Transactions of the Karelian Research Centre of the Труды Карельского научного центра РАН Russian Academy of Sciences № 7. 2021. С. 6–15 No. 7. 2021. P. 6–15 DOI: 10.17076/them1471

УДК 502 (1–751.1) (470.1/.2)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDEA OF THE GREEN BELT OF FENNOSCANDIA AS A SYSTEM OF PROTECTED AREAS IN THE EUROPEAN NORTH

O. N. Bakhmet1, A. M. Kryshen1, E. A. Borovichev2, A. N. Gromtsev1, A. V. Kravchenko1, O. L. Kuznetsov1, A. F. Titov1, O. V. Petrova2, V. A. Masloboev2 1 Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, 2 Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Apatity, Russia

The Green Belt of Fennoscandia (GBF) is the Russian-Finnish-Norwegian border region with forest areas and mire massifs almost unaffected by human activity. In the early 1990s, the concept of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia was put forward as a result of joint work of researchers and experts in Fennoscandia and discussion of sustainable development principles for border regions. Its main aim was to have public interests united in the fields of economic development and nature conservation. The cores of the GBF are protec- ted areas (PAs), of federal and regional status, and ecologically connected with the Pan- European Ecological Network (Natura 2000) as well as with Norwegian PAs.

K e y w o r d s: Fennoscandia; Green Belt; protected areas; border regions; cooperation; convergence of research approaches; PA network.

O. Н. Бахмет, A. M. Крышень, E. A. Боровичев, A. Н. Громцев, A. В. Кравченко, O. Л. Кузнецов, A. Ф. Титов, O. В. Петрова, В. A. ­Маслобоев. РАЗВИТИЕ КОНЦЕПЦИИ ЗЕЛЕНОГО ПОЯСА ­ФЕННОСКАНДИИ – СИСТЕМЫ ОХРАНЯЕМЫХ ПРИРОДНЫХ ТЕРРИТОРИЙ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКОМ СЕВЕРЕ

Зеленый пояс Фенноскандии (ЗПФ) – российско-финляндско-норвежская пригра- ничная территория с фрагментами лесных и болотных массивов, мало затронутых антропогенной деятельностью. В начале 1990‑х годов с расширением междуна- родного сотрудничества ученых и специалистов и обсуждения принципов устой- чивого развития приграничных территорий возникла концепция Зеленого пояса Фенноскандии, основная идея которой – сочетание интересов общества в эконо- мическом развитии и сохранение природы. Ключевыми участками ЗПФ являются особо охраняемые природные территории (ООПТ) как федерального, так и регио- нального подчинения, экологически связанные с Пан-Европейской экологической сетью (Natura 2000) и с ООПТ Норвегии.

К л ю ч е в ы е с л о в а: Фенноскандия; Зеленый пояс; особо охраняемые природ- ные территории; приграничные территории; сотрудничество; гармонизация науч- но-исследовательских подходов; сеть ООПТ.

6 The Green Belt of Fennoscandia (GBF) stretch- and protection regimes were defined with regard es along the borders between the Russian Fede- to their specific landscapes and environment. ration, Finland and Norway. Unlike adjacent wide Besides, special attention was given to the con- areas heavily transformed by human activities, sistency of the planned parks and reserves with the region boasts relatively intact forest and mire the PAs network on the Finnish side. The work massifs (Fig. 1–2). done can, in fact, be said to be unparalleled, at least in what concerns forest regions in Russia. Establishment of the PA Network Moreover, all the significant research results have been promptly published [Inventory…, 1998–2001; In the 1990s, Russian and Finnish researchers Biotic…, 2003]. noticed than the territory along the national border During the first stage, thirty individual nature remained almost intact, which could be explained objects (many of them with no official protection by the region’s poor accessibility and, partly, by status) were outlined in Russia in the GBF territory. the strict border regime. The idea was put forward They stretched as a narrow strip (20–30 km on ave- to establish a number of large-scale protected rage) along the Russian-Norwegian and Russian- areas (PAs) in close proximity to the border, not Finnish borders. These forest and mire areas were only expanding the Russian PA network but also marked out as being well preserved, owing not connecting it to Finnish parks [Titov et al., 1995]. only to the strict border zone regime in the Soviet As a result, the GBF was created. Unlike the then times but, mainly, to the lack of roads and large discussed politicized idea of the European Green settlements. By 1998, the number of the pro- Belt, the GBF concept was mainly aimed at na- posed areas was reduced to twenty. The number ture conservation. Its main goal was to establish included only existing and planned PAs of fede- and develop the PAs network along the border, ral and regional status. Later on, by 2003, based ensure more efficient management of natural re- on the experience obtained when preparing other sources to preserve the unique natural heritage nominations for PAs, the number of areas suggest- and maintain environmental sustainability. ed for inclusion in GBF on the Russian side was cut The GBF idea has been moving progressively by down to eight. Five of them already had a federal taking concrete steps towards the fulfillment of its PA status (4 strict nature reserves (SNR), 1 na- mission. Since the mid-1990s, a number of re- tional park (NP)), and three had claims for the NP search programmes and projects have been imple- status. Some of them were integrated with Finnish mented. They received support from the European and Norwegian PAs to form several transbound- Union and Finland. With participation of research- ary complexes (Pasvik – Vatsari, Laplandsky Les – ers from KarRC RAS, more than 20 projects for na- Jonn-Nyugoaiv – Urho Kekkonen, Kutsa – Paana- ture inventories and feasibility studies for planned jarvi – Oulanka, Kalevalsky Complex, “Friendship” PAs in the were accomplished Park, Ladoga Skerries – Saimaa and Pielinen). in the framework of the Russian-Finnish “Develop- ment Programme on Sustainable Forest Manage- The role of GBF in the development ment and Conservation of Biodiversity in North- of cooperation in border regions West Russia”. Among them: “Biodiversity inventory and study in the Republic of Karelia” (1997–2002); The GBF runs along national borders, which do “Feasibility study and inventory of the Kalevalsky not coincide with ethnic boundaries. It comprises National Park territory” (1997–1998); “Feasibi- areas rich in indigenous peoples’ traditions (suf- lity study and inventory of the Tulos National Park fice it to mention runic traditions and the “Kaleva- territory” (1997–1998); “Feasibility study and in- la” epic). Thus, another priority alongside nature ventory of the Koitajoki National Park territory” conservation, is the identification of ethno-cultural (1997–1998). Simultaneously, studies were carried cores and substantiation of measures to preserve out to develop the network of Karelian PAs within local traditions and languages, as well as historical the TACIS programme. They were also aimed at and cultural monuments. This goal is essential not environmental education and ecotourism deve- only for maintaining the cultural identity, but also for lopment [Antonova et al., 2005; Gromtsev et al., establishing the prerequisites for sustainable eco- 2014, etc.]. nomic development of border regions [Morozova The inventory of biodiversity along the 700‑km et al., 2001; Morozova, 2005; Druzhinin, 2006]. As border line between Karelia and Finland, has been said, people are coming to the under- and in an over 400‑km border stretch between standing that nature conservation can be economi- the Murmansk Region and Finland and Nor- cally beneficial. National parks and nature reserves way proved the feasibility of establishing several (zakazniks) are to turn into centres of ecotourism large PAs there. Their spatial scope, boundaries, and sources of economic growth in their neighbou-

7 Fig. 1. Green Belt of Fennoscandia along the borders of the Murmansk Region of Russia with Finland and Norway

8 Fig. 2. Green Belt of Fennoscandia along the border between the Republic of Karelia and Finland

9 hoods. Implementation by researchers from KarRC b) intact ecosystems of exceptional nature con- RAS of the international project “IntellGreenBelt” servation value (key areas) were identified; (“Intellectually driven management of natural re- c) the conditions for the survival and disper- sources of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia”) under sal of rare species were studied, and measures the ENPI Cross-border Cooperation programme for their protection were developed [Kravchen- 2012–2014 has contributed to the development ko et al., 2000; Gromtsev, 2001; Biotic…, 2003; of transboundary solutions both for the conserva- Kurhinen et al., 2006; The Red…, 2007; Fedorets tion and reproduction of natural resources and for et al., 2009 etc.]. Besides, the economic potential the invigoration of socio-economic activities of some border areas was studied and the main on both sides of the border (including learning tou- ways for their development were outlined; key ob- rism). Border regions are a potential platform for jects of historical and cultural value were deter- working out and promoting social, humanitarian, mined [Management…, 2008]. One of the essen- environmental projects and technologies on both tial outputs of federal and international projects has sides of the border, thus demonstrating a novel been the formation of research networks, which aspect of a socially oriented innovative scenario can comprehensively (based on the multidisci- of regional and local development. plinary approach) study a specific area and pro- Thus, it should be noted that European countries vide a multi-sided assessment of its development pay a growing attention to healthy environment, en- potential. vironment-friendly industrial technologies, environ- Regional authorities and various NGOs have mental standards, and that demand for organic food lately become more active in nature protection among European consumers is increasing. In this activities. Since 2007, research institutes of KarRC connection, the usually low level of economic de- RAS have been conducting the inventory of the Ka- velopment, low population density and insufficient relian PA network and developing the Geographi- land use in borderland Karelia can and should be re- cal Information System (GIS) for these objects, garded not only as a shortcoming, but at the same ordered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries time as a strong competitive advantage and poten- and Environment of the Republic of Karelia. This tial for socio-economic development. work has led to a gradual convergence of the opin- ions and positions of economic entities, scientific Convergence of Russian and European institutions and conservationist NGOs on issues research approaches and methods concerning the management of natural resour- ces. An overarching output of the assessments Convergence of research approaches and me- of the current state and representativeness thods across borders may be considered as one of the PA network of Karelia is the feasibility study of the most notable achievements of internatio- of the network development [Scientific…, 2009]. nal joint projects. This is reflected e. g. in shared Compared to Karelia, the Murmansk Region scientific databases on biodiversity and various joined the process somewhat later. Although natural resources of regions. The range of partici- the Murmansk stretch of GBF is over 400 km, pating specialists and organizations has expand- and the borderlands contain several operating ed markedly. There appeared projects devoted and planned PAs, this extensive ecological cor- to ecotourism development in border regions. ridor has not been comprehensively researched Presently, the data obtained and the expert net- until lately, and even its boundaries have not been works on all sides of the border can provide for sci- clearly outlined [Borovichev et al., 2018]. This has entifically grounded decision-making for the de- resulted, for instance, in the inclusion of the Lap- velopment of specific regions. In 2000–2008, land Strict Nature Reserve in early listings of GBF funding of the projects concerning border re- PAs [Titov et al., 2009], although the reserve is gions increased due to economic improvement more than 130 km away from the border with in the Russian Federation. Foundations supporting Finland. Russian science (RFBR and RSF), the Programme From 2007 to 2011, a large-scale project “GAP “Biological Resources and Gene Pool Dynamics” analysis in Northwest Russia” was implemented, of the RAS Presidium, the Programme “Biological its aim being to assess how representative the PA Resources of Russia: Fundamentals of Sane Use” system of this large supraregion was. The pro- of the RAS Department of Biological Sciences ject involved the Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Lenin- have played and continue playing the leading role grad and Murmansk Regions, Republic of Karelia, in this respect. As a result of these activities: and St. Petersburg. The results of these studies a) new data were obtained on species were published in 2011 in Russian and English and community diversity, the resource potential [Mapping…, 2011]. The Murmansk Region PA net- of the region; work has also been analyzed for representative-

10 ness of terms of plant diversity conservation [Di- Park and Voinitsa Landscape Reserve into this versity…, 2009]. As a follow-up of the project “GAP system, which would almost double the area. analysis in Northwest Russia”, the concept of ope- ­Another example is the planned Russian-Finnish ration and development of the network of pro- protected area Oulanka-Paanajarvi, with Russian tected areas of the Murmansk Region until 2018 and Finnish national parks bearing the respective and further until 2038 was prepared. The concept names and the Kutsa Regional Nature Reserve as was approved by Ordinance No 128‑PP of the Mur- its basis (totalling more than 130,000 ha in area). mansk Region Government dated 24.03.2011. For over 20 years, there has been quite success- Namely, this document stipulates the establish- ful cooperation for the establishment of the tri- ment of 11 various PAs in the border area. lateral Pasvik-Inari National Park at the border junction of Russia, Norway and Finland (Pasvik is Current state of the PA network its core). It has already obtained a Europarc cer- tificate. Thus, managed cross-national entities Quite a system of federal- (strict nature re- made up of PAs are being established in the bor- serves (aka zapovedniks) and national parks) derlands. In Finland, areas of top importance for and regional-level (nature reserves (aka zakazniks) GBF are also under statutory protection, i. a. un- and nature monuments of various profiles) PAs, der the national parks programme of Metsähalli- differing in the protection regimens regulated by tus, old-growth forest conservation programme, endorsed standards, has already been established and the pan-European environmental network Na- within GBF, and the planning process is still under- tura 2000 [State…, 2007]. way. The largest PAs in GBF are the following: na- Current surveys of the extensive GBF territo- tional parks “Ladoga Skerries” (122,000 ha), “Ka- ry detect valuable areas, for which feasibility stu- levalsky” (74,400 ha), “Paanajarvi” (104,500 ha), dies for prospective PAs are prepared. Such are, nature parks “Rybachy and Sredniy Peninsulas” first of all, the most scenic and recreationally at- (83,100 ha) and “Korablekk” (8,300 ha), strict na- tractive areas and sites: a) sandy and rocky lake- ture reserves “Kostomukshsky” (49,300 ha), “Kan- shores and riverbanks; b) narrow spit-like promon- dalakshsky” (Ainovy Islands cluster) (1,220 ha), tories and islands; c) large elevated areas offering “Pasvik” (14,700 ha), landscape reserves “Be- a commanding view; d) esker ridges (especially ryozovye Islands” (53,600 ha), “Vyborgsky” narrow ones, between lakes); e) deep, canyon-like (11,300 ha), “Iso-Jarvi” (6,100 ha), “Tolvojarvi” faults in the crystalline basement; f) rapid sections (41,900 ha), “Voinitsa” (8,400 ha), nature reserves of rivers, etc. Sites with valuable biotopic charac- “Zapadny Archipelago” (19,900 ha), “Laplandsky teristics (harboring concentrations of rare vascular Les” (171,700 ha), “Kaita” (144,400 ha), “Kutsa” plant species, pristine forest fragments, the most (52,000 ha). There also operate smaller conserva- productive (elite) forest stands, etc.) must also be tion areas of various profiles, such as the geologi- added to this listing. cal nature monument “Cape Kintsiniemi”, hydrolo- The combined area of PAs forming the GBF gical nature monument “Waterfall on the Shuonijo- backbone on the two sides of the Russian-Fin- ki River”, landscape reserve “Yudalsky”, landscape nish border exceeds 1,000,000 ha, of which nature monument “Kumi Porog”, and many others. 800,000 ha are on the Russian side. There are Another component not to be forgotten is wa- now plans to enlarge the area through addition terside buffers with constraints on land use, which of sites with relatively intact ecosystems to ope- act as ecological corridors and connect PAs into rating strict nature reserves and national parks, an integral system. They are supposed to serve and by establishing some small nature reserves for wildlife migration and movements between PAs and nature monuments in Karelian borderlands. and other sites preserved in natural or semi-natu- Thus, the phase of GBF development through ral state thereby securing sustainable existence mere enlargement of PA network size is nearing of the populations of various organisms. completion, and the focus is shifting towards or- A major constituent of the PA system in GBF ganization of a unified, well-balanced system. is transboundary entities. The ones already ope- One of the most promising lines of activity in this rating are the Friendship Park, including Kosto- connection is identification and preservation mukshsky Strict Nature Reserve on the Russian in near-natural state of waterside buffers along riv- side and five conservation areas along the bor- ers and lakes, forests and mires both within GBF der on the Finnish side, covering in total ca. and outside it. They can secure its connectivity 80,000 ha. In 2014, the Kalevala Park was estab- with ecosystems in the Karelian area, lished in Finland (it consists of 19 sites with the to- Zaonezhye, and Archangelsk Region, and create tal area of 30,000 ha). In the near future, it would the conditions for natural migration of animals be expedient to integrate the Kalevalsky National and plants east to west and vice versa.

11 Transition from individual PAs to a holistic – along the border between the Republic of Ka- territory relia and the Archangelsk Region 9) national park (NP) Vodlozersky Vigorous scientific and civic activities within 10) landscape reserve (LR) Ypäussuo the formerly scattered international, federal and re- 11) landscape reserve (LR) Kozhosersky gional programmes and projects have gradually led 12) landscape reserve (LR) Chukozero [Inventory…, to the understanding of the demand for the prepa- 2007] ration and implementation of a special internatio- 13) NP Kenozersky, etc.; nal GBF development programme. In June 2008, the international seminar “Green Belt of Fenno- – along the border between the Republic of Ka- scandia: Status and Visions” took place in Petro- relia and the Vologda Region zavodsk. Its participants discussed the key re- 14) landscape reserve (LR) Muromsky, LR Atleka, sults of the work towards PA establishment in GBF LR Verkhneandomsky, hydrological reserve in 1990–2000. Having discussed the materials, (HR) Soidozero, etc.; the seminar adopted the Resolution emphasizing that GBF development activities should be con- – along the border between the Vologda Re- tinued on the basis of a special programme with gion and the Leningrad Region the following main objective: to create a holistic 15) nature reserves Koloshemsky Les, Ratsa, environmental-economic domain along Russian- Chagodoshchensky, Finnish and Russian-Norwegian borders where 16) nature park (NP) Vepssky Les, etc., including the aim of conserving unique northern nature shall protected mires. go along with the support and comprehensive de- It is safe to say that quite a representative velopment of the border territories taking into ac- and vast system of conservation areas has been taking shape in the periphery of Karelia (provided count their historical, ethno-cultural and economic that the planned areas will be designated). It vir- characteristics. tually encircles the region’s western and eastern The seminar and the following Russian-Finnish boundaries. In the south, the system is “looped in” project gave an impetus to a new stage in the de- along Lake Ladoga shore by SNR Nizhnesvirsky, velopment of GBF and its recognition as one waterside protection forests, planned National of key features of the environmental framework Park Ladoga Skerries, etc. Its northern contour is of the European North. the comparatively narrow strip between the Gulf Apparently, the GBF is still a developing PA sys- of Kandalaksha and the Russian-Finnish border tem. Strict nature reserves, national parks, and na- (SNR Kandalakshsky, NR Kutsa, SNR Laplandsky). ture reserves of various profiles on both sides In essence, this PA system is the core of the nature of the border enable the longitudinal movement protection framework of Eastern Fennoscandia. of species and natural connectivity of areas ex- To make this framework even more robust, it is ne- posed to human impacts differing in land use tradi- cessary to add several more PAs, arranged latitu- tions, character and intensity. dinally, with taiga corridors leading outside of Fen- noscandia towards large pristine forest massifs. In fact, one more GBF has formed by now, In Karelia, of primary importance in this respect is which almost entirely embraces the eastern boun- designation of the planned Nature Park Zaonezh- daries of the Baltic Shield. There already exists sky, which is connected in the west to the existing a longitudinal chain of operating and planned PAs system via a waterside protection zone, reorgani- with most varied natural characteristics (with feasi- zation of the Kutsa Nature Reserve into a nature bility studies available). It runs from north to south, park, and establishment of the Jonn-Nyugoaiv Na- occupying a combined area of 1.4 mln. ha, exclud- ture Reserve. ing waterside buffers: An essential characteristic of the current phase – along the White Sea coast in GBF development is that the idea has gone 1) nature reserve (NR) Kolvitsky beyond the scope of science, and settled firm- 2) nature reserve (NR) Kanozersky ly in governmental documents of various levels. 3) strict nature reserve (SNR) Kandakakshsky Thus, in 2010, the “Memorandum of Understanding 4) landscape reserve (LR) Polyarny Krug on Cooperation on the Development of the Green 5) landscape reserve (LR) Gridino [Rocky…, 2008] Belt of Fennoscandia” was signed between the Mi- 6) landscape reserve (LR) Syrovatka [Inventory…, nistry of the Environment of the Kingdom of Nor- 2003] way, the Ministry of the Environment of the Repub- 7) landscape reserve (LR) Kuzova lic of Finland and the Ministry of Natural Resources 8) landscape reserve (LR) Soroksky, etc.; and Environment of the Russian Federation.

12 In 2013, an international conference was held Borovichev E. A., Petrova O. V., Kryshen A. M. On in Petrozavodsk with the aim to consolidate the po- the Fennoscandian Green Belt Boundaries in the Mur- mansk Region. Transactions of KarRC RAS. 2018. No. 8. sition of GBF as a holistic ecological-economic P. 141–146. doi: 10.17076/bg770 [In Russian] domain and to formulate new tasks for its develop- Diversity of plants, lichens, and cyanoprokaryota ment, including the delineation of GBF boundaries of : study results and protection pros- and official drawing up of GBF status, instatement pects. St. Petersburg, 2009. 120 p. [In Russian] of GBF as the key component of the North Euro- Druzhinin P. V. Forecasting of development of eco- pean PA system, priority setting for economic de- nomy of border regions: methodological and methodi- velopment in GBF, and preparation of the concept cal aspects. Transactions of KarRC RAS. 2006. No. 9. of GBF sustainable development as a region at- P. 67–83. [In Russian] tractive to tourists and investors. Gromtsev А. N. The most vulnerable forests in Kare- lia: characteristics, mapping, conservation measures. In 2017–2018, researchers from the Kare- Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2001. 62 p. [In Russian] lian Research Centre and Kola Science Centre Gromtsev A. N., Karpin V. A., Presnuhin Yu. V., Pet- of the Russian Academy of Sciences intensi- rov N. V., Tuyunen A. V. Forest landscapes in the russian fied their joint work to systematize available data part of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia: natural features, on the natural conditions and biodiversity in GBF. current state and application. Transactions of KarRC These activities were supported by the Ministry RAS. 2014. No. 6. P. 39–52. [In Russian] of Natural Resources and Environment of the Rus- Inventory and study of biological diversity in central sian Federation. The Project “Scientific substanti- Karelia. Eds. A. N. Gromtsev, V. I. Krutov. Petrozavodsk: ation of the creation and development of the Rus- KarRC RAS, 2001. 250 p. [In Russian] Inventory and study of biological diversity in Zaone- sian part of the protected areas network, which is zhie and Northern Ladoga Lake. Eds. A. N. Gromtsev, unified with Norway and Finland” united the efforts V. I. Krutov. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2000. 150 p. of Karelia and Murmansk Region in creating the PA [In Russian] system along the Russian-Norwegian and Rus- Inventory and study of biological diversity on the Ka- sian-Finnish national borders. The natural charac- relian coast of the White Sea. Eds. A. N. Gromtsev, teristics of the territory allow for implementation V. I. Krutov. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 1999. 140 p. of the ECONET principle, i. e. a network of PAs [In Russian] and areas with land use restrictions interconnected Inventory materials of natural complexes and en- by ecological corridors. The vast GBF territory tra- vironmental assessment of the territory “Chukozero”. Ed. А. N. Gromtsev. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2007. verses several biogeographical boundaries, unites 137 p. [In Russian] different regions of Russia, and crosses the natio- Inventory materials of natural complexes and scienti- nal borders of three countries. Importantly, there fic justification of the landscape reserve “Syrovatka”. Ed. are good prospects for development both with- А. N. Gromtsev. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2003. 92 p. in the European Green Belt framework and with- [In Russian] in the North European PA system [Kryshen et al., Inventory of biological diversity in the border areas 2012]. of the Republic of Karelia and Finland. Eds. V. I. Krutov, A. N. Gromtsev. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 1998. 168 p. Furthermore, Russian experts believe that PAs [In Russian] Fedorets N. G., Bakhmet О. N., Morozova R. М. Soils included in an integrated serial transboundary ob- and soil cover of protected areas of Karelia. Petroza- ject “Green Belt of Fennoscandia” satisfy all the re- vodsk: KarRC RAS, 2009. 109 p. [In Russian] quirements and criteria to be eligible for inscription Kravchenko A. V., Bakalin V., Fadeeva M. et al. in the UNESCO World Natural and Cultural Heri- Biodiversity of vascular plant, lichen and hepatic flora tage List. On the other hand, they could, with time, of the old growth forests in the Green belt of Russian Ka- turn into a kind of cores of planned biosphere re- relia. Biodiversity of old-growth forests and its conser- serves, and the European Green Belt in its north- vation in northwestern Russia. Regional Environmental ern section. Publications. Vol. 158. Oulu, 2000. P. 7–64. Kryshen А. M., Gromtsev А. N., Titov А. F., Dani- lov P. I., Kuznetsov О. L. Creation and development References of a unified system of specially protected natural ter- ritories of the European North. The use and protection Antonova R. F., Belkin V. V., Gromtsev A. N. The his- of natural resources in Russia. 2012. No. 4. P. 54–57. tory of nature management and the impact of human [In Russian] activity on the nature of Suojärvi district. Ed. А. N. Grom- Kurhinen Yu. P., Danilov P. I., Ivanter E. V. Mammals tsev. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2005. 28 p. [In Russian] of Eastern Fennoscandia under anthropogenic trans- Biotic diversity of Karelia: conditions of formation, formation of taiga ecosystems. Moscow: Nauka, 2006. community, species. Eds. А. N. Gromtsev, S. P. Ki- 208 p. [In Russian] taev, V. I. Krutov et al. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2003. Management of tourism development in the region. 262 p. [In Russian] Experience in implementing the Strategy of the Republic

13 of Karelia. Eds. Yu. V. Saveliev, О. V. Tolstoguzov. Petro- Scientific basis for the development of a network zavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2008. 227 p. [In Russian] of specially protected natural areas in the Republic Mapping of High Conservation Value Areas in North- of Karelia. Ed. А. N. Gromtsev. Petrozavodsk: KarRC western Russia: Gap-Analysis of the Protected Areas RAS, 2009. 112 p. [In Russian] Network in the Murmansk, Leningrad, Arkhangelsk, State of the Parks in Finland. Finnish Protected Areas Vologda, and Karelia regions, and the city of Saint-Pe- and Their Management from 2000 to 2005. Ed. M. Hei- tersburg. Ed. K. N. Kobyakov. St. Petersburg, 2011. nonen. Helsinki: Metsähallitus, 2007. 313 p. 506 p. [In Russian] The Red Data Book of the Republic of Karelia. Petro- Morozova T. V. Alternative ways to develop zavodsk: Karelia, 2007. 368 p. [In Russian] cross-border local communities. Population. 2005. Titov А. F., Butorin А. А., Gromtsev А. N., Iesh- No. 2. P. 71–90. [In Russian] ko Е. P., Kryshen А. М., Saveliev Yu. V. The Green Belt Morozova Т. V., Gurova S. А., Kozireva G. B., Kulako- of Fennoscandia: the State and Perspectives. Transac- va L. М. Socio-economic preconditions for the develop- tions of KarRC RAS. 2009. No. 2. P. 3–11. [In Russian] ment of specially protected natural areas in the border Titov A., Ieshko E., Hokkanen T. J., Aho J., Pel- zone of the Republic of Karelia. Development of special- konen P. Joint ecological policy: a key element in inter- ly protected natural areas in the border zone of the Re- regional and international. Karelian biosphere reserve public of Karelia. Petrozavodsk; Helsinki, 2001. 67 p. studies. Joensuu, 1995. P. 61–63. Rocky landscapes of the Karelian coast of the White Sea: natural features, economic development, conser- Received July 14, 2021 vation measures. Ed. А. N. Gromtsev. Petrozavodsk: KarRC RAS, 2008. 212 p. [In Russian]

СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ: CONTRIBUTORS:

Бахмет Ольга Николаевна Bakhmet, Olga председатель КарНЦ РАН, руководитель Отдела Department for Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, комплексных научных исследований КарНЦ РАН, Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences член-корр. РАН, д. б. н. 11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia Федеральный исследовательский центр e-mail: [email protected] «Карельский научный центр РАН» tel.: (8142) 766040 ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, Россия, 185910 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 766040

Крышень Александр Михайлович Kryshen, Alexander директор Института леса КарНЦ РАН, д. б. н. Forest Research Institute, Karelian Research Centre, Федеральный исследовательский центр Russian Academy of Sciences «Карельский научный центр РАН» 11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, e-mail: [email protected] Россия, 185910 tel.: (8142) 768160 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 768160

Боровичев Евгений Александрович Borovichev, Evgeny заместитель председателя по научной работе, к. б. н. Institute of North Industrial Ecology Problems, Институт проблем промышленной экологии Севера Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences КНЦ РАН, Федеральный исследовательский центр 14а Akademgorodok, 184209 Apatity, Murmansk Region, «Кольский научный центр РАН» Russia мкр. Академгородок, 14а, Апатиты, Мурманская область, e-mail: [email protected] Россия, 184209 tel.: (81555) 79378 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (81555) 79378

Громцев Андрей Николаевич Gromtsev, Andrey главный научный сотрудник Отдела комплексных научных Department for Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, исследований КарНЦ РАН, д. с.‑х. н. Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences Федеральный исследовательский центр 11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia «Карельский научный центр РАН» e-mail: [email protected] ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, tel.: (8142) 768160 Россия, 185910 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 768160

14 Кравченко Алексей Васильевич Kravchenko, Alexey ведущий научный сотрудник Отдела комплексных научных Department for Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, исследований КарНЦ РАН, к. б. н. Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences Федеральный исследовательский центр 11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia, «Карельский научный центр РАН» e-mail: [email protected] ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, tel.: (8142) 768160 Россия, 185910 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 768160

Кузнецов Олег Леонидович Kuznetsov, Oleg главный научный сотрудник Отдела комплексных научных Department for Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, исследований КарНЦ РАН, д. б. н. Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences Федеральный исследовательский центр 11 Pushkinskaya St., Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia, 185910 «Карельский научный центр РАН» e-mail: [email protected] ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, tel.: (8142) 768160 Россия, 185910 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 768160

Титов Александр Федорович Titov, Alexander главный научный сотрудник Отдела комплексных научных Department for Multidisciplinary Scientific Research, исследований КарНЦ РАН, член-корр. РАН, д. б. н. Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences Федеральный исследовательский центр 11 Pushkinskaya St., Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia, 185910 «Карельский научный центр РАН» e-mail: [email protected] ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, tel.: (8142) 762706 Россия, 185910 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 762706

Петрова Ольга Викторовна Petrova, Olga младший научный сотрудник Institute of North Industrial Ecology Problems, Институт проблем промышленной экологии Севера Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences КНЦ РАН, Федеральный исследовательский центр 14а Akademgorodok, 184209 Apatity, Murmansk Region, «Кольский научный центр РАН» Russia мкр. Академгородок, 14а, Апатиты, Мурманская область, e-mail: [email protected] Россия, 184209 tel.: (81555) 79378 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (81555) 79378

Маслобоев Владимир Алексеевич Masloboev, Vladimir советник руководителя ФИЦ КНЦ РАН, д. т. н. Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences Федеральный исследовательский центр 14 Fersmana St., 184209 Apatity, Murmansk Region, Russia «Кольский научный центр РАН» e-mail: [email protected] ул. Ферсмана, 14, Апатиты, Мурманская обл., Россия, tel.: (81555) 79323 184209 эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (81555) 79323