THE ROLE OF TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN STRATEGIES OF CO-ADMINISTRATION OF PROTECTED AREAS IN PRIMORSKIY REGION OF RUSSIA

А.В. Бочарникова

Abstract


In regions where protected areas are being instituted, it is important to harmonize the interests of indigenous people and of protected area administrations. An approach to resolving contradictions and preventing possible conflicts is based on the co-administration concept developed in the West within the framework of ecosystems management theory. The objective of the present paper is to assess the possibility to use co-administration in Bikin National Park instituted in Pozharskiy District of Primorskiy Region of Russia in 2015. Under certain conditions, the assessment becomes possible based on a model area, which features a relatively remote location, the presence of small indigenous populations involved in their specific economic activities, and massive invasion of business, such as lumbering, and uncontrolled tourism, which makes a significant burden for ecosystems. The review of these relationships covers the period from the end of the XIX century up to the present time. Conflict between lumbering companies and Udege and Nanai people who have been hunting for ages in these territories is becoming increasing tense starting from 1980-ies. The institution of a national park may damp this conflict. For this, co-administration strategies are most promising for Bikin river basin. At present, a transition from the consultative to the joint administration mode is taking place there. However, compared to the western approaches, indigenous people in Russia are less involved in decision making, which is delegated to the government of the Russian Federation.

Keywords


institutions, traditional nature management, small indigenous people, protected areas, co-administration


Как процитировать материал

References


Арсеньев ВК. Китайцы в Уссурийском крае: очерк историческо-этнографический. Хабаровск: Типография Канцелярии Приамурского генерал-губернатора; 1914.

Арсеньев ВК. Лесные люди удэхейцы. Владивосток: Книжное дело; 1926.

Клоков КБ. Современное состояние биологоресурсной базы и экологические основы управления биоресурсами в традиционном природопользовании Российского Севера. В кн.: Обычай и закон. М.: Стратегия; 2002. с. 21-45.

Норт Д. Институты, институциональные изменения и функционирование экономики. М.: На- чала; 1997.

Паничев АМ. Бикин. Тайга и люди. Владивосток: Изд-во ДВГТУ; 2005.

Старцев АФ. История социально-экономического и культурного развития удэгейцев (середина XIX–XX вв.). Владивосток: Изд-во ДВГТУ; 2000.

Тураев ВА. Исторические последствия этнокультурных контактов на российском Дальнем Востоке. Россия и АТР. 2012; (3):126-37.

Arsenyev VK. Kitaytsy v Ussuriyskom Kraye: Ocherk Istorichesko-etnograficheskiy. Khabarovsk: Tipografiya Kantselyarii Priamurskogo Gegeneral-Gubernatora; 1914. (In Russ.)

Arsenyev VK. Lesnye Lyudi Udekheytsy. Vladivostok: Knizhnoye Delo; 1926. (In Russ.)

Klokov KB. [The present-time conditions of biological resources and the ecological foundations of bioresources management in the traditional; nature management in the North of Russia]. In: Obychay i Zakon. Moscow: Strategiya; 2002. p. 21-45. (In Russ.)

Nort D. Instituty, Institutsionalnye Izmeneniya i Funkrsyonorovaniye Ekonomiki. Moscow: Nachala; 1997. (In Russ.)

Panichev AM. Bikin. Tajga i Liudi. Vladivostok: Izdatelstvo DVGTU; 2005. (In Russ.)

Startsev AF. Istoriya Sotsialno-Ekonomicheskogo i Kulturnogo Razvitiya Udegeytsev (Seredina XIX– XX vv.). Vladivostok: Izdatelstvo DVGTU; 2000. (In Russ.)

Turayev VA. [Historical aftermath of ethnocultural contacts in Russian Far East]. Rossiya i ATR. 2012;(3):126-37.

Borrini-Feyerabend G, Taghi Farvar M, Nguinguiri JC, Ndangang VA. Co-management of Natural Resources: Organizing, Negotiating and Learning by Doing. Heidelberg: Kasparek Verlag; 2007.

Cardozo M. Economic displacement and local attitude towards protected area establishment in the Peruvian Amazon. Geoforum. 2011;(42):603- 14.

Caufield R. Political Economy of Renewable Resources. In: Nuttall M and Callaghan TV (Eds). The Arctic: Environment, People, Policy. Amsterdam: Overseas Publishers Association N. V.; 2000.

Commons JR. The Economies of Collective Action. New York: Macmillan; 1950.

McConney P, Mahon R, Pomeroy R. Challenges Facing Coastal Resource in Co-Management in the Caribbean. In: Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (Eds.). Adaptive Co-Management. Vancouver: UBC Press; 2008. p. 105-25.

Mitchell WC. Commons on institutional economics. Amer Econ Rev. 1935;25(4):635-52.

Osherenko G. Sharing Power with Native Users: Co-Management Regimes for Native Wildlife. Ottawa: Canadian Arctic Resources Committee; 1988.

Outeiro L, Gajardo C, Oyarzo H, Ther F, Cornejo P, Villasante S, Bas Ventine L. Framing local ecological knowledge to value marine ecosystem services for the customary sea tenure of aboriginal communities in southern Chile. Ecosystem Services. 2015;(16):354-64.

Veblen T. The Theory of the Leisure Class, In: Grusky D.B. (Ed.) Social Stratification. Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective. Boulder: Westview Press; 2008. p. 862-70.

Wilson GA, Bryant RL. Environmental Management: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. London: UCL Press; 1997.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24855/biosfera.v9i1.324

© ФОНД НАУЧНЫХ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ "XXI ВЕК"