DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Document for WP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project Document for WP GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY - ~~~/506.y Public Disclosure Authorized RussianFederation Biodiversity Conservation Project Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Project Document May 1996 Public Disclosure Authorized THE WORLD BANK GEF Documentation The Global Environment Facility (GEF) assistsdeveloping countries to protect the global environmentin four areas:global warming, pollution of internationalwaters, destructionof biodiversity,and depletion of the ozonelayer. The GEF is jointlyimplemented bytheUnited Nations DevelopmentProgramme, the UnitedNations Environment Programme, and the World Bank. GEF Project Documents - identifiedby a greenband - provideextended project- specificinformation. The implementing agency responsible for eachproject is identifiedby its logo on the coverof the documenit. GlobalEnvironment Division EnvironmentDepartment World Bank 1818H Street,NW Washington,DC 20433 Telephone:(202) 473-1816 Fax:(202) 522-3256 Currency Eauivalents CurrencyUnit = Ruble I ruble = 100 kopecks Market Exchanee Rates Rubleper US$1 Period Average End of Period 1993 1,018 1,247 1994 2,212 3,550 1995 4,566 4,640 1996 (as of March 31) 4,764 4,856 ReciDient's Fiscal Year January 1 - December 31 Weinhts and Measures Conversions Metric System US System I meter (m) = 3.2808 feet 1 kilometer (km) = 0.6214 mile 2 1 square meter (m ) = 1.196 square yards 1 metricton (ton) = 1.102short tons Acronyms and Abbreviations CD ComponentDirector IUCN World ConservationUnion cM ComponentManager MEPNR Ministry of Environmental CPPI Centerfor ProjectPreparation and Protectionand Natural Resources Implementation NBS national biodiversitystrategy CV curriculumvitae NCB national competitivebidding EA environmentalassessment NGO non-governmentalorganization EIA environmentalimpact assessment NPV net present value EFP EnvironmentalFramework NRM natural resourcemanagement Program PD ProjectDirector EMP EnvironmentalManagement PIG ProjectImplementation Group Project * PM Project Manager ERR economicrate of return PPA ProjectPreparation Advance FFS Federal Forest Service PPAR ProjectPerformance and Audit FSU former SovietUnion Report GC General Consultant SDR SpecialDrawing Rights GEF Global EnvironmentFacility SOE statementof expenditure GET Global EnvimnmentTrust Fund SW staff weeks GOR Governmentof Russia TA technical assistance IBRD InternationalBank for TOR Terms of Reference Reconstructionand Development WCMC World ConservationMonitoring ICB internationalcompetitive bidding Centre IDA InternationalDevelopment WWF World WideFund for Nature Association IEPNM Institutefor EconomicProblems of Nature Management Report No. 15064-RU Russian Federation Biodiversity Conservation Project ProjectDocument May 1996 Infrastructure,Energy and EnvironmentDivision CountryDepartment III Europe and Central Asia Region PART I: PROJECT SUMMARY I RUSSIAN FEDERATION BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT PART 1: GRANT AND PROJECT SUMMARY Recipient: The Russian Federation Beneficiaries: Ministry of Environrental Protection and Natural Resources; Federal Forest Service Amount: SDR 13.8 million (US$ 20.1 million equivalent) Project ID No.: RU-GE-8801 Terms: Grant Financing Plan: Local Foreign Total ---------US$ million equivalent----- GETGrant 11.0 9.1 20.1 Govt. of Russia 4.8 0.0 4.8 Govt. of Switzerland 0.5 0.6 1.1 TOTAL 16.3 9.7 26.0 Economic Rate of Not Applicable Return: Maps: IBRD 27085, 27267, 27290, 27268, 27289 THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT PART 1: Grant and Project Summary 1. Background.The Russian Federation,at one eighthof the world'sland mass, contains an enonnous diversityof vast ecosystemswhich representsome of the last few remainingareas where the dynamicsof ecological processes and wildlife populations can operate naturally. The eight biogeographiczones encompass 54 ecologicalzones and contain associations of species which are outstanding in terms of uniqueness,endemism and biodiversity.Of equal importanceis the role of the huge expansesof forest and tundra which act as a significantcarbon sink. Althoughmuch of Russia's biodiversityfalls outside of the protectedarea system,this systemwhich covers 6% of the country,is the largest, one of the most important and until recently,one of the best organizedin the world (see map IBRD 27085). 2. The Government of Russia (GOR) recognizesthat with the current transition of the Russian economythere will be impacts on biodiversityand nature protection. Indeedthese impacts are already significantly underminingenvironmental protection and biodiversity conservation. Agricultural and forestry resource use occurs in changing and ill-definedadministrative and legal circumstances,further complicatedby the uncertaintygenerated by the land reformand privatizationprocess. Administrativeand politicaldecentralization has assignedthe responsibilityof policy implementationto a local level,which has resulted in a loss of coordinationand a minimalimplementation of laws and activity regulation. The consequentunsustainable use of natural resourcesis augmentedby the fragmentedinstitutional structure - particularlyevident in the ProtectedArea administration- whichis unifornly and simultaneouslybeset by a lack of coordination,efficacy, finance and clarity. At the Federal level, the Ministryof Environmental Protectionand Natural Resources(MEPNR) is entrustedwith the task of overallcoordination of activities related to ProtectedAreas, while certain types of ProtectedAreas are administeredby other line agencies, such as the FederalForest Service(FFS) in the case of National Parks. 3. Consequently,there is an urgent need for a clearly definedmethodology which will reconcilethe current dynamismin economicand politicaldevelopment with the restraint requiredto prevent significant biotic depredation. In order for an ecologically sustainable use of natural resources to occur, environmentalconcems must be comprehensivelyincorporated into the private, public and community decisionmaking process. This impliesthat decisionmakers have to understandthe essentialimportance of the nature of environmentalobjectives vis-a-vis other developmentobjectives; the mosteffective means and potential actions to attain those objectives;and the ways in which such environmentalconcems can be effectedin practicaltemis. 4. This project is associatedwith the EnvironmentalFramework Program of the Russian Federation (EFP), and specificallywith the EnvironmentalManagement Project (EMP) loan from the Bank to the Russian Federationwhich has providedfinancing for the core componentsof the EFP. The EFP has been designedto enhancethe current systemof environmentalmanagement in the Russian Federation.The EFP is estimated to cost a total of US$282 million over a period of approximatelyfour to five years. It addressesenvironmental and natural resourcemanagement issues at a federal,regional and local levels in demonstrationareas across a wide spectra of natural areas. It has eight principal components: i) institutionaland policy strengthening;ii) air quality management;iii) water quality and water quality management; iv) hazardous waste maiWgement;v) biodiversity conservation and natural resources management;vi) conservationand managementof cultural and natural heritage;vii) the NationalPollution AbatementFacility; and viii) Center for Project Preparation and Implementation(CPPI). Of these, the EMP, with a total cost of US$ 110 million,concentrates on core elementsof i, iii, iv, vii and viii. This 2 Grant and Profect Summary project,although financially distinct from the EMP, consists of the core biodiversitycomponent of the EFP and thereforeis associatedwith, and will be implementedunder, the same organizationalarrangements as the EMP (see Figure 1.1). 5. Lessons from Previous Bank/IDAInvolvement. The proposed project was developedin concert with the EnvironmentalManagement Project. It draws substantiallyfrom the project'sProject Preparation Advance(PPA). The PPA (see Annex 1.2 for a sumrnmaryof PPA activities)was particularlysuccessfiul, not only in disbursementeffectiveness ($780,000 was disbursed in seven months), but also in making significantprogress in developingproject methodology and organizationalissues as well as initiatingvery comprehensiveand innovativework in BiodiversityPolicy Matricesand protectedarea Gap Analysis. The project also benefited from lessons learnt from other bi-lateral and NGO projects currently being implementedin Russia. Additionally,in terms of experiencedrawn from other GEF Biodiversityprojects, it draws on other countries'projects during the GEF Pilot Phase. The key lessonsinclude: (a) the importance of a nationalstrategic framework for biodiversitypolicy; (b) the need to build in financialsustainability and long-term commitment from the Government; (c) the need to involve local people and regional administrations in design and implementation;(d) the role of macroeconomicand sector policies in establishingan appropriate incentive framework for resource conservation;(e) the need to expand the protected area system and improve management technologies for unprotected habitats with high biodiversityand environmentalvalues. Finally,the communityparticipation programs supported under the project incorporatelessons learnedfrom several on-goingpilot activitiesin Russia managedby NGOs, the Governmentand other donor agencies. 6. Rationalefor GEF Funding. Fundingfrom the GEF is justifiedfor three reasons. 7. GlobalImportance of the Biodiversity of the Russian Federation. The vast range of endemicand non-endemicspecies
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gap Analysis in Support of Cpan: the Russian Arctic
    CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 9 GAP ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF CPAN: THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC Igor Lysenko and David Henry CAFF INTERNATIONAL SECRETRARIAT 2000 This report, prepared by Igor Lysenko, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and David Henry, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Global Resource Information Database (GRID)-Arendal, is a technical account of a Gap Analysis Project conducted for the Russian Arctic in 1997-1999 in support of the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) of CAFF. It updates the status and spatial distribution of protected areas within the CAFF area of the Russian Federation and provides, in 22 GIs based maps and several data sets, a wealth of information relevant for present and future management decisions related to habitat conservation in the Russian Arctic. The present Gap Analysis for the Russian Arctic was undertaken in response to the CPAN Strategy and Action Plan requirement for countries to identify gaps in protected area coverage of ecosystems and species and to select sites for further action. Another important objective was to update the Russian data base. The Analysis used a system of twelve landscape units instead of the previously used vegetation zone system as the basis to classify Russia's ecosystems. A comparison of the terrestrial landscape systems against protected area coverage indicates that 27% of the glacier ecosystem is protected, 9.3% of the tundra (treeless portion) and 4.7% of the forest systems within the Arctic boundaries are under protection, but the most important Arctic forested areas have only 0.1% protection. In general, the analysis indicates a negative relationship between ecosystem productivity and protection, which is consistent with findings in 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramsar Sites in Order of Addition to the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance
    Ramsar sites in order of addition to the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance RS# Country Site Name Desig’n Date 1 Australia Cobourg Peninsula 8-May-74 2 Finland Aspskär 28-May-74 3 Finland Söderskär and Långören 28-May-74 4 Finland Björkör and Lågskär 28-May-74 5 Finland Signilskär 28-May-74 6 Finland Valassaaret and Björkögrunden 28-May-74 7 Finland Krunnit 28-May-74 8 Finland Ruskis 28-May-74 9 Finland Viikki 28-May-74 10 Finland Suomujärvi - Patvinsuo 28-May-74 11 Finland Martimoaapa - Lumiaapa 28-May-74 12 Finland Koitilaiskaira 28-May-74 13 Norway Åkersvika 9-Jul-74 14 Sweden Falsterbo - Foteviken 5-Dec-74 15 Sweden Klingavälsån - Krankesjön 5-Dec-74 16 Sweden Helgeån 5-Dec-74 17 Sweden Ottenby 5-Dec-74 18 Sweden Öland, eastern coastal areas 5-Dec-74 19 Sweden Getterön 5-Dec-74 20 Sweden Store Mosse and Kävsjön 5-Dec-74 21 Sweden Gotland, east coast 5-Dec-74 22 Sweden Hornborgasjön 5-Dec-74 23 Sweden Tåkern 5-Dec-74 24 Sweden Kvismaren 5-Dec-74 25 Sweden Hjälstaviken 5-Dec-74 26 Sweden Ånnsjön 5-Dec-74 27 Sweden Gammelstadsviken 5-Dec-74 28 Sweden Persöfjärden 5-Dec-74 29 Sweden Tärnasjön 5-Dec-74 30 Sweden Tjålmejaure - Laisdalen 5-Dec-74 31 Sweden Laidaure 5-Dec-74 32 Sweden Sjaunja 5-Dec-74 33 Sweden Tavvavuoma 5-Dec-74 34 South Africa De Hoop Vlei 12-Mar-75 35 South Africa Barberspan 12-Mar-75 36 Iran, I. R.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 UNEP-WCMC Global List of Transboundary Protected Areas Lysenko I., Besançon C., Savy C
    2007 UNEP-WCMC Global List of Transboundary Protected Areas Lysenko I., Besançon C., Savy C. No TBPA Name Country Protected Areas Sitecode Category PA Size, km 2 TBPA Area, km 2 Ellesmere/Greenland 1 Canada Quttinirpaaq 300093 II 38148.00 Transboundary Complex Greenland Hochstetter Forland 67910 RAMSAR 1848.20 Kilen 67911 RAMSAR 512.80 North-East Greenland 2065 MAB-BR 972000.00 North-East Greenland 650 II 972000.00 1,008,470.17 2 Canada Ivvavik 100672 II 10170.00 Old Crow Flats 101594 IV 7697.47 Vuntut 100673 II 4400.00 United States Arctic 2904 IV 72843.42 Arctic 35361 Ia 32374.98 Yukon Flats 10543 IV 34925.13 146,824.27 Alaska-Yukon-British Columbia 3 Canada Atlin 4178 II 2326.95 Borderlands Atlin 65094 II 384.45 Chilkoot Trail Nhp 167269 Unset 122.65 Kluane 612 II 22015.00 Kluane Wildlife 18707 VI 6450.00 Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek 12200 WHC 31595.00 Tatshenshini-Alsek 67406 Ib 9470.26 United States Admiralty Island 21243 Ib 3803.76 Chilkat 68395 II 24.46 Chilkat Bald Eagle 68396 II 198.38 Glacier Bay 1010 II 13045.50 Glacier Bay 22485 V 233.85 Glacier Bay 35382 Ib 10784.27 Glacier Bay-Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve 11591 MAB-BR 15150.15 Kluane/Wrangell-St Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek 2018 WHC 66796.48 Kootznoowoo 101220 Ib 3868.24 Malaspina Glacier 21555 III 3878.40 Mendenhall River 306286 Unset 14.57 Misty Fiords 21247 Ib 8675.10 Misty Fjords 13041 IV 4622.75 Point Bridge 68394 II 11.64 Russell Fiord 21249 Ib 1411.15 Stikine-LeConte 21252 Ib 1816.75 Tetlin 2956 IV 2833.07 Tongass 13038 VI 67404.09 Global List of Transboundary Protected Areas ©2007 UNEP-WCMC 1 of 78 No TBPA Name Country Protected Areas Sitecode Category PA Size, km 2 TBPA Area, km 2 Tracy Arm-Fords Terror 21254 Ib 2643.43 Wrangell-St Elias 1005 II 33820.14 Wrangell-St Elias 35387 Ib 36740.24 Wrangell-St.
    [Show full text]
  • Migration: on the Move in Alaska
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Alaska Park Science Alaska Region Migration: On the Move in Alaska Volume 17, Issue 1 Alaska Park Science Volume 17, Issue 1 June 2018 Editorial Board: Leigh Welling Jim Lawler Jason J. Taylor Jennifer Pederson Weinberger Guest Editor: Laura Phillips Managing Editor: Nina Chambers Contributing Editor: Stacia Backensto Design: Nina Chambers Contact Alaska Park Science at: [email protected] Alaska Park Science is the semi-annual science journal of the National Park Service Alaska Region. Each issue highlights research and scholarship important to the stewardship of Alaska’s parks. Publication in Alaska Park Science does not signify that the contents reflect the views or policies of the National Park Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute National Park Service endorsement or recommendation. Alaska Park Science is found online at: www.nps.gov/subjects/alaskaparkscience/index.htm Table of Contents Migration: On the Move in Alaska ...............1 Future Challenges for Salmon and the Statewide Movements of Non-territorial Freshwater Ecosystems of Southeast Alaska Golden Eagles in Alaska During the A Survey of Human Migration in Alaska's .......................................................................41 Breeding Season: Information for National Parks through Time .......................5 Developing Effective Conservation Plans ..65 History, Purpose, and Status of Caribou Duck-billed Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae), Movements in Northwest
    [Show full text]
  • Geography, M.V
    RUSSIAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY FACULTY OF GEOGRAPHY, M.V. LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY, RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES No. 01 [v. 04] 2011 GEOGRAPHY ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY ggi111.inddi111.indd 1 003.08.20113.08.2011 114:38:054:38:05 EDITORIAL BOARD EDITORS-IN-CHIEF: Kasimov Nikolay S. Kotlyakov Vladimir M. Vandermotten Christian M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State Russian Academy of Sciences Université Libre de Bruxelles 01|2011 University, Faculty of Geography Institute of Geography Belgique Russia Russia 2 GES Tikunov Vladimir S. (Secretary-General) Kroonenberg Salomon, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Delft University of Technology Faculty of Geography, Russia. Department of Applied Earth Sciences, Babaev Agadzhan G. The Netherlands Turkmenistan Academy of Sciences, O’Loughlin John Institute of deserts, Turkmenistan University of Colorado at Boulder, Baklanov Petr Ya. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, USA Russian Academy of Sciences, Malkhazova Svetlana M. Pacific Institute of Geography, Russia M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Baume Otfried, Faculty of Geography, Russia Ludwig Maximilians Universitat Munchen, Mamedov Ramiz Institut fur Geographie, Germany Baku State University, Chalkley Brian Faculty of Geography, Azerbaijan University of Plymouth, UK Mironenko Nikolay S. Dmitriev Vasily V. M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Sankt-Petersburg State University, Faculty of Faculty of Geography, Russia. Geography and Geoecology, Russia Palacio-Prieto Jose Dobrolubov Sergey A. National Autonomous University of Mexico, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Institute of Geography, Mexico Faculty of Geography, Russia Palagiano Cosimo, D’yakonov Kirill N. Universita degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Instituto di Geografia, Italy Faculty of Geography, Russia Richling Andrzej Gritsay Olga V.
    [Show full text]
  • Transboundary Cooperation for Nature Conservation World Trends and Ways Forward in Northeast Asia
    NEASPEC WORKING PAPER Transboundary Cooperation for Nature Conservation World Trends and Ways Forward in Northeast Asia February 2015 This working paper was prepared by Alexandre Edwardes, intern for NEASPEC, under the supervision of Sangmin Nam, Deputy Head, East and North-East Asia Office of the ESCAP. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This paper follows United Nations practice in references to countries. Where there are space constraints, some country names have been abbreviated. Transboundary Cooperation for Nature Conservation Alexandre Edwardes Transboundary Cooperation for Nature Conservation World Trends and Ways Forward in Northeast Asia (May 2015) Table of Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2. Transboundary Conservation Initiatives Worldwide ............................................................................. 4 a. Brief history and current trends in transboundary conservation ...................................................... 4 b. Definitions and designations of transboundary conservation initiatives .......................................... 5 • Transboundary Protected Areas ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • “Mongolia's Network of Managed Resource
    GOVERNMENT OF MINISTRY OF MONGOLIA ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM “MONGOLIA’S NETWORK OF MANAGED RESOURCE PROTECTED AREAS” МОN/13/303 PROJECT THE PROJECT GOAL: The goal is to ensure integrity of Mongolia’s diverse ecosystems to secure viability of nation’s globally significant biodiversity. IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS: • Ministry of the Environment and Tourism THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE: • United Nations Development Program The project objective is to catalyze strategic expansion of Mongolia’s FUNDING: protected areas system through estab- • Global Environmental Facility – 1,309,091 $ lishment of a network of community • UN Development Program – 200,000 $ conservation areas covering • Ministry of the Environment and Tourism -500,000 $ (in-kind) under-represented terrestrial ecosystems. PROGRAMME PERIOD: TOTAL BUDGET: 2013-2018 1,509,091 $ PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SITES: 1. “Gulzat” LPA (Uvs aimag, Bukhmurun soums) 203,316 ha 2. “Khavtgar” LPA (Batshireet soum of Khentii aimag) 104,900 ha 3. “Tumenkhan-shalz” LPA (Tsgaaan ovoo, Bayan-uul soums of Dornod aimag, and Norovlin soum of Khentii aimag) 374,499 ha Expanded area under local protection by 600 thousand ha: ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTPUTS: Expanded area under local protection by about 600.0 thousand hectare and created ecological corridor areas Created under local protection, the ecological corridors/ connectivity support wildlife movement between the state and local pro- 1 tected areas in west and east regions. These are а. 433,9 thousand ha б. 278.9 thousand ha Total of 433,9 thousand ha area, a migration and calv- Argali sheep migration and distribution area of ing land of gazelle located between Tosonkhulstai NR 284.4 thousand ha, that connects Tsagaan shuvuut and Onon Balj NP in Bayan-uul, Tsagaan ovoo and Nor- and Turgen mountain SPAs in Sagil and Buhmurun ovlin soums of Dornod and Khenti aimags; soums of Uvs aimag.
    [Show full text]
  • RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1
    RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1 No. 33 Summer 2003 Special issue: The Transformation of Protected Areas in Russia A Ten-Year Review PROMOTING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN RUSSIA AND THROUGHOUT NORTHERN EURASIA RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 2 CONTENTS CONTENTS Voice from the Wild (Letter from the Editors)......................................1 Ten Years of Teaching and Learning in Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik ...............................................................24 BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION The Formation of Regional Associations A Brief History of Modern Russian Nature Reserves..........................2 of Protected Areas........................................................................................................27 A Glossary of Russian Protected Areas...........................................................3 The Growth of Regional Nature Protection: A Case Study from the Orlovskaya Oblast ..............................................29 THE PAST TEN YEARS: Making Friends beyond Boundaries.............................................................30 TRENDS AND CASE STUDIES A Spotlight on Kerzhensky Zapovednik...................................................32 Geographic Development ........................................................................................5 Ecotourism in Protected Areas: Problems and Possibilities......34 Legal Developments in Nature Protection.................................................7 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE Financing Zapovedniks ...........................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Fall 2005/Winter 2006 No. 40 Voice
    Voice from the Wild (A Letter from the Editors) This fortieth issue of Russian Conservation News goes to press just days after Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement on April 26, 2006, concern- ing the necessity of re-routing a planned oil pipeline beyond the watershed of Lake Baikal. Conservationists and private citizens across Russia welcomed this EDITORIAL BOARD decision, a triumph of environmental stewardship and social responsibility over Executive Editor: Margaret Williams the bottom-line interests of big business. In fact, though, the victory is the entire Assistant Editor: Melissa Mooza world's to celebrate. Lake Baikal, the oldest and deepest of our planet's lakes, with twenty percent of the earth's freshwater resources, is widely regarded as one the Managing Editor: Natalya Troitskaya world's greatest natural treasures. In fact, for its outstanding natural values and for Graphics Artist: Maksim Dubinin its importance to humankind as a whole, the lake was inscribed on the United Design and Layout: Design Group A4 Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Computer Consultation: Natalie Volkova Heritage List ten years ago, in 1996. Translation: Cheryl Hojnowski and Melissa Mooza In this special issue of RCN, we examine Russia's World Natural Heritage sites - Subscriptions Manager: there are seven in addition to Lake Baikal – and the implementation of the Sarah Millspaugh UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Contributing Authors: A. Blagovidov, Heritage (Convention) in the Russian Federation. For many of the almost thirty A. Butorin, Z. Irodova, A. Kargopoltsev, Russian protected areas that are included in the country's World Natural Heritage M.
    [Show full text]
  • Moss Diversity Distribution Patterns and Agglomerates of Local Floras in the Russian Far East
    Botanica Pacifica. A journal of plant science and conservation. 2017. 6(2): 21–33 DOI: 10.17581/bp.2017.06201 Moss diversity distribution patterns and agglomerates of local floras in the Russian Far East Olga Yu. Pisarenko 1* & Vadim A. Bakalin 2 Olga Yu. Pisarenko1* ABSTRACT e­mail: [email protected] Published materials on the mosses of the Russian Far East are summarized. Nine Vadim A. Bakalin 2 hund red and thirty species of mosses were revealed, and a bibliography is provi­ e­mail: [email protected] ded for each taxon. The distribution of each taxon within 39 spatial units (5×5 de grees latitude/longitude) is analyzed. The list for each square was regarded 1 Central Siberian Botanical Garden, SB as the flo ra of minimal size involved in analysis. Analysis of interrelationships RAS, Novosibirsk 630090 Russia be tween each minimal flora has revealed seven floristic associations that corres­ 2 Botanical Garden­Institute FEB RAS, pond to the following territories: Beringian Chukotka, the continental part of Vladivostok 690024 Russia Chu kotka Autonomous District and continental part of Magadan Province, nor­ thern coast of the Sea of Okhotsk, Kamchatka and adjacent islands, Sakhalin and southern Kurils, Russian Manchuria, and the rest part of continental sou­ thern Russian Far East. Centers of moss species diversity are considered. * corresponding author Keywords: Russian Far East, mosses, bryoflora, distribution patterns, diversity, con­ servation, phytogeography Manuscript received: 17.02.2017 РЕЗЮМЕ Review completed: 13.09.2017 Писаренко О.Ю., Бакалин В.А. Закономерности распространения Accepted for publication: 18.09.2017 раз нообразия мхов и естественные агломераты локальных моховых Published online: 19.09.2017 флор на российском Дальнем Востоке.
    [Show full text]
  • From Sacred Cow to Cash Cow Muller, Martin
    From sacred cow to cash cow Muller, Martin License: Creative Commons: Attribution-NoDerivs (CC BY-ND) Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Citation for published version (Harvard): Müller, M 2014, 'From sacred cow to cash cow: the shifting political ecologies of protected areas in Russia', Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, vol. 58, no. 2-3, pp. 127-143. Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • Hymenoptera, Vespidae) Орхон-Селенгинской Впадины Монголии
    1 МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ Бурятский государственный университет На правах рукописи БАТЧУЛУУН БУЯНЖАРГАЛ ФАУНА И ЭКОЛОГИЯ СКЛАДЧАТОКРЫЛЫХ ОС (HYMENOPTERA, VESPIDAE) ОРХОН-СЕЛЕНГИНСКОЙ ВПАДИНЫ МОНГОЛИИ 03.02.08 — экология Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата биологических наук Научный руководитель: доктор биологических наук, профессор Ц. З. Доржиев Иркутск — 2016 2 ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ ВВЕДЕНИЕ ………………………………………………………………. 4 Глава 1. СКЛАДЧАТОКРЫЛЫЕ ОСЫ СЕМЕЙСТВА VESPIDAE (HYMENOPTERA) И ИСТОРИЯ ИХ ИЗУЧЕНИЯ 1.1. Краткая характеристика складчатокрылых ос…………………….. 9 1.1.1. Общие сведения о складчатокрылых осах (Vespidae)... 9 1.1.2. Одиночные складчатокрылые осы подсемейств Masarinae и Eumeninae………………………………………… 11 1.1.3. Общественные складчатокрылые осы подсемейств Polistinae и Vespinae……………………………………………. 14 1.2. История изучения складчатокрылых ос в Монголии…………….. 17 Глава 2. РАЙОН ИССЛЕДОВАНИЙ, МАТЕРИАЛ И МЕТОДЫ 2.1. Особенности природных условий района исследований…………. 21 2.2. Материал и методы…………………………………………………... 28 Глава 3. СИСТЕМАТИЧЕСКИЙ И ЭКОЛОГО-ГЕОГРАФИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ ФАУНЫ СКЛАДЧАТОКРЫЛЫХ ОС ОРХОН-СЕЛЕНГИНСКОЙ ВПАДИНЫ 3.1 Краткий анализ таксономического состава складчатокрылых ос Vespidae Монголии………………………………………………………. 36 3.2 Таксономический состав и распространение складчатокрылых ос Орхон-Селенгинской впадины (аннотированный список)………………… 37 3.3 Внутрипопуляционные социальные группы и их соотношение в фауне веспид …………………………………………………………… 72 3.4 Ареалогический анализ ……………………………………………. 72 3.4.1.
    [Show full text]