DOCSLIB.ORG

Strengthening Protected Area System of the Komi Republic to Conserve Virgin Forest Biodiversity in the Pechora Headwaters Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strengthening Protected Area System of the Komi Republic to Conserve Virgin Forest Biodiversity in the Pechora Headwaters Region Strengthening Protected Area System of the Komi Republic to Conserve Virgin Forest Biodiversity in the Pechora Headwaters Region PIMS 2496, Atlas Award 00048772, Atlas Project No: 00059042 Terminal Evaluation, Volume I November 2014 Russian Federation GEF SO1: Catalysing the Sustainability of Protected Areas SP3: Strengthened National Terrestrial Protected Area Networks Russian Federation, Ministry of Natural Resources Komi Republic, Ministry of Natural Resources United National Development Program Stuart Williams KOMI REPUBLIC PAS PROJECT - TE Acknowledgements The mission to the Komi Republic was well organised and smoothly executed. For this, I would like to thank everyone involved starting with Irina Bredneva and Elena Bazhenova of the UNDP-CO for making all the travel arrangements so smooth and easy, and making me welcome in Moscow. In the Komi Republic, the project team ensured that I met the right stakeholders, showed me the results of the project efforts in remote and beautiful areas of the republic, and accompanying me. Special thanks are due to Alexander Popov (the National Project Director) and Vasily Ponomarev (the Project Manager) for the connections, arrangements, for accompanying me and for many fruitful discussions. Other team members who accompanied the mission included Svetlana Zagirova, Andrei Melnichuk and Anastasiya Tentyukova. I am also grateful to all the other stakeholders who gave freely of their time and answered my questions patiently (please see Annex III for a list of all the people met over the course of the mission to the Komi Republic). I am also particularly grateful for the tireless efforts of Alexander Oshis, my interpreter over the course of the mission even when he was not well, for the clear and accurate interpretation. Finally, it was a pleasure to visit Russia and the Komi Republic in particular, and to be shown around with such evident pride and to see wonderful places. I saw the results of the dedication and enthusiasm that people had put into the work of conserving important places in the world. I would like to offer them my thanks and wish them every success in their continuing endeavours. Stuart Williams Kampala, Uganda November 2014 ii KOMI REPUBLIC PAS PROJECT - TE Table of Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................... ii Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... v Project Summary Table .............................................................................................. v Project Description .................................................................................................... vi Project Results ........................................................................................................ vii Review Rating Table .............................................................................................. viii Summary of conclusions, recommendations and lessons ......................................... ix Acronyms, Abbreviations and Glossary ....................................................................... xi 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of the review ........................................................................................ 1 1.2 Scope & Methodology ...................................................................................... 1 1.3 Structure of the review report ........................................................................... 4 2 Project description and development context .......................................................... 4 2.1 Project start and duration .................................................................................. 4 2.2 Problems that the project sought to address ...................................................... 5 2.3 Immediate and development objectives of the project ..................................... 5 2.4 Baseline Indicators established ......................................................................... 6 2.5 Main stakeholders ........................................................................................... 16 2.6 Expected Results ............................................................................................. 16 3 Findings .................................................................................................................. 17 3.1 Project Formulation ........................................................................................ 17 3.1.1 Analysis of LFA/Results Framework (Project logic /strategy; Indicators) 17 3.1.2 Assumptions and risk analysis ................................................................. 17 3.1.3 Lessons from other relevant projects ....................................................... 18 3.1.4 Planned Stakeholder Participation ........................................................... 19 3.1.5 Replication approach ............................................................................... 19 3.1.6 UNDP Competitive Advantage ................................................................ 19 3.1.7 Linkages between the project and other interventions in the sector ........ 20 3.1.8 Management arrangements ...................................................................... 20 4.1 Project Implementation ................................................................................... 22 4.1.1 Adaptive management ............................................................................. 22 4.1.2 Partnership arrangements ......................................................................... 23 4.1.3 Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management .............. 24 iii KOMI REPUBLIC PAS PROJECT - TE 4.1.4 Project Finance ......................................................................................... 24 4.1.5 Monitoring & Evaluation – design and implementation .......................... 30 4.1.6 UNDP & Implementing Partner implementation, coordination and operational issues ................................................................................................. 31 4.2 Project Results ................................................................................................ 31 4.2.1 Overall results and Attainment of objectives ........................................... 31 4.2.2 Relevance ................................................................................................. 49 4.2.3 Effectiveness & Efficiency ...................................................................... 50 4.2.4 Country ownership ................................................................................... 54 4.2.5 Replication, mainstreaming and catalytic role ......................................... 55 4.2.6 Sustainability ............................................................................................ 56 4.2.7 Impact ...................................................................................................... 58 5 Conclusions, Recommendations & Lessons .......................................................... 59 5.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 59 5.2 Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project ............................................................................................................ 60 5.3 Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project ................. 61 5.4 Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives .......................... 63 5.5 Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success .......................................................................................... 65 Table of Contents (Annexes) Annex I: Terms of Reference ………………………………………….... Annex-3 Annex II: Itinerary of Mission to Russia ……………………………....... Annex-7 Annex III: List of persons interviewed …………………………………. Annex-9 Annex IV: Members of the Project Steering Committee ……………….. Annex-11 Annex V: Lists of agreements, products and outputs from the project …. Annex-13 Annex VI: Framework questions used ………………………………...... Annex-32 Annex VII: Maps ………………………………………………………... Annex-34 Annex VIII: List of project assets ………………………………………. Annex-36 Annex IX: Brief comments on the BMU/ICI project …………………… Annex-41 Annex X: Mid-Term Review of EU ClimaEast pilot project: Protection and restoration of forest and peatland permafrost carbon pools in Komi Republic and Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug ……………………………. Annex-43 Annex XI: Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form ……………………. Annex-65 Evaluation Report Reviewed and Cleared by …………………………... Annex-66 iv KOMI REPUBLIC PAS PROJECT - TE Executive Summary Project Summary Table Project “Strengthening Protected Area System of the Komi Republic to Conserve Virgin Title: Forest Biodiversity in the Pechora River Headwaters Region” GEF at endorsement at completion 2035 Project ID: (Million US$) (Million US$) UNDP 2496 GEF financing: 4,500 4,500 Project ID: Country: Russian Federation IA/EA own: 0,000 0,000 Region: ECA Government: 12,589 47,603 Netherlands – Netherlands – 0,000 1,634 Private sector – Private sector – 3,788 1,410 Academic – 1,570 Academic – 0,270 In-kind – 0,018 Focal Area: Biodiversity Other: In-kind – 0,000 Other sources –
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Strengthening Protected Area System of the Komi Republic to Conserve Virgin Forest Biodiversity in the Pechora Headwaters Region
    Strengthening Protected Area System of the Komi Republic to Conserve Virgin Forest Biodiversity in the Pechora Headwaters Region PIMS 2496, Atlas Award 00048772, Atlas Project No: 00059042 Terminal Evaluation, Volume I November 2014 Russian Federation GEF SO1: Catalysing the Sustainability of Protected Areas SP3: Strengthened National Terrestrial Protected Area Networks Russian Federation, Ministry of Natural Resources Komi Republic, Ministry of Natural Resources United National Development Program Stuart Williams KOMI REPUBLIC PAS PROJECT - TE Acknowledgements The mission to the Komi Republic was well organised and smoothly executed. For this, I would like to thank everyone involved starting with Irina Bredneva and Elena Bazhenova of the UNDP-CO for making all the travel arrangements so smooth and easy, and making me welcome in Moscow. In the Komi Republic, the project team ensured that I met the right stakeholders, showed me the results of the project efforts in remote and beautiful areas of the republic, and accompanying me. Special thanks are due to Alexander Popov (the National Project Director) and Vasily Ponomarev (the Project Manager) for the connections, arrangements, for accompanying me and for many fruitful discussions. Other team members who accompanied the mission included Svetlana Zagirova, Andrei Melnichuk and Anastasiya Tentyukova. I am also grateful to all the other stakeholders who gave freely of their time and answered my questions patiently (please see Annex III for a list of all the people met over the course of the mission to the Komi Republic). I am also particularly grateful for the tireless efforts of Alexander Oshis, my interpreter over the course of the mission even when he was not well, for the clear and accurate interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake Baikal Russian Federation
    LAKE BAIKAL RUSSIAN FEDERATION Lake Baikal is in south central Siberia close to the Mongolian border. It is the largest, oldest by 20 million years, and deepest, at 1,638m, of the world's lakes. It is 3.15 million hectares in size and contains a fifth of the world's unfrozen surface freshwater. Its age and isolation and unusually fertile depths have given it the world's richest and most unusual lacustrine fauna which, like the Galapagos islands’, is of outstanding value to evolutionary science. The exceptional variety of endemic animals and plants make the lake one of the most biologically diverse on earth. Threats to the site: Present threats are the untreated wastes from the river Selenga, potential oil and gas exploration in the Selenga delta, widespread lake-edge pollution and over-hunting of the Baikal seals. However, the threat of an oil pipeline along the lake’s north shore was averted in 2006 by Presidential decree and the pulp and cellulose mill on the southern shore which polluted 200 sq. km of the lake, caused some of the worst air pollution in Russia and genetic mutations in some of the lake’s endemic species, was closed in 2009 as no longer profitable to run. COUNTRY Russian Federation NAME Lake Baikal NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SERIAL SITE 1996: Inscribed on the World Heritage List under Natural Criteria vii, viii, ix and x. STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE The UNESCO World Heritage Committee issued the following statement at the time of inscription. Justification for Inscription The Committee inscribed Lake Baikal the most outstanding example of a freshwater ecosystem on the basis of: Criteria (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x).
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • FSC National Risk Assessment
    FSC National Risk Assessment for the Russian Federation DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0 Version V1-0 Code FSC-NRA-RU National approval National decision body: Coordination Council, Association NRG Date: 04 June 2018 International approval FSC International Center, Performance and Standards Unit Date: 11 December 2018 International contact Name: Tatiana Diukova E-mail address: [email protected] Period of validity Date of approval: 11 December 2018 Valid until: (date of approval + 5 years) Body responsible for NRA FSC Russia, [email protected], [email protected] maintenance FSC-NRA-RU V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2018 – 1 of 78 – Contents Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for the Russian Federation ................................................. 3 1 Background information ........................................................................................................... 4 2 List of experts involved in risk assessment and their contact details ........................................ 6 3 National risk assessment maintenance .................................................................................... 7 4 Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk Assessment ........................... 7 5 List of key stakeholders for consultation ................................................................................... 8 6 List of abbreviations and Russian transliterated terms* used ................................................... 8 7 Risk assessments
    [Show full text]
  • Komi Aluminium Programme [EBRD
    Komi Aluminium Komi Aluminium Programme PROPOSED EARLY WORKS PROGRAMME FOR THE PROPOSED SOSNOGORSK REFINERY SITE Environmental Analysis IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS Prepared By: CSIR ENVIRONMENTEK P.O. Box 395 Pretoria 0001 Contact Person: Rob Hounsome Tel: +27 31 242-2300 Fax: +27 31 261-2509 Email: [email protected] In Partnership with: DewPoint International (Colorado) DATE: April 2004 Final Table of Contents 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................- 3 - 2 Scope of the Early Works..............................................................................................................- 3 - 3 Impacts associated with the Early Works...................................................................................- 4 - 4 Background......................................................................................................................................- 5 - 4.1 The developer...............................................................................................................................- 6 - 4.2 Environmental and social assessment studies...........................................................................- 6 - 5 The Proposed Site...........................................................................................................................- 7 - 5.1 Location........................................................................................................................................-
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Grassland Vegetation of Central Podolia (Ukraine) - a Preliminary Overview of Its Syntaxonomy, Ecology and Biodiversity 391-430 Tuexenia 34: 391–430
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Tuexenia - Mitteilungen der Floristisch-soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Jahr/Year: 2014 Band/Volume: NS_34 Autor(en)/Author(s): Kuzenko Anna A., Becker Thomas, Didukh Yakiv P., Ardelean Ioana Violeta, Becker Ute, Beldean Monika, Dolnik Christian, Jeschke Michael, Naqinezhad Alireza, Ugurlu Emin, Unal Aslan, Vassilev Kiril, Vorona Evgeniy I., Yavorska Olena H., Dengler Jürgen Artikel/Article: Dry grassland vegetation of Central Podolia (Ukraine) - a preliminary overview of its syntaxonomy, ecology and biodiversity 391-430 Tuexenia 34: 391–430. Göttingen 2014. doi: 10.14471/2014.34.020, available online at www.tuexenia.de Dry grassland vegetation of Central Podolia (Ukraine) – a preliminary overview of its syntaxonomy, ecology and biodiversity Die Trockenrasenvegetation Zentral-Podoliens (Ukraine) – eine vorläufige Übersicht zu Syntaxonomie, Ökologie und Biodiversität Anna A. Kuzemko1, Thomas Becker2, Yakiv P. Didukh3, Ioana Violeta Arde- lean4, Ute Becker5, Monica Beldean4, Christian Dolnik6, Michael Jeschke2, Alireza Naqinezhad7, Emin Uğurlu8, Aslan Ünal9, Kiril Vassilev10, Evgeniy I. Vorona11, Olena H. Yavorska11 & Jürgen Dengler12,13,14,* 1National Dendrological Park “Sofiyvka”, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyivska Str. 12a, 20300 Uman’, Ukraine, [email protected];2Geobotany, Faculty of Geography and Geosciences, University of Trier, Behringstr. 21, 54296 Trier, Germany, [email protected];
    [Show full text]
  • Obtaining World Heritage Status and the Impacts of Listing Aa, Bart J.M
    University of Groningen Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining world heritage status and the impacts of listing Aa, Bart J.M. van der IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2005 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Aa, B. J. M. V. D. (2005). Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining world heritage status and the impacts of listing. s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 23-09-2021 Appendix 4 World heritage site nominations Listed site in May 2004 (year of rejection, year of listing, possible year of extension of the site) Rejected site and not listed until May 2004 (first year of rejection) Afghanistan Península Valdés (1999) Jam,
    [Show full text]
  • Confirmed Soc Reports List 2015-2016
    Confirmed State of Conservation Reports for natural and mixed World Heritage sites 2015 - 2016 Nr Region Country Site Natural or Additional information mixed site 1 LAC Argentina Iguazu National Park Natural 2 APA Australia Tasmanian Wilderness Mixed 3 EURNA Belarus / Poland Bialowieza Forest Natural 4 LAC Belize Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System Natural World Heritage in Danger 5 AFR Botswana Okavango Delta Natural 6 LAC Brazil Iguaçu National Park Natural 7 LAC Brazil Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos Veadeiros and Natural Emas National Parks 8 EURNA Bulgaria Pirin National Park Natural 9 AFR Cameroon Dja Faunal Reserve Natural 10 EURNA Canada Gros Morne National Park Natural 11 AFR Central African Republic Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park Natural World Heritage in Danger 12 LAC Costa Rica / Panama Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad Natural National Park 13 AFR Côte d'Ivoire Comoé National Park Natural World Heritage in Danger 14 AFR Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve Natural World Heritage in Danger 15 AFR Democratic Republic of the Congo Garamba National Park Natural World Heritage in Danger 16 AFR Democratic Republic of the Congo Kahuzi-Biega National Park Natural World Heritage in Danger 17 AFR Democratic Republic of the Congo Okapi Wildlife Reserve Natural World Heritage in Danger 18 AFR Democratic Republic of the Congo Salonga National Park Natural World Heritage in Danger 19 AFR Democratic Republic of the Congo Virunga National Park Natural World Heritage in Danger 20 AFR Democratic
    [Show full text]
  • Transboudary Cooperation of Russian Cooperation Of
    MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Dauria International Protected TRANSBOUDARY Area Daursky Biosphere Reserve COOPERATION OF RUSSIAN OLGA KIRILYUK [email protected] PROTECTED AREAS TRANSBOUDARY COOPERATION OF RUSSIAN PROTECTED AREAS RF 2 The Russian Federation has a longest national borders in the World and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_area cross the different types of ecosystems Russia (Russian Federation) is one of the largest country in the world. RF shares land and maritime borders with more than 15 countries. Total length of borders is 62, 269 km. State borders cross several terrestrial and marine ecosystem types: from arctic to subtropical. Total area of all Russian PA is about 207 million hectares (11,4% ). Along Russian border territories are a lot of Protected areas among them about 30 are federal level PAs of I-IV categories of IUCN classification. Many of them have international significance (status). TRANSBOUDARY COOPERATION OF RUSSIAN PROTECTED AREAS 1 3 5 3 2 4 3. Only 5 official 1. “Friendship” (USSR-Finland), 1989; 2. Dauria (Russia-Mongolia-China), 1994; transboundary protected 3. “Ubsunur Hollow” (Russia-Mongolia), areas were created by 2003; intergovernmental 4. “Khanka Lake” (Russia-China), 2006; agreement: 5. “Altay” (Russia-Kazahstan), 2011. TRANSBOUDARY COOPERATION OF RUSSIAN PROTECTED AREAS 4 Russian - Finnish zapovednik «Friendship» Protects the boreal forest ecosystems •Kostomukshsky zapovednik (Russia), •Metsahalitus Forstyrelsen PA (Finland) Main aim of creation:
    [Show full text]
  • 37Th World Heritage Committee Session Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 16-27 June 2013
    Enhancing the IUCN World Heritage Programme II – Focus Europe 7-11 November 2013, Vilm, Germany 37th World Heritage Committee Session Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 16-27 June 2013 Boris Erg IUCN The 37th Session of the World Heritage Committee took place in the Kingdom of Cambodia, in Phnom Penh and Siem Reap-Angkor, from 16th to 27th June 2013. It was organized by UNESCO and the National Commission of Cambodia with the support of the Office of the Council of Ministers. World Heritage Committee The Committee is a governing body responsible for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. It decides on new inscriptions on the World Heritage List. It examines State of Conservation reports and also decides on the inscription or deletion of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger. World Heritage Committee (ctd.) The 21 States Parties of the current World Heritage Committee are the following: Algeria, Cambodia, Colombia, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Iraq, Japan, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, and United Arab Emirates. During the 19th session of the General Assembly (19-21 November 2013), 12 seats will have to be filled. Outgoing members in 2013 are: Cambodia, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Iraq, Mali, Mexico, Russian Federation, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates. IUCN’s advisory role Ahead of the annual World Heritage Committee meeting, IUCN submits its recommendations regarding the inscriptions of new sites following a rigorous evaluation process through which it works with members on the ground, scientific experts, independent feedback and desk reviews. IUCN also submits “state of conservation” reports for sites under threat or sites that are already on the danger list or that it considers should be.
    [Show full text]
  • Moss Occurrences in Yugyd Va National Park, Subpolar and Northern Urals, European North-East Russia
    Biodiversity Data Journal 7: e32307 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.7.e32307 Data Paper Moss occurrences in Yugyd Va National Park, Subpolar and Northern Urals, European North-East Russia Galina Zheleznova‡, Tatyana Shubina‡, Svetlana Degteva‡‡, Ivan Chadin , Mikhail Rubtsov‡ ‡ Institute of Biology of Komi Scientific Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Syktyvkar, Russia Corresponding author: Tatyana Shubina ([email protected]) Academic editor: Yasen Mutafchiev Received: 10 Dec 2018 | Accepted: 25 Mar 2019 | Published: 01 Apr 2019 Citation: Zheleznova G, Shubina T, Degteva S, Chadin I, Rubtsov M (2019) Moss occurrences in Yugyd Va National Park, Subpolar and Northern Urals, European North-East Russia. Biodiversity Data Journal 7: e32307. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e32307 Abstract Background This study produced a dataset containing information on moss occurrences in the territory of Yugyd Va National Park, located in the Subpolar and Northern Urals, European North- East Russia. The dataset summarises occurrences noted by long-term bryological explorations in remote areas of the Subpolar and Northern Urals from 1943 to 2015 and from studies published since 1915. The dataset consists of 4,120 occurrence records. The occurrence data were extracted from herbarium specimen labels (3,833 records) and data from published literature (287 records). Most of the records (4,104) are georeferenced. A total of 302 moss taxa belonging to 112 genera and 36 families are reported herein to occur in Yugyd Va National Park. The diversity of bryophytes in this National Park has not yet been fully explored and further exploration will lead to more taxa.
    [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]