Barents 2010

Biodiversity in the Barents Region Forests Report from Expert Workshop in Svanhovd, June 16th – 17th 2004

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Expert Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th to 17th 2004

1 Preface Barents Regional Council has initiated a project called Barents 2010, which is a follow up of the evaluation of the regional cooperation in the Barents Region in 1993 – 2000. Barents 2010 consists of 5 work packages (WP), where WP 1 is superior and is responsible for the coordination of the project and the “Strategy and Action Plan”. The other WPs are industry (WP2), education (WP3), environment (WP4) and transport & communication (WP5). You can see the organisation in Figur 1.

Figur 1 shows the organization of the project Barents 2010.

The WP4, Environment, is divided in water and biodiversity (Figur 1). The biodiversity subgroup will focus on forest biodiversity in forest. This sub-group is lead by Nordland county (Norway), with Komi, Karelia (Russia), Kainuu (Finland) and Norrbotn (Sweden) as supporting participants. The 16th and 17th of June 2004, leading scientists from Russia, Finland and Norway, were gathered in Svanhovd. These were Svetlana Degteva and Alexander Mariev from Komi, Eugene Ieshko and Andrei Gromtsev from Karelia, Ari Rajasärkkä and Panu Kuokkanen from Finland and Ole-Jakob Sørensen and Bård Solberg from Norway. In addition, Tatyana Tyupenko (Komi), Roar Høgsæt and Christian Brun – Jenssen (Norway) from the WP 4 participated. The aim of the workshop was to gather more information regarding the environmental status in the Barents region, to carry out a better SWOT analysis and to get advice for the future work and strategies for the environmental (biodiversity) work.

2

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Expert Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th to 17th 2004

The workshop was very fruitful, with a lot of good comments, suggestions and advices. We ended up in a SWOT analysis which we think will cover most strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, but this analysis is of course not complete. The most important strategies were to - Prepare a GAP analyses of protected areas and endangered/vulnerable habitats - Prepare overview maps of old-growth forest, pristine areas and key habitats - Prepare red and green books for the Barents region - Improve mapping and monitoring systems - Improve the knowledge through information and education - Better cooperation with the forestry industry - Implement certification systems - Building better networks. Based on these results, WP 4 – biodiversity will this fall meet with the forestry group of WP 2. The aim is to give advices to the forestry group regarding environmental needs and care.

Photo front page: Karelia Research Centre

3

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

1 2 3

4

5 6

Preface................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Opening adress ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Agenda for the workshop ........................................................................................... 6 Results of the expert meeting ............................................................................................. 9 3.1 The regions................................................................................................................. 9 3.1.1 Komi................................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 Karelia ................................................................................................................ 9 3.1.3 Kainuu ................................................................................................................ 9 3.1.4 Norrbotn ............................................................................................................. 9 3.1.5 Nordland........................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Processed SWOT – analysis..................................................................................... 11 Future strategies and work ............................................................................................... 13 4.1 Strategies to build on strengths ................................................................................ 13 4.2 Strategies to avoid weakness.................................................................................... 14 4.3 Strategies to visualize the options ............................................................................ 14 4.4 Strategies to reduce the threats................................................................................. 15 4.5 Other strategies......................................................................................................... 16 Future in the Barents 2010 work ...................................................................................... 17 Appendix .......................................................................................................................... 18

4

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

2 Introduction 2.1 Opening adress By Roar Høgsæt Welcome to Norway and Svanhovd! On behalf of the Regional Working Group on Environment under the Barents Council, I am happy that you are able to participate in this expert meeting. The Regional Working Group on Environment is responsible for the environmental part of the interreg project Barents 2010. In this work, there are going to be both mapping of resources and preparing of a strategy for water and biodiversity. This work will be carried out during the projects 30 months duration. In this work we are depending on experts, and I am hoping, and believing, that we during these two days will get assistance and advice from you, which will give basis for a good result in this project. You are now in one of the outskirts of the Barents region. We have chosen Svanhovd, because of its location close to Russia, Finland and Sweden and the centre’s role in the environmental work in the Pasvik region and Norway generally. Here we are able to combine work with great nature experiences. For me who am living in Bodø, the 1300 km travel to get here feels like a long journey. However, looking at a map over the Barents region, my travel is rather short. The distance from Lofoten (Nordland) in vest to the Ural Mountains (Komi Republic) in east is enormous. I would like to use this introduction to talk a little about the challenges in the Barents region on a general basis. Generally, the area has a low human density, which is decreasing in the most parts of the area. The number of unemployed is comparatively high. At the same time, we know that this is a region with large natural resources that can form a basis for significant economical activity. In Russia and along the coast of Norway, there are large oil- and gas resources, and there are considerably mineral resources available with existing and future mining in the whole region. There are also enormous forests and in the sea there are fish resources of international importance. In addition, you can also find large wilderness areas. These areas are spread over the whole region; the most and largest areas are located in east. There is a political aim that the natural resources in the region are going to be exploited to give economical growth and strengthening of the settlement. There are agreements that the exploitation is going to be sustainable and take care of the environment; these agreements are caused by the settlements’ need for clean and safe surroundings and the international commitments on protection of biodiversity, fresh water resources etc. The Barents 2010 project is a little step towards these aims. As already mentioned, I both believe and think that we will get assistance and advice for the themes covered by the Work Package 4, water and biodiversity, during these two days. The result from this workshop will be used in the future Barents 2010 work, and a good result will make up a little, but important, piece for the development of the Barents region. In addition, I think that this meeting will

5

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

strengthen the professional networks that are needed regarding the challenges we now are fronting. Once again: Welcome to this workshop. I hope you will, both related to the workshop itself and the social part, have a pleasant and comfortable stay. Before we go on to the information regarding the Barents 2010 project, I think we should introduce our self; who we are, where we are from and what we are working with.

2.2 Agenda for the workshop Based on the challenges connected to protection of biodiversity in the large forests with increased logging, Arkhangelsk member of the Regional Working Group on Environment (RWGE) raised a proposal regarding development and admittance of a biodiversity project under the Barents cooperation in 2001. This project was adopted to the interreg project Barents 2010 after work from Mats-Rune Bergstrøm, the leader of the RWGE. The kick-off was November last year. Roar Høgsæt was given the responsibility to force this project forward, and cooperation between the Komi republic, the Karelia republic, Kainuu County, Norrbotn County and Nordland County was an assumption. Christian Brun-Jenssen was appointed as secretary for the project. After the kick-off, the Biodiversity group has looked through the work carried out by the Arctic Council and had contact with the International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation with Martti Poutanen and Jan Petter Huberth Hansen. Based on this examination and discussions with Jan Petter Huberth Hansen in the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management, the WP4 – Biodiversity work was recommended to focus on endangered/vulnerable forest habitat sites. We have had contacts with the environmental authorities in the different regions, with the purpose to gather information regarding the mapping of habitat sites/forest types, protected forests and possibly endangered natural habitat sites that not are protected. Based on this work, we can see that all regions and countries have considerable good knowledge; this knowledge is connected to virgin forest, partly to natural habitat sites, partly to species and partly to forest types. However, our conclusion is, that getting a good overview that can cover the whole area in a good way is hard. This is partly due to different stages of the mapping and different forms of protecting the natural habitat sites, but also that there are no common classification system for forest/natural habitat sites. Assignment 1 The biodiversity group need help both to decide where we should recommend more mapping, but especially how we should present an entirely picture of the endangered nature habitat sites. We would of course also have assistance to get a better overview of the existing knowledge on a superior level, since this mapping can’t be classified as very good. Assignment 2 It might be useful to use a SWOT analysis to propose and organize steps that can be used for protection of biodiversity in the forests. Here are some key words that might be used in this

6

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

SWOT analysis. During the workshop we hope you will give comments and suggest changes, which will give a better and more complete SWOT analysis. Strengths: - Mainly good ecological status - Large virgin areas - Good monitoring systems - Good knowledge related to biodiversity - Considerable mappings carried out - Work carried out by the Arctic Council - Protected areas - Projects related to environmental sustainable forestry Weakness: - Large forces towards economical growth and creating/securing employment in the forestry. The environment might be prioritised down - Different classification systems for mapping environmental values in forests - Different legislation - Small resources for monitoring, mapping and cooperation - The environment has partly low political priority - Threatened valuable environmental areas/natural habitat sites without protection - Hard to develop good networks due to language, large distances, large costs of travelling etc. - Lack of knowledge on environmental values in the forestry - Partly lack of understanding for the importance of environmental care; this apply both to the business and politicians Threats: - Forestry - Road establishing (mainly related to forestry) - Pollution (limited areas) - Tourism? - Hydroelectric power plants Opportunities: - Increased cooperation regarding protection of the most endangered natural habitat sites - Easily access to environmental information, e.g. internet - Ecotourism: take care of the environment and spread information - International environmental cooperation - Increased environmental focus in the forestry/demands of certification Assignment 3 Based on the SWOT analysis, we are also going to make a proposal for steps and strategies in the future work. Also here, we would ask the expert group to come with suggestions during these two days. Based on the SWOT analysis, I would ask you to make suggestions to strategies. This can be divided into the four main parts of the analysis:

7

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

-

Strategies built on the strengths Strategies to avoid the weakness Strategies to reduce the treats Strategies to visualize the options

Suggestions to steps might include both steps that RWGE should put on the agenda and steps that should be carried out independent of the RWGE. Themes we are thinking of are education, information, areas where especial high monitoring effort should be put in, natural habitat types that should be protected, cooperation with the forestry group regarding environmental forestry and harmonization of classification systems. As you all understand, we have a considerably amount of work in front of us at this workshop. RWGE is responsible for a good mapping, analysis, proposals for steps and future strategies. We are totally dependent on active assistance from you as experts. I know that what we are asking for during these two days is extensive. It is important to focus on what you think is important, and that you, when it is possible, give clear advices to us. To be able to keep up the progress in a good way, it is important with both experience and good knowledge related to biodiversity in forests. These are qualifications which none of the members of RWGE have. Ole Jakob Sørensen at the Nord-Trøndelag University College has accepted to lead this workshop, which I appreciate very much.

8

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Results of the expert meeting 2.3 The regions A short presentation of the different republics and counties is given under (see Figur 2 for location). Here you will find general information, like size, population and environmental status. You will find a better and more detailed presentation of the different regions in the appendix. We will also recommend the pages http://www.taigarescue.org and http://maps.grida.no, where you can find overview maps of old-growth forest in the Barents region.

2.3.1 Komi Komi is a 416 000 km2 large republic, situated about 1400 km NW of Moscow. The Komi republic boarders with Archangels, Perm, Tyumen and Kirov oblasts and Nenets Autonomous Okrug. Komi has a population of 1,1 million peoplem, and 26% out of the total population is komi people. More than 30% of the population are economically dependent on forestry. The annual allowable cut is 26 million m3, yet the current harvest is only 7 million m3. There are 4 natural zones, and forest cover 70 % of this area. The republic has a large proportion of old-growth forest; it is estimated that upto 70 percent of Komi’s forests are mature or over-mature. The ecological situation is considered to be good. For better and more detailed information, see Komi’s presentations of the republic in the appendix.

2.3.2 Karelia Karelia is a 180 500 km2 large republic, located southwest of the White Sea along the Finnish boarder. The population is 766 400, where 74% of the population is urban, and about 40% lives in the capital Petrozavodsk. Karelia is rich in natural resources, where forest is one of the main resources. More than 49% of the area is covered with forest (mainly pine), and 25% of the territory is water surface. The ecological status in Karelia is good. For better and more detailed information, see Karelia’s presentations of the republic in the appendix.

2.3.3 Kainuu Kainuu County is located in the centre of the mainland of Finland. The total area is 24 450 km2, and 11,8% of this is water. Total forest area is estimated to be 16 600 km2. The variability of bedrock and soils causes a diverse topography and biotope distribution. Forestry is the largest single source of local employment. The ecological status is not as good as in Komi and Karelia. There are more clear-cuttings, but the virgin areas left are well preserved. For better and more detailed information, see Kainuu’s presentation of the county in the appendix.

2.3.4 Norrbotn No contribution so far.

9

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

2.3.5 Nordland Nordland county is 38 460 km2, and is the westernmost part in this project. It is a long and thin county; about 500 km from south to north. The number of inhabitants are approximately 238 000. Nordland has a large nature diversity; sea, coast, lowland with forest, highland and mountain ranges. Forestry makes up a significant part of the economy, especially in the southern part of Nordland. However, also the north has become more important, and is expected to be even more important than the southern part during the next 10 – 15 years. The environmental status is in general good, even if there are only small areas with oldgrowth forest. Special for this county is the change in tree stands and introduction of alien tree species in large areas. A GAP analysis has revealed that there are vulnerable habitats without protection. For better and more detailed information, see Nordland’s presentation of the county in the appendix.

Figur 2: Map over the Barents region. Komi, Karelia, Kainuu, Norrbotn and Nordland are participating in the biodiversity sub-group in WP 4.

10

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

2.4 Processed SWOT – analysis Previous to the expert meeting, a draft to a SWOT analysis was prepared (see introduction). Based on these key words, the experts had a brainstorming, gave comments and suggested changes, which ended up in a more complete analysis (Table 1). Many of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats apply to the whole Barents region. However, for weaknesses and especially threats, there are also large differences between the sub-regions. During the workshop, the experts from the different sub-regions tried to grade the different strengths, weaknesses etc on a scale from 0 to 3 (3 was best). Based on this gradings, a detailed SWOT – analysis with gradings are presented in appendix 3. This grading is of course very rough, but it gives an image of the situation.

11

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Table 1 shows the SWOT analysis for biodiversity in forests in the Barents region.

Strenghts Good ecological status

Weakness Forces towards economical growth in forestry → environment prioritised down Different classification systems Different legislation Small monitoring/mapping/coordination resources Low political priority Threatened vulnerable areas/habitats Lack of good networks due to language barriers, distances, travelling costs etc Partly lack of environmental knowledge in forestry Partly lack of understanding of the importance of environmental care Partly lack of environmental “sound” practice Partly lack of certification

Virgin areas Monitoring Mapping • Forest • Biodiversity Knowledge Arctic council Barents cooperation Protected areas Sustainable forestry projects1 Threats Forestry Road establishment Pollution Tourism Hydroelectric power plants Industry Change of forest stands Fire/lack of fire Too many reindeer/moose

Opportunities Certification systems Cooperation with other sectors (industry etc.) Information Ecotourism (increased local income) International environmental cooperation Increased environmental focus Education Stake holders Improve economical activities in protected areas (eco-tourism etc) Model areas – testing new approaches Network building Scientific reserves

Global warming Breach of nature protection/illegal cutting Absence if policy (cutting, ecological, economical, leasing) Preparing for ownership New forestry law Low life standards Drainage Interference Alien species

1

Large differences between state and private

12

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

3 Future strategies and work Based on the SWOT – analysis, the workshop tried to develop proposals to steps and strategies for the future work. This steps and strategies include both things that RWGE should put on the agenda, and themes that should be carried out independent of RWGE (e.g. scientists, education, organizations, foundations and politicians). This steps and strategies are divided into four main strategies: - Strategies to build on strengths - Strategies to avoid weakness - Strategies to visualize the options - Strategies to reduce the threats Not all strategies suit under one of these main strategies; these strategies are collected under “others”.

3.1 Strategies to build on strengths Most strategies were connected to the biodiversity strengths. The strengths were divided into five themes: virgin areas, mapping and monitoring, knowledge, protected areas and sustainable forestry (Table 2). The most important strategies were to develop, improve and carry out mapping and monitoring in virgin forests, improve the education and information access, recommendation of more protected areas/habitats, model forests and improve the environmental care in the forestry industry. Table 2 shows the strategies to build on the biodiversity strengths in the Barents region

Strength Virgin areas

Strategy to build - Develop and improve monitoring systems - Estimate the need for protection and give advice to relevant authorities - Carry out detailed mapping of the areas, with weight on key habitats - Update and distribute maps of virgin forest Mapping/ - Get an overview of virgin and old-growth forest in the Barents region, on a Monitoring more detailed level than today - Carry out mapping of the biodiversity (natural habitat sites) in the Barents region - Improve today’s monitoring systems Knowledge - Improve the access of information about the environment in the Barents region, e.g. through use of internet, education etc. - Education regarding environmental values in the forestry Protected - Develop new and improved maps over old-growth forests/virgin areas areas - Carry out a GAP-analysis involving protected areas and (threatened) natural habitat sites - Rehabilitation of protected areas with interference or alien species - Recommendation of further steps regarding use of vulnerable forest habitats Sustainable - Information and education related to environmental care in the forestry forestry - Carry out model forest projects

13

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

3.2 Strategies to avoid weakness There were also a lot of strategies related to avoiding the weakness. The weakness’ were divided into five themes: threatened and vulnerable habitats and areas, lack of good networks, forestry, low political priority and a final, collecting theme called “other” (Table 3). The most important strategies to avoid the weakness’ were better information, preparation of a red/green book, better cooperation with the forestry industry and implementation of certification. All suggested strategies are shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows the strategies to avoid the biodiversity weakness’ in the Barents region.

Weakness Threatened/ vulnerable habitat/area Lack of good networks Forestry

Low political priority Other

Strategy to avoid - Better information and attitude creating work - Prepare a Red/Green book for the Barents region - Recommendation for the future use and management - Language barriers, long distances expensive travelling etc. leads to the need for alternative additional networks - Existing networks (CAFF, The International Contact Forum on Habitat Conservation, RWGE) need to go on. - Joint meeting between forestry and environmental groups in the future - Better knowledge about environmental care in the forestry through information and education - Demands for/implementation of certification - Model forest projects - Key biotope philosophy - “The good example” - Small resources for monitoring, mapping and coordination: visualize the need through information -

Balance between economic growth and ecological sustainable exploitation through information Develop joint classification systems mapping and monitoring biodiversity Develop joint legislation as far as possible

3.3 Strategies to visualize the options There were just a few strategies related to the options that came up during the workshop. The potential is most likely larger than this, and some more work is recommended here. There strategies were divided into two themes: information/education and cooperation (Table 4). The most important strategies were distribution of knowledge, education and science, improve existing network and build new network.

14

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Table 4 shows the strategy to visualize biodiversity options in the Barents region.

Option Strategy to visualize Information - Environmental education for people employed in the forestry and - Increased environmental focus education - Model forest – testing new approaches - Scientific reserves - Distribution of information and knowledge through active use of internet Cooperation - Continuation of existing work (CAFF, RWGE, Habitat Forum etc) - Building new network - Cooperation between different interests, e.g. environment and industry

3.4 Strategies to reduce the threats There were also a lot of strategies related to reduce the threats. The threats were divided into three themes: intereference, preventing natural situation and a final, collecting theme called “other” (Table 5). The most important strategies were to improve the education/information to reduce the risk of interference, reduce the human caused fire and let natural fires run, implement certification systems and good principles related to the new forestry law. Table 5 shows a complete list of the strategies to reduce the threats. Table 5 shows the strategy to reduces the threats connected to biodiversity in the Barents region.

Threat Strategy to reduce Interference Education/information to reduce the risk of - Non-sustainable forestry - Road establishment in vulnerable habitats/areas - Drainage - Hydroelectric power plants - Industry in valuable areas Preventing - Human caused fire/lack of natural fire is a problem for natural succession in natural some areas – need for natural development in at least some areas situation - Reduce the numbers of moose and especially reindeer in areas with unnatural high numbers - Change in forest stands: develop guidelines or introduction of areas with restriction Other - Develop and implement certification systems - Principles related to introduction of new forestry law - Principles related to preparing for ownership - Improve living standards (e.g. through education) - A clear policy regarding cutting, ecology, economy, leasing etc - Increased inspection and a clear policy regarding illegal cutting and breach of nature protection

15

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

3.5 Other strategies Not all strategies could be placed under the four first strategies. Under is four more strategies connected to the existing protected areas, and a potential increase in the number of protected areas. - Evaluation of existing network of protected areas in the Barents region - Evaluation of not protected areas (NPAs) for conservation of forest biodiversity in the Barents region/entire Europe. - Inclusion of NPAs of great value to the protected area network of the Barents region - Relate biodiversity in forest to biodiversity in bog/wetlands and lakes/watercourses

16

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

4 Future in the Barents 2010 work During the fall 2004 a lot of work will be carried out in the biodiversity group in the Barents 2010. The focus will be on - Further analyses of collected data - Complete the collected data, with focus on Norrbotn - Presentation of temporarily work for the RWGE (meeting in Rovaniemi, November 2004) - Participation on the 2nd Industrial Partnership Meeting in Petrozavodsk 2004, where the temporarily work will be presented to the forestry group. We are hoping for good contact and cooperation in the future.

17

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

5 Appendix 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

List of participants Agenda for the meeting SWOT-analysis w/ grading Presentation of Komi, Svetlana Degteva Presentation of Komi, Alexander Mariev Presentation of Karelia, Evgene Ieshko Presentation of Karelia, Andrei Gromtsev Presentation of Kainuu, Raimo Heikkilä, Ari Rajasärkkä & Panu Kuokkanen Presentation of Nordland, Christian Brun-Jenssen

18

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Appendix 1: List of participants at the expert workshop Komi Tatyana Tyupenko, Ministry of Natural Resourses Alexander Mariev, Silver Taiga Foundation Svetlana Degteva, Komi Science Centre Karelia Eugene Ieshko, Karelian Research Centre Andrei Gromtsev, Karelian Research Centre Kainuu Ari Rajasärkkä, University of Oulu Panu Kuokkanen, Mätsehallitus Norrbotn Nordland Roar Høgsæt, County Governor of Nordland, Project leader Christian Brun-Jenssen, County Governor of Nordland, Project secretary Ole Jakob Sørensen, Nord-Trøndelag University College Bård Solberg, Directorate for Nature Management Interpreter Liza Stepanova, Kirkenes Kompetansesenter

19

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Appendix 2: Agenda for the Svanhovd workshop June 16th – 17th June 16th Time 0800 0900 0920 0950

Contents Breakfast Opening Idea behind the project Split to BIO and Water groups

1000 1030 1030 1050 1110 1130 1150 1210 1230 1330 1500 1545 1630 1700 1900

Challenges and aims of the workshop Presentation of the collected data Komi Karelia Coffeebreak Kainuu Norrbotn Nordland Lunch Future work – Supplementation of data, need for more mapping, prioritising of areas, presentation of data and need for classification systems Coffee break Future work continues End Sightseeing in Pasvik Dinner based on local traditions

June 17th 0800 0900 1030 1045 1200 1300 1440 1500 1600

Breakfast SWOT - analysis Coffee break Steps and strategies Lunch Advice for the future work Coffee break Summing up Conclusion

Joint Joint BIO BIO BIO BIO Joint BIO BIO BIO Joint BIO Joint BIO Joint Joint

BIO Joint BIO Joint BIO Joint BIO Joint

20

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Appendix 3: SWOT – analysis with grading There are large differences in strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats throughout the region. During the workshop, we tried to grade the different factors. This grading is of course very rough, but will give an indication of the situation in the different sub regions. The grading was from 0 (bad situation/large threat) to *** (good situation/large potential). Strenghts Ecological status Virgin areas Monitoring Mapping • Forest • Biodiversity Knowledge Arctic council Barents cooperation Protected areas Sustainable forestry projects5

Komi *** *** *3

Karelia Finland Norway Sweden **(*) *(*)2 *(*) ** 2 ** *(*) * ** ** *** *** ***

*** * *(*)4 0 *(*) *** ***

*** **(*) ***

*** **(*) **

*** *(*) *(*)

*** ? ** (?)

*(*) * **

*(*) ** *(*)4

*(*) ** **

*(*) **

Weakness Forces towards economical growth in forestry → environment prioritised down Different classification systems Different legislation Small monitoring/mapping/coordination resources Low political priority Threatened vulnerable areas/habitats Lack of good networks due to language barriers, distances, travelling costs etc Lack of environmental knowledge in forestry Lack of understanding of the importance of environmental care Lack of environmental “sound” practice Implementation of certification

Komi 0

Karelia Finland Norway Sweden 0 0 * ?

*** *** 0

** *** 0

** * **

*(*) ** **

? ? ?

0 ** **

0 (*) 0

0 *(*) **

* * *(*)

**? **?

0

**

**

*(*)

*(*)

0

*

0

*

**?

0

0

**

*

**

0

0

*

*(*)

**

2

Large differences Little information, but improving 4 Insects and fungi is bad; large GAPs. Other groups OK 5 Differences between state and private 3

21

Barents 2010 – WP 4 Biodiversity Report from Workshop at Svanhovd Environmental Centre, June 16th – 17th 2004

Opportunities Komi Certification systems Cooperation Information Ecotourism (increased local income) International environmental cooper. Increased environmental focus Education Stake holders Improve economical activities in protected areas (eco-tourism etc) Model areas – testing new approaches Network binding Scientific reserves

*(*) * * *(*) **(*) **

Karelia Finland Norway Sweden *(*) * ** *** *(*) **

** * *** ** *** *(*)

** *(*) ** ** ** **

**

Karelia 0 **(*) *** **(*) ** **(*) *** **(*) ***

Finland 0 * ** ** ** *** *** *** 0

Norway * * *** *** ** ** 0 *** **

Sweden * *** *** *** *** ? *** *** ***

***

Threats Komi Forestry Road establishment Pollution Tourism Hydroelectric power plants Industry Change of forest stands Fire/lack of fire Too many reindeer/moose Global warming Breach of nature protection/illegal cutting Absence if policy (cutting, ecological, economical, leasing) Preparing for ownership New forestry law Low life standards Drainage

0 *(*) ** *** *** * *** *(*) *** 0 * 0

* **(*)

22

SYSTEM OF THE NATURE PRORECTWD AREAS OF THE KIMI REPUBLIC Dr. Svetlana Degteva Institute of Biology Komi Science Centre, Ural Division RAS The Komi Republic is situated on the boundary between European and Asian parts of Russia. The total area is 416 thousand square kilometres. There are two main natural zones in the Republic: taiga and tundra. Biodiversity of the natural ecosystems is great, flora and fauna of the territory are unique. Many species have there northern and western limits of the areas. At the same time reserves of mineral resources are very rich. Major of them are: coal, gas, oil, bauxites. The large territory - 29.8 million hectares is covered by forests. On the major part of this territory natural resources are still relatively untouched. Nevertheless, in the last decades an intensive exploration of coal deposits, oil and gas fields, gold, bauxite and other mineral resources has been initiated here. Since the 1950s, forest cutting has increased. According to the forecasts of scientists, in the coming 15 to 20 years the share of urbanized territories will grow twice as large. Ecosystems of the Far North are extremely vulnerable due to the thin organic layer of soils, which contains plant roots and a micro-fauna complex. Under technogenic pressure these ecosystems are easily destroyed, till complete degradation. Rates of natural restoration are very slow. That is why irrational intervention in the natural situation can lead to unpredictable environmental changes. In the taiga landscapes belonging to the Pechora water catchment, the share of mature coniferous stands has shrunk because of cutting and burning. Birch and aspen stands has formed on the forest cuts and burnt sites (Larin, 1987). Vast areas of tundra are occupied by reindeer pastures. As a result of systematic over-grazing and intensive oil and gas extraction, these areas has become a zone of environmental conflict. Anthropogenic transformation of tundra wetlands and of the shallow coastline of the Barents Sea has brought along changes in the biological components of the natural ecosystems, increasing disturbance on the breeding and moulting grounds of birds and declining numbers of waterfowl. There is a high poaching pressure in the area, especially in the tundra zone. Terms of hunting and fishing are not being honoured. Considering the increasing human transformation of the territory and the high natural values of its ecosystems (first of all the value of virgin and parent boreal forests and wetlands), protection of regional landscapes is extremely urgent. Development of a system of Nature Protected Areas (NPA) takes a specific place in the complex of environmental activities aiming at nature protection. The foundation of a basic NPA system in the European North-East of Russia has its own history. As a first step towards NPA’s, forest-protective measures were undertaken in the Komi district in the 18th century, when Peter I initiated the Russian Navy. Since Peter’s time forests became State property. About 30 forest reserves were founded in the forests used for shipbuilding, i.e. forests of the Archangelsk Governement (including the northern part of the present Komi Republic) and forests in the river basins of the Pechora, the Vychegda and the Mezen. The reserves existed till the end of Peter's reign (Tsivunina, 1951; Gladkova & Gladkov, 1974; Gladkov & Balibasov, 1975). Protection of forests against illegal cutting was in the hands of the forester's office of the Admiralty Collegium. Foresters controlled the forests adjoining the rivers (Shutikov & Popova, 1997). During the reign of Catherine II, during the 80s and 90s of the 18th century, a general land survey was performed in the Komi area. As a result, forest territories were divided into peasant, governmental-peasant and governmental lots. Besides, forest areas were allocated to iron-making plants – the Nuvchim, the Njuchpas and the Kazhim iron mills. At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, the Forest Department was formed and local forest management was reorganized (Bondarenko, 1979, 1986; Shutikov & Popova, 1997; Pruchkin, 1998; Shutikov, 1999). The Forest Department governed all the forests except those belonging to private persons. The Department was responsible for forest management and restoration and for protection against illegal cutting and forest fire. Per district, forests were divided into forestries, forest lots, riding and walking areas. A corps of foresters was organized. About a century long, state peasants (who served as obligatory forest guards and firemen) played a great role in the protection of governmental forests. In 1869, the formation of a corps of professional forest guards (mounted and on foot) was initiated. In the Komi region, being remote from the Russian centre, vast areas of forest were poorly studied during a long time. Till 1917 only 4% of the forests were considered as being managed and 38% as well studied. In the Vychegda and the Mezen basins governmental-peasant lots, accounting for 5–10% of the forestry, remained completely non-studied. In the Pechora basin, vast watersheds, being more than 10 km away from the rivers, were not studied as well (Forests and timber industry..., 1961; Shutikov & Popova, 1997). The share of allocated forests in the region was enormous, but the number of foresters was rather small – about 300 people (Pruchkin, 1998). This fact decreased the efficiency of the forest guards. The local population could not satisfy its need of timber, first of all the need of building wood, by using only the peasant and governmental-peasant lots. That is why people often proceeded to unauthorized cutting and clearing in governmental forests (Bondarenko, 1979, 1986; Shutikov & Popova, 1997; Pruchkin, 1998; Shutikov, 1999). The first data on conservation of forests in the Komi Autonomous Region after the October Revolution refer to 1922, when in the Noshul forestry protected wood zones were allocated along the river Luza. In 1926,

the executive committee of the region issued an order (continued for the next year) prohibiting the cutting of Siberian Pine (Gladkov, 1986). In the late 1920s, a study was initiated to determine the territories forest reserves. Already in 1912 S.G.Nat, studying hunting in the region, had pointed to the importance of sub-alpine and alpine landscapes in watersheds of the Ilych and the Pechora for the conservation of Sable. But not until 1929 a scientific expedition headed by F.F. Shillinger traveled to this region and grounded the foundation of a reserve (Shillinger, 1929). The official resolution of the RSFSR government on foundation of the reserve (it was named the Pechora Reserve at that time) was issued on May 4th 1930. Originally the main objective of the reserve was restoration of the quantity of fur-bearing animals. In 1932 the reserve has got its status of nature reserve of scientific interest. After foundation of the Pechora-Ilych reserve, no other NPA was founded in the Republic for almost 30 years. However, since the formation of the Nature Protection Commission by the Presidium of the Komi Dept. AS USSR (now Komi Science Centre of Ural Division of Russian Academy of Science) in 1959, a systematic research on establishing a NPA system is carried out (Nepomilueva, 1971, 1974; Gladkov & Balibasov, 1975; Gladkov, 1975; Gladkov et al., 1975; Lashenkova & Nepomilueva, 1982; Nepomilueva et al., 1982; Nepomilueva & Alexeeva, 1984; Nepomilueva & Leshenkova, 1993; The register of …, 1993, 1995; Taskaev et al., 1996; Degteva, 1997, 2000; Degteva & Taskaev, 1997; Shutikov, 1999; Taskaev & Degteva, 1999 and others). The following principles became the basic rules for foundation of Nature Protected Areas: (1) conservation in an unchanged state of those unique natural complexes and objects, which area is now decreasing under anthropogenic pressure; (2) conservation in a natural state of those natural complexes and objects that are typical for different geographical zones/sub-zones and that are endangered or degrading; (3) conservation of the genetic pool of endangered plants and animals; (4) satisfaction of people’s needs to rest and relax in nature. In the middle of the 1970s, on indication of the Nature Protection Commission, 4 national parks and 14 Siberian Pine reserves were founded. Over 20 unique natural objects were claimed as nature monuments (Gladkov, 1975; The register of ..., 1993). The network of NPA’s was most intensively developed from the late 1970s till the middle of the 1990s. Based on suggestions of the Komi Science Centre and local authorities, the Republican Government issued about 15 decisions concerning the foundation of reserves and nature monuments. Some decisions resolved the establishment of Highly Protected Natural Territories. Today there are NPA’s of various status. The Pechora-Ilych biosphere Zapovednik, National Nature Park, reserves and nature monuments represent different kinds of reserves – complex, botanical, hydrological, geological etc. In the Komi Republic there are 287 NPA’s, occupying 6 million hectares (ca. 14.6% of the total Republican area). Their largest area is situated in the Pechora basin (Table 1). Standard sites allocated as reserves must not only protect the genetic pool of the local flora and fauna but as well make every effort to preserve the environment for the future, in the process of man-induced changes of nature. Forests and wetlands play an important role in stabilizing nature.

Table 1. Nature Protected Areas in the Pechora basin within the Komi Republic Type

Number

Area (ha)

State nature reserve Protection zone National Park Natural reserves Complex (landscape) Biological Forest (including Siberian Pine) Floral and grassland Ichtyological Ornithological Hydrological Bog Geological Nature monuments Forest (including Siberian Pine) Floral and grassland Bog Aquatic Geological

1 1

721 322 497 500 1 891 701

19

503 858

10 8 9 1

16 469 24 125 515 000 20 000

33 1

266 246 2 230

9 3 2 5 45

338 56 230 20 56

NB: Number and area of protected areas are given on 01-06-94 (The register ...,1995)

In the course of geological time, sustainable primary boreal phytocenoses developed in the Komi Republic. In these phytocenoses species of the Siberian polydominant taiga are prevailing – first of all Picea obovata and also Abies sibirica and Larix sibirica (Forests of the Komi Republic, 1999). In spite of the intensive forest use, the vastest areas of virgin forest in the European North still remain in this region. Practically all of them are concentrated in the Pechora basin (Maevski & Pautov, 1999; Pakhuchiy, 1999). Primary taiga forests are distinguished not only by their rich genetic pool of tree species but also by the presence of rare and endangered herbaceous plants, mosses, lichens and officinal plants. In the largest reserves of the Pechora basin (the Pechora-Ilych Zapovednik and National Park “Yugyd-Va”), forests are a dominating vegetation type, too. In 1995, the International Committee of UNESCO entered these highly protected territories into the World Nature Heritage List as “Virgin forests of Komi Land”. The State biosphere “Pechora-Ilych” Zapovednik was founded 70 years ago. Nowadays this protected object takes the second place in size in the whole Republic (total area including buffer zone is over 1 million ha). The territory consists of two districts – a small lot near the village of Yaksha and a vast land watershed of the Ilych and the Pechora. The area conserves virgin natural complexes of three landscape zones – plains, foothills and mountains. Each zone has its own specific features of geomorphology, soil cover and vegetation (Korchagin, 1940; Nature reserves …, 1963; Interrelations …, 1980; Zhitenev & Serebrjany, 1988). Pine forests are spread in the Yaksha part. Further to the east, leaving away the plains, forest landscapes are dominated by dark-conifer forests, mainly consisting of Siberian Spruce, with admixture of Siberian Fir and Siberian Pine. Interesting floristic findings were discovered during the inventory of the vegetation cover of the reserve (Lanina, 1940; Fedotov, 1981; Lavrenko et al., 1995; Degteva et al., 1997). One out of five vascular plants in the reserve is rare and endangered, needing conservation. First of all, these are species protected on a regional or international level – Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium calceolus), Calypso (Calypso bulbosa), Pugsley’s Marsh Orchid (Dactylorhiza traunsteineri) – but also endemic and sub-endemic species of the Urals are found – Perm Anemone (Anemonastrum biarmiense) (Fig. 20.1), Nenets Gagea (Gagea samoedorum), Smooth Viper’s Grass (Scorzonera glabra). Among the macro-lichens an Asian species – Nylander’s Sticta (Sticta nylanderiana) – was registered here for the first time in Europe. Species new in Russia – Cheiromicina flabelliformis, Leptogium rivulare, Pannaria confusa, Phaeophyscia constipata and Ph. hirzuta – are registered in this reserve. Today the reserve territory is a home for numerous and sustainable populations of valuable fur-bearing animals: Pine Marten, Otter, European Mink, Beaver, Brown Bear and Elk. There are settlements of northern Mouse Hare (Ochotona hyperborean), a relic animal, in the reserve (Fig. 20.2). Rare birds of prey (protected on international, regional and local levels) nest there.

Figure 1

Anemonastrum biarmense

Figure 2

Ochotona hyperborea

The region of limestone taiga is one of the unique nature monuments documenting the history of the regional fauna and human settling. Iordansky’s forest lot is the most important of these places, situated on the right Pechora bank 17 km upstream the Shezhim hunting station. Here several large caves are situated. Geologists and archaeologists have found the largest accumulation of Pleistocene fauna remains in Northern Europe and one of the northernmost human settlements of the Upper Paleolithicum in the biggest cave, the “Medvezhja”. The Pechora-Ilych Zapovednik is the oldest scientific reserve of the Republic. Its research staff has performed a lot of work since its foundation. The numbers of fur-bearing animals – Sable, Beaver, Elk and Wild Reindeer – were restored. A complex study of the natural complexes of the plains, sub-foothills and mountain parts of the reserve was carried out. The first Elk farm in the world was organized there. Elk is the most intensively studied animal of the area. The National Natural Park “Yugyd-Va” (1 891 701 ha) is situated in the Vyktyl, the Pechora and the Inta districts, in the river basins of the Kosju, the Bolshaya Synja, the Shugor and the Podcherem, on the western slopes of the northern and subpolar Urals (Natural Park, 1977; The register …, 1995; Ponomarev, 1997). Today it is the largest protected area in the Republic. The National Park was founded in 1993; it got a regional status in 1994. Within the Park a zone of relative reservation (with a sub-zone of river runoff formation), a visiting zone, a zone of traditional livelihood, a zone of regulated economic use and a recreational zone are allocated. The nature of the Park is unique. It is the last site of virgin nature in Europe. Geological history has left behind numerous (over 60) nature monuments here – stratum-typical and basic cuts, reef concretions, monuments of tectonic forces, weathered relics, caves and the “lowest” glaciers in continentalEurope. About half of the National Perk is afforested (56%). The forests consist of Siberian Spruce, Siberian Larch, Siberian Fir and Siberian Pine. Birch is the most widespread deciduous tree. Downy Birch is common on the plain terraces and Tortuous Birch on the mountains. Siberian Spruce is the prevailing species in most forest

landscapes. Fir and Siberian Pine play a great role in the composition of the mountain forests of the southern part of the Park (the Shugor river basin) belonging to the transitional belt between the north and middle taiga subzone. Northwards the share of these species decreases till complete elimination, ousted by Siberian Larch (Nature parks …, 1977; Nepomilueva, 1978, 1984; Voronin et al., 1994; Degteva & Martynenk, 2000). Genetically valuable populations of the main forest-forming species are registered in the natural forests. The Park also concentrates habitats of very rare plants. Many of them are included into the list of rare species by the Moscow Society of Nature Protection, the Red Data Book of Russia (Nepomilueva & Lashenkova, 1978; Voronin et al., 1994; Red Data Book of the Komi Republic, 1998; Degteva & Martynenko, 2000). A number of species has their unique habitats all over Europe (Novotorularia humilis, Primula pallasii). The rivers of the Park originating from the Urals maintain the clearness of the spring waters in the primary riverbed of the Pechora. Rare fishes (including Glaciation’s relics like Atlantic Salmon, Siberian Grayling and ‘’) breed in the watercourses. The vertebrate land fauna is very diverse, including over 40 mammal and 190 bird species. Among the birds, White-tailed Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Gyrfalcon and Osprey (Fig. 20.3) are rare species entered in the IUSN list and into the Red Data Book of Russia (Ponomarev, 1997).

Figure 3 Figure 4

Pandion haliaetus Cypripedium calceolus

Together with the Pechora-Ilych biosphere Zapovednik and the National Park, NPA’s protecting Siberian Pine (Pinus sibirica) in the north-western boundaries of the area are of special value. Isolated habitats of Siberian Pine are found all over the region. This species rarely forms pure pine forests. Ruthless cutting of trees has inflicted a serious damage to its populations in European Russia. Besides, the area of Siberian Pine has shrunk after the large forest fires in the sub-alpine part of the Urals. That is why conservation of Siberian Pine in the Komi Republic is an urgent task. Siberian Pine was the first protected plant in the Republic (Lanina, 1963; Nepomilueva, 1967, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1990). Today this species is protected in 6 reserves and 14 nature monuments in the Republic (The register ..., 1995; Taskaev et al., 1996). Practically all of them are situated in the Pechora basin. A program of restoration of Siberian Pine has been initiated, aimed at increasing the share of this species in forests by activities, like elimination of all ill and dry trees, elimination of accompanying species shadowing Siberian Pine crowns and promotion of natural reproduction of pine by sowing seeds and planting seedlings. All reserves are investigated and systematic monitoring is organized in many of them. Ca. 37% of the total forest area of the Komi Republic belongs to the Ist forest group. The largest area is taken by the protected forest-tundra zone and by protected fringes along the most valuable fish rivers. A network of genetic reserves for the main forest-forming species has been initiated. The planned network will include 38 reserves with a total area of 28 thousand ha. In the basin of the Shugor, one of the largest tributaries of the Pechora, 6 reserves are founded for conservation of a genetic pool of Siberian Pine (Degteva et al., 1987; Nepomilueva & Lashenkova, 1993). Bogs are very important environment-stabilizing natural agents, together with forests. 113 Bogs are protected in the Komi Republic. 16 Of them are of scientific value, the others are bogs that are important for their abundance of berries (Alexeeva, 1984; The register …, 1993, 1995). The largest protected bog complexes in the Pechora basin are “Martjushevskoye”, “Usinskoye” and “Ocean” bogs. The list of rare species of the Komi Republic includes 253 vascular plants, 154 mosses, 78 lichens and 32 mushrooms (Red Data Book of the Komi Republic, 1998). The main habitats of rare and relict species are registered in the Pechora basin – in the sub-Urals, in the Urals and in the Timan Ridge. Specific features of the historical genesis of the flora and vegetation and of the actual environmental conditions promoted their natural conservation (Lashenkova, 1972; Lashenkova & Nepomilueva, 1977, 1982; Ulle & Lashenkova, 1985; Lavrenko & Ulle, 1988; Voronin et al., 1994; Lavrenko et al., 1995). Such rare species as Cypripedium calceolus (Fig. 20.4), Paeonia anomala, Anemonastrum biarmiense, Pentaphylloides fruticosa, Rhodiola rosea, Gypsohpila uralensis, Linum boreale, Primula pallasii, Elytrigia reflexiaristata etc. are protected in NPA’s of the Pechora area. On the whole 18 forests, 19 floristic and 5 grassland nature monuments maintain natural cenotic populations of rare, relic and endemic plants. Habitats of rare fauna species are protected mainly in landscape reserves, in the State Nature Zapovednik and in the National Park. The total number of protected animal species in the Komi Republic is 186 (Red Data Book of the Komi Republic, 1998), including 11 mammals, 34 birds, 3 reptiles, 1 amphibian, 5 fishes and 53 invertebrates (mainly insects). Rivers of great fishery value are claimed to be ichthyological or complex fish reserves: such as two sectors of the Pechora primary bed, its large tributaries – the Unja, the Ilych, the Shugor, the Bolshoi and the Malyi Patok, the Kozhim, the Synja and the Pizhma. The Pechora tributaries not only sustain the hydrochemical balance in the primary bed, but are also living and breeding sites for valuable populations of Atlantic Salmon, Grayling and freshwater Sculpin (Voronin et al., 1994; Sidorov, 1995). Among the geological monuments the stratum-typical cuts along the banks of the Ural rivers can be mentioned as well as some unique weathered relics (altogether 53 objects). Data on NPA’s are summarized in the reviews “The register of protected natural territories of the Komi Republic” (1993, 1995) and in a map, scale 1: 1 200 000 (Taskaev et al., 1996). Digital versions of the “Protected territories of the Komi Republic” and the “Red Data Book of the Komi Republic” were produced for better management of data on rare and endangered species and ecosystems.

REPUBLIC OF KOMI Vorkuta

Tundra

KOMI REPUBLIC: BIODIVERSITY VALUES AND VALUE SCALE

AREA - 416 000 KM2

Pe chora

Moun tain

s

Northertn ta iga

Vuktyl Ukhta

Alexander Mariev Deputy Director Komi Regional Non-Profit Foundation “Silver Taiga”

Middle ta iga

4 NATURAL ZONES

TroitskoPe chors k

FORESTS – 72 % OF AREA

Syktyvkar

POPULATION - 1,2 MILLION Southe rn ta iga

2

REPUBLIC OF KOMI (2004)

FOREST CUT IN KOMI 1945-2003 UNTIL 1992 - SOVIET TIME 1992-1999 - TRANSITION PERIOD 2000-2003 - MARKET ECONOMY

MLN. CUB. M. 30

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT – 26 BLN. RUR

25

MAIN PRINCIPLE INDUSTRIES:

20

OIL MINING – 35%

15

LOGGING, TIMBER & PAPER – 28%

10

ELECTRIC POWER – 16%

5

COAL MINING – 13%

0 1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1974

1980

1986

1989

1993

1997

2000

YEAR

2003

3

REPUBLICAN PROGRAM OF PRISTINE FORESTS INVENTORY 2001-2008

INTACT FOREST LANDSCAPES*

TOTAL AREA OF INTACT FOREST LANDSCAPES WITHIN KOMI BOREDRS

14 MLN. HECTARES

Verhnevashkinsky Western Pyssky Timansky Ural Lemýunsky Usvanyursky Lyzhinsky Volemsky Southern

#

Vorkuta

9 7

8

TOTAL AREA OF INVENTORY (2004) 16 MLN. HECTARES

4 3

2

6

(1/3 AREA OF KOMI) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

4

PRISTINE FORESTS WITHIN INVENTORY AREA 4.5 MLN. HECTARES

5

1

#

# #

Vuktyl

Ukhta

#

AREA PLANNED FOR INVENTORY IN 2004-2005 3 MLN. HECTARES

Pe chora

Troitsko-Pe chors k

# Syktyvka r

10 #

Obia chevo Legend: pris tine forests inventory

* - Atlas of Russia’s Intact Forest Landacapes.- Moscow, 2003. Dmitry Aksenov, Dmitry Dobrynin & others.

prote cted area s

5

inve ntory pla nned for 2004-2005 no inve ntory yet

6

1

NATURE PROTECTION SYSTEM IN KOMI REPUBLIC

ESPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS IN FORESTRY SYSTEM ! along rivers:

ESPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS 6 MLN. HECTARES (15% OF TOTAL AREA)

#

up to 10 km from river head – 10-50 km – 50-100 km – 100-200 km – 200-500 km – more than 500 km –

! around lakes and swamps – ! along roads – ! around settlements –

Syktyvkar

50 m 100 m 200 m 300 m 400 m 500 m 300 m 100 m 1 000 m

ACCORDING TO KOMI GOVERNMENT ORDER № 106 (26.07.2002) 7

8

9

10

ESPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS IN FORESTRY SYSTEM Komi Model Forest Example (800 000 hectares)

fore stry protecte d areas : le ngthwis e rivers around swamps along roa ds aruond settlements

!ALONG RIVERS – 6% OF TOTAL FOREST AREA !AROUND SWAMPS – 3% OF TOTAL FOREST AREA !ALONG ROADS – < 1% OF TOTAL FOREST AREA !AROUND SETTLEMENTS – 4% OF TOTAL FOREST AREA

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PLAN

Komi Model Forest Example (800 000 hectares)

key e cos ys te ms especia lly prote cted a re as fore stry protecte d areas fore st dynamics imitation

Contact information Alexander Mariev Silver Taiga Foundation Syktyvkar, Komi 167000, Russia P.O.Box 810 Tel./fax: +7 8212 21 43 08 Tel./fax: +7 8212 24 94 25 Tel./fax: +7 8212 24 94 26 E-mail: [email protected] www.komimodelforest.ru

!ESPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS KOMI REPUBLIC – APPROVED !PROTECTED AREAS IN FORESTRY KOMI REPUBLIC – APPROVED MODEL FOREST – PRISTINE FOREST ADDED !KEY ECOSYSTEMS MODEL FOREST – PROPOSED !IMITATION OF NATURAL FOREST DYNAMICS MODEL FOREST – PROPOSED 11

12

2

On the Development of a Protected Area Network in Republic of Karelia

1714 Endangered ! 210 Vulnerable ! 40 - Extintct !

1

Number of threatened species in the Karelia Extintct

Endangered

2

Biodiversity

Vulnerable

90

Vegetation and flora

80

Forests cover over 50% of the total area Wetlands – over 20%, Meadows – about 1%.

70 60 50 40

Flowering and vascular plants - approximately 1,500 species Bryoflora is comprised of 426 species Fungal flora – of 251 species and varieties. Regrettably, floristic lists for a whole number of plant groups (lichens, algae) have not yet been compiled.

30 20 10

s

Be et le s

h Fi s

In se ct

Bi rd s

Re pt ils &

m al s am

Li ch en s

os se s M

M

ph ib ia ns Am

Va s

cu la r

pl an t Li ve rw or ts

0

3

4

Biodiversity Fauna Fauna in Karelia is typical for forested regions. •Insects - about 20,000 (their species composition is not yet fully known) •Amphibians - 5, •Reptiles - 5, •Birds - 285, •Mammals - 63

5

6

1

!

!

!

1. Existing and planned PA 2. Water protection zone (Group 1 forest) 3. International wetlands

7

8

What is a ‘flagship species’?

The Flagship Species of Karelia

"

#

Flagships are high profile and charismatic species, often with important cultural associations, that have important ecological roles and whose protection will act to conserve species using the same habitats. They can act as symbols for the broader threat to the environment in which they occur.

10

9

Luda near island East Honkasaari

List of the Flagship species of Karelia

Conservation of the Ladoga seal (Phoca hispida ladogensis) population ! !

Ladoga ringed seal ! Migrated bird species ! Atlantic salmon !

!

!

! 11

Ladoga seal is a post-glacial relic The Ladoga and Saimaa species are the only ringed seals in the world that live permanently in freshwater lakes Ladoga ringed seal is included in the Red Data Books of Russia and Karelia and in the IUCN Red List as a vulnerable species The population has declined dramatically from an estimated 20,000 in the early part of last century to between 2,000 and 3,000 now It is felt to be essential that active conservation steps are taken now before the population declines to the point that its present genetic diversity is lost 12

2

Islands of Valaam Archipelago

13

Spring bird migrations and stopovers in the Olonets fields in Karelia

14

Geese flyways

Олонец Места зимовки Winter grounds Места гнездования Nesting grounds

15

$

16

$

Тулоокс кский кий ррее ги гио на ллььны ныйй Тул о на хотн тни ник чий каззни оохо ичи й зза а ка к

Чиллиим мббооллоот т оо Чи

Ле Ле вв оот т бб оо лл оот т оо

Atlantic salmon smolt

Ко ххт т уу сс ууоо Ко

Олонец

Seasonal reserve

фф

к й ззннии нны кка е нн ззаа ттвв йй ррсс с кии дда ее ссуу иичч гоо оог л и йй оооо ццкк зз н ее ыыйй л оо ььнн ОО аалл еер еед

.Сее гг ее жс жс ко коее оозз.С

ий сскк ир ссв не ж ии Н

за

кк ни дн ве по

17

18

3

Rivers with G. salaris

Gyrodactylus salaris Foto: T.A. Mo 19

20

G. salaris on a fin of a salmon

Vefsna – Density of parr

parr

Number pr. 100 mІ

50

Salmon

40

Br. Trout

30 20 10 0 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Year

21

22

Karelian salmon rivers

23

24

4

25

26

Uli 2002 WOLF

FINLAND

RUSSIA

Lake Ladoga

27

28

Brown bear (Ursus arctos) Although brown bears have not usually been seen as such a great problem as wolves, they were frequently hunted in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when their range in Northern Europe shrunk dramatically. The most viable remaining populations are in Russia, and once persecution eased off in the second half of the 20th century, bears started to stay westwards from Russia more often.

A bear’s den

The brown bear is the only large predatory mammal whose diet does not mainly consist of meat. Bears also eat insects, berries and many other foods, including scraps from rubbish dumps; and honey from apiaries. 29

30

5

Movements of male bears from May 10 to July 9 2002

Thank you for your attention!

female with 3 cubs

FINLAND

Svanhovd 2004

RUSSIA

40 km Kojola, Ronkainen, Hakala, Kokko, Suominen 2002

31

32

6

What is the so called pristine (primeval) taiga forests?

Draft definition based on our investigations:

LAST PRISTINE TAIGA FOREST IN KARELIA

• These forests formed in a natural way in the postglacial time. • They have not experienced major human impacts. • They are developing spontaneously and exposed to periodic natural disturbances – fires, windthrows etc. • They represent a mosaic of forest communities as a whole – from pioneer vegetation groups in burned areas and windthrows to cimax communities in the state of sustainable dynamic equilibrium (the dieback and growth process are balanced).

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

European taiga zone of Russia High density coniferous forests in Karelia (“mature and overmature” in commercial respect – older than 100 years). Classified Landsat 7 images. Letters mark large areas of pristine forests.

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

“Paanajarvi” national park – the biggest area of pristine spruce forest in the west of the taiga zone of Eurasia. Rare low mountain landscape. Legend: 1. Forests 2. Mires 3.Clear cuttings of last decades 4. Lakes and rivers.

Chapter 2.1.4. Landscape models of the primeval forests

1

Typical low mountain moderately paludified landscape with absolute dominance of spruce forests (hilltop – 537 m). “Paanajarvi” national park .

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

Forests in a highly paludified sea plain landscape. Planned landscape reserve “Syrovatka”. © Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

2

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

“Kalevalski” planned national park – the biggest area of pine forest in the west of the taiga zone of Eurasia. Most typical Fennoscandinavian denudation-tectonic hilly-ridge landscape.

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

3

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

“

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

Vodlozerski” national park – the biggest area of sprucepine pristine forests in the west of the taiga zone of Eurasia. Situated in the contact zone between the Russian plain and Fennoscandia. Typical lacustrine-glacial plain landscape.

Typical spruce forests in morainic moderately paludified landscape. Vodlozerski” national park

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

“Kivach” strict nature reserve – an example of a small fragment (10,000 ha) of pristine forest against a background of secondary forest cover..Typical Fennoscandinavian denudation-tectonic ridge (“selka”) landscape.

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

Small fragment of pristine stand out against of secondary forests

© Forest Research Institute KRC RAS

4

Problems

Some taiga regions (e.g. Karelia) have developed regional concepts for the network of protected nature areas with pristine forests. Realization of the concept has practically failed. In the last decade no protected forest area with an appreciable area was established. The reason is the economic losses that follow from the need to withdraw large timber stocks from commercial utilization. Strong contradictions between ecological and economic interests have arisen.

• Some materials can be found also on the web-site of the Forest Research Institute, Karelian Research Centres, Russian Academy of Science: www.krc.karelia.ru/structure/fri (“GIS” and “Nature protection” sections).

5

Protecting biodiversity in Kainuu province – vulnerable forest habitats Raimo Heikkilä, Ari Rajasärkkä & Panu Kuokkanen Svanhovd June 2004

In the hill ridge in western Kainuu there are fertile forest habitats and rich fens Herb-rich forests and fertile forested mires cover, however, only about 1 % of Kainuu province

A more detailed bedrock map (1:400 000) gives a possibility to find hotspot biotopes in field inventories

Basic features of nature in Kainuu •Kainuu is located in the middle and northern boreal forest zones •The variability of bedrock and soils causes a diverse topography and biotope distribution •Land use history influences strongly the present state of forests •Intensive forestry has caused a decrease and fragmentation of old-growth forests

•The hill ridge in western Kainuu is formed of schists and quartzites, which contain dolomite veins •In middle Kainuu there is a greenstone belt from south to north, which also is a biodiversity hotspot

A fertile herb-rich forest in Siikavaara hill, western Kainuu, with Cicerbita alpina

1

Numerous east-westoriented eskers and drumlins form a basis for pine forests in Kainuu

In the Taiga Rescue Network map showing protected OGF in green and nonprotected areas in red, one can see that Kainuu is the southernmost region with relatively abundant OGF in Finland

A forest map from 1859 shows the present location of old-growth forests: in dark green areas there was no lack of timber, and most of the present forest reserves are located in the same areas

Satellite images have been used to find OGF areas (dark green) among managed forests (light green) and clearcuts (pink). The large intact areas on the Russian side of boundary are easy to see.

Old-growth forest with abundant decaying wood in Kuhmo, eastern Kainuu

A more typical forest biotope in Kuhmo after clearcutting

2

In state forests there are numerous nature reserves of different types. In private land (white) there are only small protected areas.

In Metsähallitus (Forest and Park Service) database there is detailed forest data available. The data covers third of Kainuu province, and practically all old-growth forests. •Habitat class •Age of tree stand •Dominating tree species •Timber volume

•Metsähallitus is conducting the mapping of biotopes and threatened species in all stateowned nature reserves up to 2007. •The vulnerability of biotopes will be evaluated in a working group preparing a green list of threatened biotopes. The working group starts its work in September 2004. •So far only a green list of mire habitats has been prepared in 1978 and updated in 1993 •There are many forested mire types, especially fertile spruce mires, which are threatened.

Siberian jay in a forest landscape of eastern Kuhmo

3

Biodiversity in Nordland - Registration and Protection of Forest Habitat types

Norway and Nordland County

Presentation at the Svanhovd Expert Workshop Christian Brun-Jenssen Senior Executive Officer, County Governor of Nordland, Department of Environment

Nordland County • 38 463 km2, 508 km from the southern to the northern border, 14000 km coastline • 45 municipalities • 238 000 inhabitants

Protected Areas • In the early 80’s: prioritising of endangered habitats • Composition of protection plans for endangered habitats - Deciduous forest - Coniferous forest - Mires - Wetlands - Coastal habitats

Nordland County • Large nature diversity; sea, coast, lowland, mountain ranges (peaks up to 1900 m.a.s.) • 201 protected areas; 5 national parks, 171 nature reserves, 18 protected landscapes and 7 areas with species protection (resting/nesting areas etc.) • A process with designing more national parks and protected areas are going on.

Protected Areas • Designation of deciduous and coniferous nature reserves during the 1980s and 1990s • This resulted in 28 deciduous and 33 coniferous nature reserves

1

Mapping

Mapping

• Late 1990s: the Parliament requires mapping and valuation of natural habitat types/areas important for biodiversity - included a wide range of habitat types • Development of manual with guidelines for this mapping • 7 main habitats; mires, mountains, water/wetlands, forests, coast/seashore, agriculture landscape, landslide areas

• These manuals identifies and valuates natural habitat types based on flora, fauna, abundance, red lists etc. • Carried out by the municipalities, based on older reports, knowledge and field work. The County Governors Office do the quality control

Untouched Areas

GAP - analysis

• Maps based on information from the municipalities and the County Governors Office • Updated maps provided by the Directorate for Nature Management every 4. year • Show areas that are 1 – 3 km from, 3 – 5 km from, and > 5 km (wilderness areas) from major infrastructure development

• • • •

What is mapped? What is untouched? What is protected? Correlations between mapped, protected and untouched areas?

Conclusion • Existing data: good quality, but many areas with lack of mapping • Forest types: gap between protected and vulnerable habitats • Correlation between areas without major infrastructure development and protected areas • Threats: forestry, water power production, • Future work and challenges? • Future steps and strategies?

2