Экономические науки/13. Региональная экономика.

Викладач кафедри економіки підприємства Коваленко О.Ю.

Миколаївський державний гуманітарний університет імені Петра Могили

Wildlife Preserve Management

The advancement of industrial, scientific and technological development, alongside with its material assets and desire for comfortable living standards, has also brought around the reckless, irresponsible, ill-advised approach toward the environment, toward Mother Nature. Wanton management of natural resources on the global scale has resulted in the professed degradation and self-destruction of the environment as we know it. Now that the global nuclear weapons potential has been reduced, the threat of the nuclear war has been eclipsed by a new one – the threat of ecological disaster. The latter would question not only life on Earth, but the very existence of the planet Earth as it is.

We should admit that at present due to the current stage of humanity’s influence upon nature, the processes of ecological degradation have so far proved to be of local character. That is why we still are in a position, as long as we put in our will and energy, to stop the irreversible environmental changes by harmonizing the technological advancement and the ecological safety.

Theoretical and methodological outlook on the worth and function of nature preserves should be looked on in the context of their categorical definitions. According to Ukraine’s Land Code of 2002 [1, article 44], the lands protected by the law are those that go by the name of nature preserves, biosphere preserves, national parks, game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries as well as those of artificial nature, like botanical, dendrological and zoological gardens or parks. Apart from the abovementioned ones are wetland refuges for birds, waders and wild fowl.

The assignments of priority to wildlife preserves are keeping intact the gene poo lof the local fauna and flora, protecting well-preserved or relatively well-preserved natural territories, the studies of plant and animal ecology.

The dynamism of creating avenue wildlife refuges over the past 30 years tells its own story. Back in 1968 there were only three national refuges, in 2005 that was a two-digit number of 17, with the protected area of 163.7 thousand hectares (ha).

The creation of biosphere preserves was an answer to the task of safeguarding natural ecological systems and the gene pool. It is worth mentioning that it was the Law of 1992 that gave the rise to a newly coined “biosphere preserve” brand. Over a relatively short period of time four national biosphere preserves have been instituted here in Ukraine:

1. Askania Nova that covers 11312.2 ha

2. Chornomorsky (Black Sea) – 70509 ha.

3. Karpatsky (Carpathian) – 31977 ha

4. Dunaisky (Danubian) – 22663 ha.

The possible way of running these territories would be dividing them into sanctuary, buffer and anthropogenic zones.

The functional purposes of any sanctuary territory are keeping it intact, doing scientific research, which would not interfere with the environment, wildlife and safety monitoring. Any kind of anthropogenic activity within the realm of a sanctuary is considered illegal.

Buffer zones are used for protecting sanctuaries from anthropogenic activities and for preserving biological variety. They could be set aside for regulated public recreational use and for ecological tourism. However, the issue of using biosphere refuges, including buffer zones, remains controversial. In this respect S. Stoiko [3] offers opposition as to using buffer zones for recreational activities. The same viewpoint is upheld by some other researchers [4].

The role of anthropogenic territories is to carry out farming, forestry, and water supply activities, which, in turn, must meet the demands and standards of contemporary land use. The pivotal point of up-to-date land use is protection of the soil layer from water and wind erosion, taking care of its original fertility and its regeneration, if necessary.

The major means of meeting those conditions is the proper land management within the biosphere preserves and anthropogenic territories. Besides, when working on the projects of anthropogenic territories optimum usage, one should keep in mind the recreational, hiking and education merits. In so doing, the methodological line of reasoning should be of completely new caliber, which would reflect the specific features of biosphere preserves. Unfortunately, the advances in this area have proved to be really modest partly because of value rigidity as reflected in the mechanistic approach of the communist era.

A considerably spacey niche in the system of nature preserve management is taken by national parks. They are fairly large in size and are made up of several ecological systems, which have not been considerably affected by humans, and where flora and fauna have enjoyed human protection.

With respect to national parks, the resolution adopted by the Second International Conference on National Parks in 1972 calls on national governments worldwide to prohibit recreational activities within the boundaries of parks. Although in our opinion, such a scenario would not be in the public interest. As a result, there should be a new methodological approach to resolving this issue. Strictly speaking, there is the Ukrainian law named “On Ukraine’s Nature Preserves”. This law sets down four functional zones: off-limits zones, limited recreation zones, recreational zones, anthropogenic zones.

This type of division calls for new ways of arrangement for each of the zones spoken above. We think that Shatsky National Park that covers 48996.6 ha could be a good example, as its territory is divided into four functional zones and the interests of wildlife and the public are fairly balanced.

Nowadays some experts speak in favor of a new type of protected territories – regional parks. They started in Ukraine back in 1992 in the wake of the adopted law “On Ukraine’s Nature Preserves.” At present there are 37 regional parks in Ukraine with the total area of 500,000 ha, which makes 18% of all protected territories or 0.8% of the total area of the country [2, p.72]. In reference to this, the Mykolayiv regional government, back in the 1990s initiated two regional parks – Kinburnskaya Kosa with the area 17890.2 ha (1992), and Granytno-Stepove Pobuzzha with the area of 8195.4 ha.

In terms of splendor and scenic beauty these territories are unique. For example, the cascade of river rapids near the village of Mygiya that belongs to Granytno-Stepove Pobuzha regional park is a lure for those, who are into white-water rafting. The advantage of these rapids in the Yuzhny Buh river, as compared to similar ones in the river Tis and the river Cherimosh (western Ukraine), is that the water in the Yuzhny Buh is considerably warmer and the water level is stable; it does not go down in the summer when rafting is especially popular.

The major recreational potential of Kinburnskaya Kosa regional park is its unique geographical location with sunny weather, woods, the sea, the pristine environment. The beauty about this recreational spot is its rustic charm. It attracts holiday makers by its undeveloped, virgin state land, ecologically pure food that iis supplied by the locals. And the number of holiday makers has constantly been rising over the past 10 years (3500 in 1996, 5800 in 2000, 8600 in 2005).

Nevertheless, we believe there is a need to modify the functional concept of regional parks. In reference to this, we should emphasize other functional aspects, apart from the recreational one, such as scientific, educational, historical, cultural and, of course, protective.

In the management system of nature preserves there are ones whose main objectives, as some outstanding Ukrainian academicians believe, are protection and regeneration of certain elements of the eco systems, and the gene pool of fauna and flora. However, there is no certain definition of this type of protected territories.

Another type of protected territories is that one where the areas of land have preserved their pristine original state over thousands and thousands of years. Most of them are relatively small areas (from 1 to 100 ha), except Kholodny Yar in the Cherkaska oblast, which covers 553 ha, and some others.

Alongside biosphere and wildlife preserves, which hold the national and international status, there are ones of regional status, and they are literally marked off by margins on the ground.

With the aim of saving, doing research and acclimatizing certain rare types of local and global flora perennial gardens are built. Any kind of activity that is out of line with the planned ones and can potentially harm the plants is prohibited within the area of a garden [2, p. 82].

The primary purpose of a dendrological park is doing research and collecting data as to safekeeping and getting to know better of certain types of trees and shrubs.

As for zoological parks, their target is displaying exotic, rare and local variety of fauna, saving their gene pool, doing research about wild fauna, and breeding in captivity [2, p.84].

Landscape gardening is the art of designing and creating attractive parks and gardens, which, in turn serve the purpose of science, aesthetic, education, and health protection. Often they are the scene of various excursions and public outings.

Unfortunately, we should bear in mind the fact, as it is, that the wetland refuges are not, in line with the Ukrainian laws (Article 46, 2002), properly covered by the protective umbrella of the nature preserves. To address this concern globally and in Ukraine in particular the Convention on International Importance of Wildlife Habitat Ramsar was adopted on February 2, 1978.

Taking into account the vital importance of the wetlands, primarily located in the western and south-eastern Ukraine, in terms of preserving biological variety, stabilizing economic balance, increasing efficiency of the areas in question, the Ukrainian government issued the Resolution of February 8, 1990, which set the guidelines on the usage and protection of the wetlands. In general, the issue of wetlands protection is regulated by the special law and by the Land and Water Codes. In particular, the margins of land, which run alongside a river or a lake ranging from 25meters to 100meters in width, depending on the caliber of each specific river or lake, got the status of protected areas. In case of seaside coastal areas the protected margin may range two kilometers or more. The most important and precious wetland territories, like the lakes of Shatsk, the floodplain of the river Prypyat, the coastal salt lakes of Tiligul and of Yagorlyk became nature preserves of international importance.

On the one hand, some traditional forms of utilization are allowed on wetland territories. On the other hand, the hazardous forms of human activity like land reclamation, plowing, construction works, application of fertilizers, pesticides, etc are prohibited.

Taking into consideration everything spoken above in this report, one may come to the conclusion that in the system of management there is nothing like first-rate or second-rate territories. Only the systemic approach to running nature preserves and other protected territories can guarantee nature’s integrity, the interconnection of its elements on all levels. This can be materialized through an ecological network of buffer zones and interconnected lanes, i.e. a grid of sanctuaries of different categories is to be imbedded in the body of ecological network. For the sake of turning the Ukrainian ecological circuit on, 29 national parks and seven biosphere preserves have to be created. Besides these, the territories of the current three nature preserves, three biosphere preserves, and five national parks should be considerably expanded. On the whole, the area of nature preservation territories should be doubled and should make up 10% of the national territory [2, p.135].

Literature

1. Земельний кодекс України. Закон України від 25 жовтня №2768-111 // Відомості Верховної Ради України. – 2001. – 30 жовтня.

2. Заповідна справа в Україні: Навч. посіб. / За ред. М.Д. Гродзинського, М.П. Стеценка. - К.: Географіка, 2003. - 306с.

3. Стойко С. Эталоны природы. – Львов: Вища школа. Изд-во при Львовск. ун-те, 1980. – с.28

4. Горлачук В.В., В'юн В.Г., Сохнич А.Я., Качурець І.С. Сучасні проблеми управління землями природно-заповідного, оздоровчого, рекреаційного та історично-культурного призначення. – Львів: НВФ "Українські технології", 2002. – 196 с.