ISSN 20799705, Regional Research of Russia, 2011, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 81–90. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011. Original Russian Text © A.N. Krenke, M.M. Chernavskaya, 2009, published in Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 2009, No. 4, pp. 17–27.
HISTORIC GEOGRAPHY
Development of Environmental Legislation in PreRevolutionary Russia (1649–1855) A. N. Krenke and M. M. Chernavskaya Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow email:
[email protected] Received July 25, 2008
Abstract—The development of environmentally significant legislation in Russia is studied for the period from the Council Code (promulgated in 1649) of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich to 1855. We analyzed 1231 legislative acts related to environmental issues. Many features of this legislation have not lost their topicality and must be taken into account in modern legislative activity. Environmental restrictions were imposed not only on the stateowned lands but also on estates transferred into private ownership. Over the entire period considered, the state regulated the private trade in natural resources. Special attention was paid to the conservation and restoration of forests, protection of water reservoirs and their watershed lines, and animal life. The environ mental laws were differentiated geographically and ethnically. Keywords: environment, legislation, history of Russia, land use, natural resources, protection of water reser voirs. DOI: 10.1134/S2079970511010084
INTRODUCTION
objects of environmental protection such as forests, animal life, mineral resources, open water, health and recreation localities, protected and reserved areas, as well as the issues of land use and liability for the viola tion of environmental laws, were the object of legisla tors' attention over the entire studied period. As a rule, the legislation regulated the preservation of natural objects, property rights, exploitation of natural resources (trade, export, and internal consumption), different rights granted to different estates and social classes (monasteries, stateowned peasants, land owners, military regiments, Cossacks, etc.), restora tion and introduction of crop varieties, land use (land survey, distribution of vacant lands, etc.). In the course of time, changes were introduced in the law enforce ment system (fines, punishments, and manifestos on exemptions including those in response to natural disasters). There were also geographical differences in the legislation. The purpose of our work is to survey the develop ment of environmentally significant legislation in pre industrial Russia and to identify the laws that are still relevant for use (even if partial) in modern practice and in the conditions of a market economy and private property relations.
From the very beginning of its existence, human society has not only been dependent on the external environment and climate but has also made an impact on them, even though at the first stages it was not understood. Suffice it to mention mammoths, which were most likely hunted to extinction by Paleolithic men, desertification caused by overgrazing of cattle in dry years, and deforestation resulting from slashand burn farming. The adverse environmental effects at early stages of human history were limited by tribal customs and later by government legislation. In Russia, the first attempts at the legal protection of the environment were made via limitations pre scribed by the laws on property; only much later did the conservation of natural resources become an object of special attention. Initially, the significance of nature preservation was attached only to economic aspects, but later health and even aesthetic issues were recognized as important. Economic interests were at first confined to land use and game and fish manage ment, and only since the eighteenth century did the importance of mineral resources start to gain recogni tion. The global threat of environmental deterioration on our planet caused by anthropogenic and, in partic ular, industrial load was only realized by the Russian scientific community at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. Certainly, not all modern environmental problems were covered by the legislation of prerevolutionary (especially preindustrial) Russia. At the same time,
BACKGROUND DATA Although some early environmentally significant laws can be found in various versions of Russkaya Pravda (the legal code of Kievan Rus) of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and the subsequent law codes 81
82
KRENKE, CHERNAVSKAYA
Change in the priorities of environmental legislation reflecting the changes sovereigns
0
5
2
0
2
Feodor Alekseyevich
358
10
2.8
5
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
cotsars Ioann Alekseyevich and Peter Alekseyevich
531
19
3.6
2
3
4
4
0
0
2
1
3
3063
126
4.1
4
52
12
9
10
15
2
6
16
Empress Catherine I
370
6
1.6
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Peter II
495
10
2.0
0
5
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
2800
115
4.1
2
31
28
5
8
12
8
1
20
186
9
4.8
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
4
Elizabeth I of Russia (Elizabeth Petrovna)
2880
96
3.3
4
26
4
9
6
21
3
6
17
Catherine II (the Great)
5889
125
2.1
15
52
9
16
10
5
2
0
16
Paul I
1998
47
2.4
1
30
3
1
2
2
2
1
5
total Peter The Great
Empress Anna I (Anna Ioannovna) Grand Duchess Anna Leopoldovna of Russia
other
mineral resources
2
health protection
1
rivers, pollu tion, shipping
1
fish, sea and river fishery
9
game hunting
3.7
forest
22
land use
590
proportion of environmental acts, %
Aleksei Mikhailovich
Sovereign
environmental
fire hazards
Number of issued legal acts
Alexander I
10865
228
2.1
22
115
3
16
18
15
1
13
25
Nicholas I
28851
418
1.4
46
220
32
29
23
9
7
31
21
Total
58876 1231
2.1
111
542
95
92
81
87
32
60
134
* The column “Other” includes urban ecology, roads, and new crop cultures.
(sudebniks) of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we have systematically investigated the first two Collec tions of Laws of the Russian Empire, starting from the Council Code (Sobornoe Ulozhenie) of Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich promulgated in 1649 up to the last edict of Emperor Nicholas I issued in 1855 [2, 3]. There are 58876 edicts in these collections, including royal edicts of the tsars, edicts issued by the Boyar Duma (the royal council of the upper strata of the ruling elite in the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries), the Senate, and individual governmental administrative departments, out of which 1231, or 2.1%, are con cerned with environmental problems (see table and Figs. 1, 2).1 We consider the development of the legis lation in the sequence taking into account the succes sion of government bodies drawing up the relevant laws (Boyar Duma, Senate, and Committee of Minis ters) and the sovereigns. 1 The
authors have compiled a database including the titles of all the environmental edicts and the texts of these edicts or their fragments.
Environmental Edicts in the Legislation of the Boyar Duma Period (1649–1710) The Council Code of 1649 contains 23 environmen tal statutes regulating the conservation of arable land and hayfields, protected areas of border abatises, and river navigation (passages made in fishing nets). Of great importance was the extension of these laws to army field forces, which after Holy Trinity Day were prohibited to camp at a distance exceeding 5 sazhen (1 sazhen = 216 cm) from the road to avoid grass trampling. Double compensation was paid for losses inflicted by the troops. Landlords and holders of patrimonial estates were allowed to cut wood on their land for their own needs but not for sale. The Tsar’s Edict 250 as of 1659 stipu lated the protection of the population engaged in wild hive beekeeping from military camps. In granting the empty lands previously occupied or threatened by nomadic tribes, special attention at that time was paid to mandatory tilling of part of the wooded areas (the Tsar’s edict 912 of 1682). Utiliza tion of the wild lands including their transfer to mon asteries was the priority in environmental laws over
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
1400
83
25 1
1200
2 20
All the acts
1000 15
800 600
10
400 5 200 0
1649 1655 1661 1667 1673 1679 1685 1691 1697 1703 1709 1715 1721 1727 1733 1739 1745 1751 1757 1763 1769 1775 1781 1787 1793 1799 1805 1811 1817 1823 1829 1835 1841 1847 1853
0
Proportion of environmentally significant acts in the entire body of laws
DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
Years Fig. 1. Change in the legislative activity of Russia in 1649–1855: (1) all the acts, (2) proportion of environmentally significant acts in the entire body of laws.
All the acts 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
Boyar Duma 1
Senate 2
3
4
5
6
Committee of Ministers 7
8
9
10
Fig. 2. Change in the priorities of environmental legislation of Russia reflecting the activity of legislative bodies (Boyar Duma, Senate, and Committee of Ministers). Environmentally significant acts: (1) land use; (2) forest; (3) game hunting; (4) fishery, sea and river fishing, and other operations; (5) rivers, their pollution, navigation; (6) health protection; (7) urban ecology; (8) mineral resources; (9) fires; (10) new crop cultures.
39 years of the reign of Aleksei Mikhailovich and his son Fedor (about 50%). The landowners’ rights were restricted even on the lands transferred into their own ership. In particular, the edict of Boyar Duma (7972 of 2 Hereinafter,
the number of the edict is given and the year of its issue while the word “edict” is omitted. REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
1680) stipulates the management of shipbuilding woods near Archangelsk. A prominent place is held by edicts on protection from epidemics of plague (184, 187 of 1656, and 209 of 1657), on fireprevention measures in Moscow (407 of 1657), on pollution control in the Kremlin (entrance on horseback was prohibited), and later, under the 2011
84
KRENKE, CHERNAVSKAYA
joint rule of Ioann and Peter, on street cleaning in Moscow prescribing the places for waste landfills. After the accession of Peter the Great, the issues covered by legislative acts and their geography expand significantly. The first edicts appear on mineral explo ration in Siberia and selection of sites for works and factories. Systematized and ordered duties are imposed on wild harvest (picking mushrooms and ber ries for sale), from grouse and other display patches in pinewoods, and from fishing. It was obligatory to sell part (but only a part) of sable skins to the state treasury. Riding to hounds was prohibited at a distance of less than 50 versts (1 versta = 1.0668 km) from Moscow. After the beginning of the Great Northern War and building of the Navy, the emphasis shifted to the pro tection and management of shipbuilding woods. One of the most important innovations introduced by Peter the Great was the emergence of special environmental services called waldmeisters (foresters). The condi tions of timber harvesting depended on the species of wood and their quality, geographical regions, and on the distance from floatable rivers. The protection of forests near rivers with the regulations requiring that the trees were only to be cut for state needs facilitated the delivery of timber to the wharves and also helped to sustain the water content of rivers. The regulations covered fishery, quarrying, whal ing, and seal fishery, restricting the number of compa nies authorized to trade in sea mammals and moose hunting. Later the first laws appeared about prospect ing and use of mineral waters. Of interest is also a demographic edict prohibiting women under forty from entering a convent (1856 of 1701). Environmental Edicts Issued over the Period of the Senate Legislative Activity (1711–1801) From 1711, the responsibility for drawing up and issue of laws was transferred from the Boyar Duma, which was discontinued by Peter the Great, to the Governing Senate consisting of high officials appointed by the Tsar. During the reign of Peter the Great, the greatest attention was paid to the supervi sion and management of forests, especially timber reserves. A special decree prohibited cutting thick pin ewood (Novgorod, Staraya Russa, Lutsk, and Toropets districts) and prescribed severe punishment for viola tors. Of practical interest today is the stipulation that the officials granting illegal permits for the activity prohibited by the environmental legislation were to be punished more severely than the violators themselves (2607 of 1712, 3391 of 1719, and 4379 of 1723). In the provinces closest to St. Petersburg, the use of forests was regulated especially strictly, cutting oaks was punished by the death penalty (3646 of 1720). Foresters were to put a special mark with an official state emblem on oak trees. Priests were prohibited to officiate at funerals when oak coffins were used. In
remote regions far from St. Petersburg (Ufa province, in Siberia and Astrakhan province), it was permitted to cut oak trees (3552 of 1720). By edict 3719 of 1721, it was permitted to cut trees in limeforests and remove lime bark in strips to make bast shoes. The legislation was somewhat loosened in 1721 for “merchants selling mast trees overseas” (both for Russian and foreign merchants.) At the same time, exact stipulations were given about the limiting size of the mast trees allowed for cutting (length up to 65 feet, tree thickness for three sazhens up to 20 inches, diam eter at base up to 12 inches), at the same time one tree in ten was to be submitted to the Admiralty (3744 of 1721). The Senate at various times issued decrees related to health protection. Special outposts were established to prevent epidemics. Later, similar edicts were repeated during the reign of different tsars as applied to specific localities, in particular, in border towns and depending on the specific threat. An attempt was made to control the quality of the food products sold; i.e., markets were organized in St. Petersburg for trade in comestibles and the salesmen were to wear white uniforms (2714 of 1713, 3210 of 1718, and 3236 of 1718). It was prohibited to let the livestock out in the streets, and special areas were established for pasture (3386 of 1719) and for slaughtering (3422 of 1719). It was also forbidden to bury people within the limits of the city, except the higher nobility (4322 of 1723). The construction works in St. Petersburg requiring largescale deliveries of building stone and timber (2852 of 1714) brought about the important problem of securing safe river navigation, river cleaning from “straddled” tree trunks during log driving, which was legally awarded by onefifth of the rummaged wood (2934 of 1715). The banks of the Neva River were strengthened, and it was prohibited to pollute it and other rivers with sewage (3382 of 1719). The city plan ning and development of St. Petersburg were regulated (3203 of 1718), allowance was made for possible floods in the city, and in this connection in all the buildings the “lower floors had to be above the level of flooding water” (3853 of 1721 and 4982 of 1726). In June 1721 the first decree was issued regulating river pearling and it prescribed the measures (methods and seasons of pearling) intended to prevent the dep redation of a valuable natural resource (3794 of 1721). At that time prospecting for mineral waters started in Russia. In 1719 it was announced that Marcial waters were found in Olonets and their healthy effects were described (3092, 3338, and 3579). During the reign of Catherine I, several legal acts were issued again regulating the use of forests and pro hibiting woodcutting in protected groves (4667, 4783 of 1725). Peter II repeated the ban on logging in reserve forests without special permits issued by the Admiralty Collegium (5096 of 1727 and 5378 of 1728) and brought back the regulation of abatises giving the charge over such forests and their good state to Gover
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
nors and Voyevodas (governors of a border fortress or town) (5139 of 1727). Out of 2800 edicts issued by the Empress and the Senate during the reign of Anna Ioannovna, 4.1% were related to environmental issues. For the first time, attention was paid not only to forest protection but also to their restoration: An “Instruction on Preserva tion and Planting of Shipbuilding Forests” was issued (6027 of 1732). Suitable governmentowned lands were allocated for afforestation, and the local land owners were charged with planting forests on their estates (6826 of 1735). A special edict specified the species of wood (oak, maple, ash, elm, and pine), log ging of which was totally prohibited (6111 of 1732). Narva merchants were allowed logging and sales of timber but in the amounts not threatening “devasta tion” (6933 and 6967 of 1736). Special attention was paid to correct behavior in cities, their cleanliness, and amenities. Special places were allocated for garbage disposal (5539 of 1730). Of interest is the edict about monitoring the number of dogs in the city (7899 of 1739) connected with the threat of rabies. Inbound visitors from abroad had to produce certificates that they had not previously been to places where contagious diseases were rampant (5635 of 1730). Great attention was paid to hunting regulations. Prohibition was introduced against riding to hounds, bird shooting, and netting birds and animals at a dis tance of 20 versts around Moscow, and special punish ment was stipulated against the violators (5526 of 1730 and 5760 of 1731). Later the protected area was increased to 50 versts (7575 of 1738). A ban was imposed on foreign sales of furs (8033 of 1740). In 1738 in Voronezh Province, a green pharmacy was set up and an expedition was sent to look for medicinal herbs, which earlier had only been imported (7577). During the short rule of Duchess Anna Leopoldovna as regent, nine edicts were issued relat ing to ecology, which continued the policy of the pre vious ruler. During the reign of Elizabeth I of Russia, out of 2880 edicts issued by the Sovereign and the Senate over 21 years of her reign, 3.3% concerned environ mental issues. Along with the regulation of forest man agement, serious attention was paid to the protection of population and livestock from epidemic diseases and from grasshopper plagues, to cleanliness, fire pre vention, and keeping peace in the streets. In order to limit use of timber in industrial fur naces, edict 10285 of 1754 prescribed the closure of all the crystal, glass, and iron works within a radius of 200 versts from Moscow and even stipulated the reset tlement of their staff. It was prohibited to set up new plants and factories in the forests closest to St. Peters burg (10914 of 1759). The relocation was considered of already existing plants including Sestroretsk REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
85
armory; the Senate assessed the amount of timber consumed but actually only two factories were closed. Of current interest (taking into account the talks about meat imports from Europe) are edicts about a ban imposed in connection with cattle murrain on the import of meat from Holland (9119 of 1745) and Ukraine (9716 of 1750). Edict 9773 of 1752 prohibited the import of horses to Russia because of horse epi zooty in Sweden. For the purpose of crop protection, measures were prescribed for the prevention of grass hopper plagues (9507 of 1748, 9624 of 1749 for Bel gorod province), and for the protection of trees, spe cial measures for pest control were introduced (9633 of 1749). During the reign of Catherine II (the Great) at the time of successful military expansion of the Empire to the fertile lands in the south and west, of the greatest significance were the edicts regulating the title to land. The government no longer needed abatises and empty lands, and they were put up on public auctions (11651 of 1762). The state disposed of all the lands that were not in private ownership, including forests and hay fields, allowing the buyers their possible subsequent tilling. All noblemen and gentry were entitled to par ticipate in these auctions in Moscow and St. Peters burg. However, edict 12905 of 1767 already prohibited selling the abatises, which Tula armories were in need of, while the hayfields in these areas were allowed to be leased. Of interest is the instruction requiring renam ing during the land surveys all lands, wastelands, riv ers, rivulets, and other natural areas with “indecorous names” (12999 of 1767). The forest inventory was improving; i.e., forest stand maps were made of Arch angelsk province, and forests were surveyed and inspected in Finland (12172 and 12445 of 1764). A special edict regulated the rules of forest use for colonists settled in Saratov province (12360 of 1765). At the same time, the regulations covered the activity already underway in the forests allocated to foreigners (wildhive beekeeping, hunting, and fishing). The col onists were allowed to cut woods with the exception of trees with wild hives, but only for their own needs (12827 of 1767). The environmental requirements on private land owners were becoming less strict. Drastic changes were introduced in forestry legislation, and the forests were transferred into complete ownership of the pri vate holders including logging and exports (after pay ment of the duties) of any kind of timber (15518 of 1782). The state, including the Admiralty, was obliged to buy ship timber from landlords by voluntary agree ment. The issue of this edict triggered intensive logging of oaks everywhere, including the forests in state or peasants’ ownership because of improper or absent demarcation. The Senate after receiving the informa tion from Tambov province about the improper use of oaks including even making fences issued a decree about the preservation of the stateowned oak woods 2011
86
KRENKE, CHERNAVSKAYA
(16934 of 1791) and again confirmed the ban on cut ting the marked oak trees (17106 of 1793). Of fundamental importance was the edict (16548 of 1787) personally issued by the Empress to Prince Potemkin about forest planting in Novorossia. It pre scribed forest planting and especially seeding the tree species suitable for the natural conditions of the terri tory. For the year 1788, special money allocations were made including awards for private landowners partic ularly successful in forest cultivation. A Forest Code was issued dividing Russia into three zones: the boreal zone between the 57° and 67° north of Greenwich, the southern zone including Kiev, Eka terinoslav, Taurida, and Caucasian provinces, and the central zone (16564 of 1786). For each zone a special mode of logging operation was prescribed. In the boreal zone, logging was prescribed to be organized at different times on small (about one hectare) plots in each of the regions leaving some young and healthy trees to secure the future restoration of the forest. Important edicts prescribed the introduction in Russia of new agricultural crops and plants. Edict 12281 of 1764 allowed a Frenchman A. Verdier to set up a mulberry plantation near Saratov and granted him a loan. In the abovementioned Forest Code, the introduction of red oak, ash, Brewer spruce, balsam fir, Siberian crab, dwarf birch, and other shrubs was recommended. Edict 12406 of 1765 contained instruction on potato (“ground apple”) cultivation in Russia, which was to become one of today’s most pop ular garden crops. Just as during the previous reigns, some edicts reg ulated the hunting and wildlife protection. Shooting of animals and birds was prohibited from March 1 to June 29 (11876 of 1763). However, an edict of 1764 allowed bird hunting in Siberia at any time, and on flooded islands this permit was expanded to animals, too (12025). Whaling was resumed in Spitsbergen (12158 of 1764). The residents of Archangelsk and Velikii Ustyug provinces were allowed unrestricted hunting because the population (especially northern national minorities) lacked foodstuffs, birds came only in spring, and animal hunting was traditionally con tinued up to April (12349 of 1765). Important here are both the concern about indigenous peoples and the equal rights with them granted to the Russian popula tion when the living conditions were the same. A series of edicts covered the protection and regu lation of fisheries. It was prohibited to fish for under sized sterlet in the Neva, while the large fish was to be sold to the government and not to private customers (11962 of 1763). The ban on the vendace fishing in the Neva and Gulf of Finland before August was con firmed (13627 of 1771). All Saratov fisheries except those belonging to foreign colonists were farmed out (14881 of 1779). As before, considerable attention was paid to maintaining safe river navigation.
During the fiveyear reign of Emperor Paul 1, 47 environmentally directed edicts were issued, so while the total number of decrees was 1998, the ecological edicts accounted for 2.4% of them. About twothirds of environmental edicts concerned the preservation and use of forests. The control of forests was trans ferred from the Admiralty and its subdivisions or from independent forest ranger offices to the newly estab lished Forest Department with increased staff and government financing. Its first task was to finalize the demarcation of stateowned and private forests, which by that time had been completed in only seven prov inces. The forests intended for logging were subdivided into oneyear coppices. These limits could not be vio lated by the leasers of the stateowned forests either, and the stump height after logging was limited to seven vershoks (about 31 cm). After logging, new trees were to be planted or sown and cattle grazing was prohib ited. Stateowned peasants were allowed to use the forests for their own needs only but not to cut wood for sale. The transfer of stateowned forests to private owners was prohibited, which seems still to be an important issue (18816 of 1798). On the Akhtuba, rearing of silkworms was encouraged (17847 of 1707). By edict 18172 of the same year, the volunteers were offered lands along the Yauza River on the condition of planting orchards there. Environmental Edicts Issued over the Period of the Legislative Activity of the Committee of Ministers (1802–1855) With the accession of Alexander I, the Senate retained only judicial functions while the legislative functions were transferred to the Committee of Minis ters. During his reign, 10 865 edicts were issued, out of which 228 (2.1%) related to environmental issues. Half of these edicts were issued during the first five years of his rule, which was the period of initiated but not completed reforms. The other half came from the remaining 20 years when the Emperor was busy with wars and foreign policy. The main attention was still focused on forests (115 edicts). At the same time, the government bodies in charge of forest management were constantly changing as well as the rules and regulations they issued, and sometimes stipulations were replaced by directly opposite ones. Below, only the main stages of the forest legislation are presented. Peasantowned forest plots were supervised by the volost (district) administration. Stateowned settlements were granted woods “proportionally” and as agreed with the Forest Department (23951 of 1808). Free use of stateowned woods was allowed for laying of channels. Unautho rized logging was to be the responsibility of the provin cial government officials (22655 of 1807). If whole set tlements or large groups of people were engaged in unauthorized logging, such cases were in the jurisdic tion of the Senate (24332 of 1810). Edict 21932 of
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
1805 allowed granting timber for repairs of roads and bridges on the roads. The regulation of timber export was developed (20211 of 1802 and 29436 of 1823), new stumpages were introduced unified for all of Russia. A new project of a Forest Statute was approved (20506 of 1802). The Forest Department passed to the control of the Ministry of Finance and the Senate. Forest inspections were introduced in some provinces (21644 of 1805, 22008 of 1806), and decree 25817 of 1815 cancels these inspections and one inspection established earlier. In Voronezh (Shipovo, Tellerman, and Polpino) and Moscowarea (Elk Island) woods, a special forest guard was set up (21085 of 1803). For the better pres ervation of six Moscowarea groves, a special forestry management unit was established (21494 of 1804). Moose Island was transferred to the control of the Kremlin Expedition (25665 of 1808). Interestingly, the preservation of Moose Island has remained an issue even now after 200 years! In order to alleviate the situation for the peasants of Archangelsk province, logging was allowed (21107 of 1803) as well as tilling of some parts of the forest and tar distillation, all year round (21486 of 1804, 28793 of 1823). Rules were approved of granting forests to peas ants fully dependent in some provinces on hunting, gathering, and tar distillation (21285 of 1804). A regional approach was developed to forest man agement at a provincial level, which appears to be fea sible nowadays as well. Fathom (sazhen)based duties were introduced on the wood cut by peasants of St. Petersburg province for sale on their land (21679 of 1805). Fees were established for the sales of timber and woodwork in Vyatka province (21304 of 1804). In order to prevent deforestation, logging (even for military and defense purposes) was allowed only for isolated coppices (20699 of 1803). However, when the war with France began in 1805, regiments were allowed to cut woods they needed (21819). State owned settlers paid no fine for cutting wood if they used it for their own needs (25411 of 1813) within the stipulated annual proportion (25640 of 1815). Peas ants belonging to landowners found guilty of unautho rized logging in stateowned forests were forcefully drafted or exiled to Siberia (25581 of 1815). The state was assuming an increasing role in forest ownership and management (25969 of 1815 and 28474 of 1820). More than 20 edicts covered the distribution of land property, which was environmentally significant because the land use depended on the type of owner ship. For instance, logging rights differed for the lands belonging to landowners, lands of stateowned peas ants, and mining territories. Lands were distributed in order to encourage cattle breeding in southern prov inces (22316 of 1806). Some edicts were devoted to pastures (20292 of 1802, 21305 of 1804, 21336 of 1804, and 21727 of 1805), and lands were allocated for foraging horse and artillery regiments. The Governor REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
87
of Orenburg province was instructed to provide suit able pastures for Bukhara merchants on the banks of the Ural River (20623 of 1803). Over the last years of the reign of Alexander I, the distribution of earlier conquered lands in the south became the main prob lem related to ecology (e.g., 28171 of 1820 and 30518 of 1825). Then, three measures (dessyatins) of waste land were taken equal to one measure of good land (29184 of 1822). The indigenous peoples of the North and Siberia (“voguls paying tributes in furs”) were allowed to hunt and trap animals and to fish in all the neighboring for ests and waters; they were granted a specified amount of arable and grass land; and they were to pay the same duties as before and were encouraged to lead a settled life (25763 of 1815). The regulatory policy with respect to fishing was based on the assumption that marine waters even where the shores were densely populated were nobody’s property and the first property of the kind to be declared as common use were fisheries in Astrakhan province (20388 of 1802, 20861 of 1803). Fishing and sealing were regulated in the Caspian and White seas, and fishery was controlled in the Sea of Asov (24205 of 1809, 20893 of 1803). A treaty was signed with Great Britain including the right for trade, sea navigation, and fishing in the Pacific Ocean up to the common border in the northwest of America (30233 of 1825). Fishing rights were granted also to military settlements (26860 of 1817). In order to prevent obstructions and to free navigation on the Zapadnaya Dvina (Daugava), fishing weirs constructed using wooden stakes were prohibited (26876 of 1817), and in shipping channels fishing was absolutely prohibited (29455 of 1823). Game stamps (tickets) were introduced (20158 of 1802) for chasing animals and birds not only in state owned but also on privately owned lands. Efforts were continued to maintain river and chan nel navigation (20585, 20955, and 30644 of 1803; 23588 and 23916 of 1809; 27702 of 1819). Regulation was adopted of floating logs and cordwood down rivers and lakes (24427 and 24430 of 1810). The first detailed edict was issued about sustaining navigation routes in Siberia (28880 of 1822). Decrees were issued about the management of salt lakes in the Crimea, lower Volga (El’ton), and Siberia (Norzinskoye) (21387 of 1804, 21636 of 1805, 27448 of 1818, 28880 and 28881 of 1822). Greater attention was paid to mineral waters. An edict issued in 1806 regulated the management of Lipetsk mineral water spa (22995), and in 1823 Lipetsk mineral waters and the entire spa were trans ferred to the city government (29471). In 1823, medi cal officers were appointed to Caucasian spas (29409). A doctor and his assistant were sent to Tunkinskii min eral spring on an island in Lake Baikal (29750 of 1823). 2011
88
KRENKE, CHERNAVSKAYA
The publication of the draft mining regulation (22208 of 1806) signified the development of legisla tion regulating the extraction of useful minerals. All the subjects of the Russian Empire were allowed mining and production of gold and silver ore on the condition of paying duties to the treasury (25119 of 1812). All adherents to faiths other than the Russian Ortho dox Church in Irkutsk province were entitled to ore mining and production in the lands they owned (27501 of 1818). The Military Collegium was instructed to keep clean the fortresses and private buildings and struc tures (21418 of 1804). For keeping the air clean, edict 28754 of 1821 was issued prohibiting to set up candle, tallow, and soap works and tanneries in St. Petersburg without special permission and allocation of specific sites by the GovernorGeneral. A Frenchman Colson was granted permission to build backhouses with mov ing facilities and to prepare manure fertilizer (29520 of 1823). In 1822, edict 20105 was issued prescribing for the first time the preservation of antiquities (in Crimea only as nobody at the time thought about Moscow!). After the accession of Nicholas I, one of the first decrees issued was the edict about the “gradual intro duction of proper forest management” stipulating the forest subdivision into regions and forest districts, and internal division of woods into forest blocks and forest plats (felling areas) (415 of 1826 hereinafter referred to as [3]). This referred to the European part of the Rus sian Empire, in particular, Olonets, St. Petersburg, Pskov, and Kazan provinces. The edict on forest man agement in Kiev province specially stipulated a permit to “use annually the amount of wood that will be recovered over the next year” (434). In 18 provinces, mostly southern areas where there were only scarce forests and in the eastern territories in connection with the resettlement of large quantities of stateowned peasants, the timber from the state owned forest plots was no longer granted for sale (3931 of 1830). Timber export was suspended for the western provinces (4401 of 1831). In sparsely wooded areas it was allowed to allocate some of the urban territories for forest growing (5842 of 1832). In order to prevent forest devastation in the mountain part of the Crimean peninsular, it was prohibited for Tartars to keep goats (12993 of 1839); the was the first time that attention was paid to mountain forests. In the Regulations of the Don Cossack Troops Command and Control, it was prescribed that bul rush, ill weed, and dung brick fuel was to be used for heating. Out of forest products, only brushwood was allowed to be used for that purpose. At the same time, afforestation was encouraged in these areas (8163 of 1835). The existing business of stripping bark from young limes necessitated the measures for the preser vation of stateowned lime forests in Kostroma, Vyatka, Orenburg, Perm’, Kaluga, and Tula provinces (4886 of 1831). Fines were increased for unauthorized
logging in stateowned forests at short distances from the rivers (up to ten versts) (4781 of 1831). In Eastern Siberia, wooded land clearing was allowed for arable farming to the population including the “inorodtsy” (representatives of national minori ties) (5366 of 1832) and state criminals (14014 of 1837). As an encouragement, it was allowed to use the cleared plots for 40 years (2283 of 1828). The policy of forest protection was somewhat changed in the 1840s. Lumberjacks were no longer obliged to clean the forests of tree tops, branchwood, chipped wood, and bark after logging (16148 of 1842 and 21986 of 1848). According to the Forest Statute, a Russian–American company was granted the right of unlimited use of a forest in Okhotsk region for its needs (18290 of 1844). Forests belonging to factories and plants were detached from the control of the For estry Department (22923 of 1849). Permission was given to export walnut timber from Guria, Mingrelia, and Abkhazia after the payment of export duties (21178 of 1847). Special measures, however, were taken to conserve the oak forests near Sestroretsk armory planted by Peter the Great himself (20421 of 1846). In order to promote the construction and develop ment of Caucasian mineral water spas, a special edict was issued (1654 of 1827). The resolution of the Com mittee of Ministers was approved about setting up Sergiyev mineral water spa in Orenburg province (5345 of 1832). The Cossack regiment in Essentuki Cossack village retained the right to use and manage alkaline mineral waters (13292 of 1840). A jointstock society was established for supplying clean Neva water to St. Petersburg (27440 of 1853). An important problem of efficient land use was the preservation of towpaths along the banks of rivers and other water basins used for towing vessels and rafts. Those occupied significant areas throughout the Empire. The necessity arose for a legislative definition of the right of using these lands for other purposes, including fishing (10964 of 1838). It was specially stip ulated in fishery regulation that the 10sazhen space allocated for the towing paths was not to be damaged or occupied by buildings (8079 of 1835). In edicts limiting hunting, certain continuance was observed. In January of 1827 the validity of edicts was confirmed issued as early as in 1740 and 1763 prohib iting riding to hounds and game shooting at a distance of 30 versts from St. Petersburg, Peterhof, Tsarskoe Selo, and Krasnoye Selo and at a distance of 15 versts from Moscow. Moreover, from March 1 to July 1, a nationwide prohibition was established of hunting for all game except predatory (811 of 1827). As a develop ment of the earlier issued edicts, it was strictly prohib ited to take birds’ nests except those of predatory birds (2651 of 1829). People engaged in unauthorized game hunting in stateowned lands in the neighborhood of St. Petersburg and Moscow were to pay a fine and if it was impossible for any reason, guns and hounds were
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION
to be confiscated (5758 of 1832). At the same time, in connection with the harvest failure of 1834, game hunting and sales were temporarily allowed in Novorussian, Bessarabian, Voronezh, Tambov, Cauca sian provinces, lands belonging to the Don Cossack troops, and some other areas (6950 of 1834). Fishing and sealing remained an important part of the Russian economy. Greater rights were given to local residents for fishing in the lands allocated to Siberian Cossack Linear Troops with a tenth of the fish harvest to be submitted to the general military admin istration (1198 of 1827). In the White Sea and Sheksna and Volga rivers, it was prohibited to use selfactivating traps and other harmful fishing gear under the threat of fine (2330 of 1828). The main emphasis was laid on organizing fisheries in the Caspian Sea (585 of 1826 and 20564 of 184) and, in particular, on the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea (25741 of 1851). Increased financial support was granted to the Astrakhan fishing and sealing expedition (21680 of 1847). Rules were developed for the protection of fishing zones in the Caspian Sea belonging to the Ural Cossack Troops (24761 of 1850). Civilian Governors were charged with monitoring the use of pasture farmland to prevent those from sei zure or occupation by some buildings and to protect the community pasture when some plots were tempo rarily leased out for rentinkind (10303 of 1837). The success and efforts in horticultural activities were awarded by medals and free supply of vine and seeds (2280 of 1828 and 23717 of 1849). Among the measures taken to promote horticulture were setting up “schools of sylvestral and garden plants” and import of climatically suitable grapevines (2661 of 1829). In April of 1828, a gardener Reader was offi cially sent to Kamchatka to lay out a stateowned orchard in Petropavlovsk and to make experiments on growing crops, garden plants, and fruit trees (2452). In 1830, Imperial approval was granted to the Statute of the Committee of Ministers about the construction of a conservatory with a hothouse in Kamchatka “for improvement in botanical issues” (3782). A significant increase was observed in the number of edicts covering the development of mineral mining and industry. In these edicts environmental problems were partially taken into account in land distribution. The founders of various establishments using commu nal lands temporarily or forever had to pay rent depending on the area and the quality of the land leased for rentinkind (3410 of 1830). The owners of private gold fields were granted an unlimited right of washing the goldcontaining sand on forest plots granted by the treasury to industrial plants (10055 of 1837). At the same time, regulations were developed for forest protection in Vologda and Orenburg prov inces during goldmining (11732 of 1838, 28156 of 1854). Coalmining by the residents of the territories belonging to the Don Cossack Troops was also to com ply with the approved regulations (25669 of 1851). REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
89
Crude oil production was developed near the Cas pian Sea (12890 of 1839). Mineral oil springs in the land belonging to the Black Sea Cossack troops (20847 of 1847) as well as the Baku and Shirvan oil fields were leased out (23340 of 1849 and 24361 of 1850). Encouraged were land reclamation by marsh drainage, development and fertilizing of barren lands, and the establishment of plants and factories, the operation of which did not lead to forest devastation (4634 of 1831 and 25090 of 1851). Fire control efforts were continued in villages and forests (23385 of 1849, 26020 of 1852). Fires were often caused by the flame cultivation of fields and steppe in Novorussian krai, Bessarabia, and Orenburg province (27734 of 1853). Measures were taken to protect the forests of Western Siberia from fires (27027 of 1853). In 1845, the Criminal and Correctional Code was imperially approved and adopted covering the entire range of environmental issues existing at that time (19283). An example is punishment for violating the rules of “preservation of the air purity and water safety.” A distinction was made in the punishment for intentional arson of stateowned (somebody else’s) forests and arson by negligence. The law at that time already prescribed the punishment for changing the direction of a river current. CONCLUSIONS Role, Priorities, and Topicality of the Environmental Legislation of PreRevolutionary Russia Our research shows that systematic environmental legislation in Russia began to develop as early as 350 years ago. Over the entire period considered, the annual number of edicts issued increased from a few to 700–1200 (see the table and Figs. 1, 2). The number of edicts grew sharply at the time when the Senate was established and also in the years preceding the estab lishment of ministry collegiums. The proportion of environmental edicts remained within the range of 1.5–4%. In some years it reached 20–22%, but peri odically such edicts were totally absent. The intensi fied legislative activity led to a drop in the proportion of environmental edicts from the time of the Boyar Duma to the Senate period followed by the Commit tee of Ministers. At the same time, the absolute num ber of environmental edicts did not decrease and the issues they covered became increasingly diversified. The priorities of environmental legislation changed reflecting the state needs and private interests. At the first stage of developing new lands, the priority was given to creating the conditions for agricultural devel opment. Later, when the emphasis was shifted to the Navy, the protection of the shipbuilding woods became a priority issue. The emergence and develop ment of industrial plants necessitated legal limits on 2011
90
KRENKE, CHERNAVSKAYA
the natural resources they consumed. In the eigh teenth century, of utmost importance were the laws helping to prevent epidemics, in the nineteenth cen tury the priority issue was the protection of mineral water sources and the quality of drinking water. Despite the changing priorities, over the entire period considered the continuity of environmental requirements was observed consisting in systematic references made to the previously issued edicts. At the same time, the severity of laws on private owners and the proportion of adopted laws regulating stateowned lands and lands in private ownership changed depend ing on particular sovereigns and rulers. Numerous specifics of the environmentally ori ented legislation of the studied period retained rele vance in modern Russia in addressing the issue of bal ancing national (communal) and private interests in the conditions of a market economy. The following characteristics appear to be of primary importance: (1) Environmental restrictions were imposed not only on stateowned lands but also on estates trans ferred into private ownership. (2) Private trade in natural resources was subject to state regulation. The number of private companies was limited including those granted the export rights; quo tas were introduced on the sales of timber, furs, etc. Presale primary processing (e.g., timber sawing) was encouraged. Sometimes the landowner was only allowed to use the resources (wood, gamehunting) for his own needs without the rights of sale. (3) Starting from the Legal Code of 1649 there were laws requiring environmentally safe behavior of the Army even in conditions of military campaigns. (4) Special attention was paid to the protection and restoration of forests, water basins, and strand lines (prohibition of sewage dumping, channel clearing, limitations on timber rafting and log floating, fishing regulations, exclusion of riparian zones from private ownership etc.). (5) Geographical position and specifics were taken into consideration in regulating the relations con
nected with the use of natural resources. For example, logging regulations depended on the percentage of forested area and distance from rivers and from both capitals. (6) Favorable treatment conditions were granted to the indigenous peoples of the Far North, mountain areas, and dry steppes for the use of natural resources. (7) Encouraged were efforts aimed at the restora tion of the environmental components, such as forest plantation, breeding, cultivation, and introduction of new species of plants, animals, and birds. (8) A system of severe punishment existed for envi ronmental violations. As often as not, stricter punish ment, up to exile, was administered to officials con doning the violations than to the violators themselves. (9) Many laws covering the preservation of antiqui ties, state regulation of town planning and develop ment, protection of parks and gardens in the cities, sprucing up streets and roads, quality control of pri vately sold food products including market sales, pro hibition of speeding, debauchery, and bawdry, and the prohibition of women under forty entering into a con vent (demographic problem!) retain their significance for Russia even after all these years. REFERENCES 1. Dobrovol’skii, G.V., Rozenberg, G.S., Chibilev, A.A., Rysin, L.P., Samsonov S.V., and Tishkov A.A., Once More about the Environmental Heritage of Russia, Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 2005, vol. 75, No. 9, pp. 787– 792. 2. Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiikoi imperii (1649–1825) (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (1649–1825)), St. Petersburg: Printing House of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chan cery, 1830, vols. 1–5. 3. Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiikoi imperii (1825–1880) (Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire (1825–1880)), St. Petersburg: Printing House of the II Department of His Imperial Majesty’s Own Chan cery, 1880, vols. 1–40.
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
