ature protection in orthern orway and orth

Transcription

© ordlandsforskning – F-arbeidsnotat nr. 1004/2009
ature protection in orthern orway and orth-west Russia
-8049 BODØ
Tel. + 47 75 51 76 00 / Fax + 47 75 51 72 34
This Working Paper may also be ordered by e-mail from [email protected]
Working Paper no.
1004/2009
ISS-nr.:0804-1873
No. of pages: 52
Project no.: 1120
Project title: The role of protected nature in sustainable local
development in North-West Russia and Northern Norway – a
comparative analyses
Contractor: Norges forskningsråd and Nordland
fylkeskommune
Price:
OK 50,-
ature protection in orthern orway and orth-west Russia.
Main characteristics of protected areas included in the
APROLD-project.
By
Gunn Elin Fedreheim, Ludmila Isaeva,
Victor Petrov & Ingrid Bay-Larsen
ordland Research Institute & Institute of the Industrial Ecology оf
the orth, Kola Science Center, Russian Academy of Sciences
(IEP KCS RAS)
The Nordland Research Institute issues three series of publications: Reports, Working Papers and Articles/Lectures.
Reports comprise the principal reports for a completed project or a defined subject. Working Papers may be presentations
of preliminary results, status reports or less extensive studies and notes. The Articles and Lectures series may contain
lectures, seminar papers, articles and other contributions not subject to copyright.
PREFACE
This working paper represents deliverable 2a and 2b in NAPROLD (The role of protected nature in
sustainable local development in North-West Russia and Northern Norway - a comparative analyses,
project number 184781) funded by the Norwegian Research Council’s RUSSIA programme. Institute
for Ecological Problems of the North – INEP (Kola Science Center) has provided information about
the five Russian case areas, whereas Nordland Research Institute has presented the three Norwegian
case areas. This working paper is meant to give an introduction to purposes and characteristics of the
chosen protected areas, in particular protection values, regulations, territorial characteristics and
today’s use of these areas.
This project focuses on similarities and differences between nature protection in Norway and Russia in
particular with regard to how protected areas function as a resource for local development. The project
aim at improving conditions for conservation of nature’s values across state borders, with a particular
focus on dynamics between protected areas and local settlements surrounding such areas.
We would like to thank the following for their valuable inputs, comments and questions asked during
the work with this working paper: Christel Elvestad and Tatiana Iakovleva from Nordland Research
Institute, Ghalina Kharitonova, Ludmila Ivanova and Vladimir Didyk from Institute for Economic
Studies, Kola Science Center, and Audun Sandberg and Håkan Sandersen from Bodø University
College.
Bodø, 06 April 2009
Gunn Elin Fedreheim and Ingrid Bay-Larsen
1
CONTENT
PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
1
ITRODUCTIO ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1.1
Nature protection as resource for local societies in the barents region ................................... 5
1.1.1
Objective ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.2
Research questions .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2
International agreements influencing national policies ........................................................... 6
1.3
Overview of this working paper .............................................................................................. 8
2
ESTABLISHIG PROTECTED AREAS I RUSSIA AD ORWAY ............................................... 9
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
STATE ATURAL ZAPOVEDIK PASVIK ........................................................................................ 15
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4
Conservation purpose ............................................................................................................ 25
Area description .................................................................................................................... 25
Conservation regulations ....................................................................................................... 26
Socioeconomic aspects .......................................................................................................... 26
Use of the state complex zakaznik Sejdjavvr ........................................................................ 27
PLAED ATURE PARK KHIBIY .................................................................................................. 28
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
8
Use of the state zakaznik of regional value Kutsa ................................................................. 24
STATE COMPLEX ZAKAZIK SEJDJAVVR ..................................................................................... 25
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7
Use of the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik ........................................................ 21
STATE ZAKAZIK OF REGIOAL VALUE KUTSA ....................................................................... 22
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
6
Sosioeconomic aspects .......................................................................................................... 16
Use of the state zapovednik “Pasvik” .................................................................................... 16
LAPLAD STATE ATURAL BIOSPHERE ZAPOVEDIK ............................................................ 18
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5
Russian procedures .................................................................................................................. 9
Norwegian procedures ........................................................................................................... 11
Protected areas in NAPROLD ............................................................................................... 12
Use of the planned nature park Khibiny ................................................................................ 30
ØVRE PASVIK ATIOAL PARK........................................................................................................ 31
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
2
9
JUKERDAL ATIOAL PARK .......................................................................................................... 35
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10
SJUKHATTE ATIOAL PARK ..................................................................................................... 39
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
11
IUC PROTECTIO CATEGORIES COMPARED TO RUSSIA AD ORWEGIA SYSTEMS
...................................................................................................................................................................... 44
12
PRELIMIARY COMPARISO, COCLUDIG REMARKS AD SUMMARY .......................... 47
12.1
12.2
12.3
Preambles and regulations in the eight case areas ................................................................. 47
Economic activity .................................................................................................................. 49
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 50
REFERECES .................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figures
Figure 1: Map of Zapovednik Pasvik (Source: INEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003) ...................................... 15
Figure 2: Map of Lapland zapovednik (Source: INEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003) .................................... 19
Figure 3: Map of Zakaznik Kutsa (Source: INEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003) ........................................... 22
Figure 4: Map of Zakaznik Seidjavr (Source: INEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003) ....................................... 25
Figure 5: Map of projected natural park Khibiny (Source: INEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003).................... 28
Figure 6: Map of Øvre Pasvik National Park (Source: www.dirnat.no) ............................................... 31
Figure 7: Map of Junkerdal National Park (Source: www.dirnat.no) ................................................... 35
Figure 8: Map of planned Sjunkhatten national park (Source:
http://www.fylkesmannen.no/hoved.aspx?m=21243&amid=1351977)........................................ 40
Tables
Table 1: Important juridical instruments in Russian nature protection ................................................... 9
Table 2: Overview of Russian and Norwegian case areas..................................................................... 13
Table 2: Number of business actors operating within State natural zapovednik Pasvik or in adjacent
areas. .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Table 3: Number of business actors operating within Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik or in
adjacent areas. ............................................................................................................................... 21
Table 4: Number of business actors operation within State zakaznik of regional value Kutsa or in
adjacent areas. ............................................................................................................................... 24
Table 5: Number of business actors operating within State complex zakaznik Sejdjavvr or in adjacent
areas. .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Table 6: Number of business actors operating within planned nature park Khibiny or in adjacent areas.
....................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 7: Number of activities and services offered within Øvre Pasvik national park or in adjacent
areas. .............................................................................................................................................. 33
Table 8: Number of activities and services offered within Junkerdal national park or in adjacent areas.
....................................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 9: Number of activities and services offered within Sjunkhatten national park or in adjacent
areas. .............................................................................................................................................. 43
Table 11: Russian and Norwegian protected areas compared with IUCN's protected area management
categories ....................................................................................................................................... 44
3
Table 12: Selected preambles and regulatives for eight case areas in the Barents region..................... 47
Table 13: Overview of economic actors in Norwegian case areas ........................................................ 49
Table 14: Overview of economic actors in Russian case areas ............................................................. 49
4
1 INTRODUCTION
This working paper explores the main characteristics of protected areas included in the NAPROLD
project. The NAPROLD project focuses on nature protection in Norway and Russia and aims to
compare nature management systems and conservation processes in particular with regard to how
nature protection contributes to local development in Northern Norway and North-West Russia. The
project includes eight case areas: The protected areas of Pasvik, Lapland, Kutsa, Sejdjavvr and
Khibiny in Russia, as well as the Norwegian part of Pasvik, and Junkerdal and Sjunkhatten national
parks in Northern Norway.
1.1
ATURE PROTECTIO AS RESOURCE FOR LOCAL SOCIETIES I THE
BARETS REGIO
The Barents region1 can be perceived as one large ecosystem, containing several, large, interconnected
ecosystems, dominated by huge forests and tundra in the east, and alpine landscapes, archipelagos and
fjord systems in the west. It consists of a great number of protected areas (more than 30 national
parks), subordinated to the same international environmental regimes, conventions, constituting a
common point of departure for national protection policies. The parks and reserves are established for
preserving great, untouched areas, flora, fauna, geological sites and cultural heritage. Norway and
Russia (the Soviet Union) have collaborated for more than 20 years on a variety of environmental
issues such as radioactive and heavy metal contamination, protection of biodiversity, flora, fauna and
cultural heritage. Along the borderline between Norway, Finland and Russia, national, regional and
local authorities as well as scientists from all countries have taken part in bilateral planning and
management of watercourses, protected areas, brown bear and a great number of birds and plants. The
objective of this effort is to coordinate research and monitoring, and to develop sustainable tourist
industry in the region (Hønneland and Rowe 2008).
Although the countries collaborate to preserve nature and develop local societies in the region, there
are reasons to believe that great differences exist, for example when it comes to planning traditions
and local use of the outfields. Culture and traditional use of area resources reflects similarities and
great differences within the region. Both nations have used outfields for harvesting, hunting and
fishing, and still do. Nowadays, industries like ecotourism, nature-based tourism and geotourism, seem
to emerge in the adjacent areas of national parks in both countries (like the rest of the world (see e.g.
Eagles and McCool (2002)). This makes protected areas potentially profitable for local communities.
Also, indigenous groups, including reindeer herders, may benefit from area protection, as
fragmentation and technical installation threaten their pastures (Holte 2008). This illustrates the great
variety of stakeholders having interests and rights in protected areas, both in Norway and Russia.
Hence, there should be a considerable potential for exchanging knowledge and experiences according
to institutional, ecological and sociological conditions for rural development and sustainable use of
protected land in these areas.
On the other hand, it seems obvious that different countries have developed their environmental
politics in different directions during the last decades, as a result of diverging political ideologies and
planning traditions. It is clear that public administration and institutions for protecting areas under
Norwegian and Russian jurisdiction are highly different (Hønneland 2006, 2003). The local societies
surrounding the protected areas in Norway and Russia are also reflecting diverse demographic and
economic patterns. For example, private property is common in Norwegian adjacent areas, whereas
1 The Barents Region consists of 13 counties in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. The three northernmost
counties in Norway, Nordland, Troms and Finnmark, are all included in the region, as well as Murmansk and
Arkhangelsk oblast, Nenetsk okrug and the republics of Karelia and Komi in Russia. The Barents Region covers
an area of 1 755 800 km2, and has a total population of 5,54 million people.
5
Russian protected areas at Kola is established on public land. This influences individual rights in
adjacent areas.
1.1.1 Objective
The project intends to increase understanding and knowledge of nature conservation processes and
development of local communities. The objective of this project is first to develop recommendations
for sustainable management of protected areas in Norway and Russia, and second to increase
knowledge of socio – economic aspects and Russian and Norwegian stakeholders (environmental
authorities, NGOs, civil societies, indigenous peoples, entrepreneurs and local communities) when it
comes to conflict resolution and local/rural development related to protected areas.
1.1.2 Research questions
As indicated earlier, there are reasons to believe that Norwegian and Russian environmental
bureaucrats, local communities, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders share common interest in
investigating the dynamics between use and conservation of natural resources, and that a systematic
approach is needed in order to enlighten the many aspects of this phenomenon.
To achieve the objectives in the project it is necessary to find answers on following research
questions:
1) What characterize the Norwegian and Russian:
a. Legislation and management system in the sphere of conservation areas?
b. Conservation processes with respect to conflicts and consensus between different
stakeholders?
• Which stakeholders (that is local/ regional politicians/bureaucrats, civil societies,
entrepreneurs, indigenous peoples etc.) are represented in the processes, and how?
c. Economical activity taking place within or in surroundings of the protected areas?
2) Are the conservation and management processes designed to facilitate local development?
3) How can Norwegian and Russian communities benefit from each other when it comes to
protected areas as resource for local development?
The study will be carried out on the base of comparison of different protected areas and institutional
frameworks in Russia and Norway. Both qualitative data (interviews, focus groups, workshop),
involving participation of different stakeholders from both countries, as well as quantitative
data/numbers on economic figures, will be collected and analysed.
Expected results are: 1) enhanced and shared knowledge about Norwegian and Russian nature
conservation policies, 2) improved methods for conflict resolution and local development in relation to
nature protection on a bilateral scale, 3) scientific recommendations within the field of nature
protection for the benefit of local communities, and 4) long term relations between Norwegian and
Russian academics. The results are expected to contribute to both authority bodies and NGOs,
economical agents and other representatives of local communities. The comparative approach will
most likely give feed back on how different conservation strategies within Norwegian and Russian
environmental policy facilitate local participation and development which includes civil society and
indigenous groups.
1.2
ITERATIOAL AGREEMETS IFLUECIG ATIOAL POLICIES
By the year 2000, there were 130 multilateral and hundreds of bilateral environmental agreements
around the world (Greene 2006: 462). The development of such a great number of international
agreements is seen as a response to the features and characteristics of a number of environmental
issues, ranging from pollution, area fragmentation, poaching and illegal trade, preservation of
biodiversity and climate change. The agreements are administered by a wide range of international
6
organisations, like the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU), and the Global
Environment Fund. Collaboration on environmental protection between Norway and Russia started in
1988 with a Norwegian-Soviet environmental agreement. This has later been renegotiated and now
also includes nature protection (Günther 2004).
Within the field of nature conservation, a wide range of normative rationales are reflected in the
environmental conventions. Nature’s intrinsic value, referring to the value nature may have regardless
human beings’ appreciation, is the most fundamental. Additionally, natural resources and ecosystems
are valuable because mankind depend upon it in many ways. Nature is needed for subsistence,
economic activity, religious and recreational purposes, and has cultural, ethical, aesthetical and
symbolic value. Preservation of biodiversity is also an important perspective when establishing
protected areas. Due to its complexity, biodiversity cannot be preserved without sound territorial
resources. Area protection is therefore one of the major means for preserving biodiversity. According
to the Convention on Biological Diversity all parties of the treaty are obliged to “develop national
strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”
(United Nations 1993: 148) and to integrate this into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans,
programmes and policies. Further, each party is obliged to identify components of biological diversity,
monitor these, and identify processes and activities that impact on conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity (United Nations 1993).
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) aims at facilitating the implementation of
international environmental treaties. IUCN is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and works with
developing and implementing conservation policies, laws and best practice in co-operation with
governments, other NGOs, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities. It is a
membership union with more than 1 000 government and NGO member organizations, and almost 11
000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries (International Union for Conservation of Nature
2008b). Both Russia and Norway apply IUCN’s categories in their nature protection, though in various
manners. See chapter 11 for more on this.
A major challenge related to the implementation of area protection measures is the great variety in
interpretation of a protected area; its content, objective, level of restriction etc. This is the background
to the IUCN idea of a common definition of protected areas and for categorising protected areas by
their objectives. According to IUCN protected areas are defined as:
“A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or
other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated
ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008: 7).
Any area that is recognised under this definition should be capable of being assigned to a protected
area management category. Additionally, the IUCN approves the following criteria for protected areas
(International Union for Conservation of Nature 2008a):
•
•
•
•
it explicitly applies to the marine as well as the terrestrial environment;
it requires that there should always be a special policy for conservation of biodiversity;
but it also allows for conservation of natural resources, and those cultural resources which are
associated with these (but not cultural sites per se); and
it requires that a management regime be in place (but it is understood that this may be done
effectively through tradition or ownership rather than through formal legal means).
Along with the efforts made to get a common perception of protected areas, a new paradigm for
conservation and use of natural resources has emerged during the last decades. Visions and goals of
international environmental politics have emphasized the societal dimensions of ecosystems and the
need to perceive and resolve use – conservation conflicts within a sociological and economical context
7
(WCED 1987; UNCED 1992a; CBD-COP-6 2000; WSSD 2002). The rationale for including
stakeholders rests on both epistemological and democratic principles that call for deliberation and
stakeholder participation. Participation processes can be heralded as a forum in which different forms
of rationality and civic virtue can be created. This can form the basis for better environmental
decisions (Bulkeley and Mol 2003). Institutional obstacles, like low level of interdepartmental
coordination and limited communication/dialogue between stakeholders can also reduce legitimacy
and compliance of the protective regulatives, as well as constrain the potential for rural and local
development (Olsson 2001; Bulkeley and Mol 2003; Bryan 2004).When including different
stakeholders, possible conflicting parties are held mutually responsible for the process as well as its
outcome, which may increase the compliance for the decisions made (Aasetre 2000). In addition,
stakeholders are also entitled to take part in decisions concerning their life and property (UNCED
1992; Dryzek 1997; UNCED 1992a, 1992b). On the other hand, stakeholder involvement may be
costly in terms of time, manhours and other resources, as it invites for opposing views on both
procedures and knowledge onto which decisions are being made.
1.3
OVERVIEW OF THIS WORKIG PAPER
This working paper will give an introduction to the Norwegian and Russian case areas in the project,
with initial comparative analyses. The working paper begins with a short introduction to the
procedures for establishing protected areas in Russian and Norway. Then the areas will be described
briefly according to their area, conservation regulations and values, their legislative status, historical
background and the usage of these areas. Along with each protected area we also present a map of the
area and a temporary figure of economic activity in each area. We will first present the five Russian
protected areas, before we turn to the three Norwegian areas. Area protection in Norway and Russia
has different forms, and in order to understand these differences better we will discuss the protected
areas in NAPROLD also from the categories developed by IUCN. Finally we do some comparison of
preambles and regulations for each area.
8
2 ESTABLISHING PROTECTED AREAS IN RUSSIA AND NORWAY
Both in Norway and Russia are nature protection a state/federal responsibility. This means that the
Ministry of Environment in Norway and the Ministry of Natural resources in Russia are the decisionmaking body when it comes to considering proposed protected areas. Norway follows a plan from 1992
when establishing their protected areas (St.meld.nr.62 (1991-1992) 1992), this plan is expected to be
fulfilled in 2010, then Norway will work on protecting only smaller areas than national parks and
landscape protection areas. This plan was a result of a report from 1986 from the State nature protection
council, and the statements from affected ministries, organisations, private persons and so on. In Russia
nature protection is a divided responsibility between federal and regional authorities. In some republics in
the north of Russia regional authorities have led an active environmental policy independent of the
Ministry of Natural resources’ policy. Even though federal authorities have founded the institutional
content in the environmental policy, there has been major cooperation between the federal offices at the
regional level and regional authorities (Hønneland and Jørgensen 2006).
2.1
RUSSIA PROCEDURES
Nature protection in Russia is managed under various juridical instruments. The most important ones are
mentioned in Table 1:
Table 1: Important juridical instruments in Russian nature protection
Determines that establishing a protected area is the juridical
instrument for the protection of natural features which are of
special nature – protective, scientific, historical and cultural,
aesthetical, recreational, health-protective etc. significance.
Law on protected areas
federal
Establishes the types of protected area, order of their
14.03.1995 № 33-FZ
establishing and management, peculiarities of the protection
status and nature management in different protected area types.
federal
Establishes peculiarities of the protection and use of the forests,
Forest code (for PA in the
situated within the protected area. This is important, as all
forest zone)
Russian protected areas, which are considered in this project, are
04.12.2006 № 2000-FZ
situated in the forest nature zone and the forests are protected
accordingly to the Forest Code.
regional
Establishes the types of the regional protected areas, order of
Law on protected area in
their establishing and management, peculiarities of the
Murmansk region
protection status and nature management in different protected
10.07.2007 № 871-01area types. This law does not include unique norms, but
ZMO
contains/repeats the norms of federal. Law on protected areas,
which concerns the regional protected area.
Statute
of
concrete for «Pasvik» - Determines order management, protection nature – regime of
use and nature management of the certain protected area.
protected area
federal; For
other protect- Contains characteristics of main protected features of this
protected area. For the nature monuments statute is called
ted areas passport.
regional
Scheme
of
territory
regional
Determines the list and location of the current protected area.
planning
Determines the list and approximate location of planned
protected area, whose establishing will be considered within the
span of this scheme (25 years).
Forest plan
regional
Determines the list and location of the current protected area
within the forest zone of the region. Determines the list and
approximate location of planned protected area within the forest
zone of the region, whose establishing will be considered within
the span of this plan (10 years)
*ote: Normative acts on territorial planning and reindeer herding do not have special norms for protected area.
Law on environmental
protection
10.01.2002 № 7-FZ
federal
9
Currently there is a certain procedure to establish federal protected areas. The Russian Federation
government collects proposals on the establishing of the federal protected areas in the region from the
scientific and non-governmental organisations (such document is currently drawn by the Russian branch
of WWF). This long list of the proposed protected areas is sent to the government of the Region (Oblast’)
for confirmation. The common interests of economic development should be taken into account during
this process (i.e. mining of mineral deposits, logging and development of power engineering and laying
the pipelines, development of tourism). As a result of the region’s confirmation a short list of planned
federal protected areas is decided upon. On the base of this list the program of development of the federal
protected areas for the certain period is approved by the Russian Federation government. The program
includes names and types of designed protected areas and their approximate area. Based on this program,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation starts to submit these protected
areas to approval of nature – users and municipal authorities. Before 2009 this should have been done by
the Federal Supervisory Service on the Nature Management (Rosprirodnadzor), but unfortunately such a
work was not carried out, as this Service is a controlling/inspecting body, but not a managing body. As a
result of this stage, the Regulations on the protected areas is drawn, which establishes its accurate borders
and nature – use regiment of protected areas. At the same time documents on ecological grounds for
protected areas, with given borders and nature-use regiment, are developed. This prepared Regulation is
submitted to approval of Regional government. Then Regulations and documents on ecological grounds
undergo the examination by federal experts in ecology. In case of positive decision of examination the
Russian Federation government makes a decision to establish protected areas. It should be noted, that up
to the end of 1990s establishing new protected areas was not strictly connected with including them into
the federal program of protected areas development. Regional authorities, regional subdivisions of the
federal Nature conservation bodies, and, more often, the scientific and public institutions, could start the
conforming of the borders and status of protected areas, even if this protected areas was not included into
the federal program.
There is another procedure to establish regional protected areas (Murmansk). Public or state institutions
concerned apply to Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Murmansk Region with a proposal on
the establishing of new protected areas. The application is considered and if it is recognized to be
expedient, funding of this project is included into the regional budget for the next year. A competition for
the designing project for the protected areas is announced, and the winner institution designs this
protected area within the period officially agreed with the ministry. Designing means drawing a draft of
Regulations on the protected areas and ecological grounds/basis for establishing it. On the base of this
draft of Regulations on protected areas the Ministry or authorized institution starts to submit these
protected areas to approval of nature – user institutions and municipal authorities. During this both the
borders and status of the protected areas are specified. Then draft of Regulations on protected areas and
ecological grounds/basis undergo the examination by regional experts in ecology. In case of the positive
decision of experts, draft of Regulations is submitted to approval of government of Murmansk Region
and the latter makes decision on the establishing of the protected areas.
With establishing nature parks there is an important difference compared to the common order. After the
government of Murmansk Region conforms a proposed nature park, the project is sent to the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation for a consideration. After the project is considered
there, the ministry sends the decision on the establishing nature park to the government of Murmansk
Region. This decision is the obligatory condition for the regional decision-making on the establishing of a
nature park. For establishing municipal protected areas the approval of the protected areas type (category)
by the government of Murmansk Region is necessary. Only then the municipal authorities will consider
the proposal of the scientific or public institutions concerned on the establishing protected areas of this
type/category. After such a proposal municipal authorities can provide the financing designing protected
areas. If the institution concerned submits the ready protected areas design and ecological basis,
authorities can start to submit this protected areas design to approval of nature – user institutions and
federal and regional bodies/services, whose interests may be affected by establishing this protected areas.
After the conformation of the draft of regulations on protected areas and its ecological grounds/basis
undergo examination of the regional experts of ecology (there is no municipal expert group). In case of
the positive decision of experts the municipal authorities make a decision on the establishing new
municipal protected areas.
10
2.2
ORWEGIA PROCEDURES
In Norway area protection is regulated through the Nature Conservation Act (LOV 1970-06-19 nr. 63
1970). Through this act four various categories might be conserved;
1) national parks,
2) protected landscapes,
3) nature reserves, and
4) natural monuments.
The areas protected under the Nature Conservation Act should safeguard a representative selection of
Norwegian habitats and landscapes for future generations and protect areas of special value for plants and
animals. It is also important to protect areas under the Nature Conservation Act as a way of maintaining
viable populations of plants and animals.
Generally speaking, protected areas in Norway are regulated through the Nature Conservation act, and
initiated by the Norwegian government2 according to a nature protection plan. Two such plans have been
decided upon by the Norwegian parliament throughout time (St.meld.nr.62 (1991-1992) 1992;
St.meld.nr.64 (1965-1966) 1966). These plans included suggestions for more than twenty national parks,
in addition to a large number of nature reserves, landscape protection areas etc. Preambles for establishing
national parks have been non-fragmented areas without technical installations (hydro-power, stations,
roads, buildings etc), and not on biological diversity. Hence, the selected areas in the national park plan
can be characterized as mountain areas, far from people and without known economic interests, often
recognized as wilderness by protection authorities. Critics has been raised by IUCN and several
Norwegian Environmental NGOs as to the fact that biologically rich lowland areas, both inland and along
the coast, have been let out of the governmental protection plan (Bendiksen and Røsok 2008).
The national protection plan (St.meld.nr.62 (1991-1992) 1992) has been carried out since 1992, and is
expected to be finished by 2010. The Directorate for Nature Management has the overall responsibility
for this process, and distributes the tasks among the 19 County Governors and their environmental
departments. The conservation process is divided into seven phases, and thoroughly outlined in the
Norwegian Conservation Act (LOV 1970-06-19 nr. 63 1970; Rundskriv T-3/99 1999):
1) The County governor (Department for environment) is asked to develop proposition for
conservation of a particular area, by the Ministry of Environment (ME) (based on the national
park plan).
2) The County governor declares the planning process to commence.
3) The County governor develops proposition for planned area based on scientific investigations of
the areas’ natural values, as well as a wide range of Environmental and Social Impact
Assessments. Stakeholders are invited to comment upon the protection objectives, categories and
plan for accomplishment.
4) The Directorate for Nature Management approves the proposition, before the local hearing.
5) The County governor adjusts the plan according to feed back from the local hearing and sends a
proposition to the Directorate for Nature management.
6) The proposition is sent on a central hearing (among directorates, national organizations etc), and
the Directorate for Nature management revises the proposition, and sends their report to the
Ministry of environment for finalizing.
7) The Ministry of environment conducts interdepartmental hearings, and prepares the case for
decision in the Kings Council trough a King’s Resolution.
The state executives at the County Governor’s environmental department are responsible for the
conservation process and to make further investigations of the areas’ values as well as impact assessments
(step 3). In order to ensure objectivity and unbiased knowledge, assessments are increasingly being
outsourced to consultants and external scientists. Hence, consulting companies with biological and
2
In addition municipalities and public property owners may apply administrative protection of their land. However,
the stringency of the municipal and administrative protection is heavily confined compared to area protection
managed by the NCA, which will is the focus in this project.
11
geographical expertise accomplish field work and report their findings to the County governor’s
environmental department.
The seven step procedure has been highly criticised for years, as local people claim it causes a top down
and highly authoritative implementation of not only juridical instruments and formal regulations, but also
on particular nature values which neglect local peoples traditional use of the areas (Aasetre 2000).
Therefore, the County Governor in Nordland initiated a new procedure for developing conservation plans
in Junkerdal and Sjunkhatten, amongst others. The idea was to combine conservation and area planning
for the protected areas and the buffer zone surrounding it. This joint procedure should ensure
collaboration and cross-sectoral partnership between local and regional authorities from the very start of a
planning period, hence moderating conflicts as both local and national parties were being made
responsible for a mutual out – come. Instead of focusing on conflicting aims, the combined planning
process should initiate a constructive dialogue and highlight common values and needs (Bay-Larsen and
Sandersen 2005; Sandersen and Stornes 2004).
The County governor established a steering committee and a project group to ensure horizontal and
vertical integration of a wide range of stakeholders and authorities throughout the process’ third phase.
The steering committee, led by the local and regional politicians was responsible for developing a
proposal to be sent to the Directorate for Nature management. The Reindeer administration, directorate
for fisheries management, property owners and affected municipalities were offered a position in the
steering group together with the County governor and the County municipality. The project group was led
by County governor’s staff that coordinated the local stakeholders providing knowledge and viewpoints
on the conservation and area plan proposals. Even though participatory approaches have been carried out
in Norwegian conservation processes before, the three cases presented here nevertheless represent unique
cases. First, the process integrated local and national planning procedures into one, single combined
process. Second, the governing committee, which was the head of combined process, was lead by
politicians at local and regional level. The Norwegian cases presented in this project hence represent both
conventional and integrated Norwegian conservation planning.
2.3
PROTECTED AREAS I APROLD
Table 2 gives an overview of the eight case areas selected in the project. The table shows an overview of
the case areas according to establishment year, region, municipalities affected, area size, adjacent
conservation areas, and land ownership.
12
Table 2: Overview of Russian and orwegian case areas
Established
Region
Municipalities
Area in km2
Adjacent
conservation
areas
Pasvik
1992
Murmansk
Pechenga
Lapland
1930
Murmansk
Borders with
Monchegorsk,
Kola and
Kovdor areas
Kutsa
1994 (2005)
Murmansk
Kandalaksha
Sejdjavvr
1982 (2005 )
Murmansk
Lovozero
Khibiny*
Murmansk
Kirovsk,
Apatity,
Olenegorsk
Øvre Pasvik
1970 (2003)
Finnmark
Sør-Varanger
Junkerdal
2004
Nordland
Fauske
Saltdal
Sjunkhatten*
–
Nordland
Bodø
Fauske
Sørfold
14 7,3 km2
-
2784,4 km2
The territory
reserved for
creation in
further zakaznik
«Laplandsky
les»
486,4 km2
–
179,7 km2
–
891,5 km2
Simbozerskij
zakaznik
119
Pasvik
landscape
protection area
Gjøkvassneset
nature reserve
682
Junkerdalsura
nature reserve
416,9
–
State
State
State
State
State (97 %)
Private (3 %)
State (25 %)
Private (75 %)
State
Land
ownership
* Under establishment
13
The project looks at areas that were established as early as in 1930 (Lapland) and up until today while two
areas are under establishment. All the Russian areas are in the Murmansk region, while the Norwegian
areas are in Finnmark and Nordland. A total number of 14 municipalities are affected by the areas we
study. We also have a variation in the size of the areas, from Øvre Pasvik and Pasvik as the smallest ones
(respectively 119 and 147 km2). The largest area is undoubtedly Lapland with 2784 km2. Of the Russian
areas two are federal, two are regional and one is in the process to be reserved at the regional level. All
the Russian areas are in state ownership, while two of the Norwegian areas have some private land
owners also. Junkerdal has 3 % private land and Sjunkhatten will have around 75 % private land.
We will now take a deeper look at the various protected areas, and will begin with the areas on the
Russian side.
14
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Russian and *orwegian Case Areas
3 STATE NATURAL ZAPOVEDNIK PASVIK
3.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The conservation purpose of the state zapovednik Pasvik are:
• conservation and study of intact pine forests on the northern edge of their distribution area;
• conservation and study of wetlands and waterfowl fauna;
• complex monitoring of northern ecosystems;
• conservation of cultural – historical heritage sites
3.2
AREA DESCRIPTIO
The state zapovednik Pasvik is located on the territory of the Pechenga district of the Murmansk
region. The total area of the reserve is 147,3 km2 (14727 hectares). The reserve was established
through the Russian Federation Government by law № 493 of July 16, 1992, and is federally
governed. The territory is located between the state border of the Russian Federation and Norway,
running along the waterway of river Pas, and the line of border technical facilities, running along the
road from Rajakoski to Nikel. From the middle of the 20th century, the territory has been included in
the border security zone. Since the establishment of the reserve, the only allowed activity on the
territory, except for scientific research, has been the surveillance of the state border of the Russian
Federation.
Figure 1: Map of Zapovednik Pasvik (Source: IEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003)
3.3
COSERVATIO REGULATIOS
On the territory of state zapovednik Pasvik, the whole natural complex is fully protected. As in all
Russian zapovedniks, no human activities are allowed, except for scientific studies, which do not
influence on natural objects. An exception is also made for activities to safeguard the state border of
the Russian Federation, as carried out by the border – security forces.
Landscape, vegetation, fauna and cultural heritage
The protection of landscape, vegetation, fauna and historical objects is ensured by the full protection
of the natural complex. All forms of influence on the mentioned above objects are prohibited.
15
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Visitors
Visiting the reserve is accordingly forbidden. Limited scientific excursions on the territory of the
reserve can take place with the permission of the administration of the reserve and with the
accompaniment of representatives of the border – security forces.
Motorised visitors
Visiting on motorised vehicles is not allowed, with the exception for patrol boats making border
controls on the water reservoirs along river Pas.
Chemical and noise pollution
The north – west part of the reserve is subject to moderate negative impact from air pollution coming
from the factory Pechenganikel. This is not currently leading to degradation of the vegetation. The
road running along the reserve’s eastern border also has some negative impact on the adjacent
territories. The hydrological system of the reserve has been significantly altered from its natural state
through the influence of the electrical hydropower station on the river Pas.
3.4
SOSIOECOOMIC ASPECTS
Population and settlements
The territory has been populated by people more since around the Nativity. The basic employment of
the population in last centuries was hunting and fishery, and reindeer breeding has developed.
Around 45 300 persons lived in the Pechenga area in 2007. Nickel is an administrative centre of the
area, with around 15 400 inhabitants in 2007.
Economic activity
The economy of the municipal area is constructed on processing of nickel ores. Directly in the area
adjoining reserve, there is no economic activity. The unique business activity is the Russian part of the
cascade of hydroelectric power stations on Pas river.
Table 3: umber of business actors operating within State natural zapovednik Pasvik or in adjacent
areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
3.5
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
USE OF THE STATE ZAPOVEDIK “PASVIK”
The territory of the reserve can only be used for scientific research (such that does not harm natural
components). Only limited scientific excursions and expeditions are carried out. Four nature paths,
where tourists are introduced to the nature and environment of the region, have been created on a
nearby territory to the reserve. Currently, the number of visitors is small and is made up mostly of
school children from the Pechenga district and Murmansk, who visit the nature paths as part of their
environmental education programme.
16
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Currently work is carried out as part of the project “Promotion of nature protection and sustainable
nature tourism in the Inari – Pasvik area” (Interreg IIIA North – Neighbourhood Programme
Kolarctic) to create the national park “Pasvik – Inari” in three countries, by joining Pasvik the adjacent
protected areas on the Finnish and Norwegian sides. It is supposed that the state nature zapovednik
Pasvik will become a protected core area of this park.
17
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
4 LAPLAND STATE NATURAL BIOSPHERE ZAPOVEDNIK
4.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The conservation purpose of the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik:
•
•
•
•
•
4.2
Restoration and maintenance of a number of wild reindeers on Kola peninsula (the initial
purpose of creation of reserve);
Preservation in not disturbed condition of one of the largest mountain – tundra ecosystems of
the Kola peninsula;
Preservation of intact ecosystems of northern taiga;
Monitoring the conditions of ecosystems and an estimation of influence of aerotechnogenic
pollution from combine "Severonickel";
Preservation of some monuments of history and culture of the Sámi (seid-stones).
AREA DESCRIPTIO
The Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik is located in the centre of Murmansk region. The area
of the reserve is 2784,4 km2 (278 435 hectares). The Lapland zapovednik was established January,
17th, 1930 by the Decision of the Leningrad regional executive committee. The Lapland zapovednik
has been abolished by the Decision of Ministerial council of the USSR №3192 from August, 29th,
1951 by reorganisation of system of state zapovedniks. The territory of Lapland zapovednik was
transferred to Monchegorsk forest organisation for economic operation. In 1956 the regional executive
committee petitioned before the government for restoration of Lapland zapovednik. The reserve was
again organised in its former territory by the Decision of Ministerial council of RSFSR №1201 from
05.10.1957 and №1025-р from 10.03.1958. In 1961 the Lapland zapovednik was transformed by the
Order of Ministerial council of RSFSR to branch of the Kandalaksha state natural zapovednik.
Association of two diverse reserves has not justified itself, therefore the Order of Ministerial council
of RSFSR №4335-p from 03.11.1965 to Lapland zapovednik returns independence. The area of
Lapland zapovednik by the Decision of Ministerial council of RSFSR №1519-р from 13.09.1983 is
expanded 129 577 hectares and finished to modern borders. During the moment of creation the reserve
was in regional submission, since 1935 the reserve is in federal conducting with a break for the period
of liquidation.
The buffer (security) zone of Lapland zapovednik is created by the Decision of Murmansk regional
executive committee №32 from 09.07.1964 "About allocation of a buffer zone of Lapland branch of
the Kandalaksha zapovednik" on the area of 11 523 hectares. As a consequence the territory of the
buffer zone has been extended twice: the Decision of regional executive committee №46 from
14.01.1965 "About expansion of a security zone of Lapland branch of the Kandalaksha zapovednik"
(up to the area of 15 604 hectares) and the Decision of executive committee of Murmansk regional
Council of People's Deputies №109 from 13.09.1985 "About expansion of a security zone of Lapland
zapovednik" (up to the area of 27 998 hectares). Thus, the area of a buffer zone of Lapland zapovednik
for today comprises of 27 998 hectares.
The certificate of UNESCO on inclusion in the international network of biosphere reserves by the
Decision of the Bureau of the International coordination Council under the program «Person and
biosphere» (MAB) from 15.02.1985 is given out to Lapland state natural zapovednik. During the
period when the reserve did not operate, about 5 % of forest area of reserve was cut down, mainly pine
forests of a natural origin. In the territory of this zapovednik scientific researches and limited
excursion activity are carried out only.
The Lapland state biosphere natural zapovednik is the nature protection, research and ecology –
educational establishment having the purpose to preserve and study a natural course of natural
processes and the phenomena, genetic fund vegetative and the fauna, separate species and
18
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
communities of plants and animal, typical and unique ecological systems, and as ecological education
of the population. The main value of the reserve, its wild untouched nature, is in its natural protogenic
condition.
Figure 2: Map of Lapland zapovednik (Source: IEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003)
The relief of the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik represents strongly crossed mountain
with mountainous character. The significant part of the territory is presented by mountain tundra and
includes 5 separate hills with heights from 600 up to 1114 meters above the sea level. For all vertical
forms of a relief of reserve the smoothness of outlines which speaks an antiquity of mountains is
characteristic.
Reservoirs of the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik naturally share on 8 lace – river systems.
Water in all rivers and lakes is pure, very transparent and soft, evidences that speak of absence of lime
stones and weak chemical aeration of crystal breeds. In the territory of the reserve a significant amount
of the rivers and the lakes have a drain in the lake Imandra.
In total in the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik there are 168 large and fine lakes, 63 rivers
and a stream of 718 kilometres. Special values of reservoirs are places of spawning of six kinds of
salmon fishes. 15 species of the fishes living in the reserve are widespread. In the territory of reserve
there are some Margarifera margarifera L., a mollusc brought in the Red book of Russia.
Forests take up around 52 % of territory of the zapovednik, rocks and mountain tundra, 36 % is lakes
and rivers, and 4 % is forest – tundra and bogs.
According to last inventory in reserve 591 species of vascular plants (from them 82 rare species), 245
species of mosses, 152 species of lichens, and 225 species mushrooms. From the vascular plants
growing in reserve, five species are noted in the Red book of Russia.
31 species of mammals live in the zapovednik, including wild reindeer, an elk, a brown bear, the wolf,
the fox, a marten, caress, a mink American, a glutton, a beaver European, a hare a white hair, fiber, the
muskrat, Norwegian and forest lemmings and others.
198 species of birds live and nest here. Characteristic for the region are five species of chicken: a
wood – grouse, a blackcock, a hazel grouse, and white and tundra partridges. Five species of the large
birds of prey nest in the zapovednik, and they are all noted in the Red book. Severe conditions of
dwelling allow only 20 species of birds to stay during winter on a regular basis.
19
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
In the zapovednik there are two species of reptiles: a viper and the viviparous lizard, and one kind of
amphibians, a frog grassy.
4.3
On the territory of the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik full protection of all natural
complexes as a whole is carried out. As well as in all Russian reserves, human activity, except for the
scientific researches which are not rendering influences on natural objects, is forbidden. In territories
of a security zone of reserve the works leading to environmental consequences are forbidden, but
visiting by citizens, gathering of mushrooms and berries is not forbidden. Besides in municipal areas
adjoining to reserve efforts of administration of reserve has created a zone of cooperation in which
greater attention is given on the actions promoting preservation of the nature of reserve.
Landscape, vegetation, fauna and cultural heritage
Preservation of landscapes, vegetation, fauna and historical objects is provided within the limits of full
protection of its natural complex. All kinds of influence on the listed objects are forbidden.
Visitors
Visiting the zapovednik is forbidden. In territory of reserve the limited scientific excursions under the
sanction of administration of the zapovednik can be carried out. Besides ecology – educational
excursions on the central village (Chunozerskaja usadba) of the zapovednik and on ecological tracks
are carried out. Cases of illegal visiting by tourists in the western part of the zapovednik are known
about.
Motorised visitors
Visiting on mechanised means is forbidden, except for promotion by cars to Chunozerskaja village of
the zapovednik. Movement on motor boats and in the winter, on snowmobiles on boundary lakes of
the zapovednik to employees of the zapovednik in service purposes, is possible. By a northwest part of
reserve, on an insignificant extent, a forest road passes on in which local transport is allowed.
The northeast part of reserve tests negative influence from pollution by industrial emissions of
combine Severonickel (Monchegorsk): sulphurous gas and heavy metals. Drying up of pines in area
Chunozero village of manor has been undertaken since 1960. In the southeast part there is an
insignificant extent of the zapovednik that is crossed by a transmission line.
4.4
SOCIOECOOMIC ASPECTS
The territory of Lapland state natural zapovednik before its creation was used by Sámi, mainly for
hunting. In immediate proximity from the zapovednik is Monchegorsk, a city with 49 400 inhabitants
in 2007.
Economic activity
In immediate proximity from the reserve there is an enterprise on processing nickel ores, activity of
five establishments of forestry, and an enterprise on management of the cascade of hydroelectric
power stations on the river Field is carried out.
20
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Table 4: umber of business actors operating within Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik or in
adjacent areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
4.5
0
0
7
0
0
0
7
USE OF THE LAPLAD STATE ATURAL BIOSPHERE ZAPOVEDIK
The territory of the Lapland state natural biosphere zapovednik can be used only for scientific research
which is not influencing the zapovednik’s natural components. In the territory of the zapovednik
limited scientific and ecology – educational excursions (basically in area of the village) and limited
forwarding works are allowes. Works on ecological education and acquaintance of tourists with the
nature of region is carried out on ecological tracks in area of the Chunozerskaja village. Visitors of the
zapovednik are basically pupils and students visiting the zapovednik within the limits of programs of
ecological education.
21
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
5 STATE ZAKAZNIK OF REGIONAL VALUE KUTSA
5.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The conservation purpose of the state zakaznik Kutsa:
• scientific research, development of procedures for protecting habitat and promoting scientific
research, development of procedures for protecting habitat and promoting the reproduction of rare
plant and animal species;
• conservation of the natural complex of the protected area in its natural state;
• supporting the ecological balance and environmental functions of the natural complex;
• preventing pollution of the river Tuntsajoki and its smaller branches, as well as of other rivers,
streams and lakes, located on the territory of the reserve;
• developing recommendations on limiting extraction of biological resources on the basis of
scientific studies;
• advocating best practices for the protection and conservation of natural resources (game animals,
fish resources, berry-grounds);
• organising recreational fishing and other tourism activities, which do not counteract the aims and
objectives of the reserve
5.2
AREA DESCRIPTIO
The state zakaznik of regional value Kutsa is located on the territory of the Kandalaksha district of the
Murmansk region, and its eastern part overlaps with the region border with the Republic of Karelia.
The total area of the reserve is 486,4 km2 (48 641 hectares). The reserve was established through the
Murmansk region Administration by law № 259 of June 21, 1994. Through the Murmansk region
Government by law № 410-ПП/13 of October 27, 2005, the area of the reserve was reduced and its
protective zone liquidated. The reserve is governed by the Murmansk region. Within the territory of
the reserve lie almost the whole river Kutsjoki and the lower course of river Tunsajoki. The reserve
protects intact boreal (primarily spruce) forests, as well as areas with high concentrations of rare plant
species. Until the Winter War, the Finnish nature park Kutsa (founded in 1938) existed on this
territory.
Figure 3: Map of Zakaznik Kutsa (Source: IEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003)
22
*APROLD
5.3
Deliverable 2
The state zakaznik of regional value Kutsa protects the whole natural complex, but unlike a
zapovednik, only protects it from the most destructive impacts.
Landscape
Any change in the landscape is prohibited, with exception for the construction of new infrastructure
such as roads, power lines, communication lines and pipelines. The construction of tourist centres and
cabins is also allowed, but has to be approved by the Murmansk region Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Committee.
Vegetation
Industrial logging is prohibited. Harvesting mushrooms and berries without the use of special
equipment is allowed.
Fauna
Only recreational fishing is allowed, and there are strict regulations on the issuing of licenses. Because
of a mistake made during the preparation of the statutes, there are very vague restrictions on hunting:
“managing the number of game animals with special permission” is allowed.
Cultural heritage
There are no known cultural heritage sites on the territory of the reserve.
Visitors
There are no limitations on visiting the reserve. The reserve is visited the whole year round by local
inhabitants (primarily residents of the Kandalaksha district, owning a house in village Vuorijärvi) and
in the summer and fall by water (raft and canoe) tourists. The reserve is administered by the
Administration of Protected Areas of Regional Significance in Murmansk region, which is also
responsible for monitoring environmental legislation and reserve regulations. The strongest
recreational pressure is on the rivers and shore ecosystems in connection with water tourism.
Motorised visitors
Motorised visiting is allowed only on roads, but snowmobiles are allowed to travel anywhere on snow.
Monitoring these rules is also supervised by the Administration of Protected Areas of Regional
Significance in Murmansk region.
There is almost no influence of industrial pollution. The territory of the reserve is one of the cleanest
areas in Murmansk region.
5.4
The territory is believed to have been inhabited by the Sámi since around 500 BC. In 1840, a
colonisation by Finnish settlers started, and the territory was taken into use for agriculture (village
Vuorijärvi, isolated farmsteads) and small scale forestry.
In 2007 57 000 people lived in the Kandalaksha area. In the settlements Alakurtti and Zarechensk,
adjoining protected territory, around 8 000 people live, respectively 6 700 (in 2002) and 1 000 (in
2006).
Economic activity
The economy adjoining to Kutsa territories is based on maintenance of social services of military
parts. Two enterprises work with preparation of wood functions. In the settlement Zarechensk a
hydroelectric power station operates.
23
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Table 5: umber of business actors operation within State zakaznik of regional value Kutsa or in adjacent
areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
5.5
3
2
5
0
(1)
0
11
USE OF THE STATE ZAKAZIK OF REGIOAL VALUE KUTSA
The most noticeable use of the territory of the reserve is by water tourists. During the last 15 years, the
amount of water tourists travelling on the rivers of the reserve has grown from 2000 a year to 7000 a
year, and the trend towards growth continues (this amount exceeds the recreation pressure capacity of
the shore ecosystems). The water tourists mostly come to the reserve from the central parts of
European Russia.
Since there are small possibilities to limit tourism within the current regulations, currently a law
proposal to reorganise the reserve into a nature park is being prepared. Additionally, a proposal is
being prepared for the Development Programme for Federal Protected Areas to give the reserve the
status of a national park, for example by making it a branch of the national park Paanajärvi. Included
in these projects is also a proposal to enlarge the protected area by joining high conservation value
ecosystems in adjacent areas to the reserve.
24
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
6 STATE COMPLEX ZAKAZNIK SEJDJAVVR
6.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The conservation purpose of the state complex zakaznik Sejdjavvr:
• conservation of the natural environment, natural landscapes and cultural objects;
• conservation of the biological diversity, including the whitefish of lake Sejdozero;
• protection of the original environment and traditional life style of the Sámi people;
• protection and development of the original culture of the Sámi people;
• protection of recreational resources;
• development and implementation of efficient methods of nature protection, support of the
ecological balance and conservation of the biological diversity in conditions of recreational use of
the territory;
• monitoring and studying the state of rare plant and animal species, and of ecosystems in the
reserve
6.2
AREA DESCRIPTIO
The state complex zakaznik Sejdjavvr is located on the territory of the Lovozero district of the
Murmansk region. The total area of the reserve is 179,7 km2 (17 972 hectares). The reserve was
established through the Decision of the Executive committee of the Murmansk regional Council of
People’s Deputies № 538 of November 24, 1982, and continued through the Murmansk regional
Government by law № 409-ПП/13 of October 27, 2005. The reserve is located in the centre of the
Lovozero Mountains, comprising the entire lake of Sejdozero and the mountainsides surrounding it.
Intact ecosystems and rare plant species are being protected on the territory of the reserve.
Figure 4: Map of Zakaznik Seidjavr (Source: IEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003)
25
*APROLD
6.3
Deliverable 2
The state complex zakaznik Sejdjavvr protects the whole natural complex, but unlike a zapovednik,
only protects it from the most destructive impacts.
Landscape
Any change in the landscape is prohibited, with exception for the construction of reindeer herding
facilities. The construction of tourist centres and cabins is also allowed, but has to be approved by the
Murmansk region Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Committee.
Vegetation
All forms of logging are prohibited, with exception for selective sanitary loggings and logging of
deadwood for heating. Harvesting of mushrooms and berries without use of special equipment is
allowed. Any activities that could harm the vegetation cover or destroy plants are prohibited.
Fauna
Only recreational fishing is allowed, and there are strict regulations on issuing licenses. Hunting and
any other form of killing of animals are prohibited.
Cultural heritage
Objects of cultural heritage, Sámi sieidi, are protected and studied. The most famous sieidi is Kuiva, a
natural formation on a mountainside, reminding of the image of a giant.
Visitors
Visiting of the reserve is limited. According to the founding document, visiting is allowed only along
special paths. In practice this means that all groups that visit the reserve have to study the reserve
regulations, and the employees of the Administration of Protected Areas of Regional Significance in
Murmansk region check that they are being followed. The volume of recreational pressure is quite
high, but currently does not lead to the degradation of the natural complexes of the reserve.
Motorised visitors
Motorised visiting is only allowed on snowmobiles on the snow cover. Monitoring these rules is also
supervised by the Administration of Protected Areas of Regional Significance in Murmansk region.
The territory of the reserve is almost unaffected by the impact of industrial pollution.
6.4
During historical time the territory was used by the Sámi. The lake Sejdyavvr was sacred for Sámi.
Adjoining territories were used for reindeer breeding, hunting and fishery.
In 2007 13 200 people lived in Lovozero. In settlement city type Revda 9 600 people lived in 2007,
and in the village Lovozero 3 100 people.
Economic activity
The economy has been based on extraction of minerals which recently is reduced. Reindeer breeding
in adjoining area is restored by slow rates, near to the zakaznik there is only 1 enterprise.
26
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Table 6: umber of business actors operating within State complex zakaznik Sejdjavvr or in adjacent
areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
6.5
2
2
2
2
0
0
8
USE OF THE STATE COMPLEX ZAKAZIK SEJDJAVVR
The most noticeable use of the territory of the reserve is by tourists. Tourist groups come both from
the central regions of Russia, former USSR countries, and from nearby towns and villages. Poaching
on the territory of the reserve has been practically eliminated by the employees of the Administration
of Protected Areas of Regional Significance in Murmansk region. Reindeer herding is practiced on
adjacent territories, the reserve itself is practically unaffected by the pasture of domestic reindeers.
Because valuable natural complexes on adjacent areas were not included in the reserve, and the
watershed of Sejdozero is not yet fully protected, work to enlarge the reserve is currently being carried
out.
27
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
7 PLANNED NATURE PARK KHIBINY
7.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The conservation designation of the planned nature park Khibiny, in case of its realisation:
• conservation of the natural environment, natural landscapes, cultural objects;
• conservation of biological diversity, primarily rare plant species;
• conservation of recreational resources
7.2
AREA DESCRIPTIO
The planned nature park Khibiny is located on the territory of three administrative districts of
Murmansk region: Apatity, Kirovsk and Olenegorsk. The proposed total area of the nature park is
891,2 km2 (89 145 hectares). The first proposal to plan a protected area here was voiced in the 1930’s,
but the planning started in 1998. The proposed nature park will protect the outer half circle and inner
parts of the Khibiny mountains, with exception for the apatite – nepheline deposits. On the proposed
territory of the nature park, a high concentration of rare plant species can be found. Also holy objects
for the Sámi, sieidi, can be found here.
Figure 5: Map of projected natural park Khibiny (Source: IEP KSC RAS 1999, 2003)
7.3
According to the proposal, the regime of a nature park will be established on this territory. This means
that different areas will enjoy varying levels of protection, and regulations will be set depending on the
area.
Landscape
According to the proposal, any changes to the landscape will be prohibited, with exception for the
construction of tourist centres and cabins along specially assigned paths.
28
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Vegetation
According to the proposal, all forms of logging, with exception for selective sanitary loggings and
logging of deadwood for heating will be prohibited. Harvesting of mushrooms and berries without the
use of special equipment will be allowed along tourist paths and on a specially assigned recreational
zone for the local inhabitants. Any harm to the vegetation cover or destruction of plants will be
prohibited.
Fauna
According to the proposal, only recreational fishing will be allowed, and there will be strict
regulations on the issuing of licenses. Hunting as well as any other killing of animals will be
prohibited.
Cultural heritage
There is a need to study and secure the conservation of cultural heritage objects, Sámi sieidi. Some of
these objects could also be included in tourism activities such as guided excursions.
Visitors
It is proposed to limit the number of visitors to the nature park. There will be free access to the
recreational zone for the local inhabitants; on the rest of the territory it is proposed that tourists can
visit the reserve only as part of registered groups along specially assigned paths. Monitoring these
rules will be undertaken by the Administration of Protected Areas of Regional Significance in
Murmansk region. The volume of recreational pressure is large at the present moment. If limitations
will not be introduced, there is a high probability that a degradation of natural complexes and loss of
recreational resources will take place.
Motorised visitors
Motorised visitation will be allowed only on the snow cover on snowmobiles (except for a number of
specified areas, where packing of the snow can be harmful for rare plants), and on motorised transport
on commonly used roads.
The territory of the planned nature park is exposed to industrial pollution from the apatite – nepheline
refineries of the Kirovsk – Apatity region and from the refinery Severonikel in Monchegorsk. The
volume of pollution is quite small and does not lead to the degradation of the ecosystems of the
territory.
7.4
In Apatity there were 62 600 people in 2007, 30 600 in Kirovsk, 49 400 in Monchegorsk and 23 100 in
Olenegorsk.
Economic activity
The basic economic activity in immediate proximity to the proposed national park is connected with
extraction apatite ores. Now tourist services actively develop in the area.
29
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Table 7: umber of business actors operating within planned nature park Khibiny or in adjacent areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
7.5
7
103
4
0
0
0
21
USE OF THE PLAED ATURE PARK KHIBIY
The most noticeable use of the planned nature park is by tourists. Tourists come both from central
regions of Russia, former USSR countries and from the Murmansk region. The amount of tourists
from other regions is estimated to be 10 to 20 000 people a year. This figure only concerns nature, not
alpine ski, tourists.
Currently work to organise the nature park is being carried out, and a proposal to give the territory the
status of a federal national park is also being prepared.
3
Possible more
30
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
8 ØVRE PASVIK NATIONAL PARK
8.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The purpose of conserving Øvre Pasvik National Park is:
•
•
•
•
to conserve a larger, coherent area of conifer forest, substantially untouched from technical
interventions,
to conserve a forest ecological system of distinctive character and varied biodiversity,
to secure the distribution range of nature types in the region,
and to conserve landscape shapes, distinctive geological occurrences and cultural monuments.
Securing the natural basis inside the national park is important for Sámi culture and economic activity.
The area might be used for reindeer husbandry, natural experiences and practising of traditional
outdoor activities that do not demand technical interventions.
8.2
AREA DESCRIPTIO
Øvre Pasvik National Park is in Finnmark county in the municipality of Sør-Varanger. The park has
borders both to Russia and Finland, and covers an area of 119 km2. The area where the national park is
placed is a valley at about 100 kilometres, where the Pasvik river is a natural border towards Russia.
The park was established in 1970, and expanded in 2003.
Figure 6: Map of Øvre Pasvik ational Park (Source: www.dirnat.no)
31
*APROLD
8.3
Deliverable 2
The conservation regulations for Øvre Pasvik National Park specifies both the extent and the content
of the conservation status for the landscape, vegetation, fauna, cultural heritage, traffic, motorised
traffic, and pollution and noise.
Landscape
The landscape is protected from interventions of any kind. Interventions here include constructing
buildings, fences, construction sites, road building, mining, regulation of the waterways, digging and
adding mass, blasting and drilling, withdrawal and removal of rocks, minerals and fossils, logging,
drainage and other kinds of draining, land reclamation, ground flattening, constructing earth or air
wires, building bridges and footbridges, placing signs, marking footpaths, trails and so on. This is not
an exhaustive list.
Still one might maintain paths, trails, bridges, signs, buildings, reindeer husbandry installations, roads
and other installations as long as this does not change the use of these matters.
Vegetation
Vegetation, including dead trees and bush, is conserved from all kind of damages. Planting, sowing
and introducing new species is strictly forbidden. The area might still be used for grazing (other
grazing than reindeer grazing might be regulated by the Directorate for nature management), use of
windfall for making a fire, harvesting of berries and mushrooms, harvesting of plants for private use,
and reindeer husbandry’s use of birch for fire and for maintaining legally constructed reindeer fences
and other reindeer husbandry equipment.
Fauna
Fauna, including lairs, nests, nesting- and breeding places, is preserved towards damages and
disturbances. Introducing animals on land or in water is strictly forbidden. Hunting and fishing in
accordance with the Act relating to wildlife and wildlife habitats, the Reindeer husbandry act and the
Act relating to Salmonids and Fresh-water fish etc is allowed.
Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage is to be protected towards damage and destruction. Loose cultural heritage must not
be removed. Management authorities might give permission for restoring and care of cultural heritage.
Traffic
All traffic must show due care to vegetation, fauna and cultural heritage. Traditional outdoor activities
on foot arranged by trekking organisations, schools, day – care centres and teams and unions with
idealistic aims, is allowed. Biking and horseback riding is allowed on established paths. Traffic might
be regulated by the Directorate of Nature Management. Necessary traffic by police, military, rescuing
teams, fire brigades and monitoring authorities is allowed.
Motorised traffic
All kind of motorised traffic is forbidden both on land and water, and in air below 300 altitudes.
Necessary traffic by police, military, rescuing teams, fire brigades and monitoring authorities is
allowed. Reindeer husbandry might also use caterpillars. Management authorities might allow traffic
in connection with reindeer husbandry, maintenance of cabins during winter, and weasels in
connection with elk hunting.
Pollution and noise
Pollution and noise is forbidden. Waste has to be taken out of the area. All kind of chemical
substances are forbidden. Use of motorised model airplanes, model boats, ice drills aso. is prohibited.
32
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Management authorities might, according to the regulations, effectuate measures to promote the
conservation aim. A management plan has to be developed regarding management, care, adaptations,
information and so on. The plan has to be approved by the Directorate for nature management.
8.4
There are signs of settlements from early Stone Age in the area. There are also signs of Sámi
settlements from around 500 A.D. and up until the end of the 19th century. This settlement was forced
to leave the area when farming and forestry took over the area. Hunting and fishing has been important
all the time, and there are both traces of log cabins and pitfalls in the area.
The region in itself is a meeting point for different cultures. For centuries Sámi people have lived in
the area, and since the Early Middle Ages Finns, Norwegians and Russians have settled there. Even
though these cultures have coexisted and learned from each other, they have still kept their distinctive
traditions.
The water system has been important for centuries both for livelihood, as food for domestic animals
and as a transportation route (Pasvik-Inari trilateral park 2007).
The municipal centre is in Kirkenes, a town with 3 267 people. The municipality has had stable
population numbers since 1951, though with a small decrease from 10 010 in 1996 to 9518 today
(http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/folkendrhist/tabeller/tab/2030.html).
Economic activity
The Pasvik valley area has gained particularly from iron ore found in the area, and mining industry
was one of the main businesses in the municipality up until 1996. Reindeer husbandry is one of the
main winter activities in the national park. Reindeer husbandry area number 5a covers parts of the
national park. The area consists of 2 392 km2, and the upper limit on reindeers is 2 500. There are a
total number of 6 operation units.
Table 8: umber of activities and services offered within Øvre Pasvik national park or in adjacent areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
8
6
29
1
1
2
47
A project funded by EU Interreg III A Nord Kolarctic Neighbourhood programme has enlightened
issues concerning the promotion of nature protection and sustainable nature tourism in the Inari –
Pasvik area (2006-2008). Their internet page covers biological, cultural, historical and political data
(see http://www.pasvik-inari.net/neu/eng/main.html.).
Outdoor life activities
A survey undertaken by the County governor in Finnmark shows that visitors to the park are mainly
from Southern Norway or from the Pasvik area. There are also some visitors from the rest of Europe,
mainly Germany. The visitors’ aim with visiting Pasvik is experiencing nature. There are also some
mentioning photographing and bird watching as their aims with the trip (Fylkesmannen i Finnmark
2007). Both this survey and earlier surveys show that people from Finnmark (without nearby areas of
Pasvik) not visit the national park. An earlier survey showed that 25 % of the visitors came from
abroad (Fylkesmannen i Finnmark 1990).
33
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
There is only one open cabin inside the park, Ellenkoia. The survey undertaken by the County
governor shows that this cabin is used only once in a while, and that people prefer to use their own
tents and so on (Fylkesmannen i Finnmark 2007).
34
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
9 JUNKERDAL NATIONAL PARK
9.1
COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The purpose of conserving Junkerdal National Park is:
•
•
•
•
to conserve a larger substantially untouched area,
to secure biodiversity with ecosystems, species and stocks, geological occurrences and cultural
heritage,
to secure flora,
to stimulate to nature and landscape experiences with few or none interventions through
performing traditional outdoor life activities.
Securing the natural basis inside the National Park is important for Sámi culture and economic
activity. The area might be used for reindeer husbandry.
9.2
AREA DESCRIPTIO
Junkerdal National Park is in Nordland county in the municipalities of Fauske and Saltdal. The park
covers an area of 682 km2. The park was established in 2004, and has border to Sweden. Together with
conserved areas on the Swedish side, Junkerdal contributes to conserving the largest wilderness area in
the Nordic region.
Figure 7: Map of Junkerdal ational Park (Source: www.dirnat.no)
35
*APROLD
9.3
Deliverable 2
The conservation regulations for Junkerdal National Park specifies both the extent and the content of
the conservation status for landscape, vegetation, fauna, cultural heritage, traffic, motorised traffic, and
pollution and noise.
Landscape
buildings, fences, construction sites, road building, mining, regulation of the waterways, digging and
adding mass, blasting and drilling, withdrawal and removal of rocks, minerals and fossils, logging,
drainage and other kinds of draining, land reclamation, ground flattening, constructing earth or air
wires, building bridges and footbridges, placing signs, marking footpaths, trails and so on. Cultural
heritage should be protected towards damage and destruction. This is not an exhaustive list.
and other installations as long as this does not change the use of these matters. Maintenance should
also be done in accordance with architectural traditions.
Management authorities might allow necessary airshafts in connection with subterranean operation of
mineral occurrences north of Balvatnet, and in connection with building of transfer tunnel from
Balvatnet to Risvatnet. Further, in Junkerdal National Park, management authorities might also allow
new cabins in accordance with the management plan.
Vegetation
and introducing new species is strictly forbidden. The area might still be used for grazing (other
grazing than reindeer grazing might be regulated by the Directorate for nature management), use of
windfall for making a fire, harvesting of berries and mushrooms, and harvesting of plants for private
or medicinal use. Further, one might also use twigs in turf huts, take out hay for use in traditional
shoes, use materials for Sámi handicrafts (duodji) and also withdrawal of spruce might be done.
Management authorities might also allow felling of trees for use as wood to cabins or turf huts.
Fauna
disturbances. Introducing animals on land or in water is strictly forbidden. Hunting and fishing in
accordance with the Act relating to wildlife and wildlife habitats, the Reindeer husbandry act and the
Act relating to Salmonids and Fresh-water fish etc is allowed. Management authorities might permit
introduction of fish from local fish stocks in areas where this traditionally has been done.
Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage is protected towards damage and destruction. Loose cultural heritage must not to be
removed. Management authorities might give permission for restoring and care of cultural heritage.
Traffic
on foot arranged by trekking organisations, schools, day – care centres and teams and unions with
idealistic aims, is allowed. Horse back riding in connection with reindeer husbandry and livestock
farming is legal in the area. Traffic might be regulated by the Directorate of Nature Management.
allowed.
Motorised traffic
allowed. Transportation of hurt or sick cattle is permitted when management authorities are notified.
36
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Caterpillars and aircrafts are permitted for necessary transportation between Sulitjelma and Mavas for
those whose permanent address is in Mavas. The transport has to be on paths decided upon by the
management authorities. Use of weasels for transportation of elks or slaughtered deers is also
permitted. Further, military’s necessary aviation below 300 altitudes is also permitted.
Management authorities might allow motorised traffic on bare ground, use of caterpillars in
connection with livestock farming, woodcutting aso, use of caterpillars or aircrafts for transportation
of goods and materials to cabins, maintenance of roads aso, use of aircrafts in connection with
livestock farming, motorised transportation on the snow or use of aircrafts in connection with
searching for minerals north of Balvatnet and with building a transfer tunnel between Balvatnet and
Risvatnet, use of motor boats on lakes and preparing the path Diamantløypa.
Pollution and noise
substances are forbidden. Management authorities might permit use of sand on snow to expedite snow
smelting along fences. Use of motorised model airplanes, model boats, ice drills aso. is prohibited.
information and so on. The plan has to be approved by the Directorate for nature management.
Management authorities have to establish an advisory committee with management as their main
mandate.
9.4
Both Fauske and Saltdal have experienced a small population decrease the last years. Today 9 480
people live in Fauske compared with 9 729 ten years ago. In Saltdal there is the same tendency, today
there are 4 710 people compared with 5 013 people in 1998
(http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/folkendrhist/tabeller/tab/1840.html,
http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/folkendrhist/tabeller/tab/1841.html).
The main villages surrounding Junkerdal national parks are Sulitjelma, Fauske, Rognan and Junkerdal.
Rognan is the administrative centre in Saltdal municipality and Fauske in Fauske municipality. These
two towns have respectively around 5 000 and 2 500 inhabitants.
Economic activities
Fauske is a municipality depending on natural resources. From 1887 to 1991 the village Sulitjelma
was build up around mining industries, today population has decreased, and the area is popular as a
leisure/recreation area nowadays. Fauske is also known for its marble, which nowadays is one of its
main industries. Other industries are development of water power and services. Saltdal municipality
has traditionally based its industrial activities on wood working. And nowadays a cable factory and
ecological plastic production employees many people.
Productive forests are rare in the national park. The area is to some extent used for grazing, and there
is a small area of productive land. The area is also used for year – round reindeer husbandry. There are
signs of Sámi activity from back to the beginning of the 16th century. Balvatn reindeer husbandry area
has two operational units, and an upper limit on 1 000 reindeers (Fylkesmannen i Nordland et al.
2003).
37
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Table 9: umber of activities and services offered within Junkerdal national park or in adjacent areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
14
6
26
4
6
0
56
The area is of great importance for outdoor activities, in particular fishing, hunting and hiking. The
near proximity to the regional centre, Bodø, means that the area is commonly used for outdoor
purposes. Inside the national park there are both trails and cabins organised by the Norwegian
Trekking Organisation. This association and the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers have
together five open cabins inside the national park, and numerous in near proximity to the park.
A national park centre for national parks in Nordland County is situated at Storjord, and is reckoned as
a natural gateway to the national park.
38
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
10 SJUNKHATTEN NATIONAL PARK
10.1 COSERVATIO PURPOSE
The purpose of conserving Sjunkhatten National Park is:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
to conserve a larger substantially untouched area,
to conserve a beautiful and varied landscape from fjord to mountains,
to secure natural habitats of rare species in connection to lakes and wetlands, and other
biodiversity characterising the area,
to conserve geological occurrences in a magnificent glacier shaped landscape,
to conserve beautiful and distinctive watercourse nature,
to secure cultural heritage,
and to conserve caves and karts topography towards all damage and towards removal of biological
or geological material from these places.
Securing the natural basis inside the national park is important for Sámi culture and economic activity.
The area might be used for reindeer husbandry. The general public, and in particular children and
youth, will be given the possibility to conduct outdoor activities.
10.2 AREA DESCRIPTIO
Sjunkhatten National Park is under establishment in Nordland county in the municipalities of Bodø,
Fauske and Sørfold. The park will cover an area of 416,9 km2. The plan draft is at the Ministry of
Environment for consideration nowadays.
39
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Figure 8: Map of planned Sjunkhatten national park (Source: http://www.fylkesmannen.no/hoved.aspx?m=21243&amid=1351977)
40
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
10.3 COSERVATIO REGULATIOS
The conservation regulations for Sjunkhatten National Park has not yet been decided upon, so this
review will be based on the suggestion for regulations as submitted from the County governor to the
Directorate for nature management. The regulations specify both the extent and the content of the
conservation status for the landscape, vegetation, fauna, cultural heritage, traffic, motorised traffic, and
pollution and noise.
Landscape
buildings, installations, devices, placing caravans, camper and machines, establishing fish farms,
storing boats, constructing fences, construction sites, road building, mining, regulation of the
waterways, removal or destroying content in caves, digging and adding mass, blasting and drilling,
withdrawal and removal of rocks, minerals and fossils, logging, drainage and other kinds of draining,
land reclamation, ground flattening, constructing earth or air wires, building bridges and footbridges,
placing signs, marking footpaths, trails and so on. This is not an exhaustive list.
and other installations as long as this does not change the use of these matters. Further, mooring buoys
for aquaculture, boats and fishing equipments might be maintained. Seasonary fences in connection
with reindeer husbandry are allowed. Operation and maintaining of existing telephone lines, energy
and power plants is also allowed.
Management authorities might allow adaptations for children and youth in Heggmoen – Sørfjorden
area and in Øvre Valnesfjord. At the latter place, there is also a possibility for adaptations for disabled
children. Renovation and smaller enlargements of houses might be allowed, and in case of natural
disasters, houses might be rebuilt. Building of bridges and simple footbridges, putting up signs and
marking of paths and changing and putting up fences and installations might also be allowed. Reindeer
husbandry and livestock farming might build buildings and installations. Installing necessary mooring
bolts for aquaculture, boats and fishing equipments might be allowed. Floating stages might be
permitted in Sjunkfjorden and Sørfjorden. And for the public it might be permitted to put up cabins.
Measures undertaken are to be in accordance with architectural traditions.
Vegetation
and introducing new species is strictly forbidden. The area might still be used for grazing, use of
windfall for making a fire, harvesting of berries and mushrooms and harvesting of plants for private
use and thinning and withdrawal of planted spruce. Reindeer husbandry might withdraw hardwood
and spruce for making fires and for maintaining legally put up fences and installations. Restoring,
haying and use of infields in Sjunkfjorden might also be permitted. Further, one might also use twigs
in turf huts and take out hay for use in traditional shoes. During winter it might be permitted to take
out bushes and branches in ski trails in Øvre Valnesfjord4 and Bodømarka5 from September 1st to
February 1st. Management authorities might also allow felling of trees for use as wood to cabins or turf
huts and for landowners for own use. One might also use twigs in turf huts, take out hay for use in
traditional shoes and use materials for Sámi handicrafts (duodji).
Fauna
disturbances. Introducing animals on land or in water is strictly forbidden. Hunting (also for seals) and
fishing in accordance with the Act relating to wildlife and wildlife habitats, Act relating to sea-water
fish, the Reindeer husbandry act and the Act relating to Salmonids and Fresh-water fish etc is allowed.
4
Røsvik-Kinesknubben, north side of Sætervannet-Røsvik, cross country competition “Valnesfjorden rundt” and Valnesfjord
hestesenter-south side of Sætervannet.
5
Bordstulia-Erlingbu and Hopen-Langvatnet-Erlingbu
41
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Management authorities might permit introduction of fish from local fish stocks in areas where this
traditionally has been done.
Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage is protected towards damage and destruction. Loose cultural heritage must not to be
removed. Management authorities might give permission for restoring and care of cultural heritage.
Traffic
on foot arranged by trekking organisations, schools, day-care centres and teams and unions with
idealistic aims, is allowed. Biking and horse back riding is permitted on trails set aside for this. Traffic
might be regulated by the Directorate of Nature Management. Necessary traffic by police, military,
rescuing teams, fire brigades and monitoring authorities is allowed.
Motorised traffic
allowed. Use of caterpillars and motorised boats in connection with reindeer husbandry is permitted.
Caterpillars are permitted for necessary transportation between Vassvika – Røsvik – Øvre Valnesfjord
for those whose permanent address is in Vassvik. Further, military’s necessary aviation below 300
altitudes is also permitted. In infields necessary traffic is allowed in connection with haying. During
winter it is permitted to use snowmobiles for preparing ski trails in Øvre Valnesfjord between
November 1st and May 1st, and use of snowmobiles for transportation of equipment in connection to
the cross country competition. Motorised transportation is also permitted during winter for
maintaining existing telephone lines, energy and power plants. Use of caterpillars for transportation of
firewood, goods and equipment to Erlingbu is permitted. Motorised transportation on snow in
connection with woodcutting and business fishing is also permitted.
The regulations also specify various use of motorised transportation that might be allowed. This is an
expansion of the already examined list, and will not be further elaborated here.
Pollution and noise
substances are forbidden. Use of motorised model airplanes is also prohibited.
information and so on. Sámi interests are to be shown special consideration in this plan. The plan has
to be approved by the Directorate for nature management.
10.4 SOCIOECOOMIC ASPECTS
Sørfold municipality has 2 000 inhabitants today compared with 2 485 ten years ago
(http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/folkendrhist/tabeller/tab/1845.html). Most of these are situated south
in the municipality where the administrative centre, Straumen, is situated. Straumen has about 1 000
inhabitants.
The outer parts of the fjord Sørfold have traces of old settlements. Traditionally Sørfold used to be a
fisherman/farmer municipality, but these industries have experienced a rapid decrease. The
cornerstone company in the municipality, Elkem Salten, has about 120 employees. Other businesses
are related to fish farming, mining and nursery.
42
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Bodø municipality has had a steady population increase since 1951. There are around 6 500 more
people today (46 049) than in 1998 (http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/folkendrhist/tabeller/tab/1804.html). The main business is public sector where about 44 % are working. The town is an
educational centre with several upper secondary schools and also one university college.
Economic activity
Sørfolda is used for netpen farming, while Mistfjorden and Nevelsfjorden are used for pangolin
farming. The area is situated inside Duotka reindeer husbandry area. This area consists of three
operational units, with an upper limit on 900 reindeers.
Table 10: umber of activities and services offered within Sjunkhatten national park or in adjacent areas.
Accommodation
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
20
5
25
1
10
6
67
The area is of great importance for outdoor life activities both summer and winter. In near proximity to
an area with high population density, Sjunkhatten National Park will attract many visitors. As of today
the area is of national importance for mountaineering, and the elk stock attracts yearly around 240
hunters. There are several fjords in the area, and these attract many boats and fishers. For people in
general there three open cabins inside the park. Many people visit these both for food and for sleeping
over.
43
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
11 IUCN PROTECTION CATEGORIES COMPARED TO RUSSIAN
AND NORWEGIAN SYSTEMS
In the following, the Russian and Norwegian case areas will be studied by using IUCN’s protected
area management categories. The International Union for Conservation of Nature was established in
1948 and has developed guidelines for protected area management according to seven different
categories. Their guidelines are not legally binding, but they are developed in an international
perspective. If applied, these categories and guidelines will promote international cooperation and
research regarding protected areas by creating a common framework to analyse with. Hence, these
categories might help us gain a better understanding of the differences and similarities in the
Norwegian and Russian systems, and give us an overview of what various protected areas in Russia
and Norway actually means when it comes to restrictions and establishment. We then use the IUCNcategories as a tool for increasing understanding of protected areas at the Russian and Norwegian side.
A summary of this is presented in Table 11 under here, and we will thereafter discuss each category.
Table 11: Russian and orwegian protected areas compared with IUC's protected area management
categories
IUC
Category Ia Strict nature reserve
Category Ib Wilderness area
Category II National park
Category III Natural monument or feature
RUSSIA
Zapovedniks
Some zakazniks
Biosphere zapovedniks
biosphere polygon
National parks;
Nature parks
Some nature monuments
Category IV Habitat/species management Some zakazniks;
area
Some nature monuments
Category V Protected landscape/seascape
Some zakazniks
ORWAY
Nature reserves
with National parks
Natural
monuments
Landscape
protection area
Category VI Protected area with sustainable Some zakazniks
use of natural resources
IUC Category Ia Strict nature reserve is referred to as:
“strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly
geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly
controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values. Such protected areas can
serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring” (Dudley 2008: 13).
Category 1a seams to correspond to Russian Zapovedniks. Zapovednik is the protection category with
most strict regulations in Russia, and zapovednik may be strict nature reserves or state biosphere.
Zapovedniks are supposed to cover large areas, aiming at both preserving biodiversity, “greater
ecosystems”, species rarity, habitat uniqueness and ensuring representativeness (Günther 2004;
Russian Conservation News). These areas normally function without human interference, and the
system of today preserves “samples” of a huge diversity of nature. Recreation is generally very
restricted in Zapovedniks, but informational, educational and research values are of great importance.
Early in the 20th century were Zapovedniks envisioned as “outdoor laboratories” and “baseline nature
areas” for ecological research. Today zapovedniks represent a series of unique territories, with little
human interference and important for studies of natural ecosystems (Russian Conservation News).
44
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Zapovedniks are owned and supported by the federal government (Shestakov and Barcan 2000;
Günther 2004). They are controlled directly from Moscow without influence from local authorities.
Some Zapovedniks have armed guards to keep the public out of the parks. Comprehensive research in
zapovedniks is undertaken and is annually published in nature chronicles (Günther 2004).
In Norway some nature reserves have the same qualities as are required under IUCN category 1a, but
these are only a limited number and not evident in the NAPROLD areas, and therefore not referred
further here.
IUC Category 1b Wilderness areas
Nature reserves in Norway are more similar to Category Ib Wilderness areas which are:
“large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence,
without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to
preserve their natural condition” (Dudley 2008: 14).
Norwegian nature reserves are established to keep an untouched area intact, preservation of flora and
fauna, and to provide reference areas for scientific research. Nature reserves can be preserved and
establish restrictions on hunting, fishing and access, also hiking. Both Junkerdal and Øvre Pasvik
national parks are established in connection to nature reserves that originally were initiated to preserve
particular populations of birds and plants.
Some zakazniks in the project should fall into this IUCN category. But authorities in Russia are now
converting these into national or nature parks, i.e. into the “National park” category. Currently, the
managing practice of these concrete areas is gradually becoming similar to that for “National park”
category.
IUC Category II ational parks reflects both national parks, nature parks and biosphere
zapovedniks in Russia and national parks in Norway. According to IUCN these areas are:
“large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large – scale ecological processes, along
with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a
foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational,
recreational and visitor opportunities” (Dudley 2008: 16).
The category of nature parks is a new form of area protection in Russia. In 2001 there were 35 nature
parks covering 7 million hectares (Sulyandziga et al. 2004). These parks are important in preventing
exploitation of valuable and comparatively large areas. Some of these areas have also been used for
recreation traditionally. The national nature park system is federally managed, and many eco – tourism
programs are undertaken and developed in national nature parks (Russian Conservation News).
Of zapovedniks only those that are biosphere zapovedniks having biosphere polygon can fall in under
the IUCN category National park. Such study areas may get the status similar to that of zones of
limited use within national and nature parks. Leadership of zapovednik makes efforts for the
development of tourism and recreation in guarded zone, but this doesn’t enable us to refer to whole
zapovednik as «Wilderness area» category.
Norwegian *ational parks should protect larger, untouched areas that are undisturbed, distinctive or
especially beautiful, and safeguard its biological diversity. In national parks, the natural environment
is protected, as well as landscape, flora, fauna, natural features and archaeological and architectural
monuments and sites. There are to be no development, construction, pollution or other disturbances
inside national parks. The conservation decision is taken by the King, and management of such areas
is also the responsibility of the state (LOV 1970-06-19 nr. 63 1970).
45
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
IUC Category III natural monuments or features
Natural monuments in Norway fall under IUCN Category III Natural monument or feature, which
refers to areas;
“set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount,
submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient
grove. They are generally quite small protected areas and often have high visitor value”
(Dudley 2008: 17).
Norwegian natural monuments are protected in order to preserve an occurrence of great historical or
scientific interest. In Russia some nature monuments might fall in under this category.
The IUC Category IV Habitat/species management area is established in order:
“to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many category IV
protected areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular
species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category” (Dudley 2008: 19).
Russian Zakazniks are special purpose preserves that put temporary or permanent limitations upon
certain economic activities like logging, mining, grazing, and hunting and so on. Many of these have
traditionally been managed for game, but some also protect ecosystems, colonies of bird, populations
of rare plants and so on (Russian Conservation News). Russian zakaznik can also put limitations on
visitors, and thereby relating to strict reserves like zapovedniks.
IUC Category V Protected areas are described by the IUCN as areas where:
“where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct
character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where
safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and
its associated nature conservation and other values” (Dudley 2008: 20).
The last Norwegian category, Landscapes Protection Areas seams to correlate to this category as it
should preserve a distinctive, beautiful area or cultural landscape in use. Of particular importance are
the landscape; picture and perceptions, although biological diversity which characterises the landscape
is also of importance. In general, regulations for landscape protection areas are less strict then in other
categories. Zakazniks and nature monuments might also fall under this category.
It is evident that a comparison of Norwegian and Russian protected areas, including activities taking
place inside and in the adjacent areas of the park, must take into account the great differences between
the administrative regulations within the two countries. Also it is evident that Norway, to a greater
extent than Russia, has followed the IUCN categories in establishing a national protected areas system.
46
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
12 PRELIMINARY COMPARISON, CONCLUDING REMARKS AND
SUMMARY
12.1 PREAMBLES AD REGULATIOS I THE EIGHT CASE AREAS
Looking at the different preambles and regulations for the case areas in this project, it seems like some
national differences occur. Table 12 summarises some of the characteristics of the areas according to
selected criteria. The summary should however be regarded as preliminary and not exhaustive.
Table 12: Selected preambles and regulatives for eight case areas in the Barents region
Lapland
Preambles
Wild reindeer
Scientific research
Ecological/biological
/ geological values
Cultural heritage
Sámi culture
Recreation
Monitoring pollution
Preventing pollution
Permissions
Construction of
Infrastructure (roads
power lines, tourist
centres, cabins,
reindeer facilities)
Motorised vehicles
on trails/snow
Mountainbiking/
Horseback on trails
Scientific research
Sanitary and
deadwood logging
Pasturing
Special equipment
for picking
berries/mushrooms
Recreational fishing
Prohibitions
Human activity
Hunting
Industrial logging
Kutsa
Sejdjavvr
Khibiny
*
Pasvik
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Øvre
Pasvik
Junkerdal
Sjunkhatten*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* Under establishment
The table seems to indicate the following differences between preambles and regulations in Norway
and Russia:
Construction of new infrastructure is strongly prohibited within Norwegian national parks, as one
of the main purposes is to hinder fragmentation of the areas. Restoration of existing roads and
buildings may occur, if not causing changes in the use of the area. In Russia however, it is allowed to
construct tourist centres, power lines and cabins within some of the case areas (Kutsa, Seidjjavvri and
47
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Khibiny). This reflects a significant difference between the priorities given by environmental
authorities in the two countries.
Scientific research is more highlighted in the particular Russian case areas than in the Norwegian
ones. Both monitoring and scientific studies are phrased in various ways, as to both preambles and
regulations. It is worth noting that Norwegian environmental authorities at the national level, emphasis
scientific activities as important reasons for protecting areas. Among others the Directorate for nature
management phrases in their handbook for protected areas (Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning 2001,
2008) that comparing trends in protected areas with non – protected areas is important in order to gain
knowledge regarding changes as a result of natural fluctuations or human activities. By using
protected areas as reference areas we might improve our knowledge of the natural environment.
Protected areas will in that sense be essential in monitoring environmental trends and for research on
ecological processes and trends in the state of the environment (Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning
2008). This implies that the scientific rationale for preserving nature values in Norway, are not
implemented to the extent it is in Russia.
Both monitoring and combating pollution is mentioned in the preambles for several Russian case
areas, whereas pollution in relation to Norwegian case areas only refers to the handling of garbage.
This might be to the fact that North – West Russia is heavily industrialised and that contamination is a
major threat to Russian ecosystems. In northern Norway, heavy industry and mining occur only to a
limited extent in certain areas (Kirkenes, Mo i Rana, Glomfjord). The major threats to Norwegian
ecosystems are therefore those connected to fragmentation of areas and enhanced traffic. As
Norwegian settlements are distributed over great areas, great nets of roads and infrastructure
dominates the landscapes. In Russia, people are settled in larger cities and towns, which might lead to
a more targeted use of the terrestrial resources.
Preservation of Sámi culture and reindeer husbandry seems slightly different in the two countries.
Whereas Norwegian regulations seems targeted to reindeer husbandry (Øvre Pasvik and Junkerdal
national park), Russian regulations aim at conserving traditional life style and original culture of the
Sámi people (Sejdjavvr). The reasons for and/or implications it might have is not possible to analyse
yet. A crucial point for indigenous groups around the world is nevertheless that their culture, language
and business activities should not be conserved as such, but rather given the opportunity to develop
within the context of a modern time and society. Sámi culture and businesses should also be
considered in relation to fragmentation of the areas, as this is crucial for present and future reindeer
herding.
Recreational activities are of great importance and interest for people in Norway. A recent study
undertaken by TNS Gallup shows that 89 % Norwegians are interested in outdoor recreation (TNS
Gallup 2008). Protected areas are seen as important for simple outdoor life interests (although the
definition of such interests is not agreed upon by all parties), and reflected in the preamble for several
Norwegian case areas also includes statements according to simple outdoor – life and reindeer
husbandry, for example that these are important activities taking place in the area (Direktoratet for
Naturforvaltning 2008). Such activities are also in some cases included as a purpose or preamble for
establishing the park, as is the case with all the three Norwegian case areas.
In Russia, recreational purposes are phrased as objective for the establishment of three parks. Future
analyses will enlighten what are the activities taking place in the areas, amongst others.
Hunting and fishing is not regulated by the nature conservation act in Norway, and hence not subject
for the protection regulations in the Norwegian case areas. In Russia, this is not the case as
prohibitions or permissions to such activities are regulated by area conservation instruments. These
instruments also regulated equipment for harvesting berries and mushrooms, which is in contrast to
Norwegian areas.
48
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
In Table 12 “motorised traffic” is perceived as traffic by visitors/tourists, for recreational purposes,
not by area administration or reindeer herders. In Norway, the use of snowmobiles in the outfields is
heavily regulated through the act on motorised transportation (LOV 1977-06-10 nr. 82 1977). Within
protected areas, such traffic is only allowed for the use of monitoring and emergencies. In Russia,
motorised vehicles on snow, tracks, and roads are allowed in some parks, also for recreational
purposes. In strict protected areas, however, this is only allowed by administrative bodies.
Logging and pasturing are other features that differ between the nations. Dead weed is one of the
most important habitats for red list species in Norway, and therefore not allowed to use within the
protected areas. Logging living trees for firewood for private purposes is however allowed in several
Norwegian protected areas. Russian regulations however, allow logging of dead weed within the
protected areas. On the other hand, pasturing is permitted in Norwegian case areas, which indicates an
acceptance of agricultural interests in the adjacent areas. These user groups are not described in the
Russian case studies so far, which indicates that they are not of particular importance or relevance in
the protected areas and their surroundings.
12.2 ECOOMIC ACTIVITY
Much of the economic activities that are undertaken in connection to Norwegian protected areas,
happen outside the protected area itself, and in near proximity to the protection border. Thus, the
studies of the economic activity in the case areas include the border zones of the protected area. In
Table 13 under an overview of economic actors in Norwegian case areas is presented, and in Russian
case areas in Table 14.
Table 13: Overview of economic actors in orwegian case areas
Economic activity
(number of
enterprises)
Housing
Food
Activities
Reindeer husbandry
Pastures
Aquaculture
Total
* under establishment
Øvre Pasvik
ational Park
Junkerdal
ational Park
Sjunkhatten
national park*
Total
8
6
29
1
1
2
47
14
6
26
4
6
0
56
20
5
25
1
10
6
67
42
17
80
6
17
8
170
Table 14: Overview of economic actors in Russian case areas
Economic activity *
Pasvik
Lapland
Kutsa
(number of
enterprises)
0
0
3
Housing
0
0
2
Food
2
7
5
Activities
0
0
0
Reindeer husbandry
0
0
(1)
Pastures
0
0
0
Aquaculture
Total
2
7
11
* all activities are in the border zones of the Russian case areas
** under establishment
49
Sejdjavvr
Khibiny**
Total
2
2
2
2
0
0
8
7
10
4
0
0
0
21
12
14
20
2
1
0
49
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
12.3 SUMMARY
This working paper has presented the eight different case areas that are investigated in the NAPROLD
project. The different parks and their characteristics have been described according to conservation
purpose, regulations, user groups, amongst others. It has shown that it is not possible to ascribe all
Norwegian and Russian instruments according to IUCN categories, although the various aspects of
those categories seem to be reflected in the national instruments. The most interesting preliminary
findings are the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It seems like Norway and Russia are similar according to certain objectives like the preservation
of ecosystem, biological, geological and cultural values, in addition to reindeer herding and Sámi
interests. On the other hand, scientific research is embedded in Russian protected areas their
preambles and managerial efforts to a larger extent, than is the situation in Norway.
It seems like there exist greater internal differences among the protected areas within Russia, than
is the situation in Norway. For example, some parks prohibit any access by public (zapovednik)
whereas construction of tourist centres and cabins are allowed in other parks. The Russian
protected areas are also differentiated in zones, allowing traffic in some parts of the parks, or
along certain trails, whereas other parts of the park are not open for public access. In Norway the
parks regulations do not differ to such an extent in conservation regulations, but such a division
might be implemented through a management plan.
All Russian urban settlements on territories adjacent to protected areas appeared during the Soviet
period of industrial development of Russian Northern areas. Most of them are one company cities
of mining and mining-metallurgical profile. This has caused a high degree of anthropogenous
pollution of all biota types on adjacent territories. Local people are aware of that and stand upon
their ecological interests.
Contamination and area protection is considered coherently in some Russian parks, whereas this is
perceived and implemented separately within Norwegian environmental bureaucracy.
There is a substantial difference in institutions of local self-government and municipal
development in Norway and Russia. Norway has a longer history of self-government then in
Russia. Under these conditions an active policy of Russian municipalities towards protected areas
is improbable.
Considerable population decline is typical for municipalities in the Murmansk region. This can be
explained not only by demographic processes similar to those in Norway, but also by specific
socio-economic problems typical for the Northern Russian regions. Such problems as rule are of
much higher priority for the municipalities than ecological challenges.
Both Norway and Russia have group systems of population settling, but Russian population is
concentrated on relatively small urban areas with prevailing high-rise buildings, while territories
between settlements are practically unsettled. Private land ownership, typical for Norwegian local
communities might cause more spread population settling.
Tourist infrastructure nearby Russian protected areas is less developed than in Norway, which
might be caused by underdevelopment of the tourist industry as a whole to a greater extent in
Russia than in Norway.
Big mining companies of the Murmansk region started in 2004 to introduce international systems
of ecological management and declare social responsibility for condition of the environment of
local communities, i.e. they can be considered as interested actors and large sponsors in
development of the protected areas network.
Future analyses will revisit the role and activities performed by stakeholders, in particular business
actors and local communities. Both the decision – making processes that constitute the protected areas,
as well as traditional perceptions and usage of the outfields will be studied.
50
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
REFERECES
Bay-Larsen, Ingrid , and Haakan T. Sandersen. 2005. "Medvirkningsorientert partnerskap i
verneplanprosesser. Eksempelet Junkerdal Nasjonalpark." Utmark (1).
Bendiksen, E., Brandrud, T.E., , and Røsok. 2008. Boreale Lauvskoger i *orge -*aturverdier og
udekket vernebehov. 336 p. Oslo
Bryan, T. 2004. "Tragedy averted: The promise of collaboration." Society and *atural Resources
17:881-96.
Bulkeley, Harriet and , and Arthur P.J. Mol. 2003. "Participation and Environmental Governance:
Consensus, Ambvivalence and Debate." Environmental Values 12:143-54.
CBD-COP-6. 2000. "The 6th Conference of the Parties." In Convention on Biological Diversity.
Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning. 2001. Områdevern og forvaltning.
———. 2008. Områdevern og forvaltning. Håndbok 17 (2001) Revidert 2008. p. Trondheim
Dryzek, John S. 1997. The politics of the earth. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dudley, Nigel (Ed.). 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland,
Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Eagles, P.F.J. , and McCool S.F. 2002. "Tourism in national parks and protected areas." Planning and
Management.
Fylkesmannen i Finnmark, Miljøvernavdelingen. 1990. Forvaltningsplan for Øvre Pasvik
nasjonalpark. Sør-Varanger kommune. RAPPORT nr. 37-1990. p.
———. 2007. Brukerundersøkelse i Øvre Pasvik nasjonalpark og omegn. Sommer og høst 2006.
RAPPORT nr. 1-2007. p.
Fylkesmannen i Nordland, Miljøvernavdelingen, Saltdal kommune, and Nordland Fylkeskommune.
2003. Bruks- og verneplan for Junkerdal-Balvatn. Forslag til kommunedelplan for østre del av
Saltdal kommune. Forslag til opprettelse av Junkerdal nasjonalpark i Saltdal og Fauske
kommuner med konsekvensutredning. Rapportnr. 6/2003. p. Bodø
Greene, Owen. 2006. "Environmental issues." 3rd In The globalization of world politics - an
introduction to international relations, ed. J. Baylis and S. Smith: Oxford University Press.
Günther, Morten (Ed.). 2004. Field Guide to Protected Areas in the Barents Region. Svanvik:
Svanhovd Environmental Centre.
Holte, Arvid. 2008. "Reindriftas erfaringer og forslag til tillempinger i vernet av større
sammenhengende naturområder. Rapport fra prosjektet "Reindrift og nasjonalparker"."
Lillehammer: Rådgivende innen miljø- og arealspørsmål (MNGS).
Hønneland, G. 2003. Implementing International Environmental Agreements in Russia. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
———. 2006. "Samarbeidet med Russland -erfaringer og utgangspunkt." Ottar.
Hønneland, Geir , and Lars Rowe. 2008. Fra svarte skyer til helleristninger: norsk-russisk
miljøvernsamarbeid gjennom 20 år. Trondheim: Tapir akademisk forlag.
Hønneland, Geir, and Jørgen Holten Jørgensen. 2006. Moderne russisk politikk. En innføring i
Russlands politiske system. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
INEP KSC RAS. 1999. Ecologo-economic substantiation of national park Khibiny (Russian
publication). Volume 2. 172 p. Apatity
———. 2003. Handbook of Especially protected natural territories Murmansk areas (Russian
publication). 71 p. Apatity
International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2008a. http://www.iucn.org/about/index.cfm
———. 2008b. About IUC*. What is IUC*? http://www.iucn.org/about/index.cfm
LOV 1970-06-19 nr. 63. 1970. Lov om naturvern. p. Oslo
1977. Lov om motorferdsel i utmark og vassdrag.
Olsson, Per and Carl Folke. 2001. "Local Ecological Knowledge and Institutional Dynamics for
Ecosystem Management: A study of lake Racken Watershed, Sweden." Ecosystems (4):85104.
51
*APROLD
Deliverable 2
Pasvik-Inari trilateral park. 2007. Pasvik-Inari. *ature and history shared. Edited by Metsähallitus
Natural Heritage Services Lapland, Finnmark County Governor and Pasvik Nature Reserve
(Zapovednik): Kelevaprint, Oulu.
Rundskriv T-3/99. 1999. Endringer i saksbehandlingsreglene i naturvernloven. p. Oslo
Russian Conservation News.
Sandersen, Håkan T., and Ole Kristian Stornes. 2004. "Å rydde en ny sti". Medvirkning og
partnerskapsbasert planlegging av Junkerdal *asjonalpark. NF-rapport nr. 10/2004. p. Bodø
Shestakov, Sergey, and Velery Barcan. 2000. "Legislative Practice and Nature Protection in Russia's
Kola Peninsula." The George Wright FORUM 17 (2):92-5.
St.meld.nr.62 (1991-1992). 1992. *y landsplan for nasjonalparker og andre større verneområder i
*orge. 120 p. Oslo
St.meld.nr.64 (1965-1966). 1966. Om *aturvernrådets Innstilling om landsplan for natur- og
nasjonalparker i *orge. p. Oslo
Sulyandziga, P., V. Bocharnikov, and R. Sulyandziga. 2004. "Biodiversity and nature protection in
residence areas of Russia's indigenous people." Indigenous Peoples' Wolrd - Living Arctic 15.
TNS Gallup. 2008. *atur- og miljøbarometeret. *ordmenns holdninger og atferd i natur- og
miljøvernspørsmål. 616185 NMB 2008. p.
UNCED. 1992. "DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development." Rio de Janeiro.
———. 1992a. "United Nations Conference on Environment and Development:." In "The Rio
Principles". Rio de Janeiro.
———. 1992b. "United Nations Conference on Environment and Development." In Agenda 21. Rio
de Janeiro.
United Nations. 1993. Convention on biological diversity. Vol. No. 30619 05.05.1992.
WCED. 1987. "The World Commision on Environment and Development." In Our Common Future.
Paris: Oxford University Press.
World Sumit on Sustainable Development. Plan of Implementation -Johannesburg, South-Africa.
Aasetre, Jørund. 2000. Holdninger og kultur i norsk naturforvaltning. Dr. polit. avhandling, Fakultet
for samfunnsvitenskap og teknologiledelse, Geografisk institutt, NTNU, Trondheim.
52

ature protection in orthern orway and orth

Transcription

Similar documents

Vlazneva Arina Arkhipova Katerina Shatalova Anastasiia Biryukova

Tatyana Tolstaya - Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures

Mikhail Berestnev (www.mikhailberestnev.com)

VISITORS DAY N.O.R.S. LOL DOGS

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

the`golden ring`of russia

What is Russia?

Brainwave (28).indd

A tribute to Norwegian Composer Halfdan Kjerulf Friday, February

TV Airtime RTVI