TERRITORIAL PROTECTION IN STATE NATURE
RESERVES:
OUTPUTS OF 2003
In 2003, protection services operated in all 100 state nature reserves
(zapovedniks) of the Russian Federation. In the end of the year, the
total protection staff was 2175 employees, including 2098 employees
in zapovedniks directly subordinate to the Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR). Protection services of 80 zapovedniks included special task forces.
In 2003, zapovednik protection services have drawn-up 4957 (in 2002 — 4346) protocols of regime violations, including: 884 (in 2002 — 184) protocols of illegal felling, 74 (in 2002 — 32) protocols of illegal hay mowing and grazing, 390 (442) protocols of illegal hunt, 1156 (1221) protocols of illegal fishing, 435 (294) protocols of illegal gathering wild plants, 20 (13) protocols of illegal land occupation and development, 1643 (1753) protocols of illegal staying (moving through, walking, parking), 51 (52) protocols of illegal pollution, 127 (140) protocols of fire security violations in forests. 120 cases of poaching ungulates (84 in 2002) were registered officially.
In 2003, 3359 thousand roubles (in 2002 — 2877 thousand roubles) were
charged administratively from violators. 2259 (in 2002 —902) thousand
roubles were charged through claims for compensation of damage inflicted
to natural heritage. Largest amounts were charged by the following zapovedniks:
Kurilsky (1041 thousand roubles), Chernie Zemli (377 thousand
roubles), Dagestansky (154 thousand roubles), Severo-Osetinsky
(126 thousand roubles), Stolbi (125 thousand roubles), Astrakhansky
(139 thousand roubles), Darwinsky (92 thousand roubles), Dalnevostochny
Morskoy (88 thousand roubles), Kuznetsky Alatau (78 thousand roubles),
Baikalsky (75 thousand roubles), Malaya Sosva (71 thousand
roubles), Caucazsky (53 thousand roubles), Volzhsko-Kamsky (51
thousand roubles), Privolzhskaya Lesostep (49 thousand roubles),
Lazovsky and Khankaisky (48 thousand roubles each). Therefore,
the share of the 16 zapovedniks listed above with regards to fines and
penalties was 47% in 2003.
In 2003, 81 criminal actions against violators were initiated (in 2002
— 93); 42 violators (in 2002 — 46) were convicted. These verdicts of
guilty were judged to persons caught by protection services of the following
zapovedniks: Sayano-Shushensky (9 persons), Sokhondinsky
(8 persons), Lazovsky (6 persons), Baikalsky (4 persons),
Dalnevostochny Morskoy (3 persons), Dagestansky (2 persons),
Kedrovaya Pad and Stolbi (2 persons each), Volzhsko-Kamsky,
Voronezhsky, Djerginsky, Kerjensky, Kurilsky, and Khopersky
(1 person each).
The average number of protocols per one protection inspector varied
significantly and was maximal in the following zapovedniks: Kivach
(22.9), Stolbi (20.9), Kurilsky (16.8), Astrakhansky (12.4),
Kedrovaya Pad (9.3), Bryansky Les (9.1), Volzhsko-Kamsky
(7.0), Darwinsky (6.0), Khankaisky (5.9), and Kostomukshsky
(5.8).
In 37 zapovedniks (similarly with 2002), catches of violators included
seizures of 58 rifles (in 2002 — 52) and 146 (227) smoothbore guns.
160 units of firearms out of 204 (78%) were seized in the following
12 zapovedniks: Daursky (29 units), Khankaisky (22), Caucazsky
(21), Chernie Zemli (16), Severo-Osetinsky (14), Sokhondinsky
and Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina (10 each), Lazovsky (9), Stolbi
(8), Altaisky, Visimsky and Sayano-Shushensky (7
units each).
In addition, during the period under review there were seized 1108 (in 2002 — 2130) nets, drags, and seines; 128 (283) trap nets and cribs; 2040 (1269) traps, loops, and other tools; and 2 (5) electrofishing toolkits.
It is necessary to note that in 2003 (similarly with 2002), among 13
zapovedniks having water areas, Kurilsky and Dalnevostochny
Morskoy zapovedniks showed best protection results.
Protocols of environmental pollution, illegal land occupation, and
illegal development had been drawn-up only in 13 zapovedniks (in 2002
— 16): Baikalsky, Volzhsko-Kamsky, Voronezhsky, Daursky, Kostomukshsky,
Kurilsky, Privolzhskaya Lesostep, Rostovsky, Sayano-Shushensky, Severo-Osetinsky,
Stolbi, Chernie Zemli, and Yuzhno-Uralsky. This fact shows
that control of the protected ecosystems condition (at least within
protected zones) in other zapovedniks is inadequate.
At the same time, no violations were registered in 2003 by protection
services of the following zapovedniks: Vrangel Island, Comandorsky,
Koryaksky, Taimirsky, Tsentralno-Lesnoy, and Yugansky.
In 2003, the protection service of Bolshoy Arctichesky Zapovednik
had registered no violations (only 3 protocols were drawn-up in Brekhovskie
Ostrova regional zakaznik). The protection service of Azas Zapovednik
had registered only 2 violations.
It is necessary to note that 407 violations out of 4860 (8.4%) registered
by zapovednik protection services in 2003 (in 2002 — 14.5%) were so-called
‘impersonal’ violations, when guilty person had not been identified.
In Pasvik Zapovednik, all the 6 registered violations were ‘impersonal’,
in Bureinsky – all the 5, in Orenburgsky – all the 3.
In Shulgan Tash Zapovednik, there were 17 ‘impersonal’ violations
out of 20, in Kandalakshsky – 21 out of 31, in Denezhkin Kamen
– 13 out of 22, in Basegi – 8 out of 11, and in Putoransky
– 2 out of 4.
The protection service of Tsentralno-Sibirsky Zapovednik had
registered only one environmental violation within its subordinate Eloguisky
federal zakaznik (illegal fishing).
Some zapovedniks do not take proper measures to prosecute violators
– this provokes impunity and debases broad powers of the protection
service. For example, Baikalo-Lensky, Bolshoy Arctichesky, Verkhne-Tazovsky,
Galichia Gora, Olekminsky, Putoransky, Tigireksky, Shulgan Tash,
and Erzi zapovedniks had charged no fines from violators caught.
Altaisky, Vishersky, Kedrovaya Pad, and Tungussky zapovedniks
had charged only 500 roubles in total; Laplandksy – 600; Pinezhsky
– 800.
In 2003, according to the Article 8.39 of the Administrative Code of
the Russian Federation, the minimal administrative fine that could be
charged by state zapovednik officials was 500 roubles. However, in 2002,
the average administrative fine in Prioksko-Terrasny Zapovednik
was 50 roubles, in Zeisky — 111 roubles, in Pinezhsky
— 134 roubles, in Altaisky — 140 roubles, in Polistovsky
— 160 roubles, in Kedrovaya Pad — 200 roubles, in Poronaisky
— 214 roubles, in Laplandksy — 226 roubles, in Bolonsky
— 250 roubles, in Voronezhsky — 263 roubles, in Dagestansky
— 267 roubles, in Baikalo-Lensky — 300 roubles, in Bolshsya
Kokshaga — 309 roubles, in Belogorie — 317 roubles, in Zhigulevsky
— 320 roubles, in Mordovsky — 325 roubles, in Nizhne-Svirsky
— 329 roubles, in Kivach — 344 roubles, in Kaluzhskie Zaseki
and Tigireksky — 350 roubles.
Some zapovedniks do not take proper measures to bring violators that
inflict damage to natural heritage to civil-proprietary liability; they
unreasonably limit their powers to administrative liability. These include
the following zapovedniks: Azas, Baikalo-Lensky, Barguzinsky, Basegi,
Bolshoy Arctichesky, Botchinsky, Verkhne-Tazovsky, Vitimsky, Vishersky,
Dagestansky, Denezhkin Kamen, Djugdjursky, Zhigulevsky, Zeisky, Ilmensky,
Kaluzhskie Zaseki, Kandalakshsky, Katunsky, Kronotsky, Prioksko-Terrasny,
Putoransky, Tungussky, Ust-Lensky, Tsentralno-Sibirsky, and Tsentralno-Chernozemny.
In Darwinsky Zapovednik, the total amount of all claims brought
to violators was 200 roubles (while there were 22 protocols of illegal
fishing and 2 protocols of illegal gathering of wild plants).
In Dagestansky Zapovednik, 11 registered cases of illegal fishing in
the protected zone have resulted in the seizure of only one (!) net.
It is necessary to note that almost all (!) protocols of administrative
violations were drawn-up on slips that did not meet requirements of
the current Administrative Code of the RF and Methodical Guidelines
developed by the Department of strictly protected natural areas, objects,
and biodiversity conservation.
In September 2003, the protection service of Teberdinsky Zapovednik
has caught two citizens who had illegally shoot an aurochs. It is evident
that the violators had committed an environmental crime (illegal hunt
with big damage, illegal hunt in a zapovednik), liability for which
is set in the Article 258 of the Criminal Code of the RF. However, the
case was resolved administratively. Furthermore, after the approval
of the statement on administrative fine, the director of the zapovednik
addressed the police asking to bring the violators to criminal liability
– while his earlier statement on administrative fine was not cancelled,
which is an outrage against the current legislation. We would like to
note specifically that zapovednik staff took no operative and urgent
measures essential for effective prosecution of violators – contrary
to the Methodical Guidelines mentioned above. The relevant application
for criminal case initiation (not even supported by original protocols)
had been submitted to police 19 (!) days after the illegal shooting.
The violators were not brought to police immediately, no coroner was
called to the locale of the crime. This is an evident profanation of
effective anti-poaching work.
Generally, in 2003, protection services of the following zapovedniks managed to reveal effectively violations of the zapovednik regimes, including capture of armed poachers; used effectively their powers to bring violators to administrative and civil-proprietary liability, and charged significant fines and penalties: Astrakhansky, Baikalsky, Volzhsko-Kamsky, Caucazsky, Kuznetsky Alatau, Kurilsky, Lazovsky, Malaya Sosva, Privolzhskaya Lesostep, Sayano-Shushensky, Severo-Osetinsky, Sokhondinsky, Stolbi, Khankaisky, and Chernie Zemli.
V.B. Stepanitsky,
Deputy Director of the Department
of strictly protected natural areas,
objects, and biodiversity conservation
of the Ministry of Natural Resources
of the Russian Federation
