The New Paradigm for Nature Protection: A Model for Russia's High North?

• Author: Christel Elvestad, Frode Nilssen, Ludmila Ivanova
• Pages: 65-87

199

[start kap]

The New Paradigm for Nature

Protection: A Model for Russia’s

High North?

Christel Elvestad, Frode Nilssen and Ludmila Ivanova

Christel Elvestad is a PhD C andidate in Political Science at the University of Tromsø,

and a researcher at the Norwegia n Institute of Food, Fisherie s and Aquaculture –

Nofima, in Tromsø, Norway. christel.elvestad@ nofima.com

Frode Nilssen is Dr. Sc. Marketing and Research Dire ctor at the Norwegian Institute

of Food, Fisheries and Aquacul ture Research – Nofima, in Tromsø, Norway.

Ludmila Ivanova holds a PhD in Economic s and is a Senior Researcher at the Institute

of Economic Problems, Kola Science Center, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Abstract: is ar ticle addresses whether the new Western paradigm for nature

protection, combining conservation and local de velopment, could serve as a

model for nature protection in Russia, and for Russia’s High North in particu-

lar. e article introduces the new parad igm of protected areas and the Russian

protected area (PA) system. ree dierent types of PAs in the Murmansk Oblast

are then presented, focusing on the role protected areas can play in ter ms of local

development. e new paradigm has been embraced in the West, but the domi-

nant form of PA in Russia is still the strictly protected are as – zapovedniks - which

do not allow any form of economic activity including nature -based tourism.

e number of national parks and nature parks i n Russia is slowly increasing,

but to establish and develop these forms of PAs suited to promote local develop-

ment is challenging. e situation in the Murma nsk Oblast illustrates problems

such as conict of interest between dierent stakeholders, lack of support f rom

Arctic Review o n Law and Politics, vol. 3, 2/2011 p. 199–221. ISSN 1891-6252

christel elvestad, frode nilssen and ludmila ivanova

200

the authorities – most notably at Federal level – and bureaucratic hindrances

including the system for leasing of land as well as wea k tourism infrastructure

and competence. However, local “park enthusiasm,” a growing number of tour-

ists and new governmental strategies may contribute to local development in

the years to come.

Keywords : nature conservation, the new parad igm for protected areas, local de-

velopment, nature-based tourism, zapovedniks

Introduction

A large number of protected areas (PAs) have been established to conserve the

rich and pristine wi lderness of the Euro-Arctic Barents Region. In the Norwegian

and Russian parts of t he Barents Region alone there are nearly one thousand pro-

tected areas covering more than 180 thousa nd square kilometers.

1

However, in

the arena of public debate area protection have traditional ly been seen to come at

the expense of rural economic development.2 However, over the past years there

has been a growing trend towards integr ating the need for local development into

nature conservation policies. e result is a shi in favour of protected areas al-

lowing loca l resource use.3 ere are di erent models for integrated management

and use of PAs. e model of the Nordic countries is based on the public’s right

to access and use state-owned as well as private land for recreational purposes.4

Other European countries, for example the UK, oer variants of this practice.

Furthermore the European/Western models promote active stakeholder partici-

pation amongst others through dierent forms of deliberative dec ision-making,5

and incentives for local economic activit y such as tourism in relation to protected

areas.6 e combination of nature protect ion and sustainable use are key elements

1. Günter, M. Field Guide to the P rotected Areas of the Baren ts Oblast, Svan hovd Environmental

Centre, Svanvi k 2004, pp. 46–47.

2. Wells, M. P. & McShane, T. “Integrating Protec ted Area Management with L ocal Needs and

Aspirations’ in Ambi o, Royal Swedish Academy of Sc iences, 33(8) 2004 pp. 513–519.

3. Naughton-Treves, L., Buck Holland, M . & Brandon, K. “e Role of Prote cted Areas in

Conservi ng Biodiversity and Su stainable Loca l Livelihoods” i n Annual Review of Env ironment

and Resources, (30) 2005, pp. 219–252.

4. Hammitt, W. E., Ka ltenborn, B. E., Vista d, O. I., Emmelin, L. & Teigla nd, J. “Common access

tradition and w ilderness man agement in Norway: A parad ox for managers” in Environme ntal

Management, 16(2) 1992, pp. 149–156.

5. Zachrisson, A. C o-management o f natural resources . Paradigm shis, ke y concepts and

cases,Umeå: Depart ment of Political Science, Universit y of Umeå 2004.

6. Bushell , R. & Eagles, P. F. J. Tourism and protected a reas: benets b eyond boundar ies: e