Officials duplicated the bill on the destruction of Red Book plants and fungi.

Attacks on Russia’s protected-area system continue — with such force and on such a scale that one has to ask: are there any restraining mechanisms left inside the system at all? Will anyone control the draft laws being submitted, or will lobbying groups continue tearing apart the country’s protected-area system for their own private interests?

So, allies. We are facing a new serious threat, and if we do not join forces and speak out now, we may lose the ability to defend protected areas. Let me remind you that earlier, on February 20, 2026, officials submitted for consideration a draft regulation that attempts to legalize the transplantation of rare plant and fungal species listed in the Red Book, in order to seize their territories for business interests. This is entirely ANTI-SCIENTIFIC: many species cannot be moved at all, especially fungi — they depend on their habitat and are embedded in highly complex feedback networks within biogeocenoses.

Draft regulation No. 165718 was submitted for consideration, and together, as a united front, we opposed it. Russia’s environmental community and scientists began demanding that its adoption be stopped before an irreversible catastrophe occurs. We are making progress; we are managing to push back against this madness, but the draft regulation is still active and remains under consideration.

Apparently realizing that it may not be possible to push it through, the authors quietly launched a second similar draft regulation — practically a copy of the previous one. On April 22, 2026, another regulation was submitted for consideration under No. 167465. In substance, it is exactly the same: they are brazenly striking at the country’s protected-area system again. Now society will have to push back against two draft regulations at once.

Both versions create a legal procedure for the removal, collection, transplantation, transfer, and subsequent “circulation” of plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and regional Red Books. The main danger remains: Red Book species are proposed to be removed from the natural environment not only for science or the rescue of populations, but also for the construction or reconstruction of facilities if they are included in state programs or territorial planning schemes.

Why is this being done? The reason is very simple: for years, when we defended protected areas, the very fact that rare plant and fungal species grew there made it possible to resist the appetites of greedy officials and businessmen. Now, in order to gain the ability to seize protected territories, they simply want to dig up and remove rare species from those places. They are completely ignoring the fact that this is anti-scientific and violates even the most basic logic. This is a real crime against wildlife.

In both draft regulations, legal entities and entrepreneurs are to be allowed to collect Red Book objects in forests — all for mass construction projects, economic facilities, and other development. In effect, this is for the seizure of wild nature in the interests of business.

I have carefully studied the new draft regulation No. 167465. They have “cleaned it up” and made the wording more streamlined in an attempt to push it through this time. In other words, the authors are doing the following: on the one hand, they have changed the wording only minimally; on the other, they are dispersing society’s efforts in order to reduce pressure and legalize the destruction of Red Book plants and fungi.

WHAT IS AT STAKE IS THIS: ONLY RARE RED BOOK SPECIES HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE TO DEFEND THE LAST REFUGES OF WILD NATURE, BUT NOW THEY WILL BE FORMALLY REMOVED FROM THESE TERRITORIES SO THAT THOSE REFUGES CAN BE SEIZED.

Allies!

As part of our projects, we are launching a public initiative against the new draft regulation. We will have to absorb the blow and defend two fronts at once.

The regulation is currently at the voting stage on the government projects website. This is precisely the moment when we have the best chance of stopping further consideration, if as many people as possible vote against it.

What needs to be done?

1.

We have launched a public initiative in order to seek changes in a focused way. This is our coordination center: study the initiative, sign it, and take part.

Public initiative

2. 

Additionally, open and study the regulation on the official government website. Carefully read the draft document itself in order to understand the essence of the problem.

Study the draft regulation

3.

Then, in the top header of the project page, click the dislike button — this is the visible part of public dissatisfaction and shows the real public mood around the project.

I also ask everyone to regularly check the draft regulation page and record any changes. If you suddenly notice anomalies such as sharp artificial vote increases or technical difficulties that look like artificial obstruction of public participation, write to us immediately through the contact form on the website. We will respond.

4.

Additionally, click “Stage information,” scroll down — there is a “Complain” button there. Also try to get through using the “Your proposals” section. Send them a text demanding that the project be removed from consideration.

Example:

I consider draft regulation No. 167465 unacceptable and requiring rejection, because it replaces the real protection of rare species with administrative permission for their removal, transplantation, and subsequent “circulation.” From a scientific standpoint, this is an erroneous approach: a rare plant or fungus cannot be considered separately from its habitat, because its existence depends on soils, mycorrhizal connections, hydrological regime, microclimate, pollinators, neighboring species, and many feedback loops within the ecosystem. The destruction of a habitat cannot be compensated for by formal transplantation, a nursery, or a report on “reintroduction,” because such measures do not reproduce an integral natural system. It is especially dangerous to allow the removal of Red Book species for construction and other economic activities: this effectively legalizes the destruction of their habitats under the guise of “conservation measures.” Real protection of rare species must begin with the unconditional protection of the places where they naturally grow, not with procedures that allow them to be removed. I demand that draft regulation No. 167465 be rejected as environmentally dangerous, scientifically untenable, and contrary to the very logic of biodiversity conservation.

Forward this to your relatives and friends, share the link to this material, and ask people to take part. Try to explain to them why this matters. We have very little time.

5.

Additionally, click the exclamation mark in the header of the draft regulation page. There you need to report that this project is, in substance, a copy of the earlier one.

• Subject:

  “Procedure violated for project No. 167465”

• Message:

  “Please note that project No. 167465 is practically identical to the earlier project No. 165718 of February 20, 2026. It was simply duplicated, the wording was blurred, and it is being presented as a completely different initiative. This was done to divert society’s attention, since the earlier initiative caused dissatisfaction among citizens and the scientific community.”

What happens next?

We are already preparing work against the draft regulation. Now, on this issue alone, we will have to fight against two essentially identical projects at once. We will try to contact our allies in the Government and involve all available contacts. This madness must not be legalized.

Updates will be published on social media and also on the Green Page: check regularly and help slow down this madness. There is no one else to do it.

© PAVEL PASHKOV