Protected Areas and Beyond

Home , Foxe Basin, Lake Inari, Pasvik Nature Reserve

MAGAZINE Protection in a time of change 7 Economic values 16 No. 3 2012 The Circle Lessons from elsewhere 27

PROTECTED AREAS AND BEYOND

PUBLISHED BY THE WWF Global ARCTIC PROGRAMME Photo: Kitty Terwolbeck, Flickr/Creative commons 2 TheCircle3.2012 ity forunsolicitedmaterial. tion, andassumenoresponsibil- the righttoeditlettersforpublica- address ontheright.We reserve and subscriptionqueriestothe of WWF. Sendchangeofaddress sarily reflecttheviewsorpolicies affiliated sourcesdonotneces- are encouraged. Articles bynon- quotation withappropriatecredit Programme. Reproductionand terly bytheWWFGlobal Arctic The Circleispublishedquar- Th K LOPOUKHI K N LAUGHLI TOM SPEER, LISA IE COURT BARRY, TOM B In EDITORIAL Contents ER SHESTAKOV SHESTAKOV ER ICTURE MO E T ALEXA KU CRISTIA MATLOCK LISA MURPHY, SCH ARROYO ALBERTO KUHMO ZOLTA KARE n CHRISTIA E A BE DUDLEY GEL N e h I N I Ci N rc

r T A p N l N N e

3.2012 N D 4

N What is beyond protected areas? protected beyond is What

N Supporting local development beyond commodities beyond development local Supporting 32 N

N T E Economic values of protected areas and other natural landscapes in the Arctic the in landscapes natural other and areas protected of values Economic ALVO MA ALVO E N N

Protected areas and management of the Arctic the of management and areas Protected , S OLEG SUTKAITIS SUTKAITIS OLEG E N N E , Y PRICE PRICE Y TIIA KALSKE KALSKE TIIA N N E A Pan-Arctic Ecological Ecological Pan-Arctic A Internet: www.panda.org/arctic Fax: +1613-232-4181 Tel: +1 613-232-8706 Canada Ottawa ONK1P 5L4 Suite 400 30 MetcalfeStreet WWF Global Arctic Programme Publisher: C LL LL N HE

EBSAs in the arctic marine environment marine arctic the in EBSAs tura 2000 network: where ecology and economy meet economy and ecology where network: 2000 tura The N Arctic protected areas: conservation in a time of change of time a in conservation areas: protected Arctic O Improving Alaska’s wildlife conservation through applied science applied through conservation wildlife Alaska’s Improving

N Development of an ecological network approach in the Caucasus the in approach network ecological an of Development a Representative network of protected areas to conserve northern nature northern conserve to areas protected of network Representative Environmental protection in the Pasvik-Inari area Pasvik-Inari the in protection Environmental

3 AND BEYOND AND AREAS PROTECTED N e twork: the concept and reality and concept the twork: ISSN 2074-076X= The Circle Date ofpublication:September, 2012. Printed bySt.JosephCommunications [email protected] Film &Form/KetillBerger, Design andproduction: Editor: LenaEskeland,[email protected] [email protected] Editor inChief:Clive Tesar,

14 24

27 . land NationalPark. Daugaard-Jensen glacier, Green- ABOVE: Nordvestfjord,nearthe Photo: Kitty Terwolbeck, Flickr/Creativecommons Europe's oldestparks. National ParkinSweden,oneof COVER: CottongrassinSarek

20 Editorial What is beyond protected areas?

The oldest national park in the world is considered tured by local enmities for centuries. Within the Arctic, to be Bogdkhan Uul in Mongolia, established officially Anna Kuhmonen and Oleg Sutkaitis outline plans for a in 1778. Even before that there were “protected areas” network of protected areas within the Barents Region in of a sort – forests where the nobility liked to hunt, their northern Europe, and Bente Christiansen and Tiia Kalske resources off-limits to commoners. As Tom Barry and bring us the story of the success of the Pasvik-Inari Tri- Courtney Price point out in this edition, the history of lateral Park that crosses the borders of Norway, Finland protected areas in the Arctic goes back more than a cen- and Russia. tury, to the establishment of Afognak Island State Park A particular challenge to building up protected area in Alaska. Historically, such parks were considered to be networks, or other conservation approaches that stress places that would protect natural values, from species the need for connectivity, representa- to landscapes. However, as several of the contributors tion, and resilience to change, is the need note, there are pressures in the for research to help Arctic that mean future conserva- Future conservation inform management tion models must expand from choices. The dis- the existing, relatively static park models must expand tance of much of the system towards more dynamic and from the existing, Arctic from research comprehensive concepts. relatively static infrastructure, and CLIVE TESAR, Head There are models for a new, the costs of research of Communications & External Relations, expanded conservation approach park system towards in the Arctic, mean WWF Global Arctic elsewhere in the world. As Alberto that it is among the more dynamic and Programme Aroyo Schnell writes, there is an least-studied regions effort taking place across the Eu- comprehensive of the world. Karen ropean Union to identify and pro- concepts. Murphy and Lisa Matlock present tect areas of particular ecological one model which seeks to ensure that significance that does not rely on conservation science needs in Alaska excluding human activities, but that focuses on manage- are addressed and shared so the appropriate conservation ment that is economically and ecologically sustainable. measures can be developed. Another model, the PAN Parks idea is outlined by Zoltan Collectively, these articles point toward potential con- Kun, who writes about an approach that stresses adding servation approaches, whether that is adapting a success- value to wilderness through non-extractive uses. ful model from somewhere else in the globe, or growing Might such approaches work in the Arctic? Cristian a local approach in the Arctic. Whatever the conservation Montalvo Mancheno works on an initiative to create an methods chosen, it is clear that the Arctic is changing fast, ecological network in the Caucasus – while this isn’t the and that policy makers and conservation managers must Arctic, it proves that such an approach can work across also move quickly in order to be effective at conserving historically difficult boundaries. The Caucasus initiative the locally and globally valued – not to mention valuable - covers six countries and 28 ethnic groups, in an area frac- species, landscapes, and ecosystems in the region.

The Circle 3.2012 3 In brief

summer sea ice that set us off on our A significant part of the Last Ice Area To the Last Ice Area journey”, said Clive Tesar, one of the project consists of consulting with the crew members and WWF Global Arctic people in local communities to fill in the and back Programme’s Head of Communications knowledge gaps about this remote area. and External Relations. “This trend This is their back yard, and what they After six exciting weeks on board the leads us to believe that where sum- have to say about it matters. The team Arctic Tern this summer, the crew from mer sea ice stays the longest is likely also managed to contribute in a small the Last Ice Area exploration arrived to become increasingly important to way to the research that needs to be back on land with sobering tales from the life, both human and animal, that done in the area. Sampling salt marshes the northwest coast of Greenland and has evolved over thousands of years, and seawater for evidence of what life Canada’s High Arctic Islands. A week physically and culturally, to live on and lives there now will help in assessing after their return, news emerged that around that ice.” how the area changes, and in helping the record for low sea ice extent in the This life is also important to the rest project how it is likely to change. Arctic had already been broken, despite of the world. Four of the ten largest the fact that it was not quite the end of world fisheries are in the Arctic, and August. many migratory species including “What this means is that the trend whales and seabirds rely on the summer WWF-US Arctic continues – the trend of declining bloom of life at the ice edge. Program recognized for outstanding achievement

The Alaska Conservation Foundation (ACF), a state-wide foundation supporting environmental work, capacity building and leadership development, has selected the WWF-US Arctic Field Program as the 2012 recipient of the Lowell Thomas, Jr. Award for Outstand- ing Achievements by a Conservation Organization. The selection was made by long-time Alaskans and the ACF’s

© Petr Shpilenok national board of trustees, making this a Sockeye salmon particularly great honour. Russian salmon gets poaching protection Expedition prepares Thanks to a WWF-supported anti-poaching patrol, salmon can easily navi- gate Kamchatka’s Bolshaya River. Created to stop illegal fishing in this poach- for tourism in ing hot spot, the group includes public inspectors from Kamchatka Public Salmon Council and governmental enforcement services. All summer, water area and river banks have been under control of inspectors 24 hours a day. Russia’s Arctic During the most recent raids inspectors deterred dozens of violations, con- As Russia’s Arctic opens up to tour- fiscated 200 meters of nets, and a few poachers’ boats. Scientific monitoring ism, employees of the national park proved that this summer the number of sockeye salmon passed to spawning “Russian Arctic” were joined by WWF ground significantly increased in comparison with many previous years. experts, supporters, and writer Yevgeny Grishkovets on a two-week expedition

4 The Circle 3.2012 In brief

BP sees the real cost of offshore oil

The real price of offshore oil development in the Arc- tic has scared off British-based oil company BP – now it should scare off many others, says a spokesperson for WWF. BP announced this summer that it is indefi- nitely shelving a plan to drill the ‘Liberty’ field, four miles from the Alaskan coast in the Beaufort Sea. “BP’s decision shows a rational business approach,” says WWF’s Mikhail Babenko. “If you add up the real costs, drilling for oil in the Arctic is too expensive and risky. Economic analysis demonstrates that oil and gas development in the arctic offshore is not economically viable if a company is to follow adequate prepared- ness, prevention and response standards.”

in August to research and plan for the sea, mapping and registering historical largest project ever proposed in the Ca- area’s future. Aboard the ship Professor objects and placing information signs. nadian Arctic, and WWF is involved in Molchanov the 40 voyagers visited eco- Much work lies ahead to prepare the order to ensure that the shipping meets logically valuable parts of the “Russian park territory for ecological tourism, in- the best international standards. Arctic” park, the archipelago of Novaya cluding an inventory of the natural and Zemlya and Franz-Josef Land. cultural heritage in areas expected to The voyage was sponsored by Coca see the most visitor traffic, and prepar- Cola and WWF supporters – who in ing trails and observation areas. UNESCO site dam turn became participants, taking part in research and seeing the consequences of plans scrapped arctic climate change first hand. Voyag- ers encountered giant blue icebergs, WWF speaks out on Authorities in Kamchatka reversed re- colonies of tens of thousands of birds, cently a decision to build a hydropower polar bears and walruses and even a real shipping issues station in the heart of Kronotsky Nature arctic storm. The researchers aboard Reserve following WWF intervention. conducted surveys of the area’s land and Canadian Arctic Director Martin von This territory is a part of UNESCO Mirbach represented WWF at public Heritage; nevertheless the Governor of hearings led by the Nunavut Impact Re- Kamchatka region announced this plan view Board, which is reviewing the Mary as a “done deal” through local mass River Project, a proposed iron ore mine media. To prevent a violation of inter- located on North Baffin Island. The national legislation and protect a fragile proponent, Baffinland, proposes to mine ecosystem WWF shared their concerns 18 million tons per year of high grade with the world community at the 36th iron ore from the reserve deposit, trans- Session of World Heritage Committee port it by a purpose-built railway to a in St-Petersburg. Soon after, Kamchatka

© Ekaterina Shustkhem / WWF-Russia new port to be constructed at Steensby Administration revised the decision Unique stone spherulites found on Inlet, and ship the ore on a year-round and officially informed citizens that the Champa Island, Russia, during the 2012 basis through Foxe Basin and Hudson project will not be implemented as it is Russian Arctic expedition. Strait to markets in Europe. This is the potentially dangerous for nature.

The Circle 3.2012 5 Mountains, North East Greenland National Park. Photo: Visit Greenland, Flickr/Creative commons Photo: Visit

6 The Circle 3.2012 A challenging context Arctic protected areas: conservation in a time of change Protected areas have long been viewed as a key element for maintaining and conserving arctic biodiversity and the functioning landscapes upon which resident and migratory species depend. But much like the Arctic itself, there are questions of whether its protected areas will be able to adapt quickly enough to maintain their functions in the face of swift change, say TOM BARRY and COURTNEY PRICE.

The endless white horizon of the extensive fjord systems. This extreme North East Greenland National Park landscape is vital for diverse cold- and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve is adapted species, from the charismatic punctured with jagged mountain peaks mega-fauna (polar bear, musk ox and and icebergs, with large expanses of narwhal) to the less glamorized copepod tundra and arctic desert. The landscape and ice algae. At 972,000 km2 this plummets to unseen depths, brimming chunk of the planet is bigger than most with life in the dark ocean of the area’s countries, and constitutes the world’s

The Circle 3.2012 7 largest and most northerly protected area. It is but one example of the Arc- Arctic The diversity in the protected area tic’s growing and changing protected (million km2) scale and composition areas. 3 Protected areas have long been of arctic protected viewed as a key element for maintaining and conserving arctic biodiversity and areas is reflective of 2 the functioning landscapes upon which resident and migratory species de- the wide variety of pend. The Arctic’s first protected area the values and nature was established in 1892, with cover- 1 age remaining low until the 1970s. But they protect and rep- since 1980, the region’s protected area

coverage has almost doubled to include 0 resent. 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 0 0 4 2 8 1127 areas, encompassing about 3.5 mil- 6 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 lion km2, or 11 per cent of the Arctic (as 1 defined by the Arctic Council biodiversity working group, the Conservation of will be able to adapt quickly enough to Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)). Current and projected issues maintain their functions in the face of The diversity in the scale and com- facing arctic protected areas swift change. position of arctic The majority of arctic protected areas TOM BARRY is protected areas is ■■ Climate change have been established in strategically Executive Secretary reflective of the ■■ Increasing human use important and representative areas, of CAFF’s Interna- wide variety of the ■■ Development within and surround- helping to maintain crucial ecological tional Secretariat values and nature ing protected areas features and functions. This approach, based in Iceland and they protect and ■■ Global and local contaminants however, contains an underlying as- COURTNEY PRICE is represent. On these ■■ Non-native invasive species sumption that conditions within these CAFF’s Communica- sites ecological ■■ Loss of traditional knowledge delineated borders remain static and tion Officer. integrity com- ■■ Capacity and coordination unchanged. But these borders are man- bines with cultural made constructions and do not shift to heritage, physical match changing ecological conditions features, species habitat, ecological ser- and species movements. Given the vices and more to create windows where Concerns for the future scale and pace of changes affecting the human-caused stress is minimal. Some The Arctic and its protected areas are Arctic, scientists and managers may protected areas are co-managed by undergoing rapid and dramatic changes, find that these «untouched» areas are Indigenous and local peoples, contrib- with significant implications for the re- more challenging to define, that what uting traditional knowledge to inform gion’s ecosystems, wildlife and peoples. requires protection may change and management practices. Protected areas Much like the Arctic itself, there are perhaps be lost completely before it can are essential benchmarks to provide questions of whether its protected areas be determined. Strategies in protected valuable information on current and projected changes facing the Arctic, The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP), is an international network and how these changes will affect both of scientists, government agencies, Indigenous organizations and conservation groups wildlife and human populations. working together to harmonize and integrate efforts to monitor the Arctic’s living resour- Protected areas in the Arctic are ces. The CBMP is currently exploring better linkages to how it can help CAFF support also important for global biodiversity the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Strategic Plan for Biodiversity conservation. The majority of arctic (Aichi) Target 11: species use the region seasonally, with “By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of arctic habitats providing vital resources coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity for many migratory bird and mammal and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, species. It is important to look beyond ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other designated protected areas and con- effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes sider unprotected areas and their role and seascapes.” as corridors in facilitating arctic species migration.

8 The Circle 3.2012 Protected areas, IUCN Class I-IV Protected areas, IUCN Class V-VII CAFF area areas management and conservation Arctic in the wider global context is with the Circumpolar Protected Areas must evolve to meet new realities and needed to achieve conservation. Network (CPAN), whose goal was to challenges. promote the development of a protected In the complexity and interconnected Current efforts areas network that would contribute to nature of the challenges facing the Arc- There are a number of international maintaining and conserving ecosystem tic, it is clear that no individual country efforts underway that strive to provide health and dynamic biodiversity of the acting on its own can ensure adequate practical approaches to create a strong Arctic region, protected areas work has conservation for the entirety of arctic ecologically and culturally significant since been incorporated in many aspects biodiversity. A coordinated circumpolar arctic protected areas network. of CAFF’s work. approach that responds to rapid change, CAFF began work in this area soon CAFF’s Circumpolar Biodiversity addresses local concerns and links the after its inception in 1991. Starting Monitoring Program (CBMP) has ana-

The Circle 3.2012 9 A lexander / WWF-Canon © naturepl.com / Bryan and Cherry Greenland, Flickr/Creative common Photo: Visit Narwhal, Greenland Musk ox, Greenland

lyzed and integrated various protected and effective policy responses. sea ice, and recommendations for their areas considerations into their marine, Arctic marine ecosystems receive low management. Responding to a recom- freshwater and terrestrial monitoring levels of protection compared to terres- mendation from the Arctic Marine plans, and further identified ‘changes trial ecosystems. There is a critical need Shipping Assessment, the Arctic Council in protected areas’ as a key scientific for the identification of important and is working to identify marine areas indicator of arctic change. This indicator vulnerable arctic marine areas, including of heightened ecological and cultural was one of a suite that helped formulate significance. The results of these efforts the Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010: may contribute to the work of global Selected Indicators of Change report, instruments such as the International a first deliverable under the Arctic A coordinated cir- Maritime Organisation and the United Biodiversity Assessment and the Arctic Nations Convention on Biological Diver- Council contribution to the 2010 UN cumpolar approach sity (CBD). The CBD’s Subsidiary Body International Year of Biodiversity. The on Scientific, Technical and Techno- report also updated the indicator, first that responds to rap- logical Advice has recently adopted a created in 1994, which now forms the id change, addresses package of recommendations on marine arctic component of the UNEP World and coastal biodiversity, including on Conservation Monitoring Centre’s local concerns and the topic of ecologically or biologically World Protected Areas Database and significant marine areas (EBSAs), which is accessible from ProtectedPlanet.net. links the Arctic in the are up for consideration at the October Further, in spring 2013 CAFF will re- 2012 CBD Conference of the Parties. lease the full scientific Arctic Biodivers- wider global context ity Assessment, offering vital baseline is needed to achieve Changing needs data against which future changes in WWF’s own Rapid Assessment of arctic biodiversity can be detected and conservation. Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience measured, allowing for more efficient (RACER) is another such ecosystem-

10 The Circle 3.2012 Photo: Henrik Hansen/Visit Greenland, Flickr/Creative common Photo: Henrik Hansen/Visit Polar bear, Greenland based method that emphasizes the protected area is better positioned and changing needs of protected areas has the capacity to serve the needs of Arctic protected areas management, and offers responses in the ecosystem in a rapidly changing en- light of anticipated changes, rather vironment. The Arctic Council is using status and trends than reacting to change. The RACER a similar approach in the ongoing work ■■ First arctic protected areas: Afog- project provides a tool to focus on on the Arctic Resilience Report and has nak Island State Park, Alaska, USA regional biodiversity, productivity and also established an Ecosystem-Based (1892) ecosystem resilience and helps shape Management expert group to identify ■■ Largest protected area: North East an approach to creating protected areas best practices and advance a common Greenland National Park, 972,000 that maintain those systems. This new understanding of ecosystem-based km2 approach is intended to ensure that a management in the Arctic. ■■ Smallest protected area: Kattar- A forward-thinking protected areas auga, Iceland 0.0008 km2 management approach that addresses ■■ Protection level 1980: 1.8 million local concerns and links the Arctic in km2; 5.6 per cent Strategies in protect- the wider global context must evolve ■■ Current protection level: 3.5 million alongside the changes already occurring km2; 11 per cent ed areas management in the Arctic, and include mechanisms ■■ Marine coverage: less than terres- and conservation to determine and respond to future trial, and an urgent need to identify change. Various coordinated circum- and protect biologically important must evolve to meet polar activities already underway are areas providing the framework that will en- ■■ 40 per cent of arctic sites have a new realities and sure that arctic protected areas remain coastal component key conservation tools for biodivers- challenges. ity.

The Circle 3.2012 11 EBSA EBSAs in the arctic marine environment

In 2008, the ninth Conference of the Parties to the Con- to ensure that new human industrial activity is managed in a way that avoids vention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted seven cri- to the maximum extent possible further teria for identifying marine areas in need of protection. damage to very vulnerable arctic marine A number of different efforts to identify ecologically or ecosystems. Our record of managing human ac- biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) using these tivities in other oceans is grim. Depleted criteria in the Arctic have been conducted. These efforts fisheries, massive dead zones, huge now need to be combined and linked, say LISA SPEER and gyres of floating plastic waste, wide- spread sewage and chemical pollution TOM LAUGHLIN. and degradation of habitat now afflict virtually all of the world’s oceans. Arctic marine ecosystems face an of other impacts of new and expanded The Arctic presents us with the uncertain future as summer sea ice development pose major additional chance to get out in front of industrial – headed for record lows as of this threats to the region. development and get oceans manage-

writing – continues to retreat. The Reducing CO2 emissions is the single ment right. But we need to act quickly. unprecedented loss of ice threatens most important thing we can do for the Once poorly regulated development marine food webs Arctic. But even if we stopped carbon becomes entrenched, proactive manage- exquisitely adapted emissions tomorrow, the loss of sum- ment becomes extremely difficult. LISA SPEER directs the to the seasonal ebb mer sea ice will continue. It is therefore Integrated, ecosystem-based man- International Oceans and flow of sea ice, critically important to do what we can agement (EBM) has the potential to Program at the Natural and ice dependent Resources Defense animals such as Council (NRDC) in walrus, narwhal, New York. polar bears, ice seals and some arctic birds and fish. These changes have TOM LAUGHLIN was major implications NOAA’s (National for the arctic ma- Oceanic and Atmos- rine environment pheric Administration) and the people former Deputy Director who depend on it of International Affairs, for sustenance and and currently serves cultural survival. as Senior Arctic Advi- The loss of ice sor to the International also means that, for Union for Conservation the first time, much of Nature (IUCN). of the Arctic is opening up to new human activity,

including offshore oil and gas develop- Photo Wikimedia Commons ment, shipping and commercial fishing. Much of the Arctic is opening up to new human activity, including offshore oil and Accidents, oil spills, pollution, invasive gas development. Here Northstar Island, an oil and gas drilling site built up as an species, underwater noise, and a host artificial island in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska.

12 The Circle 3.2012 Figure 1. EBSA overview

1. St. Lawrence Island 2. Bering Strait 3. Chuckchi Beaufort coast 4. Wrangel Island 5. Beaufort Sea coast/Cape Bathurst 6. Polar pack (Sept 2040 projection) 7. North water polynya/Lancaster Sound 8. White Sea/Barents Sea coast 10. Pechora Sea/Kara gate 11. Novaya Zemlya 12. High arctic islands and shelf 13. Great Siberian polynya

provide an organizing framework for managing human activity in a manner that can maximize resilience and preserve essential ecosystem functions. Such an approach includes defining portions of ocean space for management purposes based on ecological and oceanographic criteria, and the development of management arrangements that address all human uses of that space in an integrated fashion. A central element of integrated, ecosystem based management is the identification of ecologically significant or vulnerable areas that a workshop the International Union should be considered for protection for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and The Arctic presents due to their role in maintaining valued the Natural Resources Defense Council us with the chance to ecosystem functions and resilience. (NRDC) held in 2010 involving rep- The seven scientific criteria adopted resentatives of government agencies, get out in front of in- by the ninth Conference of the Parties to academia and Indigenous organiza- the CBD relate to the areas uniqueness tions (see figure 1). A key next step is dustrial development or rarity; special importance for life- to combine these efforts in order to history stages of species; importance define and create a linked information and get oceans man- for threatened, endangered or declining system on ecologically and culturally agement right. But we species and/or habitats; vulnerability, important areas throughout the Arctic. fragility, sensitivity, or slow recovery; This would allow arctic coastal nations need to act quickly. biological productivity; biological diver- – both individually and collectively – to sity; and naturalness. Any area which develop management arrangements to meets one or more of these scientific ensure that key ecological and cultural criteria can be defined as an EBSA. areas and functions are protected and the EBM expert group tasked with ex- A number of different efforts to iden- preserved. This could be one of the rec- amining ways in which arctic countries tify EBSAs in the arctic marine environ- ommendations to the upcoming Arctic could collaborate on ecosystem-based ment have been conducted, including Council Ministerial Meeting in 2013 by management.

The Circle 3.2012 13 IUCN Protected areas and management of the Arctic

Protected areas are a cornerstone of global conservation efforts. In the Arctic, climate change now provides opportunities to think about how to address the immediate and long term protection needs, says NIK LOPOUKHINE.

Protected areas are institutional said to be the only successful way of magnified, provides an opportunity to mechanisms for maintaining natural maintaining natural ecosystems, both consider the role of protected areas in ecosystems which provide important from habitat conversion and degra- conserving the multiple values of natu- values for human societies. Protected dation. The growing awareness of ral ecosystems and the services that areas are amongst the most successful, the planet’s vulnerability to human they provide. and in some cases – like the Egmont driven changes, in particular in the In 2008, after exhaustive consul- National Park in New Zealand – are Arctic where climate change effects are tation, the International Union for

14 The Circle 3.2012 Egmont National Park, PA glossary IUCN New Zeland. Aquatic Protected Area: A marine protected area consisting of freshwater resources. Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Area (EBSA): Under the Conven- Protected areas and management of the Arctic tion on Biological Diversity (CBD), EBSAs Significant contributions are marine areas in need of protection that How well protected areas deliver ecosys- are identified using seven scientific criteria tem services depends on how effectively adopted at the ninth Conference of the they are managed, how they are inte- Parties to the Convention in 2008. EBSAs grated with surrounding landscapes and could be used in a variety of management systems, not all of them exclusively area- land use strategies and whether they based. While many EBSAs likely require are supported by local communities. enhanced protection, the management of Consolidating, expanding, and improv- these marine areas remains in the hands of ing the global protected area system the competent authorities. Therefore, EBSAs requires the engagement of multiple could be turned into marine protected areas partners, from communities to NGOs, for management purposes. government agencies and the private Marine Protected Area (MPA): Like any sector. This is a necessary and logical protected area, marine protected areas are response to both climate change and the regions in which human activity has been crisis of biodiversity loss. placed under some restrictions in the interest of conserving the natural environment, In addition to conserving biodiversity, its surrounding waters and the occupant protected areas with intact natural habi- ecosystems, and any cultural or historical tats make significant contributions on resources that may require preservation many fronts. They mitigate effects of cli- or management. Marine protected areas’ mate change by storing and sequester- boundaries will include some area of ocean, ing carbon in vegetation and soils, and even if it is only a small fraction of the total help communities to adapt by maintain- area of the territory. ing essential ecosystem services and Network of PAs or MPAs: A set of discrete thus help to cope with, climate change PAs or MPAs within a region or ecosystem and other environmental challenges. that are connected through complementary purposes and synergistic protections. Such a network could focus on ecosystem proc- Governance complexities esses, certain individual species, or cultural The signatory parties to the Convention resources. on Biological Diversity (CBD) promote No-Take or No-Go Zones: Areas in which further investment in existing protected extractive activities are prohibited. areas and their expansion under a Protected Area (PA): According to IUCN’s range of governance and management definition, a protected area is “a clearly regimes. defined geographical space, recognised,

Photo: upsidedowNZL, Flickr/Creative commons One major consideration in the estab- dedicated and managed, through legal or lishment and management of protected other effective means, to achieve the long Conservation of Nature (IUCN) agreed areas is the question of who governs or term conservation of nature with associated to a new definition of a protected area, has the authority over a protected area. ecosystem services and cultural values” which made subtle but significant There are four forms of governance. The and is thus used as a tool for management purposes. Through its World Commission on changes to the union’s understanding traditional approach is where govern- Protected Areas (WCPA), IUCN have devel- of the objective of protection through a ments are responsible for establishing oped six Protected Areas Management Cat- protected area (see PA glossary). and managing protected areas. Usually egories that define protected areas accord- This definition makes clear that the a legislative framework specifies the ing to their management objectives which fundamental purpose of protected areas responsibility and accountability. A sec- are internationally recognised by various is the conservation of nature. This prior- ond approach is where the governance national governments and the United Na- ity holds throughout different manage- is shared. The governing framework is tions: strict nature reserve; wilderness area; ment objectives as categorized by IUCN, set up so that decisions affecting the national park; natural monument or feature; habitat/species management area; protected ranging from wilderness to sustainable protected area are not unilaterally but landscape/seascape; and protected area use. collaboratively decided upon. The third with sustainable use of natural resources. (Sources: www.gobi.org/faqs, wikipedia.org, mpa.gov/resources/glossary)

The Circle 3.2012 15 approach, private governance, is where- Economic perspective by individual or family, non-government organizations or corporate ownership have authority. Objectives for these protected areas vary but to be recognized as a protected area they – like other forms Economic values of governance – must have a primary objective of conservation. And fourthly, is an Indigenous Peoples or Local Com- munity form of governance where the of protected areas and management authority and responsibility rest with Indigenous peoples and/ or local communities through various forms of formal or informal institutions other natural landscapes and rules. Approaches vary around the world. Overlapping interests may add to the complexity of in the Arctic discerning responsibility. NIKITA (NIK) LO- Low human populations and large natural ecosystems POUKHINE is the Oasis for the former Chair of the future have made it relatively easy to persuade arctic govern- International Union In the Arctic, ments and communities to establish protected areas. But for Conservation of climate change is even large protected areas are ineffective if isolated from Nature (IUCN) World imposing dramatic Commission on Pro- changes which pro- other ecosystems, and in some parts of the Arctic the ex- tected Areas. vide an opportunity istence of protected areas has served as an excuse for bad to think about pos- management elsewhere, says NIGEL DUDLEY. sible options for the use of protected areas to address immediate and long term protection needs. As The Arctic has huge national parks and tion programmes can help responsible the intact natural world shrinks in the wilderness areas, including Northeast companies to carry out their business face of development, a well-managed Greenland National Park, the largest in without undermining the environment. protected area stands as a bulwark to the world. As resources grow scarcer, losses in biodiversity which are often pressures to “open up” protected areas How to measure? irreplaceable and as such priceless. to uses such as mining and logging will Valuation studies range from estimates Moreover, protected areas act as an increase. of the value of a particular “service”, oasis where learning, serving and giving Many of the pressures on natural such as tourism, carbon sequestration joy is realized. To assure their long term ecosystems are grounded in economic or fish catch, to Total Economic Valu- viability and to continue to provide all forces. For people in industries reliant ation (TEV) studies, which attempt to of the above services, protected areas on use of natural resources, protected measure all the values derived from a need to be connected by undertaking a areas and other ecosystems set aside particular ecosystem. Narrow, single holistic land/seascape approach. Initia- from commercial use are often literally issues studies are sometimes able to tives such as the large scale corridors viewed as wasted lands. Showing that generate highly detailed results but planned in the North American Rocky such areas have a significant economic inevitably paint a limited picture. TEV Mountains and in eastern Australia, value as an intact natural ecosystem is more useful but more complicated: among others, are excellent examples can serve as an important counter- some values will be unknown; using one of such an approach. A protected area weight to arguments for exploitation. ecosystem benefit may cancel out an- is an investment in nature’s future, our At the same time improving manage- other and sustainably and unsustainably future and that of our children and their ment in the rest of the landscape is also consumptive and non-consumptive uses children. critically important; initiatives such as of natural resources are often mixed up The Forest Stewardship Council, Marine together. Relatively few TEV studies Stewardship Council or mining restora- have been successfully completed for

16 The Circle 3.2012 could, without careful management, change from an absorber to an emitter of carbon: most scenarios for runaway climate change centre on the risk of a sudden pulse of carbon released from the arctic tundra. Keeping carbon stores intact is a major economic incentive for reconsidering plans to clear-cut boreal forests or otherwise disrupt peat deposits.

Important jobs Although human populations are gener- ally very low in the region, a relatively high proportion of people rely on wild or semi-domesticated animals living in natural ecosystems.

Photo: Mickael Brangeon, Flickr/Creative commons The revenue from Peat bog has a huge capacity for storing carbon. moose hunting in Norway was estimated at US$70- natural ecosystems. The Economics of carried out important studies that start 90 million a year NIGEL DUDLEY is a Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) to build a picture of what is important in 2000, with far consultant who has study which was launched by Germany and what it is worth. greater values if the worked with WWF and and the European Commission in 2007 meat hunted for do- many other NGOs, is the most comprehensive attempt Crucial carbon mestic consumption several United Nations yet to compile information on global One of the most important values is also was included. At the agencies and selected ecosystem service values, with a string one of the most recently recognised, turn of the century, governments in over of reports aimed at stakeholders rang- namely the role of the Arctic in storing fish were generating 50 countries around ing from policy-makers to industry. carbon. Parks Canada calculated that pre-processing val- the world, mainly Although TEEB did not itself produce its 39 national parks, covering only 2.25 ue of US$1.2 billion on issues related to hard figures for ecosystem service val- per cent of the country, store carbon a year in Alaska. protected areas and ues on a global level, it raised the issue mainly in peat and soil with a proxy val- Indeed, within landscape approaches of ecosystem valuation to an altogether ue of Can$72-78 billion at 2000 prices, Alaska as a whole, to conservation. higher level than previously. based on costs of replacing this carbon industries reliant on TEEB, along with most other over- through reforestation. Yet the peat that natural resources view studies, focused primarily on stores most of the carbon remains in a (commercial and tropical and temperate ecosystems, with dangerously fragile state and the Arctic sport fishing, tourism and recreation little attention paid to polar landscapes. and resource management) generated (This situation looks set to change with 55,000 full time jobs, over a quarter of a TEEB Nordic study in progress.) Nor Showing that such ar- the state’s total jobs and more than twice can information from other parts of the as much as the petroleum, mining and world be easily transferred: the Arctic eas have a significant construction industries combined, worth has relatively low genetic diversity, economic value as an $4.2 billion a year in income alone. few people requiring buffering against Not everything is capable of generat- floods and tidal surges, no desertifica- intact natural ecosys- ing an easy economic figure. Spiritual tion problems, and so on. But at least values of sacred natural sites and other some of the ecosystem services that do tem can serve as an non-material value are hard to give a occur play a critical ecosystem role at meaningful dollar sign. But building on a global level, so their valuation is of important counter- the information that already exists and major geopolitical importance. And the weight to arguments compiling an arctic-wide understand- lack of a global overview doesn’t mean ing of the economic values of ecosystem that no information exists; individuals for exploitation. services is an important next step in and institutions within the Arctic have attempting to conserve the Arctic.

The Circle 3.2012 17 Local approaches Environmental protection in the Pasvik-Inari area

Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park crosses three national borders in the area and have learned a lot from and consists of five protected areas, and is a good example each other, they have each retained their distinctive traditions. of long-term and constructive cross-border cooperation, In earlier times the river was an say BENTE CHRISTIANSEN and TIIA KALSKE. important channel to the Barents Sea along which trade commodities was transported. The battle for nickel in Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park and its sur- appearing as a vital nerve in the Pechenga brought changes to the area, rounding wilderness are located on the forested landscape. The region com- as the rapids of the Pasvik River were north-western edge of the taiga, in the prises a unique nature system where used to produce energy for mining and area where Finland, Norway and Russia the European, Asian and arctic species smelting. converge. Environ- meet. Here, some of the species reach Despite the changes, the Lake Inari BENTE CHRISTIANSEN mental authorities the ultimate limits of their distribution. area and the Pasvik River valley have and TIIA KALSKE work and relevant stake- The area is also an important nesting preserved their natural values and at The Office of the holders in the three and resting place for a large number of species diversity. The specific features County Governor of countries have co- migratory birds. of the area make it an attractive nature Finnmark (Norway). operated since early and culture destination. 1990s in the areas Cultural meeting point Nature, animals and plants, and also of nature protection The Pasvik–Inari region is a meeting pollution, do not recognise man-made and management, point for different cultures. Different borders. The cross-border cooperation environmental monitoring and research Sámi groups live in the area: the North- between environmental authorities in activities. ern, Inari and Skolt Sámi. Since the Finland, Norway and Russia was initi- The lush valley of the Pasvik River Early Middle Ages, Finns, Norwegians ated in the early 1990s. The first pro- stretches from Lake Inari in the south and Russians also have settled in the re- tected area crossing the border was the towards the Barents Sea in the north, gion. Although different cultures coexist Norwegian-Russian Pasvik Zapovednik/

Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park

NORWAY FINLAND

NORWAY RUSSIA Pasvik Zapovednik FINLAND

Vätsäri wilderness area

Øvre Pasvik Pasvik nature reserve national park Øvre Pasvik landscape protection area

r e i v R k RUSSIA v i Lake Inari s P a

Map design: Ketill Berger, Film & Form

18 The Circle 3.2012 Local approaches

Environmental protection in the Pasvik-Inari area Photo: Dan Nordal, Flickr/Creative commons

Pasvik Nature Reserve which was established 20 years ago. From then annual meetings, exchange of information, and joint mappings, field expeditions, and projects have been conducted. Over the years the knowledge of the protected areas and challenges connected to management and monitoring issues on common species have grown.

Regional friendships So has the friendship between the people involved in the daily work with the protected areas. In the early 2000 the idea of a joint ‘Friendship park’ was introduced. The Interreg project “Promotion of nature protection and sustainable nature tourism in the Inari- Pasvik area” which took place in 2006- 2008 intensified and structured the cooperation towards what it is today. The main objectives were to unite the protected areas under a common name, and to establish a formal framework for the management of the common area despite the national borders. In the course of the project, joint monitoring and harmonisation of methodologies on chosen border-crossing species were implemented (brown bear, waterbirds and golden eagle), a joint action plan and a joint vision were created, and activities to promote local tourism were initiated. In 2008 Pasvik-Inari Trilateral Park was awarded the European certification for EUROPARC’s “Transboundary Park – following nature’s design”. This certification provides managers of pro- Twisted trunks, Pasvik, Norway. tected areas with tools for maintaining a long-term, workable cooperation for funding issues, border restrictions and cultures in the three countries. The hu- nature management. formalities, effects of water regulation man resources involved in the coopera- There are numerous challenges for and pollution issues. But based on the tion are also of crucial importance; both the cooperation to address, including experience so far, almost all these chal- short-term and long-term joint benefits different legislation, different levels lenges can be solved through an open have to be recognised by all the parties of protection, many languages, differ- and transparent communication, and in order to see the day-to-day advantage ent terminology and methodologies, mutual understanding of the different of cooperation.

The Circle 3.2012 19 Local approaches (cont.) Representative network of protected areas to conserve northern nature The Barents Region, situated in the northern part of Europe and Northwest Russia, boasts one of the largest intact ecosystems remaining on Earth. The Barents Protected Area Network (BPAN) project promotes the establishment of a representative cross-border protected area network with a special focus on forests and mires in the region, say ANNA KUHMONEN and OLEG SUTKAITIS.

The four Barents countries – Fin- Barents Projected Area Network – BPAN land, Norway, Russia and Sweden –

share similar challenges with respect a SYKE, TW, BPAN Project, 2012 y l to conservation of ecosystems. Due to m e K A R A Z increasing and often unsustainable use

B A R E N T S a

y a S E A

of natural resources – gas, oil, minerals, Tromsø v o N forests, peatlands Vadsø S E A o.Vaygach

and water resources Bodø – threats to the Murmansk o.Kolguyev

remaining wilder- L a p l a n d Nar'yan Mar ness areas continue Rovaniemi ANNA KUHMONEN is Luleå to grow. A E Senior Coordinator at Oulu S The biggest Umeå Northern E the Natural Environ- Ostrobotnia Kainuu W H T threats to the vul- Region I ment Centre of the Kajaani nerable boreal and Arkhangelsk Finnish Environment GULF OF arctic nature of the BOTHNIA Institute and leader of Barents Region are the BPAN project. climate change and Petrozavodsk Syktyvkar loss of biodiversity. The large forests Existing protected areas and mires of the Planned protected areas Border of the Barents Region 0 100 200 300 400 km region have a sig- (c) The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (c) Finnish Environment institute, SYKE (c) ELY Centres (c) Lantmäteriet (c) Metsähallitus (c) Transparent World nificant impact on (c) Kola Biodiversity Conservation Center (c) The Karelian Regional Nature Conservancy (c) Arkhangelsk oﬃce WWF (c) Ministry of the Natural Resources and Environment climate through the OLEG SUTKAITIS is carbon cycle, and tected areas consists of diverse and well The project is running from 2011 to Head of WWF Rus- unique natural eco- connected natural areas that safeguard 2013, and focuses on implementing sia’s Barents Office systems represent a biodiversity, support natural ecosystems geographical information system (GIS) and BPAN coordinator natural heritage of and maintain ecosystem services. analyses and regional evaluations of a in Northwest Russia. global significance. By facilitating the establishment of transboundary protected area network. Protected areas such a network in the Barents Region, Five regional pilot projects are cur- are important tools the project contributes to the Conven- rently implemented in high conservation for biodiversity conservation as well as tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) target value areas threatened by human activi- climate change adaptation and mitiga- to significantly reduce the rate of biodi- ties in Northwest Russia. These include tion. A representative network of pro- versity loss by 2020. Europe’s largest old-growth spruce

20 The Circle 3.2012 Planned Khibiny National Park in Murmansk Region, Russia, has unique nature and is home to rare and endemic species.

forest “Dvisky” in Arkhangelsk Region authorities, scientific institutions and WWF supports the BPAN project and the old-growth pine forest “Jonn- NGOs in the Barents region, and funded to ensure an international exchange Njygojaiv” in Murmansk Region (both of by the Nordic Council of Ministers, the of experience around common areas, which are leased to forestry companies); Ministries of the Environment of Fin- common rare species, migration routes the most important habitat of endan- land, Norway and Sweden, and WWF- and conservation problems. This kind gered wild reindeer in the Tsilma River Russia’s Barents Sea Office. of cooperation will help avoid mistakes basin in the Republic of Komi; valuable and create effective tools for manage- natural and cultural landscapes of the ment and development of protected Zaonezhskye Peninsula in the Republic For biodiversity con- areas for Finnish, Norwegian, Russian of Karelia; and developing biodiver- servation, it is of out- and Swedish decision makers. sity monitoring in the Niznepechorsky For biodiversity conservation, it is of zakaznik in Nenets Autonomous Okrug. most importance that outmost importance that the connectiv- The overall aim of the pilot projects is to ity and representativeness of protected support the conservation of biodiversity the connectivity and areas are preserved. More analyses are in internationally significant sites of the needed to ensure this happens. BPAN Barents Region. representativeness of recommendations will be published BPAN is coordinated by the Finnish protected areas are at the Barents Ministerial meeting in Environment Institute in cooperation the autumn of 2013, and the results of with WWF’s Barents Sea Office. It is preserved. this meeting will form the basis for the implemented by national and regional future work of the BPAN project.

The Circle 3.2012 21 Local approaches (cont.) Improving Alaska’s wildlife conservation through applied science

A National Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) network has been developed in North America to promote Western Alaska Landscape landscapes capable of sustaining natural and cultural Conservation Cooperative resources for current and future generations. The LCCs Russia are helping to ensure that conservation science needs are Canada Alaska addressed and shared. Better knowledge is an important (USA) key to developing appropriate conservation measures to threats posed to wildlife by climate change, especially in western Alaska where there is limited baseline information, say KAREN MURPHY and LISA MATLOCK.

The LCC Network was launched in 2010 The LCCs were established as a the efficiency and effectiveness of ap- by the US Department of the Interior national network of regionally applied plied science activities among partners Secretary Ken Salazar in recognition that conservation science partnerships and to advance landscape level conservation climate change and other large land- today consist of 22 self-directed part- efforts across Alaska. scape-scale stressors demand a greater nerships that each address regionally The science needs for agencies and or- level of coordination and collaboration relevant issues and needs. The network ganizations in the huge and remote eco- across agencies, organizations and other promotes collaboration among part- systems of Alaska are great, and often partners interested in conservation and ners in defining and addressing shared overlap across organizations. Five LCCs resource management. No one entity science needs to inform broad-scale cross the Alaskan landscape (and into can provide the level of conservation conservation. Partners retain their own Canada) from the Arctic to the north that is needed in today’s rapidly chang- mandates and decision making authori- Pacific. While islands in the Bristol Bay ing world. This is especially relevant in ties, but the LCCs create an environ- area are included within the Aleu- Alaska where unprecedented changes ment for collaboration and cooperation. tian and Bering Sea Islands LCC, the are taking place as the climate warms. The LCC system also seeks to improve Western Alaska LCC encompasses the

Emperor geese. Arctic tern. Photos: FWS stock photos

22 The Circle 3.2012 Local approaches (cont.) Improving Alaska’s wildlife conservation through applied science

mainland portion of the Bristol Bay re- Half of the recent Western Alaska inundation on the habitat of breeding gion and extends north to Kotzebue and LCC projects study ‘system level’ stres- waterfowl. Simultaneously, they address south along the Alaska Peninsula and sors. These projects provide a vital science needs of agencies less-focused Kodiak. This LCC focuses on climate foundation for addressing important on wildlife, such as the National Oce- change effects on terrestrial systems fish and wildlife management decisions, anic and Atmospheric Administration’s and terrestrial-marine associations. such as the impacts of storm surge interest in improving real-time storm Since beginning almost two years ago, the Western Alaska LCC has formed a broad partnership for applied science Figure 1 through identifying and addressing science needs shared by federal, state, and Relationships among 10 coastal pilot program projects funded by the Western Alaska LCC in tribal agencies and non-governmental 2012. Each box represents major topics and includes the corresponding project number(s). organizations. The LCC is helping fill in See www.arcus.org/western-alaska-lcc the linkages from oceanographic system drivers to landscape processes to ecological and human systems. Understand what makes communi- Community Community-based ties vulnerable to Human assessments observers Coastal pilot systems storms and add In 2012-2013, the Western Alaska Project 10 Projects 3 & 10 local information LCC partnership is focusing on a pilot to available data program theme of “Changes in Coastal Storms and Their Impacts”. A second mini-pilot program has also begun on Understand how storms affect “Stream and Lake Temperature Moni- Waterbird Biological waterbirds (impor- toring”. The suite of ten projects funded response systems tant ecologically Project 9 in 2012 address important shared and for subsist- science needs relating to coastal storms ence uses) and their impacts, leverage existing efforts, and are coordinated to benefit a variety of partners (Figure 1). Tools for land Landscape Coastline managers to re- Togiak coast. (coastal) mapping spond to change systems Projects 6, 7, & 9 and identify sensi- tive areas

Needed for all New bathymetry Storm surge and Oceanographic Ice berm model forms of modelling and wave data wave models system drivers Project 3 change from Projects 4 6 5 Projects 1 & 2 storms

Co-located field sites, data sharing, or direct usage of project results Potential linkage contribution of project results

The Circle 3.2012 23 Rafting in Oulanka

Photo: Paavo Hamunen.psd National Park. forecasting for Alaska community members are being western Alaska’s trained to collect coastal storm data communities. through a project that builds on the cli- The coastal mate change vulnerability assessments projects cascade in Bristol Bay communities sponsored LISA MATLOCK is the from basic oceano- by the LCC in 2011. No one knows better Outreach Specialist for graphic modeling to how storms directly affect the western the US Fish and Wild- effects on wildlife Alaska coast, and all of its inhabitants, life Service’s Alaska and villages. One than the people who live there. Region Science Appli- project is assess- cations program based ing the impact of Better understanding in Anchorage. reduced sea ice on The tools and knowledge developed storm surges and through these projects will help wildlife coastal flooding. managers better understand how This project incor- climate change may impact coastal porates the effects wildlife populations. Identifying the of sea ice, tide, potential changes now can enable man- wind-driven waves, agers to develop innovative methods and currents along to help manage wildlife populations as KAREN MURPHY is the western Alaska’s their habitats change. Some of the tools, LCC (Landscape Con- coast and will even- like the three coastal mapping projects, servation Cooperative) tually lead to more will also help managers identify the LESSONS FROM ELSEWHERE Coordinator for the precise real-time most important coastal habitats so they Western Alaska LCC; predictions of storm can focus their protection efforts dur- her position is funded surges. Moving to ing oil spills or other disasters. Other through the US Fish biological systems, projects will help to create and improve and Wildlife Service on a connected effort predictive models to assess the vul- Supporting local development behalf of the partner- studies the rela- nerability of both wildlife and human ship. tionships between communities to future storm surges. flooding and The coastal pilot program will continue progressive changes through 2013 while the Western Alaska beyond commodities in waterbird abundance and nesting LCC completes its long-term strategic locations on the Yukon-Kuskokwim science plan. The mini-pilot program Delta. Human systems are also included is being initiated with a workshop on in these projects. A network of western stream and lake monitoring to identify Oulanka National Park in key steps in understanding how climate is changing these important systems. Finland joined the PAN About 88 per cent of Alaska is in Western Alaska LCC’s long-term stra- Parks network 10 years ago. public ownership and many areas tegic science plan will begin to address Since then the park has are set aside to protect their natural future applied science needs for the features including a wide variety of fish region next year. contributed to sustainable and wildlife habitats. These protected Managing wildlife, and its habitat tourism and more job op- areas vary in their specific purposes and users, through the changes ahead portunities in the area, says and include 32 state wildlife refuges, requires better understanding of basic sanctuaries, and critical habitat areas, systems and their relationships in order ZOLTAN KUN. and waters important to anadromous to learn how we can adapt to future fish; as well as other areas such as changes. The Western Alaska LCC seeks Close to the Arctic Circle at the Rus- state parks; and National Wildlife Ref- to fill at least some of these needs while sian border, where Taiga forests alter- uges, National Parks, and Preserves. connecting partners together for, ulti- nate with vast moors, lies what the Sami (Source: www.adfg.alaska.gov) mately, the most effective conservation people call “the flooded land”: Oulanka we can deliver. National Park. Oulanka is a climatic

24 The Circle 3.2012 LESSONS FROM ELSEWHERE Supporting local development beyond commodities

crossroads, where the Arctic and the Wild values Oulanka National Park joined the southern climate collide and vegetation PAN Parks, a European wilderness PAN Parks network in 2002. Although grows, untypically lush for the North. protection organisation which was the area had already been protected be- Rare species like the golden eagle and established in 1999, offers an interest- fore, the management authority wanted capercaillie, the bear and the lynx roam ing opportunity to increase the number a tool to improve the local tourism in the park. And in June the calypso of protected areas while supporting the potential. The international recognition orchid blooms, the emblem of Oulanka local economies. The foundation man- by PAN Parks helped provide additional National Park. ages a network of protected areas that benefits and marketing for some of In order to meet the target under the remains among the most undisturbed the local businesses, with convincing Convention on Biological Diversity to in Europe. While protecting essential results. increase marine and terrestrial protec- wilderness attributes this network also Today more than 170,000 tourists tion by 2020, most European countries offers opportunities for local entrepre- visit Oulanka every year and the total have to take measures to establish new neurs to benefit, aiming to add values to annual income in 2010 was €14.7 mil- or enlarge existing protected areas. They wilderness through non-extractive usages lion. This income is brought back into will face real challenges in implementing such as tourism. The PAN Parks network the communities in different ways, for this target unless further public support is currently covers over 0.5 million hectares instance through local salaries. 190 jobs gained, including from local communities. of existing wilderness in Europe. have been created in this process, meas-

The Circle 3.2012 25 Photo: Paavo Hamunen.psd Autumn wilderness in Oulanka National Park.

ured in full time positions per year. created in August 2012. Furthermore, proposal to open a gold mine just at the PAN Parks is of course not the ulti- there is now political will to strengthen border of Oulanka National Park. Min- mate solution in itself. The concept of wilderness conservation within the two ing activities consume large amounts combining strict management authorities, and enlarge of water and consequently cause large wilderness manage- the territory on the Russian side. volumes of polluted wastewater. The ment principles mining company promises to create a with sustainable Increasing threats few dozen jobs, which compared to the tourism only works However there are also growing threats employment effect of tourism is minor. ZOLTAN KUN is Execu- if there is strong to this success story. Due to the increas- Conservation organisations, including tive Director of PAN local consensus to ing commodity prices, there is a current PAN Parks, and local entrepreneurs are Parks, where he has work together. In against the gold mining plan. The gold overall responsibil- the case of Oulanka mining plans are currently undergoing ity for the operation National Park, the an Environmental Impact Assessment, of the foundation. Finnish state- The concept of com- and there is hope that the plan will be He joined the PAN owned enterprise bining strict wilder- withdrawn. Parks initiative in 1997 Metsahallitus man- We believe that PAN Parks can serve and was appointed aged to pull local ness management as an example and can encourage other Executive Director in municipalities and countries and organisations to improve 2002 after working businesses together principles with sus- protection measures. Biodiversity with PAN Parks for five to form a local continues to decline rapidly in Europe, years as Conservation PAN Parks group, tainable tourism even if a few species and ecosystems are Manager. which agreed on a only works if there is recovering. Although European states regional Sustainable have achieved substantial progress in Tourism Develop- strong local consen- the conservation of biodiversity, we be- ment Strategy. This strategy was crucial lieve that increasing the size of wilder- in establishing the first transbound- sus to work together. ness and wild lands is crucial to halting ary PAN Park, Oulanka / Paanajarvi, biodiversity loss in Europe.

26 The Circle 3.2012 LESSONS FROM ELSEWHERE (CONT.) The Natura 2000 network: where ecology and economy meet Natura 2000 is a European Union success story. It is the biggest network of protected areas in the world, with more than 26,000 sites covering close to one million square kilo- metres of the European Union, says ALBERTO ARROYO SCHNELL.

Today, the Natura 2000 terrestrial tion and acknowledgment of the natural ing the European Agriculture and Rural areas cover around 18 per cent of the EU values of Europe, but it also serves as an Development Fund, the European re- territory, exceeding the UN Convention inventory of its most important areas gional Development Funds, the European on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) goal of for habitats and species. Fisheries Fund and the European En- 17 per cent. The designation of marine At the same time, Natura 2000 is not vironmental Fund) can be drawn upon. sites is currently ongoing, with some a system of nature reserves, in which However, to ensure good results. Germany has for example all human activities are excluded. The that all financing proposed to include 30 per cent of their emphasis is on ensuring a future where needs of Natura marine Economic Exclusive Zone as a land management is sustainable both 2000 are covered is Natura 2000 area. ecologically and economically. In prac- the biggest challenge Moreover, Natura 2000 is also an tice, economic activities with potentially ahead and EU mem- ALBERTO ARROYO NGO success. Over the past 15-20 years negative effects on the sites will follow ber states are at the SCHNELL works as key European environmental NGOs, an evaluation process. This determines if moment developing Biodiversity Policy including WWF, have invested a lot of such an activity can be carried out. When national planning Advisor for WWF’s time and effort to make this project a there are no alternatives, compensatory documents to define European Policy Office reality, and are still working intensively measures should be put in place, other- how to cover these where he has been to ensure its implementation. wise the evaluation process will conclude costs from EU and since 2011, previously So what lessons could be learnt from that the activity should not take place as national funds. working as WWF’s these experiences? it was planned. For instance, the Polish Despite the Natura 2000 Coordi- Natura 2000 is a legal obligation for “Via Baltica” highway was re-routed as financial challenges, nator since 2005. He all the members of the European Union the route chosen did not consider the to which innovative is responsible for the - all EU nations have to follow the Natura 2000 network adequately. solutions currently European biodiversity same approach to ensure the long-term are being applied policy portfolio, and survival of Europe’s most valuable and Financial challenge – including the coordinates WWF’s threatened species and habitats. This The cost of the management of Natura development of na- European network on means that it has become a truly inter- 2000 has been estimated by the Europe- tional and regional biodiversity related national network of protected areas, a an Commission and EU member states to planning tools – issues. He is a forestry unique common continental conserva- be minimum €5,8 billion per year. This the Natura 2000 engineer, specialized tion effort in 27 countries. is a very small figure compared to the network is a success in protected areas benefits which flow from the network, es- story on many management and im- Scientific selection, timated by the European Commission to levels. The factors plementation. flexible management €200-300 billion per year. This includes referred to above A particular characteristic of this net- estimates of carbon sequestration and related to scientific work is that the selection of the sites is storage, water provision and purification, selection, flexible management and the strictly based on science. No politics or national hazards prevention, tourism and compulsory legal nature of the protec- socio-economic interests are included recreation. Currently there isn’t a specific tion regime could be elements to take in the discussions. The creation of the fund for financing Natura 2000, but all into account for related developments in network is therefore not just a recogni- the relevant EU funding sources (includ- other regions in the world.

The Circle 3.2012 27 LESSONS FROM ELSEWHERE (CONT.) Development of an ecological network approach in the Caucasus Strategic planning, broad and multidisciplinary expert involvement, and transboundary collaboration are among the ingredients behind the success of the ecological network approach in the Caucasus, explains CRISTIAN MONTALVO MANCHENO.

The Caucasus Ecoregion spans Turkey and part of northwestern Iran. Places and Conservation International’s over the entire territories of Armenia, It is one of the most biologically rich 34 Biodiversity Hotspots. Furthermore, Azerbaijan and Georgia, the north regions within the temperate zone in the Caucasus Ecoregion is an important Caucasus part of the Russian Fed- the northern hemisphere: the Caucasus centre of cultural diversity, including 28 eration, the northeastern territory of Ecoregion is one of WWF’s 35 Priority ethnic groups with different languages and religions. Caucasus Ecoregion Since the beginning 12 years ago, the conservation of the Caucasus Ecoregion Priority conservation areas and corridors. was thought of as a strategic planning process driven by species and supported by experts’ knowledge – represented by governmental organizations, NGOs and scientific institutions. It started by identifying large-scale valuable areas for conservation, and it has moved on to more detailed analyses to set aside new protected areas (PAs) and identify paths that will ensure persistence of Caucasus’ biodiversity. In general, this process can be divided into three stages.

Roadmap for conservation The first stage was to identify important taxon areas, using 70 model species from all major taxa selected by experts from the six countries of the Caucasus Ecoregion. As a result, 260 important taxon areas were identified, which included 60 for plants, 29 for mammals, 121 for birds, 28 for amphibians and reptiles, and 22 for fish. They consti- tuted the basis for the second stage, on which valuable conservation areas were selected. Experts identified and selected 56 priority conservation areas (PCAs) where

28 The Circle 3.2012 planning information is needed, WWF has initiated the third stage of conservation efforts. A pilot study that started two years ago is being carried out in the transboundary (Georgia-Turkey) priority conservation landscape of the West- ern Lesser Caucasus. The study seeks to generate necessary background information and will help gain insight into the local planning processes so when initiated in other parts of the Cauca- sus, the process has been adapted and improved according to the reality of CRISTIAN MONTALVO region. MANCHENO is from This pilot study Ecuador and did his is being developed Master of Science Photo: WWF-Caucasus Programme O ffice at the University of Baghdadi, Georgia, at the northwest corner of Borjomi Kharagauli National Park. using GIS tools for biodiversity at a Idaho, USA, focusing finer planning scale. on ecotourism as a urgent conservation measures were promote transboundary collaboration Another crucial and mechanism for financ- needed, and 60 corridors that sought in a part of the world where territorial even more impor- ing PAs. He has been to guarantee the connectivity between issues still exist. Lake Arpi National tant piece of this in Georgia for the last PCAs. As a result of this work, a road Park in Armenia and Javakheti National work, which will three years where map for the conservation of the Cauca- Park in Georgia are a good example of a start in the upcom- he is doing a PhD sus’ biodiversity, called the Ecological transboundary PA, where the Armenian ing year, covers on natural resource Conservation Plan (ECP), was born in and Georgian governments have agreed generating infor- management at Ilia 2006. Recently, an updated version has to coordinate their management with mation on socio- State University, focus- been released in light of the 2020 tar- the purpose of creating a common vision economic issues, ing on GIS design of gets under the Convention on Biological and objectives, and implementing joint developing effective ecological corridors Diversity (CBD). programmes. Clear plans for trans- means for sharing in the Georgian part boundary cooperation also exist along information across of the West Lesser Cross-border cooperation the borders of Turkey-Georgia, Azerbai- the stakeholder Caucasus Mountains. A multitude of activities has been car- jan-Georgia, and Armenia-Iran. spectrum, and He also works as a ried out in the region as part of the im- creating incentive freelance consultant plementation of the ECP, ranging from Pilot study mechanisms that for the WWF-Cauca- habitat restoration to development of As conservation activities have reached will help engage sus Programme Office sustainable activities within and outside a tipping point where more detailed local populations in projects related to PAs across the region. These activities into the process biodiversity and sus- aim to contribute to the maintenance of of corridor estab- tainable development. ecosystem integrity and the sustainable Activities aim to con- lishment. Due to use of natural resources, which are im- this finer planning portant elements of ecological networks. tribute to the main- scale and multidisciplinary work, this The development of Caucasus’ eco- challenging approach requires not just logical networks has focused on both im- tenance of ecosystem reliable information and coordination proving the management of existing PAs of efforts between all stakeholders, but and increasing the area under legal pro- integrity and the sus- also substantial donor support during tection. Most of the new PAs have been tainable use of natu- longer periods of time than traditional created within PCAs that cross country programmes do. borders, as a way not just to ensure the ral resources. conservation of biodiversity but also to

The Circle 3.2012 29 WWF A Pan-Arctic Ecological Network: the concept and reality Protected areas represent the most common, traditional and familiar approach to in-situ conservation. But the traditional approach will not be sufficient for a rapidly changing Arctic, says ALEXANDER SHESTAKOV, who argues that a representative, resilient and effective Pan-Arctic Ecological Network now needs to be developed.

Protected areas (PAs) can be an ef- was developed 30 years ago and has conservation backbones of the land- ficient conservation tool, and are an subsequently been successfully promot- scape/seascape. essential element ed and implemented in different parts An important feature of an ecologi- of spatial planning of the world (such as Europe, South cal network – which makes it different and territorial man- America, Central Asia). The Pan-Euro- from a protected area – is the combina- agement. They will pean Ecological Network, including Nat- tion of classical protected areas (as core no doubt remain ura 2000 which is described elsewhere zones) together with areas under other ALEXANDER critical elements in this edition is a classical example. management regimes. In this way, an SHESTAKOV is Direc- of conservation all However, similar to what is the case for econet is open for some economic activi- tor of WWF’s Global over the world’s PAs, econets are still predominantly ter- ties, and does not preclude sustainable Arctic Programme. He landscapes and restrial phenomena. activities or exclude people. has a law degree and seascapes. Ecological networks are designed a PhD focused on en- At the same time, to strengthen ecological stability and Arctic challenges vironmental manage- many traditional resilience of large ecosystems and allow In the Arctic up to 14 per cent of the ment and conservation PAs continue to for sustainable provisioning of a wide territory belong to PAs of various and has previously be “conservation range of ecosystem services. Properly categories, including very few marine worked for academia, islands” in an ocean designed, implemented and managed, areas. Despite a request in 2004 by NGOs, government of increasing hu- econets may become strong effective the Convention on Biological Diversity and industry. He has man development programme of work on protected areas been an expert to the and no or insuf- to ensure protected area system gap Russian Parliament ficient – or inap- Many traditional analyses at national and regional levels, on environmental law, propriate – man- there is still no comprehensive picture and member of official agement regimes. PAs continue to be for the entire Arctic. Existing PAs were Russian delegations Separated or iso- established by arctic nations without an to the Convention lated individual PAs “conservation is- overall analysis of pan-arctic conserva- on Biodiversity and are more vulnerable lands” in an ocean tion needs and representativeness on the Convention on to various threats, a pan-arctic scale, and do not fully ad- International Trade in including climate of increasing human dress resilience needs and current rapid Endangered Species. change, and are changes in the region. therefore often less development and no The last decades have brought new effective in deliver- threats and challenges to arctic eco- ing conservation results. or insufficient – or systems. Current network of PAs and inappropriate – man- similar conservation areas are unlikely Econet to be able to adequately address these To address some of these issues the agement regimes. challenges. concept of ecological networks (econet) An arctic econet would combine clus-

30 The Circle 3.2012 ters of different management regimes, linking areas with classical protected area status to areas that are managed to ensure overall ecosystem resilience and provisioning of ecosystem services to communities. Such a combination of stricter protection for the most valuable elements with management regimes for supporting zones will provide for ecological stability of the wider landscapes/ seascapes by ensuring: ■■ Additional benefits for conservation through linking essential areas together (for example calving and feeding areas and migration routes for reindeer), guaranteeing full representativeness at ecosystem and species level; ■■ Stronger resilience towards various external threats (including processes related to human infrastructure and © Staffan Widstrand/WWF © Staffan socio-economic systems); An econet does not preclude sustainable activities or exclude people. Here Inuit ■ ■ Long term benefits to local communi- kids in front of their house, Scoresbysund, Ittoqottormiit, NE Greenland National ties and the global community through Park. ecosystem services and sustaining essential living resources; ■■ Opportunities to continue traditional regimes for every identified element; contribution from other working groups land use practices; ■■ Consideration of econet scheme pro- (in particular PAME on marine areas ■■ Opportunities for co-management posals by appropriate authorities; of heightened ecological and cultural between local communities. ■■ Full incorporation of econet elements importance). This will be a good practi- into territorial plans/schemes; cal implementation of important data Critical steps ■■ Effective management, monitoring collected through CAFF projects and An arctic econet – a Pan-Arctic Eco- and control of econet elements. activities. The subsequent steps should logical Network – needs to be properly then be taken by arctic governments in designed in order to be representative, The two first steps could be developed consultation and cooperation within the resilient and effective. This will require in partnership between arctic experts Arctic Council processes. several critical steps: and governments under the umbrella of Fundamentally a Pan-Arctic Eco- ■■ Full gap analysis of existing systems the Arctic Council CAFF working group, logical Network is not about creating of protected areas and other conserva- using its expertise and significant data hundreds of new parks and other PAs. tion areas, as well as areas with special collated during previous years with It is rather about addressing the new management regimes in the Arctic for challenges and threats to ecosystems, terrestrial and marine realms. This through ensuring further scientific analysis should fully incorporate ecosys- knowledge about the Arctic, identify- tem resilience assessments, ecosystem Properly designed, ing proper management regimes that services analyses and adaptation meas- implemented and can support sustainable and long term ures to climate change; socio-economic development and pros- ■■ Full analysis of legal instruments managed, econets perity of local communities, and linking available in the Arctic at local, national together and strengthening existing and international levels for various may become strong PAs and other territorial conservation management forms related to econet measures. Only by doing this can we functional elements (core zones, buffers, effective conserva- guarantee the long term provisioning corridors); tion backbones of the of essential ecosystem services locally ■■ Consultations with Indigenous com- and globally, and build resilience in the munities and stakeholders to agree on landscape/seascape. rapidly changing Arctic. specific management/conservation

The Circle 3.2012 31 Return WWF Global Arctic Programme 30 Metcalfe St, Suite 400, Ottawa ON K1P 5L4, Canada

The picture The largest national park in the world Photo: Rita Willaert, Flickr/Creative commons

Northeast Greenland National Park is the largest national park in the world, with an area of 972,000 km2. This makes the park larger than most countries and would place it 31st if it were a country, just behind Egypt. It is the only national park in Greenland and is also the most northerly national park in the world. The park encompasses the entire northeastern coastline and interior sections of Greenland. It was originally created in 1974 and expanded to its present size in 1988. The park has no permanent human population. An estimated 5,000 to 15,000 musk oxen, as well as numerous polar bears and walrus, can be found near the coastal regions of the park. Other mammals include arctic fox, stoat, collared lemming and arctic hare, in addition to various seals, narwhal and Beluga whale. (Source: Wikipedia)

Why we are here To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.