Russia's protected areas: a survey and identification of development problems

Соболев, Н. А.; Shvarts, Evgeny A.; Kreindlin, Mikhail L.; Mokievsky, Vadim; Зубакин, В. А.

doi:10.1007/bf00058207

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2019, there are 103 strict nature reserves. Other protected areas include national parks, nature refuges, nature parks, and natural monuments (Sobolev et al 1995;Gromtsev et al 2018). In NW Russia, the share of strictly protected forests varies from 6 to 17% of the area of forest estate across the regions (Fig.…”

Section: Nature Conservation: Protected Areas and Special Forest Manamentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable retention forestry in European boreal forests in Russia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored whether, and to what extent, variable retention (VR) forestry has been applied in European boreal forests in northwestern Russia. Our survey revealed VR since 1910. Between 1910 and the 1960s, the statistics showing how much was retained are largely missing. However, for example, in the 1950s, on a large scale in the Republic of Karelia, up to 200-ha-sized harvesting areas, 18-33%, were retention patches with a mean growing stock of 30-40 m 3 ha −1 . In the fellings defined as "incomplete clear fellings," which were the most common final felling type at that time, 11-40% of the growing stock was left. Between the 1960s and the early 1990s, with more efficient harvesting and skidding techniques, conventional clear fellings with a much lower amount of retention were practiced. Concern about the regeneration of harvested areas gradually led to smaller (maximum 50 ha) harvesting areas and the increase of silvicultural activities. Until now, to ensure natural regeneration, patches of understory and 20-25 seed trees (i.e., ca. 15-25 m 3 ) per ha have been left permanently in harvesting areas. Landscape-scale retention for protecting ecosystem functions and biodiversity was legislated in 1978 by preserving key biotopes up to 1000 ha in size. Since 2001, promoted by forest certification, the key biotopes, such as paludified forest patches, buffers around water bodies, and habitats of red-listed species, have also been retained in harvesting areas, together with a dispersed retention of different elements. Quantitative estimates of the amount of key biotopes are largely missing. However, estimates of 1-13% in harvesting areas and 23% in whole managed landscapes have been given. VR applied during the last century has emulated natural disturbances and created diverse uneven-aged forest structures with high amounts of diverse coarse woody debris. We conclude that an analysis of past and current retention practices is essential for estimating the global role of Russian forestry. Further decisions on the general direction of Russian forestry and, specifically, retention practices are important to address the global challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change.

show abstract

Section: Nature Conservation: Protected Areas and Special Forest Manamentioning

confidence: 99%

Variable retention forestry in European boreal forests in Russia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, after the fall of Soviet Union in 1991, the economic, political, and social systems in Russia were totally reorganized. As a result, 60-80% of federal funding was reduced [68], forcing Zapovedniks to search for new funding sources. Budget cuts posed the greatest threat to manage Zapovedniks and BRs.…”

Section: Historical Relationships Between the Government And The Local Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Analysis between the Role of Local Communities in Regional Development inside Japanese and Russian UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves: Case Studies of Mount Hakusan and Katunskiy Biosphere Reserves

Mammadova

Smith²,

Yashina

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization has designated the Man and Biosphere Program to foster a better relationship between the environment and people. The topic of this study is to elucidate the role of local communities in the regional development of Biosphere Reserves with a focus on management roles (top-down or participatory) and the motivational drivers of the people involved (ecocentric or anthropocentric). Based on qualitative interviews taken from the two case studies of the Mount Hakusan Biosphere Reserve in Japan and the Katunskiy Biosphere Reserve in Russia, a comparative analysis was conducted to explore the differences between the engagement of locals in the management of their biosphere reserves. This analysis examined relationships between the government and the local communities, the attitudes of the locals towards the biosphere reserves, and the historical perception on nature protection for each community. The findings showed that Russian biosphere reserves are mainly managed by local people who live inside the protected area while Japanese biosphere reserves are governed by local authorities and administration offices. This allows the Russian communities to have greater access to management processes, and therefore play a larger role in regional development.

show abstract

“…Federal funding tends to be more limited for zakazniks compared to the other two types of federally protected areas, which impacts staffing and enforcement (Pryde 1997). It is difficult to determine whether logging is legal or illegal in a given zakaznik, since logging permits can be granted, but the lack of monitoring and enforcement also means that illegal logging is possible (Sobolev et al 1995). Thus, for both types of multiple use protected areas, evidence of forest disturbance could be indicative of logging permitted by the federal government, or illegal logging activity.…”

Section: Russian Forest Management and Protected Areas Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was one of the most dramatic political and socioeconomic changes in recent history, leading to rapid and unprecedented land use changes, including agricultural abandonment, decreased commercial logging, and increased illegal logging (Eikeland, Eythorsson and Ivanova 2004;Torniainen, Saastamoinen and Petrov 2006;Prishchepov et al 2012). During this period, forest management responsibilities in Russia changed several times, leading to confusion over management responsibilities (Sobolev et al 1995;Colwell et al 1997;Pryde 1997;Ostergren and Jacques 2002). There were also rapid decreases in budgets for biodiversity protection: one estimate puts post-transition budgets at about 10% of their 1989 levels (Wells and Williams 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected Area Effectiveness in European Russia: A Postmatching Panel Data Analysis

Wendland¹,

Baumann²,

Lewis³

et al. 2015

Land Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate the impact of strict and multiple use protected areas on forest disturbance in European Russia between 1985 and 2010. We construct a spatial panel dataset from remote sensing that includes five periods of change. We match protected areas to areas outside of protection and compare coefficients from fixed versus random effect panel regressions. We find that strict protected areas had small but significantly significant impacts on disturbance; multiple use areas had few statistically significant impacts on disturbance. Random effects underestimate park effectiveness compared to fixed effects, serving as a cautionary note for evaluations where time-invariant unobservables are important.

show abstract

Russia's protected areas: a survey and identification of development problems

Cited by 13 publications

References 3 publications

Variable retention forestry in European boreal forests in Russia

Variable retention forestry in European boreal forests in Russia

Comparative Analysis between the Role of Local Communities in Regional Development inside Japanese and Russian UNESCO’s Biosphere Reserves: Case Studies of Mount Hakusan and Katunskiy Biosphere Reserves

Protected Area Effectiveness in European Russia: A Postmatching Panel Data Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About