![Page 1: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
“The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of
Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000”
David Ostergren, PhD., Department of Political Science,
Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Northern Arizona University
Presented to Chatham College
March 19, 2002
![Page 2: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction
The Russian protected area network is built upon a century old system of strict nature preserves---zapovedniks.
The primary role of zapovedniks is 1) to provide areas of “pristine nature” to conduct ecological research to assess an ecosystem’s potential, and
2) to protect unique and typical ecosystems across the Eurasian continent.
![Page 3: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Russian Protected Areas
![Page 4: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction
Russian scientists’ and academicians’ prestigious social standing played a vital role in their ability to influence conservation policies of the past
The scientific community joined with the environmental movement to help fuel the fall of the Soviet Union
Evidence suggests that the scientists of post-communist Russia are taking on new roles in order to influence conservation policies
![Page 5: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Investigation Questions
Are Russian scientists working with the same institutions or agencies as they were before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991?
What is the amount of influence that scientists have on natural resource policy decisions?
How does that influence compare to the Soviet era and what lies in the future?
![Page 6: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Methodology Elite interviews with over forty individuals
including:
NGO policy consultants Academicians from five state universities The head of a Zapovednik Directors
Association Administrators in both the Department of
Zapovedniks and the Department of National Parks
![Page 7: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Zapovednik Directors, Policy Analysts and Academicians
![Page 8: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Methodology Small group discussions, round table
meetings and written responses from over 70 protected area scientists
Sample area: Moscow, the Black-Earth region near Voronezh, and the Central Siberian cities of Banaul and Gorni-Altaisk
Research supported by a grant from the National Research Council Program on Governance in Post-Communist Societies
![Page 9: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Educators & Field Scientists
![Page 10: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Two Paths of Policy Influence
Extreme political and financial pressure during the 1970’s and 1980’s forced scientists to approve most federal conservation projects with few changes.
Scientists role in society was often to influence and support public sentiment through popular press. In the late 1980s objections surfaced in public protest.
![Page 11: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results and Discussion
Conservation scientists after perestroika:
The Russian Academy of Sciences and ministerial-level research institutes
Academicians at state universities
Field scientists on nature preserves (zapovedniks) and national parks
![Page 12: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Results and Discussion
Opportunity to influence policy technically improved, but research funds are scarce, thus limiting participation.
Most scientists feel their influence on policy after 1995 is less than during perestroika.
Those outside of Moscow felt they had the least influence, while those working with NGO’s were the most optimistic.
![Page 13: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Results and Discussion
The expertiza (EIS) has not proven a very effective tool for policy influence.
In the “new” political climate, financial pressures remain strong at the ministerial and government levels.
Local involvement, consulting and environmental education are increasing as methods to influence policy.
![Page 14: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Zapovedniks are Adjusting The new diversity of funding sources
provides zapovedniks with remarkable new flexibility to implement policy
Three general strategies have emerged: Business as usual (restricted access) Conducting research that addresses local
or regional community concerns Generate public support through an
aggressive environmental education programs (allowing limited access)
![Page 15: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Russia’s new entrepreneurial spirit (or fast food babushka style)
![Page 16: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusions Democracy and access to decision makers
is improving in Russia but. . . .
Government funding to conduct research is insufficient to provide requisite information for the scientific community
The perception of declining prestige in academia and theoretical science is limiting scientists’ influence and may have serious consequences for the future of conservation
![Page 17: “The nexus of science and protected area policy making: a case study of Russian scientists, national parks and zapovedniks from 1970 to 2000” David Ostergren,](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032611/56649d555503460f94a31d90/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)