Into Russian Nature: Tourism, Environmental Protection, and National Parks in the Twentieth Century by Alan D. Roe

Abstract

Reviewed by: Into Russian Nature: Tourism, Environmental Protection, and National Parks in the Twentieth Century by Alan D. Roe David Ostergren Roe, Alan D. Into Russian Nature: Tourism, Environmental Protection, and National Parks in the Twentieth Century. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, 2020. xiv + 344 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index. £25.99. Into Russian Nature is a comprehensive, excellent and engaging history of the Russian national park system from the early twentieth century to their creation in the 1980s. The author's background research and personal experience provide a unique and comprehensive perspective. Roe reveals the complicated relationship between citizen advocates for nature protection, the divided academic-scientific community and the ponderous Soviet bureaucracy. The bureaucracy opposed national parks in part because it was a 'Western idea'. The Soviet response was to support 'their' idea; that is strict nature preserves called zapovedniki. In the end, this is a history of bold aspirations, partial successes and unrealized expectations over 100 years. This is an excellent resource for scholars and students interested in the development of national parks in Russia and more broadly, how culture, government structure and society influence the protection of large natural areas. While the national park idea is near universal, each park in each of 100 countries has its own story. Into Russian Nature investigates histories from four regions: Lake Baikal — the Sacred Sea, the tiaga of Karelia and Arkhangelsk, the Pechoran Alps of the Ural Mountain range and the Komi peninsula and, finally, the Samara Bend of the Volga River including the Zhiguli Mountains. Several commonalities emerge in the case studies. Each had a few leaders who promoted the fantastic natural features through print, word of mouth, recruitment, and later with video. Each area typically had a group of nature advocates or 'friends of the park'. These groups were often comprised of young people seeking the solace and challenge of open natural spaces. The youth never grew quite powerful enough to generate sufficient political support. Each area had scientists who either supported the national park concept or opposed the park idea to protect biodiversity for science or management. Each area had at least a trickle of tourists that was promoted as a potential economic driver as mass tourism. But mass tourism requires infrastructure. The reality was that most Soviet citizens (and then Russians) were not mobile enough to access remote natural areas, lacked sufficient disposable income, or preferred known destinations. In general Russians do enjoy the outdoors but still do not visit national parks in the same numbers as other nations. Historically this has been a political liability. Ironically, even where there is mass tourism the natural areas may suffer two fates. For instance, Pribaikal´skii and Zabaikal´skii National Parks on the 'sacred sea' were established because people were willing and able to access the area. However, soon the Lake Baikal national parks suffered because [End Page 192] funding did not keep up with notoriety. The Kamchatka Peninsula has long been a natural area that attracts visitors willing to travel. But whereas Lake Baikal received national parks status, Kamchatka did not, and advocates settled for several regional nature parks — famous areas of spectacular natural phenomenon that depend upon regional political and financial support. Both results are less than ideal. Additional opposition was from industry such as mining, forestry or, in the western and southern steppe, agriculture. Other forces working against parks included that land was, and is, largely owned by the government. In a sense, why set up areas for recreation when people can access the areas at will and without regulation? And finally, in the 1990s zapovedniki started to have more tourism in part to justify their existence. Each factor worked against national parks. Too often the roots for creating national parks grew and then failed either through active opposition or debilitating neglect. Although park advocates thought that emerging environmentalism and the collapse of the USSR would mean more Western and internal political support, the emerging policies and practices rarely matched expectations. The author's conclusion is that the 2000s have been a dark chapter. Protected areas were shuffled from one department to another and at one point threatened to...