THE GREAT PLAN FOR THE TRANSFORMATION OF NATURE:
An Unaccepted Gift from Previous Generations or Unlearned Lessons
/Analytical Note/
One of the most pressing issues of our time is the preservation of Earth’s ecosystems, maintaining soil fertility, and ensuring the global population is adequately fed. These concerns are being raised at the highest levels of governance and international dialogue.
Land degradation worldwide is occurring at an alarming rate of 1 million square kilometers per year, according to The Guardian (make this a clickable link to the article), referencing the “Backing Away from the Abyss” study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Humanity has already lost more than half of its fertile lands, and unless the situation is fundamentally reversed within this decade, by 2050, agricultural activity in most regions of the planet will become unsustainable. The first regions to suffer will include South Asia, the Mediterranean, Northern China, high-altitude plateaus, and California in the United States. Currently, one-third of the global population resides in arid areas, including three-quarters of Africa.
Healthy soil contains 30–32 tons of living organisms per hectare, which are essential for nutrition, food quality, and soil fertility. Chemical treatments kill these lifeforms, impoverishing and degrading the soil, while significantly accelerating erosion. This is because, with the destruction of the soil biocenosis, there are no hyphae—microscopic fungal thread-like structures that bind the smallest soil particles into stable, long-term, water-resistant aggregates. Chemically degraded soils often contain as little as 2–3 tons of living biomass per hectare.
In 2021, the United Nations Assembly declared the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2031), during which 115 countries committed to restoring degraded lands. By 2025, BRICS countries, in collaboration with newly affiliated nations, will develop a new action plan to advance cooperation in this critical area. Russia has its own unique historical experience in restoring land fertility, which it can offer to the global community as a solution to this critical and pressing issue.
Researchers have determined that the primary cause of this crisis is unsustainable agricultural practices, which have led to the destruction of 80% of forests. In the short term, the intensive use of chemicals and pesticides may appear more profitable, but in reality, these methods reduce yields and degrade food quality. Moreover, they increasingly contribute to desertification and dust storms.
The most ambitious environmental project of the 20th century was the plan for soil fertility protection and restoration, implemented in the Soviet Union by the decree of the Council of Ministers and the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on October 20, 1948. It was titled “The Plan for Protective Forest Plantations, Introduction of Grass-Field Crop Rotation Systems, and Construction of Ponds and Reservoirs to Ensure High and Stable Yields in the Steppe and Forest-Steppe Regions of the European Part of the USSR.”
Soviet media referred to this document as “The Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature” or “Stalin’s Plan for the Transformation of Nature.” In terms of its scale, the plan was unprecedented in global practice.
Under this plan, forest belts were to be planted to block dry winds and improve the climate across an area of 120 million hectares—equivalent to the combined territories of England, France, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The centerpiece of the plan was protective afforestation and irrigation. The project, designed for the period from 1949 to 1965, envisioned the creation of eight major state forest belts in steppe and forest-steppe zones with a total length exceeding 5,300 kilometers.
The impetus for developing such a plan was the severe drought of 1946–1947 in the USSR, which led to famine and tragic losses among the population amidst the extremely challenging post-war recovery period following the country’s victory over fascism.
The plan aimed to address several objectives:
History of Afforestation in Russia
The development of the plan incorporated valuable experience in protecting and restoring soil fertility accumulated since the times of the Russian Empire.
For the first time in global practice, a system of protective forest belts was developed and implemented in Russia thanks to the work of Russian scientists Vasily Vasilievich Dokuchaev1 and Pavel Andreevich Kostychev2 in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Following prolonged crop failures and the famine of 1889–1891 in Russia’s breadbasket, the Black Earth Region, the talented scientist V. V. Dokuchaev, later recognized as the founder of soil science, was sent from St. Petersburg to investigate. Upon arrival, he discovered that all the land had been plowed, farmers were sowing grain, and then a dry wind—a sandstorm—would blow away not only the sown seeds but also 10–15 centimeters of black soil.
In natural biocenoses, the creation of one centimeter of fertile soil takes between 100 to 300 years, depending on the climate and region. The loss of 10–15 centimeters of black soil due to wind or rain erosion essentially means that, in just one season, humans—through irrational or negligent practices—lose a layer of soil that took nature thousands of years to create. Moreover, nature created this soil not just for humans but for all the other inhabitants of our planet and many future generations of people.
Vasily Vasilievich Dokuchaev proposed a solution to this serious problem—the creation of a system of protective, anti-erosion forest belts.
[1. Vasily Vasilievich Dokuchaev (1846–1903) – geologist and soil scientist, professor of mineralogy and crystallography at St. Petersburg University, and director of the Novo-Olexandriya Institute of Agriculture and Forestry. He was the founder of the scientific school of soil science and soil geography.
He experimented with the width of forest shelterbelts, ranging from a single tree to a belt one kilometer wide, at the experimental farm “Stone Steppe,” which recently celebrated its 130th anniversary. It was there that Dokuchaev developed a universal formula for sustainable agriculture, which increases yields by at least 30–40%.
Dokuchaev’s universal formula for sustainable agriculture includes3:
“Desiccation of the steppe,” wrote V. V. Dokuchaev, “is largely associated with human activity, which has destroyed natural vegetation, plowed vast areas of the steppe, and significantly undermined the resilience of steppe landscapes to erosion processes. A vast part of the steppe has lost its natural cover—thick, native vegetation and turf that usually retain snow and water and protect the soil from frost and wind. Fields, now occupying up to 90% of the total area, have destroyed the granular soil structure characteristic of chernozem, the most favorable for retaining soil moisture, rendering it vulnerable to wind and water erosion4.”
In his work “Our Steppes: Then and Now” (Nashi stepi prezhde i teper’)”, V. V. Dokuchaev wrote: “A researcher must see the entire, indivisible nature, not just its individual parts, between which there exists the closest connection5.”
[3. V. V. Dokuchaev, “Russian Chernozems (Russkie chernozemy)” (1883) -a foundational work where Dokuchaev describes soil properties and their connection to agronomy.
O. Kotlyarova, “Sustainable Agriculture: Problems and Solutions (Ustoichivoe selskoe khozyaistvo: Problemy i resheniya)” -a study examining modern approaches to agronomy and confirming the results of Dokuchaev’s experiments.
According to the plan developed by V. V. Dokuchaev and P. A. Kostychev, from 1898 to 1917, 11 protective forest belts, 170 gully-planting sites, and 52 sand-fixing plantations were created in Russia.
The implementation of this plan was accompanied by active informational support in the cultural sphere: for instance, the renowned writer and playwright Anton Pavlovich Chekhov included passionate monologues advocating for forest protection in the speeches of the main characters in his plays "The Wood Demon" (Leshiy) and "Uncle Vanya" (Dyadya Vanya).
Unfortunately, due to the socialist revolution in Russia in 1917, this plan was not fully realized.
In the Soviet era, the beginning of protective forest planting dates back to 1918, when the “Basic Law on Forests” (Osnovnoy zakon o lesakh) was adopted on May 27, introducing forest belt planting as part of planned reforestation measures. More detailed instructions were provided in the Decree of the Council of Labor and Defense on Combating Drought (Postanovlenie Soveta truda i oborony o bor’be s zasukhoy) of April 1921, which included measures to strengthen gullies and sands through protective forest plantations in the Samara, Saratov, Tsaritsyn, Astrakhan, and Tula provinces, as well as in the Don Region.
The second phase of steppe afforestation in the USSR is associated with the results of the All-Union Conference on Combating Drought (Vsesoyuznaya konferentsiya po bor’be s zasukhoy) in 1931, where a decision was made to plant 3 million hectares of forest, primarily in the Transvolga region.
The Great Patriotic War interrupted the development of steppe afforestation in the country. However, the severe droughts of 1946 and 1947 demonstrated that grain yields on experimental plots protected by forest belts were 3–4 times higher than on neighboring lands and reached 6–17 quintals per hectare even under drought conditions. In a situation where famine caused by crop failures during the drought claimed the lives of over 1.5 million people in a nation already exhausted from the war against Nazism, this was a compelling argument for reviving the project initiated by V. V. Dokuchaev
From this point onward, combating drought through afforestation became one of the key focuses of the Ministry of Forestry of the USSR.
The drought-affected zone of 1946–1947 covered 5 million square kilometers (more than 20% of the USSR’s territory) in the European part of the country, stretching between latitudes 55°N in the north to 35°N in the south, and including Ukraine, Moldova, the Lower Volga Region, the North Caucasus, and the Central Black Earth Region of the RSFSR.
Thus, 1948 marked the third period in the development of steppe afforestation in Russia. Scientific, comprehensive restoration and protection of nature continued on a new, much larger scale.
As part of this project, scientific methods were proposed for managing nature, reflecting the ideology of a scientific approach to economic development.
At that time, the steppe regions of the Soviet Union were periodically struck by so-called “black storms.” These storms typically occurred in early spring during dry weather on lands devoid of vegetation, particularly on recently plowed virgin soil.
In these conditions, I. V. Stalin revisited the project of comprehensive agroforestry reclamation in the steppe zone, an idea he had initially proposed back in 1924. According to this pre-war proposal, efforts were to begin with a “minimally necessary reclamation wedge along the Samara—Saratov—Tsaritsyn—Astrakhan—Stavropol zone.”
The scale of Stalin’s project remains striking even today.
The perpetual challenges of agriculture—soil erosion and drought—rendered vast territories unproductive. Addressing these issues was the project’s main goal.
The central element of the plan was the creation of eight major state protective forest belts (SPFBs) in the first phase, with a total length of 5,320 kilometers (later revised and extended to 5,674 kilometers in 1951):
According to the plan, each forest belt was to consist of several smaller belts or “strips” (usually 2–4 strips), each 60 meters wide, with 300 meters between them. Over time, the number of “strips” was increased.
Furthermore, the decree mandated the Ministry of Forestry of the USSR to take measures to preserve valuable forested areas in the steppe and forest-steppe regions of the European part of the USSR, including Shipov Forest, Khrenovsky Pinewood, Borisoglebsky Forest Massif, Tula Zaseki, Shatilovsky Forest, Black Forest, Veliko-Anadol Forest Massif, Buzuluk Pinewood, Lenin and Manych Forestry Areas in the Rostov Region, watershed forest massifs of the Kuybyshev and Ulyanovsk Regions, Boyarskaya Dacha, Feodosia Forestry, Beshtaugorsky Forest Massif, and others.
“The implementation of all these measures will be a remarkable example of scientific afforestation of the steppes, unprecedented in human history,” noted one of the plan’s most active participants, Academician L. I. Prasolov.
The plan was based on “centralized planning,” meaning that all economic decisions were made at the state level. Gosplan developed detailed production and resource allocation plans, enabling control over the economy and steering it in the desired direction. This approach facilitated more efficient resource use and accelerated economic growth.
The idea of transforming nature originates from philosophical and scientific concepts developed in Russia and abroad at the beginning of the 20th century. Amid post-war devastation and the urgent need to intensify agricultural production, the country’s leadership recognized the necessity of mitigating adverse natural impacts. Stalin wrote: “…people, understanding the laws of nature, considering them, relying on them, skillfully applying and utilizing them, can redirect nature’s destructive forces and turn them to society’s benefit…”
The large-scale plan to transform nature required active involvement from various scientific fields that provided the theoretical and practical foundations for its implementation. Key areas engaged during this period included reclamation, agronomy, forestry, soil science, plant breeding, seed production, and ecosystem research.
The scientific foundation for steppe and forest-steppe afforestation for protective, anti-erosion, and reclamation purposes was established by prominent Russian and Soviet scientists of the 19th century, including Vasily Vasilyevich Dokuchaev, Pavel Andreyevich Kostychev, Alexander Alexandrovich Izmailsky, Alexander Alexandrovich Williams, Nikolai Grigoryevich Vysotsky, Georgy Karlovich Gael, Nikolai Mikhailovich Sukachev, Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, and many others.
For over 20 years, the project was carried out under the guidance of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It involved researchers from more than ten academic institutions under the academy, Moscow and Leningrad Universities, five departmental research institutes, and ten specialized forestry and agricultural educational institutions in Moscow, Leningrad, Saratov, Voronezh, Kyiv, and Novocherkassk. Even the hardships and deprivations endured during the Great Patriotic War did not halt this intensive work.
The implementation of the plan utilized the grassland crop rotation system developed by Soviet scientists Vasily Vasilyevich Dokuchaev, Pavel Andreyevich Kostychev, and Vasily Robertovich Williams. The essence of this system was as follows:
After harvest, the “exhausted” field was sown with cover crops, such as perennial legumes and bluegrasses. These crops enriched the soil with essential nutrients and served as a fodder base for livestock. After a few seasons, the “rested” field was cultivated again with agricultural crops for food production. This system effectively closed the natural cycle of biosphere regulation for soil fertility.
The Plan for the Transformation of Nature incorporated findings from twenty years of research conducted in the Astrakhan semi-desert. In 1928, scientists and foresters planted the first hectares of young trees in what was essentially barren terrain. With proper care, the trees thrived.
In the open steppe, temperatures could soar to 53 degrees Celsius, while in the shade of the trees, it was 20% cooler, and soil evaporation decreased by the same percentage. Observations revealed that a 7.5-meter-tall pine tree could accumulate 106 kilograms of frost and hoarfrost over the winter. This finding indicated that even a small grove could “extract” several dozen tons of moisture from the atmospheric air.
According to the plan established by the specially created “Agrolesproject” Institute, forests were planted across four major watersheds of the Dnieper, Don, Volga, and Ural basins in southern European Russia. Simultaneously, measures were taken to preserve particularly valuable forest areas, including Shipov Forest, Khrenovsky Bor, Borisoglebsky Forest Massif, Tula Fortification Forests, Black Forest in Kherson Region, Veliko-Anadol Forest, and Buzuluksky Bor. Forests and parks destroyed during the war were also being restored.
In parallel, the country conducted active educational campaigns, publishing a significant volume of informational materials.
The cultural sphere was also actively involved. Stories and songs were composed about the “Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature.” Renowned poet Yevgeny Dolmatovsky, known for his lyrics to many famous songs, collaborated with prominent composer Dmitry Shostakovich to create a multi-act opera titled “The Song of the Forests.”
In the early 1950s, its lyrics echoed from every radio receiver:
A call resounds across the land,
The wind bears voices far and near:
We’ll wage a war on drought, we stand,
And clothe our homeland lush and clear,
And clothe our homeland lush and clear!
In modern publications, the “Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature” is often associated solely with protective forest belts. However, this is far from the full picture. In addition to implementing V. V. Dokuchaev’s ideas for creating forest protection belts, this plan encompassed a wide variety of projects aimed at transforming the natural environment and expanding agricultural areas through wetland drainage and other reclamation efforts (some of which were not entirely successful and, in certain regions, led to adverse ecological consequences due to a lack of regional specificity—this later became a point of criticism of the entire plan).
Here is a more detailed list of these projects, including the “garden city” concept:
Key Directions of the Projects:
Main Achievements and Outcomes of the Incomplete Stalin Plan Summarized in Figures:
Positive Outcomes of the Successful Implementation of Stalin’s Plan
Negative Environmental Impacts
While Stalin’s plan achieved notable advancements in agriculture and land reclamation, it also resulted in significant environmental drawbacks. Below are the primary critics of the plan from the USSR and modern Russia, along with their key arguments:
The Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature represented a comprehensive approach to improving soil conditions, implementing land reclamation, and advancing agronomic practices. This ambitious initiative allowed many regions of the Soviet Union to improve soil quality significantly, combat degradation, and address soil desiccation effectively.
However, its execution required constant monitoring and careful consideration of ecological consequences to avoid negative outcomes stemming from human intervention in natural systems.
Today, we grapple with the consequences of many valuable ideas and initiatives embedded in this monumental project that were left unrealized.
The results of the plan’s implementation were mixed.
The plan highlighted the importance of a careful scientific assessment of local climatic and soil conditions. Practice demonstrated that universal solutions were ineffective across diverse landscapes and climatic zones. Applying identical measures that succeeded in one region often resulted in adverse effects elsewhere.
For example:
The Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature stands as a lesson in the complexity of balancing large-scale environmental interventions with ecological and regional considerations. It underscores the necessity for localized solutions, meticulous planning, and ongoing monitoring to ensure sustainable outcomes.
The neglect of local conditions during the execution of Stalin’s Plan for the Transformation of Nature led to negative consequences for several key reasons:
A comprehensive approach that integrates local climatic, soil, ecological, and socio-economic conditions is vital for achieving sustainable outcomes in agriculture and ecology. Tailoring interventions to regional specifics ensures better long-term results and minimizes unintended environmental and social consequences.
By 1952, the system was largely established and operational. Unfortunately, Stalin’s plan for the greening of the USSR was not fully implemented. The quality of agricultural lands protected by shelterbelts significantly improved: erosion decreased, the water balance stabilized, and crop yields increased as a result. Overall, the implemented measures led to the following average increases in yields:
Results varied significantly across different areas, as the effectiveness of shelterbelts depends on:
Creating shelterbelts alone does not yield the expected results unless accompanied by other forestry and agronomic measures such as:
The Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature made substantial improvements to the country’s agricultural situation, providing a safety cushion that continues to have residual effects today.
The plan’s strength lay in its unified vision, comprehensive approach, and scale. It ensured not only food self-sufficiency for the Soviet Union but also the potential for increasing revenue from grain exports. Moreover, the shelterbelt system was designed to enrich the USSR’s flora and fauna.
Shelterbelts offer several strategic benefits:
This multi-faceted utility underscores shelterbelts as a strategic element in ensuring food security.
In addition to shelterbelts, no-till farming emerged as an excellent method for preventing soil erosion. This practice, developed in Russia in the 1930s, became globally recognized under the term No-till. It involves conservation tillage methods, leaving stubble on the surface, and has gained increasing popularity among farmers worldwide due to its proven effectiveness in maintaining soil health. (ссылка на статью)
Within the framework of the Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature, forest belts were established across an average of 2% of agricultural lands. In some regions, like Voronezh Oblast, this coverage reached 3.4%, though significantly below the recommended 15–20% proposed by V. V. Dokuchaev for sustainable agricultural practices. Forest belts were intended to combat drought, leveraging the biotic pump mechanism, whereby forests attract rainfall and stimulate the emergence of natural springs (ссылка на статью).
The original timeline of the project spanned 16 years (1949–1965). However, after Stalin’s death in 1953, the project lost political support and was terminated by 1955. Decisions by L. Beria, G. Malenkov, and especially N. Khrushchev led to the dismantling of this major ecological initiative. Khrushchev’s reforms ultimately halted the world’s largest ecological program before its completion.
These measures not only halted the plan’s progress but also reversed many of its early gains, undermining efforts to combat drought and soil erosion effectively.
The crop rotation system in agriculture was subjected to ridicule and eventually abandoned. At the Timiryazev Agricultural Academy, the leading agricultural institution in the country, an agrochemical development approach began to take root, despite strong resistance from crop rotation advocates. These experts strongly recommended continuing practices like crop rotation, leaving land fallow, and using green manure, such as natural herbal fertilizers (special mowing techniques). However, Khrushchev, the new head of state, adopted Western agricultural approaches, where the agrochemical method prevailed due to lobbying efforts by chemical corporations interested in promoting fertilizers.
Thus, in the USSR, the crop rotation system was replaced with numerous contradictory recommendations aimed at improving soil fertility, primarily involving artificial fertilizers and pesticides. As a result, vast sums were spent on building chemical plants, transporting, and applying these chemicals.
Simultaneously, during the March Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in 1954, a decision was made to expand arable land by developing virgin and fallow lands. All available resources were directed toward the project, resulting in 42 million hectares being cultivated. However, due to fundamentally flawed agricultural policies, the soil began to suffer from erosion after initial high yields, and by the early 1960s, the land could no longer provide expected returns. The consequences were dire—many of the virgin black soil lands were transformed into saline soils. Water bodies became contaminated, beneficial birds, animals, and insects perished, and cancer rates among humans increased.
One of the outcomes of abandoning Stalin’s plan and implementing extensive methods to increase arable land by plowing virgin soils without first protecting them with shelterbelts was an ecological disaster in 1962–1963. Soil erosion on virgin lands led to a food crisis in the USSR. In 1963, following poor harvests and the absence of reserves, the USSR, for the first time since the war, sold 600 tons of gold reserves to purchase approximately 13 million tons of grain from abroad.
Over time, the emphasis on Stalin’s “political mistakes” overshadowed this grand program, which is now partially implemented in the USA, China, and Western Europe through the creation of green frameworks. These frameworks play a significant role in preventing soil degradation.
Modern Russian history often recalls the destruction of vineyards6 under Gorbachev in the final years of the USSR. However, the loss of hundreds of thousands of hectares of forest in the 1960s and the degradation of fertile lands on an even larger scale is seldom mentioned.
[6.As part of the temperance policy, wine grape varieties were cut down to make way for the planting of table grape varieties.]
On the 1887 soil map of Voronezh, created by V. V. Dokuchaev, extensive zones with a 13% humus content were marked. Today, such soils no longer exist anywhere. Soils with 10–12% humus content have also disappeared. In Russia, only rare patches of land with 8–10% organic content can still be found. Meanwhile, the total area of depleted chernozem soils, with a humus content of 2–4%, has quadrupled, and such soils are comparable in fertility to podzolic ones.
In 1900, V. V. Dokuchaev brought a chernozem profile 8 meters thick, excavated in the Voronezh region, to the Paris exhibition. Unfortunately, chernozem with such depth can no longer be found in Russia. The maximum thickness of chernozem in Russia today is 2 meters, while in most regions, it does not exceed 0.7 meters. Over the past century, more than 6 meters of fertile soil have been eroded and washed into the World Ocean. This raises a serious and natural question: how many years will it take for the remaining 2 meters of fertile soil to erode? And behind this question looms another: what will we feed our children, grandchildren, and descendants with when the entire fertile layer is gone?
In southern Russia, the most agriculturally productive areas are experiencing an increase in dust storms, soil salinization, and desertification. Farmers report widespread soil depletion and exhaustion. Agricultural lands are turning into sand dunes, while the Kizlyar pastures are transitioning into desert due to overgrazing.
The work under Stalin’s Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature formally ended in the 1960s, although many activities continued by inertia afterward. Efforts to revive Central Russia’s agriculture were resumed only during Brezhnev’s era. Although the project was terminated, forestry enterprises continued planting seedlings until the 1980s, covering 30,000 hectares annually. However, the number of trees planted steadily decreased. By 2007, forest shelterbelt renewal had fallen to just 0.3 thousand hectares. Today, satellite images reveal that, in some places, shelterbelts have disappeared entirely, although environmentalists continue to stress their importance. Additionally, due to mismanagement, forest plantations have been subjected to deforestation. Forest restoration is steadily declining, while the area affected by forest fires continues to grow, with more forest being destroyed than restored. The long-term consequences of this trend need no elaboration.
Modern History of Russia
“Until 2006, forest belts were part of the Ministry of Agriculture’s structure, but they were subsequently stripped of their status and effectively abolished. Having become unclaimed, forest belts began to be actively cut down for cottage construction or timber extraction,” wrote M. B. Voitsekhovsky, General Director of the Rosgiproles Institute.
Today, the plan for transforming nature has turned into a plan for extracting profit from it, even at the cost of turning it into a lifeless desert. Instead of “garden cities,” the current trajectory leans toward Zinoviev’s “human anthills.”
The current situation is vividly reflected in every agricultural region of Russia. Altai Krai, one of the country’s leading agricultural regions and Siberia’s breadbasket, had 140,000 hectares (2% of all agricultural land) of forest belts planted during the Soviet period. In 2011, an inventory revealed that only about 70,000 hectares (1%) remained. Half of the plantations had disappeared.
The Stalinist Plan for the Transformation of Nature, launched in 1949, was implemented for less than six of its intended 16 years and remained incomplete. However, its results continue to mitigate many negative factors to this day. Despite gradual degradation, the remaining forest belts still serve snow retention and other ecological functions. The remaining ponds are successfully utilized, leased to effective managers for fish farming and paid recreational fishing.
Summing up the above, the following points should be noted. The grand project of V. I. Stalin, undoubtedly necessary in essence, contained a series of erroneous decisions stemming from the neglect of natural laws. This reflects the spirit of a well-known quote emphasizing humanity’s transformative power over nature: “The human mind has discovered many wonders in nature and will discover even more, thereby increasing its dominion over it…” (V. I. Lenin, Vol. 14, 4th Edition, p. 268).
Unsurprisingly, the literature of that era was replete with expressions such as “transformation of nature,” “active human intervention in nature,” “not waiting for favors,” “scientific methods of managing nature,” “biosphere management,” and “turning the biosphere into the noosphere.” Even today, one of the key economic indicators, GDP (Gross Domestic Product), continues to consider the biosphere merely as an extracted resource, ignoring its critical role in providing ecosystem services and maintaining environmental balance.
At that time, either the importance of the natural biota was not known, or its significance was insufficiently understood. Without natural biota, there is no life itself. Only at the end of the last century did Russian biophysicist V. G. Gorshkov scientifically substantiate the mechanisms of environmental regulation by biota and develop the concept of biotic regulation of the environment. Within this framework, it is more appropriate to speak not of transforming or managing nature, but of a managed “collaboration” with the regulatory mechanisms of the biosphere and biota.
A Global Issue
The rapid depletion of soils observed worldwide is leading to “hidden hunger”—a deficiency of nutrients in food products. This phenomenon is recognized as a primary cause of many modern diseases, including diabetes and cancer.
According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), within just 17 years of observation (1985 to 2002), the nutrient content in food products decreased by more than half. Some foods lost up to 78% of calcium and magnesium—elements essential for the proper functioning of the heart.
Today’s Nutritional Crisis
Due to soil depletion, fruits and vegetables now contain significantly fewer nutrients than even a decade ago. Over the past ten years, the vitamin C content in certain produce has dropped by over 80%. In many cases, the only beneficial component remaining in supermarket fruits and vegetables is plant fiber. If, over 17 years, nutrient content decreased by 24–78%, current estimates suggest that we are now consuming less than 1% of the nutrients present in food a century ago. This alarming decline is directly linked to reduced life expectancy and the widespread prevalence of numerous diseases.
An estimated one-third of the global population—over 2 billion people—suffers from serious health issues caused by nutrient deficiencies (Pingault N. et al., 2017). The 2020 Global Nutrition Report (link: https://globalnutritionreport.org/reports/2020-global-nutrition-report/) highlights that nutrient deficiencies are a worldwide issue, with children and pregnant women being especially affected. The increasing shortages of key micronutrients—such as iron, vitamin A, iodine, folic acid, and zinc—are contributing to severe and life-threatening conditions.
Nutrient deficiencies have direct health implications. For example, selenium deficiency is linked to Alzheimer’s disease, while vitamin D deficiency causes rickets. The rising incidence of nutrient-related illnesses is alarming, as these conditions are appearing in younger populations. Diseases once associated with old age are now diagnosed in individuals as young as 20–30 years old. Additionally, an increasing number of children are born with weakened immunity or chronic health conditions.
The root cause of this issue lies in soil degradation. Human health is directly linked to the health of the soil. The situation is further exacerbated by the focus of agricultural corporations and ministries on the quantity rather than the quality of food production. Breeders are developing increasingly high-yield plant varieties, and the higher the yield from depleted soils, the fewer nutrients these plants contain.
As part of the UN’s “Decade on Ecosystem Restoration” program, Russia must analyze and account for both the positive and negative outcomes of its past efforts and make a significant contribution to restoring soil fertility, both domestically and globally—especially in the BRICS countries.
The immense scientific and practical experience gained during the implementation of the “Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature”, combined with modern soil-conservation and fertility-restoration technologies, such as:
A Greek proverb wisely states:
“A society becomes great when its elders plant trees in whose shade they will never sit.”
“He who protects his land saves his people!” -Ivan the Terrible
References:
Alexander Evgenievich Usanin – General Director of the NGO “Renaissance of the Earth”,
Andrey Vladimirovich Stetsenko – President of the Center for Environmental Innovation, Candidate of Economic Sciences,
Evgeny Lvovich Lebedev is a State Adviser of the Russian Federation, 2nd class, former Head of the Federal Service for Supervision of Natural Resources in the Penza Region.
Would you like to receive a consultation or discuss a partnership? Simply fill out the form, and we will contact you shortly.
+7 (499) 888-13-32
info@awakening.team
Mon. - Fri: from 10:00 to 19:00 (GMT +3)
127030, Moscow, Novoslobodskaya St., 20, Room 26/1/2
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation Registration Number: 77140512689
TIN (Taxpayer Identification Number): 9707032980
OGRN (Primary State Registration Number): 1247700484228
Hindi 
English 
German 
French 
Spanish 
Portuguese 
Chinese 
Nepali 
Persian 
Arabic 
Korean