l 3oL,

E N V I R O N M E N T D E P A R T M E N T

-_ * A P PAPERNO. 54

Public Disclosure Authorized TOWARD ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION SERIES

Biodiversity

Public Disclosure Authorized Conservation in the Russian Federation

Anthony Brunello Public Disclosure Authorized Justin R. J. H. Mundy Andrew H. Bond Suzanne Conrad Gnaegy: Colin P. Rees

May 1997 Public Disclosure Authorized

EnvironmentallySustainable Development TheWorld Bank --ESD Land, Water, and Natural Habitats Division

Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Anthony Brunello Justin R. J. H. Mundy Andrew H. Bond Suzanne Conrad Gnaegy Colin P. Rees

May 1997

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discus- sion. The use and citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank. Copies are available from the Land, Water and Natural Habitats Division, Environment Department, The World Bank, Room S-5-143. CurrencyEquivalents (Figures are as of September 1996)

Currency Unit = Ruble (Rb) Rubles per US Dollar December 1991 169 December 1992 415 December 1993 1,247 December 1994 3,550 December 1995 4,640

Weights and Measures Conversions

Metric System US System 1 meter (m) = 3.2808feet 1 kilometer (km) = 0,6214mile 1 square meter (m2) = 1.196 square yards 1 metric ton (ton) = 1.102 short tons 1 hectare = 2.47 acres Contents

FOREWORD iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v

EXECUTIVESUMMARY vii

CHAPTER 1: COUNTRY AND SECTOR BACKGROUND 1 Biological Diversity in the Russian Federation 2 Nature Reserves in Russia 3

CHAPTER 2: THE STATUS OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 4 National Overview of Biodiversity 4 Regional Overview 9 Biodiversity within Nationally Protected Areas 14 Deficiencies in Biodiversity Protection 15

CHAPTER 3: NATIONALLY PROTECTED AREAS-A NEW APPROACH 18 Forms of Nationally Protected Areas in the Russian Federation 19 Legislative Overview 23 Financing for Nature Reserves 24 Problems in Natural Resource Management 25

CHAPTER 4: SOCIO-ECONOMIC POLICY ON ECOSYSTEMS AND NATURAL HABITATS 31 Economics of Biodiversity 31 Socio-Economic History of Russia 33 Effecting Socio-Economic Policies on Biodiversity 37

CHAPTER 5: A RESPONSE-THE BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 39 The Biodiversity Conservation Project 40

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries BiodiversityConservation in the RussianFederation

BOXES 2.1 Model Project Area Focus: Lake Baikal Region 12 2.2 Ecological Types Not Adequately Represented in the Protected Areas System 16 4.1 Biodiversity Policy Risk Matrix 32 4.2 Non-Timber Values in the Moscow Region 34 5.1 The Global Environment Facility (GEF) 39

TABLES 3.1 Financing of Nature Reserves from 1988 to 1994 25 5.1 Lake Baikal Regional Component 43 A2.1 Existing Zapovedniks of the Russian Federation 48 A2.2 Existing National Parks of the Russian Federation 51 A2.3 Government-Proposed Zapovedniks of the Russian Federation 52 A3.1 Total Russian and Foreign Funding for Biodiversity Conservation 56

ANNEXES 1 Reports Presented in the Project Preparation Advance (PPA) 46 2 Existing and Government-Proposed Protected Areas 48 3 Domestic and International Financing for Environmental Conservation in the Russian Federation 54 4 Endangered Species in the USSR (USSR Red Book of 1985) 57 5 Russian Maps Available for GIS Applications 60 6 References 66

MAPS 1 Russian Federation: Vegetation Types and Protected Areas (IBRD 27085) 2 Russian Federation: Representation of Protected Areas (IBRD 27267) 3 Russian Federation: Forest Types and Protected Areas (IBRD 27086R) 4 Lake Baikal Regional Component: Major Ecosystems and Protected Areas (IBRD 27290) 5 Lake Baikal Regional Component: Land Use and Model Watersheds (IBRD 27268) 6 Lake Baikal Regional Component: Industrial Impact and Population (IBRD 27289)

ii EnvironrnentDepartment Papers Foreword

In 1992, the United Nations Conference on (PPA) (see Annex 1). In Chapter 1, a brief Environment and Development (UNCED) description is given of current practice on adopted Agenda 21, an unprecedented biodiversity conservation in Russia. Chapter 2 environmental agenda for the next century. gives a review of findings from the project's The Conference produced, among other biodiversity gap analysis study. Detailed important multilateral agreements, the descriptions of ecosystems, faunal and floral Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified regions and subregions, and an overview of by over 165 countries (as of February 19, national biodiversity are provided. Also 1997), including the Government of the included is an analysis of biodiversity Russian Federation. By their ratification of within the country's protected area system the Convention, Russia acknowledged the and the identification of ecosystems currently importance of maintaining biodiversity, under-represented by the system. Chapter 3 especially in view of the substantial threats to gives a descriptive overview of Nationally the country's ecosystems and natural habitats Protected Territories in the Russian Federa- posed during the difficult period of transi- tion along with an analysis of legislative, tion. This report provides an overview of the management and other current issues rel- current status of biodiversity in Russia and evant to protected areas planning and man- its conservation, and outlines some of the agement. Chapter 4 summarizes the impacts measures needed to sustain its biodiversity of past and present socioeconomic policy on over the longer term. These measures in- ecosystems and natural habitats. Finally, clude strengthening protected areas. Chapter 5 proposes working solutions that have been prepared by the Russian partici- The report is, in essence, a summary of the pants in the project. reports developed during the preparatory phase of the Global Environment Facility's Implementation of these working solutions (GEF) Russian Biodiversity Project, con- will start shortly under the GEF-funded ducted between November 1994 and March project. Much of the information developed 1995. Based on the results of this work the in the project has also been used by the GEF Council approved a grant of US$20.1 Russian government working with other million. Much of the information is derived donors and nongovernmental organizations from the reports prepared by Russian col- to address priority biodiversity conservation leagues for the Project Preparation Advance issues.

JonathanBrown, Chief ColinRees, Chief Infrastructure,Energy and EnvironmentDivision Land, Water,and NaturalHabitats Division Europeand CentralAsia Region EnvironmentDepartment

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries iii Acknowledgments

The preparation of this report was under- Rees. The original material was prepared taken by Anthony Brunello, Justin Mundy, by many authors and is acknowledged in Andrew Bond, Suzanne Gnaegy, and Colin Annex 1.

iv EnvironmentDepartment Papers Acronyms and Abbreviations

BCC Biodiversity Conservation Center BIS Biomonitoring Information System CPPI Center for Project Preparation and Implementation EA environmental assessment EIA environmental impact assessment EFP Environmental Framework Program EMP Environmental Management Project ERR economic rate of return FFS Federal Forest Service FSU Former Soviet Union GEF Global Environment Facility GNP Gross National Product GDP Gross Domestic Product GOR Government of Russia IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature MEPNR* Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources NGO nongovernmental organization NPV net present value NRM natural resource management NTFB Non-timber Forest Benefit PPA Project Preparation Advance SEU Socio-Ecological Union TEV Total Economic Value UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development USFS United States Forestry Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USSR Union of Socialist Soviet Republics WWF World Wildlife Federation * This Ministry was replacedin September1996 by the State Committeeof Environmentwhich tookover all thefiunctionsassociated with biodiversityconservationformerly undertaken by the Ministry.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries v

Executive Summary

This paper is a synthesis of reports resulting genera and 142 families of vascular flora are from a Project Preparation Advance, initiated represented. These unique assemblages of by the Global Environment Facility for the species surpass the diversity and level of preparation of the Russian Biodiversity endemism found among temperate forests Conservation Project. The reports, under- anywhere else in the world. taken by both Russian and international specialists, offered an overview of the current For the purposes of this paper, the fifty-four status of biodiversity and its conservation in ecological zones have been subdivided into Russia and identified measures to maintain six subcategories distinguished by their protected areas and establish a viable pro- physiographic zoning: arctic deserts and tected area system. At the same time, they tundra zone, the taiga zone of non-European identified major biodiversity conservation Russia, the forest zone of European Russia, issues and solutions which were not confined to protected areas alone. peanthe forest-steppe Russia, and steppe zones of Euro- * ~~~~~~peanRussia, the forest-steppe and steppe The reports concluded that the Russian zones of Siberia, and the broad-leaved and forests of the Far East. Each of Federation encompasses an enormous variety monsoonmnonfrsso h a at aho Federationencompasses an enormous variey.these zones is described in detail under the of land forms and ecological systems and represents one of the last opportunities to headings History, Species Diversity and conserve relatively intact ecosystems large Anthropogenic Pressures. enough to allow natural processes and wildlife populations to fluctuate naturally. A significant proportion of Russia's biodiver- Russia's fifty-four ecological zones hold some sity is managed through an extensive system of the world's most important repositories of of protected natural areas. The system covers biological diversity, including the Maritime six percent of the country's land mass and is (Primorskiy) Province (recognized as a world one of the largest in the world. Two thirds of center of plant diversity with more than 3,000 nationally protected areas consists of higher plant species) and Lake Baikal with its zapovedniks (strictly scientific reserves used approximately 2,500 species. In the southern for research and biospheric conservation) and Far East, more than 12 million hectares of the national parks (protected areas permitting largest remaining contiguous ecosystem in limited tourism, agriculture and grazing). the Russian Far East and in Eurasia protects Regional level zakazniks (special purpose habitat and complete ecosystems for an reserves established to safeguard certain flora impressive range of endangered and vulner- and fauna, usually for a specified period) and able species. Another extraordinarily floristi- natural monuments number over 1,000 and cally rich region is the Northern Caucasus, cover approximately 4 percent of Russian where approximately 3,700 species of 803 territory.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries vii Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

The eighty-two zapovedniks covered by the system to conserve biodiversity is unlikely to Federal government compose more than prevent the loss of biodiversity and would 40 percent of the world's total of strict scien- prove an ineffective use of financial resources. tific reserves (IUCN Category I). There is an Consequently, it is clear that biodiversity impressive body of research attached to these conservation would benefit from parallel reserves-sixteen of which are part of the systematic improvements in natural resource UNESCO Biosphere Reserve program-and use with the adoption and implementation of they contain a significant number of species, improved macroeconomic policies. Conser- many of which are listed in the Russian and vationists must therefore adopt the tools and International Red Data Lists of Rare and methods of policy analysis to enable govern- Endangered Species. However, the reports ments to correct economic distortions and under the Project Preparation Advance, provide incentives for environmental conser- found that at least 50 percent of the strictly vation and sustainable natural resource protected areas and 30 percent of the national management. Such tools and methods can parks are in, or approaching, a critical state also be used to identify ways that the eco- and the system itself is in jeopardy. This is nomic revenues from biological resources can because there is no clear and consistent be realized, to explain why biodiversity is enforcement of laws and regulations, levels of threatened, and to find cost-effective ways to funding available to support the management mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of protected areas have fallen precipitously, of economy-wide policies. The quantifica- - of the tradeoffs between and planning and conservation programs in ~~~~~~~~~~~tion conservation individual reserves are inadequate. Other and development alternatives can be ex- problems besetting protected areas, and pected to generate additional funds for the biodiversity conservation generally, include protected area system. weak central management structures, poor Based on these findings, a biodiversity coordination among involved agencies, lack conservation project is being implemented by of supporting organizations participating in the Global Environment Facility. The objec- protected areas management and a conse- tives are to: i) support the development of quent lack of public support. federal and regional biodiversity strategies; ii) develop and implement mechanisms and Although a significant proportion of Russia's approaches that will mainstream biodiversity biodiversity is protected in the nature reserve conservation and environmental protection system there are some very significant gaps into the policy-making process; iii) assess the in representation. The task is therefore to protected area institutional framework and create a network of protected areas to encom- subsequently strengthen its effectiveness; pass the vast diversity of ecosystems by iv) enable the participation of all interested including a proportionate range of ecosys- stakeholders, including aboriginal peoples tems, including those that are less diverse in and local conmmunities,in biodiversity con- the north as well as in the biologically-rich servation; and v) develop an inter-regional areas of the southeast. This will require demonstration of inter-sectoral biodiversity improvement in the mechanisms for design- conservation and environmentally sustain- ing and establishing new reserves and in able natural resource management (such as maintaining adequate monitoring and evaluation. the Lake Baikal regional component).

The project preparation activities also identi- The attainment of these objectives will help fied that, given the present economic situa- strengthen the economic feasibility and tion, complete reliance on the protected area sustainability of biodiversity conservation viii EnviroranentDepartment Papers within the Russian Federation. It will mold a gered and vulnerable species and provide a structure of integrated planning to demon- pragmatic policy strategy to protect the Lake strate the benefits of combining financial Baikal region. Finally, it should facilitate the policy, socio-economic considerations, and integration of native peoples into protected appropriate normative and resource alloca- area management thereby enhancing their tion mechanisms to ensure sustainable ability to maintain their cultural identity biodiversity conservation. It should also while sustaining the economic viability of ensure the protection of numerous endan- their customary practices.

Biodiversity and Conservation Series ix 1 Country and Sector Background

The Russian Federation has inherited a costly liberalization, are already asserting consider- environmental legacy from decades of ineffi- able pressures on the management, allocation cient development that failed to consider and use of natural resources. As changing environmental factors in macroeconomic and political agendas and new reforms are initi- sectoral development strategies and national ated, the monitoring and revision of biodiver- investment plans. The Russian Federation, sity protection strategies must be addressed. along with many countries in transition from a centralized state economy to a market The solution to many environmental quality economy, has adopted policies of economic and resource management problems rests on efficiency but ignored the numerous environ- major institutional and organizational mental issues with which they were faced. changes, particularly with regard to property However, Russia, along with other countries rights, taxes and subsidies, regulations, laws, of the former Soviet Union, is attempting to and private-sector participation. If the incorporate environmental and natural reform process fails to incorporate these resource management concerns directly into institutional realities from the beginning, the the economic adjustment process. processes of natural capital depletion and degradation will become increasingly difficult As it searches for new sources of growth and to halt. The typical redistribution methods comparative advantage, Russia is expected to employed, through property, user, or man- utilize natural resources such as forests, agement rights over large areas, without lands, oil, gas, minerals, water, and vegeta- appropriate environmental assessments, tion more intensively and extensively. Natu- could also prove extremely difficult to re- ral resource exports are likely to increase, and verse, and the costs of reversal and reassign- replace traditional exports over time. If this ment after the fact are likely to be excessive. occurs, decision-makers should value existing natural capital used in trade at its full oppor- Currently, government and legislative tunity cost to arrive at a true measure of decision-makers at the national, regional and comparative advantage in the short and local levels are searching for ways to restruc- medium term. If these resources are incor- ture and reform economic policies that would rectly valued, their use will greatly increase, promote efficient and increasingly sustainable resulting in serious misallocation of re- economic growth. Several preliminary steps sources, environmental degradation, and loss have been taken, but more needs to be done of development options. In some cases, across all levels of legislative and executive irreversible damage of biodiversity resources government, or the initial momentum of and fragile ecosystems may occur. National influencing the reform process will be lost. reforms such as privatization, industrial The Environmental Framework Program restructuring, and monetary and market (EFP) and the Environmental Management

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation

Project (EMP), with which the GEF Russian hot drylands and semi-deserts southernmost Biodiversity Conservation Project is associ- along the border regions (see map 1). ated, are designed to help the Government of Russia meet the objective of environmentally Massive mountain ranges such as the Urals, sustainable development. Northern Caucasus and the mountain areas of Siberia (the Altay, Sayan, Lake Baikal and The territory of the Russian Federation covers Trans-Baikal regions, and the mountains of nearly 17.1 million square kilometers (kM2), the Far East) interrupt these lowland features. almost twice the size of the United States. Its Positioned in latitudes where precipitation population in 1991 of 148.5 million makes it usually exceeds evaporation, Russia contains the sixth most populated country in the many rivers, lakes and wetlands. Rivers such world, behind China, India, the United States, as the Volga in European Russia and the Ob Indonesia and Brazil. Even though its aver- and Yenisey in Siberia are among the world's age population density is low by world longest. Lake Baikal is the world's deepest standards, wide regional variations exist and oldest freshwater lake containing 20 range from 52-77 persons per km2 in the percent of the world's total freshwater sup- economically well-developed regions of ply, more than all of the Great Lakes of North European Russia, to a population of less than America combined. 1 per km2 in parts of Siberia. Russia is also home to over 120 nationalities and ethnic Biological Diversity groups, most of which are ethnic Russians. in the Russian Federation The socioeconomic mix of such a large territory is reflected in the country's complex The vast landscapes of the Russian Federa- system of administration, with 20 republics, tion hold a portion of the world's most as well as five autonomous regions, 10 important repositories of biological diversity, autonomous districts, 6 territories (krais) and and represent one of the last opportunities on 49 regions (oblasts). Earth to conserve relatively intact ecosystems large enough to allow ecological processes The territory of thean and wildlife populations to fluctuate natu- encompassesan enorms varit oland rally In areas of the Russian Far East, regions formsand cologica systems. Mo eco including the Maritime (Primorskiy) Krai are cal zoesnd cimatc xten eas to estrecognized by the IUCN as world centers of across the country, and are made up of v b various tundra sub-zones in the extreme plant diversity, with more than 3,000 higher northem areas, and a vast forest belt south of plant species. Lake Baikal contains approxi- these sub-zones covering approximately mately 2,500 species, two-thirds of which are two-thirds of the entire country. The forest endemic. In the southern Far East of Russia, zone is further divided into two sub-zones, the largest remaining contiguous ecosystem the taiga and mixed forests. The taiga con- (12 million ha.) protects habitat for an exten- sists of mainly coniferous forests of spruce, sive range of endangered and vulnerable larch, fir and Siberian stone pine. Deciduous species. The northern Caucasus contains species of birch, aspen and alder also exist, approximately 3,700 species of 803 genera but are considered to be of secondary eco- and 142 families of vascular flora. These nomic importance. In the mixed forests, so unique assemblages of species surpass the called "broad-leaved" species, such as oak diversity and level of endemism found and maple, appear together with conifers. among temperate forests anywhere else in the Open steppes lie south of the forests, with the world.

2 Enviromnent Department Papers Country and Sector Background

Nature Reserves in Russia while the arctic zone currently has only two (see map 2). A significant proportion of Russia's biodiver- sity is protected in their nature reserve There are 82 zapovedniks that are adminis- system. This system includes nearly 6 per- tered by the federal Ministry for Protection of cent of the country's total land mass, and is the Environment and Natural Resources the largest, one of the most important, and, (MEPNR). Of these, sixteen are part of the until recently,one of the best organized UNESCO Biosphere Reserve program. These systems in the world. Two-thirds of Russia's federally administered zapovedniks comprise nationally protected areas consist of more than 40 percent of the world's total area zapovedniks (strictly scientific nature re- of strictlyscientific reserves (IUCN Category I). serves used for research and biosphere Russia has a distinguished history of research conservation), national parks (protected areas in these reserves, having amassed an enor- that allow limited tourism, agriculture, and mous amount of scientific data over the last grazing), zakazniks (specialpurpose reserves, several decades. This reserve system does established to safeguard certain flora or fauna not represent the full range of Russia' ecosys- populations, usually for a specified period), tems or natural habitats nor is it without and natural monuments' (see map 1 and significant problems. annex 2).

As of December 31,1994, Russia had 89 Endnotes zapovedniks, covering a total area of 29.1 million hectares (ha), and 29 national parks, l The term "natural monuments" is used in covering 6.5 million ha. According to a 1991 this report in referenceto the IUCN's inventory, there were more than 1,000 categories,but a stricterinterpretation of zakazniks, comprising a total area of 44 the Russianterm would be "nature monu- million hectares. Sixty-nineof these are ment." federal-level zakazniks, that occupy 11.5 2 The Arctic,Fenno-Scandinavia, Russian million hectares. Although zapovedniks have plains, Caucasus,Urals, WesternSiberia, been established in all thirteen of the Caspian-Turgay,Central Siberia, Southern physical-geographic zones,2 they are not Siberianmountains, Yana-Kolyma, Baikal- evenly distributed throughout these zones. Dzhugdzhur mountains,Amur-Sakhalin For example, 24 zapovedniks have been and northern Pacificregions. established in the Russian plains region,

Biodiversityand Conservation Series 3 The Status of Biodiversity in L the Russian Federation

In this report, biodiversity refers to all living national overview of both the biodiversity of elements and their processes in some spatial species and of anthropogenic pressures. The arrangement, whether a plot, a valley, a following six sections following covering six mountain or a country. Biodiversity is sub-regions distinguished by their physi- dynamic, constantly changing in a spatial and ographic zoning, include arctic deserts and temporal context. The rhythm of processes, tundra zone, the taiga zone of non-European and the overall stabilizing forces are as Russia, the forest zone of European Russia, important as the mere counting of the compo- the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Euro- nents of biodiversity. pean Russia, the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Siberia, and the broad-leaved and An attempt to assess Russia's biodiversity monsoon forests of the Far East.' Each of was initiated during the PPA, beginning with these zones is described in detail under three the collection of detailed descriptions and headings, History, Species Biodiversity and histories of the country's natural areas and Anthropogenic Pressures. The chapter anthropogenic impacts. The quantity of the concludes with an analysis of biodiversity data is too great to present in full in this within the country's nature reserve system, paper, so the focus of this section is to high- and deficiencies in representation and habi- light Russian biodiversity and its conserva- tats. tion in important areas. National Overview of Biodiversity The data available is by no means compre- hensive, as information on fur and meat- The following description of national biodi- bearing faunal species is abundant, but little versity is separated into floral and faunal data exist for fauna not of economic signifi- biodiversity, each followed by a discussion of cance. Similarly, the collection of data on the anthropogenic factors that influence this floral species has been geared towards the biodiversity. Where applicable, descriptions timber industry. While other data exist from of the effects of economic processes upon the studies undertaken by various Russian ecosystems are incorporated in the discus- scientific research institutes, they have never sion. been compiled at the national level, and have rarely been used to guide regional or local- Biodiversity of Flora level policy decisions. Three main floral biodiversity regions charac- terize the Russian Federation, including the Because of the vast diversity of Russia's 54 northern Caucasus, the Sayan-Altai and the ecological zones, the data presented from the Primorskiy regions. A considerable part of project studies have been subdivided into the territory is occupied by forests, primarily seven sections. The first section provides a by taiga biomes. Broad-leaved and transi-

4 EnvironmentDepartment Papers The Status of Biodiversity in the Russian Federation tional taiga forests are concentrated in west- Russian forest spans an area of 1,181 million em (European type) and southeastern (mon- hectares, extending along latitudinal belts of soon type) Russia. A high density of native pre-tundra forests (a transitional zone from vegetation exists within the Caspian and tundra to taiga or coniferous forests), taiga Transbaikal regions and along the Pacific (subdivided into northern, middle and coast. In the northern parts of western and southern taiga sub-zones), broad-leaved central Siberia, floral regions are composed of forests, and forest-steppes (transition from relatively young vegetation, and contain no forests to steppes). Pre-tundra forests com- refuges for ancient and endemic plant species prise a belt of vegetation that forms a latitudi- (Feschback 1995). nal transition from taiga forests to tundra. The width of this belt varies from 100 to 300 Russian phytomass attains its maximum kilometers, and its total area in Russia is 70 productive capacity in ecosystems of dense million hectares, including 26.7 million grasses (meadowlands). These areas are hectares of forested area. These areas are rich found in the steppe zone of European Russia, in reserves of freshwater, and serve as a and in western Siberia, and consist of a high habitat for many animal and bird species. percentage of humus content. In regions with Single-story stands of simple structure vast swamps and permafrost near the surface, prevail with a low diversity of tree species live organic matter content declines, so that in (one- and two-species stands are most com- the northern Siberian arctic region, declining mon). In general, from north to east, forest phytomass colonies are similar to the dry lands become more scarce, less diverse in southern steppes and desert regions species composition, and the stands have a (Feschback 1995). more open canopy. The dominant species are larch (Larix gmelinii, L. sukaczewii), spruce Forests occupy about 69 percent of the total (Piceaobovata ledeb), birch (Betula cajanderi land area of Russia. They comprise over 23 sucacz.), and dwarf Siberian pine (Pinus percent of the world's total forests, and are pumila rgl.). In these areas, ground cover is estimated to provide one-seventh of the comparatively more important than the trees earth's terrestrial carbon sink (WRI 1995). that develop proportionally more extensive Closed canopy forests cover 43 percent of the root systems and less stem wood than in country, 78 percent of which are in Siberia southern areas. Most of the forests are and the Far East. The greatest amount of inaccessible, and many sites adjoin river native forest land is in the southern taiga of valleys, providing an important watershed central Siberia, the southern Far East and protection function. northern European Russia. More than half of all forests in Russia grow on permafrost soils Species composition in the northern taiga in Siberia and the Far East and the low forests changes a great deal with latitudinal productivity of this land is evident in low movement across the continent. The main forest density and limited species composi- species found in the eastern part of the tion (some 247 million hectares are low- country are larch, dwarf Siberian pine and density sparse wood and scrub, and about Siberian spruce. The forests are used mainly 122 million hectares are short stands). Timber by the local population for personal con- harvesting and oil and gas extraction may sumption. Like the pre-tundra forests, these significantly change plant and animal habi- stands are most valuable for their protective tats. In the northern and middle taiga, much function. Middle taiga forests consist mainly of the developed or cleared land has been of larch, Siberian spruce and some Siberian fir turned into nonproductive swamp. (Abies sibirica ledeb.). Deciduous species in

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 5 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation this area include birch and aspen (Populus and northern Caucasus regions, steppes of tremula). The middle-taiga forests are subject the Ob River basin, and the Ussuryisk- to intense exploitation, with the bulk of clear- Khankaisk lowlands have suffered the most, cut logging concentrated in this area. South- with a biomass loss above 50 percent. These em taiga forests are composed of high-quality regions have been subject to agricultural and stands of common spruce, Siberian spruce, forestry practices that have degraded the pine, white birch, weeping birch (Betula land. Areas that have experienced a high pendula), and aspen. Taiga flora and fauna degree of vegetative transformation are those have been influenced by subarctic species that have been developed relatively recently from the mountains of eastern Siberia and the by the Russian Federation. The most signifi- Far East. In addition, there are localized cant degradation of ecosystems has occurred areas of high biodiversity in the mountain in the southern taiga, forest-steppe zones, in taiga of southern Siberia, connected as they the foothills of the Caucasus, and in were with a refuge of forest vegetation Kemerovo Oblast. Areas in need of increased during periods of Pleistocene glaciation. environmental protection (according to climax characteristics) include the climax Economically important hardwood trees, communities of southem taiga, the regular such as oak, beech, ash, maple, and horn- and coniferous broad-leaved forests of Euro- beam, have limited distribution in Russia, pean Russia, the Caucasus and southern Far while softwood trees such as birch, aspen, East, the southern taiga of the Near-Angara alder, and lime, with a lower timber value are region, the meadow steppes of European more widely distributed. Since 1966, the Russia and Western Siberia, and the surface overall age structure of forests has tended to mammalian assemblages of the Far East and increase in stands of young and middle-aged Sayan-Altai mountain regions, the Caucasus trees and decrease in areas of mature and and the southern Urals (Bashkiriya). declining stands. Between 1966 and 1993, the area of young and middle-aged conifer- According to the degree of ecosystem distur- ous forests almost doubled. In softwood bance observed, the areas that are most in forests, young stands have decreased while need of protection are the Middle Volga, middle-aged stands have increased since northern Caucasus regions, and the steppes 1978. of the Near Ob region and the Ussuri-Khanka depression. Broad-leaved forests of the Pine forests in Siberia and the Far East are southern taiga and forest steppe zones of the particularly important in both economic and Russian plain, Piedmont Caucasus and conservation terms. Ten million hectares of Kemerovo Oblast, have undergone the most pine forests (Pinus (cembra)sibirica), specifi- significant change. The most critical ecologi- cally the "nut" plant areas, have been classi- cal conditions resulting from industrialization fied as protected areas, where only sanitary are in regions that have unstable ecosystems. timber processing is permitted. They include the tundra and forest-tundra near Norilsk, the northern taiga, tundra, and Anthropogenic Pressures on Flora water basins of the Kola peninsula, the forests For this project, maps of current phytomass of the Urals, and the steppes and water deposits and past vegetative cover were ecosystems of the Volga River basin. Regula- compared in order. to characterize the level of tion of the Volga River and its tributaries, and anthropogenic transformation of natural, agricultural and industrial run-off, have each semi-natural, and destroyed flora of the had severely detrimental consequences on the natural ecosystem overall. The upper Volga aquatic ecosystems.

6 Environment Department Papers The Status of Biodiversity in the Russian Federation

Analysis of the extent of land cultivation in and the degradation of important berry and 1992 indicates an increase in arable lands in medicinal plant stocks. Dagestan, and in the Rostov and Saratov Oblasts, due to an increase in the number of The transformation of tundra vegetation, private farms. Arable area has increased less particularly the degradation of the lichen in the Volgograd Oblast, the Krasnodar cover, is closely connected with the intensifi- Region, northeast European Russia and in cation of economic activity. Commercial western Siberia, and decreased, as a result of herds of reindeer have overgrazed vegetation, decreased agricultural production overall, in resulting in a loss or serious decline of li- the central regions of Russia. Private farmers chens, and the succession of pioneer grass frequently till lands adjacent to collective species that better suit the reindeer herds. farms, such as ravines, woodlands and other Secondary plant communities, displacing areas unsuitable for agriculture, posing a primary ones, have a different structure and threat to rare fragments of steppe vegetation. poor species diversity. Tundra ecosystems Excessive pasture degradation (transforma- have a particularly slow regeneration rate, tion of the grass cover, compacting of soil, due to the short spring and summer periods. and disappearance of important fodder plants from the grass composition) has Forest-regionTransformations. In 1993, the occurred on both the European and Asian largest volume of timber per hectare was steppes. harvested in the central and western regions of European Russia, the Irkutsk and Arable lands most threatened by erosion are Krasnoyarsk Oblasts, south of Western located in the central "Black Earth" and lower Siberia and on the Sakhalin islands. Yields Volga regions, the foothills of the Caucasus, per hectare harvested have increased since the southern region of the Russian plains, and 1980, due to the location of much of the in the eastern part of southern Siberia (the industry in the highly productive forests of Khakass and Buryat Republics). This situa- northern European Russia, in central Siberia, tion has been heightened in recent years with and in the Baikal and Khabarovsk regions. In the reduction of erosion control measures. all of Siberia, but especially those regions The erosion is further aggravated by the with scarce forest resources such as the allotment of suburban plots of land for Voronezh, Saratov, Astrakhan, Novosibirsk summer houses (dachas). Between 1985 and and Chelyabinsk Oblasts, more than ten 1992, suburban summer home building was percent of timber is harvested by large-scale most active in the Moscow Oblast, Krasnodar felling. In the last three years, the restoration Krai, Rostov Oblast, "Black Earth" and of forests has slowed down, mostly due to Central Volga regions. economic hardship. Artificial forest regenera- tion has been associated with lower natural The intense alteration and drainage of wet- resistance to biotic and abiotic factors, and to lands during previous decades has brought changing soil invertebrate complexes. about changes in the hydrological regime of catchments and in the natural biotic struc- Vast forests have been cut down, sometimes ture, resulting in the decline of wetland replaced by agricultural fields in the Euro- productivity. Mining of wetland soils for peat pean Russian zone, marshy taiga areas of and other materials, and the construction of Western Siberia, and remote areas of north gas and oil pipelines, have led to the contami- and northeastern Siberia, Yakutia and the nation of soils, the transformation of wetland Magadan Oblast. The southern part of vegetation, the disappearance of bog-mosses, European Russia, and the "Black Earth" area,

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 7 BiodiversityConservation in the RussianFederation

are the Federation's most forest-scarce re- population is allowed to "harvest" are well- gions, with forest cover over less than ten documented. In reports of this project, fauna, percent of the land mass in each of these including fresh water and marine species, are areas. listed in detail by region. An inventory of these data reveal the lack of data on non- Forest insects that carry disease have become game species. This paucity of data will be an increasing problem. An almost twofold rectified by the establishment of the increase in the range of diseases was recorded Biomonitoring Information System (BIS), in the forests of the Moscow, St. Petersburg, with the support of the Ministry of Environ- Murmansk, Bryansk, Belgorod and Tambov mental Protection and Natural Resource Oblasts. Agricultural pests such as locusts Management (MEPNR), various institutional (Acrididae), click beetles (Elateridae),potato and protected-area scientists, and nongovern- beetles (Leptinotarsa decemlineata,Eurygaster mental organizations (NGOs). A database integriceps, Anisoplia, Lema, Phyllotreta vittula) will be established in MEPNR to integrate and Chloropidae,were widely distributed in archival scientific data and materials with 1993, and new foci of leaf-eating insects in the maps and data on the current state and taiga of European Russia were recorded. The dynamics of ecosystems and natural commu- problem worsened in 1994, with a dramatic nities. increase in locusts, covering an area of about 4 million hectare, the worst infestation in While the enormous size of the country, and Russia over the last 20 years. In the late the continuous stretches of similar habitat, 1980s, entomophagous and acarophagous can sometimes obscure the wealth of diver- animals were used on a large scale, some of sity, Russia hosts some of the world's rarest which have subsequently had negative effects species, as identified in the Red List of on species biodiversity, especially among fish Threatened Animals (1985). These include, populations. among others, the Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), Anatolian leopard (Panthera Data indicate that the rate of natural forest pardus orientalis), Siberian musk deer fires decreased in 1993, while that of human- (Moschus moschifereus),Asiatic black bear related fires increased. Increasing forest fire (Ursus Thibetanus), European bison (Bison frequency is greatest in Siberia and the Far bonasus), Oriental stork (Coconia boyciana), East, regions that have experienced intensive Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus), and one of industrial development in the last few de- the rarest of the world's endangered species, cades (for examle, the oil extracting districts the Snow leopard (Pantheriauncia). Russia of the Tyumen and Tomsk Oblasts, and areas probably has 30-40 of these leopards out of a adjacent to the Trans-Siberian and Baikal total world population of about 200. Amur Railways). Finally, increasing radioac- tive pollution has exposed forests to a severe Other species' populations, less threatened, environmental hazard, and forest areas have nevertheless fluctuated due to various polluted by radioactive substances have been factors, some beneficial, some harmful. In identified in 15 oblasts. 1993, a drop in moose (Alces alus) and wild reindeer numbers were recorded in most Biodiversity of Fauna regions of European Russia and eastern National hunting institutes have created an Siberia. This drop was attributed to index of species for the past 30-40 years overhunting and the degradation of natural across the country. As a result, the 70 regis- pasture land by the human population (i.e. tered terrestrial animal species that the reindeer breeding, industrial development,

8 EnvironmentDepartment Papers The Status of Biodiversityin the RussianFederation forest fellings, and man-induced fires). The Maritime Territory, and the Caucasus in the number of wolves increased from 22,500 to European and western Siberian steppes. 30,000 during the period 1990-1994, due to a There are no insects recorded from decrease in hunting incentives designed to Kamchatka, Komandorsi Islands, the middle eliminate predator species. The European Siberian taiga, and some other regions. wolf (Canis lupis) population, categorized as "rare" before 1990, has increased significantly Anthropogenic Pressures on Fauna in recent years. Animal habitats have been destroyed and degraded throughout most of the country. In Russian sable (Marteszibellina) is considered man rein,hbttreuto oe one of the most economically valuable fur major threat to animals that require large animals found in Russian territory. At the aror thre dator ran uir.Habia close of the 1992-93 hunting season, sable areas for their predatory ranges. Habitat numbers had increased in comparison to reduction iS occurring particularly among previous years. Populations of European water and coastal ecosystems, wetlands, and preaviou yeastors.berPopulationf Eropbea flooded forests. The plowing of riparian soils between 245-265,000 in 1993, and the Eur- and building of reservoirs have resulted in a asian otter (Lutra luira) population has reduction of flood-plain species, as well as reasianoterd(Ltra utr poastin hears. altered behavioral patterns for those remaining. remained steady for the past 10 years.

The brown bear (Ursus arctos) has maintained Tree species have experienced a series of a consistent population level for the last 15 transformations that in turn have had serious years. Other than a sharp decrease of the repercussions on animal populations. The bear's numbers in Siberia, due to low yields populations of forest passerine birds, bats of berries and cedar nuts, the national popu- and other small mammals have decreased lation has not declined significantly in recent considerably, and many rare species have years. However, it has been reported that disappeared. Secondary communities of hunting pressures have recently decimated limited floral species composition have the Kamchatka population. Elk and boar formed, which in turn have led to a decline in populations also decreased, by more than 33 the species composition of faunal inhabitants and 50 percent, respectively, in 1994. of those communities. Insectivorous bird and mammalian numbers have decreased due to Maximum bird densities exist in northwest- the increased intensification of agricultural ern Siberia and European Russia due to the practices. In the southern regions, increased highly productive wetlands, but four of the agricultural production has resulted in the seven species of cranes found in the former loss of hedges, bushes, boundary strips and Soviet Union are either currently, or were many habitats of middle carnivores, hares recently, on the endangered list. The endan- and roe deer. gered Siberian white crane (Grus leucogeraus),of which only about 400 exist in the world today, Regional Overview nests only in northem Yakutia (Pryde 1991).

Lastly, more than 85 thousand species of Arctic Deserts and Tundra Zone insects are estimated to inhabit Russia, of Arctic deserts and tundra consist mainly of which around 61 thousand species are mono-type flora and fauna originating from known. Only thirty-four species representing arctic and subarctic ecosystems. Species four orders are represented in the Red Data diversity increases from west to east, with the Book. These are species inhabiting the Taymir Peninsula of the Far East containing

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 9 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation the greatest levels. In the tundra and forest- many southern species to penetrate north to tundra regions, low levels of vascular plant the Polar Circle. As a result, the aquatic flora diversity exist in unaltered natural ecosys- and fauna in this region are extremely rich tems. and diverse.

Tundra regions contain a very low percentage Anthropogenic pressures. The timber indus- of forest fauna. Several arctic species such as try has created the most severe ecological Pluvialis squatarolaand Calcariuslapponicus problems in the taiga regions. Since 1980, extend into the wide tundra-like marshes at timber harvest volumes in the taiga have the Pur River valley. One of the largest steadily increased, reaching their peak in birthing grounds for polar bears (Ursus volume of timber per hectare harvested in maritimus) is found in the Wrangell Island 1993 in Irku.sk Oblast. Forestry production Zapovednik and is home to the only nesting has also increased rapidly in Perm and colony of snow geese (Chen hyperboreus)in Sverdlovsk Oblasts. The most prevalent Russia. The area also provides refuge to a ecological problems in these areas have been population of musk ox (Ovibos moschatus) human-induced forest fires in western Sibe- (Volkova). ria, adverse impacts form oil extraction and oil prospecting, and the practice of reindeer The Amur, Shantar and Northern Okhotsk breeders who periodically set fire to the pine white whale (Delphinapterusleucas) popula- forests to renew their pastures. tions number 25,000 near the Tyuleny Islands. The number of pike finbacks (Balaenoptera The Baikal seal (Pusa sibirica) population, acutirostrata) are estimated at 19,000 and the currently numbering 82,000, has been declin- White Sea population of Greenland seal ing due to the difficulties in enforcing hunt- (Histriophocagroenlandica) numbers 369,400, ing restrictions. Much of the Yenisey River including 90,600 females. The population of basin has been overfished. ringed seal (Pusa hispida)is estimated be- tween 16,000-24,000. Forest Zone of European Russia The taiga in this zone is characterized by the Taiga Zone (Non-European Russia) largest known marsh in the world. Pine The Sayan-Altai (along with the Northern forests dominate the taiga, while spruce Caucasus and Primorskiy regions) is one of communities occupy the river valleys. Sub- Russia's most abundant areas for floral arctic species dominate the flora and fauna, biodiversity. Forests in the southern taiga of most abundantly in the spruce communities, Central Siberia are at their peak density, and where they adapt best. Some of the largest there are areas of rich biodiversity in the tracts of primary-growth forest are in this mountain taiga of southern Siberia. Some zone (World Wildlife Fund 1995). In the 200-500 floral species flourish in this area, central regions of European Russia, the grey increasing southward to some 700 species at partridge (Perdix perdi), quail (Coturnix certain spots. European and Mediterranean coturnix), and the corncrake (Crex crex), along broad-leaved forest species are abundant with other field birds, have been observed in with larch biomes that comprise the largest increasing numbers. This zone also contains type of land cover in the taiga east from the a significant population of dabbling and Yenisey River. diving ducks.

The main tributaries of the largest north- Anthropogenic pressures. In 1993, some of flowing rivers of Siberia (Yenisey, Lena) bring the largest volumes of timber per hectare enough warm water from Central Asia for were harvested in the central and western

10 Environment Department Papers The Status of Biodiversityin the RussianFederation regions of European Russia. This may be a designated as one of UNESCO's "Man and result of the timber industries focus on the the Biosphere" areas (Volkova 1991). more centralized forest regions of northern- European Russia, Central Siberia and the The interrelations between colonial bird Baikal and Khabarovsk regions. Compara- populations within the Volga Delta have tively large areas of forests are damaged by shown a dependent relationship to the fire every year caused by high population changing sea level of the Caspian Sea. In the density, use of forests for recreation, and 1930s, as the Caspian Sea's level dropped, the intensive agricultural development. emergence of previously submerged delta land and the increased expanse of shallow Heavy metals and various organic discharges waters allowed an explosion in bird numbers. from industrial plants into the Volga River water fowl numbersr have disturbed in their reproductive func- In the 1940s,waterfowl numbers remained tions of fish populations and resulted in h excessive death of juvenile species. Overall very diverse. The 1950s brought another losses of fish due to major dam and other drop in the sea level, leading to the develop- engineering projects in the Don and Kuban ment of gallery forests and a marked decline river basins have also occurred. As much as in certain bird species such as Platalea 80 percent of the breeding sites of the follow- leucorodiaand Plegadisfalcinellus. ing fish have been blocked or are otherwise In the early 1970s, the drop in the Caspian completely inaccessible: (Huso huso, Vimba), Sea level reached its maximum oint of sturgeon (Chalcalburnus),star sturgeon p (Acipenser sturio), herring, pomfret (Abramis minus 29 meters. A loss of nearly all conifer- brama), zander (Luciopercalucioperca) and ous tree species was balanced by the forma- (Rutilus rutilus). Dumping of effluents and tion of small forest sites on the fore-delta industrial wastes into the Neva River has islands. Extensive reedbeds growing in changed the hydrochemical makeup of shallow waters provided nesting sites for waters in its inlet and the Gulf of Finland. gray heron (Ardea cinerea)and the great white heron (Egretta alba). Between 1979 and 1993, Forest-steppe and Steppe Zone the level of the Caspian Sea rose nearly two of European Russia meters, providing colonial bird populations Floral biodiversity is especially rich in the with new feeding and nesting sites. As depths northern Caucasus, where 142 families of increased, habitat areas and bird species vascular flora and approximately 3,700 began to decrease. Currently, the total num- species of 803 genera are represented, includ- ber of Ciconiiformeshas decreased to 7,900 ing many endemics. These unique assem- pairs and many other birds no longer return blages of species surpass the diversity and to the Volga delta. level of endemism found in temperate forests elsewhere. The species list includes Euro- The Volga Delta of some 650,000 hectares is pean, Mediterranean and various central critical for migratory birds as well as being a Asiatic complexes. Among the alpine species fertile breeding ground for various fish are an abundance of both European and species. It is an important conservation area, Asiatic subspecies. The meadow steppes in and is listed as a Ramsar Wetland of Interna- Chernozemy Zapovednik contain the highest tional Importance. 2 Significant biodiversity number of plant species per square meter of exists in this region, with over 400 vertebrate all plant communities in the former Soviet species, more than 260 bird species, 850 Union. Consequently this area has been aquatic invertebrate species, and about 1,250

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 11 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Box 2.1 Model Project Area Focus: Lake Baikal Region

Biodiversity. Lake Baikal is one of those areas like creased in the steppe regions, resulting in substan- the Great Rift Valley in Africa, which by its sheer tial soil erosion from overgrazing. Rapid industri- uniqueness is of supreme global importance. Ly- alization began in the 1950s with the creation of ing in a deep tectonic depression, at 30 million the Irkutsk Hydroelectric Power station (1956),fol- years old it is the planet's oldest lake, the deepest, lowed by chemical plants and the construction of at 1,637 m, and at 31,500 km2 one of the largest. It the Selenga and Baikalsk paper mills. This has led contains20% of the world's freshwater,sustaining to heavyindustrial pollution affecting 150,000 hect- 2,600 species of biota, two thirds of which are en- ares of forest as well as between 5,000-10,000km 2 demic. Thediversity of adjacentlandscapes, from of the lake. Constructionof these sites was pro- alpine tundra, mountainand borealconiferous for- tested by localscientists and citizens,and gave rise est to steppe and semi-desert,together with the to the "GreenMovement" across Russia. Forests, lake itself,constitute an area of exceptionaldiver- occupying70% of the region, are increasinglysub- sity,with 2,500species of flora (10%of which are ject to forestfires (over1,500 equaling 50,000 hect- endemic)and 400species of birds. The Baikalwa- ares per annum),pests and diseases (30,000hect- tershed (338,770km 2) is mainly located in Russia ares destroyedby SiberianBombyx), and hunting under the jurisdictionof the Irkutsk, Buryatiaand pressures. Chita Oblasts. The IUCN Red Data Book and that of the Russian Federa- tion (1988)indicate that ten species in the region are threatened or endan- Biodiversityof the BaikalRegion gered,including the Swangoose (Anser cygnoides),Pallas's sea eagle (Haleaetus Basic Systemici Numberof Species l leucoryphusPall.), the Siberian red dog Groupsof Fauna (Cuon alpinus Pall.) and the Snow leop- andFlora ard (Pantherauncia). The protected-area I Total | Subjectto Special Protection I I Recomended for network in the region consists of 5 I SpecialAttention zapovedniks (2 of which are Biosphere IUCN,USSR ryatASSR Reserves), 3 national parks, 27 andRSFSR RedBookandl zakazniks and several dozen botanical RedBooks RegionalUsts and zoological natural monuments. A Flora forestry protection zone was estab- l I lished in 1987 that prevents logging Micronicetic 700 7 - 30-40 from the shore to the ridge line around Fungi 450 12 6 10- 15 the lake (see map 4). lichens 230 2 - 20-30 Bryophytes 1,800 27 130 Steppecommunities are especially inter- Animals esting, with 800 species of vascular Sponges 10 l plants, and over 200species of terres- Turbellaria 100 - trial vertebrates. Due to the long his- Rotifers 50 3 of agriculturalproduction, ~Oligochaetes 90 I tory of agricultural production, the Molluscs 130 - 5- 7 floraand fauna havebeen considerably Crustaceans 550 l equallyto low Spiders 190 15 -20 degraded. Thisapplies Myriopoda 10 - -- and common species populations. insects 5,000 17 28 l Fishes 55 2 5 - the region Amphibians 5 - 4 6- 10 Anthropogenic pressures in the region Reptiles 7 - 4 - (see maps5 and 6) are increasinglysig- Birds 350 24 96 nificant. Agricultureis a major source Mamrnals 83 4 26 . of chemical discharge, and has in- ISource:GEF Project preparation Advance, 1995

12 EnvironmentDepartment Papers The Statusof Biodiversityin the Russian Federation species of insects. The floodplain and delta Broad-leaved and Monsoon Forests also support 430 species of vascular plants. of the Far East The abundance of overall biodiversity in the In the Volgograd Reservoir, populations of Far East is due to the coexistence of the pomfret and zander are plentiful, and those Beringia center of arctic flora and fauna, and of the humpbacked and northen whitefish the presence of non-arctic subspecies. Due to are at satisfactory levels. However, the catch the mountainous terrain and cold coastal and sustainable yield of Siberian white tre typicamof team and of the Russiansalmon (Stenodussturgenodusleucichthysmalcleucichthys nelma) and ean continent,streams typical tundra of andthe easternforest-tundra part ofcommu- the Russian sturgeon remain low. Baltic Sea nities are distributed further south in the Far populations of Baltic herring are in a good East than anywhere else in Eurasia. Over 200 state, due to the favorable reproductivespceoflrareoudgnalyith conditions, the decreasing intensity of fishing, species of flora are found generally in the and the reduction in the cod population. The region, with 200-300 species in the Beringian Caspian seal population is estimated at 440- zone. This zone is recognized as a globally 450,000 and appears to be on the decline, representative site that includes "one of the most productive marine regions on earth, Anthropogenic pressures. Fragmentation by harboring great concentrations of animal life, human intervention is the characteristic including whales, walruses, polar bears, feature of European steppe ecosystems. seabirds, and fish." (Great Barrier Reef Steppe areas are traditionally used for mow- Marine Park Authority and others 1995). ing and grazing, and as a result, natural meadow vegetation is rapidly decreasing or The Primorskiy region contains the richest being degraded throughout most of the diversity in arboreal species in the entire country. In addition, uncontrolled hunting is Russian Federation. The forests here are also applying adverse pressure on the many unique in their broad distribution of liana wildlife species found in this zone (WWF species (for example, Actinidia and Schizandra). 1995). Larch biomes in the mountainous regions of the Far East contain the greatest diversity of Four pulp and paper mills in the Baltic Sea taiga flora and fauna. They also have the basin pose a major threat to fish in nearby highest percentage of land cover of taiga bodies of water, and the Black Sea waters species east of the Yenisey River, and 700- along the Russian coast have been severely 1000 species of flora. Siberian stone pine affected by industrial pollution, especially (Pinus sibirica)dominate the forests, but as a from the ports of Novorosisk and Tuapse. consequence, the faunal diversity is similar to that of the taiga zone, with an overall low Forest-Steppeand Steppe Zones of Siberia number of species. The steppe regions of Siberia generally have a higher number of faunal than floral species, The taiga of Kamchatka is covered with a due to the harsh weather that allows for only mosaic of tundra and taiga habitats of stone the most resistant floral species to survive. birch, alder, and cedar scrub formations. Enormous colonies of seabirds and marine Anthropogenic pressures. Due to the long- mammalian populations thrive on the rich term use of steppe landscapes for agricultural marine life, as do the large populations of production, the flora and fauna, both high brown bear, moose and caribou. Other and low populations, have been considerably important species in this area are the Kuril degraded. seal (Phocavitulina kurilensis)and Blackstone's

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 13 BiodiversityConservation in the RussianFederation fish owl (Ketupablakistioni). The Sakhalin and mals. Data are collected by the central link of Kuril Islands have a species composition the State Service for Registration of Russia's similar to that of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Hunting Resources, with most having been compiled by individual zapovedniks. De- The Lena Delta is a highly diverse floral and pending on their geographical location and faunal community, with over 340 lower plant size, zapovedniks protect anywhere from 400 species, 523 high plants species, 36 fish to 1400 vascular plant species. Even less is species, 99 bird species, and 32 mammalian known about species diversity within na- species recently recorded. The Chukot- tional park boundaries, due to their relative California population of gray whales newness in the protected-area system. How- (Eschrichtiusgibbosus) are estimated at 21,100 ever, rough estimates suggest that there are individuals, and the white whale 800 vascular plants and 200 vertebrates (190 (Delphinapterusleucas) population numbers birds and 50 mammals) recorded in national about 10,000. The range of the Greenland parks. Information concerning biodiversity white whale (Balaenamysticetus) seems to be in zakazniks and natural monuments is also gradually recovering, with 20 to 30 animals scarce. Studies have been conducted in being observed annually. Seal populations in individual areas, but a system-wide inventory the Sea of Okhotsk number 1.3 million or central repository for existing information individuals, including ringed seals (Pusa is absent. hispida), ribbon seals (Histriophocafasciata), common seals (Phoca vitulina), and bearded Assessing the role of zapovedniks in the seals. conservation of flora is difficult because of this deficiency in data collection. However, Anthropogenic pressures. Between 200-250 of 49 percent of the vascular plants listed in the the endangered Siberian (Amur) tiger are Russian Red Data Book can be found in found in the southern Far East of Russia. The existing zapovedniks (Red Data Book, 1995 opening of the country to previously re- and Plants of the Red Data Books, 1994). There stricted commercial interests is placing are few data available on the non-vascu- unprecedented pressure on this globally rare lar plants and invertebrates found in the species. Increasing numbers of tigers are zapovednik system. killed for their pelts and tiger parts, espe- cially bones, and the WWF has listed the The Maritime (Primorskiy) Region, with more Siberian tiger as the second most endangered than 3,000 tagged plant species, contains species in the world (after the Black rhinoc- more than 12 million hectares (between eros of Africa). Plastun in the South and Sovetskaya Gavan in the North) that have remained undisturbed The main threats to the volcanic area of due to their inaccessibility. The area encom- Kamchatka are commercial activities, includ- passes the Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik and the new Botcha Zapovednik (established in 1994). mg huntig, gold m1inng, and tourism. This is the largest remaining contiguous (WWF1995). ecosystem in the Russian Far East, protecting habitat for species such as musk, roe, and Biodiversity within Nationally spotted deer, Chinese merganser, cranes, the Protected Areas Siberian tiger, and the Himalayan black bear.

At present, information on species popula- Many endangered species are found in five tions within nationally protected areas has zapovedniks in this area (Cabardino focused on large and medium-sized mam- Balkarsky, Dagestansky, Severo-Osetinsky,

14 EnvironrmentDepartment Papers The Status of Biodiversityin the RussianFederation

Teberdinsky Zapovedniks and the Caucasian For example, twenty-four zapovedniks have Biosphere Nature Reserve), as well as in been established in the Russian plain region, Priesbrusskiy and Sochi National Parks. The while the Arctic zone has only two. most recent and reliable data on the number of species protected in zapovedniks was Gap analysis process. Traditionally, ap- recorded in 1987, when only fifty-nine proaches to stem the rapid loss of biodiver- zapovedniks existed. Some eighty-nine sity have been concentrated at the species zapovedniks were registered in 1995. level, and only when a species nears the point of extirpation or extinction. In the former They may be used only as indicators of the Soviet Union, and subsequently the Russian important role of protected areas in habitat Federation, the primary record of biodiversity protection: loss is the USSR Red Book of Endangered Species, and conservation issues also focus on * 168 species of terrestrial mammals (69 individual species. Efforts expended on a percent of the terrestrial mammals identi- species-by-species approach are inefficient, fied in Russia)-of the 65 mammalian expensive, and biased toward "charismatic species listed in the Red Data Book of megafauna' that have broad public appeal. Russia, 25 (3 marine species) were Last ditch efforts at conservation also lead to found in zapovedniks; economic conflict, because they generally fail to provide a feasible planning framework for - 515 species of birds (83 percent of the the many economic interests served by the birds identified in Russia)-of the 109 Government. birds listed in the Red Data Book, 60 were found in zapovedniks; The Russian Federation has detailed docu- ments describing the state of their ecosystems - 40 species of reptiles (61 percent of the and communities, as well as the quantity, reptiles identified in Russia)-of the 11 condition and natural history of rare and reptiles listed in the Red Data Book, 5 endangered species. However, the volume of were found in zapovedniks; and data generally exceed the technical capacity for their effective use. One tool that can be * 26 species of amphibians (96 percent of used to assess the current status of biodiver- amphibians identified in Russia)-of the 4 sity on large spatial scales is gap analysis, a amphibians listed in the Red Data Book, systematic approach for evaluating the 3 were found in zapovedniks. protection to be afforded biodiversity in given areas. Gap analysis uses geographic Deficiencies in Biodiversity information systems (GIS) to identify "gaps" Protection in biodiversity protection that may be filled by the establishment of new preserves or changes in land-use practices (Scott and Although zapovedniks have been established others 1993). Gap analysis consists of three in all of the thirteen physio-geographic zones primary data layers: the distribution of actual (Arctic, Fenno-Scandinavia, Russian plain, vegetation types delineated from satellite Caucasus, Urals, western Siberia, Caspian- imagery; land ownership; and, the distribu- Turgaiskaya, central Siberia, southern Sibe- tion of terrestrial vertebrates as predicted rian mountains, Yano-Kolyma, Baikal- from the distribution of vegetation. Djugdjur mountain region, Amur-Sakhalin, and northern Pacific region), they are not During the preparatory stage of the gap evenly distributed throughout these zones. analysis, the representation of biodiversity

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 15 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Box 2.2 Ecological Types Not Adequately Represented in the Protected Areas System Tundra * Novaya Zemlya * Kanin peninsula * Yamal, southem part * the Gydan peninsulas * forest tundra of the East Kola peninsula * south of Nenetsky national district * westem Siberia, northern part * northeastem Siberia

Taiga * middle and southem taiga of the European region * northern part of Sakhalin Island * west from Bratsk water reservoir along the Angara and Chulym River basins * Shilka River to the Zeya and Selemdzha rivers * Yakutia, northwestem part * western Siberia, northern part * northeastern Siberia, northem and mountain taiga

Steppes * northern Steppe of Samara River region * Medveditsa River region * Don River basin, central part * lower reaches of Seversky Donets River * sub-Azov region, eastern part * forest steppes Mid-Russian Heights. * upper reaches of Angara River

Mixed forests * mid-Russian Heights * Kaliningrad region, northern part

Semi-deserts * Transvolga region

Other * mix of forest steppe, steppe and semi-desert of Stavropolsky Krai and Dagestan * mix of southem taiga, broad-leaf forest, forest steppe, and steppes in the southem part of Westem Siberia existing within zapovedniks was compared the percentage of coverage by each vegetative with regional thematic maps. The subcompo- type and faunal assemblage in the zapovedniks. nents identifying biodiversity located in various biomes were selected from special- Physiographic regional and river basin maps ized maps.3 Digitized maps were projected were developed for specific basins and zones onto a single base map (scale 1:8,000,000) to as designated on the central maps. For capture biodiversity representation. Regional determining units for the vegetation map, maps were overlaid with these maps, to zonal types of vegetation for each of 29 arrive at regional assessments estimates of provinces were classified according to the

16 Environment Department Papers The Status of Biodiversity in the Russian Federation percentage of dominant species in each zone. The task is now to create a network of pro- For landscape classification, 93 different tected areas to encompass the vast diversity landscapes were considered for 15 of the of ecosystems in the Russian Federation. This largest territories. In each case, an assess- should include the a proportionate range of ment of each territory was made in the ecosystems, including those that are less context of territorial units at a higher level. diverse in the northern areas, as well as the Island territories with an area of less than 10 richest areas in the southeast. square kilometers were excluded from con- sideration when presenting the results of the Endnotes analysis. These are not detailed cartographic products, but the analysis is a great advance l The taiga zone of non-European Russia, in preparing useful materials for future includes Ural Siberia, Baikal, Altai-Sayan, environmental planning. and Lower Amur regions; the forest zone of European Russia, which includes Moscow, Results of the gap analysis. 4 The territory of Leningrad, Nozhni Novgorod, and Volga Russia is divided into 8 regions that include regions; the forest steppe and steppe zone of 271 physical-geographic sub-regions. Ac- European Russia, which includes the Black cording to the results of cartographic analy- Sea, Volga, Ural and Caucasus regions; and sis, 159 sub-regions (59 percent) do not have the forest steppe and steppe zones of strictly protected areas in their territory, and Siberia, Baikal, Tuva, and the lower Yenesei 32 (12 percent) have protected areasth at regions. For a visual presentation of these constitute less than 0.5 percent. Of the 176 zones, see map 1, at end of report. river basins, 53 percent have no zapovedniks 2 This designation arises from the Convention in their territory, 16 percent have less than 0.5 on Wetlands of International Importance, percent designated as protected areas, 6 signed in Ramsar, Iran, on 2 February 1971, percent have zapovedniks on 0.5-1 percent of and coming into force in December, 1975. their territories, and 25 percent have 3 The maps included (1) Regional Subdivision zapovedniks on over 1 percent. River basins of the USSR, 1:8,000,000,N.Gvozdetsky, that encompass the centers of maximum 1986; Landscape Map of the USSR, diversity also have more protected areas in 1:2,500,000,I. Gudilin, 1987;(3) Forests of the form of zapovedniks. The species-abun- the USSR,1:2,500,000, A. S. Isaev, 1990;(4) dant zone of the mid-Russian Heights, how- Basins of Major River Systems of Russia, ever, has very few zapovedniks (covering less 1:8,000,000(I. Lysenko, S.Barinova), 1994. than one-half of one percent of the territory). (For further listings of available geographic maps, see annex 5.)

Gaps are best described as areas of ecological 4 See map 2. "type" that are not adequately represented in 5 Zapovedniks are strictly protected scientific the protected area system. reserves and national are both federally managed protected areas. Regional-level It should be noted that while zapovedniks zakazniks are strictly scientific reserves and play a limited role in maintaining ecological natural monuments number over one integrity, they present tangible opportunities thousand, and cover approximately four for the conservation of individual species. percent of Russia's territory.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 17 Nationally Protected Areas 3) A New Approach

One of the most comprehensive attempts at flora and fauna that are in decline or threat- biodiversity conservation in Russia has been ened with extinction. The most recent Red the establishment of an extensive network of Book, later adopted by the Russian Federa- protected natural areas. Today, much of tion, was created in 1985, and appears in two Russia's biological diversity is preserved volumes, one for fauna and another for flora within zapovedniks1 and national parks (the Red Book for plants has since been (established thirteen years ago), both feder- updated).3 ally managed protected areas. Regional-level zakazniks and natural monuments number The basic scientific principles underlying over one thousand, and cover approximately protected areas developed and used in Russia four percent of Russia's territory and make are as follows. Nature reserves serve as an up the backbone of protected areas on the interconnecting network of permanent regional level. On December 31, 1994, Russia ecosystem research centers, whose allocation had 88 zapovedniks, covering a total area of should be organized in a manner that repre- 29.1 million hectares (1.4 % of Russia's terri- sents typical landscapes within each desig- tory) and 29 national parks, covering over 6.4 nated reserve. Ecological monitoring within million hectares (0.4 % of Russia's territory) the nature reserves should represent each (see Annex 2 for a list, and map 1 showing natural zone or sub-zone as well as their existing zapovedniks and national parks). geographic subdivisions. Creation of nature reserves must incorporate the natural physi- The 82 zapovedniks administered by the ographic zoning units so that designated Ministry for Protection of the Environment boundaries can be objectively determined and Natural Resources (MEPNR) comprise both within the country and upon various more than 40% of the world's total of strictly cartographic maps. Finally, zoning for nature scientific reserves (IUCN Category I).2 Russia reserves should be both a-zonal and zonal, has a long-standing and distinguished history with a strong emphasis on creating biogeo- of data collection and research in these graphical boundaries. reserves, sixteen of which are part of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program. This approach to the national protected area network makes it possible to include the Russian nature reserves protect a significant enormous diversity of species and bioclimatic number of species, many of which are listed differences within Russia's various biomes. in Russian and International Red Data Books Communities that are similar in their basic of Rare and Endangered Species. These structural characteristics are devised to official "Red Books" played an important include different species and even larger part in the USSR's wildlife conservation taxonomic groups of organisms. Accordingly, program, describing those species of native such communities are treated as features for

18 EnvironmentDepartnent Papers Nationally Protected Areas - A New Approach independent protection (for instance, the occurs, the reserve administration is given communities of European and Far-Eastern sole legal title to the land. Zapovednik staffs deciduous forests, or the eastern European, vary from 40 to 80 individuals per preserve, western Siberian and eastern Siberian taiga). with slightly more than 5000 individuals employed in the entire zapovednik system. Forms of Nationally Protected Areas in the Russian Federation The management objectives of zapovedniks include: The purpose of the four major types of protected areas in Russia were defined in the * environmental monitoring; law of December 19,1991, "On Protection of * biodiversity conservation; [the] Natural Environment in [the] Russian * scientific research on designated ecosys- Federation". Zapovedniks, national parks, tems; zakazniks and natural monuments were * environmental and conservation training defined in detail to prevent any overlapping for all employees; of authority within and among these areas. * educating the general public on environ- The definitions are presented below, along mental and conservation issues; and with a brief description of the most recent - providing input into environmental available management structure. Changes in impact statements as needed for develop- the governance of these areas are still occur- ment projects. ring due to modifications of the responsibili- Seventeen zapovedniks have been desig- ties and the overall structure of protected- nated as UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, area management. The descriptions below ranging in size from 231 hectares (Galichya should therefore be taken as only a represen- Gora Zapovednik) to 4.7 million hectares (Big tation of the management organization. Arctic Zapovednik).

Strict Scientific State Nature Reserves Managementof zapovedniks.Most of the 88 (Zapovednik) zapovedniks in Russia are managed directly Zapovedniks fall under Category I of the by the Division of Nature Reserve Manage- IUCN classificationof protected areas, and ment (DNRM) housed within the Department comprise the primary component of Russia's of BiologicalResources and Nature Reserve system to conserve natural diversity. The Management, which is under the Ministry of designation and expansion of zapovedniks Environmental Protection and Natural was initially based on conserving rare spe- Resources (MEPNR). Several other agencies cies, habitat uniqueness, and ensuring equal manage particular zapovedniks, including St. representation among species. Today, Petersburg University, Voronezhsky Univer- zapovedniks comprise perhaps the most sity, the Federal Forest Service, and the important areas of biological diversity, Academy of Sciences. Management often species representation, and long-term moni- suffers from the lack of accountability of toring of Russia's many physical-geographic decision making by individual protected zones. areas, making it difficult to determine whether management objectives are being Human activities within zapovedniks are attained. restricted to scientific research and reserve maintenance, and are administered by the MEPNRhouses a separate Division of Fi- federal government. Once designation nance that decides on all funding allocations

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 19 BiodiversityConservation in the RussianFederation for its nature reserves. The DNRM has little Most zapovedniks are managed by a Director control over its finances and personnel and two Deputy Directors who oversee the management. Nonetheless, DNRM is given scientific research and law enforcement effective authority over all protected-area divisions. Each research division is staffed operations in zapovedniks. The DNRM with scientists and technicians, the law oversees activities related to research, and enforcement division with law enforcement publishes annual research reports, called officers or rangers, and an accounting, main- Chroniclesof Nature. They are responsible for tenance and transportation group. Recently, ensuring that strict protection is maintained some zapovedniks have diversified, creating in the zapovedniks, a task that has become divisions of environmental education, eco- increasingly difficult in the last few years. In logical tourism, and international relations. fact, they have been able to operate only at the status quo, and have provided little National Parks guidance in the form of management plans Russia's national parks were initially estab- and evaluations. As leadership in the DNRM lished in 1983, and are classified under has weakened, directors of individual IUCN's Category H protected area. National zapovedniks have assumed defacto authority parks play an important role in protecting to make decisions regarding specific activities valuable and comparatively large tracts of and plans. lands. Many of these areas have traditionally been used for recreation, and this fact led to Lands transferred to zapovednik status are the further subclassification of park lands usually lands ceded from the Federal Forest into four categories of land use. These Service, the Ministry of Agriculture, or the include wilderness zones, intensive recreation Goszemzapas,the Federal Land Agency. The zones, limited recreation zones, and tradi- designation of zapovednik signifies the tional use zones. National parks range in size greatest restrictions on land use of any public from 7,000 hectares in the Kurshkaya Kosa lands. With the exception of research, most National Park, to 1.9 million hectares in the forms of human activity are prohibited, Ugyd Va National Park in the Komi Republic. including private residence. Several excep- tions do exist, such as in Kivach Zapovednik, Because the system is only thirteen years old, which encircles a village and is bisected by and some of the parks are still not fully the road leading to the village. Employees of staffed, limited data are available on species zapovedniks often live in small villages deep diversity and ecosystem types in national within the protected area zone, and in these parks. However, rough estimates conclude areas, domestic land-use activities for em- that up to 800 vascular plant species, and ployees (such as berry picking, gardening, or over 200 vertebrates (190 birds and 50 mam- cattle grazing) are permitted. Recently, a new mals) are found within their boundaries. ruling allows for the designation of special zones inside zapovedniks for berry picking National parks are governmental institutions, and hunting by local populations, for nature with scientific, recreation and forestry land trails, and for a number of other specific protection divisions. The average size of staff purposes. Most zapovedniks are bordered by complement in a national park is 120 persons, a two-kilometer "protection", or buffer, zone while about 3000 are employed nationwide in where recreation and some forms of hunting the national park system. Although restric- are permitted. Large-scale commercial tions on land use are inherent with the activities, such as clear-cutting, are prohibited designation of national park, title to the land in these reserves. does not always transfer to the park adminis-

20 Environment Department Papers Nationally Protected Areas - A New Approach tration. Regional units of the Federal Forest Although officials in the FFS oversee the Service (FFS) or the Ministry of Agriculture finances, planning, and management of may retain the rights to manage part of the national parks, most are in fact managed by territory. Communities already residing in regional units of the Forest Service. However, the territory are typically incorporated into in these regional units, there are no indi- the park. vidual structures responsible strictly for the management of these parks. Since they are The objectives of national parks include: managed as a unit of the FFS, they are often used for timber extraction, in spite of prohibi- * the protection of natural complexes and tions against commercial clear cutting. These objects of cultural heritage within their cuttings are classified as selective, or sanitary boundaries; cuttings for official purposes. * maintaining public access to undeveloped or partly-developed land for recreational Prior to 1994, the FFS transferred funds pursuits, where appropriate; earmarked for national parks to the regions. * environmental and conservation educa- Since 1994, however, these funds now directly tion; and to the regional units that have authority over * the elaboration and introduction of each individual park's budget. Just as no line scientifically-based approaches to the item exists for park management in the protection of natural and cultural heri- budget of the Federal Forest Service, neither tage. are there special budgets for parks within regional units. As a result, regional adminis- Management of national parks. National parks trations have complete discretion over the are established and financed by the federal funds earmarked for parks. Since funds from government with managing authority resting the Federal Forest Service are normally with the Federal Forest Service (FFS). Within directed towards the conservation of forests, the FFS is the Department of Specially Pro- any other conservation or restoration projects tected Forests, and within that Department, a yan cedvwionds earn by Division of National Parks, staffed by five must be financed with funds earned by administrators. Currently the majority of individual activities, grants, tourism income, or assistance from other ministries. Forest national parks (26 of 29) are subordinate to anditimberomanagemintrest usu the FFS, but are directly managed by regional and prmber management interestsusually FFS units. Two national parks are subordi- tabe tied ote aris. nate to regional admirdstrations (Moscow g City and Yaroslavl Region). Three of the 26 parks subordinate to the FFS (Vodlozersky, Regional adminstrations of the forest service Prebaikalsky, and Tunkinski National Parks) consider parks to be the least effective, least have no regional management ionits. productive units under their jurisdiction. Most parks are inadequately financed for Most of the lands transferred to national supporting even essential park staff employ- parks are from the FFS, anywhere from 50- ees. National parks are managed by former 100% of the entire territory of each individual directors of regional units of the Forest national park. The remaining land is of Service, or by supervisory forest rangers. "agricultural significance" that is not subject Most having been trained in forestry and to limits on economic activity. The federal timber management. Consequently they are government can acquire any land parcel in seldom trained in environmental manage- the Russian Federation deemed necessary for ment or the natural sciences particularly as protection. they relate to the conservation of biodiversity.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 21 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

It is, therefore, no surprise that many of these have either permanent or temporary limita- directors are subject to the conflict between tions placed on economic activities within the orders and quotas they receive from the their boundaries. These areas play a signifi- Forest Service, and their mandate for the cant role at the regional level, forming the conservation of the ecosystems under their "backbone" of the regionally-administered authority. protected-area network.

Zakazniks and Natural Monuments Information concerning biodiversity in these Zakazniks (special purpose reserves) and reserves and monuments is scarce. Studies natural monuments are established to con- have been conducted in some areas, but there serve ecosystems and natural processes as is neither a system-wide inventory or central well as populations of rare and commercially repository for existing information, nor are valuable flora and fauna. There are several there any permanent staff assigned to the classes of zakazniks, including zoological, reserves. Federally administered zakazniks ornithological, hydrological, botanical, have accumulated data concerning species landscape, and others. They range in size diversity, but have generally focused on game from a half a hectare, to 6 million hectares. species. The number of zakazniks in the Russian Federation was estimated to be 1,000 in 1991, Management of zakazniks and natural monu- comprising a total area of 44 million hectares. ments. Zakazniks created at the regional level Of these, 69 zakazniks, totaling 11.5 million are administered by MEPNR, but the respon- hectares, are federally administered. sibility of management and protection falls on 'akazniks and natural monuments cover the primary land users that are, at present, nearly four percent of Russia's entire terri- state enterprises. tory, and within the 69 federal-level zakazniks, 21 rare mammals and 68 rare Unlike zapovedniks, the establishment of a birds have been registered. zakaznik or a national monument does not require the removal of current land users. Natural monuments are designated to protect When several entities share the same territory unique objects of special interest such as rock of a zakaznik, the primary land user (such as formations, champion trees, bird rookeries, or state farms, agricultural enterprises and scenic landscapes. Although the objectives of cooperatives, state forest enterprises or, less natural monuments are similar to those of frequently, sport hunting and fishing societ- zakazniks, these areas are normally much ies) is responsible for enforcing the existing smaller (from 100 m2 to 500 hectares). These protective regime. Primary users are in turn areas are designated by local administrations, answerable to regional divisions of MEPNR. and are frequently supervised by local chap- Ecology committees have the authority to call ters of the All-Russian Society for Nature upon the primary land user organizations to Conservation. Locally administered conduct special inspections to ensure that zakazniks and natural monuments rarely biodiversity protection measures are carried have either scientists or law enforcement out. staff, while federally administered areas may have two or three rangers. Because Russian zakazniks were created first and foremost for game protection, in many Zakazniks and natural monuments fall under cases today they are overseen by the State either Category III or IV of the IUCN pro- Game Inspection Division, within the Depart- tected area guidelines. Zakazniks usually ment of Hunting and Game. The Ministry of

22 EnvironmentDepartment Papers Nationally Protected Areas - A New Approach

Agriculture also manages some zakazniks, regulating forests, Siberian cedar-nut produc- but only those under the jurisdiction of state ing zones, green belts surrounding cities and biosphere reserves. During the Soviet re- towns, and "specially protected forests", as gime, many of these areas were monitored by defined by the FFS, in which clear cutting is the All-Russian Society for Nature Protection, strictly prohibited. Detailed guidelines for all with conservation protection depending forestry activities within these areas are solely on the enthusiasm and resourcefulness enforced. of local activists. Activities of the Society have declined throughout Russia in the past In 1992, the first privately-funded wildlife several years. Consequently, any monitoring sanctuary, Moriviovka Nature Park, was functions that existed were assumed by regional established on the Amur River. This reserve environmental protection agencies, or Game is managed by a non-governmental organiza- Management Departments, whose personnel tion, and has set a precedent for brokering have been educated primarily in resource use agreements between state farms, private and management, not conservation. industry, local government and NGO's to preserve key habitat for endangered crane Local authorities have occasionally estab- species. The reserve represents a cooperative lished local nature parks independently from effort between the International Crane Foun- federal or regional legislative procedures. dation of the USA, the Wild Bird Society of For example, Kandalaksha Natural Park, in Japan, and the Amur River Program of the northern Russia, was created by the local Socio-Ecological Union. Kandalaksha District Administration. Be- cause such parks are established outside of Legislative Overview normal legislative channels, rules and regula- tions governing these protected areas are Environmental protection is the joint respon- often impossible to enforce. sibility of federal agencies of the Russian Federation and their constituent territories. Most zakazniks and natural monuments are Federal authorities issue legislative guide- not only lacking staff trained in biodiversity lines and, in accordance with them, the conservation, they are also without federal constituent territories issue their own legisla- protection of any sort. The lack of interaction tive acts that adapt the guidelines to local between the agencies that manage zapoved- conditions. Such an approach provides for niks and national parks, and those that consistency in environmental and natural manage zakazniks and natural monuments, is resource protection management, and consid- a major problem for the system as a whole. erably reduces the time and expense incurred These areas need to create a wider network of by authorities in developing territorial laws. scientific information sharing, to coordinate planning strategies, and to share experience in The chief act regulating nature protection in order to strengthen the national strategy for the Russia is the Environmental Protection Act of conservation and protection of biodiversity. 1991. This act defines the types of specially- protected nature preserves and their protec- OtherForms of ProtectedTerritories tion regimes. The legislative act pertinent to In addition to the four major types of pro- the preservation of the natural and cultural tected areas discussed above, there are other heritage of Russia is the Decree of the Su- designafions of land for protected areas. preme Soviet of the Russian Federation, These include micro-sanctuaries for insects, enfitled "On Urgent Measures for Conserva- wetlands, scientific forest reserves, climate- tion of National, Natural, and Cultural

Biodiversity and Conservation Series 23 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Heritage". Existing protected areas are managers in user fines levied on violators of specified under this decree, as well as are the laws, by both individuals and organiza- those territories where protected areas are tions. proposed for establishment in the future.

Decree 1155,an Order of the President of the Financing for Nature Reserves Russian Federation (October 2, 1992) declared Reserves are not allowed to exploit any that the conservation and expansion of natural resources within their respective nationally protected areas is a priority of the territorial boundaries, or perform any activi- state environmental policy of Russia. The ties that may conflict with the objectives of Decree proposed expanding the area under environmental protection. Thus, the zapovedniks and national parks in Russia so zapovedniks' scientific reserves depend that they will comprise 3% of Russia's total solely on the state budget as their main land area. Experts point out that this quota source of financing. Their only means of was arbitrary,was~~~~~~ a percentagearirr,apretg lackingvakn anyn acquiring additional income, prior to 1990, scientific basis. The language., ., in, this, Decree. ~~~waswacquoringddoto render servicess icosme,pirs to staff members t19 and does not provide a mechanism for planning, local populations. Equipment and services or for adapting the law to unforeseen socio- were often provided through in-kind support economic changes. from research institutions and individual The "Law on Protected Areas", enacted in donors to help in meeting overhead costs. March 1995, creates a framework both for strengthening and coordinating the protected From 1975 to 1990, the maintenance costs for area systems. This is the first national law the USSR nature reserve system nearly dedicated solely to protected areas. It sets quadrupled, from 15 million rubles to 55 out legal requirements for the planning and million rubles, while the actual number of management of all types of reserves. The law reserves increased by only one-quarter. Since divides responsibilities for different types of 1992, however, inflation has increased expo- protected areas between federal and regional nentially, thereby devaluing protected area authorities. The strengths of the new law are budgets, and leaving many of their employ- numerous. It provides for the empowerment ees unpaid. Wages in 1994 accounted for 60% of the ranger service in zapovedniks and of the total net financing of natural reserves. national parks to an authority comparable to In January 1995, wages accounted for 73% of that of the police. It prohibits the the same budgets. Current budgets for privatization of property within the protected protected area staff cannot even provide the areas, and adds to the functions of zapoved- subsistence minimum needed for survival. niks an essential public education role. Table 3.1 below presents figures illustrating Finally, it requires that state environmental the increasingly precarious financial position impact statements must be filed. If this is not of the nature reserves between 1988 and 1994. done, federal and local administrations may prohibit the distribution of lands belonging to Inefficient spending within individual man- the protected areas, as well as any construc- agement divisions is also a pressing issue. tion, road building, drainage, mining and The Division of Nature Reserve Management other potentially destructive activities within currently has little control over funding these areas. allocations for personnel and for the manage- ment of zapovedniks. These decisions are The law is weak, however, on defining the made by departments of the Ministry far rights and responsibilities of protected-area removed from the everyday activities and

24 Environment Department Papers NationallyProtected Areas - A New Approach

Table 3.1 Financing of Nature Reserves from 1988 to 1994 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Financing (million rubles) 18 21 22 67 556 4017 16,004 Average annual inflation index 1.0 1.1 1.3 7.0 26.0 9.0 3.5 Coefficients for adjusting average rices 1.0 1.1 1.6 11.0 284 2,555 8,944 Financing in comparable prices, (million rubles) 18.0 19.0 13.8 6.1 2.0 1.6 1.8 Relative increase 0.1 - 0.3 -0.6 - 0.7 -0.2 0.1 Source:Project Preparation Papers, MEPNR 1995. needs of the reserves. In the absence of requirements. The areas that are especially proper financial planning, the current eco- hard hit are the far northern regions of Siberia nomic conditions demand that budgets be and European Russia, where basic survival spent on salaries and essential facility mainte- requirements such as gas, oil and electricity nance. The reserves receive budgets that bear are sometimes unavailable to protected area little or no relation to actual needs, thus it employees. should not be surprising that managers are unable to appropriate these funds effectively. The poor equipment and technical base in Russia's marine nature reserves has caused The most urgent issue among protected areas law enforcement services to be virtually is the low level of financing provided to ineffective. Of the ten Arctic and Far Eastern zapovedniks and national parks, threatening zapovedniks containing marine zones, not the very survival of these areas as protected one of them has its own boat in which to reserves. The condition of technical and patrol shoreline territory. safety equipment is deteriorating, as are the communications, transportation infrastruc- Zapovedniks and national parks have little to ture, research laboratories and employee no defense against forest fires. In 1994, 23 housing. The number of violations in pro- fires burned 213,000 hectares, while fire crews tected areas continues to grow, as economic and protection services operated at only 30 hardship for many local communities in- percent of demand. In 1994, no funds were crease. Trade in plants and animals that are allocated for the acquisition of fire fighting illegally taken from these reserves led to 2,227 supplies. In the absence of clear policies and registered acts of illegal hunting and fishing comprehensive training in wildfire manage- in zapovedniks in 1993. It is felt that far more ment, the scarcity of resources only com- violations have gone undetected. pounds the effects of ineffective management.

Poor maintenance of national parks and Problems in Natural zapovedniks facilities renders them almost Resource Management defenseless against the growing pressures around their borders. Similar conditions in Russia's historic reserve system is a system- the national parks effectively prevent them atic and comprehensive attempt to maintain from developing their income generation and protect a significant portion of the potential, which is the only way for them to world's biodiversity. But the system now earn the majority of their annual budget faces serious problems. At least one half of

Biodiversity and Conservation Series 25 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation the zapovedniks and one third of the national unaware of the protected-area system, while parks are in or approaching a critical state, communities in the vicinity of protected areas and the system itself is in jeopardy. Exploita- often feel alienated from the entire system. tion of natural resources is increasing, often supported by local administrations. Increas- Weak Central Management Structure ing use and access to public lands under The overall tendency toward decentralization privatization and deregulation has intensified of the Russian government has further the threats to protected ecosystems, while aggravated the problems of effectiveness of adjacent lands are often subject to clearcutting, management within the Division of Nature mining, agriculture, and pollution from indus- Reserve Management. As regions increase trial activities. their authority, the zapovedniks and national parks have felt the consequences, with rising There iS no clear and consistent enforcement nainls an etni cnfitcein of laws and regulations, and penalty provi- unrest. sions, if applied, are insufficient to guarantee the long-term survival and financing of the Regional constitutions often contradict protected area system. Compounding these federal laws. The result is the violation of threats, levels of funding available to support federal protection laws and encroachment the protected area networks have fallen upon state enterprise land. This occurred precipitously. In real (constant price) terms, when the Irkutsk Regional Soviet of Deputies financial support for the zapovednik network took an illegal decision of transferring the has declined to less than 20% of the 1985 level right of land use of 625 hectares in as seen in the previous section on current Prebaikalsky National Park to the regional financing of nature reserves. Serious short- agricultural committees. Another case comings are apparent at all levels of protected occurred in May of 1992, when the High area management, in interagency coopera- Soviet of Karabdino Balkaria approved a tion, departmental functions, and the opera- decision from the Republic's Cabinet of tion of individual protected areas. Manage- Ministers to transfer land in Kabardinsky ment structures within the responsible federal Zapovednik to the Agricultural Soviet and agencies are weak and fragmented. Regional Forest Service of Chegemsk. The zapovednik's territory was reduced by 1142 Planning nor conservation programs in hectares, including 624 hectares of unique individual reserves is inadequate, and neither mountain forests. zapovedniks or national parks are required to develop management plans. Work conducted Decentralized and weakened federal author- by scientists in nature reserves is poorly ity in the face of rapid socio-political change integrated into management and policy has created new needs and opportunities for development. Most zapovednik and national NGO's. Some regional NGO's have been park directors lack specific experience or influential forces in inventorying, planning, training in protected area management, and designating new protected areas. Their although they often have a diverse and ability to work with, but independently from valuable range of skills. There is a severe lack government agencies has allowed them to of training programs to build on these diverse develop new, effective methods of protected- skills, and to provide a common understand- area planning. NGO's have also made ing of the nature reserves' purpose and the significant contributions in ensuring the tools by which this could be implemented. protection of an area after it has been desig- Equally, the population as a whole is largely nated. In Taldom (Moscow region), the

26 Environment Department Papers NationallyProtected Areas - A New Approach

Druzhina Student Corps for Nature Protec- Most programs that have brought together tion provides law enforcement on a reserve national park and zapovedniks managers for cranes, and has worked with the local have been initiated by international assis- administration to establish a museum and tance agencies, non-governmental organiza- educational campaign promoting crane tions, or individuals. The Resolution adopted conservation within the community. In at the December 1994 conference in Sochi Nizhny Novgorod region, the relationship showed that leaders of national parks and between Dront Eco-Center and the regional zapovedniks desire better interagency coordi- nature protection agency has resulted in a nation, as reflected in their decision to create strategic plan for a regional network of regional associations of protected areas. A protected areas. conference on Economics and Biodiversity (February 1995) brought representatives There are no organizations that are recording together from agencies and institutes that had and replicating methods and strategies never before worked together. However, developed by the leading regional NGO's, there is no formal structure or procedure that and no formal mechanisms that will ensure will andmchansms n foral tat wll esurecooperation. institutionalize that will nurture this the continuation of these partnerships. Although the regional NGO's such as Dront Coordination and communication between provide critical services to governmental federal and regional agencies, and among agencies, there are no mechanisms requiring regional units of the Federal Forest Service, their input, and that will provide for some are also weak without legal, economic, or governmental assistance in return (such as administrative mechanisms for coordinating transportation or training seminars). Thus, multiple land use in a given territory. Poor for the successful participation of NGO's and coordination among the regional agencies has implementation of their work, a formal led to many problems in national parks. process or structure should be established National parks are not given full rights over that would include their participation. the land included in their borders, and there is no mechanism requiring the other land Poor CoordinationAmong Involved Agencies user (usually a regionally-administered state Russia's most important natural areas are agency or enterprise) to control its land use managed by two different bodies in separate practices according to park regulations. The Ministries. Although the conservation "backbone" of regional protected areas objectives of the zapovedniks differ some- (zakazniks and natural monuments) are what from those of the national parks, they managed by a number of agencies (game are united by the goal of conserving natural management departments and agricultural diversity and heritage. To the detriment of agencies) at the regional level but there is no these natural areas and the people protecting formal mechanism to ensure the coordination them, there is no institutionalized procedure of their planning and management coopera- for effective communication or information fion. exchange between the Ministries whose agencies manage protected areas. Such The issue of federal-regional and inter-agency procedures are needed to streamline many coordination is extremely pertinent to aspects of protected-area management, such zapovedniks, whose buffer zones are regu- as biodiversity conservation programs, lated by regional administrations. As a result, education and public outreach, law enforce- restrictions and enforcement in these buffer ment and staff training. zones vary, depending on the ability and

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 27 BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation

motivation of regional administrations. A Isolation of Protected-Area Scientific Research procedure ensuring regular coordination and Many zapovedniks have been conducting information exchange among individual scientific studies and research for several protected areas is needed. In some regions, decades, but most of these findings have not neighboring reserves and national parks are been directly utilized for nature reserve developing identical programs or researching conservation strategies. Scientists (according similar topics without any knowledge of the to guidelines in the Chroniclesof Nature Pro- other's work. This is even more pronounced gram) are assigned research topics on differ- between reserves and parks separated by ent systematic groups or other elements of large distances. The isolation of these pro- ecosystems without any requirement that this tected areas from one another prevents the research be integrated into biodiversity sharing of information, advice and resources. conservation policy and practices. Thus, decades of meticulously collected data Lack of Supporting Organizations accumulate in the libraries of the zapoved- Participation in Protected-areas Management niks where research has been conducted, or is The capacity to fulfill the multiple missions filed in Ministry archives, accessible to a and functions of Russia's zapovedniks (and limited few. Little direction is provided from especially national parks) requires the skills the Division of Nature Reserves on the need and knowledge of a varied host of profession- for innovative, applied conservation prac- aln knowd of a v .arie.h. osto , lasi tices, or for projects supporting the sustain- yers, ecologists, landscape planners, and able use of natural resources. Now, even yers,ecolgist,ladscap planers andfewer data are being collected, as many social scientists). One protected area cannot, scientists areleing .teirp s dunt and should not necessarily, hire all such lack of financing. specialists, but many of these skills are represented in interest-group associations Lack of Public Support and organizations. In other countries, a "third sector" of organizations provides an The future viability of national parks and "third ofsector' organizations pro s azapovedniks depends on public support from array of services the federal government is a ppp unable to finance, but may support in other communitiesthe Russian peoplesurrounding as a nation, the protectedfrom local ways. areas, and from regional and local govern- ments. Faced with budget deficits, these Professional nature protection organizations areas will have to look to new sources of such as the World Wide Fund for Nature's fundinga andnd assitance.assistance. Winnngnng pubcpublic Russian Program Office (WWF) and the support for protected areas has never been Biodiversity Conservation Center (BCC) have part of the philosophy and policy of Russia's become influential in protected area policy protected areas. Russian society as a whole and preservation. These and other organiza- hears, sees, and knows little about the great tions have provided assistance in planning, natural treasures of Russia. Key programs are legal, educational, communication and are needed in environmental education, public finding ways to cooperate mutually with outreach and sustainable development. governmental agencies. However, there is no Active campaigning for public support formal mechanism to involve them in con- should be a high priority over the next few sulting or contractual partnerships for pro- years. Local populations living within or tected areas. A service is needed that will near protected areas could add considerable provide information about such professional local support, if they were assisted in secur- services to protected-area managers. ing tangible benefits for their families

28 Environment Department Papers Nationally Protected Areas - A New Approach through, for example, tourism income. A few date, the social, economic and political protected areas (Briansky Les and Kerzhensky changes that are now taking place. Zapovedniks and Vodlozersky National Park) have already initiated such programs, and The Government of Russia (GOR) recognizes have created not only tangible returns for the that the current transition of the Russian locals, but also support from their regional economy is having adverse impacts on governments. biodiversity and nature conservation. Agri- cultural and forestry resource use is occurring Russian nature reserves have typically been in changing and ill-defined administrative isolated from the international community, and legal circumstances, complicated by the and the international community generally uncertainty generated by the land reform and prohibited from entering the zakazniks. privatization process. Administrative and Russia's isolation from the international political decentralization has assigned the community during the Cold War kept the responsibility of policy implementation to the zapovedniks, their staff, and their achieve- local level, resulting in a loss of coordination ments virtually unknown. Lack of informa- and poor implementation of laws and regula- tion about conservation activities has also tions. Consequently, the unsustainable use prevented the development of partnerships in of natural resources is compounded by a research and education between Russia and fragmented institutional structure that is other nations. Some successful exchanges uniformly and simultaneously beset by lack between U.S. and Russian federal nature of coordination, inefficiency, fiscal con- protection agencies (such as the United States straints, and uncertainty. The following Fish & Wildlife Service and the U.S. National chapter is part of the response to these Park Service) have occurred, but more inter- challenges. action is desirable in order to acquire a broader perspective of natural resource management. Endnotes

Inadequate Mechanisms for Designing and l Zapovedniks are strictly protected scientific Establishing New Preserves reserves and national are both federally As property rights change, and land is managed protected areas. Regional-level rapidly privatized,rapidl theprivaized,the unqueunique oportuntyopportunity totozakazniks natural monumentsare strictly number scientific over reserves one and conserve biological diversity in protected tusan andcer approx el our areas will be lost. The governments, both percent of Russia's territory federal and regional, have the ability to retain 2 The IUCN GuidelinesforProtected Area public lands by allocating land for nationally ManagementCategories provide the follow- protected areas. This may not be economi- ing classification of protected areas: cally feasible in the future, if private interests, I - strict nature reserve/wildemess area, a claiming title to these lands, demand full protected area managed for science or market value for their sale back to the gov- wilderess protection; II - national park, a ernments. New mechanisms for creating and protected area managed mainly for ecosys- designating newly protected areas are ur- tem protection and recreation; III - natural gently needed. Current protected-areas monument, a protected area managed legislation allows for the designation of only mainly for the conservation of specific a limited variety of protected areas. These natural features; IV - habitat/species requirements are outdated, and need to be management area, a protected area man- revised so as to account for, and accommo- aged mainly for conservation through

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 29 BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation

management intervention; V - protected 3 The volume on fauna lists a total of 463 landscape/seascape, a protected area species (or subspecies) of wildlife, primarily managed mainly for landscape/seascape vertebrates. For purposes of classifying conservation and recreation; and species of flora and fauna that are endan- VI - managed resource protected area, a gered or otherwise low in numbers, the Red protected area managed mainly for the Book utilizes the status categories created sustainable use of natural ecosystems by the IUCN (see Annex 4). Of the 463 (IUCN 1994). species listed, 70 have been classified as endangered according to IUCN Category I.

30 Envirornent DepartmentPapers Socio-Economic Policy on 4+Ecosystems and Natural Habitats

Most biodiversity conservation efforts in Conservationists must therefore adopt the Russia, as elsewhere, have emphasized the tools and methods of policy analysis that will protection of ecologically-important sites, enable governments to correct economic with only modest attempts to address the distortions, and provide incentives for envi- underlying factors causing biodiversity loss. ronmental conservation and sustainable These factors include the interplay of legisla- natural resource management. There is an tive, macroeconomic and land tenure dynam- urgent need to improve both the quality and ics, as well as development policies in agri- quantity of economic information on biodi- culture, energy and industry. State versity available to decision makers. This ownership of extensive areas of land, com- information should apply to topics such as bined with the incapacity of state agencies to agricultural and energy subsidies, forest manage these lands, and with powerful management laws and regulations, natural financial incentives, often result in over- resource ownership and access rights, pricing exploitation of resources. Failure to under- of tourism services, genetic property rights, stand the linkages between the economy and biotechnology, international trade agree- the environment is therefore a failure to ments, and constraints facing indigenous understand the primary forces that lead to peoples. the loss of biodiversity, and conservation Environmental economists have begun to measures that fail to take these forces into tackle some of these issues. One of the most account are unlikely to succeed. encouraging conclusions of economic policy Economics of Biodiversity analysis as applied to environmental issues is that conflicts between resource conservation and economic development are often more There has been relatively little analysis of the ances of relationships between biodiversity and other promstnce percnonofperception thanhas reality. the poenUsed sectors of the national and global economy. tohelp entify the polents These relationships are complex and poorly nedent ally susta understood. As a result, important economic development by focusing on the need for new policy decisions are being made without due incentives or removing inappropriate ones. consideration of their impacts on biodiversity. This leads to unforeseen, and often avoidable, Innovative work was undertaken in the environmental costs. It also may result in project to identify major sectoral impacts on many potential economic benefits and viable biodiversity and the linkages between eco- investment opportunities linked to biodiver- nomic processes and ecosystem integrity. Box sity conservation being overlooked or under- 2.1 provides a summary policy risk matrix valued. derived from this activity. The matrix is a

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 31 BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation

qualitative representation of the seven year identify the intensity of both the causes of period from 1989 to 1996 in broad macroeco- negative changes and where appropriate the nomic terms. It identifies some of the key intensity of the processes reducing these processes during that period including negative changes in each major "natural inflation, privatization, the developing community". For example, it indicates that economic and political isolation of the regions there is high negative pressure attributable to and major structural changes in the economy, including the conversion of the major mili- political and social instability on the forests of tary-industrial complexes to nonmilitary Central Russia while at the same time there is commercial purposes. It also attempts to considerable weakness of authority.

Box 4.1 Biodiversity Policy Risk Matrix

Typesof Natural Communities and Biosystens Macroeconomics Off- Lakes Fresh- Swamp Tundra Taiga Forests Forest- Steppe Mead- Soil Urban Natural Endan- in Russiain shore in and water & wet- of steppes & seni- ows& biota areas pro- gered processesm RussiaIn sea zones bodies land Central of desert agro- tected species 1989-1996 Russia Southem coses areas Russia Social and potincal instability * | | * +* * * * * * Autarchy,econonmic self- _ _ * * _ isolationof regions

Extension of rights of local _ _ . U authoritiesto economic subjects

Sharprise in prices for * U | | *a0 U 03 energy resources lnflation,econonic recession U ** | 0O *

Stbctural changes in 0 0 | . _0. 0 economy.military-industrial conversion

Piivatizanion of the means of 0 D 13 0 0 | 0 production in indusay Delays in agraian reforma . . . T * I * * .o o

AgraTian and industrial . * * . * T *U * reforms are in balance Governmentalregulation of 00 O O jD . agriculture continues "Opening"of national *0 El 0 economy to the World market

Weakness of authority U U | | *| j

Public takes active part in O O O 0 | | 0 1 politics Key: Intensityof processesthat causenegative change Intensityof processesthat reduce negativechange

low medium high very high low medium high very high * * + * 0 C) 0 0

Source: Adapted by World Bank staff from GEF Biodiversity PPA. A. Martynov 1995.

32 Environment Department Papers Descriptionof Socio-EconomicConditions

In economic terms, biodiversity losses can be Relevant pre-Revolution Developments. The attributed to two fundamental forces, the earliest known impacts by man on the area increasing conversion of land and exploita- that now comprises the Russian Federation tion of natural resources, and inadequate date to the Paleolithic period, when tribes investments made in managing and regulat- practiced subsistence hunting, fishing and in ing natural resource use and environmental some cases, farming. As populations grew, impacts. The former is attributable to ex- the demand for meat and fur expanded such panding human population, economic that some areas suffered early degradation of growth, and inequitable distribution of biodiversity, particularly in the European income and resources. The latter arises regions west of the Ural Range, most of because the true rate of return earned by which was deforested during this period. In natural resource owners from land conver- the 18th century, the metallurgy industry sion or resource over-exploitation is usually developed rapidly in the taiga zone, resulting less than the anticipated rate of return (for example, the externalities have been ignored). dramatic deforestation, the depletion of This underestimation can be a result of aquatic diversity in important river basins market failures, and inefficient and mis- such as the Transbaikal, Aldan, and Kular guided government policy interventions. basins, and the virtual disappearance of the more valuable faunal species in certain areas. Economic analysis can be applied to the whole range of biodiversity problems in Increasing population pressures, along with Russia. It can be used to demonstrate the the rise of Russia's economic growth, led to potential economic value of the sustainable rapidly increasing demand for the raw use of biological resources, to identify ways materials of economic development and war. that the economic revenues from biological By the second half of the 19th century, west- resources can be realized (see box 4.2), to ern Siberia's forest and mineral resources explain why biodiversity is threatened, were so seriously depleted, that the metallur- despite these economic values, and to find gical industries in the east went into decline. cost-effective ways to mitigate the adverse The broad-leaved and monsoon forests of the environmental impacts of economy-wide Far East were completely denuded, in part by policies. Economic analysis can also reveal the creation of large agricultural settlements, the impact of Russian laws, regulations, and and by the overharvest of non-timber floral social and economic policies on biodiversity and faunal forest resources. and strengthen the economic case for biodi- versity protection. The quantification of the USSR (1920 to mid-1980s). From the early tradeoffs between conservation and develop- 1930s, one of the primary objectives of the ment alternatives can be expected to generate Soviet Union was the pursuit of rapid and additional funds for the protected area comprehensive industrialization. An "exten- system. sive" pattern of industrial development was Soci-Economic History of Russia the dominant model, one in which output was increased mainly by increasing the The history of the Russian Federation that is quantity of raw material, energy, and labor relevant to the development of their present- inputs. These policies assigned investment day environmental circumstances is rich and priority to the extractive, heavy industries, in broad. While not all of this history applies to particular armaments and energy - two every region, the chronological summary that sectors that exerted the greatest pressures on follows captures the main influences across the environment. The nature of these indus- Russia. tries, and the focus on supply rather than

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 33 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Box 4.2 Non-Timber Values in the Moscow Region In recent years, a large number of studies that measure non-timber forest benefits (NTFB) have been conducted in devel- oped and less-developed countries, and indicates that NTFBs can be substantial. The majority of the studies do not, how- ever, provide a complete picture of the value of forests. Usually they focus on only one or two NTFB's, such as hunting or recreation, and ignore others such as watershed functions and preservation values. The total economic value (TEV)ap- proach is an alternative approach, one that attempts to capture a more comprehensive estimate of total forest benefits within the Moscow Region. Pearce and Warford [1993]divide the TEV of an environmental asset into use value and non-use value as illustrated in the figure below. Use value is subdivided into direct, indirect and option value, and non-use value is subdivided into quasi- option value and existence value. This can be simplified to three categories that better characterize forest resources, as extractive, non-extractive, and preservation values (see table below). Total Economic Value of an Environmental Asset

Value|

Use Value Non-UseValue]

Direct I Indirect Option Quasi-option Existence

Extractive values are of goods, such as plants and animals, that can be harvested from the forest. Non-extractive values are services such as recreation sites, watershed functions, and carbon sequestration, that are provided by the forest. Preserva- tion values include option value, which is the amount an individual is willing to pay to conserve a forest for future use or future generations, the value an individual is willing to pay to conserve a forest, and existence value, which is the value an individual places on the knowledge that an asset exists, even though he or she has no intention of ever using it.

Total Non-Timber Forest Value for the Moscow Region minor_.Extractivefe .e. Values p_ ...... u ...... aestheticNon-extractive...... Values Preservation Value TOTAL hunting and fishing recreation option i _i minor forest products aesthetic existencei equipment,services, etc. w atershedeffects "willingness to pay" .. .__...... _ _._...... ' -',._--r-_ transportation costs carbonsequestriation (n\a)

$ 234 millionUSD + t $ 52.4- 114.7 million + | $ 173.4million = $521 million

Preservation value was calculated in the Russian model using the "willingness to pay" approach including the loss of revenue the public would receive if no time was spent for recreational purposes (or the opportunity cost of recreation). The total length of recreational time in protected areas for Muscovites amounts to 81.9 million person/days. These results are difficult to obtain in valid quantitative data for time these people could work and obtain additional income. Benefits are not actually traded in real markets, so figures can only be contrived through surveys and other limited means. With this knowledge, we can assume that about a half of the time spent in nature could be used for obtaining income (about 41 million person/days). Then, proceeding on the average salary level, the preservation value of biological resources for the Moscow region would amount to US$ 173.4million. There are several important caveats that the reader should be aware of when considering values on a per hectare basis. The NTFBsthat each hectare of forest contains vary widely. Some of the values are based on studies conducted on small areas of forest, while others are based on studies of very large areas. Also, although per hectare figures are useful for comparing studies, they are not particularly meaningful in estimating absolute values. This is because each hectare of forest contrib- utes differently to consumer's surplus. For example, a hectare of forest on the edge of a park may contribute more to consumer surplus than an equivalent hectare in the middle of a park, because it is accessible to a larger number of tourists. Seurur Basedon the model found in 'To Seethe Forest for theTrees: A Guide to Non-TimberForest Benefits,"by J. Lampiettiand J. Dixon. Figures from GEF BiodiversityPPA. 1.Kamennova, A. Martynov,and S. Bobylev1996.

34 Environment Department Papers Description of Socio-EconomicConditions demand, created a resource-intensive more resources be designated to manage- economy (World Bank 1991. p. 8). ment, and increasingly less to environmental protection. During this period, an extensive network of roads was built across virgin tundra fields to The interests of the state, as reflected in the connect cities such as Vorkuta and Norilsk in central plan, overrode any regional consider- the Arctic and Tundra zone, and forced-labor ations. Consequently, local and regional camps were created up to provide cheap governments had little or no resources to labor. The also brought with them a host of address health and environmental concerns. adverse environmental impacts. As these It was also difficult for local and regional populations expanded, so too did the range governments to comprehend the enormity of of land that was overgrazed, overhunted, environmental problems. The seemingly overfished, and overrun by the development inexhaustible natural resources rendered of the relatively untouched areas of the USSR environmental assessment strategies second- east of the Ural Mountains. ary to the process of industrialization. Envi- ronmental monitoring was ad hoc at best, and While forest resources had always been a corrective measures taken only when abso- source of wealth to the USSR, the 1950s lutely necessary. An example of this occurred witnessed a rapid growth of exports of timber on the shores of Lake Baikal in the early and timber-related products, producing 1960s. The Baikalsk cellulose and paper mill further deforestation. This period also gave factory of the Irkutsk Oblast was built some rise to massive hydropower engineering years earlier, with no water quality monitor- stations in the Irkutsk, Angarsk and Bratsk ing system, even though great quantities of rivers, among others, providing a valuable fresh water would be required in the produc- new source of energy while at the same time tion process. Monitoring devices were inundating wetlands and pristine river eventually installed, but only after managers valleys. Collectivization of arable land concluded that their water intake system was exacerbated the problems of soil erosion and malfunctioning from excessively high water depletion (particularly in the fragile steppe pollution levels created from the factory's ecosystems of both European and Siberian own effluent. Russia), deforestation, and the pollution and overuse of water resources. Nationally protected areas nevertheless grew in importance over the seventy years of USSR Increased imbalances in the production history. Large-scale preservation campaigns structure were compounded by the isolation were initiated, and the number of rare game of the main elements of production in the species protected in these areas rose dramati- Soviet Union and consequent technological cally. In the 1950s, a large number of these stagnation. In later years, this isolation reserves were shut down to increase extrac- became a particular obstacle to the introduc- tive resource potential within protected area tion and sharing of badly-needed foreign boundaries. investment and technology for tackling environmental problems. This hampered the Indirect taxation of consumers occurred Soviet Union's ability to respond quickly or through the overpricing of popular manufac- efficiently to changing production and tured goods and food items. High prices left market conditions. The enormity of the most citizens unable to afford basic market socio-economic and industrial system became goods, forcing them to create their own unwieldy and uncontrollable, requiring that internal markets through informal trading

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 35 BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation among themselves. Since natural ecosystems plowing, sowing, the application of pesticides were commonly held and protected by the and fertilizers, and harvesting of crops were central government, the population freely applied nationwide, regardless of the differ- gathered and hunted in communal areas. As ences in soils, climate or cultural practices. the levels of habitat destruction increased, so As collectivization spread, private farms were too did the number of endangered species. forced to comply with increasingly rigid regulations. The emphasis on military technologies in Soviet manufacturing contributed to severe Current Macroeconomic Crisis (late 1980s to environmental damage to both human and present). The economy continued to deterio- biotic species and their habitat. Perhaps the rate in 1990 at an accelerating rate. It became most damaging industry was, and still is, the clear that reforms in past years had failed to high-level nuclear energy production facili- stabilize the economy, let alone produce ties. Information concerning these sites was higher rates of growth. The combination of unavailable during the Soviet regime, and monetary and fiscal imbalances with a only recently have detailed descriptions of disintegrating system of internal trade and their mismanagement been made available. distribution brought shortages. Central Many territories that were designated nation- planners, faced with severe day-to-day crises ally protected areas were in fact areas where of economic management, were, at the same important military operations occurred, often time, expected to formulate and implement used as repositories for waste generated in new and more radical reform plans (World fuel processing and weapons production. The Bank 1991. p. 41). The situation was aggra- energy sector created during the Soviet vated by the fall in world oil market prices, Union's industrial development was also a thereby reducing governmental revenue and major contributor to many of the worst constraining the government's ability to act. environmental and safety problems in the USSR. Poor air quality, a series of serious Energy-intensive industries continued to accidents at energy facilities, extensive operate and thrive by trading on the interna- marine and water pollution, the spoiling of tional market. Damage to the environment useful lands, and acid rain were the most continued to worsen and become heightened notable problems. The USSR ranked second in the new industrial centers (the Lower in the world in its emissions of greenhouse Amur, Irkutsk industrial region, Kuzbass, gases, the majority of which came from the Omsk, Ural, the Middle Volga, European energy sector. North). Considerable atmospheric pollution was centered in the Eastern taiga areas of Agricultural growth in production occurred Irkutsk, Kemerovo, Yakutiya and Trans- under the centrally planned system, but also Baikal regions. Numerous industrial sites at a high cost, since prices of inputs and contributed to toxic chemical levels in the outputs bore little or no relation to one river basins and floodplains of the Volga-Oka another. This system resulted in the misallo- interfluve, Caucasus, Caspian, the southern cation and waste of resources, and the de- part of Western Siberia, and central Yakutia. struction of the environment. Standardization Resettlement, due to the construction of of fertilizers caused the mass eutrophication of massive energy projects, is estimated to have water basins, and poor arable lands were displaced over 500,000 individuals. cleared, and wetlands drained, to sustain agricultural needs (World Bank 1991). Timber processing increased during this Guidelines for standardizing depths of period, mainly in the northern European

36 EnvironmentDepartment Papers Description of Socio-EconomnicConditions taiga zone, Irkutsk Oblast, and the Far East. It will not be possible to conserve biodiversity However, as the prices of fossil fuel and without addressing the overall environmental related products have increased, timber problems in Russia. Biodiversity conserva- processing has become limited to forests that tion, though one of the most important, is have established easy access to major trans- only one of the many issues concerning portation channels. environmental protection and natural re- source use. Thus, conservation of biodiversity While the economic situation continues to be would benefit from systematic improvements fragile, three factors of fundamental impor- in natural resource use with the assistance of tance for the future course of the Russian effective macroeconomic policies. economy became increasingly evident during 1994 and early 1995. First, the shift to a In spite of current economic reforms, the market economy has become irreversible, tendency towards technogenic and resource with the private sector developing much consumption-based development continues more rapidly than many observers had to put a strain on the environment. These thought to be possible in 1991. Second, the tendencies are seen in Russia's increasing dramatic levelsoprssice insta Secony. rer , investment in production sectors that con- dramaticrlnvesiof duriceingtblite-y1,bordearing sume natural resources (mainly the energy on hyperinflation during late- 1992, appear to and fuel-producing industries), and a de- be declining, both because the government crease in investments in progressive research- and the Central Bank have developed a intensive industries. greater understanding of, as well as more effective instruments for, economic manage- The out-of-date character of Russia's process- ment, and because of a growing political ing and reprocessing industries, the deterio- consensus between the legislative and execu- rating infrastructure, and lagging distribution tive branches of government on the desirabil- capabilities, cause huge losses of natural ity of price stability. Finally, while the con- resources and raw materials. Russia's forestry traction of the economy continued into 1995, sector provides a stark example of the effect there is growing evidence that the decline in of inefficient industries. The resource- output is bottoming out and that economic intensive structure of forestry, together with growth is beginning to recover (World Bank underdeveloped processing industries, causes 1995a). a huge overuse of timber. Russia's forest products sector utilizes 5-6 times more timber Effecting Socio-Economic (32 cubic meters) to produce one ton of paper Policies on Biodiversity and cardboard than other countries using modern technologies. The same situation Russia's "strict" approach to biodiversity prevails in energy and fuel production. For conservation aims to enlarge protected example, in the oil, gas, and electricity sectors territories and limit socio-economic activity in Russia requires three times more energy than border regions. This approach, tried in other Japan and Germany, and twice more than the countries, has proved neither environmen- USA. tally sound nor cost effective. Given the present economic situation, this eco-centric Ownership reform is also very important to approach will not prevent continued loss of biodiversity conservation. Russia has yet to biodiversity, and will lead to the ineffective resolve the question of how ownership of use of financial resources in investment natural resources is divided between na- strategies. tional, regional and local municipal bodies.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 37 BiodiversityConservation in the RussianFederation

Resolution of these issues will define who is employed to avoid additional aixes or receives the benefits of biodiversity conserva- penalties on production, as in the case where tion or rapid natural resource use. However, effluent discharge data and waste disposal during periods of financial and economic operations are concealed. crisis, deficits in regional and municipal budgets will result in the overuse of natural Current credit and monetary policies pro- resources even by local populations to achieve mote the continuation of antithetical environ- quick profits. mental practices. In periods of high inflation rates, commercial banks favor short-term Russia's current fiscal policies also fail to trade and financial transactions (estimated to promote environmental protection. Where be 95 percent of total bank activities in Russia taxes of enterprises are very high, the enter- today). Consequently, what might otherwise prises resort to short-term survival tactics. At be invested in resource conservation are present, more than 90 percent of enterprise invariably excluded. High discount rates also profits are taxed or charged with various discourage the financing of projects that have deductions. This, combined with the devalu- lags in their returns-a characteristic of ation of capital equipment and general projects aimed at environmental protection. economic stagnation, has resulted in over Biodiversity conservation in Russia depends 80 percent of Russian enterprises being on a balance between all of these factors, deemed unprofitable. Under such conditions, including the effectiveness of economic enterprises strive to minimize environmental reforms, their capability to meet the objec- expenditures to survive during the transition tives of sustainable development, and the period. At the same time, outright deception restructuring of the national economy.

38 EnvironmentDepartment Papers A Response The Biodiversity Conservation 5 Project for the Russian Federation

A clearly defined strategy is urgently needed The GEF is designed to finance the difference that will reconcile the current dynamism in (or "increment") between the costs of a economic and political development with the project undertaken with global environmen- restraint required to help avoid significant tal objectives in mind, and the costs of an loss of biodiversity. For an ecologically alternative project that the country would sustainable use of natural resources to occur, have implemented in the absence of global environmental concerns must be comprehen- environmental concerns. GEF projects sively incorporated into the private, public and programs are managed through three and community decision- making process. agencies, the UN Development Program, the This requires that decisionmakers understand UN Environment Program, and the World the importance of environmental objectives Bank. The GEF Secretariat, which is function- vis-a-vis other development objectives. They ally independent from the three implement- must also learn to employ the most effective ing agencies, reports to, and services, the means to attain those objectives, and the Council and Assembly of the GEF. means by which environmental concerns can be addressed in practical terms. Given these Rationale for GEF Funding appreciation's, the World Bank was success- in the Russian Federation ful in assisting the government of the Russian Federation in securing a grant from the Funding from the GEF for Russia's biodiver- Global Environmental Facility for core financ- sity conservation can be justified on the basis ing to begin the development of this needed of the global importance of the country's strategy and its implementation. Box 5.1 species diversity, on financial need, and on indicates the nature of the Global Environ- the great potential for involving the public in ment Facility and its activities. a long-range campaign to help ensure the

Box 5.1 The Global Environment Facility (GEF) The GEFprovides grants to recipientcountries for projectsand programs that protect the globalenvironment and promote sustainable economicgrowth. The GEF is striving for universal participation- currently 134 countriesare signatories.Russia officially became a memberin 1993,thereby becoming eligible to receiveGEF grant funding. The Facility,originally set up as a pilot program in 1991,was restructured and replenishedwith over US$ 2 billion in 1994,to cover the incrementalcosts of activitiesthat benefit the global environment in four focal areas. Theseareas are climatechange, biological diversity, international waters, and stratosphericozone. Ac- tivities concerningland degradation (mainlydesertification and deforestation),as they relate to the four focal areas, are also eligible for funding. Boththe FrameworkConvention on ClimateChange, and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, have designatedthe GEF as their fundingmechanism on an interim basis.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 39 BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation sustainability of biodiversity conservation protection, since this is perceived as a lower programs. Many opportunities for biodiver- priority, even if one of global significance. sity conservation will be lost without short- term GEF assistance, since institutions, Social participation. There is an urgent policies and structures take time to adapt to need to develop mechanisms to encourage changing needs and circumstances. the participation of local communities in the management of protected areas. Their Global importance of the biodiversity of the exclusion from this process has been a major Russian Federation. The vast range of factor in the protected-areas' current financial endemic and non-endemic species in Russia unsustainability. New mechanisms are represents a significant and vulnerable needed to develop educational programs, percentage of the world's total biodiversity. training, and arbitration procedures and The expanses of forest and tundra comprise a institutions, as well as to address the develop- significant portion of the world's carbon sink. ment of constructive and cooperative rela- The rapid destruction of these areas, com- tionships with indigenous peoples. bined with the high rate of tropical deforesta- tion (the tropics being the other major global The Biodiversity arboreal sink), would have a devastating Conservation Project effect on global climatic processes. Conse- quently, immediate action is required to halt The main objective of this project will be to the process of environmental destruction in assist the Russian Federation in maintaining Russia, and develop management regimes optimum levels of biodiversity in accordance that are suited to, and sustainable under, with the principles of economic and environ- current socio-economic conditions. mentally sound sustainable development. The project will assist in enhancing the Financial necessity. The freeing up of whole- protection of biodiversity, within and outside sale and consumer prices, the rise in public protected areas, in conformance with the debt, and high inflation rates are all contrib- Government's obligations under the Conven- uting to financial uncertainty in Russia and tion on Biological Diversity. Specific objec- its weak position in international markets. tives include: i) supporting the development Since 1991, imports and exports have de- of federal and regional biodiversity strategies; clined by 30 and 22 percent respectively, with ii) developing and implementing mechanisms the external balance worsened by large-scale and approaches that will mainstream biodi- GDP has declined by 40 per- versity conservation and environmental capit ala ht,e . protection into the policy-making process; iii) ctrase and sharesultbdcrase inforenforeign assessing the protected area institutional trad and sharp cubaksinfrei. ist- framework and subsequently strengthening ment and defense expenditures. Fiscal policy its effectiveness; iv) enabling the participation during the last few years has been character- ofofsalleinterested all interested stakeholders,stak lde includinginluing ized by a significant decline in budgetary aboriginal peoples and local communities, in revenues, with federal fiscal revenues declin- biodiversity conservation; and v) developing ing from 17 percent of GDP in 1992 to 11 an inter-regional demonstration of percent in 1994. Scarce resources that are inter-sectoral biodiversity conservation and available are used to address problems that environmentally sustainable natural resource are perceived to be priority issues, such as management. economic restructuring, or creating a social safety net. National financial resources are The realization of these objectives will sub- not likely to be allocated to biodiversity stantially strengthen the economic feasibility

40 EnvironmentDepartment Papers A Response- The BiodiversityConservation Project for the RussianFederation and sustainability of biodiversity conserva- the Nizhniy Novgorod region will be devel- tion within the Russian Federation. It will oped. The strategy will consist of an assess- leave behind a structure of integrated plan- ment of the extent, status and vulnerability of ning that will demonstrate the benefits of biodiversity, an inventory of current norma- combining financial policy, socio-economic tive instruments that affectbiodiversity considerations, and appropriate normative conservation, and an action plan that will and resource allocation mechanisms to ensure define remedial actions to be taken. sustainable biodiversity conservation. It should ensure the protection of numerous After the completion of the development of endangered and vulnerable species, and the strategies, significant analytical and provide a pragmatic policy strategy to ensure participatory actions will be undertaken to the protection of Lake Baikal. Finally,it mainstream environmental protection and should facilitate the integration of native biodiversity conservation into federal and peoples into protected area management. regional development policies. This will These objectiveswill be monitored according include a rigorous analysis of the economic to the Guidelinesfor Monitoring and Evaluation linkages between biodiversity conservation of GEFProjects. The key project performance and economic policy, the development of indicators relating to biological, socioeco- training programs to disseminate informa- nomic, financial, and institutional factors tion, and an assessment of potential conserva- have already been identified, and were tion funding mechanisms. In addition, a agreed with the Government. biomonitoring information system will be established to assist policy makers in taking Project Description appropriate account of biodiversity issues. The proposed project consists of three compo- nents, that include a strategic overview of The nature protection component will environmental policies, a nature protection complement the Government's federal component, and a Lake Baikal regional program for the support of natural protected component. The Ministry of Environmental areas up to the year 2000,and its current Protection and Natural Resources (MEPNR), process of reorganizing the institutions and with the participation of the Federal Forest mechanisms for nature protection. It will Service (FFS),will have overall responsibility assist in increasing the efficiency of federal for execution of the project, but will delegate management, while assuring that appropriate certain administrative functions under the management and financial functions are project to the Center for Project Preparation devolved to the regions within a modified and Implementation (CPPI) established under institutional structure. the EMP. In parallel, this component will focus on The strategic overview component will assist seven ecologically representative regions of in the strengthening of the federal and high biodiversity value, including northwest- regional biodiversity strategies already ern Russia, central European Russia, upper envisaged by the Russian Government upon and middle Volga,northern Caucasus, Lake their ratification of the Convention on Bio- Baikal,southern Siberia and the Far East. logical Diversity. It will enable the develop- Specificactivities will be initiated that will ment of a federal strategy, and will also assist systematically address training and profes- in the development of methodologies for sional development needs, extend educa- designing regional strategies. As part of the tional outreach and community participation, latter activity, a model regional strategy for consolidate coverage of vulnerable areas

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 41 BiodiversityConservation in the RussianFederation requiring protection, strengthen protection mal and formal consultation. The IUCN and and enforcement services for the protected WWF (US), the national-level Russian WWF, areas, and develop a national protected-area and the Socio-Ecological Union (SEU) of database. The GEF grant will finance consult- Russia all contributed substantively to this ants' services for the above activities, as well process, as did Baikal Wave and the Baikal as procurement of badly needed field re- Fund. The project makes provision for NGO, search and monitoring equipment, vehicles, local community, and native culture partici- computer and office equipment, and miscella- pation in all three of the project components. neous small-scale infrastructure works for The strategic overview component will make selected protected areas. an assessment of native cultures' relationship to biodiversity, and will encourage local The Lake Baikal regional component will community and native peoples' participation provide a practical regional demonstration of in the establishment of regional biodiversity inter-sectoral and administrative coordina- strategies. NGOs will be consulted in the tion in biodiversity conservation. The com- development of the Federal Biodiversity ponent presents an integrated three-pronged Strategy. As part of the nature protection program to directly address biodiversity component, NGOs will be involved in design- conservation, development, and sustainable ing educational programs, form an important economic and social welfare targets. As well, target group in the outreach programs, and three regional demonstration projects based participate in the regional associations. The on three watersheds (Table 5.1) will be simul- traditional ways of native cultures in protect- taneously implemented, with the objective of ing biodiversity will be examined, and significantly improving land and resource categories of protection will be considered management practices, as well as planning and developed to reflect the importance of and decisionmaking. At the community indigenous peoples' ways and beliefs. The level, support will be provided for biodiver- Lake Baikal component's community biodi- sity initiatives that will facilitate essential versity initiatives will involve NGOs, local applied research in biodiversity conservation, communities and native cultures, and will as well as small-scale community initiatives, include community development linked to the work of environmental non-governmental biodiversity conservation and sustainable organizations, and the activities of native development. peoples that are promoting biodiversity conservation. The GEF grant will finance Project Benefits monitoring, computer equipment and con- The benefits from this project will accrue at sultants' services for the inter-regional and the global, national, regional and local levels. regional activities, and will finance small From the global perspective, the project will grants at the community level. This compo- further stabilize and secure an effective nent will build on the considerable volume of protected-area network that would ensure the preparatory work produced by the PPA. viability and safety of some of the world's most endangered species and areas of rich Community and NGO Involvement. The biodiversity. Also, it will help safeguard the project provides for extensive involvement of vast expanses of vegetation and habitat that local communities and non-governmental contribute to a vital carbon sink. organizations (NGOs) in its implementation. The PPA has benefited from significant NGO At the national level, the project will ensure involvement, not only in the preparation of the protection of the Russian Federation's the material and program, but also in infor- biodiversity at a time of profound economic

42 Environment Department Papers A Response - The Biodiversity Conservation Project for the Russian Federation

Table 5.1 Lake Baikal Regional Component Regions Irkutsk Oblast Republic of Buryatia Chita Oblast Population 2,000 30,000 100,000 Size of area 2,710 km2 1,870 km2 26,000 km2 Geography typically hilly landscape mountain steppe region mountainoustaiga region

Central biodiversity vascular plants- 20 overall 650 species, 234 plants- 700 species, (50 (s=species) species families, birds- 45 species, rare), birds- 200 species, mammals- 30 s, 4 10 orders, mammals- 30 mammals-50species, orders species aquatic fauna- 240 species

Red Book species overall- 8 species mammals-5 s not applicable birds- 10 s (Saker falcon

Forest resources Siberian stone pine, fir, pine and Dauria larch Siberian stone pine, larch larch and spruce and birch

Main sources of atmospheric pollution, deforestation, development, pollution energy production, agriculture, mineral extraction, deforestation, atmospheric pollution deforestation, development atmospheric pollution

Indigenous Russian 75% Russian mostly Russian, populations Buryat, Evenk 20% Buryat also Buryat, Semeiskieaya

Employment % 40% employed, 40% of total population in not available 77% by forestrysector agricultural sector

Main industries FFS, local governance, agriculture (51% of total), steel mills Prebaikalsky National forestry (41% of total), Park, service industries coal

Protected areas Prebaikalsky National Altacheysky & Butungarsky & Ivano- Park and Kochergatsky Tugnuysky, Zakazniks ArakhleskyZakazniks, Zakazniks (20% of entire territory) over 100 natural monuments

Central land owners State Forest Fund, MeakorsheverskyRayon, not available local administration FFS

Areas of assistance sustainable forestry, land use planning, land use planning, in GEF project environmental monitoring program, monitoring programs, monitoring, watershed agriculture, sustainable sustainableforestry, and recreation forestry, biodiversity environmental education, management, conservation in protected institution building environmental areas, education, biodiversity environmental education conservation

Biodiversityand Conservation Series 43 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation and political change. It will strengthen the ensuring that the requisite skills are dispersed institutional, planning, and renewable re- throughout Russia. source management capacity of the Govem- ment, thereby helping to develop a viable and Finally,at the local level, it will ensure the sustainable economy. Moreover,it will de- protection of vulnerable species within the velop a funding mechanism to ensure that protected areas and, by explicitly linking the Russia is able to meet the incremental costs welfare of communities to the protection of that arise from protecting such large areas of biodiversity, help develop greater economic land and species diversity. self-sufficiencyof those communities. It will also cultivate a trained core of local officials, At a regional level, the project will not only and allow for the proactive participation of serve to protect biodiversity,but will develop local and indigenous people in resource a model for the synthesis of environmental management activities, thereby enhancing protection and sustainable development. It their ability to maintain their cultural identity will establish a training program for protected while sustaining the economicviability of area administrators and managers, thereby their customary practices.

44 Environment Department Papers Annexes Annex 1 Reports Presented for the Project Preparation Advance (PPA)l

Artiukhov, V.V.,Biodiversity Connection with Lomanov and Mosheva, Biodiversity Analysis Ecosystem Stability a nd Quantitative of the Communities of Big and Medium-Size Determination Methods Mammals of Central Russia Barinova, S.S., Approaches to the Methodology of Lysenko, I., Gap Analysis Complex EcologicalEstimates by Biodiversity Lysenko, S., Integration of Expert Estimation Factorson the Basis of Basins Data and Different Kinds of Quantitative Blagovidov, A.K., ProtectedAreas Immediate Factors on a Space-FrequencyBasis Action Plan Martynov, A., Analysis of Social and Economic , Government expenditures on Factors Influencing Biodiversity the Protected-areasystem: past, present and Medvedeva, O., Replacement cost approachin future evaluating BiologicalResources of the Mos- Bobylev, S., Impact of Economic Reforms on cow Region Biodiversity Conservation Simonov, Wells, and L. Williams, National , Seminar on Economicsof Biodiver- Biodiversity Strategy: Protected-areas sity Immediate Action Plan Economic Aspects of Biodiversity Stepanitsky, V., Improving Qualifications and Commentary on Kamennova and Personnel trainingfor Work with Specially Martynov Protected Natural Areas (SPNA) Bobylev,S. and A. Golub, Measuring the effect . Protected-areasManagement of conserving biodiversity through "indi- Workshop (Sochi): Environmental Education, rect use value": Carbon credits in Volgograd and Work with local populations in Oblast Daushev, D., Report on Financing of zapovedniks and national parks Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation Dezhkin, Methods of Evaluating the Functions of Lake Baikal Regional Component Specially ProtectedNatural Territories (SPNT), Both Existing and Designed Afonin, A.V., Natural Resources, Economic Dixon, J., Economic Case Study of El Nido, Characteristicsand Biodiversity Philippines Biks, K.A., Financing Supportfor Sustainable Doncheva, A.V., Present-Day State of Ecological Development of Baikal Region Mapping in Russia and Main Sources of Boikov, T.G. and Y.P.Gorlachova, Proposalson Information Improving Natural Resource Management Glazyrina, I., Economic Impact Assessment of Biodiversity management Gold Mining in the Chikoy River Basin Dorzhiyev, T.Z., and M.T. Itiguilova, Scientific Kamennova, I., Evaluation of "willingness Programs Involving Conservation of Biodi- to pay" and other elements of economic versity in the Baikal Region evaluation of BiologicalResources in the Glazyrina, I.P., et al., Khilok River Watershed Moscow Oblast Management Project (Chita Oblast)

46 EnvironmentDepartment Papers Annex 1 ReportsPresented for the ProjectPreparation Advance (PPA)

Korsun, O.V., Environmental Standards and Tulokhonov, A.K, et al., Sukhara-Tugnuy River their Application in the Baikal Region WatershedManagement Project (Republic of Kuzevanov, V.Y.et al., Existing Structure of Buryatia) Natural Resource Management and Preserva- tion of Biodiversity in Baikal Region Endnotes Suturin, A.N. et al., Natural ResourceManage- 1fhese documents are archived in the project ment and Conservation of Biodiversity in folder of the PPA, and can be requested Watershedof Goloustnaya River (Irkutsk from the Environment Department of The Oblast) World Bank.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 47 Annex 2 Existing and Government-Proposed Protected Areas

Table A2.1 - Existing Zapovedniks of the Russian Federation (See IBRD Map 27085 for location of parks) (Sites includedin the listfor model activities underthe natureprotection component of the proposedGEF-funded project are shaded.) Map AdmninistrativeRegion Area, Year Number Zapovednik (Oblast, unless otherwisestated) '000 ha. establ. I1 AItayskiy Altayskiy Krai 881.2 1932 2 Astrakhanskiy Astrakhanskaya 66.8 1919 3 Azas Tyva Republic 337.3 1985 4 Baikalo-Lenskiy lrkutskaya i; I 659.9 1986 5 Baikalskiy BuryatiaRepublic 165.7 1969 6 Barguzinskiy Buryatia Republic 374.4 1916 7 Bashkirskiy BashkortostanRepublic 49.6 1930 8 Bassegi Pernskaya 38.0 1982 9 BolshayaKokshaga Mariy-El Republic 21.4 1993 10 Bolshekhekhtsirskiy KhabarovskiyKrai 45.1 1963 11 Botchinskiy KhabarovskiyKrai 267.4 1994 .12 Bryanskiy Les Bryanskaya 12.2 1987 13 Bureinskiy KhabarovskiyKrai 358.4 1987 14 Chazy KhakassiaRepublic 24.1 1991 15 Chemye Zemli KalmykiaRepublic 125.0 1990 16 Daghestanskiy Daghestan Republic 19.1 1987 17 Dalnevostochnyi Primorskiy Krai 64.3 1978 18 Darvinskiy Vologodskaya 112.7 1945 19 Daurskiy Chitinskaya 44.8 1987 20 Denezhkin Kamen Sverdlovskaya 78.2 1991 21 Dzerginskiy Buryatia Republic 237.8 1992 22 Dzhugdzhurskiy KhabarovskiyKrai 806.3 1990 23 GalichyaGora Lipetskaya 0.231 1925 24 Great Arctic KrasnoyarskiyKrai 4169.2 1993 25 Ilmenskiy Chelyabinskaya 30.4 1920 26 Kabardino-Balkarskiy Kabardino-BalkariaRepublic 74.1 1976 27 KaluzhskieZaseki Kaluzhskaya 18.5 1992 28 Kandalakshskiy Murmanskaya 70.5 1932 29 Katunskiy Altayskiy Krai 150.1 1991 30 Kavkazskiy KrasnodarskiyKrai 263.3 1924

48 Environment Department Papers Annex 2 List of Existing and Govermment-Proposed Protected Areas

31 Kedrovaya Pad PrimorskiyKrai 17.9 1925 32 Keqzhenskiy Nizhegorodskaya 46.9 1993 33. Khankaiskiy PrimorskiyKrai 37.9 1990 34 Khinganskiy Amurskaya 97.8 1963 35 Khoperskiy Voronezhskaya 16.2 1935 36 Kivach Karelia Republic 10.9 1931 37 Komandorskiy Kamchatskaya 3648.7 1993 38 Komsomolskiy KhabarovskiyKrai 63.9 1963 39 Kostomukshskiy Karelia Republic 47.5 1983 40 Kronotskiy Kamchatskaya 1099.0 1934 41 kurilskiy Sakhalinskaya 65.4 1984 42 KuznetskiyAlatau Kemerovskaya 455.5 1989 43 Laplandskiy NMurmanskaya- 268.4 1930 44 Lazovskiy PrimnorskiyKrai: 120.0 1957 45 Les na Vorskle Belgorodskaya 1.0 1979 46 Magadanskiy Magadanskaya 883.8 1982 47 Malaya Sosva Tumenskaya 225.6 1976 48 Malyi Abakan KhakassiaRepublic 97.8 1993 49 Mordovskiy Mordovia Republic 32.1 1936 50 Nurgush Kirovskaya 6.0 1994 51 Nizhnesvirskiy Leningradskaya - 41.6 1980 52 Okskiy Ryazanskaya 55.7 1935 53 Olekminskiy Sakha (Yakutia)Republic 847.1 1984 54 Orenburgskiy Orenburgskaya 21.6 1989 55 Pasvik Murmanskaya 14.7 1992 56 Pechoro-Ilychskiy Komi Republic 721.3 1930 57 Pinezhskiy Arkhangelskaya 41.2 1974 58 Polistovskiy Pskovskaya 36.0 1994 59 Poronaiskiy Sakhalinskaya 56.7 1988 60 Prioksko-Terrasnyi Moskovskaya 4.9 1945 61 PryvolzhskayaLesostep Penzenskaya 8.3 1989 62 Putoranskiy KrasnoyarskiyKrai 1887.3 1988 63 Rdeiskiy Novgorodskaya, 35.9 1994 64 Sayano-Shushenskiy KrasnoyarskiyKrai 390.4 1976 65 Severo-Osetinskiy North Ossetia Republic 29.0 1967 66 ShulganTash BashkortostanRepublic 22.5 1986 67 Sikhote-Alinskiy PrimorskiyKrai 347.1 1935 68 Sokhondinskiy Chitinskaya 211.0 1973 69 Stolby KrasnoyarskiyKrai 47.2 1925 70 Taimyrskiy KrasnoyarskiyKrai 1781.9 1979

Biodiversity and Conservation Series 49 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

71 TeberdinskiyStavropolskiy Krai 85.~~~SS01936 '724 Tse' jb hrozmy urky 49 13 73 Tsentralno-Lesnoy Tverskaya 21.4 1931 74 Tsentralno-Sibirskiy KrasnoyarskiyKxai 972.0 1985 75 IJbWrangel Island Magadanskaya 795.7 1976 86 Yuganskiy Tumenskaya 622.9 1982 87 Yuzhno-Uralskiy Chelyabinskaya 254.9 1978 88 Zeyskiy Amurskaya 99.4 1963 89 V aAJasn12. Enviromnenty 1927

50 Environment DepartmentPapers Annex2 List of Existing and Government-Proposed Protected Areas

Table A2.2 Existing National Parks of the Russian Federation (SeeIBRD Map 27085for locationof parks) Sites includedin the listfor modelact ivities underthe natureprotection componentof the proposed GEF-fundedproject are shaded.

Map AdministrativeRegion Area, Year Number NationalPark (Oblast,unless otherwise stated) '000 ha. estab. 1 Bashkiria BashkortostanRepublic 83.2 1986 2 ChavashVama 'e -ChuvasRial1epubic' 25.2 1993 3 Kenoeskiy A.k-a-gelskaya 139.2 1991 4 KurshkayaKosa Kaliningradskaya 6.6 1987 5 LosinyiOstrov Moskovskaya 11.1 1983 6 MariyaChodra Mari-ElRepublic 36.6 1985 7 Meshchera Vladimnirskaya 118.8 1992 8 Meshcherskiy Ryazanskaya 103.0 1992 9 Nizhnyaya Kama Tatarstan Republic 26.1 1991 :10 Orlovskoye:Polesye Orlovskaya 4.8 1993 11 Paana-Jarva KareliaRepublic 103.3 1992 12 Pereyaslavskiy Yaroslavskaya 21.7 1988 13 Priiaikalskiy: Irkutskaya 412.7 1986 14 P11*bnusWy Kabrdino-B.karia Republic J,00.4 1986 15 Pripyshmenskie Bory Sverdlovskaya 49.0 1993 16 Russkiy Sever Vologodskaya 166.4 1992 17 Sam-arskayaLA-' - --- '128.0 1984 18 Shorskiy Kemerovskaya 418.0 1989 19 SmolenskoyePoozerie Smolenskaya 146,2 1992 20 Sochinskiy KrasnodarskiyKrai 190.0 1983 21 Taganai Chelyabinskaya 56.4 1991 22 Tunkid Buryatia Republic; 1183.6 1991 23 Valdaiskiy Novgorodskaya. 158.5 1990 24 Vodlozerskiy KareliaRepublic, 404.7 1991 Arkhangelskaya 25 YugydVa, KomiRepublic 1891.7 1992 i26 Zabaillskiy BuryatiaRepublic 269.3 1986 27 Zavidovskiy Tverskaya,Moskovskaya 125.4 1929 28 Zyuratkul Chelyabinskaya 86.8 1993

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 51 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Table A2.3 Government-Proposed Zapovedniks of the Russian Federation (See IBRD Map 27085 for location of parks)

I 1 1Planned Date for Map Area, Formal Number Proposed Zapovednik '000 ha Reservation 1 Akhtynskiy 25.0 2001-2005 2 Amurskiy 100.0 2001-2005 3 Badzhalskiy 250.0 2001-2005 4 Barabinskiy 15.0 1996-2000 5 Bastak 42.0 1994-1995 6 Bogdinsko-B askunchakskiy 54.0 1996-2000 7 Bolshezemelskiy 660.0 1994-1995 8 Bolonskiy 350.0 2001-2005 9 Dyakovskiy Les 30.0 1994-1995 10 Donguzskaya Step 8.0 1996-2000 11 Enozyorskiy Tundrovyi 300.0 1996-2000 12 Gydanskiy 1000.0 1994-1995 13 Kamsko-B akaldinskiy 200.0 1996-2000 14 Kayskiy 12.0 2001-2005 15 Khvalynskiy 10.0 2001-2005 16 Kilemarskiy 40.0 1996-2000 17 Kologrivskiy Les 60.0 1996-2000 18 Koryakskiy 1000.0 1994-1995 19 Kulundinskiy 180.0 2001-2005 20 Kumikushskiy 100.0 1996-2000 21 Kunovatskiy 807.4 1994-1995 22 Leshak-Shchelya 25.0 2001-2005 23 Nenetskiy 560.0 1994-1995 24 Nizhegorodskiy Lesostepnoy 10.0 1996-2000 25 Nizhne-Khopyorskaya 9.0 1996-2000 26 Norskiy 213.0 1994-1995 27 Omskiy 30.0 1994-1995 28 Ozero Bolshoye Toko 400.0 1996-2000 29 Pelymskiy Tuman 45.0 1996-2000 30 Podmoskovnyi 50.0 1994-1995 31 Pravdinskiy 2.4 1994-1995 32 Pribrezhnyi 800.0 2001-2005 33 Prisurskiy 19.0 1996-2000 34 Rostovskiy Stepnoy 9.5 1994-1995 35 Sadki 92.0 2001-2005 36 Selemdzhinskiy 100.0 1996-2000

52 Environment Department Papers Annex 2 List of Existing and Government-Proposed Protected Areas

37 Severo-Uralskiy 250.0 2001-2005 38 Shaitan-Tau 18.5 1994-1995 39 Shantarskiy 300.0 1994-1995 40 Stavropolskiy Lesostepnoy 19.0 1994-1995 41 Svetlinskiy 14.0 1996-2000 42 Syrdyk 30.0 1996-2000 43 Talashorskiy 60.0 1996-2000 44 Tavolzhanskiy 35.0 1996-2000 45 Tlyaratinskiy 30.0 1996-2000 46 Tsentralno-Alasnyi 500.0 2001-2005 47 Tulskie Zaseki 14.0 1994-1995 48 Tungusskiy 100.0 1996-2000 49 Udylskiy 300.0 1996-2000 50 Ufimskoye Plato 35.0 2001-2005 51 Urkinskiy 72.6 2001-2005 52 Ust-Vilyuyskiy 1016.0 2001-2005 53 Utrish 20.0 1996-2000 54 Verkhnealdanskiy 500.0 2001-2005 55 Verkhneanuyskiy 300.0 2001-2005 56 Verkhnesukpayskiy 400.0 2001-2005 57 Vilyuyskiy 500.0 2001-2005 58 Volchikhinskiy 20.0 2001-2005 59 Yaivinskiy 40.0 1996-2000 60 Yakutskiy Gornyi 500.0 2001-2005 61 Yakutskiy Severo-Zapadnyi 500.0 2001-2005 62 Yamalskiy 1000.0 1994-1995 63 Yano-Indigirskiy 1200.0 1996-2000 64 Yuzhno-Dagestanskiy 18.0 2001-2005 65 Yuzhnotayoznhyi Pikhtovyi 100.0 2001-2005 66 Zapadno-Kamchatskiy 200.0 2001-2005 67 Zavolzhskiy Lesnoy 6.0 1996-2000

Source: PPA Project Doctuments.

Biodiversity and Conservation Series 53 Annex 3 Domestic and International Financing for Environmental Conservation in the Russian Federation

At the request of the Project Preparation sity Fund. These two line-item funds provide team, responses to inquiries made about direct grants to applicants for research sources of funding were received from 46 (out projects related to environmental and biodi- of 90) zapovedniks and from 63 (out of 89) versity protection, and serve to demonstrate local Environmental Committees. In addi- the federal government's commitment to tion, the Russian Ministry of Environment these issues. and Natural Resources provided detailed information about zapovednik expenditures, Types of Programs Supported two federal biodiversity funds, and the 1993- Federal financing is spent on general support 1994 budgets for the Division of Nature of federal program administration (including Reserves and Division of Bioresources. the expenses of each Ministry, Committee or Information was received as well from the Service), support of the work of protected Federal Ecological Fund, Federal Forest areas (including salaries, maintenance, and Service and the State Committee on Fish construction), and support of local environ- Resources. These responses were compiled co mmitte, nationalsenerear into into~a generalgeea discussiondicsso, ofofdmsi domestic financial.iaca institutes,mental committees, and marine, national fishing, science and hunting research support for biodiversity conservation, includ- licensing programs. ing sources of revenue and types of expendi- tures. According to an analysis of the information received, in 1994 approximately $24.2 million Federal Level Sources of Funding was appropriated from the federal budget for biodiversity conservation. Of this amount, Federal financing for biodiversity conserva- approximately $6.9 million was allocated to tion comes chiefly from the budget of the the administration of the zapovedniks, and Russian Federation through several Minis- $10.6 million was allocated to national parks tries or agencies whose activities include management and planning. The federal Fund biodiversity protection. The most significant for Ecological Safety of Russia and Biodiver- of these include the Ministry of Environment sity Fund provided a combined $1.8 million and Natural Resources (MEPNR), the for research projects. The Federal Ecological Ministry of Agriculture and Foods, the Fund allocated $600,000 to biodiversity FederalFederal Forestry Service, and the State Coin-Com- conservation,tozpvdiplnng $15,000 of which was allocated mittee on Fish Resources. Federal financing to zapovedmk planning. also comes from the Federal Ecological Fund Sources of Funding from Subjects (which receives income from pollutant fees of the Russian Federation collected locally) and two federal budget line- item programs known as the Fund for the According to the responses received from Ecological Safety of Russia and the Biodiver- local environmental committees and

54 EnvironmentDepartment Papers Annex3 Domesticand InternationalFinancing for EnvironmentalConservation in the RussianFederation zapovedniks, $1.47 million was invested in Conclusions biodiversity conservation by 63 subjects of the Russian Federation. Extrapolating this In 1994, the proportion of Russian funding figure to those committees that did not was about 68% of all funding allocated for report, it is estimated that the total funding biodiversity conservation in the Russian for biodiversity conservation at the local level Federation. Of the total amount of Russian was about $2 million in 1994. Of this esti- money, about 90% came from the federal mated $2 million, approximately 8% came budget. Local governments and private from committees' budgets (including special financiers played a minor role. A significant programs), 82 % came from oblast ecological percentage of the private Russian contribu- funds, and 10% from other sources (local tions to funding was contributed to one budgets, ecological funds and corporate particular international organization for their donations). management of Russian programs. This trend toward funding international and Types of Programs Supported foreign organizations was reflected in the support provided by foreign sources, where Among all subjects of the Federation (oblasts, 85% of the amount donated was spent on krais, autonomous republics, St. Petersburg "joint" projects (Russian-foreign partner- and Moscow), the largest amount of money ships) or on foreign experts. This trend may dedicated to conservation at the local level is be a result of the policies of many foreign that of St. Petersburg and Moscow, where governments and foundations to fund significant funding is allocated for protection projects through their own nationals, and it and restoration of green spaces, including may indicate a higher degree of sophistica- seed and sapling purchases. tion in fund-raising and project development displayed by foreign NGO's. Scientific research and publications funded locally include studies of fish and wildlife The Far East, Baikal, Central, and Arctic populations, the conditions of rare species, regions have received strong foreign support inventory of regional flora and fauna, and the in 1994. According to the database created preparation and publication of lists of species from the information provided by interna- to be included in the regions' Red Data tional sources, the greatest levels of support Books. for biodiversity conservation were allocated to natural resource management, protected- It is worth noting that at the local level, area management, research (including the roughly equal amounts of funding were development of strategies and policies), and appropriated to national parks and zapoved- land-use planning. Development of commu- niks, although there are significantly fewer nications and support of NGO's have also national parks in the nation. This may received foreign funding. According to the indicate stronger local support for protected information provided, the amount of funding areas that can be used by the public. for biodiversity protection that will come from foreign sources (not including the GEF Regions receiving the most support include grant) in 1995-1997 is about US$15 million. the Far East (about $11.3 million), northern regions, including the Arctic (about $3.9 million), and Lake Baikal (about $3.8 million).

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 55 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

Table A3.1 Total Russian and Foreign Funding for Biodiversity Conservation

1994 Amount, Source: '000 US $

Ministry of Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources: Zapovedniks 6,888 Federal Administration 100 Local Environmental Committees 4,802 Total 11,790

Federal Forestry Service, Total 10,643

Federal programs: Fund for Ecological Safety of Russia 1,385 Biodiversity Fund 385 Russian Fund for Basic Research 24 Total 1,794 Federal Budget, total 24,227

Federal Ecological Fund 600 Subjects of the Federation 2,078 Russian Corporate Support 320

Russian Federation, Total 27,225

International Organizations World Bank 1,395 European Council 230 RAMSAR (Secretariat) 50 WWF 500 TRAFFIC 26

Foreign Governments USA 4,440 Germany 1,300 Canada 1,120 Netherlands 330 Finland 250 Norway 200 Denmark 185 Great Britain 125 Sweden 100 Foreign Foundations MacArthur 680 Trust for Mutual Understanding 260 Weeden 245 A. Jones 200 Other 820 Total Foreign Support 12,456

TOTAL 39,681

56 Environment Department Papers Annex 4 Endangered Species in the USSR (USSR Red Data Book 1985)

The IUCN system for classifying potentially territories could jeopardize them should threatened species employs seven categories. sudden changes occur in their habitats. The five primary IUCN categories, as adapted for use in the Soviet Red Data Books, *Category IV (IUCN-I). Indeterminate. are defined as follows. Species whose low numbers cause them to be of concern, but whose biology is inadequately studied to allow them to be placed into one of the first three catego- Species currently found under the threat ries. of extinction; special measures are needed to assist their survival. * Category V (IUCN-O). Out of danger. Re-established species that are increasing * Category II (IUCN-V). Vulnerable. in numbers and are not presently of Species whose numbers are low, or are concern, but that still need protection and declining at a significant rate, and that supervision. may become threatened with extinction in The other two IUCN categories, Extinct (Ex) the near future. and Insufficiently known (K), are not em- ployed by the Soviet Red Data Books. These - Category III (IUCN-R). Rare. Species categories (I-V) are used in the 1985 USSR that are not now threatened with extinc- Red Books, though they were not in the tion, but whose small numbers or limited earlier editions (Pryde, 1991, p. 189).

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 57 BiodiversityConservation in the Russian Federation

Mammals common name Scientific Name IUCN listing

Asiatic river beaver (Castor fiber pohlei) Asiatic wild dog (Cuon alpinus) Snow leopard (Panthera uncia) Anatolian leopard (Panthera pardus cisaucasia) E Amur leopard (Panthera pardus orientalis) E Turanian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata) E Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina vitulin) Baltic gray seal (Halixchoerus grupus macrorhynchu) Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) Bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) Gray whale (Eschrictius robustus) Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) V Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) E Humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae) V Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) E Spotted deer (Cervus nippon hortulorum) Mongolian gazelle (Procapra gutturosa) Goral (Naemorhedus caudatus) Markhor (Capra falconeri) E Atlai mountain sheep (Ovis ammon ammon) Transcaucasus mountain sheep (Ovis ammon gmelini) Kuzul-kum mountain sheep (Ovis ammon severtzovi) Bukhar mountain sheep (Ovis ammon bocharensis)

Endangered Birds

Short-tailed albatross (Diomeda albatrus) Japanese crested ibis (Nipponia nippon) Oriental stork (Coiconia boyciana) E Swan goose (Anser cugnoides) Crested shelduck (Tadorna cristata) Marbled teal (Anas angustirostris) Palla's sea-eagle (Haliaeetus leucoryphus) R Lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus) Lanner falcon (Falco biarmicus) Barbary falcon (Falco pelegrinoides) Red crowned crane (Grus japonensis) V Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus) V Houbara bustard (Chlamydotis undulata) Ibisbill (Ibidorhyncha struthersii) Spotted greenshank (Tringa guttifer) Slender-billed curlew (Numenius tenuirostris)

58 Environment Department Papers Annex 4 Endangered Species in the USSR (USSRRed Data Book 1985)

Relict gull (Larus relictus) Blakistone's fish-owl (Ketupa blakistoni) Scaly-bellied green woodpecker (Picus squamatus) Reed parrotbill (Paradoxornis heudi) Jankowski's bunting (Emberiza jankowskii) Baikal Tsal (Anas lormosa) V

Endangered Species of Soviet Fauna

Gray spadefoot toad (Pelobates syriacus) Mediterranean turtle (Testudo graeca) Ruinnaya agama lizard (Agama ruderata) Transcaucasus takur toad-headed lizard (Phyrnocephalus helioscopus) Spotted toad-headed lizard (Phyrnocephalus maculatus) Asia minor lizard (Lacerta parva) Big-eyed snake (Ptyas mucosus) Leopard snake (Elaphe situla) Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser sturio) Great Amu-Darya shovelfish (Pseudoscaphirhynchus kaufmani) Little Amu-Darya shovelfish (Pseudoscaphirhynchus hermanni) Syr-Darya shovelfish (Pseudoscaphirhynchus fedtschenkoi) Aral salmon (Salmo trutta aralensis) Sevan trout (Salmo ischchan) Volkhov river whitefish (Coregonus lavaretus baeiri) Giant yapiks (Heterojapyx dux - order Diplura) Steppe tolstun beetle (Braduporus multituberculatus) Emerald rosalia beetle (Rosalia coelestis) Drab morimus beetle (Morimus funereus) Delphinium cut-worm moth (Chariclea delphinii) Zegris "dawn" butterfly (Zegris eupheme) Fergana desert checkerspot (Melitaea acreina) Mottled leta moth (Zygaena lata) European pearl oyster (Margaritifera margaritifera) Gordeyeva eisenia worm (Eisenia gordejeffi)

Biodiversity and Conservation Series 59 Annex 5 Russian Maps Available for GIS Applications

1. Landscape Map of the USSR. 1:2,500,000, Moscow, 1987. 2. Landscape Map of the USSR. 1:4,000,000, Moscow, 1988. 3. Landscape Map of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). 1:8,000,000,Moscow, 1989. Compiled at the Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University (MSU). 4. Land use of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1991 5. Agricultural Regionalization of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1989 6. Channel Processes of the USSR Rivers, 1:4,000,000, 1990 7. Chemical Industry of the USSR, 1:4,000,000 8. Climatic Belts and Regions of the USSR, 1:4,000,000 (in print) 9. Cryolithological Map of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1985 10. Energy of the USSR, 1:4,000,000 11. Erosion Risk for the Lands of the European USSR, 1:2,000,000 (in print) 12. Forestry of the USSR, 1:2,500,000, 1990 13. Forests of the USSR, 1:2,500,000 (1990) 14. Geological Map of the European USSR, 1:2,000,000, 1989 15. Geological Map of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1990 16. Geomorphological Map of the European USSR, 1:2,000,000 (in print) 17. Geomorphological Map of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1989 18. Geomorphological Regionalization of the USSR, 1:8,000,000, 1985 19. Industrial Centers and Regions of the USSR, 1:4,000,000 (in print) 20. Industrial Centers and Regions of the European USSR, 1:2,000,000 (in print) 21. Map of the Neotectonics of the USSR and Adjacent Territories, 1:4,000,000, 1985 22. Natural Grazing Lands of the USSR, 1:4,000,000 (in print) 23. Nature Conservation in the USSR, 1;4,000,000, 1989 24. Physiographic Regional Subdivision of the USSR, 1:8,000,000, 1983, 1986 25. Population of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1986 26. Soil Geographical Regionalization of the USSR, 1:8,000,000, 1983, 1986 27. Soil Map of the USSR, 1:4,000,000 (in print) 28. Types of Water Balance of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1987 29. Vegetation of the European USSR, 1:2,000,000, 1987 30. Vegetation of the USSR, 1:4,000,000, 1990

60 Environment Department Papers Annex5 Listof RussianMaps Availablefor GISApplications

CATALOGUE OF ECOLOGICALMAPS

The Catalogue of Ecological Maps has been compiled using the data from GUGK Catalogues and the Synopsized Bibliography of Maps and Atlases (compiled by N.N.Komedchikov and A. A. Lyuty, Moscow, IGRAN, 1994).

USSR

31. Map of EcologicalSituations (for the Former USSR Territory), B.I.Kochurov. 1:8,000,000.Moscow, 1992. Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), Laboratory of Nature Management Problems.

32. Map of Impact Areas of Polluting Industries. A.V.Doncheva, A.V. Markovskaya. 1:8,000,000, Moscow, 1991. Department of Physical Geography and Landscape Study, Faculty of Geogra- phy, (MSU).

33. Map of Regionalization of the USSR Territory by Natural Economic Conflicts of Regional Importance. A.V.Doncheva. 1:8,000,000, Moscow, 1990. Department of Physical Geography and Landscape Study, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

34. Map of Types of Industrial Centers According to Their Technogenic Impact. M.P.Ratanova, I.M.Petrov et al. 1:5,000,000, 1:10,000,000, Moscow, 1985. MSU, Faculty of Geography, Depart- ment of Economic and Social Geography of Russia.

35. Map of Types of Natural Economic Conflicts of EcologicalImportance within Main Settled Area of the USSR Territory.A.V.Doncheva, about 1:45,000,000.

36. Remote Sensing Methodsfor Environmental Impact Assessment: Album of spaceimages and their interpretations. Compiled by V.V.Sveshnikov, Moscow, 1990.

37. Sketch Map of Ecologically-ComplicatedSituationsfor Economic Activities of Oil and Gas Construc- tion Institutions. 1:2,500,000, Moscow, 1991.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION

38. EcologicalGeographical Map of Russia. O.A.Evteev et al. 1:4,000,000. Moscow, 1991. Location :MSU, Faculty of Geography, Research Laboratory of Complex Mapping.

39. Geo-ecologicalMap of Russian Federation and Adjacent States. Compiled at GNP "Aerogeologiya" by V.N.Orlyankin, L.N.Stepanova et al. 1:4,000,000,Moscow, 1973:

40. Map of EcologicalGeomorphological Risk. G.S.Ananiev, E.L.Rubina. 1:20,000,000. In: Map of Present-Day Exogenic Geomorphological Processes of Russia. 1:7,500,000. Moscow, 1991. MSU, Department of Geomorphology, Faculty of Geography.

41. Maps of EcologicalState of Lands. Compiled by N.N.Talskaya et al. 1:8,000,000.Moscow, 1992. MSU, Faculty of Geography, Research Laboratory of Complex Mapping.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 61 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

42. Map of Impact Areas of Polluting Industries. A.V.Doncheva, A.V Markovskaya. 1:4,000,000, Moscow, 1991. MSU, Department of Physical Geography and Landscape Study, Faculty of Geography.

43. Map of Regionalizationof RussiaAccording to the Degreeof EcologicalProblems Intensity. R.S.Chalov et al. 1:8,000,000, Moscow, 1992. Institute of Geography RAN. Laboratory of Nature Management Problems.

44. Map of Soil PollutionWith HeavyMetalsfor the Territoryof RussianFederation. I.P.Gavrilova. 1: 4,000,000. Moscow. Department of Soil Geography and Landscape Geochemistry, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

45. Map of Soil PollutionWith Oil Productsand PolynuclearAromatic Hydrocarbons. A.N.Gennadiev. 1: 4,000,000. Moscow. Department of Soil Geography and Landscape Geochemistry, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

46. Map of Soil PollutionWith Pesticidesforthe Territoryof RussianFederation. I.P.Gavrilova. 1:4,000,000. Moscow. Department of Soil Geography and Landscape Geochemistry, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

47. TopologicalMap of Russia'sRegions According to Natureand Levelsof Economy'sImpact on the Environment. 1:8,000,000,Moscow, 1992. Institute of Geography RAN. Laboratory of Nature Management Problems.

REGIONS

48. Atlas of LandscapeGeochemical Mapsfor South-EasternEuropean Russia. 1:500,000. Rostov State University. Maps: Map of Geochemical Landscapes of Rostovskaya Oblast. Moscow, 1986; Map of Geochemical landscapes of Krasnodarski Krai. Moscow, 1988;

49. EcologicalGeographical Map. A.G.Isachenko. 1:4,000,000. St.-Petersburg, 1991. Research Insti- tute of Geography, St.-Petersburg University. Laboratory of Landscape Studies and Thematic Mapping.

50. EcologicalSituations in Northern Territoriesof Russia (Atlas). B.I.Kochurov, 1:4,000,000.Moscow, 1991: Institute of Geography, Laboratory of Nature Management Problems.

51. Map of EcologicalGeochemical Assessment of Present-DayState of GrazingLands in the Baksan River Basin(Central Caucasus, Kabardino-Balkarian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic). I.A.Avessalomova, 1:100,000, 1:25,000. Moscow, 1994. Department of Physical Geography and Landscape Science, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

52. Map of EcologicalSituations for CentralEuropean Russia. B.I.Kochurov. Moscow, 1993. 1:1,500,000. Laboratory of Nature Management Problems, Institute of Geography, RAS.

53. Map of Geo-ecologicalRegionalization of Cryolithic Zone. A.B.Chizhov, 1:8,000,000. Laboratory of Geological Environrment Conservation, Faculty of Geology, MSU.

62 Environment Department Papers Annex 5 List of Russian Maps Available for GISApplications

54. Map of Landscape EcologicalRegions of the Shelf Area of Kola Peninsula. N.V.Markina, 1:1,000,000, 1988.

55. Map of Land VertebratesPopulation in the Region of the Mokskaya HydroelectricPower Station Construction. A.V.Kuprina. 1:500,000, Moscow, 1993. VNII "Priroda"; Lengidroproyekt.

56. Map of Present-Day Mammalian Populations in the Alei River Basin. A.VKuprina,. 1:300,000, Moscow, 1988.

57. Map of VertebrateAnimals Habitatsfor North-Eastern Chukotka (The "Beringiya" Park). M.V.Mirutenko. 1:500,000,Moscow, 1992. Department of Animal Kingdom Protection, VNII "Priroda".

58. Map of VertebrateAnimals Habitats for the Territoryof Bukhara Goitred GazelleNursery. M. VMirutenko. 1:10,000,Moscow, 1990. VNII "Priroda",;Bukhara Nursery.

59. Map of VertebrateAnimals Habitatsfor the Site of the Mokskaya HydroelectricPower Station Con- struction. M.V.Mirutenko. 1:500,000, Moscow, 1993. VNII "Priroda"; Lengidroproyekt.

Oblasts (Administrative Units)

60. EcologicalGeochemical Atlas of Moskovskaya Oblast. S.Sokolov, 1:1,000,000.Moscow, 1994. Institute of Mineralogy and Geochemistry of Rare Elements.

61. EcologicalMap of Leningradskaya Oblast (State of the Environment). A.G.Isachenko et al. 1:500,000. Leningrad, 1990.

62. EcologicalMap of Moskovskaya Oblast. 1:500,000.Moscow, 1990.

63. EcologicalMap of Moskovskaya Oblast. Elaborated at the Center "Ecoprognoz". P.M.Khomyakov. 1:350,000. Moscow, 1993.

64. Map of EcologicalSituationsfor Amurskaya Oblast. B.I.Kochurov. 1:1,500,000.Moscow, 1993. Laboratory of Nature Management Problems, Institute of Geography, RAS.

65. Map of GeologicalEcological Studies in Moscow and Moskovskaya Oblast (Booklet). 1:1,500,000, 1:200,000. Moscow, 1992,.

66. Map of LandscapeEcological Regionalization and of EcologicalSituationsfor KrasnodarskiKrai. B.I.Kochurov. 1:500,000. Moscow, 1994. Institute of Geography, RAS.

67. Map of Present-Day State of Landscapesof Moskovskaya Oblast. I.I.Mamai, About 1:2,500,000.

68. Map of VertebrateAnimals Habitatsfor Moskovskaya Oblast. A.K.Danilenko. 1:500,000,Moscow, 1993. Department of Biogeography, MSU.

69. Map of VertebrateAnimals Habitatsfor PskovskayaOblast. M.V.Mirutenko. 1:600,000,Moscow, 1992. Department of Animal Kingdom Protection, VNII "Priroda"; Administration of Nature Conservation of Pskovskaya Oblast.

Biodiversity and Conservation Series 63 Biodiversity Conservation in the Russian Federation

MAPS FOCUSING ON "GEOGRAPHICAL SUPPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS"

70. LandscapeMap of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). T.VZvonkova. 1:8,000,000. Mos- cow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

71. Map of Potential Stability of Natural Complexesfor the Territory of Russia and Adjacent States (FormerUSSR). T.V.Zvonkova. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

72. Map of Potential Air Pollutionfor the Territoryof Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). A.V.Doncheva. 1:8,000,000 Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

73. Map of Conditions of Migration and Decomposition of Oil Products In Surface Watersfor the Terri- tory of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR) V.V.Batoyan. 1:8,000,000 Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

74. Map of Regionalization of the Territory of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR) According to Self-Purification Capabilityof Soils In Relation to TechnogenicProducts. E.M.Nikiforova. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

75. Map of Assessment of Landscape Stability DecreaseAccording to the Forecastof Natural Economic EcologicalConflicts for the Territoryof Russia. A.V.Doncheva. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1993. De- partment of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

76. Map of Recreation Territoriesof Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR) and Their Management. V.P.Chizhova. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU

77. Map of Settlement Patternfor the Territory of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). B.M.Ekkel. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

78. Map of the Level of Settlement Densityfor the Territory of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). B.M.Ekkel. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

79. Sketch Map of Industrial Development of the Territoryof Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). A.V.Doncheva. 1:8,000,000. Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

80. Sketch map of the Density of Industrial Emissions in tons/sq. km per yearfor the Territory of Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR). A.V.Doncheva. 1:8,000,000, Moscow, 1992. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

64 Environment Department Papers Annex5 Listof RussianMaps Available for GISApplications

81. Map of Evaluated EcologicalRisk of Air Pollutionfor the Territoryof Russia and Adjacent States (Former USSR) According to Urban Emissions. A.V.Doncheva. 1:8,000,000, Moscow, 1989. Department of Landscape Science and Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography, MSU.

DIGITAL MAPS

82. Map of modern state of world landscape.Author: E.V.Milanova and others. - 1:15000000.1994. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography of Russian Academy of Science (RAS).

83. Basis set of digital maps of Russia / CIS / - 1:8000000:Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

84. Administrative division of Russia. Level of administrative regionsand city councilsl 1:8000000. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

85. Initial productivity of Russia ecosystems / - 1:8000000.Author: N.I.Bazilevich. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

86. Distribution of ecologicalsituation acuteness in Russia / 1:8000000. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

87. Protected nature territories of Russia / 1:8000000. 1993. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

88. Geologicalmap of theformer USSR / 1:5000000. VSEGEI. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

89. Map of minerals of theformer USSR / 1: 5000000. VSEGEI. Center of Geoinformational Re- search of the Institute of Geography RAS.

90. Map of combustibles (fuel resources)of theformer USSR / 1: 5000000. VSEGEI. Center of Geoinformational Research of the Institute of Geography RAS.

91. Map of basins of largest river systems in Russia and theformer USSR / 1:8000000. I.G.Lysenko, S.S.Barinova, - M., 1994. VNII Priroda of Minprirody RF.

92. Linear orographicalelements, isogypses, large mountain picksfor the territory of Russia and the former CIS / 1:5000000. Eastern-European branch of Maly State Enterprise "Georesource".

93. Outlines of physico-geographicalregions according to N.A.Gvozdetskyfor territory of Russia and the former CIS /1:5000000. - M., 1992. Eastern-European branch of Maly State Enterprise "Georesource".

94. Forest map of the Amur Region, Primorskiy and KhabarovskiyTerritories I.S.Gudilin (1987) / 1:2500000. - World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Russia Program Office.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 65 Annex 6 References

Bobylev, S. N. (1995), Biodiversity Economics Workshop Papers, Russian Federation Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources. Moscow. Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD). (1993). The Lake Baikal Region in the Twenty- First Century: A Model of Sustainable Developmentor Continued Degradation? The World Bank, Washington, DC. Feschback, Murray. 1995 , Environmental and Health Atlas of Russia, PAIMS Publishing House. Moscow. Galazi, Grigori, Questions and Answers on Lake Baikal.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, The World Bank, The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). (1995). A GlobalRepresented System of Marine Protected Areas Volume I: Antarctic, Arctic, Mediterranean, Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic and Baltic. The World Bank. Washington, DC. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Guidelinesfor ProtectedArea Manage- ment Categories,Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 1994. Lampietti, Julian A and John A. Dixon. (1995). To see the Forestfor the Trees: A guide to Non-Timber ForestBenefits. ENVLW paper No. 13. Environ-ment Department. Pryde, Philip R (1991), Environmental Management in the Soviet Union, Cambridge Soviet Paper- backs, London. World Bank (1991),A Study of the Soviet Economy Volumes I, II, and III. The World Bank, Washington, DC. (1994). Staff Appraisal Report: Russian Federation Environmental Management Project. Report No. 12838-RU. Europe and Central Asia Region; Infrastructure, Energy and Envirornent Division. World Bank, Forestry Review Policy, . (1995a). Memorandum of the President of the International Bankfor Reconstruction and Devel- opment to the Executive Directors on a Country Assistance Strategy of the World Bank Groupfor the Russian Federation. Europe and Central Asia Department. . (1995b). Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Development: A World Bank Assistance Strategyfor Implementing the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. ENVLW paper no. 029. Environment Department.

66 EnvironmentDepartment Papers Annex 6 References

. (1995c). Russian Federation TowardsMedium-Term Viability. Report No. 14472-RU. Coun- try Operations Division, Country Departments and Europe and Central Asia Region . (1996), Russian Federation Biodiversity Conservation Project Document. Report No. 15064- RU. Europe and Central Asia Region. World Resources Institute. (1995). World Resources 1994-95:A guide to the Global Environment. Chapter 7: Forests. Oxford University Press. New York. World Wide Fund for Nature. (1995). WWF List of Approved Projects Volume 2: Europe/MiddleEast pp. 2134-2162. World Wide Fund for Nature. Switzerland.

Biodiversityand ConservationSeries 67 sdvFV lBRD 27085

" RUSSIAN FEDERATION UNITERSTATES OOF AERCAMERICA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NIEDSTTE BIODIVERSITYCONSERVATION PROJECT ~~;~~~'~~~< ~~VEGETATION~~~~t TYPESAND PROTECTEDAREAS VEGETATIONTYPES ~ ...... SOUTHERFELIMIT OF PERMAFROST I ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~YARCTIC/AtIPINE AND TUNDRA SR SOUTHERN SOUNTARY OF PROTECTED 1 I-P-T TE.DRA FETUNDRARE-I-- FORESTS PROTECTEDAREAS, (NUMBERS CORR ESPOND TO ANNEX 1.1I5SF ARI FORTES (TAIGA) FORESTS ~~~~~~~OPSTAFF APPRAISAL REORT) -- STB-BOREAL IMEILEDI FORESTS A MODEI SITUS FOR NATURE FEOTECTIO CIIIS UNITED ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(EROAD) LEAFI FORESTS ~ ~~~~TEMPERALEEXISTING DAPOTEENIKS KINGDOM -- LISTINGX F.ATION,AL NATURE FARES - 0ISOTER EXISTING TAPOTEDNIRS STEPPE AUfA7 DESERT ~~~~~~OLDERERISTING NATIONAL NATURE PARKS A"M - DESERT ~~~~~~~~GOVERNMENTPROFOSED ZAOEORDNEIKS / L WETLANDS

0 SELEECTEDTOWNS AND CITIES NOC)RWAY * NATIONALECAPITALUE: - Mi ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4x. T~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ITERS INTERNATIONAL EOUNDARIES 5/ - NETTERLSNDS- -- SW EDEFN

5 GERMANY - IL N , .14> >- ~ ~ AF Rc00 000 L'F.IN C ~~~fl A VRUSSIAN½ ~ FE.ESTOPA N a- 1 j XTVIA? 4. A \ 1 ¼

E POLAND DRASj s OFR-F?As--/ I *n¼' ->< ->- ,C TD C

BELARU ARSS' ~ 4 i i

!IUNGARY~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~> ARDd V .-2X'~~~A~ -'fJ'~~~"'A'

,~~~~~~~lI' i K~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y N .kholh-, K .. k' x~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - \-, 1fr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&-~~~ 5 0 ,5DREEX . 'Ax on 0 L~~~~~~~Zt'S , -~~~~"I KI ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VI 0 0 --- On 43 ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TURKEY~~~~~~ KAZAKSTAN £3 OOFTR -~~~~~~~E - *<~~~~i~~ CHINA~ ARMEFI0 k 00A-Ek A0 0 '-~~~qM '05 IIoyokD :%Wh '',~-0->5JAPAN 'C~ I- ~ O2~~~~~ OR.('ffAiS lS T;U DDSUIE SLMIRP ______'s -3DP 3d, OF STRANOFIUUNJ 4 41 0 N Lg A ~~ARAR - S REP SAZEREAIJAN) U 200 ADD EDT EDTf K EOMFTLI) OE ('oT6 hi UTEITN -- -c~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ALR U 6NC . USIA FDEATO

5WEDENBAE N HSIGAHIA ZNN

POLAND~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~- RAI RA RRPBICOJDRE

--. J, ~BELARUS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -2- UTNMOSOBAT,ORU ,-C

UKRA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-NRONAIS ~ -C

NOTURKEY.-INENTONLBUDAIS-- C--

A - I I I C..CCCNC CG ...... I - A-- - t

CC-CO E i'~ SWEDEN -'i"

CCC'-C ~FINLAND~ h

*C 0 POLAND

*i / BRELARUS C~~OCLN

C H I N A~~~~~~~~~~C T LJ R K E Y ~

,C&>~~~~UKRANLl.{> C-C -C-C CI. 0 5 A.j>~~~~~~ c-~~~~~~~~-- ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S-C~0 IBRD27086R RUSSIANTT FEDERATION UNITESDSTATES OF AMERICA FORESTPOLICY REVIEW 7_0+w!D'u5'l42°e°nw'ZlPd8nL FORESTTYPES AND PROTECTEDAREAS FOREST TYPES SEOlJTH,ERNLIMIT OF PERMAFROST ' W a

bourd-, j FORESTTUNDRA EXISTING SOUTHERN ROUNSARY OF A A AtNORTHYERNPROTECTED ZONE I EG~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BREAt(SPRUCE & PFIR BOREAL ILARCHI PROPOSE SOUERN ROUNDARY OFE BOREAL (LARCHi NORTHERN PROTECTED ZONE .W 1'l Y" A* ;NTf

UNITED BO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3ROEAL & SUE BOREAL IPINEI PROELCEEDAREAS.U

KINGDOM SUE ROREAI JMIRXE FORESTS) ZAPOTYEAEATK KINGDOM. TEMPERATE IHROADLEAF) W NATIONAL NATURE PARKS METS FOREST-STEPPEF- SSELECTED TOWNS AND CITIES 4 - T$.'I MARSH ® EAEIONAL CAPITAL R H

ERNONFORESTED AREAS RIVERS ' O

NORWAY M_UTTNS AREAS - RONSARIE= 6 ~INTERNATIONAT*

ETHERLANDS-YTEYLANDS /" S f . -iA;w0ENAR ;,SWEDEN i , w P, Y A ;4\i' %wt'4)l--

( j i. - _-/g&MUlrmRRSk '/4= A 0 , '. i 1' Ea GERMANY KosookFnJ- IE 4 2 wL -ERMANY F I N L A N D *#4L i i' wF' / r ' A

1 ',/4 RUSSIAN - -, - I " ,,. .ESTONIA a y F \ \o kEV ) ETOI pL ,,, ,- OpgoQ ; a --- '.;.ii r 5!pe elni91Pdr~ 5 jl- ',Ul,l',y!E-' v ,v -so;zS.

POLAND .<;HAI "C PeIrH / AnkhongslUojds A,t R , |;O5

ABELARUS

P Lo,o j 0 wutr . no.Aor,

Zn-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

L, /M19rA04j .- r a;A>A N¢ D4>liiibsij 0WE , f ±_- $t 1 ,,8 ~~,, /, ~,-( - 'Bhh e! ; 'i.,ii 1- LITHUANov: s k O *J L ossIY T - f "' U / '' - v 7' AN po;'F, K Ur,1k, *Mostow 0AA.-e N*.I.~~~~~~~~~~~~b,Wo,k

oI )-~~~~~ no v l } BEE HU, N 996U'U

MaInS YE"''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~%'Y4 R*,. g , * . > r^ r ni,; :i;;:j'Epomn'; I ' / U'T //' k.L1 lns S vfo T U R K E Y :x zO ¢;y SEiide ef Aiv%zder:^l Wr jzs si S j jjr *4 l / e N, * A e, . VTU."A'U (. %, / "j C H I N A , -

RHO KIZEEKISTAN / / KOREA~~~~~~~~~~~0 'PA JCOE U EBRD27290

RUSS I AN FEDERATION LAKE BAIKAL REGIONAL COMPONENT MJREOYTM MAJOR ECOSYSTEMSAND PROTECTEDAREAS ~ ALPINE, SLEALPINE, AND OPEN TAIGA WOODLAND MOUNTAIN-TAIGA DARK CON FERROUS(FiR-KEDRA) MOUNTAINTAIGA LARCH SUBTAIGAAND FOREST-STEPPELARCH

0 I NIt , P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SUBTAIGAAND FOREST-STEPPEPINE

A0. /z4 STEPPE p 7 v) ~~~~~~~~~~~~So- PROTECTEDAND NATURALAREAS r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~SI/ R CTRESERVES (ZAPOVEDNIKS) I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NATIONALPARKS

,., 5 / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GAMEREFUGES(ZAKAZNIKS) RK, LAKEPROTECTION ZONE

-~~~~~~ K -~~~~~~~~~~~~ A - ~~~~~~~~~~LAKEBAIKALCATCHMENT AREA .3 1' 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SELECTEDC TIES p - I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~REPUBLIC/OBLASTCAPTALS f'I >1. * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NATIONALCAPITAL 1 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RIVERS

T~~~F p-~~~~~~ 5 ~~~~'~~~T-C/ / ~~~~~~~~~AUTONOMOUSII' OKRUGSAND OBLASTS N < ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~REPUBLICSAND OBLASTS y0 -OI.' p ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INTERNATIONALBOUNDARIES

1/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ / 5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~50) 105 5 200 KILOMETERS Ar 9oIIB<,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ / j

<1 ko,k~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BsS o.s oor o0oll Il oEIoororr

52' rlrorro oo ro/roropdo rooTPorply oor rho pro-roEGo f~ WooMEODOoIp,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Th 52-~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~hopI,90f hl- 0Isso ~il,l.prrro o ooOy h rfyooosmn-d8kGp -oooojrooP- Ehooooo.l - tl,'-

0,7/' AT "'o-"T9 ~ p BoB.y-

M-c..~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 N NSA fl~~~~~oP troo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~krT3Eozorok AN ArRc,9SE- D ERATIo C)

ZoordTrly0 o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B';K( A~~~IHjK({ NORPVAZ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CIN 102~~~11, 1 06 1 O' 112, -IA~'o- K.-,-M-ONGOLA1 IBRD27268 100 iFS" 10' 106 '108 l1w0 112' 114I

R{ U SS I A N FE D E RA TI O N ( - ' l'. r o f ) OFTY ANTHROPOGENIC PE INFLUENCE: -- "'~~~~~~~~~~"'-""~~~~~~~~~-- F'IZJ~~~~~~~~~~~~AGRICULTURE LAKE BAIKAL REGIONAL COMPONENT - FORESTRYAND HUNTING LAND USEAND MODELWATERSHEDS f I RECREATION

':7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PROTECTEDAND NATURALAREAS:

"-K ws < a. ' < -STRICT RESERVES(ZAPOVEDNIKS) St F SQ/ So' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NATIONALPARKS '1'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i - )6 _I s ; , N_~h~got,ksoj -- ,X 501,FFs,h 9 ( W GAMEREFUGES= (ZAKAZNIKS)' 1 1 / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"''~~~~~~~~~~~LAKEPROTECTION ZONR

is i , 0 S-tiXCLAKE: BAIKAL o CATCHMENT AREA

I I > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MODELPROJECTAREAS: , J & K('R U T S K '' -OLOUSTNAYA G RIVERWATERSHED (IRKUTSK OBLAST) IT _ , $ (( | d i ' '0 I p # 3' , 3 TUGNUY-SUKHARA RIVERSWATERSHED (BURYATIA) I--)M -1K"ar ~ ,> _/I )2I/ /a F' q ---1' , KHILOK RIVERWATERSHED CHITA OBLAST) o ~~~~~SELECTEDCITIES A- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~/ *~0REPUELIC/OELAST CAPITALS k4 , r^ I , i a, , z 5/ | NATIONALCAPITAL 5' 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ROADS I ~~~~~~~~~~,/ '-'-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RAILROADS '~~~~ / '~~~~~~ ),~~~~~~p \/QJ,~~~~~~~~~thrg0zln K -' RIVERS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IVR F F ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -'- ~~~~~~~~~~~AUTONOMOUSOQKRUGS AND OELASTS

Chonkl... U ST / -- REPUBLICSAND OBLASTS ORDYN KIY , 7 B Ur - Y A T L/ A TRATIONAL ONDARIES

.Ft r / - r ^ i a / .0 4?' / \ , ' j ,; R l)50 S S IA~o N":1 F5A15 C LOMETERS

52- ,heo- fnhio.. do -ot ;npl, 0 P."E Tol WorldBonE On-P, 0 0 glz o ertr noyedro,n ugeto :he 0 0 0 t t <~~07>11ny / ; +8h ':' t f ' 0fj0j'0''0 0'; j; '0\

!vA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U (AQ)llN 5KIY NEA rI ~~\BURYVAT-o'- Ir%tsk~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ETME199

50- E,at 8 o - 50 -,;- " •~~~~~~~~~~-"~~~~~K ~~~~~~~~~~~~t0O ~~~~~~~~-'~~~~~_ - '> C H ~ , ~ A~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~I R,T 0N -

M ~'0 N

MON GO '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MNOIACHIN

1':': 100 108 Ii '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"-1y''~~~~~~~ S'k~~~~~MONGOLIA I SEPTEMEER1995~~~~~~~~~~EPEMRR99 IBRD 27289 155, 102' 104A, 106' 10CR ]]V'12 1I OVER 100 .25-10 POPULATION OF MAIN ECONOMIC CENTERS >~~~~' ~~~~ VOER~~~~1-1 (IN THOUSANDS) RUSSIAN FEDERATION fECONOMY SECTORSO WITHMAIN LAKE BAIKAL REGIONAL COMPONENT INFLUENCEON BLODIVERSITYM NEAT-POWERH INDUSTRY INDUSTRIALIMPACT AND POPULATION FERROUSMETAL INDUSTRY

0 50 1 00 150 200 KILOMETERS '- PULP AND PAPERINDUSTRY i 55 100 IS, 200 KILOMETERS "" ,5' MECHANICAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRY

".MINING AND BUILDINGMATERIALS INDUSTRY

TV 0" II IUI 0 I R '~ U T, S6' FOOD INDUSTRY

VOVIS)'V') I -rX>,(S.¢g.E",,x,

'H' v N i II ) // *h a A P~THEIAR A- -ATMOSPHERE '5 < ft '~''> ~ R - HYDROSPHERE 1 C ~~~~~~~~~C-LITHOSPHERE Jo / ~~~~~R ~~~~~~IK U T S K' IMPACTPARAMETERS:

~~~'7 ) EMISSIONS, SEWAGE,SWAE DSUREDSTSRREE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~EMSIOS' C MISS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~WYHECTARES / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ARGEOVER 10 OVER 50 OVER 100 , MIDD,P L1-D 1-50 10-1D0 / "- I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SMALL LESSES TATHAH I1 LESLESS SHAH HA 1 LSSTHNLESSTHAN 12~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MAL ~~~~14'" ,T'o ;0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PROTECTEDAND NATURAL AREAS:

sho mon.hismapHonotimpSy,, on PheporrofThV/orWEo _ I STRICTRESERVES BZAPOVEDNIKS)

02'9 s" L,' NATIONAL PARKS -""---' **~REFUGES "'~ V ~GAME (ZAKAZNIKS) k sr.../ LAKEPROTECTION ZONE O RDYN Kl / ' -S U'R Y A T A A -- 'LAKE BAIKALCATCHMENT AREA OSY ILINAES 7 ~~~~~~~~~~tWSAN 4/ -'9, - f f 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?SELECTEDV CITIES 1~~~~- 3 ' /7' 7/9 -. 4 y

4 ---- "'-' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~RIVERS AUTONOMOUS OKRUGS AND OBLASTS

~~'~ ~~""Y~~R~~~"~~' ~ A' Selen5insk~~~~~~~Z. gro- M.g"- REPUBLICSAND OBLASTS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES CEM

~~' 1,,B.-01 TTi"',,V - . Zb k KIkA 'ER

N G 0 L I Aj R~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JdSSIAINF'DLRA)ION MO N G O LIA / ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~ A-~(~

OVOCVLodOIEpYOSpEIIAWEZSOGCpSKAZAKHSTAN /)

102' 1504 ]VV' 105' 12IS' MAONGOLIA ,I

SEPTEMBER 1995 EnvironmentDepartment TheWorld Bank 1.818H.Street, N.W. Washington;D.C. 20433 202 473 3641 2-02477 0565 FAx

.~~~~~~~~~~yPrinted on 100%post-consumer recycled paper per.