DOCSLIB.ORG

The First Meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The First Meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region Report from The First Meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region Trondheim, Norway - November 18-20, 1999 DN-notat 2000-6 Report from The First Meeting of the International Con- tact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region DN-notat 2000-6 TRONDHEIM Directorate for Nature Management N-7485 Trondheim Telephone: 73 58 05 00 - Fax: 73 58 05 01 http://www.naturfbrvaltning.no DN-notat Nr. 2000 - 6 Tide: Report from the first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Re- gion Publisher: The Directorate for Nature Management Numberofpages: ISSN 0802-1546 Date: November 2000 45 + 45 appendix ISBN 82-7072-408-4 TE 900 Keywords (in Norwegian): Keywords: Verneområder Protected Areas Barentsregionen Barents Region Nordvest-Russland Northwest Russia Abstract: This report includes the presentations, conclusions and protocol from the first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region arranged in Trondheim 18"1 to 20"1 of Novem- ber 1999. The members of the forum are the Barents Region Countnes. The meeting was initiated by the joint Russian-Norwegian environmental commission's working group on Biodiversity (BWG) and fmanced by the Norwegian Governmental Budget for the Central and Eastern-European Co-operation. The Directorate for Nature Management hosted the meeting as the Norwegian co-leader of the BWG. The participants were ex- perts andmanagers involved in habitat Conservation from Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and representa- tives from the Nordic Investment Bank, UNEP/GRID-Arendal, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre and WWF. The representatives of four Barents Region countnes agreed to establish the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region, and Norway offered to chair and organise the forum during the first year. Preface A workshop on protected areas held in Tromsø in 1998 recommended to start developing a protected areas network in the Barents Region related to the CAFF circumpolar pro- tected areas network (CPAN), and to discuss the possibilities to establish a permanent co- operation on habitat protection issues in the Barents Region. The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DN) therefore hosted a new meeting in Trondheim (Norway) November 18-20, 1999 to follow up these discussions. The event marked the formal es- tablishment of a contact forum for habitat conservation issues in the region. The partici- pants were experts and managers involved in habitat conservation from Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and representatives from the Nordic Investment Bank, UNEP/GRID- Arendal, the World Conservation Monitoring Centre and WWF. A temporary conclusion was that the development of a protected area network in the Barents Region should be postponed, and that priority now should be given to the ongo- ing projects, mostly in Russia. There was made a list of such concrete projects for further co-operation in 2000 and beyond that addresses specific areas, activities and actions and that defines lead countries for each of the projects. The participants also discussed practi- cal co-operation between the regions, including ecotourism and training of specialists. The representatives of four Barents Region countries signed a protocol from the meeting and agreed to establish the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region. Norway offered to chair and organise the forum during the first year. This report contains the proceedings of this first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region. The meeting was organised by the working group on biological diversity (BWG) under the joint Russian-Norwegian Com- mission on Environmental Co-operation, and financed by the Norwegian Governmental Budget on Central- and Eastern European Co-operation. Kari Helene Bachke Andresen and Reidar Hindrum (both DN) have compiled this proceeding. The Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management would like to give our compliments to all the speakers for giving us their talk in printed summaries for this proceeding. A special thanks goes to Gretha Husby (DN) for her helpful assistance during the meeting and the preparation of the proceeding. Trondheim, November 2000 Berit Lein Assistant Director General CONTENTS 1 OPENINGSESSION............................................................................................. 3 2 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PRESENTATIONS........................................... 5 2.1 PROTECTEDARMINRUSSIA..............................................^^ 2.1.1 Archangelsk.......................................................................................................................7 2.1.2 RepublicofKarelia..........................................................................................................l4 2.1.3 Murmansk Oblast.............................................................................................................16 2.1.4 Nenetsautonomousokrug................................................................................................l8 2.2 OVERVIEW ON DEVELOPING CONSERVATION AREAS IN FINLAND................................20 2.3 NATIONAL PARKS AND NATURE RESERVES IN SWEDEN..................................................21 2.4 NATURE CONSERVATION IN^A^OJ?WA7................................................................................22 2.4.1 National Overview...........................................................................................................22 2.4.2 Habitat conservation in Finnmark.....................................................................................23 2.4.3 The county of Troms........................................................................................................24 2.4.4 Protection of areasin Nordland county.............................................................................26 3 NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS ..................................................27 3.1 ECOREGION-BASED CONSERVATIONINTHE BARENTS SEA............................................27 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS......................................................................29 4 SPECIAL SESSION - SOME SELECTED RUSSIAN AREAS - CO- ORDINATION ANDPROGRESS............................................................................30 4.1 THE FIRST NATIONAL PARKS IN THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC - FROM IDEA TO MPLEMENTATION...........................................................................................................................50 4.2 CREATIONAND DEVELOPMENT PROTECTED AREAS INNENETS AUTUNOMOUS OJOJUG..............................................................................................................................................35 5 LIST OF PRIORITY PROJECTS ON HABITAT CONSERVATION ISSUES (AREAS AND/OR ACTIVITIES) - FOR CO-OPERATION BETWEEN RUSSIA ANDTHENORDICCOUNTRIES............................................................................40 ARCHANGELSOBMST.................................................................................^ THE REPUBLIC OFKARELIA...........................................................................................................40 APPENDIX.................................................................................................................^ Appendix 1: Protocol from the first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conserva- tion in the Barents Region (English and Russian versions) Appendix 2: Mandate of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation Issues in the Bar- ents Region (English and Russian versions) Appendix 3: Program of me Trondheim meeting (English version) Appendix 4: Participant list (English version) Appendix 5: Regional Russian presentations at the Trondheim meeting (Russian version) Appendix 6: Conclusions and recommendations from the workshop on Protected Areas in the Euro- Arctic Barents Region and Northwest Russia. Tromsø, Norway, 23-25 November 1998. (English and Russian versions) l OPENING SESSION Jan-Petter Huberth Hansen, Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim 1) Intentions of the Trondheim meeting • A follow up of the work shop in Tromsø November last year (1998) • Formal establishment of a forum for experts and managers involved in habitat conser- vation - mainly in the Barents Region. • Share updated information on habitat conservation issues from central as well as re- gional authorities. • Discuss concrete protected areas - both existing and proposals and identify needs and priorities. • Discuss recommendations from the Tromsø workshop - especially the proposal of a bpan - Barents region protected areas network • Networking - connecting people! 2) A contact forum for habitat conservation - for whom and for what? A contact forum could contribute to: • Increased information exchange and level of knowledge on habitat conservation issues in Northwest Russia and northern Finland, Sweden and Norway • Improved co-ordination of co-operative activities among counties/oblasts of the Bar- ents region • Improved co-ordination of co-operative activities among the countries and both within and without the Barents region • Advise regional and central authorities on needs and priorities on habitat conservation efforts • Pro vide donors - countries and institutions - with more and improved information • Increased focus on habitat conservation issues in established bodies within the region - like
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Industrialization of Housing Construction As a Tool for Sustainable Settlement and Rural Areas Development
    E3S Web of Conferences 164, 07010 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf /202016407010 TPACEE-2019 Industrialization of housing construction as a tool for sustainable settlement and rural areas development Olga Popova1,*, Polina Antufieva1 , Vladimir Grebenshchikov2 and Mariya Balmashnova2 1Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, 163002, Severnaya Dvina Emb., 17, Arkhangelsk, Russia 2 Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, 26, Yaroslavskoeshosse, 129337, Moscow, Russia Abstract. The development of the construction industry, conducting construction in accordance with standard projects, and transforming the construction materials industry in hard-to-reach and sparsely populated areas will make significant progress in solving the housing problem. Industrialization of housing construction is a catalyst for strong growth of the region’s economy and the quality of life of citizens. The purpose of this study is to develop a methodology for assessing the level of industrialization of the territory’s construction complex and its development potential for increasing the volume of low-rise housing stock. Research tasks: 1) assessment of the need to develop housing construction, including low-rise housing, on a particular territory; 2) development of a methodology for calculating the level of industrialization of construction in the area under consideration to determine the possibility of developing low-rise housing construction in this area in the proposed way; 3) approbation of the method using the example of rural areas of the Arkhangelsk region. It was revealed that the districts of the Arkhangelsk region have medium and low levels of industrialization. The districts that are most in need of an increase in the rate of housing construction have been identified.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Forest Sector in the Arkhangelsk Oblast During the Transition Period of the 1990S
    Development of forest sector in the Arkhangelsk oblast during the transition period of the 1990s ALBINA PASHKEVICH Pashkevich Albina (2003). Development of forest sector in the Arkhangelsk oblast during the transition period of the 1990s. Fennia 181: 1, pp. 13–24. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010. The Arkhangelsk oblast has long been one of Russia’s most important forest industrial regions. This paper analyses the changes in accessibility of forest resources and forest commodity production during the transition period in the 1990s. Special attention is given to firm restructuring, active roles of domestic capital and the different survival strategies that have been developed by in- dustries in the region. Further analysis deals with signs of economic recovery in the forest sector due to the processes of restructuring, modernisation and self-organisation. Albina Pashkevich, Spatial Modelling Centre (SMC), Department of Social and Economic Geography, Umeå University, Box 839, SE-98128 Kiruna, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected]. MS received 12 August 2002. Introduction adoption of a new. Some suggest that this proc- ess has been deeply embedded in the nature of The shift from central planning to a market-based the socialist system (Dingsdale 1999; Hamilton economy in Russia culminated with the dramatic 1999) and that the legacy of the communism has economic and political reorientation that began been only partly removed, and instead has mere- in the 1990s. This transition towards a market-ori- ly been reworked in a complex way (Smith 1997). ented and outward-looking economic system led Others say that reforms have actually ended the by private sector has created new challenges and old ‘command economy’ but have instead suc- opportunities.
    [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]
  • From Wild Forest Reindeer to Biodiversity Studies and Environmental Education” 5Th to 6Th October, 2010 in Kuhmo, Eastern Finland
    YMPÄRISTÖN- SUOJELU The Finnish-Russian Friendship Nature Reserve was established in 1990 to promote and en- hance cooperation in nature conservation and conservation research. In the beginning, the main From wild forest reindeer to biodiversity emphasis was on joint research between Finland and the Soviet Union. Over the years, the co- studies and environmental education operation has expanded to include many universities and research institutes worldwide. The year 2010 marked the 20-year anniversary of the Friendship Nature Reserve. To celebrate this important year, the Finnish Environment Institute, Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services Abstracts of the 20 years anniversary symposium of and the Kostomuksha Strict Nature Reserve (Zapovednik) arranged jointly an Anniversary Sym- the Finnish - Russian Nature Reserve Friendship posium “From Wild Forest Reindeer to Biodiversity Studies and Environmental Education” 5th to 6th October, 2010 in Kuhmo, eastern Finland. Parallel to the symposium, the 4th European Green Belt Conference was arranged in Kuhmo by Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services. Around Outi Isokääntä and Jari Heikkilä (eds.) 150 people from 19 different countries participated the symposium. ISBN 978-952-11-3845-4 (PDF) Suomen ympäristökeskus From wild forest reindeer to biodiversity studies and environmental education Abstracts of the 20 years anniversary symposium of the Finnish - Russian Nature Reserve Friendship Outi Isokääntä and Jari Heikkilä (eds.) Helsinki 2011 FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE Layout: Pirjo Appelgrén Cover photo: Ari Meriruoko The publication is availble only in the internet www.environment.fi/syke/fnr20 ISBN 978-952-11-3845-4 (PDF) FOREWORD Jari Heikkilä Finnish Environment Institute Friendship Park Research Centre [email protected] Over the past 20 years the Finnish-Russian Friendship Nature Reserve has been in- volved in opening the border between the East and the West for nature conservation and research.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Noteworthy Findings of Fungus Gnats from Finland and Northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae)
    Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1068 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1068 Taxonomic paper Recent noteworthy findings of fungus gnats from Finland and northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae) Jevgeni Jakovlev†, Jukka Salmela ‡,§, Alexei Polevoi|, Jouni Penttinen ¶, Noora-Annukka Vartija# † Finnish Environment Insitutute, Helsinki, Finland ‡ Metsähallitus (Natural Heritage Services), Rovaniemi, Finland § Zoological Museum, University of Turku, Turku, Finland | Forest Research Institute KarRC RAS, Petrozavodsk, Russia ¶ Metsähallitus (Natural Heritage Services), Jyväskylä, Finland # Toivakka, Myllyntie, Finland Corresponding author: Jukka Salmela ([email protected]) Academic editor: Vladimir Blagoderov Received: 10 Feb 2014 | Accepted: 01 Apr 2014 | Published: 02 Apr 2014 Citation: Jakovlev J, Salmela J, Polevoi A, Penttinen J, Vartija N (2014) Recent noteworthy findings of fungus gnats from Finland and northwestern Russia (Diptera: Ditomyiidae, Keroplatidae, Bolitophilidae and Mycetophilidae). Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1068. doi: 10.3897/BDJ.2.e1068 Abstract New faunistic data on fungus gnats (Diptera: Sciaroidea excluding Sciaridae) from Finland and NW Russia (Karelia and Murmansk Region) are presented. A total of 64 and 34 species are reported for the first time form Finland and Russian Karelia, respectively. Nine of the species are also new for the European fauna: Mycomya shewelli Väisänen, 1984,M. thula Väisänen, 1984, Acnemia trifida Zaitzev, 1982, Coelosia gracilis Johannsen, 1912, Orfelia krivosheinae Zaitzev, 1994, Mycetophila biformis Maximova, 2002, M. monstera Maximova, 2002, M. uschaica Subbotina & Maximova, 2011 and Trichonta palustris Maximova, 2002. Keywords Sciaroidea, Fennoscandia, faunistics © Jakovlev J et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Evaluation of Preservation and Growth of Spruce Climatypes Based on Long-Term Provenance Trials in Russia
    Folia Forestalia Polonica, series A, 2014, Vol. 56 (1), 56–67 REVIEW ARTICLE DOI: 10.2478/ffp-2014-0006 Comparative evaluation of preservation and growth of spruce climatypes based on long-term provenance trials in Russia Marina A. Nikolaeva1 , Danial Kh. Faizulin2, Alexander Ph. Potokin1, Oleg A. Jamaleev3 1 Saint-Petersburg State Forest Technical University named after S.M. Kirov, Institutsky per. 5, 194021, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, e-mail: [email protected] 2 North Forestry Research Institute, St. Nikitova 13, 163062, Arkhangelsk, Russia 3 Branch of the Federal State Institution, Russian Centre of Forest Health, Leningrad Centre of Forest Health, Institutsky pr. 21, 194021, Saint-Petersburg, Russia AbstrAct The article presents the results of provenance trials carried on the Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), the Sibe- rian spruce (Picea obovata Ledeb.) and hybrid forms of these two species. The trails were laid in 1977–1978 accord- ing to wide-scale All-Union program of 1972 year (Prokazin 1972) in the Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Leningrad regions and the Republic of Bashkortostan. The results of the most recent inventory of provenance trials as well as analyses of preservation and growth of spruce progenies with different geographical origin are presented. One of the main factors affecting spruce progeny survival was north-south distance between seed collection lo- cality and test locality. At the time of the study (2010–2012), in the Vologda and Arkhangelsk regions, spruce progeny preservation was higher in the case of mother stands distant to the north. On the contrary, in the Leningrad region and the Republic of Bashkortostan, preservation of northern climatypes’ progenies was lower during the whole period of plantations’ growth.
    [Show full text]
  • The Population of the Pomor Part of the Turchasovsky Camp of the Kargopolsky District at the Beginning of the Xviii Century
    Вестник Томского государственного университета. История. 2016. № 3 (41) УДК. 94(47).046 DOI 10.17223/19988613/41/2 А.И. Побежимов НАСЕЛЕНИЕ ПОМОРСКОЙ ЧАСТИ ТУРЧАСОВСКОГО СТАНА КАРГОПОЛЬСКОГО УЕЗДА В НАЧАЛЕ XVIII в. Территория поморской части Турчасовского стана Каргопольского узда (Онежское Поморье) к началу XVIII в. располагалась по берегам Онежской губы, на юго-западе – Поморском, от р. Куша до Онеги и на северо-востоке – Онежском берегах, от мы- са Ухт-Наволок на севере до Онеги. Исследуются занятия, социальная структура, численность, населённость дворов, брачные связи, определяется уровень миграций населения, их причины и направления. Автор приходит к выводу, что к этому времени социально-экономическое положение населения ухудшилось, что привело к увеличению малоимущих слоёв, росту миграций и значительному сокращению населения Онежского Поморья. Ключевые слова: уезд; стан; волость; вотчина; бобыли; подсоседники; подворники; миграции. Вопросы истории населения поморской части Тур- промысел» отдавался крестьянам монастыря «в обро- часовского стана Каргопольского узда неоднократно ки погодно» [Там же. Л. 467–471]. затрагивались в отечественной историографии Рыбный промысел вёлся на реках и море. Рыбу ло- (А.А. Савич, Ю.С. Васильев, Т.А. Бернштам, вили с помощью забора, или «запора». Забор – устрой- В.И. Иванов) [1. С. 1–280; 2. С. 39–46; 3. С. 476; 4. ство для ловли сёмги, которым перегораживалась вся С. 1–608]. В этой связи стоит выделить труд река, в виде ломаной линии [6. С. 46]. В переписной Т.А. Бернштам «Поморы», посвящённый изучению книге Каргопольского уезда 1712 г. говорится о запо- этногенеза поморов. В работе автор прослеживает рах в Кушерецкой волости «на реке», в Лямецкой воло- процесс формирования населения берегов Поморья на сти вотчины Соловецкого монастыря запоры на кумжу протяжении всей его истории.
    [Show full text]
  • Pasvik–Inari Nature and History Shared Area Description
    PASVIK–INARI NATURE AND HISTORY SHARED AREA DESCRIPTION The Pasvik River flows from the largest lake in Finn- is recommended only for very experienced hikers, ish Lapland, Lake Inari, and extends to the Barents some paths are marked for shorter visits. Lake Inari Sea on the border of Norway and Russia. The valley and its tributaries are ideal for boating or paddling, forms a diverse habitat for a wide variety of plants and in winter the area can be explored on skis or a and animals. The Pasvik River is especially known for dog sled. The border mark at Muotkavaara, where its rich bird life. the borders of Finland, Norway and Russia meet, can The rugged wilderness that surrounds the river be reached by foot or on skis. valley astonishes with its serene beauty. A vast Several protected areas in the three neighbouring pine forest area dotted with small bogs, ponds and countries have been established to preserve these streams stretches from Vätsäri in Finland to Pasvik in great wilderness areas. A vast trilateral co-operation Norway and Russia. area stretching across three national borders, con- The captivating wilderness offers an excellent sisting of the Vätsäri Wilderness Area in Finland, the setting for hiking and recreation. From mid-May Øvre Pasvik National Park, Øvre Pasvik Landscape until the end of July the midnight sun lights up the Protection Area and Pasvik Nature Reserve in Nor- forest. The numerous streams and lakes provide way, and Pasvik Zapovednik in Russia, is protected. ample catch for anglers who wish to enjoy the calm backwoods.
    [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]
  • Transition in the Arkhangelsk Forest Sector
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis • A-2361 Laxenburg • Austria Tel: +43 2236 807 • Fax: +43 2236 71313 • E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.iiasa.ac.at INTERIM REPORT IR-99-xxx/May Institutions and the Emergence of Markets - Transition in the Arkhangelsk Forest Sector Lars Carlsson ([email protected]) Nils-Gustav Lundgren ([email protected]) Mats-Olov Oisson ([email protected]) Mikhail Yu. Varakin ([email protected]) Approved by Sten Nilsson ([email protected]) Leader, Forest Resources Project Interim Reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis receive only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the Institute, its National Member Organizations, or other organizations supporting the work. Foreword With this report on the forest sector institutions in Arkhangelsk Oblast the second study in a series of case studies that IIASA has initiated in different regions of the Russian Federation is completed. The first study was conducted in Tomsk Oblast. That study was reported in Carlsson & Olsson, eds. 1998; Carlsson & Olsson, 1998; Carlsson, Lundgren & Olsson, 1999. Studies are currently being conducted in the Karelian Re- public as well as in the regions of Moscow, Murmansk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, and Kha- barovsk. All these studies deal with institutional aspects of the Russian forest sector. The research has been made possible through financial support from The Swedish Council for Planning and Coordination of Research (FRN) and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (KVA). A large number of people have provided valuable infor- mation and given useful comments on earlier drafts of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Nature Preserves (Zapovedniks) of Russia
    MONITORING IN THE URAL RESERVES (ZAPOVEDNIKS) Kvashnina A.E. Zapovdnik “Denezhkin Kamen”, Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Severouralsk, Vsevolodo- Blagodatskoe, Russia, 624477 Marin Y.F., Mishin A.S. Visimskiy zapovednik, Sverdlovskaya Oblast, Kirovgrad, Stepan Razin St. 23, Russia, 624150 Loskutova N.M. Zapovednik “Basegi”, Permskaya Oblast, Gremiachinsk, Lenin St. 100, Russia, 618280 INTRODUCTION. The Federal Nature Preserves (Zapovedniks) of Russia. Russia and the former Soviet Union have been the scene of an unusually comprehensive attempt at biodiversity conservation through the establishment of an extensive network of protected natural areas. These natural areas include several categories of territory which today account in aggregate for some one-and-a-half percent of the land area of Russia. Territory categories include: zapovedniks - the strictly protected scientific Nature Reserves (World Conservation Union or IUCN category I State Nature Reserves or Scientific Reserves); National Parks - (IUCN category II); Natural Parks – (IUCN category V); zakazniks – natural refuges and wildlife sanctuaries (IUCN categories IV, V); natural monuments – small scale areas protecting unique biological objects (IUCN category III); arboreta (dendrological parks) and botanical gardens (Colwell et al., 1997). The zapovednik, or Russian Federal Nature Preserve, is a specially protected natural territory or aquatory that excludes all forms of management, even general visiting (except for the needs of research or protection), in order to preserve its indigenous complexes in their untouched natural state. At the same time, a zapovednik is an institution designed not just for the conservation of its territory but also for study. The principal tasks of the zapovedniks were formulated in the beginning of the last century by the Russian scientist Kozhevnikov (1909, 1911 and 1928) and by Dokuchaev (Shtilmark, 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Subject of the Russian Federation)
    How to use the Atlas The Atlas has two map sections The Main Section shows the location of Russia’s intact forest landscapes. The Thematic Section shows their tree species composition in two different ways. The legend is placed at the beginning of each set of maps. If you are looking for an area near a town or village Go to the Index on page 153 and find the alphabetical list of settlements by English name. The Cyrillic name is also given along with the map page number and coordinates (latitude and longitude) where it can be found. Capitals of regions and districts (raiony) are listed along with many other settlements, but only in the vicinity of intact forest landscapes. The reader should not expect to see a city like Moscow listed. Villages that are insufficiently known or very small are not listed and appear on the map only as nameless dots. If you are looking for an administrative region Go to the Index on page 185 and find the list of administrative regions. The numbers refer to the map on the inside back cover. Having found the region on this map, the reader will know which index map to use to search further. If you are looking for the big picture Go to the overview map on page 35. This map shows all of Russia’s Intact Forest Landscapes, along with the borders and Roman numerals of the five index maps. If you are looking for a certain part of Russia Find the appropriate index map. These show the borders of the detailed maps for different parts of the country.
    [Show full text]