovestnik”, No. 3, 1998). The text that followed read: “According to a new regulation approved by our director employees of our natural reserve are not entitled disclose information on the reserve and without authorization are not allowed to address anyone or to publish anything they have learned in the course of their activities. Also, they must shape a positive image of the reserve and violation of this regulation shall be prosecuted… I would like to remind you that no other organization focuses on challenges addressed by natural reserves as research institutions. This is a real and efficient motivation for our system, but it should be transparent. Confusion of motivation will be destructive… Confrontation of science and education in natural reserves is a cause of serious concern. Moreover, genuine education is replaced with public relations, poor advertising and circumenvironmental topics. With strong support from public relations educators and direct public relations workers science has been either uprooted from natural reserves or is being slowly eliminated (for the time being); however it seems that pretty soon science will be simply thrown away. In this case someone will definitely feel better… Natural reserves seize to be a scientific and research organization and turn into services providers”.

And (by the way) what services! In local newspapers one can often find claims against employees of natural reserves who have not organized a sufficiently warm welcome to certain guests who have deigned to “come closer to nature”. Natural reserve become centers of eco-tourism and organized recreation. Please, forgive me for interrupting our correspondent, let us listen to him again and look at the letters that he sent directly me. I would only like to emphasize that the policy of replacing science with pseudo-education was not born in natural reserves themselves but was imposed “from the top level” by the former conservation agencies that implemented a direct policy of our national reserves’ convergence with national parks. The West has also much to do with that policy.

“After having read your book about Reimers (“From old cedar trees to immortality of mankind”) we wondered what he would have done if he had lived until these days? We think he would have hanged himself. Though may be I am alone ready to run away from here out of weakness and anger. Particularly, I am being forced to take this step by our “greedy eco-promoters”, or so-called “eco-educators”. They use flattery and flirtation, manipulation with words and phrase-mongering and consist of low-educated persons with little concern of conservation activities. However, they have followers among certain professionals (for example, V.P. Tchizhova or even N.R. Danilina) who declare that since there are no natural reserves in the rest of the world we do not need them either and should rather transform them into recreational parks. And what shall we do with the word “zapovednik” (meaning natural reserve) which has become an internationally recognized term?”

“Please, forgive me for bothering you once again. Time passes. We have won a grant and are pleased and displeased with that at the same time. We feel shame. The Americans give us money to buy pants to our foresters. Local authorities – labor protection body, sanitary inspection, etc, have started to press us seriously. We have nothing here – no garments, no equipment and we were even instructed not to come to work if the country does not want to support its citizens. So we are asking America, for God’s sake: today you buy us pants, so what will be the next move? Meanwhile the authorities demand only education-related reports from us... And we face numerous inspections, which take place one after another. They are inspecting us and laughing.”

“… Thank you for your new articles but I think that they are full of some sad, desperate and “doomed” optimism. It is strange that they are being published; may be it is done to demonstrate what conformists we still have here who believe in the future of natural reserves! I often think of how repugnant the very idea of leaving nature in peace looks to the human being as a biological species…”

“Financial bodies are simply taunting us, to say the least. For instance, they do not give us money to buy necessary things worth of 200 rubles… Furthermore, the budgetary classification does not contain an item providing for purchase of skis. If the country wanted to throw budget money away in the most senseless way it could think of nothing better than of providing local financial bodies with controls… We are alone in the field of nature protection and courts are prejudiced against us. Our feeling of needlessness becomes more and more bitter…”

I do not intend to disclose the name of my correspondent, but the reader has apparently felt that he is a male. And here is some female testimony. Botanist Yulia Viktorovna Zakharova, chief of research division of Altai natural reserve several days before her tragic death last spring in Yaiu village on Telets Lake wrote a detailed letter to me (we have been keeping in touch for some time), and I would like to bring the following extracts to your attention:

“Spring euphoria in nature does not correspond to the situation in which the reserve finds itself (its disintegration as an institution). During 20 years of work in the reserve I have got used to difficulties. I have even accepted that science is not considered very important. But we are not wanted at all! How can we survive under the attacks from all sides? What can I tell my colleagues about their future?”

“In March I attended a meeting of the association of SPNAs from Altai-Saiansky region was held on the basis of Saiano-Shushensky natural reserve … Director A.G. Rassolov suggested that reserves should make increased focus on money-making (through organizing tourism and hunting tours in the biosphere site for hard currency) and further integration in the regions’ economy. He is a businessman and the well-being of his site is of no match to ours. But then we would have to reconsider our moral principles... It was suggested that in order to ensure that 99 wild mountain goats moved freely around the reserve (to be studied by good-for-nothing scientists) we should kill one animal and to sell it for hard currency. Then foresters and the entire local community will be interested in its protection…”

“The meeting was also attended and addressed by a notorious winner of numerous honors and awards B.V. Pestryakov who openly proposed to bury the very concept of SPNAs out of conviction that conservation approach did not meet modern challenges. In one of his articles he wrote the following: “Reserved natural areas should not be hostile to recreational, sport and nutrition needs of the population… Nature protection should not result in limitation of people’s access to nature…”

All this is confirmed by a copy of the cited Pestryakov’s article showing its number and date; however this approach is not new to those who are familiar with natural reserves development history in this country. In the past these ideas were very popular and were often embodied in decisions adopted not only at the regional level (raion, district or krai), bat at the highest levels of state governance as well (otherwise we would have still had ministries and agencies set up specifically for environment protection). These ideas represent nothing else but a manifestation of blatant ignorance or boorishness, which are even more obvious at the background of a higher level of modern technogenic civilization development. It is a well-known fact that history has a tendency of recurrence. A Spanish proverb reads: “He who lives long sees a lot of evil”. It is difficult to really surprise people of my generation. When Anna Akhmatove was bitterly criticized by Zhdanov she read Horatio in the original but did not try to hang herself or beg the authorities for mercy. Merezhkovsky maintained that only the coming Christ would defeat the coming Boor. But here all depends on what one believes in – either in Christ or in Noosphere with its ecological transformation, or common reason of mankind, which will not allow full collapse of the universe. By the way, it is in this reason that N.F. Reimers had believed, and I do not agree with my colleague who argued that he would have committed suicide in this environment. The thing is that his prediction to the effect that we can stifle with the odor of the rotten corpse of the CPSU monster simply came true. Its casing has been destroyed and its content leaked out. However, history has its own measure of time, and the triumph of evil over good will not last forever and hopes for good and enlightening will eventually come true.

I have hardly sealed the envelope and put a postage stamp on it when news of Yulia Viktorovna’s murder by one of her own colleagues, apparently being an employee of the ecological education division came in. The only way I could express my feelings was to give up the former idea of continuing my book on the modern history of Russian natural reserves (from 1995 to 2005). Let our eco-educators write such a book - with the aid of their grants!

Felix Shtilmark,
Doctor of Biology

| contents | top | >>