DOCSLIB.ORG

List of National Parks of Russia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
List of National Parks of Russia S. No Name Name in Russian Location Lat / Long of Location Created Area (Alaniya А л а́ ния North Ossetia-Alania 42°52′N 43°44′E / 42.867°N 43.733°E 1998 54,926 hectares (212.1 sq mi 1 (Alkhanay Алханай Zabaykalsky Krai 50°50′N 113°25′E / 50.833°N 113.417°E 1999 138,234 hectares (533.7 sq mi 2 (Anyuysky Анюйский Khabarovsk Krai 49°26′N 136°33′E / 49.433°N 136.550°E 1999 429,370 hectares (1,657.8 sq mi 3 (Bashkiriya Башкирия Bashkortostan 53°03′N 56°32′E / 53.050°N 56.533°E 1986 92,000 hectares (355.2 sq mi 4 (Beringia Берингия Chukotka Autonomous Okrug 64°22′N 173°18′E / 64.367°N 173.300°E 2013 3,053,233 hectares (11,788.6 sq mi 5 (Bikin Бикин Primorsky Krai 46°40′N 136°00′E / 46.667°N 136.000°E 2015 1,160,500 hectares (4,480.7 sq mi 6 (Buzuluksky Bor Бузулукский бор Samara Oblast / Orenburg Oblast 53°00′N 52°7′E / 53.000°N 52.117°E 2007 106,000 hectares (409.3 sq mi 7 (Chavash Varmane Bor Чаваш Вармане Chuvashia 54°45′N 47°08′E / 54.750°N 47.133°E 1993 25,200 hectares (97.3 sq mi 8 (Chikoy Чикой Zabaykalsky Krai 49°46′N 110°18′E / 49.767°N 110.300°E 2014 666,468 hectares (2,573.2 sq mi 9 (Kalevalsky Калевальский Republic of Karelia 64°59′N 30°13′E / 64.983°N 30.217°E 2007 74,400 hectares (287.3 sq mi 10 (Curonian Spit Куршская коса Kaliningrad Oblast 55°08′N 20°48′E / 55.133°N 20.800°E 1987 6,621 hectares (25.6 sq mi 11 (Kenozersky Кенозерский Arkhangelsk Oblast 62°05′N 38°12′E / 62.083°N 38.200°E 1991 139,663 hectares (539.2 sq mi 12 (Khvalynsky Хвалынский Saratov Oblast 53°00′N 52°7′E / 53.000°N 52.117°E 1994 25,524 hectares (98.5 sq mi 13 (Losiny Ostrov Лосиный Остров Moscow Oblast 53°52′N 37°47′E / 53.867°N 37.783°E 1983 11,600 hectares (44.8 sq mi 14 (Mariy Chodra Марий Чодра Mari El Republic 56°09′N 48°22′E / 56.150°N 48.367°E 1985 36,600 hectares (141.3 sq mi 15 (Meshchyora Мещёра Vladimir Oblast 55°34′N 40°15′E / 55.567°N 40.250°E 1992 118,900 hectares (459.1 sq mi 16 (Meschyorsky Мещерский Ryazan Oblast 55°08′N 40°10′E / 55.133°N 40.167°E 1992 105,014 hectares (405.5 sq mi 17 (Nechkinsky Нечкинский Udmurt Republic 56°41′N 53°47′E / 56.683°N 53.783°E 1997 20,753 hectares (80.1 sq mi 18 (Nizhnyaya Kama Нижняя Кама Tatarstan 55°48′N 52°19′E / 55.800°N 52.317°E 1991 26,587 hectares (102.7 sq mi 19 (Onezhskoye Pomorye Онежское Поморье Arkhangelsk Oblast 64°47′N 37°18′E / 64.783°N 37.300°E 2013 201,670 hectares (778.7 sq mi 20 (Orlovskoye Polesye Орловское полесье Oryol Oblast 53°28′N 35°3′E / 53.467°N 35.050°E 1994 77,745 hectares (300.2 sq mi 21 (Paanajärvi Паанаярви Republic of Karelia 66°29′N 37°18′E / 66.483°N 37.300°E 1992 104,371 hectares (403.0 sq mi 22 (Pleshcheyevo Ozero Плещеево озеро Yaroslavl Oblast 56°46′N 38°44′E / 56.767°N 38.733°E 1997 23,790 hectares (91.9 sq mi 23 (Pribaikalsky Прибайкальский Irkutsk Oblast 51°51′N 104°53′E / 51.850°N 104.883°E 1986 417,300 hectares (1,611.2 sq mi 24 (Pripyshminskiye Bory Припышминские Боры Sverdlovsk Oblast 56°59′N 63°47′E / 56.983°N 63.783°E 1993 49,050 hectares (189.4 sq mi 25 (Prielbrusye Приэльбрусье Kabardino-Balkaria 43°21′N 42°34′E / 43.350°N 42.567°E 1986 1,010,200 hectares (3,900.4 sq mi 26 (Russian Arctic Русская Арктика Arkhangelsk Oblast 75°42′N 60°54′E / 75.700°N 60.900°E 1986 1,426,000 hectares (5,505.8 sq mi 27 (Russky Sever Русский Север Vologda Oblast 59°57′N 38°34′E / 59.950°N 38.567°E 1992 166,400 hectares (642.5 sq mi 28 (Samarskaya Luka Самарская Лука Samara Oblast 53°18′N 49°50′E / 53.300°N 49.833°E 1984 134,000 hectares (517.4 sq mi 29 (Saylyugemsky Сайлюгемский Altai Republic 49°31′N 88°37′E / 49.517°N 88.617°E 2010 118,380 hectares (457.1 sq mi 30 (Sebezhsky Себежский Pskov Oblast 56°16′N 28°30′E / 56.267°N 28.500°E 1996 50,021 hectares (193.1 sq mi 31 (Shantar Islands Шантарские острова Khabarovsk Krai 55°00′N 137°30′E / 55.000°N 137.500°E 2014 250,000 hectares (965.3 sq mi 32 (Shorsky Шорский Kemerovo Oblast 52°35′N 88°20′E / 52.583°N 88.333°E 1989 418,000 hectares (1,613.9 sq mi 33 (Smolenskoye Poozerye Смоленское Поозерье Smolensk Oblast 55°32′N 31°24′E / 55.533°N 31.400°E 1992 146,237 hectares (564.6 sq mi 34 (Smolny Смольный Republic of Mordovia 54°50′N 45°40′E / 54.833°N 45.667°E 1995 36,500 hectares (140.9 sq mi 35 (Sochi Сочинский Krasnodar Krai 43°05′N 39°43′E / 43.083°N 39.717°E 1995 193,737 hectares (748.0 sq mi 36 (Taganay Таганай Chelyabinsk Oblast 55°15′N 59°47′E / 55.250°N 59.783°E 1991 56,800 hectares (219.3 sq mi 37 (Tarkhankut Тарханкутский Autonomous Republic of Crimea 45°25′N 32°32′E / 45.417°N 32.533°E 1991 10,900 hectares (42.1 sq mi 38 (Tunkinsky Тункинский Buryatia 51°41′N 102°08′E / 51.683°N 102.133°E 1991 1,183,662 hectares (4,570.1 sq mi 39 (Udegeyskaya Legenda Удэгейская легенда Primorsky Krai 45°49′N 135°25′E / 45.817°N 135.417°E 1991 103,744 hectares (400.6 sq mi 40 (Ugra Угра Kaluga Oblast 54°09′N 35°52′E / 54.150°N 35.867°E 1997 98,600 hectares (380.7 sq mi 41 (Valdaysky Валдайский Novgorod Oblast 57°59′N 31°15′E / 57.983°N 31.250°E 1990 158,500 hectares (612.0 sq mi 42 (Vodlozersky Водлозерский Arkhangelsk Oblast 62°39′N 37°05′E / 62.650°N 37.083°E 1991 428,000 hectares (1,652.5 sq mi 43 (Yugyd Va Югыд ва Komi Republic 62°25′N 58°47′E / 62.417°N 58.783°E 1994 1,891,700 hectares (7,303.9 sq mi 44 (Zabaykalsky Забайкальский Buryat Republic 53°43′N 109°13′E / 53.717°N 109.217°E 1986 269,000 hectares (1,038.6 sq mi 45 (Land of the Leopard Земля леопарда Primorsky Krai 43°00′N 131°25′E / 43.000°N 131.417°E 2012 80,000 hectares (308.9 sq mi 46 (Zov Tigra Зов Тигра Primorsky Krai 43°35′N 134°16′E / 43.583°N 134.267°E 2007 83,384 hectares (321.9 sq mi 47 (Zyuratkul Зюраткуль Chelyabinsk Oblast 54°51′N 58°56′E / 54.850°N 58.933°E 1993 88,200 hectares (340.5 sq mi 48 For more information kindly visit : www.downloadexcelfiles.com www.downloadexcelfiles.com.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FSC National Risk Assessment
    FSC National Risk Assessment for the Russian Federation DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURE FSC-PRO-60-002 V3-0 Version V1-0 Code FSC-NRA-RU National approval National decision body: Coordination Council, Association NRG Date: 04 June 2018 International approval FSC International Center, Performance and Standards Unit Date: 11 December 2018 International contact Name: Tatiana Diukova E-mail address: [email protected] Period of validity Date of approval: 11 December 2018 Valid until: (date of approval + 5 years) Body responsible for NRA FSC Russia, [email protected], [email protected] maintenance FSC-NRA-RU V1-0 NATIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 2018 – 1 of 78 – Contents Risk designations in finalized risk assessments for the Russian Federation ................................................. 3 1 Background information ........................................................................................................... 4 2 List of experts involved in risk assessment and their contact details ........................................ 6 3 National risk assessment maintenance .................................................................................... 7 4 Complaints and disputes regarding the approved National Risk Assessment ........................... 7 5 List of key stakeholders for consultation ................................................................................... 8 6 List of abbreviations and Russian transliterated terms* used ................................................... 8 7 Risk assessments
    [Show full text]
  • Decisions Adopted During the 42Nd Session of the World Heritage Committee
    World Heritage 42 COM WHC/18/42.COM/18 Manama, 4 July 2018 Original: English UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Forty-second session Manama, Bahrain 24 June – 4 July 2018 Decisions adopted during the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Manama, 2018) Table of Contents 2. ADMISSION OF OBSERVERS .......................................................................................................... 4 3. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE .................................................................... 4 3A. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ........................................................................................................... 4 3B. PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE OF THE 42ND SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (MANAMA, 2018) ................................................................................................................................ 4 4. REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR OF THE 41ST SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (KRAKOW, 2017) ......................................................................................................... 5 5. REPORTS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE AND THE ADVISORY BODIES ....................... 5 5A. REPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE ON ITS ACTIVITIES AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE’S DECISIONS ............................................................... 5 5B. REPORTS OF THE ADVISORY BODIES ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Last Chance Tourism
    Ekoloji 27(106): 441-447 (2018) Development Perspectives of “Last Chance To u r i s m ” as One of the Directions of Ecological To u r i s m Oleg A. Bunakov 1*, Natalia A. Zaitseva 2, Anna A. Larionova 3, Nataliia V. Zigern-Korn 4, Marina A. Zhukova 5, Vadim A. Zhukov 5, Alexey D. Chudnovskiy 5 1 Kazan Federal University, Kazan, RUSSIA 2 Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, RUSSIA 3 Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, RUSSIA 4 Saint-Petersburg State University, Saint-Petersburg, RUSSIA 5 State University of Management, Moscow, RUSSIA * Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract The relevance of researching the problems and prospects for the development of this tourism type as “Last Chance Tourism” as well as within the framework of ecological tourism, is explained by the importance of preserving tourist territories and objects of display in order to achieve the goals of an effective combination of ecological and economic components for the benefit of the general territory development. The purpose of this study is to determine the development prospects of the Last Chance Tourism, as one of the directions of ecological tourism. To implement this study, the authors of the article used the methods of data systematization, content analysis, expert assessments and other scientific approaches, which allow to comprehensively consider the problem under study. The authors propose a refined definition of “eco- tourism” by referring to the results of the analysis of existing research. We give the characteristics of tourists, who are attracted by the objects of “Last Chance Tourism”.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION: of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION: AREAS PROTECTED NATIONAL Vladimir Krever, Mikhail Stishov, Irina Onufrenya
    WWF WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation WWF-Russia organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 19, bld.3 Nikoloyamskaya St., 100 countries. 109240 Moscow WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a Russia future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: Tel.: +7 495 727 09 39 • conserving the world’s biological diversity Fax: +7 495 727 09 38 • ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable [email protected] • promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. http://www.wwf.ru The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy - the leading conservation organization working around the world to The Nature Conservancy protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and people. Worldwide Office The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals and natural 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100 NNATIONALATIONAL PPROTECTEDROTECTED AAREASREAS communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters Arlington, VA 22203-1606 they need to survive. Tel: +1 (703) 841-5300 http://www.nature.org OOFF TTHEHE RRUSSIANUSSIAN FFEDERATION:EDERATION: MAVA The mission of the Foundation is to contribute to maintaining terrestrial and aquatic Fondation pour la ecosystems, both qualitatively and quantitatively, with a view to preserving their biodiversity. Protection de la Nature GGAPAP AANALYSISNALYSIS To this end, it promotes scientific research, training and integrated management practices Le Petit Essert whose effectiveness has been proved, while securing a future for local populations in cultural, 1147 Montricher, Suisse economic and ecological terms.
    [Show full text]
  • RUSSIAN FEDERATION This Large Site on the Western End of the Greater Caucasus Mountains Is in One of the Few Great Mountain Ranges of Europe Almost Undisturbed by Man
    WESTERN CAUCASUS RUSSIAN FEDERATION This large site on the western end of the Greater Caucasus Mountains is in one of the few great mountain ranges of Europe almost undisturbed by man. Its extensive mountain forests, from subtropical to alpine, are unique in Europe and its high pastures have been grazed only by wild animals. The site is on the edge of the Colchian centre of plant diversity barely 30 kilometres from the Black Sea. Stretching between lowlands and alpine mountains, it includes four-fifths of the ecosystems of the Caucasus and includes many endemic and relict species such as the reintroduced European bison. Threats to the site: Construction of more than 250 facilities for the 2014 Winter Olympics is heavily impinging on the site and region. COUNTRY Russian Federation NAME Western Caucasus NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SERIAL SITE 1999: Inscribed on the World Heritage List under Natural Criteria ix and x. STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE [pending] The UNESCO World Heritage Committee issued the following statement at the time of inscription: Justification for Inscription The Western Caucasus has a remarkable diversity of geology, ecosystems and species. It is of global significance as a centre of plant diversity. Along with the Virgin Komi World Heritage site, it is the only large mountain area in Europe that has not experienced significant human impact, containing extensive tracts of undisturbed mountain forests unique on the European scale. INTERNATIONAL DESIGNATION 1978: Kavkazskiy designated a Biosphere Reserve under the
    [Show full text]
  • New Records of Lichens and Lichenicolous Fungi from the Ural Mountains, Russia
    Folia Cryptog. Estonica, Fasc. 48: 119–124 (2011) New records of lichens and lichenicolous fungi from the Ural Mountains, Russia Gennadii Urbanavichus1 & Irina Urbanavichene2, 3 1Laboratory of terrain ecosystems, Institute of the Industrial Ecology of the North, Kola Science Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences, Akademgorodok 14a, Apatity, 184209 Murmansk region, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 2Laboratory of Lichenology and Bryology, Komarov Botanical Institute, Professor Popov St. 2, 197376 St. Petersburg, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] 3Baikalskii State Nature Biosphere Reserve, Tankhoi, 671120 Kabansk District, Buryatia Republic, Russia Abstract: A total of 53 taxa of lichens and lichenicolous fungi are first reported from the Ural Mountains (Republic Bashkortostan, Russia). Nine lichen species, Anema decipiens, Bagliettoa parmigera, Diplotomma hedinii, Heteroplacidium compactum, H. zamenhofianum, Lecania suavis, Placidiopsis cinerascens, Placynthium pulvinatum, Psorotichia montinii, and six lichenicolous fungi, Arthonia phaeophysciae, Buelliella poetschii, Karschia talcophila, Lichenopeltella hydrophila, Lichenostigma svandae, Phoma cladoniicola are new to Russia. Kokkuvõte: Samblike ja lihhenikoolsete seente uued leiud Uraali mägedest, Venemaalt Uraali mägedest (Baškiiria vabariigist) teatatakse 53 piirkonnale uue lihheniseerunud ja lihhenikoolse seeneliigi leidudest. Üheksa lihheniseerunud seene liiki (Anema decipiens, Bagliettoa parmigera, Diplotomma hedinii, Heteroplacidium compactum, H. zamenhofianum, Lecania suavis,
    [Show full text]
  • Bikin River Valley UNESCO Heritage Site Status Report for 2018-2019
    MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ECOLOGY RUSSIAN FEDERATION FEDERAL STATE BUDGETARY INSTITUTION "BIKIN” NATIONAL PARK" Bikin River Valley UNESCO Heritage Site Status Report for 2018-2019 On July 2, 2018, the Intergovernmental Committee for Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage officially announced inclusion of the Bikin River Valley within the Central Sikhote-Alin UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Bikin River Valley was included in the preliminary list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites as early as 2010. But according to the strict rules of UNESCO, the country had to guarantee the long-term preservation of this territory. And only the strict regime of the federal protected areas meets these requirements. The UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Bikin River Valley, is located within the boundaries of the «Bikin” National Park” , a specially protected natural area of federal significance. The federal state budgetary institution “«Bikin” National Park” (hereinafter referred to as the “Bikin” National Park”, FSBI) maintains an array of untouched forests on the western slope of the Sikhote-Alin ridge, where the key habitats of Amur tiger are located. As at December 1, 2019, the total area of the “Bikin River Valley” World Heritage Site and the “Bikin” National Park of specially protected natural area of the federal significance is 1,160,469 ha. Actual boundaries haven’t been changed during the reporting period. As at December 1, 2019, a number of employees of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Bikin” National Park” is 99 people. In accordance with the plan of research department of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “Bikin” National Park”, it monitors the state of the environment and the Amur tiger population in the national park.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report
    2013 ANNUAL REPORT 1 M.video Annual Report 2013 www.mvideo.ru M.video at a Glance RUB 148.1bn RUB 5.7bn RUB 9.4bn Total revenue in 2013 Net profit in 2013 EBITDA in 2013 +11% 144 333 M.video sales growth in 2013 Total number of cities Total number of stores 582k sqm 785k sqm RUB 311K Selling space of M.video Total space of M.video stores Sales per sqm of selling space stores Our Strategy The implementation of our strategy firstly requires the support by state- of-the-art information technology and significant financial investments in IT systems over the next years. With our “best of breed” systems strategy we are convinced that we are following the right approach. Secondly, continuous work on the improvement of our efficiency is necessary to ensure high profitability of our Omni strategy, when total price transparency on the Internet puts prices and margins under pressure. 2 M.video Annual Report 2013 www.mvideo.ru Contents 1. Statement from Chairman and CEO 4 2. Omni-сhannel Model Development 6 Expansion of the Network 10 Market, Competition and Gross Margin Development 13 Committing to Customers, Committing to Our Staff 14 Corporate Social Responsibility 16 Outlook 17 3. Financial Performance Review 18 4. Board of Directors & Management 24 Board Of Directors 24 Management 27 5. Corporate Governance 28 Audit Committee Report 29 Remuneration and Nomination Committee Report 30 Shareholder Information 31 6. Consolidated Financial Statements 32 Statement of Management’s Responsibilities 33 Independent Auditors’ Report 34 Consolidated Balance Sheet 35 Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income 36 Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity 37 Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 38 Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements 39 Contacts 79 3 M.video Annual Report 2013 www.mvideo.ru Statement from Chairman and CEO TO ALL OUR SHAREHOLDERS! The Internet in combination with the “digitalization” of our world is significantly changing the way we live today.
    [Show full text]
  • The Context, Content, and Implications of the 1995 Russian Federation Law on Specifically Protected Natural Areas
    Volume 41 Issue 1 Winter 2001 Winter 2001 An Organic Act after a Century of Protection: The Context, Content, and Implications of the 1995 Russian Federation Law on Specifically Protected Natural Areas David Ostergren Recommended Citation David Ostergren, An Organic Act after a Century of Protection: The Context, Content, and Implications of the 1995 Russian Federation Law on Specifically Protected Natural Areas, 41 Nat. Resources J. 125 (2001). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol41/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. DAVID OSTERGREN* An Organic Act after a Century of Protection: The Context, Content, and Implications of the 1995 Russian Federation Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas** ABSTRACT At the turn of the twentieth century, Russia began establishing protected naturalareas for scientific researchand to preserve both unique and typical ecosystems. Through time and perseveranceby the conservationcommunity, the protected area system has evolved into a multi-tiered system of nature preserves, forests, parks, monuments, and wildlife management areas designated by federal, regional, and local legislation. Each type of area serves a different role to preserve and protect areas for aesthetic, recreational, cultural, or ecological values. Fundamental to successful management and protectionof naturalareas is effective legislation that empowers authorities while reflecting the needs and desires of society. Until 1995, Russia (and the Soviet Union) lacked specific legislationdelineating the missions and responsibilitiesof protected naturalarea staff and agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Nationalism and Russiaâ•Žs Conservation Movement
    TITLE : ENVIRONMENTAL NATIONALISM AND RUSSIA'S CONSERVATIO N MOVEMENT : IDEALS OF NATURE AND THE NATIONAL PARK S AUTHOR : RACHEL MAY, Macalester Colleg e THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FO R EURASIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H TITLE VIII PROGRA M 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W . Washington, D.C . 20036 LEGAL NOTICE The Government of the District of Columbia has certified an amendment of th e Articles of Incorporation of the National Council for Soviet and East Europea n Research changing the name of the Corporation to THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FO R EURASIANANDEAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, effective on June 9, 1997. Grants, contracts and all other legal engagements of and with the Corporation made under its former name are unaffected and remain in force unless/until modified in writin g by the parties thereto . PROJECT INFORMATION : 1 CONTRACTOR : Macalester Colleg e PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Rachel Ma y COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 812-23 G DATE : August 25, 1997 COPYRIGHT INFORMATIO N Individual researchers retain the copyright on their work products derived from research funded by contract or grant from the National Council for Eurasian and East Europea n Research . However, the Council and the United States Government have the right t o duplicate and disseminate, in written and electronic form, this Report submitted to th e Council under this Contract or Grant, as follows : Such dissemination may be made by the Council solely (a) for its own internal use, and (b) to the United States Government (1) for its own internal use; (2) for further dissemination to domestic, international and foreig n governments, entities and individuals to serve official United States Government purposes ; and (3) for dissemination in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act or other law o r policy of the United States Government granting the public rights of access to documents held by the United States Government .
    [Show full text]
  • Securing a Future for Amur Leopards and Tigers in Russia
    Securing a Future for Amur Leopards and Tigers in Russia – VI 2018 Final Report Phoenix Fund 1 Securing a Future for Amur Leopards and Tigers in Russia – VI • 2018 Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Background ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Activities............................................................................................................................................ 4 SMART in five protected areas .................................................................................................................. 4 Annual workshop for educators ................................................................................................................ 8 Education in Khasan, Lazo, Terney and Vladivostok ................................................................................. 9 Tiger Day in Primorye .............................................................................................................................. 11 Art Contest .............................................................................................................................................. 13 Photo credits: PRNCO “Tiger “Centre”, Far Eastern Operational Customs Office, Land of the Leopard National Park, Alexander Ratnikov, and children's paintings
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment
    IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Central Sikhote-Alin - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment Central Sikhote-Alin 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment SITE INFORMATION Country: Russian Federation Inscribed in: 2001 Criteria: (x) The Sikhote-Alin mountain range contains one the richest and most unusual temperate forests of the world. In this mixed zone between taiga and subtropics, southern species such as the tiger and Himalayan bear cohabit with northern species such as the brown bear and lynx. The site stretches from the peaks of Sikhote-Alin to the Sea of Japan and is important for the survival of many endangered species such as the Amur tiger. © UNESCO SUMMARY 2020 Conservation Outlook Finalised on 02 Dec 2020 GOOD WITH SOME CONCERNS The overall integrity of the forest ecosystems of the Central Sikhote-Alin World Heritage site appears to be in a good state, however, some concerns still exist. The Amur Tiger population seem stable and recovering after a collapse due to multiple sources of mortality. The site remains under threat from poaching, affecting not only the Amur Tiger population, but also other wildlife. Industrial logging in areas adjacent to the site creates preconditions of direct and indirect threats to property, such as increased fire risks, poaching and interruption of species migration. The extension of the Central Sikhote-Alin with the Bikin National Park in 2018 almost tripled this site by size. Local indigenous people have the right to use natural resources in Bikin National Park for traditional economic activities such as hunting, fishing and collection of non-timber products. A Council of Indigenous Minorities is active within the management authority to ensure the legal rights and interests of local people, which is likely to lead to support for the Park.
    [Show full text]