«DECISION-MAKING ISSUES»

NATURAL RESERVES AND NATIONAL PARKS IN RUSSIA. THE STATE AND GOVERNANCE

In September 2004 natural reserves and national parks of the Russian MNR received an order informing them of a new turning point in the history of national conservation activities – another change of “ownership”. Herewith they were placed under direct control of the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight in accordance with policy decisions taken by the Government. That initiative did not take natural reserves’ managers by surprise. Recent years had taught them not to take hasty steps in the face of such changes in subordination, reporting requirements and other procedures since in the last 16 years many reserves changed their “owners” six times. In all these cases this shift of control was explained by the need to improve the system of state management of nature protection, particularly that of nature conservation activities.

These unfortunate conservation activities! One can hardly find any other sector, which has been subjected to such vigorous management “improvements” in recent years. And how often (and at such a level) we have also heard calls for its further improvement! Here are only some examples: “The Government of the Russian Federation should … develop and implement measures for the improvement of the system of state management of natural reserves, national parks and other specially protected natural areas…” – this is an extract from Decree No. 1155 of the RF President of October 2, 1992. “MNR of Russia should … elaborate proposals on the improvement of the system of state management of specially protected natural areas of federal significance in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in force and submit them to the Government” – this one is from Protocol Decision No. 11 of the Russian Government of March 22, 2001. “To view further development and improvement of specially protected natural areas system as an important pre-condition for efficient environmental policy implementation” – this one is from a resolution adopted by the First Russian-Wide Congress on Nature Protection (1995).

Today Russia has an SPNA system consisting of 100 state natural reserves and 35 national parks with a total area of 40 million ha (over 2 per cent of the entire territory of the country), employing 10 thousand environmentalists, having an ancient history and enjoying well-deserved international recognition. Indeed, why should all these calls and attempts to improve governance of this entire system result in nothing better than its management (or rather mismanagement) under the auspices of the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight?

The State Hunting Committee of the RSFSR included a natural reserves division consisting of 5 staff-members. Until its “conservation” mandate was terminated this State Committee looked over 45 reserves, as well as 52 reservations of federal significance. The State Hunting Committee played a pivotal role in Russian reserves’ geographical network restoration and expansion, which had been so ruthlessly destroyed by absurd decisions of 1951 and 1961. It is on these objectives that all the efforts and energy of this small-size team were focused. Today we can hear recollections of our veterans of glorious times when natural reserves were under the control of the State Hunting Committee, when employees received their wages on time, when funds for capital development were allocated to practically all entities, when the level of senior researcher’ wage paid in Magadan was sufficient to support his family. There were no problems with aviation protection of forests from forest fires! Helicopter services were widely available! There were plenty of river resources! However, this is rather a nostalgic recollection of the former USSR than that of the State on Hunting Committee itself. Meanwhile, one should recall that natural reserves under the State on Hunting Committee’ control faced the beginning of “perestroika” with practically under-developed and totally obsolete legal framework, with protection service deprived of any rights, with lack of policy and concept developments having vision of the future, with lack of procedures for generalization and analysis of the results of annual activities, with lack of understanding of the importance of popular involvement and with inadequate control of managers’ activities (“Moscow is too far away”), gradual formalization of research, preference of regulatory game shooting and inefficient personnel policy. However, if compared to modern conditions the State on Hunting Committee’ operated in favorable environment experiencing no financial crises, inflation, rise of criminal activity, social and political tensions, “sovereignty parades” or large-scale legal negligence. The lesson to be learnt from all the above is quite obvious: a handful of professionals in a large country cannot under any circumstances ensure efficient management of the national system of natural reserves. This conclusion is obvious to the entire world (except for this country).

With the transfer of natural reserves under the control of the USSR State Committee on Nature in 1988 the situation did not improve at all. First of all, ironic as it is, inter-agency fragmentation had nothing but increased. While natural reserves were placed under jurisdiction of nature protection bodies, national parks were left under the authority of the RSFSR Ministry of Forestry and 87 per cent of federal reservations remained in the hands of the State Hunting Committee and later were included in the system of the Ministry of Agriculture. This move had to a considerable extent determined their future: being part of specially protected natural areas (SPNAs) federal reservations of the Ministry of Agriculture resembled hunting stock reproduction sites. Moreover, not all reserves of the RSFSR State Hunting Committee were placed under jurisdiction of the RSFSR State Committee on Nature. Nine biosphere reserves together with reserves of the Union-Level State Agro-Industrial Committee were placed under jurisdiction of the Union-Level State Committee on Nature. This resulted in a tendency to divide reserves into “first-rate” and “second-rate” areas.

Secondly, unlike the State Hunting Committee the State Committees on Nature (both of the union and republican levels) were multi-functional monsters for which conservation activities were obviously subordinate to other activities and functions. It should be noted that in the years to come this subordination remained and continued to be an obstacle to efficient management of the natural reserves system. This brings us to another conclusion: “for a multi-functional agency conservation activities cannot be a priority since efficient management of the SPNAs system requires priority attention on the part of the authorized state agency”.

However, in spring of 1990 we witnessed an important development in the field of SPNAs state management, which to a large extent determined the course of natural reserves system evolution in the 14 forthcoming years: by his determined decision, a new (and the last) head of the USSR State Committee on Nature N.N. Vorontsov transformed a small division on natural reserves into a Chief Administration on Natural Reserves within the framework of the national nature protection agency.

N.N. Vorontsov hardly imagined the ways of natural reserve system management at this stage of modern history. However, due to his intuition of an intellectual, scientist and environmentalist he did realize that at least it is required to strengthen the role, status, authority and staff of that unit. And it would be no exaggeration to say that the establishment of the Chief Administration on Conservation Activities made the list of the most vivid and useful deeds of N.N. Vorontsov in the office of nature conservation minister. During the previous 37 years no such measures had been taken. And even though this Administration was formed only within the framework of the union-level committee (the republican-level committee still had a division consisting of five staff-members) and even if it did not have enough time to do something really significant (though undoubtedly it served as an important training school for conservation managers), the very decision on its establishment can be indeed viewed as a historic one: when in a year and a half the USSR seized to exist and a single nature protection agency was formed in Russia which finally united union-level and republican-level reserves there was no doubt of the usefulness of establishing a similar body, and in fact it was subsequently established within the structure of the new Russian agency (as an administration, chief administration and later as a department) and operated until August 2004. All positive developments in respect of natural reserves during the period under consideration (and these developments have been numerous) and the very fact of preservation and development of this system in that difficult period have been to a great extent caused by the transfer of relevant management functions from a small division to a more powerful and independent unit, as it was envisaged by the last Soviet minister of nature protection. Therefore, the current reform will not only result in mismanagement in the field of nature conservation but will also nullify the very essence of what professor N.N. Vorontsov stood for and what many generations of environmentalists tried to achieve.

Since the very beginning of its operation in 1992 this new unit - Administration on Conservation Activities – has faced a specific managerial problem related to interference in its management of reserves under its jurisdiction and attempts of the units of financial and personnel blocks of the Ministry to pursue their own policy. The emerging situation looked nothing but strange: on the one hand, the Conservation Administration was directly responsible for conservation system design and development, but did not have sufficient authority. On the other hand, the financial block possessing strong managerial leverages was in no way responsible for the outcome of the reserves’ activities. This problem was solved only in the second half of the 1990s when under a decision taken by the Chairman of the State Committee on Ecology of Russia V.I. Danilov-Danilyan required powers were given to the Administration on Conservation Activities. With its transfer to the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia in 2000 these powers were further expanded by Minister B.Y. Yatskevich. Future developments have proved that these decisions were timely and reasonable. This leads to yet another conclusion: a single unit of a federal executive agency regardless of its title and professionalism of its staff cannot efficiently manage the system of SPNAs under its control unless it has full management authority, particularly in financial and personnel matters.

Elimination of multi-agency authority should be viewed as a considerable success in the field of state management of the federal SPNAs system. After the establishment of an umbrella Ministry of Natural Resources in 2000 all reserves previously controlled by the Russian State Committee on Ecology, national parks controlled by the Russian Committee on Forestry as well as Yuzhno-Uralsky reserve controlled by the Ministry of Forestry were placed under its jurisdiction. Earlier natural reserve “Les-na-Vorskle” (Forest on Vorskla”) (now – “Belogorie”) was transferred from the Ministry of Higher Education to the State Committee on Ecology reserves’ system, while national parks “Lossiny ostrov” (Moose Island) and “Plesheevo ozero” (Plesheevo Lake) of federal significance were included in the national parks’ system of the Russian Committee on Agriculture. Thus, for the first time in years an objective pre-condition emerged for the establishment of a single service for state natural reserves and national parks management – the idea that had been so vigorously pursued by the leading conservation professionals.

Meanwhile, with the appointment of V. Artyukhov as head of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources the situation has changed drastically. The establishment of new reserves and natural parks has been suspended. As a result, from 2001 to 2004 not a single new reserve or national park was set up in the country (the last intermission in these activities was experienced only in 1951-1954). Bureaucracy and red taped flourished while the solution of any simple issues was heavily complicated. Real, practical and efficient work was gradually replaced by its imitation and transformed to senseless paperwork, fuss, pompous rhetoric and meaningless “presentations”. SPNA system management functions were distributed among different units of the central apparatus and experienced conservation professionals started to leave the Ministry one after another. However, in February 2003 some positive developments were seen in the Ministry with the introduction of a policy aimed at revival and strengthening of a fairly damaged SPNA management system and some steps for the return of former team were taken (which some degree of success), although this thrust continued for less than half a year. In summer 2003 the minister drastically changed his temporary loyal attitude towards conservation department. This change of attitude coincided in time with launching of a protest by the department against “cutting off” the area of Sochi national park under the influence of certain stakeholders supported by the minister. Repercussions did not take too long to follow. They resulted in the denial of the department of its already limited powers, skillful bureaucratic “pressing” of its officials and, finally, another reorganization. Thus, minister Artiukhov and his team set a unique precedent in the history of domestic and possibly world-wide nature conservation: the Ministry designed to ensure efficient state management of SPNAs deliberately and coherently took steps aimed at undermining past successes in this field and reducing efficiency of SPNAs state management.

These developments without any doubt implicitly affect the current policy, which manifests itself particularly:

— in discrediting the team of professionals who have for many years served the cause of conservation system establishment and development;

— in censuring contradicting points of view and in making attempts to get rid of those who have and hold to their own pinion;

— in talking profusely about insignificance of conservation, about inefficiency of establishing powerful management structures, about allegedly effective management of the SPNA system by a handful of professionals;

— in advocating a view that the very fact of appointment to a high post inevitably ensures a required level of professional knowledge and skills in a relevant field;

— in displaying contemptuous attitude to professional approach.

One of “scourges” adversely affecting natural reserves and national parks’ management system includes a policy of endless reorganizations of structural units of the central apparatus carried out within the framework of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. During the period from December 2001 to August 2004 (in just two and a half years!) three departments and one administration responsible for SPNA management were dismantled one after another. Therefore, it is right time to make one more conclusion: provision of efficient state management of the national system of natural reserves requires at least relative stability inconsistent with constant reorganizations and shifts of responsible management structures.

The threat of large-scale dismantling of the entire system of SPNAs management became even more acute with the initiation of the current administrative reform.

At the first glance it became clear that within the new structure of federal executive bodies there was no body that in view of its tasks and functional limitations could perform the function of direct natural reserves and national parks’ management. Moreover, the very function of state management of this system was excluded from the functions identified for these executive bodies by the Government of the Russian Federation in April 2004.

One way to address this problem could be the establishment of a special federal agency on specially protected natural areas. However, despite numerous appeals of conservation professionals, scientific and nature protection communities and support of this idea by certain politicians (including the Federation Council’s Speaker S. Mironov) it did not receive adequate attention.

Instead, Resolution No. 400 of the RF Government of July 30, 2004 established that “pending the adoption of a relevant legal act by the Government of the Russian Federation state management in the field of organization and functioning of specially protected natural areas of federal significance shall be entrusted to the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight”.

In fact, immediately after the adoption of that decision it became clear that the function of natural reserves and national parks’ state management was unnatural for the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight and therefore received low priority in its activities.

Instead of providing for the establishment of a single specialized administration on specially protected natural areas the structure of this federal service includes only a small division consisting of just five staff-members (and even this small unit has not been staffed to the full extent in the four subsequent months). And at such strength it is supposed to ensure professional management of specially protected natural areas, including organization of nature protection, research and ecological education activities on a Russian-wide scale!

At the same time as a result of personnel policy pursued by the authorities of the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight the most experienced, qualified and famous staff-members of the former department on specially protected natural areas of the MNR of Russia did not find their niche within the new structure. All this created a real threat of degradation of the federal system of natural reserves and national parks’ state management as well as that of loss of promising nature conservation developments achieved in the last 15 years. It is of particular concern since during this period some prominent activities were implemented to adapt federal specially protected natural areas to new social and economic realities.

In August 2004 the authorities of the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight came up with an initiative to exclude inspectors engaged in territorial protection from the staff-tables of special protected natural areas (numbering more than 4 thousand persons) and to include them in the staff-tables of territorial bodies of this Federal Service (with allocating corresponding funds for their maintenance). This initiative was carried out without due regard to actual way of natural reserves and national parks’ functioning for many years and contradicted the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation in force (article 33 of the Federal Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas). Its practical implementation would inevitably entail disruption of the sustainable system of natural reserves and national parks, which has existed for many decades. Fortunately, this proposal made by the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight was rejected by the Ministry of Finance of Russia who took a reasonable and firm position in this respect.

Isn’t it obvious that this “mini-division” for SPNAs management under jurisdiction of the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight exerts practically no influence on its personnel and financial policies? Suffice it to say that the news on the appointment of a new director of the Central Forest Reserve employees of that division learnt… from one of the employees of that reserve.

In the environment of innovative reforms implemented in 2004 the task of the authorized federal executive body to defend financial interests of natural reserves and national parks’ system under its control moved to the background. Consequently, funds allocated in the federal budget for natural reserves and national parks’ maintenance for 2005 exceeded the level of 2004 by only 1.3 per cent. For comparison, the rate of natural reserves and national parks maintenance costs’ increase in 2004 exceeded the level of 2003 by 30 per cent. At the same time budgetary allocations for capital construction in natural reserves and national parks in 2005 decreased three-fold as compared to 2004.

Another peculiarity of the current reform consists in the division of the system of nature conservation management into two blocks: policy-making together with legal regulation (being the responsibility of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia where a relevant division was established) and direct management of SPNAs under control (being the function of the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight).

On the one hand, this is in conformity with the officially adopted concept of the administrative reform and represents an objective reality to be lived with. Therefore, it is necessary to remember that “every cloud has a silver shining”. This will help to alleviate those officials who are engaged in direct management of natural reserves and national parks under control from other functions (establishment of new SPNAs, addressing a set of issues in the area of international cooperation, etc.) interfering with day-to-day work connected with relevant natural reserves and national parks’ management. However, on the other hand (and in general) this is not encouraging because:

— it creates a situation when a policy-maker who elaborates legal acts loses contact with reality and poorly understands what is happening in real life and at the same time is not responsible for the implications of decisions taken;

— it disperses already scarce capabilities of SPNAs professionals ready to work in the public service.

Meanwhile, a practical solution, which inscribes in the context of administrative reform underway in this country, does exist.

It has been clear for a long time that what we need is a strong specialized state structure capable of ensuring governance in the field of nature conservation. In spring 1992 a draft decree of the President of Russia on specially protected natural areas elaborated under the chairmanship of A.V. Yablokov, adviser of the RF President on environmental matters, was developed which provided for the establishment of a Committee on Nature Conservation at the Ministry of Ecology of the Russian Federation. In March of the same year the idea of establishing such a Committee was also supported by the decision of the Committee on Ecology and Sound Use of Natural Resources of the Supreme Soviet of the RF. However, this draft decree (although issued in October of that year), including its section that concerned the establishment of such a Committee, was emasculated by agencies.

In 1997 it was the Office of Public Relations of the Administration of the President of Russia that came up with an initiative to establish a unified and independent federal agency on natural reserves and national parks’ management, bur agencies again proved to be stronger.

The resolution unanimously adopted at the final meeting of the Third Russian-Wide Congress on Nature Protection (held on November 21, 2003) urged “to view the establishment of a State Service on Specially Protected Natural Areas within the framework of a federal executive body exercising state governance in the field of environment protection as a necessary condition for the provision of efficient management of a unified system of specially protected natural areas and to give it extensive functions and powers required for efficient management of this system”.

In 2004 this challenge became even more urgent. By this time lack of a federal executive body responsible for conservation activities in this specific area and able and designed to defend the cause of territorial nature protection and to ensure further development of the federal system of specially protected natural areas was considered as acute as ever.

The proposals on the establishment of such a body – at the level of a federal agency – were included in a letter signed by nearly five dozens of natural reserves and national parks’ directors addressed to the Federation Council’s Speaker S.M. Mironov. Sergei Mikhailovich himself publicly supported this idea, inter alia on pages of newspaper “Russian Gazette”. This idea was also supported by several deputies of the State Duma, including Deputy Chairmen of the Committee on Ecology of the State Duma A.N. Greshnevikov and M.Y. Lebedeva. The same proposal was made by a popular Russian journalist V.M. Peskov and a famous scientist, forester and RAS academician A.S. Isaev. At the same time in December 2004 the officials of the leading environmental organizations (WWF-Russia, Green-Peace-Russia, International Social and Ecological Union, All-Russian Society for Nature Protection, Biodiversity Conservation Center, Russian Birds Protection Union) submitted a proposal to Russia’s President V.V. Putin on the establishment of a specialized Federal Agency on Specially Protected Natural Areas authorized to ensure state governance in this field and reporting directly to the Russian Government. This last requirement is of particular significance and will ensure its operation similar to that of other federal bodies established by Presidential Decrees and reporting directly to the Russian Government, such as the Federal Agency on Tourism. This public initiative was also fully supported by E.A. Pamfilova, Chairman of the Presidential Council of Civil Society Development and Human Rights Promotion, who also submitted a relevant letter to the President.

Implementation of this proposal will allow not only to set up a strong and efficient structure but also to terminate the dispersion of functions and professionals among different agencies (the Ministry of Natural Resources - the Federal Service of Nature Use Oversight) concentrating them within one management body and to give this structure all required powers for inspection and control since control represents an integral element of SPNAs management. This will make it possible to establish comprehensive control of not only natural reserves and national parks but of federal reservations as well and to pay adequate attention to preservation of not only natural but also of historic and cultural heritage in the territories of federal SPNAs and will ensure a more efficient protection of our natural reserves and national parks from frequent encroachments on their land resources and territorial integrity. At the same time it will obviously contribute to the improvement of the image of our country as a state pursuing a progressive environmental policy. What is even more important, it will allow us to be optimistic about the future of our national property – the system of federal specially protected natural areas in Russia. Indeed, there is no reasonable alternative to this proposal!

In September 2003 the Fifth World Congress on Specially Protected Natural Areas was held in Durban, South Africa. This representative forum, inert alia, adopted recommendations addressed to national governments and civil societies. Paragraph 1 of these recommendations reads: “TO RECOGNIZE the importance of management as a key factor of specially protected areas functioning and TO ENSURE sound management of all types of these areas in the 21^st century”.

I hope our Government together with civil society will listen to this recommendation!

Vsevolod Stepanitsky,
Independent expert,
Honored ecologist of the Russian Federation

<<| contents | top | >>