“The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren, PhD., Department of Political Science, Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University Presented to Chatham College March 19, 2002

Introduction The Russian protected area network is built upon a century old system of strict nature preserves---zapovedniks. The primary role of zapovedniks is 1) to provide areas of “pristine nature” to conduct ecological research to assess an ecosystem’s potential, and 2) to protect unique and typical ecosystems across the Eurasian continent.

Russian Protected Areas

Introduction Russian scientists’ and academicians’ prestigious social standing played a vital role in their ability to influence conservation policies of the past The scientific community joined with the environmental movement to help fuel the fall of the Soviet Union Evidence suggests that the scientists of post- communist Russia are taking on new roles in order to influence conservation policies

Investigation Questions Are Russian scientists working with the same institutions or agencies as they were before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991? What is the amount of influence that scientists have on natural resource policy decisions? How does that influence compare to the Soviet era and what lies in the future?

Methodology Elite interviews with over forty individuals including: NGO policy consultants Academicians from five state universities The head of a Zapovednik Directors Association Administrators in both the Department of Zapovedniks and the Department of National Parks

Zapovednik Directors, Policy Analysts and Academicians

Methodology Small group discussions, round table meetings and written responses from over 70 protected area scientists Sample area: Moscow, the Black-Earth region near Voronezh, and the Central Siberian cities of Banaul and Gorni-Altaisk Research supported by a grant from the National Research Council Program on Governance in Post-Communist Societies

Educators & Field Scientists

Two Paths of Policy Influence Extreme political and financial pressure during the 1970’s and 1980’s forced scientists to approve most federal conservation projects with few changes. Scientists role in society was often to influence and support public sentiment through popular press. In the late 1980s objections surfaced in public protest.

Results and Discussion Conservation scientists after perestroika: The Russian Academy of Sciences and ministerial-level research institutes Academicians at state universities Field scientists on nature preserves (zapovedniks) and national parks

Results and Discussion Opportunity to influence policy technically improved, but research funds are scarce, thus limiting participation. Most scientists feel their influence on policy after 1995 is less than during perestroika. Those outside of Moscow felt they had the least influence, while those working with NGO’s were the most optimistic.

Results and Discussion The expertiza (EIS) has not proven a very effective tool for policy influence. In the “new” political climate, financial pressures remain strong at the ministerial and government levels. Local involvement, consulting and environmental education are increasing as methods to influence policy.

Zapovedniks are Adjusting The new diversity of funding sources provides zapovedniks with remarkable new flexibility to implement policy Three general strategies have emerged: Business as usual (restricted access) Conducting research that addresses local or regional community concerns Generate public support through an aggressive environmental education programs (allowing limited access)

Russia’s new entrepreneurial spirit (or fast food babushka style)

Conclusions Democracy and access to decision makers is improving in Russia but.... Government funding to conduct research is insufficient to provide requisite information for the scientific community The perception of declining prestige in academia and theoretical science is limiting scientists’ influence and may have serious consequences for the future of conservation