DOCSLIB.ORG

Russian Federation - Support to the National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UNEP/GEF Project “Russian Federation - Support to the National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment” 5th Steering Committee Meeting 24-25 March 2011 UN Building, 9 Leontyevskiy Lane, Moscow Report On the Fifth Meeting of the Project Steering Committee ______________________________________________ Prepared by: the Project Office Status: approved 1 Table of Annexes Annex I List of Participants Annex II Revised Agenda of the Meeting Annex III Summary of the Project Implementation versus the bench marks stipulated in the original Project Document and supplemented by the Project Steering Committee Annex IV Main results of pre-investment studies in the Russian Arctic Annex V Report on Environmental protection System Component Implementation Annex VI Main results of demo and pilot projects implemented on the NPA-Arctic Project life time 2 Report On the Fifth Meeting of the Project Steering Committee Introduction The 5th meeting of the Steering Committee (StC) for the UNEP/GEF Project “Russian Federation - Support to the National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment” was convened on 24-25 March 2011 in the UN Building in Moscow, Russian Federation. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Boris Morgunov, the Assistant to the Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the representative of the Project Executing Agency. The meeting started at 10.00 on March 24, 2011. The list of participants is presented in Annex I of this report. AGENDA ITEM 1: OPENING OF THE MEETING AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The Chairman welcomed participants and informed the StC members that this meeting would be the final meeting of the StC for the UNEP/GEF RF NPA-Arctic Project. He invited Dr. Ampai Harakunarak and Mr. Takehiro Nakamura to speak on behalf of UNEP, the Project Implementing Agency. Taking a brief opportunity to benefit from the participation of Mr. Nakamura, the Chairman proposed that the Project exit strategies and transition to the Arctic Agenda 2020 Programme be reviewed and discussed on the first day of the meeting, allowing details to be further discussed on the second day of the meeting. The StC meeting approved the proposed revisions and adopted the new agenda as attached in Annex II of this report. AGENDA ITEM 2: PROJECT EXIT STRATEGIES AND TRANSITION TO THE ARCTIC AGENDA 2020 PROGRAMME The StC reviewed and discussed the development of project exit strategies. It was agreed that the strategies would specify actions and steps for continued improvement of the Russian Arctic environment, after the predetermined objectives of the UNEP/GEF RF NPA Arctic have been achieved, through the results of each project component and the established partnership and cooperative mechanisms. It was advised that the strategies should not overtly identify the plan for applying new GEF funds, but rather propose areas of future work with potential funding sources – as a basis for the Arctic Program development. The meeting acknowledged the GEF fund used to implement the project activities and agreed that some remaining/unutilized project budget (estimated at $25,000) would be used to hire a consultant to develop the strategies. The StC acknowledged a suggestion to transfer the remaining amount of GEF fund to UNEP account after the project is financially closed. A special attention was given to the 3 coordination mechanism(s) required under the Arctic Agenda 2020 Programme with an involvement of various GEF Agencies and Russian Executing Agencies. The meeting also discussed the following points: The Chairman noted that the Project should be completed on May 31, 2011 and all activities of the Project Office (PO) would also be terminated after this date. He also requested that the StC members make decision on follow-up steps including the use of remaining Project funds, “Arctic Agenda 2020” programme preparation and its coordination, project website maintenance, and other relevant matters. The Chairman informed the StC members that the draft Arctic Agenda 2020 Programme conceptual design would be revised taking into consideration comments received from the two meetings and submitted for GEF SEC review by mid April. This document will be also discussed at the Interagency Working Group meeting in mid April. He further welcomed UNEP’s advice and support in developing the Arctic Agenda 2020 including ideas on a coordination mechanism for the programme development and implementation. The UNEP representative noted that the NPA-Arctic project completed all component activities successfully. Both Project managerial structures – Project Steering Committee (STC) and Interagency Working Group performed successfully and the administrative experience gained could be replicated in the new “Arctic Agenda 2020”. It was also emphasised that the “Arctic Agenda 2020” Programme could be seen as an organic output of the NPA-Arctic Project. UNEP’s expertise and contribution during the project implementation as well as the transition period (particularly from now to November 2011) was recognized and continuous support in developing exit strategies for the NPA-Arctic Project was encouraged. UNEP would support the Russian Federation in preparing 2-3 PIFs under the “Arctic Agenda 2020,” as well as other technical backup or program approach (PA) coordination as requested. It was recommended that Project 1 (SAP-Arctic Implementation) under the Arctic Agenda 2020 could establish an integrated programme oversight and monitoring structure that involve all partners and stakeholders. The US EPA representative highlighted excellent implementation of the UNEP/GEF NPA-Arctic Project and recommended the programme coordination structures built on the existing ones (i.e., StC, IAWG, networks of partnership among ministries/agencies and regions). She also emphasized the importance of the Russian Prime Minister’s recent pledge to earmark 740 million RUB (US$ 25 million) for cleanups on the Franz Josef Land Archipelago in 2011 and 2012, which was resulted from the NPA-Arctic demo project. US EPA expressed a strong support to the development of the project exit strategies and the preparation of the “Arctic Agenda 2020” Programme that stemmed from the NPA-Arctic Project and would be a great platform for the new 4 environmental approach and utilization of the green technology in the Russian Arctic. She also supported the proposed idea to allocate remaining unspent project funds for preparation of the project exit strategies and pointed out that existing project managerial structure could be very useful in the Programme preparatory stage and for the future Programme administration. Some opportunities were identified for technical and financial support on capacity development during the transition period and beyond (e.g., training and/or meetings in US on environmental management and clean-up technologies, including an exchange of knowledge and experience in managing the ‘Superfund’ model). It was also informed that at least 18 months would be required for new US grant development. She also suggested that the NPA-Arctic Project need more publicity of its results in mass media and in power structures. NEFCO gave strong support to the development of NPA-Arctic Project exit strategies, as well as the PA process. The institution, however, expressed a couple of concern including on sustainability of the demo and pilot projects which were successfully implemented under the UNEP/GEF NPA-Arctic Project as well as on the establishment of coordination mechanisms with activity under Barents Euro/Arctic Council, EU Northern Dimension and Arctic Council. It was suggested that, through NEFCO’s mandates and work plans, future work under the Arctic Agenda 2020 could utilize the existing forums and facilities for dealing with ‘hot spots’ and bridging other activities. Mr. Chairman requested that NEFCO identify and advise potential support to specific projects/activities of interest under the Arctic Agenda 2020. One opportunity has been identified as the Russian Executing Agency of Barents EuroArctic Council, which will be set up this May under the Barents Hot Spots Facility (BHSF) <http://www.nefco.org/financing/BHSF>, which is managed by NEFCO on behalf of the Governments of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, involving a grant of up to 70,000 Euros per project. The purpose of the BHSF is to promote project development at the ‘hot spots’ in the Russian Barents Region that were defined in a report by NEFCO in collaboration with the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) in 2003. The representative of GEF Secretariat noted successful implementation of the NPA- Arctic Project and emphasised that, from GEF Secretary point of view, it is very important to recognize such an achievement when GEF project generated further development as in case of the NPA-Arctic Project. It was advised that the next task is to sustain the Project results by asking how project results can be utilised. He further encouraged that the RF and its partners should work out the way for sustaining the project results. It was also emphasized that the NPA-Arctic Project had established very important and sustainable basis for the next step through development of the Arctic Agenda 2020 Programme; and that Russian priorities identified during NPA-Arctic Project should be taken into account in project exit strategies. He urged the StC to ensure that the proposed programme structure would provide a congregated result through an adequate and effective flow of information.
Recommended publications
  • Russia's Nuclear Security Policy

    Russia's Nuclear Security Policy

    Innovative approaches to peace and security from the Stanley Foundation POLICYANALYSISBRIEF THE STANLEY FOUNDATION | MAY 2015 Russia’s Nuclear Security Policy: Priorities and Potential Areas for Cooperation The crisis over Ukraine has led to a drastic reduction in regular official Russian-US contacts in most areas, including those where it is in the two countries’ mutual national security interests to work together. Bilateral cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security has been among the affected areas. The United States has suspended contacts with Russia in the framework of the G-8 and in the Russian-US Bilateral Presidential Commission’s Nuclear Energy and Nuclear Security Working Group. Implementation of the September 2013 agreement on Cooperation in Nuclear- and Energy- Related Scientific Research and Development (R&D Agreement), which Anton Khlopkov prioritizes joint efforts on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear security, has also been put on hold, and exchanges between nuclear scientists of the two Author countries have been frozen. In turn, Russia has decided not to take part in Anton Khlopkov1 is director of the preparations for the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit. Moscow also notified Moscow-based Center for Energy and Washington that most of the joint nuclear security projects in Russia would Security Studies and editor in chief of the not be extended beyond December 31, 2014. journal Nuclear Club. He is a member of the Advisory Board under the Security This trend is a serious cause for concern, given that Russia and the United Council of the Russian Federation and States, which are depositaries of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of chairman of the Moscow Nonproliferation Nuclear Weapons (NPT), bear special responsibility for maintaining the Conference.
  • Doing Business in Russia EY Sadovnicheskaya Nab., 77, Bld

    Doing Business in Russia EY Sadovnicheskaya Nab., 77, Bld

    Doing business in Russia EY Sadovnicheskaya nab., 77, bld. 1 115035, Moscow, Russia Paveletskaya Pl., 2, bld. 2 115054, Moscow, Russia Tel: +7 (495) 755 9700 Fax: +7 (495) 755 9701 2 Doing business in Russia Introduction This guide has been prepared by EY Russia to give the potential investor an insight into Russia and its economy and tax system, provide an overview of forms of business and accounting rules and answer questions that frequently arise for foreign businesses. Russia is a fast-developing country and is committed to improving the investment climate and developing a better legal environment for doing business. On the one hand, this makes doing business in Russia an attractive prospect; on the other, it can make for difficult decisions both when starting a business and further down the line. EY provides assurance, tax, legal, strategy, transactions and consulting services in 150 countries and employs over 300,000 professionals across the globe1, including more than 3,500 employees in 9 offices in Russia. EY possesses extensive, in-depth knowledge of Russian realities and is always ready to come to the assistance of first-time and experienced investors alike. This guide contains information current as at March 2021 (except where a later date is specified). You can find more information about doing business in Russia as well as up-to-date information on developments in its legal and tax environment on our website: www.ey.com/ru. 1 Who we are – Builders of a better working world | EY — Global Doing business in Russia 1 2 Doing business
  • Russia in Figures. 2017: Statistical Handbook/Rosstat - M., 2017 - 511 P

    Russia in Figures. 2017: Statistical Handbook/Rosstat - M., 2017 - 511 P

    FEDERAL STATE STATISTICS SERVICE (Rosstat) RUSSIA IN FIGURES 2017 STATISTICAL HANDBOOK Moscow 2017 UDK 31(470) Editorial Board: A. Surinov - Chairman of the Editorial Board E. Baranov, N. Bugakova, M. Gelvanovsky, L. Gokhberg, S. Egorenko, V. Elizarov, V. Zhitkov, Yu. Ivanov, A. Kevesh, A. Kosarev, K. Laikam, I. Masakova, V. Nesterov, G. Oksenoit, O. Rybak, B. Ryabushkin, A. Tatarinov, A. Khoroshilov Russia in Figures. 2017: Statistical Handbook/Rosstat - M., 2017 - 511 p. ISBN 978-5-89476-436-8 The handbook contains information on the social and eco- nomic situation of Russia in 2016 as compared with the previous years. It presents data characterizing the state structure of the Russian Federation, production and use of the Gross Domestic Product. Information is published on the population, its employ- ment and money incomes. The handbook highlights problems of social field, results of R&D work and innovation activities, fin- ances, investments, prices and tariffs. Some materials are dedi- cated to situation in organizations of different economic activi- ties. Reflected are the external economic activities of the Rus- sian Federation. Selected international comparisons are also given. The handbook is intended for managerial personnel, man- agers and employees of enterprises and organizations, scientif- ic, entrepreneurial and banking circles, professors and lecturers, under-graduate and post-graduate students of higher economic education institutions and other users. UDK 31(470) ISBN 978-5-89476-436-8 Federal State Statistics Service, 2017 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.gks.ru PREFACE The concise statistical handbook comprises main indicators cha- racterizing socio-economic situation of Russia in 2016 as compared with a number of previous years.
  • Murmansk, Russia Yu.A.Shustov

    Murmansk, Russia Yu.A.Shustov

    the Exploration,of SALMON RIVERS OF THE KOLA PENINSULA. REPRODUCTIVE POTENTIAL AND STOCK STATUS OF THE ATLANTIC SALMON , FROM THE KOLA RIVER by A.V.Zubchenko The Knipovich'Polar Research Institute ofMarine Fisheries and • Oceanography (PINRO), Murmansk, Russia Yu.A.Shustov Biological Institute of the Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Science, Petrozavodsk, Russia A.E.Bakulina Murmansk Regional Directorate of Fish Conservation and Enhancement, Murmansk, Russia INTRODUCTION The paper presented keeps the series of papers on reproductive • potential and stock status of salmon from the rivers of the Kola 'Peninsula (Zubchenko, Kuzmin, 1993; Zubchenko, 1994). Salmon rivers of this area have been affected by significant fishing pressure for a long time, and, undoubtedly, these data are of great importance for assessment of optimum abundance of spawners, necessary for spawning grounds, for estimating the exploitation rate of the stock, the optimum abundance of released farmed juveniles and for other calculations. At the same time, despite the numerous papers, the problem of the stock status of salmon from the Kola River was discussed'long aga (Azbelev, 1960), but there are no data on the reproductive potential of this river in literature. ' The Kola River is one of the most important fishing rivers of Russia. It flows out of the Kolozero Lake, situated almost in the central part of the Kola Peninsula,and falls into the Kola Bay of the Barents Sea. Locating in the hollow of the transversal break, along the line of the Imandra Lake-the Kola Bay, its basin borders on the water removing of the Imandra Lake in the south, ..
  • Moscow Defense Brief Your Professional Guide Inside # 2, 2011

    Moscow Defense Brief Your Professional Guide Inside # 2, 2011

    Moscow Defense Brief Your Professional Guide Inside # 2, 2011 Troubled Waters CONTENTS Defense Industries #2 (24), 2011 Medium-term Prospects for MiG Corporation PUBLISHER After Interim MMRCA Competition Results 2 Centre for Russian Helicopter Industry: Up and Away 4 Analysis of Strategies and Technologies Arms Trade CAST Director & Publisher Exports of Russian Fighter Jets in 1999-2010 8 Ruslan Pukhov Editor-in-Chief Mikhail Barabanov International Relations Advisory Editors Georgian Lesson for Libya 13 Konstantin Makienko Alexey Pokolyavin Researchers Global Security Ruslan Aliev Polina Temerina Missile Defense: Old Problem, No New Solution 15 Dmitry Vasiliev Editorial Office Armed Forces 3 Tverskaya-Yamskaya, 24, office 5, Moscow, Russia 125047 Reform of the Russian Navy in 2008-2011 18 phone: +7 499 251 9069 fax: +7 495 775 0418 http://www.mdb.cast.ru/ Facts & Figures To subscribe, contact Incidents Involving Russian Submarines in 1992-2010 23 phone: +7 499 251 9069 or e-mail: [email protected] 28 Moscow Defense Brief is published by the Centre for Analysis of Strategies Our Authors and Technologies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording or otherwise, without reference to Moscow Defense Brief. Please note that, while the Publisher has taken all reasonable care in the compilation of this publication, the Publisher cannot accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in this publication or for any loss arising therefrom. Authors’ opinions do not necessary reflect those of the Publisher or Editor Translated by: Ivan Khokhotva Computer design & pre-press: B2B design bureau Zebra www.zebra-group.ru Cover Photo: K-433 Svyatoy Georgiy Pobedonosets (Project 667BDR) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine at the Russian Pacific Fleet base in Vilyuchinsk, February 25, 2011.
  • The Industrial North.Pdf

    The Industrial North.Pdf

    RISK AND SAFETY INDUSTRIAL NORTH NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES AND ENVIRONMENT Risk and Safety Industrial North Nuclear Technologies and Environment Moscow 2004 The Industrial North. Nuclear Technologies and Environment. — Moscow, «Komtechprint» Publishing House, 2004, 40 p. ISBN 5-89107-053-7 The edition addresses specialists of the legislative /executive authorities and those of local government of the north-west region; activists of public environmental movements; and teachers and students of higher educa- tion institutes as well as all those who are interested in the problems of stable development of the Russian North. This document is prepared by the Nuclear Safety Institute (IBRAE RAS) under work sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof including the U.S. Department of Energy and any and all employees of the U.S. Government, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or use- fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe upon privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific entity, product, process, or service by name, trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not neces- sarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. ISBN 5-89107-053-7 Ó IBRAE RAS, 2004 Ó«Komtechprint», 2004 (Design) INTRODUCTION Industrialization of the majority of Russian regions took part of the brochure is dedicated to the forecast, preven- place during an era when environmental safety was not tion and mitigation of nuclear/radiological emergencies.
  • Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems And

    Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems And

    Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems and Prospects А. Knizhnikov, N. Poussenkova Annual Report within the Framework of the Project Environment and Energy: International Context Issue 1 Moscow • 2009 Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems and Prospects A.Yu. Knizhnikov – WWF-Russia N.N. Poussenkova – Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences Issue 1 (working materials) for the annual review within the framework of the joint project of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences and WWF-Russia “Environment and Energy. International Context” Please, send your comments on the Review to WWF-Russia: 19-3 Nikoloyamskaya Street, Moscow, 109240 e-mail: [email protected] Moscow, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems and Prospects ..................................................................................... 2 1. Russian associated gas flaring volumes ....................................................................................................................... 2 2. Environmental and climatic implications of large-scale associated gas flaring .............................................................. 4 3. Financial implications of large-scale associated gas flaring .......................................................................................... 4 4. Potential ways to utilize associated gas ........................................................................................................................
  • Russian Academy of Sciences (Imemo Ran)

    Russian Academy of Sciences (Imemo Ran)

    INSTITUTE OF WORLD ECONOMY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (IMEMO RAN) RUSSIA: ARMS CONTROL, DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY IMEMO SUPPLEMENT TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION OF THE SIPRI YEARBOOK 2013 Preface by Alexander Dynkin Editors Alexei Arbatov and Sergey Oznobishchev Editorial Assistant Tatiana Anichkina Moscow IMEMO RAN 2014 УДК 327 ББК 64.4(0) Rus 95 Rus 95 Russia: arms control, disarmament and international security. IMEMO supplement to the Russian edition of the SIPRI Yearbook 2013 / Ed. by Alexei Arbatov and Sergey Oznobishchev. – M., IMEMO RAN, 2014. – 230 p. ISBN 978-5-9535-0403-4 The volume provides IMEMO contributions to the Russian edition of the 2013 SIPRI Yearbook: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security. The contributors address issues involving future of negotiations on strategic arms, European security debates, UN Security Council role in managing the Syrian crisis, history of Syrian chemical weapons and their destruction, dangers of international terrorism, contemporary information warfare, and Russia-CIS military cooperation. This year’s edition also highlights problems of technology transfer in Russia, military cooperation among BRICS countries, Luxembourg Forum’s nuclear tolerance initiative, and US-Russian cooperation beyond Nunn-Lugar program. To view IMEMO RAN publications, please visit our website at http://www.imemo.ru ISBN 978-5-9535-0403-4 © ИМЭМО РАН, 2014 CONTENTS PREFACE ........................................................................................... 7 Alexander
  • Nuclear Security Culture: the Case of Russia

    Nuclear Security Culture: the Case of Russia

    NUCLEAR SECURITY CULTURE: THE CASE OF RUSSIA Center for International Trade and Security The University of Georgia NUCLEAR SECURITY CULTURE: THE CASE OF RUSSIA © Center for International Trade and Security University of Georgia December 2004 nuclear security culture: the case of russia ABOUT THE CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND SECURITY he Center for International Trade and Security (CITS) works to address the dangers posed by transfers of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and WMD-related technology and materials. CITS seeks to Taccomplish its mission by: • Engaging and informing policymakers, industry representatives, educators, and the public, both in the United States and abroad, about dangers stemming from the trade in and theft of weapons and weapons components. CITS communicates these concepts through policy research, public forums, editorials, briefings, Internet publications, and the publication of a journal, The Monitor: International Perspectives on Nonproliferation • Facilitating international dialogue through exchanges of officials and experts that will promote greater cooperation in preventing the spread of dangerous weapons and technology • Establishing training programs for government officials and others in “best practices” for controlling, monitoring, and preventing the trade in WMD and related items • Preparing future leaders for careers in international security and nonproliferation The CITS Security Policy Program is focused on: • Improving understanding and awareness of the importance of training and motivating personnel responsible for protecting nuclear and other WMD-related materials • Promoting U.S.-Russian dialogue on nonproliferation and threat reduction • Facilitating U.S. assistance to Russia and the other former Soviet states through analysis of their nuclear and military-industrial complexes • Analyzing and strengthening security at WMD-related facilities internationally Center for International Trade and Security 120 Holmes/Hunter Academic Building University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 Dr.
  • Subject of the Russian Federation)

    Subject of the Russian Federation)

    How to use the Atlas The Atlas has two map sections The Main Section shows the location of Russia’s intact forest landscapes. The Thematic Section shows their tree species composition in two different ways. The legend is placed at the beginning of each set of maps. If you are looking for an area near a town or village Go to the Index on page 153 and find the alphabetical list of settlements by English name. The Cyrillic name is also given along with the map page number and coordinates (latitude and longitude) where it can be found. Capitals of regions and districts (raiony) are listed along with many other settlements, but only in the vicinity of intact forest landscapes. The reader should not expect to see a city like Moscow listed. Villages that are insufficiently known or very small are not listed and appear on the map only as nameless dots. If you are looking for an administrative region Go to the Index on page 185 and find the list of administrative regions. The numbers refer to the map on the inside back cover. Having found the region on this map, the reader will know which index map to use to search further. If you are looking for the big picture Go to the overview map on page 35. This map shows all of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes, along with the borders and Roman numerals of the five index maps. If you are looking for a certain part of Russia Find the appropriate index map. These show the borders of the detailed maps for different parts of the country.
  • The Russian Northern Fleet Sources of Radioactive Contamination

    The Russian Northern Fleet Sources of Radioactive Contamination

    NO9600025 Bellona Report Volume 2:1996 NEI-NO--726 \ Sources of Radioactive contamination Thomas Nilsen Igor Kudrik Alexandr Nikitin BELLONA V .., I! V: NO9600025 Bellona Report Volume 2:1996 The Russian Northern Fleet Sources of Radioactive contamination Thomas Nilsen Igor Kudrik Alexandr Nikitin 2 C 1 0 1 The publication of this report is sponsored by: Stiftelsen Fritt Ord/Foundation for Freedom of Expression (Main contributor) Contributors: Norsk Hydro a.s. Petrochemicals Division NORSAS, Norwegian Resource Centre for Waste Aker ASA Management and Recycling Chemical Workers Union of Norway Norsk Sivilingeni0rers Forening Norwegian Seafood Export Council Norges ingeni0rorganisasjon (NITO) FESIL AS Green Sea Operations AS Norwegian Society of Engineers UNI STOREBRAND Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry AGAAS WASA Forsiikring (Stockholm) OZO Hotwater A/S Norwegian Fishermen's Association Energiforsyningens Fellesorganisasjon EnFO Norwegian Federation of Oilworkers' Trade Union Store Norske Spitsbergen Kullkompani AS Norwegian Polar Institute Svalbard Samfunnsdrift AS Odda Smelteverk Norzink AS Published by: The Bellona Foundation Norway: P.O. Box 2141, Griinerl0kka N-0505 OSLO, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] Russia: Brussels: USA Russia Bellona Europa Bellona USA 183038 Murmansk 142-144 Avenue de Tervueren 310 D Street NE P.O. Box 4310 B-1150Bruxelles Washington, DC 20002 Bellona Russia Belgium USA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] URL: Photos: Copying permitted when source is http://www.grida.no/ngo/bellona/ John Berg (archive), Thorbj0rn Bj0r- stated. kli, Per Stale Bugjerde, Nils B0hmer, ISBN 82-993138-5-6 The Norwegian Defence, Frederic Comments to this report are welco- ISSN 0806-3451 Hauge, Aleksej Klimov, Igor Kudrik, med.
  • Kola Oleneostrovskiy Grave Field: a Unique Burial Site in the European Arctic

    Kola Oleneostrovskiy Grave Field: a Unique Burial Site in the European Arctic

    Kola Oleneostrovskiy Grave Field: A Unique Burial Site in the European Arctic Anton I. Murashkin, Evgeniy M. Kolpakov, Vladimir Ya. Shumkin, Valeriy I. Khartanovich & Vyacheslav G. Moiseyev Anton I. Murashkin, Department of Archaeology, St Petersburg State University, Mendeleyevskaya liniya 5, RU-199034 St Petersburg, Russia: [email protected], [email protected] Evgeniy M. Kolpakov, Department of Palaeolithic, Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya nab. 18, RU-191186 St Petersburg, Russia: [email protected] Vladimir ya. Shumkin, Department of Palaeolithic, Institute for the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, Dvortsovaya nab. 18, RU-191186 St Petersburg, Russia: [email protected] Valeriy I. Khartanovich, Department of Anthropology, Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 3, RU-199034 St Petersburg, Russia: [email protected] Vyacheslav G. Moiseyev, Department of Anthropology, Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 3, RU-199034 St Petersburg, Russia: [email protected] Abstract The Kola Oleneostrovskiy grave field (KOG) is the main source of information for the physical and cultural anthropology of the Early Metal Period population of the Kola Peninsula and the whole northern Fennoscandia.1 Excavations were conducted here in 1925, 1928, 1947–1948, and 2001–2004 by A. Shmidt, N. Gurina, and V. Shumkin. Altogether 32 burials containing the remains of 43 individuals were investigated. During the excavations, also remains of wooden grave constructions were found. The site is exceptionally rich in burial goods, including numerous bone, antler, stone, ceramic, and bronze items.