CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN for the RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX Part 1

Home , Bikinsky District, Blagoveshchensk, Callipogon relictus, Carabus smaragdinus, Dalnegorsk, Daurian partridge

CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN FOR THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX Part 1. Biodiversity and socio-economic assessment

Editors:

Yuri Darman, WWF Russia Far Eastern Branch Vladimir Karakin, WWF Russia Far Eastern Branch Andrew Martynenko, Far Eastern National University Laura Williams, Environmental Consultant

Prepared with funding from the WWF-Netherlands Action Network Program

Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Blagoveshensk, Birobidzhan 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. Part 1.

1. INTRODUCTION 4 1.1. The Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex 4 1.2. Purpose and Methods of the Biodiversity and Socio-Economic 6 Assessment 1.3. The Ecoregion-Based Approach in the Russian Far East 8 2. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX: 11 A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW 2.1. Landscape Diversity 12 2.2. Hydrological Network 15 2.3. Climate 17 2.4. Flora 19 2.5. Fauna 23 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST 29 ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES 3.1. Focal Species 30 3.2. Species of Special Concern 47 3.3 .Focal Processes and Phenomena 55 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION 59 4.1. Natural Zoning of the RFE Ecoregion Complex 59 4.2. Methods of Territorial Biodiversity Analysis 62 4.3. Conclusions of Territorial Analysis 69 4.4. Landscape Integrity and Representation Analysis of Priority Areas 71 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION 77 5.1. Legislative Basis for Biodiversity Conservation in the RFE 77 5.2. The System of Protected Areas in the RFE 81 5.3. Conventions and Agreements Related to Biodiversity Conservation 88 in the RFE 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES 90 6.1. Population 91 6.2. Economy 95 6.3. Future Economic Development 109 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS 112 7.1. Overriding Threats 112 7.2. Threat Analysis of Priority Areas 121 7.3. Conclusions of Threat Analysis 124 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION 126 8.1. Overview of Interest Groups 126 8.2. Climate for Stakeholder Cooperation 137 9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT 138 9.1. Review of Priority Areas for Conservation 138 9.2. Vision for Biodiversity Conservation in the RFE 140 9.3. Achieving the Biodiversity Vision 142 9.4. What Next? 145 GLOSSARY 146 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT 153 REFERENCES 154 ATTACHMENT 1. Members of the Ecoregional Council for Sustainable Nature 158 Management (RFE Ecoregional Council) ATTACHMENT 2. Contributors to the Biodiversity and Socio-Economic Assessment 161 ATTACHMENT 3. Protected Areas in the RFE Ecoregion Complex 168 ATTACHMENT 4. Summary of Ongoing and Completed Projects Related to Biodiversity 170 Conservation in the RFE LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of plants and mushrooms included in the Russian and 20 regional Red Books of rare and endangered species Table 2. Overall and comparative diversity of organisms in the RFE 24 Table 3. Minimum area requirements for focal species and related assumptions 34 Table 4. Comparison of two Ecoregion classification systems 61 Table 5. Evaluation of characteristics of biodiversity in the RFE Ecoregion 64 Table 6. Ecoregions of the RFE Ecoregion Complex 67 Table 7. Priority areas for short- and medium-term conservation of biodiversity 72 in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex Table 8. Integrity of priority eco-districts and major threats to biodiversity 74 Table 9. Percent of land in the RFE covered by protected areas of various types 82 Table 10. Area, population, and gross regional product of administrative 93 regions in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex Table 11. Output of the natural resource sector in the RFE 102 Table 12. Threats to major ecosystems in the Russian Far East Ecoregion 119 Complex and their primary sources Table 13. Impact of economic activity on forest ecosystems of the RFE 120 Table 14. Ranking of type of threat and distribution, overall biodiversity, 125 and overall priority level for priority conservation areas in the RFE Ecoregion Complex Table 15. Niches of prominent stakeholders in implementing the Conservation 135 Action Plan for the RFE Ecoregion Complex LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. Principles of Ecoregion-based conservation 9 Box 2. Biodiversity of the RFE in brief 11 Box 3. Viable populations of mammals in the RFE Ecoregion Complex 25 Box 4. Amur Tiger Conservation Strategy 35 Box 5. Far Eastern Leopard Conservation Strategy 41 Box 6. Oriental White Stork Conservation Strategy 44 Box 7. Primary laws and legislative mechanisms in the Russian Federation 77 governing biodiversity conservation in the RFE Box 8. International environmental conventions and agreements in the RFE 89 Box 9. The regional system of nature use prior to and during economic reforms 101 Box 10. Types of threats to biodiversity 121 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex 5 Figure 2. Landscapes 13 Figure 3. Relief 13 Figure 4. Climate 18 Figure 5. Vegetation 18 Figure 6. Scheme of Fauna Types Distribution in the RFE 26 Figure 7. The density of Amur tiger tracks on count units in Khabarovsky and Primorsky 33 Provinces on data of simultaneous survey (February 10 -12, 1986). Figure 8. Amur Tiger Econet: Proposed system of Nature Protected Areas in Khabarovsky 36 and Primorsky Provinces Figure 9. Distribution of Far Eastern Leopard in different habitat types in Southwestern 39 Primorsky Province Figure 10. Oriental White Stork distribution in freshwater ecosystems of Amur river 43 Figure 11. Historical distribution of wild Panax ginseng 46 Figure 12. Ecoregion zonning in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex 60 Figure 13. Level of Biodiversity Components 63 Figure 14. Level of biological distinctiveness 65 Figure 15. Types of biodiversity 65 Figure 16. Biodiversity conservation priorities in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex 70 Figure 17. Proposed System of Nature Protected Areas in the Russian Far Eastern Complex 84 Figure 18. Population Density in the Russian Far East Ecoregion 94 Figure 19. Economic map 98 Figure 20. Scope of Economic Development 110 1. INTRODUCTION

The largely unaltered forest and fresh- natural flooding regimes, fluctuate with-

water ecosystems in the southern Russian out interference from humans. The Amur

Far East play an important role in con- tiger (Panthera tigris), the largest cat in

serving the Earth's biodiversity. The level the world and one of the World Wide Fund

of diversity and endemism of species for Nature's (WWF) three targeted species

assemblages in the southern RFE are unri- of megafauna, finds refuge here along

valled in temperate forests anywhere in with other globally threatened species like

the world. The region still harbors large the Far Eastern leopard (Panthera par-

areas of intact habitats where environmen- dus orientalis), Oriental white stork

tal processes, such as predator-prey rela- (Ciconia boyciana), and red-crowned

tions, seasonal migrations, and large-scale crane (Grus japonensis).

1.1. THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX

WWF has ascertained the global impor- based strategy and Conservation Action

tance of one freshwater, one marine, and Plan (CAP). This new unit - the Russian Far

two terrestrial Ecoregions in the Russian East Ecoregion Complex (referred to as

Far East as part of the Global 200. The RFE Ecoregion in this report), which con-

Global 200 is a set of Ecoregions identified sists of floral and faunal communities with

as globally outstanding for biodiversity, like traits and biogeographical origins, is

comprising a representative portfolio of the the basis for setting priorities for biodiver-

Earth's biodiversity (Dinerstein and Olson sity conservation in the region.

1998). The WWF Russia Far Eastern

Branch (WWF-RFE) combined overlap- The Russian Far East Ecoregion

ping parts of these global Ecoregions in Complex covers a total area of 1.35 million

order to carry out biological and socio-eco- km2, or one percent of the Earth's land sur-

nomic assessments and develop a broad- face (Figure 1). While the RFE Ecoregion 4 Figure1. LOCATION OF RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX ECOREGION FAREAST RUSSIAN LOCATIONOF Map of the Global 200 Global the of Map

5 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 1. INTRODUCTION

encompasses all four administrative and Heilongjian provinces of northeastern

provinces of the Russian Federation China and the North Hamgyong Province

(Amurskaya, Evreiskaya, Khabarovsky, of North Korea will be targeted for specific

and Primorsky provinces), the bulk of con- programs aimed at conserving migratory

servation efforts will be focused on its species and transboundary habitats along

southern portion, where both levels of bio- the Amur River, as well as for leopard con-

diversity and threats are greatest. The Jilin servation in the Cherny (Black) Mountains.

1.2. PURPOSE AND METHODS OF THE BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

WWF has been active in the RFE regional level. The main output of that proj-

Ecoregion since 1994, when it began fund- ect is the Conservation Action Plan (CAP)

ing anti-poaching brigades and environ- consisting of two parts: the Biodiversity

mental awareness programs to help save the and Socio-Economic Assessment (Part 1)

Amur tiger. More recent projects on pro- and the NGO Joint Action Plan (Part 2).

moting sustainable forestry through certifi-

cation by the Forest Stewardship Council The purpose of the Biodiversity and

(FSC) and control of illegal logging are Socio-Economic Assessment is to analyze

helping to conserve important habitat for the current situation in the RFE and create a

the tiger and other species. In 1998, with scientific basis for determining priorities

funding from the WWF-Netherlands Action for the CAP. The assessment process has

Network Program, WWF-Russia launched played an important role in bringing stake-

the project «Ensuring long-term conserva- holders together to agree on priorities for

tion of the Russian Far East» to help inte- long-term biodiversity conservation. The

grate conservation activities and move for- report provides an overview of the unique

ward from piecemeal efforts for saving bio- assemblages of plants and animals in the

diversity to a broad-scale approach at a RFE Ecoregion, the overarching threats to 6 S CAP.the of implementation help determine what role they might play in to Ecoregion RFE the in conservation in reviews which organizations are doing what analysis stakeholder The impacts. human mitigate to required is action immediate where determine help assessment threat the and trends socio-economic of review The future. the targetedin be effortsshould conservation where areas priority and processes, environmental species, focal ing select- for process the describes assessment The threats. these mediate to working agencies government and groups ronmental envi- by efforts current and survival, their of the Ecoregional Council for Sustainable for Council Ecoregional the of establishment the was process this of result important An involved. issues the of face sur- the skimmed only have these even and Plan, Action Joint NGO the out work and assessment, develop the biodiversity vision, this out carry to needed were (1999-2002) years four Nearly made. be to impact significant any for required be will more or years 10 Realistically, goal. ambitious very a is Complex Ecoregion RFE the of ty uccessful conservation of all the diversi- the all of conservation uccessful ersnaie i te Ecoregional Council. the in representatives Environment Resource Center, which have Pacific and ISAR as such organizations collaborates with international conservation TaigiZov and WWF Province). (Primorsky Wildlife Foundation, Society,Phoenix Conservation Province), Foundation Ecological (Khabarovsky Amur and Province), Khabarovsk Wildlife Foundation (Evreiskaya NGOs Environmental of ECOLIGA-League Province), (Amurskaya Union Socio-Ecological Amur the include Partners conservation. biodiversity of which playcriticalrolesindifferent aspects NGOs, leading with partnerships strong creating is WWF council, the Through were discussedandapprovedbythisgroup. strategies draft and Proposals and improve. evolve to continue will CAP the that guarantees and addressed be to tinue ensures that unanswered questions will con- group this of establishment The region. the for strategies conservation developing in Complex Ecoregion the in 1) (Attachment NGOs and scientists, decision-makers, leading include to 2000 May in Council) Ecoregional (RFE Management Nature

7 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 1. INTRODUCTION

Two working groups were created to Academy of Sciences, government insti-

work on both parts of the Conservation tutes on environment, biogeography, geob-

Action Plan. The first group carried out an otany, soils, natural resource use, econom-

assessment of biodiversity of the RFE ics, and other related fields; b) leading spe-

Ecoregion Complex, while the second cialists in the Russian Federation on plan-

working group undertook a social-econom- ning protected areas; c) representatives of

ic analysis. A wide range of experts provincial administrations of the RFE

(Attachment 2) took part in preparation of Ecoregion; d) members of environmental

these analyses and the NGO Joint Action NGOs; and e) international environmental

Plan itself, including: a) leading specialists consultants.

of institutes of the Russian Far East

1.3. THE ECOREGION-BASED APPROACH IN THE RFE ECOREGION

The Ecoregion-based approach is being Operating at a regional scale will help us

used by WWF in other globally significant achieve conservation results that are eco-

regions around the world to develop and logically viable, for example by setting

implement comprehensive programs for aside networks of key conservation areas,

biodiversity conservation. The advantages creating migration corridors for focal

of targeting the Ecoregion-level for conser- species, and preserving ecological process-

vation are many. For one, the fate of natural es at scales large enough to maintain biodi-

ecosystems, endangered species, and peo- versity.

ple can be addressed across political bound-

aries. An Ecoregion approach allows us to Ecoregion-based conservation (EBRC)

set more meaningful goals for conserving provides a framework for identifying con-

biodiversity and ensuring socio-economic servation landscapes that represent a

welfare for people in the entire region. region's natural biodiversity. The funda- 8 Cen) onan, eaae b wide by separated Mountains, (Cherny) Black the and Range, Khingan the Range, Sikhote-Alin the - parts distinct three includes Ecoregion freshwater the reality, In 72). (No. Forests» Temperate East Far «Russian Ecoregion terrestrial global the overlaps completely 151) (No. Streams» ter Ecoregion«RussianFarEastRiversand freshwa- global The 200. Global WWF the of framework the in RFE the for delineated been have Ecoregion freshwater global one T 1). (Box biodiversity representative of conservation long-term ensure to is ERBC of goal The boundaries. biological meaningful with units sent repre- to boundaries administrative scend tran- Ecoregions perspective. regional a with systems area protected and landscapes conservation larger designing and ning plan- for basis the as used are 2000). Ecoregions al. et (Dinerstein conditions» environmental and dynamics, munities, harbors acharacteristicsetofspecies,com- that water or land of parcel large relatively «a as defined is the Ecoregion An Ecoregion. is framework this in unit mental o lbl ersra Eoein and Ecoregions terrestrial global wo

BOX 1. PRINCIPLES OF ECOREGION-BASED CONSERVATION

(modified from Noss 1992, Dinerstein et al. 2000) temperate on only not depends tiger Amur the of survival the Similarly, Ecoregions. freshwater and terrestrial between nection con- important the of example an is lands, low- River Amur the in grounds wintering their breeding habitat in mountain forests to uals traverse 200 kilometers each year from pygargus) of migration scale large- The assemblages. animal and plant the connecting habitats, terrestrial different the join to corridor a as serves habitat ian and the Khanka Lake Lowlands. This ripar- valleys Ussuri and Amur the of wetlands long-term changes long-term and disturbances periodic large-scale to resilient be to enough large are C and species; focal and acteristic M biodiversity; Ecoregion's the sustain and create that processes evolutionary and ecological the maintain to enough large P areas; multiple-use and corridors, connecting areas, tected pro- effective of network a within nities R by: met is goal conservation This REPRESENTATIVEOF BIODIVERSITY. CONSERVATIONLONG-TERM ENSURE TO IS EBRC OF GOAL THE roviding natural habitat areas that are that areas habitat natural roviding onserving natural habitat blocks that blocks habitat natural onserving commu- natural distinct all epresenting aintaining viable populations of char- of populations viable aintaining , when more than 50,000 individ- 50,000 than more when , o deer roe (Capreolus

9 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 1. INTRODUCTION

forests but also on Manchurian mixed sentation of northern boreal and mountain

forests and to some extent on Okhotsk- ecosystems in protected area networks.

Manchurian boreal forests. Therefore, in However, the majority of the efforts and

creating the Russian Far East Ecoregion funds for biodiversity conservation should

Complex, the two adjacent terrestrial be targeted in the southern portion of the

Ecoregions were connected where they Russian Far East and RFE Ecoregion.

overlap with the Amur River and its water-

shed (which includes most of Primorsky The RFE Ecoregion Complex does not

Province) to allow effective planning and include islands in the Okhotsk Sea or the

implementation of conservation issues on a Sea of Japan (Sakhalin, Kuril Islands, and

sufficiently large-scale. Working at the others), with the exception of small islands

scale of adjacent Ecoregions will allow near the coast that fall within the given

integration of measures to conserve land- provinces. Likewise, marine or coastal

scapes that require cooperation even across issues will not be addressed in this strategy,

Ecoregion boundaries. since that region, with its unique set of eco-

logical and socio-economic traits, is being

Thus, the boundaries of the Russian Far addressed by the «Strategy for Biodiversity

East Ecoregion Complex include the entire in the Coastal Zone of the RFE Ecoregion»

territories of four administrative regions of (A.Ozolinsh, V.Spiridonov, 2001;

the Russian Federation (Figure 1). While the A.Ozolinsh et al., 2002), developed in

southern portion of the RFE, in the temper- 2001. The RFE does not include the Amur

ate forest zone, contains the bulk of biodi- River itself, but only its terrestrial flood-

versity in the RFE, it is necessary to include plain habitats and the watersheds of its trib-

the northern regions of Khabarovsky and utaries. While the Ecoregion Complex does

Amurskaya provinces for political as well as not include the neighboring provinces of

logistical regions, particularly where pro- China and North Korea, these territories

grams promoting sustainable nature use are should be targeted where efforts are needed

concerned. Additionally, these northern to conserve transboundary ecosystems and

areas will play an important role for repre- migrating species. 10 BOX 2. BIODIVERSITY OF THE RFE IN BRIEF Nlmim komarovii) (Nelumbium (Pelodiscus sinensis) (Pelodiscus cus percent of percent storks, 65 percent of red-crowned cranes, and 50 white Oriental of population world the of percent Valley is the last remaining nesting habitat for 95 here and 27 are rare and endangered. The Amur O uh s the as such endemics the of number a including Ecoregion, RFE of lakes and rivers inhabit fish of species schreberi) h ednee ad nei mr river Amur endemic and endangered the amphibians andreptilesarefoundhere,suchas Twenty-three kg. 1,000 to up weigh can which are 50 endangered species such as these Among fauna. Earth's the of percent one T RFE DIVERSITY ANIMAL the in found are Ecoregion. lilies the of 1,300 percent Four world's ranges. their of extent northern the at Valley River Amur the in grow as such are fossils Living one-third relics. while endangered, are number total the of percent 15 Nearly Earth. on else nowhere found are third a nearly which of RFE, T DIVERSITY PLANT percent of mammals. of percent 21 and birds, of percent 14 reptiles, of percent percent of the of amphibian species represented, 66 level 55 The country,with the in highest the is endemism here. represented are tebrates ver- terrestrial of percent 42 general: in Russia F populations. world's the of percent 95 with highly and notable leopard, endangered Eastern Far and tiger Amur the including Ecoregion, N here are 40,000 species of insects, comprising insects, of species 40,000 are here here are 2,800 species of vascular plants in the ua n h RE s ihy ersnaie of representative highly is RFE the in auna inety species of mammals are found in the RFE f the 400 birds in the RFE Ecoregion, 250 nest 2. THE RUSSIAN FAREAST RUSSIAN THE 2. and and , alpgn relictus Callipogon white-naped cranes white-naped aua stugeon kaluga ogn plant gorgon . . , ae shield water A BRIEF BIOLOGICALOVERVIEW BRIEF A Mr ta 100 that More . (Grus vipio) (Grus Hs dauricus) (Huso oao lotus Komarov Erae ferox) (Euryale Bombus uni- (Brasenia turtle . ECOREGION COMPLEX: ECOREGION , reindeer (Rangifer tarandus). (Rangifer reindeer and arctos) (Ursus bear brown like species northern with habitat (Selenarctos share tibethanus) bear black Asiatic and tiger Amur the like species southern Here, animals. and plants of assemblages unusual in resulted has history, biological and together with the region's unique geological which, high extraordinarily is RFE Ecoregion the in invertebrates and plants ic globally,ecosystems endem- of number the nowhere else.Comparedtoothertemperate found communities plant and species many for refuge climate a as served therefore and glaciation, of periods past escaped East Far Much of the southern portion of the Russian Peninsula. Korean the and Japan, China, communities have been largely destroyed in similar since Russia, to unique virtually are forests These world. the in forests perate because itcontainssomeoftherichesttem- level global a on biodiversity of vation T he RFE Ecoregion is critical to conser- to critical is Ecoregion RFE he 11 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

The intact forests of the RFE Ecoregion vide the bulk of nesting habitat for rare

are some of the last refuges for species on the migratory birds such as the Oriental white

brink of extinction such as the Far Eastern stork and red-crowned crane. Rare, endemic,

leopard and goral (Nemorhaedus caudatus and relic species abound in this unusually

raddeanus). Wetlands in the Amur River pro- rich hotspot of biodiversity (Box 2).

2.1. LANDSCAPE DIVERSITY

High levels of landscape diversity in the Habitat types in the RFE range from the

RFE Ecoregion are largely the result of grassland prairies of the Khanka Lake

temporal-spatial variability in the region. Lowlands to the rich Korean pine (Pinus

Altitudinal variation and horizontal zona- koraiensis) mixed broadleaf forests of the

tion blend to create numerous biogeograph- Sikhote-Alin and Khingan ranges, and from

ic regions (Figure 2). Situated in a unique the depauperate larch (Larix gmelini)

geographical location - on the brim of the forests and moraines on permafrost in the

vast Eurasian continent abutting the Pacific northern part of the RFE Ecoregion to

Ocean - the RFE Ecoregion is subject to the alpine tundra in the mountains. Thirteen

combined effects of monsoon climate con- main habitat types are described here within

ditions, oceanic currents, and mountains four geographic zones of vegetation. Within

that change air circulation patterns. The each habitat type, there are more detailed

unique geology and terrain, consisting of levels of classification. Scientists recognize

numerous mountain chains separated by more than 100 types of forests alone.

lush valleys, permits a variety of different

microclimate, soil, and vegetative condi- The terrain of the RFE is largely moun-

tions, which have resulted in a broad range tainous (Figure 3). Ranges, ridges,

of landscapes and unusually high levels of foothills, and plateaus cover two-thirds of

species diversity for the Temperate Zone. the Ecoregion Complex. The majority of

mountains (covering 31.7 percent of the ter-

12 Figure2. Figure3. LANDSCAPES RELIEF Valleys Lakes lowlands Waterlogged Plains Hills Plateaus Low-mountains mountains Middle mountains High Agricultural areas and wetlands and areas Agricultural Valley forests ous conifer- - small-leaved with Sub-taiga taiga Southern taiga northern and Middle taiga Middle taiga Northern VALLEY forests broadleaf-coniferous and leaved broad- with mountains low Forest Taigamountains low mountains low taiga sparse-wood and Elfin-wood-tundra mountains middle taiga Taigasparse-wood & sparse-woods and tundra montane bald High tundra and mountains bald High MOUNTAIN 13 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

ritory) are low mountains from 300 to 1,000 Valleys occupy less than a fifth of the

meters above sea level. Only isolated RFE. The most significant valleys are the

mountain ranges and peaks (covering 7.4 Zeya-Bureya Valley in the Amurskaya

percent of the territory) protrude above Province, the Middle Amur Valley in the

2,000 meters. The major mountain ranges Khabarovsky and Evreiskaya provinces,

situated along the Okhotsk Sea coast were and the Khanka Valley in the Primorsky

formed in the Mesozoic Era. These moun- Province around Khanka Lake. The ocean-

tain systems lessen the influence of mon- ic coastline of the RFE Ecoregion has

soons on inland areas of the RFE Ecoregion many bays and coves, mainly in the south-

during the summer and fall. At the same ern part of Primorsky Province, and on the

time, the system of mountains that extends coastline of the Sea of Okhotsk.

from east to west along the northern border

of the RFE Ecoregion forms a barrier that There are only two significant groups of

reduces the influence of arctic air masses in islands considered in the Russian Far East

winter. Ecoregion Complex. The Shantar Islands, in

the southwestern portion of the Okhotsk Sea,

Three wide (300 to 500 km) parallel are made up of 15 islands with a combined

bands of mountain ranges cross the Amur area of 250 km2. The second group of islands

River Basin in a more or less north-south is found in Peter the Great Bay in the south-

direction. The Great Khingan Range spans ern part of the RFE Ecoregion. Although

the upper reaches of the Amur River, the island territories make up a small portion of

Bureya Range crosses at the middle flow, the RFE Ecoregion , they are rich in relic

and the Sikhote-Alin Range intersects the plants and rookeries for seabirds and play an

Amur near the point where it reaches the important role in preserving biodiversity. The

Tatar Strait and the Okhotsk Sea. An even Shantar Islands are protected in a nature

wider mountain system-the Stanovoy and refuge and a national park is planned for the

Tukuringa-Dzhagdy ranges-extends in a archipelago. Eleven of the 40 islands in Peter

nearly east-west direction along the north- the Great Bay are protected in

ern border of the Ecoregion Complex. Dalnevostochny Morskoy Zapovednik. 14 W areas of permafrost formed throughout the throughout formed permafrost of areas from glaciationduringthelastIceage,large ..HDOOIA NETWORK HYDROLOGICAL 2.2. area covers 1,855 km 1,855 covers area catchment Amur's The Basin. River Amur the to belongs part most the for Ecoregion mountain systems. mountain between depressions following mouth, the near northward curving east, to west ly Valley.Amur the of primari- runs river The shape general the determined movements tectonic and processes Erosive Japan. of Sea the into directly flow rivers Province, Primorsky of parts southern and eastern the In China. with border the along RFE the of regions administrative five flow through km 4,440 of length total river's the of km 2,800 Mongolia, from come Amur mighty the of headwaters the While lakes. 60,000 than more encompasses shed water- its and Amur, the into flow utaries trib- 10,000 than More world. the largestin T e yrlgcl ewr o te RFE the of network hydrological he ie uh f h rgo ws spared was region the of much hile 2 , making it the tenth the it making , western Khabarovsky provinces. Khabarovsky western mountains and valleys in the Primorsky and northern part. Small glaciers formed only in waters in the middle flow. Here, the Zeya the Here, flow. middle the in waters its of most gets Amur The valley. plain flood- broad the throughout scattered are lakes oxbow of Thousands here. river the of current main the up break channels and islands Many swampy. or immersed times at are banks its where lowlands, broad into again widens valley river the mountains, the of out Coming Mountains. Khingan esque 150 km canyon in the forested Lesser pictur- a through narrows it when again speed regains then Plain Zeya-Bureya the in momentum loses first current the Here, Amur. Middle the as known is km, 1,000 from BlagoveshensktoKhabarovsk-about river of stretch next The cliffs. steep with fronted canyons mountainous through cuts it as flowing fast generally is current river's Blagoveshensk in Amurskaya Province, the of city port the to source the from km 900 first the reaches, upper its In sections. three T he Amur River is generally divided into divided generally is River Amur he 15 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

(1,242 km) and Bureya (623 km) rivers join Two-thirds of the Amur's water comes

the Amur from the left bank and the from monsoon rains in the summer and fall.

Sungari (1,870 km) and Ussuri (897 km) No dams or hydroelectric stations block the

rivers merge from the right bank. The main channel of the Amur to this day, and

Selemdzha River (647 km) is a significant its natural flooding regime is an important

tributary of the Zeya, while the Bikin River part of wetland and floodplain ecosystems.

(560 km) is an important source of waters Water levels rise an average of 10 to 15 m.

for the Ussuri. During years with high levels of precipita-

tion, the river floods an area 10 to 25 km

The third section of the Amur River, wide, and high waters last up to 70 days.

known as the Lower Amur, runs from The average annual volume of water flow-

Khabarovsk to the river's estuary on the ing through the Amur is 343 km3. The river

coast of the Okhotsk Sea. The Lower Amur is open to boats along its entire route, from

opens into a wide floodplain valley with when the ice melts in April and early May

many channels and numerous lakes, the (in the upper reaches) to when the waters

largest of which are Bolon, Udyl, Orel, and freeze over again in November. There are

Greater Kisi. The lakes are connected to the several major ports along the Amur, making

Amur by an intricate network of streams. it an important transit route for economic

The only significant river flowing into the trade in the Russian Far East. However,

Lower Amur is the Amgun (723 km), since currents are constantly changing,

which joins it from the left bank near its channels must be continually maintained by

estuary. Below the port of Nikolaevsk-na- excavation equipment in the lower reaches.

Amure, the Amur spreads out into a shal-

low estuary for its remaining 48 km to the

Okhotsk Sea, where tidal flows influence

the river ecosystem.

16 T rvne fo 6080 m ad in and mm, 600-800 from provinces Evreiskaya and Khabarovsky in 900mm, 500- from range Province Primorsky the in precipitation of levels Annual quickly. very out dry soil of layers upper the when yearly, almost occur droughts time, same the At floods. in resulting and soils urating summer,of sat- half second the in falls tion precipita- of two-thirds than More itation. precip- annual of level irregular the is mate O blages along environmental gradients. environmental along blages assem- species in changes - beta-diversity of levels high to lead meters, 2,800 to level sea from gradients altitudinal with bined com- which, conditions microclimatic of variety a is result The communities. animal from the coast increases, affecting plant and distance the as weather continental of ence influ- growing the is Ecoregion RFE the in features climatic important the of One east. south- to northwest from increase peratures tem- average while east, to west from rises humidity Overall, 4). (Figure southeast to northwest from gradient climate dent evi- an has Ecoregion RFE The masses. air of movement the affect systems Mountain circulation. atmospheric monsoon-type ..CLIMATE 2.3. e lmt o te F i ifune by influenced is RFE the of climate he e motn apc o mnon cli- monsoon of aspect important ne odr ih ot Kra t -36 to Korea) North with border -7 from drop January in tures tempera- Average gradient. north to south W percent. 50 to 30 by drop can levels precipitation years, dry In mm. 300-600 from Province Amurskaya A leys and foothills. and leys val- the in low,especially are levels itation precip- Here, winters. harsh long, and mers sum- hot short, with prevails climate nental dry. In western Amurskaya Province, conti- and warm usually is Autumn Pacific. the influenced by climate systems coming from temperatures, warm mildly with moist is Summer cool. and long is Spring tems. sys- weather Siberian central powerful by influenced are and snowfall significant out rvne n ol 6 dy i northern Province. Khabarovsky in days 62 only and Province Primorsky southern in days 220 about lasts frost without period July.vegetation in The an average of +14 to +22 mer temperatures rise to +36 to +39 -45 of mum mini- absolute an with regions, northern +5.7 from range nnual average temperatures in the RFE the in temperatures average nnual inters are cold and relatively dry with- o t -50 to C o t -7.9 to C o . aiu sum- Maximum C. o C (north to south) o aog the along C o C (near the (near C o C with o in C 17 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

Figure 4. CLIMATE

Subarctic extreme continental Boreal extreme-continental Subarctic Oceanside Boreal Oceanside Subboreal Valley Figure 5. VEGETATION

FORESTS

Fir-Abies forests Larch forests and sparse-woods Broadleaf-cedar forests Pine forests Broadleaf forests Birch, aspen

NON-FOREST VEGETATION

Bald montane and sub-bald montane Mountain Pine thicket Tundra Wetland Fire sites and cuts Agricultural 18 F ancient times, a number of plants originated from day this to survived have that species to addition In pressures. human of result a as shrinking steadily been have here found relics Yetthe Iceage. of many of ranges the Pleistocene the during fauna and flora for refuge provided region the of part ern south- the in cover ice total of absence The to the unique geological history of the RFE. n hbrvk ad Amurskaya and provinces. Khabarovsky in forests inhabit these of percent) (87 50 ly near- RFE, the in found are orchids forest nut and plant, gorgon shield, water lotus, Komarov the as such fossils, northernmost habitatofanumberliving ValleyRiver Amur The Book). (Red the is Red Book of Rare and Endangered Species Russian the in included are 400 about and endemic totheregion,one-thirdarerelics, are 800 these, Of species. 2,800 includes tude. The list of vascular plants in the RFE lati- same the at Russia western or Siberia of regions any than East Far Russian the of part southern the in found are species plant More 5). (Figure factors climatic and spatial, geological, to due diverse are T ..FLORA 2.4. loral communities in the RFE Ecoregion he large number of relic species is due is species relic of number large he Tael sinensis) (Trapella Sxy pce of species Sixty . Chinese water- Chinese shrub and lichen communities. lichen and shrub province. are included in Red Books compiled in each 1). (Table Book rare regionally are that Additionally,plants Red Russian the in them of portion large a of inclusion for basis the is relics and/or endemic are RFE pine of up made systems), mountain all of belts upper the (along communities plant Pacific and and Province); China Primorsky of border the (on forests temperate Korean North plains); Khanka and Zeya-Bureya the (near prairie land grass- Mongolian-Daurian types: habitat main categories, there are a number of other three these to addition In Siberian. Eastern and Okhotsk-Kamchatka; Manchurian; zones: vegetation main three into fied species. endemic in rich particularly are ranges tain moun- Sikhote-Alin and Bureya, Badzhal, Popoviocodonia provinces: Primorsky and Khabarovsky to endemic are genera Three East. Far Russian ern south- the to endemic are and region the in T T e at ht nme o pat i the in plants of number a that fact he e F Eoein s eeal classi- generally is Ecoregion RFE he Pns pumila) (Pinus irboa Astrocodon, Microbiota, Apn aes n the in areas Alpine . n muti tundra mountain and mountain and 19 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

Table 1. NUMBER OF PLANTS AND MUSHROOMS INCLUDED IN THE RUSSIAN AND REGIONAL RED BOOKS OF RARE AND ENDANGERESPECIES

ADMINISTRATIVE RUSSIAN REGIONAL REGION RED BOOK RED BOOK

Amurskaya Province 22 212 Evreiskaya Province 26 201 Khabarovsky Province 54 164 Primorsky Province 44 150

Source: Research papers by Kharkevich and Kachura 1981; Voroshilov 1985; Shlotgauer and Melnikova (1990); Belaya and Morozov 1994; Starchenko et al. 1995; Voronov et al. 1997; and the Red Books of Russia and the USSR 1988.

The RFE Ecoregion is generally classi- southern Primorsky Province, in the Ussuri

fied into three main vegetation zones: watershed, on the coast of the Sea of Japan,

Manchurian; Okhotsk-Kamchatka; and and along the middle flow of the Amur

Eastern Siberian. In addition to these three River. Manchurian flora consists primarily

main categories, there are a number of other of forest species from the Tertiary Period

habitat types: Mongolian-Daurian grass- that prefer warm temperatures. The closest

land prairie (near the Zeya-Bureya and relations of these species are found in the

Khanka plains); North Korean temperate subtropics and, in some cases, in the tropics

forests (on the border of China and of East Asia. Forests made up of

Primorsky Province); and Pacific plant Manchurian species are dense, moist, and

communities (along the upper belts of all seemingly tropical with deciduous trees

mountain systems), made up of mountain such as Mongolian oak (Quercus mongoli-

pine (Pinus pumila) and mountain tundra ca), Manchurian and Japanese elm

shrub and lichen communities. (Ulmus laciniata, U. propinqua),

Manchurian walnut (Uglans mandshuri-

Manchurian floral communities har- ca), and Amur cork tree (Phellodendron

bor the greatest diversity of plant species. amurense). Climbing schizandra berry

This type of vegetation is found mainly in (Schizandra chinensis), Amur grape (Vitis 20 ranges, such as two subspecies of subspecies two as such ranges, narrow very with Endemics flourish. to communities plant these of many ing allow- ocean, bufferingthe from in impacts role major a play Sea Okhotsk the hugging ranges mountain The coast. Sea the Okhotsk to close prevalent also are species Continental species. arctic and alpine arctic- of number large a including areas, mountain high in found are them of many This division of flora has fewer species, but River, on the west coast of the Okhotsk Sea. ties O ginseng) (Panax as such species Mongolian-Daurian include communities prairie Grassland forests. mixed in species conifer prevalent most the is pine Korean arguta) amurensis) (Rhododendron sichotense, R. faurieri) R. (Rhododendronsichotense, lobus) yew the include flora Manchurian chinensis) (Tripogon baicalensis) are found in the lower flow of the Amur htkKmhta lrl communi- floral khotsk-Kamchatka Txs cuspidata) (Taxus , and two species of species two and , ag age aog h trees. the among tangled hang and , and Baikal feathergrass Baikal , sen hns scl grass sickle Chinese aa vine Tara Rr seis of species Rare . Klpnx septem- (Kalopanax , sa ginseng Asian rhododendron (Actinidia Japanese rockfoil (Stipa . fir ca, pacifi- Bergenia guttatum, C. macranthon, include coast Sea Okhotsk ermanii) (Betula Yeddospruce include species Typical Period. Tertiary helenae srgls sachalinensis, Astragalus include region Alin of composed mainly are forests and diversity species low has community This River. Amur the of flow middle the and River Zeya the of reaches upper the in found are regions, taiga permafrost of typical Thymus novograblenovii. Thymus rufum, Taraxacum neokamtschaticum, Taraxacum erythrocarpa, Salix toralis, lit- Oxytropis pauzhetica, pacificum, Chrysosplenium Agrostis include woroschilovii, region Okhotsk southern the of endemics Other here. found svetlanae) S. staminose, (Saxifraga E E (Abies nephrolepis) Siberian dmc ln seis f h Sikhote- the of species plant ndemic sen iein lrl communities floral Siberian astern and . Many plants here are relics of the of relics are here plants Many . Paeonia obovata. Paeonia and (Picea jezoensis) (Picea Rr seis ln the along species Rare . auin larch Dahurian reii punctigera, Artemisia , and Erman's birch and Cypripedium , Khingam Aconitum Oxytropis (Larix and are , 21 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

sibirica, L. dahurica). Other common plants. Relic plant species include Komarov

species include mountain pine, Siberian lotus, water shield, and gorgon plant.

mountain ash (Sorbus sibirica), and cloud-

berry (Rubus chamaemorus). Meadow and The Amur floodplain is rich in wetland

floodplain plant communities dominate the habitats, which provide important nesting

terrain, forged by the large Zeya and Bureya areas and spawning grounds for many

rivers, and other smaller rivers and streams. species of birds and fish. The region around

Forests in these communities have a number Khanka Lake is also important wetland

of temperate species: Mongolian oak, habitat and has been included in the Ramsar

Dahurian birch (Betula davurica), Korean List of wetlands of international impor-

linden (Tilia amurensis), Amur grape, tance. Rare species found here include

kiwi vine (Actinidia kolomikta), and others. sword-leaved iris (Iris ensata), candock

Steppe ecosystems, extending from China, (Nuphar luteum), and pygmy water lily

eastern Baikal and Mongolia, are also com- (Nimphaea tetragona). Remaining frag-

mon here. The Prokhorov birch (Betula ments of swamps in the steppe zone along

prochorowii) is endemic to this region, the Amur are especially valuable, since

growing only in bald areas and valleys near they are the only communities of this type

timberline. Rockfoil (Saxifraga left in all of Eurasia. Common species here

selemdzhensis) is an endemic of this region include Baikal and Siberian feathergrass

with a very narrow range. (Stipa sibirica). Other types of wetlands

found in the RFE include heterotrophic

Freshwater floral communities are wetlands in conifer-deciduous and southern

widely distributed throughout the region. taiga forests, oligotrophic marshes of the

Wetlands in the southern RFE have unique southern taiga, and muskeg bogs of south-

plant communities, which are not typical ern and mid-latitude taiga. The most wide-

for the rest of Russia. Here, northern spread types of swamps in the Ecoregion

species grow alongside southern species, Complex are mesotrophic wood-sphagnum

including exotic and tropical species of marshes.

22 (Mustela erminea) (Mustela like species boreal for boundary southern the up make Mountains Alin centers oforigin.Forexample,theSikhote- different species far from their geographical of together weaving the is East Far Russian southern the of features unique the of One communities. faunal of diversity a ports adder snake adder T nate upto900m.Thefinalbeltoftruetrees spruce and pine Siberian while m, 700 sibirica) (Pinus to sharply changes tion maximowiczii) (Populus C shurica) as such species broadleaf mixed of primarily up made are m) (250-350 belts forest lower the ple, for most of the Sikhote-Alin Mountains, exam- For ranges. mountain on boundaries sharp have generally subzones and zones different The communities. vegetation of distributions zonal clear in result dients ..FAUNA 2.5. e ait o hbtt i te F sup- RFE the in habitats of variety he mlxtopography omplex Pca ajanensis) (Picea , Japanese elm, and elm, Japanese , Manchurian ash Manchurian (Vipera berus) (Vipera and broadleaf forests up to up forests broadleaf and , wolverine Seis composi- Species . and altitudinal gra- (Fraxinus mand- (Fraxinus oet predomi- forests iein pine Siberian , and , Japan poplar Japan (Gulo gulo) (Gulo chestnut ermine Ajan , ie, n aog rbtre o te Ussuri the of tributaries along and River, Amur the along Province, Primorsky the of part southern the in communities Asian southeastern of those with overlap species taiga northern of ranges where are RFE the bengalensis) tiger the as such species subtropical of tat habi- northernmost are mountains the time, bunting highest mountains in the RFE. the in mountains highest shrubs, the of some on found is grasses and lichens, of up made tundra Mountain meadows. subalpine and mandshurica) (Alnus alder Manchurian with sporadically interspersed are shrubs dwarf and stands birch Erman's m, 1,400-1,500 about at - still Higher m. 1,300 to up forests, spruce Ajan and fir Khingam mainly of consists brown forest, and meadow-brown soils. meadow-brown and forest, brown podzolized forest, brown - zone est-steppe for- the in and soils, forest brown - forests conifer-broadleaf in predominate, soils brown-taiga zone, taiga the In RFE. the in G eographical zoning of soils is also clear and the and Ebrz rutila) (Emberiza . The most species rich areas of Amur wild cat wild Amur A te same the At . (Prionailurus Amur 23 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

River. Along biogeographical boundaries, and Chinese species such as Mandarin

brown bears coexist with Asiatic black duck (Aix galericulata) and leatherback

bears, Amur tigers cross paths with lynx sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) inhabit

(Felix lynx), and both Manchurian and the same waters as northern species such as

mountain hares (Lepus mandschuricus, L. chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta).

timidus) scurry away from predators. Indian Table 2. OVERALL AND COMPARATIVE DIVERSITY OF ORGANISMS IN THE RFE

GROUP NUMBER OF SPECIES ENDEMISM OF In In Southwest Percentage Ratio Ratio ORGANISMS In Nature the Primorsky Primorsky of Endemic of SWP to of SWP to RFE Province Province Species in RFE Species Primorsky and Adjacent RFE Biota Province Species Areas Viruses 2,000 > 50 45 43 - 100% 100%

Fungi and plants

Fungi 90,000 6,000 5,000 3,500 ~10% 58% 70%

Mosses 26,000 1,000 900 700 ~10% 70% 77%

Lichens 20,000 1,000 400 400 ~15% 49% 100%

Freshwater ~50,000 2,600 2,000 1,000 ~15% 38% 50% algae

Vascular 230,000 4,146 2,443 1,500 ~17% 36% 61% plants Average 13-14% ~70%

Animals

Tapeworms 20,000 4,000 2,500 1,500 ~32% 38% 60%

Nematodes >500,000 6,000 2,500 1,800 ~23% 30% 72%

Insects 750,000 27,000 23,000 16-20,000 ~35% 60-75% 70-86%

Freshwater 8,600 400 120 64 - 16% 53% fish

Amphibians 4,200 9 8 7 ~60% 77% 88%

Reptiles 6,000 16 13 10 ~35% 62% 77%

Birds 8,600 500 466 370 ~35% 74% 80%

Mammals 3,700 194 97 86 ~60% 82% 87% Average ~44% ~75% Source: Baklanov P.Y. and Karakin V.P., 2002. Land of the Leopard: Sustainable Development of Southwestern Primorsky Province. WWF, UNOPS. Dalnauka, Vladivostok. 24 Table 2 demonstrates that most of the insect species is concentrated in the

region's biodiversity is concentrated in the Sikhote-Alin Range. More than 600 species

southern portion of the RFE Ecoregion of vertebrates are found in the RFE. Over

Complex. Total numbers of species as well 100 species of fish inhabit rivers and lakes

as endemism are highest in southern including a number of endemics such as the

Primorsky Province (Borisovsky Foothills kaluga sturgeon. Twenty-three species of

and Southern Sikhote-Alin Temperate amphibians and reptiles are found in the

Foothills), where there is a large number of RFE, including endemics like the Ussurian

Manchurian species of plants and animals. mamushi (A. blomhoffi) and the endan-

Both alpha-diversity (species richness) and gered Amur river turtle. Of the 400 birds

beta-diversity (change in species composi- that are found in the RFE, about 250 ACTION PLAN. PARTCONSERVATION 1

tion across environmental gradients) are species nest here, including 27 rare and

high in the RFE. Invertebrate fauna endangered birds such as the Siberian

includes about 40,000 species of insects, or spruce grouse (Falcipennis falcipennis)

one percent of the Earth's total fauna and Blakiston's fish owl (Ketupa blak-

according to some estimates, including 50 istoni). Largely intact forest habitats sup-

endangered species such as two kinds of port healthy populations of many of the 90

bumble bee (Bombus unicus, B. czerskii) species of mammals, including large preda-

and one species of long-horned beetle tors and their prey (Box 3).

(Callipogon relictus). One-third of the rare

One of the most important biological attributes of the RFE is the abundance of relatively large tracts of intact forest habitats that support natural ecological processes and a full range of large predators, including tigers, leopards, and brown bears. Many species of mammals, some of which are important prey for these predators, have fully viable populations to ensure long-term persistence. Some examples of common mammal populations:

Sable (Martes zibellina) 218,000 Brown bear (Ursus arctos) 11,000

ECOREGION COMPLEX Siberian roe deer (Capreolus pygargus) 141,000

VIABLE POPULATIONS Moose (Alces alces) 47,000 OF MAMMALS IN THE RFE Manchurian red deer (Cervus elaphus) 53,000 Wild boar (Sus scrofa) 26,000 BOX 3. Musk deer (Moschus moschiferus) 68,000 25 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

Figure 6. SCHEME OF FAUNA TYPES DISTRIBUTION IN THE RFE (Source: Kurentsov, 1959)

1 Eastern Siberian 2 Okhotsk-Kamchatka or Beringian 3 Amur or Manchurian 4 Mongolian-Daurian

Faunal communities in the Ecoregion Complex are divided into the following groups: Amur, Okhotsk-Kamchatka, Eastern Siberian, Mongolian- Daurian, and Alpine (Figure 6):

Amur or Manchurian faunal commu- Eastern leopard, Manchurian hare, the bril nities are found primarily in the subzones liantly-colored Indian marten (Martes of coniferous-broadleaf mixed forests, in flavigula), and Mandarin duck. Typical the southern part of the RFE. Here, a num- insects of the Manchurian faunal communi- ber of faunal communities are delineated. ty are the Maack's peacock (Achillides Far Eastern leopards and Manchurian maackii), the relic Capricorn beetle mole (Myospalax psilurus) can be found in (Callipogon relictus) and the emerald black fir (Abies holophylla) and broadleaf ground beetle (Carabus smaragdinus). forests. Asiatic black bear and wild boar (Sus scrofa) are common in Korean pine- Okhotsk-Kamchatka or Beringian fau- broadleaf forests. Sika deer (Cervus nip- nal communities are found in the north and pon) and Amur badger (Meles meles northwestern parts of the RFE. Their range amurensis) are notable in valley broadleaf extends to the southeast from the Okhotsk and oak forests. Southeast Asian species Sea coast following the western slopes of the dominate here, such as the Amur tiger, Far Pribrezhny Range to the source of the Uda 26 between the Amur and Zeya rivers, in the in rivers, Zeya and Amur the between RFE the of area northern the in found are er (Tetrao urogalloides) zibellina) (Martes wolverine, bear, brown as such mals mam- large for habitat important are forests Okhotsk- taiga coniferous of Dark fauna. Kamchatka species support types habitat major Four River. Amur the of es Sikhote-Alin Range and the mountains in the lower reach- the of slopes the on found also are group fauna this of Representatives rivers. Bureya and Selemdzha the of reaches upper the below south the to then River, E bunting High grassland ecosystems are home to forests are the primary habitat of habitat primary the are forests tain green-veined whit green-veined tain proregulus) warbler willow Pallas' include forests birch stone in birds Common forests. coniferous dark from forests these into wander hare mountain and wolverine, bear, brown occasionally but species, mal mam- in depauperate are forests birch Stone grouse. spruce Siberian endangered the for moschiferus) (Moschus by sable, by manni) beetle apollo Eversmann's (Clethrionomys rufocanus) (Clethrionomys borea) sen iein anl communities faunal Siberian astern Ncfaa caryocatactes) (Nucifraga ad large-toothed and , Daf lie oet ae inhabited are forests alpine Dwarf . Northern pika Northern Ebrz schoensis) (Emberiza and among insects - the - insects among and , black-billed , , and spotted e n te ny home only the and (Ochotona hyper- (Ochotona (Pieris bryoniae) (Pieris . e-akd vole red-backed (Dryopa evers- (Dryopa (Pylloscopus Itc fir Intact . capercaillie musk deer musk nutcrack- moun- sable reed and . ming (Clossiana angarensis)(Clossiana - Siberia Eastern for characteristic species as well as grouse Oni magna) (Oeneis ringlet are community faunal this in insects spotted jay Siberian cae) latus) ca) ermine, (Emberiza elegans) (Emberiza rupestris) ground long-tailed ae crane, naped dieckmanni) (Carterocephalus include Lake Khanka around lowlands the in found communities faunal Mongolian-Daurian s rw ba and bear brown as such species Eurasian includes group This divide. Amur-Okhotsk the of mountains the and basin, River Zeya the of half upper M Daurian hamster the Daurian include group this of characteristic Species tributaries. larger its and Amur the of lowlands and plains broad the in mostly ties , ad great and , ean n rget i te region, the in fragments in remain ongolian-Daurian faunal communi- faunal ongolian-Daurian , e squirrel red (Lemmus amurensis) (Lemmus Daurian partridge Daurian (Lyrurustetrix) woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) (Dendrocopos woodpecker Eei edda) (Erebia iein weasel Siberian moose ad yellow-throated and , icmn' skipper Dieckmann's Prsru infaustus) (Perisoreus (Alces alces) (Alces and , ok dove rock (Cricetulus barabensis) (Cricetulus bustard squirrel . wolf Sirs vulgaris) (Sciurus , and others. Typicalothers. and , . , na fritellaty angar an grayling magna , Northern black Northern , Msea sibiri- (Mustela (Perdix dauuri- (Perdix (Citellus undu- (Citellus Cns lupus) (Canis Oi tarda) (Otis , Amur lem- Amur (Columba white- , bunting great , edda , , , , . 27 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 2. THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: A BRIEF BIOLOGICAL OVERVIEW

Alpine faunal communities are distrib- the Amur and smaller rivers on the coast uted in mountain systems, in the southern including Amur carp (Mylopharyngodon part of the RFE starting at about 1,300 to piceus) and Chinese bass (Siniperca chuat- 1,500 meters above sea level and in the si), both threatened by overfishing. north from 600 to 800 meters above sea Commercial species include chum and level. Alpine communities are divided into pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), two groups. Subalpine communities include as well as silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys northern pika, rock ptarmigan (Lagopus molitrix), whitefish (Chanodichthys ery- mutus), alpine accentor (Prunella collaris), thropterus), and Amur sturgeon (Acipenser water pipit (Anthus spinoletta), and others. schrenckii), mostly fished in the summer White-throated rock thrush (Monticola and fall. gularis) thrives in subalpine pine groves. Alpine communities are inhabited by inter- An interesting array of wildlife inhabits esting species of butterflies (Parnassius the rugged coastal areas of the Sea of phoebus, Oeneis semidea, etc), beetles Japan and Okhotsk Sea. Largha seals (Nebria nivalis, N. ochotica, Chrysomela (Phoca vitulina) swim in the waters off the nukolskyi), and other insects such as the coast, stopping to rest on protruding reefs Kurentzov's grasshopper (Hypsipedes and rocks. Otters (Lutra lutra) splash in kurentzovii). Hodgson's hawk-cuckoo streams and small salt-water coves along (Cuculus fugax), found from the Sikhote- the seashore. Up above the crashing waves, Alin mountains to the tropics of southern small goat-like gorals thread over rocks and Asia, prefers to nest in alpine tundra, along narrow crevices. Small rookeries of despite the fact that the bird is essentially a spectacled guillemot (Cepphus carbo) and tropical species. An isolated population of Temminck's cormorant (Phalacrocorax snow sheep (Ovis nivicola potanini) inhab- capillatus) - both endemic birds to the its the bare tops of Stanovoy and Dgugdgur region - come to life in spring. Besides ranges. seabirds, Pacific swift (Apus pacificus) nests in numbers in the coastal cliffs. The The Amur River is rich in fish species endangered white-tailed sea-eagle and boasts the highest level of fish diversi- (Haliaeetus albicilla) and Steller's sea- ty in all of Russia - 104 species. Many eagle (H. pelagicus) soar above the shore endemic species of fish inhabit or spawn in year round.

28 .BOOIA CONSERVATIONTHE IN BIOLOGICAL 3. tde my ed o e are ot to separately.groups out these address carried be to need may studies special and classification, broad this using by overlooked be may lichens, or insects as such taxa, important many that edge nomena concern cial are categories These . Ecoregion RFE the of importance global the stress that and planning tion conserva- for priorities determine help to proxies other and these include that gories cate- broad several use we analysis, this In ecosystem. an of health overall the reflect identifying and communities, animal and plant of spectrum whole a of conservation to lead which - servation are protection of con- biodiversity in used often approaches of Examples action. conservation for areas priority determine policy-makers and tists scien- help can region a to particular tures I etfcto o cran ilgcl fea- biological certain of dentification PLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES AND SPECIES FOCAL PLEX: A te ae ie w acknowl- we time, same the At . RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COM- ECOREGION FAREAST RUSSIAN , and , focal species, species of spe- of species species, focal indicator focal processes focal umbrella pce - which - species and species phe- flood cycles. flood migrations, altitudinal movements, fire, and large-scale relationships, predator-prey to, limited not are but include, and important globally region the make that those are na phenome- and processes Focal time. this at threatened seriously are all not though ing, decreas- are numbers population which for those are concern special of Species others. among processes), or structure community to critical is contribution (whose species keystone and predators, large species, term thathasbeenusedtoincludeumbrella a is species Focal processes. and species minimum arearequiredforsustainingthese the of estimation necessitates planning tion effective2000), conserva- al. et (Dinerstein state pristine their from shift conditions ral natu- and habitats as disappear to diversity bio- of elements first the be will processes and species focal Since (Ecoregions). gions subre- biogeographic the of each within es process- and species focal candidate of list a compiled group working assessment ty E xperts intheRFEEcoregionbiodiversi- 29 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

In order to determine minimum area tor species for threatened or at risk ecosys-

requirements for focal species or processes, tems or plant and animal communities; and

enough information must be available endangered and disappearing species. Focal

about the organism's natural history or the processes are those that are of consequen-

spatial and temporal aspects of the process. tial scale or have global significance, and

Unfortunately, some focal species and those that characterize unique or threatened

processes had to be eliminated because not ecosystems.

enough information is known about them.

The candidates that were elevated to

For a candidate species to be elevated to a focal species and processes for conserva-

focal species, a number of criteria were tion, and for which minimum area require-

used: species whose conservation is of ments were estimated, are described in

global significance; umbrella and/or indica- detail below.

3.1. FOCAL SPECIES

Focal species in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex targeted in the CAP include the Amur tiger, Far Eastern leopard, Oriental white stork, and Asian ginseng. Individual strategies and action plans were developed for each of these four species. Minimum area requirements were calculated for the animal species in order to determine how much habitat should be set aside or placed under special protection regimes. Table 3 provides estimates of minimum area requirements for focal species of mammals and birds and prominent species of special concern.

Amur tiger (Panthera tigris). The Amur attracting funds and attention to biodiversi-

tiger, the largest tiger in the world, is per- ty conservation in the region. This large

haps the most prominent symbol of conser- vertebrate is also an important umbrella

vation efforts in the RFE Ecoregion. The species because it requires substantial areas

tiger is a charismatic emblem of the RFE of intact habitat. The tiger is a keystone

Ecoregion and an important flagship for species and a top predator, playing an 30 156,571 km 156,571 approximately of area an over now extends range tiger's The RFE. the in lives population tiger Amur world's the of cent per- 90 Nearly 1996). al. et (Matyushkin ect proj- EPT USAID the and WWF-Germany of assistance the with out carried census, 1995-96 a during gathered data to according RFE the in tigers 476 to 415 approximately are there Today, 7). (Figure wild the in left individuals 40 than fewer were there when 1940s, the in region the ee ta a oe tgr rmi i the in remain tigers dozen a than Fewer shrinking. gradually is species the of range the that and decrease, to likely are numbers tiger that show dynamics population tiger of Studies number. this debate specialists although pool, gene sufficient a and species the of viability long-term ensure to required is females breeding 350 to 300 about of population ideal An individuals. 180 mately approxi- is territory this on tigers female breeding of number The ago. years 75 was T efforts. conservation and ies stud- research countless of subject the been has tiger The and ecosystems. forest broadleaf conifer mixed in role important e mr ie nal dsperd from disappeared nearly tiger Amur he 2 - less than a quarter of what it what of quarter a than less - Ecoregion, eiae na hmn eteet. While settlements. human near decimated been have populations and species, game popular also are ungulates These tiger's range. the of percent 70 over capacity carrying than less at are today populations deer,sika deer,boar.roe wild and Ungulate nearly 20,000 km 20,000 nearly of tigers in over 13 percent of their range or disappearance to lead will degradation tat habi- of levels Current decline. species' the exacerbated further has habitat tiger of tion fragmenta- Continued litter. per cubs 1.67 to 1.33 to dropped has number Today,that 2.5. to 2.3 was females breeding of litter a of the 1980s, the average number of cubs in end the At trouble. in is population the that decreasing cubsurvivalareotherindicators e deer red - ungulates primarily base, prey sufficient a of lack the and poaching, illegal habitat, suitable of degradation is River altogether.River Amur the of bank left the from disappeared have tigers and Peninsula, Korean the and China northeast of range historical species' D T he main reasons for the species' decline species' the for reasons main he cie n eae ie friiy and fertility tiger female in ecline Cru eahs xanthopygos) elaphus (Cervus 2 . Manchurian , 31 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

tigers are relatively tolerant of people, they road being built between Khabarovsk and

are often forced to hunt domestic livestock Nakhodka, where numbers of wild boar and

near farms and settlements, due to the lack deer have decreased dramatically. Due to

of basic prey species in the wild, which fragmentation of tiger habitat, corridors are

results in their being killed by angry local required to ensure that the population

residents. remains unified and can freely move

throughout its range.

Poaching has been a problem for the past

decade due to the constant demand for tiger Continuous efforts are required to save

derivatives in Oriental medicine combined this top predator in the RFE Ecoregion, a

with weak enforcement capabilities of symbol of conifer and broadleaf forests.

Russian environmental inspections. Thanks WWF and other organizations have been

to anti-poaching brigades and increased carrying out urgent measures to conserve

awareness among government agencies on the tiger in the region for many years,

illegal trade in tiger parts, tiger poaching is including creating anti-poaching brigades,

no longer as widespread as before. However, curbing illegal logging in tiger habitat, pro-

tigers continue to be targets for poachers. tecting ungulates, creating new protected

areas, and working with the public and cus-

Logging is decreasing available tiger toms agencies to build awareness. While

habitat and road construction is fragment- these and other emergency measures are

ing what remains. While roads themselves necessary to prevent extinction, long-term

are not serious obstacles to tiger move- programs for maintaining tiger habitat need

ments, increases in logging, fires, and hunt- to be carried out. Minimum area require-

ing of ungulates that accompany road ments in Table 3 indicate that the tiger has

development cause further fragmentation room for expansion if other limiting factors,

and pose direct threats to tigers. This such as abundance of prey, were to be cor-

process is particularly evident along the rected. Prey populations need to double for

Khabarovsk-Vladivostok highway and the tiger numbers to successfully increase.

32 Figure7. SIMULTANEOUS SURVEY (FEBRUARY 10 -12, 1986). -12, 10 OF (FEBRUARY DATA ON PROVINCES SIMULTANEOUSSURVEY PRIMORSKY AND KHABAROVSKY IN UNITS COUNT ON TRACKS TIGER AMUR OF DENSITY THE (Source: Matyushkin et al., 1996, Bogatov et al., 2000) al., et Bogatov 1996, al., et (Source:Matyushkin routes census along km tracks/10 1,2 than more routes census along km tracks/10 1,2 - 0,81 routes census along km tracks/10 0,8 - 0,41 routes census along km tracks/10 0,4 - 0 tigers no © V.Filonov © 33 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

Table 3. MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR FOCAL SPECIES AND RELATED ASSUMPTIONS

FOCAL HOME RANGE (KM2) FOR: SPECIES OR Breeding Required Habitats Actual area as unit 2 SPECIES Breeding Short-Term Short-Term Long-term or Special Habitat of 1998-99 (km OF SPECIAL Unit Source Pool Persistence Unit persistence Unit Features per # of individuals) CONCERN (>10 units) (>50 units) (>300 units)*

Tiger 1F:0.4M: 400 4,000 20,000 120,000 Sufficient 150,000 / 450 :0.2juv (1.6 ind) (16 ind) (80 ind) (480 ind) large prey or 333 / 1 (1.6) No disturbance

Leopard* 1F:0.7M: 80 800 4,000 24,000 Sufficient 4,000 / 40 :0.3juv (2 ind) (20 ind) (100 ind) (600 ind) medium-sized or 100 / 1 (2) prey Thick forest cover

Sika deer* 1F:0.3M: 2 20 100 600 Seedlings 1.5 / 1 :0.4juv (1.7 ind) (17 ind) (85 ind) (510 ind) Low snow (1.7) cover

Oriental 1M:1F: 30 300 1,500 9,000 Shallow water 30 / 1 unit stork :3juv (5 ind) (50 ind) (250 ind) (1,500 ind) Sparse trees (5) No disturbance

R ed- 1M:1F: 50 500 2,500 15,000 Unburned 50 / 1 unit crowned :2juv (4 ind) (40 ind) (200 ind) (1,200 ind) marshland>1km crane (4) radius

*According to the Biological Assessment Workbook (Dinerstein et al. 2000), the minimum number of animals for long-term persistence should be 3,000. However, this target is unrealistic for most large mammals and some birds in the RFE. We use a number of 300 units as an acceptable target to attain towards long-term persistence.

Protection of tiger habitat will be critical Ecoregion Project funded by WWF-

to saving the species. Of the tiger's 160,000 Netherlands in 1999-2001. According to

km2 range, about 13,000 km2 (11 percent) the «Strategy for Conservation of the Amur

are currently preserved in strictly protected Tiger in Russia» (Box 4), an additional

nature reserves and hunting sanctuaries. 10,000 km2 should be set aside in protected

This area includes the territories of about 25 areas along the Sikote-Alin Range to guar-

to 30 breeding females in Primorsky antee the long-term viability and persist-

Province and 10 breeding females in ence of the Amur tiger. Other more ambi-

Khabarovsky Province. Another half mil- tious targets call for an optimal system of

lion hectares (5,000 km2) was placed under protected areas and connecting corridors,

protection in the framework of the covering more than 65,000 km2 (Figure 8), 34 BOX 4. AMUR TIGER CONSERVATION STRATEGY the Internet at Internet the on available is strategy The conservation. tiger for measures long-term comprehensive elaborates and tigers Amur of research and conservation in experience of half-century a summarizes strategy The Institute. WildlifeResearch Hornocker and Group, Specialist Cat IUCN Office, Programme Russian WWF provinces, Khabarovsky and Primorsky the of Administrations the Committee, Ecology State Russian former the of representatives by 1995 September in Moscow in adopted was WWF-Germany.strategy from The funding with specialists tiger Russian leading of group I T the mass media. mass the in measures conservation tiger publicize and schools; for programs educational develop tigers; view safely to public the for opportunities provide habitat; tiger in areas protected P technologies. new using dynamics population and behavior tiger research to continue and distribution; tiger in changes assess to photography space and aerial use range; throughout years five M populations. wild of viability assess to captivity in tigers of pool gene analyze and cats; problem or cubs orphaned with populations captive enriching of potential P Fund. Tigeran Amur create and sources; outside and budget state from funding ensure habitat; tiger in use resource natural in involved agencies coordinate agencies; responsible identify C countries. adjacent in agencies customs with cooperate and Convention; CITES the enforce to agencies of activities coordinate products; illegal of storage and transportation S poaching. tiger to related crimes prosecute and violations; for fines enforce 10; to brigades anti-poaching of number the increase firearms; with them provide and regulations tiger ing P settlements. into wander regularly that tigers trap and tigers; near live to how people teach tigers; P regulations. hunting game of enforcement and monitoring improve and conservation; tiger for users land of incentives and responsibility increase use; in not when roads logging certain close pine; Korean cutting on ban enforce ungulates; for habitat forest preserve to agencies P reserves. tiger main connecting corridors ecological of system a establish and parks; national Kema-Amgu Verkhne-Ussuriskyand the establish them; in ungulates of hunting ban and zones buffer to territory more allocate zapovedniks; Alinsky D provinces. Khabarovsky southern and Primorsky the in protection tiger for categories land ent differ- three determine and isolated; become may populations tiger where gaps identify and M accordingly.use nature regulate and altered be not must habitats which beyond thresholds determine and populations; tiger impact trends economic how and use nature analyze ects; C range. former their in tigers reintroducing of feasibility the evaluate and leopards; and tigers conserving for reserves transboundary design Korea; South and North and China, Russia, in conservation tiger for agreements multilateral and bilateral elaborate countries; mprove legislative basis, management, and financing: and management, basis, legislative mprove romote public support and activism in tiger conservation: tiger in activism and support public romote cooperation: international romote uppress sale of poached products: poached of sale uppress poaching: halt and revent humans: and tigers between conflicts revent base: prey tiger's the of depletion revent oordinate measures to conserve tigers in nature and breed them in captivity: in them breed and nature in tigers conserve to measures oordinate reserves: tiger of network a of evelop habitat: tiger onserve onitor and research tiger population: tiger research and onitor aintain viable population of tigers over the entire range: entire the over tigers of population viable aintain he «Strategy for Conservation of the Amur Tiger in Russia» was elaborated by a working a by elaborated was Russia» Tigerin Amur the of Conservation for «Strategy he www.wwf.ru/publications improve monitoring and assessment of economic development proj- development economic of assessment and monitoring improve grant police officer status to special protection agencies enforc- agencies protection special to status officer police grant exchange experience and coordinate programs with other with programs coordinate and experience exchange establish coordination centers to disclose cases of cases disclose to centers coordination establish . In brief, the strategy stresses the following priorities: following the stresses strategy the brief, In . conduct annual census in zapovedniks and every and zapovedniks in census annual conduct enlarge the territories of Lazovsky and Sikhote- and Lazovsky of territories the enlarge improve coordination between forest and game and forest between coordination improve compensate farmers for livestock killed by killed livestock for farmers compensate adopt tiger conservation legislation; conservation tiger adopt monitor the tiger's entire range entire tiger's the monitor develop educational routes in routes educational develop assess 35 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES Figure 8. AMUR TIGER ECONET: PROPOSED SYSTEM OF NATURE PROTECTED AREAS IN PRIMORSKY AND KHABAROVSKY PROVINCES

Existing zapovedniks

National park and zakaznik projects

Zones of traditional and multiple use

Ecological corridors

Tiger distribution in 1996

36 A extinction. local with threatened is species the where Province, Primorsky southwestern in fragmented particularly to approximately 70 females. Tiger habitat is protection provide potentially could system The 2). Part (CAP. Ecoregion RFE the in part of the joint action plan of leading NGOs became and conservation tiger Amur for gy strate- WWF the in included were proposals those of Most Province. Primorsky of north extending in a wide belt from the south to the range. species the of much over landscapes tion conserva- large-scale create to habitat tiger of areas important other in implemented be should animals game and resources forest of use sustainable for programs Therefore, range. tiger's the of percent 15 only protect realistically can network the corridors, ing Econet to link protected areas with connect- an create to working been has WWF While range. former species' the of parts restore help to forests riparian as well as tected, pro- be to need forests oak Mongolian and dditionally,pine Korean of habitats key ern Primorsky Province (Figure 9). (Figure Province Primorsky ern km 10,000-15,000 approximately comprises range current leopard's The 1991. in 1.0 to and 1984, in 1.7 to 1973, in female per cubs 1.9 from fell cubs ard over the same time period. Survival of leop- leopard populationdecreasedfrom45to10 the China, of Province Jilin the In mals. ani- 36 to 30 to decreased had population the 1991, By population. Russian the in years. In 1973, there were 38 to 46 leopards 50 past the in drastically decreased have F T borders of these three countries meet. countries three these of borders the where Mountains (Black) Cherny the in is remains leopard the place only the since Korea, North and China, Russia, among cooperation promote help would species umbrella charismatic this save to Efforts Complex. Ecoregion East Far Russian the of tip southern the and in forests broadleaf conifer the roam animals dozen three than Fewer extinction. of brink the orientalis) about 4,000 km 4,000 about r atr leopard Eastern ar he range and population of the leopard the of population and range he Te a Esen epr i on is leopard Eastern Far The . 2 are located in southwest- in located are Pnhr pardus (Panthera 2 . Of this, Of . 37 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

Minimum area requirements depicted in result of its limited gene pool even without

Table 3 indicate that even a doubling of the direct human pressures. Chances are high

leopard population would only ensure that the population could be wiped out by

short-term persistence. In order to guaran- illness.

tee long-term persistence, additional sub-

populations of leopards must be created in The greatest anthropogenic threats to

new territories. leopards in order of severity are forest fires,

poaching, disturbance, logging, and min-

The leopard inhabits mountainous and ing. Brush fires ignited each year to burn

forested regions, mainly in the Khasansky, dry leaves often burn out of control, com-

western Nadezhdinsky, and Ussuriisky promising forest integrity. Poaching threat-

administrative districts of southwestern ens the species, fueled by demand for leop-

Primorsky Province. Leopards prefer mixed ard pelts and derivatives used in oriental

black fir, pine, and broadleaf forests in the medicines and for their beautiful fur for the

middle and upper reaches of river basins, fashion industry. Leopards are often killed

where rocks and cliffs provide safe dens. in traps set for other animals. Low ungulate

The existing Barsovy and Borisovsky numbers due to overhunting in the border

Plateau sanctuaries and Kedrovy Pad region force leopards to hunt sika deer on

Zapovednik protect about 40 percent of deer farms, fenced-off areas where deer are

leopard habitat, but the protection regime in raised for their meat and velvet antlers,

the sanctuaries and the small size of the used in oriental medicines. Eight deer farms

zapovednik are insufficient to guarantee the are located in the foothills of the

species' survival. Borisovsky Plateau and the Cherny (Black)

Mountains - prime leopard habitat.

The Far Eastern subspecies of leopard Leopards are occasionally shot by deer

has been isolated for more than 20 years, farm managers when caught on their prop-

and the problem of inbreeding is acute. As erty. Implementation of the Tumangan

a result, the population could die out as a River Economic Development Project in

38 Figure9. AIA YE NSUHETR RMRK PROVINCE PRIMORSKY SOUTHWESTERN HABITATIN TYPES DIFFERENT LEOPARDIN FAREASTERN OF DISTRIBUTION Wetlands, marshes, lakes marshes, Wetlands, pine Korean - Deciduous pine-Deciduous Korean Agricultural Grassland/shrubland Riverine Birch Oak TYPES HABITAT 2000) - 1997 (surveys tracks Leopard © V.Solkin © 39 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

North Korea and Yanbian District of China In accordance with the strategy, WWF has

is leading to increased human density and continued support of anti-poaching

development of infrastructure in the region. brigades to halt trade in leopard skins and

Though timber resources in southwestern derivatives. Other important measures in

Primorsky Province are extremely limited, the strategy that should be a top priority for

unorganized cutting continues, particularly the RFE Conservation Action Plan are

in the border region. Mining has degraded establishing a transboundary protected area

forest ecosystems in some areas (Baklanov between Russia and China in prime leopard

and Karakin 2002). habitat and developing ecotourism as an

alternative source of income to logging for

A conservation strategy for the Far communities in leopard habitat.

Eastern leopard was developed in 1996

with support from WWF (Box 5). The main Oriental white stork (Ciconia boy-

conservation target is to create and sustain a ciana) are important indicators of wetland

genetically viable population of at least 50 health. The birds breed in the Amur River

individuals. Restoration of leopards over Basin and migrate south to China for the

much their former range is not feasible winter. The population of this rare bird,

since the majority of leopard habitat, once included in the IUCN Red List, has

widespread in northeastern China, has been decreased three times in the past four

altered completely as a result of human decades to fewer than 3,000 birds today.

development and population growth. Outside of Russia, the species nests only in

Furthermore, leopards are limited to areas northeastern China. Oriental storks have

where snow cover does not exceed 10 to 15 disappeared completely from former parts

centimeters in wintertime. Over the long- of their range on the islands of Japan and

term, leopard populations could be restored the Korean Peninsula. The bird's nesting

to an area of about 50,000 km2, in western area in northeastern China is also shrinking

Primorsky Province and at the head of the dramatically. The bulk of the population -

Komissarovka River, if prey populations in about 380 to 430 pairs - resides in wetlands

these areas are stabilized. in the southern part of the RFE Ecoregion 40 BOX 5. FAR EASTERN LEOPARD CONSERVATION STRATEGY in the strategy are: strategy the in available online at online available is strategy The future. the in leopard Eastern Far the protecting for priorities outlines and measures, conservation existing habits, and cycle life numbers, habitat, natural ard's leop- the on information available summarizes Province, Primorsky of Administration the and Sciences, of Academy Committee, Ecology State Russian former the strategy,by The approved USAID. the from funding with strategy the of development facilitated WWF Vladivostok. in 1996 November in held Leopard, Eastern Far the of Preservation the on Conference International the by established group working a by P park." «leopard educational for plan development out work and habitat; leopard in trails nature educational design conservation; leopard support to campaign media mass organize issues; environmental regional on programs school P carnivores. large other and leopards between interactions research and populations; captive and natural of diversity genetic research habitat; leopard in changes monitor sightings; leopard on surveys public out carry methods; census improve behavior; and biology study yearly; territories model observe years; three every M public. the and hunters to program promote and sites; release at measures protection improve radio-telemetry; with animals released monitor sites; reintroduction select wild; the to animals of reintroduction gradual for program develop region; the in decline leopard's the W center.reintroduction and breeding experimental establish and wild; the to captivity in born animals returning for methods develop C China. and Korea, North Russia, between region border on reserves nature transboundary establish corridors; create and borders perfect areas; protected existing of P hunters. and agencies hunting for guidelines develop and fires; forest prevent forests; virgin in logging ban region; for plan development economic sustainable prepare assessments; P conservation. leopard on campaign awareness public conduct and property; their on leopards protecting for responsible farms deer hold densities; ungulate on recommendations with line in quotas hunting establish ards; leop- and people between conflicts resolve to work kills; leopard to due losses for farms deer compensate habitat; leopard in dogs with hunting and traps of use prohibit region; border the in poaching fight sanctuaries; hunting and reserves U T and monitoring programs. monitoring and research scientific coordinate and Korea; North and China in range former to leopards reintroduce to programs out work China; with region border in reserve transboundary create region; the in biodiversity protecting on agreement romote international cooperation to save the leopard: the save to cooperation international romote conservation: leopard on awareness public romote reserves: nature protected specially of system erfect habitat: leopard in use nature sustainable romote reate viable leopard population in captivity: in population leopard viable reate leopard: the saving for measures rgent onitor leopard populations and habitat integrity: habitat and populations leopard onitor ork towards restoring leopards in the wild: the in leopards restoring towards ork he «Strategy for Conservation of the Far Eastern Leopard in Russia» was drafted was Russia» in Leopard Eastern Far the of Conservation for «Strategy he www.wwf.ru/publications enforce protection regimes in nature in regimes protection enforce . In brief, the main directions outlined directions main the brief, In . maintain viable population in captivity; in population viable maintain carry out analysis of reasons for reasons of analysis out carry conduct winter census once census winter conduct carry out environmental impact environmental out carry develop and introduce and develop evaluate effectiveness evaluate adopt intergovernmental adopt 41 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

(Figure 10). The largest concentration of of happiness, which can help motivate local

nests, about 100, is found in Amurskaya people to help conserve the species. Unlike

Province. About a third of these are pro- the European white stork, which commonly

tected in Khingansky Zapovednik. nests in villages and even on chimneys, the

Oriental stork shies away from human set-

Oriental storks nest in areas near oxbow tlements, limiting the places where it can

and wetland lakes, rivers, and streams sur- find suitable habitat.

rounded by large open wetlands with

islands of tree clumps or individual trees. The WWF and IUCN collaborated in

They sometimes nest in groups. The stork 2000 to develop a conservation strategy for

feeds on fish, invertebrates, and amphib- the Oriental stork, which was discussed at

ians, placing it at the top of the food chain the international conference «Amur-2000:

and making it an important keystone Oriental stork and wetlands conservation in

species. The bird is also an indicator of wet- the Amur River Basin» (Box 6). Minimum

land health, since it requires clean freshwa- area requirements in Table 3 indicate that

ter for survival. the stork could theoretically expand to six

times its current population given the avail-

Until recently, the Oriental stork has not ability of suitable habitat. However, in

been the focus of conservation efforts in the order to make the population viable, the fol-

region, despite the critical statue of the pop- lowing measures should be taken: distur-

ulation. No legends or traditions are associ- bance of nesting habitat must be reduced;

ated with the Oriental stork in Asian cul- nests should be protected from spring fires;

tures, as is the case with cranes, so at least chick survival rates must increase; artificial

1,000 birds perish at the hands of hunters nests should be constructed in treeless

each year along their migration routes and areas; and the situation in stork wintering

in wintering grounds in China. At the same grounds must improve through increased

time, in Slavic culture, the stork is consid- public awareness.

ered a guardian of the home and a symbol

42 ECOSYSTEM TYPES ECOSYSTEM FRESHWATERTHE Figure10. ECOSYSTEMS OF AMUR RIVER AMUR OF ECOSYSTEMS FRESHWATERIN DISTRIBUTION STORK WHITE ORIENTAL Stork Area White Oriental Rivers Reservoirs Lakes Wetlands Wetlands Lands Agricultural Forests Swamped © WWF Russia / V.Jivotchenko / Russia WWF © © WWF, © 2001 Darman, 43 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

The Oriental stork has the potential to for the winter. Efforts to conserve the bird

become a symbol of Russian-Chinese coop- in both countries could help to unite

eration in biodiversity conservation in the WWF's Ecoregion-based conservation pro-

RFE, since nearly the entire population grams in the RFE and the Yangize River

nests in the Amur River Basin and flies Basin, which are both funded by WWF-

south to China to the Yangize River basin Netherlands.

The draft «Strategy for Conservation of the Oriental White Stork in Russia» is an important step in furthering conservation of the species in Russia. The strategy was elaborated by a group of experts from IUCN in collaboration with WWF, by request of the All-Russian Conference for Oriental Stork Conservation, held in November 1999 in Vladivostok. Various interest groups participated in discussion of this draft, including representatives of environmental agencies, regional game and forest management agencies, state zapovedniks, and scientific institutes of the Academy of Sciences and of Primorsky, Khabarovsky, Amurskaya, and Evreiskaya provinces. The document summarizes what is currently known about the biology, behavior, and state of the Oriental stork population in the Russian Far East. The document, available from WWF in Russian, was discussed at the international conference «Amur-2000: Oriental stork and wetlands conservation in the Amur River Basin». In brief, the main directions outlined in the draft strategy are:

Perfecting conservation legislation: elaborate interregional agreement on stork conservation; develop and enact legislation at all levels regulating resource use and land rights in stork nesting, migration, and feeding habitats; and prepare recommendations to assist law enforcement agencies to prosecute violators of laws protecting endangered species. Otimizing the protected areas system: grant protected status to all known stork nesting sites and habitats; enlarge Khankaisky Zapovednik; and create buffer zones around Bastak and Bolonsky zapovedniks. Improving land use: assess nesting trees and carry out fire prevention measures; construct artificial nests in treeless areas; prepare recommendations on protecting nesting trees from logging; and elaborate proposals to take ecological requirements of storks into account when licensing use of game, land, forest and other resources. ORIENTAL STRATEGY WHITE STORK CONSERVATION Inventory, research, and monitoring: inventory active nests; carry out monitoring in model areas using GIS tools; conduct census every five years in nesting and wintering areas using unified methodology; study effects of climate, pollution, and other factors on stork BOX 6. reproduction in model areas; and develop long-term prognosis of stork population and its habitat based on population models. Conserving storks in captivity: create a reserve breeding population in captivity; adopt methods of using two clutches per season to reintroduce storks to nature; and support the rare bird reintroduction station in Khingansky Zapovednik. Building environmental awareness: use Slavic traditions and folklore to promote stork conservation; publish informational literature, create website, and produce pins and other sou- venirs; organize children's theaters, special events, and media coverage; provide materials for rural school teachers and professors of specialized institutes; create informational stands on storks in zapovedniks; shoot film on storks for television; and organize photo exhibitions. Promote international cooperation throughout the stork's range: prepare agreement between Russia, Mongolia, China, Japan, and North and South Korea on conserving Oriental storks and their habitat with participation of NGOs; create an international action plan on stork conservation; and carry out international conference on stork conservation in 2000. 44 also cultivated on herb plantations. herb on cultivated also is Ginseng forests. coniferous-broadleaf mixed of canopy the under grows Ginseng cm. 30-70 is root the of height The seeds. flat white with red is fruit Its umbrella. ple sim- a in gathered are flowers white plant's The person. a resembles root ginseng Often shoots. two in out branches root, which spindle-shaped a and neck long a single stalk. Ginseng root consists of a bulb, a perennial plant with a thick pulpy root and in Manchurian floralcommunities.Ginsengis found plant endemic an is ginseng Siberian ginseng is relatively common. relatively is ginseng Siberian while species endangered an is ginseng Asian kilogram. a $2.50 only for trades and properties biological different has sus), sentico- ginseng, (Eleutheroccus ginseng Another Siberian $25,000. for sells ginseng wild raw of kilogram A cosmetics. and perfume in and teas, balsams, tures, tinc- beverages, to additives products, food U.S. producing for used are derivatives Ginseng the and Europe to markets tional interna- on sold increasingly being now is used for centuries in Chinese medicines and been has Ginseng glycoside. active ically biolog- contains which rhizomes, with root T A he usefulpartoftheginsengplantis in ginseng sian Pnx ginseng) (Panax Asian . ginseng decreased. In 1998, the harvest of harvest the 1998, In decreased. ginseng tional markets,whiledemand forcultivated interna- of opening the with increased root ginseng wild of trafficking and harvesting illegal 1991, Since potent. as times three be to considered is ginseng wild though ginseng, cultivated than less times three for sold ginseng wild 1930s-1980s, the From harvested ginsenginRussiawasforexport. Legally habitat. ginseng of much mented frag- or destroyed has Logging vesting. influence on wild ginseng: logging and har- A T fragmented. are areas the of many and substantially years though habitat integrity has decreased has 70 last the for unchanged ginseng mostly remained of range The 2002). al. et Sikhote-Alin the (Gaponov River Ussuri the and Mountains between area the in groups in or individually grows Ginseng species. the of preservation ensure to ties quanti- enough significant in found is seng into gin- wild where world the in place only the north and is RFE Today, the Province. Khabarovsky Korea North and China into south extended range its century 20th the of beginning the until though 11), (Figure Province Primorsky in grows seng o an atr hv hd negative a had have factors main wo lmost the entire population of wild gin- wild of population entire the lmost 45 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

wild ginseng was banned in Russia, yet enough population to allow for sustainable large quantities of wild ginseng continue to harvesting of the species to support local be smuggled to Asian markets. economies. WWF/Traffic and customs officials estimated that 1,000-2,000 kg of raw ginseng are smuggled out of the country each year, amassing a market value of $24-25 million. Customs officials confiscate only a small share of that.

Illegal harvest of ginseng must be curbed to save the species, while important ginseng habitat should be set aside in protected areas. Efforts to conserve and restore ginseng in the wild could create a stable © G. Shalikov

Figure 11. HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF WILD PANAX GINSENG (Zhuravlev Yu. N., Kolyada A. S., 1996)

Beginning of twentieth century

Current range Current range of genetic viability

46 ..SEISO PCA CONCERN SPECIAL OF SPECIES 3.2. since 1924. since prohibited been has gorals for hunting Russia, In China. of Species Protected of List the and (CITES), Flora and Fauna Wild of Species Endangered in Trade International of Convention Second the and Russian Red Books, the Attachment of C T zones. coastal the along cliffs and areas rocky in incline) degree 80 to (60 slopes mountain rocky southeastern sunny,prefers species family.The Bovidae the to belonging RFE, the in ungulate rare raddeanus) A onan. itrcly h grls range goral's the Historically Mountains. Sikhote-Alin the and zapovedniks Alinsky the Sea of Japan from Lazovsky to Sikhote- Biomes Strategies and Action Plans in Part 2 of the Conservation Plan. the Action of 2 Part in and Plans Strategies Action Biomes Representative Freshwater,or Forest, the for plans actions the within included arate action plans were not developed, but measures for their conservation were crane, white-napedandSiberiansprucegrouse.Forthesespecies,sep- red-crowned deer, sika goral, are Amur Plan Conservation Action this for cern con- special of Species ecosystems. representative and Ecoregions particular mary focus of WWF conservation efforts, but can serve as umbrella species for I he Amur goral is included in the IUCN urrently, gorals inhabit coastal areas of areas coastal inhabit gorals urrently, u goral mur n this analysis, species of special concern are those which are not the pri- the not are which those are concern special of species analysis, this n . The Amur or Korean goral is a is goral Korean or Amur The . Nmrads caudatus (Nemorhaedus A be aia fr xaso o te Amur the of expansion for habitat able suit- potentially constitutes km, 400 about for extends which of Province, Primorsky coastline rocky entire The coast. rocky the along km 5-10 of areas inhabit species the of groups larger Some km). 0.5 by km (2 kilometer square one about is group one of range home The animals. 500 to up fluctuate here populations The niks. zapoved- Lazovsky and Sikhote-Alinsky protected the in only located are ulations Today,1920-30s. pop- the stable in decline to began population The animals. 20-30 of groups in found RFE, southern the in mals ani- 2,000 about numbered gorals of lation Range. Mountain Khingan Lesser the of spurs the and Mountains Black the including forests, oak deciduous through extended t the end of the 20th century, the popu- century,the 20th the of end the t 47 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

Though the main groups of gorals are

concentrated and protected in two zapoved-

niks and five zakazniks, additional special-

ly protected reserves should be created to

conserve gorals along the coast. Protection

efforts should also be strengthened in exist-

ing nature reserves, and research on poten-

tial habitats for restoration of the popula-

tion should be carried out.

The goral is an indicator of the integrity

of a very specific coastal ecosystem and can

tion programs along the coastal zone of the goral. Today, the total range of the species Sea of Japan. In Part 2 of the CAP, gorals is 600 square kilometers. Historically, goral are addressed in the Forest Strategy and habitat covered the whole eastern flank of Action Plan. the Sikhote-Alin Mountains and some

groups of the species were found on the Snow sheep (Ovis nivicola potanini). western flank. The number of groups and This subspecies inhabits the Stanovoy and their range are estimated to have been three

to four times greater.

The main threats to the goral are poach-

ing and disturbance. Goral derivatives are

used in traditional Oriental medicine.

Natural threats include predators, disease,

and deep snow cover. © Ecological Centre, Mosc.St.Univ.; http://nature.ok.ru

48 F isolated populationisestimatedat350-500. this of number total The habitats. suitable of ha 100 per animals 16.5 to up - high still The results show that snow sheep density is com.). pers. Fomenko, and (Sopin 2001 in and com.) pers. Podilsky, and (Darman 1991-1992 in led were Range the Stanovoy in populations sheep snow study to Expeditions fir. as such species, erous forest belt, made up primarily of dark conif- upper the to down migrate sheep snow ter, win- In cliffs. abundant with slopes sunny on mostly level, sea above meters 2,200 to 1,600 from belt alpine the in is sheep snow for habitat main The populations. ed isolat- small of chain a in ranges Dgugdgur sros het o uvvl f h snow the of survival to threat serious a pose now helicopters, and vehicles country cross- numerous and workers, struction con- of Thousands Railroad. Baikal-Amur the Yakutiawith in Lake Tokko at deposit coal huge a connect to Range Stanovoy the across began railroad new a of tion construc- however, 2001, In herders. deer rein- of tribes indigenous Evenki, nomadic from hunting occasional was species r ay er te ny het o this to threat only the years many or in Part 2 of the CAP.the of 2 Part in Biomes Representative of Conservation for are included in the Strategy and Action Plan sheep snow protecting for Measures RFE. ble toanyhumaninfluencesinthenorthern alpine ecosystem,whichisacutelyvulnera- entire the of conservation for species ship flag- a become have sheep Snow tourism. ecoin increase potential the managing for mechanism a as serve to and nature of destruction for compensate to lished A S ern parts of the RFE Ecoregion are prefer- are Ecoregion RFE the of parts ern southeast- and south the in cover snow low of Regions movements. animal's the cates compli- greatly cm 30-40 of cover Snow conditions. snow is expansion the species' limiting factor main The East. Far fauna of the southern portion of the Russian warm-weather of representative typical a is deer Sika size. in deer red a and deer roe a between - animal slender graceful, remote region. remote this invade to people many for gate the sheep. Oncefinished,therailroadwillopen ika deer ika system of protected areas should estab- (Cervus nippon) (Cervus . Sika deer is a is deer Sika . 49 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

severe winters of 1924-25 and 1946-47 the

population fell dramatically. By the begin-

ning of the 1950s, only 1,200 animals

remained (including sika deer raised in

game parks that escaped to the wild). In the

1950-60s, sika deer were released in

reserves in Primorsky Province to boost

wild populations.

In the 1980s, the range of the species in

Primorsky Province grew to its historical

size, but the population was only about

able habitat for sika deer populations. The 1990s, the number of sika deer reached

sika deer's range extends north almost to about 6,000 animals. Today, the number of

the 45th latitude. Until the middle of 19th wild sika deer in the RFE Ecoregion is

century, the species inhabited all of the about 5,000, with varying population trends

deciduous oak forests along river valleys from region to region. The number in cap-

and adjacent mountainsides up to 500 m tivity has decreased over the past few

above sea level. The deer also inhabited decades, from 56,000 to only 5,000.

some islands. The population may have

reached 25,000 animals in the past. Sika deer have a small home range, and

without disturbance, can inhabit an area of

Numbers of sika deer decreased during one to two square kilometers for a long peri-

periods of heavy snow and cold winters in od of time. A herd of sika deer requires

1877-78 and 1891-91. Later, many animals approximately four to six square kilometers.

died during the Civil War, when local peo- Minimum area requirements depicted in

ple were armed with rifles. During the Table 3 indicate that there is room in the

50 from deer farms. deer from escaped deer domestic of thousands 1980s, the in since debated, is species original the to today deer sika wild of similarity the Often Province. Primorsky of part western Book, yethuntingispermittedinthesouth- Red Russian the in included are deer sika Wild hunting. illegal and predators, large snow, heavy with winters severe are deer A T eventually be hunted sustainably in the wild. could deer sika the successful, is restoration restoration activities need to be continued. If but species, the of expansion for region species list and included as a game species. game a as included and list species endangered the from removed be can species the RFE, the in conserved is deer sika of population viable a If population. the of restoration and conservation ensure additional foragearenecessarymeasuresto of provision and activities Anti-poaching leopard. and tiger the as such predators large of chain trophic the in link important an is species in The reserves Province. Primorsky and areas protected all he main reasons for the decline of sika of decline the for reasons main he t present sika deer are found in almost in found are deer sika present t only in the Amur River valley. About 500 About valley. River Amur the in only nests birds) (1,600 population migratory continental entire on the while Hokkaido, lives population non-migratory isolated An feathers. wing and neck black a with plumage white has height, in meters 1.5 reaches which largebird, beautiful This R in Part 2. Part in Plan Action and Strategy Tiger the within included are species this of use wise and protection for measures conservation, tiger for animal the of importance the to Due dcond crane ed-crowned Gu japonensis) (Grus © G. Shalikov G. © . 51 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

birds inhabit the grassy marshlands of the Measures for conservation and restora-

Zeya-Bureya and Middle Amur Plain, tion of this species of special concern are

Ussuri River valley, and Khanka Lake in included within the Freshwater Strategy

the Russian part of the Amur Basin. The and Action Plan in Part 2.

red-crowned crane is listed in the Russian

Red Book and IUCN List of Rare and White-naped crane (Grus vipio). This

Endangered Species. Nesting habitats are migratory bird prefers drier marshlands

protected in Khingansky, Khankaisky, and than red-crowned cranes, and is more toler-

Bolonsky zapovedniks and many refuges. ant of agricultural fields. The breeding

Wintering grounds are situated in China range of the species covers only the wet-

(along the coastal zone north from the lands of the Amur River from Mongolia

Yangtze River) and in the border zone through China to Russia. The total popula-

between North and South Korea. The main tion is about 5,500 with wintering grounds

threats to the species are conversion of at Poyang Lake in China, the Korean

habitats to agricultural lands, grass fires, Peninsula, and Kyushu Island in Japan.

and human disturbance. About 200 pairs nest in the Russian part of

the Amur Basin.

Minimum area requirements depicted in

Table 3 indicate that population numbers The white-naped crane is listed in the

could be increased to four times their current Russian Red Book and IUCN List of Rare

levels based on the availability of suitable and Endangered Species. Nesting habitats

habitat. However, in order to do so, public are protected in Khingansky, Khankaisky,

awareness campaigns need to be carried out and Daursky zapovedniks, and in many

to help prevent fires in nesting habitat and to refuges. The main threats are conversion of

increase the survival rate of chicks. Creation habitats to agricultural lands, grass fires,

of an Econet will significantly assist in the and human disturbance.

protection of crane habitat.

52 and Action Plan in Part 2. Part in Plan Action and Strategy Freshwater the within included are concern special of species this of tion M abated. are increase the preventing tors also has room for expansion if the main fac- Ecoregion RFE the in cranes white-naped of population the that shows numbers these of Analysis cranes. red-crowned for those as same the generally are cranes naped M aue fr osrain n restora- and conservation for easures white- for requirements area inimum falcipennis) S bra src grouse spruce iberian Te ae iein spruce Siberian rare The . © International Crane Foundation Crane International © (Falcipennis © A. Panichev © A. 53 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

grouse inhabits dense taiga forests in east- The main reasons for the decline of the

ern Siberia and the RFE Ecoregion. The Siberian spruce grouse are logging in virgin

spruce grouse could become an important dark conifer forests, forest fires, and illegal

symbol for protection of old growth boreal hunting, since the birds are easily

forests. The non-migratory birds nest in approached and are unafraid of people.

remote fir and deciduous forests, preferring

to remain near swamps and other areas with

an abundance of berry bushes. The males Conservation of this species could be

put on remarkable displays during the mat- organized around the revival of legends sur-

ing season in spring, fanning their tails, rounding the birds in cultures of native peo-

stretching their necks, and hopping up and ples of the RFE Ecoregion. If successful,

down while singing their howling song. the species has the potential to become a

powerful and legendary indicator of the

The habitat and range of the Siberian integrity of old growth boreal forests,

spruce grouse is shrinking quickly as a resulting in far-reaching impacts similar to

result of human pressures. In the RFE those associated with conserving the

Ecoregion, the bird is found in fragmented Northern spotted owl in the Pacific

patches in Khabarovsky Province, and Northwest of the United States. Measures

northern parts of Primorsky and for conservation of the Siberian spruce

Amurskaya provinces. The population of grouse are included in the boreal forest

the species is low throughout its range. components of the Forest Strategy and

However, the bird is relatively common in Action Plan in Part 2.

remote and inaccessible areas of the Amur

River Basin - in the upper reaches of the

Selemdzha, Bureya, and Amgun rivers and

along the Okhotsk Sea coast.

54 F need to be protected. be to need forests natural of blocks large succession, natural long-term during balance natural a maintain and fires to resilient are forests boreal that ensure to order In Province. Khabarovsky the in forests of hectares million three than more down burned fire forest catastrophic a 1998, In result. can impacts catastrophic with fires scale large-periods, long for suppressed are fires when Yet forests. boreal of succession in Amur floodplain; and large-scale migrations of Siberian roe deer.roe Siberian of migrations large-scale and floodplain; Amur the in birds rare of nesting and birds migratory of stop-over migration; and ing spawn- salmon mass River; Amur the of regimes flooding natural habitats, intact large-scale fires, forest include: Ecoregion RFE the in phenomena and processes focal naturally.important occur Globally to allowed be should phenomena and es I 3.3. FOCAL PROCESSES AND PHENOMENA PROCESSES AND FOCAL 3.3. n order to achieve the overall objective of conserving biodiversity, focal process- orest fires orest . Fire plays an important role important an plays Fire . creation of mineral belts. mineral of creation or burns prescribed like measures special with regulated be should Fires activities. human and conditions drought on depend fires grass of scale and frequency The tats. habi- marsh and meadow, forest, between border the and vegetation forest-steppe maintain fires These citizens. rural modern and tribes ancient of traditions cultural of part as years, 2000 least at for ecosystems affecting been have and valley River G as ie ae ieped n h Amur the in widespread are fires rass © L. Dubeykowski L. © 55 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

Large intact habitats and biotas. Natural flooding regimes of the Amur

Forests in the RFE Ecoregion still support River and its tributaries. The seasonal

natural floral communities, providing an flooding regime of the Amur River is a

opportunity to protect blocks large enough unique natural phenomenon of global sig-

to be resilient to catastrophic events like nificance. At present, no dams block the

forest fires. These large blocks contain Amur's main channel, which runs nearly

intact communities of vertebrate fauna, 4,500 kilometers from Mongolia into the

including sufficient numbers of eight Tartar Strait of the Okhotsk Sea. In the

species of ungulates to support top preda- upper and middle reaches of the Amur, the

tors like tiger and leopard, brown and black water level rises 10 to 15 meters and six to

bear, wolf, and lynx. seven meters in the lower reaches. The river

can flood its banks four to six times during

Korean pine and Mongolian oak are key- the summer, mostly during the monsoon

stone tree species, the yields of which sup- season in July and August, swelling 10 to

port fauna richness and ecosystem balance 25 kilometers in width in years with heavy

in RFE Ecoregion forests. Wild boar is a rains. In the lowlands of the Amurskaya

critical link in the food web, also depending and Evreiskaya provinces, from five to 30

on the yield of these trees and serving as percent of the territory is flooded each year,

important prey for the tiger. which accounts for the large diversity of

wetland areas.

Ginseng and many other very specific

plants with biologically-active compounds However, one dam has already been built

are virtual natural treasures of RFE on the Zeya River, a tributary of the Amur,

Ecoregion, supporting both biodiversity and another dam is being completed on the

and local economies. Bureya River. Plans have been made to

build hydroelectric stations in three places

along the Amur's main channel and include

construction of five more dams on its tribu-

56 and Amur grayling (Thymallus grubei). (Thymallus grayling Amur and lenok), (Brachymystax trout Manchurian kg, 50 to up reach can which - taimen) (Hucho taimen including tributaries, its in found are fish of species Common ous). numer- most the being keta Oncorhynhus with species (seven salmon migratory of resources tremendous supports still River Amur The daurica). (Huso sturgeon Kaluga and sturgeon Amur famous the ing includ- Book, Red Russian the in listed are fish of species Eight river. this to endemic are (Pseudaspius) genus one even and freshwater fish species, of which 18 species 104 over for habitat important is Amur S tributaries. its and River Amur the of flooding natural the on depend below described processes natural The water. clean on depend all that birds and fish, invertebrates, plants, of up made ecosystems wetland of integrity the mising compro- River, Amur the of waters the ens from human settlements and industry threat- Pollution birds. migrating and sturgeon, and salmon spawning for important tem, sys- natural this disrupt would which taries, lo sann ad migration and spawning almon The . to support their traditional livelihood. traditional their support to resources no have people remaining 25,000 the and times Soviet during disappeared settlements their of 50 - tribes indigenous Ulchi and Nanai, Nivkhi, the for sequences con- tragic had has reserves fish in decline The times. 40 to 30 decreased also has fish of species other of harvest The research. ic scientif- for only and netted are kg 100,000 only now whereas 1891, in harvested was times less. About 1.2 million kg of sturgeon 10 was however,Russia 1990s, in catch the the In registered. was salmon of kg million I S East Asian migration route between nesting the along rest and feed to here stop birds fall, and spring Each areas. stop-over these on depend Formosa) (Anas teal Baikal and cygnoides), (Anser goose swan sis), madagascarien- (Numenius curlew Eastern Far as such species Endangered and waders. ducks of thousands of hundreds migration oftensthousandsgeeseand for significant globally are Basin River fowl areasrarenesting for water- last the and n 1910, a record harvest of more than 100 o-vr ra fr irtr birds migratory for areas top-over Wtad i te lis f h Amur the of plains the in Wetlands . 57 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 3. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX: FOCAL SPECIES AND PROCESSES

areas in the north and wintering grounds in Rapid development of riparian ecosys-

the Yangtze River valley in China and on tems in Northeast China means that the

the Korean Peninsula and the islands of floodplain of the Amur valley harbors some

Japan. of the last remaining habitat for migratory

and breeding waterfowl, playing a crucial

Stop-over areas protected in the Amur role in their survival. Drainage of wetlands

River valley include five existing Ramsar and dam construction, human disturbance,

sites (Zeya-Bureya Plain, Arkhara and sport hunting are the major threats that

Lowlands, Bolon Lake, Udyl Lake, and interrupt the East Asian Flyway.

Khanka Lake). Documents for inclusion of

the Khasan-Delta of the Tumangan River Migration Corridor for Siberian Roe

have been submitted to the Convention's Deer (Capreolus pygargus). The RFE

committee for approval. About 20 species Ecoregion Complex plays an important role

of rare and endangered birds use these wet- for a unique migrating population of

lands for migration or breeding. The Amur Siberian roe deer. It is the last large popula-

valley and its floodplain are the last remain- tion (up to 40,000 roe deer) that migrates

ing nesting areas for 95 percent of the world each fall and spring over 200 km along the

population of Oriental stork, 65 percent of Zeya River. The Siberian roe deer depends

red-crowned cranes, and 50 percent of on conservation of an entire complex of

white-naped cranes. Human pressures have environmental conditions to provide it with

forced these species to abandon nesting resting areas, wintering grounds, and corri-

areas in China, but there are no more suit- dors that connect them.

able habitats to the north of the Amur due to

permafrost.

58 4.1. NATURAL ZONING OF THE RFE ECOREGION RFE THE OF ZONING NATURAL 4.1. .DTRIIGPIRT AREAS PRIORITY DETERMINING 4. A rather thanenvironmental and geographical systems hydrological and terrain natural to according landscapes of classification and environmental influences. Azonal is the climatic similar to subject units graphical geo- into landscapes natural of division the describes Zonal 16). (Figure profiles al azon- and zonal combines and multifaceted is scientists Russian by developed scheme classification zoning natural The phere. bios- the of divisions local and regional, al, glob- of system hierarchical a to according and principles geographical and ecological on based Ecoregion RFE the of landscapes A ope oeal Te a representation a Then overall. Complex Ecoregion the for animals and plants of groups three for determined were ty for conservation. First centers of biodiversi- territories priority determine to order in out carried was Complex Ecoregion East Far n analysis of biodiversity in the Russian group of experts classified the various the classified experts of group FOR CONSERVATIONFOR znl lsiiain ad ev a the as serve and classification, azonal and zonal both of terms in homogeneous are eco-districts These all. in 87 are there which of «eco-districts», into divided is «sub-biomes» 21 and Ecoregions 17 the of Each «sub-biomes». zonal 21 and forests) temperate and sub-boreal, boreal, dra, over four zonal «super-biomes» (forest-tun- Ecoregions azonal greater 17 into Complex Ecoregion East Far Russian the delineating 12) (Figure map a is analysis this for oped O able in Russian (Bocharnikov et al. 2002). al. et (Bocharnikov Russian in able avail- is analysis complete The conditions. taken into account. into taken taining focal species and processes was also main- for areas of importance The looked. over- not were habitats or species tative represen- with areas important biologically analysis was carried out to ensure that other e eut f h znn sse devel- system zoning the of result ne COMPLEX 59 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Figure 12. ECOREGION ZONNING IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX (source: Bocharnikov et al., 2002) © WWF, 2002

ECOREGIONES

Northeast Siberian Mountain Northern Okhotsk Coast Mountain Valley Dzhugdzhur Mountain Uchur-Maya Mountain Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain Stanovoy Highlands Upper Olekma Mountain Uda--Upper Zeya Plain Tukuringra-Dzhagdy Mountain Amur-Zeya Plain Zeya-Bureya Plain Lower Amur Mountain Valley Bureya Mountain Middle Amur Plain Sikhote-Alin Mountain Khanka Lake Plain Eastern Manchurian Mountain

60 Table4. TRETILECOREGIONS «TERRESTRIAL No. 59 51 34 147 112 107 82 77 COMPARISON OF TWO ECOREGION CLASSIFICATIONSYSTEMS ECOREGION TWO COMPARISONOF OF EUROPE AND ASIA» AND EUROPE OF (Dinerstein and Olson 1998) Olson and (Dinerstein it «crgoa Znn o te RFE» the of Zoning «Ecoregional tists scien- Russian by developed map the and map this between boundaries Ecoregion of Asia» and Comparison 1998). Olson and (Dinerstein Europe of Ecoregions used by WWF US in the map of «Terrestrial system the from slightly differs scientists T plans. use land detailed prepare and ecosystems on tion informa- collect to which on unit smallest Forest Mountain Coniferous Mountain & Mixed Forest Mixed & T U O X Mountain TundraMountain U E M A Name of Ecoregion of Name rans-Baikal Bald rans-Baikal ingan/Dzhagdy ssuri-Wisuli ast Siberian TaigaSiberian ast khotsk-Manchurian Taigakhotsk-Manchurian ssuri Broadleaf ssuri mur Meadow Steppe Meadow mur anchurian Mixed Forest Mixed anchurian he classification of biomes by Russian by biomes of classification he B B F Fl T T T T broadleaf forests broadleaf broadleaf forests broadleaf coniferous forests forests coniferous oddgrasslands looded undra emperate emperate oreal forests oreal oreal forests oreal emperate HABITAT oe grasslands ooded TYPES MAIN

10 15 12 9 17 12 2 13 7 13 13 5 4 3 8 5 16 11 1 No. 10 6 14 Russian experts on vegetation zoning, bio- zoning, vegetation on experts Russian continuity between the two. the between continuity of indicator good is which systems, cation differentclassifi- the in coincide Ecoregion The borders for the central parts of the RFE level. detailed more a on out carried was RFE the for zoning that fact the to due are differ borders where Areas 4). (Table aries bound- same the share Ecoregions the of most that shows 2002) al. et (Bocharnikov T Sikhote-Alin Mountain (except 8.4, 9.1) 8.4, (except Mountain Sikhote-Alin S L Zeya-Bureya Plain Zeya-Bureya T M North Okhotsk Mountain and Valleyand Mountain Okhotsk North Upper Olekma Mountain Olekma Upper Eastern Manchurian Mountain Manchurian Eastern Lower Amur Mountain Valley (except 15.2, 15.3) 15.2, Valley(except Mountain Lower Amur Uchur-Maya Upland Uchur-Maya D U Bureya Mountain (S part - 14.4, 18.1, 14.5, 15.1) 14.5, 18.1, 14.4, - part (S Mountain Bureya Bureya Mountain (alpine part 7.11,8.1) part (alpine Mountain Bureya B K Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain (E part) (E Mountain Aldan-Stanovoy Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain (W part) (W Mountain Aldan-Stanovoy N Amur-Zeya Plain (W part) (W Plain Amur-Zeya A ower Amur Mountain Valley (S part - 15.2, 15.3) 15.2, - part Valley(S Mountain ower Amur ukuingra-Dzhagdy Mountain ukuingra-Dzhagdy tanovoy Upland tanovoy zhugdzhur Mountain (except 4.1) (except Mountain zhugdzhur part) (W Plain Zeya da-Upper ureya Mountain (except 14.4, 14.5, 15.1, 17.1, 18.1) 17.1, 15.1, 14.5, 14.4, (except Mountain ureya hanka Plain hanka iddle Amur Plain (N part - 18.4, 15.5) 18.4, - part (N Plain iddle Amur orth Eastern Siberian Mountain Siberian Eastern orth mur-Zeya Plain (SE part) (SE Plain mur-Zeya «ECOREGIONAL ZONING OF ZONING «ECOREGIONAL he classification schemes developed by developed schemes classification he Eco-district Number (Figure 8) (Figure Number Eco-district and Ecoregion of Name THE RFE ECOREGION» RFE THE (Bocharnikov et. al. 2002) al. et. (Bocharnikov 61 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

logical and climatic features, landscape areas, buffer zones, and corridors) is better

analysis, and mapping are useful for ana- assessed at this level. Likewise, this zoning

lyzing biodiversity at the landscape level. system is useful for developing manage-

This detailed breakdown of habitat types ment guidelines for conservation land-

can be used to address conservation of cer- scapes - aggregations of protected areas,

tain unique assemblages on a local scale. corridors, and surrounding areas with sus-

Landscape integrity and the connectivity of tainable regimes of resource use.

different systems of protected areas (core

4.2. METHODS OF TERRITORIAL BIODIVERSITY ANALYSIS

Using the classification scheme described Biodiversity levels for each of the three

above, three model groups of plants and groups were analyzed according to the fol-

animals were examined in detail to deter- lowing criteria: number of species and

mine comparative biodiversity, first at the overall taxonomic diversity (alpha-diversi-

«eco-district», then sub-biome and ty); uniqueness; differential biodiversity

Ecoregional levels. In order to create a bal- (based on distribution of species or groups

anced model, three groups of organisms on given territory); and species with narrow

were chosen with similar numbers of ranges. In addition, three other criteria were

species to represent the different sectors of used in determining priority areas: abun-

biodiversity. Woody plants were chosen to dance of seasonal phenomena; number of

represent vascular plants; diurnal butterflies regional endemics; and number of endan-

represented invertebrates; and birds were gered species (Table 5). Then overall biodi-

chosen to represent vertebrates. While versity for the various zoning levels was

mammal diversity was not assessed in this examined based on the results for these

analysis, territorial priorities for this group groups and categories.

will not be vastly different from those for

woody plants and diurnal butterflies.

62 Figure13.

SUBBIOMES SUBBIOMES SUBBIOMES COMPONENTS BIODIVERSITY OF LEVEL DENDROFLORA BUTTERFLIES BIRDS

ECOREGIONS ECOREGIONS ECOREGIONS © Bocharnikov, Martynenko, 2002 Martynenko, Bocharnikov, © extremely high extremely high very high high relatively moderate limited low relatively low low very low extremely 63 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Table 5. EVALUATION OF CHARACTERISTICS OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE RFE ECOREGION

Species richness Permanent Inventorial diversity components Taxon richness Endemism Differential diversity (beta-diversity)

Temporary Seasonal ornithological Migratory paths and resting areas components phenomena Nesting areas of colonial birds and waterfowl Wintering areas of raptors and waterfowl

Most vulnerable Abundant species with Local endemics components limited distribution Species narrowly distributed within RFE

Abundance of Red Book species

Woody plants: In all, there are 356 regions in alpine areas, as well as in the

species of woody plants in the Ecoregion broad valley of the upper Amur floodplain.

Complex. They make up a collective group,

combing species from different families. Diurnal butterflies: The families of

Analysis of the distribution of woody plants Lepidoptera and Diurna were chosen

in the 17 Ecoregions showed that diversity among diurnal butterflies to represent ter-

of this group is highest in the Sikhote-Alin restrial invertebrate diversity. In all, there

Mountain, Eastern Manchurian Mountain, are 307 species in these two families in the

Khanka Lake Lowland, and Bureya Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex.

Mountain Ecoregions (Figure 13), all locat- Distribution of species within the two sub-

ed in the southern portion of the RFE. families Hesperionoidea and Papilionoidea

Mountains cover most of the territory of was examined closely. Since diversity of

these Ecoregions, where warm tempera- diurnal butterflies is largely related to geo-

tures and a variety of habitats create favor- graphical zoning, the main centers of

able conditions for woody plant diversity. species richness are found in the southern

As would be expected, the lowest level of tip of the RFE Ecoregion in temperate

woody plant diversity occurs in northern forests of Primorsky and Khabarovsky

64 Figure14. SUBBIOMES Figure15. SUBBIOMES EE FBOOIA DISTINCTIVENESS BIOLOGICAL OF LEVEL TYPES OF BIODIVERSITY OF TYPES Taiga and subtaiga Taigaand Subpacific subnemoral Subpacific subnemoral Evpacific Evpacific nemoral Evpacific Subpacific nemoral Subpacific 18 19 20 21 3,6,7,8,12,15 11,14 1,2,5,10 9,13,16 17 extremely high extremely high very high high relatively moderate limited low relatively low low very low extremely ECOREGIONS ECOREGIONS © Bocharnikov, Martynenko, 2002 Martynenko, Bocharnikov, © © Bocharnikov, Martynenko, 2002 Martynenko, Bocharnikov, © biodiversity) differenting and inventory (both Sikhote-Aline (inventory biodiversity) (inventory Prymorye West (differenting biodiversity) (differenting Nagorye Burejinskoe (mainly) (birds biodiversity) (birds (mainly) Hills and Plains Amur (intact taiga forests biodiversity) forests taiga (intact Ecoregions Nothern 4,8,9 5,6,7 2 1 15 16,17 11,14 10 12 3 13 © WWF,© 2002 © WWF,© 2002 65 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

provinces. Diurnal butterfly species have Overall biodiversity: Table 6 provides a

the highest levels of diversity in the summary of overall biodiversity of each of

Sikhote-Alin Mountain, Eastern the Ecoregions. Biodiversity is greatest in

Manchurian Mountain, Khanka Lake the lowlands along the Middle Amur Plain,

Lowland, Middle Amur Plain, and Bureya in the Bureya Highlands, in the Ussuri

Mountain Ecoregions (Figure 13). River watershed up to the Khanka Lake

Lowlands, and in the Borisovsky Foothills

Birds: The analysis considered only nest- near Peter the Great Bay, where temperate

ing birds, of which there are 317 species in and sub-temperate forests prevail. Levels of

the RFE Ecoregion Complex. Since birds biodiversity in sub-boreal and southern

are highly mobile, the presence of migrants boreal forests along the upper and lower

and wintering birds was treated as «back- Amur are significantly lower. Biodiversity

ground noise». It is clear from the analysis is lowest in middle boreal forests north of

that bird distribution is not very dependent the Tukuringra-Dzhagdy Range and in the

on geographical zoning or macroclimatic northern and middle boreal forests outside

factors. Within the RFE Ecoregion, centers of the Amur Basin.

of avian fauna richness are tied to open

areas and marshy plains of rivers and lakes. Looking at Figures 14, 15 one notices

The highest levels of diversity were in the that Ecoregions with the highest level of

Middle Amur Plain, the delta of the biodiversity are distributed in a nearly

Tumangan River in the Eastern Manchurian checkerboard fashion. This is largely due to

Mountain Ecoregion, the lower Amgun spatial factors where the relatively rich

River in the Lower Amur Mountain Valley mountain Ecoregions are divided by less

Ecoregion, the Khanka-Razdolina Plain in diverse plains.

the Khanka Lake Plain Ecoregion, and the

Zeya-Bureya Plain Ecoregion (Figure 13).

66 Table6. Ref. Map 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ECITO N IDVRIYFEATURES BIODIVERSITY AND DESCRIPTION COMPLEX: ECOREGION RFE THE OF ECOREGIONS Amur-Zeya Plain Amur-Zeya Mountain Dzhagdy Tukuringra- Plain Zeya Uda-Upper Mountain Olekma Upper Uplands Stanovoy Mountain Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain Uchur-Maya Mountain Dzhugdzhur Valley Mountain Coast Okhotsk Northern Mountain Siberian Northeast Ecoregion 92,200 33,900 66,600 25,400 12,200 57,800 151,400 83,200 24,000 72,400 (km Area 2 ) Protected Percent 6 11.8 1.8 5.5 0 0 0.1 < 12.3 15.8 0 Zeya rivers Zeya A rivers Selemdzha Z rivers Uda Z O O rivers Olekma Z rivers Maya U O rivers Kava O Yudomarivers O Watershed eya, eya, Uchur,eya, mur, chur, lekma River lekma River lekma Sea khotsk khota, khota, and illegal logging illegal and clearcutting by degraded forests pine largest tems; ecosys- broadleaf Manchurian and steppe Mongolian Daurian- from fauna of endemics some variation; landscape birds; nesting and migratory for wetlands many biodiversity; overall low grasslands; and ments B station hydroelectric Zeya of reservoir by ened threat- reindeer; and wolverine of border southern dog, raccoon and frog tree Eastern Far the of der bor- northern slopes; southern and northern on tems ecosys- different and variation altitudinal biodiversity; overall low tracts; intact large with forests Boreal railroad Baikal-Amur the along clearcuts large by threatened butterflies; diurnal uted distrib- locally and endemics, some including species, bird of number high relatively biodiversity; overall L species rare of number large endemics; of number a with types fauna Angara and Daurian of mixture variation; altitudinal diversity; bio- overall low forests; boreal intact of tracts Large birds significant and butterflies; diurnal plants, woody among endemics Transbaikalsome group; fauna the Angara from butterflies of numbers significant biodiversity; overall low habitats; steppe L railroad new a by threatened population; sheep snow isolated by inhabited Ridge Tokinskythe in ecosystems mountain bald tundra; alpine to forests from variation altitudinal diversity; bio- overall low forests; boreal of tracts intact Large birds of numbers significant group; fauna the Angara of butterflies abundant locally diversity; L tems ecosys- coastal specific variation; altitudinal species; bird of number high relatively phenomena; sonal sea- prevalent biodiversity; overall low forests; intact of tracts large with ecosystems, boreal Northern birds migratory and nesting certain of ulations pop- large butterflies; rare of number high forests; of tracts intact large biodiversity; overall low woodlands; S Mountain Mus-Khaya near formation glacier large tundra; alpine to forests from gradients altitudinal sharp versity; biodi- overall low forests; boreal of tracts intact large Complex; Ecoregion RFE in Ecoregion Northernmost arge intact tracts of northern boreal forests; low forests; boreal northern of tracts intact arge with interspersed forests boreal of tracts arge bio- overall low forests; boreal of tracts intact arge outhern forest-tundra ecosystems with elfin pine elfin with ecosystems forest-tundra outhern oreal and sub-boreal forests with xerophytic frag- xerophytic with forests sub-boreal and oreal of biodiversity of Features Main 67 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Table 6 (continued). Map Ecoregion Area Percent Watershed Main Features Ref. (km2) Protected of biodiversity

11 Zeya-Bureya 79,900 15.3 Amur, Zeya, Southern boreal forests with numerous wetlands and Plain Bureya rivers broadleaf forests with grasslands; limited overall biodiversity; significant habitats for migratory and nesting waterfowl; relatively high number of rare species (Komarov lotus, Oriental white stork, red-crowned crane) and important natural phenomena (Amur flooding, roe deer migration); large-scale conversion of natural habitats to farm lands; forest cover reduced to 2-15%; threatened by agricultural development and soil erosion

12 Lower Amur 121,800 7.4 Amur, Amgun Boreal and sub-boreal forests; large areas of intact Mountain Valley rivers spruce-fir forests; broad valleys with large lakes; limited overall biodiversity; significant habitat for migratory and nesting birds; spatial variation; important seasonal phenomena (Amur flooding, stop-over areas for geese, ducks, and waders); threatened by large clearcuts and forest fires

13 Bureya Mountain 188,100 5.3 Bureya, Boreal and sub-boreal forests; broadleaf forests with Selemdzha fragments of grasslands; average overall biodiversity; rivers high level of landscape diversity; many vulnerable endemic and rare species (Siberian spruce grouse); relatively high diversity of diurnal butterflies

14 Middle Amur 77,000 12.5 Amur River Sub-boreal and broadleaf forests with grassland frag- Plain ments and numerous lakes; relatively high overall biodiversity; important wetland habitats for numerous migratory and nesting birds; large colonies of waterfowl (swan, whooping swan); relatively high number of endemics, mainly from Manchurian flora and fauna groups (Oriental white stork, red-crowned crane)

15 Sikhote-Alin 236,700 8.9 Ussuri and Temperate forests with meadows and sub-boreal Mountain Anyui rivers, forests; extremely high overall biodiversity; mixture of Sea of Japan, different floral and faunal communities; altitudinal Tartar Strait variation; home of number of rare species (Amur tiger, goral, Siberian spruce grouse, Blakiston's fish owl, and ginseng)

16 Khanka Lake 20,200 4 Khanka Lake, Temperate forests and meadows; very high overall Plain Sungacha biodiversity throughout; important seasonal phenome- River na (natural flooding regimes, stop-over for geese and ducks, roe deer migration; large number of nesting and migratory birds; numerous vulnerable rare and endemic species; nesting habitat of the Oriental white stork and red-crowned and white-naped cranes

17 Eastern 12,000 29.2 Khanka Lake, Temperate forests and meadows; extremely high Manchurian Razdolnaya, overall biodiversity throughout; numerous important Mountain Tumen rivers seasonal phenomena - roe deer migration, wintering grounds for black vultures (Aegypius monachus); nesting and migratory birds common in Tumangan delta; only remaining habitat for the Far Eastern leopard

68 ..CNLSOSO ERTRA ANALYSIS TERRITORIAL OF CONCLUSIONS 4.3. P tion of focal species and processes and species focal of tion ty analysis and on requirements for conserva- biodiversi- the of results the on based mined the different priority areas and Ecoregions. and areas priority different the of features biological primary the describes 7 Table Ecoregion. Mountain-Valley Amur Zeya-Bureya Plain Ecoregion, and the Lower the the Ecoregion, of Tukuringra-Dzhagdinsky eco-districts boreal southern the Ecoregion, Mountain Bureya the of der remain- the includes priorities, of list the on high but biodiversity in lower still while ries, territo- of set final The Ecoregion. Mountain Bureya the of eco-districts Badzhalsky Plain Ecoregion,andtheLesserKhingan Amur Middle the of eco-districts remaining the rank priorities of list the in high still Mountain biodiversity,in lower Slightly Ecoregion. but Sikhote-Alin the of tricts» «eco-dis- sub-boreal and sub-temperate, ate, temper- in as well as Ecoregions, Mountain Manchurian Eastern and Lowlands Lake Khanka the in concentrated are Complex Ecoregion East Far Russian the in tion conserva- for areas important most The 16). riority areas for conservation were deter- were conservation for areas riority (Figure (northern territories). forests (northern boreal virgin of tracts large and Amur Plain, Lower Amur Mountain Valley); logical diversity (Zeya-Bureya Plain, Middle ornitho- high Mountain); (Bureya diversity differential high Lowland); Lake Khanka and Mountain Manchurian (Eastern richness inventorial high diversity Mountain); (Sikhote-Alin differential and inventorial high determined: were priorities of types five territories, the classifying In gradients). environmental across richness species or beta-diversity is level lowest (its conditions environmental and territories specified the within units biological these of distribution of evenness the of assessment an provides diversity Differential richness). species or conditions (itslowestlevelisalpha-diversity environmental certain with territory given a within etc.) communities, taxa, species, (individuals, units biological certain of ness rich- of assessment an provides biodiversity Inventorial biodiversity. differential and ty biodiversi- inventorial used: were indicators additional two richness, biological of type T o classify the territories according to the to according territories the classify o 69 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Figure 16. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PRIORITIES IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX © Martynenko, 2000 © WWF, 2000

Ecoregions Subbiomes

LEVEL OF PRIORITY

extremely low very low low relatively low limited moderate relatively high high very high extremely high CHARACTER OF PRIORITY inventory biodiversity both inventory and differenting biodiversity differenting biodiversity birds biodiversity intact taiga forests biodiversity

70 um-term on the following territories, which territories, following the on um-term medi- and short- the for funds and efforts of majority the concentrating recommend I 4.4. LANDSCAPE INTEGRITY AND REPRESENTATION AND INTEGRITY LANDSCAPE 4.4. ty, specific territories within each of the pri- integri- landscape of analysis the on Based strategies. conservation in ecosystems representative include to and impacts, human to due habitat natural as to suitable be longer no may which areas identify to conservation, for action immediate require areas which determine to account into taken were - representation and integrity T High Priority Areas for Conservation for Areas Priority High 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 n conclusion of the territorial analysis, we o diinl atr - landscape - factors additional wo Zeya-Bureya Plain Ecoregion Plain Zeya-Bureya Ecoregion Plain Amur Middle Lowlands Lake Khanka Ecoregion Tukuringra-Dzhagdinsky Ecoregion Mountain Bureya the of eco-districts Badzhalsky and Khingan Lesser Ecoregion Mountain Sikhote-Alin Foothills Borisovsky the particularly Ecoregion, Mountain Manchurian Eastern NLSSO ROIYAREAS PRIORITY ANALYSISOF (Figure16) overall land area). land overall the of percent 20 (comprising Complex Ecoregion East Far Russian the in ty biodiversi- conserving for priorities top are of priorities. of ritories or ecosystems were added to the list ter- representative additional analysis, tion representa- the of result a As ecosystems. important critically in integrity habitat developed inordertoabatemajorthreats were measures additional or strategy the from excluded or included were areas ority 71 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Table 7. PRIORITY AREAS FOR SHORT- AND MEDIUM-TERM CONSERVATION OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION COMPLEX

Biodiversity Priority Area Major Ecoregion Watershed Overall Focal Species, Eco- (x1000 Habitat Special Features Species of 2 Level District km ) Type Special Concern

Eastern Borisovsky 7.2 Temperate Tumangan, Extremely Fullest representation Amur tiger, Far Manchurian Foothills broadleaf Sea of Japan high of species found in Eastern leopard, Mountain forests temperate forests goral, ginseng Khanka Ussuri-Khanka 14.3 Temperate Khanka Lake Very high Mixture of temperate Amur tiger, Lake Lake Lowlands broadleaf forest and Daurian Oriental white Lowlands forests species assemblages; stork, cranes high bird diversity; meadow-steppe ecosystems Southern 7.6 Temperate Sea of Japan Extremely Landscape diversity Amur tiger, goral, Sikhote-Alin broadleaf high along altitudinal gradi- ginseng Foothills and conifer ent; mixture of forests species assemblages, but temperate species dominate Sikhote-Alin Southern 8.4 Temperate Upper Ussuri High Landscape diversity Amur tiger, goral, Mountain Sikhote-Alin conifer and along altitudinal gradi- ginseng Mountains boreal forests ent; mixture of species assemblages Eastern 8.3 Temperate Sea of Japan Very high Landscape diversity Amur tiger, goral, Sikhote-Alin conifer along altitudinal gradi- ginseng, sika deer Foothills forests ent; mixture of species assemblages Lesser Khingan 9.2 Temperate Middle Amur Relatively Mixture of temperate, Goral, Oriental Foothills conifer and high boreal, and Daurian white stork boreal forests species Bureya Mountain Badzhalsky 23.2 Southern Lower Amur, Average Landscape diversity Oriental white Foothills boreal Gorin along altitudinal gradi- stork, Siberian forests ent; mixture of spruce grouse species assemblages Amur-Zeya Lower Zeya 10.2 Flooded Upper Amur, Limited Temperate and Oriental white Plain Mountains grasslands lower Zeya Daurian species inter- stork, white-naped mingle; high bird crane diversity Zeya-Bureya Zeya-Bureya 34.6 Flooded Upper Amur, Limited Various bird assem- Oriental white- Plain Plain grasslands lower Zeya blages stork, cranes and Bureya Middle Amur All sub-temper- 77.0 Flooded Middle Amur, Relatively Various bird assem- Oriental white Plain ate eco-districts grasslands lower Ussuri high blages; muskeg bogs stork, cranes Lower Amur All southern 60.31 Boreal and Amur, Amgun Limited Significant habitat for Oriental white Mountain boreal and sub-boreal migratory and nesting stork Siberian Valley sub-boreal eco- forests, birds; spatial variation; spruce grouse districts broad valleys seasonal flooding with lakes regimes and wetlands

Tukurhingra- Tukuringrsky 14.9 Boreal Middle Zeya, Limited Boreal species Oriental white Dzhagdinsky and Dzhagdin- forests upper assemblages with stork, Siberian Mountain sky Southern Selemdzha some representatives spruce grouse Foothills of temperate forests Aldano- Stanovoy 28.0 Boreal Upper Zeya Relatively Rich in Eastern Snow sheep, Stanovoy Mountains forests River low Siberian and arctic- Siberian spruce Mountain alpine species assem- grouse blages

72 document. in the Threats Analysis in Section 7 of this presented is areas priority to threats of sis analy- further A conservation. for areas ty priori- the of each for threats and integrity servation. con- biodiversity long-term guarantee not can- and low very still is areas protected of percent the where protection under placed be to need forests boreal and temperate density of protected areas, inland regions of the at looking In pressures. human constant to subject are which of both floodplain, Primorsky Province,aswellintheAmur of regions developed and populated the in are Complex Ecoregion the in territories vulnerable most The biodiversity. overall to addition in factors other and sentation, repre- territorial integrity, landscape tem, sys- areas protected the of density consider to important is it Complex, Ecoregion East Far Russian the in initiatives conservation L T nsae integrity. andscape able 8 gives an overview of landscape of overview an gives 8 able n arig out carrying In projects on sustainable forestry.sustainable on projects model introducing for targeted be should foothills, Khingan Lesser the and Borisovsky as such logging, by transformed or impacted been have but conservation, ty waterfowl. for Territories that are important for biodiversi- habitat nesting and stop-over provide which areas, important these in needed are measures protection and restoration that indicate would ever, how- Plain, Zeya-Bureya the of formation trans- of levels High ecosystems. mountain diverse these in animals and plants other and tigers conserve to corridors managed sustainably by connected (Econet) areas protected forest of network a of creation facilitate would Mountains Sikhote-Alin the of parts in density population and tion transforma- of levels low and cover forest of levels High 8). (Table networks area ed protect- future in inclusion for exploitation economic of out taken be should and and intact highly are mountains, Badzhalsky Dzhagdinsky, the in Tukuringrsky, example for forests, boreal sub- and boreal of areas that shows 1994) Sheingauz 1998, Sheingauz and (Karakin A aayi o lnsae integrity landscape of analysis n 73 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Table 8. INTEGRITY OF PRIORITY ECO-DISTRICTS AND MAJOR THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY

Priority Farm Forest Forest Population Major Forms Major Threats Eco-Districts Lands Cover Transfor- Density of Natural Resource to Biodiversity (%) (%) mation(%) (people Use per km2)

Borisovsky 1-6 45 60-70 <.05-15.9 Logging, reindeer herding, Fires, poaching, Foothills recreation, open coal mining uncontrolled recreation, road building

Khanka Lake 18-45 15-30 70-81 8-27 Agriculture, open coal mining Fires, drainage, Lowlands

Southern 2 80 40-50 8-15.9 Logging, timber production, Fires, poaching, Sikhote-Alin agriculture in valleys, habitat loss to farm- Foothills resource extraction, hunting, lands and logging collection of non-timber forest products

Southern 2 95 35-50 0.5-1.9 Logging, timber production, Fires, poaching, Sikhote-Alin resource extraction, hunting, habitat loss to logging Mountains collection of non-timber forest products

Eastern 0.7 95 35-50 0.5-3.9 Resource extraction, hunting, Fires, poaching, Sikhote-Alin collection of non-timber habitat loss to logging Foothills forest products, agriculture in valleys

Lesser 0.7 80 60-70 2-3.9 Logging, timber production, Fires, poaching, Khingan resource extraction, hunting, habitat loss to logging Foothills collection of non-timber forest products

Badzhalsky 0.04 70-80 40-50 0.5-0.9 Logging, timber production, Fires, poaching, Foothills mining and resource extrac- habitat loss to logging tion, hunting, collection of non-timber forest products

Middle Amur 2 10 75 0.5-1.9 Agriculture (in southern Fires, drainage, Plain areas), hunting, fishing poaching

Lower Zeya 21 44 75 8-15.9 Agriculture, hunting, logging Fires, poaching Mountains

Zeya-Bureya 59 2-15 70-81 4-27 Agriculture, open coal mining Fires, drainage, Plain pesticides

Tukuringrsky/ 0 60 35-40 <0.5-0.9 Traditional forms of nature Fires, habitat loss Dzhagdinsky use, resource extraction to mining Foothills (gold, coal)

Stanovoy 0 75 35-40 <0.5 Hunting, collection of non- Habitat loss to mining Mountains timber forest products, Evenki reindeer herding

74 R «representative» Ecoregions are: Ecoregions «representative» four These biomes. representative on plan action separate a in included subregions four of (Ecoregions) with parts lower biodiversity but high representation value should be that determined we biodiversity, region's the 4 4 4 4 Okhotsk Sea. Okhotsk the along Province Khabarovsky of portion northeastern the of representative are fir Khingam and spruce Ajan of up made forests Intact Ecoregion. RFE the in river salmon richest the is River Amgun The gibbosus). (Eschrichtius whales gray for grounds feeding last the of some vide pro- bays shallow while birds wader for habitat important is coast Sea Okhotsk the Asian Flyway. The large inter-tidal zone of Northeast the on waterfowl migratory for areas stopover and habitat breeding viding pro- in role important its to due Ecoregion Ecoregion T epresentation. eLwr mr onan Valley Mountain Amur Lower he Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain Ecoregion Mountain Aldan-Stanovoy Ecoregion Plain Amur-Zeya Ecoregion Mountain Bureya ValleyEcoregion Mountain Amur Lower was selected as a representative After analysis of the role of priority areas in protecting in areas priority of role the of analysis After above treeline. above found plants of species endemic many by characterized - species new of ment develop- - speciation of centers important are Range Badzhal the of ecosystems Alpine mountains. the in found are forests spruce and dahurica) L. sibirica, (Larix larch intact of blocks Large communities. faunal and floral southern and northern of overlapping and diversity landscape to due Ecoregion RFE the in richness species Mountain areahasthethirdhighestlevelof Bureya The diversity. landscape and richness species of levels high with forests boreal mountain represent to selected T e uea onan Ecoregion Mountain Bureya he was 75 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 4. DETERMINING PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

The Amur-Zeya Plain Ecoregion has Within these territorial divisions, we

fragments of representative Scotch pine selected areas with the highest risk of new

(Pinus sylvestris) forests at the eastern edge threats from human activities.

of the tree's range. Pine forests occupy less Representative habitats of these four

than one percent of the RFE Ecoregion Ecoregions and their associated species

Complex. Furthermore, this is the only assemblages are slated for conservation

Ecoregion in the RFE Ecoregion Complex within the Representative Biomes Strategy

where Transbaikal floral and faunal com- and Action Plan in Part 2.

munities are represented. Large-scale

migrations of Siberian roe deer still occur

here along the Amur River.

The Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain

Ecoregion represents high mountain habi-

tats with intact high mountain boreal forests

and alpine landscapes. An isolated popula-

tion of snow sheep (Ovis nivicola potanini)

inhabits high altitude zones with alpine tun-

dra. The region marks the geographical

boundary between northern taiga of the

Republic of Yakutia (Sakha) and southern

Amur flora and fauna.

76 levers, setting standards, and others. and standards, setting levers, economic and financial creating nisms, mecha- administrative and legal including resources, natural manage to tools of Province», and others. and Province», Primorsky of Areas Protected Specially on «Law the Province», Khabarovsky of Code «Forest the include adopted and developed been have that laws Regional areas. specific in management resource regulating in laws federal as important as are standards and laws regional of tion implementa- and development practice, In management. resource natural to related es claus- have laws other of number A 7. Box in outlined are level federal the on vation mechanisms governing biodiversity conser- legal main The levels. regional and federal acts, decrees, declarations, and programs on legislation, other and laws include ment L T 5.1. LEGISLATIVE BASIS FOR BIODIVERSITY FOR LEGISLATIVEBASIS 5.1. 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES CURRENT OF OVERVIEW 5. e usa Gvrmn ue a variety a uses Government Russian he egal mechanisms egal for resource manage- resource for NBOIEST CONSERVATION BIODIVERSITY IN CONSERVATIONRFE THE IN

BOX 7. PRIMARY LAWS AND LEGISLATIVE MECHANISMS IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATIONGOVERNING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE F L Monuments Cultural and Historical L 158 No. Federation Russian R Endangered Animals U Plants Endangered U L L Economic Activity I Assessments L W L used fauna used commercially- of objects of destruction or harvest on fines and damages mining D assessments impact environmental out carrying for procedures confirming D fauna and flora of objects of destruction or harvest gal ille- from fines and damages determining D nstructions on Ecological Justification of Justification Ecological on nstructions orest Code orest Code and of Use and Preservation on aw aw on Environmental Protection Environmental on aw aw on the Animal World the Animal on aw Impact Environmental on aw aw on Specially Protected Areas Specially on aw esolution on the Red Book of the of Book Red the on esolution and Rare of Book Red SSR and Rare of Book Red SSR ecree of Agricultural Ministry on deter- on Ministry of Agricultural ecree on Ministry Environmental of ecree on Ministry Environmental of ecree ater Code ater (2001) (1999) (1995) (1997) (1995) (1994) (1995) (1975, 1988) (1975, (1983) (1995) (1996) (2002) (1995) (1985) (1997) 77 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Administrative mechanisms for natural Standards for regulation of natural

resource management consist of 1) man- resource use are in place to limit impacts of

agement of natural resources that are state economic activity on the environment. The

property; 2) monitoring enforcement of system of norms dictates which natural

accepted standards and norms; 3) licensing objects should be protected and sets out

activities; 4) direct monitoring of certain standards for nature use and maintenance of

natural ecosystems and resources; and quality. Standards determine permitted

5) state environmental impact assessments. impact levels on the environment. All

norms are determined by the state and there

Economic instruments are based on is such an abundance of regulations for for-

payment for natural resource use, operating est use that it is nearly impossible to keep

through a system of payments, taxes, and track of them all, much less obey them.

fines. Payments for forest exploitation are

extremely low. For example, average Numerous governmental agencies are

stumpage prices cost less than a bottle of responsible in one way or another for natu-

Coca-Cola. Often, prices are determined ral resource management, including biodi-

according to set standards and are not based versity conservation. The most significant

on the market. Fines for illegal logging are of these for biodiversity conservation is the

very low, and are leveled only on violators Ministry of Natural Resources of the

that cut more than 200 cubic meters without Russian Federation, to which the functions

a license. Fines for violating forest fire reg- of the State Committee for the

ulations are less than 30 cents. In addition, Environment, Federal Forestry Service, and

the current system of customs payments Committee for Water Resources were trans-

provides a disincentive to process timber, ferred in May 2000. The responsibilities of

meaning that more raw timber is exported this agency include management of forests,

than processed boards, earning less on water, and underground resources, monitor-

international markets. ing and control of resource use, protection

78 ments is questionable. is ments assess- environmental of objectivity the Resources, Natural of Ministry the within located is body this Since Assessments». Impact Ecological «State called prise have beendelegatedtoagovernmententer- inspections and assessments impact mental environ- state of functions The Russia. in exploitation resource natural is with charged that Ministry the of responsibility ment and biodiversity programs, will be the manage- areas protected as well as tions, func- monitoring environmental Today, great. now is influence of sphere it cies, agen- environmental state of number a of functions the absorbed Ministry the Since reserves. nature of system the of agement man- and species, endangered and rare of participation of the regional governments. regional the of participation with out carried is user land by resources biological marine and forest of Division resources. natural and land of majority province. Thefederalgovernmentownsthe each within Resources Natural of Ministry federal the of policies the implement resources natural for Committees region. administrative each in functions agement man- out carrying for responsible divisions uh s h Au tgr n ginseng. and tiger Amur the as such species, endangered of trade illegal against This agency is an important ally in the fight border. state the cross that resources and objects natural for responsible is Agency Customs State The resources. game other as well as (zakazniks), refuges wildlife of responsible for management of the majority is Agriculture of Ministry the in Resources Game of Regulation and Monitoring, T E c gvrmn aec hs territorial has agency government ach e eatet o Protection, for Department he 79 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Some of the more significant deficiencies in the current state system with respect to natural

resource use and biodiversity conservation in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex are:

4 A divided approach in management and implementation of natural resource

use. The merging of forest, geological, conservation, and water agencies in the

Ministry of Natural Resources did not result in a more integrated approach to

nature use; 4 The absence of a government agency which is directly responsible for biodiversity conservation; 4 The merging of regulatory and economic functions within the Ministry of Natural Resources; 4 The lack of a clear division of rights to natural resources, as well as ownership and management rights of natural and land resources; 4 An insufficient legislative basis to fight illegal poaching; and 4 The absence of legislation to promote integrated natural resource use (current legislation encourages separate and narrow approaches to nature use - forestry, game resources, or agriculture, for example, rather than a combination of these on appropriate lands).

A number of specialized anti-poaching ventions on biodiversity conservation.

inspections are active in the RFE, in addi- These inspections monitor Primorsky

tion to the system of state agencies under Province and the southern portion of

regional committees for natural resources. Khabarovsky Province. Anti-poaching

The «Inspection for Protection of Rare and brigades operate under the jurisdiction of

Disappearing Species of Animals and the Game Management Agencies of

Plants of the Russian Ministry of Natural Khabarovsky and Primorsky provinces.

Resources» («Tiger Inspection») consists of The Committee for Natural Resources in

eight groups. Two of these groups have spe- the Evreiskaya Province has an anti-poach-

cial functions: the «Kedr» group polices ing brigade. Anti-poaching brigades func-

illegal logging and the «CITES» group is tion in all the zapovedniks (Lazovsky,

responsible for enforcing international con- Sikhote-Alinsky, Botchinsky, etc.) 80 A restrictions on use of natural resources. natural of use on restrictions cal corridors and buffer zones with different ecologi- by connected areas, protected new and areas protected of system existing the include would CAP the of 2 Part in posed in the Ecoregion Complex. The Econet pro- processes ecosystem long-term supporting for framework the as serve to and species and ecosystems threatened of conservation ensure to Ecoregion RFE the in urgently created be to needs groups, interest ous vari- the of cooperation through managed Econet, An approach. unified a with aged man- not are which regimes, protection of of a variety of territories with various forms areas systemintheRFEEcoregionconsists protected the Currently, landscape. altered human- a in systems natural of tioning func- and biosphere the of state sustainable a guarantees that habitats aquatic and/or territories natural interrelated territorially and functionally of system a is (ECONET) 5.2. THE SYSTEM OF PROTECTED OF SYSTEM THE 5.2. eooia poetd ra network areas protected ecological n Academy of Sciences. (FEBRAS). Sciences. of Academy the of institutes research by managed Ministry of Natural Resources, but three are the to subordinate are zapovedniks existing of majority The Complex. Ecoregion the in planned are zapovedniks new no presently use, economic of out taken are lands new which with difficulty the to Due staff. education environmental and departments, scientific services, ranger authorized operated. and equipped specially and have Zapovedniks owned federally are Zapovedniks territory. the of percent) (2.1 ha million 2.9 cover Ecoregion RFE the protection in Russia. The 16 zapovedniks in habitat of form effective most the provide - I) category (IUCN reserves nature state protected strictly - Zapovedniks Ecoregion. RFE the in areas protected of listing plete com- a contains 3 Attachment 9). (Table Complex Ecoregion the of percent 7.28 covered areas protected of types various 2002, January of As Ecoregion. RFE the T he state of the protected areas system in system areas protected the of state he AREAS IN THE RFE THE IN AREAS 81 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

National parks (IUCN II), a novelty in the cial (IUCN IV) game and landscape refuges

RFE Ecoregion, have begun to be created protect an area of 5.45 million ha (4.7 per-

over the past two years. Three parks were cent of the RFE). The provincial Game and

approved on the provincial level and are Wildlife Agencies supervise the refuges,

awaiting approval by the federal govern- but they are not landowners. The regime of

ment. National parks allow limited use of wildlife refuges aims mostly to stop hunt-

forest and wildlife and emphasize public ing, yet cannot halt habitat degradation.

recreation, in addition to nature conserva- Ecological corridors have a similar regime,

tion. National parks are an attractive way to but only one has been established under

build support among local communities and supervision of the Wildlife and Game

to promote ecotourism and alternative land Agency of Khabarovsky Province.

use practices. National park lands belong to

the Ministry of Natural Resources. New types of refuges, with greater pro-

tection capabilities and varying purposes

Wildlife refuges (zakazniks) cover the are now being established in the RFE

largest land area in the RFE Ecoregion. A Ecoregion. The first landscape refuge

total of 64 federal (IUCN III) and provin- (IUCN III-IV) was established in

Table 9. PERCENTOF LAND IN THERFE ECOREGION COVERED BY PRO- TECTED AREAS OF VARIOUS TYPES AS OF JANUARY 2002

Type of Amurskaya Evreiskaya Primorsky Khabarovsky RFE Protected Province Province Province Province Ecoregion Area Complex

Zapovedniks 1.12 2.53 4.16 2.15 2.13

Federal nature 0.47 0 0.64 0.93 0.75 refuges

Provincial refuges 5.11 8.24 6.65 2.63 3.94

Nature parks 0 0 0.06 0 0.01

National parks 0 0 1.13 0.55 0.45

TOTAL 6.70 10.77 12.64 6.26 7.28

82 have no interest in their creation. their in interest no have agencies state since tape, red bureaucratic by down slowed been has parks nature five another of Creation management. effective and funding securing in difficulties had has and administration provincial the by managed is park The Province. Primorsky southwestern in Khasansky is Ecoregion S T forests. boreal intact of remnants last the protecting in Ecoregion RFE the in developed most the system province's this making ha), 734,000 (covering Province Amurskaya in lished estab- been have refuges botanical new inspection. Since the beginning of 2002, six forest the by protected are and Resources Natural of Ministry the of departments provincial the by managed are Landscape refuges ha. 890,000 of area an tect pro- five now 1998; in Province Primorsky etd ra sse, o tt aece are agencies state no system, areas tected pro- the of part important an is this While hectares. several than larger not usually objects, natural local protect IV) (IUCN vrl ude mnmns f nature of monuments hundred everal e ny aue ak n h RFE the in park nature only he federal and 18 local wildlife refuges with a with refuges wildlife local 18 and federal two and parks, national two zapovedniks, federal new two of creation supporting by has played an important role in this increase WWF (1994). Russia in office an opened WWF since 17), (Figure years seven past the in markedly increased has Ecoregion idie eue ad Muravievsky WildlifeRefuge. Provincial and Refuge, Federal Wildlife Udylsky Refuge, Landscape Ganukan with Zapovednik Khingansky zapovedniks, Bolonsky and Khankaisky including sites), (Ramsar importance tional interna- of wetlands named were areas ed World Heritage status in 2001. Five protect- granted were Refuge Wildlife Goraly and Zapovednik Sikhote-Alinsky The recognition. international have Ecoregion A T cover a total of 160,600 ha. 160,600 of total a cover 2001-2002, in established these, of Three V). (IUCN level local the at areas tected pro- initiating been have district administrations years, few past the In present. involved in their protection on the ground at e ra f rtce aes n h RFE the in areas protected of area he few of the protected areas in the RFE the in areas protected the of few 83 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Figure 17. PROPOSED SYSTEM OF NATURE PROTECTED AREAS IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EASTERN COMPLEX

PLANNED PROTECTED AREAS

EXISTING PROTECTED AREAS

Zapovednik Zakaznik. Federal level Zakaznik. Regional level National Park Nature Park

84 1000 rm h rgoa bde over budget regional the from $130,000 to up of funding additional to lead would program the of Approval 2002. June in Parliament provincial the by hearing first its passed which Province, Amurskaya the program ondevelopingprotectedareasfor special a prepared WWF development. areas protected promote and influence its expand to WWF helped has provinces two T W period. time that during ones new of establishment the and areas protected existing to dollars million one than more granted WWF ha. million 3.4 of area total n sx e frs rsre covering ha. 734,000 reserves forest new six ing establish- on decree a signed 2002 June in but percent 10 to areas protected of system the enlarge to promised only not Province Amurskaya of Governor The areas. ed protect- new of ha 800,000 establish to tion of Governor inten- his declared Province the Khabarovsky 1997, In region. the in areas protected creating of process the Earth campaign as a tool to speed up the e oiie oiia ciae n these in climate political positive he WF-RFE has been using the Gifts to Gifts the using been has WF-RFE 1999, are underway.are 1999, al. et Miquelle by elaborated Econet, al. 2000), and plans to implement the Tiger et (Bogatov approved been already have system areas protected a developing for documents basic the Province, Primorsky In programs. future for ommendations rec- prepare and areas protected of system existing the evaluate to study a funding been In has WWF ha. Province, Evreiskaya million 1.76 over reserves nature new 75 of establishment the to lead would 2002, of end the by completed be may which process, The Conservation. the of Biodiversity on Commission hearing Interagency a at approved was program similar a Province, Khabarovsky In ha. million 2.04 of area total a covering five yearstocreate40newnaturereserves F eatet ad os o hv a unified a have not does and departments of number a by managed is Ecoregion RFE the in system areas protected existing The ecosystems. viable support and RFE the in biodiversity unique and representative conserve to is system areas protected the of function main The system. areas protected uture directions for development of the of development for directions uture 85 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

methodological and legislative approach. with provincial authorities, include invest-

Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, pre- ing half a million dollars by 2005 for new

viously accepted models of management nature reserves over an area of about a mil-

collapsed, budget financing fell by nearly lion hectares. WWF's long-term goal is to

90 percent, and new mechanisms for sup- create an Econet based on the Ecoregion

porting protected areas have not yet been approach. Special attention will be paid to

developed. Politicians and the public do not sites along the border of provinces and

view protected areas as a critically impor- between Russia, China, and North Korea.

tant asset for saving the region's biodiversi- Another WWF priority is to develop new

ty. Under the circumstances, protected forms of protected areas on the regional

areas continue to function as they used to, level, including ethno-nature parks, quiet

isolated from the public and waiting for zones, wetlands of local significance, eco-

influxes of funding from government logical corridors, and territories where sus-

sources or international donors. tainable nature use is practiced. Working

precedents of these types of protected areas

As the government distances itself from need to be created. The new forms of pro-

the creation of new protected areas, non- tected areas should have complete jurisdic-

governmental organizations have risen to the tion of the land, as should natural monu-

task. WWF RFE has proclaimed the forma- ments and refuges.

tion of an Econet in the region one of its top

priorities. In the long-term, this task includes The most important trend in Econet

gaining legally protected status for 10 per- development is creating mechanisms for

cent of boreal forests, 20 percent of temper- protected areas to become self-financing.

ate forests, and 30 percent of wetlands. Programs like promoting ecotourism and

creating local Econets where nature

WWF's short-term objectives, according reserves are already well established will

to work plans developed in coordination help the Econet get underway.

86 managed protected areas system: areas protected managed T nomic development in the region. the in development nomic socio-eco- for blueprint the as use to authorities local by implementation their for and Econets; local of creation facilitate and management reserve improve to management; resources natural on policy programs; regional and federal Econets; of models local developing in assessments economic and ecological in participation encourage and policies, environmentally-sound create to tutions education; higher of system the and colleges in Ecoregion, and introduce nature reserve management as an area of concentration Fund; Protected Areas a to use Resources; Natural of rights); ownership land guarantee (and areas protected all unite to Resources Natural of Ministry the within department specialized a of creation for lobby and stakeholders; all of participation with 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 he following proposals will also facilitate creation of the Econet and a more effectively more a and Econet the of creation facilitate also will proposals following he Elaborate regional protected areas development programs and get approval Transfer jurisdiction of refuges and natural monuments to local zapovedniks state unified a creating through Econet the forming for lands aside Set approved to according reserves planned earlier of creation Complete Take advantage of scientific potential in nature reserves and scientific insti- RFE the in staff areas protected for training personnel systemized Instate resource natural for payments of percentage fixed a of transfer Mandate Transfer jurisdictionofallstatenaturereservesandrefugestotheMinistry reserves nature state of management for hierarchy vertical single a Create system areas protected the on law new a future, near the in Elaborate, 87 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 5. OVERVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICES IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

5.3. CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS RELATED TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE

Russia has made commitments to Currently, most of the efforts of provin-

observe multilateral environmental conven- cial governments in the RFE Ecoregion are

tions and agreements (Box 8). In addition to aimed at achieving short- and medium-term

conventions and agreements, international economic stability. Unfortunately, environ-

programs such as the UNESCO «Man and mental problems have not been among the

the Biosphere Program» and the interna- regional governments' priorities since 2000.

tional initiative to determine «Important Nonetheless, Russia's large number of

Bird Areas» (IBA's) play a role in preserv- international obligations determined by

ing biodiversity in the RFE Ecoregion. various conventions lend support to WWF's

efforts to lobby for environmentally-sound

Unfortunately, the Ministry of Natural decisions on the regional level.

Resources, which is now responsible for

implementing environmental conventions

and agreements, pays very little attention to

Russia's international environmental obli-

gations. The bilateral conventions on pro-

tection of migratory birds have no govern-

mental support; only the unfailing efforts of

a few scientists and NGOs fill this gap.

While Moscow is far away from problems

in the RFE Ecoregion, neighboring coun-

tries often have national level divisions to

represent their interests in the region.

88 BOX 8. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS IN THE RFE l l l l l l PLANS ACTION AND AGREEMENTS OTHER l l l l l l l l l AGREEMENTS BILATERALAND CONVENTIONS l l l l l l l l l l l l arelisted ratified or signed that countries only * MULTILATERALAGREEMENTS* AND CONVENTIONS l l Agreement on Protection of Migratory Birds, 1986 (China and Japan) and (China 1986 Birds, Migratory of Protection on Agreement US) and (Russia 1976 Environment, Their and Birds Migratory Conserving on Convention Japan) and (Russia 1973 Species, Bird Rare and Migratory of Protection on Convention (Russia) 1992 Industrial Accidents, of EffectsTransboundary on Convention UN (Russia) 1992 Lakes, International and WatercoursesTransboundary of Use and Protection the on Convention Korea) South and North China, (Russia, Diversity,1992 Biological on Convention Korea) South and North China, (Russia, 1992 Change, Climate on Convention Framework UN (Russia) 1991 Context Transboundarya in Impact Assessment Environmental on Convention UN China) (Russia, 1989 Disposal, their and Wastes Hazardous of Movements Transboundaryof Control the on Convention (Russia) Layer,1985 Ozone the of Protection for Convention (Russia) 1979 Pollution, TransboundaryLong-Range Air on Convention Korea) South China, (Russia, 1979 Bonn Amendment, CITES, - Flora and Fauna Wild of Species Endangered in TradeInternational on Convention (Russia) Matter,1972 Other and Wastes of Dumping by Pollution Marine of Prevention the on Convention China) (Russia, 1972 Heritage, Natural and Cultural World the of Protection the for Convention (Russia) 1971 (Ramsar), Habitat Waterfowl as Especially Importance International of Wetlands on Convention in Northeast Asia in Stop-over Areas Crane of Network a - Cranes Migratory for Plan Asia-Pacific Action 2005 2001- from Flyway East Asian the along Ducks Migratory Conserving for Plan Action 1997 Northeastern Asia, in Wetlands Conserving for Priorities 1996 Birds, Coastal Conserving for East Asia in Network Protected Areas and Plan Action 2001-2005 Conservation: Waterbird Migratory for Asia-Pacific Strategy Flyway,1994 East Asian-Australian the along Habitats Wetland Their and Waterfowl of Species Migratory Conserving on Intiative Kusiro 1993 Crane, Red-Crowned the Conserve to Measures on Understanding of Memorandum 1995 Northeast Asia, and Development Area Economic River Tumenthe Governing Principles Environmental on Understanding of Memorandum and Australia) (China 1998 Habitats, Their and Species Bird Migratory of Protection on Agreement Russia) and (China 1996 Conservation, Nature in Cooperation on Agreement Russia) and (China 1995 Fires, Forest Signaling on Cooperation on Agreement Korea) North and (Russia 1994 Birds, Migratory of Protection on Agreement Mongolia) and (China 1990 Conservation, Nature on Agreement China) and (Russia 1989 Conservation, Nature on Cooperation of Memorandum 89 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

Understanding socio-economic condi- The RFE occupies an important area in

tions in the RFE Ecoregion and trends for Russia and the Asia Pacific region.

the future is important for developing an Abutting the Pacific Ocean, the region

effective biodiversity conservation strategy. neighbors the United States, Japan, China,

A detailed socio-economic assessment for and North Korea. The RFE Ecoregion is an

the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex important transit route from western

was carried out in the framework of this Europe and countries in the Asia-Pacific

project. Specialists from the Institute of region due to its year-round access to the

Economic Research and the Pacific sea and direct connection with the Trans-

Institute of Geography of the Russian Siberian and Amur-Baikal railroads. These

Academy of Sciences compiled informa- two rail routes have important economic

tion for this report based on long-term eco- potential as international transit routes and

nomic studies (Sheingauz 1997, Sheingauz for transportation of raw materials for

et al. 2000, Minakir 1997). Reports from import and export. The Amur River has a

the State Statistics Service were also used number of important ports, open from April

as well as unpublished data from various through November, including

international and non-governmental organi- Blagoveshensk, Khabarovsk,

zations: USAID, WWF, Rotobo, Jetro, the Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Nikolaevsk-na-

University of Economics and Law, and the Amure, and Kheikhi (China).

University of Hokkaido. The following sec-

tion summarizes parts of the socio-econom-

ic assessment, accentuating only those fac-

tors that directly impact biodiversity.

90 ..POPULATION 6.1. is te aoiy f hc ae Russians, are which of majority the ties, nationali- of mix complex a are Ecoregion RFE the of people The Korea. South and North and Union Soviet former the of regions other from migrants of descendents or migrants first-generation either is tion popula- the of share large A cities. in live people the of percent 75.8 - urbanized very T P the quality of life is better.is life of quality the where Union, Soviet former the and Russia of parts other to region the from gration emi- to due mainly ago, years 10 than less percent 4.5 is number This 10). (Table sus cen- 1998 the to according Ecoregion RFE the in live people million five under just Today,percent). 0.7 at remained Russia for rate (the percent 1.2 to dropped Ecoregion RFE the in rate growth population annual average the 1986-90, In overall. Russia for Russian Far East was two times the average the in growth population of rate the 1980s, the Until biodiversity. on impacts direct have Complex Ecoregion East Far Russian plto ted ad rwh n the in growth and trends opulation he population of the RFE Ecoregion is Ecoregion RFE the of population he square kilometer in the northern region. northern the in kilometer square per people 0.5 only but south, the in meter kilo- square per people 15 nearly is density population Similarly, none. has zone ern southern zonehas24large cities,thenorth- the While north. to south from decrease cities of number and density population the general, In 2002). Karakin 1999, Vishnevskyand (Vishnevsky conditions living cultural make up, population dynamics, and settlement, of length density, population on based 18) (TableFigure RFE and the 10 in evident are - northern and central, ern, and Amurskaya provinces. Amurskaya and Khabarovsky of areas boreal mountain ern basin north- the in River and Province), (Khabarovsky Khor the (Primorsky in Valley Province), Samarga the in River, Bikin the of flow upper and middle the along communities dense relatively in lives tribes indigenous of remainder The cities. in live third a nearly which of lation, popu- the of percent 1.85 up make peoples Indigenous Belorussians. and Ukrainians, T hree broad demographic zones - south- - zones demographic broad hree 91 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

The southern zone occupies nearly 20 sity in forests, measures to promote sustain-

percent of the territory of the Ecoregion able forestry practices and wise collection

Complex. Four-fifths of the human popula- of non-timber forest products should be

tion is situated in this southern zone, and carried out in the central zone.

well as much of the economic and natural

resource potential. This region also has The northern zone occupies approximate-

well-developed infrastructure (natural ly a fifth of the area of the RFE Ecoregion

resource, transportation, and social), thus a Complex. Less than 0.4 percent of the pop-

large share of future economic development ulation resides in this region, divided into

of the Ecoregion Complex will be concen- indigenous peoples, with livelihoods sus-

trated here. Important tasks for conserva- tained by traditional nature use, and miners.

tion of biodiversity in this zone - the high- Economic development in this region will

est level in the RFE Ecoregion - will be to be limited to site-specific extraction of

link protected areas with connecting corri- globally-important deposits, along with

dors, promote sustainable resource use, and exploitation of biological resources of the

work with the public to build support and coastal zone. Important tasks for biodiversi-

participation in conservation programs. ty conservation in this zone will be setting

aside intact ecosystems in protected areas

The central demographic zone covers and supporting traditional nature use.

nearly half of the RFE Ecoregion, with

almost one-fifth of the population. This About 60 percent of the population of the

region consists mainly of middle and south- are of working age. The average life span in

ern boreal forests, where a large portion of the region is 62 years - 56 years for men

the forest resources of the RFE Ecoregion and 69 years for women - one to two years

is located. In the future, unless the govern- less than the average for Russia. Per capita

ment intervenes, forestry will be the only income in the RFE Ecoregion has always

industry to continue to develop in this zone. been 1.3 to 1.4 times higher than the aver-

In order to ensure conservation of biodiver- age for Russia, but real income per capita

92 Province wereunemployed,12.3percentin Khabarovsky of population active ly economical- the of 11percent 1996, In put. out- Russian average the than higher times 1.2 is which $3,100, was RFE the in 1996 in product regional gross capita per The spending. consumer in changes and ruble, the of devaluation inflation, high to due reforms economic during down gone has Table10. Administrative Region Administrative TOTAL Zone Northern Zone Central Zone Southern ZONES: DEMOGRAPHIC Province Primorsky Province Khabarovsky Province Evreiskaya Province Amurskaya ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONS IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX ECOREGION RFE THE IN ADMINISTRATIVEREGIONS OF PRODUCT REGIONAL POPULATION,GROSS AREA, AND x 1000 x 1,354.2 423.3 658.9 272.2 165.9 788.6 363.7 36.0 km 2 Area % of % RFE 31.3 49.1 19.6 12.3 58.2 26.9 100 2.6 x 1000 x 4,948.7 4,009.2 2,196.5 1,534.1 1,015.3 (1999 census) (1999 919.1 202.8 21.4 Population not officially registered as unemployed. as registered officially not are people many since higher, times three to two are figures unemployment reality, In exploitation. resource natural to related usually industry, of branch some service to created were which of most ployment, unem- of levels high especially have cities small and Towns Province. Amurskaya in percent 18.4 and Province, Primorsky % of % RFE 18.5 44.4 20.5 100 0.4 4.1 81 31 Population (pers./km Density 14.74 13.24 3.65 0.05 1.39 1.95 5.63 2.79 2 ) Product 1999 Product (million $) (million Regional Gross 5,353 1,171 4,124 2,264 2,047 101 941 58 93 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

Figure 18. POPULATION DENSITY IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION

1939 Number of people, including the population of big and mid-size, per 1 km2 more 18,0 8,0 - 14,3 4,0 - 7,9 2,0 - 3,9 1,0 - 1,9 0,5 - 0,9 less 0,5 Cities (number of people, thous.) 206 - 207 58 - 72 Borders Russian Federation Adm.Units Demographics zones 1926 Number of people, including the population of big and mid-size, per 1 km2 8,0 - 14,0 4,0 - 7,9 2,0 - 3,9 1,0 - 1,9 0,5 - 0,9 less 0,5 Cities (number of people, thous.) Over 100 52 - 61 Borders Russian Federation Adm.Units Demographics zones

1999 Number of people, including the population of big and mid-size, per 1 km2 18,0 - 27,0 8,0 - 15,9 4,0 - 7,9 2,0 - 3,9 1,0 - 1,9 0,5 - 0,9 less 0,5 Cities (number of people, thous.) 613 - 614 295 158 - 221 54 - 82 Borders Russian Federation Adm.Units Demographics zones 94 ..ECONOMY 6.2. E rtn o arclua lns n te on then and lands agricultural on trating natural resource potential of the region, first concen- the develop to 2) and country the of border eastern the defend to presence military strengthen and create to 1) East: Far the settle to began first Empire Russian the when time the since goals main two had A (one third of the urban population and nearly all of the rural population). rural the of all nearly and population urban the of third (one and population); rural the of all nearly and population urban the of (one-third sell to and use personal for mushrooms and berries collecting population); the population); the of half (nearly economy the of sector resource natural by: use resource natural to linked closely are most cities, 4 4 4 4 W ntia bhvo twrs aue s a is nature towards behavior Unethical disturbances. small countless and fires, forest poaching, as such violations quent fre- in results This use. nature towards tude atti- irresponsible and careless a have ers importance of nature conservation, still oth- ooi dvlpet n h RE has RFE the in development conomic particular feature of the RFE Ecoregion is that despite the large share of people living in living people of share large the despite that is Ecoregion RFE the of feature particular ie ay epe nesad the understand people many hile growing vegetables for personal use and to sell on plots outside the city the outside plots on sell to and use personal for vegetables growing and sport, for hunting nature, in vacations and time leisure spending of percent (one peoples indigenous by use nature traditional the in participation family) the of member a (through indirect or direct os eas Te egahcl etr was center geographical The metals. rous precious metals to timber to fish to non-fer- to lands agricultural to furs from time over T Pacific Region was at times emphasized. times at was Region Pacific to develop ties with northeast Asia and the Asia goal third A resources. natural other agencies. today,management nature incompetent and programs unrefined and past the in tion educa- environmental of absence complete the natural manner, unsustainable an using in resources in years many for set has government the example the of result e ou o ntrl eore changed resources natural of focus he 95 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

also continually changing from the Lower excess goods were exported to partly com-

Amur to Primorsky Province to the central pensate the losses incurred from uneconom-

areas of the RFE Ecoregion (Figure 19). The ical methods of production.

socio-economic infrastructure of many

regions was founded around resource use Today, the economy of the RFE Ecoregion,

industries and many of them suffered when and of Russia as a whole, is in transition. Due

the economy began to value other com- to its remote location from Russia's capital,

modities. Centers of economic activity were the RFE Ecoregion is one of the most expen-

generally limited territorially to certain parts sive regions in Russia and development to

of the region. For example, for the RFE as a serve markets in distant regions of Russia is

whole, the southern area is developed and not always economical. The region is now

the north is relatively undeveloped. In experiencing a deep economic crisis, where

Primorsky Province, the southern and west- elementary needs such as heat and electricity

ern regions are more developed than the are often lacking and wages are withheld. As

north and east. Even within the administra- a result, both social and economic sectors

tive districts of Primorsky Province, territo- suffer from this uncertainty.

rial divisions are visible - in the Pozharsky

District, for example, the western part is While the system governing resource

more developed than the eastern part. use in the post-Soviet economy is undergo-

ing change, the end result - non-sustainable

Under the Soviet regime, production in the forms of nature use - is the same. The

RFE Ecoregion aimed to fulfill needs within extended period of protectionist economics

the country. The government was the sole under the Soviet Government was replaced

provider of supplies and funding to maintain with a policy of economic non-intervention

the economy. Efficiency of resource use was in the 1990s. This disrupted the supply of

immaterial. The main strategy was to exploit raw materials and consumer goods, and

the most valuable resources in the region later invalidated the guarantee of marketing

with little regard to ecological consequences and sale of regional commodities on inter-

in order to meet the country's needs. Only nal and external markets. 96 economic reforms. economic during and before use and policy resource natural in difference the of overview an gives 9 Box limitations. numerous with use personal for privatized be can land of parcels small only owned, government still are resources Natural conservation. versity biodi- of goal the with compatible not are which of most opportunities, and priorities shifting and management crisis - same the generally is approach The policies. nomic eco- and social determining in role major T P played the leading role. leading the played forestry Province Khabarovsky in and emphasized, was production coal Province Primorsky in predominated, goods cultural Khanka Lake and the Zeya-Bureya plains, agri- In trends. main the from differed In parts of the RFE Ecoregion, resource use waters. international to waterways regional from shifting gradually - fishing and tion, produc- timber stones, precious and metals precious and non-ferrous for extraction material raw were industries main The use. resource of system explicit relatively a rior to economic reforms, the region had oday, provincial administrations play a play administrations provincial oday, is more or less intact. less or more is Ecoregion, there are still areas where nature RFE the of size sheer the to due that note to important is it However, resources. ural nat- limited of use towards region the in try indus- and government of attitude careless the changed not have Reforms storage. and processing, transport, during materials raw of losses significant initial and exploitation, their during resources natural of parts best the only of use selective in ing result- use, nature exhaustive and tainable non-sus- to lead has - now and reforms to S O as timber and fish products. fish and timber as such region the for industries traditional in in Russia's output has gone down, including industry of branches other all of share The increased. has Russia in production overall in Ecoregion RFE the of share the which rous metals. These are the only industries in non-fer- extract that industry of branches and complex energy and fuel the towards shifted has production industrial positionof Thecom- materials. raw of producer a into primarily turned has Ecoregion RFE the ne cnmc eom bgn n 1991, in began reforms economic ince verall, government policy - both prior both - policy government verall, 97 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

Figure 19. ECONOMIC MAP OF RUSSIAN FAR EAST ECOREGION

98 PROCESSING PRODUCTION PROCESSING TIMBER AND FORESTRY OF AREA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA THE OF DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC RAO GIUTRLPRODUCTION AGRICULTURAL OF AREA Large-scale multifunctional centers (population 100 000-250 000 people) 000 000-250 100 (population centers multifunctional Large-scale with prevailing economic activities: economic prevailing with people) 000 100 - 000 30 (population centers multifunctional Medium Branches of industry, prevailing in agricultural centers agricultural in industry,prevailing of Branches prises, areas of agricultural production agricultural of areas prises, enter- hunting industry,Timberforestry Deer farming, commercial hunting commercial farming, Deer beekeeping farming, cattle & dairy vegetables, potatoes, soy,grain, of Production areas of agricultural production agricultural of areas enterprises, hunting and Forestries transportation and distribution systems, scientific, cultural, education- cultural, scientific, systems, distribution and transportation industry and transport prevailing centers prevailing transport and industry tion systems, scientific, cultural, educational and economic management functions management economic and educational cultural, scientific, systems, tion distribu- and transport industry,well-developed multi-branch with centers Regional distribution transport/ and industrial industrial, management, cultural and educational and cultural management, industrial, Major state level centers with multi-branch industry,well-developed multi-branch with centers level state Major tion and processing and tion extrac- ore metals precious & Base branches Energy & Fuel Local sites of mineral extractions mineral of sites Local transport/ and industrial raiainl(rmrl giutrldsrcs centers) districts' agricultural (primarily organizational metals precious & Base Federative regional centers regional Federative people, 000 600 over Population al and economic management functions management economic and al Prevailing is feebly marked feebly is Prevailing coastal fisheries coastal industrial ECONOMIC CENTERS ECONOMIC industrial construction Machinery Ferrous metallurgy Ferrous Chemical Timber coal, oil, gas oil, coal, transport Population about 300 000 people 000 300 about Population transport TRANSPORTATIONROUTES Building materials Building Fishing industry Fishing Food industry Food Light industry Light roads passages ferry railroad Marine pipelines gas and Oil Main automobile Main Railroads 99 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

In some of the more intensively developed areas transformation of natural resources and land-

scapes over the decades has lead to:

4 decreased productivity of agricultural lands;

4 changes in species composition of forests;

4 reduced density and quality of timber resources;

4 decrease in freshwater and coastal fish populations, especially salmon,

reduced size of fish, changes in species composition, decreased catches;

4 devastation of mountain areas for mining, abundance of abandoned mines,

which still have economically accessible deposits;

4 pollution of large volumes of freshwater; and

4 other disturbances to biodiversity, natural resource potential, and the envi-

ronment in general.

Industry and Agriculture occupy a rela- share of this sphere in the regional economy

tively modest place in Russia's economy, is even higher: 68 percent in the Evreiskaya

though the RFE Ecoregion is the largest Province; 76 percent in Khabarovsky

region in the country. The RFE Ecoregion Province; 82 percent in Primorsky

accounts for less than seven percent of Province; and 90 percent in Amurskaya

gross national product, less than five per- Province.

cent of agricultural production, and under

five percent of industrial production. Natural resources have always been used

extensively in the RFE Ecoregion. By the

Natural resource use accounted for 31 time the economic crisis hit following the

percent of industrial production and 14 per- collapse of the Soviet Union, all suitable

cent of the work force in the Russian Far agricultural lands had been reclaimed, near-

East in 1997. Natural resources support ly all forests in the Amur Basin south of the

nearly half of the population. If all branch- Baikal-Amur Railroad had been logged,

es of industry that depend on raw materials and almost all of the known gold and coal

are included in the calculations, the total deposits had been developed. At the same 100 BOX 9. THE REGIONAL SYSTEM OF NATURE USE PRIOR TO AND DURING ECONOMIC REFORMS from other regions other from support systems for workers for systems support L P C C C M resources natural A to industry to resources natural of supply free almost goods; mechanisms investment income of absence budget; ow level of social infrastructure and infrastructure social of level ow forestry. in percent 60 and mining in percent 20-30 only reaches materials raw from stituents con- useful of Extraction industries. fuel and mining the in prevalent are dredging and mining open and forestry in spread wide- is clearcutting exploitation: resource in used efficientare least methods the time, rovision of work force by transferring people transferring by force work of rovision entrally assigned pricing system for exploited for system pricing assigned entrally federal the to income all of transfer omplete entralized capital investment capital entralized ll-encompassing state ownership of ownership state ll-encompassing onopolized control over all natural resources natural all over control onopolized widespread violation of technical and technical of violation widespread ecological regulations ecological M inimal ecological limitations; ecological inimal PRIOR TO REFORMS TO PRIOR L ow level of raw material processing and refinement in region; significant share of resources of share significant region; in refinement and processing material raw of level ow P oor relations (and often direct competition) between branches of industry of branches between competition) direct often (and relations oor R esource extraction not in line with leading global technologies global leading with line in not extraction esource I ncomplete and inefficient use of limited natural resources natural limited of use inefficient and ncomplete processed outside the region the outside processed to bring in workers from other regions and countries and regions other from workers in bring to companies forcing qualifications, of lack and duction trade and tenders through resources natural of share large a of allocation trade; for pricing free-market of use regions; the in prices real of determination ter; A N E A E D C extremely limited private land ownership land private limited extremely support systems support capital foreign of influx investment; capital commercial income investment of part keep users budgets; municipal level municipal the at controlled be to beginning functions some level; regional the at managed resources most center; the widespread violation of technical and ecological and technical of violation widespread assessments; impact environmental mandatory of introduction practice; in control weakening but regulations xcess work force, related to falling levels of pro- of levels falling to related force, work xcess cen- the from pricing for standards of stablishment lmost total state ownership of natural resources; natural of ownership state total lmost early complete collapse of social infrastructure and infrastructure social of collapse complete early investment; capital state of absence complete lmost and regional, state, the between income of ivision from enterprises resource large some over ontrol S trengthening of formal ecological regulations, ecological formal of trengthening D in n h cuty s asn industrial causing is country the in tion situa- financial difficult The development. resource of methods plundering employ to users resource natural impels profits of suit pur- intensifying and crisis economic The significantly. weakened has use resource of monitoring and regulation 1990, since IN THE TRANSITION PERIOD TRANSITION THE IN rn te eid f cnmc reform economic of period the uring 101 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

enterprises to go deeper and deeper into While the decline in industrial produc-

debt. Industries cannot pay for nature use tion has its benefits for nature conserva-

and consequently, no funds are being accu- tion, the increase in unemployment and

mulated for regeneration and reparation of incentives for producers to use cheap and

raw materials. The economic crisis caused inefficient methods of resource exploita-

many factories to close altogether - by 1997 tion can have far-reaching impacts on bio-

the volume of industrial production in the diversity. Outdated methods and technolo-

RFE was only 40 percent of the 1990 level gies of resource extraction are still widely

(Table 11). The area of land used for mining employed. In the end, the only way out of

remained virtually unchanged during the the deep economic crisis will be to mod-

same period. Agricultural production ernize industrial practices, which will

dropped by more than a third, although require large-scale investments. The eco-

agricultural lands decreased by only 7.5 nomic transition creates a unique opportu-

percent from 1985 to 1998. Output in the nity to revamp the entire system of

livestock industry has dwindled to one- resource use and build a new system

third of the 1990 level. Almost all drainage founded on sound social, economic, and

activity has ceased, and use of fertilizers environmental principles.

has decreased by 93 percent.

Table 11. OUTPUT OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE SECTOR IN THE RFE

Maximum Output 1997 Output Commodity Volume Volume Percent of Year Units (x 1000) (x 1000) Maximum

Coal 1988 tons 30,571 18,303 59.9

Raw timber 1986 m3 27,664 6,665.6 24.1 Cut timber 1986 m3 4,612 328.3 7.1 Cellulose 1987 tons 308.3 0 0 Cardboard 1988 tons 174.6 3.1 1.8 Fish and marine products 1990 tons 2,202.2 1,740.6 79.0 Grains* 1986-1990 tons 1,087 542 49.9 Potatoes 1997 tons 1,124.8 1,124.8 100 Meat* 1986-1990 tons 220 90.1 40.9 Source: Institute of Economic Research of the FEBRAS. * Average. 102 F ead. h pretg o frt group first of percentage The demands. timber nation's the meet to logged forests, industrial primarily are reserves, the region's of percent 84.1 up making forests, group Third operations. timber small-scale for available made but protected tially par- are which areas, populated densely in reserves intheRFE,arethoseforestsfound forest the of percent three up make which forests, group Second species. tree able valu- highly of tracts and cities, industrial around belts forest waterways, other and rivers to adjacent forests forests, protected includes category This reserves. forest total the of percent 12.9 about up make forests group First lands. agricultural around and roads, settlements, near forests include included in the federal forest reserve. These tional 3.1millionhectaresofforestsarenot addi- An Russia. of all in reserves forest the of percent 11.2 and area the of percent 10 or meters, cubic billion 9.2 at estimated are region the in reserves Timber hectares. million 118.4 of total a includes fund forest state the while Ecoregion, RFE the of hectares million 87.8 cover reserves est for- Federal Ecoregion. RFE the in income orestry s n o te ao sucs of sources major the of one is F 10 to 20 years. 20 to 10 every once enterprises inventory forest by gathered is resources forest on Information administrations. regional to regeneration Code transferred the responsibility of forest Forest The management. forest of burden large increasingly an shoulder to trations adminis- regional forcing plummeted, have management forest for funds budgetary federal crisis, economic the With tricts. forestry committees, as well as forestry dis- regional has Ministry the region, tive administra- each In fund. forest Russia's of Natural Resources, manages the lion's share of Ministry the with merged recently and ago years 200 over founded Service, Forestry Federal The resources. forest of regeneration and conservation, protection, use, including country the in forestry for framework the determines 1997, in passed Code, Forest The jurisdiction. federal about 95 percent of forested lands are under first and second group forests. group second and first in permitted is clearcutting Occasionally, Russia. for average the than less times 1.7 is Complex Ecoregion the in forests rss n usa r sae we, and owned, state are Russia in orests 103 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

Logging in Khabarovsky Province was and degrading forest integrity in the RFE.

generally profitable from 1975 to 1981, After logging, sparse stands poor in species

when about 15-16 million cubic meters of diversity are often all that remain. Forest

timber was turned out per year. In fires exacerbate the problem and, in some

Primorsky Province, the peak came from years, reach catastrophic levels. In 1976,

1973-1977 with seven million cubic meters fires damaged 9,000 km2 of forest reserves,

per year. The peak in Amurskaya Province and twice that area in 1998.

was from 1987-1990 with six million cubic

meters per year. After 1990, logging levels Forest certification is in the beginning

dropped dramatically. In 1997, the area of stages in Russia. The market for sustain-

industrial logging in the RFE fell to a third ably-produced forest products is steadily

of what it was 1990, while production was increasing in Japan and other countries of

cut to only a quarter. Since 1997, a constant the Asia Pacific Region. Demand for

growth of logging has been monitored in all processed and refined wood products is

provinces of RFE Ecoregion. also on the rise. A regional working group

to create a system for voluntary certifica-

Coniferous species are logged most tion according to the principles of the

intensively, of these mainly spruce and fir. Forest Stewardship Council was created in

Hardwoods, primarily ash, are also popular. 1998. The group consists of representatives

In spite of felling restrictions over the most from the social, environmental, and eco-

valuable species, logging enterprises still nomic sectors. While the group has final-

look for every possible excuse to cut ized certification standards, no organiza-

Korean pine, for example, while laying tions in Russia have yet been international-

power lines and during selective «sanitary» ly accredited to audit and certify forestry

logging. Therefore, despite the apparently enterprises.

low numbers of forest output, the most

valuable species continue to be logged, Non-timber forest products have

altering the natural balance of biodiversity always played a modest role in the

104 bog bilberry bog include mandshurica) (Juglans and pine, tain moun- pine, Korean include nuts Edible products. food for suitable are species dozen Several industries. maceutical used bythepublicandexperimentalphar- widely are or approval official received either have and purposes medicinal for used are plants the of Most products. food and technical, medicinal, in used be Ecoregion Complex, of which 1,200 could the in found are plants vascular of species 3,000 than more Altogether, processing. and collection widespread for allow to populations enough healthy have species (Rodiola rosea) Aitlci manshuriensis), (Aristolochia Ecoregion RFE the of Forests economy. region's club Devil's ginseng, Siberian ginseng, Asian ing RFE the in only tions and valuable plants grow in natural condi- unique of species 20 than More species. valuable of number large a hold and Japanese angelica tree angelica Japanese Olpnx elatus), (Oplopanax cowberry are rich in species composition species in rich are (Vacciniumuliginosum) , and others. Many of these (Vacciniumvitis-idaea) acuin walnut Manchurian Ecoregion, Ecoregion, Pplr berries Popular . (Aralia elata) (Aralia snakeroot oe root rose includ- , and , , , edible ferns grow in the region's forests. region's the in grow ferns edible of species three and mushrooms edible of species 150 about plants, higher to tion addi- In higher. much is number the then these, to added are teas and production honey in used plants If RFE. the in uted deliciosus) (Lactarius mellea) (Armillariella bolete head s wild as such mushrooms, and vegetables Edible bearberry honeysuckle S N cnm, ay nepie crald or curtailed enterprises many economy, centers. industrial from far areas remote in located towns many for currency hard of source important an were and export for were processed cowberry and fern as such these, of Some medicine. in and industries ical chem- and cosmetic, food, the in used were plants wild of species of dozens period, Soviet the In peoples. indigenous by turies cen- for Complex Ecoregion the in used ince the collapse of the Soviet planned Soviet the of collapse the ince ntme frs pout hv been have products forest on-timber fern Blts edulis) (Boletus garlic Peiim aquilinum) (Pteridium Alu ursinum) (Allium ae iey distrib- widely are , and , (Lonicera edulis) , oe fungus honey ik agaric milk , , fiddle- edible . 105 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

stopped harvesting and processing non-tim- For the past decade, 90 percent of the

ber forest products. This, in turn, aggravat- fishing industry in the RFE Ecoregion has

ed the economic situation in small forest relied on ocean reserves (Minakir 2002).

villages, where unemployment is a serious Yet commercial fishing in freshwater rivers

problem. The majority of enterprises that and lakes still plays an important role in the

remained afloat were privatized early in the region's economy and in the traditional way

reform period. The 1997 Forest Code of life for indigenous peoples. The demand

allows private enterprise to take certain for black and red caviar, sturgeon, salmon,

responsibilities from the federal forestry and other fish on global markets encour-

authorities under long-term forest leases or ages overfishing and poaching. Illegal fish-

concessions. While this clause provides an ing rose to unprecedented levels in the

opportunity to create private or community- 1990s, exceeding legal catches by three to

managed plots where non-timber forest four times: illegal sturgeon catches in the

products are harvested, the process is still in Lower Amur, which reach 750 tons, bring

the infant stages and no practical experi- in an estimated $9-11 million annually.

ence is available to this day.

Of the 104 fish species found in the Amur

Fishing in the Amur River Basin has been River Basin, 18 species and one genus are

an important part of regional economic devel- found nowhere else on Earth. As a result of

opment for two centuries. Salmon and stur- overfishing, pollution, and other human

geon were the most popular species at first: a impacts, eight fish species in the Amur are

record 100,000 tons of salmon were caught in listed in the Russian Red Book and many

1910. In the past century, overfishing and - other species are threatened. Traditional cul-

since the 1960s - water pollution from tures of indigenous peoples have also suf-

Russian and Chinese industrial and agricul- fered: in the 1960s, there were 168 settle-

tural sources have led to catastrophically low ments of indigenous tribes on the Lower

numbers of commercial species today. Amur. In the past two decades, nearly a third

of these have disappeared and fishing quo-

10 6 979. rw bas ubr about number bears Brown 1997-98. in taken were 32,000 than more which There are over 200,000 sable in the RFE, of exhausted. completely are populations animal settlements, human to close areas in while animals, game of numbers dant abun- relatively have areas Remote region. game speciesaredecreasingthroughoutthe most of populations the but large, rather still are estates hunting in resources Game hunters. commercial are 1,000 than more are approximately 87,500 hunters, of which there and region, the in function reserves) game (or estates hunting ment-owned the RFEEcoregion.Morethan300govern- is permitted on 95 percent of the territory of Hunting peoples. indigenous for livelihood only the often is it and people, local for H region. the in recuperate tions popula- fish help and Basin River Amur the of biodiversity the preserve to required are efforts International subsistence. of means a without least left are people indigenous 25,000 at and collapse of verge the on is industry fishing The levels. former of tenth tas for the remainder have been reduced to a unting in the RFE has historical roots historical has RFE the in region are valued at 2.2 million dollars. million 2.2 at valued are region the in resources hunting Overall, greater. times five probably was number actual the kills, illegal with but 1997-98, in officially hunted were which of 8,000 region, the it inhab- year.ungulates that 350,000 Around killed officially were 638 which of 11,000, U I pce sc a sa clos tigers, others. and ginseng, ash, Manchurian scallops, sea as such species plants. Illegal takes usually impact valuable wild and species, game harvested timber, resources, fish marine for particularly lem, prob- a also is trafficking Illegal villages. forest remote in unemployment of levels high to due widespread is Poaching ties. capabili- enforcement and mobility their of much lost have restrictions, enforcing with charged inspections, fishing and hunting restoration of game populations. In general, in invest to or rangers as serve to people qualified keep to unable is management therefore profitable, longer no is industry game The crumbled. has estates game of etr f h eooy vras ih all with overlaps economy the of sector nternational Markets and Trade. and Markets nternational fruaey te xsig tt system state existing the nfortunately, This 107 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

other sectors related to import and export of gaining popularity around the world, and

raw materials or other commodities. the RFE Ecoregion could join in this

Foreign investment in the RFE is minimal, process. Without certification, Russian tim-

however most of the capital invested from ber may not be able to compete with timber

abroad is related to natural resource use. from other countries.

Income from exported goods is an impor-

tant component of the regional economy. Export of fish and other marine products

Most of the goods exported abroad, prima- has been a source of income for a long time

rily to countries in the Asia Pacific Region, in the RFE Ecoregion. In 1998, fish prod-

consist of raw materials. ucts were exported to 24 countries around

the world. Fresh fish is exported to Japan,

Forest products - primarily raw timber - China, and ROK, in addition to caviar,

make up the bulk of exported goods. The frozen fish, crabs, shrimp, mussels, and

largest importers of timber in the Asia aquatic plants. Besides Asian countries,

Pacific Region are Japan, China, and frozen fish and fish filets are sent to

Republic of Korea (ROK). The RFE is geo- Germany, Poland, the United Kingdom, and

graphically the closest supplier of timber other countries in Europe. The US and

products to these countries. In 1998, 6.5 Canada have recently began to import fish

million cubic meters of raw timber, board, products. In 1997, only 600 tons of fish and

and other wood by-products were exported marine products were exported to countries

from or through the RFE Ecoregion. Raw in the former Soviet Union.

timber makes up more than 90 percent of

exports, though highly processed materials Japan, China, and ROK to a large extent

for making furniture, parquet floors, veneer depend on imported fuels - oil, natural gas,

sheets, and other goods could potentially and coal. Their demand for imported fuels

find markets in Japan, the United States, is likely to increase in the future, and elec-

Canada, and western Europe. One of the tric energy may also be in demand. At pres-

main problems in the region is the lack of ent, export of fuel products to these coun-

timber processing enterprises on site. tries from suppliers in the RFE Ecoregion

Ecological certification of wood products is is minimal.

108 6.3. FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC FUTURE 6.3. Russian Government will follow plans for plans follow will Government Russian ingly negative impacts on biodiversity.on impacts negative ingly at an alarming rate, which will have increas- depleted be will resources natural scenario, this Under region. the in countries other to materials raw of supplier a be to continues Ecoregion RFE the and Region; Pacific Asia the in position geopolitical Russia's of worsening trafficking; illegal and ing poach- increased in resulting agencies toms cus- and border, military, of state financial the of aggravation population; the of sition the RFE Ecoregion; changes in age compo- from people of emigration massive regions; remote in settlements many of closure industrial potential of extraction enterprises; of loss resources; natural of exploitation today. Thisscenariowouldresultin:intense are they as remain exploitation resource natural of trends which in scenario», usual as «Business the is scenario first The 20). (Figure analysis this of course the in rated wereelabo- development inRFEEcoregion T T e eod cnro sue ta the that assumes scenario second he re cnro fr uue economic future for scenarios hree ee tras o idvriy atog in although biodiversity, to threats fewer in result would long-term the in materials raw of processing increased achieved, be hardly realistic.Yet, ifthisscenariowereto is future near the in which financing, state and investments large-scale of infusions of assumption the on based wholly is scenario this of success The Ecoregion. RFE the in conditions living better and goods sumer con- supplying for system a of creation and use, resource integrated allow that es enterpris- of evolution partial and products quality ensuring while increase would production Industrial industries. extraction local of needs the meet to production machine-building organize and industry; of branches specialized from potential export the increase materials, raw needed with Russia provide to as well as system, port trans- and sector energy the modernize to base inRussia.Investmentswouldbemade resource natural largest the as region the in investing Ecoregion, RFE the to support federal of level the its increase would Government scenario, this Under 2001. in elaborated development regional 109 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 6. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

Figure 20. SCOPE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. RFE ECOREGION

LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL

Most potential Potential Reasonably potential Limited Least potential

110 This scenario is the most suitable for envi- for suitable most the is scenario This force. work qualified a and funds foreign of influxes encourage to needed be would investments international regarding policies for the local population. Liberal government conditions living improve help also would which scenario, a such support to required be would production in increase marked A markets. foreign and domestic on pete com- can that economy the of sector only the is this since profitable, most the remain would development material Raw grow. to begin would services) other and (tourism economy the in sector service The gies. technolo- industrial modern with equipped and investments capital foreign by financed exploitation, material raw by supported be would Ecoregion RFE the in Development Asia. Northeastern and Region Pacific sources inneighboringcountriesoftheAsia investment and markets foreign out seek will and Russia of rest the from isolated economically be to continue will Ecoregion T scenario. first the in as same the be would biodiversity on the impacts years) seven to (five near-term the he third scenario assumes that the RFE the that assumes scenario third he to turn a profit. a turn to required be would resources natural fewer would increase their sale price, meaning that which goods, processed highly for demands to due scenario this under possible is sity biodiver- to threats in reduction A utations. standards and are concerned about their rep- ecological higher have which companies, international to targeted be would products because development, ronmentally-friendly W with foreign investment and technologies. and investment foreign with desirable more become could traditionally exploited not were that resources or resources natural of deposits remote Furthermore, countries. home their in than lower are standards ecological the because Ecoregion, RFE the like countries, other in business do to wish corporations tional interna- many that fact the is markets eign for- towards directed scenario a with lem prob- only The price. market their increase to processed highly are materials raw if and exploitation, resource during obeyed are standards environmental if ensured be only can use nature sustainable ized, hether or not this final scenario is real- 111 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS

7.1. OVERRIDING THREATS

The overriding threats to biodiversity in uncontrolled method of improving hay-

the RFE Ecoregion are forest, meadow, and fields and fern beds each year turns the

peat fires, hunting and poaching, collection entire lower mountainous region of the

of marine products on the continental shelf, Khasan District into an enormous wall of

patch logging and clearcutting, fragmenta- fire, enveloping up to 40 percent of its

tion of non-developed areas by communi- entire territory. The region provides some

cations and roads, use of chemicals in agri- of the last remaining habitat for the endan-

culture, drainage of wetlands, and others. gered Far Eastern leopard. As a result of

Table 12 gives an overview of the major regular fires, the mixed forests are turning

threats, the ecosystems they impact, and the into scrub and sparse oak woods. These

primary source of the threat. Table 13 poor forests in turn give way to fields of

shows the extent to which certain threats grass and bushes. The territory of these

have affected forested areas. degraded areas is increasing, posing serious

threats to the leopard and other species.

Fire. One of the most threatening natural

disturbances is fire, especially when it

exceeds the impacts of natural fire regimes, © L. Dubeykowski

usually a result of poor forest management.

Unorganized collection of non-forest tim-

ber products, careless recreation practices,

and burning of hayfields also lead to forest

fires. In the southwest of Primorsky

Province, the practice of burning dry leaves

has been carried out for centuries. This 112 L integrity.est species composition and compromising for- altering Ecoregion, RFE the of forests the for problem critical a become have fires forest Catastrophic area. in increasing are habitats non-forested result, a As fires. those of each by away swept were hectares million 1 than More 1998. and 1988, 1979, 1972, in occurred fires forest astrous dis- most largestand The years. ten in once past 50yearstheregularityhasincreasedto the during but Ecoregion, RFE the in years 30 every occur fires forest Catastrophic timber production in the province. the in production timber all of half nearly is which alone, Province Primorsky the in illegally cut is timber of meters cubic million 1.5 study, WWF a in estimates to According exports. forest on monopoly a has longer no government the that fact the and trade, forest of ization liberal- industry, forest the of privatization of result a as period post-Soviet the in lem prob- acute an become has logging Illegal fires. forest and logging, illegal logging, unsustainable forests, intact of mentation frag- are practices forestry current from ty ogging. The main threats to biodiversi- to threats main The F fuel and sometimes for cooking. for sometimes and fuel for firewood on depends Ecoregion RFE the of population rural the of much sion, depres- socio-economic and crisis energy the to Due layers. soil damaging in, hauled is machinery heavy and built are roads when ecosystems, forest damages ting cut- «selective» Even lands. forested the of percent 0.3 than less on out carried are ures meas- regeneration. regeneration artificial and Plantings natural support rarely techniques Harvesting neglected. often is areas logged of management and areas forest new of exploitation implies mostly rs mngmn i iefcet s it as inefficient is management orest © V.Filonov © 113 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS

Unsanctioned logging and illegal export of valuable tree species to other countries threaten the

integrity of forest ecosystems. With intensive logging, the biodiversity of forest ecosystems is

decreasing. Tiger, leopard, bear, wild boar, roe deer, and Siberian spruce grouse are a few of the

animals that depend on healthy forest ecosystems. Impacts of forestry on biodiversity and

ecosystem health include:

4 transformation of old-growth and secondary forests from all types of log-

ging practices (including selective), decreasing overall biodiversity and increasing

the likelihood of forest fires;

4 increased erosion and degradation of forest soils;

4 disruption of hydrological and microclimate regimes through logging and

construction of logging roads and related buildings;

4 increased turbidity of waterways and changes in water temperatures, espe-

cially in small streams, which often leads to devastation of fish populations; and

4 high levels of chemical and organic pollution of waterways from outlets of

wood-processing and cellulose plants.

Agriculture. Nearly all agricultural lands Today, 87 percent of the region's 2.7 mil-

in the RFE Ecoregion were developed over lion hectares of arable lands are concentrat-

the past 145 years, primarily in meadows, ed in the Zeya-Bureya Plain and the

grasslands of the forest-steppe zone, forest- Khanka Lake Lowlands. Subsequently,

ed areas, and sometimes in swamps. The threats to biodiversity from agriculture are

process of conversion of lands for farming most serious in these two Ecoregions. The

severely damaged biodiversity. The last remainder of arable lands consists of small

surge in expansion of agricultural lands fields and pastures in valleys of the moun-

occurred in the mid 60s and first half of the tain boreal zone. These lands do not present

1970s. serious threats to biodiversity, except for

the regular use of fires to clear the lands,

which can result in forest fires.

114 promising ecological integrity. Other ecological consequences of the agricultural industry include: com- and composition forest in changes in resulting balance, natural the exceeds often fires of cy frequen- The control. of out burn often fires since fields, the surrounding areas forested damages productivity, their increases believe people many which hayfields, Burning costly. too are they Lake Khanka the in since period reform especially the in substantially dropped has chemicals these of However,use Lowlands. reservoirs, water underground and rivers polluting cides, converting lands into grazing pastures or hayfields; or pastures grazing into lands converting cides, and pesticides; and pesticides; and cides, frozen; is layer soil the when time of periods extended or permafrost of because unstable are soils where particularly degradation, soil fires; forest full-fledged into turn often which fall, and spring each fields on lit tat, and direct destruction of birds, rodents, insects, and other animals due to fires 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 destruction of natural vegetation cover and fauna habitat due to plowing or D organic pollution of waterways due to animal waste. animal to due waterways of pollution organic herbi- fertilizers, of use improper to due waterways of pollution chemical pollution ofwaterwaysandtransformation vegetation duetoerosionand habitat; natural of tracts large fragments valleys along development agricultural drainage; by wetlands of conversion irreversible habi- animal and plant of degradation diversity, species plant in decrease uring the Soviet period, collective farms used a large quantity of fertilizers and pesti- and fertilizers largeof a quantity used farms collective period, Soviet the uring

Industry and Mining. Industry has a

large impact on biodiversity, using irre-

placeable raw materials and energy

resources and generating tons of air and

water pollution. Analysis of pictures from

space demonstrate polluted air around large

industrial centers, along roads, and over the

only pipeline in the region - from northern

Sakhalin to Komsomolsk-na-Amure. The

of environmental impacts are the agglomer-

ation of Komsomolsk-na-Amure to There are a number of plans to build gas

Solnechny (Khabarovsky Province) and the and oil pipelines and power lines from

Dalnegorsk-Rudnaya Pier (Primorsky Siberia and Sakhalin through the RFE to

Province). Outside of large industrial cen- Northeastern Asia. If even a fraction of

ters, problems related to natural resource these plans are realized, natural ecosystems

extraction stem from extraction of gold and would be fragmented, having profound

metals, open coal mining, and small yet impacts on biodiversity. The end point of

numerous quarries for extracting materials many of the pipelines is southern

for the construction industry. Negative Primorsky Province, China, and South

impacts on biodiversity from these types of Korea, through North Korea, thus the

economic activity extend far beyond the majority of pressures from pipelines and

extraction site - hundreds of kilometers of problems related to them will be concen-

roads cross boreal forests, water and air trated in regions with the highest biodiver-

pollution extend for tens of kilometers, and sity. The potential for oil spills in water-

poaching by miners is widespread. ways is great.

116 to 23.7 km for all of all for km 23.7 to compared Ecoregion, RFE the in kilometers square 1,000 intersect roads paved of km 4.1 however, is still relatively low - an average of roads, paved of number The grow. to ues contin- roads and settlements of network the Ecoregion, RFE the in population shrinking lated areasevenmoreattainable.Evenwitha iso- making drive, four-wheel with equipped are areas forested in vehicles the of Many areas. remote to poachers of access allowing forests, boreal crisscrosses roads logging of network extensive An disturbances. cause and habitats intact otherwise fragment Roads biodiversity. on impacts wide-reaching T refinement. ore from particularly ways, water- and territories surrounding of tion tions and biodiversity in general; and pollu- popula- fish affecting processes, chemical geo- and hydrological in changes mulate; accu- waste and dirt of mounds and built, are roads logged, are forests dynamite, with blasted is terrain where sites, deposit at landscapes of transformation drastic including: biodiversity on impacts versible M asotto rue ad roads and routes ransportation nn hs oglsig msl irre- mostly long-lasting, has ining Russia. have the ground. the offget never project the did Russia in Only way from Beijing to the border with Russia. high- modern a building District, Yanbian the of development in dollars of billions invested China and port, its modernizing and zone economic free a creating ently, independ- project the of part implemented Korea North support, of lack the implementation. Despite its supported banks international no and project the protested Environmentalists Province. southwestern Primorsky in District Khasansky and China, of District Yanbian the Korea, North of part northeastern the in zones the of Tumangan River, creationoffreeeconomic mouth the at port new a of tion the region, would have resulted in construc- Economic have been implemented by five countries in River Development Area (TREDA), which would Tumangan the Tumangan River region. The project, called the in Region Pacific Asia the in routes transport of system new a create to rated elabo- was project international an 1990s, mid- the In boat. or train by shipped are relatively limited in Russia, and most goods T ransportation ofcommoditiesbyroadis 117 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS

A Diagnostic Analysis of environmental

impacts of the project was carried out with

funding from the GEF/UNDP (Baklanov et

al. 2002), however, the results of this work

probably are not conclusive enough to

serve as the basis for making decisions on

future economic development of the

Tumangan River Basin.

Recreation activities impact natural

areas within a radius of 120 kilometers

along the coast of Peter the Great Bay from

the mouth of the Tumangan River to Fishing. The lack of enforcement capa-

Povorotny Cape. As many as half a million bilities of fishing inspections results in ille-

visitors concentrate here in summer, many gal fishing in prohibited areas and overfish-

travelling by car from Khabarovsky and ing in areas where fishing is allowed.

Amurskaya provinces. Intense pressures Fishing in spawning areas, which is strictly

lead to destruction of plants and animals prohibited, devastates populations of

along the coastal zone, as well as pollution. salmon and other vulnerable species.

percent of the territory of the RFE

Ecoregion. In the fishing industry, young

fish are raised in factory conditions and

released to rivers, affecting the health of

native fish populations. In rural areas, fish-

ing and hunting are often the only way to 118 support a family. Here, illegal contraptions rivers, and streams. Impacts of the fishing such as stationary nets and electric fishing industry and fishing in general on biodiver- rods are often used, which damage fish sity include decreases in fish populations populations as well as other fauna in lakes, and changes in composition of fish species.

Table 12. THREATS TO MAJOR ECOSYSTEMS IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX AND THEIR PRIMARY SOURCES

Ecosystem Major Threat Source

Population growth, economic development, and lack of sanitation facilities, especially in the Heilongjian Pollution Province of China; insufficiency of sanitation facilities of large Russian cities; contamination of waterways with phenols from decomposition of organic

materials ACTION PLAN. PARTCONSERVATION 1 Aquatic habitats of the Disruption of natural Construction of the Bureya hydroelectric station; Amur River and its hydrological regimes possibility of new hydroelectric stations on the Giluy, larger tributaries Great Ussurka, and Amur rivers Devastation of salmon populations from commercial marine fishing; unrestricted fishing in China; inade- Decrease in fish quate legislation and lack of enforcement mecha- populations nisms in Russia; absence of socio-economic conditions to introduce sustainable fishing mechanisms Changes in hydrological Regulation of water flow from hydroelectric stations regimes and dams Fires in floodplain forest- Traditional annual burning of pastures and hay grassland habitats fields, thought to increase productivity Reduction of forest Cutting of remnant relic forests for firewood by local cover people Wetlands of the Amur Eutrophication of bodies Wind erosion of humus layer from agricultural lands; River Basin of water runoff of soils and animal waste from farms Complete transformation Conversion of lands for agricultural use of habitats Unregulated hunting of migratory birds in wintering Decrease in numbers of areas in China; poaching and non-sustainable use wild animals of game resources in Russia; increasing numbers of crows Disappearance of rare Decrease and fragmentation of nesting habitat; birds birds of prey killed by fires and poachers Decline in area of old- Clearcutting and unsustainable logging growth forests Coniferous-broadleaf Ecosystem degradation Selective cutting of valuable species forests Disappearance of rare Illegal hunting; decrease in prey base for large species of plants and predators; conflicts between humans and large animals predators; habitat loss Transformation of native Disappearance of forests after clearcutting on unsta- ecosystems ble mountain or permafrost soils; reduction of floodplain forests during gold mining operations; flooding Eastern Siberian boreal of forests with creation of the Bureya hydroelectric forests station Ecosystem degradation Pioneer-style logging practices; forest fires 119 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS

Hunting. Hunting for sport and food is

widespread in the RFE Ecoregion, affecting

95 percent of the territory. Poaching - hunt-

ing more than is allowed by law or killing

endangered species - is a serious problem in

the RFE Ecoregion due to the lack of capac-

ity of game management agencies to moni-

Some of the far-reaching impacts of hunting in the RFE Ecoregion are:

4 impacts on populations, distribution, and age structure of wild animals;

4 overhunting of many species in certain areas;

4 widespread poaching, including illegal hunting of rare and endangered species;

4 disturbance of other flora and fauna by hunters;

4 control of wolf populations to keep game numbers up; and

4 protection of certain areas and baiting of ungulates, which changes distribution

patterns and movement Table 13. IMPACT OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ON FOREST Hydroelectric stations and dams. While ECOSYSTEMS OF THE RFE ECOREGION

there are no dams on the main channel of the Estimated Impact Type of Nature Use (Percent of forested area) Amur River, one dam blocks the Zeya River, a 1989 1999 Conversion threats: tributary of the Amur, and another dam is Clearing of forests for mining 0.002 0.005 Clearcutting and patch logging 0.3 0.1 being completed on the Bureya River. Plans Clearing of forests for agriculture 0.1 .05 Expansion of agriculture lands 0.4 0 have been made to build hydroelectric stations Industrial, housing, and road construction 0.2 0.1 Degradation threats: in three places along the main channel of the Firewood collection 0.2 0.3 Selective and improvement logging 0.1 0.1 Route tourism 0.05 0.03 Amur and include construction of five more Unorganized recreation 0.7 0.7 Domestic deer grazing 0.6 0.5 dams on its tributaries, which would disrupt Cattle grazing 0.05 0.05 s Haymaking 0.02 0.05 this natural system, important for spawning Forest fires 0.3 0.3 Industrial waste discharge 0.5 0.4 salmon, sturgeon, and migrating birds. Wildlife Exploitation: Hunting 90 70 Source: Sheingauz 2000 120 ..TRA NLSSO ROIYAREAS PRIORITY ANALYSISOF THREAT 7.2. ing on the intensity of the particular threat. particular the of intensity the on ing depend- overlap some is there though 10), (Box exploitation wildlife and degradation, fied into three broad categories: conversion, C T A this analysis. this required. be Representative areas were not considered in may intervention of types what determine and actions servation con- of urgency the gauge to order in areas priority in threats of extent the classify to attempt an is analysis threat This pressures. human by affected most the generally are greatest, is richness species where value, biological high with areas that is Ecoregion RFE the RFE in rule general the The Ecoregion. in conservation for areas priority on development socio-economic of impacts determine to assessment this weighted mostheavilybecause theireffects are threats These entirely. landscapes ural nat- transform agriculture, for drainage and ypes of threats. of ypes onversion threat analysis was carried out during out carried was analysis threat het, uh s clearcutting as such threats, Threats can be classi- be can Threats

BOX 10. TYPES OF THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY het ae hs wee het my alter may threats where those are threats conversion high system, this In purposes. our for (2000) al. et Dinerstein by posed pro- system ranking the Weadapted lands. the future threat of conversion of remaining was used criterion main the 4), Section in 8 of lands was taken into consideration (Table wildlife exploitation. While past conversion or degradation either than reverse to cult diffi- and far-reaching more generally are (adapted from Dinerstein et al. 2000) transportation range of variation of range D U P EXPLOITATION:WILDLIFE S E R I U S P B DEGRADATIONTHREATS B C A I I THREATSCONVERSION habitats and animals and habitats products forest ntensity of grazing outside of natural of outside grazing of ntensity burning ntensive building road associated and logging ntensive oaching species invasive of pread impacts recreational xcessive logging elective industry,agriculture, from ollution isturbance or harassment of natural of harassment or isturbance fishing and hunting nsustainable lines power and pipelines, building, oad non-timber of collection nsustainable urning water of diversion and dams uilding settlements for land learing expansion gricultural 121 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS

more than 25 percent of remaining habitat Method of ranking threats. A four-

in the next 20 years. Significant conversion tiered scale was used to estimate impacts of

threats are those that will alter habitat the three types of threats (conversion,

between 10-24 percent over the next 20 degradation, and wildlife exploitation) in

years. Moderate conversion threats will priority areas: high, significant, moderate,

alter habitat between five and nine percent and low. Each of these was assigned a

in 20 years, and low conversion threats are numerical value: low=1, moderate=2, sig-

where habitats will not be altered or threats nificant=3, high=4. Conversion threats

are unknown. In ranking the priority areas were doubled.

according to threats and overall biodiversi-

ty (Table 14), future conversion threats Additionally, threats were assessed by the

were multiplied by a factor of two since extent of their distribution in the RFE

their impacts are more permanent. Ecoregion based on information provided

in Table 13 above, analysis of priority areas

Degradation has the most impacts in for conservation (Section 4), and popula-

areas where intensive logging and agricul- tion densities and trends in the socio-eco-

tural practices are widespread. Pollution, nomic assessment (Section 6). To make cal-

intensive recreation, and other impacts on culations easier, the same delineation and

ecosystem integrity were also taken into values were used for distribution of threats

consideration in rating the extent of degra- as for severity of threats (low, moderate,

dation in a priority area. significant, and high). A low rating would

indicate a localized distribution of threats,

Wildlife exploitation threats were for example, around a particular mine.

assessed according to population density in Moderate might be assigned to agricultural

the given area and based on past and current areas where pesticides are used, for exam-

trends of hunting, poaching, and collection ple, but distribution is restricted to certain

of non-timber forest products. areas. Significant distribution of threats

would indicate a combination of threats

12 2 was added to the overall level of biodiversi- ranking threat This Ranking». «Threat all over- an obtain to values other the to added values. then doubled, were numerical threats Conversion assigned their on based tallied were threats the area, ity prior- a within distribution their and threats T ecosystems. natural to devastating quite be can and widespread are impacts where areas, industrialized and populated highly in threats to assigned be would tribution dis- high while territory, the of much over o assess the impacts of all three types of and overall biodiversity.overall and threats imminent on based urgently taken be to need actions where decide us help to estimation crude a is it but area, priority each within nuances the all for account not can- analysis numerical and subjective this Obviously, priority. third ranked were 13 11- were of values priority,and second assigned 14-16 of values Total priority. first assigned were 17 over values Summed III. or II, I, of Ranking» Priority «Overall cal value of 1-4. The total sum was given an numeri- a assigned similarly was which 4), Section in (listed area priority each for ty 123 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 7. OVERRIDING THREATS AND THREAT ANALYSIS

7.3. CONCLUSIONS OF THREAT ANALYSIS

Though all of the priority areas in Table and a high ranking for threats (level I) are

14 require conservation action in the next places to consider immediate action.

few years, regions with high biodiversity

The results of the analysis show that the top priority areas for urgent action are:

4 Borisovsky Foothills in Eastern Manchurian Mountain Ecoregion

4 Badzhalsky Foothills in the Bureya Mountain Ecoregion

4 Southern Sikhote-Alin Foothills in the Sikhote-Alin Mountain Ecoregion

4 Khanka Lake Lowlands Ecoregion

Territories requiring immediate attention, after the issues in top priority areas are

addressed are:

4 Southern and Eastern Sikhote-Alin Mountains in the Sikhote-Alin Mountain

Ecoregion

4 Middle Amur Plain Ecoregion

In top priority areas (I) with a high threat game resources. Anti-poaching brigades

ranking, measures will need to be carried should also be strengthened in these areas

out to abate the threats, first and foremost. and legislation perfected to ensure strict

In fragmented priority areas, Econets con- punishment for violators. In priority areas

sisting of nature reserves and linking corri- where conversion threats from clearcutting

dors will need to be created along with are high, models of sustainable forestry and

transboundary nature reserves in border FSC certification should be implemented,

regions. In densely populated areas where along with government tools and incentives

threats to wildlife are high, measures need to increase wood processing and lessen

to be implemented to increase public export of raw timber.

awareness and promote sustainable use of 124 In priority areas for conservation where In important areas where biodiversity is

threats are lower but biodiversity is high low as a result of degradation and conver-

(II), parcels of important habitat can be sion threats (III), restoration measures

reserved for inclusion in future protected should be carried out to create suitable nat-

area networks. Programs to target individ- ural habitats. Measures to promote sustain-

ual endangered species in these areas able hunting, fishing, and resource use can

should be implemented, as well as meas- help stop threats from growing to uncon-

ures to promote sustainable resource use. trollable proportions.

Table 14. RANKING OF TYPE OF THREAT AND DISTRIBUTION, OVERALL BIODIVERSITY, AND OVERALL PRIORITY LEVEL FOR PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PARTCONSERVATION 1

Conver- Degrada- Wildlife Distribution Overall Overall Total Overall sion tion Exploita- of Threats Threat Biodiversity Ranking Priority Priority Area Threats Threats tion Ranking (Low=1, Level(I, (x 2) (Sum of Moderate=2, II,III) threats) Significant=3, Low=1, Moderate=2, Significant=3, High=4 High=4)

Forest Ecosystems Borisovsky Foothills in Eastern Manchurian Significant Significant Moderate Significant 14 4 18 I Mountain Ecoregion Badzhalsky Foothills in Bureya Mountain Significant Significant Significant Significant 15 2 17 I Ecoregion Lesser Khingan Foothills in Bureya Low Moderate Significant Significant 9 3 12 III Mountain Ecoregion Southern Sikhote-Alin Foothills in Sikhote-Alin Moderate Significant Significant High 14 4 18 I Mountain Ecoregion Southern Sikhote-Alin Mountains in Sikhote-Alin Moderate Significant Significant Significant 13 3 16 II Mountain Ecoregion Eastern Sikhote-Alin Foothills in Sikhote-Alin Moderate Moderate Moderate Significant 11 4 15 II Mountain Ecoregion Tukuringrsky/Dzhagdinsky Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 10 3 13 III Ecoregion Freshwater Ecosystems: Khanka Lake Lowlands Low High Significant High 13 4 17 I Ecoregion

Middle Amur Plain Significant Moderate Significant Moderate 13 3 16 II Ecoregion

Zeya-Bureya Plain Low Significant Significant High 11 1 12 III Ecoregion 12 5 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION

8.1. OVERVIEW OF INTEREST GROUPS

Biodiversity in the Russian Far East Government agencies on federal, region-

Ecoregion Complex can be conserved only al, and local levels can impact the outcome

through addressing social, political, eco- of conservation initiatives and must there-

nomic, and environmental issues in an inte- fore be included in the process. Most initia-

grated manner. Therefore, cooperation must tives involving nature conservation must be

be sought within various sectors of society eventually be approved by one or more gov-

from government to business, and from sci- ernmental agency. For example, provincial

ence to the general public. There are five and local governments and the regional

major groups of stakeholders in the RFE divisions of the Ministry of Natural

Ecoregion: government, non-governmental Resources must approve creation of new

organizations (NGOs), scientific institu- protected areas for inclusion in the Econet.

tions, business, and the mass media. In this Forest certification practices must be in line

stakeholder assessment, we identify the key with state forestry policy. Inclusion of the

players in each of these groups, their poten- respective agencies early in the process of

tial to help or harm implementation of con- project development can help avoid con-

servation initiatives, and possible measures flicts later. Documents and conservation

to head off conflicts. Table 15 summarizes plans that have gone through the official

established niches of international and approval process have greater significance

Russian conservation NGOs and donor and are more likely to be met with success.

agencies in attempt to determine their pos-

sible roles in implementation of the Cutting through red tape and getting all

Conservation Action Plan. the necessary approvals can be time con-

suming, especially when conflicts of inter- 126 eoe ucsfl mlmnain f con- of implementation successful before place in put and developed be first must legislation regional cases, certain In level. local the at managed are resources how ing dictat- in inadequate often are environment the to related laws federal matters, cate compli- further To projects. conservation large implementing when coordination of tion organizations must shoulder the burden conserva- that mean them protecting with charged those and resources natural ing exploit- with charged agencies between est P S holders in implementing the Conservation Action Plan include: Plan Action Conservation the implementing in holders ed areas, many of which will be a part of the regional Econet, include: Econet, regional the of part a be will which of many areas, ed 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 eily uhrzd eea aece ad hi rgoa dvsos ht r iprat stake- important are that divisions regional their and agencies federal authorized pecially rotected areas are also government owned and managed. The different categories of protect- of differentcategories The managed. and owned government also are areas rotected N S R F F M S S Development M M ederal-level refuges (zakazniks) refuges ederal-level zapovedniks ederal-level tate national parks national tate Committee Fisheries tate Committee Land tate ature parks ature (zakazniks) refuges egional-level arine Inspection of the National Border Guard Border National the of Inspection arine and Conservation Resource Game of Department of Agriculture, inistry Resources Natural of inistry and Legislative Councils). Legislative and (Dumas bodies legislative provincial and administrations; (district-level) local tions; state protected areas; provincial administra- conservation; and exploitation resource ral natu- to related agencies federal authorized specially sectors: main five in tributed dis- are Plan Action Conservation the ing G with the Econet. the with as such ensured, be can projects servation overnment stakeholders for implement- 127 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION

The support and cooperation of administrative and legislative bodies in each of the four

provinces of the RFE will be important for implementing conservation projects, especially:

4 Administrations of Amurskaya, Evreiskaya, Khabarovsky, and Primorsky

provinces

4 Committees of natural resources and nature use of the province adminis

trations

4 Forestry Management Agency of the Primorsky Province Administration

4 Fisheries Committee of the Primorsky Province Administration

4 Councils on the fishing industry in the administrations of each of the

provinces

4 Legislative Councils or Dumas of each of the four provinces

For implementation of specific components of the Conservation Action Plan, cooperation and

support of district-level governments will be crucial. Regions where model projects will be car-

ried out will be the focus of work to coordinate and win support of stakeholders:

4 Khasansky District, Primorsky Province (main range for leopard, Tumangan

River Project, ecotourism)

4 Chuguevsky District, Primorsky Province (model projects on sustainable

nature use including non-timber forest products, ecotourism)

4 Lazovsky District, Primorsky Province (ecotourism)

4 Terneysky District, Primorsky Province (model projects on sustainable

nature use including non-timber forest products)

4 Arkharinsky District, Amurskaya Province (wetland projects)

4 Tuguro-Chumikansky District, Khabarovsky Province (Shantarsky National

Park)

4 Lazovsky, Vyazemsky, Bikinsky districts of southern Khabarovsky Province

(Econet) 128 et n ipeetto o the of crucial. is Plan Action Conservation implementation and ment Russian and international NGOs in develop- of support and participation The areas. other or reserves nature of regimes tected pro- the violate businesses or government the when noise make and projects ment develop- large for watchdogs as serve They policies. environmentally-sound implement to government the lobby They Russia. in change environmental of catalysts the agencies. and foundations, organizations, vation conser- international 2) and peoples; nous indige- of interests the representing tions associa- and NGOs Russian 1) RFE Ecoregion: the in organizations donor and T N here are two main categories of NGOs of categories main two are here ngvrmna organizations on-governmental are ally lack resources and authority.and resources lack ally NGOs founded by local communities gener- Other assessments. and reports, studies, of numbers large out churning to used are which institutions, academic in roots their have NGOs Russian influential more The detrimental effects on conservation projects. have can which disagreements, to leads this funds isfierce.Itunfortunatethatattimes limited these for competition sometimes and donors, international of group small very a on depend Generally,NGOs Russian lacking. chronically are Ecoregion RFE the O R development of ecotourism. of development forestry,sustainable on projects and fishing, model in included be to need will tribes indigenous representing Associations Plan. Action Conservation the implementing ussian NGOs will be the key partners in partners key the be will NGOs ussian eainl ud fr usa NO in NGOs Russian for funds perational 29 12 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION

The key NGO stakeholders are:

4 Amur Socio-Ecological Union (SEU) based in Amurskaya Province, car

ries out projects in neighboring provinces of the southern RFE as well

4 Zov Taigi Center for Nature Conservation (ZT) based in Primorsky

Province, has projects throughout RFE

4 Institute for Sustainable Nature Use Primorsky Province

4 «ErF» regional ecological NGO for biodiversity conservation and sup

port of traditional nature use by indigenous northern peoples

Khabarovsky Province

4 Phoenix Foundation Primorsky Province

4 Pantsui Foundation for support and conservation of biodiversity

Khabarovsky Province

4 Khabarovsk Wildlife Foundation based in Khabarovsky Province, proj

ects mainly in this province

4 Ecodal Khabarovsky Province

4 Khabarovsk Center for Ecological Certification based in Khabarovsky

Province, works in all of RFE Ecoregion

4 Brok based in Primorsky Province, has projects throughout RFE, includ

ing Kamchatka and Sakhalin

4 TIGIS NGO based in Primorsky Province, carries out projects through

out southern RFE

4 Territory of the Future Khasansky District, Primorsky Province

4 Strazh Taigi Khabarovsky Province

4 Ussurisky Medved student conservation organization Primorsky

Province

4 Bastak Center for Ecological Initiatives Evreiskaya Province

4 Living Planet Primorsky Province

130 nents of the Conservation Action Plan. The most important stakeholders in this category are: category this in stakeholders important most The Plan. Action Conservation the of nents compo- of implementation and financing the in role important an play will agencies, donor al internation- with along groups, these of Both not. do that those and RFE the in offices sentative I 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 nternational environmental organizations are divided into two groups - those that have repre- have that those - groups two into divided are organizations environmental nternational United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Program Development Nations United (USAID) Development International for Agency States United (GEF) Facility Environmental Global and Bank World Foundation Tigris Earth-Japan the of Friends Center Salmon Wild (PERC) Center Resource Environmental Pacific (ISC) Communities Sustainable for Institute (ISAR)* Eurasia in Renewal and Action Social for Initiative Greenpeace (WCS)* Society Conservation Wildlife (WWF)* Nature for Fund Wide World Association forIndigenousPeoplesoftheNorth North the of Peoples Indigenous for Association Province North the of Peoples Indigenous for Association Federation Russian the of provinces all All RussianSocietyforNatureConservation(VOOP) Foundation Sikhote-Alin Asia Foundation Asia * Organizations, which have representative offices in the RFE the in offices representative have which Organizations, Primorsky Province Primorsky Amurskaya Province Primorsky Province Primorsky Khabarovsky has branchesin 131 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION

Scientific institutions have traditionally ernment agency scientific research organi-

played a central role in drawing attention zations. The participation of scientists

to conservation issues in the RFE from these institutions has been invaluable

Ecoregion. These organizations are divid- in developing this biological and socio-

ed into two groups: 1) scientific research economic assessment and will continue to

institutes of the Far Eastern Academy of be important for implementing specific

Sciences in the fields of biology, natural conservation initiatives in the RFE

resource use, and geography; and 2) gov- Ecoregion.

The key stakeholders among scientific institutions are:

4 Pacific Institute of Geography FEBRAS

4 Institute of Soil and Biological Sciences FEBRAS

4 Institute of Marine Biology FEBRAS

4 Institute of Aquatic and Ecological Problems FEBRAS

4 Institute of Economic Research FEBRAS

4 Pacific Scientific Research Fisheries Center

4 Far Eastern Scientific Research Institute for Forestry

4 All Union Scientific Research Institute for Hunting and Game

Management

4 Far Eastern Division of the All Union Scientific Research Institute

of Nature

4 Far Eastern Scientific Research Hydro-Meteorological Institute

4 Far Eastern Scientific Research Naval Institute

132 Action Plan will be critical to ensuring the ensuring to critical be will Plan Action Conservation the of implementation in businesses of involvement The exceptions. few a are there but initiatives, servation con- of supporter major a not is Ecoregion T N key stakeholders in implementation of the Conservation Action Plan are: Plan Action Conservation the of implementation in stakeholders key 4 4 4 4 he atural resource use enterprises and businesses involved in sustainable resource use that are that use resource sustainable in involved businesses and enterprises use resource atural uies sector business Province) (Khabarovsky Rimbunan-Khidzhau and Flora, Dallesprom, AO Province), (Amurskaya Province), Amurlesexport (Primorsky Sikhote-Alin» South of Sikhote-Alin» South of Users Resource «Nature Association Society,Krechet Products, Forest Non-Timber of Producers for Koopzveropromkhoz, Association enterprises: product forest Non-timber enterprises: Forestry «Nature Resource Users of South Sikhote-Alin» South of Users Resource «Nature TourIndependent Operators, Association of Interregional Association enterprises: Ecotourism VostokpushninaZAO Province), (Primorsky estates hunting YuzhnayaDolina Yasnoye,and Medved, Fishermen, enterprises: Hunting n h RFE the in Primorsky Province Society for Hunters and Hunters for Society Province Primorsky TerneyLesand Users Resource «Nature Association KhasanEcoTour,League, Hiking Ginseng practices. business environmentally-friendly promote to instated be to need Incentives Econet. the in corridors managing and ecotourism, products, forest non-timber of forestry,use sustainable on projects model of success Limonnik, Chuguevsky Limonnik, 133 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION

The mass media plays an important prepare their own press releases and

role in attracting public attention to con- materials for films and news items.

servation issues in the region and build- International news agencies can help

ing support for conservation initiatives. draw the attention of the international

Working with the mass media generally public to issues of conserving globally-

requires a lot of time and effort, and important aspects of biodiversity in the

often conservation organizations must RFE Ecoregion.

The main stakeholders in the mass media that should be included in conservation

programs are:

4 Radio, television, and newspaper agencies in each of the four provinces

of the Ecoregion Complex, as well as clubs for environmental journalists

4 Federal-level television and newspaper agencies, such as ORT, NTV, RTR,

Komsomolskaya Pravda, and others

4 International press agencies (BBC, CNN, others)

13 4 Table15. CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN FOR THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX ECOREGION RFE CONSERVATIONTHE FOR PLAN ACTION THE IMPLEMENTING STAKEHOLDERSIN PROMINENT OF NICHES Conservation (VOOP) Conservation Nature for Society Russian All Foundation Sikhote-Alin Planet Living Initiatives Ecological for Center Bastak organization activism student Medved Ussurisky Taigi Strazh Future the of Territory TIGIS Brok Certification Ecological for Center Khabarovsk Ecodal Foundation Wildlife Khabarovsk Initiatives Ecological for Fund Pantsui Foundation Phoenix Province Khabarovsky in peoples northern indigenous by use nature tional tradi- of support and servation con- biodiversity for NGO «ErF» Use Nature Sustainable for Institute Taigi) (Zov Center Conservation Nature Union Socio-Ecological Amur Organization Russian Environmental NGOs Environmental Russian reduced its activities to a minimum since the beginning of the 1990s. the of beginning the since minimum a to activities its reduced T resources. scientific solid Has watersheds). Samarga and (Bikin Sikhote-Alin central the in primarily issues resolving on focused NGO Province. Primorsky of part southern the in learning. Active higher of institutions in Vladivostok of students with works projects Actively patrol. logical environmental of E range wide PERC. and WWF with relations Stable Province. Evreiskaya a of Implementation Province. Primorsky of part southern the in patrol. Active logical E na-Amure. defend to Komsomolsk- of area campaigns the in mostly Province, alarmist Khabarovsky in forests in participating actively NGO Small Project). Tumanganthe of part (Russian Province Primorsky I WCS. and WWF of Partner results. professional ects, scientific projects, and GIS projects. Well equipped and provides Informational-analytical support to ecological and natural resource proj- Province. Primorsky Earth-Japan. the of on Friends and Greenpeace with closely Works mainly Focused magazine Ecology». the Prints and stage. «Business organizational the during areas tected pro- with working Experience issues. environmental to attention draw N audits. ecological ducts benefits of certification to forestry companies, trains foresters, and con- forestry.sustainable and the certification Promotes FSC promoting for WWF from support with 1999 in created center services Consulting peoples. indigenous S mid-1990s. since WWF GEF.of and Partner as themainimplementingorganizationforprojectsofWorld Bank Province. Works in close contact with the regional administration. Acts Khabarovsky in organizations environmental stable more the of One Basin. River the Amur in fish) and (game C areas. other and Zapovednik, Ussurisky Province, Primorsky southwestern in um-sized environmentalprojectsinPrimorskyProvince. Actively works medi- of implementation and donors various of funds of Accumulation WWF.(Khabarovsk), Ecodal RFE: the in NGOs other with ships relation- Constructive use. nature indigenous and estates game to ed working with the government of Khabarovsky Province on issues relat- E WCS. with closely Coordinates Province. Primorsky in field the in projects leopard and tiger in co-executor a Model projects on creating sustainable hunting estates, participation as world. the around from donors environmental leading from support Stable tions. organiza- environmental regional among Authoritative issues. logical eco- on films Prepares Taigi».«Zov region the in magazine mental environ- full-scale only the publishes RFE: the throughout issues tal P PERC. and WWF with ties Close student group. activist «Bars» the Supports levels. all at decision-makers with ing work- experience Positive activities. anti-poaching movements, logical Amurskaya Province. Creation of protected in areas, development issues of eco- ecological and social on projects medium-sized and Small mplementation of local environmental projects in Khasansky District, Khasansky in projects environmental local of mplementation he oldest Soviet network organization on nature conservation. Has conservation. nature on organization network Soviet oldest he cological education, participation in anti-poaching activities, and eco- and activities, anti-poaching in participation education, cological eco- and activities, anti-poaching in participation education, cological by use nature of support judicial in currently specializing NGO mall experience Positive peoples. indigenous with working in xperience environmen- on materials informational of publishing and reparation O xeine i ognzn lresae lrit apin to campaigns alarmist large-scale organizing in experienced GO resources natural of use assesses organization the 2001, in reated Established Environmental Niche Environmental Established 135 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 8. STAKEHOLDERS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE ECOREGION

Table 15 (continued).

Organization Established Environmental Niche Russian Organizations Representing Interests of Indigenous Peoples Associations for Northern Independent organizations in each of the three provinces. Lobby the Indigenous Peoples (in interests of indigenous peoples at the provincial and federal govern- Khabarovsky, Amurskaya, and mental levels, especially concerning rights to conduct traditional nature Primorsky Provinces) use practices.

Russian Representatives of International Environmental Organizations Implements medium- and large-scale projects on nature conservation. WWF Russia, Seeking compromise between government, business, and NGOs. the Far Eastern Branch Developing environmental policy, creating an Econet and supporting protected areas, promoting sustainable nature use. Conservation of rare and endangered species. Scientific research aimed at providing a scientific basis for conserving Wildlife Conservation Society large predators in the southern Russian Far East. Stable working rela- (WCS) tionship with certain Russian NGOs and protected areas. Initiative for Social Action and Manages small grants programs, including for environmental projects. Renewal in Eurasia (ISAR) Provides startup support to new NGOs. International Environmental Organizations Monitoring of the environmental situation in the RFE, mediator and Pacific Environmental Resource consulting services for large environmental foundations working in the Center (PERC) region. Creation of a network of affiliated Russian NGOs. Implementing small and medium-sized projects related to aquatic ecol- Wild Salmon Center ogy and conservation in cooperation with Russian NGOs. Tigris Foundation Support of projects to conserve the Amur tiger in the RFE. Implementing ecological projects in close contact with Russian NGOs, Friends of the Earth-Japan such as Brok, carrying out environmental awareness campaigns. Environmental awareness campaigns to draw attention of the public and decision-makers to critical issues in environmental conservation. Greenpeace Occasional public awareness campaigns are carried out in concert with Brok. Institute for Sustainable Represented in the RFE through ISAR. Implements long-term goals Communities (ISC) through the Replication of Lessons Learned (ROLL) grant program. International Donors and Agencies Finances large environmental projects through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), such as on forest fire management in World Bank valuable forests in the Amur-Sikhote-Alin Ecoregion. Allocates large loans to provinces to facilitate the transition to sustainable nature use. Long-term monitoring of the ecological and natural resource situation US Agency for International in the RFE; finances large-scale environmental projects, such as «An Development (USAID) integrated plan for land use in the Ussuri River watershed», the EPT project, «Forest» project, and managing fires in tiger habitat. Implementing large-scale international projects on the transition to sus- United Nations Development tainable nature use (primarily through GEF), which are in one way or Program (UNDP) another connected to the RFE, for example the TUMENnet project. Finances small and medium-size projects related to ecological and ASIA Foundation natural resource interests of South Korea.

136 8.2. CLIMATE FOR STAKEHOLDER CLIMATECOOPERATIONFOR 8.2. D T U ing conservation projects. conservation ing implement- and planning of process the into factored be must This project. a for allocated - money and time - resources the of quarter and building consensus can take as much as a coordination Yet process. the into brought be must stakeholders these why reason more the all is This policy. ecological and ment manage- resource natural on principles fied uni- develop to efforts complicates seriously stakeholders some of influence negative The them. help to than initiatives conservation harm to potential greater have RFE Ecoregion the in groups interest business and institutes, nature conservation agencies, and agencies, conservation nature institutes, scientific state stakeholders. NGOs, of key Representatives from approval get and involve to made were efforts CAP, the ment and the resulting NGO Joint Plan. Joint NGO resulting the and ment assess- biodiversity this implementing and elaborating by region important globally the in biodiversity conserve to efforts strengthen to together pulled have Ecoregion RFE oday, leading conservation NGOs in the in NGOs conservation leading oday, fruaey mn o te government the of many nfortunately, uring preparation of this assessment and assessment this of preparation uring carry out its recommendations. its out carry to together groups different the bringing in importantly, more but reports, the preparing in invaluable been has documents these of both to stakeholders of Input Plan. Action Conservation the elaborating for basis the sity and socio-economic assessment serves as biodiver- This Ecoregion. RFE the of versity biodi- unique the save to action take to need the on consensus a to come have region the S NGOs differed from those of state agencies. state of those from differed NGOs of opinions the instances, certain in though were accepted and included in this document, recommendations the of Most draft. the on commented also provinces Evreiskaya and Primorsky the in committees government Appropriate provinces. Khabarovsky and on Commission Amurskaya the in Conservation Biodiversity Interagency the to discussion for presented was CAP The bers. mem- are CAP the to contributing izations organ- the of many which of association, ing guid- WWF's Development, Sustainable for Council Ecoregional RFE the by times eral orating the CAP. The CAP was reviewed sev- elab- in participated administrations regional takeholders and broader interest groups in groups interest broader and takeholders 137 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

9.1. REVIEW OF PRIORITY AREAS FOR CONSERVATION

Priority areas for conservation in the population trends, and socio-economic fac-

Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex were tors. These priority areas will be the focus

determined as a result of analyses of levels of conservation efforts in the RFE as out-

of biodiversity, endemism, threats, human lined in the NGO Joint Action Plan (Part 2).

The four priority areas for conservation of forest biomes as determined in the biodiversity

assessment are:

4 Eastern Manchurian Mountain Ecoregion

4 Sikhote-Alin Mountain Ecoregion

4 Lesser Khingan and Badzhalsky eco-districts of the Bureya Mountain

Ecoregion

4 Tukuringra-Dzhagdinsky Ecoregion

13 8 T biodiversity assessment are: assessment biodiversity 4 4 4 T 4 4 4 4 ecosystems is high. is ecosystems certain of value representation but low, relatively is biodiversity where delineated were Ecoregions additional four diversity, bio- region's the protecting in areas priority of role the of analysis After Plan. Action strategies and action plans in the NGO Joint freshwater and forest the of focus main the T he three priority areas for conservation of conservation for areas priority three he hese priority areas for conservation are conservation for areas priority hese hese four hese Zeya-Bureya Plain Ecoregion Plain Zeya-Bureya Ecoregion Plain Amur Middle Ecoregion Lowlands Lake Khanka Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain Ecoregion Mountain Aldan-Stanovoy Ecoregion Plain Amur-Zeya Ecoregion Mountain Bureya ValleyEcoregion Mountain Amur Lower representativeEcoregions freshwater ecosystems freshwater are: as determined in the in determined as © L. Dubeykowski L. © © L. Dubeykowski L. © 139 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

9.2. VISION FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RFE

A biodiversity vision for the Russian Far lar monsoon floods of the Amur River,

East Ecoregion Complex serves as a touch- which flows free and uninterrupted by

stone for long-term conservation of the dams, support freshwater communities with

region's unique biological features. By their relic vegetation and breeding and

agreeing on a far-reaching vision and the migrating waterfowl.

steps for achieving it, conservation organi-

zations can focus resources and efforts on In extensive tracts of intact forests, pro-

the priorities that are most important for tected by effectively managed nature

conserving the region's biodiversity. reserves and connecting corridors that

extend throughout the region, large preda-

Biodiversity Vision. From the coast of tors such as Amur tigers, Far Eastern leop-

the Sea of Japan, where gorals scale rocky ards, lynxes, and brown and Asiatic black

outcroppings, to inland mountain ecosys- bears, roam freely without interference

tems with hotspots of endemic plant com- from humans. These predators prey on

munities, native communities of flora and healthy populations of Manchurian red

fauna are preserved and continue to evolve. deer, sika deer, roe deer, and wild boar,

From northern boreal forests where wolves which in turn are supported by robust yields

roam to southern temperate forests in which of keystone species such as Korean pine

leopards prowl, representative terrestrial and Mongolian oak. Ginseng and other

and freshwater habitats are conserved at plants with biologically-active compounds

sufficient scales to allow ecological are treasured and support both the local

processes, such as large-scale migrations economy and biodiversity.

and predator-prey relations, to fluctuate

naturally. Vast areas of intact forests are The Amur River valley and associated

resilient enough to recover from natural wetlands are seen not as a separate entity,

disturbances such as forest fires. The regu- but as part of a system of tightly intercon-

14 0 account. Illegal trade in wildlife is a prob- a is wildlife in trade Illegal account. into biodiversity other and predators largeof conservation taking determined are quotas hunting and eliminated is prey their and species rare of Poaching species. other and grouse, spruce Siberian storks, cranes, leopards, tigers, surround stewardship responsible and respect fostering ditions tainable economy. Legends and cultural tra- sus- a of part indivisible an as valued are resources natural all and Wildlifetainably. sus- resources natural using to committed are and conservation to contribute scape, H lotus. Komarov and turtle, river Amur crane, red-crowned stork, white Oriental of populations flourishing for habitat important provide and restored and tected Bureya Plain, and the Middle Amur are pro- meters. Wetlands of Khanka Lake, the Zeya- Corridor forhundredsofuninterruptedkilo- Green the along migrate deer roe of tions popula- Healthy the Flyway. Asian Northeast along birds of millions supports Corridor, Green recognized internationally an in conserved valley, River Amur The habitats. freshwater and terrestrial nected mn, n nerl at f h land- the of part integral an umans, fishing, and non-timber forest products. forest non-timber and fishing, and hunting ecotourism, of management species. successful from benefit peoples Indigenous other and sturgeon, kaluga salmon, chum and pink of populations viable maintains industry fishing The fits. bene- long-term reap to wildlife and people both allow practices regeneration effective and logging Sustainable past. the of lem C tion and sustainable use in their habitats. their in use sustainable and tion tions of these species and support conserva- popula- viable maintain to help fish water fresh- and storks, cranes, leopards, tigers, conserving for habitats. programs International terrestrial and freshwater associated its and Basin River Amur the in order to achieve effective conservation of overcome are Korea North and Mongolia, ultural barriers between Russia, China, Russia, between barriers ultural 141 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

9.3. ACHIEVING THE BIODIVERSITY VISION

The NGO Joint Action Plan (Part 2 of the tion of forest and freshwater habitats, were

Conservation Action Plan) lays out a road developed for focal species where habitat

map for achieving the long-term biodiversi- conservation alone would not be sufficient to

ty vision. Strategies and action plans were guarantee their survival. These action plans

developed for priority biomes (forests and take into account minimum area require-

freshwater), focusing on the priority areas ments and other conclusions of this assess-

for conservation as identified in this assessment. Measures for conserving species of

ment. In addition, action plans for species, special concern are included in action plans

which are inevitably linked with conserva- for priority and representative biomes.

The long-term goals, important steps for achieving the Biodiversity Vision, as set out in

more detail in Part 2 are:

For boreal and temperate forests:

4 Degradation and fragmentation of valuable forests for biodiversity conservation are halted by creating a viable system of representative protected areas and promoting ecologically-sound forest management practices

4 Significant blocks of forests remain intact to support full-scale assemblages of plants and animals and natural ecological processes, such as predator-prey relations and large-scale migrations

4 20 percent of temperate forests and 10 percent of boreal forests are preserved in various types of protected areas, connected by corridors and buffer zones made up of high conservation value forests and other forests managed for biodiversity conservation

4 Sufficient areas of forest habitats support viable populations of the endangered Amur tiger and Far Eastern leopard, which are effectively preserved in cooperation with China and North Korea

142 lution from large industries large from lution pol- minimal and conservation, water quotas, fishing ecologically-sound of ment enforce- state practices, fishing sustainable by guaranteed are tributaries its and plans action conservation species approved on based countries other and kaluga sturgeon - are protected or effectively managed in cooperation with China cranes, and white-naped turtle, and river red-crowned Amur stork, white Oriental Northeast the Flyway Asian along waterfowl of millions for areas stop-over unique supports Mongolia, and China with cooperation in managed internationally and Corridor level) current the to compared protected hectares million tected areas, connected by river corridors and stepping stones (an additional one Integrated an on collaborate Mongolia and Basin River the Amur for Program Management China, Russia, and naturally, biomes: representative For sources renewable other and hunting, sustainable tourism, natural resources, including collection and sale of non-timber forest products, eco- forestry sustainable of ples princi- international with accordance in society to beneficial and sound, logically 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 The forestryindustryintheRFEEco Healthy fish populations and secure spawning areas in the Amur River Amur the in areas spawning secure and populations fish Healthy - concern special of species and species focal of populations Viable Green Amur the by linked areas, protected freshwater of system A pro- of types various in preserved are habitats freshwater of percent 30 function processes ecological and flowing free remains River Amur The Indigenous peoples and local communities benefit from sustainable use of Indigenous peoplesbenefitfromsustainableresource useandecotourism region is econo is region mically effective, eco- 143 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 9. CONCLUSIONS OF THE BIODIVERSITY AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

For representative biomes:

4 Conservation of biodiversity and important ecological phenomena is guaranteed in the following representative Ecoregions: Lower Amur Mountain Valley, Bureya Mountain, Amur-Zeya Plain, and Aldan-Stanovoy Mountain

4 Sufficient areas of representative habitats remain intact in order to support viable populations of species of special concern, namely: goral, Siberian spruce grouse, snow sheep, red-crowned and white-naped crane, and Amur river turtle

For focal species (Amur tiger, Far Eastern leopard, Oriential white stork, Asian ginseng):

4 Create and maintain a genetically viable population of at least 300 breeding female tigers (about 700 tigers in all) over an extended range

4 Enlarge and maintain a genetically viable population of at least 50 Far Eastern leopards in southwestern Primorsky Province and create new founder populations in other parts of the animal's former range

4 Sustain a viable population of at least 500 nesting pairs of Oriental white storks in the Russian Far East Ecoregion Complex and ensure that this population is conserved throughout its range including in wintering areas to the south

4 Conserve viable ginseng populations in the wild and restore the plant to parts of its former range, while allowing local people to profit from the sustainable harvest of ginseng

144 ..WA NEXT? WHAT 9.4. species forever.species these losing risk we done, is nothing If balance. the in hangs leopard, Eastern Far the as such species, endangered most world's the of some of fate the Moreover, living. sustainable promote that tices prac- and laws new implement to time the is now and flux, in still is Ecoregion RFE high. The economy and political state in the is stakeholders of interest the and there is momentum the while quickly act must we Now, region. the of heritage natural unique the of use sustainable and servation con- for priorities on agree to together ple peo- local and business, agencies, ernment gov- NGOs, bring to helped has Ecoregion RFE the for Plan Action Conservation T e rcs o dvlpn the developing of process he T humans. sensitive environmentally of munities com- sustainable alongside living species, native of assemblages full with habitats natural viable conserving of vision our of fulfillment to closer all targetsus bring will these of Implementation plan. action the in described targets the of all for available made be will budgets and descriptions project Detailed momentum. lose may and effectiveness limited have will front this action plan.Yet, withoutsufficient funding, the in identified targets the implement to poised is leaders conservation of front united This assessment. socio-economic and biodiversity this of outcome important most the Plan, Action Joint NGO the implementing and developing a for coalition form to Ecoregion RFE the in NGOs e W hs okd ih leading with worked has WWF he 145 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 GLOSSARY* * adapted from Dinerstein et al. 2000

alpha diversity Species diversity within a habitat

anthropogenic Human induced

assemblage In conservation biology, a predictable and particular collection of species within a biogeographic unit (e.g., Ecoregion or habitat)

azonal A method of classifying landscapes and ecosystems according to terrain and river systems rather than environmental and geographical conditions

basin See catchment

beta diversity Species diversity between habitats or along an environmental gradient

biodiversity The variety of life and its processes; it includes the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and ecosystems in which they occur, and the ecological and evolutionary processes that keep them func- tioning, yet ever changing and adapting

biogeographical Having to do with the geographic distribution of organisms, both past and present

biome A global classification of natural communities in a particular region based on dominant or major vegetation types and climate

boreal forest Type of major habitat occurring in the temperate and subtem- perate zones of the Northern Hemisphere that characteristical- ly has coniferous trees with some types of deciduous trees

broadleaf forest See deciduous forest

carrying capacity The maximum number of individuals or maximum biomass that a particular environment can support

catchment All lands enclosed by a continuous hydrologic-surface drainage divide and lying upslope from a specified point on a stream; or, in the case of closed-basin systems, all lands draining to a lake

clearcutting Logging an area where all or virtually all the forest canopy trees are eliminated

community Collection of organisms of different species that co-occur in the same habitat or region and that interact through trophic and spatial relationships

146 Ecoregion Econet processes ecological diversity disturbance dispersal biodiversity differential degradation forest deciduous corridor conversion conifer species, dynamics, and environmental conditions environmental and dynamics, species, assemblage of natural communities sharing a large majority of distinct a contains that water or land of unit large relatively A corridors linking by stones stepping connected and areas protected of network A dispersal and migration, cycling, nutrient sal, disper- seed and pollination dynamics, predator-prey and tion popula- include Examples maintained. adequately is diversity environment that ensure that an ecosystem's full range of bio- Complex mixofinteractionsbetweenanimals,plants andtheir abundance even more or whereas ahighdiversityreferstohighernumberofspecies diversity abundance, uneven more or low species fewer relatively to a refers community; a in (evenness) abundance tive rela- their and species of number the of measure Ecological events logging as human-caused such or wind and fire as such events ural significant change in structure or composition caused by A nat- origin of point their as such location, a from away organisms of movement The conditions environmental given with territory given a within etc.) communities, taxa, species, (individuals, units ical biolog- of distribution of evenness the assessing of method A communities natural altered significantly including often persist, still versity biodi- original the of components certain only that such ities The loss of native species and processes due to human activ- year the of portion some for leafless suffi- are they periods that distinct over ciently leaves their replace and drop they less; or year a last leaves whose trees by dominated type Habitat another to place or region one from taxa or individuals of movement allows that route A processes logical no longer supports most it characteristic native species and that eco- extent an such to activities human by altered Habitat conifers ing liv- of species 500-600 are seeds There cones. woody whose in borne are Gymnospermae phylum the in shrub or tree A 147 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 Ecoregion-based Conservation strategies and activities enhanced through close conservation attention to larger (landscape or aquascape-level) spatial and temporal scale patterns of biodiversity, ecological dynamics, threats, and strong linkages of these issues to fundamental goals and targets of biodiversity conservation

Ecoregion Complex A combination of several high-priority Ecoregions with strong biogeographic affinities that are adjacent to each other

ecosystem A dynamic complex of plant, animal, fungal, and microorgan- ism communities and their associated nonliving environment interacting as an ecological unit

endangered Conservation status category characterized by medium to low probability of persistence of remaining intact habitat

endemic A species or race native to a particular place and found only there (or an adjective: restricted to a specified region or locality)

endemism The relative number of endemic species found within a geographic area or region. High endemism indicates that there are many native species found only in that area or region. Low endemism indicates that most species found in that area are also found in other places

environmental The change in ecological or environmental features across gradients space, such as changes in elevation, moisture, temperature, or soil chemistry

estuary A deepwater tidal habitat and its adjacent tidal wetlands, which are usually semi-enclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted from freshwater runoff from the land

extinction The human-caused or natural process whereby a species or population ceases to exist

fauna All the animals found in a particular place

flora All the plants found in a particular place

fragmentation Landscape-level variable measuring the degree to which remaining habitat is separated into smaller discrete blocks; process by which habitats are increasingly subdivided into smaller discrete blocks

freshwater In the strictest sense, water that has less than 0.5 percent of salt concentration; in this study, refers to rivers, streams, creeks, springs, and lakes

gap analysis An assessment of the protection status of biodiversity in a specified region which looks for gaps in the representation of species or ecosystems in protected areas

148 biodiversity inventorial habitat intact indigenous species indicator heterotrophic range home loss habitat fragmentation habitat habitat grassland outstanding globally 200 Global genus genera pool gene environmental conditions environmental species, taxa, communities, etc.) on a given territory with given method of assessing richness of biological units (individuals, A present still species native original their of most of most original ecological processes and by communities with Relatively undisturbedareascharacterizedbythe maintenance area an to Native an of health ecosystem overall the reflects well-being whose species A of source a energy as materials organic only using of Capable activities daily other and feeding for used is that home animal's an around area The declines habitat remaining of area total the when ecosystems in occur to predicted processes ecological of tion disrup- and species of loss rapid the underscores It verted). (con- lost been has that Ecoregion the of area land original the of percentage the to refers that variable Landscape-level area habitat total of losses into as well subdivided as insularity increased their in increasingly resulting units, smaller are habitats which by Process organism an of environment natural The display resources patchy or invertebrates seasonal track to movement extensive and birds, vertebrates, larger such In systems grazing. or burning, intensive prolonged, to not but distributions, communities being wide relatively resilient to short-term disturbances with species by characterized biodiversity habitat type with landscapes dominated by grasses and with A world the around areas biodiversity other few a of only in units surpassed or equaled are features biodiversity for whose category distinctiveness Biological the of component Campaign One Planet Living States. Fund-United Wildlife World by analyses through identified as biodiversity representative or outstanding globally support that world the around Ecoregions marine and freshwater, terrestrial, 200 approximately of set A family the group of similar species with common A descent, ranked below genus of plural The species or ulation organisms, of population usually used to indicate the likelihood of persistence a of a pop- in genes of sum combined The 149 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 keystone species A species that plays a pivotal role in an ecosystem and upon which a large part of the community depends

landscape A heterogeneous land area composed of a cluster of interacting ecosystems that is repeated in similar form throughout

land-use zoning: the demarcation of a planning area by ordinance into zones and the establishment of regulations to govern their use

megafauna Large, charismatic mammals, usually endangered, used to promote conservation activities and attract attention

mesotrophic Having an average level of primary production and an average quantity of species

migration A cyclic movement of animals between separated areas that are used during different seasons

monsoon A seasonal wind of the Indian Ocean and South Asia, usually accompanied by heavy rains

muskeg bog A swamp comprised of sphagnum mosses, stunted trees, and other assemblages

natural zoning The division of the Earth's surface into geographical units of natural landscapes subject to global climatic factors such as temperature, humidity, etc.

nature reserve Nature reserve, national park, natural reserve, etc. A tract of land set aside to preserve it in its natural condition

nonpoint source A diffuse form of water quality degradation produced by erosion of land that causes sedimentation of streams, eutrophication from nutrients and pesticides used in agricultural and silvicultural practices, and acid rain resulting from burning fuels that contain sulfur

old growth forest A late successional or climax stage in forest development exhibiting characteristic structural features, species assemblages, and ecological processes

oligotrophic Having a limited level of primary production and limited quantity of species

persistence A measure of stability, referring to the time period during which a certain characteristic continues to be present at a given level

population In biology, any group of organisms belonging to the same species at the same time and place

population viability The probability that a population will persist for a specified period of time across its range despite normal fluctuations in demographic and environmental conditions

150 ungulate species umbrella tributary transboundary terrestrial temperate taiga succession steppe stakeholder richness species diversity species species speciation restoration representation areas priority relations predator-prey ebr f h gop f aml wt hoe, f which of hooves, with herbivorous are mammals most of group the of member A species ranging tat and populations of many other more restricted or less wide habi- the protect may habitat their of protection which by and Species that require large areas to maintain viable populations water it feeding stream or river that flows into a larger stream, river, A or lake, tries coun- between divisions administrative more or one crossing land on Living C 13° to C 10° from ranges temperature annual mean the which in area An forest, ends tundra where begins fir,that coniferous and spruce by dominated moist of consisting type habitat Subarctic of disturbance human or composition natural a following the communities in change predictable less or more The soils less and range temperature extreme with regions in found usually vegetation xerophilous with land Arid implemented being from decision a prevent to position a in is or outcome, the by affected be to likely is decision, final the making for responsible is who people of group or person Any area defined a within species of number The The number of species present. Also called «species richness» organisms similar and related closely of populations of series or ulation pop- a of consisting classification, biological of unit basic The another one from isolated reproductively populations more or leading to the splitting of one population or organisms into two events of sequence full the formation: species of process The that habitat degraded and/or state original its of recovery in results disturbed a of Management genotypes, all landscapes and habitats, ecosystems, including species, variation environmental and logical bio- of spectrum full the of network reserve a within Inclusion complex. Ecoregion entire the for or taxa) (terrestrial gion subre- each for areas nominated of overlays taxon the of sis synthe- a on based conservation for important deemed Areas coexistence long-term their permit that conditions predators and prey species and the ecological interactions and 151 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 vertical migration A seasonal movement of animals between higher and lower elevations in mountains

viability The ability of a population to maintain sufficient size so that it persists over time without significant human intervention in spite of normal fluctuations in numbers; usually expressed as a probability of maintaining a specific population for a specific period of time

viable population A population that contains an adequate number of individuals appropriately distributed to ensure a high probability of long- term survival without significant human intervention

vascular plant A plant that possesses a specialized vascular system for supplying its tissues with water and nutrients from the roots and with food from the leaves

vulnerable Conservation status category characterized by good probability of persistence of remaining intact habitat (assuming adequate protection) but also by loss of some sensitive or exploited species

watershed See catchment

wetlands Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Those areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and dura- tion sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions

xerophytic Tolerating dry environmental conditions or soils

zakaznik A federal or regional level refuge or sanctuary (IUCN category III or IV) managed for conservation of certain species or biotas

zapovednik A federally-managed strictly protected nature reserve (IUCN category I), where only scientific research and environmental education activities are allowed. Presently there are 100 zapovedniks in Russia

zonal See natural zoning

152 ZT RFE WWF WWF WCS VOOP USAID UNESCO UNDP SEU ROLL Ecoregion RFE RFE RF RAS PERC NGO IUCN ISC ISAR IBA GIS GEF FSC FEBRAS ERBC EPT CITES CAP Nature Conservation Center «Zov Taigi»«Zov Center Conservation Nature Branch Eastern Far Russia Nature for Fund Wide World Nature for Fund Wide World Society Conservation Wildlife Conservation Nature for Society Russian All Development International for States Agency United Organization Cultural and Scientific Educational, Nations United Program Development Nations United Union Socio-Ecological Amur USAID) by funded program (grants Learned Lessons of Replication Complex Ecoregion East Far Russian East Far Russian Federation Russian Sciences of Russian Academy Center Environment and Resource Pacific organization Non-governmental Nature of Conservation the for Union International Communities Sustainable for Institute Eurasia in Renewal and Social Action for Initiative Bird Areas Important system information Geographic Facility Environmental Global Council Stewardship Forest Sciences of Russian Academy the of Branch Eastern Far conservation Ecoregion-based USAID) by Technology(funded and Project Policy Environmental Wild Flora and of Fauna Species Endangered in Trade International on Convention Plan Conservation Action ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT THE IN ABBREVIATIONSUSED 153 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 REFERENCES: PUBLICATIONS

Abramov, V.K., Y.M. Dunishenko, E.N. Danilov-Danilian, V.I. (editor). 2000. Matushkin, I.G. Nikolaev, D.G. Pikunov, Red Book of the Russian Federation: G.P. Salkina, E.N. Smirnov, and V.G. Animals. AST, Moscow. Yudin. 1996. Strategy for Conservation of the Amur Tiger in Russia. WWF, Darman, Y.A., Y.I. Kirichenko, V.P. Moscow-Vladivostok. Kudinov, V.N. Cherei, and I.I. Shapoval. 2000. Nature Protected Areas of Aramilev, V.V. (editor). Borisovskoe Amurskaya Province. AmurGIT, Plateau: Ecological-Economic Basis for Blagoveshchensk. Establishment of a Nature Protected Area. 1999. Dalnauka, Vladivostok. Elyakov, G.B. (editor). 1993. Long-term Program for Nature Conservation and Baklanov, P.Y., and V.P. Karakin. 2002. Wise Use of Natural Resources of Land of the Leopard: Sustainable Primorsky Province until 2005. Part 1. Development of Southwestern Primorsky Dalnauka, Vladivostok. Province. WWF, UNOPS. Dalnauka, Vladivostok. Elyakov, G.B. (editor). 1993. Long-term Program for Nature Conservation and Baklanov, P.Y., S.S. Ganzei, and A.N. Wise Use of Natural Resources of Kachur (editors.). 2002. Transboundary Primorsky Province until 2005. Part 2. Diagnostic Analysis. Tumen River Dalnauka, Vladivostok. Strategic Action Program. UNOPS. Dalnauka, Vladivostok. Gorobeiko, V.V., A.P. Mukhamediarova, and T.A. Rubtsova. 2000. Nature Baskakov, V.E., and Y.M. Makarov. Protected Areas of Evreiskaya Province. 1998. Nature Protected Areas of Bastak, Birobidzhan. Khabarovsky Province. Goskomecologia, Khabarovsk. Karakin, V.P. and A.S. Sheingauz. 1998. Assessment of the Severity of Belaya, G.A., and V.L. Morozov (edi- the Problem of Rational Nature Use. tors). 1997. Red Book of Evreiskaya Geography and Nature Use, vol. 3: 13- Province. Rare and Endangered 21. Species of Vascular Plants. Dalnauka, Vladivostok. Kharkevich, S.S., and N.N. Kachura. 1981. Rare Species of Plants of Soviet Bersenev, Y.I. 1997. Nature Protected Far East and Their Protection. Nauka, Areas of Primorsky Province. MK-Dizain, Moscow. Vladivostok. Krukov, V.G., and A.N. Kulikov. 1999. Bersenev, Y.I. (editor). 2002. List of Zapovedniki and Regions:View from Plants and Animals Included in the Red Khabarovsky Province in The experi- Book of Primorsky Province. Apostrof, ence of elaborating legal, environmental, Vladivostok. and scientific basis for conservation and restoration of wildlife in the southern Bocharnikov, V.N., A.B. Martynenko, Russian Far East. Dalpress, Vladivostok, Y.N. Glushenko, Y.A. Darman, V.V. pp.14-21. Ermoshin, V.A. Nedoluzhko, and V.A. Nechaev. 2002. Biodiversity of the Kucherenko, C.P. 2001. Amur Tiger on Russian Far East Ecoregion. Apostrof, the Edge of Centuries. Okhota i okhot- Vladivostok. nie khozyaistvo 4: 20-24.

Bogatov, V.V., D.G. Miquelle, V.A. Litvinenko, N.M (editor). 1996. Birds of Rozenberg, B.A. Voronov, S.M. the Wetlands of the Southern Russian Krasnopeev, and T. Merrill. 2000. A Far East and Their Protection. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Dalnauka, Vladivostok. the Sikhote-Alin. Zov Taigi, Vladivostok. 154 Lesnaya Promyshlennost, Moscow.Promyshlennost, Lesnaya Book Red Plants. Book Red Russia. in Leopard Eastern Far the of Conservation Nikolaev.1999. I.G. V.G.Yudin,V.S. Lukarevsky, and V.P.Arzhanova, P.V.Karakin, Fomenko, V.V.Korkishko, Aramilev,T.D. Pikunov,V.G. Moscow.Nauka, 1992. Pikunov,D.G. Vladivostok. Apostroff, analysis. pilot strategy general and zone coastal marine Ecoregion East Far Russian the of conditions mental Zgurovsky.2002. K. A., Ozolinsh Vladivostok. Future. Present, Past, Samarga: Panichev,1998. A.M. 10-25. issue): (Special Earth Wild Strategy.Conservation Land Project: R.F.Noss, Vladivostok. Japan, East. Far Russian 1999. Isaev.Smirnov,Sapaev,and A. G. V.Lisicin, Krechmar,Lebedev,D. A. M. Chernyagina, O. Gorobeiko, J. Newell, pp.271-295. UK, Cambridge, Press, University Cambridge Jackson. P.and Christie, Seidensticker,S. J. use Plan in Riding the Tigerthe Riding in Plan use Land- Viable a for Criteria Ecological and Political Developing Tiger:Amur 1999. Hornocker.M.G. Pikunov,and D.G. Quigley,Smirnov,H.B. E.N. Dunishenko, D.G. Miquelle, Khabarovsk. Primorye. and Priamurye Kurentsov,A.I. 153-166. pp. East. Far the of parts southern of issues Kurentsov,A.I. Zoology Magazine # 38, vol. 2, vol. 38, # Magazine Zoology Leopard of the Russian Far East. Far Russian the of Leopard the of Hotspots Biodiversity A Habitat Protection Plan for the for Plan Protection Habitat A 1988. Rosagroproizdat, Moscow.Rosagroproizdat, 1988. , V.Y.V.Karakin, , Darman, of the USSR: Plants. USSR: the of Federation: Russian the of 1992. , V.K., Abramov,V.G. V.Spiridonov, , and V.G.Korkishko. and , , T.W., Y.M.Merill, 1959. 1959. The Wildlands The Friends of the Earth- the of Friends WWF. Strategy for Strategy Revue of environ- of Revue Fauna of Fauna Zoogeography Dalgis, , edited by edited , 1988. USSR. the of VariousRegions in Research Floral in East Far Soviet the of Plants Voroshilov.,V.N. Vladivostok. Province. Khabarovsk of Book Red the and T.G.1997. Sapozhnikova. Voronov,B.A. Khabarovsk. FEBRAS, IWEP Animals. and Plants of Species Endangered Province. Khabarovsky of Voronov,B.A. 296-301. pp. Khabarovsk, Sciences, of Academy Russian the of Branch Eastern Far Research, Economic of Institute 2010. to Transbaikaland RFE Regions: Russian Developing for Potential on Conference the of proceedings in Use Nature of Politics the Regionalizing for foundation a as RFE southern the 2002. Vishnevsky,D.C. 6-13. pp. Vladivostok, Dalpress, East. Far Russian southern the in wildlife of restoration and conservation for basis scientific and environmental, legal, elaborating of experience The in Protected Areas Nature for Possibilities Supporting and Perspective Development Status, E.S. Stomatuk, Blagoveshchensk. Gardens, Botantical Province. of Amurskaya Plants 1995. Shapoval. V.M.Starchenko, Khabarovsk. Publishers, Khabarovsky Series. East Far Russian the of Nature in Province Khabarovsk of Plants 1990. Shlotgauer,S.D. RIOTIP,Khabarovsk. Northeastern Asia. and RFE the A.S. Sheingauz, 7-12 1: vol. Processes. Forestation of Indicators to according Mapping and Classification Cover: Forest A.S. Sheingauz, Nature and Economic Zoning of Zoning Economic and Nature Rare Protection: Need They Nauka, Moscow, pp. 139-200. Moscow,pp. Nauka, Dalnauka, Khabarovsky- Dalnauka, , S.B. Shlotgauer,and S.B. , (editor). 1999. (editor). 1999. in Primorsky Province Primorsky in , and A.B. Melnikova. and A.B. , Rare and Endangered and Rare , G.F. Darman, and I.I. G.F.and , Darman, , and V.P.and , Karakin. 1997. 1994. 1985. The Current The Lesovedenoe, Nature use of use Nature of Integrity List of Vascularof List Rare and Rare Biodiversity Red Book Red Amur 155 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 REFERENCES: REPORTS

Andronov, V.A. (editor). 2000. Strategy Diukarev, V.N. (editor). 2000. for Oriental White Stork (Ciconia boy- Methodology for Landscape-Ecology ciana) Conservation in Russia (draft). Planning of Sustainable Forest IUCN and WWF Report, Moscow. Mangagement in the RFE Ecoregion. WWF-RFE, Vladivostok. Bocharnikov, V.N., V.V. Ermoshin, Y.N. Gluschenko, A.B. Martynenko, V.A. Gaponov, V., P. Fomenko, and S. Nechaev, N.S. Probatova, and Y.A. Nelson. 2002. Ginseng in the Russian Darman. 2001. Territorial Taxonomic Far East: Markets, Trends and Assessment of Biodiversity of the Stakeholders. WWF Report, Vladivostok. Russian Far East Ecoregion. WWF Report, Vladivostok. Matyushkin, E.N., D.G. Pikunov, Y.M. Dunishenko, D.G. Miquelle, I.G. Bogatov, V.V., D.G. Miquelle, V.A. Nikolaev, E.N. Smirnov, G.P. Salkina, Rozenberg, B.A. Voronov, S.M. V.K. Abramov, V.I. Bazylnikov, V.G. Krasnopeev, and T. Merrill. 2000. A Yudin, and V.G. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Korkishko. 1996. Numbers, Distribution, the Sikhote-Alin. Zov Taigi, Vladivostok. and Habitat Status of the Amur Tiger in the Russian Far East: «Express- Danilkin, A.A. (editor). 2002. Report». Final report to the USAID Conservation and restoration of wild Russian Far East EPT, Vladivostok. ungulate resources in habitat of the Amur tiger and Far Eastern leopard. Minakir, P.A. 1997. Regional Economic Draft Program of Primorsky Province Politics: Strategy for Development of Administration, Vladivostok. the RFE. Scientific paper for the Institute of Economic Research, Darman, Y.A. 1997. Conservation of Khabarovsk. Forest Ecosystems of Amurskaya Province and Development of Nature Minakir, P.A. (editor). 2000. Economic Protected Areas. WWF Report, Policy in the RFE (conception and pro- Blagoveshschensk. gram). Khabarovsky State Technical Darman, Y.A. 1998. Program for University, Khabarovsk. Development of Nature Protected Areas of Amurskaya Province. WWF Report, Minakir, P.A. (editor). 2002. Program Blagoveshchensk. for Economic and Social Development of the RFE and Transbaikal to 2010. Dinerstein, E., and D. Olson. 1998. Ekonomika, Moscow. Terrestrial Ecoregions of Europe and Asia (map). WWF-US, Washington, D.C. Miquelle, D., and A. Murzine. 2001. Spatial Distribution of Far Eastern Dinerstein, E., G. Powell, D. Olson, E. Leopards in Southwest Primorsky Krai Wikramanayake, R. Abell, C. Loucks, E. and Recommendations for Their Underwood, T. Allnut, W. Wettengel, T. Conservation. WCS and WWF Report, Ricketts, H. Strand, S. O 'Connor, and Vladivostok. N. Burgess. 2000. A Workbook for Conducting Biological Assessments and Miquelle, D., Y.M. Dunishenko, V.K. Developing Biodiversity Visions for Abramov, V.V. Aramilev, P.V. Fomenko, Ecoregion-Based Conservation. Part 1: I.G. Nikolaev, D.G. Pikunov, G.P. Terrestrial Ecoregions. WWF-US Report, Salkina, and E.N. Smirnov. 2001. Washington. Monitoring of the Amur Tiger Population. WCS Report, Vladivostok.

156 Khabarovsk. Situation. the of Project. Analysis Ecoregion RFE S.V Sheveiko, RFE. Southern the in Biodiversity Conserving Sheveiko, S.V.Sheveiko, Khabarovsk. RFE, WWF Ecoregion. RFE the of Development Economic for Strategy a Elaborating S. A. Sheingauz, Khabarovsk. Biodiversity.to Threats Creating of Factor a as Ecoregion RFE the of Development during Cover Forest A.S. Sheingauz, Moscow. Transbaikal. and RFE the of Development Social and Economic Targetof Program Government. Russian Ecoregion. RFE the of Zone Coastal the of Potential Resource Natural the to Changes with Biodiversity to Threats of Assessment Preobrazhensky,B.V. Vladivostok. WWF-RFE, Zone of the RFE Ecoregion RFE the of Zone Coastal the in Biodiversity for Strategy A., Ozolinsh Tokyo,Japan. Report, Earth-Japan the of Friends Russia. of Hotspots Biodiversity Eastern Far Newell, J. Newell, Switzerland. Gland, Report, International WWF 2002-2010. for Action Strategy and wild. the in tigers Newby,J. WWF-RFE, Vladivostok. WWF-RFE, A portfolio of ten proposals. ten of portfolio A WWF RFE, Vladivostok- RFE, WWF (editor). 2002. (editor). (editor). 2000. (editor). Government of the RF,the of Government V.Spiridonov,2001. ., and A.N. Kulikov.1999. and A.N. ., 1999. WWF-RFE, Vladivostok. WWF-RFE, 1999. A WWF Framework WWF A (editor). 2000. (editor). Action Plan for Plan Action 2000. 1997. WWF-RFE, Changes in Changes Conserving Conserving . Federal Administration, Blagoveshchensk. Administration, Province of Amurskaya Program Draft 2002-2006. from Province of Amurskaya Protected Areas Nature of Development Voropaeva,A.A. Khabarovsk. WWF-RFE, 1926-1999. RFE: the of Part Southern the of Population the of Dynamics Vishnevsky,D.S. Khabarovsk. Sciences, of Russian Academy the of Branch Eastern Far Research, Economic for Future. the in RFE Southern the in Products Forest Non-Timber of Use the Teritorialof Organization 2000. Sukhomirov,G.I. Elaboration of Scenarios of Scenarios of Elaboration , and A.B. Bardal. and A.B. , (editor). 2002. (editor). 2000. Geography and Geography Institute 157 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 ATTACHMENT 1. MEMBERS OF THE ECOREGIONAL COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE NATURE MANAGEMENT (RFE ECOREGIONAL COUNCIL)

WWF RUSSIA The Far Eastern Branch

FAR EASTERN FEDERAL DISTRICT

Lushey, Andrey Head of Natural Resources Department of the Far Eastern Federal District

AMURSKAYA PROVINCE

Ilarionov, Gennady Advisor of Amurskaya Province Council of People's Delegates

Koval, Anatoly Head of Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Amurskaya Province. Ministry of Natural Resources of RFE (prior to 2001)

Nosovtsev, Gennady Head of Committee on Natural Resources and Mining Industry of Amurskaya Province Administration

EVREISKAYA AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE

Antonov, Gennady Vice Governor of Evreiskaya Autonomous Province

Nedoresov, Yuri Head of Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Evreiskaya Autonomous Province. Ministry of Natural Resources of RF

Palachyov, Anatoly Head of Department of Natural Resources of Evreiskaya Autonomous Province Government

Sidorov, Anatoly Head of Economic Department of Evreiskaya Autonomous Province Government

Yakimov, Sergey Head of Environmental Service (prior to 2002). Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Evreiskaya Autonomous Province. Ministry of Natural Resources of RF

KHABAROVSKY PROVINCE

Boltrushko, Vladimir Head of Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of Khabarovsky Province. Ministry of Natural Resources of RF

158 Levintal, Aleksander Levintal, Krukov,Viktor Kolomytsev,Vladimir Johns, Michael Johns, VasilyGorobeiko, David Gordon, YuriDarman, Bogatov,Viktor Baklanov,Peter Andronov,Vladimir ORGANIZATIONS NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND REPRESENTATIVESSCIENTIFIC OF Tsoi,Boris Shafranovsky,Valery Aleksander Savvin, Kolnooky,Aleksander Bibikov,Mikhail PROVINCE PRIMORSKY (PERC), Far Eastern Branch Eastern Far (PERC), Center Resources & Environment Pacific of Representative Province Evreiskaya of NGOs Environmental of League USA (PERC), Center Resources Environment Director,Pacific Project RFE WWF of Director FEBRAS the of Presidium Department, Research Scientific of Head Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific the of Director RAS, of member Corresponding RFE the of Parks Nature and Zapovedniks of the Association of Chairman RF of Resources Natural of Ministry Province. Primorsky of Protection Environmental and Resources Natural of Department of Head Deputy 2001) to (prior Province Administration Primorsky of Committee Resources Natural of Chairman Deputy 2002) to (prior RF of Resources Natural of Ministry Province, Primorsky of Protection Environmental and Resources Natural of Department of Head Province Administration Primorsky of Committee Resources Natural of Chairman 2001) to (prior Province Primorsky of Protection Environmental and Ecology for Committee State the of Head Government Province Khabarovsky of External Affairs and Development Economic of Minister Province, Khabarovsky of Governor Deputy First Government Province Khabarovsky of Resources Natural of Minister Deputy First RF of Resources Natural of Ministry Province. Khabarovsky of Protection Environmental and Resources Natural of Department Service, Forest State of Head 159 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 Karakin, Vladimir WWF RFE

Kovalyov, Aleksander Director of the Far Eastern Scientific Research Institute for Forestry

Kulikov, Aleksander Director of Khabarovsk Wildlife Foundation

Likhacheva, Olga Director of ISAR RFE (prior to 2002)

Miquelle, Dale Director of Wildlife Conservation Society, Far Eastern office

Proskurina, Natalia Executive Director of ISAR RFE (prior to 2001)

Solkin, Vasily Chairman of Nature Conservation Center «Zov Taigi»

Titova, Svetlana Director of Amur Socio-Ecological Union

Volkova, Galina Vice President of Association of Indigenous Peoples of North Siberian Far East

Yefremov, Dmitry Director of the Far Eastern Scientific Research Institute for Forestry (prior to 2001)

Zhuravlyov, Yuri Academician of RAS, Director of Institute of Biological and Soil Sciences, FEBRAS

160 ATTACHMENT 2. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE BIODIVER- THE TO CONTRIBUTORS 2. ATTACHMENT NAME Boltrushko Vladimir Boltrushko Victor Dr.Bogatov Arthur Dr.Bogachev Vladimir Dr.Bocharnikov Ghislane Blezinger Alexey Dr.Blagovidov Mikhail Bibikov YuriDr.Bersenev Sergey Bereznuk Anatoly Baskakov Anna Dr.Bardal Nikolay Balagansky Peter Dr.Baklanov Evgeny Bagretsov Dr.Anatoly Astafiev Tatyana Aramileva Vladimir Aramilev Olga Anisimova Vladimir Andronov Vladimir Alkhimenko Eduard Adnagulov POSITION Resources of Russian Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province, Khabarovsky of Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. of Head FEBRAS of Presidium Dept., Research Scientific of Head Primorsky Agricultural Academy Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific Germany WWF Moscow Representative, NIS IUCN 2001) (before Province Primorsky of Protection Environmental and Ecology for Committee State the of Head Russia WWF (NGO) Foundation «Phoenix» of Director Federation. Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province. Primorsky of Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. Forestry.Forestry Chuguevsky of Director FEBRAS Research, Economic of Institute Hunting Animals of Control and Regulation Protection, for Dept. Province Khabarovsky of Head Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific the of Director RAS, of member Corresponding (NGO) Partnership «KhasanEcoTour»for Board Founders the of Chairman Reserve Nature Biosphere «Sikhote-Alinsk» of Director Society Fishing and Hunting Province Primorsky of Chairman Deputy (NGO) Development Sustainable of Institute of Director Moscow International, Wetlands East Far Russian the of Parks Nature and Reserves Nature of of Association Chairman Administration Province Primorsky of Committee Resources Nature FEBRAS Problems, Ecological and Water of Institute SITY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND SITY ASSESSMENT 161 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 NAME POSITION

Burges Dave WWF UK

Chao Dan WWF US

Dr. Chestin Igor WWF Russia

Christiansen Sarah WWF US

Clemens Alois WWF Netherlands

Dr. Danilkin Alexei Institute of Evolution Morphology of Animals, RAS

Dr. Darman Yuri WWF Russia

Darman Galina Amursky Botanical Garden, Blagoveschensk, FEBRAS

Dr. Dinerstein Eric WWF US

Dmitriev Vladimir WWF Russia

Dubinin Valentin First Vice-Governor of Primorsky Province (before 2001)

Dr. Dukarev Vladimir Institute of Biology & Soil Sciences, FEBRAS

Dr. Dumikyan Albert Director of «Bureinsky» Nature Reserve

Dunishenko Yuri Far Eastern Branch of Russian Scientific and Research Institute of Hunting and Fur Animals Breeding

Dunkan Pollard WWF International

Evers Michael WWF Germany

Fedotov Vyacheslav Head of Primorsky Province Aviation Base for Forest Protection

Fomenko Pavel WWF Russia

Fomenko Yulia WWF Russia

Dr. Ganzei Sergey Deputy Director of the Pacific Institute of Geography, FEBRAS

Dr. Gaponov Victor Natural Resources Committee of Primorsky Province Administration (before 2001)

Dr. Glazovsky Nikita Corresponding Member of RAS, Deputy Director of Institute of Geography, RAS

Dr. Glushenko Yuri Ussuriisky Pedagogical Institute Goloveshko Tatyana Deputy Director of «Komsomolsk» Nature Reserve

Goncharuk Vladimir Head of External and Regional Affairs Dept. of Primorsky Province Administration

Dr. Gorchakov Victor Administration of Primorsky Province, Dept. of Foreign Affairs

162 Dr. Krever Vladimir Dr.Krever Olga Krever Victor Kovalev Aleksander Dr.Kovalev Anatoly Koval Andrey Kotlyar Alexey Dr.Korotky Victor Dr.Korkishko Nikolai Kolobaev Sybill Dr.Klezendorf Andrey Dr.Kiselev Nikolai Kazakov Vladimir Dr.Karakin Vladimir Dr.Kagansky Olga Kabalik Hartmut Jungius Michael Johns Gennady Illarionov Sergey Ignatenko Michael Hotte ValeryDr.Guryev Peter Dr.Gorovoi VasilyGorobeiko David Gordon NAME POSITION WWF Russia WWF Moscow Representative, NIS IUCN Province Primorsky District Administration Chuguevsky of Head Deputy First Forestry for Institute Research Scientific Eastern Far the of Director 2001) (before Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province. of Amurskaya Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. of Head FEBRAS Reserve, Nature «Ussuriisky» of Director Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific FEBRAS Reserve, Nature Pad» «Kedrovaya of Director Reserve Nature «Norsky» of Director Deputy US WWF Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific office Eastern Far (WCS), Society Conservation Wildlife RFE WWF Moscow Expert, Russia WWF International WWF Branch Eastern Far (PERC), Center Resources and Environment Pacific of Representative Counselor Delegates, People's of Council Province Amurskaya Reserve Nature Khingansky of Director Deputy Foundation TIGRIS Province Khabarovsky of Administration Chemistry,FEBRAS Bioorganic of Institute Pacific RAS, of Academician Province Evreiskaya of NGOs Environmental of League The USA (PERC), Center Research Environment Director,Pacific Project 63 16 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 NAME POSITION

Dr. Krukov Victor First Deputy Minister of Natural Resources of Khabarovsky Province Government

Kuchenko Konstantin Deputy Chief of Dept. Natural Resources and Environment Protection of Primorsky Province, Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation

Dr. Kulikov Aleksander Director of Khabarovsky Wildlife Foundation (NGO)

Lankin Alexey Pacific Institute of Geography, FEBRAS

Laptev Aleksander Director of «Lazovsky» Nature Reserve

Dr. Lebedev Andrey Pacific Institute of Geography, FEBRAS

Dr. Levintal Aleksander First Deputy Governor of Khabarovsky Province, Minister of Economic Development and External Affairs of Khabarovsky Province Government

Likhacheva Olga Director of ISAR RFE (before 2002)

Litvinov Boris Brigade Leader of Specialized Inspection «Tiger», Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation

Lushey Andrey Head of Department of Natural Resources for Far Eastern Federal District (before 2001)

Lyapustin Sergey Head of Customs Operations Department, Primorsky Province

Dr. Maluytin Andrey Director of The Far Eastern State Marine Reserve, FEBRAS

Man Johanna WWF US

Dr. Martynenko Andrey Far Eastern State University

Dr. Maslova Irina Deputy Director of «Khankaisky» Nature Reserve

Dr. Minakir Pavel Corresponding member of RAS, Director of Institute of Economic Research, FEBRAS

Dr. Miquelle Dale Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Far Eastern office

Dr. Moraleva Natalia «Dersu Uzala» Foundation, Moscow

Murzin Andrey Information and Analysis Center «TIGIS», Vladivostok

Naumkin Sergey Chief Engineer of «Terneyles» timber company

Nedorezov Yuri Head of Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment Protection of Evreiskaya Autonomous Province, Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation

Dr. Nesterenko Vladimir Institute of Biology and Soil Sciences, FEBRAS

164 Shapoval Innokenty Shapoval ValeryDr.Shafranovsky Nadezhda Seluk Vitaly Dr.Seledets Aleksander Savvin Vladimir Dr.Sapaev Tamara sDr.Rusina Tamara Dr.Rubtsova Alexey Roslyakov Aleksander Rosenberg Dr. YuriDr.Puzachenko Andrey Dr.Ptichnikov Natalia Proskurina Natalia Probatova Boris Preobrazhensky Dr. Nikolai Dr.Poyarkov Vladimir Pominov Sergey Dr.Podolsky Dmitry Dr.Pikunov Mikhail Parilov Dr.Panichev Gennady Nosovtsev YuriNesmachny Steven Nelson NAME Aleksander Russian Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province, Amurskaya of Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. 2001) (before Province Administration Primorsky of Committee Resources Nature of Chairman Deputy Province Primorsky North, the of Peoples Indigenous of of Association Chairman Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific 2002) (before Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province, Primorsky of Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. of Head FEBRAS Problems, Ecological and Water of Institute Russia WWF Problems, Regional of Analysis Complex of Institute FEBRAS Problems, Ecological and Water of Institute FEBRAS Sciences, Soil and Biology of Institute University State Moscow Russia WWF 2001) (before RFE ISAR of Director Executive FEBRAS Sciences, Soil and Biological of Institute Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific Ornithology of University,Chamber State Moscow Khabarovsk Staff, and Managers Branch Forestry for Center Improvement Qualification of Director RAS Problems, Water of Institute Geography,FEBRAS of Institute Pacific Reserve Nature «Khingansky» (NGO) Fund Ecological «Sikhote-Alin» of Director Deputy Province Administration of Amurskaya Industry Mining and Resources Natural on Committee of Head 2001) (before Province Primorsky district, Khasansky of Administration 2002) (before RFE WWF POSITION FEBRAS 165 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 NAME POSITION

Dr. Sheingauz Aleksander Institute of Economic Research, FEBRAS

Dr. Shibaev Yuri Institute of Biology and Soil Sciences, FEBRAS

Dr. Shlotgauer Svetlana Institute of Water and Ecological Problems, FEBRAS

Dr. Shwartz Eugene WWF Russia

Simonov Eugene WWF Russia

Skachkov Victor Deputy Chairman of the State Committee for Ecology and Environmental Protection of Khabarovsky Province (before 2000)

Dr. Skirina Irina Pacific Institute of Geography, FEBRAS

Solkin Vasily Chairman of Nature Conservation Center «Zov Taigi» (NGO)

Solodun Vitaly Chief Forestry Officer of State Forest Service of Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment Protection of Primorsky Province, Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation

Stappel Allard WWF Netherlands

Starostina Elena WWF Russia

Dr. Starchenko Valentina Amursky Botanical Garden, Blagoveschensk, FEBRAS

Stepanitsky Vsevolod Head of Dept of NPA, Ministry of Natural Resources

Stomatuk Eugene Chairman of Natural Resources Committee of Primorsky Province Administration

Strand Holly WWF US

Dr. Streltsov Aleksander Blagoveschensky Pedagogical University

Dr. Sukhomirov Grigory Institute of Economic Research, FEBRAS

Sulandziga Pavel Vice President of Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East

Suslov Igor Head of Primorsky Province Dept. for Protection, Regulation and Control of Hunting Animals

Ticker David WWF UK

Titova Svetlana Director of Amur Socio-Ecological Union

Tsoi Boris Deputy Head of Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment Protection of Primorsky Province, Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation

Dr. Ufyrkina Olga Institute of Biological and Soil Sciences, FEBRAS Vaisman Alexey 16 6 Zubtsov Sergey Zubtsov YuriDr.Zonov YuriDr.Zhuravlev Andrey Zakharenkov YurchenkoAleksander Dr.YermoshinVictor YermolinAleksander Dr.YefremovDmitri YefitsenkoValeria Sergey Yakimov WurzerAndy Laura Williams VoropaevaAlbina Dr.VoronovBoris VorobievaTatiana VolkovaGalina David Dr.Vishnevskiy Ludmila Dr.Vikhrova NAME Resources of Russian Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry «Tiger», Inspection Specialized of Head Environment the of University,Institute State Eastern Far FEBRAS Sciences, Soil & Biology of Institute the of Director RAS, of Academician Khabarovsk Products, Forest Non-Timber of East Association Far Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry «Tiger», Inspection Specialized of Leader Brigade Vladivostok «TIGIS», Center and Analysis Information of Coordinator Khabarovsk «Krechet», Societies Fishing and Hunting of Organization Public Inter-Regional 2001) (before Forestry for Institute Research Scientific Eastern Far the of Director Branch Eastern Far (ISC), Communities Sustainable of Institute Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province, Autonomous Evreiskaya of Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. 2002), (before Service Environmental of Head International WWF Russia Consultant, Environmental Federation Russian of Resources Natural of Ministry Province, of Amurskaya Protection Environment and Resources Natural of Dept. of Head Deputy FEBRAS Problems, Ecological and Water of Institute the of Director Geography Physical of University,Department State Eastern Far East Association Far Siberian North of Peoples Indigenous of President Vice FEBRAS Research, Economic of Institute Moscow USAID Russia TRAFFIC/WWF POSITION 167 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 ATTACHMENT 3. PROTECTED AREAS IN THE RFE ECOREGION COMPLEX (As of January 1, 2002)

TYPE OF PROTECTED YEAR OF AREA MAP NAME AREA CREATION x 1000ha REF. Khabarovsky Province (4,938 ha) Bolonsky 1997 103.6 3.6 Zapovedniks Bolshekhekhtsirsky 1963 45.6 3.1 (Strictly Protected Nature Botchinsky 1994 267.4 3.4 Reserves) Bureinsky 1987 358.4 3.3 Dzhugdzhursky 1990 860 3.5 Komsomolsky 1963 64.4 3.2 National Parks Anuysky 2001 429.6 3.27 Badzhalsky 1973 275 3.11 Federal Wildlife Oldzhikansky 1988 159.7 3.9 Refuges (zakazniks) Tumninsky 1967 143.1 3.8 Udyl 1988 100.4 3.10 Khekhtsirsky 1959 56 3.7 Birsky 1967 53.8 3.12 Bobrovy 1969 89 3.13 Vana 1984 105 3.17 Daldza 2000 76.8 3.25 Regional Refuges Dublikansky 1984 131.5 3.18 (zakazniks) Kava 1987 566 3.19 Mapau 2000 50.7 3.23 Mataisky 1999 114.4 3.22 Ozerny 1983 37.5 3.15 Priozerny 1996 29.4 3.20 Ulya 1983 240 3.16 Kharpinsky 1979 326.7 3.14 Chukensky 1997 219.7 3.21 Manominsky 2001 34.3 3.26 Evreiskaya Province (391 ha) Zapovedniks Bastak 1997 91.8 2.1 Dichun 1998 49.4 2.6 Zhuravliny 1988 (1992) 42 2.5 Regional Refuges Zabelovsky 1999 34.8 2.7 Uldury 1963 (1992) 28 2.2 Churki 1963 (1992) 85 2.3 Shukhi-Poktoy 1963 (1992) 60 2.4 Amurskaya Province (2,434.8 ha) Zeysky 1963 99.4 99.4 Zapovedniks Norsky 1998 (1984) 211.2 211.2 Khingansky 1963 97.2 97.2 Orlovsky 1998 (1959) 121.5 121.5 Federal Wildlife Refuges Khingano-Arkharinsky 1958 48.8 48.8 Amursky 1967 16.5 16.5 Andreevsky 2000 60 60 Bekeldeul 1996 104.7 104.7 Berezovsky 1995 11.3 11.3 Birminsky 1999 101.5 101.5 Regional Refuges Blagoveshchensky 1975 48 48 Verkhne-Depsky 1976 156.8 156.8 Verkhne-Zavitinsky 1998 36.1 36.1 Voskresenovsky 1968 16.8 16.8 Ganukan 1985 64 64 Gerbikansky 1995 87.6 87.6 Zhelundinsky 1967 67.2 67.2 168 TYPE OF PROTECTED YEAR OF AREA MAP NAME AREA CREATION x 1000ha REF. Zavitinsky 1963 35.2 1.7 Regional Refuges Iversky 1963 50 1.8 (Amurskaya Province), Irkun 1999 7.2 1.31 con't. Lopchinsky 1976 142.4 1.22 Magdagachinsky 1963 (2001) 112.5 1.9 Muravevsky 1967 34 1.10 Simonovsky 1963 77.8 1.11 Tashinsky 1967 90.8 1.16 Tolbuzinsky 1959 80.1 1.6 Ulminsky 1981 162 1.23 Urkansky 1967 141 1.17 Urushinsky 1995 (1963) 36.8 1.12 Ust-Tygdynsky 1963 (2001) 101.4 1.13 Kharkovsky 1995 15 1.26 Primorsky Province (2,097.2 ha)

Khankaisky 1990 45 4.6 ACTION PLAN. PARTCONSERVATION 1 Ussurisky 1934 40.4 4.2 Sikhote-Alinsky 1935 401.4 4.4 Zapovedniks Dalnevostochny 1978 64.5 4.5 Morskoy Lazovsky 1935 121 4.3 Kedrovaya pad 1916 17.9 4.1 Udegeiskaya 2000 102 4.20 National Parks Legenda Zov Tigra 2000 85.1 4.21 Federal Wildlife Refuges Barsovy 1979 106.9 4.7 Berezovy 1996 60 4.16 Borisovskoye Plateau 1996 63.4 4.17 Chernye Skaly 1984 12.4 4.13 Goraly 1976 4.8 4.11 Losiny 1986 26 4.14 Regional Refuges Poltavsky 1963 119 4.9 Taezhny 1978 29 4.12 Tikhy 1957 12.6 4.8 Vasilkovsky 1973 34 4.10 Verkhnebikinsky 1998 740.5 4.18 Zaliv Vostok 1989 1.8 4.15 Nature Parks Khasansky 1998 9.5 4.19

169 ATTACHMENT 4. SUMMARY OF ONGOING AND COMPLETED PROJECTS RELATED TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE RUSSIAN FAR EAST

DONOR AND PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CONTACT EXECUTING PROJECT PROJECT PERIOD DESCRIPTION STATUS PERSON ORGANIZATION TITLE BUDGET

ISAR-RFE Support of Hewlitt Fund 2001- Support and develop- Ongoing Valeria Efitsenko public ecologi- $502,500 2003 ment of democratic [email protected] cal movements ecological movements in the RFE in the RFE

Tomorrow US Agency May Support of the public Completed Begins Today for 1998- sector in the RFE: International July development of social Olga Likhacheva Development 2002 services; environment [email protected] (USAID) and health; women's $313,211 movement; youth movements; and human rights

Reap What USAID 1994- Support and develop- Completed Olga Likhacheva You Sow $252,303 1998 ment of public eco- [email protected] logical movements in the RFE

Administration Forest fire Global 2002- Increase the effective- Planned of Khabarovsky management Ecological 2005 ness of forest fire Province in biologically- Fund (GEF) management on vul- valuable $5 million nerable and economi- forests of the cally inaccessible Amur-Sikhote- forests in the Amur- Alin Ecoregion Sikhote-Alin Ecoregion

Khabarovsk A network of GEF 2001- Create an integrated Ongoing Alexander Kulikov Wildlife nature $5.75 million 2005 system for conserva- ecoinform@ecoin- Foundation reserves for tion of forest ecosys- fo.khv.ru conserving tems in areas of high mountain for- concentration of biodi- est ecosys- versity in tems of the Khabarovsky Province Sikhote-Alin in Khabarovsky Province

170 DONOR AND PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CONTACT EXECUTING PROJECT PROJECT PERIOD DESCRIPTION STATUS PERSON ORGANIZATION TITLE BUDGET

Institute for ROLL USAID 1997- Dissemination of suc- Completed Valeria Efitsenko Sustainable (Replication of $771,638 2000 cessful experiences of [email protected] Communities Lessons Russian organizations (ISC) Learned) in ecology to new Grants areas. Twenty-three Program projects were implemented in the following fields: sustainable nature use (11 projects); legal and legislative initiatives in nature conservation

(2); ecological educa- ACTION PLAN. PARTCONSERVATION 1 tion (6), ecotourism (1); expanding the role of NGOs in ecological decision-making (3)

ISC ROLL-2002 USAID 2000- Dissemination of suc- Ongoing Olga Petrova Grants 2005 cessful experiences of [email protected] Program Russian organizations com.ru in ecology in new areas

Winrock Forest USAID 2000- Decrease the threat Ongoing Dmitry Piven International, resources and $20 million 2005 of global climate [email protected] Chemonics technologies change and conserve International, (FOREST) biodiversity through The Heron sustainable forestry Group

Phoenix Fight illegal Global 1998- Decrease poaching Completed Sergey Bereznyuk Foundation poaching Survival 2001 in the RFE [email protected] Network/Wild morye.ru Aid, Tigris Foundation, International Fund for Animal Welfare, 21st Century Tiger, Japan Wildlife Conservation Society, Save the Tiger Fund, Rhino and Tiger Conservation Society $527,000 171 ATTACHMENT 4 (con't).

DONOR AND PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CONTACT EXECUTING PROJECT PROJECT PERIOD DESCRIPTION STATUS PERSON ORGANIZATION TITLE BUDGET

Bear GSN/WildAid, 1998- Rehabilitating and Completed Sergey Bereznyuk Rehabilitation International 2001 reintroduction of phoenix@mail. Center Bear orphaned bear cubs primorye.ru Foundation, to nature $42,000

Fauna Fire Barbara 1998- Fighting forest fires Completed Sergey Bereznyuk Patrol Delano 2001 in Khasansky District; phoenix@mail. Foundation, public assistance to primorye.ru Tigris state fire inspections Foundation, GSN/WildAid, $33,000

International 21st Century 1998- Conduct international Completed Sergey Bereznyuk conferences Tiger, 2001 conferences on biodi- phoenix@mail. TRAFFIC, versity conservation primorye.ru New-York Zoological Society,WCS, $87,000

Tiger Conflict Save the 1998- Resolving conflicts Completed Sergey Bereznyuk Tiger Fund 2001 between people and phoenix@mail. $60,000 predators primorye.ru

ISAR-Moscow Seeds of USAID 1993- Strengthen and Completed Mila Bogdan Democracy $35,000 1997 expand ecological isarmos@glasnet. movements in CIS ru countries and acti- vate their role in civil society

CH2M Hill Environmental USAID 1994- Promoting sustainable Completed Vladimir Karakin Policy and $7 million 1999 resource use in the [email protected] Technology Sikhote-Alin. Project (EPT) Perfecting an institu- tional system of natural resource management in Khabarovsky and Primorsky provinces; support of biodiversity and nature conservation initiatives

172 ORGANIZATION EXECUTING Society (WCS) Society Conservation Wildlife Province Primorsky in tiger the conserving for mechanism a as resources game of ment manage- tive F prey its and tiger the Amur - dynamics prey predator- ding undestan- boar: wild Ussuri and deer red Manchurian the of dynamics population and habitat S Sikhote-Alin of bears brown and Himalayan E Province Primorsky in Inspection «Tiger» the with work and training tigers: and humans ween C Zapovednik Sikhote-Alin the in tiger Amur the of Ecology A acilitate effec- acilitate election of election of cology onflicts bet- onflicts tiger: mur PROJECT TITLE Special $95,000 L provided not Information provided not I provided not Information Service Wildlife and Fish US Fund, Rescue Society,Tiger Geographic N nformation OO AND DONOR CAOF ational PROJECT BUDGET PROJECT present 1999- present 1997- present 1996- present 2000- present 1992- PERIOD lar) in game areas game in lar) particu- tiger,in (the species threatened protect and lates, ungu- of populations increase resources, reneswable of use monitor to reserves game of management F changes population long-term assess to dynamics predator-prey and dynamics, population of ding understan- accurate more a obtaining for research Conduct tigers and bears between interrelations and range, of size surveys, habitat sizing radiotelemetry,empha- using bears, R humans and tigers between conflicts resolving for methods new test and Develop plan conservation species a implementing and developing for monitoring radio of results on based tiger the Amur of vation conser- and ecology C acilitate effective acilitate esearch ecology of ecology esearch on information ollect DESCRIPTION PROJECT STATUS PROJECT O O Ongoing O Ongoing ngoing ngoing ngoing marine.su tatperov@online. Miquelle Dale marine.su tatperov@online. Miquelle Dale marine.su tatperov@online. Miquelle Dale marine.su tatperov@online. Miquelle Dale marine.su tatperov@online. Miquelle Dale PERSON CONTACT 173 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 ATTACHMENT 4 (con't).

DONOR AND PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CONTACT EXECUTING PROJECT PROJECT PERIOD DESCRIPTION STATUS PERSON ORGANIZATION TITLE BUDGET

Veterinary Information 1992- Provide veterinary Ongoing Dale Miquelle assistance for not provided present assistance to wild tatperov@online. Russia animals and facilitate marine.su tiger conservation by creating and training rapid-reaction groups to conserve tigers and resolve conflicts between tigers and people. Coordinate processing, analysis, and distribution of scientific data in veterinary medicine

WCS Implementing Tiger Rescue 1998- Create a system of Completed Dale Miquelle the protected Fund 2001 protected areas con- tatperov@online. areas plan in $48 000 nected by ecological marine.su Khabarovsky corridors, which would Province ensure protection of the tiger and create conditions for biodiversity conservation in southern Khabarovsky Province

Monitoring pro- Tiger Rescue 1997- Monitoring of the Ongoing Dale Miquelle gram for the Fund about present tiger, its prey, and tatperov@online. Amur tiger $45,000 habitat to create a marine.su basis for assessing the state of the tiger population and population dynamics

Protecting the Hornocker 2000 Work out an action Completed Dale Miquelle Far Eastern Wildlife plan to reduce the tatperov@online. leopard: con- Institute, risk of the Far marine.su ducting an WWF, Tigris Eastern leopard international Foundation, becoming extinct in workshop $31,850 the wild

Mapping tiger 21st Century 2001- Develop detailed Ongoing Dale Miquelle habitat Tiger, 2002 maps of Amur tiger tatperov@online. Tiger-Rhino habitat, which will marine.su Conservation serve as a basis for Fund identifying, zoning, $56,200 and better management of tiger habitat

174 ORGANIZATION EXECUTING WWF (WWF) Nature for Fund Wide World Province Khabarovsky of ment Agency Manage- Game the and vednik Zapo- Alinsky Sikhote- to port sup- technical P East Far Russian the in diversity C Program Education Ecological - habitat its and tiger the Amur C ties activi- poaching anti- habitat: its and tiger Amur C gram pro- tiger Amur S rovision of rovision the of upport onserving bio- onserving of onservation the onserving PROJECT TITLE $74,100 US WWF U $300,000 US WWF USAID, $350,000 Germany W US$350,000 WWF- $270,000 WWF-UK million $2.1 Germany WWF- $130,000 bank M OO AND DONOR SAID, ezhkom WF- PROJECT BUDGET PROJECT 1997 1995- 1997 1995- 2001 1995- 2001 1994- 1995 1994- PERIOD Khabarovsky Province Khabarovsky in brigade anti-poaching the and Zapovednik Alinsky S crisis economic of time a in activities their support to Ecoregion RFE the in areas protected to port sup- methodological and technical Provide learning higher of institutions at specialists ing train- for and series), lecture tiger» («Amur schools for materials and programs al education- developing by system cational edu- state the in and media mass the in P zapovedniks Lazovsky and Sikhote-Alinsky in and Province, Khabarovsky in Mana-gement Agency Hunting the Province, Primorsky in Committee Environmental State the in with- brigades poaching anti- equipping and creating included ties activi- Main population. tiger stable a maintain and habitat Conserve tiger the Amur for habitats key zapovedniks, Lazovsky and Alinsky Sikhote- in brigades E upport Sikhote- upport conservation romote anti-poaching quip DESCRIPTION PROJECT C Completed C Completed C STATUS PROJECT ompleted ompleted ompleted ru vodintsov@wwfrfe. Odintsov Vyacheslav ru vodintsov@wwfrfe. Odintsov Vyacheslav ru okabalik@wwfrfe. Kabalik Olga ru pfomenko@wwfrfe. Fomenko Pavel ru pfomenko@wwfrfe. Fomenko Pavel PERSON CONTACT 175 CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN. PART 1 ATTACHMENT 4 (con't).

DONOR AND PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT CONTACT EXECUTING PROJECT PROJECT PERIOD DESCRIPTION STATUS PERSON ORGANIZATION TITLE BUDGET

Sustainable use WWF 1997- Fight illegal logging Ongoing Tamara Rusina of forests and Germany 2002 through organizing [email protected] protected areas $290,000 mobile brigades, devel- in Amurskaya op regional standards Province for voluntary forest certification under FSC, and create a center for forest certification in Khabarovsk; perfect forestry practices through demonstrating new methods of forestry planning and management, and developing a legislative basis for sustainable forestry

Creation of WWF 1995- Bolonsky Zapovednik Completed Vyacheslav Bolonsky Denmark 1997 (104,000 ha) was cre- Odintsov Zapovednik $27,000 ated in Khabarovsky vodintsov@wwfrfe. Province ru

Creating WWF 1995- One project goal Completed Vyacheslav protected areas Germany 1997 organizing a federal Odintsov on Novaya $38,800 wildlife refuge on the vodintsov@wwfrfe. Zemlya and the Shantar Archipe-lago ru Shantar Islands to conserve unique island ecosystems (nesting colonies of many species of rare birds)

Ensuring long- WWF 1998- Ensuring long-term bio- Completed Vyacheslav term conserva- Netherlands 2001 diversity conservation Odintsov tion of biodiver- $2 million in the RFE Ecoregion vodintsov@wwfrfe. sity in the Complex and prepara- ru Russian Far tion of the basis for East Ecoregion transition to sustainable nature use, including assessment of species and landscape diversity, and analysis of current and potential threats for various scenarios of socio-economic development in the RFE Ecoregion, and others

176