How the government can save billions and avoid destroying protected mountain forests: a report by Pavel Pashkov

So, the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Natural Resources (two government agencies at once) plan to launch a large-scale “development” of mountain forests. They want to build ski resorts across the country, proposing amendments to the federal law that would allow clear-cut logging in forests with a protective status. In other words, any protected forests could be logged, the timber sold, and tourist businesses built on those sites.

We have already discussed all of this in detail.

Essentially, the main argument cited by the authors of the bill is that the number of “skiers” in Russia has allegedly grown by 22%, which increases the pressure on existing ski resorts—hence the need for new ones.

The cost in question, just at the bill’s adoption stage, exceeds 300 billion rubles for the construction of more than 260 resort facilities. These figures were announced by the authors themselves! Moreover, practically all the money would come from the state budget.

These funds to “develop” the forests are essentially public money, i.e., taxpayer funds. As a result, it will ultimately be ordinary people—the citizens of our beloved Russia—who pay for this “celebration.”

I urge everyone to carefully read this material and share it on social media. I am offering our government a completely alternative solution to the issues the ministries claim to address.

Moreover, our state could save at least 70–100 billion rubles and direct those funds toward improving citizens’ quality of life instead of building ski resorts in these regions—or use them to restore damaged or lost ecosystems.

OUR SOLUTION.

Based on the data provided by the Ministry of Economic Development regarding the significant 22% increase in tourist traffic, we propose a full-scale modernization of existing ski resorts.

We need to replace old cable cars with more modern systems that can increase lift capacity by at least 30%, reducing the need for completely new slopes.

We should also optimize existing infrastructure by redistributing visitor flows to established slopes using reservation systems, electronic queues, and developing alternative winter activities. This would help further reduce the load on the “main” slopes.

If we pursue seasonal diversification, peak loads will drop, and we can ensure a continuous tourist flow to existing facilities. In other words, some tourists should be shifted to summer and off-season activities such as trekking, biking routes, and ethnographic tours.

We need to reclaim abandoned industrial and agricultural areas—meaning if certain territories have already been impacted by human activity and have a low conservation value, it makes sense to place new facilities there, AVOIDING CLEAR-CUT LOGGING OF MOUNTAIN FORESTS.

Calculations show that in existing mountain settlements, it is much cheaper and more eco-friendly to increase building heights and density rather than clearing new slopes and laying roads in remote forest areas. Vertical construction can be implemented (of course, while ensuring seismic safety).

These measures need to be top priority so that the 22% increase in tourist traffic does not affect business operations whatsoever.

Meanwhile, instead of creating 260 new facilities (as proposed by the authors of the bill), we could develop a network of mini-resorts across the country located in areas that are already developed. This would help avoid excessive stress on particular locations. Such an approach is already used successfully in many countries around the world and has proven highly effective.

The tourism industry, for its part, should work out and propose various recreational offerings to the government, including hiking, guided tours, spa programs, and ethnocultural activities. The state could also subsidize businesses if necessary, helping financially during the transformation period.

LET’S MOVE ON TO THE CALCULATIONS.

The initial plan from the bill’s authors: spend 300 billion rubles on 260 resort facilities to accommodate the 22% increase in tourists.

I suggest splitting the financial investment into two equal parts and applying different savings coefficients.

• Allocate 50% of the funding to modernizing existing resorts. This includes upgrading old equipment, renovating slopes and lifts, and optimizing logistics systems. In this case, the government can save 30–40% compared to building “from scratch.”

  
  
• The remaining 50% should be directed towards expanding facilities in already impacted areas—such as old industrial sites, former pastures, etc. This is where new tourist facilities and hotel zones should be situated.

Thus, even using the most conservative estimates, it is possible to save 70 billion rubles, and with effective management (acknowledging the serious issues we have in this area), the state could save up to 100 billion rubles. At the same time, valuable mountain forests remain intact, and any environmental risks are minimized!

We analyzed several ski resort projects in Russia and the costs associated with their implementation.

For instance, take the “Rosa Khutor” resort. During the active construction phase from 2008 to 2014 (preparation for the 2014 Winter Olympics), according to media reports—encompassing both private and state investments—somewhere between 60 and 80 billion rubles were invested.

This amount included laying roads and railways, building lifts, equipping new slopes, constructing hotels, plus utilities and engineering protection for the slopes.

This project was built from scratch in a mountainous area, necessitating extensive earthworks and protection from landslides and avalanches. The payback period is variously estimated at 15 to 25 years, even considering the resort’s operation in all seasons.

Now consider the modernization of existing Olympic sites—like “Gorky Gorod” and a few facilities in Krasnaya Polyana.

According to federal media, from 2016 to 2020, private operators invested around 3–5 billion rubles in refining and expanding these resort areas, with another 2–3 billion spent on hotel renovations and creating new guest services. Based on the data gathered, the daily capacity grew by +30–40%, as reported by the Sochi administration itself.

The conclusion is clear: building “Rosa Khutor” from scratch required significantly more investment than expanding “Gorky Gorod” and other existing facilities—yet the increase in tourist flow is fully comparable.

Let’s take another example: the “Arkhyz” resort in the Karachay-Cherkess Republic—officially opened in 2013, though major construction began in 2010. The declared investments were about 42 billion rubles (according to the joint-stock company “North Caucasus Resorts”). As a result, new access roads, power grids, seven lifts, and multiple hotels for thousands of visitors were built.

Initially, 14 km of slopes were opened, with plans to expand to 50 km. The investors expected to break even sometime in 2025, starting from 2013, but those estimates have since changed, and now payback may not happen until 2030 or later. Naturally, a significant portion of the funds (of course) come from taxpayers—the state budget.

Now compare “Arkhyz” with expanding an already existing ski complex. Since the 1960s, we’ve had the well-known “Dombay” resort in the Elbrus region—a classic Soviet destination for skiers and mountaineers.

According to federal media reports, from 2017 to 2021, around 5–7 billion rubles were invested in replacing old cable cars, installing artificial snow-making systems, improving slopes, and expanding the hotel base.

Capacity grew by 20–30% thanks to optimized lift systems and renovated tourist bases—WITHOUT MASS CLEAR-CUTTING OF NEW FOREST AREAS.

Meanwhile, in Cheget and Azau during the 2010s, investors spent about 4–5 billion rubles just on cable cars, increasing the number of visitors from roughly 500–600 thousand to over 1 million per year.

In line with the Ministry of Economic Development’s data on the 22% growth of “skiers” in the country, it’s clear that with smart management and modernization of older resorts, you can increase capacity by up to 100% without extraordinary costs.

We also studied international experience, which similarly shows data on the costs of building new resorts vs. upgrading old ones. And given all this information, I can unequivocally confirm: there is no real reason (apart from a potential misuse of budget funds) to change the federal law in order to legalize clear-cut logging of protective forests in the country’s mountain ecosystems!

RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE PUBLIC

We advise the government to reject the bill allowing clear-cut logging in mountain forests, so that these areas can remain points of natural restoration for biological systems and refuges for wildlife.

Instead, launch a program to support the modernization of existing resorts—grants, tax benefits, and subsidies for resort operators investing in improvements to ski facilities. The Ministry of Economic Development should receive explicit instructions to prevent potential lobbying by certain groups within the agency.

Next, the Ministry of Natural Resources must be instructed to clearly identify zones suitable for development without adding extra pressure on remaining wild areas. These zones should be defined and secured in legal regulations, listing territories with already impacted landscapes where new infrastructure can be built without threatening unique mountain forests.

To ensure that investors are accountable for preventing catastrophic consequences, I would recommend introducing additional mandatory insurance against potential environmental harm for any new development sites. Essentially, investors should be required to assume insurance obligations for any possible damage to wildlife. This minimizes risks.

Finally, in light of the overlapping proposals from the Ministry of Economic Development and possible manipulations during public discussions, the mechanism for regular public hearings and MANDATORY scientific reviews must be improved for any bill concerning the development of wild nature.

Otherwise, today’s virtually unchecked legislative actions may lead to destructive consequences in the future. This must be regulated at the federal level without delay.

LET’S SUM IT UP.

There is no issue whatsoever with developing ski tourism in our country without destroying mountain forests. This is fully achievable with a comprehensive approach! Even a conservative scenario of modernizing older resorts and rationally expanding infrastructure leads to savings of tens of billions of rubles—optimistically up to 100 billion (!!).

Beyond the direct financial benefits, such an approach also provides social stability, improves governance in federal agencies, and of course preserves crucial wildlife refuges throughout the country!

The true strategic necessity today is not building new resorts for hundreds of billions of rubles, but preserving protective mountain forests. It’s a matter of national security and ensuring that future generations inherit a safe environment.

Society is ready to participate in improving government administration, but for that, we need real collaboration with the state based on the genuine interests of Russian citizens—rather than the predatory aims of clearly vested lobbying groups.

Recommended reading: 

• A complete review of the official response from the Ministry of Economic Development
• An additional review of the Ministry of Natural Resources’ response
• A public initiative to protect mountain forests (against the bill)

© PAVEL PASHKOV