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

Home , Konosha, Nyandoma, Onega (river), Pasvik Nature Reserve, Plesetsk, Shenkursk

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 experts andmanagers 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. 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 protected 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 establishment of a contact forum for habitat conservation issues in the region. The participants 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 practical 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 conservation - mainly in the Barents Region.

• Share updated information on habitat conservation issues from central as well as regional 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 the Euro-Arctic Barents Council and the Regional Barents Council

• Increased focus on habitat conservation issues among countries håving a bilateral agreement on environmental Cupertino with Russia (Finland, Germany, the Nether- lands, Norway, Sweden, the United States)

• increased focus on habitat conservation issues among international institutions (E.G. UNEP, UNDP, IUCN) and ngo's (E.G. WWF) • Developing a Barents Region Protected Areas Network

• Provide information on runding sources

3) Mandate (see appendix 5)

4) The forum in 2000

• Norway is willing to take the lead for the first working year - until the next annual meeting - if so:

• The forum will be under the administration of the Russian-Norwegian working group on biological diversity in this period

• Norway will have the chair, a forum manager and secretariat

• Vice-chair?

• Contact persons in each country? NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PRESENTATIONS

2. l PROTECTED AREA IN RUSSIA

N.P.Vassilieva, Moscow, VNIIPriroda

The key legal act in Russia that governs relation in the protected area organisation, protection and use the Federal Law «On protected areas» adopted by State Duma on Febru- ary 15, 1995. In compliance with the above law, protected areas are attributed to national wealth objects. To protect them from adverse anthropogenic impacts protected zones or districts with a controlled regime of economic activities can be set upon adjacent lands and aq- uatics. Each protected area must be tåken into account in designing local complex development schemes, land management and local planning. In terms of guarding regime spe- cifics and status of environmental agencies located there, the above areas are categorised as follows.

Different categories of protected areas in Russia (as they were at 1.01.1999) Categories of protected areas Number Area, 1000 km2 State natural zapovedniks (strict reserves), including 4 biosphere 99 331,52 reserves National parks 34 67,87 State natural zakazniks (reserves) 65 -federal 124,8 >4000-re#iø«a/ > 460,0 Natural monuments 28-federal 0,193 >7500-regional not dates Natural parks 20 126,27 Dendrology parks and botanical gardens 68 0,0663

At the same time the Government of Russian Federation and the relevant executive bodies of Russian Federation subjects and local self-governance bodies may establish other categories for protected areas (e. g. areas, where green zones, own woods, gardens and park art monuments etc. are located. In Russia, the most wide spread and traditionally protected areas of top-priority for the national heritage and biological diversity conservation are state natura! zapovedniks, national parks, state natura! zakazniks and natura! monuments.

Various authorities manage the protected areas. For example the majority (88) of state natural zapovednik are under direct management of the Russian Federation State Com- mittee on Environmental Protection (RF SCEP), most of national parks (30) are in the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation Forest Service, most of Federal zakazniks are under management of the Department on protection and rational use of hunting resources of the RF Ministry of Agriculture.

Russian state natural zapovedniks are the most strictly protected natural areas, protected natural complexes and objects (lands, waters, mineral resources, flora and fauna) that are especially significant for environment, science and ecoeducation and located within state zapovedniks are completely withdrawn from any kind of economic use. Regular obser- vations according to "Annals of Nature" program are an important component of scientific activities in the nature reserves. Since 1992, the network of protected areas has been developing quite intensively. In 1999, their total area increased from 1,1% to 1,56% of the total territory of Russia, whereas the area of national parks changed by 45% (from 0,21 to 0,4%%).

The UNESCO introduced in the World Heritage List, provided by Convention on Bio- logical Diversity, 4 Russian Federation territorial sites: «Komi Virgin Forests (32 000 km2), «Volcanoes of Kamchatka», «Lake Baikal», «Golden mountains of Altai».

Based on the data of regional Committees for Nature conservation, the area of protected temtories in the Barents Region is about 94 000 km2. State natural zakaznik "Zemlia Frantsa losifa", 42 000 km2 area, is among the largest in Russia, and it is situated in the Arkchangelsk region.

Specially protected eras of the Barents region according to administration units. Region Zapovedniks National Natural Natural Total for Parks zakasnik Monuments region

Total km2 Total Km2 Total km2 Total km2 Total km2

Archan- 11 656,0 2 4791,0 35 55591,0 70 77,7 108 61115,7 gelsk region Murmansk 3 3636,3 12 10202,3 51 38,0 66 13876,6 region Republic 2 581,0 2 2349,0 46 5842,0 108 465.0 158 9237,0 ofKarelia Nenetsky 1 3134,0 4 6554,0 2 16,1 7 9704,1 Autono- mous Okrug TOTAL 7 8007,3 4 7140,0 97 78189,3 231 596.8 447 93933,4

Major protected temtories of the region and brief overview of ecosystem diversity over there (taken from Biodiversity Conservation, 1997). Type of Year of Area protected Titie Region founda- (km2) F A R BA NA M area tion National park Vodlozersky Republic of Karelia 1991 4683.4 450 177 129 38 Nature reserve Kandalaksha Murmansk region 1932 705.3 633 3 2 240 134 26 Nature reserve Kivach Republic of 1931 Karelia 105.0 569 5 3 201 115 47 Nature reserve Kostomuksha Republic of Karelia 1984 476.0 350 3 2 182 142 30 National park Kenozersky Arkchangelsk region 1991 1396.6 534 4 2 193 49 Nature reserve Lapland Murmansk region 1930 2784.4 523 1 2 180 118 31 National park Paanayarvi Republic of 1992 Karelia 1034.0 570 119 109 36 Nature reserve Pasvik Murmansk region 1992 147.3 2 2 122 75 23 Nature reserve Pinezhsky Arkchangelsk region 1974 515,2 476 4 1 216 97 34 Note: The areas are given for 1.11.97. Empty cell means that no data available. Preliminary data are given for newly organised specially protected areas, because the inventory has not been completed yet. F - number of vascular plants A - number of amphibian species R - number of reptiles AB - total number of birds recorded within the area NB - number of nesting birds M - number of mammal species In the Barents Region the network of protected territories enables conservation of numerous plant and wildlife species. Joint international projects and researches are carried out in the reserves over the border area between Norway and Russia and Russia and Fin- land.

2.1.1 Archangelsk The state of conservation areas in the Archangels oblast1.

V.S. Kuznetsov, Deputy Chairman of the State Committeefor Conservation oftheArk- changelsk Oblast.

The creation and operation of conservation areas in the Archangelsk oblast is regulated by the kw of the Russian Federation and by the corresponding legislative acts of the Ar- changelsk oblast. National parks, federal scientific reserves2 and federal nature reserves2 are created in accordance with the Russian Federation Law on Conservation Areas, passed on 14 March 1995. Nature reserves and historie nature sites are generally very important to the people who live within the oblast, so their creation and operation is regukted by normative acts at oblast level and at local level.

The protected areas in the Archangelsk oblast consist of all types of conservation areas. Their total area is 3462.459 thousand hectares, or 8.38% of the obksfs total area. The area of scientific reserves and national parks covers 565.18 thousand hectares, or 1.32%, which differs from the requirements of the Edict of the President of the Russian Federa- tion specifying that this area should be 3%. Therefore, according to the assessments of conservation bodies, the Archangelsk obkst must first and foremost, as areas of knd with potential for carrying out a range of conservation work, increase the number of national parks.

As of October 1999, the obkst has the Pinega scientific reserve, the Lake Vodlozero and Lake Kenozero national parks, two museum reserves (the Solovets and Maliye Karely), 34 regional nature reserves, 2 federal nature reserves (on the Franz Josef Land archipelago and in the vicinity of the Siysky monastery), and 70 historie nature sites.

1 "Oblast" = designation of an administrative division of the former USSR;» province - (Trans.) 2 It is difficult to accurately distinguish the different types of "conservation area" in English. The Russian terms "zapovednik" ("scientific reserve") and "zakaznik" ("nature reserve"), as well as the less common "reservat", could equally well translate as "reserve", but obviously a distinction is required. From the con- text a "zapovednik" is clearly more protected than a "zakaznik" and on the basis of the Encyclopaedia Britannica the best term seems to be "scientific reserve" (or perhaps "strict nature reserve"). - (Trans.) The oblast has a special-purpose programme to create a prospective scheme of regionally-important and federally-important conservation areas for the period 1996-2005. The programme envisages creating two new national parks - "Onega Coast" and "White Sea- Kuloi Plateau", as well as extending the area of the Lake Kenozero national park.

As part of this programme, international expeditions to areas where there is potential for creating new national parks have been organised in recent years, involving specialists from Norway, Finland, Sweden and Germany. Expeditions to the Onega peninsula, White Sea-Kuloi plateau and Lake Kozhozero regions have confirmed the uniqueness of the natura! structures of these areas and the expediency of creating national parks here. The decision was therefore taken to prepare the necessary documents.

In 1999 the legislative authority of the Arkchangelsk oblast examined the proposal of the State Committee for Conservation of the Arkchangelsk Oblast to create a new "Russian Arctic" national park comprising the northern part of the "Novaya Zemlya" archipelago, the "Franz Josef Land" archipelago and Victoria island. The proposal was accepted, and the documents are currently being examined by the Russian Federation's governmental authorities.

The present system of conservation areas in the Arkchangelsk oblast reflects the government's approach to areas which are of interest as unique pieces of countryside requiring protection, scientific research and an opportunity for people to visit them and to enjoy contact with the special natural conditions and features of the North.

In creating new conservation areas, we are encountering opposition both from individual sections of the local population and from managers of the industrial companies which exploit the oblast's natural resources. This primarily concerns areas where there is forest, since the timber industry is the basis of the oblast's economy. The interests of the local population primarily relate to the opportunity to collect mushrooms and berries and to catch fish, and it is being suggested that this opportunity should be given only to the local population. This approach makes it difficult to determine the boundaries - where the local population lives, and which population should be considered "not local".

The work that we have carried out shows that it is easier to create a conservation area in the northern and arctic districts than in the southern districts of the oblast, because the natural resources of the north and of the arctic zone are less important economically.

The creation of the Barents-Sea Euro-Arctic Region has provided a significant impetus to international co-operation, including on matters of conservation areas and biodiversity. Considering the great interest in these matters, efforts must be concentrated on developing a scheme of conservation areas, primarily in the northern part of the Barents-Sea region. The prospects for developing conservation areas in the Arkchangelsk oblast.

G. E. Danilov, Committee for Conservation of the Arkchangelsk Oblast.

Today the Arkchangelsk oblast is a region where timber is being appropriated intensively for engineering and industrial purposes. Forests cover most of the mainland of the oblast. Timber, which provides the main income, is the area's unique wealth. In recent years, most of the logging has been carried out in areas that adjoin the major towns and villages and in the northern part of the oblast.

Increased use of timber, the development of mineral resources, and an increase in the scale of pollution of reservoirs, the earth and the atmosphere are causing irreversible changes to natura! structures. Therefore, one way of preserving the diversity of the oblasfs countryside is to organise a scientifically-substantiated system of conservation areas which differ in status and purpose.

At present, the total area of conservation areas within the oblast, taking into account temporary nature reserves, is 4020.5 thousand hectares, amounting to 9.73% of the oblasfs total area, while the area of scientific reserves and the two national parks is 565.18 hectares in all (1.32% of the oblasfs total area).

The enormous size of the oblast and the existence of a large degree of diversity of unique ecosystems and forested areas with ancient forest tracts formed over a period of up to 300-500 years require immediate measures to preserve them and to give them protected status. In order to effectively solve the problems of preserving the natural ecosystems and biodiversity in the obkst, a special-purpose programme to create and develop conservation areas was adopted for the period 1996-2005. The main aim of this programme is to set up the "Onega Coast", "White Sea-Kuloi Plateau" and "Russian Arctic" national parks and the "Lake Kozhozero" regional park. Work is being done to set up all of the planned conservation areas and on ecological and economic feasibility studies of the development plans for them.

For the "Onega Coast" national park, an international expedition was organised in 1997, involving specialists and experts from Russia, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Germany. The experts make special mention of the unique importance that the proposed national park has for conservation:

- the only large tract of native taiga forests in Europe is situated here (450 thousand hectares), leading out onto the arctic sea coast; - all the rivers of the Onega peninsula are spawning-grounds for valuable species of fish (salmon, brown trout, humpback salmon and others), and the sea bays are the - this area is the most important centre in the northern hemisphere for bird migration, and is of international importance.

In 1998, an international expedition involving Russian and foreign conservation experts was also organised to the White Sea-Kuloi plateau. The White Sea-Kuloi area is unique in terms of its natural heritage. This is one of the last natural structures in Europe that is well preserved in its natural state, and that can be taken as a model of unspoiled nature. The White Sea-Kuloi plateau is 100-120 km to the northeast of Arkchangelsk, its area is 1000-1500 thousand hectares, and it consists of forests bordering tundra. These forests undertake the principal burdens of transformation of the air masses that come in from the Arctic, and they determine the climate of the Arkchangelsk oblast and of European Rus- sia as a whole. These forests are in urgent need of protection. A feature of the area is the stands of 200-300-year-old deciduous trees, growing on an area of up to 30.0 thousand hectares. It is here, on the carbonaceous plateau, unMke anywhere else in the European North, that this relict species of tree is found. The Russian and foreign experts, express- ing their own points of view, reached the same conclusion, that the suggestion of setting up a national park on the White Sea-Kuloi plateau is well-founded and must be developed further.

In 1999, by decision of the Oblast Government and the Oblast Assembly of Deputies, a resolution was passed to set up the "Russian Arctic" national park, consisting of the existing federal nature reserve "Franz Josef Land", Victoria island and the northern part of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, the Willem Barents park, outside the boundaries of the military range, with a total area of 5151.52 thousand hectares, including 2231.52 thousand hectares of dry land. The documents are with the Government of the Russian Fed- eration for approval. Within the land of the "Russian Arctic" national park there are unique historico-cultural and natural places of interest, a walrus breeding-ground and vast colonies of birds, and common animals are the polar bear, the reindeer and the polar fox.

The "Russian Arctic" national park could be the first Russian national park in the Arctic, which will actually help to implement the conception adopted in our country of consistent development in this vitally important region, thereby helping to increase Russia's authority in the world arena.

In 1999, an international scientific ecological expedition was made to the forested areas in the vicinity of Lake Kozhozero. This unique region of ancient forests with an area of 200.0 thousand hectares is a natural hydrological and pollution-free system of rivers and lakes, particularly Lake Kozhozero. It has a large degree of biological diversity (140 species of animal, including 26 rare species, and over 400 species of vascular plant, moss and lichen). The participants of the expedition recommended that a countryside park of regional importance be set up in this area.

The participants of the international expeditions point out the importance and necessity of international co-operation at all stages in setting up conservation areas. This co- operation can be both on a bilateral basis and on a multilateral basis.

Awarding a status to the conservation areas listed above is, of course, a task for Russian specialists, but the significance and the uniqueness of these areas, and their vast size, also make international protection and support necessary.

10 Conservation areas in the Archaneelsk oblast

V.V. Anufriyev, Chief specialist of the "Archangelsk-nature" Committee

The protected areas of the Archangelsk oblast amount to 4020.459 thousand hectares or 9.73% of its total area, of which the part on the mainland amounts to totals 2420.459 thousand hectares or 7.84% (see Table 1).

Table 1. Conservation areas in the Arcfaangelsk oblast Type Number Area(thousand Administrative body to hectares) which they belong Scientific reserves 1 51.48 State Committee for Ecology Museum reserves 2 34.78 Ministry of Culture National parks 2 479.1 Federal Forestry Service Countryside parks 1 445.0 Arkchangelsk Forestry Admini- stration Regional nature reserves, of which: 34 1395.329 countryside nature reserves 7 266.6577 Arkchangelsk Forestry Admini- stration biological nature reserves 25 908.114 Oblast Hunting Administration geological nature reserves 2 9.204 Pinega scientific reserve, "Arkchangelsk-nature" Commit- tee sanitation-and-hydrological nature 1 175.354 "Plesetsk District" Municipal reserves Body Federal nature reserves 2 1643.0 Oblast Hunting Administration, "Arkchangelsk-nature" Commit- tee (Franz Josef Land) Historie nature sites 70 7.77 Arkchangelsk Branch of the All- Russian Society for Nature Con- servation Total 112 4020.459

The conservation areas are distributed very unevenly throughout the oblast (see Table 2). Conservation areas cover the greatest areas in the Primorsky (33.4%), Onega (21.8%), Plesetsk (9.9%) and Kargopol (7.4%) districts, due to there being one countryside park and two national parks within these districts. The area of conservation areas is very small in districts of intensive timber use: the Kotlas district (1.0%), the Konosha district (1.1%), the Nyandoma district (1.4%) and the Krasnoborsk district (2.5%).

11 Table 2.

Distribution of conservation areas of tfae Arkchangelsk oblast by district3 No. Administrative district Area of district Area of conservation Proportion of con- (thousand hec- areas (thousand hec- servation areas tares) tares) (%) 1 Velsk district 1006 39.4 3.9 2 Verkhnetoemsky district 2060 — — 3 Vilegodsky district 469 22.5 4.8 4 Vinogradovsky district 1248 37.2 3.0 5 Kargopol district 1013 92.6 7.4 6 Konosha district 846 9.0 1.1 7 Koflas district 638 6.4 1.0 8 Krasnoborsk district 938 23.9 2.5 9 Lensky district 1066 54.7 5.1 10 Leshukonskiy district 2808 22.8 0.8 11 Mezen district 3441 197.2 5.7 12 Nyandoma district 809 11.5 1.4 13 Onega district 2376 519.0 21.8 14 Pinega district 3212 186.1 5.8 15 Plesetsk district 2751 267.05 9.9 16 Primorsky district 2270.3 201.8 33.4 17 Solovets district 34.7 34.7 100 18 Ustyansk district 1072 6.2 0.6 19 Kholmogorckiy district 1683 43.0 3.0 20 Shenkursk district 1130 39.4 3.5 Total* 308704 2420.4594 7.84 21 The islands in the Arctic 10441 4200.0 40.2 Ocean (Franz Josef Land, dry land) Overall Total 41311 6620.459 16.025

In 1996, the head of the oblast's administration approved the programme to create a prospective scheme of regionally-important and federally-important conservation areas within the Arkchangelsk oblast for the period until 2005.

The authors of the programme have attempted to reorganise the scheme of conservation areas into a system, to provide the potential not only to preserve unique natural and historical structures, but also to set up a system of recreation areas that are of world-wide importance. For example, the proposed scheme of conservation areas in the west of our oblast as a whole (the Lake Vodlozero national park, the Lake Kozhozero countryside nature reserve, the national park on the Onega peninsula, and the Solovets museum reserve) will be harmoniously connected areas of recreational importance.

In setting up the scheme of regionally-important conservation areas, attention has been paid mainly to creating comprehensive nature reserves aimed at protecting all the components of the natural environment. The geographical location of countryside nature reserves has been planned according to the principle of protecting the main water basins and the most valuable biological and geological communities, and supporting the ecological balance in areas which have suffered more than others from timber-felling in the

1 "District" = "raion" - (Trans.)

' The figures have been faithfully reproduced from the source but the totals do not add up - (Trans.)

12 past. It has also been proposed that a number of geological nature reserves be set up on areas of karst terrain.

The Primorsky Countryside Park has been set up under the programme. This is the first attempt to create this type of conservation area in the oblast. The main aims of setting up the Park in the Primorksy district are:

- to neutralise the effects of the mining industry and its associated industries on the local socio-economic structure and on natura! structures as much as possible; - to maintain ecological balance and biological diversity; - to use land sensibly and to monitor the environment.

Work is being carried out to set up national parks on the Onega peninsula and the White Sea-Kuloi plateau. Discussions have been held between the Arkchangelsk oblast and representatives of conservation organisations in Finland and Sweden on matters of cooperating in these projects and in the development of ecotourism. The participants in the discussions from the Arkchangelsk oblast were the State Committee for Conservation of the Arkchangelsk Oblast and the Arkchangelsk Forestry Administration. The parties decided that co-operation would be in the form of support, including financial support, for the plan approved by the authorities of the Arkchangelsk oblast to develop the prospective scheme of conservation areas. Particular attention will be paid to setting up national parks on the Onega peninsula and the White Sea-Kuloi plateau.

At the initial stage of this co-operation, an international scientific expedition to the Onega peninsula of the White Sea was organised to study the potential for setting up the "Onega Coast" national park. The participants in the expedition decided that, considering the importance and uniqueness of the Onega coast as the largest wildlife reserve for the countries of the Barents-Sea region and of the whole of Europe, the planning and creation of the "Onega Coast" national park must be an important project in co-operating to protect the wildlife of Europe's Arctic basin. This co-operation must combine the efforts of the governmental bodies responsible for forestry and conservation in the Arkchangelsk oblast, governmental and non-governmental conservation organisations, scientific institutions and individual specialists from Russia, Finland, Sweden, Germany and other countries. The approaches taken in planning the park must be those which take maximum account of the specific natura! and historical character of the area. A compromise must be found between protecting the unique natura! environment, preserving the traditional culture of the coast and developing forestry and industry in the region, and the principles of steady development of the area must be instilled.

This year there are plans to organise a similar expedition to the White Sea-Kuloi plateau. The plan for this expedition has been given to the Finnish party and to the expedition's other participants.

Scientific organisations in the north-west region of Russia have submitted work plans (technical assignments) to draw up an ecological and economic feasibility study for the aforementioned national parks.

The problem of extending the land of the Lake Kenozero national park remains unre- solved. 80% of the northern part of the catchment basin of Lake Kenozero is in the timber zone, which could be damaging to the natural structures of Lake Kenozero. The log-

13 gers are not prepared to give up part of their supply of raw timber to be used for extending the park.

For the same reason, only after the protracted efforts of conservation organisations could the area of the Pinega scientific reserve be extended by 10.278 thousand hectares, with a usable supply of forests of 245 thousand cubic metres.

Sometimes conflicts arise between the economic and social interests of loggers and the conservation areas that already exist. Because the supply of raw timber has already been significantly exhausted on most of the forested areas provided for use, the loggers, with support from the local authorities, have tried to obtain authorisation to fell primary-use timber in the Vilegodsky nature reserve and the southern part of the Lake Kozhozero nature reserve.

Within the "Franz Josef Land" nature reserve, despite håving no finance at all from the government, the State Committee for Conservation of the Arkchangelsk Oblast has carried out work on monitoring adherence to the nature reserve's stipulated regime when tourist and scientific-research expeditions are conducted. Russian and joint Russian- Austrian expeditions have been carrying out long-term scientific programmes to study the natura! environment of the archipelago. The ecological state of the countryside in the nature reserve outside the zones previously used for industrial purposes is entirely satis- factory. But the places where military sections were based, vacated in 1992-1993, and the closed polar stations, have not been restored to a good condition. There are still dumped motor vehicles and tractor machinery, scrap metal, domestic and industrial waste, and tens of thousands of tons of fuel and lubricants beneath the snow and ice there, and the buildings and structures are semi-destroyed. Discussions are being held with the Russian Ministry of Defence and other organisations regarding finance for work to carry out an ecological inspection of the former industrial zones of the nature reserve, in order to determine the volumes and cost of work to restore the polluted and damaged areas of land.

2.7.2 Republic ofKarelia The state of conservation areas and the prospects for their development in the Republic of Karelia.

Valentin V. Kalamaev, Head of Department, State Committee for Nature Conservation of Republic ofKarelia, Petrozavodsk

In the normative documents that regulate conservation work in the Russian Federation, five categories of conservation area are distinguished:

- national scientific nature reserves; - national parks; - countryside parks; - nature reserves; - historie nature sites.

The differences are primarily the special features of the conservation measures and the procedure for organising the conservation and management of the areas.

14 Two sets of measures are used to protect natura! structures that are valuable or that are used as reference models: protection as a scientific reserve, precluding any commercial activity (scientific reserves, protected zones in national parks and countryside parks, certain historie nature sites), and protection as a nature reserve, restricting only certain forms of commercial activity and use of natural resources.

As of l January 1999, the protected areas of Karelia amount to 868.85 hectares or 5.3% of the land in the republic, although if account is taken of the valuable forests in Group l (those that protect water, those that protect spawning, those in suburban forested park- lands and those that are prohibited), the area of which is l million 330 thousand hectares, then the total size of the conservation areas amounts to 2 million 281 thousand hectares, or 12.7% of the land in the republic.

An Instruction from the Government of the Russian Federation and a Conception from the Karelian scientific centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences concerning conservation areas has envisaged that five national parks be created on an area of 408 thousand hectares before 2005 (Ladozhskiye Skerries, Khoitayoki, Tulos, Kalevala and Kizhskiye Skerries).

Thus, by 2005 the total size of conservation areas and valuable forests in Group l will amount to 2 million 689 thousand hectares, or 14.9%.

At present, the protected areas are in the following categories:

1. Scientific reserves: - "Kivach" (1931) - 10.45 thousand hectares. - "Kostomuksha" (1983) - 47.6 thousand hectares.

2. National parks: - "Lake Vodlozero" (1991) - 130.6 thousand hectares. - "Planayarvi6" (1992) - 103.3 thousand hectares. TOTAL: scientific reserves and national parks - 281.8 thousand hectares (1.82%).

3. Nature reserves (countryside, botanical, marsh, hunting, zoological and hydrological), numbering 47, on an area of 587.5 thousand hectares (3.24%).

4. Historie nature sites (botanical, marsh, geological and forest), numbering 100, on an area of 43.2 thousand hectares (0.24%).

5. Areas and sites with a unique history, natural countryside and historical architecture which have conservation status, numbering 54, on an area of 32.2 thousand hectares (0.18%).

5 The source text for this section is of poor quality and the figures are not always clear. Ideally they should be checked against a clean source text. - (Trans.) 6 Source text unclear - (Trans.)

15 2.1.3 Murmansk Oblast

Russia's scientific reserves and their importance. The "Pasvik" scientific reserve and the prospects for co-operation in the Inari-Paats region.

Valery G. Sokolov, Deputy Head of Department, Murmansk Regional Committee for Nature Conservation, Murmansk

My report will consist of two parts. To start with I would like to express my opinion on several of the reports that we have heard here, and then I would Uke to dwell on the prospects for co-operation in the Inari-Paats region.

I think that I am the only person at this meeting who is directly involved in practical work in a scientific reserve.

And in my speech I will speak specifically about scientific reserves, since for Russia national parks are a relatively new form of conservation. Russia's system of protected areas was created throughout the twentieth century, starting with the first scientific reserve being set up in [illegible year-1918?] (Barguzin).

The main purposes of scientific reserves are the preservation and study of the natural environment using special methods. Nowadays, hundreds of scientific reserves in Russia are reaping a "biological harvest" from a vast area of land.

Håving worked in scientific reserves for many years, I am seeing a substantial change in the situation. If in the past few people even in our country knew about them, now a large number of governmental and non-governmental organisations are working on the problems of conservation areas, both in Russia and in other countries. The delegates attending this meeting are evidence of this. On the one hand, this is gratifying, but on the other hand this process is somewhat disconcerting. In particular, from what I have seen here it is as though there are two different processes that are becoming more and more divorced from each other. The process of planning new conservation areas is pre ^eeding very ac- tively. But the second process, the life of the scientific reserves and other conservation areas that already exist, is somehow of little interest to most people. And the employees of scientific reserves and the data collected over many years have still not been requested properly. Nevertheless the process of planning new reserves continues to accelerate.

We are hurrying to seize new ecosystems and ecosystems that have not yet been destroyed. And specifically in Russia the work of inspecting and planning new reserves over considerable areas is being expanded. This is understandable. Russia still has great natural potential and there is room for expansion here. At the same time we have seen that new reserves are being inspected and planned in Norway, but Russian specialists are not taking part in this process. Yet there should be co-operation in this matter. It is very important to make it clear, both in theory and in practice, what a nature reserve and a scientific reserve are; they are not synonymous, and whether a tiny area with no special monitoring can be considered a scientific reserve, etc. Consequently, matters of termi- nology are very important and there is an area for co-operation here.

16 Fil mention another thing that I think is quite important. All the information from expeditions can hardly be regarded as a plan of action. The work of project-planning organisations is licensed and certificates of conformity are required. Therefore expedition reports can be regarded only as information of a recommendatory nature that precedes the project-planning. Far from all of the proposed projects can be implemented, even if these are unique pieces of countryside. The point is that the country's economy will not be able to sustain a huge number of conservation areas. Our scientific reserves and national parks operate the whole year round. And employees of conservation areas receive their pay throughout the year, although it is low. But the subject of upkeep must be discussed sepa- rately. Therefore, the creation of each new scientific reserve or national park increases the burden on the economy, and on the federal budget. How many scientific reserves and national parks must we have in order to preserve the ecological balance and maintain the conservation areas at a normal level? For example, I think that there are already 3 scientific reserves in the Murmansk oblast and it is unlikely that another will be created. There are no national parks yet, but planning-work is proceeding and I think that just one national park will be created. The first candidate is "Tersky riverside", the plans for which already exist; they need to be finalised and approved.

Other proposals have been made. But the question of finance is quite a difficult one and forces us to think hard. All conservation areas are now compelled to earn money for their upkeep, including through ecotourism. But ecotourism or ordinary tourism carried out properly is almost incompatible with the measures of a scientific reserve. Serious attention must be paid to the staff of scientific reserves, to their infrastructure, to financial provision for them, and to many other things that they must have. And there is a serious basis here for joint co-operation, to safeguard the normal vital activity of the scientific reserves that already exist. And not just to pkn and to seize new pieces of countryside, which nobody can then build on, and to carry out monitoring.

The initiative of the Norwegians to organise a new forum for discussing questions relat- ing to conservation areas must be welcomed. But the frequency of its work, once a year, is doubtful. In order to obtain real results, work needs to be done every day.

I want to suggest setting up a small group of specialists, working on a permanent basis, to observe the work, gather information, analyse data and create a general database on conservation areas in the Barents-Sea region. A handbook should be prepared. As a model I suggest my own book on conservation areas in the Murmansk oblast. The next step in the work plan of such a group could be compiling an inventory of the flora and fauna of the conservation areas in the Barents-Sea region. The creation of such a database would re- veal the degree of biodiversity in the conservation areas, the general species appropriate for monitoring, the degree of protection of rare species and other things. We must know what data is being collected on each piece of knd (conservation area) and must co- ordinate our actions and draw up a general monitoring scheme, using the experience of Russian scientific reserves.

In this plan, the work in the general countryside region of Inari-Paats, which is separated by three national borders, is very promising. The "Pasvik" scientific reserve was set up in 1992-1993 on the initiative of the Norwegians. During this time on the Russian side work håd already been organised to study the natural environment using the Russian method of "Chronicle of the Natural Environment". Four books of these Chronicles have been pub- lished, and a fifth has been prepared. The first inventories of flora and fauna were com-

17 piled. Co-operation in scientific and educational work is developing. The creation of a general nature reserve on the river Paats is not just a wonderful and important step in the conservation of our countries - Russia and Norway. It provides great opportunities for developing scientific and educational co-operation. Using the data that has already been produced, and specifically the data from the Chronicles of the Natura! Environment of the "Pasvik" scientific reserve - a scheme must be drawn up for general monitoring on a larger area, for practically the whole of the Inari-Paats basin. Essentially, the starting point must be the Lemmenjoki national park. Several of the most typical and easily rec- ognisable species of plants and animals could be taken and observed all year round according to specific parameters which remain constant year after year. I think that this would be successful. I think that in future there will be a general national park here on the border of the three countries. There is every reason for this. There is already a protected zone, a national park, the planning-work for [illegible - Vyatseri?] in Finland has been completed, and other reasons. We now have real chances to move forward together along the path of preserving biodiversity in this region of countryside and carrying out general monitoring. This must become reality. Especially since the new century must be marked by large-scale and significant projects which show a new understanding of the problems faced by mankind in preserving the natura! environment.

2.1.4 Nenets autonomous okrug

Protected areas in Nenets autonomous okrug Ludmila Poroshkina, Goscomecologia, NAO

Zapovednik " Nenetsky"

Status: Republican Date of establishment: 1997 Common area: 131,5 thousands sq.hectares terrestrial area and 181,9 thousand hectares aqueous area. Islands: Gulyaevskie islands, Matveev,Goletch, Dolgy,Bolshoy and Maluy

Zelenets.

Aim of establishment: Conservation of wetland areas (international importance). Places of migration of valuable breeds of fishes, place of flight and concentration sea and waterfowl birds (more than 30 species). Conservation of Red Book's species: polar bear, bewick's swan, white-billed diver, lesser white-fronted goose and other species of waterfowl birds, birds of prey and also some species of marine mammals. Conservation and protection of populations of salmon and whitefish. Conservation Red Book's species of plants. Future plans: For conservation valuable wetlands areas it is needed to research of biodiversity this territory. Creation survey (cadastr) of flora and fauna. Conducting of monitoring of biodiversity and estimation of future threats. Necessity is support science investigation and protected works. Necessity is research works and inventories of biodiversity other existing protected areas of NAO

18 Zakaznik " Vaygachsky"

Status: Regional Date of establishment: 1983 Common area: 3380 sq.km. Island Vaygach Aim of establishment: Conservation of Red Book's species: polar bear, Atlantic walrus, white whale and other spices of marine mammals, sea and waterfowl birds: bewick's swan, white-fronted goose, lesser white-fronted goose, king eider and others. Future plans: International expedition for investigation of flora, fauna and historical heritage.

Zakaznik "Shoinsky"

Status: Regional Date of establishment: 1997 Common area: 16,4 thousands sq. hectares Situated on north-west part of Kanin peninsula Aim of establishment: Conservation of unique wetlands areas. (international importance). Place of flight and concentration sea and waterfowl of birds: lesser white-fronted goose, baraacle goose and others. Future plans: Investigation of migration ways of birds on Kanin peninsula

Zakaznik "More-U"

Status: Regional Data of establishment: 1999 Common area: 60 thousands hectares. Situated in Bolshezemelskaya tundra, river More- ll Aim of establishment: very valuable surviving sparse growth of spruce. This is evidence of previous spreading of forests formation in Bolshezemelskaya tundra. Unique "forest island" in tundra. It is situated 150 km from north border of forest tundra. Age of spruces is 120-150 years old Future plans: Necessity of supporting of investigation of biodiversity and nature heritage. Research expedition. Provision of conservation.

Monument of nature " Puym-Va-Shor" (planning)

Common area: 2425 hectares. Situated in Bolshezemelskaya tundra, river Adz'va. Aim of establishment: Conservation and protection of unique mineral-thermal sources, unique cave of Paleolithic period, remains of the Stone Age. Conservation of Red Book's species of plants and birds. Future plans: Necessity of supporting of planning works, research works and expeditions.

Monument of nature "Bolshie Vorota" Status: Regional Date of establishment: 1987 Common area: 212 hectares

19 Aim of establishment: Conservation unique nature landscape, the territory of a monument of a nature is submitted by picturesque coastal breakages of basalt breeds of height 70 meters. The numerous adjournment agates and other minerals are observed. The river Belaya is a place of spawning for a salmon. Future plans: Necessity of an estimation of territory for transformation of a monument of a nature the Canyon " Bolshie vorota" in national park. Necessity of the control behind "wild" tourism in territory especially valuable flora and fauna, unique landscape and numerous inclusions of minerals.

Etno-ecological zone "Island Kolguev" (planning) Aim of establishment: Combination between traditional way of use nature recourses and conservation and protection of the greatest places of nesting of Barnacle goose and White-fronted goose. Future plans: International expedition

2.2 OVERVIEW ON DEVELOPING CONSERVATION AREAS IN FINLAND

Aimo Saano, project co-ordinator, Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki

It is projected that conservation areas in Finland should cover 3 554 740 ha. This includes those listed in Natura 2000 programme, the network of conservation areas required by EU directives. In addition, 94 000 ha of eskers will be protected under other laws. Altogether they make 10,8 % of Finland's territory. The esker protection programme aims at conservation of about 6 % of the national esker territory, or less than 0.3 % of Finland's territory. By the beginning of 1999 from the conservation goal, not counting eskers, 2 708 400 ha håd been established as conservation areas with varying statuses according to the legislation. This is 76 % from the goal.

The degree of realisation varies depending on particular habitat protection programs. The national parks and strict nature reserve program has been fulfilled almost by 100 %, cov- ering now 684100 ha. The situation with old-growth forest protection programme and shore protection programme is quite different, less than 5 % of the projected areas have been protected. The mire protection programme has reached over 70 % of its goal, which will account about 5 % of the original mire territory hi Finland. The grove protection programme is now fulfilled by over 40 but below 50 %, the important bird area programme has reached about 10 % of its goal.

The overview table and other information can be found, in Finnish, on Feil! Bokmerke er ikke definert.

A relatively detailed description of Finland's national parks from 1996 is available in Swedish, English, German or Finnish on CD-ROM, which can be ordered from Finnish Parks and Forest Service, see http://www.metsa.ti/julkaisut/index.htm. press from the left-side bar Luonnonsuojelu ja retkeily, julkaisut

20 2.3 NATIONAL PARKS AND NATURE RESERVES IN SWEDEN

Per Erik Persson, County Administration of Vasterbotten

In all Sweden there are now: 26 National Parks 650 000 ha 2 200 Nature Reserves 3 200 000 ha

County of Vasterbotten: l National Park 1200 ha 145 Nature Reserves 800 000 ha

County of Norrbotten: 8 National Parks 620 000 ha 146 Nature Reserves 900 000 ha

Current state of natura! and primeval forests in Taiga Zone of Sweden:

In 1997 about 830 000 ha or 3,66% of all forests was protected in Sweden. Mountain coniferous forests make up about 660 000 ha of the protected area, representing just over 85 % total area of productive forests set aside as nature reserves and national parks. Swe- den north of the river Dalålven is here considered to be the taiga zone. East of the mountain coniferous forests about 130 000 ha is protected here. It means between 0.5 % in the north parts and 0.3% in the southern parts of the total area of productive forests.

In the mountain forests 43 % of the productive forests are set aside for preservation. Only here larger areas of primeval forests are left in Sweden. The preserved areas of primeval forests in theLapponia World Heritage Site 103 000 ha, Parlalven 43 000 ha, Vindelfjallen 50 000 ha, Marsfjallet 40 000 ha and Blaikfjallet 40 000 ha.

East of the mountain forests just one area is larger than 10 000 ha Granlandets nature reserve and 15 areas are larger than 1000 ha. Most of the forests in the taiga zone of Sweden are transform by forestry to forests for production of timber. Only 2% of forests older than 160 years are left in areas not yet set aside for preservation.

To day in Sweden preservation of more natural forests is a political important issue. Con- siderable funds are set aside for preservation of what remains of natural and primeval forests. Restoration of forests used for production of timber to natural forests is parts of the program. But that takes a very long time therefore it is an issue in the long run.

Preserved coniferous forests in the Barents Region in Sweden:

Vasterbotten 103 000 ha Norrbotten 417 000 ha

21 2.4 NATURE CONSERVATION IN NORWAY

2.4.1 National Overview

KnutFossum, The Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim

Objectives of protection of natural environment: • Secure a representative section of the natural environment by protecting a selection of areas, which represent the variability of the Norwegian nature. • Preserve key-areas with important functions for species or individuals. • Preserve the diversity of threatened spices of animals and plants by protecting their habitats.

Tools: The nature conservation act of 1970, where the most important types of protection are: • National Parks - big, undisturbed or largely undisturbed areas • Protected Landscapes - distinctive or beautiful areas of natural or cultural landscapes • Nature Reserves - the strictest form of protection - mainly used where the natural environment is undisturbed or largely undisturbed, or of a special type or stands out because of distinctive character.

Strategy: • Thematic plans for protection of special types of nature • Wetland • Sea-birds localities • Mires • Rich deciduous forest • Coniferous forests • Big, continuous areas are protected as National Parks and Protected Landscape Areas.

Results:

Categories of Protected areas Number Area (km2) % of total Norwegian terrestrial area National Parks 18 13.868 4,28 Landscape Protection Areas 88 5.068 1,56 Nature Reserves 1352 2573 0,79 Other categories of Protected Areas 177 112 0,03 Total 1635 21622 6,68

Further plans: The realisation of the National Park Plan, including 36 new areas and 14 extensions is expected fulfilled 2010.

The work with the 14 remaining Thematic Protection Plans will be finished in 2005.

A marine protection plan will be realised.

All included, 12-13 % of Norway's total area (including areas in the coastal zone) will be protected by The nature conservation act.

22 2A.2 Habitat conservation in Finnmark

Erik Inge Mikkelsen, County Governor of Finnmark, Departement of the Environment

Facts about Finnmark:

Area: 48.000 km2 3 national parks - 1560 km2 44 nature reserves - 260 km2 7 protected landscape areas - 129 km2 (= 4,1% of area in sum).

(Drainage area of protected watercourses is 31.510 km2 = 65,6% of total area, and includes most nature conservation areas)

Thematic plans for area-conservation:

- Birdcliffs(1983)-implemented! - Quartinary geology (1983) - implemented! - Beach areas (1991) - implemented! - Rich deciduous forests (Overview report 1995) - Mires and wetlands (Overview report 1996) - Marine areas - only national overview exists

National Parks:

- National report (1986) - White paper( 1991/92)

Finnmark:

- Expand 3 existing national parks - 3 new national parks proposed

1) "Øvre Pasvik"( 1970) Primeval forest with many eastern species. a) Extension to East: Wetlands with rich birdlife. b) Extension to West: Remaining primeval forest. c) * Hearing proposal to Directorate for nature management in 2000.

2) "Øvre Anarjohkka" (1975/76) Typical example of the Finnmark plains. Extension: Wetlands and pine forest * Additional registrations performed.

3) "Stabbursdalen" (1970)

23 Northern pine forest. Valley with a varied watercourse and quartinary geology interests Extention: Mountain landscape and wilderness * Local process finished

4) "Varangerhalvøya" (proposal) Arctic landscapes with bare rocks, many interesting lush small valleys with forests and swamps. Mires with nesting areas for birds. * Start process in 2000.

5) "Seiland" (proposal) Varied island landscape, including an untouched "glacier-to-fjord" landscape. * Not started process.

6) "Goatteluobbal" (proposal) Mires and wetlands with many lakes. * Not started process.

Coniferous forest in Northern Norway - Proposals for Finnmark:

- Pasvik ("Store Sametti") - Alta and Porsanger area - Local and central processes nearly finished

2.4.3 The county of Troms Liv Mølster, County Governor of Troms, Departement of the Environment Total area: 25 954 km2 = 2. 595 400 ha Population: 150 000 Protected area in Troms:

Number Km2" Ha National parks: 3 1615 161 480 Nature reserves: 44 97 9664 Landscape protected areas: 5 123 12343 Otber protected areas 2 1 95 National monuments 2 0 0 56 1836 183 582

Coastal Area/Marine Area 66 6 600 ha Percent of terrestric area protected 7.1% Areas proposed for protection in Troms:

Number Km2" Ha Coniferous forest: 9 28 2800 Coastal areas: 40 299 29900

24 National park Plan: Kni2' Ha 1. Lyngsalpan local hearing 978" 97 800 2. Rebbenesøy/Nord-Kvaløy (in coastal plan) 151 (terrestrial) 217 (marine area) 3. Ånderdalen - extention (in coastal plan) 21 2 129 4. ØvreDividal extention start 2000 30 3000 5. Sørdalen/Isdalen start 2000 240 24000 6. Kvænangsbotn start later 120 12 000 7. Treriksrøysa start later

Concerning the plan of Coniferous forest of Northern Norway, central hearing is finished in 1998, but Royal Decree is not made yet. The programme of the Coastal areas is stopped waiting for some questions of protection of marine areas to be decided by the parliament. Terrestric" Marin area km2 % of total % of total km2 terrestric area marine areab Excisting protected areas in Troms 1836 66 7,1 Proposed Lyngsalpene landsc.p.a. 978 0 3,8 Programme of Coniferous forest 28 0 0,1 Programme of Coastal areas0 299 386 1,2 Total existing and proposed areas 3141 452 12,1 a Terrestric area incl freshwater area. b Marin area within the "groundline" c Proposed in hearing of 1996

Some comments: Existing protected areas: The Nature reserves: 13 mires, bogs and fens (botany, hydrology), 28 wetland (marshland, freshwater; botany, birds), l Mountain flora. In the national parks and some of the nature reserves and landscape protection areas the ground is owned by the government. "Fjelltjenesten", an organisation under the Statskog SF (Crown forest/State Ground), is the field staff of the national parks and some nature reserves and landscape protected areas. In the national parks there is reindeerholding. Problems when the amount of reindeer is too high. Problem with tracks of motor vehicles on bare ground from reindeerholdery.

Proposed protected areas: Programme of Coastal areas: There is a discussion dealing with if aquaculture should be allowed or not within the landscape protected areas. There is also locally a discussion of recreation use of areas in the breeding period of the seabirds. Coniferous forests (only pine in Troms) : There is a problem to get the most economic interesting type of forest into the plan. National park plan: The conservation process of these areas has been a real democratic process with many meetings and hearings with participants of everybody who is con- cerned.

Future plans: Rich deciduos forests: Many of the deciduos forests are planted with spruce, which is not a natura! growing tree in Troms.

25 Marine areas: There is planned to be a programme of marine areas. If some areas in Troms is going to be preserved in this plan is not yet decided.

2.4.4 Protection of areas in Nordland county

Egil Roll, County Governor of Nordland/Directorate for Natur e Management

Existing orotected areas:

Protection status Number Land area (km 2) Sea area (km 2) Nature reserves 58 348 110 Landscape protection areas 7 701 National parks 3 2996 5,5 SUM 68 4045 115,5

Includes plans for mires, wetlands (partly finished) and coniferous forests (partly finished).

In addition: • 10 nature monuments (3 single trees and 7 caves). • 3 areas with protection of animal life (land area: 7 km2 / sea area: 198 km2). • l area with protection of plant life (441 km2).

Proposed protected areas (Nordland County):

Plans for special types of habitat Number Land area Sea area (km2) (km2) Wetlands 8 12 16 (remaining parts) Coniferous forests 30 95 (remaining parts, incl. Boreal rainforest) Rich deciduous forests 27 25 Coast 73 100 1000

National Plan for National Parks: 7 areas Area (km2) Børgefjell national park 300 Tysfjord - Hellemo 1050 (sea: 49) Indrefjord - Øksfjord 143 (sea: 9,5) Lomsdal - Visten 1291 (incl. sea) Junkerdal - Balvatn 9 Sundsfjordfjella 150 Mistfjord/Sjunkfjord/Øvre Valnesfjord 400 (sea: 40)

26 3 NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

3. l ECOREGION-BASED CONSERVATION IN THE BARENTS SEA

Peter Prokosch, WWF-Arctic Pro gramme

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 1997 embarked on a so-called ecoregion- based conservation (ERBC) initiative. The basis for this strategy is the increasing recog- nition among biologists and conservationists that nature (and sustainable use of natural resources) best can be managed when focusing on large/complete ecological units. The traditional way of protecting nature through establishing small reserves for special purposes, has turned out to be insufficient to protect the full range of biological diversity on Earth.

An ecoregion is a large unit of land and/or sea containing natural communities and populations who are all, to a certain degree, influenced by the same environmental conditions and ecological factors. Instead of fragmenting this natural unit, WWF wish to focus on sustainable development and management acknowledging that the ecoregion functions as one unit. Ecoregion-based conservation therefore implies that nature management is effected on a scale which 1) as far as possible coincides with the scale at which the natural ecological processes in the area operate; 2) covers the full range of biodiversity; and 3) makes it possible to meet threats to the environment at several different levels (both natural processes and many important threats to biodiversity operate on scales bigger than specific sites). To achieve our goals, WWF considers it of vital importance that local users of the natural resources are involved in the work at an early stage, and that cooperation is seeked with as many stakeholders as possible.

The goal of ecoregion-based conservation is to protect the full range of species, communities, habitats and ecological processes characteristic of the ecoregion. Ecoregion-based conservation allows for considerations of global events and processes which affect biodiversity; it focuses across political borders, and seeks to integrate different and often local knowledge bases. WWF has identified more than 200 different ecoregions around the world (The Global 200), where the organisation will focus its work. This selection represent the scientifically most valuable ecoregions from the most important nature types in all bioregions of the World, with focus on representativity, species diversity and produc- tivity. The Barents Sea is one of these regions.

The Barents Sea Ecoregion The ecoregion includes both the Barents Sea and a part of the Kara Sea, as well as the Svalbard, Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlja archipelagos. To the south, the polar circle and mainland Norway and Russia delineate the border of the ecoregion, to the east the border is set by the Yamal peninsula and the 70° longitude Une.

Until recently, the Arctic has been regarded as the last intact ecosystem on Earth. The long distances to densely populated areas and industrial emissions has been regarded as adequate protection of the arctic environment. However, research conducted the kst decade has changed our understanding of long-range transport of pollution in the atmosphere and in ocean currents. The level of contaminants in top predators on Svalbard actually imply that they should be treated as "hazardous waste". Local industries and in-

27 creasing activity in the petroleum sector have also affected the arctic, and our past history of fisheries and sea mammal hunting makes it even more difficult to use the term "pristine" about the Barents Sea. Furthermore, the future of the ecoregion is uncertain also with respect to the situation for fisheries, and developments in the petroleum sector both on the Norwegian and (not least) the Russian side

The WWF Barents Sea project WWF decided to start an ecoregion-based conservation project in the Barents Sea after håving ordered and received a reconnaissance report focusing on the status of the marine ecosystem, pollution levels, and management and exploitation of living marine resources and petroleum resources in the ecoregion. The report was made by an independent research institution, The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, and delivered in April 1999. It concluded that the two greatest threats to biodiversity in the region are fishing and oil development, two activities that are also extremely important to the economies of both Nor- way and Russia. Therefore, conservation actions will have to be very realistic, well planned and to some degree co-ordinated with the two governments. Since the report concluded in favour of a possible role for WWF in the region, the WWF Arctic Pro- gramme employed a project co-ordinator from 15 September. From an office in the Polar Environment Centre in Tromsø, the Barents Sea Office is responsible for co-ordinating the ERBC project by seeking co-operation with the main "stakeholders" in the region, other environmental NGOs and scientific institutions, and by linking with WWF Norway and the WWF Russian Programme Office.

An important tool for identifying the further course of action will be a biodiversity assessment of the Barents Sea ecoregion. This shall give an updated and comprehensive overview of species and populations in the ecoregion, with important migration routes, spawning grounds, polynyas and so on, but also an overview of treaths to biodiversity (petroleum activity, radioactive contamination, fisheries, arctic shipping, organic contamination and more). Data from Norwegian and Russian areas, of which very much already exist and is available from different sources, will be treated in a GIS-analysis in order to locate areas of conflict with regard to biodiversity and human activity, as well as to evaluate the existing network of protected areas in the ecoregion.

Aided by the biodiversity assessment, WWF will develop a long-term biodiversity vision for the Barents Sea Ecoregion. This biodiversity vision will be WWFs point of departure towards an ecoregional Conservation Plan identifying the goals for the ecoregion and the actions needed to achieve these goals. The Conservation Plan will include indi- cators and means of verification, and the development process will include as many regional stakeholders and_end users as possible, and will involve relevant disciplines and areas of expertise (political and social science, economies, ecology, fisheries, oil and gas development, pollution, bilateral and international agreements).

28 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS leva Rucevska, UNEP/GRID-Arendal

1. UNEP/GRID-Arendal Mission Statement. UNEP/GRID-Arendal aims to be an internationally recognised information centre providing decision-makers and the public with improved access to high quality environmental information and supporting UNEP in expanding the use of such information for awareness raising, policy-making and action.

2. The main regions G-A is focused on is Nordic/Baltic, Arctic and Antarctic, Central and Eastern Europe and the NIS countries and other countries with the significant activities on cartographic and graphic support, environmental reporting, capacity building, environmental information systems on the Internet and global network projects.

3. GRID-Arendal Polar activities. 4. UNEP has now designated G-A as the UNEP Key Centre on Polar Environmental Assessment and Early Warning issues with particular focus no the Arctic. Main activities: - The project on Arctic Indigenous People of Russia (example, Pro gramme for Capacity Building and Participation of Russia's Indigenous People in the Sustainable Development of the Arctic; - The projects on Barents region (Barents Atlas); - Support Global Environment Facility (GEF) Secretariat projects AP AM and RAJDPON project, ACOPS project; - Projects on Convention of Arctic Flora and Fauna (current project with WCMC etc).

1. Share of experiences. Environment and Natura! Resources Information Network (ENRIN) Parameters: 27 countries, Central and Eastern Europe and NIS countries, time: app. 4 years.

Objectives: - Strengthening existing national and regional information network; - Streamlining environmental reporting; - Facilitating access to environmental data and information; - Popularising and visualising environmental information using such tools as State-of-Environment reports on the Internet and CD-ROM, automated map- ping GIS. Example ENRIN network (http://w\\fw.grida.no/prog/cee/enrin/index.htm) Czech Re- public SoE report.

NW Russia projects coming soon: Strengthening Information Management and Report- ing on the Environment and Sustainable Development for North-West Russia and Be- larus.

29 4 SPECIAL SESSION - SOME SELECTED RUSSIAN AREAS - CO- ORDINATION ANDPROGRESS Jan-Petter Huberth Hansen, Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim

What do we want from this session ? background: the recommendations from the tromsø workshop (nov 1998)

Issues that should be highlighted for each specific area:

• which areas are the main priorities ?

• what is the main challenge of the specific area

• what is going on today ? how are we cooperating ? for what kind of activities is there cooperation already ?

• what do we want to cooperate about ? what should be continued ? - what should be new items/projects ?

• discussion

4. l THE FIRST NATIONAL PARKS IN THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC - FROM IDEA TO IMPLEMENTATION

Yuri L. Mazourov in collaboration with Pyotr V. Boyarsky, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage, ul. Kosmonavtov 2, Moscow

Introduction The last explorations of the Integrated Marine Arctic Expedition (IMAE) at the Barents See region have demonstrated and proved a high level of wilderness and biodiversity of the Northern part of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. This is a strong argument for conservation this area. At the same time history makes North of Novaya Zemlya espesially attractive for heritage tourism due to a lot of unique historical landmarks connected with heroical polar investigations. The area is also of great interest for specialised Arctic tourism. Therefore it should not be turned into a fully protected reserve ("zapovednik" in Russia), but it should receive the status of National Park, where the interests of conservation and recreation can be combined.

Backgrounds for creation the park Most Arctic territories with a natural, historical, cultural or recreational value have received some sort of protective status during the past years. Novaya Zemlya seems in this respect to be the only exception. Although numerous valuable heritage monuments are presented there, Specially Protected (natural and cultural-historical) Territories (SPT) are still lacking on this archipelago.

30 Various specialists have recently expressed the need for such SPTs. An IMAE research group has proved that not only separate SPTs, but also a unified system of natural, historical and cultural SPTs should be created on Novaya Zemlya. Such a system has to be combined with and adjusted to the activities of the present Central Range (Nuclear Test- ing Polygon) of the Russian Federation. Only a comprehensive approach will ensure the effectiveness of the SPT-conservation policy in the area without permanent population, except of some army camps and Arctic stations. Our concept for an SPT-system on Novaya Zemlya includes several protected areas of different le veis of strict. The North of the archipelago, which is outside of the Central Range area, is considered the most promising for the first stage of SPT-development. This particular area is directly connected with the nåme of the outstanding Dutch navigator Willem Barents. Here, together with his crew, he spent the last year of his life wintering at lee Harbour. In the north-west of the island, approximately at Ivanov Bay, he found his last place on the Earth. That is why this area is particularly interesting for tour- ists from both the Netherlands, where Willem Barents is treated as a national hero, and other countries, where he is also well-known as well.

History of idea Already in 1992 P. Boyarsky have proposed the creation of a "Willem Barents Park" here in honour of Barents and in a memory of the heroic episode of European history connected with the Arctic discoverers. This plan was further developed within the discussion on a SPT-system at Novaya Zemlya (Boyarski, Zakharov & Mazourov 1996). The park would be one of three "Novaya Zemlya" National Park regions which would com- prise a total area of 1250, 000 hectars including 250,000 hectars of sea. The suggested "Willem Barents Park" would measure 750,000 hectares including 115,000 hectares of sea. Aside from the northern area of the "Novaya Zemlya" National Park it is proposed to protect: • a central area: "Krestovaya Bay - Rusanov Valley" (250,000 hectares), and • a southern area: "The Kara Gates" (240,000 hectares). These three areas can be considered both environmentally and historically the most representative for the entire archipelago. Their heritage is valuable with regard to nature conservation, science, education and recreation. They contain practically all-main kinds of Arctic landscapes, from coastal plains with polar deserts and tundra's to high mountain alpine landscapes with half-surface or full glaciations and outlet glaciers, as well as complexes of lakes and coastal Arctic habitats. The biological resources are rich here and the landscapes have a high aesthetic appeal.

Sights and value The historical sites reflect the cultural diversity of Novaya Zemlya and are related to the main events of both the international history of geographic discoveries and the (scientific) exploration of the archipelago itself. They have an everlasting value for Russia as well as for international community. Therefore, the regional policy regarding the three proposed areas should give priority to conservation of the environment and to protection and sustainable use of the cultural and natural potential. This includes an organisation of tourism, which would reflect the individual qualities, and natural and cultural specialities of the "Novaya Zemlya" Park.

31 According to our proposals the future "Willem Barents Park" as a SPT in North of No- vaya Zemlya stretches from Cape Zayats on the west coast to Vitney Bay in the east including the Bolshiye Oranskiye, Maliye Oranskiye and other groups of islands. The most important historical and cultural sites here are: • the wintering camp of Willem Barents and his crew in the "lee Haven" Bay (1596- 1597) with the remains of their log kabin, a memorial cross and the Dutch memorial stone (erected by the Russian-Dutch Arctic expedition of 1995); • probable burials of Willem Barents and Claes Goutijk in the area of Ivanov and Inostrantsev Bays and Cape Sakharov; • the memorial stone on one of the Maliye Oranskiye Islands, established in 1881 by the Dutch expedition with the navy ship "Willem Barents" to commemorate the dis- covery of Oranskiye Islands by Willem Barents on Ist July 1594; • memorial sites and material remains at Cape Zhelaniya and Cape Flissingsky connected with the expedition of the famous Russian polar navigator Georgi Sedov in 1913; • memorial sites connected with the expedition of the famous Arctic discoverer Vla- dimir Rusanov with the "Dmitry Solunsky" in 1910; • one of the first in Russian Arctic the polar monitoring station "Mys Zhelaniya" foundedin 1931; • a variety of over 20 interesting sites, such as stone guri's, crossses, log cabins, lighthouses, and building of the Soviet period and graveyards.

The rich natura! heritage of this area consists of denudative plains, plateau's with high- arctic polar deserts, glaciers and some Arctic tundra's in the narrow strip of coastal low- land in the south-west. Its west part characterised by severe weather conditions and by an impressive polar scenery. It comprises the middle- and high-altitude ridges of the Lo- monosov and mendeleev mountains, which are separated from the coastal lowlands by steep cliffs. They represent extremely dissected glacial mountains with single peaks pro- truding from the ice, the highest of them is 1.013 m. There are outlet glaciers of the northern Novaya zemlya ice cap, which move slowly toward the sea. On the shore these gkciers form ice barriers several tens of meters high with large blocks (icebergs) break- ing off. A preliminary inventory of the most valuable natural heritage contains the following categories: geological, geomorphological, glaciological, zoological and landscape subjects.

The combination of these different sites is of great recreational value and is the basis for the development of a programme of ecological, scientific and educational tourism. Ships and air transport (such as a helicopters) will be used to cross the region. The former polar station in Russkaya Gavan' Bay is recommended as an administrative, recreational, scientific and management center of the "Willem barents Park". This site is located in the south-west, outside the park. Only here are conditions favourable to anchor ships and construct a helicopter field. A scientific and management subcenter can be established at Cape Zhelania, which in a later stage (resulting from a positive response to the touristi- cal plans), can also have a recreational purpose. Furthermore it will be necessary to build accommodation facilities (log cabins or something Uke it) in Ice Haven Bay. Helicopter

32 fields are required at Cape Zhelaniya (main) and in lee Haven Bay (emergency), as well as in the areas of western coastline.

Outside of the discussed area there are several memorial sites, which are connected with the nåme of Willem Barents and are of a big touristic interest. Among them are the following: Krestoviye Islands, Matveev and Mestny islands, the south coast of Vaigach island and the north coast of Yugorsky Shar peninsula near the Yugorsky Shar strait. They should acquire the status of separate natural and historical monuments and could be include in the routes of touristic ships.

Costs and benefits During the decades of the Soviet epoch the industrial development håd a strong priority in the Russian Arctic. Essential degradation of the natural ecosystems was a relevant payment for this kind of development. Currently the mentioned above priority is factually replaced by nature conservation as a main direction of the Russian environmental policy in the Arctic. That is why to organise now some nature reserves in the Russian Arctic is mush easier than national parks. Some experts on environmental management are afraid of degradation of the fragile Arctic nature under the pressure recreational activities in national parks and other areas opened for tourism. The other field where conservation meets economics and contra versa is that of economy use of the Arctic territories and aquatories. For instance, Novaya Zemlya is still very attractive place for different kinds of weapon testings, including undegroung nuclear ones. Now this archipelago meets a new and really large threat - to be transformed into the vast dump of the most toxic wastes including nuclear wastes.

Today we have more and more data on the new resources of oil, gas, ores and minerals in the Arctic seas and the coastal territories. Obviously mining and national parks as well as another form of nature protection are not compatible. Everybody realise that conservation takes a lot of money meanwhile mining can give a large benefit. Unfortunately for the natural conservation the waters surrounding Novaya Zemlya are abounded with oil and gas, the islands of the archipelago contain essential resources of valuable minerals. All these facts indicate the rising problem of conflicting interests concerning the Arctic territories and aquatories, particularly in the Barents region. At such the situations creation of national parks and some other kinds of multifunctional protected areas seems to be a good compromise solution for economy and conservation. Any way, sustainable development in Arctic could be a kind of reality in the case of nature preservation priority only.

While nature tourism generally, and Arctic tourism specifically, is not now developed in Russia, many believe that it is poised for rapid growth. The situation represents a real and unique opportunity to integrate conservation goals into Arctic tourism development in Russia while it is still in its embrionic stage. The WWF Principles and Codes of Conduct for Arctic Tourism (Linking ..., 1998) can provide guidance for this development, steer- ing it in a direction that will help to ensure that the inherent potential for environment degradation from mismanaged tourism activities does not materialise in the Russian Arc- tic.

In particular, the issue of developing tourism in protected areas in Russia generated a great deal of interest and concern among experts. On the one hand, enthusiastic interest originated from the potential of these often unique, remote, and pristine areas to provide

33 highly desirable tourist destination in the Arctic. The mentioned areas offer perhaps the greatest opportunity to harmonise tourism, education, and conservation goak in a relatively controlled environment. On the other hand, there is a real concern that tourism development in these areas poses a significant risk of diminishing or even destroying the very characteristics that distinguish them for protection. There is also concern that in the current political and economic situation in Russia, the monitoring and enforcement of restrictions needed in protected areas may not be reliable.

Anywhere Arctic tourism requires special efforts to meet the challenges of accessing and operating in remote and rugged places. These challenges are compounded in Russia, with an already high degree of uncertainty and unpredictability regarding infrastructure and administrative support for such activities. Furthermore, as pressure for productive economic development increases, tourism itself may not be viewed as a first priority and may compete with potentially conflicting interests of industrial development in the Northern territories. Finally, economic benefits are frequently not directed to local or even Russian economies: logistics are typically arranged in areas outside of the destina- tions, or even out of Russia. This stems from a shortage of educated, informed, and trained individuals who can assist in planning and conducting tour operations in the Rus- sian Arctic.

Exploring tourism's potentkl benefits for a wide sphere of people and nature itself experts consider some probable approaches to meet these challenges. These approaches should support and enhance the conservation prospects for this special region. Some highlights of the potential benefits identified by the specialists include Langstaff, 1999): • Linking tourism and scientific research activities to increase understanding that will enhance the Arctic environment and cultural conservation efforts; • Providing an economic alternative to industrial development in the Arctic, thus benefiting the environment, tourism, and local communities with the traditional life- styles; • Generating support for the effective supervision of existing protected areas including appropriate tourism components; • Promoting the designation of new protected areas in the Russian Arctic regions that successfully combine tourism, education, and conservation. It's evidently for experts that these benefits will materialise only if the links between tourism and conservation are integrated successfully throughout tourism development in the Russian Arctic. The suggested Willem Barents Park could be one of the very first areas for to collection of the appropriate experience at this field.

Conclusion The proposal for a "Willem Barents Park" as a part of a "Novaya Zemlya" National Park and an overall SPT-system of the archipelago is, in our opinion, the best guarantee for the conservation and sustainable use of the Novaya Zemlya cultural and natural heritage. We were very pleased that our "Willem Barents Park" concept was fully appreciated by our Dutch colleagues of the 1995 and 1998 international Arctic expeditions. That concept was presented during the international "Willem Barents Memorial Arctic Conservation Symposium" held in Moscow on March 1998 (Boyarsky, P.V., Yu.S.Zakharov & Yu.L.Mazourov, 1998) and was appreciated by its participants (Prokosch, 1998).

34 With the support of professionals and the general public of both Russia and other interested countries the concept and creation of the park itself can be further developed. This will be undoubtedly a major contribution to the conservation of the natura! and cultural heritage of the Arctic and will be an appropriate and long-lasting commemoration of the great Dutch navigator Willem Barents.

References Boyarsky, P.V., Yu.S.Zakharov & Yu.L.Mazourov, 1996. Novaya Zemlya - region of the Russian national heritage. In: Boyarsky, P.V. et al. Novaya Zemlya. Natura! and cultural heritage. Institute for Heritage, Moscow (in Russian and English). Boyarsky, P.V., Yu.S.Zakharov & Yu.L.Mazourov, 1998. The memory of Willem Bar- ents and its commemoration in the system of measures on the preservation of cultural and natural heritage of Novaya Zemlya. In: Conserving our common heritage of the Arctic. Abstracts of the Willem Barents Memorial Arctic Conservation Symposium. Institute for Heritage, Moscow (in Russian and English). Langstaff, Lee. 1999. Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Russian Arctic. Russian Conservation News. No. 18. Linking Tourism and Conservation in the Arctic. 1998. WWF Arctic Bulletin. Special Edition. Prokosch, Peter, 1998. Moscow Declaration Highlits Dutch-Russian Collaboration. WWF Arctic Bulletin. No.2.

4.2 CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROTECTED AREAS IN NENETS AUTUNOMOUS OKRUG

Ludmila Poroshkina, Goscomecologia, NAO Nenets autonomous okrug (NAO) is located on extreme north - east of the European part of Russia. The territory of the NAO, area 176.7 thousand sq. km , erases from north on the south on 300-400 km, from west on east almost on 1000 km. from cape Kanin Nos up to Ural range. The coast of the okrug is washed Barents, Kara and White seas, the line of seacoast makes about 3000 km. The okrug possesses two large island territories - Kol- guev and Vaygach, and also some of small islands contiguous to capes Russkiy Zavorot (Gulyaevskie islands) and island Medyunskiy (Matveev, Dolgiy,Zelenets).

On nature-climatic conditions of the territory NAO can be considered as the subArctic and Arctic tundra. They are unique by that are sole hi Europe the standards of flat tundra's, where kept natural untouched landscapes and natural complexes. Last years the role of the Arctic region in the world considerably has increased. Many Arctic states give back a priority to these territories as ecological reserve of our planet. Taking into account rigid abiotic factors of an environment, in which the processes of self-restoration and self-cleansing are extremely limited, it is necessary crucially and reasonably to approach to questions of economic activity. The uniqueness of territory NAO consists also that here for the present keep at a trade level fish resources whitefish spaces . Therefore, that it is possible to use this sole in Europe generically pure matrix live-stoks, which in the long term for restoration of number of this kind of fishes in previous inhabitance places.

35 Also it is necessary to note the special importance of the territory of NAO for ornitho- fauna. The uncountable quantity of tundra lakes, inaccessibility them and sea coast because of absence of an infrastructure, is created by ideal conditions for nesting and moulting of many kinds of birds in summer time. For last years prospecting works practically have stopped, that was by the positive factor for restoration of number of some kinds of birds, before brought in the Red book. Are marked significant on number of a population of barnacle goose on an island Kolguev and at coast of the okrug. The increase nests of white tailed eagle, peregrine falcon, increase of number small tundra swans (Bewick's swan) is observed.

Now special preoccupation and care of the ecologists of the okrug is caused by forth- comitig development of deposits oil and gas. In territory of the NAO for years of intensive geological prospecting 75 hydrocarbon deposits are open. The initial total resources of oil in the okrug has about 2.4 milliards tons, about 1.2 trillion tons of gas, 44 millions tons of condensate, dissolved gas - 133milliards m3. Now 13 enterprises work in NAO, which are håving 38 licenses, for all period of development of deposits mastered about 2 % of the reconnoitred stocks of hydrocarbons. Geological investigated of territories of the okrug makes about 50 %, in opinion of the experts, during the further geological prospecting it is possible increase of stocks of hydrocarbons in 2-3 times.

The State committee for environmental protection in Nenets autonomous okrug (Goscomecologiya NAO) since the first years of the activity (became created in 1989) to carry out active work on expansion of a network of especially protected areas. In the NAO by then were organized 2 zakazniks: "Vaygatsky" and "Nenetsky", that made about 4 % of the area of all territory. Now this parameter has reached 9 %, and in 2000 we are going to reserve about 10-11 % of territory of the okrug, that comes nearer to an average European level.

By joint efforts, Goscomecologii NAO .the Administration of the NAO and Goscome- cologii of Russian Federation were carried out works on creation of the project of reserve "Nenetsky". In 1995-1996 years the forwarding researches of territory were carried out and are executed necessary agreements. The allocation of territory under reserve was done with the lar^e work, as practically all territory of the okrug is engaged traditional activity - reindeer breeding and fishery, and it was necessary for taking into account.

By result of joint efforts of all interested organisations the decision of Government of Russian Federation. 1579 from December 18, 1997 « About establishment in the Nenets autonomous okrug of state natura! reserve "Nenetsky" is accepted. The state natura! reserve "Nenetsky" has common area 313400 hectares. The borders of reserve pass on Za- harinsky coast along the Pechora bay, in the lower reaches of delta of the river of Pechora, parts of delta of the river Vostochnaya Neruta along southern coast of Bolvan- sky bay, Gulyaevskie islands, islands in a Southeast part of Barents sea: Matveev, Go- lecth, Bolsoy and Maluy Zelenechuy, water area of Korovinskaya, Srednaya and Kuznet- skaya bay, part of Bolvankaya bay, two-kilometer water area around of Russky Zavorot peninsula and all sea islands.

The territory of reserve "Nenetsky" has the international importance, as most valuable wetland areas. In spring, summer, autumn a season in reserve there are on flight, in the period of nesting and moulting more than 30 species of waterfowl birds, 4 species from which are brought in the Red book of Russian Federation. It is small (tundra)swan

36 (Becwik's swan),Lesser White-fronted goose, Barnacle goose ,White-billed Diver. From predatory birds brought in the Red book of Russian Federation, in reserve - Osprey, Golden Eagle, Gyrfalcon, White-tailed Eagle and Peregrine falcon, two last of species also are included in the Red book of the International Union of Nature Protection.

From mammals, living on reserved territory and brought in the Red book of Russia, the renewal breeding ground Atlantic walrus on Matveev and Dolgy islands is marked, and also polar bear is annually marked. The Pechora Sea serves a place of habitat for sea mammals.

The special importance for local reservoirs has a complex of white fishes. These species, which require the special protection in connection with very sharp reduction of trade stocks. The Pechora Sea - area of natural habitat of the European and Siberian species of white fishes, where the opportunities of formation of the various hybrid forms are created. Through a Southeast part of the Pechora Sea passes migration way of salmon - largest population of the Atlantic salmon being object of the international importance. The coastal areas of the sea serve a place of fattening of salmon and white fishes. White fishes of Pechora sea enter into structure of researches under the project « a Species and efficiency in natural habitat », carried out on the program of UNESCO « Man and biosphere ».

In territory of reserve are rare kinds of plants brought in the Red book of Russian Fed- eration. It is a Gold root (Rhodiola rosea), Dryas octopetala, Pinguicula alpina etc.

The importance of creation of state natural reserve "Nenetsky" in European North of Russia, and is especial in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug (NAO), in a kind that absence of reserves earlier in this sector of Arctic Region, from the Kola peninsula up to Taimyr. Was the largest lack of a network of especially protected territories, it was marked as the Russian scientists in the field of protection of a nature, and international nature protection public.

In process of development of reserve with the purposes of preservation valuable wetland areas it will be necessary to carry out more detailed study a biological diversity in this territory, and also work on ecological education and information of the population of the NAO.

The creation of reserve has not exhausted needs of the okrug in protected territories. Only from a position of protection of waterfowl birds and wetlands under the initiative Goscomecologk NAO some more such territories were created.

In Qctober 1996 the works for establishment of state natural zakaznik of federal importance "Bolshezemelsky" in western part of Ugorsky peninsula were begun. The decision of Administration of a district • 589 from November 4, 1996 authorised its establish on the area 328000 hectares. No w documents are on consideration and statement in Gov- ernment of Russian Federation.

The territory of zakaznik represents major international wetlands for reproduction and habitat of a number of valuable and rare animals brought in the Red book, such as Bek- wik's swans, Lesser white-fronted goose, Barnacle goose, Gyrfalcon, Peregrine falcon.

37 From the botanical point of view, the territory ••••••••• represents the special interest as a place of growing rare vegetative communities of the European representatives of flora and many kinds of plants of the Asian complex.

In the 15th January 1997 was established state natura! zakaznik "Shoinsky". It is situated in a Northwest part of Kanin peninsula between the rivers Shoina and Torna. The area måkes it 16400 hectares.

The territory of zakaznik represents wetlands of coast of the White sea, håving the international importance on protection and reproduction waterfowl birds brought in the Red book of Russian Federation is a Lesser white-fronted goose and Barnacle goose.

In 1998 the designing state natura! zakaznik of regional importance "Niznepechorsky" was carried out which was authorized by the decision of Administration of the Nenets autonomous okrug • 600 from 20.10.98* .. it settles down hi delta of the river of Pechora and occupies the area 106 000 hectares It is provided, as complex, for preservation and restoration of valuable species of salmon fishes and also for protection wetlands territories, håving the large importance for waterfowl birds, it will carry out also ro le of a buffer zone of reserve "Nenetsky".

In 1987 is established monument of nature " Canyon "Bolshie Vorota" Aim of establishment was conservation unique nature landscape. Territory of monument of nature is submitted by picturesque coastal breakage of basalt breeds of height 70 meters. The numerous adjournment agates and other minerals are observed. The river Be- laya is place of spawning for salmon. In the future we plan to extend territory of zakaznik and establish National Park on this territory. It is attractive territory for ecological tourism and recreation. But necessity of control for "wild"(unorganised) tourism in this territory for protection especially valuable flora and fauna, unique landscape and numerous inclusions of minerals.

In 1999 is established the state natural zakaznik «More- U». It is a site of average current of the More-U river, area about 60000 hectares. The basic natural value zakaznik is surviving sparse growth of spruce. This is evidence of previous spreading of forest formation in Bolshezemelskaya tundra. It is situated 150 kilometres from north bother of forest tundra..

In the same year the works on designing and organisation of a monument of a nature "Pyum Va Shor" in Bolshezemelskayato tundra, on average current of the river AdzVa are planned. It is unique mineral-termal sources on North Russia, and caving is håving historical value.

For 2000 together with institute of Geography of the Academy of Science of Russian Federation we plan creation of national park « Ethnic-ecological zone "Island Kolguev"». By the given project we shall try to untie network of problems of residing and traditional style of life of indigenous peoples, industrial development of petroleum deposits of an island and preservation of a biological diversity of territory and, in particular, protection largest in Eurasia of area nesting of Barnacle goose and White -fronted goose.

38 It is extremely important to take into account and that for the first time on the Arctic shelf the industrial production of petroleum will begin at coast of the Nenets autonomous okrug, since by the first deposit, which is completely ready and it is planned to development the coming years - "Prirazlomnoe", is in 65 km from coast of the NAO. Unfortunately, it is necessary to ascertain that to similar development of events neither Russia, nor Okrug - , as the subject of Federation is not prepared. At present, there is no experience of realisation of such works, with the account difficult of ice and hydrometeorological conditions, there is no appropriate coastal and sea infrastructure for maintenance liquidation of floods of petroleum.

Administration and the nature protection services of a district reaUse. that the creation of especially protected natural territories in * * * . is major business in the field of protection of an environment for preservation of unique and typical natural complexes and objects of European North, noteworthy formations. objects vegetative and fauna, their ge- netic fund, study of natural processes in biosphere and control of change of its (her) condition. ecological education of the population.

Preservation of a biological variety in the Arctic region, on our sight, task of global scale. It is necessary to all world community to unit efforts for the positive sanction of this global problem. The ecologists of a district have desire to continue the begun work, there is a necessary experience and experts, there is a highly skilled scientific support of the projects, there are large plans on organisation of the projects of protected areas, the territory has prospect of development the coming years - us it is necessary to finish the begun work per 1999-2001 years, before large-scale development of deposits of hydrocarbons. And the support is necessary for this purpose for us which, we hope, will be re- turned in the near future and financially both preservation of stability and biological variety in our region, that fruitfully will have an effect on a condition of biosphere.

The experience of Yamal and Western Siberia shows. that is especial in Arctic Region negative processes more easy to prevent, than to eliminate and to restore broken of ecosystems both complexes and consequences of accidents. We invite to co-operation all shins

39 5 LIST OF PRIORITY PROJECTS ON HABITAT CONSERVATION ISSUES (AREAS AND/OR ACTIVITIES) - FOR CO-OPERATION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE NORDIC COUNTRIES ARCHANGELS OBLAST

Onezskoe Pomori (The Onega Penninsula) Needs/actions: further planning of a protected area, achieve local, national and international support Co-operative countries: Russia, Finland

Belomorsko-Kuloiskoe Plateau Needs/actions: Further planning of a national park (time frame 2-3 years) Co-operative countries: Russia, Sweden, Norway

Kozhozero Needs/actions: The Zakaznik is temporary protected until 2001 only. Further planning of a permanent protected area. Co-operative countries: Russia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

The Russian Arctic National Park Needs/actions: Further support to the establishment of a National Park (step by step concept) and Co-operation on management issues including environmental monitoring Co-operative countries: Russia, Norway, Sweden (and WWF International Arctic Pro- gramme)

Eastern part of Archangels Needs/actions: International Scientific Expedition 2000 to evaluate and identify candidate sites for protection. Co-operative countries: Russia, Finland, Sweden, Norway (and others)

THE REPUBLIC OF KARELIA

The White Sea Region - existing and proposed protected areas Needs/actions: Further planning of protected areas - among them: Soroksky, Pomorsky and Shuyostrovsky Co-operative countries: Russia, Finland, and Norway

Wetlands and mires Needs/actions: a further investigation of candidate sites (Ramsar Convention) Co-operative countries: Russia, Finland, and Norway

The Green Belt Project Needs/actions: Further follow up Co-operative countries: Russia, and Finland

40 MURMANSK OBLAST

Enare-Pasvik Area Needs/actions: Further effort to establish a trilateral protected area Co-operative countries: Finland, Norway, and Russia

Lapplandsky Zapovednik, Kandalakshsky Zapovednik, Pasvik Zapovednik Needs/actions: Support to ecological education and monitoring of biodiversity Co-operative countries: Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland

New Protected Areas on the shore of the Barents Sea Needs/actions: Further planning of new protected areas: The gulfs of Ivanovskaya and Dvorovaya Co-operative countries: Russia, and Norway

NENETS AUTONOMOUS OKRUG

Nenetsky Zapovednik Needs/actions: Support to informational and scientific equipment Co-operative countries: Russia, Norway, and Sweden Pyum - Va - Shor Needs/actions: Investigations and further planning of a Natura! Monument Co-operative countries: Russia, Norway, and Sweden Bolshie Vorota Needs/actions: Further planning of a protected area. International Scientific Expedition in 2000 Co-operative countries: Russia, Norway, and Sweden Kolguev Island Needs/actions: Establisment of an 'Etno-Ecological Zone'. International Scientific Expedition in 2000 Co-operative countries: Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Finland (WWF International Arc- tic Programme, and others) In perspective: Wetlands in Nenets AO Needs/actions: Support to investigations of selected areas (Ramsar Convention)

Kanin Peninsula Needs/actions: Support to inventories of natural and cultural condition. Planning of a protected area.

41 APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Protocol from the first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region (English and Russian versions)

Appendix 2: Mandate of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation Is- sues in the Barents Region (English and Russian versions)

Appendix 3: Program of the 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, Nor- way, 23-25 November 1998. (English and Russian versions)

42 Appendix l: Protocol from the first meetmg of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region (English and Russian versions)

PROTOCOL

from

THE FIRST MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONTACT FORUM ON HABITAT CONSERVATION IN THE BARENTS REGION

During the period 18* to the 20m of November 1999, Finish, Norwegian, Russian and Swedish specialists met in Trondheim, Norway, to discuss the co-operation on habitat conservation in the Barents Region, and the possible establishment of a forum for this co- operation. n

The participants of the meeting made presentations for information exchange about habitat protection in their countries. They discussed progress, challenges and needs in the habitat protection work in the Barents Region, a possible establishment of a network of protected areas in the Barents Region called the Barents Region Protected Areas Network (BPAN) and practical co-operation between the regions on i.e. ecotourism and training of specialists.

The initiative to this meeting was taken on the basis of the workshop on protected areas in the Barents region and Northwest Russia held in Tromsø, Norway, 23-25 November 1998, organised by the Norwegian - Russian working group on biological diversity under the Norwegian - Russian Commission on Environmental Co-operation. m

The general conclusions made by the representatives in the meeting included:

- The representatives agreed to establish an international contact forum on habitat conservation in the Barents Region according to the attached mandate.

- Major challenges of habitat protection in the Barents Region are the protection of virgin forests, the coastal areas included the Arctic archipelagos, and areas representing the mountain, tundra, wetland and marshland ecosystems. Experience from the formation of the Russian Arctic National Park must be recognised. The representatives also recognised the importance of gaining acceptance of a reservation of these areas for nature protection in advance of conflicting economical development.

- Priority must be given to already established protected areas, areas in process of protection, and areas that has to be reserved for protection. The international contact forum shall take part in the formulation of the needs for this protection. The participants recognise this as a short-term priority that must be in balance with the available economical resources. The participants still recognised that the overall long-term vision will be to establish a network of protected areas in the Barents Region. The management of protected areas must preserve biodiversity in a long-term perspective. The representatives also recognised the importance of public support for habitat protection, especially through participation of local people.

Improved and in time information must be given priority. This information must be aimed at the politicians and other decision-makers, for education purposes and for the public. This could be done by i.e. designed updated maps for public use of the protected areas and areas in process for protection. The representatives especially recognised the importance of making a plain and balanced information about prospective areas for protection. They also recognised the need to explain the necessity to sustain the ecosystems of the Barents Region through protection initiatives in balance with the economical development in the region. The information shall also be adapted to the distinctive characteristics of the different regions.

The representatives also recognise the importance of traditional use and development by indigenous and local peoples. Protection initiatives to sustain the ecosystems of the Barents Region must also be in balance with these interests. The international contact forum should therefore to promote adequate information through arranging seminars, local hearings etc. about these areas qualification for public use.

The international contact forum should create guidelines for ecotourism in protected areas in the Barents Region. The representatives recognises the importance of developing these on the basis of the IUCN guidelines for ecotourism in protected areas, tourism guidelines made by the World Wide Fund for Nature, experience from local tourism and pilot projects in some established protected areas in this region, and by arranging a Barents Region seminar for this topic.

The co-operation of the habitat protection in the Barents Region must be in co-ordination with other international co-operation like the Arctic Council, especially the CAFF program, as well as bilateral co-operation in the Barents Region lead by countries outside the Barents Region.

The representatives at the meeting in Trondheim tanks Norway for hosting this first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Euro-Arctic Barents Region. They decided at this meeting that Norway should be the first chair of this forum with Russia as vice chair.

Trondheim, 20* of November

Vafefy A. Orlov Aimo Saano

Mat; - Rune Bergstøm Appendix 2: Mandate of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation Issues in the Barents Region (English and Russian versions) The International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation Issues in the Barents Region

MANDATE a) The Forum is an arena for co-operation on habitat conservation issues in the Barents Region including adjacent marine areas. b) The Forum should work to achieve increased focus on: -proper management of existing protected areas -the need for additional protected areas -other measures relevant for habitat conservation c) The Forum will have annual meetings. d) Participation in the Forum is open to federal and regional authorities in the Barents Region, representatives from indigenous peoples organisations, and relevant and interested organisations (including NGO's), and institutions. e) A Chair should be elected from one of the countries within the Euro-Arctic Barents Region at each annual meeting. The Chairmanship will be rotated between the countries. f) Reports and recommendations from the Forum will be sent to federal and regional authorities in the Barents Region responsible for habitat conservation issues, Indigenous Peoples Organisations (RAIPON, Saami Council,etc), The Barents Council, The Barents Regional Council, relevant and interested international institutions, and inter- governmental and non-governmental organisations (CAFF, IUCN etc). Appendix 3: Program of the Trondheim meeting (English version) Programme

THE FIRST MEETING OF

THE INTERNATIONAL CONTACT FORUM ON HABITAT CONSERVATION IN THE EURO-ARCTIC BARENTS REGION AND NORTHWEST RUSSIA

Trondheim, Norway - November 18-20,1999

Organized by the Norwegian - Russian working group on biological diversity under the Norwegian - Russian Commission on Environmental Co-operation

Purpose The aim of the meeting is to establish a forum for experts and managers involved in habitat conservation in the Barents Region and Northwest Russia. Sharing of experience and information on habitat conservation issues in the counties/oblasts of the Region is important to achieve progress in developing and expanding a representative network of protected areas and to improve the management of theseareas.

A main purpose at the meeting will be to discuss both existing and proposed protected areas to identify needs and priorities. Examples include the Belomore-Kuloj Plateau, The Onega Penninsula, Pechora, Kozhozero, Enare-Pasvik and several others. Coordination of the co-operation between Russia and other countries/institutions/ organizations will also be a key issue.

The meeting will also discuss the main recommendation from the Tromsø workshop to start developing a protected areas network in the Barents Region (BPAN) - based on CAFF's (The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna programme of the Arctic Council) work with a circumpolar protected areas network (CPAN).

Local planning team (at the Directorate for Nature Management): Conference Project Manager: Jan-Petter Huberth Hansen, Senior Adviser Conference Secretary: Kari Helene Bachke Andresen, Senior Executive Officer

• Knut Fossum, Head of Protected Areas Division • Reidar Hindrum, Senior Advisor, Coordinator of the Norwegian-Russian Working Group on Biodiversity • Finn Katerås, Head of International Division, Chair of the Norwegian-Russian Working Group on Biodiversity (Norwegian part) • Olav Nord-Varhaug, Head of National Park Division

Language The meeting language will be Norwegian and English with translation into Russian. Translators: Stein Larsen, Oslo and Mikhail Pouckin, Trondheim

Reporting There will be worked out a protocol (main conclusions and recommendations) and compiled proceedings from this First Meeting on Habitat Conservation Forum in the Barents Region and Northwest Russia. Participants making presentations are therefore kindly asked to provide the Secretariat with their manuscripts. (Preferably on a diskett).

Conference fee There will be no conference fee. Conference Site The meeting will take place at the Directorate for Nature Management's Buildning - Street address: Tungasletta 2. (Approximately 4 km from the center of the town).

Accomodation All participants who have registered will be booked at Trondheim Rainbow Hotel in the center of Trondheim. (Address: Kongensgate 15, N-7013 Trondheim, fax +47 73 51 60 58, telephone +47 73 50 50 50). Daily transport to the conference site (the Directorate for Nature Management) will be arranged.

Programme

THURSDAY, 18 NOVEMBER (0930 -1800)

900 Departurefrom Rainbow Trondheim Hotel 0915-1000 Registration - coffee&tea 1000 Welcome address

The Chairmen of the Joint Russian-Norwegian Working Group on Biological Diversity Natalia Vassilieva (Vice Chair), The State Committeefor Environmental Protection, Russia Reidar Hindrum (Vice Chair), The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

1015 OPENING SESSION

Chair: Knut Fossum, The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

• Intention of the meeting • Initial thoughts on the establisment of a contact forum for habitat conservation issues in the Euro-Arctic Barents Region • Mandate and chairmanship (to be concluded at the end of the meeting)

Jan-P'etter Huberth Hansen, The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

INFORMATION EXCHANGE (1045-1800)

1045-1245 Part one

• "News Session" - update on habitat conservation issues - The basis will be: what happend in 1999, actions underway and planned. Short status reports from countries and counties/oblasts in the Barents Region (10-15 minutes each)

RUSSIA - national overview, Natalia Vassilieva, The State Committee of the Russian Federation on Environmental Protection Arkhangelsk, Valery Efimov, The UralBranchof the RussianAcademy of Science

1115-1130 Break

The Republic of Karelia, Valentin Kalamaev, State Committeefor Nature Conservation of the Republic of Karelia. • Special focus: Wetland Conservation in Karelia

Murmansk Oblast, Valery G. Sokolov, Murmansk Regional Committeefor Nature Conservation

1300-1400 Lunch

1400-1615 Part two

Chair: Victor Kouznetsov, Committeefor Environmental Protection of the Arkhangelsk Region Nenets Autonomous Okrug

1) Establishment and development of protected areas in Nenets AO

2) Ecotourism as a part of ecological education on protected areas Ludmila Poroshkina, Goscomecologia, NAO

FINLAND - national OVerview, Aimo Saano, The Finnish Environmental Institute

Laplands lan / Oulu lan, Aimo Saano, The Finnish Environmental Institute

SWEDEN - national overview, Per-ErikPersson, County Governor ofVasterbotten, Deptartment of the Environment Norrbottens lan / Vasterbotten lan,

1500-1510 Break -fruit

NORWAY - national OVerview, KnutFossum, The Directorate for Nature Management

Finnmark county, Erik Inge Mikkelsen, County Governor of Finnmark, Departement of the Environment

Troms county, Liv Mølster, County Governor of Troms, Departement of the Environment

Nordland county, Egil Roll, County Governor of Nordland/Directorate for Nature Management 1615-J 645 Break - light med

1645-1800 Part three

Chair: Valery Efimov, The Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Science

NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

WWF International - Arctic Programme • The Barents Sea Project Peter Prokosch, WWF-Arctic Programme

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) • Environmental information Systems leva Rucevska; UNEP/GRID-Arendal

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) • Igor Lysenko, WCMC

Conference Dinner 2000 - Restaurant Chablis

FRIDAY, 19 NOVEMBER (0900 -1730) 0830 Departure from Rainbow Trondheim Hotel

0900-1430 SPECIAL SESSION: SELECTED RUSSIAN AREAS - COORDINATION ANDPROGRESS Selected areas will be highlighted according to a set of systematic issues to be covered.

Chair: Aimo Saano, The Finnish Environmental Institute

Introduction: Jan-F'etter Huberth Hansen, The Directoratefor Natur e Management

a) Areas in Arkhangelsk — including: Belomor-Kuloj, Onega Penninsula, Kozhozero Genadij Danilov Egorovich, Comitee of Environmental Protection of the Arkhangelsk Region

1030-1100 Break - coffee & tea • The first National Park in the Russian Arctic: Wilhelm Barents Park on Novaya Zemlya Yuri Mazourov, Russian Heritage Institute, Moscow b) Areas in The Republic ofKarelia Valentin Kalamaev, State Committeefor Nature Conservation of Republic ofKarelia

1230-1330 Lunch

Chair: Reidar Hindrum, The Directoratefor Nature Management c) Areas in Murmansk Oblast — including: Pasvik-Enare Olga A. Makarova, Pasvik State Reserve, Murmansk Regional Committee for Nature Conservation

d) Areas in Nenets Autonomous Okrug — including:- Pechora Nenets Zapovednik Ludmila Y. Poroshkina, State Committefor Nature Conservation of Nenets Autonomous Okrug 1430-1445 Break-fruit

1445-1630 BREAK-OUT SESSIONS Intention with the sessions: Finn Katerås, The Dir-ector-åte for Natur'e Management

Group 1: Barents Region Protected Areas Network (BPAN) Towards a Protected Areas Network in the Barents Region ? — How to design, develop and implement such an initiative ?

Short introduction/Facilitator: Fredrik J. Theisen, Ministry of Environment, Norway

Group 2: Practical Cooperation between the Regions Actual issues: Staff exchange, ecoturism etc

Short introduction: Reidar Hindrum, Directorate for Nature Management Facilitator: Mats-Rune Bergstrøm, County Governor of Vasterbotten (to be confirmed)

1630-1700 Break - light meal

1700-1730 INFORMATION ITEMS

Application for a GEF project on Conservation of Biodiversity and Minimizing of Habitat Fragmentation in the Russian Arctic Finn Katerås, The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

Highlights and summary from the "Russian Protected Areas Workshop" , Anchorage, Alaska (October 18-22,1999) Jan Petter Huberth Hansen, The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

Dinner 2000 - Restaurant House Dickens

SATURDAY, 20 NOVEMBER (0900-1300) 0830 Departurefrom Rainbow Trondheim Hotel

Chair: Finn Katerås, The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

0900 Where do we go from here ?

• Main points from Special Session • Reports from BOS - group l and group 2 • Priorities for 2000 and beyond

1030-1100 Break-coffee& tea

Chair: Valery A. Orlov, The State Committee of the Russian Federation on Environmental Protection 1100 The Habitat Conservation Forum - future

- endorsement of mandat - chair - next meeting

Concluding remarks - sign of protocol

Closing of meeting

The Chairmen of the Joint Russian-Norwegian Working Group on Biological Diversity Valery Orlov, The State Committee of the Russian Federation on Environmental Protection Finn Katerås, The Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

1300 Lunch Norwegian-Russian Dinner 2000

SUNDAY, 21 NOVEMBER

Separate Programme for the Russian Delegation

Appendix 4: Participant list (English version) List of Participants

State Committee for Nature Conservation of Russian Federation, Moscow 1. Valery A. Orlov Chairman of the Work Group Head of the Department, State Committee for Nature Conservation of Russian Federation, Moscow Fax: 7 095 254-8283

All-Russian Institute for Nature Conservation 2. Natalia P. Vassilieva Senior Scientist All-Russian Institute for Nature Conservation Fax: 7 095 423-0322 e-mail: [email protected]

Russian Heritage Institute

3. Yuri Mazourov Russian Heritage Institute Mailing adress: ul. Kosmonavtov 2, Moscow 129366 Phone: (7-095) 286-1319 Fax: (7-095) 286-1324 e-mail: [email protected]

Arkhangelsk oblast 4. Victor Kouznetsov Comitee of Environment Protection of the Arkhangelsk Region Mailing adress: 163061, Arkhangelsk, Troizkij str, 94 Phone: +8182 49-41-22 Fax: +818265-41-20 e-mail: [email protected] Passport:99Nol523117

5. Danilov Genadij Comitee of Environment Protection of the Arkhangelsk Egorovich Region Mailing adress: 163061, Arkhangelsk, Troizkij str, 94 Phone: +8182 49-41-22 Fax: +818265-41-20 e-mail: [email protected]

6. Valerzi Anatonovich The Institute of Ecological problems of the North of the Eflmov Russian Academy of Sciences Mailing adress: 163061, Arkhangelsk, St. Naberedgna Severnoi Dvina, 23 Phone:+8182640977 Fax: +8182619136 e-mail: [email protected]

The Republic of Karelia

7. Valentin V. Kalamaev Head of Department State Committee for Nature Conservation of Republic of Karelia, Petrozavodsk Fax: 7 814 277-3656 e-mail: [email protected]

Murmansk oblast

8. Valery G. Sokolov Deputy Head of Department Murmansk Regional Committee for Nature Conservation, Murmansk Fax: 7 815 245-9168

9. Olga A. Makarova Deputy Director Pasvik State reserve, Murmansk Region Fax: 47 94 77-7356

Nenets Autonomus Okrug

10. Ludmila Y. Poroshkina Chief Specialist State Committe for Nature Conservation of Nenets Aoutnomous Okrug NarjanMar Fax: 7 818 534-3100 e-mail: [email protected]

Sweden

11. Mats- Rune Bergstøm Lensstyrelsen Vésterbotten Mailing adress: S-901 86 Umeå, Sweden Phone: 446 90 107352 Fax: +46 90 107341 e-mail: [email protected]

12. Per-Erik Persson Lånstyrelsen i Våsterbottens Lån Mailing adress: 901 86 Umeå Sverige Phone: 4690107357 Fax: 4690107341 e-mai: [email protected] FINLAND

13. Aimo Saano Finnish Environment Institute Mailing adress: Po. Box 140 00251 Helsinki Phone: +358-9-40300694 Fax: +358-9-40300690 e-mai: aimo.saano@vvh

NORWAY

14. Liv Mølster County Governor of Troms Mailing adress: Fylkeshuset, 9005 Tromsø Phone: 77642204 Fax: 77642239 e-mail: [email protected]

15. Egil Roll County Governor of Nordland / Directorate for Nature Management Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax:+47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

16. Eirik Inge Mikkelsen County Governor of Finnmark Mailing adress: Statens Hus, N-9815 Vadsø, Norway Phone: +4778950365 Fax: +47 7895 1930 e-mail: [email protected]

17. Fredrik Juell Theisen Norwegian Ministry of Environment Mailing adress: Postboks 8031 Dep N- 030 Oslo Phone: 22246055 Fax: 22242755 e-mail: [email protected]

18. Øystein Overrein Norwegian Polar Institute Mailing adress: Polarmiljøsentret, N-9296 Tromsø Phone: 77750634 Fax: 7775501 e-mail: [email protected] 19. Jan-Petter Directorate for Nature Management Huberth Hansen Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax: + 47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

20. Finn Katerås Directorate for Nature Management Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2, N-7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax:+47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

21. Olav Nord-Varhaug Directorate for Nature Management Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax: + 47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected] 22. Knut Fossum Directorate for Nature Management Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax:+47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

23. Reidar Hindrum Directorate for Nature Management Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax:+47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

Directorate for Nature Management 24. Randi Boe Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2,7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax:+47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

25. Ellen Arneberg Directorate for Nature Management Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2, 7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500 Fax: + 47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

26. Kari Helene B. Directorate for Nature Management Andresen Mailing adress: Tungasletta 2, 7485 Trondheim Phone: +4773580500- Fax: + 47 73 58 05 01 e-mail: [email protected]

International Institutions 27. Igor Lysenko Conservation Analyst World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom Tel :+44 1223 277314 Fax :+44 1223 277136 E-mail: [email protected] 28. Leva Rucevska UNEP/ Grid Arendal Logum Park Technology Centre P.o box 1602, N- 4801 Arendal Fax:+47 3703 5050 e-mail: [email protected] 29. Jon Richard Hansen Nordiske Investeringsbanken Appraisal Department Nordic Investment Bank Postal address: P.O. Box 249 Visiting address: Fabianinkatu 34 FIN-00171 Helsinki, Finland Switchboard: +358 9 18001 Telephone Direct: +358 9 1800 289 Fax: +358 9 1800 282

Non Governmental Organization's — NOGO's

30. Peter Prokosch WWF — Arctic Programme Mailing adress: Postboks 6734 St. Olavsplass, 0130 Oslo Phone: +4722203777 Fax: +4722200666 e-mail: [email protected]

Observere from Directorate for Nature Management

Arnt Hegstad Per Salberg Ingrid Angell-Pettersen Elisabeth Jernquist Gaute Sønstebø Morten Ekker Gunvor Øien Løge

Translators Stein Larsen Mikhail Pouckin Appendix 5: Regional Russian presentations at the Trondheim meeting (Russian version) O COCTOHHHH npnpoAOOxpaHHBix TCppHTOpHH B ApxaHreABCKoii

KysHenpB B. C.

FocyAapcTBeHHoro KOMHTCTa no oxpane OKpystaiomeH cpeABi ApxaHreABCKoii

OSpaaoBaraie H 4)yHKi3HOHHpOBaHHe npnpoAOOxpaHHBix TeppHTopHH B ApxanreABCKOH SaKOHOAaTeABCTBOM POCCHHCKOH H COOTBeTCTBJTEOmHMH SaKOHOAaTCABHBIMH ApxanreABCKOH oSAacTH. HaHHOHaABHBie napKH, H saxasHHKH 4)e,n;epaABHoro ypoBHH oSpaayioTCH B COOTBCTCTBHH c saKOHOM POCCHHCKOH e,n;epai];HH «O6 oco6o oxpanaeMBix npnpOAHBix TeppHTOpHflx», npHHHTBiM 14 MapTa 1995 ro,n;a. SaKaSHHKH H naMHTHHKH HpHpOflBI, K3K HpaBHAO, HMCIOT SoABinoe SHaneHHe AAH AIOAGH, nposcHBaioiuHx HCnOCpeACTBCHHO Ha TCppHTOpHH o6AaCTH, nOSTOMy HX o6pasoBaHHe H (J>yHKii;HOHHpoBaHHe perAaMCHTHpyeTCH HOpMaTHBHBIMH aKTaMH o6AaCTHOrO H MCCTHOrO jrpOBHH. B ApxanreABCKOH oSAacTH npnpOAHO- sanoBeAHBiH C|)OHA npeACTaBACH BCCMH BHAaMH oco6o OXpaHHCMBIX TeppHTOpHH. Hx nAOIIi;aAB COCTaBAHCT 3462,459 TBIC. ra HAH 8,38% BCCH nAomaAH oSAacTH. IIpH 3TOM nAomaAB sanoBCAHHKOB H HanHOHaABHBix napKOB saHHMaeT TeppHTopHK) 565,18 TBic.ra, HAH 1.32%, HTO pacxoAHTCH c Tpe6oBaHHHMH YKasa HpesHACHTa POCCHHCKOH OeAepauHH, KOTOPBIM onpeAGAen ^po^eHT oxpanaeMOH TeppHTopHH, paBHBiH 3%. TIosTOMy, no npHpoAOOxpaHHBix opranoB, B ApxaHreABCKOH H6O6XOAHMO yBCAHHHBaTB KOAHH6CTBO BCCrO HanHOHaABHBIX napKOB, KaK TCppHTOpHH nepcneKTHBHBix AAH npoBeAemra KOMnACKca npnpOAOoxpaHHBix pa6oT. Ilo COCTOHHHK) Ha OKTSlSpB 1999 TORA B HMCeTCH IlHHeHCCKHH SanOBCAHHK, BOAAOSCpCKHH H KeHosepcKHH HanHOHaABHBie napKH, ABa MyseH- sanoBCAHHKa - CoAOBen;KHH H MaABie KapeABi, 34 perøoHaABHBix saKasHHKa, 2 4>eAepaABHBix - na apxHneAare SCMAH OpaHna-HocHc^a H B panone CnHCKoro MOHaCTBIpS, 70 naMHTHHKOB npHpOABI. B o6AacTH HMeeTCH neACBaa nporpaMMa (J)opMHpoBaHHH nepcneKTHBHOH CCTH oco6o oxpanaeMBix TeppHTopHH perøOHaABHoro H 4>eAepaABHoro na nepHOA 1996 - 2005 TOABI. nporpaMMOH npCAycMOTpeHO cosAaHHe AByx HOBBIX HanHOHaABHBix napKOB - «OnejKCKoe noMOpBe» H «BeAOMOpcKO-KyAOHCKOH nAaTo», a TaKace pacnrapeHHe nAomaAH KenosepcKoro HannoHaABHoro napKa. PyKOBOACTByacB 3TOH nporpaMMOH B pafloHBi, nepcneKTHBHBie AAH o6pasoBaHHH HOBBIX napKOB, B nocACAHHe TOABI ØBIAH MejKAyHapoAHBie sKcneAHnHH c ynacTHeM cnennaAHCTOB HS HopBerHH, OHHASHAHH, IIlBenHH H FepMaHHH. npOBCAeHHBie SKcneAHnHH B panoHBi OnejKCKoro noAyocTpOBa, BeAOMopo-KyAoiicKoro nAaTO H Koscosepa nOATBCpAHAH jnHHKaABHOCTB HpHpOAHBIX KOMnACKCOB 3THX TCppHTOpHH H neA6COo6pa3HOCTB o6pa3OBaHHH 3A6CB napKOB. nosTOMy npHHHTo peineirae o HCOSXOAHMBIX AOKyMCHTOB. B 1999 roAy saKOHOAaTCABHBiM opranoM ApxaHreABCKoii o6AacTH paccMoxpCHBi FocyAapcTBeHHoro KOMHTCTa no oxpane cpeAM ApxanreABCKOH o6AacTH o COSAaHHH HOBOFO HannoHaABHoro napKa «PyccKaa ApKTHKa», BKÆOHaiomero ceBepHyio nacTB apxnneAara «Hosaa SCMAH», apxnneAar OpaHna-Hocnc|)a» H ocTpoB BHKTOPHH. npHHHTo H B HacTosnnee Bpeivm MaTepnaABi B opranax rocyn;apcTBeHHOH BAacTH POCCHHCKOH OeAepauHH. OyH^HOHHpyiOIUafl CHCTCMa OCO6O OXpaHHCMBIX TeppHTopHH B ApxanreABCKOH o6AacTH oTpaxcaeT rOCyAapCTBCHHBIH HOAXOA K TCppHTOpHSM, HHTCpeC, K3K yHHKaABHBie yHaCTKH , Tpe6yiomHe oxpaHBi, Haynnoro HCCACAOBaHHH H BOSMOSKHOCTH HOCCTHTB HX H OT o6ru;eHHfl[ c ocoSBiMH yCAOBHHMH H OCoSeHHOCTflMH CCBCpa. IIpH COSAaHHH HOBBIX TCppHTOpHH MBI CTaAKHBaeMCfl: C npOTHBOpCHHSMH K3K OTACABHBIX CAOCB MCCTHOrO HaceACHHH, T3K H C pyKOBOAHTCAHMH npOMBIHIACHHBIX KOMnaHHH, HCnOABSyrølllHX HpHpOAHBIC pecj^pcBi oSAacTH. 3ro npesme Bcero KacaeTCH Tex TCppHTOpHH, TAe HMCeTCH ACC, T3K KaK OCHOBy 3KOHOMHKH oSAacTH cocTaBAaeT AeconpOMBiniAeHHBiH KOMHACKC. HHTepecBi MecTHoro HaceACHHS npeHMymecTBeHHO CBHsaHBi C BO3MO3CHOCTBK) SaPOTaBAHBaTB TpH6BI, HFOABI H AOBHTB pBlSy, HpH 3TOM BBICKaSBIBaiOTCH npeAAOSKCHHH O npeAOCTaBACHHH TaKoii BOSMOSOHOCTH TOABKO MecTHOMy HaceACHHio. TaKOH HOAXOA saTpyAHaeT onpeAeAHTB rpaHHn;Bi - TAC nposcHsaeT MCCTHOC HaceACHHe, a KaKoe HaceACHHe CACAyeT CHHTaTB «HCMCCTHBIM». EEpOBOAHMaa: naMH pa6oTy CBHAeTeABCTByer o TOM, HTO B CCBepHBIX H apKTHHCCKHX paHOHax o6AaCTH oxpaHfleMyio TeppHTopHio npome, HCM B IOÆHBIX, KaK npHpoAHBie pecypcBi cesepa H apKTHHecKOH SOHBI 3KOHOMHH6CKH MCHCC SHaHHMBI. CosAaHHe BapeHii;eBa EBpo-ApKTHHecKoro perHOHa CnOCO6cTBOBaAO SHaHHTCABHOH aKTHBHSaHHH MCÆAyHapOAHOrO COTpyAHHHCCTBa, B TOM HHCAC HO BOnpOCaM OXpaHHCMBIX TCppHTOpHH H 6HOpa3HOo6pa3HK>. SoABinoH HHTepec K STHM BonpocaM neo6xoAHMa CHA HO paSBHTHK) CCTH OXpaHHCMBIX TeppHTopHH, npeÆAe Bcero ceBepnoH nacTH BapeH^pe^HOHa.

B.C.Ky3Hen;oB IlepcneKTHBBi pasBirrøsi ocoSo OXpaHHCMBIX npHpOAHBIX TeppHTopHH ApxaHreABCKoii

P. E. KOMHTCT no oxpane ApxanreABCKOH o6AacTH.

TpoHAxeiiM, 18-20 Hos6pH 1999 r.

ApxanreABCKaa o6AacTB ceroAHH HBASieTCsi perøOHOM HHTCHCHBHOrO ACCHOrO HH2KeHCpHO-XO3HHCTBeHHOrO OCBO6HHH. Aeca saHHMaioT SoABiiryio nacTB MaTepHKOBoii cyinn oSAacTH. Aec, TTaTnTTTETTT OCHOBHOH AOXOA, HBAHeTCfl: yHHKaABHfclM 6oraTCTBOM Kpaa. B nocACAHHe ro/p>i ocHOBHBie o6'BeMBi AecosaroTOBOK Be/jyrca na TeppHTOpHsix, npHMBiKarønijix K Kp JTOHBIM HaceACHHBiM nyHKTaM H B cesepHOH nacra oSAacTH. ACCOnOABSOBaHHH H OCBOCHHe HCAP, MacniTaSoB sarpasneHHa BOAOCMOB, HOHB, aTMocc|)epBi BBI3BIB3JEOT HCoSpaTHMBIC HSMeHCHHH npHpO^HBIX KOMnACKCOB. TIosTOMy OAHHM HS njnrefi coxpaneHHH paanooSpasHa: npnpoAHBix TCppHTOpHH oSAaCTH HBAHeTCH OpraHHSaAHH HayHHO oSocHOBaHHoii CHCTCMBI oxpanaeMBix npHpoAHBix TeppHTopHH pasAHHHoro cTaTyca H HasHaneHHH. B nacTonmee BpeMH Ha TeppHTopHH oSAacxn nAoin;an;fc oco6o OXpaHaCMBIX npHpOAHBIX TCppHTOpHH C ynCTOM BpCMCHHO ACHCTByioinHX saxasHHKOB cocTaBAHeT 4020,5 TBIC. ra, HTO coeraBAseT 9,73% DAomaAH o6AacTH, a nAomaAB sanoBCAHHKOB H 2-x Hau;HOHaABHBix napKOB Bcero 565,18 TBIC. ra (1,32%

OrpoMHBie pasMepBi TeppHTopHH o6Aaerø, 6oABinoro pa3Hoo6pasHH ymiKaABHBix SKOCHcreM H ACCHBIX DAOmaAeH CO CTapOBOSpaCTHBIMH ACCHBIMH MaCCHBaMH C nepHOAOM 4)opMHpoBaHHa AO 300-500 ACT TpeSyioT nepBoonepeAHBix Mep no HX coxpaneHHK) H sanoBeAaHHio. B u;eAflx acjDcJjeKTHBHoro pemeHHH saAan no coxpaneHHio ecTecTBCHHBix 3KOCHCTCM H 6Hopa3Hoo6pasHH B oSAacTH na nepHOA 1996-2005 r.r. npHHara u;eAeBaa: nporpaMMa no H pa3BHTHK> OC06O OXpaHHCMBIX npHpOAHBIX TCppHTOpHH. HanpaBACHHe STOH nporpaMMBi - cosAaHHe nanHOHaABHBix napKos: "OnesccKoe IIoMOpBe", "BeAOMOpCKO-KyAOHCKoe nAaro", "PyccKaa ApKTHKa" H perøoHaABHoro napKa "Koscosepo". no BCCM riAaHHpyeMBiM oco6o oxpairaeMBiM npnpOAHBiM XeppHXOpHHM npOBOAHXCSI pa6oXBI HO HX CO3AaHHK) H 3KOAOrO- 3KOHOMHH6CKOMy oSoCHOBaHHK) npOCKTOB HX paSBHXHH. Ho HauHOHaABHOMy napKy "OneatcKoe IIoMopBe" B 1997 roAy npOBCAena MeisgryHapOAHaa SKcneAHinrø: c yqacXHCM cnenHaAHCxoB H aKcnepxoB POCCHH, OHHASHAHH, HopseraH, IHBCHHH H TepMaHHH. SKcnepXBi ocoSo oxMenaiox npHpOAOOxpaHHyio snaHHMOCXB npe/iAaraeMoro napKa: - 3AGCB pacnOAO2KeH eAHHCTBCHHBIH B EBpOne KpyTIHBIH MaCCHB KOpCHHBIX TaC2ECHBIX ACCOB (450 TBIC.ra), BBIXOAHmHH Ha MopCKoe apKTKraecKoe noSepeacbe; - Bce peKH OnesKCKoro noAyocTpOBa HBAHIOTCH HepecTHAHmaMH HCHHBIX nopoA pBi6 (ceMra, KyMsca, ropSyina H ) a MOpCKHC SaAHBBI MCCTOM o6HTaHHfl BaHCHBIX HpOMBICAOBBIX pBi6; TeppHTOpHH SBAaeTCH BasaBeHinHM ysAOM ^TH^ B ceBepnoM noA3^niapHH,

IIo BeAOMOpcKo-KyAOHCKOMy nAaTo B 1998 ro,ny yHapoAHaa 3KcneAHn;HH c ynacTHCM POCCHHCKHX H sapySeacHBix SKcnepTOB no oxpane OKpyacaiomeH CpeÆbi. PaiioH BeAOMOpCKO-KyAoiicKoro yHHKaACH no npnpoAHOMy HacACAHio. 3ro OAHH H3 nocACAHHX B Espone xopoino coxpaHHBniHxca B eCTCCTBCHHOM COCTOHHHH HpHpOAHBIH KOMHACKC, KOTOpBIH MO3CCT 6BITB npHHHT STaAOHOM AeBCTBCHHOH HpHpOABI. BeAOMOpCKO- KyAOHCKoe nAaxo pacnoAosceHo B 100-120 KM K CeBCpo-BocTOKy OT ApxanreABCKa, nAomaAt ero 1000-1500 TBic.ra, STO npHTyHApoBBie Aeca. OHH npHHHMaioT na ceSa OCHOBHBIC HarpysKH TpaHC(J)opMau;HH Bos/iyinHBix Macc, nocTynaioiiiHx HS ApKTHioH H onpeACAaioT KAHMax ApxanreABCKOH o6AacrH H B HCAOM EBponencKOH nacTH POCCHH. STH Aeca HacrosxeABHo xpeSyiox . YKpanieHHeM xeppnxopHH HBAHIOXCH 200-300-x ACXKHC ApeBocxoH, pacxymHe na HAomaAH AO 30,0 XBIC ra. HMCHHO SACCB, na Kap6oHaxnoM nAaxo, KaK HHFAG 6oAee B EBponeHCKOH nacxH CcBepa, BCXpenaexcH sxa peAHKXOBaa ApeBecHaa nopoAa. POCCHHCKHC H sapySesKHBie SKcnepXBi, BBipaacarøiHHe co6cxB6HHBie XOHKH speHHH , npnniAH K eAHHOMy , HXO npeAnoAosceHHc 06 opraHHsauHH napxa Ha BeAOMopcKO-KyAoiicKOM nAaxo oSoCHOBaHO H AOAHCHO HOAyHHXB AaABHCHHiee paSBHXHC. B 1999r. peineHHCM IIpaBHxeABCXBa o6Aacxn H O6AacxHoro Co6paHHH AenyxaxoB npnnaxo penieHHe 06 napKa "PyccKaa ApKXHKa" B cocxaBe cyniecTByioniero cjpeAepaABHoro saKasHHKa "SCMAH paHn;a- HocHCJDa", O.BHKTOPHS H ceBepHOH Hacrø apxHneAara HoBaa SCMAH - nap K BHAACMa Bapenna, ne BXOAsimaa B rpaHHHBi noAHrona, o6meH nAomaAfcK) 5151,52 TBIC.ra, B TOM HHCAC cyina 2231,52 TBic.ra. MarepHaABi HaxoAHTCH na yTBepÆêHHH B IIpaBHTeABCTBe POCCHHCKOH clPeAepaHHH. Ha TeppHTopHH HannoHaABHoro napKa "PyccKas ApKTHKa" HMCIOTCH yHHKaABHBie HCTopHKo-KyABTypHBie H npHpoÆHBie AOCTonpHMenaTeABHOcTH, AeacGnma Mopsceii, oSlHHpHBie HTHHBH 6a3apBI, H3 2ECHBOTHBIX oSBIHHBI - 6eABIH MCABeflB, ceBepHBiH OACHB, neccii;. HanHOHaABHBiH nap K "PyccKaa ApKTHKa" MOZKCT cTaTB nepBBIM POCCHHCKHM HanHOHaABHBiM napKOM B APKTHKC, HTO na ACAC SYACT cnoco6cTBOBaTB npeTBOpemno B SCHSHB npHHSTOH B HanieH cTpane KOHê^^HH ycTOHHHBoro pasBHTHa B STOM 2CH3H6HHO BaÆHOM pePHOHC, CnOCo6cTByS TCM CaMBIM nOBBIIHeHHIO asTbpHTCTa POCCHH na MHPOBOH apene. B 1999 roffy npoBCAena MesmyHapoAHaa na^naa 3KOAorHHecKaa 3KcneAHii;HH no ACCHBIM n/vomaAHM B panone osepa Ko2Kosepo. 9ro yHHKaABHBra paiioH cTaposospacTHBix ACCOB 200,0 TBIC. ra, ecrecTBeHHasi rHApoAornnecKaa H cHCTCMa peK H osep, B oco6eHHOCTH os.KoÆiosepo, na ee TeppHTopHH HMCCTCH 6oABHioe SHOAorHHecKoe pasHooSpasHe (140 BHAOB ÆHBOTHBIX, B TOM HHCAC 26 p CAKHX, SOACC 400 BHÔB COCyAHCTBIX paCTCHHH, MXOB H AHIHaHHHKOB). PeKOMeHAan;HH ynaeraHKOB 3Kcne/i;Hii;HH - opraHH3au;HH na AaHHOH TeppHTopHH IIpHpoAHoro napKa perHonaABnoro snaneHHfl YnacTHHKH MeaEc^ynapoAHBix ^KCêAH^HH oTMenaioT BaJKHOCTB H HeoåxOflHMOCTB MCSyiyHapOAHOrO COTpyAHHHCCTBa Ha Bcex 3Tanax cosAaHHa oco6o oxpaHHCMBix npHpOAHBix TeppHTopHH. TaKOe COTpyAHHHCCTBO MO2KCT OCymeCTBAHTBCa KaK Ha AByXCTOpOHHCH, T3K H MHOrOCTOpOHHCH OCHOBC. KOHCHHO npHAaTB cTaryc oco6o oxpanaeMBiM TeppHTopnscM, npHBCACHHBiM BBiHic, - STO saâna POCCHHCKHX cneuHaAHCTOB, HO SHaHHMOCTB H yHHKaABHOCTB 3THX TeppHTOpHH, HX OFpOMHBie Tpe6yioT Tatcace H MescAynapoAHOH saniHTBi H BJ -ONi £'eoT - ( 'J266T) BJ -OHJ, g 'OST - ( "JT66T) ..

( "J£88T) ., gfr'OT - ( -JT86T) ..hesHj,, - : wHHHtfeaoiiBs -j; :HWBHdpJ8iBU HHHtaffl-ÆtfeifO HH HHdoiHddeo. ermtfsaouBe-oHtfodHdu Bw©da eetøBOiOBH a " %6 ' fl HIr 689 'Hirw z Jt.HaBJ.ooo ^tfoa QQ02 3 «uu^dJ i aooeir XKHHah H -dei XHHffodMdu xnweKHBdxo 09000 ^tfBinoiru KBtago woesdgo

BJ -OHJ. 90^ Ht/Tstooiru BH ^ OHediOWO^tfedU XKHdOiHddSl XNHeBHBdxo 09000 90 HVd Bdineh OJOHH^BH H

10 %/,'2T XHHtfodHdu xnwøBHBdxo 09000 "atfBtaoiru BBtago OO,'BJ-OHJ. OSS " j,8BiraBJ,ooo XNdoioa ^t^ oa) nuu&tla i BOSIT sRHHeti <3Æ08h>£ HITOS B' -oed HHdoiHddsx jjata9O a,o %e*g mrø tfHo$ ^HHtêaoijBe-oHtôdHdii Bt/oa ^sei BdPfiJfS" T ^H WHHHOiooo ou •aoodôsd XNHtfodHdii BHH -BSOSSIirOUOH H HiOOHÎfSiBStf yOHH8aiO^BSOX nVKQ 8HdOiOH9H ÎHHir #Htø -(HBaMhHHBd JO ' Ô'M£ie2Be H^HtfOdHdU ao^HHiKWBU XR(dOiO38H ' aOSdBII XNH -ffOdMdll H XKHÎfBHOHlTIBH HHOS SHHtfeaOUBS ' WHHHt/eaOUBS ) ^ :T2WHxed BUHX eatf -<3irouoH aooaeiriiwoa XHHtfodHdii XHHHOirBie HITH XHHHSII •^HdOiMdd8i KRH8iraBdU>£ H NH^dXO HHhBSHHBJdO WOat?BdOLI H aOWHXSd XNHHBdXOOtfOdHdU HWBiOOHH89OOO OJ8Oa ØtfXSdll BOiCHBhHlfiO HHQ •ntfodHdu

5 MSHHtfeaOlIBS SHHtfOdHdll :}JHdOlMdd8i XHHffOdHdU XHW8BHBdXO O9OOO yHdOJ8iTB3 <3iBU OHeife&Ha * HHlTBd8tf8 ^JOSOUHOOOd 3 8

XH BaHiasuodsii M xnnt/odHdu xnwsBHiedxo 09000 ..f t

•

-oifii BH tfe IOT - eaxoehHiroH a

"tfs eaioehHiroa a (eH3oehHaoifodtfHj'aH3O8hHJoirooe 'H<3hHHJ,OXO'eNHiOfikO9'aHSO8hHHBi09*9NHJ.lt)BlIlt21HBIf)

(%Z9'T) BJ -OHJ, 6*T6Z - HHHHSBaBS H HrøHHtføaOLIBS

/ GrpaHHija l H3 2

Or: olga Kowy: [email protected] flarra: nflTHvma, 3 / Aeica6pfl /1999 15:55 TøMa: report

To: Kari Helene Bachke Andresen |l-b.Æ.nd.resen@dirnatnp From: Olga Makarova ea8 Date; 03.12.1999 Terna: report

3anoBOAHMKH POCCMM M HX sMaietme. 3anoB«AHMK "nacumc0 M nepcn«KTMBbi coTpyAHHHecTBa B

Moe cooSmeHMe CyAer cocrosrrb M3 aeyx Macreø. BwaMane xorenocb Obi CKaaatb ceoe MHCHMC o HeKOTopwx nposByMaaujMx SAecb flOKnaflax, a aareM ocraHOBMTbca Ha nepcneicTMBax coTpyAHMMecrea B oØnacTM MHapn-Raa. flyiwaio, IopMa oxpaHbi npwpOAbi. 3anoBeAHaq cwcrreMa POCCMM coaAaBanacb B reMGHMe scero XX sexa, HamiHan c opraHwsauMM nepeoro aanoaeAHinca B 1916 r (BaprysviHCKoro). OcHOBHwe saflaMM sanoeeAHMKOB-coxpaHeHMe M wsyneHHM npMpoAW no ocoSofi MeroAMKe. CeftMac COTHH sanoBBAHMKOB POCMMH CHMMaer "SHonornHecKiiiil ypc»Katt" c orpowiHofl TeppwTopiiM. PaCorsw WHoro ner B aanoaeAHMKax, a awjKy cymecTBeHHoe MsweHeHKie cwiyamiM. Ecnii panbine o HMX 3Hann HeuHonie P.SOKB B Haiueft crpane, TO ceflMac saHnwaioTcn npoSneMawn OORT(oco6o oxpanneMbie npnpoflHbie reppnTopiin) Gonbiuoe KonMMecTBO rocyAapcTBeHHbix n HenpaBnrenbCTBeHHbix opraHMaanwfl K3K B POCCMM, T av. M åa @€ npeAsnaMH.OS CTOM roaoput cocraa yMacTHMKoe vrofi Bcrpemi. C OAHOM cropoHbi , 3To paAyer, HO c Apyrott cropOHbi STOT npoiêcc HQMHOTO Hacropa>KMBaeT. B MacTHocTH, aøecb n yanflejia «ax 6bi flåa paaHbix npouecca, Bce 6onee oTAenntomMxcn Apyr OT Apyra.OMSHb aicmBHO MAST npouecc npoem-MpOBaHM» HOBWX OOHT. npii STOM aropoPi npoqecc- >KM3Hb y?Ke cyiuecr- Byioujkix aanoBBAHMKOB M Apyrnx OOHT IOK-TO wano Koro MHTepecyioT. kl corpyAHHKn aanoaeAHHKOB M Marepnanbi.coSpaHHbie sa MHOPO ner, noica eiê no-Hacro^LueMy ne BOcrpeSoBaHbi, npoMecc npoeKTMpoeaHHfl HOBMX pesepsaTOB Bce ycKopneTcn. Mbi TOponnMCH saxBaTVtTb HOBbie M euie HC paapyuieHHbie SKOCMcrdMbi. PlpimeM MMCHHO B POCCMM paooT no oocneAoeaHMio vi npoeicrMpOBaHMio nosbix pesepsaroB Ha aHa^Mrenb . 3ro HOH^THO. POCCHH ace eute MMeer Oonbu/oPi npnpoAHbift noreHUMan M 3Aecb ectb . OAHOBpeweHHO c STUM, MW yeiiAenn, HTO MAOT peensMfl M npoeKTMpoeaHwe HOBUX pesepBaroB B Hopsernn, HO B STOM npouecce poccMAcKVie cneuManucTbi HB npuHMMaioT yMacrna. Xorn B 3TOM Åene HaAO corpyAHMMaTb. OqeHb ea>KHO M B TeopMM H na npaicrnKe BwcHMTb, MTO Taxøe npMpoAHbiA peaepeaT M aanoseAHMK, CTO HO CMHOHMMbi, MO>KHO JIM cnwTaTb aanoaeAMMKOM KpouieMHyio jeppnTopwio 693 cneuMsuibHoro MOHnropnHra M T. A- CneAOBarenbHo aonpocbi TepMMHonorMM oêHb eawHH n $fl©cb none Ann coTpyAHMsecrBa. eme oAHy semb, Koropafl MHe KaweTca AocraroHHO aa>KHO«, Bce aiccneAMUMOHHbte warepManbi MOKHO cHMTarrb npoeicroM A"» A@MCTBMH. A@^renbHocrb npoeKTHbix opraHwaaqnK M Tpeoyercfl AoicyMeHTbi cooreeTCTBMn. FlosTOMy 3KneAMMMOHHwe OTMerw Moryr TonbKo npeAnpoeKTHbiMM waTepnanawn M nwerb peKOMeHAarenbHbi^ xapaKrep.flaneKo H© Bce npoeKTbi Moryr SbrTb peanMaoaaHbi, Aa>Ke ecnM 3TO yHMKaxibHbie npnpoAHbie ynacTKM. B TOM. MTO SKQHOMMKa CTpaHbl H6 CMOJK6T BblAepJKaTb OIpOMHOTO KOHMMeCTBa OORT. H8UUM M HauwOHanbHbie napKM pa6oraio Kpyrnbift TOA. M pa6oTHMKM OOP1T xora M ManenbKyrø aapnnary, HO nonyMator eé B TeêMMe roAa. A o coAepncaHMM HBAO roaopM Tb OTAenbno. OoaTOMy opraHM39UMfl Kawfloro HOBOFO aanoaeAHMKa nnn HaunoHanbHoro napKa ycunwaaeT narpyaKicy Ha SKOHOMMKy, na cpeAeparibHbift 6ioA)KeT. CKonbKo HaAO MMeTb y nac sanoaeAHMKOB M HaqMOHanbMbix napKOB, MToSbi coxpaHMTb aKojionmecKMM 6anaHC M Mro6bi coAepxoTb OOOT Ha HOpwanbHOM yposHe. f\ AyMaio, MTO, Hanpnwep, B MypMaHCKoA oCnac™ ywe ecrb 3 aanoeeAHMica \n apflA nu nonakiTCfl eme OAMH. HaiwoHajibHbix napKOB noKa HBT, HO pa6oTbi no npoeKTnposaHmo seAytc^ n B AywaeTCH, MTO XOTS 6bi OAMH HR 6yAer opraHMaosaH. nepebtw KaHAMAaTowi pienfleTCfl "TepCKMft 5eper", npoeia KOTOporo yxce Crpairøua 2 H3 2 sers:, HSflo ero AOpa6oTarb v\ Ectb M Apyrwe npeflnoweHVW. Ho aonpoc o cpMMaHCMpOBaHWw AOBOJibHo cno>K8H n aacTaenfleT xopoiuo saAyMarbCJKCeflMac ace OOF1T nocrraBJieHw nepeA Heo6xoAWMOcrb»o sapaGarwBaTb A«Hb™ na csoe coAepwaHwe, B TOM Huene 3a CMOT SKoryptiaMa. Ho sKorypvwM unn oowMHbiB rypiwM noo-HacroauieMy HOM™ HQ coBMecTMM c pe>KWMOM sanoBeAHMrø. HØAO o6pa™Tb cepbesHoe BHMwaHMe Ha urraTbi aanoBBAHMrøB, Ha MX HHcppacrpyicTypy, ooecneMeHHocrb M MHoroe Apyroa, MTO AO/DKHO 6biTb e HMX. M $Aecb ecrb cepbesHaa OCHOBB AOB coBMecrHoro corpyAHMHecrBa, AH« oCecneMeHHH 5KM3HéfleflTenbHOcrM y«e cyu4ecTByH3mnx sanoseAHMKOB. A He TonbKO npoeKTMposaTb M HOBwe ynacTKM, røTOpbie noTOM HMCTO HS cMOKer o6ycrpoMTb vi npOBOA^Tb MOHMTopuiHf. HBAO nonpnBBTCTBOBaTb MHnunarMBy HopBexcrøft cropoHW no opraHnaaMMM HOBOTO øopyMa, oGcywAajnwcb Gbi Bonpocw, CBrøaHHbie c OOOT. Ho nepwoAMMHocm» ero paSoTbi -1 paa B TOA BbisbisaeT COMHeHMe. Ana TOPO, HToCbi nonyMMTb peanbHble pesy/ibtaTbi Hyxwo paooTam» Ka>KAw« XoMy np6Ano>KMTb opraHHøaunio nocroHHHO Ae«CTByiouj|eB HeSonbtuoB rpynnw cneuManwcroB, Koropwe M 6bi åa paoorofl, coCiipanM caeAeHua, aHajiMSMpoaanu warepvianbi M cosAaeann 6bi oGuiyio 6aay no OOHT BapQHU-perMOHa. Hyxtno noAroTOBHTb cnpaaoHHMK, An» oCpasua npeAnararo caoto no OOITT MypwaHCKoft oCnacrw. CjieAyrømuM oiaroe B nnaHe paCorw Tarøfl rpynnw Moêr 6bn-b nhBeHTapM3unfl cfinopw M cpaynw OOdT BapeH^pernoHa.CosflaHue TSKO^ 6aabi ASHHUX noaeonnno 6bi BbmanTb creneHb 6i«iopa3Hoo6pa3tin OOPIT, oCmne BMAM, npnroflHbie AHA Beêntia MOHHTOpMHra, 3au4iiu46HHOCTb peflKMX BMfloe H APyroe. Mw AOHWHW anaTb o TOM, KaKoPi watepnan coCupaeTca Ha K37KAOM ynacTKe (OOOT) M KOOpAMHupoeaTb Hauin A&WCTBMH, paapaSarbiBaib o6u4yK) cxewy Anfl MOHnropwHra, ncnonbsyn onbiT pa6oTbi POCCMMCKVIX sanoiaeAHHKOB. B 3TOM nnane oseHb nepcnetcrnBHa pa6orbi B o6ujéM npwpOAHOM pernoHe UHapn-Haa, KOropbift Tpevia rocyAapcreeHHbiMM rpaHtmauvi. 3anoH6AHHK "riacBMK116bin COSASH a 1992-1993 rr no HOpeexcKoiS cropOHbi. 3a STO Bpewa na poccMftcKOfl cropoHe yxe nocraBiieHa paCoTa no no poccu^cKoft weTOAUKe "JleronHcb npnpoAbi", oonybnMKoaaHo 4 KHMPM STMX nnTbiCi. npoBdAeHbi nepsbie nHB6HTapH3aunn cpnopw v\ cpayHbi .PaaaapTbiaaeTcn HayMHoM M B npocBeTMTenbCrøA paGoTe. CoaflaHue o6mero npnpOAHoro peaepaara Ha peKe I"la3-He TonbKO KpaciiBbiA v\ sajKHbiv» uiar B oxpane npnpoAW Haujnx crpaH-PoccwM H Hopaernn. 3ro - Oonbiune BOSMWKHOCTM fln« pasBMTMn ooTpynHMmMrnsa a nayMHOM w yM«6Ho-npocBOTMTenbCKOM nnaHe. Hcnofibsya ywe napa6oTaHHbiR Marepnan, a MMCHHO MaTepwanw HeTonnceM npnpoAbi aanoseAHMKa "riacsnK"- HBAO pa$pa6oTaTb cxeMy oSmero MOHMropnHra na 6onbLueJi| TeppwropMM, npatcnmecKM pf\* særa GacceftHa MHapM-Has. Ho cymecray HSAO HaHMHarb c HaquoHanbHoro napna JleMMewttoKii. BaRTb MOJKHO HecKOnbKo HawGojiee wnnuHbix M nenco yanasaeMbix BMAOB pacreHUft M >«WBnHnHHAMn M APyroe. CeftMac MW MMSOM peanbHble urøHcw cxjoewa npcv!|SMHyTbc« anepeA no nyrw coxpaHeHiw GwopasHooGpasiiR B STOM npwpoAHOM penione M BeAOHun oomero MOHmopMHra M HSAO ero peanwaoBatb. TSM Gonee, HTO HOBbiR aex HaAO OTMen 00/lbUJMMll M SHaHHMblMW npOBKTaMM, KOTOpb» CBMAeT«SJ1bCTBOBanM Gbl O HOBOM nOHMMaHMM TOX KOTopwe crronT nepeA Me/iOBeMecTBow B coxpaHøHHw r\~Trt ,- --

'-£•"-f -•-*-—'-- --x'2r"J i TI t *•»•¥• <•"-, ii rt. % T'3 .—r t s-

l- « ii ~»f~ v 3 ^ J ""

^-«p.z^-tieja-i.jiaj-rKH, ! 5' 4? 34 57? ! MKHHcrepciBo l r.

necHoro x 445,0 i AP tam

r,-i *7 l Åpxaer

25 ! ?CS,i 14 , ~ro XO5«HCTBa 1 L~i '1 -*',A ^ '•

g——————————————————————i———————,——————————————- (33,4%), (2i$%)} (9,y%) n KapronontcKOM (7,4%) MTO c Ha oHHoro'npHpojm;Horo H O«eHL OOIIT B - 1,0%, U%, 1,4% - 2,5%=

O O ITT no fi 1 >fc AflMMHMCTpaTHBHhlM lljioma«fc iljiouiajib S paSoHa. ooni, oont.% i i — — — Tticxa Tbic, ra S i ao 4 •i o ' s BenbCKHii 1006 --•j? j-? _ ." t J? p ^ 2060 - 1 i _J BepxeeioeMCKHM t F J BHJierojrcKi-iH 469 22,5 458 1 in i 1 4 1248 37,2 «=--* 3 *^ i! sS " &_."", " T Ji 1 1 ~/ 1013 92,6 / s** 1 I 6 KOHOIUCKHH 846 9,0 U I i r-/w KOTJiaCCKHH 638 6,4 LO 1 " O* KpacHo6opcKHH 938 23,& 2,5 -| 1 rt r a V JleecKHH 1066 54J 55i S S SA" -ÔA-G "•") Q i 1 V JleiiiyKOHCKMH ZOUQ ii?5 038 I I H M41 197,2 557 1 i 809 ISJ 1 Å, il I 12 HSHMOMCKHH ^ s i U I 13 OHOtCCKHÉi 2376 519,0 2 1 ,8 1 T> l ^ 15?^ ! S« i 1 14 nÔT- I S» illlHeSKCKMH J V. '_• , £ -l 1 v7^t -—. a fi— 1—5 lIneceiiKHii i 267 S05 9,y 1 i -y-Tln 1 ^ni 9 •^•a A 1 I 16 npHMOpCKHH \ &.&• >. V,»^ £V 1 ,0 AXt 1 1 i? ConoseiiKHii 34,7 34,7 too I *i ? 0 £ i 1 18 YCTLHKCKHH 1 072 u.i 5w I /i o n -3 n u 1 19 XoJIMOrOpCKHii ! 1683 *t_J,U J»u 1 •2,0 4 •* ^ 1 1 20 lUeHKypCKHH 1 1130 ^'j-- 3 S J,«- B 1 •--* Æ^ri j srri Beero 1 Z.*fûh*l_ry 7,84 1 I "t i 1 Al 1 1044! 4200,0 40,2 J j i ! (3(DH5 9 1 S ! 1 cyma) s j= -s J^ -s a HTOFO 1 îJli £^-10 ASQ? 1 16,025 | i I —————— „ —— .-_^ —————OOiV%"f_7J— ; ______B i996r, raaô aiLMHHHCTpauHH ojiacTH nporpaMMa OCObO H øeiKpajibHoro HS SiracTH Ha no 2005:iT, -r--- -'f —— ••

f7**U-EV\'''~'p|-Ix ££^-f\rvyr •yr*>t?fcf Ti

KCMIIJKKCOB . HO 5! CO3jE5I.Hl!*E CMCTSMb1 t??Kt?l -r-*—*--;'-- >»-^p'3B!_sro jrfar-ceHJ!^, K npKMepy,, rrpei5i2.r2.eMa* tert noiipoiXHbix reppHTopMH sa ?inaz,s nauiei! cojia

s t«*»-a._ - _ - i«A«———-ajuji-* t-fcij^-.i H3.i4HCH3.3IbK1:11"' «•y^tijts -33. PCB i'1!!4-1 H init».j\|jrt|rvr,-j gt^^tlja

C '3jJ2.HI!K> KO^ffiJICKCHblX 'J2.K3.3FKKOB* Hant^EBJfCHHfclX H2. '_OCT'=i3HL!X KO*jinrJlHCHTOB ntM!"DOZTtiOll _^__.. JI^ •smeHHs jiaHniaa^Thfcix 3as:a3HHKiÆ njiaHiir-oBairccb no npHHm L^ibl OCHOBHblX BOj^HLlX '5£C'2£llHOE, KaHO' ii'jcTt?ana3mHX OT py6oi: neca B

Ti 3 COOTBiJTCTBHS! C ntSOF^a^^flCS OprS-HHSOBa^ ^pM^f'3t^C-%-ii-

T5 " ~ ^, i-^--a _!¥;•-.-grf-I^. - -£ ^?-

J. _,_--__

^ s^T^oti-fl^^^x^^lT-i^ ^~ ^^T^^^^lir^"^!~

rÆ-^*Vr.a-i"^ r T g gaA "^%^-a'14fT3-''1t~l|.æs|i^-|'*1Vsi- tf''^ |-*^'^ 7T ji KXf «^ £Jf ^~ J~--- =.«»--- -. ~ — J— — — = ~ _^^—J--J— — ^ ~s.aj.—— - - -r ——

3 1 1 r t '^3 T . ^ a^^~i' £v? r!" " f^-f^TÔ 3_|?f >«3 l ^SÎ 5 tjf*"^ f l 5 $f â.^'3 TTt_ s^l- ?V rt< -_-*—————— z ——— ——=. _- j.,-

.e_.=._5...-Ifli . -tf—jSj-s..*_™ ^._i_ — _ -~ir ~

" -T i" ~ ~ ~ "^T" ~ ~ ~ — — — ——— — — - _____ —— ___^.____—— — J-- -——— _, — - — ——— — £-

^ ______*-___ __ ^J __ "É „ ______, ______-^""*___, ___

_-_—_._.£,£,_. Ij?a-a. JJE_ JE____ JlÆ_f3. -a.-5.^-* ^-•^'^'J-.i"3-1 J3- _L Æ -.?••---. -&%**?-*- -=• — j _3_ !%.-'^—"%_ \j~ %_*

_-"% T/-t-n/-.*~ p ir-^TTa-» «r»x^-,.a *-»•-* £ T-..,-r ^_j**t, %_*^J* *_* V J_5iTl|..__'«aUS.a.»_6.X* ..•%.* •%.» V_EvT-cJ. na H

Ha na no ITapKs "C/Hc3CC-KOe liOMOpte", j%3lCTHHKi-l 3KCne/p-fLp*IH pe-lIiHBH, HTO H KEK H H

B rocvaapOTB§HHMx åa H H

H H B H • H H B

B 3TGM ro/ry nsatmpydTcs npoBeaeHiie no^o6HOH 3Kcne,zmuHM Ha H

Ocxanacb 80% BOTrøcbOpHOrO B HC cornamaioTCfl nepejraTE Macxb cBoeil JiecoGbipfaesott baati non p.

Flo yroil MC npnMHHe,. TOJILKO nocjie JTOJITHX yemniit

aanoBcjTHMKa Ha 10=,278 ibic, ra c 3KcnjiyaTai4HOHHb!M inacoM JiecoB B 245 THIG= KbM= MHOnra BO3HHKaiOT KOHåjjHKTtl SKOHOMHMeCKHX H OOUHaJIbHbiX o V ^~ -- ** m*.- ^rj,. j-* ,__

H3. ¥DKl! Jl£t.'£ TJiaEHcr-J Gi>S B

__ *_-w,,w...«» 32J^£SHI!K2. "BsMFIH ^J^pS-KHSL-tiOCHdiS." .HCCVOTt?*1 H3.

^T "%fLa ''HX'*"**3 ^4^4* f~ "2^'**!|%/1Slre3T£"a-|¥|AS-* «_•«.» _ - t.t~r SM. _ t a- s. ^-..^J.JT_- -S-At-r———t*w«-

*""" JT1 ——•>"'"'- t^- * -•"

nojirocpo^Hbie a.px.Hn5Jiar3., 3OH OblBLUSP^ H ^ ftq*s'"'"^'S f. j ii^ o€EOr3O3t€HpHH!b-!X B 1 992=^31^., H 'ZSKpbl^fcl

SET*?Tt?3.FTOftKC-il TCXHHKH, MSrCUIIIOJICMS» OfclTOBtlX I! rR3O!!3BO^Il."TECHHfc!X S6C1TKH Tt!OHl! TOHH rCTiVi FIOJI GHCFOM H ! C -T

peFvZItTI!Baiit!H SarOS^HHHblX I! 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) WORKSHOP ON PROTECTED AREAS IN THE EURO-ARCTIC BARENTS REGION AND NORTHWEST RUSSIA

Tromsø, Norway, 23-25 November 1998

Organised by the Norwegian - Russian working group on biological diversity under the Norwegian Russian Commission on Environmental Co-operation

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CO-ORDINATION AND CO-OPERATION

• Bilateral co-operation between the Russian Federation and western European countries is important for habitat protection and nature conservation in the Barents Region. Existing bilateral co-operation programs should therefore be continued and expanded. Appropriate attention should be given to socio- economic issues related to planning, establishment and management of protected areas.

• To optimise the results of this co-operation and to avoid duplication, communications and information exchange should be improved by, for example, holding annual meetings, producing newsletters, and creating information networks.

• There is a need to ensure an effective division of work between the countries in their bilateral co-- operation with Russia.

• The Environmental Action Programme of the Euro-Arctic Barents Council is recognised as håving potential importance to improve biodiversity conservation in the Barents region and should be further developed and implemented with increased emphasis on biodiversity and habitat conservation. Furthermore, follow-up of the Barents Regional Council's Action Programme for the Environment (23.01.1997) and continued work of the Regional Council's Working Group on the environment are important for further efforts to safeguard biodiversity in the region

DEVELOPMENT OF A PROTECTED AREAS NETWORK IN THE BARENTS REGION - (BPAN)

The Barents region has great potential to serve as an excellent example of international co-operation in developing and implementing an effective regional protected areas network. This can be achieved by further developing existing national systems into a single, interconnected and fully representative network.

• A Barents Protected Areas Network (BPAN) should adequately represent all major ecozones

• The network should be based on existing national systems of protected areas and serve to strengthen these • The design and implementation of the Barents Protected Areas Network should be based on an ecosystem approach, apply the corridor concept and the precautionary principle, and be consistent with the Circumpolar Protected Area Network Strategy and Action Plan (under CAFF), and the Pan-European Ecological Network.

• The network should be an integral component of a comprehensive Barents region biodiversity conservation strategy

• In developing the network, priority should be given to those areas under pressure from industrial or commercial exploitation

• In developing the network, there should be a special focus on protecting the coastal and marine environment

• There should be an analysis to determine gaps in the overall protection of the Barents region

• There should be full consultation with local authorities and populations and with other interested parties, as appropriate

• There should be an expert group established to guide in the design, development and implementation of the network

NATIONAL LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Russia

• Strengthen the establishment of national and regional parks and other types of protected areas in the Barents Region, giving priority to the White Sea area

• Improve the co-ordination among the various levels and institutions involved in the establishment and management of protected areas in Russia

• Strengthen the protected area management and communications capacity, capability and infrastructure through bilateral and multilateral co-operation

• Improve the protected area systems in the Murmansk and especially in the Archangelsk regions giving emphasis to underrepresented ecozones and areas of special ecological importance

• Accelerate implementation of existing plans for new protected areas in Karelia

• Promote sustainable tourism in national parks and buffer zones of zapovedniks

• Continue implementation of the Finnish/Russian/Norwegian Greenbelt concept Finland

• Determine mechanisms to conserve biodiversity outside protected areas

• Continue implementation of the Finnish/Russian/Norwegian Greenbelt concept

Norway

• Accelerate the implementation of the existing Norwegian National Park Plan and the thematic and marine protected area plans.

• Establish new protected areas on Svalbard to ensure adequate protection of biologically productive terrestrial sites

• Strengthen the protection of remaining "wilderness" areas

Sweden

• Improve the representativeness of the Swedish national protected area system by enhancing the protection and restoration of old growth forests in the lowlands east of the mountain chain

PRIORITY PROJECT AREAS FOR CO-OPERATION WITH RUSSIA:

Archangelsk oblast

• Plan and establish national parks "Onezskoe Pomorie" and "Belomorsko-Kuloiskoe plato"

• Support future management of the "Barents Arctic national park" in the Russian part of the northern Barents Sea, that will be established in the near future.

• Continue work on identification of biological values of old growth forest in Kozozero

Murmansk oblast

• Plan and establish a sanctuary on the shore of the Barents sea, including the fjords of Ivanovskaia and Dvorovaia.

• Support the creation of an international zapovednik on the basis of Pasvik zapovednik.

• Support the monitoring of biodiversity in the Barents sea part of Kandalakshski zapovednik.

• Support ecological education in Lapplandski zapovednik

• Investigate the issue of reintroduction of norwegian beaver in Lapplandski zapovednik Republic of Karelia

• Support research on biodiversity on the territory of existing and planned protected areas of the White Sea region

• Continue the Green Belt project

Nenetsky Autonomous Okrug

• Support development of the newly established zapovednik "Nenetski" PAEOHHH CEMHHAP HO OCOBO OXPAHHEMblM TEPPHTOPHHM B EBPO-APKTHHECKOM EAPEHIJEBOM PEFHOHE H HA CEBEPO-3AIIAÆE POCCHH

TpeMce, HopeezuR, 23-25 Honfjpa. 1998 zoda

opzctHUSoecmo PoccwiCKO-HOpeeatccKOu pa6oveu zpynnou no 6ttojioamecKOMy pa3HOo6pa3uio npu CMetuaHHoSpocuiicKO-HOpeeoKCKOii KOMUCCUU no compydmmecmey e o6nacmu oxpauu OKpyoKcnoufeii cpedvi HTOrH H PEKOMEHILAHHH

H COTpyflHHHCCTBO

coxpyflHHHecTBO MCJKfly POCCHHCKOH OcflepaijHeH H Sanarøo- EsponeficKHMH crpanaMH HBjwerca sa^cnbiM «JIH sainnrbi MCCT oGnraHHa ^^OP13 H 4>ayHw H oxpanbi npnpoflbi Eapenuesa perHOHa. CymecxByiomHe nporpaMMbi «ByxcropOHHero coTpy^HHHecxBa «oji^cHbi 6birb npoflojiacenbi H pacinKpenbi. Heo6xoflHMoe BHHMaHHe flOjracHO 6bm> yaejieno couHajibHO-3KOHOMHHecKHM sonpocaM B CBH3H c njiaHHpoBaHHCM, cosaaHHCM H ynpaBjienneM ocx>6o OXpaHHCMblX TCppHTOpHH.

pesyjibraxoB coxpyflHHHecTBa H BO Hs6e»caHHe 6brrb yjiynuieH o6Men HH^opMauHen, HanpHMep, nocpe«cxBOM opraHHsarøH eaceroflHbix scxpen, paapaGoxKOH HHmopMauHOHHblx JIHCXKOB H

• Heo6xoflHMO o6ecneHHXb aiJj^eKTHBHoe pacnpefleneHHe pa6oxbi uexxy cxpanaMH B HX «ByXCXOpOHHCM COXpyflHHHeCXBC C POCCHCH.

• 3KOJiorHMecKaa ITporpaMMa ^CHCXBHH Espo-ApKTHHecKoro EapeHiiesa Cosexa nrpaex noxenttHajibHO BaacHyro pojib ÆJIS yjiyqrneHHH CHCXCMH pasnooGpasHH B BapenueBOM pernone H ÆOJUKHa 6bixb pacmnpeHa H nposeAena c ycmieHHbiM BHHMaHHCM na sammy 6HopasHOo6pa3HH H MCCX oØHxaHHH. npoflOJi^ceHue pa6oxw no PerHonajibHOH HporpaMMe fleficxBHH B o6jiacxH oxpaHbi oKpyxcaromefi cpe^w EapemjeBa CoBexa (ox 23.01.97) H ÆajibHefiiiiaH pa6oxa Pa6oHeH rpynnbi no oxpane OKpy^caromefi cpeflbi PerHOHajibHoro Cosexa ÆCBJIHCXCH BajKHHM AJIH sainnxbi 6HopasHOo6pa3HH peraoHa. PA3PABOTKA CETH OCOBO OXPAHHEMBIX TEPPHTOPHH B EAPEHIJEBOM PEFHOHE (COOTBP)

EapenueB peraoH HBJWCXCH noxemniajibHO xoponiHM npHMepoM coxpyflHHHecxsa B o6jiacxH pasBHXHH H npoBeseHHH 3 aocxHrayxo nyreM pasBHXHH cyiuecTByromHx HaijHOHajibHbix aacxeM H npespameHHH STHX cacreM B e«HHyro BsaHMOCBHsaHHyio H npeflcraBHrejibHyio cerb.

• COOTBP floxracHa npeflcraBjurrb sce caMbie rjiasHbie SKOCHcreMbi peraoHa.

• Cerb «ojiMCHa GasHpOBaxbca na cymecrByrørnHx HaitHOHanbHbix CHcxeMax OXpaHflBMblX TCppHTOpHH H flOJKCHa HX

• PaspaSoxKa H npOBe^enHe COOTBP AOJKKHO GasnpOBaTbca Ha noflxoffe, flOJHKHO ncnojibaoBarb KOHuenijHH KOprøopos H npe«ocropo»cHOCTH, a raicace cooTBercTBOBaTb crpaxeniH H roiaHy KAO no ijHpKyMnojispHOH CCTH OOT H o6meeBponeficKOH SKOJiorHHecKOH CCTH.

• CCTb ÆOJDKHa 6bITb HHTeipajIbHOH HaCTbK) oSmCH CTparerHH 6HOpa3HOo6pa3HH B BapeHLieBOM peraoHe.

• IIpH paspa6oTKe CCTH npnopHTer flOJKcen 6birb oraaH peraoHaM, npOMbiinjieHHHM HJIH KOMMepnecKHM

• IIpH pa3pa6oxKe cera oco6oe BHHMaHue flOjracHo 6biTb yaejieHo såmare 6eperoBOH H MOpCKOH OKpyxcaromeS

Cflejian anajiHS «JIH ycraaoBJieHHH npo6ejiOB B o6ineii aainirre

6birb npOBCflCHbi KoncyjibxauHH c MecxabiMH Bjiacx^MH, c H c apyrHMH saHHxepecosaHHbiMH cxopoaaMH.

cosflana SKcnepxnaa rpynna .zyia paspa6oxKH peKOMeimauHH no , paspaGoxKe H npoBeflCHino cexn

PEKOMEH.HAIPIH HAIJHOHAJIbHOrO YPOBHH

POCCHH

cHcxeMy cosflaHHH HauHOHajibHbK H perHOHajibHbix napKOB H flpyrax BHflOB OXpaHH6MbIX XeppHXOpHH B BapeHUCBOM perHOHB C OCO6bIM BHHMaHHCM na pernoHbi Bejioro YjiyHIIIHTb KOOpflHHaUHK) MOKfly paSHHMH ypOBHHMH H HHCTHTyTaMH, saHHMaromHMHca cosflaHHCM H ynpaBjieHHCM oxpanseMbiMH reppHropHHMH B POCCHH.

CHCTCMy ynpaBjicHHH oxpaHHCMbiMH reppHTopHHMH, a raoce HX B03M03KHOCTflMH CBH3H H HH(J)paCTpyKTypOH HOCpeflCTBOM flByXCTOpOHHerO H MHOrOCTOpOHHCrO COTpyflHHHCCTBa

cHcreMy oxpaHaeMbix TeppHropHH B MypMaHCKOii oGnacrH H, oco6eHHo, B ApxanrejibCKOH o6jiacrH H npn STOM caejiarb craBKy na MBJIO SKOSOHH H TeppnropHH ocoØoro 3KOJiorHHecKoro HHrepeca.

YcKOpirrb npoBeflCHHe cymecTByrømHX njianos «JM HOBbK OOT B KapejiHH.

KHBaTb ycroHHHBbiH xypHSM B HauHOHajibHbix napKax H B 6y4>epHbix 3OH3X BOKpyr SanOBCflHHKOB.

HpoflOJi^cHTb npOBeflCHHe (J)HHCKO-poccHHCKO-HopBeaccKOH KOHi(enu;HH Sejienoro no^ca.

HHJIHHAHfl

YCTaHOBJICHHe MCXaHHSMOB COXpaHCHHH 6HOpa3HOo6pa3HH BH6 OXpaHHCMbDC TCppHTOpHH npOflOJiaCHTb npOBCfleHHC <|>HHCKO-pOCCHHCKO-HOpBe3KCKOH KOHUenHHH 3eJI6HOrO noaca.

YcKopHTb npOBCfleHHe cymecTByromero nnaHa HaHHOHajibHbix napKOB H raianoB COSflaHHH XeMaTHHeCKHX H MOpCKHX OXpaHflCMbK TCppHTOpHH

Co3«aHHe HOBbix oxpaHHCMHx reppHTopHH na apxnnejiare IITnHu;6epreH o6ecneH6HHfl afleKsaTHOH saniHTbi SHOJioranecKH npo^yKTHBHbrx oGteicroB

YcHJiHTb sainmy cymecTByromnx perHOHOB «SHKOH

npeflcraBHrejibHOCTH raseflCKOH oxpanaeMbK reppHropHH nyreM pacinnpeHHs sainHTbi H pecrasparøH crapOBOSpacTHbK JICCOB Ha pasHHne K socroKy OT ropHoro HPHOPHTETHfclE ITPOEKTHME OBJIACTH flJW coTpyrajniqECTBA c POCCHEH

H cos^anne HaijHOHajibHbix napKOB «OHeaccxoe HoMOpbe» H «EejiOMOpcKO-KyjiOHCKoe njiaxo»

6yzjymero ynpasjieHHH «EapemjeBa ApKrøHecKoro napxa» B POCCHHCKOH nacra cesepHoro BapeHitesa Mopa. ^[aHHbiH napK 6yfler B GjiHMcaHineM 6yaymeM.

paGoTbi no ycraHOBjieHHio 6HojiorHHecKHX ueHHOcrefi crapOBOSpacTHbix ^CCOB B Kosoaepo.

MypMaacKan

H cosaaHHe 3aK33HHKa na 6epery BapenijeBa HsaHOBCKyK) H ^BOpoByro ry6w.

Me^cflyHapo^Horo sanose^HHKa na 6ase IlacBHKCKOro

MOHHxopHHra 6Hopa3Hoo6pa3HH B TOH qacxH , Koropaa HaxoflHTca OKOJIO BapeHuesa Mops.

• IIorøep»cKa 3KOJiorHH6CKoro o6pasoBaHHa B

sonpoca BOCcraHOBJieHHH nonyjiHi^HH HopseHccKoro 6o6pa B

PecnyØJiHKa Kapejina

no,zwep>KKa HsyneHHa GHopasHooGpasHa na TeppnropHH cymecrByromHx H OOT B pernone Bejioro

npo#oji>KeHHe npoeicra Sejienoro noaca.

HeHeuKHH aBTOHOMHbrø oKpyr

HerøBHo cosflaHHoro sanoBCAHHKa Directorate for Nature Manage- Publication serials from the Direc- ment torate for Nature Management

The Directorate for Nature Management (DN) The Directorate for Nature Management edits four was established in 1985, as a department under publication serials: the Norwegian Ministry of Environment. DN-rapport (DN Report) presents the Directo- The Directorate is authorized to manage rate's official proposals or views, based on state- Norwegian nature through various laws and regu- ment reports worked out by DN. lations. The DN is also responsible for identifying, preventing, and solving environmental DN-notat (DN Note) is a less comprehensive problems, through cooperation, advice, and in- survey, summary, report, etc. formation to other authorities and public groups. DN-håndbok (DN Handbook) is a set of guide -lines, advice, or directives, concerning nature management.

The handbooks are usually made as a help for local management.

Utredning for DN (Research Report for the DN) is a statement report worked out on the instruc- tions of the DN. The conclusions here are to be considered as advice to DN, and they constitute a basis for DN's future statements or decisions. ListofDN-notat

1996

1996-1: Opportunities and problems associated with the development of arctic tourism - a case study from Svalbard ...... Utgått 1996-2: Aksjon Vannmiljø - resultatrapportering 1995...... 50,- 1996-3: Turistforeningens rute- og hyttenett. Kartvedlegg til DN-notat 1994-10...... 50.-

1997

1997-1: Kalking i vann og vassdrag. Overvåking av større prosjekter 1996...... 50,- 1997-2: Naturforvaltning og samfunnsfag. Referat frå konferanse i Trondheim 4. og 5. februar 1997...... 50,- 1997-3: Handel med truete arter. Sjekkliste for CITES...... 50,-

1998

1998-1: Kalking i vann og vassdrag. Overvaking av større prosjekter 1995...... 50,- 1998-2: Pilegrimsleden...... 50,- 1998-3: Kalking i vann og vassdrag. Overvåking av større prosjekter 1997...... Utgått 1998-4: Referat frå landskonferansen om friluftsliv...... 50,-

1999

1999-1: Nordisk symposium om fiskepassasj er. Oslo9.-ll. sept. 1998 ...... 50,- 1999-2: Overvaking av bunndyr i grensekryssende vassdrag i østlandsområdet i forbindelse med vassdragskalking. Samlerapport for undersøkelser 1995, 1996 og 1997...... 50,- 1999-3: Innstilling om flertallsvedtak og andeler etter § 25 i lov om laksefisk og innlandsfisk ...... 50,- 1999-4: Kalking i vann og vassdrag. Overvåking 1998...... 50,- 1999-5: Foredrag frå norsk-svensk seminar om sur nedbør og kalking, Kristiansand 1.-3. september 1998...... 50,- 1999-6: Naturforvaltning og samfunnsfag II. Referat frå konferansen i Oslo 12. og 13. oktober 1999...... 50,- 1999-7: Miljømål for norsk oppdrettsnæring. Resultatrapport for 1997 og 1998...... 50,- 1999-7b: Environmental objectives for Norwegian aquaculture. Report on results achieved for 1997 and 1998 ...... 50,-

2000 2000-1: FoU-seminar. Konsekvenser av vindkraft for det biologiske mangfoldet...... 50,- 2000-2: Kalking i vann og vassdrag. Overvaking av større prosjekter 1999...... 50,- 2000-3: Miljømål for norsk oppdrettsnæring. Resultatrapport for 1999...... 50.- 2000-4: Terrengkalking i Suldal, Gjerstad og Guddalsvassdraget...... 50,- 2000-5: Veileder for kartproduksjon-tema biologisk mangfold...... 50,- 2000-6: Report from the first meeting of the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation in the Barents Region...... 50,- NOK 50,-

DIRECTORATE FOR NATURE MANAGEMENT 7485 Trondheim Tlf. 73 58 05 00 Faks 73 58 05 01 http://www.naturforvaltning.no

TE 900 ISBN 82-7072-408-4 ISSN 0802-1546