Strategies and problems of wildlife preservation in the USSR

Biological Conservation 36 (1986) 351-374

Strategies and Problems of Wildlife Preservation in the USSR Philip R. Pryde Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA

ABSTRACT The Soviet Union, like all other industrialisedcountries, has encountered seriousproblems of wildlife conservation in the course of its development. These include loss of habitat due to economic expansion, problems of protecting endangered species, controlling hunting and combating poaching, mitigating the adverse eflects of economic development, and enforcing the legislation that has been passed to regulate all the foregoing. Despite the existence of numerous conservation laws, the compilation of a Soviet Red Book, and an increasing amount of public awareness of the need for wildltfe protection, the goals of wildrife conservation remain hard-pressed to keep up with the predictable consequences of a ha¢ury of intensive economic advancement.

INTRODUCTION Biotic preservationis one of the most pressingenvironmental issuesin the world today. The reasonsfor protecting flora and fauna resourcesare not merely aesthetic; the health and well-being of human beings is highly dependent upon the diverse genetic properties of the world’s plants and animals (Myers, 1983). The genetic information contained in this worldwide ‘genepool’ includes, among other things, much of the basisfor modern agriculture and medical research,as well as many industrial raw materials. Biotic, preservation is proving difficult in all parts of the world in the face of population explosions, mechanised agriculture, and expanding mineral and timber extraction. All of these decrease the 351 Biol. Conserv. 0006-3207/86/$30.50 0 ElsevierApplied SciencePublishers Ltd, England,

1986. Printed in Great Britain

352

Philip

R. Pryde

percentageof the earths surfacethat remains in a natural condition, and consequently it has beenestimated that the worldwide rate of extinction of plants and animals is possibly as great as one speciesper day (Myers, 1983). The Soviet Union is concerned about this dilemma, and has passed numerous laws in an effort to promote biotic preservation. Still, with the steadyadvanceof urbanisation and industrialisation into eventhe remote parts of the country, the problem persists.This paper will examine some of the dimensions of this problem. The preservation of both flora and fauna are equally important components of biosphere and genetic conservation. Although related, eachtopic is complex in its own right and deservesseparateand detailed treatment. For this reason, and to avoid overgeneralisation,this review will be limited to questions of wildlife preservation. TYPES OF PROBLEMS By far, the main threat to wildlife anywherein the world is loss of habitat. Both the breeding grounds and wintering areas of wildlife become destroyedas newcities, industries, and agriculture spreadacrossthe land. In the Soviet Union, millions of hectaresof new agricultural land have been brought into production in Kazakhstan and in the Russian and Central Asian republics, replacing the natural steppe flora and fauna. Mineral extraction, such as the new, oil fields of West Siberia, have transformed additional millions of hectares,and new urban centreshave been created in all parts of the country, especially Siberia. The second greatest threat to biota is pollution. Effluents from both cities and industries continually threaten rivers. Petroleum and other mineral extraction necessarily renders large areas unsuitable for most wildlife. In addition, many portions of the USSR, including both agricultural lands and forests, are subject to the adverse effects of pesticides, which all too often kill biotic benefactors as well as target species. A third problem area is the inadequate management of hunting and fishing activities. The illegal taking of fish and game, commonly called poaching, has long been a problem in the Soviet Union. However, even sanctioned forms of wildlife extraction are not always as tightly controlled as they should be.

Wildlife preservation in the USSR

353

Closely related to all three of the aboveproblem areasis the question of enforcement. In general, the USSR has adequate laws to provide for biotic preservation, but it is not uncommon to seethe effectivenessof their enforcement questioned in the Soviet press. Lack of personnel and funding, and overly lenient fines and sentences,are among the problems cited. All of the aboveproblem areaswill beexamined more closely below. CONSERVATION

LAWS

Like other nations, the Soviet Union has numerous laws in effect to guide the conservation of its biotic resources.The Soviet constitution itself in Article 18 specifically calls for the ‘scientific, rational use of the . . . plant and animal kingdoms . . .’ (Anon., 1977).Although the wording in this section is generaland somewhat utilitarian in tone, at least it is there; no similar wording, for example, exists in the United States constitution. During the 1960s each of the Soviet Union’s 15 constituent Union republics passed comprehensive conservation legislation to guide their internal environmental management (Appendix 1; for the location of theserepublics, seeFig. 1). Some sectionsrelating to wildlife were usually included in eachof these.Not until 1980,however,was a specific national statute enacted that governed wildlife resources. This national legislation is entitled ‘Law of the USSR on the Protection and Utilization of the Animal World’. It was translated in full in the 20 August 1980issueof Current Digest of the Soviet Press. Its 39 articles set nationwide guidelines, policies, and jurisdictional authority concerning the regulation of hunting, fishing, and wildlife management and preservation. Its ‘Basic Requirements’ (Article 8) are presented in Appendix 2. In addition to the law on the animal world, other national legislation, such as comprehensive laws on land and water resourcesmanagement, also contain wording (albeit somewhat weak) relating to wildlife; and similar laws exist at the republic level. As an example, the wildlife provisions of the Russian Republic law on nature conservation are given in Appendix 3. The wording can be seen to be somewhat utilitarian in tone, reflecting the attitudes of the time. The right ofwildlife to exist for its own sakeappearsto dependon ‘good behaviour’, for the law statesthat ‘it is forbidden to destroy noncommercial wild animals if they do not harm the economy or public health’ (emphasis added).

to

in text

)

Fig. 1. Location of the USSR’s 15 constituent Union republics and the placenames referred to in the text.

( referred

1

PLACENAMES

FIGURE

Wildrife preservation in the USSR

355

The actual implementing legislation for thesepolicies is enactedat the Union Republic level. Regulations over hunting, habitat protection, establishment of reserves,etc., are generally Union Republic decisions, although when they are of sufficient import they are first approved by the all-union Gosplan (USSR state planning agency).There is some concern, however, that these Union Republic laws contain inadequate enforcement provisions, with one Soviet environmental law expert citing the Ukraine specifically as a case in point (Kolbasov, 1983). As of this writing, there is no comparable ‘Law of the USSR . . .’ on the protection of botanical resources. Such a law has been advocated in scientific circles for some time. ENDANGERED

SPECIES

In the Soviet Union, as elsewhere,widespread changes to the natural landscapehave pushedsome speciesof plants and animals to the brink of extinction. Depending on the size and trendline of their numbers, these speciesare referred to as ‘rare’ or ‘endangered’,with the endangeredones being the most threatened (the USSR usesthe five-categoryclassification system of the IUCN; seeAppendix 4). The first step in assisting the survival of these speciesis to inventory them. A significant achievementin this regard has beenthe publication of a USSR Red Book (Krasnaya knigu), first published in 1974,and revised in 1978and 1985(Borodin, 1974). The 1978 edition lists 154 speciesof wildlife and 444 speciesof plants that are consideredrare or endangered. Among the 25 mammals on the endangered list are the Siberian (or Amur) tiger, snow leopard, kulan, river beaver, European bison, three subspeciesof mountain sheep,and five speciesof whales(seeAppendix 5). Birds include two speciesof falcons, four kinds of cranes,three varieties of grouse, and two speciesof curlew. Twenty-nine speciesof reptiles and amphibians are also listed (Table 1). In addition to the USSR Red Book, several Union Republics have published their own compilations (Yeliseyev, 1983;Sadykov et al., 1983; Tintilozov et al.J985). These Red Books are only a first step, however, and need to be accompanied by strict enforcing legislation. To date, no national law with the mandatory mitigation provisions of the United States’ Endangered SpeciesAct exists within the USSR. The closest equivalent would be the

Philip

356

R. Pryde

TABLE

1

Rare and Endangered Speciesin the USSR Category

Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Plants

Endangered

25 26

Rare

Total

37 37

62 63 21 8 444

(21) (8) (444)

Source: Borodin (rev. 1978): Krasnaya

t

kniga SSSR.

generalisedguidelines for fauna protection put forth in Article 8 of the ‘Law of the USSR. . .‘, which is quoted in full in Appendix 2. Similarly, the 1960 Russian Republic law had earlier stated that ‘rare and endangered species of animals are also subject to protection against destruction and extinction’ (Appendix 3). Books have begun to appear to educatethe Soviet public about endangeredspecies,but such efforts need to be expanded (Zhirnov et al., 1975; Gorbatova & Cherkasova, 1984). The Soviet Union has long participated in international conferences and agreementsrelating to endangeredand over-harvestedspecies.One of the earliest was a compact among the Arctic nations of the world to work jointly to preservethe polar bear; this effort appearsto be fairly successful. The USSR has actively taken part in the work of the IUCN, aswell as the International Council for Bird Protection and many similar organisations (Borodin et al., 1978).The United States and the Soviet Union agreedin 1972to conduct a wide-ranging exchangeof scientific specialists and information on behalf of wildlife (and botanic) preservation. The two countries have also signeda number of agreementsgoverning fishing and crab harvesting in Pacilic waters. However, despite years of international criticism, the Soviet Union is still accusedof overharvestingminke whales from the Pacific Ocean. NATURE RESERVES Since loss of habitat is the greatest cause of speciesextinction today, a fundamental need in all countries is the setting aside of statutorily protected areasaswildlife reserves.One of the primary institutions for the management and protection of fauna and flora in the Soviet Union is the nationwide network of nature reserves,which are termed zapovedniki.

Wildrife preservation in the USSR

357

2

Kazakh SSR Turkmen SSR Kazakh SSR Buryat ASSR Byelorussia Krasnodar krai Turkmen SSR Primorskiy krai Ukraine Estonia Mordov ASSR Kazakh SSR Moscow oblast Primorskiy krai Krasnoyarsk krai Stavropol krai Tadzhik SSR in Arctic Ocean

Location”

91552 88 028 18300 263 176 76 201 263 477 49 793 116524 1580 39 697 32 148 87 694 4945 347 532 1348 316 84 996 47 409 795 650

Area (ha)

Snow leopard (Uncia uncia) Kulan (Equus hemonius onager) Persian gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa) Sable (Martes zibellina) River beaver (Castor fiber) European bison (Bison bonasus) Mountain sheep (Ovis ammon cycloceros) Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) Steppe marmot (Marmota bobak) Water birdsb Desman (Desmana moschata) Little bustard (Otis tetrax) European bison (Bison bonasus) Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) Red-breasted goose (Rujibrenta rufcollis) Caucasian black grouse (Lyrurus mlokosiewiczi) Bukhar deer, gazelle (Cervus elaphus, Gazella subgutturosa) Polar bear, snow goose (Ursus maritimus, Chen caerulescens)

Species

a Republic in which it is located, or, if in the RSFSR, the province or ASSR in which it is found. b A great many other reservesalso protect nesting or wintering habitat of waterfowl and shorebirds. Sources: Pryde, 1972; Borodin et al., 1978; Kolosov, 1982; Borodin and Syroyechkovskiy, 1983.

Alma-Ata Badkhyz Barsakel’mes Barguzin Berezina Kavkaz Kopetdag Lazov Lugansk Matsalu b Mordov Naurzum Oka Terrace Sikhote-Alin Taimyr Teberda Tigravaya balka Wrangel Island

Reserve

TABLE

Soviet Nature ReservesNotably Involved with Preserving Particular Species (partial, representative list)

Wildlge preservation in the USSR

359

The zupovedniki system was begun shortly after the Revolution and, except for a major cutback in 1951 under Stalin, has steadily grown in size. In recent years,there has beena significant expansion in the number and area of these reserves,and by 1985 there were approximately 130 covering some 10800000 ha. They havepreviously beenwell describedin geographical and biological literature (Pryde, 1972, 1977;Fischer, 1981; Borodin & Syroyechkovskiy, 1983).The distribution of Soviet zapovedniki is shown in Fig. 2. On thesereserves,both plants and animals have a sanctuary in which they are protected and can thrive. Within thesereserves,and elsewhereas well, Soviet biologists have worked to re-establish several species of wildlife that have becomeendangered.Among the speciesthat have made a comeback are the beaver, European bison, sable, saiga, otter, pine marten and Siberian tiger (Table 2). These reservesare all considered to be active research stations, and sevenhave beendesignatedas biospherereservesunder the UN Man and the Biosphere Programme (Sokolov, 1981; Pryde, 1984).On a few, the research function is so dominant, and the total area of the reserve sufficiently limited, that a comprehensive speciesprotection programme is not feasible, and many formerly resident specieshave sharply declined (Yeliseyeva, 1976). The reserveswill continue to play an important role in providing protected habitats, but as they cover only about O-5% of the country’s land area, it can be seenthat their role is necessarilylimited. Some of the individual Union republics have also begun to establish national parks, and by 1984there were eight of these(Fig. 2). They also perform a useful role in wildlife habitat preservation, although as with national parks elsewhere,their simultaneous public recreation function cannot help but createcertain conflicts in this regard. Other types of protected areasexist (such as republic-level reserves, partially protected areas known as zakazniki, and wetlands given protection under the Ramsar Convention), but even including all of thesethe total preservedarea of the country is still well under 5 %. SOME

WILDLIFE

SPECIES

OF PARTICULAR

INTEREST

The Soviet Union has made a commendable effort to restore populations of several speciesof wildlife. Some of the longer ongoing efforts, such as

360

Philip

R. Pryde

that involving the European bison, have been quite successful. Others may take more time. A review of the status of a few key speciesfollows. The case of the European bison Bison bonasus-a relative of the American bison but considered a separate species-is particularly noteworthy. Following the First World War, the Revolution, and a famine, by the early 1920sthere remained within the USSR no female bisons at all that were young enough to breed. The stock was re-established by borrowing a few females from Poland, and also by cross-breedingwith American bison, and then subsequently selectively breeding out the American bison characteristics(Pryde, 1972).Today, thereare well over a thousand full-blooded European bison in the Soviet Union. Efforts to preservethe polar bear Ursus maritimus represent a good example of international cooperation (Uspenskiy, 1977).Since 1965,the five nations that control the Arctic (US, USSR, Canada, Denmark, and Norway) have exchangedscientific data and agreed to a sharp limit on hunting of this widely nomadic carnivore. As a result, its numbers are consideredto havestabilised. In 1975the Soviet Union establishedone of its largest reserveson Wrangel Island to protect its greatestconcentration of polar bear denning areas (Table 2). One of the most controversial speciesfound within the USSR is the wolf Canis lupus. Its problem is not that it is endangered;rather, like the American coyote, it does too well, and is widely considered to be little more than an economic nuisanceand a predatory threat. Until the start of the Soviet Union’s ‘environmental awakening’ in the late 196Os,it was common practice to kill wolves on sight, even within reserves(Pryde, 1972). Then, for several years, numerous articles appeared favouring preservation of the wolf, and hunting was somewhat restricted. Since 1980 articles have again appearedurging more active measuresto reducewolf populations sharply (Makeyev, 1982). In Russia, the resourceful ‘grey bandit’ may neverbe entirely able to alter its historically bad reputation. Speciesthat migrate widely-such as many genera of fish, birds, and marine mammals-pose additional problems. Instead ofjust one habitat, three must be protected: breeding, migrating, and wintering. As an example, it was noted above that four speciesof cranes (out of seven found in the USSR) are on the endangeredlist (Rorodin et al., 1978).One of these, the Siberian white crane Grus leucogeranus, nests only in the USSR (in northern Yakutia), but as of 1984no statereserveshad yet been set up within its breeding range (Flint, 1984).There are probably fewer than 400 left in the world. The other three endangeredcrane speciesnest

Wildlife preservation in the USSR

361

in other countries of the Far East, and are protected at the Zha Long and Wucheng Nature Reserves in China, as well as at other areas. All, however, are poorly protected in their migration and wintering areas (including Indo-China and Afghanistan) along the southern periphery of Asia. A final example of widespread interest is the tiger. Formerly, two sub-speciesof the Asiatic tiger existed in the USSR, Panthera tigris virgata and P. t. altaica. The latter is better known as the Siberian (or Amur) tiger, and today numbers about 200 in the USSR and 600 in the world. It is protected in the Sikhote-Alin reserveand in zoos around the world. The other sub-species, called the Turanian tiger, used to be common in the desertsand valleys of Central Asia. Due to hunting and economic development, its numbers rapidly declined in the first half of the 20th century, and sometime between 1940and 1960it becameextinct in all regions of its former range (Matiushkyn et al., 1978). CONTROLLING

HUNTING

AND POACHING

Becauseof the spreadof economic development, as noted above, wildlife in the Soviet Union has decreased.This would suggest, among other things, a need to limit licensed sport hunting. Yet there are indications that hunting is not as tightly controlled as might be needed.For example, onewriter noted that of 300ducks banded on Lake Chany in West Siberia in 1976,not one survived to breed; they had all been shot (Komarov, 1980).In addition to sport hunting, there are also the professionals; that is, thosewho are licensedto take animals commercially for meat or hides. The same author also cites instances of professional over-hunting. But the problems of legal hunting are apparently eclipsed by those of illegal hunting and fishing, or poaching. Deer, elk, and sturgeon (the latter for their caviar) are the most common targets. The seriousnessof the poaching problem is evidenced by the large number of articles that have appeared in Soviet newspaperson the subject over the past two decades(Pryde, 1972).One such article noted that in a single year there were 943 poaching arrests in Byelorussia alone; even more surprisingly, in an l&month period in the same republic there were discovered 7000 unregistered hunting guns (Shimanskiy, 1975).In 1983, 10376 poachers were fined in just Yaroslavl and Vologda provinces alone (Kozlov, 1984). Although poaching undoubtedly occurs in every country in the world, in

362

Philip R. Pryde

the Soviet Union the offenders include not just over-eager‘sportsmen’, but government officials as well, and poaching is common in reserves (Komarov, 1980;Volkov, 1980).In addition, the killing of gamewardens is periodically reported, at least four over a recent three-year period (Nedelya, 16 August 1982, Zzuestiya, 13 April 1983and 3 June 1984). One case is illustrative of the dimensions of the problem. In Kazakhstan, a group of organised poachers were arrested for illegally shooting 5834 marmots, with the apparent complicity of officials of the Kazakh Administration for Hunting and Reserves.But the sentencewas so light that public outcry forced a retrial before the Kazakh supreme court, which increasedthe prison term for the poachersfrom three to ten years. The officials involved, however, received only reprimands (Prokhorov, 1983). The number of articles that appear in the Soviet presson the poaching problem attest to the seriousnesswith which it is officially viewed.At least eleven articles on the subject were translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press in 1982 and 1983 alone. Still, it persists. Stiffer sentences alone will not resolvethe problem; the Soviet education systemmust do a better job at instilling an appreciation of the reasons for wildlife preservation. LOSS OF HABITAT AND POLLUTION The main cause of wildlife depletion in the USSR continues to be the destruction of habitat, whether from conversion to economic uses or pollution. Wildlife numbers will keep declining as more and more forests, fields, and wetlands are put to economic uses,and the entries in the Red Book will get longer. As mentioned earlier, the reservenetwork coverstoo small a total portion of the country to represent a sufficient responseby itself (and there have been many reports of poaching even within these reserves).Only if this reservesystemwere to be expandedto at least twice its present size, with the new reserveslocated exclusively in the most critical areas,would it approach being a viable responseto the habitat problem. Of serious concern also are the inland fisheries. Problems of overfishing (e.g., Lake Baikal), pollution (numerous smaller rivers, and possibly Lake Baikal), increasedsalinity (Seaof Azov), and diversion of water for irrigation (Don, Syr-Darya, Kura, and other rivers) havegreatly

Wildlife preservation in the USSR

363

reduced the available fish stocks in a number of water bodies that historically were very productive (Pryde, 1972,1983).Fishing moratoria, the introduction of new species,and the construction of fish breeding facilities and stock ponds have partly alleviated the problem, but the catch of many desirable species(most notably sturgeon) remains well below what it once was. An unusual caseof industrial development adverselyaffecting wildlife habitat-in this casemigration routes-occurred in the northern Siberia city of Norilsk. When major gas pipelines were built from distant tundra gas fields into Norilsk, inadequate provisions were made for crossing points for migratory reindeer. Confused, the reindeer found themselves trapped betweentwo parallel pipelines, with the result that whole herdsof them have beenfunnelled into downtown Norilsk, where they become the accidental target of road vehicles and the deliberate target of poachers. Bureaucratic buck-passing delayed finding any solution to this problem for years (Roslov, 1974). Another tundra native, the red-breastedgooseBranta rujicollis, affords a good example of the loss of wintering habitat. As recently as the early 196Os,it wintered in numbers up to 25000 in the wetland areas of the Araks and Kura rivers in Transcaucasia. Then the rivers were dammed, diverted, and cleared for irrigated agriculture. By around 1970, the wintering birds numbered only several hundred, and by the mid-1970s only a few dozen. Although they have other wintering areas, the total numbers of the specieshave sharply declined, and it is now listed in the Soviet Red Book (Vinokurov et al., 1978). The general tendency is for industrial development to have an extremely adverseimpact on fish and wildlife. The construction of dams on the Volga has greatly reduced the catch of sturgeon in the VolgaCaspian system (Kamentsev, 1984).All fish were eliminated in a long stretch of the Dnestr River in 1983due to the collapse of a dam retaining a saline holding pond (Izvestiya, 27 October 1983). In the sparsely populated Kalmyk ASSR, saiga (a steppe antelope) are killed by the hundreds on fences and in irrigation canals (Komarov, 1980). The ecologically rich deltas of the Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya rivers havebeen severely desiccated due to reduced river flows caused by irrigation diversions. As perhaps the most serious example, fish and wildlife over a wide area of the southern Urals were reportedly harmed by accidental releaseof high level radiation (Medvedev, 1979). Pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides, etc.) are being

364

Philip R. Pryde

increasingly employed in Soviet agriculture, as well as in a host of other applications. The results, predictably, are little different than in any other country, and poseseriousthreats to wildlife (Pryde, 1971;Shaposhnikov, 1973; Voronova, 1977).In responseto the reported damage to wildlife, the Soviet Union in the early 1970s banned DDT, and is conducting considerable research on biological controls (Pryde, 1971; Vasil’yev, 1983).Still, chemical controls continue to be heavily used, and wildlife deaths from such substancesas zinc phosphide continue to be reported (Pravda, 6 December 1979). Examples such as these, multiplied many times over, have been reported in the Soviet press and in scientific journals. The conclusion seemsinescapablethat, at least in the past, economic planning has given little attention to ecological considerations. Soviet zoologists, although their voices are heard, have previously carried relatively little implementation weight in the halls of Gosplan. There are some signs that this may be changing. ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

Prior to the start of major economic developments, it is desirable to determine what significant adverseeffectssuch projects might have on the environment, and how these effects might be reduced or avoided. In the United States, such studies are required on federally funded projects under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970, and are called environmental impact studies. In recent years, the Soviet Union has also shown a realisation that studies of this type must be carried out if major problems are to be avoided. However, to date the Soviet Union appears to have no direct equivalent of NEPA, specifying when environmental reports are required and what they must contain. The various legislative acts that govern the use of land, water, air, fauna, etc., while not specifically requiring preliminary environmental studies, all contain general wording about ‘conservation’, ‘preservation’, and ‘preventing harmful actions’ that would suggest that environmental considerations should be studied in advance. With specificconsideration to biotic resources,the 1980law on wildlife, under the heading ‘Measures for the Protection of the Animal World’, calls for ‘the organization of scientific studies aimed at substantiating

Wildrife preservation in the USSR

365

measuresfor the protection of the animal world’ (Article 21). On the other hand, none of the words ‘mandatory’, ‘mitigation’, or ‘in advance’ are to be found in this section. Regardlessof legal requirements, it has been clear for some time that certain major Soviet projects of the past, such as the construction of the largedams on the Volga River, havehad unforeseenharmful consequences on fish and wildlife. As a result, over the past two decades,the probable environmental effects of major projects have been increasingly studied prior to the start of construction (e.g., Zakharko, 1984). In the absenceof a specific requirement for a formal environmental impact study, the USSR relies on studies carried out by various scientific researchinstitutes, most often those associatedwith the Soviet Academy of Sciences. These studies both outline potential problem areas and suggestpossible mitigation measures.The next important question, one to which the answer is largely unknown, is the extent to which such mitigation measures are successfully carried out. In addition to studies specifically relating to a particular project, Soviet specialists also perform ‘baseline studies’ on large regions. Baseline studies monitor and assessthe environmental condition of a region at a specific point in time, to which subsequentenvironmental changes, for better or worse, can be compared. An initial example of this type of study is being carried out in Kursk Oblast, and is known as the ‘Kursk Model Oblast’ project. Among the environmental influences to be monitored will be pesticides and other toxic substances,and changesin flora and fauna. Much of this researchis being conducted by the Academy of Sciences’Institute of Geography at their researchstation at the Central Chernozem zapovednik. It is hoped that eventually this type of study might be conducted in all regions of the country, if the necessaryfunding can be made available.

SUMMARY

AND DISCUSSION

The Soviet Union may be described as having some serious wildlife management problems. These include protecting endangered species, poaching, loss of habitat (especially steppeand wetlands), mitigating the effects of economic development, and, relating to all the foregoing, implementing and enforcing laws. Soviet planners are taking steps to

366

Philip

R. Pryde

improve the situation in all these areas, but conservation progress remains hard-pressedto keep up with economic progress. Where there aredifficulties, it is not becausethe academiccommunity is unaware of the problems, nor is it becausethey have not brought these problems to the attention of the appropriate officials. Rather, the economic agencies,fully cognisant of the usual considerations of budgets and priorities, know that plan fulfilment, not wildlife preservation,will be the basis upon which their performance will be judged. The Soviet Union has enacted numerous laws relating to the conservation of wildlife. A question can be raised,however, regarding the efficacy of enforcement of theselaws, including the question of adequate budgets for enforcement personnel. In general, the funding of both pollution abatement facilities and wildlife management activities is chronically unsatisfactory. A related factor would appear to be the general level of citizen environmental awareness.General public attitudes towards nature seem to be that it is alternately an attraction and a nuisance,there to be enjoyed and put to use, or overcome, in any manner desired. Even well-educated citizens have beenseenpicking flowers in nature reservesdespite signs to the contrary, and schools have for decadesroutinely collected bird nests and eggs as class ‘nature’ projects. This laissez-faire attitude towards nature was nurtured by decadesof textbook passageslauding the USSR’s ‘inexhaustible natural resources’ (Pryde, 1972). Although this educational fallacy has been greatly modified in more recent textbooks (e.g., Astanin & Blagosklonov, 1983) almost all present adult Soviet citizens grew up learning it. There are some significant differencesbetweenwestern and Soviet-bloc societies with regard to the organisation of conservation activities. In western countries, the conservation work of governmental agencies is augmented (and scrutinised) by voluntary citizen conservation groups, which enjoy such rights as electioneering and litigation. In the USSR, public conservation organisations exist in all 15republics (but none exist nationwide); the largest of theseis the All-Russian Society for the Conservation of Nature. With regard to wildlife they tend to focus on planting trees, building birdhouses, and conducting education activities on a ‘protect nature’ theme. They cannot litigate, but they do have the right to conduct factory inspections. When problems are found, they are limited to reporting them to the proper authorities, or writing

Wildrif preservation in the USSR

361

letters to newspapers. The authorities must take the needed remedial actions, but aswe have seen,they are all too often bound up in conflicts of goals, funding, or coordination. With regard to conservation education, more emphasisappearsneeded on inculcating essentialecological imperatives. Only in very recent years, for example, has the concept of ‘gene pool preservation’ appeared in general interest writings. Unfortunately, this lack of understanding of human dependenceon nature seems most pronounced within the vast ranks of the bureaucratic system that runs the country (Komarov, 1980). Attitudinal change, based on ecological education, seemsto be needed from the top down. Although over the yearsthe USSR hastaken severalsignificant stepson behalf of biotic preservation, the relentless pace of development and urbanisation across the country will continue to keep wildlife in a precarious state. It seems clear that more determined efforts, more education, more reserves,and more funding in the interests of wildlife preservation will need to be forthcoming in the future, if this sixth of the ear,th’sland surface is to avoid biological impoverishment.

REFERENCES (NOTE: In the entries that follow, CDSP refers to the journal Current Digest of the Soviet Press.) Anon. (1977). Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Union qf Soviet Socialist Republics. Moscow, Novosti. Anon. (1980). Law of the USSR on the Protection and Utilization of the Animal World. CDSP, 32(29), lo-14 and 24. Astanin, L. P. & Blagosklonov, K. N. (1983). Conservation of nature. Moscow, Progress Publishers. Borodin, A. M. (ed.) (1974, rev. 1978 and 1985). Krasnaya kniga SSSR. Moskva, Izdat. Lesnayaprom. Borodin, A. M., Bannikov, A. G., Isakov, Yu. A., Krinitsky, V. V. & Flint, V. E. (eds.) (1978). Some problems of wildlife conservation in the USSR (papers prepared for the XIV IUCN General Assembly). Moscow, USSR Ministry of Agriculture. Borodin, A. M. & Syroyechkovskiy, Ye. Ye. (eds.) (1983). Zapovedniki SSSR. Moskva, Izdat. Lesnayaprom. Fischer, D. (1981). Nature reserves of the Soviet Union: An inventory. Soviet Geography: Review and Translation, 22, 500-22.

Philip

368

R. Pryde

Flint, V. E. (ed.) (1984). Ajieldguide to birds of the USSR. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Gorbatova, V. A. & Cherkasova, M. V. (1984). Oni dolzhny zhit’: ptitsy. Moskva, Izdat. Lesnayaprom. Kamentsev, V. (1984). The fish on our table. Lit. gazeta, Sept. 12, 10, as translated in CDSP, X(38), 12-13. Kolbasov, 0. (1983). Ecology: Political institutions and legislation. Moscow, Progress Publishers. Kolosov, A. M. (1982). Okhrana zhivotnykh v RSFSR. Moskva, Rossel’khozizdat. Komarov, Boris (1980). The destruction of nature in the Soviet Union. White Plains, M. E. Sharpe. Kozlov, V. (1984). When a fish screams. Zzvestiya, Oct. 4, 3, as translated in CDSP, 36(40), 22-23.

Makeyev, A. (1982). Sanitation worker or bandit? Lit. Rossia, April 2, 22, as translated in CDSP, 34(17), 18. Matiushkyn, E. N., Zhyvotchenko, V. I. & Smirnov, E. N. (1978). Tigers in the past, future and present in the USSR, in Borodin et al. Medvedev, Z. (1979). Nuclear disaster in the Urals. New York, Norton. Myers, N. (1983). A wealth of wild species. Boulder, Westview Press. Prokhorov, V. (1983). Can the marmot sleep? Pravda, Oct. 21,3, as translated in CDSP, 35(42), 20.

Pryde, P. R. (1971). Soviet pesticides. Environment, 13(g), 16-24. Pryde, P. R. (1972). Conservation in the Soviet Union. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Pryde, P. R. (1977). Recent trends in preserved natural areas in the USSR. Environ. Conserv., 4, 173-8. Pryde, P. R. (1983). The ‘Decade of the Environment’ in the USSR. Science, N.Y., 220, 2749. Pryde, P. R. (1984). Biosphere Reserves in the Soviet Union. Soviet Geography, 25, 398-408. Roslov, A. (1974). Reindeer in a trap. Komsomolskayapravda, Jan. 23, 2, as translated in CDSP, 26(26), 25-26. Sadykov, A. S. (ed.) (1983). Krasnaya kniga Uzbekskoy SSR. Tashkent, Izdat. ‘Fan’. Shaposhnikov, L. K. (ed.) (1973). Nauchnyye osnovy okhranyprirody: vypusk II. Moskva, MSKh SSSR. Shimanskiy, M. (1975). Hunting in foul weather. Izvestiya, Feb. 15, 5, as ,. translated in CDSP, 27(7), 25-6. Sokolov, V. (1981). The Biosphere Reserve concept in the USSR, Ambio, 10, 97-101. Tintilozov, Z., Machabeli, A. & Mikeladze, I. (1985). Na strazhe prirodnykh bogatstv Gruzii. Zarya Vostoka, Feb. 13, p. 3. Uspenskiy, S. M. (ed.) (1977). Belyy medved’ i yego okhrana v Sovetskoy Arktike. Moskva, Min. Sel’khoz.

Wildlife preservation in the USSR

369

Vasil’yev, V. P. (ed.) (1983). Okhrana okruzhayushchey sredi pri ispol’zovanii pestitsidov. Kiev, ‘Urozhay’. Vinokurov, A., Isakov, Yu., Krivenko, V. & Pavlov, B. (1978). Status of Branta rujicollis in the USSR, in Borodin et al. Volkov, 0. (1980). Poacher’s path. Lit. gazeta, Feb. 6,11, as translated in CDSP, 32(7), 16 and 24. Voronova, L. D. (ed.) (1977). Vliyaniye pestitsidov na dikikh zhivotnykh nazemnykh i vodnykh ekosistem. Moskva, MSKh SSSR. Yeliseyev, N. V. (ed.) (1983). Krasnaya kniga RSFSR: zhivotnyye. Moskva, Rossel’khozizdat. Yeliseyeva, V. I. (1976). Raznogodichnaya dinamika naseleniya ptits v dubravakh Tsentral’no-chernozemnogo zapovednika. In Biota osnovnykh geosistem tsentral’noy lesostepi, ed. by A. M. Grin, 123-36. Moskva, Akademiya nauk SSSR. Zakharko, V. (1984). Northern water for the south. Izvestiya, June 22, 2, as translated in CDSP, 36(25), l-3. Zhirnov, L. V., Vinokurov, A. A. & Bychkov, V. A. (eds.) (1975). Redkiye mlekopitayushchiye, ptitsy, i ikh okhrana v SSSR. Moskva, Min. Sel’khoz SSSR.

APPENDIX

1

Year Comprehensive Environmental Laws Were Passedin the 15 Union Republics Estonia 1957 1958 Armenia Georgia 1958 Moldavia 1958 Lithuania 1959 1959 Azerbaidzhan Uzbek 1959 1959 Tadzhik Latvia 1959 1960 Ukraine 1960 Russian Republic (RSFSR) Byelorussia (White Russia) 1960 1962 Kazakhstan 1962 Kirgiz 1963 Turkmen Source: Pryde (1972).

370

Philip

R. Pryde

APPENDIX

2

Excerpt from ‘Law of the USSR on the Protection and Utilisation of the Animal World Article 8. Basic Requirements for the Protection and Utilisationl of the World. During the planning and implementation of measures that may have an impact on the habitat of animals and the condition of the animal world, observanceof the following basic requirementsis to be ensured:

Animal

the preservation of the speciesdiversity of animals in a state of natural freedom; the protection of the habitats of animals, conditions for their reproduction, and their migration routes; the preservation of the integrity of natural communities of animals; the scientifically substantiated, rational utilisation and reproduction of the animal world; and the regulation of the number of animals, with a view to protecting the health of the population and preventing damageto the national economy. Source: Anon. (1980).

APPENDIX

3

Excerpt from the 1960Russian Republic Law ‘On the Conservation of Nature in the RSFSR.’ Article 11. Conservation of the animal world. Useful wild animals, fowl, fish, etc., found in a statetlf natural freedom are subjectto protection and regulated use as resourcesfor the sport of hunting and for commercial hunting, whaling and fishing, asdestroyersof harmful animals and a food base for commercial and other useful animals, as objects for later domestication and fur farming, as a reserveof speciesfor introducing new forms and improving the fertility of domestic animals, etc. Rare and endangeredspeciesof animals are also subject to protection against destruction and extinction. In this connection it is necessary: (a) strictly to observeestablished hunting and fishing regulations;

Wildlife preservation in the USSR

371

(b) to help improve conditions for the existence and reproduction of animals through the preservation and improvement of habitats and migration routes; (c) to regulate the use of commercial reserves,ensuring the necessary density and reproduction for commercial purposes; (d) to encouragethe growth of useful fauna, without destroying other useful wild animals, fish, fowl, etc., in the process; (e) to carry out measuresto combat harmful animals--destroyers of forests and crops, carriers of infections, and poisonous, parasitic and other predators that harm the economy. It is forbidden to destroy noncommercial wild animals if they do not harm the economy or public health. Source: Pravda, October 28,1960, p. 2; astranslated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 12(44) (30 November 1960), pp. 45.

APPENDIX

4

IUCN Classification System for Endangered Species Category I: Threatened with extinction. Category II: Greatly decreasingin numbers; potentially threatened. Category III: Rare but not yet threatened with extinction. Category IV: Inadequately studied species: possibly endangered. Category V: Speciespreviously in danger but whosenumbers, while still low, are increasing. Source: IUCN, as cited in Yeliseyev (1983).

APPENDIX

5

Endangered Speciesin the USSR: Mammals and Birds (Listed in order of appearance in USSR Red Book) Part 1: Mammals Desman (Vykhukhol’) (Desmuna

moschatu)

Asiatic river beaver (Aziatskiy rechnoy bobr) (Castor fiber pohlei)

Philip R. Pryde

372

Amur tiger (Amurskiy tigr) (Panthera

tigris altaica)

Turanian tiger (Turanskiy tigr) (Panthera

tigris virgata)-is

now probably extinct

Snow leopard (Snezhnyy bars) (Uncia

uncia)

Anatolian leopard (Peredneaziatskiy leopard) (Panthera

pardus tullianus)

Amur leopard (Vostochno-sibirskiy leopard) (Panthera

pardus orientalis)

Cheetah (Gepard) (Acinonyx

jubatus

raddei)-possibly extirpated within USSR

Caracal (Karakal) (Felis caracal michaelis)

Atlantic walrus (Atlanticheskiy morzh) (Odobenus

rosmarus

rosmarus)

Mediterranean monk seal (Belobryukhiy tyulen’; tyulen’-monakh) (Monachus

monachus)

Bowhead whale (Grenlandskiy kit) (Balaena mysticetus)

Right whale (Yaponskiy kit; Yuzhnyy kit) (Eubalaena

glacialis)

Northern blue whale (Severnyy siniy kit) (Balaenoptera

musculus musculus)

Fin whale (Severnyy finval) (Balaenoptera

physalus)

Humpback whale (Severnyy gorbach) (Megaptera

nodosa)

Kulan (Turkmenskiy kulan) (Equus hemionus onager)

Bactrian deer; Maral (Bukharskiy blagorodnyy olen’) (Cervus elaphus bactrianus)

Persian or goitered gazelle (Dzheyran) (Gazelfa subgutturosa)

Goral (Goral) (Nemorhaedus

goral)

Markhor (Vintorogiy kozel) (Capra falconeri)

Wildlife preservation in the USSR

Transcaucasus mountain sheep(Zakavkazskiy gornyy baran) (Or+ ammon gmelini)

Turkmen mountain sheep(Turkmenskiy gornyy baran) (Ovis ammon cycloceros)

Bukhar mountain sheep(Bukharskiy gornyy baran) (Ovis ammon bocharensis)

European bison (Zubr) (Bos (or Bison) bonasus)

Part 2: Birds Short-tailed albatross (Belospinnyy al’batros) (Diomedea

albatrus)

Japanesecrested ibis (Krasnonogiy ibis) (Nipponia

nippon)

Far-eastern stork (Dal’nevostochnyy aist) (Ciconia

boyciana)

Red-breastedgoose (Krasnozobaya kazarka) (Ru$brenta

rujcollis)

Bar-headed goose (Gornyy gus’) (Anser indicus)

Crested shelduck (Khokhlataya peganka)-may be extinct (Tadorna

cristata)

Chinese merganser (Cheshuychatyy khrokhal’) (Mergus

squamatus)

Lammergeier (Borodach) (Gypaetus

barbatus)

Gyrfalcon (Krechet) (Falco gyrfalco)

Barbary falcon (Shakhin; Pustynnyy sokol) (Falco pelegrinoides)

Caspian snowcock (Kaspiyskiy ular) (Tetraogallus

caspius)

Tibetan snowcock (Tibetskiy ular) (Tetraogallus

tibetanus)

Altay snowcock (Altayskiy ular) (Tetraogallus

altaicus)

Japanesecrane (Yaponskiy zhuravl’) (Grus japonensis)

373

374

Philip R. Pryde

Siberian crane (Sterkh; Beliy zhuravl’) (Grus leucogerunus) White-naped crane (Daurskiy zhuravl’) (Grus vipio) Hooded crane (Cherniy zhuravl’) (Grus monacha) Houbara bustard (Dzhek; Vikhlyay; Drofa-krasotka) (Chlamydotis undulata) Spotted greenshank(Okhotskiy ulit) (Tringa guttijk) Ibisbill (Serpoklyuv) (Ibidorhyncha struthersii) Little curlew (Kronshnep-malyutka) (Numenius minutus) Slender-billed curlew (Tonkoklyuvyy kronshnep) (Numenius tenuirostris) Relict gull (Reliktovaya chayka) (Larus relictus) Tibetan sandgrouse(Tibetskaya Isadzha) (Tchangtangia (Syrrhuptes) tibetana) Scaly-bellied green woodpecker (Cheshuychatyy dyatel) (Picus squamatus) Reed parrotbill (Trostnikovaya sutora) (Parudoxornis heudi) Source: Borodin (rev. 1978): Krusnuya

knigu SSSR.