- Email: [email protected]
The Baikal natural territory in the economic model of nature conservation
Geographyand andNatural NaturalResources Resources29 29(2008) (2008)330–337 330–194 Geography
The Baikal natural territory in the economic model of nature conservation T. P. Kalikhman * Institute of Geography SB RAS, Irkutsk Received 2 March 2008
Abstract An analysis is made of the development and functioning of territorial nature conservation on the Baikal natural territory in terms of the economic model as an adjunct to the previously suggested institutional model. Based on using three main components of the economic model, it is shown that under environment activity-specific conditions, where the administrative methods of management are dominant, the stage of stabilization and enhancement of budgetary financing of specially protected natural territories leaves room for a compromise between nature conservancy objectives and the enlargement of the kinds of economic activities. Such an approach is capable of providing controlled access to the Baikal natural territory, and to the World Nature Heritage site, Lake Baikal. Keywords: Baikal natural territory, land use economy, land surveying, economic model, specially protected natural territories.
Introduction The primary objective of activity of the special protected natural territories (SPNT) is to conserve biotic and landscape diversity. This objective is achieved in the process of solving relevant problems provided the expenses are adequate and economically justified. In the case of territorial nature conservation, the economic aspect of the issues to be tackled is not always amenable to straightforward and unambiguous assessment. Adherence to the policy of avoiding any reduction in biotic and landscape diversity which implies a generally accepted public imperative of the need for its conservation for future generations, requires – in addition to the obvious financial outlays – a reconciliation of the territorial economic interests. This is particularly clearly pronounced on the Baikal Natural territory (BNT) whose formation logic was built upon taking into consideration the existing nature management pattern, and the economic interests of the region’s corresponding entities. As defined by the Federal law “About the protection of Lake Baikal”, zoning of the BNT provides a means of identifying the central ecological zone (CEZ), the buffer ecological zone (BEZ), and the ecological zone of atmospheric influence (EZAI) – the very title of each zone gives an idea of the focus and significance of the interests of the ecological-economic entities involved in nature management of the territory. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected] (T. P. Kalikhman).
A unified, very limited, model of nature management operates within the BNT, which provides at a level of executive power well-grounded assessments regarding compensation of the expenses connected with biodiversity conservation subject to a so-called Baikalian factor in the form of subsidies for the development of the economy and social sphere of the Republic of Buryatia [1]. Whilst in the economics of nature management for society and future generations [2, 3], such problems find their scientifically grounded solution within the framework of the concepts of the external effects as well as the factors of «external outlays”, it is unlikely that they are applicable during the transitional (for the region and the country) period [4]. It is appropriate to begin a treatment of the economic model of territorial nature conservation on the BNT with two fundamental, historically interrelated approaches to the problem. The first (and the most comprehensive in coverage of the problems) approach is, we believe, the Territorial Integral Scheme of Nature Conservation Within the Lake Baikal Watershed Basin (Russian acronym – TerKSOP) that had been implemented before 1990; it was the first scheme to formulate the general principles of zoning and suggest the common boundaries of the scheme as well as the boundaries of the coastal protective belt and the lake’s catchment basin. It is through a further development of the TerKSOP ideology that the definition of the BNT and the pattern of its ecological zoning were included in the law about Baikal. The other approach involves assessing the activity focusing on the development of the SPNT network during the ex-USSR’s era and in the present (post-Perestroika) Russia.
Copyright © 2008 IG SB, Siberian Branch of RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.gnr.2008.10.013
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
Comparison of the nearly identical periods of time makes it possible to switch over to economic assessments of the potential development of the SPNT system and territorial nature conservation on the BNT. Worthy of mention are the main points related to the establishment of the SPNT system of federal significance within the BNT, with the emphasis on the following periods. In the 1970s (following a dramatic reduction of the SPNT system that occurred in 1951 and 1961) there emerged SPNTs, with utilitarian approach to the establishment of nature reserves predominating: the Baikalsky (1969) and Sokhondinsky (1974) reserves as well as the Burkalsky (1978) and Kabansky (in 1967 – of local significance) wildlife preserves, and in 1974 – of federal significance). In the mid-1980s (and afterwards) there emerge protected territories of federal significance of key importance for the system, such as the Baikalo-Lensky 91986) and Dzherginsky (1992) reserves, the Pribaikalsky (1986), Zabaikalsky (1986) and Tunkinsky (1991) national parks, and the Altacheisky (1966 – of local significance; 1984 – of federal significance), Frolikhinsky (1976; 1988) and Krasny Yar (1994; 2000) wildlife preserves. No new SPNTs have been established since 2003, with a constant reduction of the number of active protected territories. It is important to remark that at the interface of the aforementioned periods the concept of sustainable development dominated by the principles of nature conservation and natural resource protection was brought into general scientific use and became a new global paradigm. Table 1 summarizes the impact of the global tendencies on the national pattern of territorial nature conservation which, given the formally high level of expenditures and a rather high level of supervision, was funded by the “residual principle”. This paper examines the economic model of development of territorial nature conservation on the BNT which Table 1 General tendencies in the area of development of SPNT activity Areas of development of activity
Territorial nature conservation traditional approaches
Principles of sustainable development
Strategy of utilization of natural territories
Exclusion of the maximum possible area from economic utilization
Functional differentiation and spatial optimization of territories of nature management
Strategy of management of natural territories
Ideological declarativeness, voluntarism and utilitarianism
Current normative legal base with legalized pattern of land use
Economic bases
Requirements for large expenses on protection and scantiness of budgetary financing
Combination of budget and off-budget sources of funding
Nature and man
Minimization of human presence in nature
Technological support of human access to nature
331
supplements the institutional model [4]. The current importance of the issues considered in this article is enhanced by the adoption of the long-awaited RF Government decree of approval of the boundaries of the Baikal natural territory and its ecological zones (No. 1641-r of 27 November 2006). General economic assessments of the SPNT Reserves, national parks and wildlife preserves, save wildlife preserves of a regional and local significance, are state-owned nature-conservancy institutions and are funded from the federal budget. Such a status is confirmed by the presence of a legally instituted mechanism of total or partial withdrawal of these territories from economic exploitation, with some limited and regulated exceptions, however. Consequently, the primary component of the economic model must rely on the status of SPNT as state-owned budgetary organizations in charge of a rather narrow and strictly defined array of tasks. Under such circumstances, the possibilities of involving the main categories of SPNT in the market economic relations that are evolving in this country (with the status of budgetary organizations remaining unchanged) are exploited 1extremely individually and with much caution, and they do not become typical of the of the SPNT practices. Therefore, the key to the economic model of the operation of the BNT’s protected territories is, as before, budgetary funding which usually determines the effectiveness of the SPNT’s operation. According to the data from the RF Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the amount of financing of the SPNTs was 809 mil. Rbls in 2006, and 983.5 mil. Rbls were appropriated from the federal budget in 2006. For the last five years the total amount of funding has increased more than twice, although it still constitutes, as estimated by the MNR, only 66% of the minimum calculated yearly requirement for funding of current maintenance of the state-owned nature reserves and national parks [5]. Table 2 provides the hierarchy of the tasks performed by the main categories of SPNT, with the order of priority numbered according to the Law “About special protected natural territories” [6]. It is evident that the task of protection of natural territories in the interests of biodiversity conservation and maintenance of natural complexes and objects in their native state is of top priority for the main categories of SPNT. Hence it follows that the efforts to implement this task must be secured by reliable and adequate funding. During the past several years the reports of the SPNTs within the BNT never mentioned that the decline in funding of the protection led to the problems with conservation of a particular kind of biota, although information about illegal felling, forest fires and poaching (illegal hunting) has been provided on a very regular basis [7-9]. For that reason, the current overall 66%-support of the SPNTs, combined with a steady increase in their budgets, suggests that the situation with their protection is satisfactory, even though the MNR recognizes that funding is inadequate [5].
332
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
Table 2 Priorities of the objectives of the SPNT’s main categories Objectives
Main categories of SPNT national wildlife reserves parks preserves
Protection of natural 1 1 1 territories Protection of historic– 2 – cultural objects Research activity 2 5 – Ecological monitoring 3 6 3 Ecological education 4 3 – Participation n ecological 5 – – examination Assistance in training 6 – – research personnel Regulated tourism and – 4 4 recreation Rehabilitation of natural – 7 2 and cultural complexes Note. «–» – absent in the list of objectives for a given category of SPNT in accordance with the Federal law “About special protected natural territories”.
Research and ecological education rank 2nd from the top of the list. The situation with the availability of funds for research activity can be considered quite favorable, because their own research programs are supplemented by cooperative projects with staff members of the Academy of Sciences’ institutes and universities in Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude as well as from other Russian and foreign research centers. Such cooperation is instrumental in enhancing the publishing and informational activities through the use of the resources provided by project participants. The success of ecological education is facilitated by the fact that the SPNT administrations are located in cities and towns, so that school and university students can be recruited as volunteers to participate in museum, exhibition and excursion activities. Ecological monitoring, a key kind of activity at the time of developing the law about SPNTs, is currently under the jurisdiction of the Federal Supervising Service in the sphere of nature management of the MNR (Rosprirodnadzor) and its regional administrations. Ecological monitoring operations on the BNT are being carried out by the East-Siberian Research Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineral Resources of the MNR, with monitoring bulletins posted on the “Protection of Lake Baikal” site [8]. The other areas of activity of the SPNTs of the main categories differ drastically. The reserves are a category of SPNTs with the most stringent limitations on visitation; their primary goal is to do research into natural complexes. The national parks are largely intended for visitation of the territory, and their primary objectives include conservation of the cultural heritage, ecological education of the population, and the creation of favorable conditions for regulated tourism. The wildlife preserves are engaged, in addition to conservation of natural environment, in the reproduction and rehabilitation of natural resources.
In accordance with the recently firmly established system of budget and off-budget financing of protected territories, 20% of the own funds are added to the 66% of the federal budget component as well as 6% are provided by local budgets, 6% by grants from international environmental foundations, and 2% are received from sponsors [5]. Such an economic structure in the activity of the SPNTs is also emerging on the BNT, although the proportion of grants during 20002005 was somewhat higher, and local support was irregular and did not exceed 1-2% [10]. The most marked influence on the activity of the SPNTs within the BNT was exerted by the Global Ecological Fund (GEF) during 2000-2004 as well as its project titled “Biodiversity conservation” (the Baikal component). Under these programs he Pribaikalsky National Park, for example, obtained grants in the following amounts: 550.2 thou Rbls. (2001), 74.7 thou Rbls. (2002), and 126.1 thou Rbls. (2003). During the same period the Barguzinsky, Baikalo-Lensky, Baikalsky and Dzherginsky reserves obtained under GEF grants more impressive funds: from 3 to 10 mil. Rbls. (including the projects implemented jointly with other organizations). The economy of land use on the BNT The urgency of the land use problem on protected territories of the BNT is becoming obvious as new legislative acts are passed, with difficult-to-predict economic consequences from their enforcement, and with the complexities of practical implementation. Characteristically, according to the results of the 22 May 2006 Parliament hearings on “Perfecting the organizational-legal and legislative base of the functioning of special protected natural territories”, nearly one-half of the recommendations referred to land problems and methods to solve them, the questions concerning land delimitation, and the lease and landed servitude relations using budget and off-budget funds. Unfortunately, the legislators neglected the problems related to cadastre inventory of the lands within the SPNTs as well as the methods used to make land cadastre assessments. Within the framework of the aforementioned “Biodiversity Conservation” projects, work was done on economic assessments of biodiversity, and on the economic mechanisms for the promotion of its preservation. It is obvious that research of this kind must also be done with reference to lands, as the primary goal of the SPNTs is to preserve not only biotic diversity but also landscape diversity, according to the Law about SPNTs in regard to reserves: “…to maintain in a native state the protected natural complexes and objects” [6, p. 45]. To assess the economic justifiability of the SPNTs as nature management entities, which pass regular state registration of their land plots, it is necessary to look at the current state of affairs on the BNT. The starting points for such assessments involve the results of forest and land organization work which is typically done every 10 years or more frequently where necessary (natural calamities, changes in the utilization of the particular land plots, etc.). The most critical
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
situation occurs in the Baikalo-Lensky reserve, where the last forest husbandry operations were carried out more than 30 years ago, that is, 11 years before the establishment of the reserve. In most of the other protected territories, the last forest inventory was carried out 15-25 years ago (the only exception is provided by the adjacent Burkalsky and Atsinsky wildlife preserves in the Chita region – the last forest survey regulation was carried out in 2000). The situation is relatively good in the Sokhondinsky reserve (the last forest inventory was carried out in 1991, and the last land inventory in 2004), and in Zabaikalsky National Park (in 1991 and 2003, respectively). The land inventory procedure is currently supplemented by the requirements for land surveying and state registration of all lands forming part of the SPNTs [4]. The procedure of estimating the land surveying work is still in a primitive stage of development; however, the differences in the prices for land outside the SPNTs are understandable already. For landowners it is customary to fix prices directly dependent on the surface area of the plots, and these prices include indirectly the cadastre and market value of the unit area. For the SPNTs the main characteristic in the appraisal of work is the value of land surveying of a unit length of the boundary or the total length of the SPNT boundaries. Another important characteristic is the jurisdiction of the lands adjacent to the SPNTs; if they are under the federal jurisdiction (and such is the situation in most cases on the BNT), it would be appropriate to fund the land surveying operations from the federal budget. Thus the second component of the economic model implies the present status of the land relations of the SPNTs. In the analysis of the land use economics on the SPNTs within the BNT, it is necessary to take into account the differences in the categories and the status of the lands – this is particularly true of the national parks and wildlife preserves. Thus more than 20% of lands within the SPNTs are not categorized as the “lands of the SPNTs”; for that reason, liquidation of several wildlife preserves within the BNT did not involve any reduction in the area of lands of this category as a consequence of these lands being under the jurisdiction of the forest reserves. The state-owned nature reserves within the BNT have boundaries approved by the RF Government. Furthermore, the lands of the nature reserves have been fully transferred to the category of “SPNT lands” and have a federal status. There are no significant residential centers or communities within the reserves and, hence, no conflicts between the SPNT administrations and the local population. According to annual reports of the reserves, the number of violations of the reservation modality is very small, and they correspond to the boundary areas. Their territories are still in good conditions largely because they are exceptionally difficult of access (this is to a lesser extent true for the Baikalsky reserve). There are, however, some disputable questions concerning the establishment of protection zones in the reserves such as the Baikalo-Lensky reserve [11].
333
Of the three national parks existing on the BNT, the Pribaikalsky and Tunkinsky parks lack any Regulations approved by the RF Government and descriptions of the boundaries as required by federal legislation. The boundaries of these parks were approved only by the former Federal Forest Service. It is these SPNTs that are faced with challenges of low economic effectiveness of land use as regards nature conservancy as well as resource management. Yet, the Pribaikalsky park estimated the expenses connected with the obtaining of the certificate authorizing the use of the plot of land at 28 mil. Rbls and the expenses connected with a new delimitation and inventory of the forest resources at 27 mil. Rbls, with a relevant application filed to the MNR [10]. The Tunkinsky park, with 1/10 of its area forming part of the BNT, which was established within the boundaries of the district of the same name in Buryatia, is prevented from carrying out rational land use. To resolve the problem it would be appropriate to divide its territories into the lands belonging to the district and the lands belonging to the park, with the latter including the most valuable plots of lands from the standpoint of biotic and landscape diversity conservation as well as recreational utilization. To harmonize the district’s economic development, it seems very important to withdraw from the park the intensively used agricultural lands and residential centers [12]. Zabaikalsky National Park, which is endowed with adequate scientific potential and the necessary infrastructure to render services to visitors, often runs into such organizationsspecific problems related to efficient practices of biodiversity conservation. Following the recommendation made by the Scientific Division, small areas in two bays were closed for sport fishing in order to improve the fish reserves in the Chivyrkuisky Bay of Lake Baikal; a few years later, however, this measure resulted in an increase of the population of weak individuals, and in the spread of infection among the protected fish species [13]. The wildlife preserves of a federal significance are currently in a vague state. They no longer belong to the Ministry of Agriculture, nor are they under the jurisdiction of Rosprirodnadzor of the MNR, although the proposal for the transfer and reorganization of 57 wildlife preserves of a federal significance was submitted to the RF Government. It is suggested that these wildlife preserves be included in the existing SPNTs rather than establishing new management structures [5]. Such practices are successfully implemented on the BNT, where since 1974 the “Kabansky” wildlife preserve has been a branch of the “Baikalsky” reserve, with 10% of its annual budget funded by the nature reserve. It should be noted that in spite of their federal status, the lands of the wildlife preserves are not yet withdrawn from economic exploitation and usually belong to the forest reserves. On the other hand, the users of the territories typically are regional and local organizations of different forms of ownership. A typical example is provided by the Frolikhinsky reserve located on the lands of the Severobaikalsk forest district, where specialists from the territorial “Glavokhota” agency of the Ministry of Agriculture
334
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
were employed as huntsmen, while the hydropathic clinic of the district hospital in the settlement of Nizhneangarsk remained as its user. As a result, to visit the wildlife preserve, one has to obtain permission from the first two agencies as well as from the hydropathic clinic to moor to the shore in the Khakusy inlet; for that reason, payment for visits is to be made to three agencies at once: Forest District Administration, Hunting Administration, and hydropathic clinic. Uncertain jurisdictions also apply for the wildlife preserves of a regional significance, except for those located in Buryatia which – since 2004 – have been under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Buryatia. Within the BNT the primary goal of the regional wildlife preserves is to preserve and recover the population of game animals. Notwithstanding the fact that the forests within the wildlife preserves are assigned to “forests growing on special protected natural territories” with the legal regime corresponding to the new Forest Code [14, p. 103], many of them are experiencing commercial felling under the guise of sanitary felling. Illegal extensive felling dictated a need for a substantial reduction in the area of the Tukolon (EZAI BNT, Irkutsk region) and Mokheisky (BEZ, Republic of Buryatia) wildlife preserves, and the latter preserve was liquidated for the same reason in 2004. The situation with the wildlife preserves in the Irkutsk region is critical – nowadays they lack funding and have no administrations, because it was until very recently that the regional law about the SPNTs was adopted; no conservancy measures are being taken and, hence, they do not cope with their objectives. Recreation on the BNT Recreational activity is not among the top priority objectives of the SPNTs (see Table 2). Nevertheless, recent years saw an ever increasing use of the objectives formulated more than a decade ago in the Federal law “About special protected natural territories” in order to refine or even amend them having regard to the current economic situation. On the one hand, there is an increase in the budget of the SPNTs to fund the main nature conservation functions and, on the other, the Department of state policy in the field of environmental protection of the MNR declares the idea of transforming some of the reserves to the category of national parks as well as that the SPNT system must be focused on the creation of adequate recreational resources and the necessary tourism infrastructure [5]. Such simple ideas of raising the economic effectiveness of nature management on the SPNTs were also expressed at earlier dates, as the irrational (noneconomic) ideology of management of nature reserves always implies a contradiction in its economic assessment at a global and regional level [15, 16]. As regards the protected territories on the BNT, the issues related to the promotion of recreation, especially at Lake Baikal, always were a major focus of interest. As early as the period of TerKSOP three variants of the nature conservation strategy and regional nature management were suggest-
ed for the Baikal region: inertia-driven, stabilizational, and target-oriented, and each of them placed primary emphasis upon the priority development of the recreational complex. TerKSOP was in harmony with the “General concept of the development of the productive forces within the Lake Baikal drainage basin” and the “Standards of permissible impacts on the ecosystem of Lake Baikal and its drainage basin”, with the result that the estimated expenses connected with nature conservation became comparable with the economics itself of the production sectors even for the most optimal target-oriented variant. The first attempt to implement the existing techniques in working out the development strategy of the recreational territories (RT) implied the results of the project titled “The general plan for the promotion of ecotourism in the Lake Baikal region” implemented in 1994 under order of the World Bank [17]. Its conceptual ideology involved avoiding any violation of the maximum allowable maximum load on the existing socio-economic, cultural-historical and ecological interrelationships in the region, including the unique communities of the flora and fauna or the cultural heritage sites; securing the maximum possible opportunities and economic benefits for the local population, and ensuring the maximum possible conservation of the natural territories, national parks and nature reserves in the region of Lake Baikal and its water body through an enhancement of the efficiency of environmental stimuli. With the advent of the report on the project, the promotion of ecotourism was declared the major area of recreational activity on the SPNTs, although it was not until very recently that there emerged real preconditions for settling the conflicts between the first two statements. It is known that economically, ecotourism is one of the most successful sectors of the tourism industry across the globe. The formula of implementation of ecotourism on the SPNTs implies separating the places of permanent and temporal stay of recreants in which case by “permanent” is meant the infrastructure of residence, and by “temporal” is meant the infrastructure of visitation to natural territories [18, 19]. Clearly, the SPNTs primarily require an adequate infrastructure for visitation as well as some camping sites nearby the boundaries or their own camping sites to accommodate the visitors. Recreational activity on the BNT is determined by the dominant demand for visitation to Lake Baikal, and by the readiness of the SPNTs to satisfy this demand. Table 3 provides some insight into the present status of the recreational complex within the CEZ BNT as of 2005; the table shows the number of camping sites and holiday camps located on the specially assigned 56 recreational territories (see the figure) as well as their actual capacity and attendance. The list of 56 RTs around Lake Baikal provided the basis for identifying the territories the most used in recreational activity [8]. The figure provides the schematic map of the recreational territories (RT) , the main directions of access by land and water to the natural territories (including the SPNTs). The formation of exit flows is connected with large termi-
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
335
Recreational territories of the central ecological zone of the BNT. SPNT: I – reserves; II – national parks; III – wildlife preserves. Recreational territories: IV – special economic zone of the tourist-recreational type; V – active “recreational localities”: 1 – Baikalsky Priboi – Kultushnaya, 2 – Lemasovo; VI – planned recreational territories: 3 – Zavorotnaya, 4 – Solntse Pad, 5 – Ongureny, 6 – Zama, 7 – Northern Malomorie, 8 – Yadyrtui, 9 – Kurma, 10 – Sarma, 11 – Mukhor bay, 12 – Sakhyurta, 13 – Lake Nurskoye-Zagli, 14 – Seven Pine-trees, 15 – Lake Khankhoi, 16 – Khuzhir, 17 – Kharantsy, 18 – Peschanaya Urochishche, 19 – Uzury, 20 – Khoboi Cape, 21 – Aya, 22 – Buguldeika, 23 – Peschanaya Bay, 24 – Bol. Goloustnoye, 25 – Kadilnaya, 26 – Bol. Koty, 27 – Listvyanka, 28 – Angara source, 29 – Port Baikal, 30 – Circum-Baikal Railroad, 31 – Slyudyanka, 32 – Utulik, 33 – Baikalsk, 34 – Warm Lakes, 35 – Babushkinskaya, 36 – Oimurskaya, 37 – Enkhulekskaya, 38 – Sukhinsko-Zarechenskaya, 39 – Gremyachinsk, 40 – Turkinskaya, 41 – Maksiminskaya, 42 – Lake Dukhovoye, 43 – Kholodyankinskaya, 44 – Gusikhinskaya, 45 – Chvyrkuisky Bay, 46 – Kabanya, 47 – Shirildy-Shegnanda, 48 – Khakusy, 49 – Tokshaki, 50 – Yarki Is, 51 – Serebryanaya Pad, 52 – Senogda, 53 – Lakes Slyudyanskiye, 54 – Bolsodei, 55 – Goryachy bereg, 56 – Shore of brown Bears. Boundaries: VII – state border, VIII – RF entities, IX – Baikal Natural Territory, X – special protected natural territories, XI – biosphere research area of Barguzinsky Reserve. A – key points to reach Baikal’s shore by motor transport; B – key points along Baikal’s shore to start water cruises; C – railroad and air terminals.
336
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
Table 3 The conditions of the recreational complex in the BNT CEZ in 2005 Administrative district
Olkhonsky Irkutsk Slyudyanka Kabansk Pribaikalsky Barguzinsky Severobaikalsky Total…
Number of subjects of of RТ visited recreational constantly activity Irkutsk region 20 87 6 76 6 41 Republic of Buryatia 6 91 2 23 5 36 10 22 56 376
of places (maximum) 4694 3668 3188 4294 1295 793 1895 19 827
nals and sites of stays of recreants. It is apparent that 20 RTs within the protected territories are within Pribaikalsky and Zabaikalsky National Parks, the federal Frolikhinsky and Kabansky wildlife preserves, and the regional Verkhne-Angarsky, Pribaikalsky and Enkhaluksky wildlife preserves. The territory of Zabaikalsky National Park includes one wellidentifiable cluster category of RTs (Chivyrkuisky Bay), and Pribaikalsky National Park (Olkhon Island) has eight RTs which can be used in functional zoning of these SPNTs. There are 25 recreational territories on the forest, agricultural and populated lands. Furthermore, of the 376 entities of recreational activity (see Table 3), more than two-third of them are called the holiday camps, and less than one-third of them are referred to as the camping sites. Such a ratio is quite explainable by the ever increasing demand for visitation to Baikal, and by the extremely limited possibilities of rendering high quality services to temporal visitors of the SPNTs. It is clear that the off-budget economics of the SPNTs depends directly on flexibility and efficiency of taking into consideration the demand for visitation services and their competitiveness versus services rendered by the other subjects of recreational activity. Thus the third component of the economic model is represented by recreational activity which provides the SPNTs with their own funds. In the Irkutsk region, and in the Republic of Buryatia it is also planned to establish special economic zones of the tourism-recreational type (see the figure). Their formal location outside of the lands occupied by the SPNTs, combined with the prospects of year-round attraction of visitors change substantially the outlook for the promotion of ecotourism, with due regard for the plans for developing the infrastructure of permanent stay of a qualitatively new level. It is anticipated that the total number of hotel guests in the area of the settlement of Listvyanka (Irkutsk region) will increase by 11.2 thousand, and the annual stream of tourists will exceed 1 million; in the Pribaikalsky district of Buryatia near the Mt. Bychya and Lake Kotokel, the number of hotel guests will increase by 22.3 thousand, and the annual stream of tourists will reach 1.9 million within two decades to come.
In view of the projects involving the establishment of special economic zones on Baikal’s western and eastern shores, it is necessary to take into consideration the increase of the stream of tourists arriving by water transport for temporal visitation of the SPNTs, and other natural territories in the summer season, and at other periods. Therefore the economics of recreational services on the SPNTs must include the expenses connected with the construction of mooring places and access roads to the shore, the establishment of visitationinformation points to provide visitors with excursion services and information materials on the itineraries offered. It should be noted that the number of ships cruising Baikal for tourism purposes increased in the time interval 2000-2006 from about 250 to 300 and continues to grow [9]. A key to the infrastructure for visitation of natural territories are the trails implying: the bed of the trail and its engineering support; bridges, overpasses, descents to the water, banisters and curbs, marking and information boards along the trail bed as well as stops with adequate infrastructure; sites with places for camp-fire and tents, sheds and waste disposal, and places of refuge and information-visitation points on the terminals [18, 20]. More than 250 trails have been constructed and improved since 2003 on the SPNT near Baikal according to existing international standards using resources from various funds, volunteers, its own resources, and organizational capabilities of the “Large Baikalian Trail” public organization [19]. The relevant construction project is gradually becoming a routine of the SPNT administrations in providing visitors with new itineraries and routes at a proper safety level and reliably maintained loads on the areas of temporary stay. The institutional problems must be viewed as wholly independent from the aforementioned conditions for the formation of competitive recreational products on the SPNT [4]; these problems are related to the promotion of recreation on special or disputable territories which do not operate for the benefit of the SPNT economics. Such territories include the biosphere research area in the northern part of Barguzinsky Reserve (see the figure). The goals and objectives of such research grounds are to investigate the human impact on natural environment. In this case it is recreational and tourism activity, traditional land use of the Evenki, because the lands of the Evenki clan community are adjacent to the reserve on the northern side, as well as some kinds of non-intensive nature management (hayfields and reindeer pastures). An example of the not yet resolved disputable situation can be provided by the southern cordon of this same reserve, namely, Sosnovka, where the holiday camp of JSC “Angarsk Petrochemical Company” was constructed but very infrequently operated. Another disputable area is the territory of the former enterprise, “Baikalkvartssamotsvety”, which is entirely (except for the water body) surrounded by the lands of the Baikalo-Lensky reserve. The main building and the associated structures are currently under construction – without consultation with the administration of the reserve. At an earlier date this area was planned to become the protection zone of the reserve, but this has not yet been formally approved for lack of any ap-
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
proval from local self-government authorities (the Olkhonsky district of the Irkutsk region). Conceivably, it is these three areas that could serve as the place of partial implementation of the idea proposed by the MNR (as mentioned at the beginning of this section), with the nature reserves remaining the only entities of recreational nature management. Given the present situation, however, these holiday camps cannot render all necessary services of ecotourism until they occupy some parts of the nature reserves and until the land use conditions are agreed upon. Conclusion Switch-over to the new nature conservancy paradigm in the activity of SPNT within the BNT is becoming particularly currently important after approval of the boundaries of the BNT and its ecological zones. There emerges a spatial representativeness of natural territories whose reflection in the institutional and economic models of territorial nature conservation on the BNT is attempted in this paper as well as in [4]. The law “About the protection of Lake Baikal”, the result of a long way of generating the ecological-legal space of the lake’s protection in general as a normative-legal framework act, is acquiring a practicable foundation for a combination of the imperative starting point in the form of prohibitions and limitations of nature management with current tendencies involving the transition to legitimacy of land use, a stabilization of funding of the SPNT, and ease of human access to natural territories. Thus the economic model of development of territorial nature conservation on the BNT, based on using three main components, makes it possible to identify the following high-priority areas of activity: 1. Stabilization and constant growth of the volumes of budgetary financing of the reserves and national parks in the interests of tackling the major issues. 2. Substantiation and seeking funds to finance work on delimitation and state registration of all lands forming part of the SPNT, within several years to come, as well as for carrying out, on a regular basis, the procedures of forest and land management. 3. Conservation of the status of budgetary organizations for SPNT of the main categories in conditions of the inadequate regional economic interests as regards conservation of protected natural complexes and objects in their native state. 4. Urgent definition of the economic and departmental status of wildlife reserves in order to improve the effectiveness of their functions as declared by the law “About special protected natural territories”. 5. An increase in the share of the own funds of the SPNT through an expansion of the proposal for temporal stay of visitors on natural territories, concurrent with a gradual reduction of some kinds of forest utilization (primarily felling). 6. Construction of trails on natural territories as a basis for the infrastructure for visitations, in accordance with the
337
ecotourism principles, and with the requirements for the state of the World Nature Heritage site “Lake Baikal”. References 1. Bardakhanova T. B., Mikheyeva A. S., Puntsukova S. D., and Radnayev B. L. The methodology of Determining the Region’s Ecological Expenses. Ulan-Ude: NSC SB RAS Publisher, 2001, 129 p. 2. Coze R. The Problem of Social Costs. Firm, Market and Law. Moscow: “Delo LTD” Publisher, 1993, 192 p. 3. Bobylev S. N. and Khodzhayev A. Sh. Nature Management Economics. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 2003, 567 p. 4. Kalikhman T. P. The Baikal Natural Territory in the institutional model of nature conservation. Geografiya i prirod. resursy, 2008, No. 3. 5. The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. www.mnr.gov.ru 6. Stepanitsky V. B. Comments on the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “About Protected Natural territories”. Moscow: Wildlife Conservation Center SoES, 1997, 136 p. 7. Report of the MNR of Russia on the Conditions of Lake Baikal and Its Conservation measures in 2003. Irkutsk, 2004, 350 p. 8. State Report of the MNR of Russia on the Conditions of lake Baikal and Its Conservation Measures in 2004. Irkutsk, 2005, 338 p. 9. State Report on the Conditions of Lake Baikal and Its Conservation Measures in 2005. Irkutsk, 2006, 410 p. 10. Grishchenko V. I. and Ryabtsev V. V. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Pribaikalsky National Park: results, and main problems. Transactions of Pribaikalsky National Park. Irkutsk: Irkutsk University Publisher, 2007, issue 2, pp. 362-387. 11. State Nature Reserves. State Report “On the Environmental Conditions and Protection in the Irkutsk Region in 2002”. Irkutsk, 2004, pp. 208-210. 12. Kalikhman T. P. Tunkinsky National Park: People or Nature. Zapovednoye delo, 2007, issue 12, pp. 41-66. 13. Ovdin E. D., Ponomarev G. V., Abalakov A. D., and Novikova L. S. The Recreational Utilization of the Fauna of Zabaikalsky National Park. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2004, 82 p. 14. Forest Code of the Russian Federation No. 200-FZ of 04.12.2006. www.rbcu.ru/right/lc/federallaws/009.html#108 15. Karachevtsev I. L. The Substantiation of the Amounts and Sources of Financing Biodiversity Conservation: Author’s Abstract of Cand.Sc. (Geogr.) Degree Dissertation. Moscow, 2004, 22 p. 16. Ryumina E. V. and Karachevtev I. L. The specific character of the problems of biodiversity conservation in the territorial and temporal contexts. Ekonomika prirodopolzovaniya, 2005, No. 1, pp. 112-118. 17. General work program of the promotion of ecotourism in the Lake Baikal region. Report to be submitted to the Government of Russia under coordination of the World Bank. Moscow, 1995, 248 p. 18. Shirokov G. I., Kalikhman A. D., Komisarova N. V., and Savenkova T. P. Ecological Tourism: Baikal, Baikal Region. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2002, 192 p. 19. Kalikhman A. D., Kalikhman T. P. and Khidekel V. V. The Trails of the Natural Territories at Baikal. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2005, 114 p. 20. Savenkova T. P., Kalikhman A. D. and Khidekel V. V. The Natural Park of the City of Angarsk. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2003, 148 p.
The Baikal natural territory in the economic model of nature conservation T. P. Kalikhman * Institute of Geography SB RAS, Irkutsk Received 2 March 2008
Abstract An analysis is made of the development and functioning of territorial nature conservation on the Baikal natural territory in terms of the economic model as an adjunct to the previously suggested institutional model. Based on using three main components of the economic model, it is shown that under environment activity-specific conditions, where the administrative methods of management are dominant, the stage of stabilization and enhancement of budgetary financing of specially protected natural territories leaves room for a compromise between nature conservancy objectives and the enlargement of the kinds of economic activities. Such an approach is capable of providing controlled access to the Baikal natural territory, and to the World Nature Heritage site, Lake Baikal. Keywords: Baikal natural territory, land use economy, land surveying, economic model, specially protected natural territories.
Introduction The primary objective of activity of the special protected natural territories (SPNT) is to conserve biotic and landscape diversity. This objective is achieved in the process of solving relevant problems provided the expenses are adequate and economically justified. In the case of territorial nature conservation, the economic aspect of the issues to be tackled is not always amenable to straightforward and unambiguous assessment. Adherence to the policy of avoiding any reduction in biotic and landscape diversity which implies a generally accepted public imperative of the need for its conservation for future generations, requires – in addition to the obvious financial outlays – a reconciliation of the territorial economic interests. This is particularly clearly pronounced on the Baikal Natural territory (BNT) whose formation logic was built upon taking into consideration the existing nature management pattern, and the economic interests of the region’s corresponding entities. As defined by the Federal law “About the protection of Lake Baikal”, zoning of the BNT provides a means of identifying the central ecological zone (CEZ), the buffer ecological zone (BEZ), and the ecological zone of atmospheric influence (EZAI) – the very title of each zone gives an idea of the focus and significance of the interests of the ecological-economic entities involved in nature management of the territory. * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected] (T. P. Kalikhman).
A unified, very limited, model of nature management operates within the BNT, which provides at a level of executive power well-grounded assessments regarding compensation of the expenses connected with biodiversity conservation subject to a so-called Baikalian factor in the form of subsidies for the development of the economy and social sphere of the Republic of Buryatia [1]. Whilst in the economics of nature management for society and future generations [2, 3], such problems find their scientifically grounded solution within the framework of the concepts of the external effects as well as the factors of «external outlays”, it is unlikely that they are applicable during the transitional (for the region and the country) period [4]. It is appropriate to begin a treatment of the economic model of territorial nature conservation on the BNT with two fundamental, historically interrelated approaches to the problem. The first (and the most comprehensive in coverage of the problems) approach is, we believe, the Territorial Integral Scheme of Nature Conservation Within the Lake Baikal Watershed Basin (Russian acronym – TerKSOP) that had been implemented before 1990; it was the first scheme to formulate the general principles of zoning and suggest the common boundaries of the scheme as well as the boundaries of the coastal protective belt and the lake’s catchment basin. It is through a further development of the TerKSOP ideology that the definition of the BNT and the pattern of its ecological zoning were included in the law about Baikal. The other approach involves assessing the activity focusing on the development of the SPNT network during the ex-USSR’s era and in the present (post-Perestroika) Russia.
Copyright © 2008 IG SB, Siberian Branch of RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved doi:10.1016/j.gnr.2008.10.013
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
Comparison of the nearly identical periods of time makes it possible to switch over to economic assessments of the potential development of the SPNT system and territorial nature conservation on the BNT. Worthy of mention are the main points related to the establishment of the SPNT system of federal significance within the BNT, with the emphasis on the following periods. In the 1970s (following a dramatic reduction of the SPNT system that occurred in 1951 and 1961) there emerged SPNTs, with utilitarian approach to the establishment of nature reserves predominating: the Baikalsky (1969) and Sokhondinsky (1974) reserves as well as the Burkalsky (1978) and Kabansky (in 1967 – of local significance) wildlife preserves, and in 1974 – of federal significance). In the mid-1980s (and afterwards) there emerge protected territories of federal significance of key importance for the system, such as the Baikalo-Lensky 91986) and Dzherginsky (1992) reserves, the Pribaikalsky (1986), Zabaikalsky (1986) and Tunkinsky (1991) national parks, and the Altacheisky (1966 – of local significance; 1984 – of federal significance), Frolikhinsky (1976; 1988) and Krasny Yar (1994; 2000) wildlife preserves. No new SPNTs have been established since 2003, with a constant reduction of the number of active protected territories. It is important to remark that at the interface of the aforementioned periods the concept of sustainable development dominated by the principles of nature conservation and natural resource protection was brought into general scientific use and became a new global paradigm. Table 1 summarizes the impact of the global tendencies on the national pattern of territorial nature conservation which, given the formally high level of expenditures and a rather high level of supervision, was funded by the “residual principle”. This paper examines the economic model of development of territorial nature conservation on the BNT which Table 1 General tendencies in the area of development of SPNT activity Areas of development of activity
Territorial nature conservation traditional approaches
Principles of sustainable development
Strategy of utilization of natural territories
Exclusion of the maximum possible area from economic utilization
Functional differentiation and spatial optimization of territories of nature management
Strategy of management of natural territories
Ideological declarativeness, voluntarism and utilitarianism
Current normative legal base with legalized pattern of land use
Economic bases
Requirements for large expenses on protection and scantiness of budgetary financing
Combination of budget and off-budget sources of funding
Nature and man
Minimization of human presence in nature
Technological support of human access to nature
331
supplements the institutional model [4]. The current importance of the issues considered in this article is enhanced by the adoption of the long-awaited RF Government decree of approval of the boundaries of the Baikal natural territory and its ecological zones (No. 1641-r of 27 November 2006). General economic assessments of the SPNT Reserves, national parks and wildlife preserves, save wildlife preserves of a regional and local significance, are state-owned nature-conservancy institutions and are funded from the federal budget. Such a status is confirmed by the presence of a legally instituted mechanism of total or partial withdrawal of these territories from economic exploitation, with some limited and regulated exceptions, however. Consequently, the primary component of the economic model must rely on the status of SPNT as state-owned budgetary organizations in charge of a rather narrow and strictly defined array of tasks. Under such circumstances, the possibilities of involving the main categories of SPNT in the market economic relations that are evolving in this country (with the status of budgetary organizations remaining unchanged) are exploited 1extremely individually and with much caution, and they do not become typical of the of the SPNT practices. Therefore, the key to the economic model of the operation of the BNT’s protected territories is, as before, budgetary funding which usually determines the effectiveness of the SPNT’s operation. According to the data from the RF Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), the amount of financing of the SPNTs was 809 mil. Rbls in 2006, and 983.5 mil. Rbls were appropriated from the federal budget in 2006. For the last five years the total amount of funding has increased more than twice, although it still constitutes, as estimated by the MNR, only 66% of the minimum calculated yearly requirement for funding of current maintenance of the state-owned nature reserves and national parks [5]. Table 2 provides the hierarchy of the tasks performed by the main categories of SPNT, with the order of priority numbered according to the Law “About special protected natural territories” [6]. It is evident that the task of protection of natural territories in the interests of biodiversity conservation and maintenance of natural complexes and objects in their native state is of top priority for the main categories of SPNT. Hence it follows that the efforts to implement this task must be secured by reliable and adequate funding. During the past several years the reports of the SPNTs within the BNT never mentioned that the decline in funding of the protection led to the problems with conservation of a particular kind of biota, although information about illegal felling, forest fires and poaching (illegal hunting) has been provided on a very regular basis [7-9]. For that reason, the current overall 66%-support of the SPNTs, combined with a steady increase in their budgets, suggests that the situation with their protection is satisfactory, even though the MNR recognizes that funding is inadequate [5].
332
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
Table 2 Priorities of the objectives of the SPNT’s main categories Objectives
Main categories of SPNT national wildlife reserves parks preserves
Protection of natural 1 1 1 territories Protection of historic– 2 – cultural objects Research activity 2 5 – Ecological monitoring 3 6 3 Ecological education 4 3 – Participation n ecological 5 – – examination Assistance in training 6 – – research personnel Regulated tourism and – 4 4 recreation Rehabilitation of natural – 7 2 and cultural complexes Note. «–» – absent in the list of objectives for a given category of SPNT in accordance with the Federal law “About special protected natural territories”.
Research and ecological education rank 2nd from the top of the list. The situation with the availability of funds for research activity can be considered quite favorable, because their own research programs are supplemented by cooperative projects with staff members of the Academy of Sciences’ institutes and universities in Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude as well as from other Russian and foreign research centers. Such cooperation is instrumental in enhancing the publishing and informational activities through the use of the resources provided by project participants. The success of ecological education is facilitated by the fact that the SPNT administrations are located in cities and towns, so that school and university students can be recruited as volunteers to participate in museum, exhibition and excursion activities. Ecological monitoring, a key kind of activity at the time of developing the law about SPNTs, is currently under the jurisdiction of the Federal Supervising Service in the sphere of nature management of the MNR (Rosprirodnadzor) and its regional administrations. Ecological monitoring operations on the BNT are being carried out by the East-Siberian Research Institute of Geology, Geophysics and Mineral Resources of the MNR, with monitoring bulletins posted on the “Protection of Lake Baikal” site [8]. The other areas of activity of the SPNTs of the main categories differ drastically. The reserves are a category of SPNTs with the most stringent limitations on visitation; their primary goal is to do research into natural complexes. The national parks are largely intended for visitation of the territory, and their primary objectives include conservation of the cultural heritage, ecological education of the population, and the creation of favorable conditions for regulated tourism. The wildlife preserves are engaged, in addition to conservation of natural environment, in the reproduction and rehabilitation of natural resources.
In accordance with the recently firmly established system of budget and off-budget financing of protected territories, 20% of the own funds are added to the 66% of the federal budget component as well as 6% are provided by local budgets, 6% by grants from international environmental foundations, and 2% are received from sponsors [5]. Such an economic structure in the activity of the SPNTs is also emerging on the BNT, although the proportion of grants during 20002005 was somewhat higher, and local support was irregular and did not exceed 1-2% [10]. The most marked influence on the activity of the SPNTs within the BNT was exerted by the Global Ecological Fund (GEF) during 2000-2004 as well as its project titled “Biodiversity conservation” (the Baikal component). Under these programs he Pribaikalsky National Park, for example, obtained grants in the following amounts: 550.2 thou Rbls. (2001), 74.7 thou Rbls. (2002), and 126.1 thou Rbls. (2003). During the same period the Barguzinsky, Baikalo-Lensky, Baikalsky and Dzherginsky reserves obtained under GEF grants more impressive funds: from 3 to 10 mil. Rbls. (including the projects implemented jointly with other organizations). The economy of land use on the BNT The urgency of the land use problem on protected territories of the BNT is becoming obvious as new legislative acts are passed, with difficult-to-predict economic consequences from their enforcement, and with the complexities of practical implementation. Characteristically, according to the results of the 22 May 2006 Parliament hearings on “Perfecting the organizational-legal and legislative base of the functioning of special protected natural territories”, nearly one-half of the recommendations referred to land problems and methods to solve them, the questions concerning land delimitation, and the lease and landed servitude relations using budget and off-budget funds. Unfortunately, the legislators neglected the problems related to cadastre inventory of the lands within the SPNTs as well as the methods used to make land cadastre assessments. Within the framework of the aforementioned “Biodiversity Conservation” projects, work was done on economic assessments of biodiversity, and on the economic mechanisms for the promotion of its preservation. It is obvious that research of this kind must also be done with reference to lands, as the primary goal of the SPNTs is to preserve not only biotic diversity but also landscape diversity, according to the Law about SPNTs in regard to reserves: “…to maintain in a native state the protected natural complexes and objects” [6, p. 45]. To assess the economic justifiability of the SPNTs as nature management entities, which pass regular state registration of their land plots, it is necessary to look at the current state of affairs on the BNT. The starting points for such assessments involve the results of forest and land organization work which is typically done every 10 years or more frequently where necessary (natural calamities, changes in the utilization of the particular land plots, etc.). The most critical
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
situation occurs in the Baikalo-Lensky reserve, where the last forest husbandry operations were carried out more than 30 years ago, that is, 11 years before the establishment of the reserve. In most of the other protected territories, the last forest inventory was carried out 15-25 years ago (the only exception is provided by the adjacent Burkalsky and Atsinsky wildlife preserves in the Chita region – the last forest survey regulation was carried out in 2000). The situation is relatively good in the Sokhondinsky reserve (the last forest inventory was carried out in 1991, and the last land inventory in 2004), and in Zabaikalsky National Park (in 1991 and 2003, respectively). The land inventory procedure is currently supplemented by the requirements for land surveying and state registration of all lands forming part of the SPNTs [4]. The procedure of estimating the land surveying work is still in a primitive stage of development; however, the differences in the prices for land outside the SPNTs are understandable already. For landowners it is customary to fix prices directly dependent on the surface area of the plots, and these prices include indirectly the cadastre and market value of the unit area. For the SPNTs the main characteristic in the appraisal of work is the value of land surveying of a unit length of the boundary or the total length of the SPNT boundaries. Another important characteristic is the jurisdiction of the lands adjacent to the SPNTs; if they are under the federal jurisdiction (and such is the situation in most cases on the BNT), it would be appropriate to fund the land surveying operations from the federal budget. Thus the second component of the economic model implies the present status of the land relations of the SPNTs. In the analysis of the land use economics on the SPNTs within the BNT, it is necessary to take into account the differences in the categories and the status of the lands – this is particularly true of the national parks and wildlife preserves. Thus more than 20% of lands within the SPNTs are not categorized as the “lands of the SPNTs”; for that reason, liquidation of several wildlife preserves within the BNT did not involve any reduction in the area of lands of this category as a consequence of these lands being under the jurisdiction of the forest reserves. The state-owned nature reserves within the BNT have boundaries approved by the RF Government. Furthermore, the lands of the nature reserves have been fully transferred to the category of “SPNT lands” and have a federal status. There are no significant residential centers or communities within the reserves and, hence, no conflicts between the SPNT administrations and the local population. According to annual reports of the reserves, the number of violations of the reservation modality is very small, and they correspond to the boundary areas. Their territories are still in good conditions largely because they are exceptionally difficult of access (this is to a lesser extent true for the Baikalsky reserve). There are, however, some disputable questions concerning the establishment of protection zones in the reserves such as the Baikalo-Lensky reserve [11].
333
Of the three national parks existing on the BNT, the Pribaikalsky and Tunkinsky parks lack any Regulations approved by the RF Government and descriptions of the boundaries as required by federal legislation. The boundaries of these parks were approved only by the former Federal Forest Service. It is these SPNTs that are faced with challenges of low economic effectiveness of land use as regards nature conservancy as well as resource management. Yet, the Pribaikalsky park estimated the expenses connected with the obtaining of the certificate authorizing the use of the plot of land at 28 mil. Rbls and the expenses connected with a new delimitation and inventory of the forest resources at 27 mil. Rbls, with a relevant application filed to the MNR [10]. The Tunkinsky park, with 1/10 of its area forming part of the BNT, which was established within the boundaries of the district of the same name in Buryatia, is prevented from carrying out rational land use. To resolve the problem it would be appropriate to divide its territories into the lands belonging to the district and the lands belonging to the park, with the latter including the most valuable plots of lands from the standpoint of biotic and landscape diversity conservation as well as recreational utilization. To harmonize the district’s economic development, it seems very important to withdraw from the park the intensively used agricultural lands and residential centers [12]. Zabaikalsky National Park, which is endowed with adequate scientific potential and the necessary infrastructure to render services to visitors, often runs into such organizationsspecific problems related to efficient practices of biodiversity conservation. Following the recommendation made by the Scientific Division, small areas in two bays were closed for sport fishing in order to improve the fish reserves in the Chivyrkuisky Bay of Lake Baikal; a few years later, however, this measure resulted in an increase of the population of weak individuals, and in the spread of infection among the protected fish species [13]. The wildlife preserves of a federal significance are currently in a vague state. They no longer belong to the Ministry of Agriculture, nor are they under the jurisdiction of Rosprirodnadzor of the MNR, although the proposal for the transfer and reorganization of 57 wildlife preserves of a federal significance was submitted to the RF Government. It is suggested that these wildlife preserves be included in the existing SPNTs rather than establishing new management structures [5]. Such practices are successfully implemented on the BNT, where since 1974 the “Kabansky” wildlife preserve has been a branch of the “Baikalsky” reserve, with 10% of its annual budget funded by the nature reserve. It should be noted that in spite of their federal status, the lands of the wildlife preserves are not yet withdrawn from economic exploitation and usually belong to the forest reserves. On the other hand, the users of the territories typically are regional and local organizations of different forms of ownership. A typical example is provided by the Frolikhinsky reserve located on the lands of the Severobaikalsk forest district, where specialists from the territorial “Glavokhota” agency of the Ministry of Agriculture
334
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
were employed as huntsmen, while the hydropathic clinic of the district hospital in the settlement of Nizhneangarsk remained as its user. As a result, to visit the wildlife preserve, one has to obtain permission from the first two agencies as well as from the hydropathic clinic to moor to the shore in the Khakusy inlet; for that reason, payment for visits is to be made to three agencies at once: Forest District Administration, Hunting Administration, and hydropathic clinic. Uncertain jurisdictions also apply for the wildlife preserves of a regional significance, except for those located in Buryatia which – since 2004 – have been under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Buryatia. Within the BNT the primary goal of the regional wildlife preserves is to preserve and recover the population of game animals. Notwithstanding the fact that the forests within the wildlife preserves are assigned to “forests growing on special protected natural territories” with the legal regime corresponding to the new Forest Code [14, p. 103], many of them are experiencing commercial felling under the guise of sanitary felling. Illegal extensive felling dictated a need for a substantial reduction in the area of the Tukolon (EZAI BNT, Irkutsk region) and Mokheisky (BEZ, Republic of Buryatia) wildlife preserves, and the latter preserve was liquidated for the same reason in 2004. The situation with the wildlife preserves in the Irkutsk region is critical – nowadays they lack funding and have no administrations, because it was until very recently that the regional law about the SPNTs was adopted; no conservancy measures are being taken and, hence, they do not cope with their objectives. Recreation on the BNT Recreational activity is not among the top priority objectives of the SPNTs (see Table 2). Nevertheless, recent years saw an ever increasing use of the objectives formulated more than a decade ago in the Federal law “About special protected natural territories” in order to refine or even amend them having regard to the current economic situation. On the one hand, there is an increase in the budget of the SPNTs to fund the main nature conservation functions and, on the other, the Department of state policy in the field of environmental protection of the MNR declares the idea of transforming some of the reserves to the category of national parks as well as that the SPNT system must be focused on the creation of adequate recreational resources and the necessary tourism infrastructure [5]. Such simple ideas of raising the economic effectiveness of nature management on the SPNTs were also expressed at earlier dates, as the irrational (noneconomic) ideology of management of nature reserves always implies a contradiction in its economic assessment at a global and regional level [15, 16]. As regards the protected territories on the BNT, the issues related to the promotion of recreation, especially at Lake Baikal, always were a major focus of interest. As early as the period of TerKSOP three variants of the nature conservation strategy and regional nature management were suggest-
ed for the Baikal region: inertia-driven, stabilizational, and target-oriented, and each of them placed primary emphasis upon the priority development of the recreational complex. TerKSOP was in harmony with the “General concept of the development of the productive forces within the Lake Baikal drainage basin” and the “Standards of permissible impacts on the ecosystem of Lake Baikal and its drainage basin”, with the result that the estimated expenses connected with nature conservation became comparable with the economics itself of the production sectors even for the most optimal target-oriented variant. The first attempt to implement the existing techniques in working out the development strategy of the recreational territories (RT) implied the results of the project titled “The general plan for the promotion of ecotourism in the Lake Baikal region” implemented in 1994 under order of the World Bank [17]. Its conceptual ideology involved avoiding any violation of the maximum allowable maximum load on the existing socio-economic, cultural-historical and ecological interrelationships in the region, including the unique communities of the flora and fauna or the cultural heritage sites; securing the maximum possible opportunities and economic benefits for the local population, and ensuring the maximum possible conservation of the natural territories, national parks and nature reserves in the region of Lake Baikal and its water body through an enhancement of the efficiency of environmental stimuli. With the advent of the report on the project, the promotion of ecotourism was declared the major area of recreational activity on the SPNTs, although it was not until very recently that there emerged real preconditions for settling the conflicts between the first two statements. It is known that economically, ecotourism is one of the most successful sectors of the tourism industry across the globe. The formula of implementation of ecotourism on the SPNTs implies separating the places of permanent and temporal stay of recreants in which case by “permanent” is meant the infrastructure of residence, and by “temporal” is meant the infrastructure of visitation to natural territories [18, 19]. Clearly, the SPNTs primarily require an adequate infrastructure for visitation as well as some camping sites nearby the boundaries or their own camping sites to accommodate the visitors. Recreational activity on the BNT is determined by the dominant demand for visitation to Lake Baikal, and by the readiness of the SPNTs to satisfy this demand. Table 3 provides some insight into the present status of the recreational complex within the CEZ BNT as of 2005; the table shows the number of camping sites and holiday camps located on the specially assigned 56 recreational territories (see the figure) as well as their actual capacity and attendance. The list of 56 RTs around Lake Baikal provided the basis for identifying the territories the most used in recreational activity [8]. The figure provides the schematic map of the recreational territories (RT) , the main directions of access by land and water to the natural territories (including the SPNTs). The formation of exit flows is connected with large termi-
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
335
Recreational territories of the central ecological zone of the BNT. SPNT: I – reserves; II – national parks; III – wildlife preserves. Recreational territories: IV – special economic zone of the tourist-recreational type; V – active “recreational localities”: 1 – Baikalsky Priboi – Kultushnaya, 2 – Lemasovo; VI – planned recreational territories: 3 – Zavorotnaya, 4 – Solntse Pad, 5 – Ongureny, 6 – Zama, 7 – Northern Malomorie, 8 – Yadyrtui, 9 – Kurma, 10 – Sarma, 11 – Mukhor bay, 12 – Sakhyurta, 13 – Lake Nurskoye-Zagli, 14 – Seven Pine-trees, 15 – Lake Khankhoi, 16 – Khuzhir, 17 – Kharantsy, 18 – Peschanaya Urochishche, 19 – Uzury, 20 – Khoboi Cape, 21 – Aya, 22 – Buguldeika, 23 – Peschanaya Bay, 24 – Bol. Goloustnoye, 25 – Kadilnaya, 26 – Bol. Koty, 27 – Listvyanka, 28 – Angara source, 29 – Port Baikal, 30 – Circum-Baikal Railroad, 31 – Slyudyanka, 32 – Utulik, 33 – Baikalsk, 34 – Warm Lakes, 35 – Babushkinskaya, 36 – Oimurskaya, 37 – Enkhulekskaya, 38 – Sukhinsko-Zarechenskaya, 39 – Gremyachinsk, 40 – Turkinskaya, 41 – Maksiminskaya, 42 – Lake Dukhovoye, 43 – Kholodyankinskaya, 44 – Gusikhinskaya, 45 – Chvyrkuisky Bay, 46 – Kabanya, 47 – Shirildy-Shegnanda, 48 – Khakusy, 49 – Tokshaki, 50 – Yarki Is, 51 – Serebryanaya Pad, 52 – Senogda, 53 – Lakes Slyudyanskiye, 54 – Bolsodei, 55 – Goryachy bereg, 56 – Shore of brown Bears. Boundaries: VII – state border, VIII – RF entities, IX – Baikal Natural Territory, X – special protected natural territories, XI – biosphere research area of Barguzinsky Reserve. A – key points to reach Baikal’s shore by motor transport; B – key points along Baikal’s shore to start water cruises; C – railroad and air terminals.
336
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
Table 3 The conditions of the recreational complex in the BNT CEZ in 2005 Administrative district
Olkhonsky Irkutsk Slyudyanka Kabansk Pribaikalsky Barguzinsky Severobaikalsky Total…
Number of subjects of of RТ visited recreational constantly activity Irkutsk region 20 87 6 76 6 41 Republic of Buryatia 6 91 2 23 5 36 10 22 56 376
of places (maximum) 4694 3668 3188 4294 1295 793 1895 19 827
nals and sites of stays of recreants. It is apparent that 20 RTs within the protected territories are within Pribaikalsky and Zabaikalsky National Parks, the federal Frolikhinsky and Kabansky wildlife preserves, and the regional Verkhne-Angarsky, Pribaikalsky and Enkhaluksky wildlife preserves. The territory of Zabaikalsky National Park includes one wellidentifiable cluster category of RTs (Chivyrkuisky Bay), and Pribaikalsky National Park (Olkhon Island) has eight RTs which can be used in functional zoning of these SPNTs. There are 25 recreational territories on the forest, agricultural and populated lands. Furthermore, of the 376 entities of recreational activity (see Table 3), more than two-third of them are called the holiday camps, and less than one-third of them are referred to as the camping sites. Such a ratio is quite explainable by the ever increasing demand for visitation to Baikal, and by the extremely limited possibilities of rendering high quality services to temporal visitors of the SPNTs. It is clear that the off-budget economics of the SPNTs depends directly on flexibility and efficiency of taking into consideration the demand for visitation services and their competitiveness versus services rendered by the other subjects of recreational activity. Thus the third component of the economic model is represented by recreational activity which provides the SPNTs with their own funds. In the Irkutsk region, and in the Republic of Buryatia it is also planned to establish special economic zones of the tourism-recreational type (see the figure). Their formal location outside of the lands occupied by the SPNTs, combined with the prospects of year-round attraction of visitors change substantially the outlook for the promotion of ecotourism, with due regard for the plans for developing the infrastructure of permanent stay of a qualitatively new level. It is anticipated that the total number of hotel guests in the area of the settlement of Listvyanka (Irkutsk region) will increase by 11.2 thousand, and the annual stream of tourists will exceed 1 million; in the Pribaikalsky district of Buryatia near the Mt. Bychya and Lake Kotokel, the number of hotel guests will increase by 22.3 thousand, and the annual stream of tourists will reach 1.9 million within two decades to come.
In view of the projects involving the establishment of special economic zones on Baikal’s western and eastern shores, it is necessary to take into consideration the increase of the stream of tourists arriving by water transport for temporal visitation of the SPNTs, and other natural territories in the summer season, and at other periods. Therefore the economics of recreational services on the SPNTs must include the expenses connected with the construction of mooring places and access roads to the shore, the establishment of visitationinformation points to provide visitors with excursion services and information materials on the itineraries offered. It should be noted that the number of ships cruising Baikal for tourism purposes increased in the time interval 2000-2006 from about 250 to 300 and continues to grow [9]. A key to the infrastructure for visitation of natural territories are the trails implying: the bed of the trail and its engineering support; bridges, overpasses, descents to the water, banisters and curbs, marking and information boards along the trail bed as well as stops with adequate infrastructure; sites with places for camp-fire and tents, sheds and waste disposal, and places of refuge and information-visitation points on the terminals [18, 20]. More than 250 trails have been constructed and improved since 2003 on the SPNT near Baikal according to existing international standards using resources from various funds, volunteers, its own resources, and organizational capabilities of the “Large Baikalian Trail” public organization [19]. The relevant construction project is gradually becoming a routine of the SPNT administrations in providing visitors with new itineraries and routes at a proper safety level and reliably maintained loads on the areas of temporary stay. The institutional problems must be viewed as wholly independent from the aforementioned conditions for the formation of competitive recreational products on the SPNT [4]; these problems are related to the promotion of recreation on special or disputable territories which do not operate for the benefit of the SPNT economics. Such territories include the biosphere research area in the northern part of Barguzinsky Reserve (see the figure). The goals and objectives of such research grounds are to investigate the human impact on natural environment. In this case it is recreational and tourism activity, traditional land use of the Evenki, because the lands of the Evenki clan community are adjacent to the reserve on the northern side, as well as some kinds of non-intensive nature management (hayfields and reindeer pastures). An example of the not yet resolved disputable situation can be provided by the southern cordon of this same reserve, namely, Sosnovka, where the holiday camp of JSC “Angarsk Petrochemical Company” was constructed but very infrequently operated. Another disputable area is the territory of the former enterprise, “Baikalkvartssamotsvety”, which is entirely (except for the water body) surrounded by the lands of the Baikalo-Lensky reserve. The main building and the associated structures are currently under construction – without consultation with the administration of the reserve. At an earlier date this area was planned to become the protection zone of the reserve, but this has not yet been formally approved for lack of any ap-
T. P. Kalikhman / Geography and Natural Resources 29 (2008) 330–337
proval from local self-government authorities (the Olkhonsky district of the Irkutsk region). Conceivably, it is these three areas that could serve as the place of partial implementation of the idea proposed by the MNR (as mentioned at the beginning of this section), with the nature reserves remaining the only entities of recreational nature management. Given the present situation, however, these holiday camps cannot render all necessary services of ecotourism until they occupy some parts of the nature reserves and until the land use conditions are agreed upon. Conclusion Switch-over to the new nature conservancy paradigm in the activity of SPNT within the BNT is becoming particularly currently important after approval of the boundaries of the BNT and its ecological zones. There emerges a spatial representativeness of natural territories whose reflection in the institutional and economic models of territorial nature conservation on the BNT is attempted in this paper as well as in [4]. The law “About the protection of Lake Baikal”, the result of a long way of generating the ecological-legal space of the lake’s protection in general as a normative-legal framework act, is acquiring a practicable foundation for a combination of the imperative starting point in the form of prohibitions and limitations of nature management with current tendencies involving the transition to legitimacy of land use, a stabilization of funding of the SPNT, and ease of human access to natural territories. Thus the economic model of development of territorial nature conservation on the BNT, based on using three main components, makes it possible to identify the following high-priority areas of activity: 1. Stabilization and constant growth of the volumes of budgetary financing of the reserves and national parks in the interests of tackling the major issues. 2. Substantiation and seeking funds to finance work on delimitation and state registration of all lands forming part of the SPNT, within several years to come, as well as for carrying out, on a regular basis, the procedures of forest and land management. 3. Conservation of the status of budgetary organizations for SPNT of the main categories in conditions of the inadequate regional economic interests as regards conservation of protected natural complexes and objects in their native state. 4. Urgent definition of the economic and departmental status of wildlife reserves in order to improve the effectiveness of their functions as declared by the law “About special protected natural territories”. 5. An increase in the share of the own funds of the SPNT through an expansion of the proposal for temporal stay of visitors on natural territories, concurrent with a gradual reduction of some kinds of forest utilization (primarily felling). 6. Construction of trails on natural territories as a basis for the infrastructure for visitations, in accordance with the
337
ecotourism principles, and with the requirements for the state of the World Nature Heritage site “Lake Baikal”. References 1. Bardakhanova T. B., Mikheyeva A. S., Puntsukova S. D., and Radnayev B. L. The methodology of Determining the Region’s Ecological Expenses. Ulan-Ude: NSC SB RAS Publisher, 2001, 129 p. 2. Coze R. The Problem of Social Costs. Firm, Market and Law. Moscow: “Delo LTD” Publisher, 1993, 192 p. 3. Bobylev S. N. and Khodzhayev A. Sh. Nature Management Economics. Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, 2003, 567 p. 4. Kalikhman T. P. The Baikal Natural Territory in the institutional model of nature conservation. Geografiya i prirod. resursy, 2008, No. 3. 5. The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation. www.mnr.gov.ru 6. Stepanitsky V. B. Comments on the Federal Law of the Russian Federation “About Protected Natural territories”. Moscow: Wildlife Conservation Center SoES, 1997, 136 p. 7. Report of the MNR of Russia on the Conditions of Lake Baikal and Its Conservation measures in 2003. Irkutsk, 2004, 350 p. 8. State Report of the MNR of Russia on the Conditions of lake Baikal and Its Conservation Measures in 2004. Irkutsk, 2005, 338 p. 9. State Report on the Conditions of Lake Baikal and Its Conservation Measures in 2005. Irkutsk, 2006, 410 p. 10. Grishchenko V. I. and Ryabtsev V. V. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Pribaikalsky National Park: results, and main problems. Transactions of Pribaikalsky National Park. Irkutsk: Irkutsk University Publisher, 2007, issue 2, pp. 362-387. 11. State Nature Reserves. State Report “On the Environmental Conditions and Protection in the Irkutsk Region in 2002”. Irkutsk, 2004, pp. 208-210. 12. Kalikhman T. P. Tunkinsky National Park: People or Nature. Zapovednoye delo, 2007, issue 12, pp. 41-66. 13. Ovdin E. D., Ponomarev G. V., Abalakov A. D., and Novikova L. S. The Recreational Utilization of the Fauna of Zabaikalsky National Park. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2004, 82 p. 14. Forest Code of the Russian Federation No. 200-FZ of 04.12.2006. www.rbcu.ru/right/lc/federallaws/009.html#108 15. Karachevtsev I. L. The Substantiation of the Amounts and Sources of Financing Biodiversity Conservation: Author’s Abstract of Cand.Sc. (Geogr.) Degree Dissertation. Moscow, 2004, 22 p. 16. Ryumina E. V. and Karachevtev I. L. The specific character of the problems of biodiversity conservation in the territorial and temporal contexts. Ekonomika prirodopolzovaniya, 2005, No. 1, pp. 112-118. 17. General work program of the promotion of ecotourism in the Lake Baikal region. Report to be submitted to the Government of Russia under coordination of the World Bank. Moscow, 1995, 248 p. 18. Shirokov G. I., Kalikhman A. D., Komisarova N. V., and Savenkova T. P. Ecological Tourism: Baikal, Baikal Region. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2002, 192 p. 19. Kalikhman A. D., Kalikhman T. P. and Khidekel V. V. The Trails of the Natural Territories at Baikal. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2005, 114 p. 20. Savenkova T. P., Kalikhman A. D. and Khidekel V. V. The Natural Park of the City of Angarsk. Irkutsk: Ottisk, 2003, 148 p.