 |  |
| Bildiri Özetleri | |
| Ana Sayfaya Dönüş |
| Back To The Main List |
|
Gracheva Raisa Institute of Geography of RAS, Staromonetny 29, Moscow 109017, Russia Abstract The main ideas, concerning the mountain land use, which were widespread in the beginning of political and economic changes of soviet space, were as follows: 1) economical independence of centre and regional self-government will lead to rational nature and land use, adapted to regional specific; 2) privatization will be a precondition of ecologically adapted land use; 3) indigenous knowledge of mountain land use will regenerate traditional man-nature relationships. Real results of these expectations 10 years later are shown: collapse of the economical dictation of central authorities turned into independence on nature protection legislation and destruction of nature resources; privatization results in degradation of natural mountain ecosystems and agricultural lands, unemployment and migration; the indigenous knowledge is often used for individual survival only. Uncontrolled agricultural activity of migrants in the mountain region can be the factor of land degradation. Introduction Abrupt change of social factors usually leads to the transformation of ways of land use, and as a consequence, to nature and land degradation, and human history gives many examples of that kind of situation. 1991 gave start to the extremely significant political and socio-economic change within all space of former USSR, and after ten years of transformations mountain regions of post-soviet space have as a whole the same social, economic and nature use problems as lowland areas. However, many of these problems, especially nature use ones, in mountains are strengthened up to crises and catastrophes and are reflected not only in present but in future life of mountain community. One of the main life-supporting factors in mountain regions is existence and conditions of their soils, and first of all the total thickness of soil and fine earth content. Soil degradation and lack of arable lands in agricultural mountain region could be a cause of its economical degradation and depopulation. That is why the understanding the relations in the system "change of social factors - transformation of land use - conditions of soil resources" is very important for working out the policy of sustainable development of mountain regions. The aim of study was to consider the main results of ten years transformation of mountain land use and reflection of these transformations in conditions of mountain soil resources of Russia. The paper is based on published sources and field researches in 1984-1991 and 2000. Mountain Regions of Russia Russia can be called a country of great plains as well as of great mountains, that occupy almost 42% of its total area. All mountains of Russia can be divided into 4 groups depending on density of population and present economic development (Alekseev, 1998; Bol'shakov et al., 1998; Rudskiy, 2000). 1. Mountains of north-east Siberia and Far East, excepting Sikhote-Alin ridge: uninhabited mountains with extremely severe climatic conditions and permafrost. There are isolated mining areas and rare net of temporary settlements of hunters and fishers, and agricultural activity is not characteristic for them. Land use problems of these regions are typical for all marginal cold regions of Russia and are caused by destruction of biota and soil cover by mining. 2. Middle and South Ural, northern foothills of Altay: densely populated multinational industrial regions. Land use problems of these regions are typical for all industrial areas of Russia under reforms, and population does not identify themselves as mountain inhabitants,. 3. Mountains of Middle Siberia, South Siberia (Sayans, Altay, Pribaikalie and Zabaikalie), Sikhote-Alin, Northern and Subpolar Ural which include: a) local relatively densely populated areas, oriented to industry and mining; b) less populated areas of forestry and agriculture; c) vast uninhabited territories. Density of population change from 1-10 to 25 person.km-2. The main land use problems are as follows: superseding small aboriginal nations from land management, protection of their environment and nature protection in industrial and mined areas. 4. The North and West Caucasus: strongly dissected mountain region with variability of bioclimatic conditions, multinational dense population, multieconomic development and long history of agriculture. It is unique part of Russia, but all its problems are typical for the Caucasian and Trans-Caucasian new states - Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaidzhan. Problems of agricultural use of land are more characteristic for this region than for other mountains of Russia. Expectations in the Beginning of Reforms In the late 1980th many ideas and concepts suggesting the new ways of socio-economic development based on the rational nature use were published and discussed very actively in the USSR. The main ideas and expectations concerning optimal nature use can be called as independence, privatisation, and indigenous knowledge, and were as follows. a. Economical independence from centre (Moscow) and regional self-government will lead to rational nature and land use, adapted to regional specific. This idea was exposed in many regional programs of economical development, for example, in Daghestan Republic, in spite of fact that usually greatest part of regional budget was expected as financial support from Federal budget (The Concept and the Program…, 1996). b. Privatization of industry, forestry and agriculture will be a precondition of ecologically adapted nature use. Private-owner psychology was considered as psychology of economy, and it was expected that owners, especially farmers, use the nature protective methods of management on local level. c. Regeneration of indigenous knowledge of mountain land use will lead to traditional man-nature relationships. These concepts and expectations were widespread particularly in such populous and multinational mountain regions as the Caucasus and, to a certain extent, Altay and Tuva. Results of Transformation of Nature and Land Use 10 Years Later What are the real results of these expectations 10 years later? I. Collapse of the economical dictation of central authorities turned into independence on nature protection legislation and destruction of nature resources. First of all beech, fir, chestnut (the Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus) and the coniferous (Altay, Sikhote-Alin) forests, including soil- and water-protective ones, were cut, and the afforestation is stopped almost everywhere. According to numerous data more than 30% of forests in the North and West Caucasus, Trans-Caucasus, Sikhote-Alin, Altay are destroyed by felling. Economy of some mountain regions, for example, on the southern part of Far East, is directed to logging only, and predatory forest destroying activated catastrophic soil erosion. In the Caucasus felling was particularly intensive in 1992-1996, and was restricted since 1996-1997. Due to the logging and building of temporary roads the soil erosion and creep intensify catastrophically, especially in the humid parts of Caucasus and Trans-Caucasus. These human induced processes coincided with peak of climate induced activity of slides, mudflows and avalanches. Numerous new landslides appeared in Sochi district (Krasnodar Kray), and the giant catastrophic debris slides took places in Hulo district of Mountain Adzharia (Georgia) during last 10 years. II. The first steps of privatization began as far back as 1987-1988 in the Caucasus and Transcaucasus as dividing the property of the collective farms and attempts to increase the head of cattle and land areas in the private ownership. This action was unsuccessful because of lack of forage and markets, but its consequences were very significant. The intensive use of the nearest pastures resulted in heavy grazing, depletion of bioproductivity and increase of cattle-plague; distant mountain grazing lands were neglected and rapidly changed to rough, stony areas. Thus, in North Ossetia-Alania the productivity of pastures decreased down to 5-30% from potential one; due to erosion some of pastures lose from 35 to 190 hectares during the year. Now 67% of pastures of Ossetia-Alania are eroded. In order to overcome this state of emergency the stopping grazing during 2-5 years and regrassing are necessary, and grazing licence must be obligate (On the State of Environment in the RNO-A…, 1996; Ilichev & Gracheva, 1998). Present conditions of pastures productivity shows that self-restoration of mountain ecosystems without human efforts is problematical. The poverty of population and need of food caused the increase of areas of clean-tilled crops in the Caucasus, especially maize, and their expansion to slopes. In the West Georgia even part of tea plantations, including experimental scientific plots, was destroyed and transformed into cropland. As a result, human induced soil erosion on the Caucasus was intensified everywhere except alpine belts (Gracheva & Chernyakhivskiy, 1990; Gigineishvili & Nahutsrishvili, 1998). In Russian part of the Western Caucasus privatisation of land didn't exceed 17-20%, and the main previous regularities of agricultural land use are preserved. But activity of large part of population is connected with rest service now, and, for example, private individual farms produce only 10-12% of total grapes production of Krasnodar kray (Agricultural activity…, 1999; Agriculture in Russia, 2000). On the whole, condition of lands is more successful in Russian part of the West Caucasus than in the West Georgia where more than 50 % of land was deeply eroded by the end of 1980th (Gvazava, 1984; Gracheva & Chernyakhivskiy, 1990). However, impact on the soils and the nature in this region is intensified by increase of population due to immigration (Russian statistical annual, 2000). The privatization of forestry have led to jump of unemployment, migration and impossibility for mountain communities to take part in forest management. It is particularly characteristic for the West Caucasus, Trans-Caucasus and Altay. Local communities found themselves out of economical activity and forest use management, and non-adapted felling and soil destruction are practically uncontrolled. III. The indigenous knowledge is often applied for individual survival only and concerns mainly the ways of soil treatment by hand and return to traditional simple food. On the Caucasus this means increasing areas under maize and vegetable, and felling nearest trees for firewood. Unfortunately, hard life conditions and poverty make people to forget their traditional nature protective habits and stop such social public actions as to put roads, soils or streams in order. The indigenous nature use and trades are superseded from present economy of this region. In last years first steps to aboriginal communities, self-government and land use management are undertaken in Altay. The war conflicts in the Caucasus, ethnic contradictions in South Siberia mountains complicate and multiply all problems of land use in mountain regions. In Chechnya (total area is ~19,000 km2) only 200,000 hectares, possibly, are suitable for agriculture now. The vast areas are contaminated by oil and oil products from illegal oil refineries. Beech and hornbeam forests are completely destroyed by military actions, and northern slope of Terskiy ridge is destructed by slides (S. V. Zonn, Moscow, 2001, personal communication). The combined results of all this factors are the degradation of natural ecosystems and agricultural lands, and the mass migration of population from mountain regions, especially from the North Caucasus. Usually migrants choose central parts of Russia and especially urbanised areas, but many of them, including Georgian migrants, prefer such part of the West Caucasus as Novorossiysk-Sochi coast of the Black Sea. This region is considered now as one of main immigration regions of Russia. Migration of Population as Factor of Land Degradation One of the serious impacts of migration process on the land conditions is that many migrants have no practical knowledge and ability to live and work in new environment. Thus the area of troubles is extending. As a case study the agricultural activity of migrants from dry mountains in humid Sochi region was considered. The Sochy district is located on the south-west macroslope of the West Caucasus along east coast of the Black Sea. It is humid subtropical marine region, where mountain slopes along coast are subjected to intensive natural slikensliding, and hazard of soil slides is a highest in Russia. The frequency of landslides and creeps reaches 1000 within narrow 10 km strip along the coast (Azhigirov, 1987). Daily life and activity of local communities are adapted to this phenomena and aimed to reduce slide actions, and it is really life-supporting use of indigenous knowledge. On the end of 1980-th the Armenia-Azerbaidzhan conflict provoked the waves of migrants from this republics, and later active migration from dry regions of the Northern and East Caucasus took place. New habitants ignore local experience and use their traditional ways of agricultural cultivation and building of houses, such as terracing, excessive irrigation, disturbance of monolithic properties of ground, which are non-adapted to local conditions. This intensifies both shallow and deep slides. So, two different systems of indigenous land use found themselves in contradiction in the mountain region of modern multinational immigration. Conclusion More than ten years of transformation of nature use changed the conditions of land and soil resources in forested and agricultural mountain regions in Russia. The combined results of partial regional economical independence, land and forest privatisation led to transformation of ways of mountain land use, and, as a result, degradation of natural ecosystems and agricultural lands. Lack of comfortable agricultural lands and poverty induced the mass migration of population from mountain regions, especially from the North Caucasus, and extending the area of trouble. Optimal nature use was not reached, and main expectations are not realised. What are the reasons of this difference between concepts and real results of reforms? Political and economical changes in Russia were too abrupt and not provided with correct legislation, particularly in the first half of 1990th. Uncontrolled actions were the main factors of rapid soil degradation in the beginning of reforms, and only to the new century land use governed by law is developed. This is the main lesson which we can learn from decade of mountain land use change in Russia. References . Agricultural activity of farms of population in Russia. Statistical book, 1999. Goskomstat, Moscow, 171 p. Agriculture in Russia, 2000. Goskomstat, Moscow. . Alekseev, V.R., 1998. Condition and problems of development of Baikal mountain region. Proceedings of the RAS, Geography series, ? 6, pp. 123-136. . Azhigirov, A.A., 1987. Soil-destructing processes on mountain slopes. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, series 5, Geography, ? 6, pp. 53-56. . Bol'shakov, V.N., Gorchakovskiy, P.L., & Pahomov V.P. 1998. Mountain regions of Ural: state and specific of development. Proceedings of the RAS, Geography series, ? 6, pp. 88-94. . Gigineishvili, G.N.& Nahutsrishvili, G. Sh., 1998. Problems of sustainable development of the mountain regions of Georgia. Proceedings of the RAS, Geography series, ? 6, pp. 88-101. . Gracheva, R.G. & Chernyakhivskiy, A.G., 1990. Geological past and nature-economical specific of mountain Adzharia. In: Polyan, M. (ed.) Problems of mountain economy and settlement. Institute of Geography, Moscow, pp. 263-280. . Gvazava, Sh.T., 1984. Control of soil erosion and improvement of productivity of eroded lands. Subtropical cultures, ? 4, pp. 147-153. . Ilichev, B.A. & Gracheva, R.G., 1998. Condition of loose mantle of mountain regions as a criterion of their stable development. Proceedings of the RAS, Geography series, ? 6, pp. 48-59. Russian statistical annual, 2000. Goskomstat, Moscow, pp. 621. . On the State of Environment in the RNO-A in 1995, 1996. State Report. Ministry for the Environmental Protection of RNO-A, Vladikavkaz, 187 p. . Rudskiy, V.V., 2000. Nature use in mountain countries (Altay and Sayans). Hauka, Novosibirsk, 204 p. The Concept and the Program for the Social and Economic Development of the Mountain Regions of the Daghestan SSR in 1991-1995, 1990. Mahachkala, pp.1-121. |