Establishment and development of the network of protected areas in the Republic of

Evgeni Ieshko & Aleksandr Titov Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Pushkinskaya 11, 185610. Karelia, .

The lies in the north- and mid-taiga subzones of the boreal zone. Forests cover over 50% of the republic’s area, mires over 20% and meadows only 1%. Lakes take up 8,800 km2, or 11.4% of the total. Protected areas (PA) occupy 1 229 192 ha (7.0% of the total area) and are found in practically every district of Karelia, though a great proportion of PA is located in the southern, best studied and most economically active part of the republic (Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äîêëàä 2002). Development of the PA network has for a long time been a largely chaotic process, especially before 1990, when the Decree of the Supre- me Council of the Karelian Autonomous Republic “On the Establishment of a PA Net- work” was passed. The lack of a unified integrated approach to its organization re- sulted among other things in uneven distribution of the nature reserves over the republic’s territory, as well as over-representation of some PA categories and insuffi- cient use of others. Therefore, the existing PA network is not yet a holistic system which would efficiently and comprehensively fulfill conservation tasks. The present paper offers data on the existing PA network, specific characteristics of Karelian biodiversity, and a review of some aspects of the PA network development in Republic of Karelia for the nearest future.

Protected areas and objects in Republic of Karelia The system of existing and planned PA covers much of the most representative and unique natural complexes in the republic (Table 1.). In the 1990s decisions were made which resulted in the designation of a number of national (Vodlozersky and Paanajär- vi) and natural parks, as well as several partial reserves. The area of PA and 1st group forests (with no forestry activities in forested zones) is expected to reach 2,689,000 ha or 14.9% of the Karelian territory by the year 2005. The plans are to establish such national parks as Ladoga skerries, Kalevalsky, Koitajoki and Tulos. An interesting fact is that practically all large PA to a certain extent focus on conservation of Karelian forests. The situation is quite justifiable, since old-growth (primary) forests occupy an impressive area (some 0.5 million ha) in existing and planned PA in Republic of Kare- lia. These forest areas are an exceptionally valuable part of the natural heritage of the land, and their preservation is one of the priorities for conservation activities. Current PA network comprises a relatively small share of strictly protected areas, including only strict nature reserves, national and natural parks (see table), whereas most (about two thirds) of the republic’s nature conservation fund is partial reserves (zakazniks) (represented chiefly by game and landscape reserves) (Õîõëîâà et al. 2000), e.g., the network of game reserves embraces almost all districts of the republic. Most of the reserves have operated since the 1970’s, the oldest one (Kolatselksky) since 1965. The period of designation for many of them has already expired, and updated evalu-

26 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○The Finnish Environment 485 ation of their compliance with the status is necessary. The greatest areas in the catego- ry are occupied by landscape (integrated) reserves, the designation of which started in 1981, mainly to restrict intensive economic activities deteriorating valuable natural communities and complexes in scenic sites popular among tourists and local people (exposed to recreational overload). As regards their aims and conservation regime some landscape reserves (e.g., Zaozerskii and Vazhozerskii) proved to be very close to natural parks – a new PA form introduced to national environmental legislation only in 1995. Table 1. Protected areas of Republic of Karelia (Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äîêëàä, 2002)

PA category Area, ha Percent of total area of PA area State strict nature reserves 60047 0.3 37658 National and natural parks 259654 37712 37859 Partial reserves 587715 37683 60.6 Natural monuments 40527 0.2 37656 Other 22251 0.12 37682

In accordance with the legislation valuable small-sized nature objects are protected as state natural monuments (NM). An example are protected individual rare trees in the Olonets district, Petrozavodsk and Tri Ivana spring in the Medvezhjegorsk district. Designation as NM withdrew some mires (valuable high-productivity berry-rich si- tes), rare and medicinal plant habitats, unique water objects (small lakes, springs), etc. from reclamation plans.

Some specific characteristics of biodiversity in Republic of Karelia

Karelia’s specific geographical position, namely its considerable latitudinal extent, is one of the key factors affecting plant distribution patterns. Thus, floristic composition is noted for high concentration of species found both in the northern and southern margins of their distribution range. Known vascular plant species richness in Karelia amounts to 1631 species distributed among 10 biogeographical provinces (Êðàâ÷åíêî & Êóçíåöîâ 2001). Regrettably, however, complete species checklists have not yet been compiled for a whole number of plant groups (lichens, algae). Over 200 higher vascu- lar plant species (some 20% of the flora) are in need of protection, and are likely to be included in the second edition of the “Red Data Book of Karelia”. Noteworthily, aboriginal flora contributes a little over a half (57%) of the number of species found, which testifies to an important role of introduced (adventitious) spe- cies, and may serve as an indicator of the youth of floristic complexes in Karelia (Ìàëûøåâ 1981). Describing biogeographical aspects of vascular plant distribution, Êðàâ÷åíêî & Êóçíåöîâ (2001) revealed clear distinctions between the compositions of local floras in the north- and mid-taiga subzones. The authors stressed a distinct upwards tendency in the species richness towards the south. They also found a signi- ficant positive relationship to exist between the species richness of local floras and the proportion of aboriginal species in them (Fig. 1). It should be stressed that the present level of knowledge does not provide con- vincing evidence that there are serious risks and factors aggravating the situation with

plant biological diversity in Karelia. In some cases, changes in the species composition ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ The Finnish Environment 485 ○○○○○○○○○○○ 27 800 Priladozhskii 700 Olonetskii Zaonezhskii 600 Vodlozerskii Topozerskii Pudoz hs kii 500 Kemskii Imandrovskii 400 Suojarvskii Vygozerskii 300

200 Aboriginal species number

100

0 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 Total species number

Fig. 1. Common/indigenous species ratio in floristic districts of Karelia (data from Êðàâ÷åíêî & Êóçíåöîâ 2001)

are distinctly local. Thus, a new survey of local floras carried out after a more than 40- year pause demonstrated that some boreal species disappeared from areas subjected to intensive logging, but a number of new, previously unrecorded species were found (Êðàâ÷åíêî et al. 1999). The same authors pointed out that in the Zaonezhje peninsula 10 plant species have not been re-encountered for a 100 years, but 12 new Red Book species were found only recently. Terrestrial fauna in Karelia is typical of forested regions. Current figures (Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äîêëàä, 2002) for the number of species in the main animal groups are: insects ca. 20000 (at present their species composition is not fully known; resear- chers report of 8208 species), amphibians 5, reptiles 5, birds 285 and mammals 63. Karelia is either the northern or the southern margin of the distribution range for a little less than a half (40%) of its bird and mammal species (Äàíèëîâ et al. 2001). The cited authors have identified some patterns in the distribution of animals belon- ging to different faunal complexes. Thus, a tendency towards expansion northwards has been demonstrated mainly by species pertaining to broad-leaved forests, whereas representatives of the north-taiga fauna are observed to shift the southern limits of the distribution range to the north; and those of Siberian fauna to the west. In just the last several years local bird and mammal faunas received 25 and 7 new species, res- pectively (Äàíèëîâ et al. 2001). The main factors responsible for the above tendencies in the animal population dynamics are related primarily to human activities. Thus, profound transformations were caused in natural complexes by large-scale clear-cuttings, as well as mire and water-logged forest drainage. The nuisance factor has grown dramatically owing to increased visitation by hunters, and berry and mushroom pickers. This forced wolve- rine, forest reindeer, capercaillie, whooper swan and bean goose to retreat to the north (Äàíèëîâ et al. 2001). Another direct effect of economic activities is introduction of new species (Canadian beaver, American mink) which spread to replace their indige- nous relatives. Karelian territory is of special importance for migrating birds. The republic lies on the White Sea-Baltic flyway, with many bird species flocking in large migration and pre-migration aggregations, of which many are still not known. Landscapes in the republic are highly diverse, with varying degrees of economic utilization. Many

28 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○The Finnish Environment 485 areas have preserved quite satisfactory conditions for a lot of rare and endangered species. Some of particularly important bird areas are the White Sea islands, Olonets fields and Zaonezhje peninsula. Numerous rivers and lakes of Karelia are also quite diverse and unique as re- gards both the drainage system and biodiversity of plant and animal species in them. Fish fauna includes 70 both freshwater and marine species. Major ecological problems of water communities are caused by anthropogenic impact. Ecosystems of the largest rivers such as Kem and Vyg were much modified by water engineering (building hyd- ropower plant dams, canal laying); quite a few lakes are exposed to local-scale indust- rial pollution. Most vulnerable fish species are salmonids, first of all Atlantic salmon. Therefore, protection is required for rivers flowing to lakes Ladoga and Onego.

On the strategy and prospects of protected area network development in the Republic of Karelia

An important ecological and conservation role is played by the 1st group forests, the area of which in Karelia is 3.3 mill. ha, or about 22% of the republic’s forest area (Fig. 2). This group includes territories with a protection status: resort and green zones, shelter-belt forests along spawning rivers and roads, and water protection forest belts. However, for these territories to actually become a component of the republic’s pro- tected area network an inventory of the 1st group forests should be carried out, scien- tific argumentation for their designation developed, the boundaries of the most valu- able areas (zoological and botanical reserves, natural monuments) delimited, and the legal status of the designated areas officially defined. PA organized in the 1st group forests will be able to provide for conservation of old-growth forests in about 600,000 ha. The network formed in this manner in combination with large PA’s (strict nature reserves, national and natural parks) will expand the opportunities for biodiversity conservation, and ensure a more stable ecological situation in the region.

Strict reserves, national íàöèîíàëüíûåand natural ïàðêè parks Green zones Çåëåíûå çîíû 12% 6%

ÇàùèòíûåShelterbelts ïîëîñû 9%

WaterÂîäîîõðàííûå protection belts 73% Fig. 2. First group forests in Karelia (3.3 million ha or 22% of the forest area)

Specific landscapes affected by the presence of two largest European freshwater lakes (lakes Ladoga and Onego), vicinity of the White Sea proper, and high paludification degree, should be adequately represented in the PA network. The Republic of Karelia differs from its neighbour regions in that it has a unique, well-developed drainage

network and abundant mires. Total run of the republic’s 27 000 rivers is over 80 000 km, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ The Finnish Environment 485 ○○○○○○○○○○○ 29 and the total surface area of its 61 100 lakes is 17 800 km2 (Ëèòèíñêàÿ 1986). All the above creates optimum habitats for numerous plants, as well as aquatic, coastal and riparian wildli- fe. One has to admit however, that despite the generally satisfactory situation with PA network in the republic, most PA hardly cont- ribute to the conservation of migratory water- fowl, being located away from their major con- centration areas. Wetlands are particularly important for preservation of the White Sea – Baltic flyway, used for mass seasonal migrations by birds nesting both on the White Sea, and further east in the tundra, on the coast and islands of Russian Northern seas. Many of the birds living in Karelian wetlands are included in international and national Red Data Books, and Karelian populations of some of these species are in a far better condition than those in West European countries. Therefore, wet- lands of Karelia are of international importan- ce, being crucial for maintaining bird popula- tions of northern Europe and north-western Asia (Fig. 3). Fig. 3. Developing PA network in Karelia. 1 – Exis- In view of the above we believe that furt- ting and planned PA (partial reserves and natural her development of the PA network in the monuments not included), 2 – Water protection 1st republic should envisage expansion of the group forest belts (a model of developing the net- number of PA within large wetlands. Their work of “ecological corridors”), 3 – Perspective designation will not only ensure biogeographi- Ramsar territories. Map made by staff of the Forest cal representativeness and implementation of Research Institute of Karelian Research Centre RAS. the watershed approach to PA network estab- lishment, but also promote conservation of unique natural objects. These activities will be an essential biocenotic augmentation in designating PA in the 1st group forests, and in water protection belts. Fulfillment of the above tasks will facilitate establishment of an integrated, multi-level PA system. Water protection forest belts and wetlands in numerous lake- river systems of Karelia, in combination with strict nature reserves, partial reserves, natural and national parks will ensure sustainable conservation of biological diversi- ty. Establishment of the PA network alone cannot, however, solve the problem of nature conservation. It takes also a clear strategy, which can only be developed within long-term planning based on thorough inventory of natural objects, and creating economic, organizational and legal mechanisms for preserving natural diversity. One of the planning instruments used in many western countries is Protected Area Mana- gement Plans. They are based on subdivision of the land and water area into zones (functional zoning), with a special management regime defined for each zone. The main aim of involving PA in economic activities is to achieve sound, balanced combi- nation of socio-economic development and maximum possible preservation of natu- ral complexes. As the “green” image of the territory is used there appear more and more new job opportunities for local people, related e.g. to development and mainte- nance of the tourism infrastructure, utilization and processing of non-timber forest resources.

30 ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○The Finnish Environment 485 Finally, it should be emphasized that the implementation of PA management plans and specific nature conservation activities depends both on the attitudes of lo- cal and republican authorities, and, maybe even more importantly, on the recognition of the need to conserve natural and cultural heritage by people living or spending their vacations in the republic. Our idea is that the strategy of PA network development in Karelia should compri- se the following mandatory actions:

• Enhancing not only the total number, but also representativeness of the PA net- work, which will further promote biodiversity conservation in forested as well as other landscapes (aquatic, wetland, mire and agricultural areas), and ultima- tely result in a better balance in the PA network in general; • Expanding the list of protected areas meeting the Ramsar Convention criteria; • Developing the laws and standards to stimulate the application of economic mechanisms in promoting sustainable nature use, preservation of natural habi- tats for most valuable and rare plant and animal species; • Integrating conservation tasks and major activities (including those related to PA function) in local socio-economic development programmes; • Strengthening the general “nature conservation effect” and amending the ove- rall ecological situation in the course of PA network development in Republic of Karelia through implementing the complementary principle as regards indi- vidual elements of the network, as well as PA in neighbour regions (of Russia and ). Summing up, the following conclusions can be made. Current overall situation in PA network organization and biodiversity in Karelia can be evaluated as satisfactory. However, continuously growing anthropogenic pressure urges one to strive for rein- forcement of “nature protection”. One of the ways to achieve this end is to further develop and optimize the existing PA network.

References Ãîñóäàðñòâåííûé äîêëàä î ñîñòîÿíèè îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäû Ðåñïóáëèêè Êàðåëèÿ â 2001 ãîäó. Ïåòðîçàâîäñê. 2002. 240 ñ. Äàíèëîâ Ï.È., Â.Á. Çèìèí, Ý.Â. Èâàíòåð. //Èçìåíåíèå ôàóíû è äèíàìèêà àðåàëîâ íàçåìíûõ ïîçâîíî÷íûõ æèâîòíûõ íà Åâðîïåéñêîì ñåâåðå Ðîññèè. Òðóäû Êàðåëüñêîãî íàó÷íîãî öåíòðà ÐÀÍ, Áèîãåîãðàôèÿ Êàðåëèè. Ñåðèÿ Á. Áèîëîãèÿ. Âûïóñê 2. Ïåòðîçàâîäñê, 2001. Ñ. 82-86. Êðàâ÷åíêî À.Â., Å.Ï. Ãíàòþê, À.Ì. Êðûøåíü. Ñîâðåìåííûå òåíäåíöèè ôëîðîãåíåçà è ïðîáëåìû îõðàíû ñîñóäèñòûõ ðàñòåíèé Êàðåëèè. //Âàæíåéøèå ðåçóëüòàòû íàó÷íûõ èññëåäîâàíèé ÊÍÖ ÐÀÍ. Òåç. äîê. þáèëåéíîé êîíô. ÊÍÖ ÐÀÍ, ïîñâÿùåííîé 275-ëåòèþ ÐÀÍ, 1999, Ïåòðîçàâîäñê. Ñ. 85-87. Êðàâ÷åíêî À.Â., Î.Ë. Êóçíåöîâ. Îñîáåííîñòè áèîãåîãðàôè÷åñêèõ ïðîâèíöèé Êàðåëèè íà îñíîâå àíàëèçà ôëîðû ñîñóäèñòûõ ðàñòåíèé.//Òðóäû Êàðåëüñêîãî íàó÷íîãî öåíòðà ÐÀÍ, Áèîãåîãðàôèÿ Êàðåëèè. Ñåðèÿ Á. Áèîëîãèÿ. Âûïóñê 2. Ïåòðîçàâîäñê, 2001. Ñ. 59-64. Ëèòèíñêàÿ Ê.Ä. Âîäíûå ðåñóðñû.//Êàðåëèÿ. Ïðèðîäà, õîçÿéñòâî. Ïåòðîçàâîäñê, 1986. Ñ.39-50. Ìàëûøåâ Ë.È. Èçìåíåíèå ôëîð Çåìíîãî øàðà ïîä âëèÿíèåì àíòðîïîãåííîãî äàâëåíèÿ //Íàó÷í. äîêë. âûñø. øê. Áèîëîãè÷åñêèå íàóêè, ¹ 3 (207), 1981. Ñ. 5-20. Õîõëîâà Ò.Þ., Àíòèïèí Â.Ê., Òîêàðåâ Ï.Í. Îñîáî îõðàíÿåìûå ïðèðîäíûå òåððèòîðèè Êàðåëèè (èçäàíèå âòîðîå, ïåðåðàáîòàííîå è äîïîëíåííîå). Ïåòðîçàâîäñê:

Êàðåëüñêèé íàó÷íûé öåíòð ÐÀÍ, 2000. 312 ñ. ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ The Finnish Environment 485 ○○○○○○○○○○○ 31