In the previous chapters, we tried to show that domestic tourism and recreation in Russia is gradually emerging from a long stagnation, before our very eyes, a specific domestic tourist product is being revived (or more precisely, rehabilitated) and a specific domestic tourist product is being formed, infrastructure is being created, completely new routes are being developed , new recreation areas are being mastered. This circumstance is especially noticeable in provincial Russia, where, in addition to the obsolete and worn-out health resorts built in the Soviet era, new tourist and recreational complexes, recreation centers, small hotels in the "landscape", seasonal hunters and fishermen's houses, roadside motels, etc. appear.
However, this undoubtedly positive forward movement has revealed a number of problems that can be resolved only in the process of developing and implementing a special strategy for the territorial development of the regions of the Russian province, the implementation mechanism of which should be the landscape planning procedure, or more the usual and corresponding to our traditions formulation - the ecological organization of the territory.
The need for landscape planning in the tourist and recreational sphere is determined by the following reasons:
1. The territorial claims of the tourist and recreational sphere today are very poorly reflected (and, therefore, protected in comparison with other agents of the development of the territory of the Russian province) in the current legislation. Apparently, among the legislators who were preparing the Federal Law "On the Basics of Tourism Activities", there was not a single specialist in territorial planning. Article 13 "Tourist resources of the Russian Federation" of Chapter VI of this Federal Law tells about tourist resources very vaguely, and the authors seemed to deliberately avoid the terms: "territory", "zone", "region", "area", "water area", "landscape" , hoping, in all likelihood, for the development of exclusively extreme types of tourism, such as aeronautical or speleological.
In general, the entire text of the law contains an implicit hope that tourist-valuable lands will be allocated by themselves in the development of tourism and recreation, as well as in the course of enforcement of existing laws and regulations. However, the urban development that is unfolding before our eyes and the very strict sectoral nature management that has always existed, will hardly leave us such a chance. Moreover, even today, most of the places of spontaneous tourist attraction (as well as the territories of many institutions of organized recreation) are essentially deprived of rights, since they are located within the boundaries of zones or lands of another purpose with the corresponding legal status (water protection zones, forests of the first category, lands of agricultural enterprises, etc. t.).
The only legislative provision, to some extent working for the tourist and recreational sphere, is the Federal Law "On Specially Protected Natural Areas", which defines several categories of specially protected natural areas, as it were, specifically designed to promote the development of tourism. national and natural parks. However, it is quite obvious that the lands that have received a similar status in the regions of the Russian Federation are not enough for the development of a full-fledged tourist and recreational system.
The creation of natural and national parks, even if the administrative authorities and the local society are aware of the need for such a step, as a rule, is hampered by the lack of funding opportunities, because both of these forms require the formation of a legal entity for their full-fledged functioning, the formation of bodies management, staff, etc.
Many tourist and recreational complexes are currently being created at the expense of private investors, who, if at first claim land of high ecological value (often with a special environmental status), then, faced with real organizational and legal difficulties, in the future they prefer “free” territories, albeit clearly inferior to the first in quality. There are known cases of private investors leasing the lands of national parks for the creation of tourist and recreational complexes, which led to mutual disappointment for both parties involved (both investors and the PA administration).
2. The potential for placement in the space of the regions of the Russian Federation of composite elements of the tourist and recreational system is constantly decreasing due to the uncontrolled and latent in nature (but very short-lived and hard) land capture in the course of urban planning and resource development of the territory.
In principle, the Urban Planning Code at all levels of territorial planning (general schemes for the settlement of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, general plans of cities, rural areas and settlements) contains direct instructions on the need to allocate recreational zones, but the question of their legal status remains open, therefore, the selection procedure itself acquires no more than a recommendatory character. But even this is not the main thing: the fatal circumstance of the post-perestroika period is the obvious lag (often simply the absence) of the development of the upper territorial level from the changes in the situation on the ground. In other words, the fate of a particular land plot or a fragment of a territory, as a rule, is decided before its role and significance in the overall territorial mosaic of the region is determined.
Individual dacha and cottage development, which until recently spread in rings around all more or less large cities in Russia, now extends its "tentacles" to the most remote corners of the Russian province. In those cases when the "dacha" development "sits down" on the former settlement, it can still be said that it preserves the existing settlement system, maintaining its least stable elements at the minimum functional level. However, all too often the dacha wave leads to the emergence of new-type settlements, capturing the space of the most valuable provincial landscapes. In this case, cottage development practically nullifies the possibilities for the development of socially significant tourism and recreation, blocking all further prospects of this kind for the territory (i.e. depriving it of tax revenues, jobs, etc.).