Endangered plants in Russia will be “evacuated” from nature reserves so their habitats can be taken away.

The madness continues — our protected-area system is being attacked from all sides, with no oversight and no “brakes.” Alongside the bill that would allow the shooting of animals listed in the Red Book, officials have simultaneously launched another initiative that threatens plants on the verge of extinction. In essence, a bureaucrat is proposing to “evacuate” them from their wild refuges whenever it becomes necessary to seize those refuges in the interests of big business.

In other words, there are nature reserves — refugia of wildlife, specially protected natural areas — and to take over these lands, officials will “transplant” rare plant species to other locations.

Biogeocenoses formed over thousands of years and are protected precisely because nowhere else do these plants take root or maintain their populations. But this logic is simply erased in bureaucratic documents.

ZERO KNOWLEDGE OF THE TIGHT INTERDEPENDENCIES WITHIN BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

ZERO UNDERSTANDING OF EVEN BASIC SCIENCE AT ALL.

It is simply a desire to “grab” as much as possible — to snatch and loot — by destroying the last refuges of wild nature. The authors of the bill on shooting Red Book animals and the “evacuation” of endangered plants are the very same people.

Cleverly devised, isn’t it? If there is an urgent need to seize nature reserves, all they have to do is shoot the animals and dig up every endangered plant.

The situation is made worse by the fact that the draft has already been submitted for consideration. Unfortunately, we cannot work on every problem at once, so we are losing time — public consultations on this project are open only until March 2, 2026. That means we have just one day to push back against this madness. After that it will be harder, but the work will continue.

Now I will analyze the text of the draft and explain the specific problems it contains — what exactly officials are trying to do. But before you read that, I ask you to urgently take part in opposing both drafts — the one on the “evacuation” of Red Book plants and the one on shooting Red Book animals. We have consolidated the instructions on our “Green Page.”

Green Page

BILL ANALYSIS

So, draft law No. 165712 was launched on the Federal Portal of Draft Regulatory Legal Acts. It includes the document itself and, accordingly, an explanatory note. Let’s examine specific quotations.

“On approving the Rules for collecting (harvesting) plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the red books of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and the Rules for issuing permits for the circulation of plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the red books of constituent entities of the Russian Federation”

This is the title of the main document — what it does is legalize the harvesting (collection) of rare species of plants and fungi.

“These Rules establish the procedure for collecting (harvesting) plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the red books of constituent entities of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — harvesting objects) and are mandatory for compliance by legal entities and individuals, including individual entrepreneurs (hereinafter — the applicant) within the territory of the Russian Federation. Citizens are prohibited from collecting (harvesting) harvesting objects in forests.”

The document introduces a single “collection procedure” for plants and fungi from the federal and regional Red Books and immediately labels them “harvesting objects.” The terminology is not neutral: when objects under strict protection (rare species) are renamed as objects of extraction, it signals an intention for broad, future interventions in wild nature.

What matters is that these rules are addressed to everyone — legal entities and individual entrepreneurs. At the same time, it is also stated below that citizens are prohibited from collecting (harvesting) in forests. This will be done by legal entities — companies, entrepreneurs, and so on. Again, this is not narrowly defined scientific work involving careful intervention in wild refuges; it is a regime designed to be applied at scale.

In this way, the concept of “Red Book species” is being replaced with “harvesting objects.” As I have said before, in nature conservation the basic unit is a population and its habitat — the CONNECTIVITY OF BIOGEOCENOSES — not a single “specimen” that can be removed and “saved” by relocation. The very term “harvesting” is originally ECONOMIC, and when legal entities and entrepreneurs are brought into these processes, it is guaranteed to mean industrial-scale invasive interference with the wild.

Red Book plants and fungi are an extremely heterogeneous group. For some species, the microenvironment is CRITICALLY important: symbionts (mycorrhiza, which I often discuss), specific pollinators, moisture and soil regimes, microclimate, and much more. Yet we now see bureaucrats attempting to impose a single “harvesting procedure” without accounting for biological risk classes.

“2. Collection (harvesting) of harvesting objects is carried out on the basis of a permit to collect (harvest) plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the red books of constituent entities of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — the permit), issued by: the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Use — with respect to harvesting objects listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation; the authorized executive body of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation — with respect to harvesting objects listed in the red book of that constituent entity. If a harvesting object is listed both in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and in the red books of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, then the permit is issued by the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Use.”

This section immediately defines who will issue permits for harvesting. Just as with the Red Book animals bill, all it takes is a “piece of paper” from an ordinary official — from the Ministry of Natural Resources or an “executive body of the constituent entity,” i.e., regional authorities.

Next comes a long quotation describing the cases in which rare plant and fungi species may be removed and transplanted.

“3. Collection (harvesting) of harvesting objects is permitted in exceptional cases for the following purposes:

conducting scientific research in the field of environmental protection;

artificial propagation (cultivation) in specialized organizations, including nurseries, to preserve the gene pool and subsequent reintroduction (planting) into the natural environment;

relocating harvesting objects from places where their existence is impossible due to changes in the condition of the habitat (growth site) to a natural habitat (growth site) that is favorable for the reproduction of the relevant species;

construction of facilities for economic and other activities (of federal and regional significance) provided for by state programs of the Russian Federation, state programs of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, territorial planning schemes of the Russian Federation, territorial planning schemes of constituent entities of the Russian Federation, in the absence of alternative options for locating them outside the growth sites of harvesting objects (hereinafter — when constructing facilities for economic and other activities);

preservation and reproduction of harvesting objects growing on land plots owned (used) by legal entities and individuals, with their transfer to specialized organizations, including nurseries, for subsequent reintroduction into the natural environment or preservation of the genetic pool;

preservation and reproduction of harvesting objects in the event of threats of natural and man-made emergencies or the ликвидация of their consequences, with their transfer to specialized organizations, including nurseries, for subsequent reintroduction into the natural environment or preservation of the genetic pool;

preventing threats to the life and health of citizens.”

I published it in full deliberately. The main thing officials are pushing through is the “evacuation” of endangered plants to make way for large-scale construction in the wild. It is straightforward: this is being done in the interests of big business, which has long been trying to “develop” protected lands.

At the end, another grounds for transplanting rare plant species is given: “preventing threats to the life and health of citizens.” For plants and fungi this is the MOST DANGEROUS clause, because it can be used to justify anything. It can be applied anywhere by invoking allergies, toxicity, “dangerous thickets,” санитарная safety, or ensuring access.

THIS IS ANTI-SCIENTIFIC!

All the other clauses used to justify collecting Red Book plants are the same. These are vague formulations that an official can interpret however they like, gaining access to the habitats of rare species.

“4. To obtain a permit, the applicant submits to the authorized body specified in пункт 2 of these Rules an application for the issuance of a permit (hereinafter — the application), which shall indicate:

a) information about the applicant:

surname, name, patronymic (if any), details of the identity document of a citizen of the Russian Federation, contact details (phone number, email address (if any), taxpayer identification number — for a citizen of the Russian Federation, including an individual entrepreneur;

full and abbreviated (if any) name, taxpayer identification number, primary state registration number, address of the legal entity within the location of the legal entity, contact details (phone number, email address) — for a legal entity;”

In this fragment, the document explicitly emphasizes granting access to Red Book plants to legal entities (companies) and entrepreneurs. As you understand, commercial companies and individual entrepreneurs are interested in profit, and that is exactly what everything is revolving around now: the commercialization of mass harvesting of rare plant species and their “evacuation” when construction takes place on protected reserve territories.

“b) materials substantiating the necessity of achieving the purpose of collecting (harvesting) harvesting objects stated in the application:

a conclusion on the absence of impact of the proposed collection (harvesting) on increasing the risk of a reduction in the численность of harvesting objects and/or deterioration of their habitat (growth site), obtained from a state scientific organization (hereinafter — the scientific conclusion) (except for cases of collection (harvesting) of harvesting objects by individuals);

research programs, programs for выращивания harvesting objects and their use, approved by a government authority or the head of the legal entity (except for cases of collection (harvesting) of harvesting objects by individuals);

c) an extract from a territorial planning document (territorial planning scheme of the Russian Federation or a constituent entity of the Russian Federation) confirming the planned placement of an object of economic and other activity on the land plot where the harvesting objects are located, and a copy of the state program of the Russian Federation or a constituent entity of the Russian Federation (an extract from it) that includes the measure to construct this object (for the purpose of collecting (harvesting) harvesting objects предусмотренной in the fifth paragraph of clause 3 of these Rules);”

The key problem here is the wording “absence of impact” and “absence of an increase in risk.” WHO WROTE THIS NONSENSE? In biodiversity conservation science, it does not work like this. Any removal of a rare species and any вмешательство in its habitat almost always has an effect and almost always increases risk, even if only by a small margin. Yet a scientific organization is being asked for an IMPOSSIBLE proof of “ZERO EFFECT.” This turns a профильный expert opinion into a ritual document — a purely formal issuance.

But I will go further. Our allies defending the Lago-Naki Plateau in the Western Caucasus have for many years tried to stop the destruction of a unique protected region. And officials, in tandem with business, as it later turned out and was proven, FORGED ALL THE DOCUMENTS. That is, the state examination blatantly forged all documents and “evidence.”

They cannot be trusted as it is, and here there is also the requirement to prove “zero effect.” I am writing this material, allies, and I am swearing — I simply do not understand how it happened that the management system has DEGRADED SO MUCH. Where are the experts, the scientists, the профильные specialists? Who will be held responsible for such drafts?

Where are the requirements to provide a clear objective (a conservation outcome), hypotheses, methodology, calculations of removal volume, a genetic management plan including sources, and the number of maternal plants (fruiting bodies)? Where are the requirements to prevent the “bottleneck effect” (experts will understand what I mean)? Where are the criteria of success — did the plants take root in the new area, how did they integrate into чужеродные biogeocenoses, and how did this affect wild nature and its connectivity?

WHERE IS A RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN AS A MINIMUM STANDARD? PATHOGENS, INVASIVE SPECIES, GENETIC POLLUTION?

AND WHERE IS LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS IN THE EVENT OF AN INVASION CAUSED BY RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS? Who will be accountable for disturbance and soil разрушение by heavy machinery, plants that die after transplantation, and so on?

None of this exists. Not at all.

Next, a quotation.

“9. Issuance of a permit with respect to plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation is carried out by the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Use by entering a record into the register of permits for добывание objects of the animal and plant world listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation, which is formed and maintained electronically by the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resource Use.”

Here, as in the bill on shooting Red Book animals, it is stated that permits will be issued via Gosuslugi with entry into a register. That is, entrepreneurs and companies will submit documents online, wait for review, and receive permits. No real interaction — purely bureaucratic procedures. And the shift to an electronic format indicates plans for MASS INTERVENTION in the wild.

“10. Collection (harvesting) of harvesting objects for the purpose of constructing facilities for economic and other activities is permitted provided that measures to protect plants and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and/or the red books of constituent entities of the Russian Federation (hereinafter — protection measures) are carried out, which include: transplanting harvesting objects from the habitat (growth site) zone of harvesting objects to a natural habitat (growth site) favorable for the reproduction of the relevant species; collecting seed material, cuttings, and other planting material from harvesting objects designated for collection (harvesting) for transfer to specialized organizations, including nurseries, for cultivation and subsequent planting in a natural habitat (growth site); planting harvesting objects corresponding to the species of harvesting objects designated for collection (harvesting) in a natural habitat (growth site) favorable for the reproduction of the relevant species, including by planting seedlings, saplings, cuttings, or sowing seeds, followed by carrying out agrotechnical care measures, исходя from the biological characteristics of individual species of harvesting objects; carrying out monitoring of the condition of harvesting objects in the area of completed plantings; transfer to specialized organizations, including nurseries, for subsequent reintroduction (planting) into the natural environment or preservation of the genetic pool, and also for conducting scientific research in the field of environmental protection.”

No clarifications, deadlines, or enforceable obligations. It can be interpreted however one wishes. Just красивые words with no real content. How can sowing seeds of rare species or “taking cuttings” possibly be equated with the destroyed связи within thousand-year-old biogeocenoses — the refuges of wild nature? It is the same as destroying an ancient forest and then planting rows of seedlings somewhere else. On paper it looks “compensated,” but I will remind you that even by the official data of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, up to 90% OF ALL SEEDLINGS IN RUSSIA DIE IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS.

It will be the same here. Moreover, we see how the protection of the habitat of rare species is being replaced by a procedure of “saving individual specimens.” From a scientific standpoint, this is an incompetent falsehood, because the disappearance of rare species is usually driven not by “failure to transplant in time,” but by the разрушение of habitat and the processes that make the species’ existence possible.

I see no point in analyzing this absurd document further. A basic example is this phrase:

“…is permitted… provided that protection measures are carried out… which include… transplanting… into a… favorable… environment…”

NO MEASURABLE SET OF PARAMETERS AND NO VERIFICATION. Why should we, ordinary people, have to explain this to officials? Where are the mandatory studies of factors such as soil profile (texture, pH, organic matter), hydrological regime, microrelief, light conditions, конкурентное context, presence of specific pollinators, presence of symbionts (mycorrhiza, endophytes), disturbance regimes (fires/floods/grazing)? If none of these parameters is закреплены as a mandatory part of site selection and as acceptance criteria, “transplanting into a favorable environment” becomes a euphemism for “we’ll move it somewhere.”

Allies! Public consultations run until March 2, 2026 — we are already running out of time, but we must slow down this madness at the next stages. We are preparing to launch a Public Initiative and will carry out a комплекс of public efforts to secure protection for rare plant species.

Unfortunately, the core problem is that the уничтожение of plants and their habitats does not evoke empathy in people, and few are ready to defend them. It is a collective cognitive bias that becomes a serious barrier to protecting the plant world.

Still, let’s try.

Study the draft — here is the link to it. You can download the documents there as well.

Review the draft law

I also ask you to take part in our Public Initiative against this draft — open it, sign it, and receive a participant certificate. Please help spread it, track the status of submissions to agencies and authorities, and help slow down the reckless destruction of our nature.

Public initiative

We continue our Mission in the struggle for Life! Please help.

© PAVEL PASHKOV