NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION: of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION: AREAS PROTECTED NATIONAL Vladimir Krever, Mikhail Stishov, Irina Onufrenya

Home , Arctic realm, Central Siberian Plateau, East Siberian taiga, Kazakh forest steppe, National parks of Russia, Sayan mountains

WWF WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation WWF-Russia organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 19, bld.3 Nikoloyamskaya St., 100 countries. 109240 Moscow WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a Russia future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: Tel.: +7 495 727 09 39 • conserving the world’s biological diversity Fax: +7 495 727 09 38 • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable [email protected] • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. http://www.wwf.ru

The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy - the leading conservation organization working around the world to The Nature Conservancy protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Worldwide Office The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 NNATIONALATIONAL PPROTECTEDROTECTED AREASAREAS communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters Arlington, VA 22203-1606 they need to survive. Tel: +1 (703) 841-5300 http://www.nature.org OOFF TTHEHE RUSSIANRUSSIAN FFEDERATION:EDERATION: MAVA The mission of the Foundation is to contribute to maintaining terrestrial and aquatic Fondation pour la ecosystems, both qualitatively and quantitatively, with a view to preserving their biodiversity. Protection de la Nature GGAPAP ANALYSISANALYSIS To this end, it promotes scientific research, training and integrated management practices Le Petit Essert whose effectiveness has been proved, while securing a future for local populations in cultural, 1147 Montricher, Suisse economic and ecological terms. Tel : +41 (0)21 864 46 20-22 AANDND PERSPECTIVEPERSPECTIVE FFRAMEWORKRAMEWORK Fax : +41 (0)21 864 42 30 www.mava-foundation.org GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK AND PERSPECTIVE ANALYSIS GAP

Vladimir Krever, Mikhail Stishov, Irina Onufrenya NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: AREAS PROTECTED NATIONAL Vladimir Krever, Mikhail Stishov, Irina Onufrenya

NNATIONALATIONAL PROTECTEDPROTECTED AAREASREAS OOFF TTHEHE RRUSSIANUSSIAN FFEDERATION:EDERATION: GGAPAP AANALYSISNALYSIS AANDND PPERSPECTIVEERSPECTIVE FFRAMEWORKRAMEWORK

Moscow 2009 Executive Summary

Russia currently has more than 12,000 national, regional, and local protected areas, covering 200 million hectares or 11.9 percent of the country. Federally managed protected areas, including 101 strict nature reserves (zapovedniks), 40 national parks, and 69 federal sanctuaries (zakazniks), cover 54 million hectares or about 3 percent of the country’s territory. Russia has eight UNESCO World Natural Heritage sites. Thirty–four protected areas are biosphere reserves, while 24 protected areas are Ramsar sites. Criteria for establishing categories of protected areas in Russia in the planning stages are rather vague, and in this report we recommend a framework for determining appropriate protected area categories and management levels. We analyzed the PA network to determine whether formal categories reflect actual protected regimes and found that in 79 percent of the cases, categories assigned to individual protected areas were compatible with the official PA status. In the scope of this analysis we also assessed the conservation value of IUCN Category I PAs (zapovedniks) according to five categories based on size, scale of disturbance of natural habitats and adjacent lands, integrity of natural communities, and presence of rare, endangered, and unique natural features. A total of 28 zapovedniks were found to be entirely pristine with the highest level of integrity for all criteria considered, while the majority of zapovedniks received high scores for overall conservation value. We also found that 91 of 101 zapovedniks fully correspond to IUCN categories Ia and Ib. Twenty-one of the 35 national parks operating in Russia in 2007 would be more appropriately listed under category I than II. Using GIS data, we analyzed the geographical representativeness of the existing PA network relative to the total land area of the country. National PAs are represented in all physical-geographical provinces of Russia, and in certain areas like the Caucasus, the Ural Mountains, and Baikal, zapovedniks make up two-thirds to three-quarters of the protected area network. We also assessed representativeness of the existing PA network in WWF Ecoregions and found that of the 49 WWF Ecoregions in Russia, PAs are absent in only six. Overall, the northern, eastern, and southern Ecoregions of Russia have the most comprehensive PA networks. For Russia as a whole, we considered representation of climate-hypsometric groups, specific groups of landscapes, and vegetation cover. Maximum coverage by the PA network is found in several boreal landscapes, in subboreal semi- humid coniferous landscapes with temperate continental climate, and in several types of subtropical landscapes. The representativeness of the existing PA network was also assessed according to larger landscape typology categories, such as zonal series and altitudinal classes. Within the zonal series, Arctic, boreal barren, sub-boreal alpine, and sub- boreal humid landscapes are the most thoroughly represented in PA network. Subtropical landscapes are the least represented in the PA network. Mountain landscapes are more fully represented than lowlands and plains. Only three subtypes of vegetation cover – temperate latitude deserts, bog forests and halophyte meadows, and riparian forests in floodplains are not represented. The most extreme and biologically poor ecosystems are the best represented within the PA system, including arctic deserts, arctic tundra, highlands, glaciers, salt flats, and northern deserts. For forest vegetation types, PA coverage is more or less sufficient, with the exception of deciduous forest types which have relatively low coverage. Steppe areas are the least represented within the existing PA network. We assessed the overall physical-geographical representativeness of the PA network and found that the Amur- Primorye, the Altai-Sayan, Dauria and Fennoscandia regions have large coverage of PA representativeness zones (more than 70 percent of the total area). The lowest share of representativeness zones (15 to 20 percent) is found in the Yakutsk depression, Central Siberia, and Northeast Asia. We also analyzed the current representativeness of the zapovednik system for diversity of climate types, consid- ering data on average temperatures, amplitudes of monthly temperature fluctuations, and precipitation. As a result of this analysis, we identified 147 areas not covered by the existing zapovednik system and requiring integration into the perspective PA network in order to ensure representation of the majority of different combinations of landscape conditions and climate dynamics in Russia. Due to the absence of adequate data on terrestrial flora and fauna diversity, we assessed representativeness and coverage of the PA network only for vascular plants, lichens, and vertebrate animals. For other groups, we had to limit the analysis to species included in the Red Data Book of Russia. On average, 87 percent of vertebrate species in Russia are represented in the existing PA network, while only 43 percent of all forms included in the Russian Red Data Book are covered. Almost 95 percent of the mammal species occurring regularly in Russia are represented in existing PAs, while only 51 percent of all rare and threatened mammal species (excluding whales and dolphins) are granted adequate protection in PAs. About 86 percent bird fauna have been recorded within PAs, but only 41 of all rare and endangered birds are sufficiently protected in the existing PA network. About 75 percent of reptiles and 93 percent of

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY amphibians are found within the existing PA network, while only 36 percent of endangered reptiles and two percent of endangered amphibians are ensured protection in PAs. The representativeness of rare and endangered insect species within the PA network may be as high as 71 percent. From 65 to 68 percent of the total wild flora of Russia are found in zapovedniks, however, more than 55 percent of the species of vascular plants are represented in three or fewer zapovedniks. Two-thirds of all wild ancestors of cultivated plants have been noted in zapovedniks. Approximately 70 percent of the country’s lichen diversity is found in zapovedniks or national parks, although almost half of the lichens occur within three or fewer PAs. More than 90 percent of the lichens listed in the Russian Red Data Book are found in zapovedniks or national parks. In addition to the terrestrial gap analysis, we analyzed the representativeness of marine protected areas. Less than a fifth of the landscape diversity of Arctic seas is represented within the existing PA system, while the Polar Arctic and the Laptev-East Siberian basins lack marine PAs altogether. A similar level of representativeness was found for Far Eastern seas. The seas of the Atlantic Ocean basin include the Bay of Finland in the Baltic Sea, and parts of the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. There are no marine PAs the Baltic Sea and in Black Sea coastal waters, and only one coastal PA in the Sea of Azov. Marine PAs were also assessed according to marine WWF Ecoregions: PAs exist in 11 of the 15 marine WWF Ecoregions, comprising an overall representativeness of about 37 percent. We also analyzed the existing PA network for inclusion of Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites), Important Bird Areas, High Conservation Value Forests, areas with rare plant communities of Siberia, and areas where wild ancestors to cultivated plants are abundant. Thirteen Ramsar sites are not covered by the PA network. Among the several hundred Important Bird Areas currently not protected, the Russian Bird Conservation Union recommends 199 areas for designation as federal PAs. Among the High Conservation Value Forests requiring federal-level protection (276 million hectares of virgin forests), fewer than five percent are currently protected in federal PAs. Based on the results of the gap analysis, we elaborated proposals for expanding the national PA network in the Russian Federation. Expansion of the protected areas network is meant to improve its representativeness in terms of biodiversity values, to ensure adequate conservation of rare and endangered species and other natural features, and to allow development of recreational opportunities. We describe criteria and key principles used in formulating the perspective framework, including representation of terrestrial and marine geographical provinces and WWF Ecoregions and species of flora and fauna, among others. We identified areas for federal PA designation according to a comprehensive three stage process involving: 1) detailed gap analysis according to three main criteria (overall species representativeness, conservation of certain species, and high conservation value sites); 2) fine-tuning the initial list of perspective PAs and inviting opinions of regional experts; and 3) elaborating the final list of perspective PAs and setting priorities for designation and creation (Fig. 1). The complete gap analysis resulted in identification of 566 marine and terrestrial areas requiring PA designation, including 519 terrestrial and combined terrestrial and marine areas covering 122 million hectares, and 47 marine areas covering 61 million hectares. These include: 141 zapovedniks; 76 national parks; 236 federal- level sanctuaries (zakazniks); 79 natural monuments; and 43 areas for which the optimal category or status has not yet been determined. Actions required for expanding the network range from designating new protected areas (including changing the status and/or optimizing the boundaries of regional PAs) to adjusting existing boundaries of federal PAs and designating new clusters for existing PAs. Designation of 216 federal PAs and 26 terrestrial or marine clusters of existing PAs requires modifying the status or size of existing PAs. In all other cases, new PAs (267) or terrestrial or marine clusters (57) need to be created on areas that are currently not protected. We ranked PAs by their nature conservation value to help prioritize their creation over several stages. Sites that will provide the greatest contribution to improving representativeness of landscapes and habitats and the integrity of the entire PA network should be created first. Three main criteria were used to divided the proposed PAs into three categories according to their nature conservation value, reflecting the significance of a potential PA for (a) ensuring geographical representativeness of the entire PA network, (b) ensuring conservation of all natural communities and ecosystems of high conservation value, and (c) ensuring adequate representativeness of species diversity and conservation of rare and endangered species. Twenty-eight terrestrial PAs and 18 marine PAs were given the highest nature conservation value (Level 1), making these the first priority for creation in the perspective framework. Additionally, we estimated the potential representativeness and integrity of PAs gained under various scenarios of implementation including: only expanding existing PAs; expanding existing and designating first priority new

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 3 PAs; creating first and second priority new PAs; and full-scale implementation of all proposals. Geographical representativeness of the current PA network could be slightly increased through enlarging existing PAs and designating new clusters of existing PAs. Designation of all top priority PAs (Level 1) would ensure a more substantial effect. Significant improvement in representativeness in most cases can be achieved only through designation of new PAs listed in Levels 1 and 2. Complete representativeness can be guaranteed only through implementation of the entire perspective framework. The national PA network would then represent all considered terrestrial subunits and about 90 percent of coastal marine provinces and WWF Ecoregions. In terms of species richness, enlargement of already existing PAs would improve representativeness and conservation of rare and endangered plants and animals. Designation of new Level 1 PAs will provide the largest conservation effect for terrestrial vertebrates, with approximately the same effect for Red Data Book species. Designation of new PAs in both Levels 1 and 2 will ensure conservation of at least two-thirds of the animal species requiring site-based protection, but will still be less effective for plant conservation. Full-scale implementation of all proposals for new PA designation will ensure complete representativeness for conservation of vertebrate fauna and endemic plants not included in the Red Data Book. However, site-based conservation of all Red Data Book species can be guaranteed only through implementation of all the proposals, including both designation of new PAs and enlargement of existing PAs. The approach used in this analysis took into consideration both standard Russian geographical and typological units as well as internationally accepted norms, and can therefore be considered the most comprehensive analysis of the representativeness of Russia’s federal protected areas network to date. Proposals for expanding the protected areas system to ensure full representation of the country’s biodiversity are based on this in-depth analysis and state-of-the-art GIS tools and incorporate the opinions of hundreds of experts.

Fig. 1. GAP ASSESSMENT PROCESS.

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Content

Foreword ...... 7 Overview of the Russian National Protected Areas Network ...... 8

I. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 1. Assessment of PA Categories and Management Effectiveness (Management Gap Analysis)...... 10 1.1 Categories of Zapovedniks in Russia...... 12 1.2 National Protected Areas of Russia and IUCN categories ...... 15 2. Assessment of Representativeness of Terrestrial PAs (Ecological Gap Analysis)...... 17 2.1 Assessment of Geographical Representativeness of Terrestrial PAs using GIS...... 17 2.2 Assessment of Representativeness in Relation to Physical-geographical Regions ...... 17 2.3 Assessment of Representativeness according to WWF Ecoregions...... 24 2.4 Assessment of Representativeness and Coverage in relation to Landscape Typology...... 28 2.5 Assessment of Representativeness and Coverage of the PA Network according to Typological Diversity of Vegetation Cover ...... 36 2.6 Comparative representativeness of the PA Network in terms of Various Geographical Diversity Criteria ...... 42 2.7 Analysis of Integrated Physical-geographical Representativeness of the Protected Areas Nenwork. . 42 2.8 Assessment of Representativeness in relation to Climatic Conditions ...... 46 2.9 Assessment of Representativeness and Coverage of the PA Network for Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Diversity and Species Richness ...... 47 3. Assessment of Representativeness of Marine PAs...... 51 3.1 Arctic Seas ...... 51 3.2 Far Eastern Seas ...... 53 3.3 Seas of the Atlantic Ocean Basin...... 54 3.4 Marine WWF Ecoregions ...... 55 4. Assessment of PA Completeness for Areas of High Conservation Value at the International and National Levels...... 57

II. PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR EXPANDING THE NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK 1. Key Principles for Expanding the Network of National Protected Areas of the Russian Federation. . . . 64 2. Identification of Areas and Sites for New PA Designation ...... 65 3. Planning the Perspective PA Network ...... 66 3.1. Terrestrial PAs ...... 66 • Ranking Perspective terrestrial PAs according to their Conservation Value ...... 68 3.2. Marine PAs...... 70 • Ranking Perspective Marine PAs according to their Conservation Value ...... 72 3.3. General Review of the Perspective Framework for Expanding the PA Network ...... 74 4. Representativeness and Integrity of Perspective PAs ...... 75 List of Sources and References ...... 79

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 5 List of Abbreviations

BCC Biodiversity Conservation Centre CBD Convention on Biological Diversity HCVF High Conservation Value Forest IBA Important Bird Area IFL Intact Forest Landscape IPA Important Plant Area IUCN The International Union for Conservation of Nature PA Protected Area (In all cases in this report, PA refers to a national protected area unless preceded by the word “regional”)

6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Foreword

The Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA), adopted in 2004 at the 7th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biodiversity, outlined general requirements and approaches to management of protected areas for all countries ratifying the Convention. One of the main objectives of POWPA is planning and development of representative networks of protected areas at the national and regional level. Assessment of existing protected area networks was slated for completion by 2006, and proposals for expanding protected areas networks should be developed by 2009. In order to facilitate execution of these international obligations for the Russian Federation, and at the request of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources, in 2006-2008 WWF Russia carried out an assessment of the representativeness of the existing network of federal protected areas and elaborated a framework for its future development. The goal of this work was preliminary planning of the perspective federal protected areas system to guarantee an adequate level of representation of Russia’s biological and landscape diversity and conserve natural features of national and international significance, including rare and valuable species. The main stages of this work included: 1. Assessment of the correlation of formal categories of protected areas to their actual status and elaboration of proposals for optimizing management regimes. 2. Analysis of the representativeness of the existing federal protected areas network and its effectiveness for ensuring conservation of natural features of national and international significance. 3. Identification of gaps in the existing network based on the analysis. 4. Identification of sites for creating new federal protected areas to close these gaps and obtain the desired goals. 5. Elaboration of proposals on the optimal category of protection for new protected areas and prioritization of their establishment. This analysis is the first of its kind for Russia, in which a unified scientific and methodological approach was used, taking into account all available sources of information on biological diversity and protected areas of Russia. A mass of cartographic materials and data was gathered and systemized to carry out this analysis. Unfortunately, data on natural ecosystems of federal protected areas is far from adequate. Only the relatively old strict nature reserves (zapovedniks) have a more or less complete picture of fauna of terrestrial vertebrates and higher plants. Data on other taxa, as well as for aquatic ecosystems, is clearly insufficient. Data on flora and fauna in national parks are spotty and information is completely absent in the system of federal sanctuaries (zakazniks). We attempted to verify in most cases the presence of species lacking in published inventories of protected areas, however, we can speak with certainty only about a guaranteed minimum level of representation of flora and fauna in federal protected areas. Obviously, some inaccuracies in the results of the analysis are inevitable due to the scale of maps used, as well as the need to systemize tomes of data. We paid special attention to the role of the network of federal protected areas in longterm conservation of rare and valuable species, carrying out consultations with experts on individual species and taxonomic groups. One of the key questions in carrying out this analysis was the adequacy of the network of protected areas for longterm conservation of each individual species, taking into consideration the specifics of its biology and current and potential threats. It is important to note that all protected areas necessary for ensuring the two key objectives of the federal protected areas network were included in the final list of proposals for designation, these being ensuring the representative presence of natural diversity of Russia and guaranteeing protection of rare and valuable features. For a number of objective reasons (map scale, quality of available information, absence of data on potential socio-economic development of regions, etc.), we did not aim to pinpoint the precise boundaries of protected areas to an exact territory. We would like to express gratitude to more than 300 specialists who took part in this analysis, providing original data and taking part in discussion of the results. Without their input, this work would not have been possible. This project was carried out with support from WWF International, WWF Germany, WWF Netherlands, WWF US, as well as The Nature Conservancy and MAVA Foundation. A full version of the report in Russian is available on the Internet at: http://www.wwf.ru/resources/publ/ book/292/. This English version can be found at: http://www.wwf.ru/resources/publ/book/eng/293/ We will be happy to receive feedback and comments on this report at the following email address: [email protected].

Vladimir Krever Biodiversity Program Coordinator WWF Russia

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 7 Overview of the Russian National Protected Areas Network

Russia’s protected areas are organized into three management levels (federal, regional, local) and seven categories according to the Federal Law on National Protected Areas, adopted in 1995 (Table 1). The law also states that federal, regional, and local executive agencies may designate additional categories of PAs.1 Russia’s more than 12,000 national and regional PAs cover nearly 200 million hectares, comprising approximately 11,9 percent of the country.

Table 1. MANAGEMENT LEVEL AND CATEGORIES OF RUSSIAN PAS.

Management level Federal Regional Local Categories

Strict nature reserve (zapovednik) +

National park +

Nature park +

Zakaznik (sanctuary) ++

Natural monument ++

Dendrological parks and botanical gardens +++

Resorts and health spas +++

As of October 1, 2008, the national PA Network of the Russian Federation consisted of 238 federal- level protected areas covering 54,000,000 hectares and comprising 2,72% of the country’s area (Table 2).

Table 2. RUSSIA’S CURRENT NATIONAL PA NETWORK.

Area of marine IUCN Number Total area Including PA Category clusters Category of PAs (1 000 ha) marine PAs (1 000 ha)

Strict nature reserve Ia; Ib 101 33 723 13 6 472,8 (zapovednik)

National park II 40 7 743* - -

Federal-level sanctuary III; IV 69 12 540 4 9 700 (zakaznik)

Federal-level natural monument III 28 13,3 - - * including 769,000 hectares legally belonging to other land-users and still used economically

The eight natural World Heritage Sites recognized by UNESCO in Russia include 11 zapovedniks, four national parks, and three federal sanctuaries. Thirty three zapovedniks and six national parks have the status of UNESCO Biosphere Reserves. Wetlands of International Importance meeting the criteria of the Ramsar Convention have been designated in 24 PAs (12 zapovedniks, one national park, and 11 federal-level zakazniks). Three zapovedniks are integrated into trans- boundary protected areas. 1 On the federal level, the only additional category thus far designated has been for traditional land-use of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of the Russian Federation.

OVERVIEW OF THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL PROTECTED 8 AREAS NETWORK I. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 9 1. Assessment of PA Categories and Manage- ment Effectiveness (Management Gap Analysis)

The seven categories of PAs in Russia are based on the specifics of their protected regime, the purpose for which they were established, and the administrative level under which the PA is managed. However, some PAs do not fully meet the criteria of the designated category or management regime. This is largely because approaches to PA designation have evolved over the 100-year history of Russia’s PA network. Some zapovedniks were established purely to conserve certain wildlife species. While this approach was especially popular in the early and mid-20th century, today it is more relevant to the status of a zakaznik (sanctuary). In other cases, zakazniks were established where zapovedniks should have been in order to avoid the lengthy procedure required for creating a strict nature reserve. For a long time the status “national park” did not exist in Russian PA legislation, therefore recreation and tourism were included among the objectives of many zapovedniks. Even today, there is no clear procedure or criteria for determining the status or category of PAs in the planning stages. Within the scope of this Management Gap Assessment, we developed new approaches to assess and define PA categories and their protected status (administrative and management levels). We categorized existing zapovedniks according to the requirements and degree of human disturbances in natural processes. We also analyzed the PA network to determine if formal categories reflect actual protected regimes and assessed PAs according to IUCN criteria. In Table 3 we propose a list of four sets of criteria (legal, ecological and geographical, socio- economic, and cultural) that can be applied to all federal PAs.

Table 3. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL PAS. A. LEGAL • UNESCO World Natural Heritage Site 1 International status of the site • UNESCO Biosphere Reserve • Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar site) • Territorial seas or continental shelf 2 Presence of marine areas in the site • Areas included in Russia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) • Important Bird Areas Significance of the site for plant and wildlife • Important Plant Areas 3 assemblages • Globally important sites for conservation of migratory species • Species (subspecies, populations) listed in the Red Data (a) Significance of the site for migratory species • Book of the Russian Federation during foraging, breeding, rearing young, wintering, • Migratory species found in two or more administrative 4 nesting, and stopover regions of Russia or in two or more countries (b) Presence of certain plant species, subspecies, and • Species listed in the Red Data Book of the Russian populations Federation B. ECOLOGICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL • Significantly greater than the average level for the 1 Biodiversity richness appropriate natural zone and/or natural region within the physical-geographical country or province Presence of plant and animal species endemic to • Endemic restricted-range species (< 50 000 km2) and 2 Russia local-range species (< 1000 km2) • Typical ecosystems significant for viable populations of Presence of pristine and intact natural ecosystems 3 the most common species of large animals (ungulates, with full species assemblages predators, etc.) Presence of threatened communities, ecosystems, • Those of global significance 4 and landscapes (including restored and managed • Those of national significance ecosystems) Presence of rare and unique communities and • Those not found or rare on a global scale 5 ecosystems • Those not found or rare on a national scale Presence of rare or unique components of abiotic • Those not found or rare on a global scale 6 nature • Those not found or rare on a national scale

ASSESSMENT OF PA CATEGORIES AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 10 (MANAGEMENT GAP ANALYSIS) C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC Scientific and educational value of the site (for • Those of global importance (unique or not found studying and demonstrating natural processes elsewhere globally) 1 and features, including restoration of damaged • Those of national importance (unique or not found ecosystems) elsewhere in Russia) • Those of global importance (unique or not found Aesthetic value of the site because of its scenic elsewhere globally) 2 natural and/or cultural landscapes • Those of national importance (unique or not found elsewhere in Russia) Presence of natural features (springs, glaciers, forests, etc.) that significantly influence the • Those covering two or more administrative regions of 3 environmental situation and related economic Russia or two or more countries conditions D. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL

• Those of global importance 1 Presence of historic and cultural features • Those of national importance

Presence of indigenous peoples or previous • Those endangered or unique at a global scale 2 inhabitants maintaining traditional livelihoods • Those endangered or unique at a national scale

Fig. 2. Decision-making tree for defining the category and management type of Russian PAs.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 11 We suggest using the decision-making tree presented in Figure 2 as a way to apply the different criteria in defining the appropriate category, status, and management region for specific PAs. This decision- making tree allows consideration of the criteria listed above for sites of national significance, as well as the natural features of a certain area, including its value for biodiversity conservation, scientific research, education, and recreation. Application of the above model to existing national PAs (without assessment of the current management regime) has demonstrated that in 79 percent of the cases, the categories assigned to individual PAs was compatible with the existing official status of the PA. The maximum level of compatibility was found for national parks and the least compatible were zakazniks. The case of federal natural monuments was notably different – nearly half (13 of 28) clearly did not meet the criteria for protected natural areas, and thus should be excluded from the PA system and transferred to the jurisdiction of the agency responsible for managing architectural and cultural monuments. An additional 37 territories (21 percent) belonged to other categories: • 11 (of 101) zapovedniks were more suited to the National Park category; • 2 (of 39) national parks belonged to the Zapovednik category; • 18 (of 69) zakazniks belonged to the Zapovednik category and 3 should be National Parks; • 3 natural monuments (of the 15 remaining federal-level PAs) should be assigned to the Zapovednik category.

1.1 Categories of Zapovedniks in Russia Russian zapovedniks meeting the criteria of IUCN Category I vary in size, level of ecosystem disturbance, scale of integration into surrounding landscapes, and other features. As a result, they also differ in terms of conservation value and play a variety of roles in conservation of natural diversity, requiring different management approaches. In order to classify this diversity to improve and opti- mize management of the entire PA network, zapovedniks need to be assessed to determine their specific conservation functions and desired management approaches to meet specific objectives. Major criteria such as size, scale of disturbance or conversion of natural habitats, adjacent lands, integrity of natural communities, and presence of rare, endangered, and unique natural features (including populations of endangered plants and animals) should be taken into consideration. The ranking system used to evaluate PAs according to these criteria is presented in Table 4. We did not consider here indicators for species, landscapes, and other types of biodiversity, as these rarely determine management specifics for a site. At the same time, there are limitations to comparing the conservation value of zapovedniks based only on these biodiversity values when other conditions are the same. Nor did we consider here the role of certain PAs in restoration of natural ecosystems or for recreational purposes, as these factors are more characteristic of the functions and specifics of other categories of PAs.

Table 4. SUGGESTED CRITERIA AND SCORING SYSTEM FOR ASSESSING THE NATURE CONSER- VATION VALUE OF ZAPOVEDNIKS AND THE APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT REGIME. Criteria Score Size/Area Area of zapovednik is sufficient to ensure viable, self-regulating natural communities typical for a 2 natural region, particularly in providing resilience of populations of common ungulates and large predators I. Zapovednik area ensures permanent presence of large animal species, however viability and self- 1 regulation of populations cannot be guaranteed without intervention or exchange of individuals between PA and adjacent areas 0 Area is not sufficient for permanent presence of large animal species Disturbance/Conversion Area has not been subject to significant direct human impacts and contains mostly intact pristine 2 ecosystems II. Area has been affected by significant human influences and is mainly in a state of natural habitat 1 restoration 0 Area has been largely transformed and continues to be impacted by human disturbances

ASSESSMENT OF PA CATEGORIES AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 12 (MANAGEMENT GAP ANALYSIS) Adjacent lands 2 Protected area has an essentially uniform ecosystem with surrounding lands mostly intact III. Protected area is surrounded both by disturbed and slightly-disturbed landscapes, linked by 1 ecological corridors 0 Protected area is an isolated island surrounded by anthropogenic and converted landscapes Integrity of natural communities Major natural communities have all common components, including the full range of large mammals 2 (ungulates, predators) and birds (cranes, bustards, etc.) characteristic to the natural region IV. Some components are missing (some larger mammals or birds), but this does not significantly impact 1 preserving natural communities in their natural state Natural communities lack key components necessary to maintain the natural balance of the area and, 0 as a result, additional management measures are required Presence of endangered and unique natural features (including populations of threatened plant and animal species) Rare, endangered, and unique natural features (populations of threatened species, endemic species, 2 rare communities and ecosystems, abiotic natural objects) of global significance are present in the area V. Rare, endangered, and unique natural features (populations of threatened species, endemic species, 1 rare communities and ecosystems, abiotic natural objects) of national significance or that are threatened globally but found in other Russian PAs are present in the area Threatened or unique natural features are not present (vagrancies and occasional breeding of 0 threatened species have not been reported)

We can score all zapovedniks by applying the ranking system in Table 4 and come up with a “significance index” or rating that shows the range of features and integrity of a PA according to conservation of relevant natural ecosystems and components (Fig. 3). When PAs in similar physical- geographical and biogeographical zones are rated in this manner, the score reflects their relative nature conservation value.

Fig. 3. RANKING OF ZAPOVEDNIKS ACCORDING TO THE FIVE CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING CON- SERVATION VALUE (See Total score for criteria in Table 5).

By ranking PAs according to their “significance and intactness,” we found that the majority of zapovedniks received high scores in terms of conservation value. According to Figure 3, the total number of zapovedniks increases from the least valuable to the most valuable category.

At the same time, the total scores sum up various features for the zapovednik system as a whole. Further analysis of subsets of zapovedniks helps to define groups of PAs with certain combinations of the above criteria. A cluster analysis reveals five categories of zapovedniks:

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 13 Category A includes zapovedniks with the least disturbed and the most intact natural ecosystems, located in suitable surroundings, and integrated into natural landscapes with sufficient area for maintaining viable populations of indigenous large mammals. Zapovedniks in this category are termed pristine. Fifteen zapovedniks with maximum scores for all criteria fell into this group (A1), and thus are the most significant for nature conservation. The second group (A2) consists of 13 zapovedniks with slightly lower values for conservation of rare and unique natural features, while in all other terms they can also be considered pristine examples of nature. Category B consists of zapovedniks where both rare natural features and natural communities are represented fairly well, but with lower scores for one or more of the other criteria. The four zapovedniks in group B1 are similar in size to PAs in Category A, but contain some disturbed natural landscapes or have adjacent lands which have been partially transformed. The second sub- group B2 includes nine zapovedniks that are insufficient in size, and sometimes include disturbed or transformed ecosystems or adjacent lands. Category C includes fairly large areas that adequately maintain viable populations of large mammals, contain fairly complete natural communities, and have average value for conserving threatened and unique natural features. Where other features are concerned, they can be further divided into three groups: Group C1 with two zapovedniks has slightly disturbed adjacent lands, with natural communities relatively intact within the PA; group C2 has three zapovedniks with some habitat disturbance within the PAs, but suitably intact adjacent lands; and finally group C3 with 12 zapovedniks is characterized by slight disturbance of natural habitats both inside and outside the PAs. Category D includes zapovedniks of inadequate size, with disturbed or fragmented natural ecosystems inside the PA, and partially converted adjacent lands. There are two groups within this Category: group D1, consisting of 12 zapovedniks, combines PAs with fairly intact natural communities and/or high importance for conserving threatened species, and D2, with nine zapovedniks, had average scores for all five criteria. Finally, Category E includes the least significant zapovedniks with substantially disturbed areas still subject to human influence. All PAs in this category, unlike the previous categories, have the lowest score for at least one of the applied criteria. They can be divided into two different groups. Group E1 with 13 zapovedniks consists of larger zapovedniks with sufficient enough area to maintain permanent populations of large mammals. Group E2 with seven zapovedniks contains the smallest nature reserves or small clusters. In group E2, most zapovedniks can be considered “islands,” yet they are important for their role in conserving rare or endangered species (plant assemblages or threatened animal or plant communities). The status of natural monument would be more appropriate for these small zapovedniks or clusters. Table 5 depicts the distribution of zapovedniks among the above described five categories and 11 groups. We call these groups functional management groups, because they reflect the main functions of zapovedniks and determine appropriate conservation approaches. For example, zapovedniks in Category A clearly serve the primary purpose of conserving pristine natural ecosystems; therefore, management measures should consist of ecological monitoring and tracking overall changes in the natural environment. At the same time zapovedniks in the E2 group should concentrate efforts on protecting threatened and endangered species or assemblages, possibly using intervention measures to meet these primary objectives. For each of these functional management groups, we can develop detailed management recommendations on the main directions of activities and conservation approaches. In general, we can conclude that in moving down the ranking system from group A1 to E2, the need for measures on conservation and restoration of natural communities will be greater, while the significance and representativeness of the PAs as polygons for monitoring overall environmental changes will be less.

ASSESSMENT OF PA CATEGORIES AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 14 (MANAGEMENT GAP ANALYSIS) Table 5. AVERAGE SCORES FOR ZAPOVEDNIK FUNCTIONAL MANAGEMENT GROUPS (see criteria and scoring system in Table 4).

Criteria

Zapovednik Zapovednik Total number of Category Group zapovedniks Integrity Size/Area Conversion Disturbance/ Adjacent lands Adjacent Threatened species Threatened A1 22222 15 A A2 22221 13 B1 2 1-2 1-2 2 2 4 B B2 1 1-2 1-2 2 2 9 C1 22121 2 C C2 21221 3 C3 21121 12 D1 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 12 D D2 11111 9 E1 1 0 0-1 0-1 1 13 E E2 0 0 0-1 0-1 1 8

1.2 National Protected Areas of Russia and IUCN Сategories The World Conservation Union (IUCN) classifies protected areas based on their management objectives. The system is applicable to PAs worldwide with a variety of national categories. Table 6 depicts how Russia’s PAs correspond to relevant IUCN PA categories.

Table 6. MAIN CATEGORIES OF RUSSIAN NATIONAL PAS AS CLASSIFIED BY IUCN.

Main categories of Russian PAs IUCN PA category Strict nature reserve (zapovednik) Ia; Ib National Park II Federal-level sanctuary (zakazniks) Ib; IV Federal-level natural monument III A tool was recently developed to help determine the appropriate IUCN category and organizational type for PAs2. This tool, which is now being tested, determines the most adequate categories, organizational types, and management approaches based on several criteria, each of which is characterized by the level of applicability to a particular category and management type. By applying IUCN criteria with this tool, we found that the vast majority of zapovedniks (91 of 100) fully correspond to categories Ia and Ib. However, several zapovedniks received lower scores corresponding to categories II and even III and IV. Three other zapovedniks also had scores equivalent of Ia-Ib categories, however, they cannot be considered strict nature reserves, because of recreational activities more compatible to the national park status (category II). But category II also does not apply to these PAs because they do not

2 http://www.parksnet.org/files/1/2/89267_documents_document_file_1282.doc

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 15 have areas large enough for conserving entire intact ecosystems. Therefore, these three zapovedniks fit best in IUCN categories III-IV, usually used for natural monuments and zakazniks. Overall, if we overlook some fine distinctions like recreation and sufficient size of the PA to ensure ecosystem conservation, the IUCN classification system adequately reflects the state of Russian zapovedniks. Of the 35 national parks operating in Russia in 2007, only one park fits fully into the expected IUCN Category II. Twenty-one national parks should instead be placed in categories Ia-Ib, which is usually considered appropriate only for strict nature reserves (zapovedniks). In the 14 other parks, all the indices for categories Ia-Ib were the same as for category II, however Category I status could not be used because the territories were not large enough to conserve entire ecosystems. We found two major challenges in applying the IUCN classification system to determine the most appropriate conservation and management types for Russian zapovedniks and national parks. First, for PAs where recreational activities are permitted, IUCN criteria do not define the level of tourism and whether it is localized or widespread. As a result, PAs with recreation permitted throughout the area cannot be distinguished from those where tourism is concentrated only in certain parts of the PA but completely banned in others. For adequate description of the state and level of use of the PA, the latter cases should clearly not be treated the same as those with high levels of public visitation, but should probably be separated into a succinct category. Second, it does not seem entirely appropriate that category II requires adequate PA size for conservation of entire ecosystems, while the same criterion is not required for categories Ia-Ib. Perhaps IUCN needs to clarify what it considers “entire ecosystems” under the criteria. Classification of Russian zapovedniks and national parks according to IUCN categories (with the suggested corrections mentioned above) is given in Table 7.

Table 7. CORRESPONDENCE OF IUCN CRITERIA TO RUSSIAN ZAPOVEDNIKS AND NATIONAL PARKS.

Zapovedniks National Parks Total IUCN Category №%№%№% Ia-Ib 92 91.2 6 17.1 98 72.1 Ia-Ib/II 1 1 15 42.9 16 11.8 II 4 3.9 14 40 18 13.2 IV 4 3.9 - - 4 2.9 Total 101 100 35 100 136 100

ASSESSMENT OF PA CATEGORIES AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS 16 (MANAGEMENT GAP ANALYSIS) 2. Assessment of Representativeness of Terres- trial PAs (Ecological Gap Analysis)

2.1 Assessment of Geographical Representativeness of Terrestrial PAs using GIS Two approaches were used to analyze the geographical representativeness of the existing PA network relative to the total land area of the country based on GIS data: Regional - where we assessed representativeness of different physical-geographical terrestrial regions delineated according to the physical-geographical zoning of the USSR and WWF Ecoregions; and Typological - where we assessed representativeness of landscape types and parameters based on the USSR Landscape Map, as well as territorial variables of plant vegetation listed as main ecosystem types according to the USSR Vegetation Map. For each of these geographical subunits, we made two types of assessments: • Qualitative, reflecting only the presence of PAs within geographical subunits not taking into account the respective category, status, and coverage; and • Quantitative, including calculations of respective coverage for all PAs and for zapovedniks separately, since the latter represent the strictest and most effective form of in-situ conservation. Following the internationally accepted approach, we considered the minimum standard coverage of the PA network as three percent for all PAs and 1.5 percent for zapovedniks. Using data on relative areas of PAs, we calculated an index for PA coverage for each geographical subunit. The scale used to define this coverage index is depicted in Table 8.

Table 8. INDICATORS OF PA COVERAGE.

Relative area of zapovedniks Relative area of all PAs ≥ 1.5% < 1.5% 0% ≥ 3% 543 < 3% 432 0% 1

The indicator value 1 means that there are no PAs within a certain geographical subunit, and the maximum indicator value 5 means that the geographical subunit is sufficiently represented in the existing PA network. Simultaneously, this indicator was used as a priority index to set priorities for creating new PAs to ensure representativeness and complete coverage of the PA network. For this purpose, the indicator value 1 corresponds to the maximum priority and indicator value 5 to the lowest priority for designation of new PAs. During the qualitative assessment of representativeness, the absence of PAs in a given geographical subunit gave a value of zero, while their presence was counted as 100 percent representativeness. For the quantitative analysis, an indicator value of 1 was equal to zero, a value of 2 was equal to 25 percent, values 3 and 4 were equal to 50 and 75 percent, respectively, and the maximum value of 5 meant 100 percent coverage.

2.2 Assessment of Representativeness in relation to Physical-geographical Regions A total of 158 physical-geographical provinces are recognized in the system of zoning of Russia used for this analysis. These provinces are grouped into 15 physical-geographical lands and 17 latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts – groups of mountain regions with various altitudinal zones.32 3 The original system was altered slightly, because the meadows-and-forests zone was delineated, as well as the mountain region corresponding to mountain tundra and forests-and-meadows altitudinal habitat types of Kamchatka.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 17 National PAs including strict nature reserves (zapovedniks) are represented in all physical-geographical lands of Russia and the PA coverage index is at least 3 for each of them (Fig. 4). The physical-geographical lands where PA coverage exceeds the average for Russia as a whole are the Crimea-Caucasus, the Ural-Novaya Zemlya, the Taimyr-Severnaya Zemlya, the Altai-Sayan, the Baikal-Transbaikal, the Amur-Primorye, and the Kurils-Kamchatka physical-geographical lands. In the majority of these physical-geographical lands, the proportion of area covered by zapovedniks in the PA network ranges from 60 to 75 percent, except in the Caucasus (about 50 percent) and Urals-Novaya Zemlya physical-geographical lands, where the area of coverage by national parks is higher. In two physical-geographical lands – Fennoscandia and the Caspian-Turan – the total area of PAs is above average, but the relative area covered by zapovedniks is below the national average. The lowest PA coverage indices were found in the East European Plain, West Siberia, East Siberian Plateau, Yakutsk Depression, Northeastern Siberia, and Dauria. Actually, while in the East European Plain and Dauria the total coverage of all types of PAs is close to the national average, the percentage covered by zapovedniks is very low, whereas in the East Siberian Plateau, the Yakutsk Depression, and Northeastern Siberia, zapovedniks are the only form of PAs and their total area is relatively small. The West Siberian physical-geographical land is in the middle, with zapovedniks comprising half of all PAs (the rest are mostly zakazniks).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 18 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 4. RELATIVE AREA OF ALL PAS (A) AND ZAPOVEDNIKS (B) (%), OVERALL PA NETWORK COVERAGE INDEX (C) FOR PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL LANDS (See list of Lands in Table 10).

Designations (C): 3 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover substantial areas or zapovedniks and other types of PAs cover restricted areas ; 4 – proportion of PA coverage or zapovednik area larger than the average for Russia; 5 – total PA area and total zapovednik area are larger than the country average.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 19 PAs are found in 16 of the 17 latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts. Only two have no zapovedniks – the Arctic deserts and the desert mountains of Eastern Caucasus. Most of the assessed landscape typological subunits have average PA coverage.They can be subdivided into three groups depending on the ratio of zapovedniks to other types of PAs. Zapovedniks make up the majority of PA coverage in the tundra-taiga and tundra-forest-meadow mountain belts. On the contrary, zakazniks prevail in Arctic deserts, semi-desert, and steppe zones where zapovedniks comprise no more than 13 percent of the total area of PAs (and are completely absent in Arctic deserts). In the forest-tundra – tundra-forest, all taiga zones, and broadleaf forest and forest-steppe zones, zapovedniks make up one – to two-thirds of the total PA area. The most developed networks of PAs are found in tundra, desert, and subtropical zones, as well as in meadows-forests and mountain tundra-forest-meadow altitudinal belts. Zapovedniks prevail in the tundra zone and both altitudinal belts. Zakazniks prevail in the desert zone, and zakazniks and national parks in the subtropical zone. The lowest PA coverage values are found in mountain-desert belts in Dagestan, where zapovedniks are completely absent and only one zakaznik exists. Similar low coverage is observed in the forest -meadows belt of Kamchatka. The latter is the only plains area in Russia where there are no PAs (Fig. 5).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 20 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 5. RELATIVE AREA OF ALL PAS (A) AND ZAPOVEDNIKS (B) %, OVERALL PA NETWORK COVERAGE INDEX FOR LATITUDINAL ZONES OF LOWLANDS AND ALTITUDINAL BELTS (C). (See list of zones and belts in Table 10).

Designations (C): 1 – PAs completely absent; 2 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 3 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover substantial areas or zapovedniks and other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 4 – proportion of PA coverage or zapovednik area larger than the average for Russia; 5 – total PA area and total zapovednik area are larger than the country average.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 21 Zapovedniks are present in 75 of the 158 physical-geographical provinces of Russia. PAs in general are present in 97 (> 60 percent) provinces (Fig. 6). The largest group is formed by provinces with a value 1 coverage index, meaning that PAs are absent altogether. The smallest group of provinces with an index value 4 includes 13 provinces where either total PA coverage or zapovednik coverage is greater than the national average. The group with maximal index (5) includes 34 provinces where total PA coverage and zapovednik coverage is greater than the national average.

Fig.6. RELATIVE AREA OF ALL PAS (A) AND ZAPOVEDNIKS (B) (%), OVERALL PA NETWORK COVERAGE INDEX (C) FOR PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCES.

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 22 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) The results of the assessment of coverage for three types of regional physical-geographical regions of Russia are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. REGIONAL COVERAGE AND REPRESENTATIVENESS OF PA NETWORK IN RUSSIA (%).

Qualitative non- Quantitative differentiated Physical-geographical regions differentiated estimates estimates Simple Weighted Simple Weighted Physical-geographical lands 100 100 77 65 Latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts 94 99 65 65 Physical-geographical provinces 61 61 41 41 In addition to overall estimates, we can assess the provinces’ representativeness of the national PA network for larger geographical regons, such as physical-geographical lands, latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts. The regions with the greatest number of PAs within their provinces receive the highest scores. Qualitative representativeness index values (taking into account only the presence or absence of PAs in physical-geographical provinces of regions without consid- ering the relative size) and quantitative representativeness index (based on the PA area ratio for different categories) are summarized in Table 10.

Table 10. REGIONAL PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE PA NETWORK IN LARGE NATURAL REGIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

Quantitative Qualitative weighted Physical-geographical regions representativeness representativeness index index

Physical-geographical lands I Fennoscandia 100 70 II East European plain 67 35 III Urals-Novaya Zemlya 56 45 IV Crimea-Caucasus 100 93 V Caspian-Turan 100 65 VI West Siberian plain 71 43 VII Taimyr-Severnaya Zemlya 86 73 VIII Central Siberian Plateau 21 23 IX Altai-Sayan Mountains 100 90 X Baikal-Transbaikal 55 50 XI Dauria 100 50 XII Yakutsk Depression 25 18 XIII Northeastern Siberia 35 25

XIV Kurils-Kamchatka 75 58 XV Amur-Primorye 92 80 Latitudinal zones of lowlands 1 Arctic deserts 100 50 2 Tundra 63 70 3 Forest-tundra and tundra-forests 19 8

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 23 Quantitative Qualitative weighted Physical-geographical regions representativeness representativeness index index

Physical-geographical lands 4 Forest -meadows 0 0 5 Northern taiga 64 40 6 Middle taiga 61 40 7 Southern taiga and mixed forests 75 30 8 Broadleaf forests, sub-taiga forests, and forest-steppe 75 38 9 Steppe 64 35 10 Semi-desert 100 50 11 Desert 100 100 12 Subtropics 100 100 Altitudinal belts 13 Arctic tundra 50 18 14 Mountain tundra-taiga 45 40 15 Meadow-forests 100 53 16 Mountain tundra-forest meadows 100 88 17 Mountain desert 100 25

For Russia overall, the qualitative and quantitative representativeness indexes for the PA network were 73 percent and 41 percent, respectively, for physical-geographical Lands and 72 percent and 46 percent, respectively, for latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts.

2.3 Assessment of Representativeness according to WWF Ecoregions We made an additional analysis of representativeness of the existing PA network in WWF Ecoregions. Despite certain drawbacks, the system of WWF Ecoregions certainly has value as a basic methodology and one of the standards for zoning and identifying important regions of the Earth for conservation of nature and biodiversity. The Russian Federation has 49 WWF Ecoregions. We added an assessment of threats to certain species and biodiversity for the analysis of the WWF Ecoregion map and PA coverage in Ecoregions. To do so, we introduced a “threat index” with a range from 1 (where threats are greatest) to 3 (where threats are minimal). Additionally, we introduced an index to characterize how typical each Ecoregion is for Russia as a whole, ranging from -1 (where an Ecoregion is located mostly outside Russia), 0 (where it is shared by Russia and other countries), and 1 (where the Ecoregion is found only in Russia) (Tab. 11). Figure 7 depicts the relative area of all PAs and of zapovedniks alone in WWF Ecoregions in Russia. Figure 8 shows the representativeness index of the PA network calculated as described above for physical-geographical regions (Table 8).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 24 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 7. RELATIVE AREA OF ALL PAS (TOP) AND ZAPOVEDNIKS (BOTTOM) IN WWF ECOREGIONS IN RUSSIA (%). (See list of Ecoregions in Table 11).

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 25 Fig. 8. PA COVERAGE INDEX FOR WWF ECOREGIONS IN RUSSIA. (See list of Ecoregions in Table 11).

Designations: 1 – PAs completely absent; 2 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 3 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover substantial areas or zapovedniks and other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 4 – proportion of PA coverage or zapovednik area larger than the average for Russia; 5 – total PA area and total zapovednik area are larger than the country average.

Table 11. PROTECTED AREAS AND WWF ECOREGIONS IN RUSSIA (Dark grey – no PAs, light grey – no zapovednks).

Ecoregions % index index area of of area Relative Relative Index of Index of to Russia Relative PA PA Relative Threat level level Threat coverage, % coverage, PA coverage coverage PA zapovedniks, zapovedniks, № on fig. 7, 8 restrictedness restrictedness

1 Arctic deserts 3 1 24.8 0 3 2 Novosibirskiye Islands arctic deserts 3 1 0 0 1 3 Wrangel Island arctic deserts 3 1 100 100 5 4 Kola Peninsula tundra 1 1 5.8 0.9 4 5 Novaya Zemlya and northwestern Russia tundra 2 1 4 0.6 4 6 Yamal and Gydan tundra 2 1 2.5 2 4 7 Taimyr and Central Siberian tundra 3 1 8 7.2 5 8 Northeastern Siberian coastal tundra 3 1 5.9 5.9 5 9 Beringia tundra 3 1 1.5 0.6 3 10 Chukotka Peninsula tundra 3 1 0 0 1

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 26 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Ecoregions % index index area of of area Relative Relative Index of Index of to Russia Relative PA PA Relative Threat level level Threat coverage, % coverage, PA coverage coverage PA zapovedniks, zapovedniks, № on fig. 7, 8 restrictedness restrictedness

11 Sayan alpine meadows and mountain tundra 3 1 15.6 10 5 12 Transbaikal mountain tundra 3 1 3.4 3.1 5 13 Chersky ridge and Kolyma mountain tundra 3 1 0.1 0.1 3 14 Kamchatka mountain tundra and forest-tundra 3 1 4.8 2.9 5 15 Scandinavian and Russian taiga 1 0 1.4 0.4 3 16 Scandinavian mountain tundra and taiga 2 -1 10.4 9 5 17 Ural mountain tundra and taiga 2 1 12.8 6.7 5 18 West Siberian taiga 3 1 2.3 1 3 19 East Siberian taiga 3 1 0.9 0.8 3 20 Transbaikal coniferous forests 2 1 6.6 2.1 5 21 Northeastern Siberia sparse taiga forests 3 1 0.6 0.6 3 22 Sea of Okhotsk and Manchurian taiga 2 1 4 2.5 5 23 Sakhalin Island taiga 2 1 0.2 0.2 3 24 Kamchatka and Kuril taiga 3 1 0 0 1 25 Caucasus coniferous mountain forests 1 0 23.4 13.4 5 26 Altai mountain forests and forest-steppe 2 0 2.6 2.6 4 27 Sayan coniferous mountain forests 2 1 10.3 6.9 5 28 Khingan coniferous mountain forests 2 0 3.3 2.7 5 29 Central European mixed forests 1 -1 0.4 0.4 3 30 Sarmatia mixed forests 1 0 2.1 0.4 3 31 West Siberian deciduous and mixed forests 1 1 0.5 0 2 32 Manchurian mixed forests 1 0 2.3 0 2 33 Southern Sakhalin and Kuril mixed forests 1 1 6.8 4.8 5 34 Crimean and Caucasian broadleaf forests 1 0 4.3 0.6 4 35 Ussuri mixed and broadleaf forests 2 1 4.5 3.9 5 36 European forest-steppe 1 0 0.7 0.3 3 37 Kamchatka and Kuril meadows and sparse forests 3 1 4.7 4.7 5 38 Ussuri meadows and forest-steppe 1 0 1.1 1.1 3 39 Kazakh forest-steppe 1 1 0.9 0.1 3 40 Southern Siberian forest-steppe 2 1 0.3 0.2 3 41 Selenga and Orkhon forest-steppe 2 -1 0 0 1 42 Daurian forest-steppe 2 0 2 0.4 3 43 Amur steppe and meadows 2 1 2 1.7 4 44 Pontic steppe 1 0 0.4 0.1 3 45 Kazakh steppe 1 -1 0 0 1 47 Sayan steppe in mountain depressions 2 1 0 0 1 48 Caspian lowland steppe 1 0 6.9 1.4 4 49 Deserts of the great lakes basin 2 -1 2.4 2.4 4

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 27 Of the 49 Ecoregions WWF recognizes in Russia, PAs are absent in only six. Three Ecoregions have no zapovedniks, though other PAs exist. Three of the six Ecoregions with no PAs cover relatively small areas, so in the standard schematic of delineating regions, usually they are included in larger territorial units. Overall, the northern, eastern, and southern Ecoregions of Russia have the most comprehensive PA networks. In between there are a few areas with minimum PA coverage, while most temperate Ecoregions have average PA coverage. The simple qualitative index of representativeness of the PA network for Ecoregions of 88 percent is less than that for physical-geographical Lands and latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts, but larger than the index for physical-geographical provinces. At the same time the quantitative coverage index (97 percent) is close to the maximum possible.

2.4 Assessment of Representativeness and Coverage in relation to Landscape Typology In the USSR Landscape Map used for analysis of Russia’s territory, there are 20,264 different landscape clusters combined into the following higher typological units: • specific landscape groups defined according to the lithogenic landscape basis, i.e., structural lithological characteristics, composition of rocks, relief forms, etc., which are uniform in zonal-sectoral (climate) aspects and altitudinal conditions; • altitudinal landscape classes subdivided into two main altitudinal layers – lowland and mountain – and further subdivided into subclasses that reflect altitude-related hypsometric differentiation in more detail. For the lowland subclasses, lowlands and higher elevations are recognized (including foothill ridges), while all mountain landscapes are subdivided into lower, middle, and high mountain landscapes; • zonal-sectoral landscape types that include landscapes of one zonal series and one sectoral row, subdivided into subzonal climate-dependant landscape subtypes; and • zonal series and sectoral rows of landscapes identified on the basis of zonal, sectoral, and climate aspects. The authors of the map recognize the following hierarchy of categories in the classification system: type-subtype-class-subclass-specific group. Altitudinal zoning in this analysis is less significant than zonal and sectoral zoning. However, it would be more precise to consider zonal-sectoral landscape zoning in parallel with altitudinal landscape zoning, overlapping in specific landscape groups. It is also possible to define two additional typological categories that include landscapes of one type and class, and one subtype and subclass, forming respectively another combined classification as it is shown in Figure 9. These combined categories with both zonal-sectoral and altitudinal characteristics could be called climate-hypsometric landscape groups and, respectively, climate-hypsometric landscape subgroups. Together with the specific landscape groups they are the most appropriate for analysis of landscape representativeness in the PA network, which as a result can be assessed on three different layers of landscape differentiation. Some types of hydromorphic ecosystems (bogs and mires, riparian floodplains; deltas and saltpans as well as mountain glaciers) were treated as separate contours as they do not adhere to the above categories and cannot be divided according to zonal-sectoral or altitudinal features. Thus, these were analyzed as separate categories at each of the three assessment levels. Therefore, for Russia as a whole, we consider 50 climate-hypsometric landsape groups and 123 subgroups, as well as 650 specific landscape groups.

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 28 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 9. LANDSCAPE CLASSIFICATION SCHEME.

Climate-hypsometric landscape groups include landscapes of one zonal-sectoral type and altitudinal class. Out of the 50 total units of this level of assessment in Russia, only four lack PAs. These are boreal temperate continental mountain and continental mountain, sub-boreal arid continental mountain, subtropical northern continental mountain, and subtropical northern temperate continental mountain landscapes. Five other landscape groups are not represented in zapovedniks but are found in PAs of other categories. Additionally, 15 other relatively small landscape groups occupy less that one percent of the total area of zapovedniks. The current PA network provides the most complete representation of the following landscape groups: Arctic plains, Subarctic boreal mountain on the Pacific, Boreal temperate continental mountain, Sub-boreal alpine, Sub-boreal humid Central European mountain, Sub-boreal semi-humid temperate continental mountain, Subtropical northern Central European mountain (almost 80 percent in PAs), Subtropical northern Central European plain, and Mountain glaciers. It is worth noting that of the nine listed landscape groups that have the best PA coverage, seven are mountain landscapes (Fig. 10, Tab.12).

Table 12. PA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE-HYPSOMETRIC LANDSCAPE GROUPS IN RUSSIA (Dark grey – no PAs, light grey – no zapovednks).

Relative Relative PA Zonal landscape PA Zonal-sectoral and altitudinal landscape groups area of coverage series coverage, zapovedniks index % Mountain 1.0 0.8 3 Arctic Lowland 13.0 8.9 5 Continental and harsh continental lowland 0.6 0.4 3 Pacific coast mountain 1.0 1.0 3 Pacific coast lowland 1.3 0.6 3

Subarctic Temperate continental lowland 1.5 0.0 2 Temperate continental and harsh continental mountain 2.7 2.7 4 Temperate continental and harsh continental lowland 2.3 1.1 3 Temperate continental and harsh continental Pacific coast 3.8 3.8 5 mountain

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 29 Relative Relative PA Zonal landscape PA Zonal-sectoral and altitudinal landscape groups area of coverage series coverage, zapovedniks index % Pacific coast mountain 8.3 6.9 5 Subarctic-boreal Pacific coast lowland 2.2 1.5 4 Continental mountain 3.6 1.2 4 Continental lowland 3.1 1.7 5 Continental and harsh continental mountain 0.6 0.6 3 Harsh continental mountain 1.9 1.4 3 Harsh continental lowland 0.6 0.5 3 Boreal Pacific coast mountain 2.7 1.7 4 Pacific coast lowland 1.8 0.9 3 Temperate continental mountain 25.5 10.0 5 Temperate continental lowland 2.1 0.7 3 Temperate continental and continental mountain 0.0 0.0 1 Temperate continental and continental lowland 1.7 0.2 3 Boreal barren Harsh continental Pacific coastal 4.4 3.6 5 Central European temperate continental and continental Sub-boreal alpine 13.6 6.6 5 mountain Central European mountain 8.4 7.1 5 Sub-boreal humid Pacific coast mountain 5.3 4.8 5 Pacific coast lowland 2.7 1.4 3 Continental mountain 6.3 3.0 5

Sub-boreal semi- Continental lowland 0.7 0.1 3 humid Temperate continental mountain 13.7 6.8 5 Temperate continental lowland 1.0 0.4 3 Continental mountain 0.6 0.6 3 Continental lowland 0.4 0.1 3 Continental and harsh continental mountain 6.7 5.3 5 Sub-boreal semi- Harsh continental mountain 2.2 0.0 2 arid Harsh continental lowland 2.4 0.5 3 Temperate continental mountain 5.5 0.8 4 Temperate continental lowland 0.5 0.0 2 Continental mountain 0.0 0.0 1 Sub-boreal arid Continental lowland 3.8 0.7 4 Harsh continental mountain 1.4 1.4 3 Central European mountain 78.8 33.8 5 Central European lowland 54.7 1.7 5 Subtropical Continental mountain 0.0 0.0 1 northern Temperate continental mountain 0.0 0.0 1 Temperate continental lowland 7.1 0.0 3 Bogs and mires 2.0 1.0 3 Floodplains and deltas 2.2 1.3 3 Saltpans 0.8 0.0 2 Mountain glaciers 37.1 23.6 5

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 30 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 10. PA NETWORK COVERAGE FOR CLIMATE-HYPSOMETRIC LANDSCAPE GROUPS OF RUSSIA.

In all 21 landscape groups (42 percent) have the maximum representativeness and PA coverage indices (4, 5), another 21 groups have an average ranking (3), and only eight (16 percent) of the landscape groups have the lowest level of PA coverage (1, 2) (Fig. 13) At the same time, landscape groups with average coverage indexes occupy most of the territory of Russia, while the landscape groups with the least PA coverage have very restricted distributions (Fig. 10, 14).

Out of the 123 climate-hypsometric landscape subgroups with similar zonal-sectoral subtype and altitudinal subclasses, 19 (15.4 percent) are not represented in the current national PA network. In addition, 13 other landscape subgroups (10.6 percent) are represented only in zakazniks and/or national parks but are missing within the zapovednik system. These two subgroups have a PA coverage index of 1 and 2, making them the least represented in the national PA system, and en- compass 26 percent of landscape diversity at the level of the subgroups. Landscapes with average (3) and maximum (4-5) coverage indices occupay nearly the same percent of landscape diversity – 44 of 123 subgroups (35.8 percent) and 47 subgroups (38.2 percent), respectively (Fig. 11,13).

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 31 Fig. 11. PA NETWORK COVERAGE FOR CLIMATE-HYPSOMETRIC LANDSCAPE SUBGROUPS OF RUSSIA.

Maximum coverage by the PA network is found in several boreal landscapes (low mountains and mid-altitude northern taiga with temperate continental climate, mid-altitude middle taiga mountains with temperate continental climate), in sub-boreal semi-humid coniferous landscapes with temperate continental climate, and also in several varieties of subtropical landscapes (Central European uplands, lower, and mid-altitude mountain humid forests). Here again, mostly mountain landscapes are among the typological subunits with the greatest PA coverage. We should also note that there is a significant contrast in PA coverage among the zonal series of subtropical landscapes subgroups – half of the landscapes are well represented in the PA system, while the other half (mainly arid landscapes) are the least represented in national PAs.

Areas of landscape subgroups with different coverage index values are more uniform compared to landscape groups (Fig. 14), but the average coverage index still prevails (Fig. 13).

Specific landscape groups are defined within climate-hypsometric landscape subgroups depending on the lithogenic base (substrate), i.e. structural characteristics of rocks and soils, composition of rocks and relief forms. In the map used for this analysis, 54 types of specific landscape groups or geolocical-geomorphological landscape varieties are recognized. Combined with characteristics that determine zonal-sectoral and altitudinal differentiation as well, 650 specific landscape groups are recognized in Russia.

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 32 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) In all, 373 specific groups, or slightly more than half of the landscape groups have no PAs what- soever, and 78 landscape groups are included only in zakazniks and/or national parks but not in zapovedniks. Only 31 percent of the specific landscape groups are represented in the zapovednik system. For 420 (64.6 percent) of specific landscape groups, the PA coverage index is the lowest (1, 2). An average coverage index value was found for 102 groups (15.7 percent) and maximum values (4, 5) for 128 specific landscape groups (19.7 percent) (Fig. 12). The ratio of the least, average, and best represented specific landscape groups is similar to the ratio for the above landscape units, but the proportion of specific landscape groups with the lowest PA coverage is substantially larger compared to the situation with climate-hypsometric landscape groups and subgroups (Fig. 13). If areas of specific landscape clusters are considered, we still observe prevalence of landscapes with an average PA coverage index, though this prevalence is no longer absolute and the proportion of area with average coverage is less than half of the entire land area of Russia (Fig. 14).

Fig. 12. PA network coverage for specific landscape groups of Russia.

Designations : 1 – PAs completely absent; 2 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 3 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover substantial areas or zapovedniks and other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 4 – proportion of PA coverage or zapovednik area larger than the average for Russia; 5 – total PA area and total zapovednik area are larger than the country average.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 33 Fig. 13. DISTRIBUTION OF TYPOLOGICAL CATEGORIES OF LANDSCAPES ACCORDING TO COV- ERAGE OF THE PA NETWORK.

А – climate-hypsometric landscape groups, B – climate-hypsometric landscape subgroups, C – specific landscape groups. Х axis – PA coverage index; Y axis – share of total typological units (%).

If climate-hypsometric landscape groups, climate-hypsometric landscape subgroups, and specific landscape groups are considered together, the proportion of landscapes with average coverage and representativeness indices declines and the proportion of minimum coverage landscapes increases. The proportion of landscapes with maximum coverage and representativeness remains almost equal (Fig. 14).

Fig. 14. RATIO OF LANDSCAPES WITH DIFFERENT PA COVERAGE.

A – climate-hypsometric landscape groups, B – climate-hypsometric landscape subgroups, C – specific landscape groups. Designations: 1 – PAs completely absent; 2 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 3 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover substantial areas or zapovedniks and other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 4 – proportion of PA coverage or zapovednik area larger than the average for Russia; 5 – total PA area and total zapovednik area are larger than the country average.

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 34 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Indicators of PA network representativeness assessed according to three typological levels of landscape diversity in Russia are summarized in Table 13.

Table 13. LANDSCAPE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE RUSSIAN PA NETWORK (%).

Qualitative non- Quantitative Landscape typology categories differentiated differentiated estimates estimates

Simple Weighted Simple Weighted Climate and hypsometry landscape groups 92.0 99.9 62.0 60.6 Climate and hypsometry landscape subgroups 85.0 97.1 57.0 59.6 Specific landscape groups 42.0 78.6 28.0 47.0

The representativeness of the existing PA network was also assessed for larger landscape typology categories, such as zonal series and altitudinal classes of landscapes (taking into account their intrinsic diversity). The assessment was carried out using the same methodology as for the large physical-geographical regions (see above) in two versions – taking into account intrinsic diversity of climate-hypsometric subgroups and specific landscape groups (Table 14).

Table 14. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE PA NETWORK FOR LARGE TYPOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE CATEGORIES OF RUSSIA.

According to According to specific landscape groups climate-hypsometric subgroups Landscape typology categories Qualitative Quantitative Qualitative Quantitative weighted weighted weighted weighted representativeness representativeness representativeness representativeness index index index index Zonal series Arctic 100.0 89.7 99.1 88.3 Subarctic 89.5 63.4 57.4 38.6 Subarctic-boreal 88.8 88.8 64.0 62.9 Boreal 97.1 56.3 76.7 43.8 Boreal barren 100.0 100.0 99.9 74.8 Sub-boreal alpine 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.3 Sub-boreal humid 95.9 81.8 86.4 70.2 Sub-boreal semi-humid 99.9 54.2 75.3 39.9 Sub-boreal semi-arid 88.7 48.7 60.8 35.9 Sub-boreal arid 83.1 55.2 71.6 58.6 Subtropical northern 27.4 26.6 27.4 26.6 Hydromorphic (bogs, 100.0 49.9 100.0 49.9 floodplains, deltas, saltpans) Altitudinal Lowlands/plains 94.6 52.1 73.3 40.2 Mountains 99.4 74.9 88.2 61.0

Within the zonal series, Arctic, boreal barren, sub-boreal alpine and sub-boreal humid landscapes are the most thoroughly represented in PA network. Subtropical landscapes are the least

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 35 represented in the PA network. Mountain landscapes are more fully represented than lowlands and plains.

2.5 Assessment of Representativeness and Coverage of the PA Network according to Typological Diversity of Vegetation Cover The “USSR Vegetation Map” recognizes 9,611 different vegetation clusters. Vegetation cover typology used in this map includes five hierarchal levels, which we slightly altered and simplified for this analysis into four levels termed vegetation types, subtypes, classes, and individual vegetation variants. The most significant change was for forest ecosystems, where prevailing tree species were considered at the higher hierarchal levels (subtypes), while geographical features (northern, temperate, southern taiga, etc.) were used only as additional characteristics not used to define any category. This was done because geographical features were relatively well ac- counted for in the analysis of the landscape map above. In all, 13 types and 41 subtypes of vegetation cover were recognized in the analysis (Table 15).

Table 15. PA COVERAGE AND REPRESENTATIVENESS FOR VEGETATION TYPES AND SUBTYPES (Dark grey – no PAs, light grey – no zapovednks). Relative Index Relative PA Vegetation types Vegetation subtypes area of of PA coverage, % zapovedniks % coverage Arctic deserts Arctic desert 15.9 0.6 4 Arctic tundra 16.5 16.5 5

Tundra Northern tundra 3.6 2.3 5 Southern tundra 1.9 0.4 3 Mountain tundra 3.9 3 5 Nival communities 10.9 10.9 5 Highlands Alpine meadows 18.2 9.9 5 Small-leaved deciduous forests and sparse woodlands 2.4 1.5 3 Dark coniferous forests and sparse woodlands 3.4 1.9 5 Deciduous forests and sparse woodlands 1.3 0.9 3 Pine forests 2 0.7 3 Forests Creeping woodlands 2.6 2.1 4 Broad-leaved forests 5.3 0.7 4 Pine-deciduous forests 2.1 0.4 3 Siberian pine - broad-leaved forests 4.4 3.2 5 Steppe meadows 0.3 0.1 2 True steppe 0.5 0.1 3 Steppe Desertified steppe 0.4 0.4 3 Steppe in mountains and foothills 0.4 0.4 3

Deserts Northern deserts 7.9 1.4 4 Middle-latitude deserts 0 0 1 Mountain xerophyte Friganoids 1.6 0.1 3 communities Birch and willow scrubland 0.5 0.4 3 Scrublands Steppe shrubs 0.1 0.1 3

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 36 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Relative Index Relative PA Vegetation types Vegetation subtypes area of of PA coverage, % zapovedniks % coverage Grass and grass-hypnum fens 4.9 3.5 5 Grass-hypnum-sphagnum transition bogs 4 1.3 4 Bogs and mires Sphagnum upland bogs 1.9 0.9 3 Bog forests 0 0 1

Halophyte Halophyte herb and grass meadows 1.4 0 2 communities Ecological rows of halophyte communities 3.2 0 3 Meadow-bog-scrubland floodplains 4.3 0.7 4 Swampy meadows with small-leaved deciduous 5.1 0 3 and coniferous floodplain communities Scrubland-coniferous forest floodplains 0.1 0 2 Scrubland-broadleaf forest floodplains 2.1 0.4 3 Dynamic floodplain communities Scrubland-small-leaved forest floodplains 0.2 0 2 Halophyte meadows and riparian forests in floodplains 0 0 1 Scrubland-small-leaved steppe-like floodplains 1.3 0.2 3 Floodplain meadows and grasslands 2.1 2.1 4 Reed beds 4.3 2.2 5 Glaciers 6.8 1.4 3 Dry saltpans/solonchaks without vegetation cover 8.1 3.5 5

Only three subtypes of vegetation cover (temperate latitude deserts, bog forests and halophyte meadows, and riparian forests in floodplains) are not represented within the PA network. The latter cover very insignificant areas and were excluded from the rest of the analysis. Six more subtypes are not represented in zapovedniks, but occur within other categories of PAs. It is notable that of all these vegetation types – two subtypes of halophyte communities and four subtypes of floodplain complexes are intrazonal. The most extreme and biologically poor ecosystems are the best represented within the PA system, including arctic deserts, arctic tundra, highlands, glaciers and vegetation-free solonchaks, as well as the northern deserts. For all forest vegetation subtypes, PA coverage is more or less sufficient, with the exception of deciduous forest types which have relatively low coverage. Steppe areas are the least represented within the existing PA network.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 37 In general, most of the vegetation subtypes have an average (3) or high (4-5) ranking of PA coverage. Their proportion differs insignificantly comprising 44 percent (18) and 39 percent (16) of the subtypes, respectively. A low PA coverage index (1-2) is found only for seven subtypes (17 percent) (Fig. 18). In terms of area, these vegetation subtypes occupy less that five percent of the total country, and vegetation subtypes that have no PAs make up only 0.1 percent of the country. Vegetation subtypes with an average coverage index (3) occupy over half of Russia. Subtypes where PA coverage can be considered good or satisfactory (4-5) occupy nearly 40 percent (Fig. 15,19).

Fig. 15. PA REPRESENTATIVENESS AND COVERAGE FOR DIFFERENT VEGETATION SUBTYPES IN RUSSIA.

There are a total of 103 vegetation classes identified in Russia. Of these, 13 classes of vegetation are not represented within PAs, and 16 classes are found only in zakazniks and national parks. The first group is made up of tundra, broadleaf, foothill and mountain steppe, desert, bogs and mires, and floodplain ecosystems. The second group includes all the above classes except tundra, as well as separate classes of other forest ecosystem types, such as small-leaved deciduous, larch, and dark coniferous forests. Compared to the results of the analysis of vegetation subtypes, there are more vegetation classes with low coverage indices, while the number of classes with high and average coverage indexes is about equal (Fig. 18). A similar situation occurs where areas covered by different vegetation categories are concerned. Compared to subtypes, the proportion of vegetation classes with a coverage index of 1-2 occupies larger areas (almost three times larger), while the share in other categories remains the same (Fig. 16, 19).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 38 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 16. PA REPRESENTATIVENESS AND COVERAGE OF DIFFERENT VEGETATION CLASSES IN RUSSIA.

There are 254 individual vegetation variants in Russia. This layer is the most detailed in the map analysis. About one third of the individual vegetation variants (87) are not represented in PAs; 129 (or about 50 percent) variants are found within zapovedniks. Vegetation variants with the lowest coverage index (1,2) comprise the largest percentage in the PA network (44 percent) (Fig. 18), and when area is considered variants with average coverage indexes (3) prevail (Fig. 17,19).

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 39 Fig. 17. PA REPRESENTATIVENESS AND COVERAGE IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUAL VEGETATION VARIANTS IN RUSSIA.

Fig. 18. DISTRIBUTION OF TYPOLOGICAL VEGETATION COVER CATEGORIES DEPENDING ON PA NETWORK REPRESENTATIVENESS AND COVERAGE.

A – subtypes, B – classes, C – variants. X axis – indicator value, Y axis – portion of typological units (%).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 40 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Fig. 19. RATIO OF TYPOLOGICAL VEGETATION CATEGORIES WITH DIFFERENT PA COVERAGE INDICATORS (%).

A – subtypes, B – classes, C – variants. Designations: 1 – PAs completely absent; 2 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 3 – zapovedniks are absent, other types of PAs cover substantial areas or zapovedniks and other types of PAs cover restricted areas; 4 – proportion of PA coverage or zapovednik area larger than the average for Russia; 5 – total PA area and total zapovednik area are larger than the country average.

The results of assessment of the Russian PA network coverage and representativeness in terms of vegetation cover are summarized in Table 16. The results are relatively similar to the values observed in the landscape diversity analysis, though they are slightly higher on average. This is probably due to the fact that we used a less detailed vegetation map for the analysis compared to the landscape map analysis.

Table 16. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE RUSSIAN PA NETWORK IN TERMS OF TYPOLOGICAL VEGETATION UNITS (%). Qualitative non- Quantitative differentiated Typological categories of vegetation differentiated estimates estimates

Simple Weighted Simple Weighted Vegetation subtypes 93 99 97 65 Vegetation classes 87 95 78 59 Individual vegetation variants 60 83 85 55

Each vegetation type for each of the three hierarchical levels (subtypes, classes, variants) was also evaluated according to representativeness in the PA network (Table 17). We found that the PA system is most representative for tundra communities, forests, and sparse woodlands. The PA network is the least representative for vegetation diversity in steppe and various wetland ecosystems, such as bogs and floodplains. This gap in coverage is especially pronounced in zapovedniks.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 41 Table 17. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF HIERARCHICAL VEGETATION SUBUNITS WITHIN THE RUSSIAN PA NETWORK (%).

Subtypes Classes (formations) Variants

Types of vegetation Number Number Number of subunits of of subunits of of subunits of in PA network in PA in PA network in PA in PA network in PA % represented % represented % represented % represented % represented % represented % represented % represented % represented in zapovedniks in zapovedniks in zapovedniks

Arctic deserts 1 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 Tundra 4 100.0 100.0 10 70.0 70.0 27 59.3 55.6 Highlands 2 100.0 100.0 4 100.0 100.0 6 83.3 83.3 Forests 8 100.0 100.0 44 95.5 84.1 106 49.1 38.7 Deserts 2 50.0 50.0 4 50.0 25.0 7 28.6 14.3 Steppe 4 100.0 75.0 11 81.8 45.5 29 41.4 20.7 Mountain xerophyte vegetation 1 100.0 100.0 1 100.0 100.0 2 100.0 50.0 Shrubs 2 100.0 100.0 2 100.0 100.0 4 50.0 50.0 Halophyte communities 2 100.0 0.0 2 100.0 0.0 7 28.6 0.0 Bogs and mires 4 75.0 75.0 8 87.5 62.5 35 48.6 28.6 Dynamic floodplain communities 9 88.9 55.6 12 75.0 50.0 27 44.4 18.5

2.6 Comparative Representativeness of the PA Network in terms of Various Geographical Diversity Criteria Cumulative data on representativeness of the Russian PA network for all kinds of geographical dif- ferentiations considered above are presented in Table 18. The results show that the PA network is representative of almost all of the largest territorial subunits: physical-geographical lands, latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts, climate-hypsometric landscape groups, vegetation types and subtypes. Their total area with sufficient coverage is close to the total area of Russia. When more detailed subunits are analyzed, we can conclude that the current PA network is representative of at least 40 percent of the landscape varieties, and in most cases no less than 70 percent of the country. This can be considered the minimal overall estimate of PA system representativeness. Understandably, representativeness of the zapovednik system is always lower than the entire PA network with zakazniks and national parks included. However, indices of representativeness and coverage for the entire PA network are only slightly larger (by 10-15 percent, and rarely as high as 25 percent) than those for zapovedniks alone. This in essence means that the role of national parks and zakazniks for ensuring geographical representativeness of the national PA network is significantly less than the role of zapovedniks. As a general rule, area-dependant PA coverage for the territorial subunits considered is less than the proportion of represented subunits. This is demonstrated by the fact that among different types of territorial subunits, the entire PA network lacks subunits that cover small areas and/ or are relatively rare.

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 42 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Table 18. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE RUSSIAN PA NETWORK IN TERMS OF VARIOUS TYPES AND LEVELS OF GEOGRAPHICAL DIVERSITY.

Total number % with PAs % with zapovedniks Territorial subunits of subunits Number Area Number Area REGIONS: Physical-geographical lands 15 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Physical-geographical provinces 158 61.2 66.8 47.5 52.3 Latitudinal zones of lowlands and altitudinal belts 17 94.1 99.7 82.4 99.4 WWF Ecoregions 49 87.8 96.3 81.6 94.1 LANDSCAPES: Climate-hypsometric landscape groups 50 92.0 99.9 82.0 96.1 Climate-hypsometry landscape subgroups 123 84.6 96.3 74.0 89.2 Specific landscape groups 650 42.0 73.2 30.6 63.5 VEGETATION COVER: Types 13 100.0 100.0 92.3 99.9 Subtypes 41 92.7 99.9 78.1 95.1 Classes 103 87.4 95.3 71.8 84.7 Variants 254 65.7 82.9 50.8 72.2

2.7 Analysis of Integrated Physical-geographical Representativeness of the Protected Areas Network We assessed the representativeness of the existing national protected areas network to consider simultaneously various types of geographical division of the country, i.e., the proportion of geographical subunits that are well represented within the protected areas network. As a result of analysis of overall physical-geographical representativeness of the PA network, including both regional and typological components, zones of regional-typological and physical-geographical representativeness were identified and assessed for the entire protected areas system. For this analysis, the range of specific landscape groups within physical-geographical provinces are considered as basic territorial physical-geographical units. These units (determined by overlapping individual layers of physical-geographical provinces and specific landscape groups) are the lowest possible elements considered within the entire database. They combine both landscape typology and regional characteristics. For the entire territory of Russia, a total of 1,233 ranges of specific landscape groups were identified. The results of calculations made for zones of physical-geographical representativeness for all zapovedniks and for the entire Russian PA network are shown in Figure 20. In the first instance, the zone of representativeness equals 28.2 percent for zapovedniks and 42.5 percent for the entire PA network, if compared to the total land surface of the country. These indices can be used to assess overall physical-geographic representativeness.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 43 Fig. 20. ZONES OF PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIVENESS (green) OF ZAPOVED- NIKS (top) AND THE ENTIRE PA NETWORK (bottom) OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

Black lines delineate the borders of physical-geographical lands, red lines – province boundaries. The entire area of distribution of basic subunits present within the PA network is considered as the representatineness zone of group of PAs (or individual PA).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 44 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Similar parameters were calculated for physical-geographical countries and provinces (Fig. 21).

Fig. 21. RELATIVE AREA OF REPRESENTATIVENESS ZONES OF ZAPOVEDNIKS (top) AND THE ENTIRE PA NETWORK (bottom) IN PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL COUNTRIES (left) AND PROVINC- ES (right).

Physical-geographical countries with significantly large areas of PA representativeness zones (more than 70 percent of the total area) include Amur-Primorye, the Altai-Sayan, Dauria and Fennoscandia. For Fennoscandia, this number is nearly 80 percent, which is the maximum figure for all physical-geographical countries. The lowest share of representativeness zone area is found in three adjacent countries – the Yakutsk depression, Central Siberia, and Northeast Asia, where the percentage of representativeness zones ranges from 15 to 20 percent. Among the 97 physical-geographical provinces where PAs are present, 40 provinces (i.e., 25 percent of the total number of provinces) are characterized by over 80 percent coverage of representativeness zones. In five provinces this parameter equals 100 percent (the four Arctic provinces and wet subtropical forests of the Western Caucasus). After that, the number of provinces with a lower area of representativeness zones decreases: 23 provinces have 60 to 80 percent area of representativeness zones, 16 provinces – 40 to 60 percent, 11 provinces – 20 to 40 percent, and 10 provinces with less than 20 percent of the area of the representativeness zones covered by PAs.

Figure 22 illustrates the relationship between the total area of PA representativeness zones in the provinces and the area of the PAs themselves. Though there is an obvious direct proportional relationship between the two, there are some unusual exceptions. While PAs cover relatively large areas in some provinces, at the same time their level of representativeness is very low. There are also examples at the other end of the spectrum, when the area of a PA is small, but representativeness is equal to more than 80 percent of area of the province.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 45 Fig. 22. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE RELATIVE AREA OF REPRESENTATIVENESS ZONE OF PAS AND THE RELATIVE AREA OF THE PAS FOR PHYSICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCES. (Top – for zapovedniks only; bottom– for all PA).

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 46 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) 2.8 Assessment of Representativeness in relation to Climatic Conditions In addition to conservation of natural communities and specific natural features, zapovedniks are charged with monitoring the environment. Monitoring of climate change, habitat, and the biota’s response to climate has become one of the most pressing issues in recent years. Therefore we also analyzed the current representativeness of the zapovednik system for diversity of climate types. For each zapovednik, in the first stage we identified areas where variation of temperature and precipitation remained almost stable over the last 100-year period. We assessed the representativeness of existing zapovedniks using as a basis a landscape map together with satellite image data and data from weather stations over the period of 1950 to 2000 extrapolated to a relief map. For the analysis of climate-related variables, we considered data on average temperatures, amplitudes of monthly temperature fluctuations, precipitation, and a hydrothermal coefficient that reflects the relative proportion of warmth and humidity. This classification allows all the different spatial combinations of climate variables to be represented and areas with different types of sea- sonal dynamics to be determined. As a result, boundaries of areas with different climate types and areas with typical conditions can both be delineated, as well as areas with the largest diversity of climatic conditions. Representativeness of zapovedniks for climatic conditions is depicted in Figure 23.

Fig. 23. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TEMPERATURE (A) AND PRECIPITATION (B) PARAMETERS IN EXISTING ZAPOVEDNIKS (maximum correlation value: blue – over 95%, yellow – 90% to 95%, red – less than 90%).

These maps fully reflect the situation as far as representativeness of landscape and climate types is concerned in existing zapovedniks, and allow us to delineate areas where the network of PAs needs to be improved. In the second stage of the analysis, we selected two types of specific territories within larger regions that are important for monitoring: areas where landscape diversity is the greatest and where the boundaries of different climate zones merge, on the one hand, and the most typical areas on the other.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 47 The procedure to identify the most typical areas in terms of landscape and climate combinations is similar to the procedure described for landscape representativeness. As a result of this analysis, we identified 147 areas (Fig. 24) that are not covered by the existing zapovednik system and require integration into the perspective PA network in order to ensure representation of the majority (or even all) different combinations of landscape conditions and climate dynamics in Russia.

Fig. 24. AREAS WITH TYPICAL COMBINATIONS OF LANDSCAPE TYPES AND CLIMATE DYNAM- ICS THAT NEED TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING PA SYSTEM, AND THAT OVERLAP OR BORDER WITH PLANNED PAS (green) OR ARE LOCATED <100 KM (yellow) OR >100 KM (red) FROM THEM.

Of the 147 typical (model) areas identified, 75 areas overlap or border planned PAs and 61 typical areas are situated within 100 km from the nearest planned PA listed in Part II of this analysis. This distance is actually negligible at the scale of monitoring climatic conditions. The remaining 11 areas (Fig. 24) located more than 100 km from PAs, which were at one time proposed in previous project stages (Part II) need to be added to the list of proposed new PAs.

2.9 Assessment of Representativeness and Coverage of the PA Network for Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Diversity and Species Richness A detailed and complete analysis of representativeness of the PA network in Russia for biota is impossible without a complete set of data. For a large number of federal zakazniks (sanctuaries) and national parks, and even for some zapovedniks, data are still lacking even for relatively well-studied groups such as vertebrates and vascular plants. The state of knowledge on invertebrate fauna and mosses is even worse. Given the limitations on the availability of data, we considered in the analysis only vascular plants, lichens, and vertebrate animals. For other groups, we had to limit the analysis to species included in the Red Data Book of Russia. We based the assessment of the adequacy of conservation efforts for Red Data Book species on the

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 48 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) opinions of experts on species distribution, on ecological preferences and the state of populations in different parts of a species’ range, on the numbers of individuals within existing PAs, and some other parameters. Mammals. In total 229 terrestrial mammal species occur regularly on the territory of Russia (excluding seals, whales, dolphins, bats and invasive species). Of these, 217 species, or almost 95 percent, are found in existing PAs. Fifty-three species and subspecies of mammals are included in the Red Data Book of Russia. Four other species that are most likely extinct in Russia are also listed in the Red Data Book. In total, 41 Red Data Book species (77 percent) are found within the PA network, though for 14 of these, the present PA coverage is insufficient to ensure their conservation. Thus, the existing PA system guarantees conservation of 51 percent of all rare and threatened mammal species (excluding whales and dolphins) in Russia. Birds. Currently, 822 species of birds have been identified in the Russian Federation, and 707 (86 percent) of these have been recorded within PAs. Of these, 80 species, including 38 breeders and regular migrants, are found in only one PA. At the same time, 119 species of Russian bird fauna, including 21 breeders, are not found within the existing PA system at all. However, most of the species that breed in Russia but are not found within PAs may be observed there in the future, or they are so poorly studied that site-based conservation planning is not possible. The Red Data Book of Russia includes 116 bird forms (species, subspecies, and populations) that are observed more or less regularly within the country. Of these 108 are found in PAs of varied status. At the same time, the PA coverage for 60 Red Data Book forms (out of those that are known for PAs) are inadequate to ensure site-based conservation. The existing PA network therefore sufficiently protects only 48 species or 41 percent of all taxa listed in the Red Data Book. Reptiles. Reptile fauna in Russia includes 79 terrestrial species (excluding sea turtles and sea snakes). Fifty-nine species, or about 75 percent of terrestrial fauna, are found within PAs. Of these, 23 species have been observed in only one PA. Twenty species of terrestrial reptiles are not found within PAs at all. Of the 22 taxa (species and subspecies) of reptiles included in the Red Data Book of Russia 14 (59 percent) are found within PAs; six of these require additional conservation measures. Thus site- based conservation is ensured for only eight species (36 percent) of reptile taxa. Amphibians. Russian fauna includes 29 individual species of amphibians. Of these 27 (93 percent) are found within the existing PA network and have rather stable populations. Eight species and subspecies (including two not found in PAs) are included in the Red Data Book; six species require additional site-based protection. Thus, the existing PA system guarantees conservation of only two (25 percent) of the Red Data Book amphibians. Rare species of terrestrial and freshwater invertebrates. The Red Data Book of Russia includes 94 insects from the orders Odonata, Orthoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera. Of these, 49 species (52 percent) have been confirmed within existing PAs. Eighteen more species are also likely to occur within existing PAs, though there are no reliable records. However, if this figure is taken into account, then the representativeness of rare and endangered insect species within the PA network could be as high as 71.2 percent. The remaining 27 species are unlikely to be found within existing PAs, and the distribution of 13 of these is so poorly understood that site- based conservation cannot be planned appropriately. Of the 49 species that are known to be found within the existing PAs, conservation measures are sufficient for 33, while the viability of the remaining 16 species depends on the state of populations outside protected areas and thus requires improvements of site-based conservation efforts. Consequently, we can conclude that the coverage of the existing PA network for rare and endangered insects from the Red Data Book of Russia is at least 35 percent. In addition to insects, the Red Data Book of Russia also lists 11 species of Annelid worms and 32 species of freshwater snails and bivalves (marine invertebrates excluded); five (45.5 percent) and 21 (65.6 percent) species are found within PAs, respectively.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 49 Vascular plants. As of early 2008, 8,128 species and subspecies of vascular plants were found within zapovedniks of Russia. This comprises 65 to 68 percent of the total wild flora of Russia, which includes about 125,000 species. The floristic representativeness of individual zapovedniks ranges from 30 to 70 percent of the total number of species according to floristic regions as defined in the book “Flora of the USSR.” Of the 8,128 species, 2,453 (30.2 percent) are found only in one PA, 1,210 (14.9 percent) –in two PAs, and 835 (10.3 percent) in three PAs. Thus, more than 55 percent species of vascular plants are represented in three or fewer Russian zapovedniks. Among the 514 plant species included in the Russian Red Data Book, the existing PA network inadequately represents 20 species of mosses and 219 species of vascular plants. Wild ancestors of cultivated plants that represent genetic plant diversity and therefore require protection as part of the nation’s natural heritage were also considered separately in the analysis. In total, 1,680 species are found in the Russian Federation and 1,148 species or 68.4 percent have been noted in zapovedniks. At the same time, 532 species of wild ancestors of cultivated plants, including 25 species from the Russian Red Data Book, have not been recorded in any zapovedniks. Lichens. There are currently no official published data on the entire national list of lichens, however, experts put the figure at about 3,200 species. Within the zapovedniks and national parks of Russia, 2,262 species of lichens have been identified, or about 70 percent of the total diversity for the country. Of these, about 30 percent are found only in one zapovednik or national park, about 310 species have been recorded in two zapovedniks, and about 210 species in three PAs. Therefore, almost 50 percent of lichens occur within three or fewer Russian protected areas. Of the 157 species that are considered endemic to Russia, only 34 species (21.7 percent) are known in zapovedniks or national parks. Accordingly, nearly 80 percent of the endemic lichen flora in Russia is not covered by the existing PA network (though one cannot exclude that some species will be found in existing PAs in the future). The list of lichens included in the Russian Red Data Book includes 42 species, of which 38 (90.5 percent) are found in zapovedniks or national parks.

Since we lack data on the full inventory of flora and fauna in existing PAs, in this analysis we can only estimate the minimum (lowest reliable) representativeness for these groups in the PA network. This means that, in reality, the representativeness of the PA network in terms of species richness and diversity for all the considered groups may be slightly larger than the values shown in Table 19.

Table 19. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SPECIES DIVERSITY FOR SOME GROUPS OF ORGANISMS IN EXISTING PAS.

Number of species Taxonomic groups % In Russia In PAs Lichens 3,200 2,262 70.6 Vascular plants 12,500 8,088 64.7 Amphibians 29 27 93.1 Reptiles 79 59 74.7 (except sea turtles and sea snakes) Birds 822 707 86.0 Mammals (except seals, whales, and bats) 229 217 94.8

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS OF TERRESTRIAL PAS 50 (ECOLOGICAL GAP ANALYSIS) Representativeness of the PA network was also analyzed for Red Data Book species based on a significant number of larger taxa. For all the forms that occur within PAs, we assessed the adequacy of conservation measures. The results of this assessment are given in Table 20.

Table 20. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF RARE AND ENDANGERED FORMS INCLUDED IN THE RED DATA BOOK OF RUSSIA, AND ADEQUACY OF SITE-BASED CONSERVATION WITHIN PAS.

Number of Recorded in PAs Adequately covered by PAs Taxonomic groups forms Number % Number % Lichens 42 38 90.5 38 90.5 Mosses 44 24 54.5 24 54.5 Vascular plants 514 294 57.2 < 200 < 39.0 Annelids 11 5 45.5 5 45.5 Freshwater molluscs 32 21 65.6 21 65.6 Insects 94 49-67 52.1-71.3 33 35.1 Endemic freshwater fish with restricted 8 2 25.0 2 25.0 ranges Amphibians 8 6 75.0 2 25.0 Reptiles 22 14 63.6 8 36.4 Birds (except likely extinct and rare vagrants) 116 108 93.1 48 41.4 Mammals (except extinct and rare vagrants) 53 41 77.4 27 51.0

For vertebrate species, PA coverage amounts to 87 percent (1,010 out of 1,159 species considered). In sum, for all the groups considered (944 species), the existing PA network adequately con- serves only 43 percent of all forms included in the Russian Red Data Book.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 51 3. Assessment of Representativeness of Marine PAs

There is no widely accepted classification of marine landscapes and habitats and consequently there are no maps that cover all the coastal waters of Russia. Therefore, we analyzed the representativeness of the existing marine PA network only in relation to physical-geographical subunits and marine WWF Ecoregions. In the analysis, marine areas were subdivided into three groups: • Arctic seas • Far Eastern seas • Seas of the Atlantic Ocean basin

3.1 Arctic Seas To assess the geographical representativeness of the existing marine PA network in the Arctic Ocean, we used the original map of physical-geographic zoning that includes 33 physical-geographical provinces combined into six marine basins; see also Figure 25, Table 21.

Fig. 25. PRESENCE OF MARINE PAS IN ARCTIC OCEAN PROVINCES. (The White Sea is not depicted).

Colors: green – PA area is sufficient; yellow – PAs present, but coverage is insufficient; orange – PAs absent.

Protected areas cover parts of only eight out of 33 marine provinces, and in half of the cases, the area of PAs is neither sufficient for complete representativeness nor for ensuring conservation of especially valuable biological objects. If we consider that a value of 1 is given to provinces where marine PA coverage is sufficient, a value of 0.5 represents provinces where marine PAs are present, but the area is inadequate, and a value of 0 is for the provinces where marine PAs are absent, then the total representativeness of the existing PA network in relation to the entire marine area of the Arctic Ocean is equal to 18.2 percent. This means that less than a fifth of the landscape diversity of this region is represented within the existing PA system. Among the 33 provinces, 21 are coastal regions that include territorial waters of the Russian Federation and are most valuable and relevant for conservation. If only these areas are taken into consideration, the same representativeness estimate is 19 percent, which is nearly equal to the level of representativeness for the entire region.

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS 52 OF MARINE PAS If we consider larger areas – the six marine basins of the whole region, then the greatest level of representativeness is found for the Chukotka (33.3 percent) and the Barents Sea (31.3 percent) basins, then for the Kara Sea (20 percent) and the White Sea (17 percent) basins. The two remaining basins – the Polar Arctic and the Laptev-East Siberian lack marine PAs altogether.

Table 21. FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS IN GEOGRAPHICAL PROVINCES OF THE ARCTIC SEAS (coastal provinces are shaded)

Units of physiographical division Presence of federal MPAs Marine Basin Climate zone Province 1. West Polar Arctic - Polar arctic basin Arctic 2. East Polar Arctic - 3. Continental slope - 4. Frans Josef Land + Arctic 5. Northern Barents – Novaya Zemlya - 6. Northern Barents Sea + 7. Kola v Barents Sea basin 8. Kanin-Pechora v Subarctic 9. Barents Sea – Southern Novaya Zemlya - 10. Central Barents Sea - Cold temperate 11. Varranger - Kola v Subarctic 12. Kola – Kanin - White Sea basin 13. West White Sea v Cold temperate 14. East White Sea - 15. Kara –Novaya Zemlya - Arctic 16. Kara – Severnaya Zemlya - 17. Northern Kara - Laptev Sea – East 18. Kara-Novaya Zemlya Southern - Siberian Sea basin 19. Baidaratskaya - Subarctic 20. Ob’- Yenisey - 21. Taimyrian + 22. Southern Kara - 23. Laptev –Severnaya Zemlya - Arctic 24. Laptev – Northern East Siberian - 25.Eastern Taimyr - 26. Khatanga-Yana - Chukotka Sea basin 27. Novosibirskiye Isleands - Subarctic 28 Indigiro-Kolymian - 29. Southern Laptev - 30. Southern East Siberia - Arctic 31. Northern Chukotka - Чукотский 32. Southern Chukotka + Subarctic 33. Chukotka Coastal - “+” – adequately represented, “v” – inadequately represented “-“ – absent, “о” – buffer zones of MPAs

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 53 3.2 Far Eastern Seas For the Pacific Ocean, we analyzed only the coastal region, which is divided into 23 provinces and combined into six regions represented by basins and island chains (Fig. 26, Table.22). Among the 23 provinces in the coastal region of the Far Eastern seas, marine PAs are present in only six provinces. In two of these, areas covered by PAs are insufficient for adequate representativeness and ecosystem conservation. Additionally, buffer zones of zapovedniks are situated in three other provinces.

Fig. 26. PRESENCE OF Table 22. FEDERAL PROTECTED AREAS IN GEOGRAPHICAL MARINE PAS IN THE COAST- PROVINCES OF THE FAR-EASTERN SEAS COASTAL ZONE. AL PROVINCES OF THE FAR Presence EASTERN SEAS. Regions Zones Province of federal MPAs MARINE BASINS

1.Chukotkan -

2. The Anadyr - Bering Sea Subarctic 3.Koryakian -

4. Karagino v

5.West Kamchatkan - Subarctic 6. Shelikhov Bay o

The Sea 7. Magadan o of Okhotsk 8. Ayanian v Cold temperate 9. Shantarian -

10. Amurian -

11. Tatar Strait - The Sea Cold temperate 12. Primorye - of Japan Warm temperate 13. Southern Primorye +

INSULAR ARCS

Aleut Subarctic 14. Commander Islands +

Subarctic 15. Avachinsky Bay province v

16. Northern Kuriles - Cold temperate Kamchatka- 17.Central Kuriles - Kuriles 18.Southern Kuriles o Warm temperate Colors: 19.Lesser Kuriles + green – PA area is sufficient; yellow – PAs are present, but in- 20.Northern Sakhalin - adequate; Sakhalin - Cold temperate 21.Central Sakhalin - orange – PAs are lacking Japan 22.Southern Sakhalin -

Warm temperate 23. Sakhalin - Moneron -

“+” – adequately represented, “v” – inadequately represented “-“ – absent, “о”– buffer zones of MPAs

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS 54 OF MARINE PAS Overall representativeness, calculated in the same way as for the Arctic Ocean seas, comprises 19.6 percent in the Far Eastern region and thus is similar to the level in the coastal provinces of the Arctic basin. Among the six physical-geographical regions of the Far East, the highest level of representativeness (100 percent) is found for the Aleut region, as there is only one such region in the entire group. The Kamchatka-Kuriles (30 percent) and the Sea of Japan (33.3 percent) regions come next. For the Bering Sea Region, representativeness equals 12.5 percent, and for the Sea of Okhotsk Region – 8.3 percent. There are no PAs in the Sakhalin-Japan region.

3.3 Seas of the Atlantic Ocean Basin The Bay of Finland in the Baltic Sea and parts of the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea belong to the Atlantic Ocean basin. There are no marine PAs the Baltics and in Black Sea coastal waters. In the Sea of Azov there is only the Priazovsky Sanctuary (zakaznik), which covers the lower river ecosystems and cannot be considered strictly marine. For both the Bay of Finland and the Sea of Azov, islands, shallow bays, estuaries, deltas, and similar ecosystems are the areas of greatest conservation interest at a national scale. These areas have been included into the perspective framework for expanding the terrestrial PA network. For this reason, the only areas where marine PAs could be designated in the Atlantic Ocean basin are in the Black Sea.

3.4 Marine WWF Ecoregions Coastal waters of the Russian Federation belong to 15 marine WWF Ecoregions that can be subdivided into three realms (Fig. 27, Table 23).

Fig. 27. PRESENCE OF MARINE PAS IN MARINE WWF ECOREGIONS.

Colors: green – PA area is sufficient; yellow – PAs exist, but coverage is insufficient; orange – PAs do not exist.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 55 Marine PAs exist in 11 of the marine WWF Ecoregions. However, only for Aleut Islands Ecoregion can be considered fully representative with sufficient coverage for ensuring conservation of key species and other valuable phenomena (Table 23). The overall representativeness of existing marine PAs in marine WWF Ecoregions (calculated according to the above described methodology) is about 37 percent. The greatest values of representativeness are found in the Temperate North-Pacific realm (60 percent), medium – in the Arctic realm (33.3 percent) and the lowest values – in the Temperate North-Atlantic realm (16.7 percent).

Table 23. PAS IN MARINE WWF ECOREGIONS.

Realm Province Ecoregion Presence of marine PAs Black Sea 1. Black Sea -

Temperate North Atlantic 2. Baltic Sea - North-European seas 3. Coasts of Fennoscandia V

4. White Sea V

5. Barents Sea V

6. Kara Sea V

Arctic Arctic seas 7. Laptev Sea -

8. East Siberian Sea -

9. Chukotka Sea V

10. Bering Sea -

11. Kamchatka shelf V

12. Aleut islands + Cold-Temperate Temperate North Pacific 13. Sea of Okhotsk V North-Western Pacific 14. Oyashiro current V

15. Sea of Japan V

“+” – sufficient, “v” – inadequate, “-“ – none, “o” – buffer zones of PAs present

ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVENESS 56 OF MARINE PAS 4. Assessment of PA Completeness for Areas of High Conservation Value at the International and National Levels In this section, we briefly discuss coverage of the existing PA system as concerns Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites), Important Bird Areas, High Conservation Value Forests, areas with rare plant communities of Siberia, and areas where wild ancestors to cultivated plants are abundant. The above list can certainly be expanded to include other types of high conservation value areas, such as areas with high concentrations of wildlife, localities where unique objects of abiotic nature are found, etc. However, a review and analysis for the latter is impractical as no country-wide inventories of such sites in Russia have been made. Thirteen wetlands of international importance, officially recognized by Ramsar, are still not covered by the PA network. Additionally, Wetlands International recommends designation of PAs with national conservation status for 10 wetlands on the federal Shadow List (for new Ramsar sites) and an additional 14 wetlands on the regional Shadow Lists. The distribution of these areas is shown in Figure 28.

Fig. 28. WETLANDS RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IN THE PLANNED PA NETWORK.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 57 Among the several hundred Important Bird Areas of international and national significance that are not yet protected or are protected inadequately, the Russian Bird Conservation Union suggested that 199 areas should be designated as federal level PAs (Fig. 29). Twenty of these are partially located adjacent to or within the boundaries of existing PAs, thus their protection could be improved through strengthening (enlarging, changing the status, etc.) of existing zakazniks, zapovedniks, and national parks. The remaining 179 areas that require conservation on the federal level can be integrated into the PA network only through designation of new PAs, including altering the status of existing regional and local protected areas.

Fig. 29. IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS RECOMMENDED FOR DESIGNATION AS PAS

ASSESSMENT OF PA COMPLETENESS FOR AREAS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 58 AT THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS Among the list of High Conservation Value Forests (HCVF) that require site-based protection on the federal level, we mainly included the most valuable intact forest landscapes (IFL). There is no doubt that integration of all IFL into the PA network is not realistic and may not even be necessary, as many of them are not threatened with serious degradation in the foreseeable future. Some IFLs are already leased to forestry enterprises. In these cases, designation of PAs is impossible due to legal and socio-economic considerations. The conservation value of the remaining IFLs var- ies. All else considered equal, priority was given to: IFLs located: • in European Russia (except regions where non-forest ecosystems prevail), • in southern parts of the forest zone, • in mountain areas, • in priority WWF Ecoregions, or IFLs that include: • forests with valuable tree species, • types of forests currently not represented or underrepresented in the existing PA network. (Fig. 30)

Fig. 30. VIRGIN FOREST AREAS AND PAS OF RUSSIA (Red – federal PAs; green – IFLs).

According to data from 2002, 289 million hectares of intact forests remained in Russia. By 2007, that number declined by an estimated 13 million hectares and currently is slightly more than 276 million hectares. There are a total of 552 IFLs in Russia. Only 4.8 percent of the IFLs (13.3 million hectares) are currently protected within federal protected areas – state nature reserves (zapovedniks), national parks, zakazniks, or natural monuments. In addition to IFLs, we also took into account other types of HCVFs proposed for designation as PAs. Reliable estimates also exist on the state of nearly pristine intact forest areas primarily in the broadleaf and temperate forest zones of European Russia.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 59 Altogether, we identified 236 territories with intact and nearly intact forest areas and HCVFs that should be conserved through designation of national PAs. Fifty-six of these territories have small portions already within existing PAs, but these areas are so small that conservation cannot be ensured. Conservation in these areas can be improved through enlarging the PAs and addition of new clusters to already existing zapovedniks, national parks, and zakazniks. In the same manner, that is, through enlarging existing PAs, it is possible to secure an additional 36 forest areas near or adjacent to existing PAs. For conservation of the remaining IFLs and HCVFs (Fig. 31), new PAs need to be established or the status of existing regional and local protected areas needs to be strengthened.

Fig. 31. AREAS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE FORESTS. (They can be integrated into the national PA network only by designation of new PAs or increasing the protected status of existing regional and local PAs).

Priorities designated by colours (1 – top priority)

ASSESSMENT OF PA COMPLETENESS FOR AREAS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 60 AT THE INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS Among the 196 areas with rare plant communities of Siberia, we identified 59 communities that require site-based conservation and that are missing or underrepresented in existing PAs (Fig. 32). The overall representativeness of the existing PA network for Siberian rare plant communities of national value comprises 20.3 percent; however not all of them are adequately conserved. For nine communities, protection could be ensured through increasing the area of existing PAs but, in certain cases, this will not be sufficient. New PAs must be established in order to conserve 45 different communities. Finally, 23 areas were proposed for inclusion in the national PA network due to large populations of wild ancestors to cultivated plants for their value to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Six of these areas can be secured completely or partly through optimization of existing PAs. Conservation of the remaining sites can be achieved only through designation of new national PAs (Fig. 32).

Fig. 32. AREAS WITH RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES OF SIBERIA (green) AND AREAS WHERE WILD ANCESTORS TO CULTIVATED PLANTS (yellow) THAT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SITE-BASED CONSERVATION ON THE FPAS.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 61 62 II. PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK FOR EXPANDING THE NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 63 Proposals for expanding the national PA network in the Russian Federation were elaborated based on the results of the above analysis. These are meant to improve its representativeness in terms of biodiversity values, to ensure adequate conservation of rare and endangered species and other natural features, and to allow development of recreational opportunities. We developed proposals for expanding the PA network to meet these objectives. 1. Key Principles for Expanding the Network of National Protected Areas of the Russian Federation

The founding principles of the perspective PA network are that it should represent 100 percent of: • Terrestrial and marine geographical provinces; • Terrestrial and marine WWF Ecoregions; • Landscape subunits, treated at the level of zonal and sectoral subtypes and altitudinal subclasses of terrestrial landscapes, and taking into account different climatic and remote sensing variations; • All vegetation units considered to the level of geographical variations in vegetation communities; • Combinations of terrestrial landscape and climatic conditions; • Combinations of climate types and long-term climate dynamics; • Species of flora and fauna.

Additionally, the perspective PA network should include: • Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites) and wetlands on the Shadow List recommended for PA desgination by Wetlands International; • Important Bird Areas recommended for PA designation by the Russian Bird Conservation Union; • High Conservation Value Forests (some types); • Areas permanently or temporarily inhabited by all species of rare and endangered animals and plants, including freshwater molluscs and freshwater fish in the Red Data Book of Russia; PA area should be large enough to ensure conservation of all such species in the Russian Federation; • Rare and unique vegetation units and plant communities with large populations of wild ancestors of cultivated plants; • Key areas of endemism for vascular plants that are endemic to Russia though not included in the Red Data Book; • The most important areas for economically valuable plant species with limted populations not included in the Red Data Book. • All areas included in the existing federal list of planned new state nature reserves and national parks for the period of 2001 to 2010; • Areas that do not fit the above criteria, but still require protection on the national level due to the presence of unique features of abiotic nature and/or recreational and/or scientific and educational significance.

KEY PRINCIPLES FOR EXPANDING THE NETWORK OF NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS 64 OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2. Identification of Areas and Sites for New PA Designation

We identified areas for new PA designation according to a multistep process, based on maps and other cartographic materials obtained during the analysis described in Part I of this report. Stage I. Identification of sites (areas) for new PA designation The gap-analysis and gap-filling procedure included the following steps: 1. Identification of important areas in terms of overall species representativeness and species conservation, as well as high conservation value sites42 situated within the top priority geographical subunits; 2. Selection of the most suitable sites for PA designation within the top priority representative geographical subunits not covered in step 1 of this process; 3. Identification of areas with the maximum number of species requiring protection not covered in step 1 of the process; 4. Selection of important areas for other species requiring conservation measures not covered in previous steps of this process and that overlap with high conservation value sites; 5. Identification of important areas for conservation of other unrepresented species; 6. Identification of remaining high conservation value sites; 7. Selection of suitable sites for PA designation in geographical subunits lacking in the entire existing PA network and not yet covered in the previous steps of this analysis; 8. Identification of areas to fill out the list of planned PAs so that it integrates all types of longterm climate-related dynamics of natural communities in Russia as determined using remote sensing and climate change data. This multistep process allowed consideration of all the types of areas and sites described above while, at the same time, keeping the total number of sites in the list of proposed PAs at an accept- able minimum. Where there was a choice of one or more sites that were equally significant for PA designation, the areas were prioritized according to the following criteria: 1. Areas with maximum landscape diversity (and therefore with maximum potential biodiversity), assessed using a diversity index (spatial diversity, internal distance, and landscape com- parison indices for 20 km2 plots overlaid for each of the corresponding indices); 2. Existing regional PAs; 3. Areas included in the list of planned zapovedniks and national parks recommended for designation in the Russian Federation from 1994 to 2010; 4. Areas planned to be designated as PAs according to plans for creating regional PA networks in regions of the Russian Federation; 5. Areas most remote from large cities, main roads, and transportation corridors, having the lowest population density, density of settlements, and the least developed road network. As a result of this stage, 385 territories were identified, including perspective PAs that already have or will have several clusters recommended for designation as independent PAs or as new clusters of existing PAs. Stage II. Fine-tuning the initial list of perspective PAs. 5 The list of potential PAs determined in the previous stage was sent out experts 3 for review. Their comments and corrections were collected on needs and opportunities for designating specific PAs, including on optimal location, boundaries, status, etc., as well as other proposals for designation of additional PAs. Besides the initial list of proposals, experts recommended creation of another 123 PAs. Suggestions were also received on modifying clusters of existing PAs. Stage III. Final list of perspective PAs and setting priorities for designation and creation. Taking into account the recommendations of experts, PAs in the list for potential designation were ranked to prioritize their need for creation according to the above criteria.

4 High conservation value sites include, first of all, high conservation value forests (HCVF), wetlands of international and national importance, Important Bird Areas of international and national importance. In addition, this category includes rare and endangered vegetation communities included in the Green Book of Siberia, as well as areas with large populations of plants that are ancestors to cultivated crops. 5 Over 200 experts from government agencies, educational and research institutions, protected areas, and NGOs took part in the review process.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 65 3. Planning the Perspective PA Network

3.1. Terrestrial PAs In all, 508 terrestrial areas were suggested for PA designation as a result of the full analysis, using the criteria outlined in Table 24.

Table 24. DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL PAS ACCORDING TO CATEGORY AND PURPOSE (designation criteria). Designation Criteria (purpose)

Categories Total sites sites Other needs conservation value sites value conservation conservation value sites value conservation needs + Conservation of high of needs + Conservation Geographic representativeness Geographic Geographic representativeness + representativeness Geographic Conservation of high conservation value value high conservation of Conservation Conservation of high conservation value value high conservation of Conservation diversity and species conservation needs and species conservation diversity Geographic representativeness + Species representativeness Geographic representativeness + Conservation of high of + Conservation representativeness Species diversity and species conservation and species conservation Species diversity and species conservation Species diversity Geographical representativeness + Species representativeness Geographical Strict nature reserve 46 13 21 13 14 9 17 1 134 (zapovednik) National park 20 8 15 4 10 4 6 3 70 Zakaznik (sanctuary) 38 30 43 16 26 6 26 14 199 Natural monument 4 6 4 12 3 17 14 2 62 Requires clarification 10 9 5 2 8 1 1 7 43 Total 118 66 88 47 61 37 64 27 508

The largest group of proposed PAs (118) meets all three applied criteria, namely significance of the site for: (a) overall geographic representativeness, (b) conservation of species diversity and certain species, and (c) protection of high conservation value sites. At the same time, all geographical subunits could be represented with designation of 333 areas (40 percent of all proposed areas), and 61 areas were identified only for the gegraphic representativeness. In total, 317 perspective PAs will ensure conservation of high conservation value sites; 64 of these areas were identified for this criteria alone. Finally, the list includes 27 areas which were proposed for designation for other reasons: the presence of especially valuable objects of abiotic nature, recreation potential, the role they play for maintaining the ecological balance in regions, or guaranteeing conservation of populations of economically important species. Eleven additional areas were identified to ensure that all different climate types were included in the new PA system.

PLANNING THE PERSPECTIVE PA NETWORK 66 The actions needed for designation of proposed PAs can be subdivided into four groups (Table 25).

Table 25. ACTIONS NEEDED FOR DESIGNATION OF TERRESTRIAL PAS BY CATEGORY.

Actions for PA designation Optimization of existing PA Designation of new stand-alone boundaries, designation of PAs new clusters of existing PAs

Categories Changing the Total status of existing Designation Designation in New PA regional PAs and in areas existing regional designation optimization currently not PAs of boundaries/ protected clusters

Strict nature reserve (zapovednik) 31 39 41 23 134 National park 32 36 0 2 70 Zakaznik (sanctuary) 103 90 6 0 199 Natural monument 49 12 1 0 62 Requires clarification 17 23 3 0 43 Total 232 200 51 25 508

Establishment of 44 percent of perspective terrestrial national PAs requires changes in the status of existing regional PAs. In some cases, their boundaries require modification as well. In all other cases, new PAs need to be created in areas not currently protected. A total 432 new national PAs are proposed for creation. The remaining 76 areas should be included as new clusters in existing PAs.

Table 26 shows the size class distribution of planned terrestrial PAs.

Table 26. DISTRIBUTION OF PLANNED TERRESTRIAL PAS BY RECOMMENDED AREA (size class).

Areas that require Areas that require Recommended area, designation of new changing the status Total 1,000 ha PAs of existing PAs <5 56 12 68 5-10 19 15 34 10-20 18 21 39 20-50 46 40 86 50-100 40 31 71 100-200 34 33 67 200-500 36 45 81 500-1000 17 12 29 >1000 17 16 33

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 67 Thus we can calculate the overall area for designation of all PAs using the mean figure for each PA size class (for the > 1,000 ha size class, a value of 1,500 thousand ha was used).

The total area of all proposed terrestrial PAs will comprise about 119 million hectares; 61 million hectares are found on lands that are not granted any form of protection at present.

Ranking Perspective terrestrial PAs according to their Conservation Value Since we have proposed a large number of perspective PAs, plans for their creation cannot be implemented in a short period of time. Obviously, sites that will provide the greatest contribution to improving representativess of landscapes and habitats and the integrity of the entire PA network should be created first. Accordingly, we ranked PAs by to their nature conservation value, i.e., with respect to their individual significance for achieving the overall tasks for PA network development. This ranking is carried out according to three criteria reflecting the significance of a potential PA for: (a) ensuring geographical (landscape and habitat) representativeness of the entire PA network; (b) ensuring conservation of all natural communities and ecosystems of high conservation value; (c) ensuring adequate representativeness of species diversity and conservation of rare and endangered species. For parameter (a) the basic data used included: • The geographical subunit priority index value: (physical and geographical provinces, WWF Ecoregions, landscape subunits that represent different combinations of zonal and sectoral subtypes and altitudinal and longitudinal landscape subtypes, and lowest cluster units of vegetation cover). • Index of overall geographical priority; • Areas with combinations of landscape and climate conditions lacking in existing PAs. For parameter (b) we considered whether the areas or parts of the areas represent the following: • Wetlands of International Importance; • Important Bird Areas; • High Conservation Value Forests; • Communities and ecosystems included in the Green Book of Siberia and/or recognized as especially valuable according to other criteria; • Communities with large populations of wild ancestors of cultivated plants; • Large breeding concentrations of wildlife (seabird or shorebird colonies, rookeries of marine mammals). Parameter (c) reflects species diversity and species-related features of a particular perspective PA, and considers the presence of: • Viable populations of terrestrial vertebrates not present in other existing PAs; • Populations of vascular plants endemic to Russia not included in the Red Data Book and not represented in existing PAs, but requiring site-based conservation measures; • Economically important (for medicine, food, etc.) species of vascular plants with limited populations not included in the Red Data Book of Russia and requiring site-based conservation measures; • Terrestrial and freshwater rare and endangered species of plants and animals included in the Red Data Book of Russia not covered by the existing PA system or requiring additional site-based conservation. Thus we used these three parameters reflecting the different aspects of nature conservation significance and value of potential PAs to calculate an overall index of conservation value (General Significance Index).

PLANNING THE PERSPECTIVE PA NETWORK 68 GSI = (G+A+S)/3, where:

G – index of significance for geographical representativeness; A – index of significance for concentration of especially important nature areas (Ramsar, IBAs, etc.); S – index of significance for species representativeness and conservation;

G = [([(p+e+l+v)/4]+g)/2]-a, where:

p – index of province representativeness priority (1-5); e – index of ecoregion representativeness priority (1- 5); l – index of landscape representativeness priority (1-5); v - index of vegetation (ecosystem) representativeness priority (1-5); g – general index of geographical representativeness priority (1-5); a – presence of landscape divisions not covered in federal PAs (1 or 0);

A = 1 – Ramsar and IBA + HCVF and/or others 2 – Ramsar or IBA + HCVF and/or others 3 – Ramsar or IBA or HCVF or Green Book Communities or wildlife concentrations 4 – Only concentrations of wild ancestors of cultivated plants 5 – None of the considered features S = 1 – > 27 considered species of all categories 2 – 10-27 considered species of all categories 3 – 4-9 considered species of all categories 4 – 1-3 considered species of all categories 5 – 0 considered species of all categories

The total ranking of the conservation value index for all perspective PAs and their distribution by categories of conservation value is shown in Table 27.

Table 27. DISTRIBUTION OF PERSPECTIVE TERRESTRIAL PAS BY CONSERVATION VALUE ESTI- MATE (1 – highest conservation value; 5 – lowest conservation value).

Additional PAs proposed PAs proposed based on Additional PAs Conservation to represent all types of representativeness analysis and proposed by Total value index landscapes and climate overall PA network integrity experts dynamics scenarios

10 000 2280028 3 125 10 0 135 4 213 78 6 297 5 8 35 5 48

No PAs obtained the highest conservation value index of 1, and thus the top priority sites are considered those with a conservation value index of 2. There were 28 of these in the total list comprising less than six percent of all proposed areas. The largest number of proposed PAs (almost three-fifths of the total list) turned out to be in the third priority category with an index value of 4.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 69 It is worth noting that among the areas identified based on the representativeness analysis and the analysis of overall integrity of the existing PA network, the number with high ranking conservation value indices was noticeably larger than those recommended by experts. In particular, most of the perspective PAs with the lowest conservation value indices were suggested by experts. We may thus conclude that the methodology to identify potential PAs enabled us to determine the highest number of sites with the greatest conservation value. All proposed PAs can be divided into three categories according to their conservation value and their potential contribution to the objectives of perfecting the national PA network: • Level 1 – territories with a conservation value indices of 2 (28 PAs); • Level 2 – territories with a conservation value indices of 3 (135 PAs) and • Level 3 – territories with conservation value indices of 4 and 5 (345 PAs)

3.2. Marine PAs For planning the perspective network of marine PAs, we first analyzed the geographical representativeness of existing marine PAs taking into account zoning of marine areas of Russia, oceanographic features and specifics of natural resources potential, and marine WWF Ecoregions. In determining potential marine PAs, we first identified the most representative parts of marine regions where marine PAs are currently lacking or cover only the least important parts of marine geographical diversity. We also took into account the presence and distribution of features such as: habitat elements and systems, including: • extensive marshes • watt coasts • tombolo landforms • river estuaries • coastal cliffs • highly productive lagoons and bays • relict water bodies (including refuges) • permanent ice-free areas • ice-edge zones • frontal zones • upwellings • underwater mountains and bars biological features of high conservation value such as: • extensive settlements of benthic organisms • areas with large biomass of benthic organisms • breeding and spawning areas • feeding grounds of aquatic organisms • rookeries of marine mammals • marine mammal birthing grounds • breeding, wintering, and migratory concentrations of seabirds and waterfowl • aggregations of molting seabirds and marine mammals • migration stopover sites • populations of rare and endangered species linked to marine habitats Additionally we considered the presence and location of existing PAs, distribution of sites with long-term monitoring activities, the presence of unique geological and hydrological features, cultural and natural monuments, as well as the role of the areas in sustainable development of coastal regions (fisheries, tourism, etc.). We also took into account human population density in coastal areas and the level of influence of transportation and shipping in marine and coastal regions. In planning the potential marine network, we considered that some areas could be included in the terrestrial PA network. For example, all areas in the Gulf of Finland and the Sea of Azov repre-

PLANNING THE PERSPECTIVE PA NETWORK 70 senting transitional types of ecosystems (estuaries, deltas, river mouths, spits, and bars) could be considered in the potential network for terrestrial PAs and thus were not covered here. 6 A total of 58 marine PAs 2 were proposed for designation in the marine PA network. Action required for their designation are given in Table 28.

Table 28. ACTIONS NEEDED FOR CREATION OF MARINE PAS BY RECOMMENDED CATEGORY.

Actions for PA designation Changes in boundaries, Designation of new stand- adjustments of areas/ alone PAs clusters of existing PAs

Categories Total PAs not protected protected not Designation of new PAs of Designation of their boundaries/clusters of Designation in areas currently currently in areas Designation regional PAs and optimization and optimization PAs regional Changing the status of existing existing of Changing the status Designation in existing regional regional in existing Designation

Strict nature reserve (zapovednik) 1 0 0 0 1 National park 1 4 0 0 5 Zakaznik (sanctuary) 28 8 0 1 37 Natural monument 5 3 0 0 8 Marine area within zapovednik 6 0 6 Marine area within national park 0 1 0 0 1 Total 35 16 6 1 58

Twenty-nine percent of all proposed marine PAs require changes in the status of existing PAs or, in some cases, optimization of their areas. In all other cases, new PA designation is required in marine areas currently not granted protection. 51 new marine PAs are proposed for creation. The remaining 7 areas should be included as new marine clusters in existing PAs.

6 According to existing legislation, all marine areas are managed by federal governmental agencies and thus only federal (national) level PAs can be established.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 71 In 10 cases, proposed marine PAs are adjacent to or near proposed terrestrial PAs, which would imply designation of combined terrestrial and marine PAs.

The total area of proposed marine PAs equals about 63 million hectares, of which 33 million hectares consist of areas currently not granted any form of protection (Table 29).

Table 29. DISTRIBUTION OF PERSPECTIVE MARINE PAS BY RECOMMENDED AREA (size class).

Areas that require Areas that require Recommended area, designation of new change in status of Total 1,000 ha PAs existing PAs < 5 3 2 5 5-10 8 2 10 10-20 4 1 5 20-50 3 3 6 50-100 1 1 2 100-200 3 - 3 200-300 2 - 2 200-500 4 1 5 500-1000 6 3 9 1000-5000 6 2 8 5000-10000 1 1 2 > 10000 - 1 1

Ranking Perspective Marine PAs according to their Conservation Value We ranked the proposed marine PAs according to their conservation value and related designation priority using the same three parameters for ranking perspective terrestrial PAs, reflecting their contribution to: (a) physical-geographic and biogeographical representativeness; (b) protection of high conservation value ecosystems as part of the entire PA network; (c) ensuring conservation of populations of rare and endangered and\or economically valuable species. Parameter (a) includes two components that reflect the value of a marine area in terms of representativeness in relation to physical-geographical provinces and to WWF Ecoregions. We took into account parameter (b) if the proposed PAs included any of the 10 types of most valuable habitats and biological features considered during planning of perspective PAs. The third parameter (c) reflects species representativeness and takes into account the presence of rare and endangered species requiring site-based conservation measures, which are included in the Red Data Book, as well as breeding or feeding grounds of economically valuable species. Based on these three parameters, we calculated the General Index of Conservation Value for each of the proposed marine PAs. In sum: • 18 proposed marine PAs belong to the Level 1 conservation value ranking • 33 marine PAs were included in Level 2 • 7 proposed PAs were included in Level 3

PLANNING THE PERSPECTIVE PA NETWORK 72 LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED NATIONAL PAS. NATIONAL PROPOSED AND EXISTING OF LOCATION Fig. 33. Fig.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 73 3.3. General Review of the Perspective Framework for Expanding the PA Network The complete gap analysis resulted in identification of 566 marine and terrestrial areas requiring protection and PA designation (Figure 33, Table 30) , including 519 terrestrial and combined terrestrial and marine areas covering 122 million hectares, and 47 marine areas covering 61 million hectares. These include: • 141 areas with zapovednik status or terrestrial/marine clusters of zapovedniks • 76 national parks or terrestrial or marine clusters of national parks • 236 federal-level zakazniks (sanctuaries) • 70 natural monuments • 43 areas for which the optimal category or status has not yet been determined Table 30. PROPOSED CATEGORIES OF PLANNED PAS.

National Natural PAs Zapovedniks Zakazniks Undefined Total Parks monuments Terrestrial 134 70 199 62 43 508 Marine 6 4 31 7 0 48 Combined terrestrial-marine 1261010 Total 141 76 236 70 43 566

The majority of potential PAs are recommended for designation as zakazniks (236) or zapovedniks (141). In comparision, only half as many national parks (76) and natural monuments (70) were proposed. In 43 cases, the status of the protected area has not yet been determined. Designation of 216 new PAs and 26 terrestrial or marine clusters of existing PAs requires modifying the status or size of already existing PAs. In all other cases, new PAs (267) or terrestrial or marine clusters (57) need to be created on areas that are currently not protected.

In summary, the proposed framework for expanding the national PA network includes: • optimization and modification of boundaries (expansion) and designation of new clusters for 83 existing PAs: 70 zapovedniks, two national parks, seven zakazniks, one natural monument, and three PAs with status to be determined • Designation of 483 new PAs: 71 zapovedniks, 74 national parks, 229 zakazniks, 69 natural monuments, and 40 PAs with status to be determined.

PLANNING THE PERSPECTIVE PA NETWORK 74 4 Representativeness and Integrity of Perspec- tive PAs

Estimates of the potential representativeness and integrity of PAs possible under various scenarios of implementation are summarized in Tables 31 to 33, including: only expanding (optimizing) existing PAs; expanding existing and designating first priority new PAs; creating first and second priority new PAs; and for full-scale implementation of all proposals. Geographical representativeness of the PA network can be slightly increased through enlarging existing PAs and designating new clusters of existing PAs (Fig.34, Table 31). Designation of all PAs in nature conservation value Level 1 will ensure a more substantial but still not satisfactory effect. Significant improvement in representativeness in most cases can be reached only if new PAs from nature conservation value Levels 1 and 2 are designated. Implementation of the entire framework is the only way to guarantee complete and integrated representativeness. The national PA network would then represent all considered terrestrial subunits and about 90 percent of coastal marine provinces and WWF Ecoregions.

Fig.34. PRIORITY REGIONAL-TYPOLOGICAL TERRITORIAL UNITS FOR NEW PA DESIGNATION. (Colors represent different levels of priority (1 = maximum)).

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 75 Table 31. CURRENT AND POTENTIAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF GEOGRAPHICAL SUBUNITS IN THE PA NETWORK.

Existing PAs + proposed PAs (including clusters of existing PAs):

Geographical subunits Total Total Existing PAs Existing All existing PAs (axe level) (axe PAs existing Level 1 Level Designation of clusters for clusters of Designation Levels 1 and 2 Levels 97 102 112 137 158 Physical-geographical provinces 158 (61.4%) (64.6%) (70.1%) (86.7%) (100%) 42 44 46 48 48 Terrestrial WWF Ecoregions 48 (87.5%) (91.7%) (95.8%) (100%) (100%) Climate and hypsometry landscape 104 110 118 120 123 123 subgroups (84.6%) (89.4%) (96%) (97.6%) (100%) Landscape types (according to maps 145 151 163 184 200 with adjusted remote sensing and 200 (72.5%) (75.5%) (81.5%) (92%) (100%) climate data) 167 190 191 226 254 Vegetation variants 254 (65.7%) (74.8%) (75.2%) (89.3%) (100%) 12 13 27 42 42 Coastal marine provinces 47 (25.5%) (27.7%) (57.4%) (89.4%) (89.4%) 10 10 12 14 14 Marine WWF Ecoregions 15 (66.7%) (66.7%) (80%) (93.3%) (93.3%)

By enlarging already existing PAs, we can obtain significant results and improve representativeness and completeness of species conservation for rare and endangered plants and animals (Fig. 35, Table 32). If these recommendations are implemented, over 30 percent of the species requiring conservation will be guaranteed protection. Designation of new PAs from Level 1 will provide the largest conservation effect for terrestrial vertebrates, with approximately the same effect for Red Data Book species. However, this measure will not provide a significant conservation effect for species not listed in the Red Data Book or for endemic plants in the Red Data Book. Designation of new PAs in Levels 1 and 2 will ensure conservation of at least two-thirds of the animal species requiring site-based protection, but will still be less effective for plant conservation. Full-scale implementation of all the proposals for new PA designation will ensure complete representativeness of the PA network for conservation of vertebrate fauna and will ensure full conservation of endemic plants not included in the Red Data Book.

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND INTEGRITY OF PERSPECTIVE PAS 76 Fig.35. PRIORITY REGIONS FOR PA DESIGNATION FOR ENSURING SPECIES REPRESENTATIVE- NESS AND FULL PROTECTION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES (Colors represent numbers of species in one habitat).

Table 32. POTENTIAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF SPECIES LACKING OR NOT ADEQUATELY REP- RESENTED IN EXISTING PAS.

Existing PAs + proposed PAs (including clusters of existing PAs):

Species groups existing PAs) existing conservation of existing PAs existing of requiring site-based site-based requiring Optimized boundaries Optimized Total number of species number of Total Existing PAs + optimized + optimized PAs Existing and 2 PAs (including clusters of of (including clusters PAs Levels Levels Level 1 Level Levels 1 Levels 1, 2 and 3 bounaries + all proposed new bounaries + all proposed

Terrestrial vertebrates not included in 7 13 19 22 22 22 the Red Data Book (32%) (59%) (86.4%) (100%) (100%) Terrestrial and freshwater animals 55 57 158 169 169 126 (74.5%) included in the Red Data Book (32.5%) (33.7) (93.5%) (100%) Plants and lichens included in the 246 246 76 (30.9%) 74 (30.1%) 146 (59.3%) 198 (80.5%) Red Data Book (100%) Endemic species not included in the 1 8 19 19 19 6 (32.6%) Red Data Book (5.3%) (42%) (100%) (100%)

Site-based conservation of all Red Data Book species can be guaranteed only through implementation of all the proposals, including both designation of new PAs and enlargement of existing PAs.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 77 Improving the situation for protecting high conservation value sites would require implementation of all proposals for enlarging existing PAs and designating new PAs in Levels 1 and 2 (Table 33). This will guarantee that at least half of the sites requiring protection will be covered. Implementation of all the proposals will ensure conservation of all high conservation value sites in the PA network (for Ramsar wetlands and areas with large numbers of wild ancestors of cultivated plants, this can be achieved only through designation of new PAs without enlarging existing ones). Under this scenario, two-thirds of Ramsar Shadow List sites and one-third of all Important Bird Areas would also be included in the PA network.

Table 33. POTENTIAL REPRESENTATIVENESS OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE SITES IN THE PAS.

Existing PAs + proposed PAs (including clusters of existing PAs):

Type of high conservation value site Total Existing PAs Existing Levels Levels Level 1 Level of existing PAs existing of of existing PAs) existing of 1, 2 and 3 Levels 1 and 2 Levels Optimized boundaries Optimized Existing PAs + optimized + optimized PAs Existing bounaries + all proposed bounaries + all proposed new PAs (including clusters (including clusters new PAs Wetlands of International 21 23 26 32 34 34 34 Importance (Ramsar (61.8%) (67.6%) (76%) (94.1%) (100%) (100%) sites) Wetlands recommended for 15 21 30 32 34 designation as PAs 34 - (44.1%) (61.8%) (88.2%) (94.1%) (100%) (including Ramsar sites)

All Shadow List 42 44 53 87 108 110 166 wetlands (25.3%) (26.5%) (31.9%) (52.4%) (65.1%) (66.3%)

IBAs recommended 33 49 114 157 179 for designation as 179 - (18.4%) (27.4%) (63.7%) (87.7%) (100%) PAs 136 169 185 250 293 315 All IBAs 967 (14.1%) (17.5%) (19.1%) (25.9%) (30.3%) (32.6%)

High Conservation 56 97 56 105 194 236 236 Value Forests (23.7%) (41.1%) (23.7%) (44.5%) (82.2%) (100%)

Plant communities of special (national) 15 31 26 42 65 74 value included in 74 (20.3%) (41.9%) (35.1%) (56.8%) (87.8%) (100%) the Green Book of Siberia Areas with large populations of wild ancestors of 6 11 18 21 21 21 - cultivated plants (28.6%) (52.4%) (85.7%) (100%) (100%) recommended for designation as PAs

REPRESENTATIVENESS AND INTEGRITY OF PERSPECTIVE PAS 78 List of Sources and References

A. Digital maps produced during project implementation: • Digital version of physical and geographical zoning of the USSR by G.D. Rikhter (FGAM, 1964); • Digital version of the Landscape Map of the USSR scale 1:4 000 000; • Map of landscape types of Russia based on the zonal and sectoral component of the Landscape Map of the USSR and the Forest Map of Russia, corrected and adjusted according to remote sensing data and extrapolated climate variables; • Map of landscape diversity (potential biological diversity) of Russia developed based on GEOCOVER 2000 maps of landscape contrasts, inner distances, and diversity maps; • Map of climate types and types of long-term climate dynamics, developed based on extrapolated long-term climate data; • Map of climate diversity of Russia developed on the basis of diversity maps, inner distances and climate contrast maps, obtained from map of climate types; • Digital ranges maps of vertebrate animals for those absent from existing national PAs; • Digital maps of key sites for conservation of Red Data Book species requiring additional site- based conservation; • Digital range maps of endemic vascular plants and of medicinal plants with limited resources that are not included in the Red Data Book of Russia; • Digital maps of vegetation communities in Siberia requiring site-based conservation; • Digital map of the most significant areas with concentrations of wild ancestors of currently cultivated plants based on relevant recommendations B. Other cartographic materials: • Digital map of Russia, scale 1:1000 000 • Maps of marine physical-geographical provinces for the Arctic Basin and coastal physical- geographical provinces of the Far Eastern seas; • Digital version of the USSR Vegetation Map, scale 1:4 000 000; • Maps of terrestrial and marine WWF Ecoregions; • Digital map of Ramsar sites in Russia; • Digital map of National PAs of Russia (BCC); • Digital maps of PAs of the Far East, Altai-Sayan region, Caucasus, the Arctic (WWF), and Yakutia; • Digital database of worldwide PA maps (WCMC); • Digital map of pristine forest areas of Russia C. Recommendations and proposals: • Recommendations by experts on ways to ensure site-based conservation of rare and endangered species of plants and animals; • Recommendations of the Russian Bird Conservation Union for designation of Important Bird Areas as PAs and the corresponding digital map of IBAs; • Proposals from Wetlands International for designation of Shadow List Wetlands of International Importance as national PAs; • Proposals on federal site-based conservation of High Conservation Value Forests (BCC, Greenpeace Russia, WWF Russia, Non-Commercial Partnership «Transparent World» and other NGO); • A list of the most significant areas with concentrations of wild ancestors of currently cultivated plants; • Proposals and recommendations from the administrative regions and regional experts on developing PA networkin specific administrative regions of the Russia Federation; • Proposals from Rosprirodnadzor (Russian Agency for Monitoring Nature Management) and zapovednik and national park administrations on optimizing existing national PAs D. Other materials: • Perspective plans for development of protected area networks in administrative regions of the Russian Federation.

NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: GAP ANALYSIS AND PERSPECTIVE FRAMEWORK 79 Authors: Vladimir Krever, Mikhail Stishov, Irina Onufrenya Translated by: Lena Lebedeva-Hooft Editor: Laura Williams Design and Production: Artcodex Cover design: © Alexander Evgrafov / WWF-Russia April 2009, WWF-Russia, Moscow, Russia

80 WWF WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation WWF-Russia organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 19, bld.3 Nikoloyamskaya St., 100 countries. 109240 Moscow WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a Russia future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: Tel.: +7 495 727 09 39 • conserving the world’s biological diversity Fax: +7 495 727 09 38 • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable [email protected] • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. http://www.wwf.ru

Vladimir Krever, Mikhail Stishov, Irina Onufrenya NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: AREAS PROTECTED NATIONAL