UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Russian model forest in local forest politics : case study of the creation of a national park within… Matsuo, Ichiro 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2002-0168.pdf [ 6.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0075396.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0075396-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0075396-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0075396-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0075396-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0075396-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0075396-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0075396-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0075396.ris

Full Text

RUSSIAN MODEL FOREST IN LOCAL FOREST POLITICS: Case Study of the Creation of a National Park within the Gassinski Model Forest by ICHIRO MATSUO BA, Osaka University of Foreign Studies, 1999 Graduate Diploma in Science, The Australian National University, 2000 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Forestry) (Department of Forest Resources Management) We accept this thesis as conforming  THE UMVERSITYOF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 2002 © Ichiro Matsuo, 2002  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  representatives.  an advanced  Library shall make it  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be her  for  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2788)  ABSTRACT This thesis examines local people's perception of the Gassinski Model Forest's (GMF) projects and activities in relation to local involvement and public communication. The GMF is the first model forest in the Russian Federation. A case study describing the creation of a national park (NP) within the GMF territory has been adopted for designing this research. The term "local involvement" for the purpose of this research, describes the inclusion of local people in the decision-making process and the term "public communication" refers to communication between the GMF and local people, including mass communication, a word-of-mouth communication and education. Public communication often accompanies local involvement. This research consists of six main chapters: introduction, background, conceptual framework, research methods, results and discussion and conclusion. In the background, firstly the organizational structure and characteristics of Canadian-style model forest programs and the GMF program are described, and then the continuity between the GMF program and the NP is explained. The conceptual framework of natural resources management is created to explain the focus of the questionnaire survey for this research. In the chapters concerned with the questionnaire survey, the methodology of the questionnaire survey was initially explained and then the results and the analyses are presented. According to the survey, more than 71% of the respondents are aware of the GMF. On the other hand, 71.8% of the respondents regard themselves as not being involved in the GMF. There are some statistical differences  ( a =0.05) between groups (categorized by  demographic information and responses to questions such as "Do you know anything about the GMF?" and "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"). Many people do not have clear idea of the GMFs boundary. The results of the survey infer the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication are perceived as insufficient by locals. The future National Park, which will be created within the GMF territory and the logical successor of the GMF, should learn from the GMFs experience in order to achieve the task of facilitating "ecological [environmental] education for locals."  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  u  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Hi  LIST OF TABLES  .viii  LIST OF FIGURES  x  LIST OF MAPS  xiii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  xiv  1  INTRODUCTION  1.1  Introduction.  1  .....  2  1.1.1  Definitions of Local Involvement and Public Communication  4  1.1.2  Sustainable Forest Management and Local Involvement  4  1.2  2  Objectives and Research Process  .  .  .  .....—....  BACKGROUND  2.1  Model Forest..................  ...6  8 ........  .  .  ~~—~  9  2.1.1  Description of a Model Forest  9  2.1.2  Issues of Authority and Partnership for Model Forests  12  2.1.3  Local Involvement in Model Forests  12  2.2  Gassinski Model Forest..........  14  2.2.1  GMF after 2000  16  2.2.2  GMF in Local Forest Politics  16  2.2.3 Realization of GMF's Projects  19  iii  2.2.4  Indigenous Peoples in Nanaiski District  21  „—23  23  Establishment of National Park "Anyuski" within the GMF Territory  2.4  Transition from GMF to National Park "Anyuski" ....................................«....„...«.....................26  2.4.1  Continuity between the G M F Tasks to Future N P Task  27  2.4.2  Cooperation between a Model Forest and a National Park  27  2.5  Natural Resources Utilization in the GMF and NP Territory  2.6  Need for Local Involvement and Public Communication....  3  28  .—..........................................29  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH  3.1  3.2  .  ....  ..—..—.......................................—.  Limitations of this Research......  .  ......  4 RESEARCH METHODS 4.1  31  Conceptual Framework of Natural Resources Management and Focus of the Questionnaire  Survey......  . ................—...  -•  32 34  36  Methodology of the Questionnaire Survey.....................................................................................37  4.1.1  Survey Design and Question Types  37  4.1.2  Translation from English to Russian  38  4.1.3  Preparation for the Questionnaire Survey  39  4.1.4  Sampling Locations and their Characteristics  39  4.1.4.1  Troitskoe  39  4.1.4.2  Arsenyevo  40  4.1.5  Sample Frame  40  4.1.6  Sampling Methods  41  4.1.7  Target Sample Size  42  4.1.8  Response Rates  42  4.1.9  Data Analyses  42  4.1.10  5  .  Limitations and Biases  43  RESULTS  45  iv  5.1  Summary of Results...............................................—....—..................—.......  52  Information of Respondents......—.........  .......—.  ................  .........................46 .......—.  .....46  5.2.1  Gender  46  5.2.2  Age  47  5.2.3  Ethnicity  48  5.2.4  Occupation  50  5.2.5  Academic Background  51  5.2  Questions about the Gassinski Model Forest...............................................™.....—...........™.........53  5.2.3  Q3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest (GMF)?  53  5.2.3.1  Overall  53  5.2.3.2  B y Gender  54  5.2.3.3  B y Age  55  5.2.3.4  B y Ethnicity  57  5.2.3.5  B y Occupation  59  5.2.3.6  B y Location  61  5.2.4  Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved in the G M F ?  63  5.2.4.1  Overall  63  5.2.4.2  B y Gender  64  5.2.4.3  B y Age  65  5.2.4.5  B y Ethnicity  67  5.2.4.6  B y Occupation  69  5.2.4.7  B y Location  70  5.2.5  Q 10. Do you live in the territory of the G M F ?  72  5.2.6  Local People's Perception about the G M F  73  5.2.6.1  Overall  74  5.2.6.2  B y Location  78  5.2.6.3  B y Ethnicity  80  5.2.6.4  B y Gender  82  5.2.6.5  B y Age  84  5.2.6.6  B y Occupation  86  5.2.6.7  Breakdown of Q6 by Q3 " D o you know anything about the Gassinski M o d e l Forest ?"  ( A N O V A and Tukey's HSD)  88  v  5.2.6.8  Breakdown of Q6 by Q5 " D o you consider yourself to be involved in any of the  G M F ? " ( A N O V A and Tukey's HSD) 5.2.7  89  Correlations between Questions i n Q 6 (Kendall's t a u b )  5.2.7.1  90  Correlation between Q6a and j (Correlation coefficient = 0.444) and between Q6j and k  (-0.434)  92  5.2.7.2  Correlations between b and d (Correlation coefficient = 0.425), b and j(0.569), b and  k(-0.484) 5.2.7.3  Correlations between Q6c and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.458), c and e (0.485)  5.2.7.4  Correlations between Q6d and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.425) and Q6e and h (0.427) 93  5.2.7.5  Characteristic o f Q6k in Correlation  5.2.8  5.3  92  94  Cluster Analysis  94  Questions about the National Park....  5.3.1  .  Q7. D o you know about the creation of a National Park within the G M F ?  98 98  5.3.1.1  Overall  98  5.3.1.2  B y Gender  98  5.3.1.3  B y Ethnicity  99  5.3.1.4  B y Location  100  5.3.2  Q8. If you answered " Y e s " to Q7, do you think that a new N P w i l l have a positive impact on  your life?  5.4  93  100  5.3.2.1  Overall  100  5.3.2.2  B y Gender  101  5.3.2.3  B y Ethnicity  102  5.3.2.4  B y Location  102  Questions about Local Concerns.............—......................................................................—......103  5.4.1  Local People's Concerns in Daily L i f e  103  5.4.1.1  Overall  103  5.4.1.2  B y Location  104  5.4.1.3  B y Ethnicity and Location (Arsenyevo)  106  5.4.1.4  B y Ethnicity and Location (Troitskoe)  108  5.4.1.5  Russians i n Arsenyevo and Troitskoe  110  vi  6.1 Discussion.......................  .....................................................................................114  6.1.1  Objective 1: Learn about Local People's Perception about the G M F  6.1.2  Objective 2: Determine what the G M F Achieved to Facilitate Public Communication and L o c a l  114  Involvement  116  6.1.3  117  6.2 7  .......  Objective 3: Recommendations for the Future National Park within the G M F  Conclusion ..  —...118  .....................................................................^  REFERENCES  121  APPENDIX I: EVALUATION OF THE GMFA BY THE IMFNS  128  APPENDIX H: QUESTIONNAIRE IN ENGLISH  .  APPENDIX HI: QUESTIONNAIRE IN RUSSIAN APPENDIX TV: SURVEY COVER LETTER IN ENGLISH APPENDIX V: SURVEY COVER LETTER IN RUSSIAN.  vii  135 140  .  145 147  LIST OF TABLES  Table 1. Completed Projects of the G M F .  15  Table 2. Number of Nanai and Udege in the U S S R i n 1926, 1959 and 1989, i n Khabarovsk Province i n 1990 and in Nanaiski District i n 2000 21 Table 3. Data of the National Park "Anyuiski"  24  Table 4. Characteristics of the G M F and the N P  25  Table 5. Commonalities between the G M F and the future NP.  27  Table 6. Population of Nanaiski District, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe and a Breakdown by Ethnicity (as o f 1 January 2000) 41 Table 7. Number o f Questionnaire Forms (Provided, Collected and Usable)  42  Table 8. Breakdown of the Respondents by Location and Ethnicity.  49  Table 9. Breakdown of the Respondents by Occupation and Location  51  Table 10. Breakdown o f the Respondents by Academic Background and Location  52  Table 11. Number of Responces of the Question, " D o you Live in the Territory of the G M F ? " by Location  72  Table 12. Grouping of Phrases (Q6) by General Agreement Level into "General Agreement," "TSIeutraL" and "General Disagreement." 75 Table 13. Kendall's t a u b Correlation on Phrases from Q6  91  Table 14. Final Cluster Centers  95  Table 15. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? " 95 Table 16. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, " D o you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " 96  viii  Table 17. Cluster Membership by Occupation  96  Table 18. Characteristics of Members from Cluster 1 and Cluster 2  97  Table 19. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a N P within the G M F ? " by Gender 99 Table 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation o f a N P within the G M F ? " by Ethnicity. 99 Table 21. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a N P within the G M F ? " by Location 100 Table 22. Number of Responses to the Question, " D o you think that a new N P w i l l have a positive impact on your life? by Gender. 101 Table 23. Number of Responses to the Question, " D o you think that a new N P w i l l have a positive impact on your life? by Ethnicity. 102 Table 24. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new N P will have a positive impact on your life? by Location 102 Table25. Ranking of Local Concerns by Location. (Evaluation Points)  106  Table 26. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo. (Evaluation Points)  108  Table 27. Ranking o f Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Troitskoe. (Evaluation Points)  110  Table 28. Ranking of Local Concerns by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo (Evaluation Points). .112  ix  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Two Aspects o f a Model Forest Program  9  Figure 2. Relationship between G M F , I M F N , C M F N and McGregor Model Forest  10  Figure 3. Diagram of the Governance of the G M F i n 1994  11  Figure 4. The G M F in Local Forest Politics  17  Figure 5. Concurrently Holding Two Posts (Two Examples)  19  Figure 6. Diagram of Governance for Program Realization  20  Figure 7. Transition from the G M F to the NP.  26  Figure 8. Diagram of Natural Resources Utilization in the G M F and the N P Territory.  28  Figure 9. Conceptual Framework of the Natural Resources Management in the G M F  33  Figure 10. Number of Responses by Gender.  47  Figure 11. Proportion of the Respondents by Age  48  Figure 12. Proportion of the Respondents by Ethnicity.  49  Figure 13. Number of the Respondents by Occupation  50  Figure 14. Number of the Respondents by Academic Background  52  Figure 15. Number of Responses to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? "  53  Figure 16. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? " by Gender. 54 Figure 17. Proportion o f Response Yes to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? " by Gender 55 Figure 18. Number of Responses to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? " by Age. ...56  x  Figure 19. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? " by Age 57 Figure 20. Number of Responses to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? " by Ethnicity. 58 Figure 21. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? " by Ethnicity. 59 Figure 22. Number of Responses to the Question, " D o you know anytfiing about the G M F ? " by Occupation  60  Figure 23. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? " by Occupation 61 Figure 24. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? " by Location  62  Figure 25. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, " D o you know anything about the G M F ? " by Location 63 Figure 26. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " 64 Figure 27. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved in any of the G M F ? " by Gender. 64 Figure 28. Proportion of Response N o to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved i n any fo the G M F ? " by Gender. 65 Figure 29. Number o f Responses to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved in any of the G M F ? " by A g e 66 Figure 30. Proportion of Response N o to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " by Age 67 Figure 31. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved in any of the G M F ? " by Ethnicity. 68 Figure 32. Proportion of Response N o to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " by Ethnicity. 68  xi  Figure 33. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved in any of the G M F ? " by Occupation 69 Figure 34. Proportion of Response N o to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " by Occupation. 70 Figure 35. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved in any o f the G M F ? " by Location 71 Figure 36. Proportion of Response N o to the Question, "Q5. D o you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " by Location 71 Figure 37. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6)  74  Figure 38. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Location  79  Figure 39. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Ethnicity.  81  Figure 40. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Gender.  83  Figure 41. Mean Level o f Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Age  85  Figure 42. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Academic Background  87  Figure 43. Proportion of Responses to the Question, " D o you know about the new creation of a N P within the G M F ? "  98  Figure 44. Proportion of Responses to the Question, " D o you think that a new N P w i l l have a positive impact on your life? 101 Figure 45. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points  104  Figure 46. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Location  105  Figure 47. Ranking o f Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo  107  Figure 48. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity i n Troitskoe  109  Figure 49. Ranking o f Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo Ill  xii  LIST OF MAPS M a p 1. Location of the Gassinski Model Forest in the Russian Far East M a p 2. Territory of Gassinski Model Forest and National Park " A n y u i s k i "  xiii  3 14  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks the following individuals and organizations: •  Dr George Hoberg of the University of British Columbia for supervising this research and project,  •  Dr Robert Kozak of the University of British Columbia for his support in survey design, data analyses and thesis writing,  •  Dr John Innes of the University of British Columbia for his time and his advice,  •  Mr. Evegueny Zabubenin of the McGregor Model Forest Russian Officeforarranging my Russian visa and organizing the fieldwork and interview survey,  •  Mr. Martin Hudson of the McGregor Model Forest for the kind arrangement with McGregor Model Forest Russian Office,  •  Mr. Kouzminkov Victor of the Moscow State University and Kobe University (PhD student) for his kind assistance in the fieldwork, Russian literature research and translation,  •  The Gassinski Model Forest Association and the Excectives for giving information and helping in the fieldwork,  •  Dr Hiroaki Kakizawa of the Hokkaido University for his support in gathering information and materials concerned with Russian forestry,  •  Dr Shiro Sasaki of National Museum of Ethnology for his advice on the fieldwork,  •  Prof. Shinichi Kohsaki of Osaka Univ. of Foresign Studies for his advice on the field work,  •  The Shiba Ryotaro Memorial Foundation for the financial support during this research,  •  Mrs Vera Herbergerforher helping in thefieldworkand interpretation in interviews,  •  Mr. Vladimir Vashiliev of the Gassinski Model Forest Association for his assistance with the fieldwork,  •  Dr Gordon Weetman of the University of British Columbia for giving the opportunity to do this research,  •  My friends in Minabegawa and NTtanabe for interactual communication during this research,  •  Many other people who supported this research project, and  •  My family and friends for supporting this research.  xiv  CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION  l  1 INTRODUCTION  1.1 INTRODUCTION The Gassinki Model Forest (GMF), the first model forest in Russia, was established in October 1994 with the financial and technical support of the Government of Canada. The primary goal of the Canadian-style model forest was to achieve sustainable forest 1  management.  2  The GMF program emphasizes partnership. Although the GMF has no  authority over natural resources in the GMF territory, the GMF is expected to <x>ordinate the interests of all members concerned with natural resource management, for the purpose of sustainable forest management and natural resource utilization. Natural resources in the GMF territory are mainly utilized for activities such as logging, hunting,fishingand gathering by both the formal and informal sectors. The formal sector is under official administration through concession or license systems. In contrast to the informal sector consists of local people who are not under official administration for 3  natural resources utilization. Activities of the informal sector are hard to control from outside and legal enforcement is not effective in Russia due to a lack of funds, personnel and social norms. Local peoples' awareness of the environment and their attitude towards sustainable utilization is the only way to lead the informal sector voluntarily to the sustainable utilization of natural resources. Therefore, it is important to educate local people in the informal sector through "local involvement" and "public communication." Local Model forests belong to the Canadian Model Forest Network or the International Model Forest. Network, which is oriented by the Government of Canada. According to a presentation in 2000 given by Telitsyn i n Akita, Japan, the goal of the G M F was "...to 1  2  create an association ofpartners with the ability and interest to pursue the goal ofsustainable forest management for increasing living standards ofindigenous peoples and other residents by means of using forest resources"(Teltsyn 2000). Also, the website of the Canadian Model Forest Network (n.d. http //www.modelforest.net/e/home_/abou_/faqe.html) provides the definition applied to the model forest :  projects as "managing the use, development and protection of forest resources in a manner or at a rate that enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being, and for their health and safety while (l) sustaining the potential of forest resources to meet reasonably foreseeable needs offuture generations! (2) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and (3) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects ofactivities on the environment." "Informal sector" refers to local people whose activity i n natural resources management, is hardly regulated.  3  2  involvement and public communication are referred to in the Santiago Declaration of the Montreal Process, which is "the statement on criteria and indicators for the conservation and sustainable management of temperate and boreal forests" signed by representatives of the Russian Federation and nine other countries (see 1.1.2) (Montreal Process Website 1998).  Russian Federation  /  Gassinski Model Forest  S.Korea N. Korea  Map 1. Location of the Gassinski Model Forest in the Russian Far East. (Source^  adopted  and modified  from  the International  Model  Forest  Network  Website.  http7/www.idrc.ca/imfn/sites/russia.html)  On January 10, 2001, a large part of the GMF territory and area adjacent to the GMF in Nanaiski District were officially zoned for the national park (NP) "Anyuiski" by the resolution signed by the governor of the Khabarovsk Province. According to the document accompanying the resolution, when the NP is approved at the federal level and officially established, the NP will tackle " ecological [environmental] education for local people," which is one of six fundamental tasks of the NP (Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo  3  Kraya 2001). Facilitation of local involvement and of public communication is two of the GMFs fundamental tasks, as listed in the 1995 proposal (Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service 1995). The future NP will share everything including land, stakeholders and natural resources, with the GMF. Therefore, a future NP task will be to take over and take advantage of the achievements of the GMF, in particular, in public communication and local involvement towards the NPs task. 1.1.1  Definitions of Local Involvement and Public Communication  The term "local involvement" for the purpose of this research, describes the inclusion of local people in the decision-making process with other stakeholders, such as national and local administrations. The involvement should include feedback and it must be continuous. The expression "local involvement" is compatible with expressions such as "local participation" in decision-making process. The  term "public communication" in this thesis includes mass communication (e.g.,  publishing  newsletters),  a word-of- mouth communication,  education  (educational  information) for local people provided by the GMF and a system of public feedback. Public communication sometimes includes peer-to-peer communication between a person or a partner of the GMF and a local individual. In principle, this research regards public communication as a tool to facilitate local involvement and, therefore, the term "public communication" often accompanies the term "local involvement." 1.1.2  Sustainable Forest Management and Local Involvement  After the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the concept of sustainable forest management became an international principle of forest management. The Russian 4  Federation, whose forested land made up about 22% of the global forested land in 2000 (FAO 2001a; 2001b), shares the goal of sustainable forest management. Russia signed the Santiago Declaration of the Montreal Process in February 1995. The importance of local involvement and public communication is emphasized in Section 1.4 of the statement, "It  There are many definitions of sustainable forest management. This research does not refer to any particular definition. 4  4  should be emphasized that an informed, aware and participatory public is indispensable to promoting the sustainable management of forests." In the Section 4.1, Criterion T- Legal, institutional and economic framework for forest conservation and sustainable management, there are also two indicators related to local involvement and public communication:  •  Extent to which the legalframeworkCaws, regulations, guidelines) supports the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including the extent to which it: c. Provides opportunities for public participation in public policy and decision making related to forests and public access to information; and  •  Extenttowhich the institutionalframeworksupports the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including the capacity to: a. Provide for public involvement activities and public education, awareness and extension programs, and make available forest related information.  (Montreal Process Website 1998. http'//www.mpd.org/meetings/santiago/santiiigo7_e.htni])  As such, the sustainable forest management in the Montreal Process has close links with local involvement and public communication. The  importance of local involvement and public communication for conservation and  sustainable utilization of natural resources at the local level is emphasized in many case studies. Brechin et al. (1991), discussing resident peoples and protected areas in developing and developed countries, stated, "If conservation is to become sustainable, approaches and methods must be developed that more actively involve resident peoples in the planning and decision-making process." Hales (1991), in his case study of the Pinelands National Park Reserve, concluded, "...effective and sustainable protection is dependent on a strong pubhc-involvement campaign that begins very early in the planning process" and " ...local participation should be a continuing element of the management regime." The common  5  reason why many case studies in developing countries and developed countries emphasize the importance of local involvement and public communication is that local people may be kept from local natural resources by a park and reserve system for the purpose of sustainable management and the exclusion of local peoplefromlocal natural resources may result in conflicts between locals and authorities (e.g., Wells and Brandon 1992). In developing countries, including Russia, poor rural people may more concerned with economic aspects of the land and natural resources than with the biodiversity conservation (FAO 2001b). Gibson and Becker (2000: 139) summarized the required conditions for successful natural resources management with local involvement: "1) locals must value the resource, 2) they must possess some property rights to the resource, and 3) they must construct local-level institutions that control the use of the resource." Public communication, which includes mass communication, word-of-mouth communication and environmental education, can be useful in particular for meeting the first and third conditions. Local involvement in the decision-making process in model forests is related to the third condition. Construction of local-level institutions, including local involvement, can refer to the experience of community-based forest management and conservation programs. Since the 1970s, developing countries in Asia and Africa such as India, Gambia and the United Republic of Tanzania, have conducted community-based forest management programs (FAO 2001b). FAO (2001b: 23) concludes from those past programs that "community-based management systems are still very much in a stage of evolution" and "there is little experience in collaborative management in which (multi-interest) stakeholders work effectively together in decision-making and implementation." There are few blue prints for local involvement at the local level and, therefore, the development of local involvement in model forests is dependent on the effort by each model forest program.  1.2  OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH PROCESS  The objectives of this research are-' To learn local people's perception of the GMF and its projects; to determine what the GMF achieved regarding the facilitation of public communication and local involvement in and nearby the GMF territoryfrom1994 to 2001;  6  and to make recommendations for the future national park w i t h i n the G M F . This research project consists of background material (including a literature review), a conceptual framework, a questionnaire survey followed by discussion and conclusion. The introduction deals w i t h the relationship between sustainable forest management and local involvement, as well as public communication. The background material, literature review and a framework development have been based on information gathered i n Russia and materials either published i n Russia, Japan or Canada. Gathering information about the G M F was the first step of this research. The background research provides a clear picture of the GMF, the future N P and the culture and history of indigenous peoples i n N a n a i s k i District. Key concepts for this research, the role of the G M F i n local forest politics and continuity of the G M F program and the NP, are also explained. The conceptual framework of the natural resources management i n the G M F explains the focus of the questionnaire survey. The questionnaire survey is a core element of this research. The questionnaire survey of local people i n and nearby the G M F aimed to reveal how local people perceive and evaluate the results of the G M F s projects and activities. The questionnaire forms contain questions about the following: l ) recognition of the G M F ; 2) knowledge about the future national park w i t h i n the boundary of the G M F ; 3) recognition of the N P ; 4) the daily life concerns of local people; and 5) demographic information (sex, age, occupation, ethnicity and academic background). The local people's perception reveals how the G M F program has successfully  involved  local  people  i n the  G M F projects  (local involvement) and  communicated w i t h local people (public communication). The discussion section of this thesis deals w i t h results of the questionnaire survey and makes recommendations for the future national park i n the context of local involvement and public communication.  This research examines how successfully, from the local people's point of view, the G M F has facilitated local involvement and public communication since its establishment.  7  CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND  8  2  2.1  BACKGROUND  MODEL FOREST  2.1.1 Description of a Model Forest A concept of a "model forest," was established in Canada by the early 1990s. According to the  Canadian  definition  (CMFN  Website  n.d.  http7/www.modelforest.net/e/home_/abou_/faqe.htmD, "a model forest is an example of leading edge forest management practices and research." The expression "model forest" often indicates a model forest program. Model forests, as an organization, take the shape of either associations or not-for-profit organizations (CMFN Website n.d.). The word "forest" used in the expression "model forest" includes "people" as part of the forest (CMFN Website n.d.). Therefore, model forests are tightly connected to social sciences in addition to technology, ecology and other sciences. Model forest programs generally have two main aspects; technical and socio-economic (see Figure 1).  Model Forest (Concept)  I Model Forest Program (Modal Forest Association)  Technical Aspect  Socio-economic Aspect  (Technology in Forestry, Ecology, Wood Science and Forest Inventry etc.)  (Indigenous People's Issues, Local Involvement and Publio Communication etc.]  Figure 1. Two Aspects of a Model Forest Program.  9  Due to the fact that the first model forest was started by Canadian initiative, tasks related to indigenous people (First Nations) are important factors in the socio-economic aspect of model forest programs. Networking is an important characteristic of the Canadian-style model forest system. Each model forest belongs to a network of model forests and shares their experience with other model forests through workshops and conferences. There are two major model forest networks: The Canadian Model Forest Network (CMFN) and the International Model Forest Network (IMFN), which was initiated by Canada and is coordinated by the International Secretariat. The CMFN and the IMFN overlap considerably in membership. For example, the GMF belongs to the IFMN; however, it has a close link with the CMFN because the only financial source of the GMF is Canadian financial aid and the McGregor 5  Model Forest, which is a member of the CMFN and the IMFN, is the Canadian twin model forest of the GMF.  IMFN  .CMFN  Main Financial Source: Govt of Canada  (EX.. Twin  Main Financial Source: Canadian Forest Service  f  —  "  N  ( McGregor A  Figure 2. Relationship between GMF, IMFN, CMFN and McGregor Model Forest. Partners of the GMF such as former Russian Forest Service and the Administration of Khabarovsk Province contribute to the GMF program. However, their contribution is generally in the form of commodity or labor (Pominov 2000). 5  10  Model forests, which belong either to the IMFN or to the CMFN or both networks, have a common philosophy (IMFN Website n.d.). The common philosophy is 1)  2) 3) 4)  :  Each model forest is established as a working-scale model aimed at effecting a transition from conventional forest management to management for sustainable forest production and environmental conservation. Each model forest attempts to demonstrate sustainable and integrated forest management, to transfer the knowledge to forest managers and to have the applicable technology applied operationally as applicable. Each model forest is managed through a partnership of stakeholders in the area. Each model forest demonstrates the integrated management of key resources and utilizes state-of-the-art technology and ecologically sound forestry practices.  (IMFN Website.n.d. http7/www.idrc.ca/imfn/aboutus/mission.html)  The common philosophy affects the organizational structure of a model forest. For example, the structure and three divisions of the GMF cover subjects referred to in the common philosophy. (See Figure 3.) I Meeting of the GMF Partners I  [  I  Council of Partners  I  Exective Board  I  Division of Planning and Prognostication  Division of Equipment, Technology and Scientific Studies  Division of Information and Public Communication  Figure 3. Diagram of the Governance of the GMF in 1994. (Source^ redrawn and translated from Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service 1995:24. [In Russian])  11  Although the structure of governance of the GMF shown in Figure 3 was modified by 1997, the fundamental structure never changed. This research focuses on the results of activities and projects of the Division of Information and Public Communication. 2.1.2  Issues of Authority and Partnership for Model Forests  A modelforestemphasizes partnership. Although territories of model forests are designated, model forests usually have neither management jurisdiction nor property rights. Model forests cannot restrict any activity within the territory. According to the CMFN website (n.d. httpV/www.modeEorest.net/e/home^abou^faqe.html), "model forests attempt to 'make a difference on the ground' by working with those who do have jurisdiction, namely private landowners or governments and forest industries." Canadian modelforestsare usually on crown land, which is not owned by any particular individual or enterprise or group. For example, the McGregor Model Forest is located on crown land with tenure, Tree Farm License 30, which was arranged between Canfor Corp. and the British Columbia Ministry of Forests (McGregor Model Forest Website n.d.). Similar to Canadian model forests, the GMF has no management jurisdiction over land, forest resources or people. The land is owned by the Russian federal government and, in the same way, forest resources are managed by a department of the Ministry of Natural Resources (former Russian Federal Forest Service). 2.13  6  Local Involvement in Model Forests  In the explanation of an ongoing research project of the Sustainable Forest Management Network ("Public Participation and Canada's Model Forests: The case of Fundy"): "While public participation in SFM [sustainable forest management] decision-making is not an explicit objective of the Model Forests,  According to FAO (2001a), ownership of forest and other wooded land in the Russian Federation is "entirely by the State" and 94% of the forests were controlled by the Federal Forest Service until the Forest Service was reorganized in 2000. However, there has been an argument over land and natural resources ownership among the federal government and its subjects since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  6  12  nevertheless each one has become a testing ground for means and mechanisms to improve stakeholder cooperation in discovering and implementing strong approaches to SFM." (Sustainable Model Forest Network Website n.d. http7/smvl. biology, ualberta.ca/english/research/epubinv.htm)  In short, although local involvement is not clear objective of the model forests, is is an important factor of model fores programs, which aim at sustainable forest management. In the case of the GMF, the initial proposal of the GMF, published in 1995, listed two tasks of local involvement and public communication: •  involvement of residents of Nanaiski District into realization of projects of the GMF and its governance; and  •  giving information concerned with all aspects of the GMF programs to residents of the GMF territory and Nanaiski District.  (Translated from Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest. Service. 1995: 22. [In Russian])  The first task is concerned with local involvement and the second is with public communication. In short, although the GMF does not regard local involvement as a goal of the GMF, local involvement and public communication are two of important tasks towards the goal of sustainable forest management.  13  2.2  GASSINSKI MODEL FOREST  The G M F or the G M F Association ( G M F A ) i s a non-governmental organization, w h i c h i s r e g i s t e r e d to t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f K h a b a r o v s k P r o v i n c e a s a s o c i a l a s s o c i a t i o n . T h e G M F A i s , as m e n t i o n e d above, b a s e d o n p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h o u t o w n e r s h i p o r t e n u r e o f l a n d o r n a t u r a l resources o n the territory.  7  L i n e - Boundary of G a s s i n s k i Model Forest Dotted line - Boundary of the future N a t i o n a l P a r k " Anyuiski" Diagonal zone - N a t i o n a l hunting zakaznik ( I U C N Category IV, habitat/species management area)  Map 2- Territory of Gassinski Model Forest and National Park "Anyuiski'' (Source: r e d r a w n a n d modified f r o m P V E P D V O R A N et a l . , 2000; 3.1.1.)  7 Total land area of the G M F is 384,484 hectares, including 383,395 hectares of forested land (288,661 hectares for production and 94,734 hectares for protection.)  14  In contrast to Canadian model forests, the GMF has no domestic financial basis such as fundsfromRussian federal or provincial governments.  8  The GMF gives an opportunity to  the partners, who voluntarily join the GMFA, to undertake the GMF projects and activities in practice. For example, forest management in the GMF territory is implemented by Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit) within its jurisdiction and, in the same way, much scientific research was undertaken by the Far East Forestry Research Institute and other research institutions (GMF Website). (See Table 1.) The GMF partnership can coordinate interests among stakeholders. According to Telitsyn (2000), the best example of succesful coordination is the case of the NP establishment within and nearby the GMF territory.  9  Table 1. Completed Projects of the GMF. Type of Projects Scientific  Number 24  Examples (Project Names and Developers) "Study of the structure, the dynamics and the functional organization of natural ecosystems i n the territory of the GMFA" by Far East Forestry Research Institute (DalNIILKh) "Studies of cedar-pine forest stands impacted by multiple entries, and elaboration of measures for improving the capacity of the stands" by Chair of forests and parks management of the Primorsky Agricultural Academy  Socio-economic  2  "Condition of game resources, and development of the principles of their sustainable taking in the GMFA" by The B.M.Zhitkov F a r East Branch of the All-Russia Research Institute for Game and Reproduction of Wildlife "Program for stable economic development of the G M F A territory" by the GMFA. "Program for development of the economy of indigenous peoples of business between indigenous peoples of Canada and Russia" by the GMFA.  (Source'- The G M F Website n.d. http7/www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/science_e.htm)  M a i n donorforCanadian model forests is Canadian Forest Service. By the first quarter of 2001, financial support from the Government of Canada to the G M F A was significantly reduced. The Government of Canada provides funds to Russian program of McGregor Model Forest through a program of the CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). However, some indigenous people are still against the establishment of the GMF. In this case, an expert group, consisting of the G M F partners, was established to solve issues related to the GMF. Some of the nine members from the expert group, who represent indigenous interests, have protested to the NP; however, the expert group made the decision to approve the establishment of the N P by collective will (Telitsyn 2000). 8  9  15  2.2.1  GMF after 2000  Although the GMFA still exists, activity of the GMF has declined. According to the people concerned with the GMF, the main cause of decline of activity is a lack of money, originating from the significant reduction of the Canadian financial support in 2001. However, the Government of Canada still continues to support the society and forest industry in the Nanaiski District. The McGregor Model Forest, a Canadian Model Forest, opened its Khabarovsk office  10  and started the program "CIDA-McGregor Model Forest Russian  Project " in collaboration with the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The program focuses on: •  [t]he development of value-added wood processing capacity [in] the region;  •  [t]he development of non-wood forest products enterprises;  •  [t]he development of a regional tourism strategy, infrastructure and enterprises;  •  [t]he development of commercial projects between Canadian and Russian indigenous peoples; and  •  [t]he creation of specially protected areas.  (McGregor  Model  Forest  Website  n.d.  http://www.mcgregor.bc.ca/russian_activities/about_ra.htm)  Canadian support of Russian forestry had largely shiftedfromthe GMF (indirect aid via the GMF) to the CIDA-McGregor Model Forest Russian Program (direct aid via Khabarovsk Office of the McGregor Model Forest) by 2001. 222  GMF in Local Forest Politics  The GMF can impact natural resources through the GMF partners and local people (see 2.7). The head of the McGregor Model Forest Khabarovsk Office is the former vice president of the GMFA.  16  Leading Committee  Govt, of Canada  Russian Federal Forest Service (Ministry of NR)  IMFN  McGregor MF  International federal Level  Local Level o  Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association, Gassinski Model Forest  6 >  K  i  z o  Partners' Meeting  D K H  ,3 Kg  30 c » 3  Department of Forests. Khabarovsk Province  Partners  V Science and Technology Counoil  Partners' Council NGOs President  '!  Research Institutions  Coordination Group  3  Association of ! People of the North  Exective Director  Project Leaders  Nanaiski Experimental K - J p Leskhoz (Forestry Unit) o 3 a _)£ o3 o<  m o o_ o $ to o  W  o o o"  I  3 o  s  2  m o  o 3 o  o  Local People (Indigenous +NorHndigenous)  Figure 4. The GMF in Local Forest Politics. (Source: redrawn, modified and translated from I M F N and G M F A 1997: 38. [In Russian])  According to Figure 4, the GMF has an interactive relationship with the GMF partners but not with local people! the relationship between the GMF and local people tends to be  17  one-way. The reason is that the role of local people is not clearly defined in the structure of the GMF, which must be officially announced by the GMFA. Therefore, a feedback system for local people to evaluate the GMFs projects and activities is lacking in the process of the program realization, as shown in Figure 4. Indigenous people may have the chance to give feedback to the GMF through a partner of the GMF, the Association of People of the North of Nanaiski District, which is an official representative of indigenous people. However, the majority of the population of the district, Russians and Ukrainians, do not have a direct representative in the GMFA, even though the Coordination Council (or the Coordination Group in Figure 4) is supposed to have local people's feedback on each project and activity to promote local involvement and public communication, which stated in the initial 1995 proposal. The assessment team for the International Model Forest Network Secretariat Outcome Assessment (July 2000) points out, "...the Gassinski Model Forest benefits from strong government support and involvement, both at the state and federal levels"(Armstrong et al 2000.  http://www.crdi.ca/evaluation/finalreport.htm).  Although  the  GMF is  a  non-governmental organization, the GMF is under the strong influence of local administrations. For example, the president of the GMFA concurrently held the position of the head of the Department of Forests, the Khabarovsk Province (provincial administration in charge of forest resources management) by his retirement and the executive director of the GMFA concurrently holds the position of the head of the Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit) (see Figure 5). In the Information block, which is compatible with the Division of Information and Public Communication in Figure 3 and the Information Center in Figure 6, the head (Chief specialist of information and public communication) is the former chief secretary of the Nanaiski District. Taking up posts of the GMF are recognized as part of individual volunteer activities.  18  Concurrently holding two posts. . j i •  GMF Volunteer President  j  Partners  {  j  Official Post  1  :  ^ 1 :  J  Head of Dept. of Forests, Khabarovsk Province  Head = ^ of Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz !  Exective Director 4 i  Figure 5. Concurrently Holding Two Posts (Two Examples). The influence of local authorities has also been observed i n the management of the G M F facilities. For example, facilities of the GMF, such as the Canadian House i n Troitskoe, are nearly common property w i t h the N a n a i s k i Experimental Leskhoz. The ground floor of the Canadian House is occupied by the office of the Leskhoz. I n the same way, guests who stay i n the guest rooms of the Canadian House have to pay a lodging fee not to the G M F A , but to the Leskhoz.  23.3  11  Realization of GMF's Projects  The official concept of the realization of programs of the G M F is shown i n Figure 6.  As a result, although the assessment team for the International Model Forest Network Secritariat Outcome Assessment (Armstrong et al. 2000) regards the G M F as successful, the G M F is the worst in local partners' evaluation of the assessment, "Achievement of Progress Markers by Local Communities," compared to four other model forests in developing countries (see Appendix I). 11  19  Administration of Khabarovsk Province  Department of Forest, Khabarovsk Province  Administration of Nanaiski District  Social Assocation Gassinski Model Forest  T  Experiments j«-  Coordination Council  Exective Director of Programs  Fund for the Development of GMF Territory  Enterprises with Various Specializations  Information Center Center for Personnel Traning Tasks Including Public Communication. Environmetal Education and Local Involvements.  Figure 6. Diagram of Governance for Program Realization. (Source: redrawn, modified and translated from I M F N and G M F A 1997: 38 [In Russian])  Projects for the G M F s tasks and goals are realized by decisions made by the Coordination Council (or sometimes called "Coordination Group"), i n principle. M a n y projects are conducted by contracts w i t h enterprises or organizations, which are usually G M F partners and have special skills and experience i n the program. Contractors gain direct profits from projects. It is unclear whether the selection of contractors is based on competition or not.  Projects and activities related to public communication and local involvement are created w i t h i n the framework of the Division of Information and Public Communication i n Figure 3. Those projects and activities were conducted by the Information Center and the Center for Personnel Training i n Figure 6.  12  The activities and projects, i n the past, were distribution  of information bulletins, international exchange of students and environmental education However, the Information Center and the Center for Personnel Training seem to be unsubstantial because, in reality, the personnel and facilities of those centers are common with those of the Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz. 12  20  for school children (GMF Website. n.d.). According to the 1994-1997 and 1998-1999 reports of the GMF, the financial source for the GMFs projects and activities was fully dependent on Canadian aid. Although the Russian contribution, 3,066,753.3 rubles (834,024 Canadian dollars), was shown in the 1994-1997 report, the Russian contribution including the Leskhoz' day-to-day work was not given to the GMF in the form of money.  13  2.2.4  Indigenous Peoples in Nanaiski District  Indigenous peoples living in and nearby the territory of the GMF and the future NP are mainly Nanai and Udege. Nanai and Udege are supposed to be regarded as important stakeholders in the GMF program. The percentage of indigenous people in the population of the area is not large. According to the Administration of Nanaiski District, there were 139 Udege people and 3,949 Nanai people in the district as of 1 January 2000, as compared to the total number of the population, 21,231 (as of 1 January 2000).  Table 2. Number of Nanai and Udege in the USSR in 1926,1959 and 1989, in Khabarovsk Province inl990 and in Nanaiski District in 2000.  Nanai Udege Nanai (Khabarovsk Province) Udege (Khabarovsk Province) Nanai (Nanaiski District) Udege (Nanaiski District)  1926 5860 1357  1959 8026 1444  1989 12023 2011  1990  2000  -  -  -  -  -  •  •  7067  -  -  -  -  328  -  -  -  -  -  3949  -  -  -  -  139  (Sources: Vakhtin 1992; Gulevsky and Simchenko 1994; data from Administration of Nanaiski District)  The traditional occupations of both groups are fishing, hunting and gathering (Kato 1963; In the 1998-1999 report there is no indication of the Russian contribution. In the 1999 2000 report there are indications of the Russian contributions. 13  21  Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). Historically, the Nanai lived along the Amur River and the Udege lived in the mountainous area (Sikhote-Alin) (Forsyth 1992). Nanai and Udege were under the influence of China and Korea before the establishment of Russian settlements. Those peoples, for example, paid homage to the Manchu dynasty, ChingiAS). 1644-1911), and traded with the dynasty in furs and craftworks (Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). In the mid-16 century, Russian colonization in Siberia started and, by the end of the 18 century, th  th  Russians and others were settled in Siberia, the Russian Far East and North America (MRG 1992). Primorye and surroundings were ceded from ChingXa the Russian Empire on the basis of the Beijing Treaty in 1860 (Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). Since then, indigenous peoples in the area including Nanai and Udege have been merged into Russian capitalism and governance (Sasaki 1997). After the establishment of the Soviet Union and following civil wars, the communist government adopted "Russification" policies. According to MRG (1992), there were three steps to the policy. First of all, shamanism, which was the basis for religions of most indigenous peoples, was prohibited. Second, native languages of indigenous peoples were alphabetized. Initially, the Roman alphabet was adopted; however, in 1937, the Cyrillic alphabet, an alphabet used for Russian language, was adopted (MRG 1992). Soon after that, Russian language was adopted for school curriculums instead of alphabetized native languages. As a result, indigenous peoples started to lose their native languages.  14  Thirdly, collectivization began to influence the lifestyle of the indigenous  peoples. Nanai and Udege were semi-permanent settlement type peoples (Kato 1963; Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992). Nanai in the Nanaiski District mainly lived along with rivers and Udege lived in the forested mountainous area. Neither peoples had a culture of farming and cultivation and, therefore, moved around in case of necessity. The collectivization policy in the 1930s forced indigenous people to settle down in villages and to work within the scheme of collective groups such as kolkhoz (Sasaki 1997; Forsyth 1992; MRG 1992). Tb date, it is hard to find differences among Russian and indigenous peoples in language, culture or life style. Although there is still a cultural socio-economic gap among Russian and indigenous people, many indigenous people are highly educated and work as white-collar workers, in positions such as an senior public servants and teachers. To summarize, all indigenous people have had an official school education and use the Russian language, and are part of the broader society.  In fact, only 24% of all Udege people in Russia Gn 1989) (Sasaki 1997) and only 44% of Nanai and Udege i n Nanaiski District (GMF Website. n.d.) can speak and understand their native languages. 14  22  Political awareness of indigenous people in Siberia and the Russian Far East has risen since the Perestroika period in the mid-1980s (MRG 1992). In 1992, the ex-president of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin signed the presidential decree, "Concerning Urgent Measures for Protecting Places of Living and Economic Activity of the Native Minority Peoples of the North." Indigenous peoples won rights to have territories for traditional uses and priority in licensing for renewable natural resources (Wiget and Balalaeva n.d.). Today, according to local people, the Association of Peoples of the North, which represents the interests of indigenous people, is one of the most influential political groups in Nanaiski District.  2.3 ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARK "ANYUSKI" WITHIN THE GMF TERRITORY On 10 January 2001, the governor of the Khabarovsk Province, V.I. Ishaev, signed the resolution "About Organization, National Park Anyuiski, in Nanaiski District, Khabarovsk Province."  1 5  The resolution at the provincial level is the basis for the establishment of the  NP as part of the GMF territory and its adjacent area.  1 6  The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), as well as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Russian federal government, gave financial support for the establishment of the NP "Anyuiski" (IVEP DVO RAN et al. 2000; Tblitsyn 2000; Glushenko 2000).  The original name of the resolution i n Russian is "Pastanovlenie- Ob Organizatsiya Natsionalinogo Parka 'Anyuiskii' v Nanaiskom Raione Khabarovskogo Kraya." By the end of 2001, the establishment of the N P has not been approved at the federal level Some people in charge of the N P said that the Federal Ministry of Finance has not approved the expense ft>r the N P establishment and management from the federal budget. 15  16  23  Table 3. Data of the National Park "Anyuiski" Location  49° 00' north latitude, and 136° 55' east longitude. O n the western slope of SikhoteAlm Mountains. From 400 to 1000m above sea level. Mountainous and hilly 429,598 hectares (forest land 427405ha,99.48%; Lake Gassi 1965ha, 0.46%, and State Land Reserve 228ha, 0.05%) 338,780.1 hectares Monsoon-continental From-24.4t; in January to +16T; in July From 544 to 895 mm Manchurian, Ussurian and Boreal forest zones. Boreal (larch, spruce and their attendants) and Ussurian and Manchurian (Korean pine, linden, yew, grape, Shizandra, Aralia, actinidia, eleuterokokk, etc.). Reserve; Special Protection; Traditional Extensive Use of Natural Resources; and Recreational Use. No towns or villages included. In adjacent area, 2 towns and about 20 villages. Category II  Altitude Topography L a n d area Forest cover Climate Temperature Annual Rainfall Vegetation Zoning Towns and villages I U C N Category  (Sources: I V E P DVO R A N et al. 2000; The G M F Website n.d. http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/h_05e.htm; Friends of the Earth-Japan 2000.)  Russian national parks including the NP "Anyuiski" meet "the IUCN (The World Conservation Union) Protected Areas Category II - "National Park: Protected Area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation." According to the IUCN definition, Category II is: Natural area of land and/or sea, designated to: •  a. protect the ecological integrity of one or more ecosystems for this and future generations: a. exclude exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation of the area: and b. provide a foundation for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities, all of which must be environmentally and culturally compatible.  • •  (Department  of  the  Environment  and  http //www. ea. gov. au/parks/nrs/iucn/) :  24  Heritage,  Australia  Website.  n.d.  The  CIDA-McGregor Model Forest Russian Project has supported the development of a  regional tourism strategy, which aims at future ecotourism i n the NP.  Characteristics of the G M F and the future N P are summarized i n Table 4.  Table 4. Characteristics of the GMF and the NP. ——  Typo of  Organization Basis of Organization Financial Source Authority and Jurisdiction  Ownership and Tenure of L a n d and N a t u r a l Resources Related laws, and regulations  G a s s i n s k i Model Forest Noirgovernmental organization registered to Administration of Khabarovsk Province as social association. Partnership based on voluntary membership.  N a t i o n a l P a r k "Anyuiski" Part of the Federal authority (Ministry of Natural Resources), govenmental organization.  Foreign financial aids. No authority with the GMF. Authority belongs to local administrations such as Administration of Khabarovsk Province, Forest Department of the Province and Nanaiki Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit). Designated territory on forested land. No ownership and tenure-  Federal budgets and self-funding. Exclusive authority over the territory and natural resources with Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation and the N P authority. (Under the federal laws)  Forest Code of the Russian Federation and other miscellaneous laws and regulations. Miscellaneous regulations and laws of Khabarovsk Province  Resolution or Memorandum for the establishment  "Memorandum of Agreement, on the Establishment of the Model Forest within the framework of the International Model Forest Programme" signed by representatives of Canadian and Russian forest services i n 1993.  Official resolutions and federal laws.  Designated territory under the federal jurisdiction. Federal law from 14 March 1995, N 33-FZ "About Fundamental of Preserving Natural Territory" and other miscellaneous laws and regulations. Resolution of Head of Khabarovsk Province administration dated on 10 January 2001 "About organization of national park Anuiski i n Nanaiski District, Khabarovsk krai." No decision at the federal level as of the end of 2001.  (Sources: Translated from Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 1995; Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo Kraya 2001; I V E P DVO R A N et al. 2000; Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service. 1995; Savchenko, A. 2001. [In Russian])  25  2.4  TRANSITION FROM GMF TO NATIONAL PARK "ANYUSKI"  According to the law of the Russian Federation, "About Specially Protected Territory,"  17  authority over the NP territory will be transferred from provincial and local administrations to the federal authority at the time of the NP establishment (Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii 1995). In the same way, jurisdiction of forest management in the NP territory, for example, will be transferred from current local authorities such as Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz, to the future NP authority under the Federal Ministry of Natural Resources. (See Table 4 and Figure 7.) Controlled + Consumed by Various Organizations + Industries + Locals  Natural Resources on GMF  Administered by Forest Service and Other Local Authorities Legislation for Forests and Other Natural Resources (eg. Forest Code)  Before  After  Establishment of National Park within the G M F Controlled + Consumed by National Park Authority (Federal Organ)  Natural Resources on National Park  Administered by National Park Authority (Federal Organ)  Legislation for National Park and Other Environmental Protection  Figure 7. Transition from the GMF to the NP. The original name in Russian is "Federal'nyi Zakon ot 14 Marta 1995 g. N33-FZ: Ob Osbo Okhranyaemnyikh prirodnyi territoriyakh." 17  26  After the establishment of the NP, all activities such as gathering and hunting in the NP territory will be restricted within zones designated by the NP authority consistent with the federal law and regurations. 2.4.1  Continuity between the GMF Tasks and Future NP Task  As mentioned above, two of the GMFs tasks are facilitation of local involvement and public communication. One of the future NPs tasks is compatible with those tasks of the GMF. The NPs  task stated in the Resolution signed by the governor of the Khabarovsk Province is  "ecological  [environmental]  education  for  local  people"  (Glava Administratsii  Khabarovskogo Kraya 2001).  Table 5. Commonalities between the GMF and the future NP. Land  Largely Same. N P s territory will be designated on large part of the G M F and adjacent area. (See Map 2.) Area of the G M F excluded from the future N P is heavily disturbed by forest fires. Same.  Natural Resources Stakeholders Same. Except the future N F s authority, which will be a part of federal organ. The N P authority has not been established.  As shown in Table 5, both the GMFs tasks and the NPs task have continuity because both tasks overlap: the same people and natural resources on the same area. (See also Table 4 and Map 2.) The achievements of the GMF program in the category of local involvement and public communication can be immediately taken over by the NP. 2.4.2  Cooperation between a Model Forest and a National Park  According to many people concerned with the GMF, they regard the cooperation between the GMF and the future NP as possible. In a Canadian case, the Gros Morne National Park joined in the partnership of the Western Newfoundland Model Forest as a partner. The Gros Morne National Park expects that "the Model Forest program is seen as providing an opportunity for Gros Morne to network with its neighboring stakeholders in a collaborative and consensus based decision making process for ecosystem sustainability and maintenance  27  of biodiversity at the landscape level" (Western Newfoundland Model Forest Website. httpV/www.wnmf.com/html%20pages/Partners%20.htnx). Although the Canadian experience cannot be immediately translated into Russian context, the experience implies there is a possibility that the GMF and the future NP "Anyuiski" can collaborate in natural resources management.  2.5 NATURAL RESOURCES UTILIZATION IN THE GMF AND NP TERRITORY Natural resources on the GMF are mainly consumed through logging, hunting, fishing and gathering. These activities are implemented by both the formal and informal sectors.  Informal Sector  Formal Sector Industrial + Commercial Uses  Daily + Local Uses Local People  Industries + Administration  inch Indigenous and Non-Indigenous  Logging, Hunting. Fishing and Gathering  Figure 8. Diagram of Natural Resources Utilization in the GMF and the NP Territory. The formal sector includes industries such as logging enterprises and administrations such as leskhoz. For example, 42 hunters who were granted hunting licences in the territory of the future NP by the hunting service are in the formal sector (rVEP DVO RAN et al. 2000).  28  In addition to the formal sector, an informal sector also utilizes natural resources on the future NP territory. The informal sector includes local people's activities such as non-commercial logging for fuel, gathering mushrooms and nuts, fishing and hunting without licences. The activities of the informal sector is hard to restrict by laws or regulations. For example, althoughfishingwithin and nearby the GMF territory was prohibited in 1996, local people still continue to fish without official permission (Shmakov 2001). Legal enforcement of the informal sector does not work well because of lack of funds, personnel for surveillance, socio-economic factors and norms of local people. Although both the formal and informal sectors utilize the natural resources in the GMF territory, they are different in their nature in the context of legal and socio-economic status.  2.6  NEED FOR LOCAL INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION  As mentioned in 2.5, users of natural resources are not only from the formal sector but also from the informal sector. The lack of funds, personnel and norms disables authorities to regulate the informal sector. The norm issue in particular is important; when foreign journalists refer to Russia, they often cite the Russian proverb to describe Russian society, "law exists to be violated." In the Chapter 31 of FAO's Global Forest Resources 18  Assessment 2000, FAO (2001a: 221) points out that in it is unclear to what extent the expansion of protection forests are practical, "given the inadequacy of resources to monitor the forests and logging activities and the difficulties of ensuring that regulations are followed." For the realization of sustainable utilization of natural resources, mcluding sustainable forest management, each individual in both the formal and the informal sectors has to understand and practice sustainable utilization. Therefore, environmental education for the purpose of improving local people's norms in regard to sustainable natural resources utilization is as important as socio-economic support for local people. Local involvement and public communication, tasks of the GMF, can be important components of the education process.  Many illegal logging cases are reported by environmental non-governmental organizations (e.g., Friend of the Earth-Japan 1996). 1 8  29  The necessity of local involvement and public communication to the GMF is refered to in a number of documents related to the GMF. on  the  International  One of the GMF goals stated in the GMF profile  Model  Forest  Network  website  (n.d.  http7/www.idrc.ca/imfi3/doc/Gassinski_E.html.) is: "...to achieve and support sustainable forest management through decision-making processes that take into account the interests of the local people living in and around the Gassinski Model Forest..." In practice, the Division of Information and Public Communication did organize activities, such as the installation of bulletin boards in schools and distribution of monthly information newsletters (until January 2001), for the purpose of facilitation of local involvement and public communication.  30  CHAPTER 3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH  31  3  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THIS RESEARCH  This research is based on a conceptual framework developed from documents and ^information concerned w i t h the G M F and the National P a r k " A n y u i s k i " This section explains the framework for this research and how it works.  3.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AND FOCUS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY Tb explain the focus of the questionnaire survey, which is intended to reveal local people's perception of the G M F programs and its projects, a conceptual framework of the natural resources management i n the G M F was developed. A s indicated i n Figure 9, the G M F partnership is connected to users i n the formal and informal sectors. The G M F partnership can positively affect the entire utilization of the natural resources i n so far as both groups of users (formal and informal) support the partnership. I f users i n the formal and the informal sectors stop supporting the partnership and participating i n G M F activities, the partnership cannot positively affect the natural resources utilization i n a sustainable manner because the partnership cannot coordinate the interests of both groups.  The aim of the questionnaire survey was to reveal how local members of the informal sector perceive and evaluate the G M F and its partnership.  A t the same time, the questionnaire  survey gives an idea of how the G M F partnership works without a feedback system for local people. If it works properly, this research project w i l l conclude that the lack of a feedback system for locals is not important i n practice.  32  Bussiness I Chance* | Support* Funds for I Implementation of Projects I Projects  Formal Sector  Informal Sector  Industrial + Commercial Uses  Daily + Local Uses  Local People  Industries + Administration  inci. Indigenous and Non—Indigenous  Logging. Hunting. Fishing and Gathering Focus of  Utilization  Questionnaire Survey  Natural Resources in GMF+NP  Figure 9. Conceptual Framework of the Natural Resources Management in the GMF. The focus of the questionnaire survey is the communication between the G M F partnership and the informal sector, as shown i n Figure 9. There should be interaction between the G M F and users of the informal sector (local people) i n the entity of the G M F partnership. O n one  33  hand, the GMF provided information and education for local people through the GMF programs and activities, which were undertaken by the GMF partners from the formal sectors; and, on the other hand, local people attended the projects and activities, understood the GMFs tasks and goals, and practice sustainable utilization of natural resources. Local people's environmental enlightenment and high evaluation of the GMF can boost local people's sustainable natural resources utilization.  3.2  LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH  This research has been undertaken with various limitations originating from Russian socio-economic and administrative factors. First of all only a small amount of information about the GMF was available to the public from the Russian side. This research, therefore, started with gathering information and materials (e.g., official documents, information bulletins and manuals) from Russian and Canadian stakeholders. Second, there were only a few previous research projects about the GMF in the context of social science. Therefore, a sufficient amount of data to design this project was not available in advance. The third issue was the bureaucracy in relation to some local authorities. The bureaucracy made it hard to gather data, such as demographic information. The questionnaire survey of the GMF was very challenging. A questionnaire survey about the GMF and its residents had not been done before this project.  1 9  The biggest impediment  for the questionnaire survey was the lack of list of samples (local people). In addition, postal service and telephone communication service, two of the most common tools used for a questionnaire survey, are not well developed in Nanaiski District and, therefore, not available. Generally speaking, public security is relatively low and bribery is rampant among police and public servants in Russia. Therefore, scrupulous preparation was required for the  Although one of the GMF personnel had conducted a questionnaire survey in 1996, it did not use adequate methodology. 1 9  34  questionnaire survey and interviews. Those above-mentioned limitations affected the entire design of this research project.  35  CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODS  36  4 4.1  RESEARCH METHODS  METHODOLOGY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY  The survey was conducted from 13 August 2001 to 20 August 2001 in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo, in the Nanaiski District of the Russian Federation. Five people were hired to assist in conducting the survey (2 people in Troitskoe and 3 people in Arsenyevo). All questions were given in Russian (see Appendix III). 4.1.1  Survey Design and Question Types  The survey was designed with available information about the GMF and the NP. The primary aim of the survey was to know local people's perception of the GMF. There was no preceding research about this topic; therefore, the survey could not focus on any particular detailed case, rather the survey dealt with broader topics. The survey contained questions about: 1) perception of the GMF; 2) perception of the NP; and  3) information of  demographics (gender, occupation, ethnicity, age and academic ground).  The types of  questions are: multiple choice (Ql, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11,12,13 and 14), rank ordering (Q3), 5-point-agreement  scale  (Q6a-k),  descriptive  (Q9)  and multiple selection  (Q6).  (Questionnaire forms in English and Russian are shown in Appendix II and III.) The core questions of this survey are Q2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In particular, Q6 provides an opportunity to explore underlying issues related to the respondents' attitude. According to the results, all questions worked effectively except for Q4, Q5a, Q5b and Q5c. Q4, "If you answered YES to question 3, what program or programs of the GMF do you know about?" Q5a, "Have you worked for a company/organization related to one of the GMF projects?" Q5b, "Has someone from my family attended any GMF programs?" and Q5c, "Have you attended a GMF program through a social activity (school or group tour)?" were aimed at understanding and analyzing local people's perception of the details of the GMF and related projects; however, according to the results of the survey, those questions were inappropriate because most local people did not know anything about the details of the GMF and related projects. Therefore, Q4, Q5a, Q5b and Q5c were omittedfromthe survey  37  analysis. In Ql, "What is your occupation?" the category Unemployed was intentionally excluded to reduce so-called prestige bias.  20  Choices for Q2, Forest Management, Nature Conservation, Sawing Technology, Fishery, Education, Indigenous People's Culture, Tourism, Small Business, Hunting, Gathering and Other, were selected from topics and keywords related with the GMF and NP. However, Economy was not adopted for one of choices of Q2. The reasons for this decision are: 1) neither the GMF  program nor the NP can improve economic condition directly and  immediately; 2) the concept of economy is a complexity of issues and the meaning of the word, economy, is too broad; and 3) this research is more focused on the natural resources management in the GMF and the NP. Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" was a question not only about the sampling location but also about the respondents' perception of the GMF  boundary. Although  Troitskoe is not included in the GMF territory, local people, including people related to the GMF,  tend to misunderstand the town as being included in the GMF.  There was no  necessity to ask the sampling location on the questionnaire form; it was because the questionnaire forms were collected separately by location.  4.1.2 Translation from English to Russian The original questionnaire was written in English. The English questionnaire was later translated into Russian. The Russian translation of the questionnaire was double checked and edited by Russian natives. Just as cultural gaps between Russians and Canadians, there are some differences in literal expressions between English and Russian. The differences originate in cultural, linguistic, social and attitudinal differences between Russian speakers and English speakers. Therefore, some parts of the original questions were modified to make sense to native Russian speakers without changing the fundamental meaning of the original questions.  For example, unemployed person is often ashamed about his or her occupational status and tells a lie to protect his or her prestige.  20  38  The basic principle of wording i n the Russian translation was as simple as possible, to reduce bias from wording. 4.1.3  Preparation for the Questionnaire Survey  Pre-testing the questionnaire was desirable to ensure that the questions and information on the questionnaire forms were relevant. However, it was impossible to pre-test on a large scale due to limitations originating from budgetary and resource constraints. The only thing that could be done before administrating the questionnaire survey i n the Russian F a r East was to give the completed questionnare forms to people i n the McGregor Model Forest Office and others i n Khabarovsk, to ask their opinions about the survey contexts. Prior to the survey, a preparation trip was organized to interview people connected to the G M F and the N P i n Khabarovsk i n June 2001. The subjects for the interview survey i n Khabarovsk included the head of the McGregor Model Forest Khabarovsk Office,  the  president of the G M F A , a president of the N G O , which is a branch of the W W F and at the same time a partner of the G M F , and several bureaucrats. Suggestions and information from experts were useful i n implementing the questionnaire survey.  4.1.4  Sampling Locations and their Characteristics  One town and one village, Troitskoe and Arsenyevo, were selected for the administration of the survey. The main reasons were: l ) Troitskoe, which is the socio-economic center of N a n a i s k i District, is outside the G M F territory; and 2) Arsenyevo is the only village within the G M F territory (see Map2). I n the context of the indigenous population, it is presumed that Arsenyevo is a village of Udege and Troitskoe is a town of N a n a i .  21  4.1.4.1 Troitskoe  Troitskoe is the socio-economic center of the N a n a i s k i District. There are administration of  Historically, Nanai people lived in the area along with the Amur River Oncluding Troitskoe) and Udege people lived in mountainous area (including Arsenyevo).  2 1  39  the district and headquarters of the GMF and Nanaiski Experimental Leskhoz (forestry unit). According to the information from the Administration of Nanaiski District, the population of the district is approximately 6,500 people (as of 1 January 2000). The breakdown of the population is: Russians and Ukrainians (approximately 6000 people), Nanaians (475 people) and some others. Indigenous peoples of Troitskoe share 8% of the population. (See Table 6.) Russian settlers established this town in 1859. This town was a base for the development of the Russian Far East since its establishment. According to press releases of the Administration of Nanaiski District (articles in a newspaper "Anyuiski Perekatyi" 2000; 2001) and local people, the formal industries of Troitskoe are logging, sawing, cargo handling at the river port of Troitskoe, construction and the public service sector, at present.  4.1.4.2 Arsenyevo Arsenyevo is the only village in the territory of the GMF. There are 452 residents consisting of 342 Russians /Ukrainians, 101 Udege people and 9 Nanai people (as of 1 January 2000) (see Table 6). Those indigenous peoples share 24.3% of the population. The largest settlement of Udege in the Nanaiski District, Uni, which was officially established in 1994, is included in Arsenyevo. Detailed data and the history of Arsenyevo were not obtained. The village, located in deep forests, was developed in earnest during the 20 century by th  Ukrainian/Russian convicts or migrants. Arsenyevo was a baseforlogging at the time that a state-ownedtoggingenterprise collapsed. Today, a logging enterprise, "Anyui," which is the only private enterprise in the village, employs about 25 people. Over the past 10 years, members of the Slav Principle (a sect of Christianity) formed a commune near the original Arsenyevo area. According to local people, the formal industries of Arsenyevo are logging, sawing, beekeeping and the public sector.  4.1.5 Sample Frame The sample frame for this research is residents (or long-term visitors) of Arsenyevo and Troitskoe, Nanaiski District. The total population of Nanaiski District is 21,231 (see Table 6).  40  Table 6. Population of Nanaiski District, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe and a Breakdown by Ethnicity (as of 1 January 2000). Indigenous Udege  Nanai  Non-Indigenous (Russian/Ukrainian)  Indigenous Total  Total  Arsenyevo  101  9  342  110  452  Troitskoe  11  475  App. 6000  App. 520  App. 6500  3949 Nanaiski District 139 17016 4215 21231 App. stands for approximately. App.figuresare due to informationfromAdministration of Nanaiski District. The expressions, "Arsenyevo" and "troitskoe" in Table 6 indicate administrative units, which contain surrounding areas.  (Source: Administration of Nanaiski District, 1 January 2000.)  Indigenous peoples, mainly Nanai and Udege, make up 19.9% of the total. Russians, including people with Ukrainian and Belarussian origins, made up the majority of the population. 4.1.6  Sampling Methods  Random sampling was desirable to reduce bias for this project. However, genuine random sampling was impossible because in addtion to the lack of samples lists (lists of local people), telecommunication and postal service were not available (see 4.1.10). Therefore, sampling methods adoptedforthis research could best be characterized as semi-random/convenience sampling. In Troitskoe, survey administers visited all enterprises, adniinistrations, a newspaper publisher, a school meeting, some shops and libraries to distribute questionnaire forms. Volunteersfromthose organizations distributed questionnaireformsto employees of the organizations and visitors and then collected the completed forms. It took one week to complete this step. In Arsenyevo, surveyors visited all buildings (approximately 250) mcluding houses, warehouses and an electric power plant, in random order. They asked all people they encountered to answer the questionnaire on the spot and then the personnel collected the formsfromrespondents. It took two daysfromFriday to Saturday.  41  4.1.7  Target Sample Size  Constraints originating in limited budgetary and resource material were the main factors in deciding the target sample size. The size was determined to be 100 (45 in Arsenyevo and 55 in Troitskoe). The main reasons were, in addition to resource constraints, 1) some statistical tests require more than 30 samples in each location and 2) the response rates in two locations were expected to be relatively low. 4.1.8 Response Rates Table 7. Number of Questionnaire Forms. (Provided, Collected and Usable)  Number of Provided  N. of Collected  N. of Usable  Arsenyevo  45  42 (93.3%)  41(91.1%)  Troitskoe  55  46 (83.6%)  45(81.8%)  Total  100  88 (88%)  86 (86%)  In Arsenyevo, the personnel in charge of distribution and collection of the questionnaire forms contacted about 200 people and 45 people accepted the questionnaireformsand 42 people returned the questionnaire to the personnel. There were 41 usable forms out of 45 provided forms and, therefore, the response rate was 91.1% in Arsenyevo. In Troitskoe, the personnel distributed 55 questionnaire forms to organizations and public facilities and collected 46 forms. Usable forms were 45 and, therefore, the response rate in Troitskoe was 81.8%. 4.1.9 Data Analyses  Data analyses were done with computer software packages: SPSS 10.0 and Microsoft Excel 2000 with a few add-in software programs. Statistical tests and techniques such as t-tests, one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance), a K-means cluster analysis and statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group were appliedMissing values were excluded from data analyses. Therefore, missing values have been excludedfromthe reported percentages and tallies. 42  4.1.10 Limitations and Biases In Troitskoe, questionnaire forms were distributed to people through organizations or public facilities. Therefore, people who have no contact w i t h those organizations and facilities may not have had a chance to answer the questions. Although, help from the G M F A i n this research was generally effective at enhancing locals' credibility; some people, who dislike the G M F A might have been uncomfortable w i t h the help. A l l participatory organizations and public facilities returned at least two questionnaire forms to the surveyors i n Troitskoe. There was no specific difference i n the characteristics between the organizations that returned a l l the questionnaire forms to the surveyors and organizations that did not return a l l forms to the surveyors. The difference was a degree of each volunteer's enthusiasm.  In Arsenyevo, four aliens (one Japanese, one Moscow Russian and two from Troitskoe) distributed and collected questionnaire forms to local people. Although local people were generally supportive and friendly, people who were skeptical of the survey and surveyors d i d not respond. A n explanation on the cover letters, which was attached to the questionnaire forms, and conversation w i t h locals reduced local people's suspicion. A s a result, only 3 questionnaire forms were not returned to surveyors i n Arsenyevo. The reason stated was lack of time to fill and return the forms. People who did not receive the forms were generally at work. There is no difference i n the characteristics (gender, age, ethnicity and occupation) between the respondents and people who did not answer the questionnaire. The most expected bias i n this stage of the survey design was prestige bias about occupation and  recognition of the G M F . For example, jobless people might not answer, "I am  unemployed," to Q l , which asks, "What is your occupation?" i n order to protect his or her prestige.  22  Therefore, intentionally, the category Unemployed was not added to the answer  choices of Q l . Another expected bias was that the respondents may answer " Yes" whether one actually knows about the G M F or not, to Q3, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? "  According to the GMF website, the rate of unemployment ranges from 46 to 52% (GMF Website, n.d.), even though date of this data is unknown. 2 2  43  because the questionnaire is about the GMF. To reduce this prestige bias, the answer choice "A little bit" was added to answer choices of Q3. The answer choice was expected to keep the respondents who only had heard the name of the GMF or its programs from misrepresenting their knowledge with the answer, "I know what the GMF is." Local people in the Nanaiski District are unaccustomed to questionnaire surveys concerned with social and marketing research. Therefore, some may not understand how to answer the questions, especially, questions with ranking and pointing. Tb reduce missing values due to the respondents' misunderstanding in Q2, "Which of the following issues are of concern to you?" which adopts rank ordering, an arbitrary pointing system in analyses was adopted (see 5.4). Despite the above-biases and sampling methods, the results of this survey can reveal tendencies of local people's perception about the GMF. The reasons are: l) samples include local insiders of the GMF and local outsiders of the GMF and cover all types of people in the context of gender, occupation, age, ethnicity and academic background; 2) while samples were not random, subjects were never intentionally included or excluded, but rather were selected based solely on convenience! 3) there is no known reason for respondents to misrepresent the truth — they had little to gain or lose and 4) the result of the survey was not contradict with the result of the IMFNS Outcome Assessment 2000.  44  CHAPTER 5 RESULTS  45  5 5.1  RESULTS  SUMMARY OF RESULTS  The total number of usable questionnaire forms was 86 (41 in Arsenyevo and 45 in Troitskoe). An approximately equal number of males and females responded to the survey. The dominant age group was 18-49, which made up about 73% of the respondents. The respondents consisted of Nanai (9 respondents, 10.5% of total), Russian (57, 66.3%), Udege (12, 14.0%) and other (8, 9.3%). About 71% of the respondents answered that they had some knowledge about the GMF. However, about 72% of the respondents answered that they do not consider themselves to be involved in any of the GMF. According to the results of a 23  cluster analysis of Q6 (see 5.3.8), the respondents can be grouped into two clusters^ Negative and Indifferent. According to the result of Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" many of the respondents in Arsenyevo (40%) and Troitskoe (64.4%) do not have a clear idea of the GMF boundary. About 68% of the respondents had some information about the creation of the NP within the GMF and about 71% of the respondents who answered "Yes" to Q7, "Do you know about the new creation of the national park within the GMF?" regarded the future NP as having a positive influence in their lives. The most important issue for the entire group of respondents was Nature Conservation followed by Education, Forest Management, Fishery, Indigenous People's Culture, Small Business, Tourism, Gathering, Hunting, Other and Sawing Technology. Section 5.2 initially deals with information of respondents, followed by results and analyses of Q3, Q5, Q 10, Q6, Q7, Q3, and lastly Q2.  5.2  INFORMATION OF RESPONDENTS  5.2.1 Gender The number of respondents is 86 (44 females and 42 males) in total, 41 (21 females and 20 males) in Arsenyevo and 45 (23 females and 22 males) in Troitskoe. The questionnaire asked respondents' perception about involvement in the GMF. To screen the degree of involvement, questions (Q5a, b and c) were given to respondents those who answered to Q5, "Don't know." (See Appendix II for Q5a,b and c.) 2 3  46  • Female BMale  Figure 10. Number of Responses by Gender. Approximately equal numbers of males and females responded to the survey i n both locations: 51.2%  and 48.8%  i n total, 51.2%  and 48.8%  i n Arsenyevo and 51.1%  and 48.9%  in  Troitskoe.  5.2.2  Age  The largest age group is 40-49 (30.2%), followed by 18-29 (23.3%), 30-39% (19.8%), 50-59 (10.5%), Under 18 (8.1%) and 60 or older (&!%).«  School age (grade 1 to 11, elementary, middle and high schooD is from 7 (or 6) to 17 years old. The compulsory education period is 9 years (elementary and middle). Pensioners are generally over 60 years old. However, there were some exceptional rules about the reception of a pension.  24  47  0%  20%  • Under18 • 40-49  40%  60%  • 18-29 M50-59  80%  100%  1130-39  I 160 or older  Figure 11. Proportion of the Respondents by Age. Respondents under 30 years old can be categorized as so-called post-Soviet generations, who graduated from high school around or after 1991, when the Soviet U n i o n collapsed. Members of this generation had less experience with strict communist society than members of any other generatioa Respondents from 30 to 59 years can be categorized as the post-World War II generation. Members of this generation experienced a strong communist society and the Afghanistan War, which has been called "the Vietnam War for Russians." Respondents who are 60 years old or older belong to the World War II generation. Members of this generation experienced a tough era during and after the war. Members over 75 years may have served i n military service during the war. Members of this generation, i n short, "survivors of wars and political purges," may harbor strong communist ideologies.  523  2 5  Ethnicity  Russians, including U k r a i n i a n s or Belarussians with Russian nationality on their domestic passports, made up the majority of the respondents (66.3% of the total), followed by Udege (14.0%) and N a n a i (10.5%).  2 5  However, it was hard to observe any specific ideological difference from the result of this survey. 48  0%  20%  40%  60%  80%  100%  • Nanai • Russian • Udege • Other  Figure 12. Proportion of the Respondents by Ethnicity. The  category Other contains Ukrainians (5 people), who distinguish themselves from  Russians, an unknown who answered as Soviet citizen (1 person), Tatar (l), and an unknown who answered the Slave Principle (l).  26  The category Other was generally  omittedfromdata analyses in this research to decrease the level of complexity.  Table 8. Breakdown of the Respondents by Location and Ethnicity. Count sampling location Nanai  Arsenyevo .00  Troitskoe  Total  9  9  Russian  24  33  57  Udege  12  .00  12  Other  5  3  8  41  45  86  Total  The majority of respondents in both locations were Russian (58.5% of the population in Arsenyevo and 73.3% in Troitskoe). Respondents that were Nanai were observed only in Troitskoe and respondents that were Udege were only in Arsenyevo.  The formal English name of the Slave Principle is unknown. The Slave Principle is a sect of Christianity.  49  5.2.4  Occupation  The category Other is the largest group of respondents (20.9%) followed by Private Business Sector (20.9%), Forest Industry and Education (17.4%), Public Servant (16.3%), and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer (5.8%).  Figure 13. Number of the Respondents by Occupation. The  category  Other  includes  pensioners,  students  (school,  undergraduate  and  post-graduate), unemployed people, housewives, musicians and others. I n short, people who do not have a stable income are categorized as Other. The second largest group is Private Business Sector, which includes self-employed or business owners and employees of other businesses. The category Forest Industry includes forest workers from the forest service, loggers and workers i n the sawmill (including office work), a security guard of a sawmill and a truck driver. In the same way, the category, Public Servant includes public servants from the provincial or district government administration and a police officer; the category Education  includes  teachers  and  a  helper  Fisher/Hunter/Farmer includes a beekeeper.  50  at  a  school;  and  the  category  Table 9. Breakdown of the Respondents by Occupation and Location. Count Sampling Location Arsenyevo 8  Troitskoe 7  Public Servant Private Business Sector  3  11  6  12  18  Education  9  6  15  Fisher/Hunter/Farmer  5  .00  5  Forest Industry  Other Total  Total 15 14  10  9  19  41  45  86  The largest group in Arsenyevo is Other and the largest group in Troitskoe is Private Business Sector. Respondents in the category of Fisher/Hunter/Farmer lived in Arsenyevo only.  5.2.5 Academic Background The largest group is High School Graduate/College Graduate/Undergraduate Dropout (54.6%) foUowed by University Graduate/Graduate School (25.6%), School (17.4%) and Other (2.3%). Thus, approximately 80% of respondents have had some formal education(in high school or higher educational institutions).  51  15  0%  20%  40%  60%  80% 100%  • School (Elementary and Middle) • HighGrad/ColledgeGrad/Undergrad Dropout D UniGraduate/Grad Student •  Other  Figure 14. Number of the Respondents by Academic Background. In  Arsenyevo,  academic  background,  High  School  Graduate/College  Graduate/Undergraduate Dropout is the most common. O n the other hand, the number of High  School  Graduate/College Graduate/Undergraduate  Dropout  and  University  Graduate/Graduate Student is the same and the most i n Troitskoe.  Table 10. Breakdown of the Respondents by Academic Background and Location. Count sampling location Arsenyevo  Troitskoe  Total  Scrioolfeernentary+Middle)  10  5  15  HighGrad/ColledgeGrad/U ndergrad Dropout  28  19  47  UniGraduate/Grad Student Other Total  52  3  19  22  .00  2  2  41  45  86  5.2  QUESTIONS A B O U T T H E GASSINSKI M O D E L FOREST  5.23 Q3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest? In this section, the details of the results of Q3, "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?" are analyzed. Q3 is a direct question about the perception of the GMF. The given choices were: "Yes," "No" and "A little bit." The results are analyzed by categories such as gender, age, ethnicity, occupation and location. Error bars shown on graphs of 5.2.3 are 95% confidence intervals. If there is an overlap between error bars, it means there is no statistical difference at 95% confidence level.  5.23.1 Overall Overall, 35.3% of the respondents (30 respondents) answered "Yes", 36.5% (31) answered "A little bit," and 28.2% (24) answered "No" to Q3, "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?" (see Figure 15).  30  • Yes llNo DA little bit  Figure 15. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?"  53  About 72% of the respondents ("Yes" and "A little bit") have some idea of the GMF. According to myfieldexperience, the respondents who answered "A little bit" tend to know only the name of the GMF and many local people said they came to know about the GMF from articles in newspapers. 5.2.3.2 By Gender The mostfrequentanswer of males was "Yes" (21 respondents, 50% of male respondents), and the most frequent answer of females was "A little bit" (20 respondents, 46.5% of female). The number of the respondents who answered "No" is 14 females (32.6% of the female total) and 10 males (23.8% of the male total).  Female  20  it  Male  UL  m 0%  20%  40%  60%  i 80% 100%  • Yes BNo DA Little Bit  Figure 16. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Gender. The total number of respondents, who answered "Yes" or "A little bit," is not significantly different between the genders (female 29 and male 32). The results reveal that 67.4% of females and 76.2% of males have some idea of the GMF. Therefore, approximately 23.8% of males and 32.6% of females do not know the GMF at all.  54  By statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions w i t h i n each group, a difference was found. The male respondents tended to answer "Yes" more than female (see Figure 17).  0  20  40  60  80  Figure 17. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Gender. 5233  By Age  The answer "Yes" was the most frequent i n the age groups 40-49 (56%) and 60 or older (57.1%). I n other groups, the answer " A little bit" was the most frequent. (See Figure 18.)  55  Under18  124  18-29  30-39  40-49  50-59  60 or older  2[3|4  WJ2  31  Total  40  20  60  80  100  Frequency I Yes  HINo  • A Little B i t  Figure 18. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Age. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, there is no statistical difference between age groups at a 95% confidence level.  56  60  80  100  Figure 19. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Age. 523.4  By Ethnicity  The answer "Yes" is the most frequent answer i n the category Russian and Other. "No" is the most frequent i n Udege and " A little bit" is i n N a n a i (see Figure 20).  57  Nanai 131 5 Russian  I  22|  Udege 1 Other 14)13 Total  31 20  40  60  80  100  Frequency I Yes HNo DA Little Bit  Figure 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Ethnicity. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions w i t h i n each group, there is no overlap of the 95% confidence intervals for Udege and Russians i n "Yes" (see Figure 21). Thus, Russian respondents (n=56, 65.9% of the total respondents) tend to answer "Yes" more frequently than the Udege (n=12, 14.1% of the total).  58  -20  -10  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  %  Figure 21. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Ethnicity. There is no statistical difference among answersfromall ethnic groups if "Yes" and "A little bit" are regarded as one category. Members of all ethnic groups have some idea of the GMF. 5.23.5  B y Occupation  More than half of the respondents in the categories of Forest Industry (n=15) and Public Servant (n=13) answered "Yes" even though less than 40% of the respondents in other categories answered "Yes." It can be assumed that respondents in the categories of Public Servant and Forest Industry have more opportunities to have contact with the GMF program in their duties. The respondents who answered "Yes" and "A little bit" make up more than 50% of respondents in each occupational category.  59  Frequency • Yes HNo O A Little Bit  Figure 22. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Occupation. According to Figure 23, the respondents who answered "Yes" in Education are statistically less frequent than respondents who answered "Yes" in the Public Servant category and in the Forest Industry category. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, the respondents in Education are more likely to answer "A little bit." As mentioned in the background, the Information Center of the GMF has conducted educational activities such as installation of information boards about the GMF in local schools and communication programs for school kids in collaboration with schoolteachers. The respondents in the category of Education may not appreciate those activities.  60  Forest Industry Public Servant Private Business Sector Education  Fisher/Hunter/Farmer  Other  -20  0  20  40  60  80  100  %  Figure 23. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Occupation. 5.23.6  B y Location  Fifteen respondents from Arsenyevo (36.6%) and nine respondents from Troitskoe (20.5%) answered "No" to the question, "Do you know anything about the G M F ' This result suggested that 73.4% of respondents i n Arsenyevo ("Yes" and " A little bit") and 79.5% of respondents of Troitskoe ("Yes" and " A little bit") have at least some idea of the G M F .  61  IE  Arsenyevo  |  j  23  Troitskoe  0%  20%  19  40% • Yes  12  60%  80%  100%  HI No D A Little Bit  Figure 24. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Location. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, respondents from Arsenyevo (the only inside village of the GMF) are less likely to answer "Yes" than respondents of Troitskoe (an outside village and center of the district) (see Figure 25). In the proportion of the respondents who answered "No," there is no statistical difference between both locations at a 95% confidence interval.  62  17.1  Arsenyevo  52.3  Troitskoe  0  20  40  60  80  %  Figure 25. Proportion of Response Yes to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" by Location.  52.4  0 5 . Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the G M F ?  Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? " is a question about local people's perception about themselves i n the GMF. Answer choices for this question are: "Yes," "No" and "Don't know."  Error bars shown on graphs of 5.2.4 are 95% confidence intervals. If there is an overlap between error bars, it means there is no statistical difference at a 95% confidence level. 5.2.4.1  Overall  In contrast to the results of Q3, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? " which are that 34.9% of the respondents i n Q3 clearly know about the G M F and 36% of the respondents know a little bit about the G M F , 61 respondents (71.8% of the total) answered "No" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved i n any of the G M F ? ' Only 17% of the respondents answered "Yes." These results mean that the majority, more than 70% of the respondents, do not consider themselves to be involved i n the G M F .  63  0%  20%  40%  • Yes  60%  100%  80%  • No • Don't know  Figure 26. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" 52.42  By Gender  Only 4 female respondents (9.1% of female total) and 11 male respondents (26.8% of male total) answered "Yes." On the contrary, 36 female respondents (81.8% of female) and 25 male respondents (61.0% of male) answered "No." (See Figure 27.)  Female  a  Male  KB 0%  &  20%  40%  60%  80%  '  100%  • Yes 11 No B Don't know  Figure 27. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Gender.  64  According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions w i t h i n each group, there is no gap observed between 95% confidence intervals of female and male. I n short, there is no statistical difference i n answering "No" to Q5.  0  20  40  60  80  100  %  Figure 28. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Gender. 52.43 By Age  In a l l age groups, the most frequent answer was "No." The proportion of "No" ranges from 64.7% to 100%. There were no respondents, who answered either "Yes" or "Don't know" i n the 50-59 age group.  65  0  5  10  15  20  25  30  Frequency  • Yes • No • Don't know  Figure 29. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Age. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, there is no gap between 95% confidence intervals. In Figure 30, there were no statistical differences (in "No") observed between 95% confidence intervals of all age groups excluding the 50-59 age group. The 50-59 age group was excluded because 100% meant that it was mathematically impossible to construct a confidence interval.  66  60 or 0  20  40  60  80  100  120  Figure 30. Proportion of Response No to the Question," Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Age. 5.2.4.5  By Ethnicity  The most frequent answer i n a l l of the ethnic groups was "No." The percentage of "No" i n each ethnic group ranges from 66.7% to 73.2%.  67  Nanai  Russian  Udege  2§8§  Other  2|6|  Total  •151  40  20  60  80  100  Frequency I Yes  UNo  H Don't know  Figure 31. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Ethnicity. There are no statistical differences observed i n the answers by statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions w i t h i n each group.  66.7 73.2 66.7 0  20  40  60 %  H  80  100  120  Figure 32. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Ethnicity.  68  5.2.4.6 By Occupation "No" was the most common answer i n a l l categories except Forest Industry and Fisher/ Hunter/Farmer. The most frequent answer i n Forest Industry was "Yes" (46.7%) because many of respondents i n the Forest Industry category are supposed to be the G M F insiders.  Forest Industry  Public Servant  Private Business Sector  Education -  2  Fisher/Hunter/Farmer  [l |  2  Other  10  15  20  Frequency  I Yes • No • Don't know  Figure 33. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Occupation. According to statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, respondents i n the categories of Private Business Sector, Education and Other are less likely to be involved i n the G M F than respondents i n the categories of Forest Industry and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer (see Figure 34). Respondents i n the Forest Industry category seem to have close contact w i t h the G M F s projects and activities.  69  Forest Industry Public Servant Private Business Sector Education Fisher/Hunter/Farmer Other  -20  0  20  40  60  80  100  120  %  Figure 34. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Occupation.  52.4.7 By Location  "No" is the most common answer i n Arsenyevo (73.2%) and Troitskoe (70.5%) (see Figure 35).  70  Troiskoe  Arsenyevo 0%  20%  40%  60%  80%  100%  Frequency I Y e s • No • Don't know  Figure 35. Number of Responses to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Location. There is no statistical difference between i n Arsenyevo and Troitskoe at a 95% confidence level by statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions w i t h i n each group (see Figure 36 as an example).  73.2  Arsenyevo  70.5  Troitskoe  0  20  40  60  80  100  %  Figure 36. Proportion of Response No to the Question, "Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" by Location.  71  5.2.5 Q10. Do you live in the territory of the GMF? Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" was to know respondents' recognition of the GMF boundary. Arsenyevo is the only village within the GMF and Troitskoe is an outside town. Table 11. Q 10. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you Live in the Territory of the GMF?" by Location. Count Sampling Location Q10. Do you live in the teritorry of the GMF?  Yes  Arsenyevo 24  Troitskoe 17  7  16  No Not sure  Total  Total 41 23  9  12  21  40  45  85  According to Table 11, more than half of respondents in Arsenyevo, the only inside village, answered "Yes." However, 37.8% of respondents in Troitskoe, an outside town, also answered "Yes," which is a wrong answer to Q10. This result infers many of local people may not have a clear idea of the GMF boundary because of insufficient information.  72  5.2.6  Local People's Perception about the GMF  Q6. For each of the Following statements on the GMF, please circle the appropriate response. a . The G M F has h a d a positive i m p a c t o n m y life s i n c e its establishment. b . The G M F g i v e s all stakeholders a n e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g o n issues r e l a t e d t o d a i l y life. c . The G M F is a n e w t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n in Russia. d . The G M F is d e m o c r a t i c . e . The G M F is b a s e d o n partnership. f. The G M F w a s initiated b y Russia. g . The G M F is a n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . h. The G M F is p a r t o f a n international network. i. The G M F e a r n s m o n e y from l o g g i n g . j . The G M F gives m e a lot o f information t o i m p r o v e m y life, k. The G M F is b u r e a u c r a t i c .  Answer choices are: 1 Strongly agree  2 Agree  3 Neither agree nor disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  Question 6 applies a five-point-interval Likert scale to assess respondents' levels of agreement on phrases given in questions 6a to 6k. Phrases are listed from Q6a to Q6k in random order. In Section 5.2.6 and 5.2.7, each phrase of Q6 from a to k are categorized into four groups: "Impact," "Knowledge," "Image" and "Image/Knowledge." The category Impact includes Q6a, b, and j. The category "Knowledge includes Q6e, f, g and h. Image includes Q6d and k. Q6c and i can be categorized as Image/Knowledge. The correlations between the responses to each phrase of questions of Q6 can reveal relationships between phrases in four categories and within the category (see 5.2.7). Note: Error Bars on Graphs in 5.2.6  Error bars on the graphs of section 5.2.6 are 95% confidence intervals for each mean. If  73  there is an overlap between 95% confidence intervals for mean, it does not immediately mean there is no statistical difference between phrases at a 95% confidence leveL It is because one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and T-tests are adopted i n examining results of this section at a 95% confidence level and the A N O V A results have priority to results shown i n a l l graphs of this section because confidence intervals (error bars) are constructed i n a different manner and less accurate than A N O V A results. 52.6.1 O v e r a l l A l l means and 95% confidence intervals i n Q6 range between 2 to 4. None of them are i n either the zone of "strongly agree"  (1-2) or the zone of "strongly disagree" (4-5) (see Figure  37).  3.53  H  Strongly Agree >  2.94  < Strongly Disagree  Figure 37. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6).  74  As shown in Table 12, when the results of Q6 are grouped into three: General Agreement (<3), Neutral (Approximately 3) and General Disagreement (>3), the majority group is "General Agreement," which includes Q6c, e, g, h and i.  Table 12. Grouping of Phrases (Q6) by General Agreement Level into "General Agreement," "Neutral," and "General Disagreement."  General Agreement «3)  Neutral (Approx. 3)  Q6c, e, g, h and i. Q6b, d, f and k.  General Disagreement (>3) Q6a and j.  5.2.6.1.1 General Agreement (<3)  Members of the group, General Agreement, are Q6c, e, g, h and i. These questions in this group can be categorized as Knowledge or Knowledge/Image (see 5.2.6). This result implies that respondents of this group generally have the knowledge needed to agree these questions. The details of members of this group are as follows: Q6c. The G M F is a n e w t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n in Russia. ( K n o w l e d g e / I m a g e )  Q6c is a question about the social status and image of the GMF and knowledge about the GMF governance. The mean for Q6c is 2.43 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.24 to 2.62. Therefore, respondents tend to agree with the phrase Q6c. Q6e. The G M F is b a s e d o n partnership. ( K n o w l e d g e )  Q6e is a question concerning knowledge about the GMFs governance. The mean is 2.39 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.22 to 2.55. The respondents generally agree with the phrase.  75  Q6g. The G M F is a n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . ( K n o w l e d g e )  Q6g is a question about the GMFs governance. The mean is 2.67 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.48 and 2.86. Respondents tend to agree with the phrase. Q6h. The G M F is part o f a n international network. ( K n o w l e d g e )  Q6h is a question about the GMFs governance. The mean is 2.31 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.11 to 2.52. Respondents tend to agree with the phrase. The existence of the Canadian House in Troitskoe may work to advertise the international ties. Q6i. The G M F e a r n s m o n e y from l o g g i n g . ( K n o w l e d g e / I m a g e )  Q6i is a question about thefinancialbasis of the GMF. The phrase, "the GMF earns money from logging," is not true. The mean of Q6i is 2.56 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.33 to 2.79. About half of the respondents (53.8%) agreed with the wrong phrase. This fact implies that the information about GMFsfinancialbasis is not sufficiently announced to local people and misinformation is given to locals by the GMF. 5.2.6.1.2 Neutral (Approximately 3)  Members of the group, Neutral, are Q6b, Q6d, Q6f and Q6k. This group consists of one from the Impact category, two from the Image category and one from the Knowledge category. The common characteristic of the members is, in particular, that those agreement levels may be dependent on the amount and quality of information. It can be assumed that the amount of information is not sufficient to make clear decisions about these questions. The details of members of this group are as follows^ Q6b. The G M F gives all stakeholders a n e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g o n issues r e l a t e d t o d a i l y life. (Impact)  The mean is 3.19 and the 95% confidence interval rangesfrom2.96 to 3.42. Therefore, it can be said that the respondents tend to have no idea about the phrase Q6b or tend to slightly  76  disagree with the phrase. It can be assumed that the respondents do not have sufficient information to make a judgment on Q6b. Q6d. The G M F is d e m o c r a t i c . (Image)  According to the background information, the GMF is supposed to be democratic. Q6d asked about respondents' perception of this point: whether the GMF is democratic or not. The mean is 2.86 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.67 to 3.04. This may suggest that the respondents tend to agree with the phrase of Q6d. However, insufficient information disclosure about the GMF governance and activities is assumable from the fact that missing value counts 8 (9.3%) and 45 respondents (52.3%) circled "Neither agree nor disagree" in Q6d. Q6f. The G M F w a s initiated b y Russia. ( K n o w l e d g e )  Q6f is about the GMFs history. The mean is 3.06 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.9 to 3.22. The respondents in this question tend to have no idea. Missing value counts 8 (9.3%). Q6k. The G M F is b u r e a u c r a t i c . (Image)  Q6k is about the image of the GMF governance. The mean is 2.94 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 2.75 to 3.14. The respondents in Q6k tend to have no idea about the phrase. Insufficient information may present that the GMF program from being strongly connected. Missing value counts 8 (9.3%). 5.2.6.1.3 General Disagreement ( >3)  Q6a and j belong to the group, General Disagreement. These questions can be categorized as Impact. Respondents generally regard the GMF as having a negative impact on their lives. The details of members of this group are as follows:  77  Q6a. The G M F has h a d a positive i m p a c t o n m y life s i n c e its establishment. (Impact)  The mean for Q6a is 3.29 and the lower point of the 95% confidence interval is above the neutral point 3. The respondents tend to disagree with the phrase. According to the result of Q5 (see 5.2.4), approximately 70% of all respondents answered "No" and, therefore, it is assumable that the result in Q6a is appropriate. Q6j. The G M F gives m e a lot o f information t o i m p r o v e m y life. (Impact)  Q6j is about the impact of the GMF on respondents' lives. The mean is 3.53 and the 95% confidence interval ranges from 3.29 to 3.77. The respondents tend to disagree with the phrase. This result suggests that l) the GMF does not provide sufficient information concerning local's life and 2) respondents regard information provided by the GMF as useless information.  5.2.6.2 By Location  In Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network," there is a statistical difference between respondentsfromTroitskoe and Arsenyevo (t-test, a =0.05). According to Figure 38, the respondents from Troitskoe are generally more agreeable than the respondents from Arsenyevo. With the exception of Q6h, there are no statistical differences, which stem from location, at a 95% confidence level.  78  —13.33 —13.25 H 3.29  6a  -<3.13  6b  3.19  3.23 H 2.5  6c  -12.38 ••2.43  2.9 H2.83 2.86 H  6d H2.53 H2.28 —I 2.39  6e  H  l.., v.;;.;:.:.,............ .....  6g  H 2.55 —'2.67 H2.57  6h  2.9  H 3.18 —•3.06  6f  H 2.83  H 2.13 2.31  H2.6 —I 2.53 12.56  6i  H3.4  3.63  '3.53 —I 2.88 3.03 H  H2.94 4  1  Strongly Agree>  I Arsenyevo • Troitskoe • Total  5  <Strongly Disagree  Figure 38. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Location.  79  52.63 By Ethnicity  A statistical difference among ethnic groups is found in Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network," by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD). The difference is between Nanai and Udege (ANOVA, a =0.05). With the exception of Q6h, there are no statistical differences, which stemfromethnicity, at a 95% confidence level.  80  2.75 H3.45 ^ 3.11  -i 6b  H  HIllllilllBUfll  3.13  3.28  2.25 H2.51 H  2.44  •i 2.88 ^.83  6d  H3 1.88 6e  H2.45 2.56 .2.88  13.22  H3.33 13.71  2  1 Strongly Agree>  <Strongly Disagree •  Nanai • R u s s i a n •  Udege  Figure 39. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Ethnicity.  81  5.2.6.4 By Gender  There is a statistical difference between female and male respondents in Q6a, The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment," (independent samples t-test, a =0.05). Female respondents agree less with the phrase given in Q6a. With the exception of Q6a, there are no statistical differences, which stem from gender, at a 95% confidence level.  82  1  1.5  2  2.5  3  Strongly Agree>  3.5  4  4.5 <Strongly Disagree  •  Female IS Male  Figure 40. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Gender.  83  5  5.2.6.5 By Age  No statistical difference between age groups was observed by the ANOVA ( a =0.05). According to Figure 41, the confidence intervals of the under-18 age group and the 60-or-over age group are two of the widest in each phrase of Q6 with some exceptions. It is due to small number of samples, 7 for both age groups.  84  Figure 41. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Age. 85  5.2.6.6 By Occupation  There is a statistical difference between Education and Forest Industry in QGj, "The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life" (ANOVA, a =0.05). This result means that respondents in the Forest Industry category is more agreeable with the phrase in Q6j and implies that the respondents in the category of Education feel that the amount of information from the GMF is insufficient and information provided by the GMF is not of use.  86  2.9 H3.08 Q6a 3.18 2.9 -13.08 H  Q6b 2.94 H  Q6c T  'l 'l  I'ji'i'  II  Yi ilYl  m'i'i"  'i  ' '„ ,, '. ,,  2.1 )2.31 -12.5 ^.4  fTT  »3.2  3.64 3.55 H 3.4 H  H 3.5 "*3.55  86  Q6d  Q6e  Q6f  Q6g  12.6  Q6h  Q6i  3.14 H3.$7  Q6j  H4.08  |3.17 13.21 12.95  Q6k H2.76  0  0.5 1 Strongly Agree>  1.5  2  2.5  3  a.83 2.8 3.5  5 4.5 <Strongly Disagree  4  • Forest Industry  • Public Servant  • Private Business Sector  • Education  • Fisher/Hunter/Farmer  • Other  Figure 42. Mean Level of Agreement on Various Phrases (Q6) by Academic Background. 87  5.2.6.7 Breakdown of 06 by Q3 "Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest?" (ANOVA and Tukev's HSD)  The purpose of the breakdown of the results of Q6 by the results of Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" is to understand differences between the groups categorized by answers of Q3 on knowledge level of the GMF, "Yes," "No" and "A little bit." For example, the group of "Yes" in Q3, whose members know something about the GMF, may have a different tendency in agreement levels with each phrase of Q6. ANOVA and Tukev's HSD were used for analysis. As a result, five differences were observed.  (1) The first difference is between "Yes" and "A little bit" of Q3 in Q6a, "The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6a than respondents of "A little bit" (mean difference = -0.55). In short, respondents who clearly know about the GMF tend to regard the GMF as positive more than respondents who answered "A little bit." (2)  The second difference is between "Yes" and "No" of Q3 in Q6c, "The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia"(ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6c more than respondents of "No" (mean difference = -0.75). In short, respondents who have a clear idea of the GMF tend to regard the GMF as a new type of organization. (3) The third difference is between "Yes" and "No" of Q3 in Q6e, "The GMF is based on partnership" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6e more than respondents of "No" in Q3 (mean difference = -0.54). In short, the respondents of "Yes" in Q3 have knowledge about governance of the GMF more than the respondents of "No" in Q3.  88  (4)  The fourth difference is between "Yes" and "No" of Q3 in Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 more tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6h than respondents of "No" (mean difference = -0.82). In short, the respondents "Yes" in Q3 have knowledge about governance of the GMF more than the respondents "No" in Q3. (5) The fifth difference is between "Yes" and " A little bit" of Q3 in Q6j, "The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life" (ANOVA, a =0.05). Respondents of "Yes" in Q3 tend to agree more with the phrase of Q6c than respondents of "A little bit/' (mean difference = -0.70). The respondents who have a clear idea of the GMF tend to regard the GMF as positive more than the respondents who know a little bit about the GMF.  5.2.6.8 Breakdown of Q6 by 05 "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?"(ANOVA and Tukev's HSD)  In the same way as above 5.2.6.7, the results of Q6 were broken down by the results of Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" Answer choices of Q5 were "Yes," "No" and "Don't know." As a result, three differences are observed in Q6a, Q6b and Q6j.  (1) In Q6a, "The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment," there are differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know." The mean differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know" of Q5 are significantly different (ANOVA, a =0.05). The group of "Yes" of Q5 is more likely to agree with the phrase Q6a than groups of "No" and "Don't know" of Q5. In short, respondents who are involved in the GMF tend to have a positive impact on themselves. (2) In Q6b, "The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making  89  on issues related to daily life," there are differences between "Yes" and "No" of Q5. The mean difference between "Yes" and "No" of Q5 is significantly different (ANOVA, a =0.05). The group of "Yes" of Q5 is more likely to agree with the phrase Q6b than the group of "No" of Q5. (3) In Q6c, "The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia," there are differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know" of Q5. The mean differences between "Yes" and "No" and between "Yes" and "Don't know" of Q5 are significantly different (ANOVA, a =0.05). The group of "Yes" of Q5 more likely agrees with the phrase given in Q6c than groups of "No" and "Don't know" of Q5. 5.2.7  Correlations between Questions in 06 (Kendall's tau b)  As a result, nine strong correlations (correlation coefficient more than 0.4) were observed: a-j, b-d, b-j, b-k, c-d, c-e, d-e, e-h and j-k. (See Table 13.)  90  Table 13. Kendall's tau_b Correlation on Phrases from Q6.  Q6a  Q6b  Q6c  Q6d  Q6e  Q6f  Q6g  Q6h  Q6i  Q6j  Q6k  Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig (2-tailed) N Correlation Coefficient Sig. (2-tailed) N  Q6a  Q6b  Q6g  Q6h  Q6i  1.000  .377**  .270*1  .331*1  .235*  .132  .00  .151  -.1  .000  .006  .001  .018  .192  .985  .123  .132  82 .377**  81 1.00  .000  Q6c  Q6d  Q6e  Q6f  Q6j  Q6k  .444*1 -.228* .000  .022  79  78  79  78  80  78  81  79  78  .332*1  .425*1  .345*1  .009  .019  .069  -.1  .001  .000  .000  .926  .844  .482  .255  .000  .000  79  77  80  78  80  78  77  78  78  81  81  .270**  .332*1  .006  .001  79  79  .331*1  .425*1  .458*1 1.000  .001  .000  .000  78  77  76  .235*  .345*1  .018 80  1.000  79  .569** -.484*=  .458*1  .485*1 -.011  .332*1  .390*1 .025  .373*1 -.331*'  .000  .000  .914  .001  .000  .805  .000  .001  76  79  77  79  77  76  77  77  .425*1  .027  .113  .244*  .065  .358*1 -.335*=  .000  .796  .264  .016  .525  .000  77  75  i  .001  77  76  78  .485*1  .425*1 1.000  -.073  .218*  .427** .063  .256*  -.283*=  .000  .000  .000  .482  .030  .000  .535  .010  .006  80  79  77  80  78  80  78  77  78  78  .132  .009  -.011  .027  -.073  1.000  -.12  .003  .196  .077  .050  .192  .926  .914  .796  .482  .236  .977  .055  .448  .627  77  78  76  75  78  78  76  78  78  78  76  75  76  77  -.002  .019  .332*1  .113  .218*  -.120  1.00  .167  .0  .119  -.157  .985  .844  .001  .264  .030  .236  .091  .879  .219  .117  81  80  79  78  80  78  81  79  78  79  .151  .069  .390*1  .244*  .427*1  .003  .167  1.00  .0  .149  -.203*  .123  .482  .000  .016  .000  .977  .091  .776  .128  .046  79  78  77  77  78  76  79  79  76  77  76  -.148  -.11  .025  .065  .063  .196  -.02  -.03  1.0  -.10  .208*  .132  .255  .805  .525  .535  .055  .879  .776  .306  .039  78  77  76  75  77  75  78  76  78  77  76  .444**  .569*1  .373*1  .358*1  .256*  .077  .119  .149  -.1  1.00  .000  .000  .000  .000  .010  .448  .219  .128  .306  79  78  77  76  78  76  79  77  77  .050  -.16  -.20*  .208*  -.43*1 1.000  -.228* .022  -.48*1 .000  -.331*1 -.335*1 -.283*1 .001  78 78 77 **. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).  91  78  -.434*' .000  79  .001  .006  .627  .117  .046  .039  .000  75  78  77  78  76  76  77  77  78  5.2.7.1 Correlation between 06a and i (Correlation coefficient - 0.444) and between Q6j and k (-0.434)  Q6a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its establishment Q6j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. Q6k. the GMF is bureaucratic. Both of Q6a and j belong to the Impact category of the GMF on the respondents (see 5.2.6). The correlation between Q6a and j infers that the more positive the impact the respondents experienced, the more useful information the respondents have received. In short, respondents who have a sufficient access to useful information given by the GMF may evaluate the GMF highly. The correlation between Q6j and k infers that the respondents who are given a lot of useful information by the GMF are less likely to regard the GMF as bureaucratic. 5.2.7.2 Correlations between b and d (Correlation coefficient = 0.425), b and K0.569), b and k(-0.484)  Q6b. the GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making on issues related to daily life. Q6d. The GMF is demographic. Q6j. the GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. Q6k. the GMF is bureaucratic. Correlation between Q6b and d infer that the respondents who think an equal opportunity is given to all stakeholders by the GMF think the GMF is democratic. Therefore, it can be assumed that the respondents regard providing an equal opportunity as a condition of democracy. Correlation between Q6b and j implies that the respondents, who have more opportunities to influence decision-making, have more information than others.  92  Correlation between Q6b a n d k whose correlation coefficient is negative implies the respondents think that giving an equal opportunity to a l l stakeholders makes the G M F less bureaucratic. 5.2.73 Correlations between Q6c and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.458), c and e (0.485)  Q6c. The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia. Q6d. The GMF is demographic. Q6e. The GMF is based on partnership. Correlation between Q6c and d implies that the respondents who think the G M F is a new type of organization regard the G M F as democratic. I n short, this result implies that respondents who have good knowledge and image about the G M F tend to have a democratic image of the G M F . Correlation between Q6c and e implies that respondents who regard the G M F as a new type of organization tend to know the G M F is based on partnership. I n short, the correlation infers the respondents who regard the G M F as new tend to have knowledge about the G M F partnership.  5.2.7.4 Correlations between Q6d and e (Correlation coefficient = 0.425) and Q6e and h (0.427)  Q6d. The GMF is democratic. Q6e. The GMF is based on partnership. Q6h. the GMF is part of an international network. Q6e and h i n the category Knowledge, is about the G M F governance. Correlation between Q6d and e infers that the respondents who agree w i t h the phrase, "The G M F is democratic/' tend to know about the G M F partnership. Correlation between Q6e and h implies that the respondents who know about the G M F partnership tend to know about the international partnership.  93  5.2.7.5 Characteristic of 06k in Correlation  Q6k, "The GMF is bureaucratic," has a negative correlation efficient with all other phrases of Q6 except Q6g, "The GMF is a non-governmental organization" and Q6i "The GMF earns money from logging." This characteristic suggests that less bureaucracy make the phrases of Q6(a, b, c, d, e, h and j) more agreeable. The perception of the bureaucracy of the GMF can be a key factor (determinant) of the respondents' attitude in evaluating the GMF.  5.2.8  Cluster Analysis  According to SPSS Inc. (1996:149), "cluster analysis is a multivariate procedure for finding groups of similar cases in a file." K-means cluster analysis of the SPSS 10.0 was applied for this research. Final cluster centers of Cluster 1 of Table 14 range from 2 (agree) to 4 (disagree). The cluster center of Clusterl in Q6a "The GMF has had a positive impact on my life" and b "The GMF gives all stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making issues related to daily life" is 4, "disagree." The high agreement level in Q6a and b is generally regarded as a negative evaluation of the GMF. In the same way, the cluster center of Cluster 1 in Q6i, "The GMF earns money from logging" and Q6k, "The GMF is bureaucratic," is 2, "agree". Q6i is the wrong information about the GMF, and the expression "bureaucratic" in Q6k is generally regarded as negative. To sum up, Cluster 1 can be categorized as being "Negative." On the other hand, cluster centers of Cluster 2 range from 2 to 3. The cluster centers of Cluster 2 in Q6c, e and h are 2, "agree." Q6c, "The GMF is a new type of organization in Russia," Q6e, "The GMF is based on partnership," and Q6h, "The GMF is part of an international network, " are about governance of the GMF. In other phrases in Q6 cluster center of Cluster 2 is 3, "neither agree nor disagree." categorized as being "Indifferent."  94  Therefore, Cluster 2 can be  Table 14. Final Cluster Centers. Cluster 1  Q6a. The GMF has had a positive impact on my life since its est. Q6b. The GMF givesall stakeholders an equal opportunity to influence decision-making on issues related to daily life. Q6c. The GMF a new type pf organization in Russia. Q6d. The GMF is democratic. Q6e. The GMF isbased on partnership. Q 6 f . T h e G M F w a si n i t i a t e d by Russia. Q6g. The GMF is a non-governmental organization. Q6h. The GMF is part of an international network. Q6i.The GMF earns money from logging. Q6j. The GMF gives me a lot of information to improve my life. Q6k. The GMF is bureaucratic.  2 4  3  4  3  Q 0  n L  1 0  o o  <5 O  A  o  J  3  3  Q O  o L  O £.  O O  4  3  o  i.  z  3  As shown in Table 15, 16 and 17, Cluster 1 and 2 were segmented by responses of Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" and Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" and occupations to group members of each cluster. The purpose is to reveal characteristics of each cluster's membership in responses of Q3 and Q5 and occupations.  Table 15. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" Count C l u s t e r N u mb e r o f C a s e 1 2 Q3. Do you know anything Yes 7 19 a b o u t t h e G a s s i n s k i M o d e l N0 7 11 F O R E S T ? A littlebit 10 15 Total W 35  95  Total  26 18 25 69  According to Table 15 and statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, members of Cluster 2 (Indifferent), are more likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than members of Cluster 1 (Negative) are. Table 16. Cluster Membership by Responses to the Question, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" Count Cluster Number of Case 1 Q5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?  Yes N Q  D  o  n  '  t  know  Total  2  Total  2  11  13  29  20  49  3  4  7  34  35  69  According to Table 16 and statistical comparisons (95% confidence intervals) of proportions within each group, members of Cluster 2 (Negative), tend more negatively to answer Q5 than members of Cluster 2 (Indifferent). Table 17. Cluster Membership by Occupation. Count Cluster Number of 1  Q l . W h a ti s your occupation?  Forest Industry Public Servant Private Business Sector Education Fisher/Hunter/Farmer Other  Total  Case Total  2 3 5 7 8 2 9 34  7 8 7 3 3  10 13 14 11 5  8  17  36  70  In Table 17, more members in the categories of Forest Industry, Public Servant and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer belong to Cluster 2 (Indifferent). More members of the Education category belong to Clusterl (Negative).  96  The characteristics of members of Cluster 1 and 2 are summarized in Table 18.  Table 18. Characteristics of Members from Cluster 1 and. Cluster 2. Cluster 1, "Negative."  Cluster 2, Indifferent."  •  The number of members of Cluster 1 is • 34 (48.6% of the total number of valid samples, 70).  The number of members of Cluster 2 is 36 (51.4% of the total number of valid samples, 70).  •  Sixteen members of Cluster 1 are from • Arsenyevo and 18fromTroitskoe.  Fourteen members of Cluster 2 are from Arsenyevo and 22,fromTroitskoe.  •  The number of female members is 18 • and male, 16.  The number of female members is 17 and male, 19.  •  The cluster consists of 3 Nanai people, • 27 Russians and 3 Udege people.  This cluster consists of 5 Nanai people, 20 Russians and 6 Udege people.  •  More respondents in Cluster 1 • answered "No" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" than the respondents in Cluster 2 did. • More respondents in the Education category belong to Cluster 1.  More respondents who belong to Cluster 2 answered "Yes" to the Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" than respondents belonging to Cluster 1.  •  97  More respondents in the categories of Forest Industry and Public Servant belong to Cluster 2.  5.3 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARK 53.1 07. Do you know about the new creation of a National Park within the GMF? 53.1.1 Overall The most frequent answer to Q7, "Do you know about the new creation of a N P w i t h i n the G M F ? " on wanting to know the N P establishment was "Yes" (36 responses) followed by "No" (27) and "I have heard something" (22).  27  0%  50%  100%  M Yes a I have heard something. • No  Figure 43. Proportion of Responsestothe Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" According to Figure 43, the group of "Yes" and "I have heard something" makes up 68% of the total valid counts of respondents.  The percentage, 68%, is as high as that of "Yes" and  "A little bit" to Q3, "Do you know anything about the G M F ? " (about 72%) and suggests that many people have some idea about the N P establishment.  53.1.2 By Gender More than a half of both female and male respondents answered "Yes" (36.4% of female and  98  48.8% of male) or "I have heard something" (27.3% of female and 24.4% of male). Table 19. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the new creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Gender. Count  Q7. Do you know about the creation of a NP w i t h i nt h e G M F ? Total  Yes I have heard No  something.  Q11. What is your gender? Female Male 16 12 16 44  Total  20 10 11 41  3 2 2 8  6 2 7 5  No statistical differences are observed between the properties of males and females at a 95% confidence level. 53.13  By Ethnicity  More than half of respondents of all ethnic groups answered "Yes" or "I have heard something" (66.7% of Nanai, 69.6% of Russian, and 50% of Udege). Table 20. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Ethnicity. Count Q13. Do you consider yourself to be? Russian  Nanai Q7. D o you know • Y e s the creation of a t t h within the G M F ? a  N  v  e  heard some  q  Total  Udege  Other  Total  5  23  3  5  36  1  16  3  2  22  3  17  6  1  27  9  56  12  8  85  No statistical differences are observed between the properties of each ethnic group at a 95% confidence level.  99  53.1.4 By Location  The majority of respondents in both locations (60.0% of the respondents in Arsenyevo and 75.6% of the respondents in Troitskoe) answered "Yes" or "I have heard something" and thus have an idea of the NP establishment. Table 21. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF?" by Location. Count Sampling Location Q7. Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF?  Yes I have heard something. No  Total  Arsenyevo 15  Troitskoe 21  9  13  22  16  11  27  40  45  85  Total 36  No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Arsenyevo and Troitskoe at a 95% confidence level.  53.2  Q8. If you answered "Yes" to 07, do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on  your life?  53.2.1  Overall  The number of respondents who answered "Yes" was 25, which was larger than that of "No," 10 (see Figure 44).  100  0%  20%  40%  60%  80%  100%  • Yes B No  Figure 44. Proportion of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? More than 70% of the respondents who answered "Yes" to Q7, "Do you know about the creation of a NP within the GMF? " think the future NP will have a positive impact on their lives. According to Q9, "If you answered No to Question 7 or either Yes or No to Question 8, please state the reason," which required descriptive responses, the reason why the respondents answered "Yes" to Q8 was mostly that the NP would help nature conservation. 5322  Bv Gender  About 72% of the respondents to Q8, 73.3% of the female respondents and 70% of the male respondents think the future NP will make their lives better. Table 22. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Gender. Count  Q8. Ifyou to Q7, do new NP w impact on Total  answered Yes you think that a illhave positive your life?  Yes  Oil. What is your gender? Female Male 14 11  Nc-  4  J5_ 101  Total 25 10  _2P_  35  No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Female and Male at a 95% confidence level. 533.3 By Ethnicity  More than 60% of the respondents to Q8 (80.0% of Nanai respondents, 63.6% of Russian respondents, and 66.7% of Udege respondents) regard the establishment of the future NP as preferable. Table 23. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Ethnicity. Count Q8. Ifyou to Q7, do new NP w impact on Total  answered Yes you think that a i l lh a v e p o s i t i v e your life?  Yes  Nanai  No  Q13. Do vou consider yourselfto be? Russian Other Udege 4  14  2  1  8  1  5  22  3  Total 5  25 10  5  35  No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Nanai, Russian and Udege at a 95% confidence level. 53.2.4  By Location  The majority of the respondents (78.6% in Arsenyevo, 66.7% in Troitskoe and 71.4% in total) answered "Yes." Table 24. Number of Responses to the Question, "Do you think that a new NP will have a positive impact on your life? by Location. C o u n t Sampling Location A r s e n y e v o Troitskoe Q8. Ifyou to Q7, do new NP w impact on Total  answered Yes you think that a i l lh a v e p o s i t i v e your life?  Y e s N o  11  14  25  3  7  10  14  102  Total  21  35  No statistical differences are observed between the properties of Arsenyevo and Troitskoe at a 95% confidence level.  5.4  QUESTIONS ABOUT LOCAL CONCERNS  5.4.1  Local People's Concerns in Daily Life  Q2. Which of hie following issues are of concern to you? (Rank t h e t o p 3 issues from 1 to 3, with o n e b e i n g t h e issue o f g r e a t e s t c o n c e r n . ) Forest  management,  Fishery,  Education,  business,  Hunting,  Nature  conservation,  Sawing  Indigenous p e o p l e ' s culture, Gathering,  technology.  Tourism,  small  O t h e r (Please specify)  In Question 2 the respondents were required to rank the 3 issues of highest concern from 11 choices. In the procedure of coding, points (rank 1 = 3 points, rank2 = 2 points and rank3 = 1 point) were given to each answer. The common problems in ranking with respondents 27  are: l) respondents often forget to rank and just check answers; 2) respondents rank only 1 or 2 choices; and 3) respondents check more than 3 answers. Solutions for these problems adopted for this research project are: l) when they checked a number of responses, 2 points were given to each question! 2) when they ranked issues correctly, 3 points were given to rank land 2 points to rank 2; and 3) if a respondent checked four choices, 1.5 points were given to each answer and if a respondent checkedfivechoices, 1.2 points were given to each. Points in this section are arbitrary and therefore the scale on the graph is meaningless. However, it does give a sense of what the most important issues are. Statistical tests are not performed in Q2, because of the arbitrary nature of the points. 5.4.1.1 Overall  The concern Nature Conservation won the largest amount of points (110.2) followed by  2 7  The problem was observed with about 25% of respondents.  103  Education (87.7), Forest Management (61.2), Fishery (48.2), Indigenous People's Culture (35), S m a l l Business (34), Tourism (29.5), Gathering (19.2), H u n t i n g (17), Other ( l l ) and Sawing Technology (7). Forest Nature Sawing  Management Conservation Technology Fishery Education  Indigenous People's  Culture Tourism  S m a l l B u s i n e s s at™ Hunting Gathering Other  0  20  40  60  80  100  120  Points  Figure 45. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points. The top four concerns, Nature Conservation, Education, Forest Management, and Fishery scored more than 40 points, which were much more than the other choices. It is, therefore, assumed that these four topics are key daily life concerns of locals. 5.4.12 By Location  The rank 1 concern i n Arsenyevo is Nature Conservation (48.2 points) followed by Education (rank 2,36.2 points), Fishery (rank 3, 32.2 points), Forest Management (rank 4, 31.2 points), Small Business (rank 5, 16 points), Indigenous People's Culture (rank 6, 15 points), Gathering (rank 7, 12.2 points), H u n t i n g (rank 8, 11 points), Tourism (rank 9, 6  104  points), Sawing Technology (rank 10, 2 points) and Other (rank 11, 3 points). In Troitskoe, the rank 1 concern is Nature Conservation (62 points) followed by Education (rank 2, 51.5 points), Forest Management (rank 3, 30 points), Tourism (rank 4, 23.5 points), Indigenous People's Culture (rank 5, 20 points), Small Business (rank 6, 18 points), Fishery (rank 7, 16 points), Other (rank 8, 8 points), Gathering (rank 9, 7 points), Hunting (rank 10, 6 points) and Sawing Technology (rank 11, 5 points).  Forest Nature Sawing  • 31.2 |30  Management  48.2  Conservation  62  Technology 132.2  Fishery  I  36.2 151.5  Indigenous People's Culture 23.5  10  20  30  40  50  60  70  Points • Arsenyevo • Troitskoe  Figure 46. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Location.  105  Differences in ranking (more than 3 ranks in Table 25) were observed in Fishery (Arsenyevo — rank 3 and Troitskoe - rank 7) and Tourism (Arsenyevo - rank 9 and Troitskoe — rank 4).  Table 25. Ranking of Local Concerns by Location. (Evaluation Points) Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology FisheryEducation Culture Tourism Business Hunting Gathering Other Arsenyevo 31.2 48.2 2 32.2 36.2 15 6 16 11 12.2 3 7 Rank 4 1 11 3 2 6 9 5 8 10 7 30 5 16 51.5 20 23.5 18 6 8 Troitskoe 62 1 11 7 4 Rank 5 10 9 8 3 2 6 7 87.7 34 17 11 Total 61.2 110.2 48.2 35 29.5 19.2 Rank 1 11 4 7 3 2 5 6 9 8 10  The respondents in Arsenyevo, who largely dependent on local natural resources in their daily lives, gave a higher rank to Fishery. On the other hand, the respondents in Troitskoe, who live in the center of the district and economy, gave a higher rank to Tourism, which would be a new industry of the district after the establishment of the NP.  5.4.13 By Ethnicity and Location (Arsenyevo)  In Arsenyevo, nature conservation is the issue of most concern in total.  106  15  Forest Management [  —17?  1  133  Nature Conservation  12.2  Sawing Technology  Fishery  25 Education Indigenous People's Culture  Tourism  15 Small Business  Gathering  8  6  "1.2 Other  0  5  1  0  1  5 2 Points  0  2  5  3  0  3  5  I Russian • Udege • other  Figure 47. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo. The  differences i n ranking (more than 3 ranks i n Table 26) were observed i n Nature  107  Conservation (Russian - rank 1 and Udege - rank 6), Tourism (Russian - rank 8 and Udege - N/A) and Gathering (Russian - rank 9 and Nanai - 3).  Table 26. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Arsenyevo. (Evaluation Points)  Russian Rank Udege Rank Total Rank  Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology Fishery Education Culture Tourism Business Hunting Gathering Other 33 2 12 7 15 25 6 15 8 5 3 1 3 11 5 7 8 3 6 9 1 0 2 17 4 1 9 3 0 6 0 0 6 0 6 N / A 1 4 N / A N / A 7 3 N/A 2 5 24 36 2 29 29 13 6 15 9 11 3 4 1 11 2 2 6 9 5 8 7 1 0  Russian respondents gave a higher rank to Tourism and Nature Conservation than Udege people did. On the other hand, Udege people gave a higher rank to Gathering. Gathering is one of the traditional occupations of Udege people who traditionally live in forests. Udege people in Arsenyevo are more concerned with gathering than Russians are.  5.4.1.4 By Ethnicity and Location (Troitskoe)  In Troitskoe, Russians and Nanai people share the same tendency in ranking.  108  14 Forest Management  •  Nature Conservation  23  15  Sawing Technology £ • 3  Fishery  11  D2 18  Education  H i 36.5  17 • 17  Indigenous People's Culture  Tourism  H6.9  1 1  JO 11  Small Business  16  31 Hunting 0  Gathering  Other 10  20  30  40  50  60  Points  • Nanai • Russian • other  Figure 48. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Ethnicity in Troitskoe. Differences i n ranking (more than 3 ranks i n Table 27) were observed i n Indigenous People's Culture (Russian - rank 10 and N a n a i - rank l ) .  109  Table 27. Ranking of Local Concerns by Ethnicity in Troitskoe. (Evaluation Points)  Russian Rank Nanai Rank Total Rank  Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management ConservationTechnology Fishery Education Culture Tourism Business HuntingGathering Other 23 48 5 11 7 7 36.5 3 16.5 16 3 1 4 3 9 6 10 5 10 7 7 2 4 17 9 0 3 8 6 1 1 0 1 5 2 N / A 1 4 7 7 N/A 7 6 3 57 14 29 5 44.5 20 22.5 17 4 7 8 1 10 7 4 11 3 2 5 6 9 8  Nanai people gave Rank 1 to Indigenous People's Culture. It is presumable that ethnic awareness of Nanai in Troitskoe is very high. 5.4.1.5 Russians in Arsenyevo and Troitskoe.  Russians in both locations, Arsenyevo and Troitskoe, generally share the same tendency in ranking.  110  Forest Management Nature Conservation Sawing Technology Fishery Education Indigenous People's Culture Tourism Small Business Hunting Gathering Other  0  10  20  30  40  50  60  Points ID Russian (Troitskoe) • Russian (Arsenyevo)  Figure 49. Ranking of Local Concerns on Arbitrary Evaluation Points by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo. The significant differences i n ranking (more than 3 ranks i n Table 28) were observed i n Tourism (Russians i n Arsenyevo - rank 8 and i n Troitskoe - rank 4) and H u n t i n g (Russians i n Arsenyevo - rank 6 and i n Troitskoe - rank 10).  Ill  Table 28. Ranking of Local Concerns by Russians in Troitskoe and Arsenyevo (Evaluation Points) Indigenous Forest Nature Sawing People's Small Management Conservation Technology FisheryEducation Culture Tourism Business HuntingGathering Other Russian (Troitskoe) Rank Russian (Arsenyevo) Rank Total Rank  23 3  48 1  5 9  11 6  36.5 2  3 10  16.5 4  16 5  3 10  7 7  7 7  15 3 38 3  33 1 81 1  2 11 7 11  12 5 23 5  25 2 61.5 2  7 7 10 9  6 8  15 3 31 4  8 6  5 9 12 7  3 10 10 9  22.5 6  11 8  Russians in Arsenyevo gave a higher rank to Hunting. It may be because of the community's high rate of self-sufficiency. Russians in Troitskoe gave a higher rank to Tourism. This infers Russians in Troitskoe expect benefits from tourism.  112  CHAPTER 6  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  113  6  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION  6.1 DISCUSSION 6.1.1  Objective 1: Learn about Local People's Perception about the GMF  The results of the questionnaire survey show that 34.9% of the total respondents answered "Yes" to Q3, "Do you know anything about the GMF?" The total percentage of "Yes" and "A little bit" to Q3 makes up 70.9% of the total. This result suggests that local people have had a chance to hear the name of the GMF or about the projects through communications mcluding mass communication and word-of-mouth communication. Some local people mentioned that they came to know about the GMF from articles in newspapers and the GMF signboard installed in the garden of the Canadian House in Troitskoe. Some differences of recognition of the GMF have been observed from cross tabulations, which are segmented by gender, age, location, ethnicity and occupation. First of all, there is a gap of recognition between females and males. The male respondents are more likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than the female respondents. The female respondents tend to answer "A little bit" morefrequentlythan the male respondents do. This result implies the male respondents may recognize the GMF more clearly than the female respondents do. Second, there is a gap of recognition of the GMF between respondents in Arsenyevo and in Troitskoe. The respondents in Arsenyevo tend to answer "Yes" to Q3 less often than the respondents in Troitskoe. This tendency may stem from the fact that Arsenyevo is more distant. The third difference lies among ethnic groups. Nanai and Russian respondents are more likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than Udege respondents. Udege respondents were sampled only in Arsenyevo, which is an inland village. According to this difference, it is presumable that Udege people tend to be less informed about and left behind by the GMF program.  114  Lastly, differences among occupational categories are observed. The respondents whose occupation is in the category of Education are less likely to answer "Yes" to Q3 than the respondents from the forest industry and in the category Public Servant. It can be assumed from today's local situation that people in the Forest Industry category may pay more attention to the GMF because they may regard the GMF as a provider of business opportunities or aid and people in the categories of Public Servant may have more access to the GMF program from their accompanied duties. The respondents of the category Education consist of teachers and helpers at schools, which include janitors. Although it is stated in reports that the GMF has installed information boards in schools, it is doubtful that the communication reached teachers and helpers. Although about 70% of the respondents know about the GMF to some degree, 61% of the respondents answered "No" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" In particular, respondents in the categories of Education and Private Business Sector are more likely to answer "No" to Q5 than respondents in the categories of Forest Industry and Fisher/Hunter/Farmer. According to descriptive analysis of the results of Q6i, "The GMF earns money from logging," local people may have the wrong impression of the GMF. The disclosure of information of the GMF and public communication at various levels from individual to community-wide may not be sufficient. In Troitskoe, many people do not have a correct idea of the GMF boundary. According to the results of Q10, "Do you live in the territory of the GMF?" 37.8% of the respondents from Troitskoe chose a wrong answer. This result implies that the existence of the GMF may be insignificant for local people. It can be assumedfromthe results of the questionnaire survey that most of the local people know about the GMF to some degree, but, at the same time, they do not feel that they are involved in the GMF program. In short, the most significant result of the questionnaire survey is that local perception about the GMF is not positive.  115  6.12 Objective 2; Determine what the GMF Achieved to Facilitate Public Communication and Local Involvement As stated in 6.1.1, the survey suggests that most of local people know something about the GMF but the majority of local people do not feel they are involved in the GMF program. According to the results of the cluster analysis of Q6 (see 5.2.8), the respondents can be grouped into two categories: Negative (48.6%) and Indifferent (51.4%). There are no observed differences between Negative and Indifferent with respect to ethnicity, gender and location.  However, more members of the category Education belong to the cluster,  Negative, and more members of the categories Forest Industry and Public Servant, belong to the cluster, Indifferent.  The members of the cluster, Negative, are less likely to answer  "Yes" to Q5, "Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF?" than the members of the cluster, Indifferent. Therefore, the respondents who do not feel involved in the GMF have a negative image of the GMF. In particular, the respondents in the category Education tend to have a negative image of the GMF, according to the results of Q5 and cluster analysis of Q6. It can be assumed that the GMFs activities and projects related to school education did not work effectively. According to Q2, "Which of the following issues are of concern to you?" Nature Conservation and Education are two of the biggest concerns (see 5.4). However, most of the completed GMFA's projects were concerned with technology, forestry and ecology (see Table 2). Although those scientific projects can be useful for planning a nature conservation program, the scientific achievements are not immediately connected to education at the local level. As discussed above, respondents in the Education category tend to poorly evaluate the GMF and its projects. This implies that the GMFA did not conduct projects and activities based on local issues. The separation between local concerns and contents of the GMFs projects infers lack of public communication and local involvement in decision-making process. As Telitsyn (2000) insists, the establishment of the GMF, which may have the function of coordinating the interests among stakeholders and making decisions dependent on the collective will was epoch-making in Russia! however, the GMF could not facilitate local involvement in the decision-making process, which lacks a feedback system for the public.  116  (See also Appendix I, International Model Forest Network Secretariat Outcomes Assessment.) To sum up, it cannot be concluded that the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication achieved positive result. 6.13  Objective 3; Recommendations for the Future National Park within the GMF  As concluded in 6.1.2, it cannot be concluded that the GMFs projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication achieved positive result. The future NP, the logical successor of the GMF, should learn from the GMFs experience to achieve good results in the context of local involvement and public communication. According to the results of Q7, "Do you know about the creation of a National Park within the GMF?" 68% of the respondents have an idea of the NP establishment to some degree. Most of the respondents who answered "Yes" to Q7 think the future NP (71%) will have a positive impact on their lives (see 5.3.2). According to opinions expressed in Q9, "If you answered "Yes' to Q7 or either 'Yes' or 'No' to Q8, please state the reason," the major reason the respondents who support the NP establishment is that they consider the NP useful for nature conservation. According to the results of Q2 on local concerns (see 5.4), the respondents are most interested in nature conservation. This tendency may reinforce the result of Q8. However, there is an underlying issue that Udege people in Arsenyevo are not interested in nature conservation, but they are rather interested in fisheries and gathering. This result implies Udege people do not share the same image of nature conservation with other ethnic groups and Udege people may be interested in natural resources management as a daily life occupation, but not in the literary concept of nature conservation. The future NP should fill the gap between ethnic groups through an adequate process of local involvement and public communication. According to the results of 5.2.7, Kendall's taujb correlation on phrases of Q6, the respondents who have access to information and equal opportunities to influence to  117  decision-making by the GMF regard the GMF as less bureaucratic. Although the word "bureaucratic" is not synonymous with "negative," a bureaucratic image may mean a perception that there is a lack of local involvement and public communication. Locals want information and an opportunity to join the decision-making process as much as possible. The future NP should tackle the problems of providing sufficient local involvement and public communication. This research recommends that the future NP authority should-  -  •  involve local people in the projects and activities of the future NP at the decision-making process leveL'  •  define the role of local people in the natural resource management;  •  provide sufficient information about the governance, projects and activities of the NP;  •  adopt more projects and activities, which have a close link with local people's lives;  •  focus on inland communities and the people, especially Udege people!  •  have close communication with school teachers towards a goal, "facilitation of environmental education"; and  •  have an evaluation system of activities and projects including feedback from local people.  6.2  CONCLUSION  According to the results of this research, most local people are aware of the GMF, but they do not feel like they are involved in any of the GMF. The number of people who have access to detailed information about the GMF is small. There is a possibility that the GMF has become an aid program among the limited stakeholders in Russia and Canada since the establishment in 1994. The weakest point of the GMF is that the GMF has no control over land and natural resources and no domestic financial basis. It is impossible to conduct projects without money and authority. In addition, the GMF projects, in the context of sustainable utilization of natural resources, could not meet any of the Gibson and Becker's required conditions for successful natural resources management with local involvement (2000: 139): "l) locals must value the resource,' 2) they must possess some property rights to  118  the resource; and 3) they must construct local-level institutions that control the use of the resource." The GMFs failure to meet these conditions is due to insufficient information for locals and insufficient public communication. It is, therefore, doubtful that the basic model forest concept was adequately explained in the Russian context and that Russians understand and accept the concept. The lack of an evaluation system of the projects and activities by local people kept them from the GMF. The partnership of the GMF, as far as it is reported in official reports, seemed to be superficial because none of the partners offered monetary support to the GMF. It must be true that the GMF introduced a great opportunity for bureaucrats, academics, NGOs and business people to work more closely together. However, service clubs, such as the Rotary club, may also be able to offer an opportunity to socialize with those people. The important thing that only the model forest can do is to build a partnership among all stakeholders, including local people. Since 1996 insiders of the GMFA had realized that the association lacked an effective communication system (Canadian Forest Service and IMFN 1996). The former vice president of the GMFA pointed out "...many people do not understand the concept of the model forest and do not see how they can influence their own future" (Canadian Forest Service and IMFN 1996). The GMFA could not establish an effective communication system until today. Although the assessment team of the International Model Forest Network Secretariat Outcomes Assessment regards the GMF as a successful model forest (Armstrong et aL 2000), the achievements can be limited to the scientific projects. At interviews, many insiders of the GMFA praised the scientific achievements of the GMF such as a forest inventory making with the Geographic Information System. However, none of the interviewees referred to the achievements of projects or activities related to local involvement or public communication. The establishment of the GMFA could have been epoch-making. However, the initial tasks, in particular, those related to local involvement and public communication, were not achieved during the first 7 years, which is too long to be regarded as the start-up or trial period. Unfortunately, the GMFs activity has declined due to lack of funds. Therefore, it may be hard to reorganize the projects and activities concerned with local involvement and public communication. When the establishment of the NP is approved at the federal level,  119  the future NP will assume all authorityfromthe GMF partners in the territory. Therefore, what the GMF can do for the NP in the context of local involvement and public communication is to transfer their experience. The NP should learn from the GMFs experience in order to achieve the task of facihtating "ecological [environmental] education for local people."  120  CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES  121  7 REFERENCES Resolution, Regulation and Law  Prezident Rossiiskoi Federatsii, 1995. Federal'nyi Zakon ot 14 Marta 1995 g. N33-FZ: Ob Osbo Okhranyaemnyikh Prirodnyi Territoriyakh [In Russian] Glava Administratsii Khabarovskogo Kraya, 2001. Pastanovlenie: Ob Organizatsiya Natsionalinogo Parka "Anyuiskii" v Nanaiskom Raione rvhabarovskogo Kraya., 10 January . [In Russian] Reports, Books and Article  Armstrong, J. 2000. Toward a Framework for the New International Model Forest Network. IMFN website. Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/imfi3/doc/framework-Eng.htmL Accessed 17 March 2002. Armstrong, J. et al. 2000. IMFNS Outcomes Assessment'- July 2000. The Governance Network. Available at: http://www.crdi.ca/evaluation/finalreport.htm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Brechin, S. et al. 1991. People and Protected Areas. Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international conservation. West, P. and S. Brechin, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 5-28. BROC and FSF. 2001. Siberian and RFE timber market for China: criminal and official technologies, volumes and trends in 2000, BROC, Available at: http://www.forest.ru/eng/pubHcation8/wildeast/. Accessed 15 March 2002. Canadian Forest Service and International Model Forest Network (IMFN). 1996. NEXUS: The Model Forest Network Bulletin for Ontario. Volume 1, Number 1. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Ottawa. Available at: http ://www. glfc.cfs.nrcan. gc.ca/index-en/programs-e/modelf-e/nexus-e. html Accessed 13  122  March 2002. FAO. 2001a. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000, FAO Forestry Paper 140. FAO, Rome. pp. 217-222. Available at: httpV/www.fao.org/forestry/fo/fra/m Accessed 13 March 2002. FAO. 2001b. State of the World's Forest 2001. FAO, Rome, pp.22-24; 80-82:150-153. Available at: http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/SOFO2001/sofo2001-e.stm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Friends of the Earth-Japan. 1996. The Russian Far East: Forests, Biodiversity, Hotspots and Industrial Development, Friends of the Earth-Japan, Tokyo. Friends of the Earth-Japan. 2000. Saving Russia's Far Eastern Taiga: Deforestation, Protected Areas, and Forests 'Hotspots', J. Newell, ed. Friends of the Earth-Japan, Tokyo. Available at: http://www.shonan.ne.jp/~gef20/gef7news/taiga_e.html. Accessed 17 March 2002. Forsyth, J. 1992. A History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia's North Asian Colony, 1581-1990, Cambridge University Press, New York. Japanese Edition translated by K Morimoto. 1998. UNI Agency, Inc., Tokyo, pp. 223-250; 291-293:354-357. [In Japanese] Gibson, C.C. and CD. Becker. 2000. A Lack of Institutional Demand: Why a Strong Local Community in Western Ecuador Fails to Protect Its Forest. People and Forests: Communities, institutions, and Governance. Gibson, C.C, M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom. eds. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 135-162. Gulevsky, A. and Y. Simchenko. 1994. Administrative Units of People of Russian North: Economy and Social Development in the Last Decade of the 20-th Century, Institut etnologii I antropologii im. Miklukho-Maklaia RAN, Moskva, pp. 133,195. Hales, D. 1991. The Pinelands National Reserve: An Approach to Cooperative Conservation. Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in international  123  conservation. West, P. and S. Brechin, eds. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 239-250. International Model Forest Network (IMFN) and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest (GMFA). 1997. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski za 1994-1997 Finansovyi God, Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest. 1999. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski za 1998-1999 Finansovyi God, Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest. 2000. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski o Rbotakh, Vyipolhrnnykh za Schet Sredstv IMFNS/IDRC v Period s Iyulya 1999 g. po Iyuf 2000 g. Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest. 2001. Otchet: Khabarovskoi Kraevoi Obschestvennnoi Organizatsii Modelnyi Les Gassinski za 2000 God, Secretariat of International Model Forest Network and Khabarovsk Provincial Social Association Gassinski Model Forest, Khabarovsk. [In Russian] IVEP DVO RAN (Institute of Water and Ecology Problem, Russian Academy of Science Far Eastern Branch) et al. 2000. Ekologo-ekonomicheskoe obosnovanie natsiohal'nogo parka « A n y u i s k i i » , Khabarovsk. [In Russian] Kato, K 1963. Shiberia no rekishi, Kinokuniya Shoten, Tokyo. pp30-33; 159-177. [In Japanese]  124  Ministry of Natural Resources Canada and Canadian Forest Service. 1995. Gassinski Model Forest: Preserving Nature for Future Generations - Proposal, Minister of the Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. [In Russian] Pominov, V 2000. The Influence of the Gassinski Model Forest on the Economic Policy of the Territory. IMFN Website, Documentation Centre. Available at-' http://www.idrc.ca/mfii/doc/pominov-Eng.html. Accessed 13 March 2002. Sasaki, S. 1997. Kouikikeizaishisutemu to udehe no shuryou, Shakaijinruigakunennpou Volume 23, Tokyotoritudaigaku Shakaijinnruigakugakkai, Tokyo, pp. 1-28. [In Japanese] SPSS Inc. 1996. Survey with Confidence: A Practical Guide to Survey Research Using SPSS, SPSS Inc., Chicago, pp. 149-156. Vakhtin, N. 1992. An MRG International Report;92/5: Native Peoples of the Russian Far East, MRG (Minority Rights Group), London. p8. Wiget, A. and O. Balalaeva. n.d. Government Deception Threatens Destruction of Eastern Khanty Traditional Culture, Arctic Circle, University of Connecticut. Available at: http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/Khanty/eastkhanty.html. Accessed 17 March 2002. Wells, M. and K Brandon with L. Hannah. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. World Bank; World WMlife Fund; U.S.Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.  Newspaper Articles Anyuiski Perekatyi. 2000. Statisticheskii otchet. Anyuiski Perekatyi, Troitskoe. 16 December 2000. [In Russian] Anyuiski Perekatyi. 2001. Sotsiahno-ekonomicheskoe Polodzenie Nanaiskogo Rainona za 2000 god. Anyuiski Perekatyi, Troitskoe. 24 March 2001. [In Russian]  125  Glushenko, E. 2000. Budem po-prezhnemu druzhit' lesami, Gazeta PRIAMUESKIE VEDOMOSTI, Khabarovsk, 7 July 2000. Available at: http://www.pv.khv.ru/archive/00/07/07/a4.htm. Accessed 26 January 2002. [In Russian] Shmakov, Y. 2001. Ekoregion: Tovarusch prints, myi vam dokladyivaem, Molodoi dal'nevostochnik Online Number 4 (12686)., Khabarovsk, 24 - 31 January. Available at: http://www.khv.ru/md/12686/interthemesl9.htm. Accessed 26 January 2002. [In Russian] Savchenko, A 2001. Anyuiskii "kapital": Reshit li vse problemyi prirodhyi park?.Gazetyi «VEK» No 37, 21-28, Moscow, 21-28 September. Available at: http://www.wek.ru/archive/2001/374115.txt. Accessed 26 January 2002. [In Russian] Websites Administration of Khabarovsk Province. n.d. Available at: http://www.adm.khv.ru/invest2.nsf/pages/sights/anuy_en.htm. Accessed 17 March 2002. Canadian Model Forest Network. n.d. Available at: http://www.modeKorest.net/e/home_/indexe.html and http://www.modelforest.net/e/home_/abou_/faqe.html. Accessed 17 March 2002. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia. Last Updated: 05 September 2001. Available at: http://www.ea.gov.au/parks/nrs/iucn/. Accessed 17 March 2002. Forest Club of Russian Non-governmental Organizations. n.d. Available at: http://www.forest.ru/. Accessed 17 March 2002. Gassinski Model Forest Association. n.d. Available at: http://www.gassikhv.ru, http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/science_e.htm, http7/www. gassi.khv.ru/MLG/h_03e.htm and http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/p_05.htm. Accessed 14 March 2002.  126  International Model Forest Network. Available at: http ://www. idrc. ca/imfh/doc/Gassinski_E.html, htt4)7/www.idrc.ca/imfn/doc/reports-Eng.html#russia and http://www.idrc.ca/imfh/doc/seeds-Eng.html. Accessed 16 March 2002. McGregor Model Forest. n.d. Available at: http://www.mcgregor.bc.ca/ and http://www.mcgregor.bc.ca/rxissian_activities/about_ra.htm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Montreal Process Website. 1998. Available at: http://www.mpci.org/home_e.html and http://www.mpci.org/meetings/santiago/santiago7_e.html. Accessed 9 March 2002. Western Newfoundland Model Forest. Available at: http://www.wnmf.com/html%20page8/Partners%20.htm. Accessed 8 March 2002. Publishing House "Preamurskie Vedomosti." The Anyui National Park. n.d. Available at: http://www.phpv.khv.ru/chents/natipark/en. Accessed 17 March 2002. Sustainable Forest Management Network. n.d. Available at: http://8fin-l.biology.ualberta.ca/engh8h/re8earch/epubinv.htm. Accessed 13 March 2002. Presentation  Telitsyn, G.P. 2000. Gassinski Model Forest Association as a Boost for Development of the Nanaiski District. 31 October. The International symposium on Grand Design for Forest Resources in Akita "Promotion of Sustainable Forest Management in Akita," Akita Prefecture, Japan. Available at: http://www.gassi.khv.ru/MLG/Projects/En^lish/Proect_[lO-15].htm. Accessed 17 March 2002.  127  APPENDIX I EVALUATION OF T H E GMFA BY T H E IMFNS  128  RESULTS OF THE IMFNS OUTCOME ASSESSMENT, JULY 2000. (Source: adopted from Armstrong et al 2000. IMFNS Outcomes Assessment: July 2000. The Governance Network, http://www.crdi.ca/evaluation/finalreport.htm)  Outcome Challenge and Progress Markers for Local Communities Outcome Challengat  TMFNS intends to see  l o c a l communities who recognize the importance of,  and  are engaged i n , p l a n n i n g resource management a c t i v i t i e s i n p a r t n e r s h i p with o t h e r resource users j in t h e i r region.  They have gained the t r u s t o f the o t h e r members o f the p a r t n e r s h i p and the  r e c o g n i t i o n o f government o f f i c i a l s decision-making processes.  j  so that they can c o n t r i b u t e c o n s t r u c t i v e l y to debates and <  They are able to c l e a r l y plan and a r t i c u l a t e a v i s i o n o f t h e i r f o r e s t !  management a c t i v i t i e s and goals that i s r e l a t i v e to t h e i r context and needs. They c a l l upon e x t e r n a l j t e c h n i c a l support and e x p e r t i s e  as a p p r o p r i a t e . They act as champions f o r model f o r e s t concepts j  i n t h e i r communities and motivate others iti the p a r t n e r s h i p to continue t h e i r c o l l a b o r a t i v e work. 1 Expect  to  see  Local  Community P r o g r e s s  Markers  j  1  P a r t i c i p a t e i n r e g u l a r model f o r e s t  2  E s t a b l i s h a s t r u c t u r e f o r cooperation i n the p a r t n e r s h i p that ensures a l l l o c a l i n t e r e s t s j are represented  p a r t n e r s h i p meetings  (mechanics o f s e t t i n g  j  up the s t r u c t u r e )  j  3  A c q u i r e new s k i l l s f o r involvement  4  C o n t r i b u t e the human and f i n a n c i a l resources needed to get the model f o r e s t o p e r a t i o n a l 1  Like  to  see  Local  Community P r o g r e s s  i n the model f o r e s t  j  Markers  |  5  A r t i c u l a t e a v i s i o n f o r the model f o r e s t  6  Promote the model f o r e s t  7  Expand the p a r t n e r s h i p to i n c l u d e a l l the main a c t o r s  j  8  C a l l upon e x t e r n a l experts when necessary  )  9  Request new o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t r a i n i n g and e x t e n s i o n  10  Produce and disseminate  11  I d e n t i f y o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c o l l a b o r a t i o n with o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s  12  I d e n t i f y o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r and s u c c e s s f u l l y o b t a i n i n g funding from a range o f sources j  concept,  that  is  l o c a l l y relevant  t h e i r experiences,  and r e s u l t s  j  t o meet i n f o r m a t i o n o r t e c h n i c a l needs  concrete examples o f b e n e f i t s  129  j  j from model f o r e s t  activities j  and a c t o r s  j  I  Love to  see  Local  Community P r o g r e s s  markers  j  13  P l a y a l e a d r o l e i n resource management with a view to long and medium-term b e n e f i t s j  14  Share l e s s o n s learned and e x p e r i e n c e s with o t h e r communities, internationally,  15  Influence  n a t i o n a l l y and  i  to encourage o t h e r model f o r e s t s  j  n a t i o n a l p o l i c y debates and f o r m u l a t i o n on r e s o u r c e use and management  !  Achievement of Progress Markers by Local Communities Progress  Chile  Marker  -Chiloe  Russia  -  Mexico  Gassinski  -  Mexico -  Calakmul  Mexico -  Chihuahua  ]  Monarch  i Expect  i  to  see  !  i  3  i  1  4  Like  to  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •:  •  'I !  .  •  _..._j  •  • •  see  1  5  I  6  l  !  7  I 1 j  «  1 j  9  •  !  • •  —.  -j  • x  _  •| • |  •  J  •  1  X  X  X  X  •  •  _  _  _  _  • j  j  X  J  •  X  X  »  I  •  X  •  j  11  1  Potential  X  •  1  X  X  12  !  X  X  |  X  X  i  X  130  j  Love to  see  13  ! 1  X  i  , 5  |  J  X  X _  X "  x X  |  •  • _  •  1  1  l l  _  X  l l  _ X  X  1  131  Outcome Challenge and Progress Markers for Government Officials & Policy Makers Outcome Challengeto the model f o r e s t  IMFNS intends to see government o f f i c i a l s and p o l i c y makers who are committed  concept and the p r i n c i p l e s o f i t s p a r t n e r s h i p . They support the development j  o f l o c a l c a p a c i t y and c o n s u l t n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l groups when p l a n n i n g and making d e c i s i o n s about f o r e s t j resource management.  They are a c t i v e l y involved i n the model f o r e s t p a r t n e r s h i p and draw l e s s o n s j  from the experience that are r e l e v a n t and can be used to inform n a t i o n a l p o l i c y debates and p o l i c y j formulation. They champion the model f o r e s t concept and seek funding from n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l j sources  to ensure the c o n t i n u a t i o n and success o f the model f o r e s t  Expect  to  see  1  Government O f f i c i a l s & P o l i c y Makers P r o g r e s s  Designate a country r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  I d e n t i f y i n t e r n a l resources to support model f o r e s t  Markers  ! j  f o r the n a t i o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l model f o r e s t j  program who w i l l have c l e a r l y defined r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  2  in t h e i r country/region.  ( w i l l be more than a mailbox) i  (human, f i n a n c i a l ) and, where f e a s i b l e ,  e x t e r n a l donors j  program (develop a s t r a t e g y )  j  3  P a r t i c i p a t e i n r e g u l a r model f o r e s t p a r t n e r s h i p meetings at the p r o v i n c i a l / s t a t e l e v e l j  4  Organize and/or p a r t i c i p a t e i n i n t e r n a l meetings and d i s c u s s i o n s on s u s t a i n a b l e f o r e s t  |  management at the m i n i s t r y l e v e l  j  5 Like  6  C r e a t e mechanism to support d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s e s at the l o c a l to  see  Government O f f i c i a l s & P o l i c y Makers P r o g r e s s  t h e i r commitment to s u s t a i n a b l e  Disseminate r e s u l t s and share experiences ( v i a workshops,  8  Markers  j |  Promote the program and concept as a v i a b l e mechanism to b r i n g about change n a t i o n a l l y j to demonstrate  7  level  forest  management  (good and bad)  j  i n t e r n a l l y and n a t i o n a l l y ;  conferences)  <  F a c i l i t a t e and promote networking between n a t i o n a l model f o r e s t  s i t e s and  j  i n t e r n a t i o n a l s i t e s ( c r e a t i n g an e n a b l i n g environment through which they can network) 1  9  Engage donors to f i n a n c i a l l y support the model f o r e s t program (new and incremental) i and earmark i n t e r n a l funds f o r the medium-term. Sources o f funds a r e d i v e r s i f i e d beyond i f o r e s t r y o r environment m i n i s t r i e s  10  years)  P a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n the IMFN S t e e r i n g Committee (e.g. others outside  11  (3-5  the meetings,  etc.)  j attend meetings, engaging \ !  T e c h n i c a l s t a f f begin to share data with model f o r e s t s and provide t e c h n i c a l support i ( l i n k i n g back to n a t i o n a l program)  j  132  j  12  W i l l i n g t o l i s t e n and e s t a b l i s h of  13  influence  Expand number o f model f o r e s t  Love to  see  f o r a to promote experimentation w i t h i n t h e i r realm j  with ideas r a i s e d by l o c a l / n a t i o n a l p a r t n e r s  Government O f f i c i a l s  j  s i t e s i n the country  & P o l i c y Makers P r o g r e s s  j Markers  1  )  14  Promote and support the model f o r e s t  concept  in international forest  policy fora 1  (become advocates)  i  15  Incorporate model f o r e s t p r i n c i p l e s i n n a t i o n a l and r e g i o n a l p o l i c i e s and l e g i s l a t i o n j  16  Take l o n g e r - t e r m p e r s p e c t i v e resources  17  (5+ years)  ( i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l )  i n f i n a n c i a l p l a n n i n g ( i n v e s t incremental j 1  i n t o model f o r e s t s and IMFNS a c t i v i t i e s )  C o l l a b o r a t e with other r e l e v a n t M i n i s t r i e s f o r p l a n n i n g and managing the land base/ j integrated  18  l a n d use p l a n n i n g  j  Use c o n s u l t a t i o n mechanisms with n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l groups before e s t a b l i s h i n g p o l i c i e s j on n a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e management  strategies  (as w e l l as on o t h e r themes)  j  Achievement of Progress Markers by Government Officials & Policy Makers Progress  Chile -Chiloe  Russia  Marker Expect  to  •  Mexico Calakmul  |  Mexico — Monarch  4  i !  i  •  •  3  •  I  •  j  •  |  •  •  •  •  •  •  |  •  1  •  I  •  I  „. . . ) 5  _  .' •  ! 1  • J  _  •  1I  1  :  •  j  •  I  „J  1 1  j  7 8  •  _  j  •  see  • •  6  Mexico  |  2  to  -  Chihuahua  see  1  Like  -  Gassinski  1  !  •  •  •  •  •  •  133  1 jI  ! X  |  I  •  )  •  j  9  X  10  X  _  X  X  x  !  X  •  X  x  !  •  •  •  •  j  x  1  X  i  JL _  J  •  11  _ -  X  ._  X  12 13  «  !  X  x  X  X  Potential  :  Love t o s e e  „  j  |  X  _  .._ _  •  !  X  !  x  i  X  X  j  X  •  X  X  X  X  X  j  17  X  •  X  X  X  j  18  X  •  15  x  J  1 x  134  X  APPENDIX n Q U E S T I O N N A I R E IN E N G L I S H  135  Questionnairelon^hejGassinski|Model Forest Note The Gassinski Model Forest or the GMF is taken to mean both "physicalforest"and "the Gassinski Model Forest Association." :  I. O P I N I O N S C O N C E R N I N G T H E G A S S I N S K I M O D E L F O R E S T . 1 .What is your occupation? (Please c h e c k o n e  • • • • • • • •  0)  Forest w o r k e r of forest s e r v i c e . Worker in sawmill (including office work) S e l f - e m p l o y e d or business o w n e r E m p l o y e e o f o t h e r businesses P o l i c e / military p e r s o n n e l Student ( s c h o o l , u n d e r g r a d u a t e a n d p o s t - g r a d u a t e ) Public servant o f provincial/district g o v e r n m e n t administration O t h e r (Please specify)  • • • • • • •  Logger Teacher Farmer Pensioner Hunter Fisher activist o f N G O  2. Which of the following issues are of concern to you? (Rank t h e t o p 3 issues from 1 t o 3, with o n e b e i n g t h e issue o f g r e a t e s t c o n c e r n . ) Forest m a n a g e m e n t , Nature conservation, Sawing technology, Education, Indigenous p e o p l e ' s culture, Tourism, small business, Gathering, O t h e r (Please specify)  Fishery, Hunting,  3. Do you know anything about the Gassinski Model Forest (GMF)? (Please c h e c k o n e •  Y e s ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 4)  •  N o ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 5)  •  0)  A little bit ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 5)  4. If you answered YES to question 3, what program or programs of the GMF do you know about? ( C h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y . 0 If y o u d i d not a n s w e r YES, p l e a s e skip t o Q u e s t i o n 5.) • The d e v e l o p m e n t of v a l u e - a d d e d w o o d p r o c e s s i n g c a p a c i t y • The d e v e l o p m e n t of n o n - w o o d forest p r o d u c t s enterprises • The d e v e l o p m e n t of a r e g i o n a l tourism • The d e v e l o p m e n t of c o m m e r c i a l projects b e t w e e n C a n a d i a n a n d Russian i n d i g e n o u s peoples • The assistance in t h e c r e a t i o n of s p e c i a l l y p r o t e c t e d a r e a s / N a t i o n a l Park • O t h e r (Please specify) 5. Do you consider yourself to be involved in any of the GMF? (See Question 4 for reference) (Please c h e c k o n e 0 ) • Yes ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 6) 3 questions)  •  N o ( G o to Q u e s t i o n 6)  136  •  D o n ' t k n o w (Answer t h e following  a . H a v e y o u w o r k e d for a c o m p a n y / o r g a n i z a t i o n r e l a t e d t o o n e of t h e G M F projects? • Yes • No • Don't know b. Has s o m e o n e from m y family a t t e n d e d a n y G M F • Yes • No • Don't know  programs?  c H a v e y o u a t t e n d e d a G M F p r o g r a m t h r o u g h a s o c i a l activity (school or g r o u p tour)? • Yes • No • Don't know  6. For each of the Following statements on the GMF, please circle the appropriate response. a . The G M F has h a d a positive i m p a c t o n m y life s i n c e its establishment. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree 4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  b. The G M F gives all stakeholders a n e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n f l u e n c e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g o n issues r e l a t e d t o d a i l y life. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree 4 Disagree 5 Strongly disagree c . The G M F is a n e w t y p e of o r g a n i z a t i o n in Russia. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  d. The G M F is d e m o c r a t i c . 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  e. The G M F is b a s e d o n partnership. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  f. The G M F w a s initiated b y Russia. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  g. The G M F is a n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  h. The G M F is part o f a n international network. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree 3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree  3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree  i. The G M F e a r n s m o n e y from l o g g i n g . 1 Strongly agree  2 Agree  3 Neither agree nor disagree  j . The G M F gives m e a lot of information t o i m p r o v e m y life. 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree k. The G M F is b u r e a u c r a t i c . 1 Strongly agree 2 Agree  3 N e i t h e r agree nor disagree 3 Neither agree nor disagree  137  4 Disagree 4 Disagree  5 Strongly disagree 5 Strongly disagree  7. Do you know about the new creation of a National Park within the GMF? (Please c h e c k one 0 ) • Yes ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 8) • I h a v e h e a r d s o m e t h i n g ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 10) • N o ( G o t o Q u e s t i o n 9) 8. If you answered YES to Question 7, do you think that a new National Park will have a positive impact on your life? (Please c h e c k o n e 0 ) • Yes • No 9 If you answered NO to Question 7 or either YES or NO to Question 8, please state the reason.  [  ]  II. S O C I O - D E M O G R A P H I C  ATTRIBUTES.  10. Do you live in the territory of the GMF? (Please check one 0) • Yes • N o • N o t sure If y o u a n s w e r e d NOT SURE, d o y o u live in Nanaiski District? (Please check one 0 ) • Yes • No 11. What is your gender? (Please check one 0) • Female • Male 12. What is your age? (Please check one 0) • U n d e r 18 y e a r s o l d • 18-24 • 2 5 - 2 9 • 30 - 34 -49 • 50-54 • 55-59 • 60-64 • 65 or o l d e r  D35-39  D40-44 D45  13. Do you consider yourself to be (Please check one 0): • N a n a i • Russian • U d e g e • O t h e r (Please specify) 14. What is your academic background? (Please check one 0) • School • High S c h o o l G r a d u a t e / C o l l e g e G r a d u a t e / U n d e r g r a d u a t e D r o p o u t • University G r a d u a t e / G r a d u a t e Student • O t h e r ( p l e a s e specify)  138  III.  A N Y OTHER  RELATED  Thank  COMMENTS  REGARDING  THE GMF  OR OTHER  TOPICS?  you  very  m u c h  for  139  your  c o o p e r a t i o n  APPENDIX HI QUESTIONNAIRE IN RUSSIAN  140  Ameera MHeHHfl 06 opraHH3ai|HH «MoAejibHi>iH Jlec « r a c c H H C K H H » npHMenaHHe: nofl opraHH3aaHeH «Moflejii>HbiH Jlec «raccHHCKirii» noHHRtaerca He TOJII>KD opi^iminra, HO H jiec, KaK dpH3HqecKaa e^HHHita.  1. Bawa npocbeccHH? ( O T M C T B T C  BapnaHT  OAHH  •  Pa6oTHHK jiecHoro xo3aficTBa •  •  Pa6oHHH  •  PaGoTHHK nacTHoro ceicropa, 6H3HecMeH  •  Pa6oTHHKflpyrHxoTpacjiefl  •  ITeHCHOHep  •  MttJlHlTHOHep, BOeHHWH  •  OXOTHHK  •  CiyzieHT  •  rocyaapCTBeHHHH cjiyacamiiH •  0 )  JIecopy5  jiecoirajiOK (BKjnonaa cnyacauiHx O(]>HCOB)  (BKjnoqafl acnnpaHTOB)  •  •  •  Ywrejib  OepMep, npeflnpHHHMaTejib  Pbi6ajiOB  AKTHBHCTHTIO*  HenpaBHTejttCTBeHHMe opraHmaianf)  2. K KaKHM H3 cjie^yioinHx OTpacjieft B M HMecre Hirrepec? (Bw6epeTe 3 oTpacjin y5wBaiomeM nopa^Ke O T 1-ro no 3-x, Tax qro6w nepBaa HHrepecoBajia 6ojibine ffpymx) JlecHoe  XO3«HCTBO,  npoMbiceji, 06pa30BaHHe, 6H3Hec, OxoTa,  PBIGHMH  MejiKHH (yTOHHHTe) 3. Staaere  OxpaHa npHpoaw,  JIH B M  (MJir)?(OTMeTbTe  TexHOJioraa pynHOH pa3flejiKH 6peBeH, KyjibTypa icopeHHbix jKHTejieft, TypH3M, Co6HpaTejn>CTBO, flpyrHe  HTO-HHuyflb 06 opraiimauHH <<MoaejibHbiH Jlec OAHH  BapnaHT  B  « r a c c H H C K H H »  0 )  •  JJ,a (ecjiH "«a", T O nepexoflHTe K Bonpocy J\r°4),  •  HeT (ecjiH " H C T " ,  •  HeMHoro (earn "HeMHoro", T O nepexo^HTe K Bonpocy N°5)  T O nepexoflHrre K  Bonpocy N°5),  4. E C J I H B M OTBeTHJiH " a a " Ha Bonpoc JV»3, T O Kaicyio nporpaiwMy, H J I H nporpaMMbi M J i r H J I H ApyrHx Mo^ejibHbix jiecoa B U 3 H a e T e ? (OTMeTbTe Bee B E M H3BecTHbie 0 . E C J I H B H He O T B C T H J I H "aa" Ha Bonpoc N°3, nepexoflHTe cpa3y K Bonpocy N°5) npeflnpHaTHH no yrjiyfjjieHHOH  •  Pa3BHTHe  ,a;epeBonepepa6oTKe  •  Pa3BHTHe npeflnpHHTHH no nepepa6oTKe HeflpeBecHoii npoayKUHH  •  Pa3BHTHe peraoHajibHoro Typn3Ma  •  Pa3BHTne KOMMepnecKHx CB»3CH M&KMy KOpeHHbiM HacejieHHeM peraoHOB KaHaflbi  POCCHH •  CoaencTBHe B co3flaHHH  oco6o oxpaHaeMbix TeppHTopHH/HauHOHajibHoro napna  141  H  •  TJpyrHe(yTOHHHTe)  5. CHHTaere J I H  B U  ce6fl BOBjieHeHHbiiviH  CMOTpHxe B o n p o c J V ° 4 )  B  KaKHe-JiH6o npoeicrbi  MJIT? (JSjin cnpaBKH  (OTMeTbTC O J J H H BapnaHT 0 )  • 74a (ecjiH "aa", T O nepexoflHTe K Borrpocy JNb6), •  HeT (ecjiH " H e r " , T O nepexojjHTe K B o n p o c y JV26),  •  H e 3Haio (ecjiH "He 3Haio", TO OTBeTbre Ha TpH cjie/ryKHHHx Bonpoca)  a) PaGoTajiH J I H B W B KOMnaHHH H J I H opraHH3auHH, HMeiomeH OTHOineHHe K npoeicraM MJir? •  fla  D HeT  •  He3Haio  6) B H J I J I H Kro-HH6yzn> H3 Bauinx P O ^ C T B C H H H K O B nporpaMMax M J I T ? •  JJ,a  •  HeT  •  3aHHTepecoBaH B  H e 3Haio  FIpHxoflHjiocb J I H BaM BCTpeiaTbCfl c nporpaMMaMH M J T T AeaTejibHOCTb ( B iiiKDJie, MaccoBbix MeponpHflnwx)? B)  •  JJ,a  •  HeT  •  KaKHx-jiH6o  nepe3  coiTHaribHyK)  He3Haro  6. BbiSepeTe O # H H , npaBHjibHbiif Ha earn B3rjiHA, O T B C T yTBepjKneHHH 06 MJIE (TJo/jHepicHHTe O A H H BapnaHT)  RJIH  Ka>K#oro H 3 cjieyjyioiiuix  a) MJir c MOMeuma ceoezo ocnoeamisi OKa3cuia 6jiaeomeopuoe ejiwuue HCIMOIO oicmHb. 1. IIojiHOcmbH) coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio He coznacen 6) MJTT aaer Bceivr ee y n a c T H H i c a M p a B H y r o B03M0»cH0CTb BJiHHTb H a rrpouecc rrpHHHTHH p e u i e H H H , HMeiomHX OTHOineHHe K H X MCH3HH. 1. TlojiHocmbK) coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. He yeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nojiHOcmbto ne coznacen B) M J i r - H O B H H -ran opraHH3au,HH B P O C C H H . 1. nonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen z) MIIT- deMOKpamuHua. 1. nonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen a) M J i r ocHOBaHa Ha npHHHHne napTHepcTBa. 1. nonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen e) MJir 6buia UHUUuamueoii Poccuu. 1. Honnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen 142  JK) M J i r - HenpaBHTejibCTBeHHaa opraHHsairHH. 1. Ylomocmwo coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznaceH 5. Honnocmbm ne coznaceH 3) MJir-  Hcicmb Mej/cdynapodHou cucmeMbi.  1. riojiHOcntbio coznaceH 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznaceH 5. Tlomocmbio ne coznacen u) MJir 3apa6ambieaem denbzu na 3azomoeKe u mpaHcnopmupoerce Jieca. 1. IJojiHOcmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. YIonnocmbK) ne coznaceH K) MJir flaer MHe MHOTO HHdpopManHH o T O M , K S K y j r y H i i i H T b MOK> »CH3Hb. /. Honnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocntbio ne coznacen JI) M J i r - GropoKpanraHa. A JJonnocmbio coznacen 2. Coznacen 3. Heyeepen 4. He coznacen 5. nonnocmbio ne coznacen 7.3Haere J I H B M O C03#aHHH H a u H O H a j i b H o r o n a p i c a B H V T P H  MJir?  BapnaHT 0 )  (OnvieTbTe O # H H  •  Ila (ecjiH "aa", T O nepexQznTre K Bonpocy JN28),  •  ^ T O - T O cjibiinaji (ecjiH " ^ T O - T O cjiwinaji", T O nepexoflHTe K Bonpocy JNklO),  •  HeT (ecjiH "HeT", T O nepexpziHTe K Bonpocy N°9)  8.  ECJIH  B M OTBCTHJIH  "#a" Ha Bonpoc  JXs7,  T O K H K B M /ryMaere,  OKaaceT J I H  noji05KHTejibHoe B J I H H H H C Ha B a i u y 3KH3Hb co3#aHHe H O B O T O HauHOHajibHoro n a p i c a ?  •  fla  •  HeT  9. E C J I H B M O T B C T H J I H " H C T "  Ha  s o n p o c JVe7, H J I H  "aa",  JIH6O  "HeT" H a  06l>HCHHTe npHHHHV.  Comiajibiio-iieMorpadpHMeckHC  10.  B M  >KHBeTe Ha TeppHTopHH MJir? ( O n v i e T b T e •  /4a  •  HeT  •  OAHH  AaiiHbie  BapnaHT 0 )  HeyBepeH  E C J I H B M O T B C T H J I H " He yeepeH", TO Homere J I H B M B HaHaflcKOM pafioHe?  (OnvieTbTe O ^ H H BapnaHT •  fla  0) • HeT  11. Bam noji? •  5KeHCKHH  •  MjOKCKOH  143  B o n p o c JV28,  12. Bain B03pacr? (OrivieTbTe OAHH BapnanT 0 ) • flol8jiex • 18-24 • 25-29 • 30-34 D35-39 D40-44 D45-49 • 50-54 • 55-59 • 60-64 • 65HCTapme 13. KeM B U ce6n C H H T a e r e ? (OTMerbTe O/JHH s a p t i a H T 0 ) • HaHafiueM • PyccKHM • yoareiiueM • JJUpyroe (yTOHHHTe) 14. Kaieoe y Bac o6pa30saHHe? (OTMerbTe O/JHH BapnaHT 0 ) •  HenojiHoe cpeaHee  •  CpeaHee  •  Bwcuiee  BauiH KOMMeHTapHH 06 MJTT H noxcejiaHHH  Eojibiuoe cnacn6o 3a same yqacTHe!  144  • flpyroe (yTOHHirre)  APPENDIX IV SURVEY COVER L E T T E R IN ENGLISH  145  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Department of Forest Resources Management Faculty of Forestry 2045-2424 Main Mall Vancouver, BC CANADA V6T 1Z4 Fax +l(604)-822-9106  D e a r Residents i n the G a s s i n s k i M o d e l Forest a n d People involved i n its projects,  As part of a Masters thesis at the University of British Columbia entitled "The Russian Model Forest in  Local Forest Politics: A Case Study of the Creation ofa National Park within the Gassinski Model Foresf, we are gathering information from residents in the Gassinski Model Forest and people involved in related projects. The main purpose of this research is to examine and define the Gassinski Model Forest in local forest politics with a case study. We would like to know what you think of the Gassinski Model Forest and its projects. We assume that the Gassinski Model Forest and its projects are important experiments towards socio-economically sustainable forest management in the Russian F a r East. This survey is conducted in cooperation with the Gassinski Model Forest Association and Russian Program of McGregor Model Forest. Data collection and analyses will be performed at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The collected questionnaires will be analyzed and stored out of the Russian Federation, and will not be used for a purpose other than the above-mentioned research. The enclosed questionnaire are being sent out or handed directly to unintentionally selected residents of the Gassinski Model Forest and people involved in the projects. After you fill in the questionnaire form, please return it to us, as investigators will direct when you receive this questionnaire. Although participation is obviously not mandatory, we would be very grateful if you take your time to complete this time. You will need 5-8 minutes to answer this questionnaire. Completion of the survey is your assurance to us that we may use the valued information you have given in aggregate form only. You can be assured of complete confidentiality. Your name will not appear on the survey itself. Collected original questionnaires will be securely stored in a locked box or drawer exclusively controlled by Ichiro Matsuo. The original questionnaires will be shredded and discarded five years after the work is presented. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have. If you have any questions, please ask Ichiro Matsuo when he provides this questionnaire to you or by email after that. The email address for the inquiry is icIiiro@interchange.ubc.ca . Also you can reach Ichiro Matsuo at +1-604-202-1031 when he is in Canada. If you are interested in the results and have an access to the Internet, please send an email to the above address. We will send back the results by email when they are available. We will also arrange that you can obtain the results from the Gassinski Model Forest Association. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours,  Ichiro Matsuo, M.Sc. Candidate  George Hoberg, Associate Professor  146  APPENDIX V SURVEY COVER L E T T E R IN RUSSIAN  147  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (YHHBEPCHTET BPHTAHCKM K0J1YMBM)  Department of Forest Resources Management Faculty of Forestry 2045-2424 Main Mall Vancouver, B C CANADA V6T 1Z4 Fax+l-(604)-822-9106  yBaaeaeMbie acirrejiH paiioHa MoAejibHbra Jlec FaccHHCKHH  H JUORH,  BOBjieHeHHbie  B  ero  npoeKTM,  KaK l a c r B MarHCrepcKOH jj;HCcepTanHH B yHUBepcirrere BpjrraHCKaji KojiyMOHH H a Teiwy "PoccHiicKaH MO^ejiB jieca B pernoHajibHOH jiecHoft nojiHTHKe- cjryiaH co.wanHH nanunmui biioro naprca BHyrpH panoHa Mo#ejibHHH Jlec raccHHCKHii" M M co6HpaeM HHCpopMainno OT scHTaneH paiiona MOAGJIBHBIH JleC TaCCHHCKHH, H JIKWeH, BOBJie^eifflLlX B CBfl3aHHMe C HHM npoeKTM. M t l XOTCJIH 6U 3HaTb, TITO Bbl flyMaeTe o Mo/jejibHOM Jlece FaccHHCKHH H ero npoeKxax. OcnoBHaa u,ejn> HCCJieAOBaHira paccMOTperb H oxapaicrepH30BaTB MoaejitHMH Jlec racramcKHH, KaK iipiunep per-HOHajibHOH jiecHOH IIOJIHTHKH. M B I npejuiojiaraeM, I T O MojjejibHMft Jlec raecHHCKHH H ero npoeKTM HBJIHK>TCH BaatHMMH 3KcnepHMerrraMH pjia coiaiajiBHO-3KOHOMireecKOH ycTOHHHBocxH jiecHoro MeHejracMeHTa Ha POCCHHCKOM JJajiBHeM BOCTOKR. 3TOT onpoc npoBOAHTBCH B coTpynHH^ecTBe c AcconHainieH MoflejiBHsra Jlec FaccHHCKHH H POCCHHCKOH LTporpaMMOH MoaejibHMH Jlec MaK-Fperop. 06pa6oTKa jiaHHMx H aHajiH3 Syayr npoBejj,eHM B yHHBepcHreTe BpuraHCKaa KojiyM6nH B ropoae Barney sep B KaHaae. CoSpamibie amceTM Qypyr npoaHajiH3HpOBaHM H BWBe3eHH H 3 POCCHHCKOH <J>eflepaoHH, H Qypyr ncnoJIB.30Banju TOJIBKO C BMmeyKasaHHOH U/SJIBIO HccjieflOBaHHH. 3aneiaTaHHMe aHKeTBr 6ypyr pa30CJiaHM HJIH BpyreHM JIHHHO, npoH3BOJiBHO BM6paHHMM sasrejisM paftoHa Mo/jejiBHMH Jlec TaccHHCKHH, HJIH jiioflflM, BOBjiCTeHHbiM B ero npoeKTH. Ilocjie Toro KaK B M 3ancuiHHTe aHKena, noHcajiyHCra, BepHHre H X nau, ecjiH B M nojiynrre H X J U M H O OT HccjiejjoBaTejieH. Xoro yqacnie 6 e 3 y c j i 0 B H 0 He o6H3aTejibHoe, M M oyaeM BaM oiem. npH3HaTejibHM, ecjiH B M yuejiHTe M M BpeMH H 3anojiHHTe aHKexbi. Baat norpeSyeTCH 5"8 MunyT, I T O 6 N OTBerHTb Ha Bonpocw airae™. Pe3yjibTaT HccjieflOBaHHH 3aBHCHT or npejjocraBjieHHOH BaMH ueHHoft HHdpopMauHH, KOTopyio M M 6yjieM HcnojibsoBaTb TOJIBKO B o6meM Bime. B M MOHtere 6MTB yBepeHM B TOJIHOH KOHCpHjieHUHajiBHOCTH. Banre H M H He 6ya;eT (pHiypHpoBaTb B HCxvreflonaHMM. Bee coQpaHHMe opHrHHajiM ameer oyjryr naji,eacHO ynaKpsaHH B KOPOOKH HJIH amHKH nofl 3KCKJIHJ3HBHHM KoirrpojieM H^npo Mauyo. A H K C T M Gyjryr jiHKBHflnpoBaHM iepe3 iMTb jieT nocjie npejiocraBJieHiM MarHCrepcKOH jjHCcepTainoi. M M 6yfleM paa,H OTBeniTb Ha jnoSwe Baum BonpocM. ECJIH y Bac ecn. KaKHe-TO BonpocM, noxajryHcra, ^ajiafrre H X H I H P O Mauyo, BO apettn aHKeTHpoBaHHs, HJIH BnocjiemcTBHH no cpe/jcTsaM ajieicrpOHHOH noiTw. Ajrpec ajieiopoHHOH noiTH jijia cnpaBOK: icliiro@intercharige. ubeca . B H Tan ace Moacere CBH3aTbCH c H^npo Marryo no Tejiecpoiry B KaHajie 1-604-202-1031. ECJIH saM Hirrepeciiu pe3yjibTaTM H B M HMeere Aocryn K HHrepHeTy, noacaJiyHcra, nomjiHre cooSmeHHe no BHmeyKa3aHH0My aflpecy. M M nonuieM saM pe3yjibTaTM no sjieicrpoHHOH n o i T e , Koraa OHH SyjryT H3BecrHM. M M TaroKe MoaceM floroBopHTbca, MTOSH B M nojiyHHJiH pe3yjibTaTti iepe3 AcconnauHK) MoflejibHHH Jlec raccHHCKHH. CnacHOb 6oJibraoe 3a same coipy/i rnraecrBO.  Manyo H T H P O AcnHpaHT  JJacopx XoSapr Ilpocbecco  \  148  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0075396/manifest

Comment

Related Items