Part 2.7. Present-day socio-economic factors influencing biodiversity

Russia is now at a very dynamic phase of its development. Due to a transitional character of the social system, a lot of indicators and methods for collecting socio-economic information well-performing in developed countries are not exactly applicable here. The RF State Committee on Statistics has to define even baseline indicators, such as gross domestic product (GDP), corrected for the "shadow" sector by 20 - 25%.

We should also emphasize a low quality of official data on the status and use of living nature. Its collection is not only disrupted by crisis processes but also is methodically incorrect or labor-intensive. Data on fauna and flora objects is much less accurate than that on the status of industry and agriculture.

Country's population is 147,5 million people. In a number of European regions, the population density exceeds 50 individuals per 1 sq km (in Moscow oblast it is over 200). As for the vast spaces of Siberia and European North, it is less than 1 individual per 1 km2. Moscow has the population of 9 000 thou and another 12 cities - over 1 000 thou, 22 more - over 500 000. These 35 largest cities are responsible for 27.7 % of the country's population. At average, one large city occupies a 500 x 1,000 km territory.

Though the development of Russia is of highly dynamic character, its demography will not feature any cardinal changes in coming 10 years. The total population of Russia, according to a very optimistic forecast of the RF State Committee on Statistics, will drop to 146,7 million (2005) and restore on the level of 1995 only by 2010. That is why a general growth of load on biodiversity resulting from a direct increase of population density is not expected for the coming decades in Russia.

The most critical consequences for diversity can be brought by a population migration flow from northern regions. During the crisis period, a cut in the mineral resources extraction has led to depopulation of settlements and towns on Chukotka, in the Magadan and Kamchatka oblasts. Here is observed a decrease in technogenic impacts (pollution, destruction of river valleys by drags and of vegetation by caterpillar tracks) along with hunting and fishing loads.

Coming decades may become indicative of a population flow increase to the south of Siberia from North Kazakhstan where growing dryness of arid areas is forecast. This migration is likely to involve problems in land and water use and, as a result, in the conservation of steppe and forest steppe biodiversity that is scarce for Russia. Rural-urban migrations can also cause serious follow-ups for living nature. This process has been resulting in the cultivated land reduction and successional reforestation of small-leaved woods in Nechernozemie (Non-Black Soil Region) for about thirty years. As soon as the growth of goods and services occurs in cities where it is easier to find a job, the population flow from rural areas will increase again.

In densely populated areas of the black-soil center (Chernozemie), a young population outflow alone does not lead to a drastic drop of biodiversity exposure. In this region, a rate of plowed lands did not change much in the past and it may even grow in future. An advance in household production of foodstuffs has already led to an expansion of gardens' areas. In Nechernozemie, these processes were compensated by abandoning of plowed lands and, in Chernozemie, they resulted in the use of gully woods, roadside zones, unsuitable lands, areas under electricity lines, etc., i.e. led to a noticeable attack on last refugiums of steppe biota elements.

Statistics evidences that a moment of most acute poverty (1992-93) has passed together with threats for biodiversity associated with it. These threats partially originated from intensified poaching (forest harvesting, fishing, hunting). Most vividly those threats were revealed in a sharp drop of game livestock, hunting of which does not need any professional skills and therefore is accessible for population (e.g. elk in European Russia). Another example of this effect has become activation of forest harvesting of medicinal plants and wild flowers, mushrooms and berries for sale by the poorest part of population as an extra income source. Direct consequences of these harvesting kinds are not dangerous, yet, in the Siberia south, a growth of forest visiting by non-professional harvesters is associated with a rising number of fires around cities during a spring period of ramson harvesting.

The European part of the former USSR was marked with a special attention focused on transport networks of republics adjacent to Russia in the south and west. The road infrastructure development here was governed by defense needs. At the same time, oblasts of Central Russia (Smolensk, Kaluga, Tambov oblasts, etc.) have a less developed transport infrastructure. Road length incremental rates were over 3.5 % in 1975 - 1985 and dropped to 1.3 % in 1992 - 1996.

A state of a road network between highly populated sites characteristic of industry concentration is generally satisfactory. Though main land-cultivating areas are suffering from an acute deficit of local roads. Forest-using regions feature a shortage or absence of paved road. This leads to the predomination of dense cuttings with the use of heavy off-road vehicles. Current degradation of roads, particularly those within special authority (military, forest transportation) taking place in remote and depressive regions will be progressing. A lot of ground roads in Nechernozemie will be getting overgrown with abandoning of plowed lands, remote felling areas, etc. Periods of spring slush will be indicative of a limited access to far lands, factor of nesting birds' and mating animals' disturbance, harvesting of ephemerals, etc.

Intensification of main roads' revamp is expected in the Russian Center and South. This will increase a load on nature resulting from both road widening and development of roadside infrastructure - gas filling stations, shops, cafes, motels, etc. In the steppe zone where roadside zones are about the only refugiums of steppe biota this can bring in rather hard consequences.

In tundra and taiga zones of Russia, rivers are used as main transportation ways. The intensive development of small water transport, starting from the 50s, has facilitated access to remote lands thus having concentrated population in larger settlements along rivers. As a result, a load on by-river ecosystems has grown and that in interfluve areas - dropped. Today, a decrease in visiting remote lands is dictated by rising prices on fuel. Similar reasons have led to reduction of coast fleet and local air traffic which were used by poachers for getting to sea coasts and watersheds. At the same time, high prices have led to a drop in air fire management surveillance.

Main agricultural areas of field-crop cultivating regions belong to joint stock associations (JSA), kolkhozs (collective farms) and sovkhozs (state farms). It is formally believed that their members are owners of individual land plots though actually the lands are not divided. For 1996, a share of lands in this possession made up 66.3 % of the total agricultural lands. Individual farmers owned 4.8 %. Small areas are occupied by backyard gardens of rural and small-city residents, gardens and orchards in collective possession (0.8 and 0.3 % of agricultural lands, respectively).

State reserve lands, those belonging to the defense sector, occupied by forests and zapovedniks, water basins and the like are considered to be in state or mixed ownership- that of the Federation and a Federation subject, or only in that of a Federation subject (Annex 5.1.4). Actually, these lands are in the possession of local administrations as their decision is critical in land allotment and identification of users' rights and responsibilities. Hence, it is local authorities that own biological resources within their area - woods, game, inland water fish, etc. Underground resources are also considered to be a state property. Yet, region administrations having authority in land allotment exercise partial management of underground resources. In tundra and taiga regions that have no valuable mineral resources or commercially usable forests, aboriginal communities or professional hunters virtually get back to a customary community-family system of land use even in places where it is not legally fixed. In case the Land Code permitted purchase-sale of land, it would affect the most part of population residing in the vicinity of large cities where a mass transfer of agricultural lands into garden-orchard plots, dachas and local production sites would start.

Russia is specific of a high level of technical equipment. It is partially connected with elevated power consumption by economy of such a northern country as Russia (6.3 % across country and 38 % in some regions). Due to only a climate factor, the amount of work needed for the creation and operation of equipment of a comparable technical standard may be many-fold different in the north of Siberia and center of European Russia. On-permafrost building works rank first in this row. Building and all power-consuming industrial activities are accompanied by energy dispersion in the environment (including in the form of pollution and direct nature disruption) due to the critical efficiency factor for machinery and equipment in use. Here an energy equivalent can act as an integral characteristic for the anthropogenic load on ecosystems (Annex 5.1.5-5.1.6).

In the biodiversity context, Russian industry is characterized by two specific features. The first is an elevated (versus average global standard) energy environmental impact in manufacture of equivalent products. The second feature refers to the concentration of local exposures mostly in cities and areas close to industrial sites. These features govern the inability of industrial air emissions to produce significant impacts on biodiversity of terrestrial ecosystems in watersheds even in the region with a long history of assimilation (Annex 5.1.5-5.1.10). Anyhow, water ecosystems prove to be highly vulnerable as they are waste concentration sites affected by the totality of industrial sites of the whole watershed.

Production dynamics in the crisis period. Following the official statistics, a conclusion is usually made that recent years have been characterized by an extremely profound production decline in Russia. It should have told beneficially on the biodiversity conservation in towns and water basins located downstream. Nevertheless, some statistic data demonstrate a different pattern (Table 19).

Table 19 Production volume decline in the period of 1985 - 1995 by monetary and natural indicators

Judging from natural indicators, factual volume of work done in the country and, respectively, amount of products manufactured is higher than it follows from fiscal reports. Economists confirm that a considerable output portion falls with the shadow sector. The shadow sector accounted for 34 % of the officially registered material production output of Russia in 1995.

Currently and in the nearest future, a production growth will occur mostly at the expense of small enterprises that consume water from municipal water facilities and discharge it to sewage which is normally unadjusted to industrial waste waters, or directly to natural water basins. It is significant that polluted waste water amounts constituted 82.7 % in 1996 versus 1992 and contaminated air emissions - merely 71.6 %. Mind that the latter are less diffusive and thus more feasibly registered. Reduction of medium enterprises will result in the growth of land allotment to building and forest clearings, small in area though high in number, especially in southern regions.

An agricultural assimilation rate of Russian regions is irregular. Across the country it is much lower than in most countries of the world. Plowed fields, orchards, etc. occupy 7.6 % of the territory, intensively used pastures and hay-fields - 4.6 % (Table 20). As it has been already marked, Nechernozemie is indicative of agricultural lands being overgrown with young woods. Unfortunately, data on cultivable lands overgrowing is lacking. As for pastures and hay fields, in 1990 - 1994, 3.8 million hectares of them were transferred to the category of tree-shrubbery lands. Yet, another 6.7 million hectares remained in the category of overgrown wild feedstock lands for 1.01.1995. Main massifs of lands being overgrown with forest are located in the north and north-west of European Russia. Over 30% of wild feedstock lands - hay meadows and grazings - have been overgrown in Novgorod and Pskov oblasts.

Table 20 Distribution of the Russian Federation land fund according to land categories for January 1, 1997 (in thousand square km)

Notes. Land categories: 1 - lands of agricultural enterprises, organizations and individuals; II - lands in the authority of municipal, towns and rural administrations; III - lands used for industrial, transport and other non-agricultural purposes; IV - lands of the environmental purpose (zapovedniks, national parks, zakazniks, etc.); V - forest fund lands (forestry farms); VI - water fund lands; VII - state reserve lands.

According to state statistics agencies, pig stock has dropped to 19.5 millions, that of sheep and goat - to 23.3 millions by 1997. Total cattle livestock has reduced from 47.0 to 24.0 million animals in cattle breeding farms during 1991 - 1997. However, in private farms, official statistics has registered a growth from 9.9 to 11.8 millions. A real growth is obviously higher because farmers hide the most part of cattle livestock from registration. It is significant that feed costs per unit of cattle weight gain or milk yield in collective farms are constantly growing. This reflects an increase in the use of community-owned feedstock for private cattle. Note that if areas under cereals have reduced to 534 thou sq km in 1996 versus 619 thou sq km in 1992, so those under many-year grass (basic forest-zone forage cultures) grew from 1 300 thou sq km to 1 780 thou sq km. In central Nechernozemie, forest pasturing and forest meadow and roadside zone hay making have almost ceased due to a sharp drop of cattle livestock in collective farms and abandoning of some fields. Alternatively, in Chernozemie, large farms are in a relatively better state as a result of high crop yields. Though here the cost for land has gone up drastically. For self-supply of food, unsuitable lands, roadside zones, etc., are plowed up for gardens and almost all meadow and steppe sections are mowed for cattle feedstock. The same situation is with haying areas and forest grazings in the European north and Siberian south where a growth of private cattle stock has been marked and a certain shortage of non-forest areas exists.

The application of toxicants for grain treatment has stopped practically everywhere and pesticides and mineral fertilizers are falling out of use. In 1992, on the average in the country, agricultural enterprises purchased 44 kg of mineral fertilizers per 1 hectare of plowed land versus only 14 kg in 1996. This has resulted in a growth of the animals number in forest steppe and forest zones - typical dwellers of forest edges - Lirurus tetrix, Perdix perdix, Capreolus capreolus, etc. As farms has grown less in number, dung is more often brought out for sale and this has led to slowing down of eutrofication of small water pools thus favorably influencing biodiversity of their flora and fauna. Import-focusing allowed to cut down areas under rice (the most ecologically unsafe culture in Russia) from 286.5 thousand hectares in 1990 to 172 in 1996. This has produced a beneficial effect on the environmental situation in biodiversity-valuable Khanka lowlands and Cis-Caucasus (especially in the Kuban delta).

The existing economic situation in the agroindustrial complex has resulted in a drastic drop of sheep livestock - a basis for the economy of steppe and mountain-steppe communities of Russia. In the period of 1991 - 1995, sheep and goat livestock of agricultural enterprises fell down 2.3-fold (cattle livestock - 1.5-fold, pigs - 1.9). Although even official statistics showed that cow and pig livestock had grown for the same period and that of sheep and goats had reduced from 16.1 to 15.0 million animals. This is the reason for expecting an erosion decrease on grazings and recovery of nature diversity in very rare for Russia steppe and semiarid regions.

Forest fund accounts for about 69 % of Russian lands. 78.8 % of dense forests are located in the Asian part and 21.5 % - in European Russia and the Urals. The protection and rational use of the Russian forest fund provide the landscape and biological diversity conservation and sustainable use of the country's largest part. Average forest density of Russia being 44.7 %, it reaches 57 % within boreal forests.

According to the latest state forest fund registration, its area is 11.9 million square km. From among them, 11.1 million square km are within state management, 0.16 million square km - in that of RF SCEP, 0.45 million square km are owned by agricultural enterprises and 0.1 million hectares fall within the jurisdiction of other ministries and state sectoral bodies.

By now, only 60 % of Russian forests has been studied in detail and managed properly. The rest (mainly low-value woods of Asian Russia) was studied only using distant-reading (aerial visual and space techniques) methods and falls out of proper management. In compliance with the RF Forest Code (1997), fund forests should be grouped in three categories.

The 1st category covers forests that have water-conserving, sanitary, protective and other functions along with forests of protected areas. Totally they occupy about 20 % of the forest total. Recent years have demonstrated a growth of this pool of forests resulting from the foundation of new protected areas.

Forests attributed to the 2nd category concentrate in regions specific of high population density and mature infrastructure. They have water-conserving, protective, recreational and other functions under the conditions of forest resource deficit. This group of forests requires certain restrictions in forest use. They occupy merely 6 % of the area.

The 3rd category unites productive woods of rich-in-forest regions. The key requirement to lumbering in this pool of forests should be the conservation of their ecological functions.

The data of the State Committee on Statistics evidences that 1996 timber outputs accounted for 100.8 million m3. A decline in lumbering varies by regions. In principal logging regions (Northern Region, Urals, West Siberia, East Siberia and Far East) legal cutting outputs dropped by over 50 % in 1991 - 1996 and by less than 50 % in other areas for the same period. Forest regions of Siberia feature abandoning of remote clearings and cutting carried out mainly along communications. Forestry statistics gives no accurate data on these changes. Though they are indirectly evidenced by a decrease in timber rafting, i.e. forest transporting from remote sites. In 1990 - 1994, railroad lumber freights demonstrated a 2.8 times drop, sea lumber cargoes reduced 3.3-fold, inland water cargoes - 2.9-fold and rafting accounted for as high as a 6.9 times decrease.

Western experts evaluate the amount of illegal cuttings as 40 % of the total output. Even more important are indicators of increasing cuttings in southern scarce-in-forest regions. Analysis shows that sanitary, "leaving" and other (including clearings due to land allotment for building sites or garden plots) clearings are conducted in forest-deficit districts (Table 21).

Amounts of key-use wood cutting have drastically reduced here, yet those of sanitary and\or "other" wood cuttings have remained unchanged. The same pattern is also indicative of forest lands inside economic regions. For example, in the Central Region outputs of all kinds of wood felling have dropped and in the woodless Orel oblast sanitary cuttings have grown (123 %) along with the other kinds being preserved (100 %). A similar process is typical for the Volgograd oblast (108.5 and 350 %), Volga region, Orenburg oblast (167.6 and 160.8 %), Urals region, Altai Republic (167.6 and 160.8 %), West Siberia, Bouryat Republic (105.3 and 78.2 %), and East Siberia. These processes have resulted in a decrease of the reference felling area (in cubic m) with its development degree also dropping (woods are getting younger though their area is extending country-wide).

Table 21 Changes in wood cutting outputs in Russia for 1991 - 1995

Illegal cuttings and forest clearings in the guise of land allotting for other purposes is becoming a common practice. Moreover, Chernozemie and Siberia are getting indicative of forest cattle pasturing. Note that rural areas actually are lacking control over petty poaching. Most dangerous is the situation on the Caucasus. Regional conflicts intensify vulnerability of mountain forests and high energy costs lead to mass lumbering.

The key-use reference felling area (ratio of the factually cut wood amount to the reference felling area amount) accounted for 21.4 %, including coniferous - 26.8 %. Timber output has been gradually decreasing since 1988. Simultaneously, a decline of forest-use violations has been also observed. For instance, in 1994, the amount of lumber abandoned in felling areas comprised 2.9 million m3 versus 1.4 million m3 in 1995 and about 1.0 million m3 in 1996. The most acute problems of forest use impact on biodiversity for European Russia forests are associated with the conservation of old-aged woods and their fragmentation in the course of dense cuttings and building of temporary and permanent roads.

A growth of fires and fresh burnt-out sites is going on (Table 22). Insufficient funding leads to the absence of air fire management patrols and to delays in fire spotting. Table 20 lists the data on very unfavorable dynamics of the fire situation in Russian forests. Both the number and scale of forest fires are growing. Annex 5.1.9-5.1.10 evidences that the greatest areas of burnt-out sites are identified on oblasts' boundaries, i.e. in the most hard-to-reach districts. Comparing an average fire area of 0.27 km2 in 1992 with that in 1996, we will see that it grew up to 0.57 km2. In 1992, 10 km2 of the burnt-out area accounted for, on average, 16 thousand m3 timber versus 30 thousand m3 in 1996. Fire area and frequency vary considerably through years. Damage inflicted by fires amounted to about 30 billion US dollars (in prices for November 1996). The most fire-hazardous districts are concentrated in Middle and East Siberia, Yakutia, Transbaikalia and Far East which are specific of rich flora and fauna diversity.

Table 22. Fires in Russian forests in 1992 - 1996

A conclusion can be made that the most rapid growth of the fire number is indicative of productive mature forests with the largest lumber stock and high biodiversity level.

Reforestation was carried out on 11,097 sq km in 1996. On 8,045 sq km out of them, efforts assisting natural reforestation were undertaken and on 3,502 sq km - afforestation actions. Forest cultures planted on about 500 square km in various periods did not survive, including one-year species on 44 square km. In comparison with 1995, reforestation areas reduced by 3 440 sq km.

The total area of pest and forest disease concentration sites was 42 068 sq km (0.4 %) in 1996. The largest areas were marked in the Kemerovo, Omsk, Tyumen and Amur oblasts, Republic of Bashkortostan, Primorski and Krasnoyarsk krais. The largest pest reproduction concentrations in Russia are formed by Siberian silk worm (average area - 22 247 sq km for the last 17 years) and most popular forest diseases are caused by butt-rot fungus (average area - 767 sq km for the last 17 years). In 1996, forest-protection actions were fulfilled on the area of 11,817 km2, including those by biological methods - on 7,696 km2 and by chemical methods - on 4 121 sq km. The International Forest Institute, Scientific Council on Forest Problems, RAS Center of Forest Ecology and Efficiency together with Rosleskhoz (Russian Forestry Management) held the 1995 All-Russia Conference Biological Diversity of Forest Ecosystems where the presentation of the Biological Diversity of Russian Forests draft program was made. Its goal was to create science and technology grounds for complex forest use with the conservation and recovery of its biodiversity as a condition for sustainable development of the country and its regions. In 1998, within the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, it is supposed to prepare the sectoral strategy for the Russian forest biodiversity conservation.

Fishery spreads over almost the whole territory and in all water areas of Russia though its scale and techniques differ in different regions. Marine fishing is usually carried out by large fishing companies of various ownership forms. Potential catches of fish and other sea resources in the Russian exclusive economic zone are estimated as 4.1 - 4.7 million tons. Inland sea and freshwater basins yield, respectively, 250 and 200 thousand tons. The highest fishing outputs are characteristic of the Atlantic north-east and Pacific north-west.

Principal fishing objects of Far East seas are: walleye pollock, herring, cod, sole, saury, salmon species, etc. Pollock's catches are about 2 million tons (1 million tons of which are caught in the Okhotsk Sea). In the post-depression period, the restoration of several Far East herring shoals has been observed. Its catches account for 480,000 tons in the Okhotsk Sea and 100,000 tons in the Bering Sea near Kamchatka. Cod catches are relatively stable in this region - 170 - 180,000 tons and salmon catches vary through years within 130 - 205,000 tons. Far East seas are also rich in commercial sea invertebrates: crabs, shrimps, mollusks, echinoderms. Intensive fur seal and common seal hunting is also practiced in this region.

Key commercial fishing objects in the Atlantic north-east (Barents Sea) are: cod (90,000 tons), haddock (40,000 tons), sole, etc. After capelin fishing was prohibited, its number is getting restored. Commercial fishing objects of the Baltic Sea are Baltic herring, sprat ,cod and salmon. The use of principal commercial fish reserves of these seas is under control of International Fishery Boards. Russian quotas for Baltic fishery are as follows: Baltic herring - 32,000 tons, sprat - 55,000 tons, cod - 7,000 tons , salmon - 115 tons. The Baltic herring and sprat number is currently growing and salmon populations are maintained by artificial reproduction.

Principal commercial fishing objects of the Caspian Sea are 3 sprat species 82.3 % (840,000 tons) of which is made up by anchovy-like sprat. The Russian fishing quota comprises about 94,000 tons and is almost completely used. Recent years were specific of a rise in the Caspian Sea level. This had a positive effect on the reproduction of semimigratory (carp, bream, Caspian roach, etc.) and two-waters fish. Pike perch reserves are reducing due to the transition of its main shoal to the eastern part (Kazakhstan) of the Volga delta.

Sturgeon species fishing output of 1996 was equal to 1,296 tons in the Lower Volga and Caspian Sea and totally with other countries - 1,662 tons. Sturgeon number and reserves of the Volga go down every year. For 1996, the absolute number of sturgeon species was 24.9 millions, including sturgeon - 12.8 millions, starred sturgeon - 5.5 millions, white sturgeon - 6.6 millions. The role of this fish artificial breeding in their reserve replenishing is not high. Annually, 45 - 52 million sturgeon-like fry is introduced, yet the number of young fish, e.g. in the Caspian north, has 5 - 6 times dropped versus 1975 - 1990. The above negative changes are associated with growing poaching and renewal of marine sturgeon fishing by new Caspian states - Kazakhstan, Azerbaidzhan, etc. To compensate a low reproduction rate of Caspian sturgeon, in 1997 Russia made a decision to cease commercial fishing in the Volga. However, to solve the problem it is still necessary to stop poaching and conclude an agreement on the sturgeon conservation with Caspian states.

Commercial fishing objects for the Azov Sea are sturgeon species, khamsa, sprats, pike perch, bream, and Black-Sea roach. Modern fishing of starred sturgeon and sturgeon exists owing to artificial breeding. Natural spawning of sturgeon species is actually excluded. Fishing limit for these species have been maintained at the level of 1,500 tons (1,200 tons for sturgeon and 300 tons for starred sturgeon) for the last years. Since the end of the 80s, the Azov Sea has been featuring mass reproduction of crested dog's-tail grass - active zooplankton consumer. This resulted in the feedstock disruption for a lot of fish species thus involving their reduction in number. For example, khamsa biomass currently accounts for 65,000 tons, sprat - 150,000 tons, pike perch - 43,000 tons, Black-Sea roach - 2,000 tons. The total catch of pike perch was 24,000 tons and that of Black-Sea roach - 2,000 tons in 1996.

During several recent years Russian inland freshwater basins have been manifesting a tendency to the reduction of valuable commercial fish reserves (sturgeon, pike perch, carp) and buildup of low-value fish. Most of water basins are specific of uncoordinated commercial fishing, use of ecologically unsafe fishing gear, absence of catch and sale registration, and intensive poaching.

The main fishing output of Russian freshwater basins (up to 60 %) falls within large rivers (26,000 tons), lakes (38,000 tons) and man-made water basins (41 - 42,000 tons).

Most intensive fishing is typical for European Russia. For instance, large man-made water basins - Rybinskooe, Kuibyshevskoe, Saratovskoe, Volgogradskoe, Tsimlyanskoe - yield annually 13,6 - 13,800 tons of fish according to official statistics. Four large lakes - Ladoga, Onega, Pskovsko-Chudskoe, and Ilmen account for 7 - 8,000 tons. Biomass of catches is mainly constituted by pike perch and bream, and in northern lakes - whitefish and smelt.

In Asian Russia, maximum fish catches are attained in the Ob - Irtysh watershed (15 - 17,000 tons, this making up about 70 % of the total river fish catch in Russia). Commercial fishing objects are whitefish species (28 %), ide (14 %), low-value species (36 %), etc. Fishing outputs of sturgeon species (Siberian sturgeon, sterlet) are small - about 50 tons. Among water basins of East Siberia, the Yenisei River and Baikal Lake have the most developed fishery. Annual fishing output of the Baikal is 30,000 - 32,000 tons (65 - 73 % - Baikal cisco). Annual fishing output of the Yenisei is 17,000 - 18,000 tons. Invertebrates (crab species) may be attributed to an independent type of marine fishing practiced in Far East seas. According to data of the Federal State Border Service that is in charge of fishing control in Russian high seas, only 10 % of the export to Japan undergoes registration ("shadow" export of seafood from Russia to this country reaches 2 billion US dollars per year). Fish and sea invertebrates are exported to South Korea and other Asian countries in similar amounts.

Fishing on large rivers, lakes and man-made water basins is focused, first of all, on individual productive and accessible high-value fish shoals. For example, salmon is a special fishing object in the European north rivers. Its fishing is practiced mostly by local communities (the Pomors) residing on commercially used rivers. Most of fishing falls within the "shadow" sector. For instance, official statistics states that in the European north salmon catches dropped from 658.7 tons in 1985 to 129.6 tons in 1995. According to expert evaluations, about 45 % of this fish outputs is accounted for by poaching.

Other fishing types fall out of the commercial pool though play a significant role in the life of country�s population. Fishing ranks first or second in economic activities of aboriginal people of the North, Siberia and Far East. It is widespread over water basins of large Siberian rivers and the Pacific coast. Both customary and modern fishing gear are in use. Siberian north is specific of individual fishing conducted by all appropriate means, including sweep nets, standing nets, etc. It is an important part of food self-supply and monetary income for local dwellers. Focusing on the most valuable and multiple species to be easily caught in large amounts is noticeable. Individual fishing can dramatically undermine the number of some fish species in places (mainly around cities and on small rivers) where salmon's upstream migrations occur.

Non-professional fishing is typical for the European Russia center and Chernozemie. Nets and sweep nets are very rare in use here. Fishing mostly plays the role of a relaxation and sport activity. Non-professional fishing catches can be estimated only roughly. For example, population of Moscow and the Moscow oblast making up about 10 % of the Russia's total accounts for 14,000 ton fish in terms of a low fish productivity specific of these water basins. Sport fishing as a factor affecting water biodiversity is not this important so far and produces only local impacts.

Currently Russian fishery is surviving hard times. Monitoring of the commercial fish status and other resources, regulation of fishery and conservation of its reserves are minimal. This results from a drastic cut-down of funding for scientific research and efforts addressing the conservation and reproduction of commercial water organisms as well as with the absence of a sectoral biodiversity conservation strategy.

At the same time, fishery is one of those sectors which pioneered getting out of the economic crisis: the marine fishing output had dropped to 3.5 million tons by 1994 (according to official statistics), however, in 1995 it grew up to 4.2 million tons, in 1996 - to 4.5 million tons and it is predicted to be 4.65 million tons in 1997. Though it is fishery that is most vulnerable in statistics since unregistered poaching outputs are still very high. According to the Russian Federal State Border Service, annual damage imposed by poaching is presently estimated as 4 billion US dollars.

The main objective of Russian fishery today is to study its raw material stock, monitor its status and provide grounds for its management to avoid absolutely any adverse impacts on biodiversity of water basins.

Hunting is one of key fauna-use types in Russia. Russian hunting lands occupy 15 000 thousand square km (Annex 5.1.11). Russia is the world's hunting leader in species diversity and economic value of game. About 60 mammal species and 70 bird species - professional and non-professional hunting objects live on its territory. The highest economic value is attributed to wild ungulates, brown bear and 20 species of fur animals. Commercial hunting supplies population with meat, leather and fur materials and valuable medicinal protein product.

Russian system of game animals registration ranks among the world's best. Winter route registration designed by Russian experts has been utilized across the territory of Finland since 1989. This method is currently under testing in Canada. Russian Gosokhotuchet (State Service for Game Animals Registration) under the Department for Protection and Rational Use of Hunting Resources within the Ministry of Agriculture performs annual estimation of the key game species number in individual Federation subjects and across Russia. Though financing is insufficient, land registration efforts cover a large part of the country's territory. Recent years have marked an annual growth of land registration quantity and quality. In 1997, their amounts were the highest through the whole period (44.4 thousand registration routes with the total length of 436 thousand km; Annex 5.1.31).

Aerial counts of wild ungulates are conducted within fixed periods in a number of Russian regions. Yet, recent years have been indicative of a drop in this kind of registration due to rising costs for air transport and cut-down financing. Annual air registrations of saiga are performed in Kalmykia. A wide-scale air registration of wild reindeer was accomplished in 1997 on Chukotka.

Census studies of specific animal species with the use of procedures worked out by the Russian Gosokhotuchet is carried out in many regions. Almost in all administrative divisions of the Russian Federation there was conducted registration of wolf by the method of mapping of its habitats in 1995 - 1996.

To enforce the Russian Federation Government Edict No 1342 of November 10, 1996 "On the order of state fauna monitoring", a list of game species, resources of which are under federal control, was extended. In 1997 the Russian Gosokhotuchet estimated the number of the Tetaonidae family species in Russia. A procedure for the estimation of waterfowl was also developed. Monitoring over age-sex structure changes of the most valuable game populations is performed.

Data of the Russian Gosokhotuchet evidences that the 1992-1995 reduction of some valuable game took place mainly in the center and south of European Russia. For the country as a whole, the same years feature not so noticeable reduction of game animals and it did not exceed the level of the 80s by the number of species. For example, total wild ungulate manifested only a 14 % reduction - from 3,626,000 in 1991 to 3,133,000 in 1995. For comparison, cattle livestock reduced by 36 % during the same period in Russia.

According to the State Report "On the status of the environment in the Russian Federation in 1995", the game animals decrease was caused by unfavorable climatic conditions, general drop in productivity of natural plant feedstock and drying of wetlands vital for waterfowl.

Note that the reduction of game livestock in 1992 - 1995 did not exceed the frameworks of natural deviations of their abundance. This point of view was also proved by a simultaneous reduction of many valuable game animals in Finland and other Scandinavian countries.

Two recent years have altered the situation. The total livestock of fur and wild ungulate animals has been growing across Russia. For instance, the livestock of key wild ungulates has increased by 3 % from 3 129 000 in 1996 to 3 221 000 in 1997 (Table 23).

The growth of the game number under the conditions of a hard socio-economic situation in Russia has a few reasons. A positive effect was produced by improving weather-climatic conditions and feedstock for game animals. In addition, anti-poaching campaign has been fostered in Russia. There were fixed 47.5 thousand cases of hunting rules violation in 1996 on the RF territory. Wolf preying has increased: 13.0 thousand animals were killed in 1996 versus ! in 1991. For the first time during past 7 years, the number of wolves has shown a tendency to decline and amounted to 42.2 thousands for March 1, 1997 versus 45.0 thousands for March 1, 1996.

Another positive role in the stabilization and growth of wild ungulate livestock was played by a strategy of severe constraints on hunting quotas for these species in the period of adverse effects from nature factors. Wild ungulate hunt outputs have been getting more stable since 1996. In the Russian Federation, during a hunting season of 1996 - 1997, outputs of elk hunts were 22.0 thousand animals, of wild reindeer - 27.3 thousands, roe deer - 21.4 thousands, saiga - 14.5 thousands, wild boar - 9.3 thousands, red deer and axis deer - 4.8 thousands. In the coming years, commercial hunting of wild ungulates will be increasing due to a current growth of their livestock.

Changes in socio-economic conditions involving a decrease of demand for furs have caused reduction of hunting outputs for many fur-bearing game species. Nevertheless, hunting outputs for sable were one-third higher in 1996 than in 1995 and constituted 98 thousand animals. This was accompanied by a growth of the sable number.

Waterfowl are a mass hunting object. Their total hunting output is around 9.0 million birds. This corresponds to about 10 % of the whole waterfowl reserve and does not exhaust their resources.

State zakazniks has benefited much to the conservation of game resources. Their principal objective is long-term reservation and protection of habitats of especially valuable game animals in order to enrich faunas of adjacent lands. In 1997, there were 1,064 hunting zakazniks with the total area of 52 500 thou sq km in the system of the Department for Protection and Rational Use of Hunting Resources within the RF Ministry of Agriculture. Most of hunting zakazniks, especially 56 republican ones, feature a higher density of protected animals population than that in adjacent areas. Regular natural introductions of animals to adjacent areas occur in zakazniks.

Table 23 The number of key game species in the Russian Federation according to the data of Russian Gosokhotuchet (1996 - 1997)

*- the number for March 1; ** - the number for October 1; *** - the number for the second quarter.

The program for ox re-acclimatization in the Far North regions is going on in Russia. Two large ox populations were formed in the Taimyr peninsula north-east and on the Vrangel island. Introductions of these animals into the wild were performed in the Yamal-Nenets Area and Sakha Republic (Yakutia) in 1996 - 1997.

Scientific support to the Russian hunting management also features a certain progress: there were accomplished research efforts in population biology, game microevolution and ecology, studied reasons for variations in the number of elk, wild boar, blue hare and other game animals, made science-grounded and corroborating forecasts for the changes in their number, developed methods for standardization of game hunting. They serve as the basis for annual recommendations in identifying quotas for game hunting.

Thus, despite all difficulties, a number of positive trends in the Russian hunting management are currently observed: livestock of most game animals is growing; regulatory-legislative base is advancing; State Hunting Supervision is being consolidated; amounts of efforts on the game registration are increasing.

These circumstances and favorable nature-climate forecasts for the coming future are creating prerequisites for expanding amounts and scope of services and increasing productivity of hunting.

Since 1994, state control over the hunting resources status and hunting management has been with the Department for Hunting within the RF Ministry of Agriculture. It accomplishes, on an annual basis, check-ups of activities of all organizations involved in the game protection and hunting management in the Russian Federation.

There are specific problems and challenges in the present-day hunting management of Russia. For instance, most of Russian hunting lands (57 %) are within the authority of hunting-management organizations and businesses which do not meet requirements of hunting land protection. They thus violate Article 40 of the Federal law "On fauna". Only 16 % of illegal hunting cases registered in the Russian territory fall with users. Analysis on their hunting managing activities shows that a lot of them cannot provide financing of actions on their own territory (Annex 5.1.32).

Serious problems exist in the registration of large populations of wild ungulates in tundra and semidesert zones where the most credible data can be collected only by means of aviation. For instance, due to the lack of money for aircraft rent, air registration of the largest in Russia Taimyr population of reindeer consisting roughly of 600,000 animals has not been conducted since 1990.

Gosokhotnadzor (State Hunting Supervision) personnel are killed or injured by poachers every year. There were 6 of them killed in 1995 and 22 got injured in 1996. Yet, funds for state insurance of these personnel have not been so far allocated though they are provided for by the Federal law "On state protection of judges, officials, law-protecting and controlling bodies".

A system of state hunting management has undergone changes. In compliance with the RSFSR Council of Ministers Edict No 279 of August 3, 1990, RSFSR Glavokhota was introduced into the structure of the newly formed RSFSR Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The Russian Federation Government Edict No 593 of June 23, 1993 initiated the establishment of the Department for Protection and Rational Use of Hunting Resources within this Ministry. It exercises state game resource controlling and managing functions. The Federal law "On fauna" (Article 12) states that state control and management bodies shall not be engaged in economic activities relative to the use of hunting resources. That is why former state economic sites of the RSFSR Glavokhota were withdrawn from under the Department for Hunting. These sites have been transformed to joint stock companies and have become subordinate to Russian Federation subjects.

A lot of hunting management problems arise from absolutely insufficient funding. According to the data of the RF State Committee on Statistics, the 1996 budget of wild animal registration efforts was as low as 6 billion rubles totally across the Russian Federation, wild animal protection expenses constituted 13.5 billion rubles and those for biotechnology efforts - 14.1 billion rubles. Total budget from various funding sources covering wild animals protection, registration and reproduction costs for the whole Russian Federation was 106.2 billion rubles in 1996. It accounts to about one-third of the 1990 budget in comparable prices.

State budget financing of hunting management bodies under the Department for Protection and Rational Use of Hunting Resources within the RF Ministry of Agriculture is evidently insufficient. Only 10 % of the needed sum was allocated for target programs focused on the game resource protection, reproduction and regulation. Funding of hunting science also experiences serious difficulties.

According to the data of the RF State Committee on Statistics, hunting management regular staff consists of 27,409 people for the end of 1996. If compared with 1990, it was much more and equal to 47,479 (Annex 5.1.11-5.1.12).

Game animals are mobile, they are specific of season migrations and populate new areas in a very fast manner. To provide science-grounded management, it is necessary to collect simultaneously registration data from vast areas using unified procedures. This is one of the proofs for functioning of a centralized game resource monitoring system - State Registration Service for Russian Game Resources. It enables to recruit high-qualification specialists for quality evaluation and further processing of initial materials and receive rapidly data on the game resource status from all over Russia. In addition, individual efforts on the evaluation of animal number (e.g. calculation of conversion factors for the winter route registration) can be accomplished only on the centralized basis. Availability of unified data from neighboring regions facilitates registration quality control and allows to evaluate the status of game populations even though their populations may have habitats on territories of several Federation subjects.

The migration mobility of game animals and structure of their populations govern a necessity of a step-by-step transition to management of specific populations. Since populations often dwell within several Federation subjects, priority in control over their status and rational use is placed on federal hunting management bodies. The Taimyr population of wild reindeer (about 600,000 animals) may be taken as an example: In summer it lives in the Taimyr Autonomous Area and in winter - in Evenkia. To guarantee rational use of this population and meet interests of both Taimyr and Evenki Autonomous Areas, federal bodies are responsible for fixing science-substantiated quotas for wild reindeer hunting.

In compliance with the CBD ratified by Russia, it is necessary to give up a practice of making arbitrary changes in the age-sex structure of game populations and to improve methods of their hunting to conserve natural parameters of populations. The Federal law "On fauna" provides for the payment for their use among other key principles of state control in the field of fauna objects' protection and sustainable use. It is reasonable to extend a list of hunting permits which require payment. This will bring an extra inflow to Federal and regional budgets and additional funds to the efforts on game resource protection, registration and reproduction.

Top-priority actions aimed at the development of hunting are detailed in the draft Federal Target Program "Protection, Monitoring and Rational Use of Russian Hunting Resources". It focuses on the following key areas:

1. Improvement of the game protection. Expansion of a hunting zakazniks' network. Protection of game environment.

2. Keeping state registration, cadaster and monitoring of game animals using unified procedures across the country. Development of the RF Gosokhotuchet. Generation of all-Russia regular registration routes. Designing and application of geoinformational technologies for the resource status evaluation.

3. Rational use of game resources. Transition to a non-exhausting use of specific game populations. Implementation of resource-saving methods for game hunting.

4. Improvement of conditions for game species reproduction. Implementation of programs for settling game animals and birds. Control over the wolf population number.

5. Scientific support to hunting management. Development of a general theory for game number dynamics as a necessary basis for upgrading protection methods and rational use of their resources. Research on migrations of game animals, structure of their populations and their artificial breeding. Analysis of consequences from changes in game habitual environment. Investigations in the field of hunting management economics.

Approval and implementation of the Federal Target Program "Protection, Monitoring and Rational Use of Russian Hunting Resources" will assist in improving management of Russian Federation hunting.

An issue, very important for hunting regions, is the use of so called "misty traps". In these regions, customary hunt was conducted by quite "humanistic" methods - falling down log-traps killed an animal almost instantly. In the 30s, when a system of dividing hunting lands into sections fixed with a family-hunters, large catching devices were getting replaced by metal traps. A fast requirement of hunters with new traps is hardly possible under crisis conditions. To return to customary traps, it is necessary to revive a system of long-term hunting land use by individual hunters, including aboriginal families for whom hunting is the key form of economy.

Picking up mushrooms and berries is among favorite recreation activities of many Russian urban and rural residents as well as a long-history tradition. In rural areas (especially forest ones), forest harvesting is an important feature of economy and part of a yearly work cycle. Both individuals and harvesting agencies harvest several kinds of berries, nuts (including Pinus sibirica), wild onion species (Allium sp.sp.), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and a lot of herbs and plant raw material usable in medicine.

Official statistics on forest harvesting outputs is actually lacking. The data available for the Moscow oblast show that, e.g. in 1987, 170 000 tons of mushrooms and about 25,000 tons of berries were harvested there. As the population is very high in this area (about 15.3 million), the oblast is specific of particularly high harvesting outputs though they may give an idea of forest harvesting scales in Russia.

The Russian Federation population features a lot of national and confessional varieties representing a broad scope of cultural traditions that govern specifics of their attitude toward nature (Annex 5.1.13-5.1.14). Note that the Russians having settled all over the territory of modern Russia took up readily ways of life inherent to indigenous communities. Annex 5.1.14 demonstrates distribution of population pools with various types of economic culture concerning biological resource use. Figures placed in the maps mark nationalities or detached communities described in this section. Total population comprising all pools of small nationalities is over 1,646.500. From among them, 797,700 reside in towns and 849,200 - in rural areas. Most of them live in rural areas of the Khabarovsk and Primorski krais, Sakhalin and Murmansk oblasts, Yamal-Nenets and Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Areas. 283 thou sq km of Russian lands belong to community-tribal homesteads with 171 thou sq km being their deer pastures and forests.

Far-range deer breeding of the tundra is specific of Nenets communities (1) and a part of Komi-Zyryans (20 in the European and West Siberian north and of a majority of Chuckhees (3) on Chukotka. Close to them are northern communities of Yakuts (4), Koryaks (5), Kereks (6) and Saams (7) though they are less mobile. Far-range deer breeding got in practice with Russian aboriginal people only in the 18th century. Its characteristic feature is wide-range season migrations around the tundra-northern taiga interface.

Obviously, the most part of the modern tundra south (particularly on the Yamal peninsula) has become woodless as a result of deer breeders' cutting out larch on the northern taiga boundary. Yet, they are extremely cautious with fire that often destroys valuable deer grazings. They are also active in chasing and killing wild reindeer and wolves by all appropriate means and carry out regular shooting of some predatory birds without breaking their nests. Aboriginal hunters practice hunting of all kinds of game, including those falling out of the hunting pool: snowy owl (Nyctea scandica) and rough-legged buzzard (Buteo lagopus). Reindeer hunters' children constantly destroy birds' nests. Multiple sledge- and gun-dogs also present a negative factor.

Far-range deer breeding is responsible for a lower number of geese in the West Siberian north if compared with Taimyr where deer breeding is underdeveloped. Density of reindeer breeders' population is not high and therefore a cautious attitude to grazings outweighs adverse impact on tundra biodiversity.

Sea animal hunting is specific of Eskimos (8), coast Chuckchees (9) and Aleuts of the Commander Islands (10). These indigenous communities have a long history of sea animal hunting though the outputs are not high and they do not dramatically affect biodiversity. The main land adverse impact factor is widely used sledge-dogs. In the European north, sea animal hunting used to be characteristic of Pomors (11) - representatives of Russian communities in the region. Though now they have re-focused on fishing.

Deer hunt characterizes economic activities of Iganasans (12) and Entses (13) in Taimyr tundras, Evenks (14) and Evens (15) in Middle and East Siberia and Far East, part of Khanty (16) and Mansi (17) in West Siberian taiga, and some other native population pools of Siberia (Selkups 18, Dolgans - 19, Tofalars - 20) and Far East (Yukagirs - 21, Negidaltses - 22, Oroks - 23, Chuvantses - 24). This is ancient culture preserved from Neolithic times. It is specific of a prudent attitude towards both lands and game. A customary dependence of Khanty and Mansi�s life on the deer forces them to burn out areas for renewal of lichen grazings (once in 30 years on the West Siberian Lowlands south and once in 50 years - in its north). This practice does not exist eastward from the Yenisei (Annex 5.1.14).

Fishing is practiced by low-population aboriginal communities and population pools: part of Khanty (16) in West Siberia, Chulymtses (25), Kets (26) on the Yenisei, some small native communities dwelling on the Amur (Ulches - 27), in Sikhote-Alin (Udegeis - 28), on Kamchatka (Itelmens - 29 and Kamchadals - 30) and Sakhalin (Nivkhs - 31). Isolated groups of Russian communities also specialize in fishing - Lena (32) and Ob (33) old-timers, Indigirka dwellers (34) and Ust-Yenisei selduks (35). As their residential areas are local and specialization is narrow, their influence on biodiversity is minor.

Northern local nature use-based economy is indicative of Russian communities formed in the course of Siberia assimilation. It is specific of Pomors, including Kanin (36) and Mezen (37) groups, Chaldons , Kolymchans (38), Markovs (39) and many other isolated communities of old-believers living in taiga. Their transport mainly consist of boats and snow-going vehicles, and in the Siberia south - horses. They live on commercial hunting combined with season fishing and lumber harvesting. Their household is based on cattle breeding and vegetable growing. The same type may be attributed to Teleuts (40) and Oroches (41). Their impact on biodiversity is similar to that of deer hunters.

Cattle breeding of alass plains in taiga is characteristic of the Yakuts (42) and it has been developing since the 11th century. Its distinctive feature is adaptability to the alass landscape and use of horses adapted to these conditions. The Yakuts widely use meadows for hay making and grazings. To form them, they often drain off lakes under which permafrost is laid deeper than in the surrounding landscape.

Far-range cattle breeding of plain steppes is practiced by some rather low-in-number native people of Cis-Caucasus, Kalmyks, Nogaitses, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Bouryats, and Khakases. Their culture is based on the craft of managing herds' movement as natural feeding lands get exhausted. During socialism, opportunities and culture of grazing transitional use depending on the moisture level and grass density of a steppe section were limited. This resulted from land being fixed with collective farms, artificially high cattle livestock and allotment of a part of customary grazings to industrial sites, irrigation and cultivation.

Steppe cattle breeders are active hunters, though the Bouryats and Kalmyks having adopted Buddhism became less engaged in hunting. Hunting periods are normally not observed in places located far from settlements as, living on a meat-milk ration, local residents avoid excessive slaughter of cattle. They burn out dry reed debris to restore soft grass and open paths to the water. They keep up traditions of customary protection of some birds (ruddy sheldrake Tadorna ferruginea) and cults of holly areas (usually in interfluve areas). 105 countries.

Mountain cattle breeding is a normal practice with actually all nationalities of the North Caucasus and in Siberia - with the Shortses (43), Altai and Tuva dwellers. The Tuvintses-Todjintses (44) form a transitional type to deer hunters. Mountain breeders of the West and Middle Caucasus do not perform far-range cattle driving and store feedstock for winter. In Siberia and East Caucasus, cattle breeders practice vertical migrations between summer and winter grazings. They are less active in hunting than plain cattle breeders as, changing grazing, they are less keen on local nature specifics. The Caucasian communities keep up customs of protecting predatory birds - owls, eagles, and peregrines. Siberian cattle breeders have a negative look at forest and replace it by pastures.

Mountain land cultivation of the East Caucasus is characteristic of man-made slope terracing. Western regions are typical for small plots on slopes used for gardens. Mountain farmers have the same traditions in relation to nature as mountain cattle breeders. This is expressed in the customary conservation of all water sources.

Land cultivation combined with forest harvesting is typical for Russian peasants of forest regions and Finno-Ugric people - Izhors (48), Vodyas (46), Vepses (47) and multiple Karels (48) and Main Volga nationalities. This type of nature use is specific of a great role of hunt and lumber harvesting in the life of rural population. Finno-Ugric people, to a higher extent that the Russians, have preserved pagan customs in conserving holly sites - natural cult reserves. The Caucasian Ossetins have a similar type of economic activities and nature protection traditions. Most of Russian taiga peasants have a similar way of life - land cultivation in summer, hunting in winter, though cult reserves are rare.

The key type of customary economy for Russian rural population - plowed farming - is not discussed in the present report.

Management of the biodiversity status can be performed both within targeted environmental actions and by optimization of socio-economic development areas, conditions for which either benefit or hamper circulation of economic activity forms producing a direct impact on living nature objects. A condition for the implementation of this biodiversity conservation strategy is analysis on the interaction of living nature with macroeconomics and social processes. On the macroeconomics level, such research was accomplished by a team of Russian experts consisting of economists and ecologists. A generalized view on the findings of the expert evaluation for biodiversity object status changes in various areas of socio-economic development is given in a special "policy-biodiversity" matrix on the color inset (Annex 5.1.15).

Current economic situation in Russia impedes the implementation of the biodiversity conservation-focused policy. In the recent years, the Government has adopted a number of acts directly addressing this problem (Annex 5.1.15). At the same time, their implementation lacks appropriate funding.

Key features of the state policy in the biodiversity conservation will be governed, for many years ahead, by provisions of future Land and Taxation Codes. The Land Code will fix environmental constraints on the land plots' turnover. The Taxation Code is to identify level and statute of the environmental tax inflow. The highest prospects in the living nature conservation are associated with a consecutive growth of the role of direct rent-pool taxation up to values exceeding 30 - 35 % of the tax base.

In compliance with the Presidential Decree "On the Russian Federation state strategy for environmental protection and sustainable development" of February 1994 No 236, biological diversity conservation has become a key area in Russia's actions aimed at the progress of international cooperation in conservation, protection and restoration of global ecosystems.

The Russian Federation federal law On international treaties of the Russian Federation emphasizes that international treaties of the Russian Federation along with globally recognized principles and norms of international law are an integral part of its legal system in concord with the Russian Federation Constitution. According to the law, under the above treaties are supposed their various types and names - a treaty, a convention, a protocol, etc. and different levels of action - inter-state (with foreign states and international organizations), cross-sectoral (on behalf of the Russian Federation Government) and cross-sectoral (on behalf of federal executive power bodies).

Russia participates in several dozens of treaties on biological diversity conservation and sustainable use. Their larger part covers water biological resources and concerns specific issues regulating fishery and sea law. Since it is not feasible to discuss all of them in full scope, below are given only those that envelop a wide range of objects under regulation and pertain to inter-state and inter-governmental treaties. Data on the international cooperation in protected area issues, particularly on the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, are presented in the other section.

Convention on Biological Diversity. Russia ratified the Convention in February 1995, thus actually manifesting the continuation and intensification of its existing activities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

In full understanding of a cross-sectoral and changeable character of the issue of compliance with obligations under the Convention, on July 1, 1995, the Russian Federation Government issued a special resolution to establish the Cross-Sectoral Commission for Biological Diversity Conservation. The Commission consists of deputy ministers (top managers) of concerned federal executive power bodies and representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Thus the management system has been created as the first step in this work. The key issue of the Convention - generation of national biodiversity strategy - should come next. The Commission held a number of meetings where other top-priority measures to facilitate the fulfillment of the Convention obligations by ministries and sectoral management bodies were discussed.

To fulfill the Convention, in Europe was developed and approved the Pan-European Landscape and Biological Diversity Strategy and the action plan for its implementation. Scope of the Strategy includes the overall territory of Russia.

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar). The USSR joined the Convention in 1975. After the USSR breakdown, only three wetlands with the Ramsar status has remained in Russia. The Russian Federation Government Act of 1994 has expanded the List of wetlands of international importance. Now there are 35 wetlands of this kind, including the 3 identified earlier, and they are located in 21 Russian Federation subjects. Yet, in terms of the vast territory of Russia, the approved list is far from being complete.

A large amount of efforts is being carried out on the Ramsar wetlands such as, necessary descriptions of the wetlands and cartographic materials, organization of research and its conducting, and monitoring. Individual statutes on each wetland are planned to be prepared. Finally, as provided for by the Convention, a management plan will be developed for each wetland. The final phase of this work is of particular significance since the status of wetlands of international importance, once declared, does not bring changes to traditional land-use in this area and the wetlands should not be necessarily managed under a zapovednik or zakaznik. Therefore the management plan is to become a system of long-term actions addressed to the wetlands conservation.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora. Russia, being a legal successor of the USSR, has been a Party of the Convention since 1976. In 1994 the Russian Federation Government adopted a special resolution to confirm that in Russia CITES administrative body functions would stay with the Ministry on Environmental Protection and Natural Resources (currently the Russian Federation Committee on Environmental Protection (RF SCEP)). RF SCEP in cooperation with other stakeholders from among federal executive power bodies prepared a draft project of the Rules for Import and Export of CITES Specimens. A joint-action plan for federal authorities (environmental, customs, law enforcement, quarantine and communication agencies) to take internal measures targeted at enhancing control over preying, trade and customs clearing of CITES specimens was elaborated. Similar plans were generated in many Russian Federation subjects. Russia revised clauses to the CITES lists-annexes made by the USSR. Most of them were canceled, this being important for Russia's full-fledged participation in the Convention and protection of these species. Efficiency of the internal regulatory legal base with regard to fauna and flora species recorded in the Russian Federation Red Data Book is increasing. (The Russian Federation Government adopted three acts concerning these issues.) Since 1994 there have been introduced taxes for calculating sums of penalties for damage inflicted by illegal preying and destruction of fauna and flora and water biological resources. Note that Russia serves as a CITES permits' distributor for the CIS countries until they decide on joining the Convention. Special international workshops were held for this purpose. To lend efficient assistance to customs and quarantine agencies in control over CITES objects' import and export, a reference book Guidelines for CITES specimens was translated into Russian with financial support of Germany.

Joint efforts of RF SCEP, law enforcement, customs and quarantine agencies allowed to thwart a numerous attempts of illegal importing of rare and exotic animals from South East Asia, Africa and South America for their sale on the territory of Russia (Table 24).

Table 24. A number of attempts were also foiled to export rare animals, biological raw materials and their derivatives from the RF territory.

Currently a large scientific and organizational effort has been initiated to consolidate control over fishing and export of sturgeon-like fish and their products as a follow-up to the introduction of sturgeon species into CITES Annex II.

UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The USSR joined the Convention in 1988, and in 1990 first cultural heritage objects were nominated, namely, Moscow Kremlin and Red Square, historical center of St. Petersburg with palace-and-park ensembles of its vicinity, Pogost Kizhi and later - Solovki monastery, ancient town Suzdal and cultural monuments of Vladimir oblast, and Troitsko-Sergiev lavra (Russian Orthodox Church center) in Sergiev-Posad (Moscow oblast).

In 1995, the UNESCO introduced 32 thousand km2 of the Komi Republic virgin taiga, including the Pechoro-Ilychsky zapovednik and national park Yugyd Va, into the World Heritage List. It was the first natural heritage nomination in Russia and convention's pioneering in the field of wild nature conservation. This action rescued the old-age forest from cutting out and stopped a gold-extraction project in the national park Yugyd Va. Swiss Government allocated several millions of Swiss francs for this area protection and tourism advance.

Another 2 natural objects of Russia entered the UNESCO List in 1996. The first is Baikal Lake. It incorporates: 1. the Lake Baikal water area with Olkhon Island and smaller islands (about 31,500 km2); 2. natural environment of the Baikal (shore protective zone) 70 - 80-km wide that comprises small watersheds - little-changed mountain and taiga landscapes of ridges Barguzinsky, Primorsky, and Khamar-Daban along with the large delta of Selenga river; this zone also houses known protected areas - zapovedniks Barguzin (3,740 km2), Baikal (1,650 km2) and Baikal-Lena (6,590 km2), national parks Pribaikalsky (Baikal Region) (4,180 km2) and Zabaikalsky (Transbaikalia) (2,460 km2), and zakazniks Frolokhinsky and Kabansky; 3. individual especially valuable natural sections located far from the lake shore though being very important for Baikal Region biodiversity conservation.

The determination of dimensions and configuration of the Baikal section as a world natural heritage object was based on the approach providing conservation of the watershed that supplies the lake with clean water inflow. Conservation of mountain watersheds will enable to restore a regime and quality of small river flows. However, there still exists a danger of the lake ecosystem's degradation and recreation quality loss due to the effect of remaining industrial objects and polluted waters of the Selenga and Barguzin rivers.

The second new Russian object of World Natural Heritage is Volcanoes of Kamchatka (over 30 000 sq km). It has a cluster structure and unites valuable ecological parts of the Kamchatka peninsula. The most well-known of them is Kronotsky zapovednik (11 420 sq km) situated on the eastern coast of the peninsula. Here mountain-tundra and mountain-forest landscapes with Pinus pumila debris, Betula ermandi forests and a coastal belt with seal habitats have been conserved for more than 60 years. The zapovednik houses a unique geological monument Valley of Geysers with a picturesque chain of extinct volcanoes, waterfalls, geysers, and thermal springs. In addition, the nomination Volcanoes of Kamchatka incorporates 3 national parks established in 1995 - Yuzhno-Kamchatsky (South Kamchatka) (8 600 sq km), Bystrinsky (14 000 sq km) and Nalychevsky (2 650 sq km). The acquisition of the international status allowed to prevent expansion of forest cutting and gold extraction in unique landscapes of the peninsula.

The Altai mountains and Karelia forests and lakes are considered promising for broadening the World Natural and Cultural Heritage network on the Russian territory.

A brief overview of Russia's participation in only four Conventions demonstrates a large area of country's activities for nature protection on both national and international levels. Nevertheless, the above brief overview does not cover an overall scope of actions in this field and should be looked at as an example. For instance, a number of important biodiversity conservation issues has been solved in the course of fulfilling obligations under the Convention on Whaling which the former USSR joined in 1946. Advances in international relations of Russia concerning biodiversity conservation are associated with its becoming a Party to the Bern Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats) and Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals). The former suggests that each Convention Party would undertake measures to generate national policy targeted at the conservation of wild flora and fauna and their habitats focusing its attention on vulnerable species, first of all, endemic and threatened ones. The Bonn Convention pertains to the conservation of migratory species with the unfavorable viability status. On the face of it, there are no obstacles for Russia to ratify the above Conventions along with those mentioned before,

However, regional distinctions of countries should be taken into consideration. European Union countries have comparatively few wild nature locations and the status of a whole range of species, which are common or even abundant in Russia, is unfavorable. We should also mention distinctions in the status of fishery and hunting structure and management. They are often incompatible and it is not feasible to apply the same standards to judge what is better or worse as there is a historically established system of management and its breakage may not be justified from a socio-economic standpoint. Anyhow, it does not mean that Russia should not endeavor to participate in these Conventions though it seems an issue of the future for the country with transient economy.

International obligations of Russia, especially those envisaged by the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, are dicussed in Section 1.3.3.

From a standpoint of raising international cooperation efficiency in biodiversity conservation, it seems urgent that Russia should join both the Bern Convention (Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats) and Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals). A burning character of Russia signing the Bern Convention is also dictated by its membership in the European Council and participation in the Pan-European Landscape and Biological Diversity Strategy (the Convention is a baseline mechanism of the Strategy).

The Bonn Convention is specific of a framework character and it provides for the conclusion of independent agreements on the conservation and restricted use of individual animal populations, species and pools. Besides, a country may participate in the agreements without being a Party to the Convention. At present Russia is involved only in the Memorandum on Mutual Understanding Concerning Measures on the Conservation of the Crane (Grus leucogeranus).

Russia is seeking to participate in these Conventions and Agreements under the Bonn Convention although it is challengeable for the country with transient economy. Above all, each Convention or Agreement suggests that its Party should increase sharply financial costs for biodiversity conservation. This relates not only to fees (once they are provided for by a Convention or Agreement) but also to internal funding associated with biodiversity conservation, management of biological resources use and conservation, and changes in the regulatory and legislative base.

Among the other active agreements signed by Russia, we should point out the Agreement on the Protection of the Polar Bear and bilateral Agreements on the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Habitats concluded with Korea, Korean people's Democratic Republic, India, Japan, and the USA. These Agreements have a framework character and do not involve large financial costs. Yet, this does not affect their efficiency as they facilitate the coordination of different countries' actions aimed at protection and management of common animal species. Moreover, bilateral Agreements on the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Habitats may be considered as alternatives to the Bonn Convention and more appropriate for the countries lacking large financial resources or for those not having joined it for some other reasons.

Russia is a Party to the International Convention on the Control over Whaling. The grounds for it has become the Russian Federation Government Act of 11.12.1992 No 967 On participation of the Russian Federation in the International Convention on the Control over Whaling which provided for the appointment of a commissioner from an environmental agency and confirmed prohibition of industrial whaling.

Active cooperation of countries within the CIS has been currently initiated. It is carried out primarily through the Inter-State Environment Council (IEC). In line with the IEC's decision, two agreements are open for signing - on the protection of migratory birds and their habitats and on the CIS Red Data Book. Russia is a Party to the above agreements.

We should also note bilateral partnership in biodiversity issues with the Netherlands, the USA, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Norway, Poland, China, etc.

Among multiple international governmental organizations-partners of Russia in biological diversity conservation there are UN Environment Program (UNEP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), European Council, UN European Economy Commission (UN EEC), etc.

Cooperation with international non-governmental organizations engaged in various biodiversity conservation issues is no less important for Russia. It is involved in joint efforts with NGOs such as, World Conservation Union (IUCN), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and NGOs addressing specific areas, for example International Wetlands Organization, TRAFFIC, and Tiger Trust. The above organizations are assisting Russia in the implementation of a whole range of projects on its territory, in particular for European Russia forests, wetland inventory, protection of Haliaeetus pelagicus, Bison bonasus, Panthera tigris, and others.

Activities under the Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) can illustrate Russia's share in the implementation of international programs. It is one of the four programs within the Arctic Region Environmental Protection Strategy ratified by Canada, Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States of America. CAFF work plans comprise preparation of actions on the conservation of species and habitats and use of indigenous people expertise for this purpose. Russia is the program's focal point in the development of a science-based circumpolar network of protected areas and flora conservation. The program assists in keeping high efficiency of research efforts, information exchange, environmental performance management and rational use of Arctic resources.

PREFACE
PART 1
PART 2.1
PART 2.2
PART 2.3
PART 2.4
PART 2.5
PART 2.6
PART 2.7
PART 3
PART 4
ANNEXES
INFORMATION SOURCES

General Information | Biodiversity Network | Publications & Actitivies
Biodiversity Links | Biodiversity Reading