Russia Case StudyManagement Effectiveness Assessment

of Protected Areas usingWWF’s RAPPAM MethodologyRus

sia

Tyrlyshkin, V, Blagovidov, A and Belokurov, A.2003Russia: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM MethodologyWWFGland, Switzerland

Front cover photograph: Pechora-Ilychskiy Nature Reserve – mixed boreal forest, Pechora River, Komi Republic, Russia© WWF/Hartmut Jungius

km 10000

Percentage of Protected Areas in Russia

Federal Protected Areas in the Russian Federation

RUSSIA

Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using

WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology

Vyacheslav Tyrlyshkin, WWF-Russia

Alexey Blagovidov, IUCN CIS

Alexander Belokurov, WWF Forests for Life Programme

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3

IMPLEMENTING THE METHODOLOGY 6

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES 9

RECOMMENDATIONS 28

FOLLOW-UP ACTION 31

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 32

CONTENTS

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

2

INTRODUCTIONANDBACKGROUND

3

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N A

ND

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

The 1995 Russian federal law defines protectedareas (PAs) as “areas of land and water surfaceand the air space above them, where naturalcomplexes and objects of special natureconservation, scientific, cultural, aesthetic, andrecreational importance are located. These areasare fully or partly withdrawn from economic use onthe decision of state authorities, and a specialregime of protection is established for them”. TheRussian national protected area system includes:

� 100 zapovedniks – strict nature reserves

� 35 national parks

� 69 federal zakazniks – wildlife refuges

� more than 3,000 regional zakazniks

� more than 10,000 nature monuments, including28 of federal importance

� more than 40 regional nature parks.

Protected areas (both federal and regional) coveraround 190 million hectares, or about 11 per cent ofthe whole territory of Russia. Of this, 135 millionhectares, or about 7.8 per cent, could beconsidered to be within IUCN's protected areacategories I–IV. There are substantial differences inthe area covered by protected areas between theregions (see maps on front inside cover). In regionswith a high degree of anthropogenic pressure andtransformation (e.g. Central Russia), the percentageis lower than the national average. In regions with alow degree of pressure, and with intact ecosystems,protected area percentages are the highest (e.g.Kamchatka Region, Sakha, and Altay republics).

The federal-level protected areas (zapovedniks,national parks, and zakazniks) are most importantfor biodiversity conservation and have a long

history of management. The vast majority of them(95 zapovedniks, 35 national parks, 11 federalzakazniks, and 28 nature monuments) are underthe control of the Ministry of Natural Resources,with the remainder (55 federal zakazniks) under theresponsibility of the Hunting Department of theMinistry of Agriculture and other ministries.

The IUCN and the Russian protected areacategories do not correspond exactly. Broadlyspeaking, zapovedniks fall within IUCN category Ia(strict nature reserves managed mainly for science),all national parks fall within IUCN category II(protected areas managed mainly for ecosystemprotection and recreation), and federal zakazniks fallwithin IUCN category IV (protected areas managedmainly for habitat or species conservation throughmanagement intervention).

The legislative basis of protected area managementis enumerated in a series of federal laws andregulations (e.g. Federal Environmental ProtectionLaw 2001, Federal Law on Specially Protected Areas1995, Federal Forest Code 1997); numerous sub-ordinate legislative documents (e.g. decrees,resolutions, executive orders); and departmentallegislative documents (e.g. guidelines, instructions,instructive letters). The network of zapovedniks formsthe core of the Russian protected area system. Azapovednik is an organizational entity that manages aterritory excluded from any form of economic activity,is managed for strict environmental protection, andconducts research and educational activities.

The protected area system and managementregime has developed under conditions of strongcentralized state power over all aspects of social

PROTECTED AREAS

and economic life. Zapovedniks received centralsupport, and were relatively independent fromregional and local pressures. As a result,historically, local interests were not sufficiently takeninto account, nor were the social and economicimportance of federal protected areas for localpopulations considered. With the radical changesin the social, economic, and political conditions inRussia, there is now growing recognition that thesenew realities should be included in protected areamanagement.

The centralized system of natural resourcesmanagement, which was based on clear nationalpolicies that advocated environmental protection, isno longer present. Ministries responsible forresource exploitation now also manage all federal

protected areas. Departmental control is ineffectiveand irregular, and does not take into sufficientconsideration the goals of nature protection.Hence, protected area management throughoutRussia is problematic, as evidenced by numerousviolations of protected area regulations.

In light of the current economic and politicalsituation, WWF-Russia and IUCN believed that acomprehensive assessment of protected areamanagement status, based on an internationalmethodology, with a broad participatory approach,would be very useful, not only for statemanagement bodies and environmental NGOs, butfor everyone interested in sustainable developmentin Russia.

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

4

The Russian Federation occupies a territory thatcovers more than 11 per cent of the Earth’s landsurface. Nine terrestrial biomes are represented inthe country: polar deserts, arctic and sub-arctictundra, boreal and semi-tundra larch forests, borealand temperate coniferous forests (taiga), temperatebroadleaf and mixed forests, forest-steppe andsteppe (temperate grasslands, savannahs, andshrublands), semi-deserts and deserts.

Forests cover about 69 per cent of the Russianlandmass. More than one-fifth of the world’s forestsand half of all boreal coniferous forests are found inRussia. Much of this area is considered globallysignificant – a quarter of the world’s non-

fragmented virgin forests is found in Russia. Morethan 90 per cent of the Russian federal protectedareas contains forests. The mountain forests of theRussian Caucasus and Far East (Sikhote-Alin) havethe highest levels of biodiversity of the world'stemperate forests.

BIODIVERSITY AND MAJOR ECOSYSTEM TYPES

Socio-economic conditions vary greatly betweenthe regions. Average incomes in Moscow and StPetersburg are double the national average, whileincomes in economically undeveloped regions areless than a quarter. In such a situation, forests havetremendous economic value, with more than2,000,000 people employed in the forestry sector.For most indigenous and local people in Russia’sundeveloped regions, the direct use of wild natural

resources, through hunting, fishing, timberharvesting, non-timber forest product collection(e.g. berries, mushrooms, medicinal plants), andtraditional agriculture (e.g. grazing, hay making)provides a subsistence living. Almost all of the 45officially registered indigenous nationalities dependon the use of forest and other wild naturalresources (tundra, marine, freshwater) for theirsubsistence.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

International Recognition for Russian FederalProtected Areas

International Category and Number of Protected Areas

UNESCO-World Heritage 17“Man and Biosphere” Site 25Ramsar 24Important Bird Area 77

INTR

OD

UC

TIO

N A

ND

BA

CK

GR

OU

ND

5

Up to 60 per cent of terrestrial areas remainundeveloped and unmodified by human activities,but the distribution of the different landscapes andland use patterns varies widely across the country.

The overwhelming majority of intact naturalecosystems are located in the Asiatic part of Russia,while the European part has been greatlytransformed. In the latter, extensively modifiedlandscapes with relatively high population densities(30–60 people per square kilometre) and isolatednatural sites prevail. In Siberia and northern regionsof the Far East, where population densities are lessthan one person per square kilometre, naturallandscapes are generally not fragmented. But,where there are high concentrations of industries(e.g. Kemerovo Region) highly modified landscapescan be found, including ecological disaster zones.

More than half of all Russian federal protected areasare situated in regions where natural resources havebeen highly degraded. These regions cover about20 per cent of Russia, and are mainly found in theEuropean part and in the southern parts of theUrals, Siberia, and the Far East.

In all regions, management must monitor and reducethe many pressures and threats facing protectedareas. In regions with industrial development andhigh population density, protected area managementmust also prevent further ecosystem fragmentation,habitat loss, and landscape transformation, as wellas attempt ecosystem restoration. In regions with ahigh proportion of natural landscapes, protected areamanagement must also consider sustainable use ofnatural resources by indigenous and other localpeople.

The main pressure on Russian forests is caused bytimber extraction and other forestry activities. Whiletimber extraction is, on average, well below theannual allowable cut (170–180 million cubic metres

versus 450 million cubic metres), the forestryindustry is unevenly distributed across the country.Export-oriented operations are concentrated in theNorth-West, as well as in regions adjoining China(e.g. Irkutsk Region, Khabarovsk, and Primorskyterritories). At the beginning of the 1990s, annualfelling volumes decreased, but in recent years theyhave increased by 10 to 20 per cent per year. Atthe same time, illegal felling has increased, andnow accounts for 30 per cent of the total fellingvolume (in some regions up to 70 per cent),according to WWF estimates. Illegal felling mainlyoccurs in forests that are the most economicallyand biologically valuable. For instance, the FarEastern cedar-broadleaf forests have extremelyhigh levels of biodiversity and endemism, andprovide the main habitat for the Amur tiger(Panthera tigris). Illegal logging in these areas inrecent years has resulted in a 30 to 40 per centloss of habitat.

The impacts of fires are also widespread. Annually,fires in Russia damage around a million hectares offorests (in some years, such as 1998, the total wasclose to five million hectares). Ninety per cent offorest fires in Russia are human induced. Somefires (especially in the Far East) are catastrophic, asthey lead to massive ecosystem destruction, lossof animal and plant populations and habitats, andto heavy social consequences. Early warning, fireprevention, and fire-fighting are very difficult andineffective due mainly to a lack of resources.

Regional and global environmental changes havehad an indirect effect by leading to desertification,increased frequency and destructive power of fires,and decreased forest resilience.

Road construction and mining operations(especially open-cast mining), as well as industrialpollution are also substantial pressures. The role ofagricultural land use is less significant.

MAIN PRESSURES AND THREATS TO FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

Forests are also especially significant for themaintenance of indigenous people's traditions (landuse, religious customs, and life style). Manyindigenous people live near protected areas oractually within them.

In general, the current socio-economic situation inRussia is unfavourable for biodiversity conservationand does not enable the state to invest sufficientresources for protected area management.

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

IMPLEMENTINGTHE METHODOLOGY

The management effectiveness assessmentexercise was conducted in 2001–2002 by WWF-Russia in cooperation with IUCN's Commonwealthof Independent States (CIS) office. Other partnersincluded EcoCentre Zapovedniks, regional stateprotected area management bodies, non-governmental associations of zapovedniks andnational parks, other Russian NGOs, researchinstitutes, and universities.

The major goals of the assessment were:

� assessing protected area conditions andmanagement effectiveness

� using a participatory approach to increase civicparticipation

� proposing specific measures for improvingprotected area management.

More than 270 Russian and international protectedarea specialists participated in the regionalassessment workshops. The assessment wasconducted in 197 protected areas, located in allseven federal regions of Russia. Protected areasassessed included 89 state nature zapovedniks, 35national parks, 49 federal zakazniks, and 24regional protected areas (natural parks, resourcesreserves, and refuges). Regional protected areasare not included in this analysis.

The assessment analysed the following issues:

� the ecological and social importance ofprotected areas

� protected area vulnerability to external factors

� the scope, severity, and prevalence of threatsand pressures

� management effectiveness of protected areas,including their strengths and weaknesses

� prioritization of protected areas based on theirsignificance and management effectiveness

� protected areas requiring more detailedassessment.

The assessment process and the results wereapproved at each workshop. Participants alsosupported the further use of WWF’s RapidAssessment and Prioritization of Protected AreaManagement (RAPPAM) Methodology forassessing management effectiveness of all levels ofprotected areas in Russia. The participants felt theresults accurately reflected the reality of protectedarea management, and accurately highlightedcommon protected area strengths andweaknesses. Representatives of regional protectedarea agencies noted that the results have apractical value for organizing and planning themanagement of regional protected area systems.

This is the first large-scale, comprehensive protectedarea management assessment undertaken inRussia. Application of this internationally recognizedmethodology will enhance mutual understandingand cooperation between protected area managersand other experts at regional, national, andinternational levels.

The perceived strengths of WWF’s RAPPAMMethodology were:

� Provides easily understandable and readilycomparable data that will promote internationalcooperation in improving protected areamanagement.

� Demonstrates to decision makers thatassessments are possible, and that they mustbe carried out regularly.

� Provides a complete and thorough tool thattakes into account all of the main aspects ofprotected area management.

� Provides a rapid and detailed analysis of theoverall situation, and generates new information.

BACKGROUND

6

SELECTION OF PROTECTED AREASFederal-level protected areas were chosen forassessment due to their biological importance, longmanagement history, and data availability.Furthermore, those areas that possessed their ownstaff, resources, and facilities were in a betterposition to incorporate the findings of theassessment to improve management. The majorityof these protected areas were established primarilyfor biodiversity conservation, and mostly includeforest ecosystems. Several protected areas containsome marine areas and others contain fresh water,wetlands, and grassland ecosystems.

During the assessment, protected areas of differentcategories (zapovedniks, national parks, zakazniks)were assessed in joint working groups. Whilecombining categories sometimes causedmisunderstanding, such an approach proved to behelpful in generating critical debate and exchangeof views and experiences, thereby improving theprofessional capacity of the participants. Theprotected areas assessed were divided into sevengroups in accordance with the existing federalregions (okrugs).

The project included eight workshops, five of themco-hosted with IUCN. During the first workshop,the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire was adaptedand the workshop facilitators trained. Adaptationsincluded the development of a general list ofpressures and threats to be assessed at allsubsequent workshops.

COLLATION OF EXISTINGBACKGROUND DATAInformation about management conditions, mainactivities, and finances of zapovedniks and nationalparks was gathered from the Ministry of NaturalResources. For federal zakazniks, information wasgathered from the Game Department of AgriculturalMinistry. Information from these sources did notcover all aspects of the Rapid AssessmentQuestionnaire; additional background informationwas collected directly from protected areamanagers during the workshop preparations.

The regional assessments consisted of three-dayinteractive workshops with protected areamanagers, regional protected area policy makers,and other stakeholders. The workshops involvedan evaluation of management effectiveness foreach protected area, an analysis of the results, andan identification of next steps and priorities.

7

IMP

LEM

EN

TIN

G T

HE

ME

THO

DO

LOG

Y

� Is sufficiently universal to enable comparisonbetween protected areas of differing legalstatus, objectives, and management conditions.

� The questionnaire serves as a guideline to studymanagement conditions and improvemanagement.

� Helps to reveal management weaknesses andproblems as well as find ways and measures tostrengthen the former and solve the latter.

� Provides visual, graphic information to supportdata and trend analysis. Such data helps toconvince high-level decision makers toreallocate funding.

� The participatory approach leads to consensusamongst participants, and enables further workon protected area related issues.

� Discussions during the assessment help toestablish new contacts, as well as improvecommunications and management capacity.

IMPLEMENTATION

Typical Workshop Agenda

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

• Project background• Definition of main tasks and workshop

objectives

• Presentation and discussion of WWF'sRAPPAM Methodology

• Facilitated working groups forquestionnaire

• Completion of questionnaire andprocessing of results

• Presentation and analysis of resultsfollowed by discussion of next steps.

8

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUESA few difficulties occurred in answering questions,including the following:

� Lack of data: many participants did not haveadequate information on questions regardingawareness and support of local people towardsprotected areas, levels of biodiversity andendemism within protected areas, and impactand degree of pollution on protected areas.

� Inappropriate questions: participants wereuncomfortable with questions of a sensitive orpolitical nature, such as bribery and corruption.The following are actual quotes fromworkshops; “We can only answer the questionabout bribery and corruption if we have theresults of a special investigation.” and “Only thecourt has the right to establish the fact ofbribery.”

� Misunderstanding over terms: some terms arelittle known in Russia (e.g. critical managementactivities, key species, umbrella species, criticallandscape function) and required groupdiscussion.

� Inapplicable questions: some of the questions inthe WWF questionnaire were felt to beinappropriate to the situation in Russia. Forexample, “management plans” as such are nota common protected area management practicein Russia. At present, only ten federal protectedareas have approved management plans.

For the majority of questions in the questionnaire, aconsistent approach was adopted at each regionalworkshop. However, in some working groups, afew questions were interpreted differently. Also,there were a few cases where external,independent opinion could not corroborate ananswer, and the collision of different – evenirreconcilable – views was a common phenomenonat each workshop.

As a result, the assessment of some indices maybe less reliable, and in several cases seem at leastdoubtful. But the overall average estimates of eachof the elements of protected area management arereliable, and adequately reflect reality.

Sometimes the validity of answers for highlythreatened protected areas came into question. Forexample, Centralno-Lesnoy zapovednik wasevaluated as one of the most problematic at theregional workshop. The level of threats andpressures was estimated extremely high for thisprotected area because experts did not comparetheir assessment with average values in the region.At the final workshop, the assessments by otherexperts were taken into account, and thenecessary adjustments were made. In such cases,testing and correlating doubtful or erroneousassessments is recommended by engaging abroad range of experts, weighing the variousopinions, and assessing available, objective data.

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

9

FINDINGS AND ANALYSES

The assessment showed that biological importanceof Russian protected areas is, in general, higherthan their social and economic importance.Zapovedniks are higher than other types ofprotected areas in biological importance, whilst

national parks are higher in social importance. The biological and socio-economic importance offederal zakazniks is lower in comparison than thatof protected areas of other categories.

BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE

3

2

1

5

4

GloballyThreatenedEcosystems

GloballyThreatened

Species

RegionallyThreatened

Species

BiodiversityLevel

EndemismLevel

CriticalLandscapeFunction

PopulationViability

Exemplary/Intact

Ecosystems

Representa-tiveness

HabitatQuality

Average0

Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

Ave

rag

e S

core

Biological Importance of Protected Areas by Region

3

2

1

5

4

GloballyThreatenedEcosystems

0

North-Western Central Southern Volga

Ural Siberian Far-Eastern

Ave

rag

e S

core

RegionallyThreatened

Species

GloballyThreatened

Species

BiodiversityLevel

EndemismLevel

CriticalLandscapeFunction

Exemplary/Intact

Ecosystems

PopulationViability

Representa-tiveness

HabitatQuality

Average

Biological Importance of Protected Areas by Category

10

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCEThe high biological importance of Russianprotected areas is mainly a factor of their role inconserving rare and endangered species of globaland national importance, providing a high level ofrepresentativeness and ecosystem integrity, andrepresenting high levels of biodiversity. Federalzapovedniks have the highest levels of biologicalimportance, followed by national parks, and thenzakazniks. Biological importance increases from thenorthwest to the southeast, reaching the highestlevels in the mountain regions of Siberia, theCaucasus, and Far East, and the lowest levels inCentral Russia. The protected areas of the FarEast, Siberia, and the north and south of theEuropean part of Russia, as well as the mountainand steppe protected areas of the Volga and Uralregions play an essential role in the conservation ofglobally threatened ecosystems (e.g. WWF Global200 ecoregions, Ramsar wetlands sites). Inaddition, protected areas in the Caucasus, Siberia,and the Far East are characterized by high levels ofendemism, including local endemics with a rangelimited to the protected area itself.

The ability of most Russian protected areas toindependently maintain minimum viable populationsof key species is assessed to be rather low. Suchability depends on the size of the protected areaand having adequate habitats within it.Corresponding indices are especially low in thezapovedniks of Central Russia.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPORTANCEThe social importance of Russian protected areas,except for national parks, is considerably lowerthan their biological importance. At the same time,both the socio-economic and biological importanceincreases from the west to the east, reaching itshighest levels in Siberia. The socio-economicimportance of protected areas in the central andsouthern European parts of Russia (except for theCaucasus) is assessed lower than average.

The highest scoring elements of socio-economicimportance included:

� the conservation of species with high socio-economic importance

� ecological functions and services to society

� scientific and educational value

� spiritual and aesthetic value.

The lowest scoring elements included:

� potential for protected areas to demonstratemodels of sustainable development

� subsistence importance

� tourism and recreation.

However, a number of protected areas, even thosethat had low scores for socio-economicimportance, faced high levels of degradation fromrecreational and developmental pressures.

3

2

1

5

4

Benefits forLocal People

SustainableDevelopment

SustainableLevel/

Traditions

Spiritual/Aesthetic

Significance

ValuableSpecies

Scientific/Educational

Value

RecreationValue

EcologicalServices

Other SocialImportance

OtherEconomic

Importance

Average0

Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

Ave

rag

e S

core

Socio-Economic Importance of Protected Areas by Category

11

OVERVIEW OF PRESSURES ANDTHREATS SYSTEM-WIDEThe protected area system in Russia facesnumerous pressures and threats.

� Tourism – visiting protected areas for a variety ofpurposes (research, education, religious).Specific activities, planned and unplanned,include illegal encroachment, road building, andinfrastructure development. Tourism and relatedactivities not only result in the degradation ofplant communities and disturbance of wildlife,but also require additional rangers’ resources.

� Hunting – direct hunting and fishing, as well asother pressures on wild animals. Examplesinclude species introduction for sport hunting,destruction of burrows, and other habitatchanges. Legal as well as illegal activities wereconsidered as a threat or pressure, althoughpoaching is the main problem. Examples ofthreatened species include the Russian desman(Desmana moschata), Far East leopard(Panthera pardus ussuriensis), and the saigaantelope (Saiga tatarica).

� Logging – felling and forestry-related activities,such as forest thinning, soil preparation,fertilization, and tree planting. These activitiescause direct impacts on forests by degradinglarge areas, destroying natural plantcommunities, and impeding natural processes.Such practices also create favourable conditionsfor invasive species introduction.

� Collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs)includes the collection and harvesting of all plant

PRESSURES AND THREATS

Socio-Economic Importance of Protected Areas by Region

3

2

1

5

4

Benefits forLocal People

0

North-Western Central Southern Volga

Ural Siberian Far-Eastern

Ave

rag

e S

core

SustainableLevel/

Traditions

SustainableDevelopment

Spiritual/Aesthetic

Significance

ValuableSpecies

Scientific/Educational

Value

EcologicalServices

RecreationValue

Other SocialImportance

OtherEconomic

Importance

Average

These data highlight one of the major weaknessesof the protected area system – socio-economicbenefits and services are systematically undervalued, under recognized, and poorly managed,

but at the same time, these protected areas areinappropriately pressured to provide an array ofsocio-economic benefits.

Cumulative Pressures and Threats

40

30

20

10

70

60

50

National ParksTota

l Deg

ree

of

Pre

ssur

es a

nd T

hrea

ts

Zakazniks Zapovedniks0

Pressures Threats

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

materials from the protected area (food, medicinal,resins, herbarium specimens). These activitiescause damage to and elimination of plant species,for example species of ginseng family (Araliaceae)in the Far East, and rose-root stone-crop(Rhodiola rosea) in the Urals and Siberia.

� Agriculture – agriculture ranges from swiddenagriculture to industrial farms (inside and outsideprotected areas), as well as grazing andharvesting of any resources within the protectedarea for animal feed or fodder.

� Settlements – settlements range from individualtemporary huts to large housing developments,including infrastructure-related development(e.g. farms, enterprises, roads, pipe and powerlines, and other communications) that cause

landscape degradation and fragmentation, andhabitat destruction.

� Pollution – pollution stems from a variety ofsources (industrial, agricultural). The type ofpollution varies from protected area to protectedarea, although the most important type is trans-border pollution. Information on pollution isincomplete and generally unavailable.

� Water use – direct use of water from rivers andlakes, and the associated changes inhydrological regimes, including water pollution,small-scale dam building, and large hydro-power projects and reservoirs. The negativeconsequences of water use leads to degrad-ation of natural ecosystems. For instance, inLaplandsky zapovednik, water level fluctuations

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

Total Degree of Pressures and Threats

6

4

2

10

12

16

14

8

Catastrophes Pollution Hunting Logging Tourism Water Use NTFP Agriculture Settlements Mining Average0

National Parks Zakazniks ZapovedniksTo

tal D

egre

e o

f P

ress

ures

and

Thr

eats

Occurrence of Pressures and Threats

60

40

20

100

80

Hunting Tourism Catastrophes NTFP Pollution Settlements Logging Agriculture Mining Water Use Average0

National Parks Zakazniks Zapovedniks

Occ

urre

nce

of

Pre

ssur

es a

nd T

hrea

ts (

%)

12

connected to hydro-power plant activity havecaused severe mortality of salmon eggs.

� Mining – use of underground resources andrelated activities (drilling, exploration) as well assurface destruction of soils, plants, and rockoutcrops.

� Natural catastrophes – while naturalcatastrophes include fires, floods, earthquakes,and avalanches, the most common catastrophein the assessments was anthropogenic fires.According to the Global Forest Watch, thefrequency of fires in forests with human activitiesis ten times higher than in the forests withoutthem. Only fires (natural and human induced)having a negative influence on protected areaobjectives were considered.

DEGREE OF PRESSURE ANDTHREATThe overall degree of pressures and threats amongthe protected areas varied greatly, from 0 to over150 for pressures and from 4 to over 200 forthreats. Although in a few cases estimates of thedegree of pressure and threat may be inflated,participants felt that overall scores generallyreflected reality.

The estimates of pressures and threats inevitablyreflect the specific goals and tasks of protectedareas of different categories, as well as specificregional and local conditions of protected areamanagement. Nevertheless, general trends havebeen identified.

The primary pressures and threats to all categoriesof protected area are: natural catastrophes(primarily fires), pollution, hunting and otherpressures on wild animals, and logging.Catastrophes and pollution cause the mostdamage to zapovedniks and national parks, whileforestry activities and hunting cause the mostdamage to national parks and zakazniks.

In national parks, real and expected damage fromtourism and encroachment exceeds the damagefrom logging, catastrophes, or pollution. The totaldamage from all threats and pressures as well astheir occurrence is highest in national parks.

Zapovedniks are least exposed to pressures andthreats; each zapovednik in general experiences anarrower spectrum of critical pressures and threats.

The degree of pressures and threats is highest inthe Central region, followed (in decliningimportance) by the Southern, North-Western,Volga, Siberian, Far Eastern, and Ural regions.

13

Degree of Pressures and Threats by Region

12

8

4

24

20

16

Catastrophes0

Central Sourthern North-Western Volga

Siberian Far-Eastern Ural

Tota

l Deg

ree

of

Pre

ssur

es a

nd T

hrea

ts

HuntingPollution Logging Tourism Water Use AgricultureNTFP Settlements Mining Average

Cumulative Pressures and Threats by Region

60

30

120

90

CentralTota

l Deg

ree

of

Pre

ssur

es a

nd T

hrea

ts

Southern0

Siberian Far-Eastern

Ural AverageNorth-Western

Volga

Pressures Threats

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

Catastrophes are the most serious pressure andthreat to ecosystems in the Far Eastern and North-Western regions; pollution in Ural, Siberian andVolga regions; logging in the Central region; andhunting and other kinds of impacts on animals inthe southern European part of Russia.

Pollution is one of the three most critical pressuresand threats in all seven regions. Catastrophes,another critical pressure and threat, are similar forall regions except the Southern. Logging is one ofthe three key pressures for the Central, Southern,and Siberian regions. Hunting and other impactson wild animals are most important in the Southernregion, and hold third place after catastrophes andpollution in the Far East and Volga regions. Wateruse is important in the North-Western region.

Hunting, tourism, nature catastrophes, and NTFPcollection are the most widespread pressures andthreats. These activities are registered in more than90 per cent of all protected areas (though NTFPcollection in the Southern region and catastrophesin the North-Western region are not critical).

In addition, the following pressures and threats arewidespread:

� Settlements and corresponding infrastructuredevelopments, which damage the integrity ofnatural ecosystems (or threaten them) in morethan 9 out of 10 national parks and in three-quarters of zakazniks and zapovedniks.

� Logging and other forest use occur in 97 percent of national parks, more than two-thirds ofzapovedniks, and three-quarters of zakazniks(logging in national parks is usually legal, but it iseconomically driven, and causes high levels ofenvironmental degradation).

� Agricultural land use (grazing, hay making) in theprotected areas and adjacent territories,damages or threatens practically all nationalparks, as well as two-thirds of protected areasfrom other categories.

Mining, water use, and other soil surface andhydrology violations are the least widespreadactivities. Nonetheless, mining is a real pressureand/or threat in the majority of national parks, inmore than a third of zapovedniks, and in half thezakazniks.

TRENDS AND OUTLOOKIn the past five years, pressures have increased onthe Russian protected area system. Pressuresgrew considerably in national parks and zakazniks,while in zapovedniks they have decreased slightly.An increase was registered for most types ofpressures. The growth of tourism was especiallynoticeable, while the level of damage from pollutionremained the same. Impacts from agriculture andmining decreased slightly. Growth of pressures wasobserved in all the regions except for the Far East.Though in most of Khabarovsk, Kamchatka andseveral other Far East protected areas pressuresdid increase. Especially visible was the growth of

14

General Trends by Degree of Pressure(Region)

General Trends by Degree of Pressure (Pressure)

Past Present Future

a North-Westernb Centralc Southern

d Volgae Uralf Siberian

g Far-Easternh Average

45

35

25

65

55

15

Degr

ee o

f Thr

eats

and

Pre

ssur

es

e

bc

b

gf

c, d, f

ge

a, d

a

h

h

Past Present Future

d NTFPe Agriculturef Pollution

a Tourismb Huntingc Logging

g Settlementsh Water Usei Mining

j Catastrophesk Average

7

5

3

9

1

Degr

ee o

f Thr

eats

and

Pre

ssur

es

a

bf

f

d, e, g, h

c

b, k

dg

e

a

c

i

h, ik

j

j

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

15

EXTERNAL FACTORS REDUCINGMANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESSThe factors having the most impact on protectedareas are:

� High value of resources in protected areas andtheir paucity in surrounding territories (this factoris one of the three critical factors for allprotected areas, but is more important fornational parks).

� Lack of personnel suitable for recruiting asprotected area staff from surrounding areas (thesituation is aggravated by the critically low salarylevels, particularly for zapovedniks).

� Difficult social and economic situation in areassurrounding protected areas (low level ofservices and production, unemployment andpoverty, lack of food products and other goods).

� Layout and characteristics of protected areasand surrounding areas leading to difficulties in

management (e.g. large size of protected areas,their remoteness, fragmentation, complicatedconfiguration, extensive borders, and absenceof roads).

Other less important factors included: conflictinglocal cultural practices and traditions, and pressureon protected area administration from localauthorities and corruption. While these factors wereless important, they became critical for the mostthreatened protected areas with weakmanagement; evidently these factors may have astrong influence on management effectiveness.

Among regional and global factors affectingprotected area management, change ofhydrological regime, increased frequency and scale of natural catastrophes, and decrease insustainability of natural ecosystems were mostsignificant. The impact of global climate change,trans-boundary atmospheric pollution, andintroduction of alien species were considered less important.

pressures in the North-Western and Southernregions of Russia.

Within the next five years, an increase in the totaldegree of threats and their frequency or occurrence

is expected for the protected area system ingeneral and particularly in the Ural and Centralregions. According to forecasts, pressures of alltypes will increase. Especially sharp increases areexpected for pollution and catastrophes.

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Local Contributing Factors to Protected Area Threats

3

2

1

5

4

Difficulties in Monitoring

Political/Users

Pressure

Bribery/Corruption

CivilUnrest

Conflictswith

Traditions

ResourcesValue

AreaAccessibility

PAResourcesDemand

Economic/PopulationPressures

NarrowManpower

Average0

National Parks Zakazniks Zapovedniks

Ave

rag

e S

core

16

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESSCOMPARED The sum of mean scores for planning, inputs, and

practices varies:

� zapovedniks: 7–36 points

� national parks: 13 – 35 points

� federal zakazniks: 6 – 32 points.

An overview of the scores for the mainmanagement components across differentprotected area categories and for each of theseven federal regions is presented here. Roughlyone-third of all Russian protected areas and lessthan half of zapovedniks are managed well (withscores above 3), while one out of six protectedarea (mainly zakazniks) is poorly managed or notmanaged at all. One zapovednik had no inputs atall (the score was 0) and four zakazniks had neitherinputs nor practices (i.e. they were essentially“paper parks”).

Management components (planning, inputs, andpractices) of zapovedniks scored highest amongthe different protected area categories and did notdiffer greatly between regions. National parks ingeneral received similar scores, but decreased from northwest to southeast. Management scoresof the federal zakazniks varied greatly between the regions. One reason for this variation is thatmanagement of zapovedniks is much morecentralized, while zakazniks are managed regionally.

Management Effectiveness by Region

10

5

30

25

15

20

North-WesternS

um o

f M

ean

Sco

res

(max

= 4

5 p

oin

ts)

Central0

Ural Siberian Far-Eastern

AverageSouthern Volga

Planning

Inputs

Practices

Management Effectiveness by Protected Area Category

10

5

25

15

20

ZapovedniksSum

of

Mea

n S

core

s (m

ax =

45

po

ints

)

NationalParks

0AverageFederal

Zakazniks

Planning

Inputs

Practices

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

Regional and Global Factors AffectingProtected Areas

3

2

1

5

4

Nature Catastrophes Climate Changes Air Pollution Invasive Species Hydrology Changes Average0

Ural Southern Far-Eastern Siberian

Central Volga North-Western

Ave

rag

e S

core

17

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

Overall Management Effectiveness inProtected Areas

3

2

1

5

4

0

Zapovedniks National Parks ZakazniksA

vera

ge

Sco

re

Planning

PA O

bjec

tives

PA S

tatu

s

PA D

esig

n

Aver

age

Practices

Man

agem

ent

Plan

ning

Man

agem

ent

Prac

tices

Rese

arch

and

Mon

itorin

g

Aver

age

InputsSt

aff

Com

mun

icat

ion

Faci

litie

s

Aver

age

Planning

3

2

1

5

4

0

Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

Ave

rag

e S

core

PA Objectives

Perm

anen

t

Med

ium

Ter

m

Shor

t Ter

m

Staf

f Un

ders

tand

ing

Loca

l Sup

port

Aver

age

PA StatusLegi

slat

ive

Prot

ectio

n

Settl

ing

Disp

utes

Boun

darie

sDe

mar

catio

n

Law

Enf

orce

men

t

Stat

e Fu

ndin

g

Aver

age

PA Design

Layo

ut/

Conf

igur

atio

n

Land

Use

Aro

und

Sitin

g

Size

Natu

re

Surr

ound

ings

Aver

age

Inputs

3

2

1

5

4

0

Zapovedniks National Parks Zakazniks

Ave

rag

e S

core

Staff

Num

ber

Skill

s

Orga

niza

tion

Supp

ort

Empl

oym

ent

Cond

ition

s

Sala

ry

Aver

age

Communication

Staf

f/Adm

inis

tratio

n

Fiel

d/Of

fice

Data

Pro

cess

ing

Data

Qua

lity

Locl

Com

mun

ity

Aver

age

Facilities

Tran

spor

t Mea

ns

Fiel

d Eq

uipm

ent

Staf

f Fac

ilitie

s

Equi

pmen

tM

aint

enan

ce

Visi

tor F

acili

ties

Aver

age

STRENGTHS OF THE RUSSIANPROTECTED AREA SYSTEMPlanning was the strongest component ofprotected area management, including theformulation of strategic goals, integration of goalswith management planning, legal status, design,and planning of protected area sites. Site designand planning scored as the strongest element ofprotected area planning as a whole with protectedarea location receiving the highest scores.Representativeness, biological importance, andundisturbed ecosystems also contributed to thehigh scores. For most protected areas, the choiceof location is the result of long-term biological andother research, detailed surveys, careful design andplanning, as well as complex coordination of theinterests of different stakeholders. Usually suchplanning provides the necessary balance ofbiological and socio-economic value, as well as theexternal and internal conditions necessary foreffective protected area management. Protectedarea objectives, especially for zapovedniks, providefor the maintenance of biodiversity, are clearlyformulated, fixed by the legislation, connected withcurrent planning, and understood by protectedarea staff. Federal protected areas, particularlyzapovedniks, have a sound long-term legal basis.

Despite the critical shortage of inputs, positivechanges in the management practices ofzapovedniks and national parks are occurring. Thecreation of a federal management body has led toan atmosphere of heightened attention to nature

protection practices in zapovedniks and nationalparks, and eventually to the improvement ofprotected area ranger service operations.

Most attempts to encroach upon ecosystems inzapovedniks and national parks, from localauthorities and business, have been stopped. Oneindicator of this change is the greatly diminishedvolume of “permissible” felling.

The practice of creating multiple-use zonescontinues to be developed and tested. Such zonesallow new possibilities for developing models ofsustainable resources use and local developmentin conformity with principles of the Seville Strategyfor Biosphere Reserves, and may increaseprotected area socio-economic significance, status,and prestige at regional and international levels.

Research and monitoring in zapovedniks scoredhigher in comparison with protected area of othercategories. The zapovedniks have maintained theirlong tradition of scientific research. Moreover,certain measures were undertaken to adapt thesystem to present conditions, and to attract new,qualified scientific staff. The use of moderninformation technology and communications hasalso increased: 80 per cent of zapovedniks andnational parks use e-mail, more and morezapovedniks and national parks have websites, andgeographical information system applications areused in protected area monitoring and managementmore frequently.

18

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

Practices

3

2

1

5

4

0

Zapovedniks National Parks ZakazniksA

vera

ge

Sco

re

Management Planning

Com

mon

Rese

arch

Prev

entio

n an

dRe

stor

atio

n

Educ

atio

n

Adap

tiven

ess

Aver

age

Management PracticesCo

mm

on

Rest

orat

ion

Prev

entio

n

Educ

atio

n

Fina

ncin

g/Ec

onom

y

Aver

age

Research and Monitoring

Pres

sure

s M

onito

ring

Prio

ritie

s

Eval

uatio

n

Appl

icab

ility

Actu

ality

Aver

age

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

19

Ecological education has improved in zapovedniksand national parks, and its social relevance hasbeen strengthened. An annual publication thatanalyses the results of the operational and financialactivities in zapovedniks and national parks is freelydistributed and freely available to the public.

The fundamentals of protected area managementplanning and practices have also improved. Twoprogramme documents, The Main Directions ofDevelopment and Organizing of the StateZapovedniks Activities until 2010 and TheManagement Strategy for National Parks of Russia,have been developed and approved by the Ministryfor Natural Resources in cooperations with NGOs.In addition, new comprehensive management planshave been approved for ten zapovedniks andnational parks.

A new financing system for zapovedniks andnational parks has been developed. This taps non-federal sources of revenue. This financing systemincludes regional and local budgets, Russian andforeign charities and sponsors, and protected area-based revenue. In the last two years, the federalgovernment has increased its contribution to theindividual budgets of zapovedniks and nationalparks. For example, the federal contribution in2001 was 79 per cent higher than in 2000.

WEAKNESSES OF THE RUSSIANPROTECTED AREA SYSTEMAt the protected area system level, assessment ofthe policy environment identified the followingweaknesses (average score of the 10 indices was1.37):

� An absence of adequate environmental trainingand education for government employees(average score 0.18).

� Low level of political support for public andprivate mechanisms of land conservation(average score 0.55).

� Weak political guarantees for sustainablemanagement of protected area system (averagescore 1.07), including critically insufficient andunstable state funding.

� Insufficient consideration of the goals ofenvironmental protection and sustainabledevelopment in policy development (averagescore 1.17).

� Insufficient political support for sustainableforestry management (average score 1.46).

In general, the political environment is unfavourablefor effective management of protected area system.

Protected Areas System Design

3

2

1

5

4

Representa-tiveness

0

North-Western Central Southern Volga

Ural Siberian Far-Eastern

Ave

rag

e S

core

(m

ax 5

po

ints

)

IntactEcosystems

SpeciesProtection

Critical Sites NaturalProcesses

TransitionAreas

HighBiodiversity

Sites

SuccessionalStages

HighEndemism

Sites

Configuration Average

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

Protected area policies exhibited the followingweaknesses (average score 1.66):

� An absence of adequate training and capacity-building for protected area managers andadministrators (average score 0.78).

� An absence of clear restoration targets forunder-represented and/or degraded ecosystems(average score 1.06).

� An absence of adequate assessment of thehistorical range of variability of ecosystem typesand biodiversity (average score 1.32).

� Low level of the current biological diversityinventory throughout the regions (average score1.47).

� Inadequate percentage of land cover underprotection (average score 1.53).

� Incomplete and irregular assessment of theprotected area system in general, and even anabsence in certain regions (average score 1.82).

Protected area system-level design had thefollowing weaknesses (average score of 10 indiceswas 2.33):

� The protected area system was not able tomaintain natural processes at a regional level(average score 1.71).

� Unsatisfactory configuration of protected areasystem (average score 1.84).

Management inputs at the protected area site levelhad the following weak points (average score of 16 indices was 1.97):

� Transportation and facilities (in descendingorder: lack of field equipment, inappropriatevisitor facilities, inadequate transportation –

Protected Areas System Policies

3

2

1

5

4

ClearObjectives

0

North-Western Central Southern Volga

Ural Siberian Far-Eastern

Ave

rag

e S

core

(m

ax 5

po

ints

)

ClearCommitment

PercentageLand

Protected

BiodiversityInventory

BiodiversityHistorical

Range

RestorationTargets

GapAnalyses

Research Training ManagementAssessment

Average

Protected Areas Policy Environment

3

2

1

5

4

LowCoordination

0

North-Western Central Southern Volga

Ural Siberian Far-Eastern

Ave

rag

e S

core

(m

ax 5

po

ints

)

IntegrationCommitment AgenciesInteraction

LowEnforcement

Education MarketMechanisms

SustainableForestry

OfficialsTraining

PublicInvolvement

Average

20

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

21

especially opportunities for flying – staff facilitiesand housing shortage, inadequate maintenanceand care of equipment) (average score 1.66).

� Staffing – critically low salary levels and otheremployment conditions hamper full recruitmentof staff, causing few and inadequately qualifiedstaff (average score 2).

� Communication and information systems –shortage and poor quality of information, a lackof up-to-date systems for data processing, anda lack of a centralized system for data collectionand filing (average score 2.25).

For protected areas of all categories, “inputs” wasby far the weakest management component.

Management practices at protected area site levelhad insufficient level and quality of (average scoreof 15 indices was 2.49):

� Research and monitoring (average score 2.41);there is insufficient research, prioritization, andintegration with management planning andpractices.

� Management planning (average score 2.48);there is an absence of systematic medium-termplanning, i.e. absence of management plans forthe majority of protected areas.

� Management practices (average score 2.57);weaknesses were identified regarding preventionand restoration, natural and cultural resourcesmanagement, and education and outreach.

Management practices are most effective innational parks and zapovedniks. In national parksplanning and implementation of plans scored well,especially for prevention and restoration practices,ecological education, and outreach. In zapovedniksresearch and monitoring was strong. Zakazniks lagbehind in all aspects.

In protected area site planning the followingweaknesses were revealed (average score of 15indices was 3.30:

� Scant and unstable state funding (average score1.01).

� Inadequate coordination of land use in thesurrounding territories with protected areaobjectives (average score 2.40 for all protectedareas and 2.33 for zapovedniks).

� Insufficient understanding and support of theprotected area management objectives by localpeople (average score 2.66 for all protectedareas and 2.15 for zakazniks).

� Insufficient accordance of medium-termplanning with main protected area objectives(average score 2.29 for zakazniks).

� Unsettled land tenure or use rights disputes(average score 2.29 for national parks).

Insufficient and unstable state funding is theprimary weakness for all protected areas. Lack ofadequate funding causes insufficient inputs andhampers a lot of management activities, especiallythose with high financial and organizationalrequirements (e.g. research, monitoring, education,and communication with local communities).

The status of national parks is threatened bydisputes with land users, as national parks do nothave adequate legal security regarding land tenureand land use rights. As a rule, external borders ofzakazniks and national parks, as well as internalborders between zones in national parks, arepoorly marked. For several zapovedniks size andconfiguration of the protected area are additionalweak points.

From the assessment results it is clear that allmanagement components and indices areinterconnected. Under the same conditions,management practices score higher whereplanning and inputs are higher.

22

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

CORRELATION BETWEENPRESSURES AND THREATS ANDBIOLOGICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMICIMPORTANCEThe assessment results show that increasedpressures generally lead to decreased biologicalvalues of protected areas. Those with the highestlevels of pressures and threats have low scores insuch indices as viability of animal populations andecosystem integrity.

They also have the highest indices of social andeconomic importance, in comparison with otherterritories. It may appear that a territory that isexposed to intensive pressures from people servesthem more fully. But this is only a superficialassessment. The more threatened protected areas

"pay" for this seemingly higher social-economicvalue by having lower degrees of ecosystemintegrity and species viability.

The social and economic importance of protectedareas also decreases with increased pressures,which may be less obvious. A decrease in thebiological importance of protected areas isconnected with the ability to regenerate and theexhaustion of natural resources beyond protectedarea borders. Such degradation inevitably reducesthe potential ability of a protected area andsurrounding lands to satisfy various social(scientific, spiritual, cultural, aesthetic, recreational)and economic needs (resources), and does notlead to sustainable development at local andregional levels.

Least/Most Threatened Protected Areas:Management Conditions and Components

3

2

1

5

4

0

10 Least Threatened 10 Most Threatened

Ave

rag

e S

core

Total Importance

Biol

ogic

al

Soci

o-Ec

onom

ic

Aver

age

External Factors

Loca

l

Regi

onal

and

Gl

obal

Aver

age

Management

Regional/Global Influences

Plan

ning

Inpu

ts

Prac

tices

Aver

age

Least/Most Threatened Protected Areas: External Negative Factors

3

2

1

5

4

0

10 Least Threatened 10 Most Threatened

Ave

rag

e S

core

Local Contributing Factors

Diffi

culti

es in

Mon

itorin

g

Narr

ow M

anpo

wer

Econ

omic

/Pop

ulat

ion

Pres

sure

s

Reso

urce

Val

ue

Area

Ac

cess

ibili

ty

PA R

esou

rce

Dem

and

Polit

ical

/Use

rsPr

essu

re

Conf

licts

with

Trad

ition

s

Brib

ery/

Corr

uptio

n

Civi

l Unr

est

Aver

age

Air P

ollu

tion

Natu

re

Cata

stro

phes

Clim

ate

Chan

ges

Hydr

olog

y Ch

ange

s

Inva

sive

Spec

ies

Biol

ogic

al

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

23

The character and degree of pressures and threatsin certain protected areas depends on thecondition of its environment (natural, social-economic, political), on the biological values andother specifics of the territory itself, and mostimportantly, on the degree to which managementachieves protected area objectives.

Relatively high management effectiveness isobserved in places where adequate resources(financial, human, material, and technical) areallocated, and are purposefully and rationally used.This is the reason why even under equallyunfavourable external conditions, the degree ofpressures and threats is considerably lower inzapovedniks, which have stronger planning, moreinputs, and better practices in comparison withfederal zakazniks.

CORRELATION BETWEENMANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS ANDPRESSURES, THREATS ANDEXTERNAL FACTORSFrom the assessment results, we can alsodetermine the degree of connection, or correlation,between management effectiveness, biological andsocio-economic importance, pressures and threats,and external factors.

Analysing the correlation between variablesshowed:

� There was a positive correlation between thebiological value and social importance for

zapovedniks and zakazniks (especially strong forthe latter – 0.73) as well as for all federal protectedareas. National parks had a negative correlationbetween biological values and social importance.

� The biological value of protected areas ispositively correlated with regional and globalinfluences, strong protected area planning (forprotected areas of all categories), strongmanagement practices (except national parks),and adequate inputs (only in zakazniks).

� The social importance of protected areas has apositive correlation with a high degree ofpressures and threats, as well as with a highlevel of external factors such as high resourcevalue, proximity of resources to localcommunities, and high market demand. Socialimportance is also higher in protected areas withstronger management.

� The degree of pressures and threats has apositive correlation with social importance, but amainly negative correlation with the maincomponents of management effectiveness.

� The main components of managementeffectiveness are highly interdependent. Inzakazniks, practices and planning have acoefficient of 0.69, and practices and inputs is0.69. In zapovedniks, planning and inputs havea coefficient of 0.64, while practices and inputs is 0.74. In national parks, planning, andpractices have a coefficient of 0.71, inputs andpractices 0.86.

Least/Most Threatened Protected Areas:Management Indices

3

2

1

5

4

0

10 Least Threatened 10 Most Threatened

Ave

rag

e S

core

(m

ax 5

po

ints

)

Land

Use

Ar

ound

PA

PA S

ize

PA S

urro

undi

ngs

Com

mun

ity S

uppo

rt

Fina

ncin

g/Lo

gist

ics

Shor

t-Te

rmOb

ject

ives

Empl

oym

ent

Cond

ition

s

Use

Disp

utes

Set

tling

Staf

f Sal

ary

Low

Enf

orce

men

t

Loca

l Peo

ple

Com

mun

icat

ion

Boun

darie

sDe

mar

catio

n

Thre

ats

Prev

entio

n

Stat

e Fu

ndin

g

PA L

ayou

t/Co

nfig

urat

ion

Rese

arch

Eval

uatio

n

Staf

fCo

mm

unic

atio

n

Legi

slat

ive

Prot

ectio

n

Perm

anen

t Go

als

PA S

iting

24

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

The more than 200 Russian federal protected areasvary greatly in their management conditions andeffectiveness. While each of those protected areashad an individual strategy for improvingmanagement effectiveness, a generalcategorization of conservation priorities will help toset general goals and prioritize categories ofmanagement and policy interventions. Protectedareas can be divided into six categories: mostconserved, most effectively managed, mostthreatened, least threatened, least conserved, andleast effectively managed.

MOST CONSERVED PROTECTEDAREASThese protected areas, which are relatively secure,generally have high biological and social-economicimportance, low levels of external negativeinfluences, low levels of pressures and threats, andalso rather high management effectiveness.

The protected areas in this category are in relativelyremote, under-developed and sparsely populated

areas, primarily in the northeast European part ofRussia, and in some parts of Siberia and the FarEast. In addition, these protected areas aregenerally large, have optimal layout andconfiguration, are surrounded by lands with similarnatural conditions and land use, and have lowlevels of external negative influences, pressures,and threats. As a result, they have higher indices ofpopulation viability, habitat quality, security andintegrity of ecosystems. National parks with a fullset of similar characteristics do not exist; the mostconserved and biologically valuable national parks(e.g. Yugyd-Va and Zabaikalsky) have rather weakmanagement, experience critical externalinfluences, and so demand more attention andsupport from top-level management bodies andother stakeholders.

Generally, in this category mean scores formanagement are not particularly high. Theinfrastructure and facilities, research andmonitoring, as well as management planning areassessed as middling or slightly above. The visitorfacilities, equipment maintenance, staff salaries,

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES

Type of Protected Area

Total Importance

High

High

High

Low

Low

Low

ExternalFactors

Low

High

High

Low

High

Low

Pressuresand Threats

Low

Low

High

Low

High

High

ManagementAssessment

Scores

High

High

Low

High

Low

Low

Examples of Protected Areas

Baikalo-Lensky, Verkhne-Tazovsky,Vitimsky zapovedniks; Phrolikhinsky,Tofalarsky zakazniks

Teberdinsky, Malaya Sos’va zapovedniks;Vodlozersky national park; Verkhne-Kondinsky zakaznik

Putoransky, Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina,Bolshekhekhtsirsky zapovedniks;Sochinsky national park; Khekhtsirsky,Samursky zakazniks

Bryansky Les, Bolshaya Kokshaga,Central’no-Chernozemny zapovedniks;Paanayarvi national park; Bairovsky,Remdovsky zakazniks

Chernye Zemli, Voroninsky zapovedniks;Russky Sever, Alkhanay, Tunkinsky nationalparks; Tsasucheisky Bor, Mekletinskyzakazniks

Darvinsky, Zeisky zapovedniks; Priazovsky,Kletnyansky zakazniks

Categories of Protected Area

Most Conserved

Most Effectively Managed¸

Most Threatened

Least Threatened

Least Conserved

Least Effectively Managed

Note: Total Importance is biological and social importance combined. Management Assessment Score is the combined score of all three components of managementeffectiveness – planning, inputs, and practices. “High” means above the average and “low” means lower than average for that protected area category.

25

quality of research and monitoring, integration ofmanagement objectives with management planningand practices, data processing means, dataquality, and field equipment scored below theaverage level for protected areas as a whole.

To summarize, such protected areas do notdemand urgent attention for management andpolicy interventions.

MOST EFFECTIVELY MANAGEDPROTECTED AREAS The most effectively managed protected areas arethose which experience pressure from externalnegative factors, but, despite those pressures,have high scores of biological and social-economicimportance, low level of pressures and threats, andalso the highest scores of managementeffectiveness.

Those protected areas which are under unfavourableenvironmental conditions (e.g. difficult socio-economic situation, lack of qualified manpower,large-scale natural changes in surrounding territories,high value of protected area natural resources, andstrong demand for and trade in products from theprotected area), have high scores in practically allremaining indices of management conditions andresults, especially in comparison with otherprotected areas. The only index which scored belowaverage and is a general weak point for all protectedarea system is staff salary levels.

Most effectively managed protected areas incomparison with most conserved ones have higherscores of external negative factors as well as ahigher degree of pressures and threats. As a resultthey have lower scores of habitat quality andpopulation viability. So, the main focus of protectedareas management in these areas is improving sitedesign and planning.

MOST THREATENED PROTECTEDAREASThe most threatened protected areas have a highbiological and socio-economic importance, as wellas high levels of pressure from external factors and alow score in management effectiveness. Suchprotected areas are mainly situated in regions with

high levels of cultivation and economic development,overuse of natural resources, and/or containecosystems extremely vulnerable to negativepressures and threats (e.g. arctic coastal tundra).Most of them fall within a threatened ecoregion.

Management of the most threatened protectedareas is considerably more vulnerable to pressurefrom local authorities and corruption, to air pollutionand to natural catastrophes, while the mosteffectively managed protected areas are morevulnerable to area accessibility, as well as toregional hydrology and global climate changes.

Compared with all other categories, this categoryof protected areas has the highest scores in socio-economic importance, is the most heavilyinfluenced by external factors, and has the highestdegree of pressures and threats. Because of this,and their high biological importance, this categoryrequires the most urgent management and policyinterventions. In particular, a deeper, more detailedassessment of management conditions, and ananalysis of mechanisms for improving managementare warranted.

According to the results of the comparativeanalysis, the most striking difference inmanagement effectiveness between the mosteffectively managed protected areas and the mostthreatened ones is in the following aspects:

� staff facilities and housing (for protected areas ofall categories)

� systems for data processing (for protected areasof all categories)

� restoration practices (most essential forzapovedniks)

� coordination of land use in the surroundingterritories with protected area objectives (mostessential for zapovedniks)

� conditions for equipment maintenance

� financial and economic management (mostly fornational parks and zakazniks)

� demarcation of boundaries (mostly forzapovedniks and zakazniks)

� threats prevention (most essential for zapovedniks)

� staff employment conditions (especially inzapovedniks and national parks)

� communication between administration andother personnel (most essential for zapovedniks).

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

26

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

The critically important indices of managementeffectiveness are as follows:

In national parks and zakazniks

� research applicability (connection withmanagement planning and practices)

� education and outreach practices

� monitoring of legal and illegal uses of theprotected area

� research programme and its consistency withthe pressures and threats

� management planning.

In zapovedniks

� visitor facilities

� staff salary levels

� transportation means.

In national parks

� research priorities and evaluation

� communication with local people regarding allaspects of protected area management.

In zakazniks

� adaptiveness of management planning and itsconformity to reality

� local community support

� accordance of prospective and current planningwith main protected area objectives.

These indices are critical for ensuring the effectivemanagement of the most threatened protectedareas.

LEAST THREATENED PROTECTEDAREASThe least threatened protected areas have ratherlow scores for biological and socio-economicvalue, do not experience essential external negativeinfluences, are not subjected to considerablepressures and threats, and have fairly highmanagement indices. These protected areas aremainly situated in ecologically intact regions in theEuropean part of Russia and Western Siberia.

They have a relatively low biological value becausethey do not contain or belong to globallythreatened ecosystems, do not play an essentialrole in the protection of globally threatenedspecies, and generally do not have high levels ofbiodiversity and endemism. At the same time, theyare representative enough and contain relativelyintact ecosystems. However, the size of theseprotected areas, as a rule, is insufficient formaintaining minimum viable populations of largepredators and herbivorous species. The low socio-economic importance of these protected areasmeans a generally low level of pressures andthreats.

The least threatened protected areas do not requireimmediate attention at the system level.Nevertheless, the following steps may help tostrengthen the role of protected areas within thesurrounding communities:

� promoting the creation and development of asystem of regional (local) protected areas

� expanding the rights to manage that system

� increasing the socio-economic importance ofthe protected area by creating betteremployment and sustainable developmentopportunities

� integrating these protected areas into theregional socio-economic context.

LEAST CONSERVED PROTECTEDAREASThe least conserved protected areas are those thathave low importance, high external factors, highpressures and threats, and low managementeffectiveness. These protected areas are theopposite of the most conserved protected areas.

The least conserved protected areas are locatedmainly in regions with high population density,developed industry, and high levels of agriculturaldevelopment. The socio-economic importance ofthese protected areas is scored relatively high; overall they have the highest recreational value in

comparison with other groups, and play an importantrole in satisfying the needs of local communities.

External factors such as the pressure of localauthorities and business, conflicts with localpeople, trans-boundary air pollution, invasivespecies, and fires spreading from surroundingterritories have the most critical negative influenceon the management effectiveness of protectedareas in this group.

All the management components in this group ofprotected area scored considerably below theaverage level. The lowest scores included facilities,transportation, staffing (particularly salaries),practices of all types (especially prevention andrestoration), communication, and conformity of landuse in surrounding territories with protected areamanagement objectives.

The most important strategies for improvingmanagement effectiveness of the least conservedprotected areas include strengthening managementsystems, mitigation of pressures and prevention ofthreats, and restoration of degraded naturalcomplexes.

LEAST EFFECTIVELY MANAGEDPROTECTED AREASThe least effectively managed protected areas arevery similar to the least conserved; they have lowimportance, a high degree of threats andpressures, and a low level of managementeffectiveness. The only difference is that they havelower external contributing factors. Like the leastconserved areas, these areas are in critical need ofmanagement strengthening.

FIN

DIN

GS

AN

D A

NA

LYS

ES

27

28

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

T he analyses show that the main conditionsthat hamper protected area management inRussia are the following:

� a generally unfavourable political environment

� inadequate and weak protected area systempolicies

� critically insufficient inputs, especially state-levelfunding

� several gaps in practices, which are causedmainly by a lack of resources.

A number of recommendations to improve themanagement of protected areas can be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This is the primary recommendation for improvingthe protected area policy environment. Thisintegration policy should include measures toincrease and demonstrate the socio-economicimportance of protected areas for regions and localcommunities. While such policies could provideadditional resources for improving managementeffectiveness, they should not result in increasednegative pressures or threats, nor in a decrease inthe biological value, function, or integrity ofprotected areas. The following specific measuresare recommended as part of this integration policy.

SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURALRESOURCES AND PROMOTION OFSOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT� Provide assistance to develop sustainable

tourism and related infrastructure in the regions.

� Create and demonstrate other models ofsustainable natural resource use (e.g. of hunting,fishing, agriculture, NTFPs).

� Promote the development of innovativemechanisms of land conservation at regionallevel, such as voluntary restrictions on economicactivities and protected area support measuresfrom companies.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE REGIONALPROTECTED AREA NETWORK ANDENTIRE NATURE PROTECTIONSYSTEM� Use the experience and lessons learned from

zapovedniks and national parks more widely forthe development of a regional protected areanetwork. Qualified experts from zapovedniks andnational parks should be involved in thisprocess.

� Expand the practice of transferring protectedareas with an under-developed managementsystem to the jurisdiction of neighbouringzapovedniks and national parks.

� Create multiple use zones for all protected areasthat have UNESCO biosphere reserve status,and modify the federal law on protected areasto expand this practice for all protected areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH,MONITORING, AND EDUCATION

� Zapovedniks and national parks should beinvolved in the regional ecological monitoringand inventorying of important species (rare andendangered, game, medicinal plants) as well asin environmental impact assessments.

INTEGRATION OF PROTECTED AREAS INTO THE REGIONALSOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

RE

CO

MM

EN

DAT

ION

S

29

� Zapovedniks and national parks should publishmonitoring data to aid natural resourcemanagement at the regional and federal levels.

� Zapovedniks and national parks shouldstrengthen links with local high schools anduniversities, as they may assist with research,

and will provide a base of well-trainedemployees in the future.

� Zapovedniks and national parks should regularlyinform local authorities and other governmentalbodies about their achievements within theregion.

The key to improving the entire protected areapolicy system in Russia is to concentrate allprotected area rights and activities in anindependent, federal management body

authorized to manage for environmental protection.The national ecological policy dictates the creationof such a body.

IMPROVING THE PROTECTED AREA POLICY SYSTEM

FUNDING� Increase the federal budget for protected areas,

with clear line items earmarked for protectedarea management.

� Analyse, summarize, and implement forzapovedniks, national parks, and other protectedarea management bodies the benefits andprivileges provided for under the federal tax code.

� Analyse, summarize, and share the experienceof zapovedniks and national parks in obtainingfinancial support from regional and localbusinesses, including the creation of specialcharitable funds.

� Extend the involvement of zapovedniks andnational parks in implementing nature protectionprojects financed by foreign agencies, funders,and other donors.

� Implement investment projects directly aimed atimproving protected area management facilities.

STAFFING AND CAPACITY BUILDING� Re-examine and fundamentally change the pay

scale for protected area staff, particularly rangers.

� Continue and broaden the practice ofconducting short-term training courses andseminars for key protected area staff under the

aegis of regional protected area associationsand other authoritative NGOs.

� Develop training and capacity buildingprogrammes for key positions and specialities(e.g. directors, deputy directors, chief rangers,financial/logistic managers, accountants).

� Prepare and publish recommendations andmanuals on key issues of protected areamanagement improvement (particularlycomprehensive medium-term managementplanning, developing regional and localprotected area networks, and financialmanagement).

� Create central and/or regional training centresfor key protected area staff.

� Introduce special state insurance for protectedarea staff employers (particularly for field staffand rangers).

� Provide innovative incentives for protected areastaff (e.g. government or NGO awards, honoursand titles, such as “Best in the Profession”,“Ranger of the Year,” and so on).

� Improve the ability of managers at the protectedareas site level to develop clear strategies forprioritizing the implementation of theirprogrammes with limited staff and funds.

IMPROVING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT INPUTS

30

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

MANAGEMENT PLANNING� Ensure the development, approval, and

implementation of individual management plansfor all federal protected areas. A detailedassessment should be conducted that takesinto account both the main objectives as well asthe existing conditions and management regimeof the protected area. These plans should formthe basis and main tool for improving protectedarea management at the site level.

RESEARCH AND MONITORING� Conduct research to gauge the conformity

between management goals and objectives,and their connection with managementplanning.

� Fill the gaps in biological inventory andmonitoring data that are necessary for effectivemanagement (especially regarding endangered,valuable and other important species).

� Expand the application of modern methods ofdata collection and processing (especially GPSdata collection and GIS mapping).

PREVENTION AND RESTORATION � Decrease commercial logging in protected areas

(particularly, in national parks and zakazniks).

� Develop and implement protected area policiesregarding fires and other natural catastrophes,taking into account all the essential ecologicaland economical aspects, as well as internationalexperience.

� Develop and implement policies aimed atconserving threatened species, including specialmeasures for regulating and improving habitats.

� Define clear restoration targets for under-represented and/or degraded ecosystemsthroughout the regions.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION� Assess (with the participation of independent

external experts) the effectiveness of educationalprogrammes.

PROTECTED AREA SITE DESIGNAND PLANNING� Systematically engage protected area staff in

improving site design and planning, status andsecurity (e.g. creating buffers, developingmultiple use and similar zones with restricted orregulated land use, and drafting and approvingdocuments and policies).

IMPROVING PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND PRACTICES

FOLL

OW

-UP

AC

TIO

N

31

A s was clearly and widely suggested andsupported during the assessment, WWF’sMethodology should be systematically

used in Russia as the basic tool of protected areamanagement effectiveness assessment at national,regional, and local levels.

Below are the next steps aimed at continuing thisprocess and providing for its systematicimplementation. These recommendations makebest use of the results and experience from theassessment.

� Provide all the data, results, and recomm-endations obtained from the assessment, aswell as WWF’s Methodology, to the Ministry ofNatural Resources (MNR) of the RussianFederation, which is responsible for all federalprotected areas.

� Prepare and publish a report addressed mainlyat protected area managers and other protectedarea management experts, to inform them aboutthe assessment results and experience.

� Adopt WWF’s Methodology for application atregional and local levels of protected areamanagement.

� On the basis of WWF’s Methodology, and uponapproval by MNR and other authorizedprotected area management bodies, officialdocuments should be developed thatsystematically regulate protected area

management effectiveness assessment atnational, regional, and local levels. Thesedocuments should be aimed at both system-wide management prioritization, and at site-levelmanagement improvements.

� Create and maintain suitable databases onprotected area management effectiveness.

� Introduce regular protected area managementeffectiveness assessment as an integral part ofthe protected area management cycle, andstrongly link assessments with all othermanagement aspects (e.g. planning,implementing, monitoring, and other policiesand practices).

In order to further the process of assessing andimproving protected area managementeffectiveness the following actions are suggested.

� Conduct a more detailed assessment of theprioritized protected areas (i.e. the mostthreatened) to define site-specific measures forimproving management. Such an assessmentwould result in the preparation of acomprehensive management plan for each ofthe most threatened protected areas.

� Conduct regional protected area systemassessments in some model regions most readyfor this, (e.g. North-Western and Far-Easternregions including firstly Sakha Republic).

FOLLOW-UP ACTION

32

WW

FR

US

SIA

CA

SE

STU

DY

1997. Biodiversity Conservation in Russia. First national report. Moscow.Ervin, J. 2003. WWF Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM)Methodology. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland.Hockings, M, Stolton, S and Dudley, N. 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for AssessingManagement of Protected Areas. IUCN Cardiff University Best Practice Series, IUCN Cambridge, UK andGland, Switzerland. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland,Switzerland.

Acknowledgments to WWF-Netherlands, Canada International Development Agency, WWF Forest for LifeProgramme, WWF-Russia, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN Canada and IUCN CIS,EcoCentre Zapovedniks, Russian regional protected area management bodies, non-governmental associationsof zapovedniks and national parks, other Russian NGOs, research institutes and universities and, personally, toDevendra Rana, Jamison Ervin, Danielle Cantin as well as to all other sponsors, contributors, and reviewerswho helped conduct Russian protected areas management effectiveness assessment and prepare this report.

ACRONYMS

CIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesIUCN World Conservation UnionMNR Ministry of Natural ResourcesNTFP Non-Timber Forest ProductWWF World Wide Fund For Nature

REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This package is printed on Context FSC paper supplied byPaperback Ltd. Chain of custody number SGS-COC-0621.Context FSC is made from 75% de-inked fibre and 25% FSCcertified pulp from well-managed forests independently certifiedin accordance with the rules of the Forest Stewardship Council.

Protected Areas Initiative

Forests for Life

WWF International

Avenue du Mont-Blanc

1196 Gland

Switzerland

Tel: +41 22 364 9009

Fax: +41 22 364 0640

www.panda.org/parkassessment/

Rus

sia