«NEWS FOR THE SCIENTIFIC DEPARTMENTS OF NATURE RESERVES»

SECURITY AT STATE NATURE RESEVES IN 2000

In 2000 security services existed at 99 state nature reserves and employed a total of 1,843 persons.

According to the reserve directors’ reports, 62 reserves (versus 61 in 1998) had specially created operative groups within their security services.

State nature reserve security services filed 6,057 reports (versus 5,088 in 1999) of various violations, including 234 instances of illegal chopping (versus 259 in 1999); 65 of illegal haymaking and cattle grazing (versus 63 in 1999); 605 of illegal hunting (versus 536); 1,425 of illegal fishing (versus 1,170); 1,264 of illegal collecting of wild plants (versus 1,213); 53 of illegal squatting and construction (versus 51); 1,880 of trespassing on foot or in a car (versus 1,485); 34 of environmental pollution (versus 91); 220 of causing fire hazards (versus 183). Officially, 83 hoofed animals (versus 98 in 1999) and 3 large predators — 1 brown bear and 2 polar bears – were confiscated from poachers.

In 2000, violators paid a total of 1,475,900 rubles in fines (versus 717,600 rubles in 1999) and 1,839,400 rubles in damages (versus 1,641,100 rubles in 1999). The most considerable sums (fines and damages) were collected from offenders in the following reserves: Chernye Zemli (802,200 rubles.), Laplandsky (608,500), Kurilsky (459,000), Dalnevostochny Morskoy (279,000), Stolby (191,600), Lazovsky (63,000), Malaya Sos'va (58,700), Kavkazsky (53,100), Astrakhansky (51,800), Kuznetsky Alatau (50,300), Ussuriysky (38,700), Baikalsky (38,000), Voronezhsky (35,500), Khankaisky (28,400), and Severo-Osetinsky (27,200). Thus, the combined share of these 15 reserves (15 % of all Russian reserves) amounted to 84% of all the fines and damages collected in 2000.

In 96 cases (versus 75 in 1999), offenders were tried in criminal court. Thirty-seven persons were found guilty of environmental crimes (versus 27 in 1999) and sentenced. These suits were brought against persons apprehended by the security services of Lazovsky (8 persons), Astrakhansky (7), Baikalskyî (6), Kavkazsky and Sokhondinsky (5 each), Stolby (3), Visimsky, Kerzhensky and Chernye Zemli (1each).

In 38 reserves (the same number as in 1999) the apprehension of offenders was accompanied by the confiscation of 92 rifles (versus 57 in 1999) and 213 smoothbore weapons (versus 222 in 1999). See Table 1.

Table 1. Firearms confiscated in state nature reserves in 2000.

Thus, 234 (77%) of 305 confiscated firearms were confiscated by the security services of 12 (out of 99) reserves: Khankaisky, Daursky, Lazovsky, Kavkazsky, Bolshehehtsirsky, Malaya Sos'va, Bolon'sky, Stolby, Chernye Zemli, Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina, Khingansky, and Severo-Osetinsky.

During 2000, moreover, inspectors confiscated 1,822 fishing-nets, drags and sweep nets (versus 1,180 in 1999); 278 trap and bow nets (versus 185); 1,540 traps, chokers and the like (versus 2,262).

Of the 13 reserves that include water areas, the following ones made the greatest progress in water area protection in 2000: Kurilsky and Dalnevostochni Morskoy.

Reports of environmental pollution, squatting and illegal construction were filed by the security services of only 18 reserves (versus 17 in 1999): Basegi, Bolshoi Arktichesky, Volzhsko-Kamsky, Voronezhsky, Darvinsky, Daursky, Denezhkin Kamen', Zhigulevsky, Kavkazsky, Kivach, Kurilsky, Olekminsky, Privolzhskaya Lesosteppe, Stolby, Teberdinsky, Tsentralno-Chernozemny, Chernye Zemli, Yuzhno-Uralsky. This suggests that in the other 71 reserves, the eco-systems (at least within buffer zones) are not being properly protected from trespassers.

Moreover, the security services of Vitimsky, Gydansky, Ostrov Vrangelya, Tigireksky reported only a few minor offences in 2000 while Botchinsky, Bureinsky, Djugdjursky, Pasvik, Tungussky, Yugansky reported none at all.

In a number of reserves, most or all of the offences reported went unsolved (i.e. the offenders were never caught). In Barguzinsky reserve, 6 out of 9 reported offences were unsolved, in Tsentralnosibirsky — 4 out of 5, in Olekminsky — 3 out of 4, in Orenburgsky — 2 out of 3, in Komandorsky — 19 out of 24, in Nurgush — 15 out of 18, and in Basegi — 8 out of 10.

The security services of Kronotsky and Tsentralnosibirsky reserves did not file a single trespassing report with regard to its subordinate state refuges.

A number of reserves have been lax about prosecuting offenders. This allows offenders to act with impunity while discrediting the security services. In Azas, Verkhne-Tazovsky, Orenburgsky, Pechero-Ilychsky, offenders were let off without a fine. The fines collected in Bastak from 26 offenders amounted to a mere 168 rubles total ($5.50), while in Tsentralnosibirsky reserve, the fines collected from 9 detained offenders came to 47 rubles total ($1.50), or less than the minimum fine that a reserve security officer can legally impose.

In Prioksko-Terrasny reserve, of 164 detained offenders, only 20 were brought to justice. In Pechero-Ilychsky reserve, of the 10,270 rubles in imposed fines and damages, not one kopeck was collected. In Basegi, the security services managed to collect all of 83 rubles in fines in 2000.

In Il'mesky (a reserve under the Russian Academy of Sciences), most reports of violations were never completed. As a result, the offenders were never prosecuted. Some 3,000 people committed offences in the reserve in 2000, but only 8 reports were completed. In four of the eight, the offenders were unknown. The fines imposed amounted to only three minimum monthly salaries.

Security and inspection services have clearly deteriorated at Bryansky Les and Zhigulevsky.

Several reserves limit their activities to bringing the offenders to justice and do not take measures to ensure that the fines and damages are paid. Nenetsky reserve claimed no damages from offenders, despite hundreds of confiscated fishing nets and fish. Other reserves, including Ussuriysky (under the Russian Academy of Sciences), Bolshoi Arktichesky, Zeisky, Mordovsky, Putoransky, and Yuzhno-Uralsky, also failed to claim damages.

In 2000, staff members at Voronezhsky, Kavkazsky and Khopersky were caught violating their reserve's regime. In March 2000 a raid conducted by the Conservation Department of the Russian State Ecology Committee together with fish inspection guards found inspectors at Tsentralnosibirsky reserve violating the fishing regulations they were there to enforce.

State inspectors at Astrakhansky, Bolon'sky, Kavkazsky, Kuznetsky Alatau, Oksky, Khankaisky, Ussuriysky) detained violators who turned out themselves to be law enforcement officials, forest rangers, state hunting inspectors and environmental authorities.

At Darvinsky reserve the deputy director of security was assaulted by an offender he was detaining and forced to use his gun; state inspectors at Bolshoi Arktichesky reserve met with armed resistance.

In 2000 some regional reserve associations [the Coordination Board of Far Eastern Reserves, the Middle Volga Protected Natural Areas Association (at Mariy Chodra National Park), the Central Chernozem Land Association of Protected Natural Areas (at Voroninsky reserve), and the Baikal Region Association of Reserves and National Parks (at Baikalo-Lensky reserve)] organized workshops for security staff. A methods workshop for inspectors in the Altai-Sayan region held at the Altaisky reserve by the Siberian Interregional Center Zapovedniki proved very useful.

Of those reserves whose security services were most successful in catching violators (including armed poachers), bringing them to justice and collecting the fines or damages imposed, the following deserve special mention: Astrakhansky, Baikalsky, Bolshekhehtsirsky, Volzhsko-Kamsky, Voronezhsky, Kavkazsky, Kuznetsky Alatau, Kurilsky, Lazovsky, Malalya Sos'va, Stolby, and Khankaisky.

In connection with the aforesaid:

1.The directors of Azas, Pasvik, Yugansky, Bureinsky, Vitimsky, Basegi, Zhigulevsky, Il'mensky, Komandorsky, Pechero-Ilychsky, Prioksko-Terrasny, Tsentralnosibirsky should note that their security services are the least effective and consequently in need of radical improvement.

2. Bonuses will go to the directors of state nature reserves with the most effective security services.

3. The formation and maintenance of operative groups remains a top-priority anti-poaching and anti-regime-violation measure.

4. State nature reserve directors should conduct regular workshops and seminars for security staff with the help of regional associations of nature reserves and national parks.

5. State nature reserve directors should pay special attention to the collection of imposed fines and damages. They should see that all offenders are brought to justice and made to pay, as per Article 36 of the Federal Act On Protected Natural Areas. In cases where natural complexes and sites have been harmed, the reserve should do more than impose a fine. Offenders must be punished for illegal cutting, haymaking, cattle grazing, hunting, fishing and collecting of wild plants. These offenders must be turned over to the proper legal authorities. Security in the reserves and as well as in other protected areas for which the reserves are responsible must be tightened. Cooperation with regional departments of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources must be improved. Reserves with protected water areas should work together more effectively with the MNR’s special marine inspections and with the federal coast guard. Security staff should be better trained in how to legally enforce the results of their inspections and monitoring activities, in how to complete the proper documentation and operational tactics. Reserve directors must promptly inform the Department of Environmental Protection and Ecological Safety of any illegal activities and of any decisions by regional and municipal authorities, by officers of nature protection and law-enforcement, economic entities, etc., that could pose a threat to protected natural areas and sites or violate the reserve regime. Reserves must severely punish reserve staff caught poaching: they must be brought to justice and made to pay. Reserves must use their research departments in order to evaluate the condition of the reserve's protected natural areas and sites; to promptly detect sources of anthropogenic impact; and plan eco-system conservation. Reserves must improve the work of their technical research boards.

V.B. Stepanitsky,
Deputy Head
Department of Environmental Protection and Ecological Safety
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources

<< | contents | top | >>