Marys Medicine


Microsoft word - 02-2-4th.doc

Russia Country Report 2002/2003 45 63 Legal and administrative system for forest conservation in Russia---From the perspective of implementation of international law Alexander SHESTAKOV* Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences Contents: Introduction. 1. Implementation of international law at a national level. 2. Russia and international agreements on the environment. 3. Federal / regional governments and environmental management. 4. Forest man-agement system at federal level. 5. Implementation of the Montreal process on temperate and Boreal Forests in Rus-sia. species amount to about 80 billion m3. Annual natural Almost 23 per cent of the world's forests are concen- timber growth is estimated at 0.87 billion m3 (i.e. 1.3 m3 trated in Russia (making it the most heavily forested per hectare of forested land). Forests are unevenly dis- country in the world followed by Brazil (16%) and Can- tributed through the territories of the country: 78 per cent ada (7%)); 70 per cent of Europe's forests are situated of the nation's forest cover is in Siberia and 22 per cent within Russia (State Duma 2003). Russia also has over is in European Russia. Although the figure varies de- 50 per cent of the world's reserves of coniferous boreal pending on the source, as much as 40 per cent of Russian forests. The total timber reserves of the major timber forests are not affected by human activity. Figure 1. Forests, strict state nature reserves and national parks in Russia (source: WWF. 2000. Forest conser- vation in Russia: an overview. WWF Russian Programme Office Analytical Document. Moscow: WWF) * Staromonetny per., 29 Moscow 109017 Tel. (7-095) 9590040 Fax (7-095) 9590033 E-mail: [email protected] Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Russian forests are of global importance as they: and north-west Caucasus, as well as in the Baikal • Make up 23% of the world's forests and 21% of the region (Irkutsk oblast) and the Russian Far East world's timber reserves; (Khabarovsk and Primorie regions), particularly in • Include 25% of the world's pristine (old growth or the last few years following rapid growth in de- untouched) natural forests which are concentrated mand in China and Japan. The period 1998-2002 in large non-fragmented forest tracts. These areas was remarkable for the growth in illegal and unre- harbour biological diversity at a range of levels ported cuttings. Assessments of some organisations (habitats, species and genes) in complex and dy- show that illegal logging now makes up between namic natural forest ecosystems; 25-30 per cent of total logging volumes, though in • Have the highest biodiversity and number of en- some regions it may be as high as 50-70 per cent demic species of all the world's boreal forests; (WWF 2002). That is, total harvest volumes may • Provide sinks for about 15% of the world's carbon actually be between 30-70 per cent greater than of- dioxide (and account for about 75% of carbon di- ficial figures suggest in some regions, due to un- oxide accumulation by the world's boreal forests) controlled and illegal operations. An important ecological problem is the exploitation of • Provide important ecological services (especially the last remaining large areas of pristine (old-growth) the so-called sub-tundra forests) to ensure stability forests in Europe, which are located in the north of of climate and transition ecosystems in Northern European Russia. During the last few years, some of the regional authorities (e.g. in Komi Republic; see the de- • Prevent destruction of the ecosystems and subsoil tails of the Komi Model Forest project website of the permafrost zone; have become aware of this • Prevent desertification in large areas of dry zones. problem and have initiated special programs for identifi- At present the annual timber production is about 140 cation, inventory and conservation of such pristine forest million m3 while the estimated annual allowable cut is calculated at 450 million m3. According to the official Logging often focuses on the most valuable species timber cutting and production data of 2002, actual pro- (such as Siberian Pine), as well as on the broadleaf for- duction amounted to only 21 per cent of the estimated ests of the Far East (which form the prime habitat of the annual permissible harvest (State Duma 2003), and in Amur tiger and Far East Leopard; these forests have suf- some regions this figure was as low as 3-5 per cent. The fered 30-40% decreases in the last few years) and the total value of Russian timber products in 2001 was 4.1 unique horse chestnut forests of Caucasus. billion US dollars. Forestry provides about 2 per cent of Almost 90 per cent of recorded forest fires are man-made. The annual area affected by forest fires is The forestry sector in Russia is also of high social im- about 1 million hectares (in 1998 the total area damaged portance as it provides employment for more than 2 mil- by fires was 4-5 million hectares and in 2002 37,500 for- lion people. Being state property, forests in Russia re- est fires were registered within a total area of 1.3 million main a traditional source of secondary forest products hectares) and 100,000 of them normally burn out com- (berries, mushrooms, medicinal plants etc.) and a favour- pletely. Almost 93 per cent of all registered forest fires ite recreational place for millions of citizens. Forests play occur in regions of Siberia and the Far East. Some fires, a special role in the lives of Russia's indigenous peoples especially in the Far East, are catastrophic and cause (there are 45 registered minority indigenous nationalities) complete destruction of the ecosystems and fauna, lead- and communities in providing the basis of their tradi- ing to negative social consequences (State Duma 2003). tional land and resource use practices, as well as their All these specific peculiarities of the forests and the knowledge, culture, religion and lifestyle. forestry sector in Russia set a requirement for high prior- The major threats to the forest ecosystems in Russia ity in the development of international cooperation in the can be grouped as follows: forestry field and involvement of the Russian Federation 1. Direct impact: felling, which destroys the basic (hereafter referred to as the RF) in different international functions of forest ecosystems (especially large legal instruments and processes aimed at forest biodiver- scale felling operations); forest fires (anthropo- sity conservation. genic); industrial (road construction, mining) and agricultural activities; and pollution and waste dis- 1. Implementation of international law at a national 2. Indirect impacts: climate change, desertification and increased aridity leading to an increase in for- 1.1. Constitutional framework for the implementa- est fires and to changes in hydrological regimes tion of international law in Russia The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted Due to the export orientation of the forestry sector, by national vote on 12th December 1993) is the highest forests are most heavily impacted upon in the federal law in Russia. The Constitution establishes a sys- close-to-boundary regions of north-west Russia tem of state powers, the basics of federalism, the legisla- Alexander SHESTAKOV tion system, basic human and citizens' rights and respon- netic resources, biosafety issues etc.); and the Min- sibilities, correlations between national and international istry of Agriculture (agricultural biodiversity). law, the system of property rights (including those relat- 3. Participation in special working bodies and nego- ing to natural resources) etc. tiation processes established under particular Article 71 establishes that foreign policy and interna- agreements (e.g. Conference of the Parties, sub- tional relations of the RF, international agreements of the sidiary bodies, working or expert groups, Bureau RF and foreign trade fall under the exclusive jurisdiction etc.). At present the RF is a member of the Con- of the federation. Thus all international agreements of the vention on Biological Diversity COP6 Bureau and RF with foreign states or international organisations must the Pan-European Biological and Landscape Di- be concluded in line with the Constitution and federal versity Strategy Council Bureau (both are impor- laws by the plenipotentiary federal agency on behalf of tant mechanisms for forest biodiversity conserva- the RF. After official recognition, ratification or approval (following the established legal procedure), international 4. Adoption of special regulations (orders) by the agreements get compulsory jurisdiction throughout all Government of the RF on specific measures on in- territories of the Russia Federation. ternational agreement implementation and en- The Constitution establishes that generally accepted forcement in line with their constituent provisions principles and standards of international law and interna- and obligations as they pertain to the RF (see ex- tional treaties and agreements of the RF are an integral amples in Table 1). part of its national legal system (p.4 Art.15). Moreover, 5. Adoption of the special departmental (sectoral) the same article guarantees the priority of international regulations (by appropriate state agencies respon- law over national legislation (if an international treaty or sible for implementation of this agreement) on agreement of the RF establishes other rules than those measures for the implementation of international envisaged by national law, the rules of the international agreement provisions in line with their power and agreement shall be applied). jurisdiction (see examples in Table 1). Legal practice in Russia requires that general provi- 6. Incorporation of standards which ensure imple- sions and standards of international agreements (first of mentation of the international agreement into fed- all framework treaties) should be further elaborated and eral law. Until recently, the legal drafting process be clearly defined in federal laws or other federal regula- provided recognition of the priority of international tions. This is especially the case for articles concerning law over national law through the inclusion of a offences and responsibilities. At the same time, following special article repeating Article 15 of the Constitu- the sense of Article 15 of the Constitution, standards set tion in every federal law (now this practice is forth in international law form part of the national legal changing to avoid duplication of constitution system and as such come into direct effect (in the case of norms). Most major environmental or related laws concrete standards that contradict the provisions of na- in Russia (Forest Code, Water Code, "On envi- tional law). However, the practice and implementation of ronmental protection", Code of administrative of- the direct effects of those provisions of international law fences etc.) have special articles which reflect in- relating to environmental issues is as yet undeveloped. ternational obligations or ensure national recogni- tion of the provisions of international laws. 1.2. Organisation of the implementation of interna- 7. Adoption of standards in regional legislation of the tional law in Russia subjects (states and other component territories) of The general scheme of organisation of international the federation on implementation of particular pro- law implementation in Russia in practice can be pre- visions of the international treaties. sented as follows: 8. Creation of special governmental or departmental 1. Adoption of the decision and corresponding law on commissions on implementation of international ratification of the treaty (or other method of inter- national agreement conclusion) (see examples in 9. Assessment of implementation of different interna- tional agreements at the meetings of departmental 2. Appointment of the federal authority responsible staff at the various ministries or special meetings of for implementation (or co-ordination of implemen- the Government of the RF. tation) of the particular treaty. In some cases sev- 10. Participation of the non-governmental sector in im- eral federal agencies could be appointed. For ex- plementation of particular aspects of international ample, three agencies are responsible for the im- agreements. Most national and international NGOs plementation of the Convention on Biological Di- operating in Russia (e.g. WWF, IUCN, Wetlands versity: the Ministry of Natural Resources (general International, Greenpeace, IFAW, TRAFFIC) make coordination, contact with the Secretariat, repre- a significant contribution to the realization of inter- sentation of the RF in the Convention, coordination national agreements primarily in terms of aware- of most of the thematic issues etc.); the Ministry of ness, capacity building, methodological support, Science, Industry and Technology (access to ge- field pilot projects etc. Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Table 1. Examples of legal documents within the Russian Federation which ensure the domestic imple- mentation of international treaties. Type of document Federal law "On ratification of Protocol on Environment to the Antarctic Treaty " (24 May 1997, No. 79) Federal law "On ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity" (17 February Federal law "On ratification of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" (4 November 1994, No. 34) Decree of the Government of the RF "On accession of the Russian Federation to the International Convention on Protection of New Plant Varieties" (18 December 1997, No. 1577) Decree of the Government of the RF "On acceptance by Russian Federation of the amendment to the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and Belts " (27 January 1996, No. 69) Decree of the Government of the RF "On amendments to the decisions of the Govern- implementation of ment of the Russian Federation about implementation of obligations of the Russian Federation as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species agreement provisions of Wild Fauna and Flora, of 3 March 1973" (16 June 2001, No. 469) Decree of the Government of the RF "On implementation of the recommendations of the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endan-gered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, of 3 March 1973, in relation to sturgeon species " (17 August 1998, No. 968 as amended on 6 July 1999, 16 June 2001) Decree of the Government of the RF "On measures on implementation of the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity " (1 July 1995, No. 669 as amended on 4 September 1995, 9 December 1999) Decree of the Government of the RF "On paramount measures on implementation of the Federal law "On ratification of Basil Convention on Control over Transboundary Transportation of Dangerous Wastes and their Disposal" (1 July 1995, No.670) Decree of the Government of the RF "On measures to ensure implementation of obliga- tions of the Russian Federation on the Convention on Wetlands of International Impor-tance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, of 2 February 1971" (13 September 1994, No. 1050) Decree of Council of Ministers of the USSR "On measures to ensure implementation of obligations of the Soviet Party on the Convention between Government of the USSR and Government of Japan on conservation of migratory birds and endangered bird spe-cies and their habitats" (10 March 1975, No. 195, as amended on 26 May 1990) Order of the State Committee on Ecology of the RF "On adoption of the Procedure of fee levy for the issuance of the permit for export from and import to the territory of the Russian Federation of species of animals and plants, their parts or derivatives subject to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora " (21 May 1998, No.311) Order of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the RF "On measures for organisation of implementation of the Russian Federation obligations related to the Convention on Protection of the Black Sea from Pollution " (13 January 1994, No.8) Telegram of the State Customs Committee "On measures to control import of endan- gered wild species of fauna and flora" (2 July 1999, No. 12361) 2. Russia and International Agreements on the Envi- ests. Russia has a positive attitude towards the develop- ment of international legally binding convention on for- ests following the discussion at the Rio de Janeiro con- 2.1. Multilateral Agreements ference in 1992. The Russian Federation is a party to most international Russian experts participate in most expert working environmental agreements (see Appendix 1) and partici- groups on forest issues focusing on the preparation of pates in major international negotiation processes on for- international documents on the sustainable management Alexander SHESTAKOV of forests and the conservation of forest biodiversity (e.g. and resource-efficient technologies in the sphere of Expanded programme of work on forest biological diver- reforestation and timber processing; sity under the Convention on Biodiversity). Russia fol- • Consideration and full inclusion of environmental lows the reporting requirements set forth under agree- aspects in national forestry strategies and plans. ments and presents the necessary information on forests A special Agreement between CIS countries on coop- (e.g. Thematic report of the Russian Federation on forest eration in the field of forest industry and forest manage- ecosystems, within the Convention on Biological Diver- ment was adopted in Moscow on 11th September 1998. Parties committed themselves to cooperate on the sus- As legal successor to the USSR, Russia continues to tainable supply of forest products (including both timber be a Party to the International Tropical Timber Agree- and non-timber products), partnerships on technical and ment (under Annex B of the Agreement, the USSR was marketing issues, support of existing production chains included in the list of consumer countries and was allo- and contacts, and scientific research. At the same time, cated 14 votes within the body's decision-making proc- Parties will take coordinated measures to ensure envi- ess, as set out in Article 37), though it does not take part ronmental conservation in line with international re- in the International Tropical Timber Organization quirements for forest conservation and rehabilitation. (ITTO). At present, Russia does not actively participate in this Agreement. 2.2. Russia in international forest processes A special place in international regional cooperation Besides legally binding international treaties, Russia on forests and the environment is given to activities participates in most international global and regional within the CIS. The basic document in this field is processes relating to sustainable forest management and Agreement on Interaction in the Sphere of Ecology and conservation including: Environmental Protection (Moscow, 8 February 1992). 1. The United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) According to this agreement, CIS countries work out and since 2000 (before that Russia participated in both pursue coordinated policy in ecology and environmental The Intergovernmental Panel on Forests (IPF) in protection (use and conservation of land, soils, forests, 1995-97, and The Intergovernmental Forum on water, atmospheric air, wild fauna and flora etc.). It is an Forests (IFF) in 1997-2000). important provision of the Agreement that countries take 2. The Pan-European process on forests, which is into consideration all international agreements previously based on the Ministerial Conference on the protec- concluded by the USSR. tion of Forests in Europe (MCPFE). This process At the 5th Kiev Ministerial Conference ‘Environment for was known as the Helsinki Process (which started Europe' (May 2003), countries in the UNECE region in 1990 after the 1st Ministerial Conference in agreed to adopt the Strategic Framework for "Environ- Strasbourg and was named after the 2nd Ministerial mental Partnership in the UN ECE Region: Environmental Conference in 1993 in Helsinki). Russia partici- Strategy for the Countries of Eastern Europe, Caucasus pated in most expert level meetings on the devel- and Central Asia" (for the full text of this framework, see opment of the European principles for sustainable forest management and conservation of biological e/ece.cep.105.e.pdf). This document provides the basic diversity. The six European criteria are: (1) main- framework for efforts towards environmental improve- tenance and appropriate enhancement of forest re- ment and implementation of the World Summit on Sus- sources and their contribution to global carbon cy- tainable Development, for both the 12 CIS countries as cles; (2) maintenance of forest ecosystem health well as for other countries working in partnership with and vitality; (3) maintenance and encouragement those in the UNECE region. Though the Strategy still re- of the productive functions of forests (both timber quires further development before it is formally adopted and non-timber); (4) maintenance, conservation by ministers in 2004, it includes a special chapter on for- and appropriate enhancement of biological diver- ests which asserts that the following action should be sity in forest ecosystems; (5) maintenance and ap- propriate enhancement of protective functions in • Application of indicators and requirements to the forest management (notably soil and water); and forestry sector, as defined in the Ministerial process (6) maintenance of other socio-economic functions for protection of European forests, including those and conditions. The 4th Ministerial Conference was relating to accounting for the multiple functions of held in April 2003 in Vienna, where the List of forests, biodiversity conservation, etc.; Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest man- • Implementation of reforestation projects; agement was adopted. A report (based on the Hel- • Improvements to the system for protection of for- sinki process format) on implementation of deci- ests from ‘over-logging', illegal logging and forest sions of previous Ministerial Conferences in Hel- sinki and Lisbon was prepared and presented by • Restoration of the system for regular forest man- 3. In 1999, Pan-European Forest Certification was • Development of modern, environmentally friendly established. This is aimed at the development of a Russia Country Report 2002/2003 framework to provide compatibility between na- The Kiev Resolution on Biodiversity has become the tional certification schemes and their mutual rec- common statement of European ministers on the in- ognition. Russia participated in working meetings tention to stem the decrease in biological and land- of the Pan-European Forest Certification Council scape diversity before 2010. This objective targets (amongst other themes) forests protection. The Reso- At the same time, an alternative system for volun- lution is aimed at working towards concerted action in tary forest certification based on Forest Steward- the field of forest biodiversity conservation, so as to ship Council (FSC) standards has been applied and achieve the following target: disseminated in Russia. A national FSC group was - By 2008, to contribute to the implementation of the established to promote voluntary certification in Forest Biodiversity Expanded Programme of Work Russia and national standards have been devel- of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the oped. So far, six forestry companies have already pan European region through, inter alia: secured certification with FSC (equivalent to a to- a) Implementation of the objectives and activities of the tal certified area of about 2 million hectares) and Framework for Co-operation between the Ministerial another five companies are in the process of pre- Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe paring for certification (equivalent to a further 2 and the Environment for Europe/Pan European Bio- million hectares). logical and Landscape Diversity Strategy; 4. The Montreal Process (since 1994). Russia signed b) National Forest Programmes according to the MCPFE the ‘Santiago Declaration' as the principle state- Approach to National Forest Programmes in Europe ment on Criteria and Indicators for the Conserva- (adopted at the Vienna Conference in April 2003); tion and Sustainable Management of Temperate c) Application of the ecosystem approach. and Boreal Forests (see more in Chapter 5 below). PEBLDS in the field of forest biodiversity is ori- 5. The Pan-European Ministerial process on the environ- ented towards implementation of the CBD Ex- ment ("Environment for Europe" process based on the panded Programme of Work on Forest Biological Ministerial Conference). One of the major instruments of Diversity (CBD COP-6 Decision IV/22). this process is the Pan-European Strategy for Biological 6. Action Program on forests of the Group of Eight (G8). and Landscape Diversity (PEBLDS) which is a tool for Decision on the adoption of this Program was made in CBD implementation on Europe. The last Environment the ‘Denver Summit of the Eight' communique (Sec- for Europe Ministerial Conference was held in Kiev in tion II, Paragraphs 19-21). G8 countries agreed to May 2003 where the Framework for Co-operation be- support a practical Action Program that includes (see tween MCPFE and Environment for Europe/PEBLDS aimed at conservation of forest biodiversity was adopted. • Implementing national programs and building ca- This framework includes four priority areas for coopera- pacity for sustainable forest management; tion in the period 2003-2005, namely (for further details • Establishing networks of protected areas; see • Assessing the state of each nation's forests using - "Ecosystem approach" (contribution to the clarifi- agreed criteria and indicators; cation of the relationship between the Ecosystem • Promoting private sector management of forests; Approach and Sustainable Forest Management). • Eliminating illegal logging. - "Protected forest areas" (contribution to the global Russian experts participated in preparation of the Program. work on protected forest areas, the general work on The G8 Action Programme on Forests was initiated by G8 For- protected areas for CBD-COP7, making a link be- eign Ministers on 9 May 1998 at the Birmingham G8 Summit tween the concepts of protected forest areas and (see For protected areas in general, existing work on eco- the purpose of realization of the Program in Russia, the President logical networks). of the Russian Federation issued a special regulation on the im- - "Forest law enforcement with regard to biodiversity plementation of the Birmingham G8 Summit decisions (regula- conservation" (refers to the impacts of illegal har- tion on 11th November 1998 No. 396). Following this regulation, vesting and related trade and institutional capacity the Federal Forest Service developed proposals and correspond- ing documents which focus on the following main points - "Recommendations for site selection for afforesta- (Shestakov 2001): tion" (in the context of the decisions of the (1) Monitoring and assessment of forests in line with UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, taking account of international processes on criteria and indicators biodiversity interests). of sustainable management of boreal and temper- The Kiev "Environment for Europe" Ministerial Con- ference in May 2003 adopted two documents relating (2) Participation in FAO program; to forest biodiversity: the Kiev Ministerial Declaration (3) Introduction of indicators for the control over sus- (signed 23rd May) and the Kiev Resolution on Biodi- tainable forestry development and biodiversity versity (considered 22nd May) (for full text on Decla- conservation into forest inventory practice; ration and Resolution, see (4) Synthesizing of experience in the calculation of Alexander SHESTAKOV of Finland (Moscow, 1 November 2000). (5) Application of annual forest fund registration with Some provisions for the organisation of cooperation on use of GIS techniques; forestry issues or forest conservation are established by (6) Development of national system for compulsory different general bilateral agreements, such as: forest certification; • Agreement on basics of relations of the Russian (7) Information and experience exchange with partner Federation and the Republic of Korea (Seoul, 19 For realisation of the Program of Actions on Forests in • Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Russia a number of national (federal) programs on for- Republic of Poland on friendly and neighbourly ests were adopted including: cooperation (Moscow, 22 May 1992). • "Concept of sustainable management of forests in Issues of forest biodiversity conservation are covered the Russian Federation", adopted in 1998 by Con- by general agreements for cooperation in environmental gress of forest wardens of Russia; • Federal Target Programmes "Forests of Russia" and • Agreement between the Government of the Russian "Forests Fire Management"; Federation and the Government of the Republic of • Programs of state support for state strict nature re- Bulgaria for cooperation in environmental protec- serves and national parks; tion (Moscow, 28 August 1998); • Scientific-technical Programme "Russian Forest". • Agreement between the Government of the Russian With regard to the private sector, the main focus was Federation and the Government of the Ukraine for on development of the legal documents and rules of in- cooperation in environmental protection (Moscow, terrelation between forest owners and forest users. A multiple-factor assessment of forest resources in • Agreement between the Government of the Russian Russia (see country report on forests at Federation and the Government of the Republic of Belarus for cooperation in environmental protection t11.htm) was completed in 1998 and was reported at (Smolensk, 5 July 1994); the G8 Summit in Okinawa (July 21, 2000) within the • Decree of the RF Government on 25 September ‘Report on The Implementation of The G8 Action 1998 No.1122 "On signing the Agreement between Programme on Forests'. the Government of the Russian Federation and the 7. The FAO Program on Global Forest Resource As- Government of the Hungarian Republic on coop- sessment (FRA) 2000. Russia has participated in ex- eration in environmental protection"; pert meetings and continues to provide the necessary • Decree of the RF Government on 25 September information and data for the program. Extensive work 1998 No.1123 "On signing the Agreement between was done to adopt Russian standards of forest data the Government of the Russian Federation and the presentation to the requirements of the FAO assess- Government of the Republic of Lithuania on ment under FRA 2000. The results of the assessment co-operation in environmental protection". for Russia are available on the FAO website (see Issues of forest crops are covered in agreements for cooperation on issues of plant protection and the agroin- 2.3. Bilateral Agreements • Agreement between the Government of the Russian Russia concludes special bilateral agreements on co- Federation and the Government of the Republic of operation in the forestry sector first of all with India on cooperation in the field of plant quarantine neighbouring countries which are big consumers of Rus- and protection (Moscow, 25 March 1997); • Agreement between the Government of the Russian • Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Union Government of the Union Federation and the Government of the Peoples Re- Republic of Yugoslavia on cooperation in the field public of China on cooperation in joint develop- of agroindustrial complexes (Belgrade, 31 October ment of forest resources (Beijing, 3 November All above-mentioned agreements (especially of gen- • Agreement between the Government of the Russian eral character) could be further developed through the Federation and the Government of the Korean Peo- system of specific protocols, joint committees, working ples Democratic Republic on cooperation in the sphere of forest industry (Moscow, 28 December Russia continues to work for the organisation and co- ordination of bilateral relations with foreign forest de- • Protocol between the State Customs Committee of partments within the framework of existing interdepart- the Russian Federation and Principal Customs De- mental agreements with USA, Canada, Finland, Sweden, partment of the Republic of Finland on interactions Hungary, the United Kingdom etc. Successful examples in issues of customs control over forest and timber include a Russian-Finnish Program for the development export from the Russian Federation to the Republic of the north-west Russia, a Russian-American program Russia Country Report 2002/2003 of monitoring of gipsy moth populations in the Primorie region (Russian Far East), and projects on model forests • Humanitarian activities (jointly with Canada, Sweden and Switzerland). Recog- • Cultural activities nising positive dynamic development of the European Union Initiative on "Northern Dimension" Russia sup- Thus subjects of the Russian Federation could con- ported establishment of a special working group on co- clude agreements on cooperation on different aspects of operation in forestry under the aegis of Barents Coun- forest use and conservation. However, such agreements cil/European Arctic Region (State report 1999). should not include principles which undermine the legal In the year 2002, Russia finalised preparation of the interests of other regions or be in contradiction with: World Bank forestry loan "Pilot project on sustainable • The Constitution of the Russian Federation forest management in Russia" (for the amount of US$60 • Generally accepted principles and standards of in- million). This project includes two components: • Improvement of state forest management system • International agreements signed by the Russian (legislation, forest inventory, certification, fire and pest control etc.); • Federal legislation • Development of a sustainable forestry business • Agreements between state authorities of the Rus- sector in Russia. sian Federation and of subjects of RF on the divi- 2.4. Participation of the regions in international National law has also established the basics of the procedure for agreements preceding the draft agreements Mechanisms for the realisation of Constitutional stan- on realisation of international and foreign trade relations dards on jurisdiction of the subjects of the Russian Fed- of the subjects of the FR (Article 4). Having been con- eration in international and foreign trade relations are cluded, agreements require registration at the Ministry of determined by the Federal Law of 4 January 1999 No. 4 Justice following the procedure established by the Gov- "On coordination of international and foreign trade rela- ernment of the RF ("Rules of the State registration of the tions of the subjects of the Russian Federation". agreements on realisation of the international and foreign According to this law, subjects of the RF (within their trade relations concluded by the agencies of the State competence and jurisdiction regulated by the Constitu- power of the subjects of the Russian Federation", ap- tion, federal legislation and agreements between state proved by the Government of the RF on 24 July 2000 No. authorities of the RF and subjects of the RF on division of jurisdiction and power) have the right to formulate The agreements on realisation of international and for- international and foreign trade relations with the follow- eign trade relations concluded by the agencies of the State power of the subjects of the Russian Federation • Subjects of foreign federal states, despite their form, title or content are not recognised as • Administrative regions of foreign states, international agreements. • Agencies of State power of the foreign states (upon In accordance with a general Constitutional principle, receiving the consent of the Government of the RF agreements for the realisation of international and foreign expressed in the form of a decision for the realisa- trade relations concluded by the agencies of the State or tion by the subject of the RF of international and subjects of the RF are subject to obligatory publication foreign trade relations with agencies of State power following the procedure established by regional laws and of the foreign states1 ; e.g. Decree of the Govern- other regional regulations. All legal acts in the Russian ment of the RF on 7 March 2000 No. 345 "On con- Federation are subject to application only after official clusion of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Tuva and the Government of the Republic of Mongolia on economic, scien- 3. Federal / regional governments and environmental tific-technical and cultural cooperation); • International organisations on activities of their bodies specially established for that purpose. 3.1. Basic foundations of the federal system in Russia It is important, that international and foreign trade Article 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation relations of the subjects of the RF with foreign declares Russia to be a democratic, federal State governed partners are authorised only in the following by law. The following articles and especially Chapter 3 spheres (Art. 1): specify and develop the basics of federalism, construction • Trade and economics of the State system and the relationship between the Fed- • Science and technology eration and its component states or subjects, including is- sues relating to environmental management and protection. According to Article 5, the federal structure of the RF 1 Decree of the Government of the RF of 1 February 2000 No. 91 "On is based on state integrity, the unity of the system of state adoption by the Government of the RF of the decisions on consent for the realisation by the subject of the RF of international and foreign authority, the division of authority and power between trade relations with agencies of State power of the foreign states" Alexander SHESTAKOV state authorities of the RF and of the subjects of the RF, listed as follows (Article 72): and the equality and self-determination of the peoples of • Issues of possession, use and disposition of natural the Russian Federation. resources (including forests); The Russian Federation consists of the following 89 • Delimitation of state property (as mentioned above by subjects or regional units, made up of several different federal laws and agreements on power division); categories each possessing equal rights, as outlined below: • Environmental management; • Republic (state) (21) (established based on territo- • Environmental conservation and ecological safety; rial and ethnic principles), • Specially protected natural areas; • Kray (6) (established on territorial and administra- • Actions and measures to combat and mitigate catas- tive principles), trophes, natural disasters and epidemics; • Oblast (49) (established on territorial and adminis- • Administrative law, administrative-procedural law, trative principles), land law, water law, forest law, environmental law; • Federal cities (Moscow, Saint-Peterburg), • Protection of the environment and traditional life • Autonomous Oblast (established based on territorial styles of indigenous populations; and ethnic principles), • Coordination of international and foreign economic • Autonomous Okrug (10) (established based on ter- relations of the subjects of the RF and implementation ritorial and ethnic principles). of international agreements. It is important to remember that all these subjects of The details of mutual jurisdiction and division of power the federation have equal rights in their relationship with concerning particular functions of resource use, including the RF and between each other. forest management, are given in special agreements on All subjects of the federation have their own supreme power division and federal laws (see Tab. 2). law (Constitution in the case of a Republic and a Charter in all other types of subjects of the RF) and legislation, 3.3. Division of power and jurisdiction in the field of including environmental legislation. forest management Land and all other natural resources may be in differ- The division of functions and powers between state ent property forms (Art. 9 of the Constitution): authorities of the federation and subjects of the RF is • State (federal and of subjects of the federation); closely related to the property rights on forests. Accord- • Municipal (local municipalities governed by local ing to the Forest Code of the RF (Article 19) all forests in self-governments); Russia are state federal property. At the same time, the Forest Code declares that parts of the forest fund can be granted to the state property of the subject of the RF by 3.2. The Federal-regional relationship for environ- federal law (currently, there are no such a laws adopted, mental management so all forests officially are still under federal ownership). As mentioned above, forests (as a natural resource) In addition to the Forest Code, the possibility of transfer and forest land can be the property of the subjects of the of some forest stands to the property of the subjects of RF (i.e. however, any reallocation from federal to state the RF is established by other federal laws, such as "On level in the case of forests, requires the adoption of spe- specially protected natural areas" and "On delimitation of cial federal law). Regardless of the form of ownership, the state property for land". Both laws consider land of all natural resources should be used and protected in regional natural protected areas to the property of the Russia as a basis for the livelihoods and activities of subjects of the RF. Most of protected areas are situated peoples who live within that territory (Article 9 of the within forest fund lands. Constitution). To ensure rational use and conservation of As has been mentioned earlier in Chapter 1, forest leg- natural resources and the protection of nature, the Con- islation stipulates joint jurisdiction and thus subjects of stitution declares that possession, use and disposition of the RF can develop their own legislation on forest man- land and other natural resources shall be exercised by the agement in line with their power prescribed by the fed- owners freely, as long as these practices are not detri- eral Forest Code and other related federal legal acts. mental to the environment and do not violate the rights General provisions for the division of power and au- and lawful interests of other persons. thority in the field of environmental protection are de- The basics of relationship and power division between scribed in the federal law "On environmental protection" the RF and subjects of the RF in the field of forest man- (10 January 2002). agement and forest protection (including forest legisla- Division of power and jurisdiction should be deter- tion) are determined by the Constitution of the RF. The mined in the Forest Code of the RF or in accordance with Constitution distinguishes three levels of jurisdiction: 1) the Constitution in special agreement on power division exclusive federal rights (federal jurisdiction), 2) joint (see examples in Table 2). Specific aspects of power and federal rights and those of the subjects of the RF (joint jurisdiction division in the field of forest management are jurisdiction), and 3) exclusive rights of the subjects of the described in Chapter 7 of the Forest Code (Shubin 1998). RF (regional jurisdiction). All aspects of forest use and The principle authorities of the federation and subjects of conservation are subjects of joint jurisdiction and are the federation are listed in Appendix 2. Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Table 2. Examples of the documents which establish division of power between Russian Federation and subjects of the federation in the field of forest management. Type of the document Agreements on power Agreement, 29 May 1996, No.3 between Government of the Russian Federation and administration of the Sakhalin oblast on division of power in the field of pos-session, use and disposition of forest resources on the territory of Sakhalin oblast Agreement, 12 January 1996, No.9 between Government of the Russian Federa-tion and Government of Sverdlovsk oblast on division of power in the field of possession, use and disposition of forest resources on the territory of the Sverd-lovsk oblast Agreement, 17 October 1995, between Government of the Russian Federation and administration of the Government of the Udmurt Republic on division of power in the field of possession, use and disposition of forest resources on the territory of the Udmurt Republic Agreement, 8 June 1996, No.3 between Government of the Russian Federation and administration of the Nijegorodskiy oblast on division of power in the field of possession, use and disposition of natural resources and environmental protection Forest Code of the Russian Federation, 29 January 1997, No.22 Federal law «On fauna», 24 April 1995, No.52 Land Code of the Russian Federation, 25 October, 2001, No.136 Water Code of the Russian Federation, 16 November 1995, No.167 Federal law "On division of state property for the land", 17 July 2001, No.101 Federal law "On ecological review", 23 November 1995, No.174 4. Forest management system at federal level forests plots of the forest fund, The system of forest management in Russia follows • the right to obtain data and information of state the provisions of the Constitution and has three levels of forest inventory (about quantitative and qualitative changes in the forest fund) from the regional branch 1. Federal Government. The government of the RF of the Ministry of Natural Resources, determines authorities (ministries, state committees • to draft proposals on allocation of wood-cutting ar- or other bodies) with special jurisdiction in forest eas to financial and agricultural enterprises and the management. The government is responsible for the local population in accordance with the rules and implementation of state forest policy and the procedures of allotment of standing wood in the preparation, implementation and enforcement of forests of the RF. relevant federal legislation etc. The government At the federal level, power in the sphere of forest provides periodical review of the state of forestry management, conservation and restoration are delegated development in the country. by the Federal Government to several agencies, as out- 2. State authorities of the subjects of the RF. Usually lined below (Shestakov 2001): most regional governments have their own execu- 1. Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian tive bodies (ministries or departments) responsible Federation. This ministry has a vertical structure for forestry which act within their jurisdiction ac- and, besides central staff (which includes the Forest cording to the Forest Code, agreements with federal Service, see Figure 3), has representatives in all 7 authorities and provisions of federal and regional Federal Districts and 89 subjects of the federation. laws and regulations. These form the structural units of the Ministry and 3. Local self-governance (municipal authorities). Some are known as the Department of Natural Resources state power in forestry can be granted to the local in Federal Districts and Principal Directorate (Di- self-governance authorities in accordance with the rectorate) of Natural Resources in regions. Both norms of federal or regional legislation. Thus ac- structures have a forest service division. At the cording to the Articles 21, 34, 67 of the Forest Code lowest level there are forest management units of the RF local authorities can be authorised: ("leshoz") which manage the particular parts of the • to adopt regulations on forest servitudes and estab- forest fund in the field. These units also carry out lish limitations over the rights of citizens and legal some forestry economic activities. Furthermore, the entities to forest use in the forest stands not in- ministry manages different scientific, research and cluded within the forest fund for the benefit of other educational forest organizations. The Ministry of interested parties, Natural Resources ensures the following (Shesta- • to participate in preparation of proposals to lease Alexander SHESTAKOV Forest Management and Conservation International Treaties and Federal Government Regional Authorities Local Self-Governance (municipalities) Ministries and Other Forestry or general natural resources division Forest management Ministry of Natural Re- Regional divisions (Regional Committee on Natural Re- (includes Forest Service) sources in subjects of the RF; includes (provide management forest division) Figure 2. Organisation of forest management and conservation at federal level in Russia a) development and realization of state forest policy functions were transferred to the Ministry of Natural Re- (including research, forestry, conservation and res- sources. These changes resulted in a new structure of toration of forest lands); organisation for forest management in Russia (see Figure b) development and realization of practical measures 2). The administrative structure of the Forest Service aimed at meeting the needs of the Russian economy within the Ministry of Natural Resources is shown in through forestry operations, long-term support of Figure 3. Coordination and organisation of international ecological, protective, recreational and other useful cooperation on forests are provided by two special de- functions qualities, conservation of biodiversity and partments of the federal Ministry of Natural Resources: objects with special conservation, cultural and rec- • Department of International Cooperation on the reational importance; c) coordination of activities of other federal agencies • Department of International Cooperation and Inter- in the sphere of forest management. state Programmes on Resource Management. Details relating to jurisdiction and power in forest The foundation of the Federal forestry and forest management are described in the Statute on the management policies in Russia, including provisions for Ministry of Natural Resources. implementation of international obligations, are formu- 2. Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federa- lated and reflected in the following major programmatic tion organizes forestry and is responsible for the ra- tional use of forests, protection and restoration of 1. Ecological Doctrine of the Russian Federation (ap- forest stands assigned to agricultural organizations proved by the regulation of the Government of the and enterprises for uncompensated use. RF on 31 August 2002 No. 1225). The Ecological 3. Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Doctrine determines the strategic goal of the state organizes forestry and is responsible for the rational environmental conservation policy (conservation of use of forests, protection and restoration of forests natural systems, sustainability of their integrity and which are located within military lands (lands as- life support functions for the purpose of sustainable signed to the Ministry of Defense). development, improvement of quality of life, popu- The present day structure of forest management au- lation health and demographic situation, ensuring thorities was devised and implemented following the ecological safety of the country etc.), and the major adoption of the Presidential Decree of 17th May 2000 for directions and tools and means for its implementa- the reorganisation of the structure of the Government of the RF. As a result of that reorganisation, the independ- 2. Federal Special-Purpose Program "Ecology and Natu- ent State Forest Service was abolished (as was the inde- ral Resources of Russia (2002 - 2010)" (adopted by the pendent State Committee on Environment) and all its Decree of the Government of the RF on 7 December Russia Country Report 2002/2003 2001 No. 860 "On Federal Special-Purpose Program • Priority ecosystems; "Ecology and Natural Resources of Russia (2002 - • Priority regions and ecoregions; 2010)"). This Program among many others replaced • Major actions (broad directions) in different sec- the previous Federal Special-Purpose Program "Forests of Russia" for the period of 1997-2000 (Decree of the • Development of the system of protected areas. Government of the RF on 26 September 1997 No. The Strategy includes a special chapter devoted to 1240 "On Federal Special-Purpose Program "Forests forest biodiversity and forest ecosystems conservation as of Russia" for the period 1997-2000"). The new pro- a matter of priority; this covers the following areas gram includes the sub-program «Forests», which de- termines a number of objectives and activities aimed at • Major threats to forest ecosystem biodiversity; conservation and restoration of forests as a resource • Consequences of human impact on forest ecosys- base providing the basic requirements of the economy and population in the form of timber and non-timber • Priority measures for conservation of forest eco- products, whilst also recognising the important eco- logical and environmental role of forests. The rational, • Regions and objects of biodiversity requiring spe- sustainable and non-exhaustive use of forests as a basic component of the program is set forth. Currently, there is no centralised or unified mode of 3. National Conservation Action Plan of the Russian implementation of the Strategy, and as yet there is no Federation for the period 1999-2001 (concrete ongoing source of funding. Some aspects of implementa- measures on its realisation were adopted by the De- tion of the Strategy including financial allocations are cree of the State Committee on Ecology on 31 De- covered in the Federal Special-Purpose Program "Ecol- cember 1998 No. 786 "On realisation of National ogy and Natural Resources of Russia (2002 - 2010)" Conservation Action Plan in the Russian Federation mentioned above. Besides the ‘Forests' sub-program, for the period 1999 - 2001"). other sub-programs relevant to biodiversity conservation 4. The National Strategy for Biodiversity Conserva- tion in Russia (as adopted at the National Forum on • Water biological resources and aquaculture; Wildlife Conservation in Russia in 2001). • Support of protected natural areas; The Strategy (RAS/MNR 2001) was developed in line • Conservation of rare and endangered species of with the provisions of Article 6 of the CBD and agreed animals and plants; upon by the Ministry of Natural Resources and recom- • Protection of Baikal Lake; mended for implementation, though it is not a legally • Rehabilitation of the Volga river. binding document for all sectors. At the same time, the 5. The Concept of Forestry Development in the Rus- Strategy is viewed as a document which reflects a kind of sian Federation for 2003-2010 (approved by the RF common understanding regarding priorities for biodiver- Government Order No. 69-R on January 18, 2003). sity conservation among different stakeholders. Both the The goals of forestry development and improved Strategy and the National Action Plan for Biodiversity public management of the Forest Fund as well as Conservation in Russia were prepared within the frame- non-Forest Fund forests are: work of activities of the full scale GEF project "Conser- • to create conditions for sustainable forest manage- vation of biodiversity in Russia". Presently, the Strategy ment while securing compliance with the require- plays a guiding role for the NGO community (including ments of continuous, sound and non-exhaustive use international groups such as IUCN, WWF, Greenpeace) of the Forest Fund, as well as for the activities of the Ministry of Natural • to increase revenue from the use of forest resources, Resources as a primary authority in environmental pro- • timely and high-quality renewal of forests, tection. Priority areas (thematic and geographical) identi- • preservation of forest resources, their recreational fied in the Strategy could help to focus some biodiversity and environmental capacity, and biological diver- related activities (research, field projects, management decisions etc.) onto more urgent and acute problems. To attain the aforementioned goals, there is a need to Initially the Strategy was oriented towards a wide achieve the following objectives: spectrum of users including all levels of state authorities, • Settle the rights to ownership with respect to the businesses, NGOs, mass media, the education sector etc. Forest Fund, forests that are not part of the Forest The Strategy was officially presented to the CBD Secre- Fund, and tree and shrub vegetation on lands re- tariat. Priorities identified in the Strategy are used for ferred to other categories; establishment of the position of the Russian Federation in • Define and explicitly delineate the power of the the CBD negotiation process (at meetings of the COP authorities of the Russian Federation, Subjects of and subsidiary bodies). the Russian Federation, and local self-governance The Strategy defines the following groups of priorities bodies in the area of forest management; for biodiversity conservation: • Ensure further improvement and development of • Priority species; market relations in forest use; Alexander SHESTAKOV • Make silvicultural activities more intensive with February 1998 No. 21); due regard to environmental and economic factors; • Decree of the Collegium of the Federal Forest Ser- • Improve the economic mechanism in the forest vice of the RF "On adoption of the Concept of Sus- sector towards increasing forest revenues and in- tainable Forest Management in the Russian Federa- troducing an efficient financing system for forest tion". This Concept was directed to forestry bodies management activities; and related organisations at all levels for imple- • Improve the management of the Forest Fund and mentation. (31 July 1998, No. 6). forests which are not part of the Forest Fund. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest manage- The objectives of this Concept should be implemented ment in Russia were developed based on decisions and criteria developed within the framework of the Helsinki • In the first stage (2003 – 2005) - i) to establish an and Montreal processes. Relevant lists of the criteria and efficient structure for managing the Forest Fund indicators were analysed from the point of view of their under federal ownership, ii) to develop new laws applicability to specific conditions within Russia. In pre- and improve existing laws and regulations to gov- paring the document, natural and socio-economic peculi- ern forest relations, iii) to create conditions for fur- arities were considered as well as features of the state ther development of market relations in forest use; federal ownership for forests. The preparation of the final • In the second stage (2006 – 2010) - to achieve con- document incorporated criticisms and proposals from sistent development of forestry through introducing experts and state authorities of all subjects of the RF, scientific and technological advancements, wide- forest management enterprises and scientific research spread use of GIS systems and technologies to en- sure intensive integrated use of forest resources The criteria and indicators which were developed were while preserving the environmental and genetic ca- designed to justify federal Russian forest policy and to pacity of Russian forests. address the subjects of the RF in order to facilitate their regional forest policy identification processes. 5. Implementation of the Montreal Process on Tem- Indicators to assess the criteria were developed and perate and Boreal Forests in Russia chosen taking into account the possibility of using exist- The Russian Federation is one of 12 countries forming ing information-gathering and reporting systems and the Montreal Process. The Working Group on Criteria other approaches already adopted by the Russian forestry and Indicators for the Conservation and Sustainable sector. Depending on the particular parameters, each cri- Management of Temperate and Boreal Forests held its terion could characterize the country as a whole, a natu- tenth meeting in Moscow (October, 1998). At this meet- ral economic region (a group of subjects of the RF) or all ing it was agreed to publish a set of "technical notes" that subjects of the federation. Lists of the indicators also would contain rationale statements for each of the indi- include those which are not provided now in the current cators, definitions of key words, and suggested ap- national statistical and reporting system but which are proaches for measuring the criteria and indicators, as very important for future activities with a shift towards developed by the TAC. A series of activities were sustainable forest management. Thus the document is planned to determine possible application of the Mont- oriented to operate at the national and regional levels, but real Process national level criteria and indicators at the not the field level of forest management units. Realisa- sub-national level. In November 1999 at the eleventh tion of sustainable forest management criteria at the meeting of the State Parties to the Montreal Process practical forest stand level is determined by rules, in- (Charleston, USA), concrete steps toward harmonisation structions, guidelines and other documents on different of national and regional criteria and indicators were de- aspects of forestry. To complete the scheme of criteria veloped. Russia participates in all expert meetings of the implementation, certification requirements and standards Montreal process and generates input on the application which are consistent with international recommendations of indicators. Preparation of the materials for the Mont- must be developed. real Process meetings and reports is provided by the In- Documentation on Criteria and Indicators for sustain- ternational Center on Forests which was established un- able forest management in the Russian Federation allows der the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of For- for adjustments and amendments to the list of indicators estry and Mechanization of Forest Industry (research as well as criteria to be made upon accumulation of more organization affiliated with the Ministry of Natural Re- information and practical experience while implementing the national forest policy. Special work was done to adapt the general criteria Quantitative and qualitative assessment of the indica- and indicators of sustainable management for boreal and tors based on the criteria listed above should be imple- temperate forests to meet the specific conditions in Rus- mented by the Ministry of Natural Resources at a federal sia. This work resulted in the following documents: level and by regional forest authorities (territorial bodies • Order of the Federal Forest Service of the RF "On of the Ministry) at a regional level. The initial data gath- adoption of Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable ered in the assessments should be data of the State forest Forest Management in the Russian Federation" (5 inventory, updates of the information on the state of the Russia Country Report 2002/2003 forest fund, analytical information of forest cadastre and forest monitoring as well as data provided by environ- RAS/MNR. 2001. The National Strategy of Biodiversity Con- mental agencies and scientific institutions. servation in Russia. Moscow, RAS/MNR. Six criteria were identified; each criterion is provided Shestakov A.S., ed. 2001. Legislation of the Russian Federa- with a corresponding set of indicators. These criteria are tion on biodiversity use and conservation. Analytical re- view. Federal legislation. Moscow: GEOS. Criterion 1. Sustainability and support of the produc- Shubin V.A., ed. 1998. Forest legislation of the Russian Fed- tion function of forest. eration. Collection of legal acts. Moscow: PAIMS. Criterion 2. Maintenance of an acceptable sanitary State Committee for Environmental Protection. 2000. State state and viability of forests. report on the state of the environment in Russian Federa- Criterion 3. Preservation and maintenance of the pro- tion in 1999. Moscow: State Committee for Environmental tective functions of forests. Criterion 4. Conservation and maintenance of forest State Duma of the Russian Federation. 2003. Ecological prob- biological diversity and the role of for- lems of forests in the Russian Federation. Recommenda- ests in the global carbon cycle. tions and materials of the Parliamentary Hearings, 4 Feb- Criterion 5. Maintenance of the socio-economic func- ruary, at the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Mos- tions of forests. Criterion 6. Forest policy tools to ensure long-term WWF. 2000. Forest conservation in Russia: an overview. WWF sustainable forest management. Russian Programme Office Analytical Document. Mos- Presently, work is in progress on preparation of the new updated version of the regulation on criteria and WWF. 2002. Illegal logging in the Southern Part of the Russian indicators of sustainable forest management in boreal and Far East. Problems Analysis and Proposed Solutions. temperate forests in Russia, in line with the latest deci- sions of the Montreal and Pan-European processes. This document is supposed to be adopted by the Ministry of Natural Resources to provide guidance to forestry activi-ties and a reporting system in Russia. The need for the new document is justified by the changes in the man-agement structure since May 2000 and the lack of im-plementation and enforcement of activities witnessed under the previous one (i.e. that of 1998). The International Center on Forests is at the stage of completing the comprehensive national report on imple-mentation of the Montreal process and development of criteria and indicators in Russia (prepared in line with the Montreal Process format) to be presented at the World Forestry Congress in September 2003 in Canada (a report will be published both in Russian and in English later this year). Alexander SHESTAKOV Appendix 1. Russian Federation in major international environmental conventions Convention Place Marine protection Convention on Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Bal- tic Sea Area International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties International Convention for the Prevention of Pol ution of the Sea by Oil International water bodies protection Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes Biological diversity conservation Convention on the conservation and management of the Pollock resources in the Bering sea Convention on Biological Diversity International Treaty on Tropical Timber Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Re- sources Agreement on Conservation of Polar Bears Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in 13 September 1973 the Baltic Sea and Belts Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat Convention on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the South East Atlantic European Convention for the Protection of Animals During Interna- tional Transport (as amended on 10 Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals International Plant Protection Convention Convention for the Establishment of the European and Mediterra- nean Plant Protection Organization International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Convention for the regulation of the meshes of fishing nets and the size limits of fish Climate change control United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer Prevention and mitigation of pollution Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (has not come into Convention on Prevention of Large Industrial Accidents International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents Helsinki Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Cause during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels (CRTD) Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) Alexander SHESTAKOV Appendix 2. Division of power in the field of use, protection, safeguard of the forest fund and forest re- habilitation between Russian Federation and subjects of Russian Federation (according to the Art.46 & 47 of the Forest Code of Russian Federation) Jurisdiction of the Russian Federation Jurisdiction of the subjects of the federation Setting of major provisions of state forestry policy Elaboration and adoption of federal laws and other Elaboration and adoption of regional laws and other normative legal acts of the RF, control over their regulations enforcement; possession, use and disposal of the forest fund Participation in execution of rights to possession, use and disposal of the forest fund on territories of appro-priate subjects of the RF Carrying out common investment policy in the field of use, protection, safeguard the forest fund and forest rehabilitation Elaboration, approval and realization of federal state Participation in elaboration and realization of Federal programs for use, protection, safeguard of forest fund state programs for use, protection, safeguard of the and forest rehabilitation forest fund and forest rehabilitation Elaboration, approval and realization of territorial (regional) state programs for use, protection, safe-guard of the forest fund and forest rehabilitation Organizing and prescribing the activity of the federal forestry authority and its territorial departments Setting up the procedure for division of the forest fund by groups of forests and differentiation of first group forests by protective categories, transfer of forests from one group to another, and first group forests from one protective group to another Setting up standards and rules of the forest fund use Determination and approval of rated wood-cutting area Setting up types of payment for the forest fund use, as Fixation of rates of the forest duties and rates of rental well as minimum payment rates for timber to be sold payments (except minimal payment rates for sold standing standing timber), as well as payment for transfer of wooded lands to the woodless lands Determination of the procedure for granting to use the Making decisions on granting the forest fund plots on forest fund plots lease, free use and short-term use pursuant to Forest Code Approval the rules for sale of standing timber, fellings, protection, safeguard of the forest fund and forest reha-bilitation Organizing and coordination of scientific-research and engineering work for the forest management State supervision the use, protection, safeguard of the State control over condition, use, protection, safeguard forest fund and wood reproduction and setting up the of the forest fund and wood reproduction procedure for supervision Determination of the procedure and organization of state registration of the forest fund, state forest cadastre, forest monitoring and forest regulation International cooperation of the RF in the field of use, protection and safeguarding of the forest fund and forest rehabilitation Conclusion and organization of implementation of RF international agreements in the field of use, protection and safeguarding of the forest fund and forest rehabili-tation Setting up the procedure for state statistical reporting in the forestry field Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Suspension, restriction, cancellation of rights to use Suspension, restriction and termination of work being forest fund plots, as well as suspension, restriction and dangerous for state of forest and forest rehabilitation termination of work being dangerous for wood condi-tion and reproduction Modification of forest lands into non-forest lands for Modification of forest lands into non-forest lands for purposes other than forest management and use of the purposes other than forest management and use of the forest fund, and (or) withdrawal of forest fund lands forest fund, and (or) withdrawal of forest fund lands from the first group forests from the forests of second and third groups Declaration of forest fund plots by zones of ecological Setting borders of the forest fund plots with special emergency and zones of ecological calamity forestry management regimes on territories of indige-nous communities Other powers attributed to powers of the RF by the Other powers not assigned to the Russian Federation Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws Organization of fire prevention and pest control Organization of education and awareness-raising pro-grams in the field of use, protection, safeguard and forest rehabilitation Provide population with necessary information con-cerning use, protection, safeguard and reproduction of wood Alexander SHESTAKOV Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Federation Minister of Natural Resources First Deputy Minister, Head of the State Forest Service State Forest Service Dept. of Forest Use Dept. of Forest Fund Dept. of Forest Fund Protection, Conserva- tion and Restoration Div. of organisation of Div. of forest tenure Div. of forest fire control Div. of forest fund lands Div. of afforestation and Div. of forest protection from diseases and pests Div. of monitoring and inventory of forest fund Div. of protective affore- and organisation of state Div. of state forest Div. of forestry develop- Div. of material and technical supply Div. of realisation of tim- Figure 3. Structure of forest management system at the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russian Russia Country Report 2002/2003 64 101 Research Report on Current State of Environmental NGOs in the Russian Far East Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ* Vladimir P. KARAKIN** Contents: Introduction.1. Development of environmental NGOs in Russia. 2. Development of environmental NGOs in the Russian Far East. 3. Current state of environmental NGOs in the Russian Far East. 4. Attitude of the general public, mass media, administration and industry towards environmental NGOs. 5. Major NGO accomplishments and the role of NGOs in the field of forest conservation and environmental protection. Conclusion. Commonly used abbreviations1 CAID – Canadian Agency for International Development DalNIILKh – the Far Eastern Forestry Research Institute envNG – environmental non-governmental organization EPT – Environment Policy and Technology Program GEF – Global Ecological Facilities GIS – geographical information system HIID – Harvard Institute for International Development HWI – Hornocker Wildlife Institute IREX – International Research & Exchanges Board ISAR – Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia ISC – Institute for Sustainable Communities NGO – non-governmental organization PERC – Pacific Energy and Resources Center RF – Russian Federation RFE – Russian Far East ROLL – Replication of Learned Lessons RSFSR – Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (the name of Russia during the Soviet era) TREDA – Tumen River Area Development Program USAID – United States Agency for International Development USIA – United States Information Agency USSR – Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics WCS – Wildlife Conservation Society WWF – World Wildlife Fund S. Glovatskaya (Far Eastern Forestry Research Institute, This paper is the result of collaborative research work Khabarovsk) and Elena A. Lebedeva (Information and carried out by a group of experts working in a number of Analytical Center TIGIS, Vladivostok) took part in the different governmental and non-governmental organiza- collection and processing of data in addition to the report tions in the Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy krais of the authors. Nina V. Bolshova (Khabarovsk Wildlife Foun- Russian Federation. The report was compiled by Profes- dation) and Valeriya G. Efitsenko (ISAR-RFE) helped to sor Dr. Alexander S. Sheingauz (Economic Research collect data. Yuliya G. Fomenko (RFE WWF), Dr. Anna Institute, Khabarovsk) and Dr. Vladimir Karakin (Far V. Kochemasova (Russian-American Educational and Eastern Branch of the Russian Representatives of the Scientific Center, Khabarovsk) and Dr. Alexander N. World Wildlife Fund (RFE WWF), Vladivostok). Galina Kulikov (Khabarovsk Wildlife Foundation) acted as consultant authors. A list of the Russian environmental non-governmental * Prof. Dr. Deputy Director, Economic Research Institute, organizations (envNGOs) that were active in Kha- 153 Tikhookeanskaya St., Khabarovsk 680042 Russia barovskiy and Primorskiy krais at the beginning of 2002 Tel.: 7(4212) 722-756 7(4212) 724-888 was used as the basis for this study. To compile this list, Fax: 7(4212) 724-807 7(4212) 718-916 a preliminary database containing all envNGOs included E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] ** Dr. Far Eastern Branch of World Wildlife Fund, Vladivostok, Russia or mentioned in any of our primary sources from the past 1 Abbreviations for the names of local NGOs are not included. Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN five years, was first put together. Dispersed databases (RSFSR) in 1990 as well as the regional legislative bod- that had been collected by some NGOs for internal use – ies throughout Russia in the period 1989–1990 (Baturin for example, those available from ISAR-RFE, RFE WWF (Vladivostok), Citizen Initiatives (Khabarovsk), The first truly public environmental organization – the etc. – were also incorporated. Public Committee of Volga Rescue – was officially reg- Questionnaires regarding the main organizational pa- istered in the Russian Federation in 1988. In the same rameters were then sent by post or e-mail to all envNGOs year, the Social Ecological Union, one of the leading listed in the database. An additional round of information Russian envNGOs today, held its constituent assembly. gathering was made by telephone for those organizations At that time, the formation of envNGOs was undertaken that didn't respond to our written questionnaire. Some en masse throughout all Russian provinces. Viewed ho- registration aspects of certain organizations were recog- listically, it was a spontaneous public movement that nized during this stage and these are discussed in Chapter generated a large, albeit dispersed body of NGOs. Yanitskiy (2002) has referred to this process of envNGO The final list (i.e. that containing only those envNGOs formation as "American" (as opposed to "European"), in in existence at the beginning of 2003) differed from the comparison to the creation of green parties in the Euro- preliminary one significantly (Appendix 1). For example, pean countries. All the major national envNGOs, such as the initial list for Kha-barovskiy krai contained 84 the Russian Ecological Union, USSR Ecological Fund, envNGOs and the final one only 34: a considerable Ecology and Peace, RosEcoPress and the Moscow Eco- number of NGOs that appeared in the initial list were logical Federation, were also established in Russia at this later excluded. There was a similar situation in Primor- skiy krai. To complete the assessment using all available The democratic wave absorbed many representatives publications (Citizen's initiatives 2002; ISAR-RFE 1998, of the ecological movement, who variously became offi- etc.), web-based information, interviews with NGO cials in the federal and provincial governments, members members, and long-term personal experiences were of the federal and provincial legislative bodies, secretar- summarized and incorporated. As a result of this, some ies to large political parties and so on, in a shift towards new NGOs that did not exist in the preliminary list were professional politics. Though this wave came to an end in found and included in later editing stages of the study. 1991, by 1992 the nature of the Russian environmental The results of the study are presented below. movement had evolved from a loose set of spontaneously formed groups that met on the streets, to a professional 1. Development of environmental NGOs in Russia body of formally registered NGOs staffed by dedicated The growth of world community attention to ecologi- personnel. It had formed its own corps of researchers, cal problems during the last two decades has been advisers and experts and increasingly became a part of aroused by a very real transformation in the state of the the international movement (Yanitskiy, 2002). environment. In Russia, this transformation has been The following factors, though often contradictory, exacerbated by political and economic changes, which in have been active in shaping the Russian environmental turn have driven the rapid expansion of a public envi- ronmental movement. A deepening ecological anxiety 1) A shift in public priorities towards financial sur- within Russian society is reflected in the decisions made by federal and local authorities, and especially in their 2) A struggle for survival on the part of envNGOs on normative legal acts. The ‘green movement' became par- the one hand, and a drive to extend their field of in- ticularly active at the beginning of Perestroika. This was fluence on the other. This has dictated that marked by an awakening of ‘people energy', whilst at the envNGOs are continually involved in efforts to se- same time, there was an increase in the accessibility of cure grants and other sources of funding, and has information, a growth in public activity and a widening defined widespread aspirations to take part in large, of provincial power. This resulted in the stirring into ac- well-financed projects; tivity of different social groups (first of all intellectuals) 3) A transition towards increasing collaboration be- and the formation of informal action groups as the pre- tween envNGOs and the authorities so that the for- cursors to officially registered envNGOs. mer may find practical ways of realizing their aspi- Public anxiety relating to environmental problems oc- rations and receive financial resources from re- cupied the first or second position in polls gauging social gional ecological funds; concerns during the first few years of Perestroika The requirement that envNGOs operate legally, (1985–1988). Many informal environmental groups were keeping official records of their finances and formed in the different regions of the former USSR at documenting all transactions in order that they may this time. This same process was also a considerable so- receive financing through banks2; cial and political force and was capitalized on by many politicians who entered the first democratic USSR par- 2 Adoption of legality in this sense is seen to have two distinct inter- liament in 1989, the new (Yeltsin's) Supreme Soviet of pretations in this report: 1) generally, that NGOs operate as legally the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic responsible, juridical bodies within the total system of laws and de-crees; 2) specifically, as in ‘registration', i.e. the inclusion of an NGO Russia Country Report 2002/2003 5) The establishment of representatives of interna- recognized envNGOs as a real and significant phe- tional environmental organizations in Russia and nomenon, independent, active and strong. This re- the launching of international environmental pro- alization has even resulted in the inclusion of rep- jects within Russia, realized through or with the resentatives of certain envNGOs into a series of help of local NGOs; bodies under the operation of the authorities (com- 6) The establishment and, frequently, the legal au- mittees, councils, etc.). The more forward-thinking thorization of different NGO partnerships, and the officials and businesspersons have become aware of setting up new joint envNGOs, i.e. the formation of the fact that within the present export-oriented local ecological networks; economy it is impossible to ignore the ‘green The availability and acquisition of electronic equipment and its use to obtain access to the world 2. With the registering of the ecological political party wide web, to create internet sites, to utilize GIS, in May 2002, a new force has appeared on the cen- and to publish periodical journals and the results of tral political stage. The party intends to take part in different environmental and social studies; the country's political life as an active centrist force 8) The reinforcement of NGO dependence on external and plans to secure the five per cent census required means of finance, often international. in the Russian State Duma elections of 2003. By the end of the 1990s, the environmental movement 3. A system for the allocation of funds, grants and or- had developed a diversified structure of often informal, ders, and a directory of professionals and mutually dependent or otherwise linked groups3. Today, semi-professionals accessible by envNGOs has new envNGOs are continuously being formed whilst been established. others are forced out of operation. However, despite this 4. All basic envNGOs have been legitimized through high level of dynamism, the movement maintains a sig- official registration as an inevitable outcome of nificant degree of stability. Within it are embedded sev- steadily increasing state control and a tightening of eral all-Russian/national bodies (such as the Social Eco- restrictions applied to all financial and logistic logical Union), as well as many local organizations and transactions in the country. Russian representatives of international organizations These changes within the environmental sector have of such as Greenpeace and WWF. Certain notable regional course coincided with analogous changes in other sectors organizations have also appeared, including Dront in and within various socioeconomic aspects of society. Nizhniy Novgorod, the Bureau of Regional Public Cam- There is another important characteristic of the present, paigns (BROC) in Vladivostok, Khabarovsk Wildlife new phase of development. This is the influx of large and Foundation and others. The formation of the Greens medium-sized commercial firms into the envNGO sphere, (‘Cedar') political party is also regarded as being highly i.e. a coalescence of ‘the second' and ‘the third' sectors, despite the fact that ‘the second' sector had emerged and This phase of development as described above has ef- developed in opposition to ‘the third'4. Now, commercial fectively now ended, and a new one has begun. The tran- firms try to make their image as ecologically sound as sition, however, has not been particularly sharp: condi- possible in their struggle for consumers. Thus they either tionally, it can be marked as coming about at the turn of channel significant funds into supporting envNGOs as an the 20th Century, into the early 21st Century. The new advertisement for their efforts, or, in what is qualitatively phase preserves many of the features of the previous one, a new innovation for the environmental movement, they though with the following distinguishing attributes: create their own envNGOs, as in the case of the Associa- 1. Official authorities and civil society in general have tion of Ecologically Responsible Forest Users (Russia) and Forest Trends (USA). The Association of Ecologi- cally Responsible Forest Users is a formal NGO that unites a number of forest firms that have proclaimed their (or other body) into an official state list and their subsequent certifi-cation as a ‘juridical body'. intention to observe all environmental regulations and to This report also maintains a distinction between the ‘informal/formal' and obtain full ecological certification. This nationwide asso- ‘non-registered/registered' status of envNGOs. The terms ‘for- ciation was established through the initiative of WWF mal/informal' are concerned mostly with self-consciousness: once a and, in the RFE, was initiated by the Center for Forest spontaneous group adopts a constant name, elects a chair, secretary, etc., and, most importantly, applies for or submits official documents (e.g. public appeal, open letter to a newspaper, grant application, etc.), it ma- Presently, the key actors within the environmental tures from an informal to a formal organization. Sometimes the latter is movement can be grouped into different layers also termed an ‘initiative group'. In contrast, an NGO is transformed (Znachkov, 2002), as outlined below: from being a ‘non-registered' to a ‘registered' NGO only after submitting 1. Managers and politicians5. These are permanent official documents to state bodies and obtaining a state certificate deem-ing it a juridical body (e.g. public organization, non-commercial partner-ship, etc.). 3 This is best viewed as a constant process or dynamic, characterized 4 In this context, ‘the first sector' refers to official authority of all lev- by the continual establishment of new NGOs and the continual pass- els, ‘the second' to business, and ‘the third' to NGOs. ing away of older ones. NGOs do not spring up or die in vacant space, 5 Here, the term ‘manager' refers to managers of large, stable NGOs, but in a complex web of often informally inter-related NGOs, politi- for whom running the organization has become a professional en- cal parties and other official bodies. gagement. ‘Politician' refers to certain members of some leading Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN members of environmental communities at the fed- sodically, do not receive any payments, and are en- eral and the regional levels. Their number in the thusiasts of grass roots environmental protection. Russian Federation (RF) does not exceed 300–400 According to some estimates, the number of support- persons and more half of them are concentrated in ers of the green political movement in Russia increased Moscow. Most of them keep up common acquaint- more than twofold during the period 1992–2002. How- ances and have good relations with the main donor ever, the exact number of envNGOs in the RF is not agencies and authority representatives in the sphere known. Different sources indicate different figures: 4,000 of environmental protection and natural resource to 10,000. Such uncertainty exists because, despite the use. Political, professional and financial interests proliferation of legitimate NGOs as described above, are indissoluble for these persons. They are capable many still prefer to maintain an informal status. There of drawing up new project proposals and applica- are several reasons for such behaviour, in particular: tions for grants professionally. Almost all of them ♦ An aspiration to keep full independence and free- have strong organizational capabilities and are ef- fective communicators. They perform roles as pro- ♦ The negative attitude toward official authority that ject heads and managers. Some of them are high is traditional for Russian society; standing, qualified professionals in ecology, geog- ♦ An eagerness to attract the maximum possible raphy, biology and other fields. Commonly, they number of lower level enthusiasts and so avoid any can speak foreign languages, especially English. They possess a suite of skills that allow them to ful- ♦ Tax evasion and an unwillingness to share their fil project objectives and they are familiar with ‘the very meagre earnings with the state. rules', which they observe very strictly. EnvNGOs Unfortunately, this last point gives rise to a contradic- are their fulltime places of work and they usually tory situation for certain envNGOs. Whilst on the one receive high-level salaries. They devote much of hand they hold opposition to authority and a denial of their time to policy, participating in various con- official regulations as components of their founding phi- ferences, workshops (including those in foreign losophy (therefore justifying such behavior as morally countries) and so on. righteous), on the other hand, they consider transparency 2. Experts and consultants. Most of these are profes- and the observance of law as cornerstones of their activ- sionals of a high class. However, amongst this ity. As such, they withhold financial and, frequently, group are also semi-professionals and dilettantes. organizational details of their activities. The authors of They act as the main coordinators and executors of the present report often came across such evasive behav- projects, and they are often able to speak foreign iour when collecting information as part of this study. languages. In most cases, their activities are ori- ented towards specific scientific themes (for exam- 2. Development of environmental NGOs in the Rus- ple, tigers and leopards; GIS; indigenous people; traditional forms of natural resource use). Usually, The Priamurie (near Amur) branch of the Imperial their fulltime jobs are in research institutes and Russian Geographical Society was established in 1889 in universities, executive authorities and legislative Khabarovsk City. It was the first NGO that paid attention bodies, rarely commercial firms and schools. The to environmental problems in the RFE. Soon after its scale of their wages varies greatly. foundation, a Primorskiy branch (in Vladivostok) was 3. Primary level executives. This grouping makes up also established, reinforcing the same tradition. the basic driving force of envNGOs. They are, as a The All-Union Society for Nature Conservation was rule, schoolteachers, kindergarten educators, junior set up in Moscow in 1924 with branches in all of the researchers, officials of protected territories, gov- RFE provinces. As was the case for all Soviet ‘public' ernment officials of lower ranks, etc. They carry out organizations in reality, its activities were closely super- the daily tasks and fulfil the direct transactions of vised by the authorities and Communist Party commit- the envNGO, making small payments, purchasing tees. To this day, it remains operational under the name equipment and so on. Usually they are genuine en- "All-Russian" and is non-governmental; however, it thusiasts of environmental protection. The envi- contains many congenital shortcomings of the old sys- ronmental and social impacts of the work of their NGO on the community/territory in which they live The Green Club was the first real (though informal) often serve as additional – though direct – stimuli environmental organization founded in the RFE during for their participation in a project. the Soviet era. It appeared in the middle of the 1970s 4. Volunteers. These come from a range of different under the roof of the governmental Khabarovsk Com- social positions: university students, schoolchildren, mittee on TV and Radio Broadcasting. It based itself on pensioners, etc. They participate in activities epi- the ecological editorial branch of the Committee headed by Agnesa M. Feldman. It associated with not only envi- ronmental radio broadcasters, but also other representa- NGOs who have obtained political weight and take part in the forma- tives of the ecological community in Khabarovskiy krai tion and shaping of policy. Russia Country Report 2002/2003 and other RFE provinces. They had one to two club a specific environmental issue or cause, or were formed meetings per year for discussions. The club re-mained within the context of a particular movement to which active until the end of the 1980s, producing some hun- they added their weight. The following is a list of the key dreds of radio transmissions and two books (Zarkhina, environmental causes pursued by envNGOs, and which 1990; Sheingauz, 1987). are of particular relevance to forest conservation: Some years later, another informal association arose. • Conservation of the Amur tiger and Far Eastern This was the Methodological Seminar of the Far Eastern leopard (both krais); Forestry Research Institute (DalNIILKh), which united • Conservation of Japanese cranes (both krais); scientists throughout Khabarovskiy krai and provided an • Opposition to large forestry operations, especially opportunity to discuss a wide range of environmental those planned by foreign companies: in Kha- problems. However, because it only brought scientists barovskiy krai – Weyerhaueser (USA) and Rimbu- together, its results were not disseminated amongst nan Hidjau (Malaysia); in Primorskiy krai – Hun- common people, even this latter group later became the day (Republic of Korea) and, more recently, the source of environmental papers that were published by Russian Terneyles in the Samarga River basin; the regional literary magazine ‘Far East'. This magazine • Maintenance of rights to practice traditional forms was a sort of regional environmental tribune in the con- of natural resource use – rescue of the Bikin River ditions of the closed society at that time. basin (both krais); An analogous seminar functioned at the same time in • Campaigns against illegal logging operations over the academic Pacific Geography Institute in Vladivostok. the past 3–4 years (both krais); Therefore, Selezneva's statement (2002) that the envi- • Conservation of the large Amur ecosystem (both ronmental movement in the RFE only began at the end of 1987/beginning of 1988 and was linked with the devel- • Prevention of pollution in Peter the Great Bay, in- opment of a project to construct three hydroelectric cluding forest watershed conservation (Primorskiy power stations on the river at Bolshaya Ussurka, is not very accurate. Rather, at that time, the public environ- Foreign and international environmental NGOs and mental movement began to take advantage of new op- funds have played an important role in allowing local portunities and so became more open and visible. In- NGOs to come into being. They have financed projects, creasing public anxiety in relation to environmental is- allocated grants, helped to purchase communications sues was reported in the national newspaper Sovetskaya equipment and to pay communication costs, covered Rossiya and attracted the attention of the whole envi- costs of trips to environmental conferences and training ronmental community of the USSR (Kashuk, 1988). A courses, organized conferences and workshops, etc. first environmental meeting was convened at Minniy Some grants intended specifically to stimulate the estab- (mine) Gorodok in Vladivostok City on 5th June 1988, lishment of local envNGOs have also been tendered (for and the Association of Ecological Action was established, example, those by ISAR and USAID). ISAR alone has headed by Yuriy Kashuk and Anatoliy Lebedev. The set up three large grant programmes devoted to the crea- association Taiga, headed by V. Zemtsov, was estab- tion and support of local NGOs. Funds from foreign lished on 10th December of the same year, in the village governments have also been injected (USAID, CAID, of Roshchino, the proposed site for construction of the etc.), although these have principally come to the RFE hydroelectric generators. via other NGOs. In addition to financial aid, donor or- At around the same time, a movement opposed to the ganizations have also supplied professional technical construction of a nuclear power station near Evoron Lake support by providing personnel since the early 1990s, developed in Khabarovskiy krai. The movement was which has had a positive influence on the process. For formed of an association of different informal environ- example, BJ Chisholm headed ISAR-RFE between mental groups, and under the subsequent wave of activity 1993–1999, Misha Jones has been cooperating with that this movement aroused, Dr. Evdokiya A. Gaer and PERC since 1993, Julia Levin (Institute for Nature Heri- Mr. Vladimir M. Desyatov were made deputies in the tage) actively dealt with environmental legislation in the First USSR Congress of the People's Deputies. Later on, RFE in the period 1994–1996, and Dean Stepanek played Dr. E. Gaer became a member of Yeltsin's deputy group6. a key role in the success of the EPT/RFE programme Mr. V. Desyatov is well known for instigating a ban on between 1995–1998. Unfortunately, we do not have the the harvesting of cedar. opportunity to list here all the foreigners who have con- The rapid rise and fall of informal and later on formal tributed to the RFE environmental movement. envNGOs began at this time in both krais. The process Five main trends in foreign and international activity was similar to that described above for Russia as a whole. in the environmental sphere of the RFE can be distin- The majority of NGOs in the RFE either arose to address guished, as detailed below: 1. A ‘very green' trend, characterized by alarmist propaganda and resistance to economic develop- ment. Activity in this vein peaked in the RFE dur- In Russia today, as under the former USSR, the term ‘Deputy' (in Russian deputat) means ‘member of any elected body of power', i.e. ing the late 1980s and early 1990s. A major cause State and local Dumas, Soviets, etc. Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN for this was a three-year campaign led by the Pa- Training courses have been conducted both in Rus- cific Energy and Resources Center (PERC), an sia as well as abroad, including work-shops, semi- NGO from California, USA, under the special ‘Si- nars, student exchanges, etc. berian Forest Protection Project'. Members of the The movement has been financed by many govern- Center brought a great deal of information, held mental and non-governmental sources from dif-ferent lectures, published papers and so on, in an attempt countries, including USAID, USIA, WWF, IREX, ISAR, to prevent big foreign logging companies – notably and so on. Many of them have an established grant pro- the Weyerhaeuser Company, one of the biggest US gramme. Especially successful in this respect is ISAR's logging firms – from securing forest leases in the Programme for Small Grants because it is very flexible RFE, especially Khabarovskiy krai. The main goal and operational. of participants in these efforts (not only PERC but Maybe the brightest component of this movement is others as well) was a prevention of development in the long-running publication of the Russian magazine the territories and a conservation of virgin forests. Zov Taigi (‘Taiga's Appeal'), prepared by Russian vol- Although some local RFE envNGOs were also in- unteers and financed by international funds. It has gained volved in this activity, the majority of the popula- the sympathy of many local readers who, in the words of tion did not support the movement because of an the magazine's motto, are "in no rush to get to Hawaii". unwillingness to restrain local economic develop- Although it is difficult to quantify the results of this ment, especially given the context of economic cri- trend, it is evident that one major accomplishment is that long-term efforts have ensured a wider, more detailed This movement did not bring large funds into the RFE common understanding of environmental problems for local NGOs. However, positive results of activity at amongst the local population. this time included increased public attention to hot eco- 4. The implementation of real ecological projects logical topics, greater information exchange (particularly forms the fourth trend and includes some projects over the Internet), greater availability of ecological in- that have aspired to and achieved concrete results. formation and increased mutual support between Usually such projects attract the most attention from the mass media, and as such become well 2. A second trend has embraced research and the col- known amongst the public. As a rule, they are lection and dissemination of information. Activity de-voted to the higher profile, more pressing prob- in this vein has been typified by the following: lems. The concept of ‘flag species' being widely • Bilateral or multilateral studies fulfilled through used, they focus on the better known species that collaboration between local and foreign institutions; are under the greatest threat and are often endemic, • Research projects initiated by local institutions in such as the Amur tiger, Far Eastern leopard, Japa- attempts to attract grants from any of the foreign nese and Dahur cranes, Far Eastern white stork and dikusha-bird (Falcipennis falcipennis). The • Direct requests from foreign or international insti- projects have different goals and are realized in • Training in foreign universities; One of the more well known projects is the pro- • Interchange of researchers; gramme for conservation of the Amur tiger. In fact, this • Scientific conferences, symposia and workshops; is composed of a mixture of projects which vary in their • Publishing of handbooks, proceedings, monographs duration, their cost, the source of their sponsorship and their degree of involvement. Many national and interna- Such methods have often been implemented by RFE tional NGOs take part in the programme: WCS (initially academic research institutes, universities and envNGOs, as the Hornoker Instititute), WWF, Global Survival in conjunction with other approaches. Sometimes this has Network, the Phoenix Fund and the Khabarovsk Wildlife resulted in the development of ecological recommenda- Foundation, amongst others. Large daily patrols are made tions aimed at common public bodies or local authorities. up of many volunteers who work to prevent and negate 3. A widely supported trend for education and training. all possibilities for tiger poaching. Special groups This movement has embraced a wide circle of or- equipped with jeeps and means of communication have ganizations, most of them being municipal or been organized. As a by-product, the programme has non-governmental bodies. One of the main positive helped to stamp out the contraband of trepangs (sea cu- elements of this trend has been its interest in pro- cumber) and of cabarga's (local musk deer) musk glands. gress at the grass roots level. The kinds of activities The total cost of the programme has never been an- included here are very diverse. They range from nounced and possibly no one has ever calculated it. special programmes in kindergartens, schools, However, it is known that WWF has spent more than gymnasiums and lyceums, to radio and television US$1 million in financing projects. The programme con- broadcasts, the production of videos and films and demonstrations. Many brochures and booklets have Perhaps the largest environmental programme imple- also been published and lectures have been held. mented in the RFE was the Russian-USA ‘Russian Far Russia Country Report 2002/2003 East Sustainable Natural Resource Management Project', foreign environmental institutions in the RFE, especially also known as the EPT/RF project (Environmental Policy southern areas, an area recently deemed one of the and Technology). It lasted from 1994 to 1998. USAID world's most valuable ecoregions by Global 200 Project. spent US$18 million on project fulfillment. The EPT This interest is evoked by the high level of biodiversity project embraced both Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy found in the RFE, and by the presence of many flag spe- krais and recruited many local and international experts. cies, which are of global significance. The project involved such NGOs as the private company The exact number of established envNGOs is un- CH2MHill International, the Harvard Institute for Inter- known and cannot presently be ascertained because of national Development (HIID), the US branch of WWF, the reasons indicated above. Between 250–300 envNGOs and ISAR. It also generated the formation of some new were created in total across both krais during the period local NGOs, among them Ecodal (Khabarovskiy krai), 1988–2002. Znachkov (2002) claims that there are now TIGIS and the Primorskiy public fund Zapovednik Sup- as many as 250 envNGOs in Primorskiy krai alone, al- port (Primorskiy krai). The EPT project also got a num- though our data do not confirm this. The increase rate ber of commercial NGOs involved in natural resource about one and a half times more intense in Primorskiy use projects, some of which – for example, Limonnik than in Khabarovskiy krai. (Vladivostok) and Amurbiofarm (Khabarovsk) – have The greater intensity of growth in number of since continued to play an active role in environmental envNGOs in Primorskiy krai can be traced to the follow- The Russian-Canadian project ‘Model Forest «Gas- 1) Higher total political activity of the population; sinskiy»' was put into practice in Khabarovskiy krai as 2) Greater degree of environmental pollution and deg- part of the world model forest network (Model Forest, radation, and the presence of heavily polluted areas 1999). The term of agreement was 1994 to 1998. The such as the Gulf of Peter the Great, Khasan Lake Canadian side invested CAN$3 million and provided technical support. The Russian side provided forest area 3) Greater number of the research institutes, universi- and contributed to research and development, forest in- ties and other intellectual bodies that are at the core formation and project organization. In order to fulfil the of envNGO development. project, a non-governmental association with the same The next chapter describes the current situation with name ‘Model Forest «Gassinskiy»' was also established. regards to envNGOs in both krais, as at the end of 2002. The project resulted in a high-class survey of model for- est territory, a design for plan development, the construc- 3. Current state of environmental NGOs in the Rus- tion of a modern office, and the procurement of equip- ment. Officially, the NGO still exists today, although it is The full list of environmental NGOs for which infor- not active because of the completion of financing for the mation was collected, is collated in Appendix 1. Data relating to the NGOs is presented in the list under the The Russian-USA programme Replication of Learned following headings: name, organization status, field of Lessons (ROLL) must also be highlighted. It was started activity, date of registration, number of members, num- in 1996 by the Russian representatives of the US NGO ber of staff, degree of independence, the name and offi- Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) and is de- cial title of the NGO's head, chief ecological accom- voted to the dissemination of information derived from plishments, postal address, phone and fax numbers, the positive experiences of international ecological pro- e-mail and website address. The fullness of data differs grammes in Russia. Between 1996 and 2002, it launched according to the NGO. a total of 34 projects in the RFE with a total budget of The principal, more stable and active envNGOs that US$1.1 million; 50 per cent of this has been designated are directly or indirectly linked with forest conservation for the support of local NGOs. Some projects have been are treated in the following paragraphs in alphabetical devoted to the generation and development of NGOs. order. Special attention is paid to those organizations that 5. Support for ecologically sound business projects. support and promote an expansion of the total NGO The impact of this trend is, at present, not great and network (ISAR-RFE, 1998; RFE WWF, 2002; Internet it has mostly benefited small businesses rather than non-commercial NGOs. Its main defining feature is an adherence to ecological conditions and restric- Russian envNGOs: - Khabarovskiy krai It should not be thought that an environmental move- The Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North ment in the RFE exists only due to the presence of for- of Khabarovskiy krai (Khabarovsk) defends the interests eign support. On the contrary, the successes of interna- of indigenous minority peoples at the federal and krai tional programmes are, in most cases, determined by the level, primarily in terms of rights to engage in traditional existence of numerous local envNGOs that have been natural resource use practices and the conservation of the established by local people and reflect their aspirations. There is heightened interest amongst international and Center for Forest Certification (Khabarovsk) is a Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN non-commercial partnership established by three tainable hunting projects, participates in field projects envNGOs. It is the first organization in the RFE to be focusing on tiger and leopard populations in Primorskiy founded on the principles of voluntary forest certification, as advanced by the FSC. Phoenix (Vladivostok) is a public ecological fund that The Khabarovsk krai branch of the public organization accumulates financial means from different donor groups All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation (Kha- (notably US and Dutch organizations) for the realization barovsk), Russia's oldest network of environmental or- of medium-sized environmental projects in Primorskiy ganizations, was established as early as 1924. It has cut krai. Most of its activities are focused on the southwest down its activity since the early 1990s, maintaining only of Primorskiy krai and in Ussuriyskiy Zapovednik. a minimal number of staff. The Pimorskiy krai branch of the public organization The Khabarovsk Wildlife Foundation (Khabarovsk) is All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation (Vladi- one of the most stable and most respected envNGOs in vostok) is analogous to the Khabarovsk branch of the the RFE. It has accomplished and continues to accom- plish some large environmental projects. It keeps in close Territory of the Future (Khasanskiy raion) is a public contact with the Khabarovskiy krai government. It is one organization that implements local environ-mental pro- of the principal recipients of grants from the World Bank jects in the south of Khasanskiy raion, as, for example, in and the Global Ecological Facilities (GEF). the Tumen project (TREDA). Pantsui (Khabarovsk), a fund for ecological initiatives, TIGIS (Vladivostok) is a public organization that specializes in the assessment of real levels of resource manages an information and analysis database as an eco- use, particularly in the form of hunting and fishing, in- logical resource, and carries out scientific and GIS-based cluding illegal production. projects to high technical and production standards. Strazh Taigi (Komsomolsk-na-Amure) is a small pub- Ussuriyskiy Medved has a young team engaged in en- lic organization that actively participates in awareness vironmental education and awareness programmes, with campaigns, including international programmes for the a particular emphasis on conservation. It participates in protection of the Khabarovskiy krai taiga, especially in anti-poaching activities and patrols in the southern part the area around the city of Komsomolsk-na-Amure. of Primorskiy krai. Zeleniy Dom (Khabarovsk) is a fully independent, Zov Taigi, the Center for Wildlife Conservation non-commercial organization that aspires to the envi- (Vladivostok), publishes environmental information es- ronmental enlightenment of young people and the eco- pecially that of relevance to the RFE. The Center pub- logical education of teachers. The group organizes sum- lishes a colour magazine ‘Zov Taigi', which is of con- mer camps with an environmental theme for children. siderable popularity and influence. The Center continues - Primorskiy krai to develop ties with regional and international environ- Alive Planet (Vladivostok) is a public organization ac- mental organizations. It is well respected within the RFE tively involved in environmental education amongst stu- environmental community, and has the power to affect dents at Vladivostok's universities, ecological education the positions of many envNGOs. and enlightenment, and antipoaching projects and patrols in the south of Primorskiy krai. Russian representatives of international environ- The Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North mental organizations: of Primorskiy krai (Vladivostok) is an organization Friends of the Earth – Japan manages a number of its analogous to that of Khabarovskiy krai, which defends own projects in close contact with Russian NGOs (for the interests of indigenous minorities at the federal and krai level, primarily in terms of rights to engage in tradi- Greenpeace does not have its own Far Eastern division tional natural resource use practices and conservation of and as such it does not have a continuous presence in the the environment. RFE. However, it does carry out episodic campaigns and The Bureau of Regional Public Campaigns (BROC) other activities in the region through BROC. (Vladivostok) is a public organization with considerable The Institute for Sustainable Communities works in experience in organizing mass awareness campaigns in the RFE through local envNGOs in both krais and the press and in initializing projects for protected area through ISAR-RFE in Vladivostok. It manages the establishment. BROC has proved to be particularly effec- long-term grant programme ROLL, as well as its own tive in winning both political and emotional support for programme of small grants (Appendix 2). the issues that it has addressed. Initiative for Social Action and Renewal in Eurasia The Ecological Fund of Sikhote-Alin (Vladivostok) is (ISAR) is represented in the FRE by ISAR-RFE (Vladi- a public organization that tackles problems associated vostok), which conducts a grants programme on behalf of with conservation of the Sikote-Alin ecosystem, particu- a number of different donor organizations, including en- larly in the Bikin and Samarga River basins. It is an or- vironmental groups. ISAR-RFE assists the development ganization of considerable scientific potential. of public organizations. The Institute of Sustainable Natural Resource Use Pacific Environment, formerly the Pacific Energy and (Vladivostok), a public organization that works with sus- Resource Center (PERC), has a regional office in the Russia Country Report 2002/2003 RFE (Vladivostok), which monitors the state of the en- with a membership of many thousands (i.e. the Green vironment in the RFE and coordinates an intermediary party and the All-Russian Society for Nature Conserva- consulting service for large ecological funds operating in tion in Khabarovskiy krai). Then, a second figure was the region. PERC has formed a network of affiliated derived by also excluding those NGOs that indicated a Russian NGOs and disseminates ecological and political membership of many hundreds. The first method gave an informa-tion, including the periodical electronic bulletin average membership of 91 persons in Khabarovskiy krai ‘Pacific Currents'. and 38 persons in Primorskiy krai. The second method The Tigris Foundation (Vladivostok) supports projects gave figures of 29 and 23 respectively. In general, mem- for Amur tiger conservation, based in the Far Eastern bership of ordinary NGOs varies from a handful of per- sons to about two dozen. NGOs with a membership run- Winrock International's Far Eastern unit (Khabarovsk) ning into the hundreds are usually youth groups sup- currently runs the project ‘Forest Resources and Tech- ported by a large body of schoolchildren. Those with a nologies (Forest)' financed by USAID in both krais. It membership of many thousands should be considered not works in close contact with local authorities and the RF purely in terms of their true NGO activities, but also with Ministry of Nature Resources. due regard to various political and electoral interests. The World Conservation Society, Far Eastern Branch, The distribution of envNGOs within the two krais coordinates scientific research on the conservation of analyzed in the present study is different (Table 1). In large predators in the south of the RFE. It has stable rela- Khabarovskiy krai, about three quarters of envNGOs are tions with a number of Russian NGOs and access to pro- concentrated in the krai's central city, the others being tected territories. spread almost equally across the second city of Komso- World Wildlife Fund, Far Eastern Branch (Vladi- molsk-na-Amure and other krai settlements. In contrast, vostok), was created specifically for implementation of the central city of Vladivostok accounts for only about the ‘Far Eastern Ecoregion Project' (RFE WWF, 1999) at half the number of envNGOs found in Primorskiy krai. a cost of US$4.5 million. The Project is dedicated to the Less than one tenth are based in the second city of Us- conservation of biodiversity in the region including flag suriysk, and others are dispersed across different raions. species, the creation of Econet and the support of sus- The main foci for formation of envNGOs in raions tainable natural resource use. At the same time, RFE tend to be schools and zapovednik; in bigger cities, uni- WWF also carries out the large project ‘Maintenance of versities and research institutes also function in this re- Sustainable Forest Use in Sikhote-Alin' and a series of medium-size projects on, for example, the development Certain reasons can be identified for why envNGOs of protected areas and the support of an antipoaching have a broader distribution in Primorskiy krai than in Khabarovskiy krai. These are as follows: Several million US dollars have been invested in the 1) A more dispersed distribution of research institutes, RFE environmental movement. Specific data relating to universities, agricultural field stations etc. in Pri- financial details in the region, however, are scant; the morskiy krai than in Khabarovskiy krai. Major cen- most comprehensive review is given in an analytical re- tres for such organizations in Khabarovskiy krai are port by the RFE WWF (RFE WWF, 1999) covering the Khabarovsk and Komsomolsk-na-Amure, whereas four provinces of the Far Eastern ecoregion (Yevreiskaya in Primorskiy krai major centres include Vladi- autonomous oblast, Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy krais vostok, Ussuriysk, Arseniev, Kamen-Rybolov and and Amurskaya oblast). The data are illustrated in Fig. 1 2) The network of zapovednik – organizations typi- The same data reveal that a total of US$3.6 million cally at the core of rural envNGOs – is older in have been invested into projects in Khabrovskiy krai and Primorskiy krai than in Khabarovskiy krai. Al- US$2.7 million into those of Primorskiy krai. though both krais formerly had an equal number of According to the list compiled in the present report zapovednik (six), the longer history of those in (see Appendix 1), the average age of envNGOs in the Primorskiy krai (the oldest was established in 1916 RFE (excluding particularly well-established ones such and three others in the 1930s), has permitted stable as the Geographical Society and All-Russian Society for circles of concerned supporters to form around Nature Conservation) is 3.4 years in Khabarovskiy krai them. The bulk of the zapovednik in Khabarovskiy and 3.8 years in Primorskiy krai. Ages were determined krai (four) were established during Perestroika and on the basis of time elapsed since registration, and so real ages may be between 1–3 years greater. Nonetheless, the 3) Primorskiy krai has experienced acuter environmental youth of the region's NGOs is evident in most cases. It is problems than has Khabarovskiy krai, as already also indicative of the fact that most NGOs created 10–15 mentioned: pollution in the Khasan Lake area and in years ago have already become inactive. the Gulf of Peter the Great; threats to leopard and ti- In order to calculate the average number of members ger populations; heavy depletion of cedar and fir per NGO, a twofold correction of primary data was made. stands; pollution in the Kavalerovo–Gornozavodsk Firstly, an average was generated excluding those NGOs Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN The majority of envNGOs are fully independent or- that understand the necessity of such activity but ganizations – that is, even where NGOs have arisen with believe that their efforts must be rewarded as highly the support of another body, they are formally independ- as possible. Usually, such NGOs are staffed by ent of it. This does not, however, preclude the existence professionals, frequently of high technical ability. of informal support networks, especially in terms of fi- Essentially, they have a genuine interest in envi- nance7. Specifically, such networks may manifest them- ronmental concerns, but they recognize that the use selves where, for example, an envNGO requires the addi- of natural resources and a gradual transformation of tional capacity offered by association with other bodies, the environment are inevitable. As such, they are and where there is a mutual understanding of either ready for compromise. These NGOs have a good side's commitments and objectives. analytical sense as a rule, and so it is very hard to Another common attribute of envNGOs in Kha- manipulate them. A good example is the Center for barovskiy and Primorskiy krais is a disparity between the Forest Certification (Khabarovsk). objectives set out in founding statutes and constitutions 3. Creation of envNGOs by moneymakers that have and the range of activities in which the NGOs are actu- made environmental protection their profession and ally involved. Many NGOs stipulate ecological issues as occupy high paid positions in these or other NGOs. their focus for activity, but not all of them establish en- Among them are talented managers capable of at- vironmental programmes in reality. In Khabarovskiy krai, tracting funds. However, a significant proportion of environmental activities undertaken by NGOs are mostly these people do not believe in the ideas of the envi- linked with forest ecosystems even where the projects are ronmental movement, but rather use them to create formally directed towards other objectives (as in the es- their own niche and, in some cases, for their own tablishment of protected areas or the protection of wild enrichment (Bolotova, 2001; Vasiliev, 2002). Nev- animals). In Primorskiy krai, the bulk of environmental ertheless, envNGOs that are sincerely devoted to activity is directed towards the health and conservation the movement and that serve as corner stones for its of marine and fresh water habitats, although certain continued development, owe a lot to the personal groups also focus on the protection of forest ecosystems power of such figures. Furthermore, some repre- to a lesser degree. The establishment of a tourist route sentatives of this group do make ongoing participa- along the Khasan waterfall cascade is an appropriate tion in conferences, workshops, meetings and so on a central element of their work. If the cost effectiveness of investment into the envi- At present, there is the certain structure to the regional ronmental movement in the RFE is assessed in terms of envNGO system. This provides an opportunity to classify the rate of creation of new envNGOs, it can be consid- the constituent NGOs. Some classifications of envNGOs ered high. However, if assessed in terms of the number distinguish on the basis of activities and objectives, or by of NGOs actually in existence, the cost effectiveness is territorial coverage (Bolotova et al., 1999; Fomichev, low. Nonetheless, in spite of a related weakness in the 2001). The authors of the present report, however, have green movement, NGOs have become a major constitu- classified envNGOs based on organizational characteris- ent of regional communities, formed at the local level in tics, as follows: support of civil representation and in reaction to bu- 1. Short-term envNGOs. These are created only for reaucracy and heavy use of natural resources. This has the use of single grants. A permanent team of em- given rise to a very heterogeneous environmental move- ployees is absent. Mostly such NGOs do not regis- ment. Within this, it is possible to distinguish three main ter themselves and they do not exist for a long time. motivations for the formation of NGOs, although it They close their activities after grant fulfillment, should be recognized that examples intermediate be- though they may rise once more under a new name. tween these three also exist: They try to avoid producing full and transparent 1. Creation of envNGOs by enthusiasts ready to take reports of their dealings, especially those of a fi- any necessary action to protect nature regardless of nancial nature. They consider the environmental whether they will receive financial compensation movement in a neutral or skeptical light, and use it for their work or not. Whilst they form the basis of simply as grounds on which to receive funds. If the the public movement, their enthusiasm is often financing is sufficient, such NGOs can operate a misused to perform unacceptable or illicit activities. succession of projects, rather than just a single ac- Most of them are advocates of restrictions and bans. tivity. Under favorable conditions and given devo- Strazh Taigi (Komsosmlsk-na-Amure) serves as a tion to the ideals of environmentalism, they can transform themselves into more stable NGOs, as 2. Creation of envNGOs by environmental activists described below. 2. Permanent envNGOs. These are created from the relatively regular though not entirely stable injec- 7 Support networks are usually based on formal agreements for coop- tion of grants that the two or three more proactive eration or union, forming ‘mother–daughter' style relationships. In NGOs are able to secure. These funds are secured contrast, informal networks are based mostly on personal relations. Very often, informal networks are based on mutual financial exchange by a limited number of managers and experts. A through subcontracts, assistance in fundraising etc. Russia Country Report 2002/2003 dedicated bookkeeper is usually the only permanent especially when governmental bodies cannot re- member of staff and very often he/she is only ceive the required financing directly. Accordingly, part-time. The majority of these NGOs are ready to the NGOs of this class are very limited in their abil- support the environmental movement but only un- ity to challenge policy because they must maintain der favorable circumstances. There are also NGOs their loyalty to the local authorities. This leads to a within this class that try to maintain the foundations certain conformism. They adhere to the ideology of of the environmental movement. Such NGOs even- the environmental movement, they are its most sta- tually undergo official registration though they may ble component, and they put the theory into practice. sometimes exist for many years as initiative groups. The NGOs of this class are divided to two sub- One such group in Khabarovskiy krai has been in operation without registering for over seven years. 4.1. Network NGOs. These represent regional bod- An example here is Bolon – Pure Water (Kha- ies of large Russian NGOs as their branch of- fices and are the most attractive partners for 3. Steady envNGOs. These are created by proactive domestic and foreign governmental and groups of experts that would otherwise be unable to semi-governmental foundations, agencies and realize their interests and intentions – especially fi- so on, for which their links with regional au- nancial – within the context of their normal thorities are very important. We have no exam- full-time job. These persons are mostly scientists, ples for Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy krais, educational specialists, employees of zapovednik though the very active branch of the Russian and so on. NGOs in this class typically have a Social and Ecological Union in Amurskaya full-time staff made up of a bookkeeper and one or oblast provides an example from elsewhere. two clerks; they also have their own equipment 4.2. Independent NGOs created by real local enthu- purchased using grants and funds earned whilst un- siasts and/or by specialists in the early 1990s. dertaking projects. Such NGOs spend most of their They are developed by direct grants or through time implementing projects and utilizing the grants collaboration with large projects. Each of these that they have received because of their profes- NGOs has stable partner relations with a circle sional reputation. They support the environmental of certain foreign or less often domestic (be- movement and are ready to participate as sympa- cause of a lack of possibilities) environmental thizers, though they are not willing to engage in ac- organizations and private funds. As a rule, tive struggles which require considerable sacrifices these NGOs are oriented towards private funds in terms of time or funds. If a green party develops and not towards foreign governmental agencies. in the country, it is likely that the envNGOs of this In cases where they do receive financing from class will support it. An example here is Ecodal such agencies, they tend to receive funds not directly but through their foreign partners. 4. Professional envNGOs. These have five to six These stable relations are not restricted to full-time employees: one or two experts, a funding only but include also a mutual profes- book-keeper, information and technical specialists. sional and ideological interchange. Those They form themselves around a network of constant NGOs not linked rigidly with the regional au- partners (NGOs or persons) that they can engage to thorities are the most independent. An example fulfill projects as and when they find them. Many of here is Zov Taigi (Vladivostok). the NGOs have their own significant material re- 5. Russian representatives of foreign public environ- sources: polygraph equipment, computers, software mental organizations. This class is also divided to (especially GIS), etc. The NGOs also have close relations with people who are in real positions of 5.1. Branches of network organizations whose ac- power and who trust their work – therefore the tivities are directed towards the formation of NGO benefits from a reputation as an ‘approved' regional environmental policy (for example, organization. Every year, local authorities become WWF, Greenpeace and so on). These have more understanding of the fact that the environ- fully fledged executive staff responsible for mental movement is gradually transforming itself different themes and problems within the envi- into an instrument of regional policy-making, in- ronmental field. They are components of large cluding investment policy, especially in the sphere international environmental organizations and of ecologically sound and certified products and as such form a part of the same ideological and services. For this reason, the authorities tend to information space. Their basic financing comes from different alliances with envNGOs, particularly from donors within the ‘family'. Because they those of this class. The authorities usually lobby are politically independent, they manifest a these NGOs, include them in various committees, range of critical points of view on most issues. and recommend them for different positions in 5.2. Specialized organizations that are oriented to- foundations and bodies as chief project executives, wards generating solutions to a limited set of Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN tasks, for example, the project run by WCS in bottom up'. However, even these NGOs are not repre- Primorskiy krai for the protection of wild cats sentative of all social groups – in fact typically only in- (tigers and leopards), and the Institute for Sus- tellectuals and students. As such, they represent the aspi- tainable Natural Resource Use (Vladivostok), rations of just a subset of the total population. which focuses exclusively on hunting problems. Most commentators considering the problem of These NGOs usually have the permanent staff ‘population versus environmental conservation' of-ten of five to six persons and a wide circle of col- lose sight of certain features characteristic of the situa- laborators. Their main source finance is from tion in the RFE. Problems relating to this conflict are their headquarters. Such NGOs try not to over- described below. In short, however, the problem lies in step the limits of their professional interests the very different attitudes held by the different social and to only make contact with the authorities groups in relation to environmental conservation. All when it is necessary. However, within these ecological problems have their origins in practical con- limits they stand very firmly for what they be- siderations of natural resource utilization. In 2000, the natural resource sector of the economy accounted for The RFE's increasingly open and exportdriven econ- 10.9 per cent of gross regional product in Khabarovskiy omy spearheaded by trade in primary renewable and krai and 20.0 per cent in Primorskiy krai (Goskomstat RF, natural resources (forest, marine and hunting products), 2001). Hence, a similar proportion of the population (at make it sensitive to international regulations. Participants least, not less than this) must be engaged in activities as in international trade frequently use environmental re- part of their daily lives that are responsible for various strictions as tools for increasing economic competitive- environmental problems. Moreover, given the high rate ness. Although real environmental interests in this con- of illegal extraction of natural resources, it seems rea- text are often of secondary concern to political gamers sonable to suggest that between one fifth and a quarter of and market agents, this situation nonetheless provides population are actively involved in the direct transforma- reliable opportunities for financing, especially for NGOs tion of the environment. In addition, consumers must in classes 4 and 5 above. This is true of foreign organiza- also be seen as an indirect source of environmental deg- tions as it is of those domestic NGOs with an up-to-date radation, in their use of products made from natural re- civil image that are proactive in seeking funds. The key sources and in the generation of waste. issues are how professionally and intelligently envNGOs This situation gives rise to an ambivalent attitude operate, and to what degree they are ready for real coop- amongst the population towards environmental problems, eration on the basis of their founding agenda, and not on especially amongst that subset directly engaged in the the basis of either ‘green racketing' or ‘green blackmail- extraction of natural resources. Interviews conducted by the authors reveal that the employees of logging compa- nies, NTFP-producing firms and hunting organizations 4. Attitude of the general public, mass media, admini- do, on the one hand, increasingly understand the destruc- stration and industry towards environmental tive results of their activities and that they support envi-NGOs ronmental protection. On the other hand, however, our The interrelationship of envNGOs with the public and interviews also suggest that these activities typically the business world is very complicated. Therefore it is form either the main or often the sole source of these only possible to indicate very general aspects here. people's livelihoods. Firstly, the following two main themes can be ad- The population recognizes the necessity of resolving environmental problems in general: 93.6 per cent of the 1. The degree of mutualism between NGOs and the 1,130 people questioned throughout eight raions in population, i.e. to what extent the work of southern Khabarovskiy krai think that the conservation of envNGOs reflects the opinions and needs of the biodiversity and the establishment of protected territories population, how well informed the population is are necessary. However, only 28.2 per cent of respon- with regard to envNGO activities, and how strongly dents knew at least something about the activities of the population supports envNGOs. envNGOs in that region. Overall, respondents ranked the 2. The nature of the relationship between envNGOs public in fifth place for their role in environmental and the authorities, because a solution to any prob- pro-tection, after such professional services as the forest lem is possible only in accordance with legal pro- service and the police (Sheingauz & Sukhomirov, 2002). cedures and acts. The results of this assessment are not entirely discourag- The fundamental philosophy of an envNGO is ex- ing, though they are also not particularly optimistic. pected to reflect a desire to actively involve much of the Without a doubt, there does not appear to be full coordi- population in sustainable use of natural resources for the nation between the activities of envNGOs and the inter- protection of the environment from destruction. ests of the population. EnvNGOs of class 1 or class 2 (according to the classifi- The interrelationship of envNGOs with the authorities cation given above) are likely to most closely correspond is also complicated and although the two are being drawn to this assumption: these are NGOs created ‘from the together increasingly with time, this is happening only Russia Country Report 2002/2003 very slowly. The attitude of the envNGOs towards the this way is especially dangerous for both Kha- authorities has been outlined above, and here the topic is barovskiy and Primorskiy krais, since their econo- further considered by firstly identifying three trends in mies are largely oriented towards export. It is also the relationship: dangerous because of Russia's aspiration to enter • Absolute opposition. Certain envNGOs believe from the outset that all the activities of the authori- • The public environmental movement has become a ties, as well as those of the businesses which sup- real and considerable force. port them, are negative. The dealings of these kinds • Collaboration with the environmental community is of NGOs are often very active and emphatic, and more productive than opposition from the point of can be basically aligned with ecological blackmail view of achievement of concrete results, as well as and sometimes ecological terrorism. The construc- improvements in image and increased sympathy tiveness of this trend is limited, though occasionally amongst the electorate. it awakens the attention of the authorities and forces This new stance is reflected in the increasing tendency them to undertake certain environmental measures. of the authorities to consult members of envNGOs as A typical representative of this element is Green- advisers and experts, to include them as members of temporary bodies, and to designate contracts in their fa- • A lack of any close association with the authorities and only episodic contact. The attitude of such The mass media play a very important role in chan- envNGOs towards authority is suspicious at best neling NGO communications to the public. They publish and negative in general, however, they understand a considerable volume of information about NGO activ- that legal procedures are necessary to achieve re- ity, though this information is often disorderly and ran- sults. The campaigns organized by these envNGOs dom, typically superficial and often contains incorrect are not as sensational as those of the previous kind. interpretations. Articles about loud demonstrations are Some of their contact with the authorities does gen- the most frequent, whereas those about ongoing, erate tangible results in the form of legislative acts. long-term or routine work are rare. Just advocates of this approach have successfully Larger projects with sufficient funds (as a rule, those brought legal action against violators of environ- financed by foreign sources) have the option of paying mental legislation, including the authorities. Typi- (directly or indirectly) to attract publicity for regular cal representatives of this trend are BROC (Vladi- coverage of their work in the media. The completed pro- vostok), Ecodal (Khabarovsk) and Ecological ject ‘Model Forest Gassinskiy' as well as the ongoing Watch of Sakhalin, a group based outside of the WWF ecoregional project ‘Forest', are examples of area analyzed in the present report. where this has happened. Certain other stable envNGOs • Stable cooperation with the authorities. Though have also forged close contacts with the mass media and envNGOs that adopt this approach are secure in are attentive to generating timely publicity for their work. their independence and have a good knowledge of A questionnaire survey has shown that at the present the environmental situation, they work closely with time the population ranks television as their prime in- the various bodies of power in a range of different formation source; newspapers came in second place, ways: fulfillment of joint and contracted projects; magazines in third and radio broadcasts fourth (Shein- participation in various temporary and permanent gauz & Sukhomirov, 2002). councils, committees and commissions; provision Some envNGOs have begun to publish their own pe- of expertise; preparation of initial proposals and riodicals as a means of ensuring the dissemination of appeals, etc. This rather constructive trend has pro- well-ordered information of higher quality. The most vided an opportunity for the public to input their vi- well known publication (as mentioned above) is the sion into a series of legislative documents. However, monthly magazine Zov Taigi (‘Taiga Appeal'), published such close collaboration with the authorities forces by the organization of the same name based in Vladi- these envNGOs to compromise to a larger extent vostok. The magazine ‘Ecology and Business' is pub- than under previous circumstances. More typical lished by BROC (Vladivostok) every two to three envNGOs of this trend are the Khabarovskiy Wild- months and is distributed widely. RFE-ISAR (Vladi- life Foundation, the Center for Forest Certification vostok) publishes the quarterly magazine ‘Ecology, Cul- (Khabarovsk) and RFE WWF (Vladivostok). ture, Community' as well as an electronic appendix to Until recently, the authorities have maintained a dis- the magazine, ‘EDO RFE: Ecology, Culture, Commu- missive attitude towards the public environmental nity', almost twice as frequently. movement, one of the more negative Soviet traditions. PERC distributes a fortnightly bilingual electronic However, they have more lately begun to take notice and bulletin, ‘Pacific Currents', containing digests of envi- respond because of the following: ronmental news relating to the Asia-Pacific region (APR). • Behaviour that fails to take account of environ- It also dispatches daily electronic updates of the "hottest" mental issues now meets with general condemna- environmental stories from the Russian and APR press to tion from the international community. Acting in its subscribers. The Association of Indigenous Minorities Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN of the North of Khabarovskiy krai issues the quarterly grammes: 1) the conservation of cats (tigers and bulletin ‘Bagulnic Na Vetru' (‘Wild Rosemary in the leopards) and 2) the conservation of threatened Wind') with the support of PERC and the John Elton birds, especially the Far Eastern Stork. It also in- Fund. The bulletin contains environmental information. cluded a subsidiary element concerning the conser- Almost all the periodicals issued by the main vation of ecosystems. The same eight envNGOs envNGOs are published in Vladivostok, though they are have signed a new analogous plan covering the disseminated throughout the RFE and beyond. south of the RFE for the next 15 years. The relationship between envNGOs and large and me- ♦ Cooperation of the sort ‘grant sponsor – grant re- dium-sized businesses was initially antagonis-tic. The cipient'. This can be one-off or frequentative, as in first envNGOs were created in order to bridle the indus- the relationship between ROLL-ISC and a number trial press in favour of the environment (see Chapters 1 of Far Eastern envNGOs. ♦ Cooperation of type ‘customer – executor'; this can Later on, when envNGOs began to tender grants for also be both one-off and frequentative. The exam- the development of environmentally sound small and ple here is the relation between RFE WWF and medium-sized businesses, a dialogue between the two sides also commenced. Some large firms, first of all The grant sponsor or customer of the last two catego- those concerned with forestry, started to cooperate with ries above would be a large, financially well-endowed envNGOs. For example, the large forest holding Terney- NGO, such as WWF, WCS, PERC, ROLL or ISAR. les (Primorskiy krai), which has an annual production of Grant receivers are for the most part small, local NGOs. about one million cubic metres, began a voluntary forest certification programme in concert with the Center for 5. Major NGO accomplishments and the role of Forest Certification (Khabarovsk) and RFE WWF NGOs in the field of forest conservation and envi- (Vladivostok). Some logging firms in Khabarovskiy and ronmental protection Primorskiy krais, together with some envNGOs based in Long-term envNGO activity has resulted in a number Khabarovskiy krai, established the Club of Responsible of accomplishments; the more significant of these are Loggers. Such cooperation has apparently progressed in listed beside each NGO in Appendix 1. Additional suc- light of the international trends and pressures outlined cesses are presented thematically here: ♦ Lobbying for and drafting of new krai legislation Virtually all envNGOs are in a complicated mixture of for environmental protection. The Forest Code of mutual relationships. Although the level and nature of Khabarovskiy krai and the draft law ‘Of specially cooperation with other bodies varies from one NGO to protected areas' (Khabarovskiy krai) are considered the next, it is possible to demarcate the following: to be among the more innovative acts to have been ♦ One-off cooperation for mutual organization of an accomplished in this way. activity or joint project. For example, the joint par- ♦ Lobbying for, initialization and development of ticipation of BROC (Vladivostok) and Ecodal new specially protected areas: national parks in (Khabarovsk) in the legal challenge led against the both krais (Anyuiskiy, Legenda Udege, Zov Tigra Primorskiy krai administration following the re- (‘Tiger Appeal')), the Manoma ecological corridor, lease of a forest lease in the Samarga River basin. ♦ Constant cooperation without a formally fixed fo- ♦ Promotion and development of the envNGO net- cus. An example here is the relationship between work: allocation of grants for the establishment of RFE WWF (Vladivostok) and the Khabarovsk envNGOs; financial assistance for purchasing tech- Wildlife Foundation. nical appliances, primarily for communication; co- ♦ Constant cooperation between a large collective of ordination of workshops, training courses, etc. organizations. An appropriate example of this is the ♦ Stimulation of commercial units to transform their ‘Plan of Activities for Conservation of Flag Spe- operations into environmentally responsible busi- cies' signed by all the main envNGOs, authorized nesses. Technological and financial support of organs and other bodies of the Far Eastern ecore- environmentally sound small businesses. gion. The plan was initiated by RFE WWF and ♦ Establishment of numerous cells for environmental supported by seven other envNGOs: Khabarovsk education and enlightenment, in a number of differ- Wildlife Fund, Amur branch of the Russian Social ent formats: school lesnichestvos; summer schools and Ecological Union (Blagoveshchensk), Eco- and camps; ongoing, free of charge advanced train- logical Fund Amur (Khabarovsk), League of Public ing courses; contests; and so on. Organizations in Yevreiskaya Autonomous Oblast ♦ Support of young ecologists and new leaders (Birobidzhan), Zov Taigi (Vladivostok), Far East- through a system of grants, stipends, awards, etc. ern Division of WCS (Vladivostok) and the Phoe- ♦ Expansion and creation of information and com- nix Fund (Vladivostok). The agreement was im- munication networks for increased awareness of plemented during 2000–2002 and was financed by environmental problems via the media, the Internet the Dutch branch of WWF. It consisted of two pro- and through their own publications. Russia Country Report 2002/2003 ♦ Coordination of thorough research programes and ♦ The creation of a database (that is as accurate as publication of the results in the form of reports, re- possible) of all envNGOs, the conditions and nature views and scientific monographs. of their activities, which is available to all 6. Conclusion – Recommendations ♦ The formation of a wide-ranging, open, competitive Any recommendations for improving the network in and fully transparent system for grant support; which NGOs operate are best applied as regulations to ♦ The continuous involvement of envNGOs at all the overall organization of what was initially a sponta- levels and in all forms of natural resource use regu- neously formed system. lation, such that the participation of envNGOs be- Although the spontaneous origins now make the sys- come a legal requirement in the decision-making tem appropriate for regulation, it is very difficult to fore- process, especially at the local level. cast what reaction there may be to this. Thus caution is ♦ The creation of a means for continuously monitor- necessary when making any recommendations. This is ing the attitudes of the public in relation to envi- especially the case in light of the widely held belief that ronmental problems, and a means of assessing how to regulate would be to impose "an exact coordination". well these attitudes are reflected in the work of In reality, the diversity of opinions, positions and activi- ties is one of the most valuable attributes of the present ♦ The use of indices that describe the envNGO sys- envNGO system because it reflects a real differentiation tem in state statistical data. in the aspirations of the socially and economically het- ♦ The inclusion of wide-ranging and systematic cov- erogeneous RFE population. By simply considering the erage of envNGO activities in the mass media for variety of bodies that wish to bring about regulation (the public information, and the production of programs authorities, political groups and some NGOs, amongst utilizing special funds. others), one can see that there is deep complexity in the The various elements of the environmental movement system and, as such, a high level of uncertainty in how it must now be active in fulfilling these recommendations. Full participation of the authorities – with contributions However, there is no doubt that the envNGO system from their budgets – is a prerequisite in order to realize cannot be absolutely without regulation because it is a some of these recommendations. Whilst the release of part of the community. So, institutional regulations be- domestic funds in support of future growth in the envi- come the most likely. Direct institutional regulations are ronmental field is considered necessary, further expan- above all defined by the federal law in force since 1995 sion in funding from overseas will also be welcome. ‘On public organizations' and its associated amendments Nonetheless, domestic sources and domestic financial (State Duma, 1998). All other institutional regulations bodies must become the staple providers. must be enforced indirectly through financial and eco- The network of envNGOs continues to grow sponta- nomical, as well as ethical, levers. neously though occasionally the web is torn. Each com- New regulations must aim not to limit possibilities for ponent of the web is typically linked to two or three activity or restrain envNGOs. On the contrary, they must neighbouring nodes. The nature and stability of the net- encourage this form of popular expression without striv- work is determined by the position and degree of inde- ing to "reduce all to the same level". It is necessary to pendence of each of the surrounding NGOs. Thus, work- create opportunities for: ing with or through a handful of key associate NGOs can ♦ Wise unification of the forces and funds behind be the most effective method of establishing influence within the network – and using it to advantage – as op- ♦ Cooperation on the basis of equality; posed to attempting to work with all NGOs directly. ♦ The significance of other (non-envNGO) stake- However, forming direct contacts and working directly holders with an interest in and an influence over the with a broader range of NGOs cannot be excluded as a environment to increase within the ongoing parallel method of support. environmental dialogue; Taking increased public participation in forest man- ♦ Information exchange; agement as a specific goal, clear and valuable roles can ♦ The establishment of contact between figures rep- be discerned for all concerned envNGOs. It is almost resenting all the stakeholders in the process (not impossible to develop a participatory approach through only envNGOs but also other bodies – the authori- spontaneous activity. Rather, it must be formalized and ties, business, etc.). the best channel for formalization is the body of NGOs The following measures are purposeful in this sense: itself. As mentioned above many times, the majority of ♦ The creation of associations and unions in which envNGOs in the RFE devote their activity to forest con- envNGOs will be autonomous; servation. Therefore, they are very interested in forest ♦ The organization of conferences, meetings and legislation, forest management, the distribution of for- workshops that will create a specific opportunity to est-related information, and so on. They are ready to un- clarify the position of any envNGO in the entire dertake real work in relation to forests. This eagerness has to be used. However, both federal and local authori- Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN ties currently do not use it and, very often they are afraid cal Research (in Russian). of envNGO activity. Citizens' initiatives (2002). Non-commercial organizations at This distrust and dread of NGOs is reflected in the your service! Edited by Ye. V. Minyaev. Khabarovsk: wording of the RF Forest Code. Clause 102 is devoted to Non-commercial partnership "Citizens' initiatives". 70 pp. details governing the participation of "public associa- tions" (why not public organizations as in other laws?) in Fomichev, S. (2001). Multicolored greens: strategy and action. forest management. It indicates that citizens and public In: (in Rus- associations may participate. Clause 96 also indicates that a voluntary fire team may be created to control for- Goskomstat, R. F. (2001). Regions of Russia, statistical hand- book 2. Moscow: RF State statistical committee. 827 pp. The following recommendations must be implemented to put an end to this hesitancy: ISAR-RFE (1998). Public associations of the Far East: infor- ♦ Implementation of special and crucial amendments mation handbook. Vladivostok: ISAR-RFE. 326 pp. (in to the Forest Code and other environmental laws to the effect that public hearings are essential in any Kashuk, Yu (1988). To construct sea or to save taiga? In Soviet significant forest project (criteria must be indicated Russia, December 23. 3 (in Russian). as has been done in the Khabarovskiy krai Forest Khabarovsk forest directorate (1999). Model forest "Gassin- Code). The compulsory participation of NGOs and skiy": problems of multiple forest use organizations. Kha- the unconditional access of NGOs to their rights in barovsk: RIOTIP. 218 pp. (in Russian). such hearings have to be fixed in law. Another RFE WWF (1999). Far Eastern ecoregion project: situation analy- amendment must necessitate the publication (or the sis. Edited by S. V. Sheveiko, A. N. Kulikov, V. A. Solkin & making public) of all associated information. A Yu. A. Darman. Vladivostok-Khabarovsk-Birobidzhan: RFE further amendment should establish a strict system WWF. 207 pp. (in Russian). by which the authorities and the forest service must RFE WWF (2002). Conservation action plan for the Russian address and react to the forest-related appeals and Far East Ecoregion complex. Edited by Yu. Darman, V. proposals of envNGOs. Karakin, A. Martynenko & L. Williams. Vladi- ♦ Establishment of a system that links envNGOs with Deputies of local and federal parliaments, in sup- RFE-WWF. 150 pp. (in English). port of their election and to provide opportunity for Selezneva, A. (2002). Collision of values. In Notes from the the development of new and necessary forest acts. Far East, spring. Vladivostok: ISAR-RFE. 23-25 (in ♦ Expansion of forest workshops and conferences organized by envNGOs to allow for the involve- Sheingauz, A. S. (1987). With care for the forest: lively talks ment of representatives of the authorities, legisla- about Far Eastern forestry. Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk tive bodies and the forest service in the discussion book publishing house. 240 pp. (in Russian). Sheingauz, A. S. & Sukhomirov, G. I. (2002). Population as- It is vital for the success of the participatory approach sessment for the protected area problems of Sikhote-Alin to further develop envNGOs in small towns and villages. mountain forests. Khabarovsk: Khekhtsir. 48 pp. (in Rus- However, this will demand special efforts. State Duma (1998). On public organizations, federal law. In Russian newspaper, July 24. 2-3 (in Russian). Baturin, Yu. M., Il'in, A. L., Kadatskiy, V. F., Kostikov, V. V.; Vasiliev, G. (2002). Adventures of "green little men". In Krasnov, M. A.; Livshits, A. Ya., Nikiforov, K. V., Pik- East-Siberian truth, December 25. 3 (in Russian). hoya, L. G. & Satarov G. A. (2001). Yeltsin's era. Mos- Yanitsky, O. (2002). Reproduction in hostile environments. In cow: VAGIRUS. 815 pp. (in Russian). Green world, 21-22. 28-30. (in Russian). Bolotova, A. (2001). Petersburg's greens. Pchela 35; 15-23 (in Zarkhina, Ye. S. (1990). Star in grass: nature, people, and ideas. Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk book publishing house. Bolotova, A. & Tysyachnyuk, D. (1999). Analysis and classifi- 256 pp. (in Russian). cation of the ecological non-governmental organizations of Znachkov, B. (2002). Review of the basic types of public envi- St. Petersburg. In Ecological movement in Russia, issue 6, ronmental organizations. In Humanitarian ecological 158-163. St. Petersburg: Center of Independent Sociologi- journal, 4. 1, 60–67. Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Tables and figures Table 1. Distribution of envNGOs in Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy krais (as % of krai total) Khabarovskiy krai Centre of province Second city of province Other area of krai Source: authors' calculation. Fig. 1. Annual financing of ecological NGO programmes in the Far Eastern ecoregion (RFE WWF, 1999). Fig. 2. Annual number of ecological projects in the Far Eastern ecoregion (RFE WWF, 1999). Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Appendix 1. List of ecological NGOs in Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy krais operational as of 1st January 20038 Khabarovskiy krai (a) NGOs that responded to questionnaire survey 1. Name: Aliye Parusa (‘Scarlet Sails') Status: Non-governmental, non-commercial general education institution Field of activity: General education; aesthetic and spiritual social development; ecology. Date of registration: 4th August 1995 Number of members: 130 Number of staff: 50 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ZYRYANOVA Juliya Vasilievna, Deputy School Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of a children's tourist centre; tree plantings; the ‘Clean Well' operation; two school exhibitions on ecology; funded by a ISAR-RFE grant of $2,000. Address: 32a Leningradskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680013 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 32-78-49 Fax: 7(4212) 32-78-49 E-mail: [email protected] 2. Name: Amur Ecological Fund Status: Khabarovsk krai public organization Field of activity: Ecological and eco-social problems of the Amur basin with particular regard to: biodiversity, protected areas, sustainable development, ecological expertise in industrial and energy-related projects, pollution monitoring and control, medical and ecological aspects, development of non-traditional ecological education, waste utilization. Date of registration: 2nd August 1994; re-registered 30th July 1999 Number of members: 50 Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: RYABININ Nicolai Andreevich, Chair of Executive Committee Chief ecological accomplishments: the ‘Development of eco-tourism and eco-education infrastructure within the Khingan Nature Reserve' project, 1995–1996, supported by an ISAR grant of $500; production of ‘Nature is all of us', a series of radio programmes broadcast in 2000–2001, with funding from WWF; the ‘Far Eastern turtle in Priamurie: to be or not to be?' project, 2001, supported by a WWF grant of $7000; participation in the project ‘Ecological crisis in the river of Amur and the state of health of indigenous peoples of the North", since 2002, fi-nanced by the German Deacon Church. Address: Khabarovsk Scientific Center, bldg 6, Shevchenko Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 31-27-63 Fax: 7(4212) 32-74-95 E-mail: [email protected]/ru 3. Name: AOORIDI, Association of Public Organizations of Disabled Children's Parents Status: Public association Field of activity: Education; health; social defense; enlightenment and advocacy (incorporating truly ecological ac-tivities not suggested by official status). Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: YURIEVSKAYA Irina Anatolievna, Chair Address: Bldg 117, Kalinina Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 32-67-24 Fax: 7(4212) 30-54-31 8 The exact wording used by respondents has been incorporated into this list wherever possible. However, the format of the responses has been standardized to give a uniform layout. Only those outputs linked with forests have been included under the heading "chief ecological accomplish-ments". Russia Country Report 2002/2003 4. Name: Association of indigenous minorities of the North of Khabarovskiy krai Status: Public association Field of activity: Conservation of the environment in the native territories of indigenous minorities of the North of Khabarovskiy krai; preservation and revitalization of their traditional way of life. Date of registration: Established 16th February 1990; registered 30th June 1999 Number of members: 17 juridical persons plus an uncounted number of persons Number of staff: 5 Degree of independence: Self-independent though included under the All-Russian Association of Indigenous Mi-norities of the North Name of head and official title: VOLKOVA Galina Mikhailovna, President Chief ecological accomplishments: The "Ecological crisis of the Amur River and the state of the health of indige-nous peoples of the North" project, financed by the German Deacon Church: analysis of the ecological state of the Amur River, study of the health of indigenous peoples of the Lower Amur, study of fish resources; two summer ecological camps for indigenous children in the village of Sikachi-Alyan (Khabarovskiy raion) and the village of Mongol (Ulchskiy raion). Address: Office 1, bldg 16, Gogolya Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 31-38-44, 7(4212) 30-90-47 Fax: 7(4212) 30-90-47 E-mail: [email protected] 5. Name: Center for Forest Certification Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Forest certification; training for forest certification. Date of registration: 7th December 1999 Number of members: Not fixed Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ZAKHARENKOV Andrei Sergeevich, Head Chief ecological accomplishments: Development of criteria and indicators for forest certification in Khabarovskiy krai; approbation of criteria and indicators for forest certification in the Terneyles logging concession, Primorskiy krai; establishment of three training schools for loggers/forest workers. Address: Bldg 71, Volochaevskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680020 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 21-79-52 Fax: 7(4212) 21-67-98 E-mail: [email protected] 6. Name: Club of Responsible Forest Users Status: Public organization Field of activity: Operational improvements for ecologically sustainable, socially acceptable and economically vi-able forest use practices; promotion and development of domestic trade in forest products including certified products. Date of registration: Not registered Number of members: 10 juridical persons Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SHCHERBAKOV Vladimir Fedorovich, President Address: Bldg 71, Volochaevskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680020 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 21-79-52 Fax: 7(4212) 21-67-98 E-mail: [email protected] 7. Name: Green world; East; Lotus; Fidgets (name has changed on several occasions) Status: Not registered Field of activity: Ecological education; common enlightenment and education; tourism; study of local lore. Date of registration: 1995 Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Number of members: 650 Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: KAL'CHUK Alena Yurievna, Director of the School Botanical Garden Chief ecological accomplishments: Implementation of permanent school programmes for ecological education; organization of expeditions; the "Pollution and the Development of Protection Methods" and "Home" projects; tourist excursions to many cities of the Far East including visits to museums and school lesnichestvos. Address: Bldg 10, Moskovskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680038 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 22-77-40, 7(4212) 32-36-43 E-mail: [email protected] 8. Name: Dousha lesa (‘Forest Soul') Status: Initiative group Field of activity: Promoting ecologically sound lifestyles amongst local people Date of registration: Not registered Number of members: 12 Number of staff: 4 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: KOSTOMAROVA Irina Victorovna Chief ecological accomplishments: Assisting the Botchinskiy Nature Reserve in providing ecological education for local people; participating in the delimitation of the Botchinskiy Nature Reserve, 1996; ongoing participation in other activities at the Botchinskiy Nature Reserve; conducting workshops and discussion sessions with loggers; conducting unannounced spot-checks of forestry operations to investigate environmental violations; financed mostly by ISAR-RFE. Address: Office 85, Bldg 28b, Sovetskaya Street, Sovetskaya Gavan, Khabarovskiy krai 682880 Russia Phone: 7(42138) 4-49-07 Fax: 7(42138) 4-69-90 E-mail: [email protected] 9. Name: Ecodal Status: Kabarovsk krai ecological public organization Field of activity: Additional education; provision of public ecological expertise; legal activities in the ecological field. Date of registration: May 1998 Number of members: 30 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BOGDAN Irina Borisovna, Council Head Chief ecological accomplishments: Publication of "Commentary to the ‘Rules for Timber Harvest in Far Eastern Forests'" in both English and Russian in 1998, with financial support from WWF; management of a juridical eco-logical clinic financed by the US Association of Lawyers, which addresses the complaints of citizens and offers legal support in courts of law, acts as a public observer in court hearings of an ecological nature and advises on ecological delinquency for citizens; conducted workshops and round table discussions on public participation in environmental protection and natural resource management in 1999, financed by IUCN; participation in some ecological trials. Address: Bldg 4, Oboronnaya Street, Khabarovsk 680007 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 30-81-05 Fax: 7(4212) 30-81-05 E-mail: [email protected] 10. Name: Far Eastern People's Academy of Sciences Status: Inter-regional public organization Field of activity: Research; development of common socioeconomic programmes; management and support of so-cially significant public initiatives. Date of registration: 1992 Number of members: Over 200 Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Number of staff: 2 to 4 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: GALICHANIN Evgeniy Nikolaevich, President Chief ecological accomplishments: Organization of a symposium on Amur tiger preservation, 1993; organization of conference of experienced people (with ecological section), 1994; publication of the magazine ‘Economic life of the Far East' (with ecological section), 1990–1994. Address: Office 35, Bldg 19, Muravieva-Amurskogo Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia. Phone: 7(4212) 32-56-10 Fax: 7(4212) 32-56-10 E-mail: [email protected] 11. Name: Gran' (‘Verge') Youth Centre for Social Adaptation Status: Autonomous public organization Field of activity: Rallying of children into interesting activities; education of healthy and intelligent persons to promote resistance to the difficulties of modern life. Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: NEPOGODIN Mikhail Mikhailovich, Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Publication of the magazine "Gran' Sport" (containing material of an ecologi-cal nature); education of children (including ecological education). Address: Apartment 153, Bldg 187, Krasnorechenskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680023 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 36-17-45 E-mail: [email protected] 12. Name: Khabarovsk krai branch of Zeleniye/Kedr (‘Greens/Cedar'), the Russian Ecological Party Status: Political party Field of activity: Ecologically oriented political education of citizens for the promotion of responsible relations with nature; development of citizens' ecological outlook by means of creation of a total ecological education sys-tem. Date of registration: 1992; reworded 12th September 2002 Number of members: 5243 Number of staff: 11 Degree of independence: Division of the all-Russian party, with juridical head Name of head and official title: SAIKOV Victor Vladimirovich, Council Chair Chief ecological accomplishments: Preparation of the Russian-Chinese intergovernmental agreement on environ-mental protection 1994, financed by a grant from the Far Eastern Economic Association for US$1,000; participa-tion in an international social project for the protection of the Japanese crane, 1992–1993, financed by a grant from the Moscow state university for US$3,600; participation in the Federal target programme ‘Amur', 1996–1998, fi-nanced by a grant from the Far Eastern Economic Association for US$13,800; coordination of the ‘Lower Amur' programme, 1997–1998, financed by a grant from the krai administration for US$7,600; preparation of the agree-ment and implementation plan on cooperation in environmental protection between Kabarovskiy krai and Heilong-jiang, 2000 (US$7,100); involvement of residents from Lazo and Komsomolskiy raions in harvesting operations (1,000 m3) in areas of high fire risk, since 1999; involvement of residents from raions dependent on agriculture and forestry in collecting NTFPs; removal of debris (1,500 m3) from the Amur River and its tributaries, annually since 2000; organization of Ecotour Festival 2002, in Khabarovsk, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Bikin, Amursk, Vyazemskiy, Pereyaslavka, financed by Khabarovsk krai Ministry of Natural Resources. Address: Office 7, Bldg 56d, Leningradskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680021 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 31-03-41, 7(4212) 38-33-05, 7(4212) 37-22-56 Fax: 7(4212) 31-03-41 E-mail: [email protected] 13. Name: Khabarovsk krai branch of the ‘All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation' Status: Public organization Field of activity: Promotion and organization of public activity in environmental conservation and protection to generate a favourable and healthy ecological situation. Date of registration: 31st January 2001 Number of members: Over 10,000 Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Number of staff: 4 Degree of independence: Juridical authorities within the structure of the All-Russian Society for Nature Conserva-tion Name of head and official title: SIDOROVA Valentina Stepanovna, Presidium Chairperson Chief ecological accomplishments: Dissemination of ecological information: radio and TV discussions, press con-ferences on ecological problems including domestic waste utilization; protection of town and city plantations; campaign for the prevention of forest fires amongst NTFP collectors in Khabarovskiy krai, financed by ‘Forest'; production of manual for teachers on forest fire prevention and coordination of 3 workshops to introduce the man-ual, financed by ‘Forest'; constant revitalization of school lesnichestvos in remote settlements of Khabarovskiy krai. Address: Bldg 72, Frunze Street, Khabarovsk 680002 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 32-52-93 Fax: Not indicated E-mail: [email protected] 14. Name: Khabarovsk Regional Centre for Public Ecological Expertise Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecology; protection of human rights. Date of registration: 2001 Number of members: not indicated Number of staff: 3 Degree of independence: Attached to All-Russian Society for Environmental Protection Name of head and official title: YEREMIN Vladimir Anatolievich, Head Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of purification plant at the Chernaya (Black) River, Kha-barovskiy raion, based on inexpensive natural materials. Address: Bldg 72, Frunze Street, Khabarovsk 680002 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 32-52-93, 7(4212) 30-81-74 E-mail: [email protected] 15. Name: Khabarovsk Wildlife Foundation Status: Public organization Field of activity: Preservation of the RFE's unique biodiversity; protection of rare and endangered species, includ-ing the Siberian tiger, the Far Eastern leopard, and the Japanese and hooded cranes; development of a network of new protected areas to combat habitat loss due to logging, mining and other forms of resource extraction and de-velopment in the RFE; promotion of the concept of sustainable development; cooperation with the local and in-digenous people of the region. Date of registration: established in 1993 Number of members: 20 Number of staff: 7 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: KULIKOV Alexander Nikolaevich, Chairperson Chief ecological accomplishments: Campaign to coordinate local and international efforts in protecting the Amur tiger, including the organization of the international symposium ‘The Amur Tiger: Conservation of the Population' and the development of a tiger action plan for the RFE since 1993, financed by WWF, WCS and the Hornocker Wildlife Institute (HWI); development of protected area network in Khabarovskiy krai; implementation of the GEF project ‘Protected areas network for Sikhote-Alin mountain forest ecosystems and conservation in Kha-barovsk Krai (Russian Far East)' since 2001, financed by the World Bank. Address: Bldg 19a, Shabadina Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 32-52-66 Fax: (4212) 32-84-97 E-mail: [email protected] 16. Name: Khekhtsirskie Uzory (‘Khekhtsir patterns') Status: Initiative group Field of activity: Ecology; art and culture. Date of registration: Not registered Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Number of members: 300 Number of staff: 7 Degree of independence: Subdivision of the Khabarovskiy krai branch of the Philanthropic Public Cultural Fund Name of head and official title: POKACHALOVA Lyudmila Victorovna, Head of Group Chief ecological accomplishments: Realization of the programme ‘Order at home' in the village of Sikachi-Alyan: tree planting and cleaning by schoolchildren; establishment of a recreation camp in the same village, financed by ISAR-RFE. Address: Office 5, Bldg 21, Novaya Street, Bychikha, Khabarovskiy raion, Khabarovskiy krai 680502 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 97-45-26 17. Name: Pantsui (Udeghe name for ginseng) Fund for Ecological Initiatives Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecology Date of registration: 2001 Number of members: 4 Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: KUZNETSOV Sergey Vladimirovich, Chairperson Chief ecological accomplishments: Assessment of the volume of illegal trade in musk glands of musk deer. Address: Office 4, Bldg 24, Lermontova Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(8902) 543-0667 18. Name: People's Ecological Initiative Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Development of practical solutions to ecological issues, particularly in the field of rational use and processing of natural resources and utilization of waste; development of the ecological information services available to the public and the infrastructure for ecological education; management training of ecologists for en-terprises; organization of educational and scientific workshops, conferences, exhibitions and expeditions in the Far Eastern region. Date of registration: Established 16th May 1991, registered 11th April 2001 Number of members: 27 personal and 2 collective members Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Until 2001 a subdivision of the Priamurskoye Geographical Society, though now self-independent Name of head and official title: LEBUKHOV Vladimir Ivanovich, Executive Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Organization of the ecological festival ‘Public initiatives for the Far East' April 2002, financed by different sources; organization of the international symposium ‘APR in global policy, economy and culture of XXI century' (including ecological aspects) in cooperation with the Krai government, the Priamur-skoye Geographical Society and the Khabarovsk Pedagogical University, October 22–23, 2002, financed by the Krai government, the Priamurskoye Geographical Society and by a special grant Address: Office 101, Bldg. 6, Shevchenko Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 30-63-16 Fax: 7(4212) 32-96-77 E-mail: [email protected] 19. Name: Priamurskoye Geographical Society Status: Public organization Field of activity: Research on geographical problems; study of local geography and history; sustainable natural re-source use; environmental protection. Date of registration: 1887 Number of members: about 300 Number of staff: 3 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ISHAEV Victor Ivanovich, Chairperson; SIMAKOV Valeriy Ivanovich, Scientific Secretary. Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Chief ecological accomplishments: Many different research projects; geographical expeditions; international and interregional conferences; publication of monographs, magazines, booklets etc; financed by many different or-ganizations (such as those that have contracted research work), fees collected from members and profits earned through sales of publications. Address: Bldg. 9, Shevchenko Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 31-20-47 Fax: 7(4212) 31-20-47 20. Name: Region-7, Association of Organizations for Sustainable Resource Development Status: Non-commercial organization Field of activity: Complex utilization, protection and regeneration of animal and plant resources. Date of registration: 13th November 2000 Number of members: 15 organizations Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ERMOLIN Alexander Borisovich, President; PRONINA Antonina Anatolievna, Executive Director. Chief ecological accomplishments: Campaign on fire prevention in Tuguro-Chumikanskiy and Okhotskiy raions, financed by the Project ‘Forest'; organization of the project ‘Far Eastern berries throughout the year', financed by the Institute of Sustainable Communities; organization of the project ‘Far Eastern herbs – medicinal herbs'; man-agement of three forest sites with hunting rights, self-financed; scientific expeditions to the basins of the Samarga River and Bolshoe (Great) lake (Great Shantar Island), financed by the Wild Salmon Fund and by own means; study of the Far Eastern market for medicinal raw materials of animal origin, financed by WWF. Address: Bldg 40, Pushkina Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 30-34-34, 7(4212) 30-51-13 Fax: 7(4212) 30-61-09 E-mail: [email protected] 21. Name: Romantic, Ecotourism Centre for Children and Youth Status: Non-commercial institute for further education Field of activity: Personal development; ecology; spare time organization; physical training and sport; personal enlightenment; education. Date of registration: 31st August 2001 Number of members: 40 Number of staff: 6 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: LARIONOVA Elena Parphenovna Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of sanitary campus ‘Romantic' in the Khabarovsk-2 district, fi-nanced by the non-commercial organization ATSK Rosto AVIS-Amur; organizing tree plantings along boulevards by students and young invalids. Address: Bldg 20, Ussuriyskiy boulevard, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 21-63-03 22. Name: ROSSEco, Regional Public Community for Assisting Khabarovskiy krai Ecology Status: Pressure group Field of activity: Assisting towns and cities in the Far East and Khabarovskiy krai to cut pollution using a poly-meric domestic waste approach based on selective litter collection, reduced-waste technologies and public in-volvement; promotion of public participation in developing important ecological solutions; development of public cooperation and establishing partnerships between local populations, the state and commercial stakeholders, for active ecological approaches to waste collection and processing. Date of registration: registration not complete Number of members: 8 Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BELOV Sergey Vyacheslavovich Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Chief ecological accomplishments: Monitoring of pollution caused by domestic waste in a district of Komso-molsk-na-Amure close to Komsomolskiy State Reserve, in the framework of the ‘Friends of Siliskiy forest' project financed by the Hewlett Foundation. Address: 59 Komsomolskoe Road, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Khabarovskiy krai 681000 Russia Phone: 7(42172) 2-18-23 Fax: 7(42172) 2-18-23 E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] 23. Name: Strazh Taigi (‘Taiga guard') Status: Inter-regional public organization Field of activity: Ecological education; environmental legislation; conservation of regional biodiversity; participa-tion in optimization of protective territories system. Date of registration: 22nd December 1999 Number of members: 21 Number of staff: 6 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: CHURIKOVA Lyudmila Valerievna, Council Chairman Chief ecological accomplishments: Cessation of cedar cutting in Gurskiy leskhoz; ecological campuses to monitor Tatar straight coast; publication of hand books ‘Forest pages' and ‘Special Protected Territories of Khabarovskiy krai'. Address: Bldg 1a, Sidorenko Street, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Khabarovskiy krai 681000 Russia Phone: 7(42172) 3-30-70 Fax: 7(42172) 3-30-70 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: 24. Name: Trionix, Centre for Public Initiatives Status: Public organization (as yet unregistered) Field of activity: Various, including ecology. Number of members: 8 Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BELOVA Irina Vladimirovna, Council Chairperson Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of partners' network in Nikolaevskiy and Ulchskiy raions, 2003, financed by ISAR-RFE; cooperation with the Amur customs office to control timber exports; consultation centre to help NGOs to prepare grant applications. Address: Bldg 59, Komsomolskoe Road, Komsomolsk-na-Amure, Khabarovskiy krai 681000 Russia Phone: 7(42172) 2-18-23 Fax: 7(42172) 2-18-23 E-mail: [email protected] (b) Otherwise active NGOs that did not respond to questionnaire or are of unknown address 25. Name: Bolon Pure Water (Bolon is the name of a lake in southeastern Komsomolsk-na-Amure) Status: Not registered, has the branch in the city of Amursk Field of activity: Ecological education and enlightenment; art and culture. Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: GORNOVA Mira Ivanovna, Head; DANILOV Ivan Anatolievich, Branch Head. Address: Main Office 111, Bldg 18, Polytekhnicheskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680054 Russia; Branch Office 3, Bldg 10, Prospect Mira, Amursk, Khabarovskiy krai 682640 Russia. 26. Name: Center for Future Generations Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecological education and enlightenment Name of head and official title: KOMPANICHENKO Vladimir Nicolaevich Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Chief ecological accomplishments: Range of anticipatory practical measures for the protection of resources in the interest of future generations Address: Bldg 31, Gerasimova Street, Khabarovsk 680021 Russia 27. Name: Center of Public Ecological Expertise Status: Khabarovsk public institution 28. Name: Ecos, Raion Children's Ecological Center Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecological education and enlightenment; social services; use of mass media; arts and culture. Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: USHAKOVA Nadezhda Vasilievna, Contact Person Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of an ecological movement in the raion; projects ‘River of my childhood', ‘My settlement', ‘Ecology through the prism of the creative work', ‘Preservation of monuments of nature'. Address: Post box 10, Bldg 37, Oktyabrskaya Street, Pereyaslavka, Lazo raion, Khabarovskiy krai 682920 Russia Phone: 7(42154) 21-1-41 29. Name: ErF, Khabarovsk Regional Ecological Fund for Biodiversity Conservation and the Support of Aboriginal Production Status: Non-commercial organization Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: PAKHNO Sergei Petrovich, President Address: Bldg 40, Pushkina Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia Phone: 7(4212) 32-79-33 Fax: 7(4212) 30-61-09 30. Name: Knigolyub (‘bibliophile') Status: Initiative group Address: Nikolaevsk-na-Amure 31. Name: Lower Amur Ecological Inspection, nature protection team Status: Initiative group Address: Komsomolsk-na-Amure 32. Name: ORIDI, Khabarovsk City public organization of disabled children's parents 33. Name: Student Scientific Society Status: Initiative group Field of activity: Ecological education; enlightenment. Name of head and official title: TAGIROVA Valentina Tikhonovna Address: Bldg 68, Karl Marx Street, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia 34. Name: Zeleniy dom (‘green home') Status: Autonomous non-commercial organization Field of activity: Services in education, culture, and tourism; revitalization of cultural and natural environment of the Far East through educational programmes and projects. Date of registration: Since 1991, registered 30th December 1998 Number of staff: 4 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: PETROVA Olga Victorovna Chief ecological accomplishments: Organization of workshops ‘Interactive methods in ecological education' and ‘Ecological leadership' for teachers and educators of all RFE provinces, about 500 participants, 1996–1999; coor-dination of programme of conferences and workshops on creative work problems, about 600 participants from Primorskiy and Khabarovskiy krais, Amurskaya oblast, since 1996; ecological camp ‘Myths of Priamurie', annu- Russia Country Report 2002/2003 ally in 1995–2001; project ‘youth newspaper «Leader»', since 1996, financed by ISAR and Khabarovskiy krai ecological committee; project ‘Let's protect nature together!'. Address: 71, Volochaevskaya Street, Khabarovsk 680020 Russia (For mail: P.O. 5/13, Khabarovsk 680000 Russia) Phone: 7(4212) 21-59-68 Fax: 7(4212) 72-14-71 E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] Internet: (a) NGOs that responded to questionnaire survey 1. Name: Alive Khanka, the group ‘Young ecologist' Status: Non-commercial organization Field of activity: Ecological enlightenment Date of registration: December 2002 Number of members: 50 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: PRAVDIVETS Nadezhda Nikolaevna, Coordinator Chief ecological accomplishments: Ecological enlightenment of schoolchildren in Kamen-Rybolov and Troitskoye villages of Khankayskiy raion; tree planting; publication of ecological bulletins. Address: Office 2, Bldg 6, 60th anniversary of USSR Street, Kamen-Rybolov, Primorskiy krai 692684 Russia Phone: 7(42349) 9-18-77 Fax: 7(42349) 9-18-77 2. Name: Assistance to public inspection unit ‘Tiger' (SOFIT) Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Joining up of ecological communities and state environmental bodies to protect biodiversity; stimulation of public participation in environmental conservation. Date of registration: 2001 Number of members: 9 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ZUBTSOV Sergey Anatolievich Chief ecological accomplishments: Drafting of document that creates public ecological inspections; development of methods for public ecological control; training of public inspectors. Address: Bldg 63, Geroev Varyaga Street, Vladivostok 690000 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 40-38-37 Fax: 7(4232) 40-38-37 E-mail: [email protected] 3. Name: Blagodat' (‘abundance'), Ecological Community of Natural Resource Users of Chuguevskiy raion Status: Public organization Field of activity: Creation of private clan estates within the territory of Chuguevskiy raion; conservation and res-toration of environment around clan estates. Date of registration: 26th April 2002 Number of members: 7 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BEZRUCHKO Alexey Victorovich, Headman Address: Elementary school # 12, Yubileinaya Street, Yasnoye, Chuguevskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692609 Rus-sia E-mail: [email protected] Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN 4. Name: BRIK, public ecological organization Status: Public organization Field of activity: Cooperating with public ecological organizations and initiative groups within Primorskiy krai to solve krai ecological problems, especially coastal ecosystem conservation. Date of registration: March 2002 Number of members: 15 Number of staff: 3 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BROVKO Petr Fedorovich, Chair of Managing Committee Chief ecological accomplishments: Publication of ‘Pacific News', a newspaper for and about geographers: geog-raphy, ecology, tourism; organization of working group meetings of 12 public ecological organizations and initia-tive groups to approve a unified methodology to conserve coastal ecosystems. Address: Bldg 2, Petr Velikiy Street, Vladivostok 690000 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 45-82-36 E-mail: [email protected] 5. Name: Bua Khoni, public organization of indigenous people (Udeghe family community), Krasnoarmeiskiy raion Status: Public organization Field of activity: Development, rejuvenation and conservation of the culture, medicine and family life of indige-nous people; promotion of the rational utilization and regeneration of natural resources. Date of registration: 25th March 2001 Number of members: 60 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: GAMOVA Valentina Vladimirovna Chief ecological accomplishments: Activities relating to the revitalization and implementation of widespread natural resource use practices that offer an alternative forest management option to logging; participation in the national park ‘Udegeyskaya Legenda' project; implementation of the project ‘Taiga – let's survive together' in cooperation with ecological group Taiga. Address: Office 2, Bldg 8, 1st microraion, Roshchino, Krasnoarmeiskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692180 Russia Phone: 7(42359) 2-37-07 6. Name: Bureau of Regional Public Campaigns (BROC) Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecological optimization of natural resource use and environmental conservation; provision of full information to the public regarding regional environmental problems with due respect and consideration for laws and regulations on natural resource use. Date of registration: 1997 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: LEBEDEV Anatoliy Victorovich, Council Chair Chief ecological accomplishments: Creation of Khasanskiy Natural Park; bringing the illegal logging problem within Sikhote-Alin to the attention of the government and international community; preparation of a design for Udegeyskaya Legenda (‘Udeghe myth') National Park and its submission to the government. Address: Bldg 22, Pologaya Street, Vladivostok 690091 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 40-51-32 Fax: 7(4232) 40-51-32 E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] 7. Name: Earth is our Home, Humanitarian Center Status: Public organization Field of activity: Enhancement of city environment in Primorskiy krai on the basis of up-to-date technologies; protection of indigenous people's rights. Date of registration: 8th August 1996 Number of members: 10 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Name of head and official title: KOROTKIKH Oleg Anatolievich Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of small experimental coastal farm in Khasanskiy raion to pro-tect, regenerate and utilize marine, littoral and coastal resources; provision of public expertise in matters relating to the special protected natural territories in Khasanskiy raion; information and analytical centre in Khasanskiy raion. Address: Office 51, Bldg 16, Pyatidesyatiletiya Oktyabrya Street, Slavyanka, Khasanskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692730 Russia Phone: 7(42349) 2-98-44 8. Name: Ecological Fund of Sikhote-Alin Status: Public organization Field of activity: Support for the development and realization of programs devoted to environmental protection and the rational use of natural resources; support for programs on the improvement of human health; support for programs on the revitalization and development of national spiritual traditions. Date of registration: 27th December 1996 Number of members: 20 Number of staff: 8 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: GUL'KOV Alexander Nefedovich, Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Organization of first international conference on problems at Sikhote-Alin re-sulting in the establishment of Verknebikinskiy Zakaznik; protection of archaeological and cultural-historical val-ues during Samarga basin development. Address: Bldg 66, Kranoye Znamya Prospect, Vladivostok 690014 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 25-86-95 9. Name: Eco-Logos, Krai fund for support of ecological initiatives Status: Public fund Field of activity: Consultations and methodological help for NGOs; assisting free exchange and dissemination of information on environmental problems; provision of ecological expertise. Date of registration: 1996 Number of members: 8 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SELEZNEVA Alla Constantinovna, Fund President Chief ecological accomplishments: Participation in the expansion of specially protected territories network in Pri-morskiy krai; information centre for ecological organizations of Primorskiy krai; participation in development of ‘The Ecological Program of Primorskiy krai' until 2005; participation in the ecological committee of the Admini-stration of Primorskiy krai. Address: Post box 2247, Vladivostok 690022 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 22-49-17 E-mail: [email protected] 10. Name: Ecopatrol Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Consolidation of public organizations, state units, and business firms around implementation of environmental projects. Date of registration: 10th September 1998 Number of members: 10 Number of staff: 3 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: STETSKAYA Galina Mikhailovna, Chair of Public Council Chief ecological accomplishments: Radio programme ‘Inhabited environment: the innermost ring of the Far East'; eco-tourist routes in Khasanskiy raion for the collection of information and creation of a database on the state of the environment and ecological violations; regular (four times per month) TV programme ‘Paradise Gone' for krai TV channel OTV-Prim. Address: Bldg 22, Pologaya Street, Vladivostok 690091 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 27-76-30 Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN E-mail: [email protected] 11. Name: Institute for Sustainable Natural Resource Use Status: Public organization Field of activity: Model projects to create sustainable hunting farms; participation in field leopard and tiger pro-jects within the territory of Khabarovskiy krai. Date of registration: 20th June 1996 Number of members: 14 Number of staff: 10 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ARAMILEV Vladimir Valerievich, Chair of Director Board Chief ecological accomplishments: Five projects on sustainable hunting management and Amur tiger conservation; project ‘Organization of sustainable long-term use of NFTPs within the territory of the Chin San tribal commu-nity'; project ‘Center of education on the basics of environmental protection and natural resource use'; project ‘Classification and mapping of ungulate and tiger habitats'; steady partnership with WCS and WWF. Address: Office 114, Bldg 7, Radio Street, Vladivostok 690041 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 31-28-38 Fax: 7(4232) 31-28-38 E-mail: [email protected] 12. Name: Khasanskiy Centre for Ecological Tourism Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Increasing eco-tourism in the south of Primorskiy krai with due respect to sustainable develop-ment. Date of registration: 14th June 2002 Number of members: 15 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: GRISHKO Eduard Vladimirovich Chief ecological accomplishments: Strategy for the development of ecological tourism in Khasanskiy raion of Primorskiy krai; experimental tours in border area and in cooperation with partners from North and South Korea. Address: Bldg 70, Leninskaya Street, Kamen-Rybolov, Khasanskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692701 Russia Phone: 7(42349) 4-42-27 13. Name: Laboratory for Ecological Education, Russian Green Cross Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Ecological education: teaching students the basics of practical means of assessing the state of the environment, and investigating and implementing methods for environmental improvement; establishment of eco-logical posts; ecological expertise. Date of registration: 7th August 1997 Number of members: 83 Number of staff: 7 Degree of independence: Legally self-independent but incorporated under the international independent ecological organization ‘Green Crest'. Name of head and official title: VASILIEV B.I., President Address: Post box 12-16, Office 5, Bldg 8a, Krayeva Street, Vladivostok 690012 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 27-10-51 Fax: 7(4232) 27-10-51 E-mail: [email protected] 14. Name: Mounted Sailor Status: Public organization Field of activity: Development of tourism and active recreation in Khankaiskiy raion; protection of ecological state of Khanka Lake; helping pensioners and disabled persons; development of equestrian and aquatic sports. Date of registration: 10th February 1997 Number of members: 45 Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Number of staff: 3 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: YENDOVITSKIY Evgeniy Mikhailovich, President Chief ecological accomplishments: Campaign to clean up 5 km of Khanka Lake coastline; ‘Zapovedniy krai (in-nermost territory)' programme to train volunteers; creation of ecological posts; summer ecological school; website. Address: Office 51, Bldg 23, Kirova Street, Kamen-Rybolov, Khankayskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692280 Russia Phone: 7(42349) 9-18-97 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: 15. Name: Natural Resource Users of Southern Sikhote-Alin Status: Non-commercial partnership Field of activity: Advancement of sustainable natural resource use for hunting, taiga tourism, collecting and proc-essing of NFTPs. Date of registration: December 2001 Number of members: 10 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: IVANTSIV Roman Miroslavovich, Executive Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Connecting different kinds of user groups in Chuguevskiy raion (administra-tion, leskhozes, local population) to advance methods for sustainable natural resource use in southern Sikhote-Alin. Address: Bldg 45, Lesnaya Street, Chuguevka, Primorskiy krai 692600 Russia Phone: 7(42372) 22-882 E-mail: [email protected] 16. Name: Pervotsvet (‘primrose'), social-ecological organization Status: Public organization Field of activity: Dissemination and promotion of ecological knowledge amongst the raion population, especially youth; environmental protection activities. Date of registration: 2002 Number of members: 7 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SEVOSTIANOVA Arina Vladimirovna, Council Chair Chief ecological accomplishments: Creation of ecological enlightenment centre to unite children- and youth-oriented organizations in Pozharskiy raion; production of ecological videos/films; outdoor clean-up cam-paigns. Address: Bldg 9, micro-raion 3, Luchegorsk, Primorskiy krai 692084 Russia Phone: 7(42357) 23-4-72 E-mail: [email protected] 17. Name: Phoenix Status: Fund Field of activity: Biodiversity conservation in the Russian Far East Date of registration: March 1998 Number of members: 13 Number of staff: 5 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BEREZNYUK Sergey Leonidovich Chief ecological accomplishments: Establishment of two groups of public inspectors within natural habitat of Amur tiger; abolition of chemical herbicide/pesticide dump in Pozharskiy raion; programme of ecological educa-tion projects for schools and kindergartens; forest fire control team in Khasanskiy raion; placed controls on the handling of bioresources, especially rare and vanishing species, in cooperation with customs at the state level. Address: Office 307, Bldg 167, Svetlanskaya Street, Vladivostok 690001 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 26-53-91 E-mail: [email protected] Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN 18. Name: Plot (‘raft') Club, public philanthropic organization Status: Autonomous non-commercial organization Field of activity: Promotion of ecologically sound development; social services; education. Date of registration: 18th March 1997 Number of members: 117 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: KONONOV Victor Mikhailovich, President of Club Chief ecological accomplishments: Cedar planting on Russian Island; education of schoolchildren at the Morekhod (‘Navigator') summer camp. Address: Bldg 50a, Verkhneportovaya Street, Vladivostok 690090 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 41-45-00 Fax: 7(4232) 41-45-00 E-mail: [email protected] 19. Name: Public Fund for Protection of Goral and Other Rare Animals of Dal'negorskiy Raion Status: Public fund Field of activity: Protection of wild animals; ecological enlightenment; ecological training; publication of envi-ronmental newspaper Tayezhniy Rodnik (‘Taiga spring'). Date of registration: 22nd December 2000 Number of members: 25 Number of staff: 4 Degree of independence: Self-independent Nmae of head and official title: GRINCHENKO Tatiana Borisovna, Chair of Steering Committee Chief ecological accomplishments: Children's ecological camps; regular education work in schools throughout Dal'negorsk town on the flora and fauna of Dal'negorskiy raion and methods for their protection; ecological newspaper Taezhniy Rodnik. Address: Bldg 1, Korzhevskaya Street, Dal'negorsk, Primorskiy krai 690000 Russia Phone: 7(42373) 9-36-09 Fax: 7(42373) 9-18-01 E-mail: [email protected] 20. Name: Rostok (‘sprout'), children's/youths' eco-organization Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecological education; development of public movement in southern Primorie; ecological tourism. Date of registration: 23rd March 2001 Number of members: 350 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SAMCHINSKAYA Lyubov Pavlovna, President Chief ecological accomplishments: Various themed activities, including: ‘The World Around Us', ‘Green Mosaics of Partizansk', ‘Ecological Initiative', ‘Green Hills', ‘Keepers of Oleniy (Deer's) Spring', ‘Creation of Ecological Organization Network in Southern Primorie'; annual inter-raion ecological conference ‘Nature has Human Eyes'; annual krai game ‘Ecological Mosaics «Innermost Primorie»'; participation in establishment of the union ‘Civil Society for Russian Children'; participation in establishment of the information-resource centre on ecology and public movement in southern Primorie; 5-year work at the ecological post on Elena Island. Address: Office 19, Bldg 15, Tsentral'naya Street, Partizansk, Primorskiy krai 692853 Russia Phone: 7(423630) 32-22 E-mail: [email protected] 21. Name: Spasenie (‘rescue'), Center for Nature and History Status: Public organization Field of activity: Conservation and restoration of environments and historical monuments on the seacoast close to the eastern border of the Far Eastern zapovednik. Date of registration: 1993 Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Number of members: 16 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SHEREMETIEV Victor Alexandrovich, Alternate Executive Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Provision of regulated regime for natural resource use on the Gamov Peninsula, including patrols – management of unique tree/bush sites and their component endemic animals and insects along the coastal zone of Spasenie Bay; posters and lectures explaining the origins of local areas, details of a spring ban on grass burning, and the punishments associated with violating the moderated use regime. Address: Bldg 1, Molodezhnaya Street, Slavyanka, Khasanskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 962730 Russia Phone: 7(42349) 5-15-11 Fax: 7(42349) 4-14-90 22. Name: Taiga, Eco-group Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecology and environmental protection; ecological information and enlightenment of population; promoting the creation of youth initiative groups to resolve ecological problems. Date of registration: 17th December 1997 Number of members: 13 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: KRONIKOVSKIY Fedor Vladimirovich, Coordinator Chief ecological accomplishments: Successful opposition to proposed hydrological and nuclear power stations projects in the raion; initialization of ban on industrial harvesting of cedar; preservation of ‘Tayezhniy' zakaznik status; participation in lobbying for and design of the Udegeyskaya Legenda (Udege myth) National Park; con-sulting services for small ecologically sound businesses; creating and promoting youth and school initiative groups to resolve environment problems; promotion of ecological movement with help from the raion newspaper ‘Sik-hote-Alin'. Address: Office 13, Bldg 26, Roshchina Street, Roshchino, Krasnoarmeiskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692180 Russia Phone: 7(42359) 2-37-12, 7(42359) 2-34-36, 7(42359) 2-32-81. E-mail: [email protected] / [email protected] 23. Name: Territory of the Future, Center of Support for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Status: Public organization Field of activity: Realization of local ecological projects in the southern part of Khasanskiy raion; conservation of biodiversity, unique landscapes and seacoast in the southwest of Primorie (within Khasanskiy raion) based on the principles of sustainable natural resource use. Date of registration: 15th September 2000 Number of members: 7 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: NAUMOV Vitaliy Vladimirovich, Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Programme for the organization and support of controlled natural resource use on the Gamov Peninsula; ‘Clean Shore' activities, clean-up campaign of coastal zone twice a year in cooperation with local administration and population. Address: Bldg 2, Naberezhnaya Street, Andreyevka, Khasanskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692707 Russia Phone: 7(42349) 4-17-10 Fax: 7(42349) 4-17-10 E-mail: [email protected] 24. Name: The Last Wednesday, Ecological Press Club Status: Public organization Field of activity: Intensification of ecological knowledge; public monitoring of laws in force for natural resource use; dissemination of methodologies and information in the form of ecological publications. Date of registration: 18th May 2001 Number of members: 20 Number of staff: 2 Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: STAROSTINA Elena Gennadievna, President Chief ecological accomplishments: Production of video ‘Conserving forests today for survival tomorrow'; regular ecological column ‘Innermost Earth' in the Vladivostok Newspaper; educational and enlightenment campaign ‘Leopard land'; ecological articles in Vladivostok and Primorets Newspapers (Khasanskiy raion), and on Primor-skiy radio and TV; member of Union of Ecological Press Clubs of the Russian Far East. Address: Office 9, Bldg 17b, Shoshina Street, Vladivostok 690089 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 40-66-51 Fax: 7(4232) 40-66-51 E-mail: [email protected] 25. Name: TIGIS, Information and Analytical Center Status: Public organization Field of activity: Information and analysis in support of ecological resource projects; scientific projects; creation of opportunities for sustainable development of the Russian Far Eastern region on the basis of non-exhaustive use of resources and biodiversity conservation. Date of registration: 2nd March 2001 Number of members: 6 Number of staff: 2 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: YERMOSHIN Victor Vasilievich Chief ecological accomplishments: Creation of electronic GIS layers as a basis for development of environmental and natural resource use maps of the Far East; high-level technical mapping; steady partnerships with WWF and WCS. Address: Office 508, Bldg 7, Radio Street, Vladivostok 690041 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 33-90-65 E-mail: [email protected] 26. Name: Ussuriyskiy Medved' (‘Ussury bear'), Public Youth Organization, Voluntary Team for Environmental Conservation Status: Public organization Field of activity: Ecological education and enlightenment; participation in anti-poaching activities and ecological patrols. Date of registration: 14th December 2000 Number of members: 85 Number of staff: 0 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SKRIPOVA Kira Vladimirovna, Deputy Council Chair Chief ecological accomplishments: Development of 34 protocols on poaching as result of patrol inspections; de-velopment of 18 protocols on illegal New Year trees trade as result of inspections in cooperation with militia; creation of forest fire control brigades; planting of 2,000 trees and bushes along the streets and parks of Ussuriysk City and settlements of Ussuriyskiy raion; creation of ecological clubs in schools; lectures in schools and at eco-logical clubs; elaboration of methodological recommendations in support of various activities. Address: Bldg 19, Nekrasova Street, Ussuriysk, Primorskiy krai 692519 Russia Phone: 7(42341) 2-01-07 Fax: 7(42341) 2-01-07 E-mail: [email protected] 27. Name: Vladivostok Speleologists Club Status: Public organization Field of activity: Public appeals promoting active speleological tourism (particularly amongst youths) and sup-porting primeval cave ecology; development of a krai coordination and methodological centre for issues regarding exploration, investigation and conservation of caves. Date of registration: 1st December 1992 Number of members: 50 Number of staff: 1 Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SHKURYGIN Dmitriy Anatolievich, Director Chief ecological accomplishments: Arrangements for safe excursions along the Khasan waterfall cascade and sur-rounding areas; mapping of natural monuments of Khasanskiy, Nadezhdinskiy, Ussuriskiy and Oktyabrskiy raions; annual environmental training programmes to prevent pollution of caves and surrounding areas and for the con-servation of caves in a primeval state; development of tourist camp sites whilst minimizing further encroachment and other negative impacts on the environment; publication of methodological guidelines for managers and guides who deal with cave visitors. Address: P.O.172, Bldg 98, Nekrasovskaya Street, Vladivostok 690106 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 42-27-09 Fax: 7(4232) 25-39-98 E-mail: [email protected] 28. Name: Zhar Zver (‘fire beast'), Raion Public Organization for Ecological Education Status: Public organization Field of activity: Support of ecological education for schoolchildren in Lazo raion; promotion of ecological knowledge amongst local population; development of ecological tourism; development of non-traditional power engineering; control of environmental pollution. Date of registration: 7th July 1995 Number of members: 8 Number of staff: 1 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: VORONOY Oleg Nikolaevich Chief ecological accomplishments: Ecological summer camps for schoolchildren; publication of posters and cal-endars with pictures of children and local wildlife, in cooperation with the US Pease Corp and WCS. Address: Bldg 17, Leninskaya Street, Lazo, Lazovskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692890 Russia Phone: 7(42377) 9-14-68 29. Name: Zov Taigi (‘Taiga appeal'), Vladivostok Center for Wildlife Conservation Status: Public organization Field of activity: Guarding and protecting the flora and fauna of Primorskiy krai by way of ecological education, enlightenment and promotion campaigns with the aid of ‘Zov taigi' magazine; dissemination of information and promotional work in support of public campaigns. Date of registration: 10th April 1993 Number of members: 16 Number of staff: 8 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SOLKIN Vasiliy Anatolievich, Council Chair Chief ecological accomplishments: Success of ‘Zov taigi' magazine, voted no. 1 in the all-Russian competition of ecological periodical press of 2001; winning the title of best Russian TV performance of 2000 for programmes about protected territories and rare species; other prizes at international TV festivals for films about Zov taigi; on-going, stable cooperation with international ecological funds. Address: Bldg 7, Radio Street, Vladivostok 690041 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 32-06-66 E-mail: [email protected] (b) Otherwise active NGOs that did not respond to questionnaire or are of unknown address 30. Name: Amur-Ussuri Center for the Study of Bird Biodiversity Status: Public institution Field of activity: Bird biodiversity conservation Name of head and official title: SURMACH Sergey Grigorievich Chief ecological accomplishments: A background elaboration for protected areas in the Tumen River basin and on Sakhalin Island; publication of children's book. Address: Apartment 248, Bldg 159, Prospect Stoletie Vladivostoka, Vladivostok 690022 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 31-11-80 Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN Fax: 7(4232) 31-11-80 E-mail: [email protected] 31. Name: Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North of Primorskiy krai Address: Vladivostok, Russia 32. Name: BPI-Ecocentre VDTs-Ocean (Biological Soil institute, Ecological Center, Children's Educational Ocean Status: Initiative group Field of activity: Fulfillment of the ISAR-RFE project ‘From the Red Book to city streets'. Name of head and official title: KOZIN Evgeniy Constantinovich Address: Biological Soil Institute, Bldg 159, Prospect Stoletie Vladivostoka, Vladivostok 690022 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 31-21-21, 7(4232) 31-01-93 E-mail: [email protected] 33. Name: EcoBUss Status: Initiative school group Address: Roshchino, Krasnoarmeiskiy raion, Primorskiy krai, Russia 34. Name: Ecolog (‘ecologist'), Society of Nature-Lovers Status: Autonomous non-commercial organization Field of activity: Environmental legislation; nature conservation policy. Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: SOBOLEVSKIY Evgeniy Ivanovich Chief ecological accomplishments: Participation in biodiversity conservation activities (both flora and fauna); de-velopment of practical recommendations for the protection of wild animals and the conservation of relict plants in taiga areas of Primorskiy krai. Address: Bldg 17, Palchevskogo Street, Vladivostok 690041 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 31-06-78 35. Name: Ecoskaz (‘ecological tale') Name of head and official title: NIKITCHENKO Tatiana Victorovna Address: Office 24, Bldg 20, Belysheva Street, Fokino town, Primorskiy krai 692810 Russia Phone: 7(42339) 2-20-46 E-mail: [email protected] 36. Name: Florist Name of head and official title: KHRAPOVA Elena Ivanovna Address: Apartment 43, Bldg 52, Kirova Street, Vladivostok 690048 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 33-18-98, 7(4232) 33-07-15 E-mail: [email protected] 37. Name: Khasanskiy, Support Fund for Economic and Ecological Stability in Khasanskiy raion, Primorskiy krai Status: Autonomous non-commercial organization Field of activity: Ecologically purposeful development; agriculture; education; economic development Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ISHCHENKO Alexander Anatolievich Chief ecological accomplishments: Conservation of unique natural systems; conservation of natural monuments and objects of historical/cultural importance; introduction of environmental measures within Khasanskiy raion. Address: Apartment 1, Bldg 12a, Gamarnika Street, Vladivostok 690033 Russia Phone: 7(4232) 46-15-00 38. Name: Manchur, Environmental Protection Team of the Far Eastern University Address: Vladivostok, Russia 39. Name: Pimorskiy krai Public Organization, All-Russian Society for Nature Conservation Russia Country Report 2002/2003 Address: Vladivostok, Russia 40. Name: Primorskiy Public Support Fund: Zapovedniks of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sci- Date of registration: February 2002 Name of head and official title: KOTLYAR Andrey Kirillovich Address: Bldg 19, Nekrasova Street, Ussuriysk, Primorskiy krai 692539 Russia Phone: 7(42341) 2-01-07, 7(42341) 4-49-15 E-mail: [email protected] 41. Name: Rodnik (‘spring'), Ussuriysk Children's Organization Status: Public organization Field of activity: Comprehensive development of children; active role in the formation of civil society; educating children on moral issues and behaviour in relation to nature. Number of members: 210 Number of staff: 3 Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: ROMANOV Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chief ecological accomplishments: Cleaning and development patrols in recreational places in suburban areas of Ussuriysk City; clean-up campaign in a 30 hectare forest area (including two hectares of valuable floodplain for-est) along Olenevka River, Ussuriyskiy raion, and planting of 1,500 trees and bushes; development of a 18.4 hec-tare base for children's summer camp; coordination of strategic planning with environmental interests in Ussuriysk City and raion; development of common projects with schoolchildren's organizations in China. Address: Office. 15, Bldg 66, Nekrasova Street, Ussuriysk, Primorskiy krai 692519 Russia Phone: 7(42341) 2-08-15 42. Name: Uragus Status: Public organization Address: Terney, Primorskiy krai, Russia 43. Name: Ussuriyskiy Endemic, Ecology Information Center Status: Initiative group Field of activity: Dissemination of ecological knowledge and promoting an increase in ecological competence amongst the population of Primorskiy krai. Date of registration: after 1996, not registration Degree of independence: Self-independent Name of head and official title: BISIKALOVA Victoria Nicolaevna Chief ecological accomplishments: Training the Center's members in Moscow, Vladivostok, Blagoveshchensk, Finland and USA, financed by WWF; organizing excursions to museum and ecologically important areas for 14,000 people; development of the ecological Holiday Program; some ecological activities, festivals, summer camps, exhibitions; creative ecology workshop; ecological theatre ‘Ecoterra', financed by a grant from ISAR-RFE for $1,500; dissemination of information to Far Eastern eco-centres, financed by ROLL. Address: Kamenushka, Ussuriyskiy raion, Primorskiy krai 692532 Russia Phone: 7(42341) 9-83-30 E-mail: [email protected] 44. Name: White Wings, Children's Ecological Center Status: Public organization Field of activity: Research and environmental activities; ecological education and cooperation; ecological tourism; ecological theatre. Date of registration: since 2000, not registered Name of head and official title: ZUYKOVA Tatiana Vasilievna, head Chief ecological accomplishments: Children's ecological festivals: ‘Day of Earth', ‘Day of Forests', ‘Day of Ecologists', financed by ISAR-RFE, US$3,000; cleaning and planting of trees and gardens in village streets; help-ing leskhoz in forest nursery; dissemination of ecological leaflets for village population. Address: Roshchino, Krasnoarmeyskiy raion, Primorskiy krai, Russia Alexander S. SHEINGAUZ & Vladimir P. KARAKIN 45. Name: Yastreby (‘hawks'), Volunteer Corps 46. Name: Youth Century Appendix 2. List of grants allocated by ISAR-RFE in 2002 in Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy krais (information from (Each paragraph below contains: grant title; NGO name and status; city and town of the NGO; the value of the grant) Creation of a network of non-commercial environmental organizations in southeastern Primorie. Rostok (‘sprout') Children's/youths' Eco-Organization, public organization. Partizansk City. US$7,000. Public ecological post – a school for environmental training. Russian Green Cross Laboratory for Ecological Education, public organization. Vladivostok. US$3,000. Organization of sustainable long-term use of non-timber forest products within the territories of indigenous peoples, Olginskiy raion. Institute for Sustainable Natural Resource Use, public organization. Vladivostok. US$6,929. Bears are learning. Voluntary Team for Environmental Protection, public organization. Ussuriysk City. US$6,000. We need taiga, we like taiga, we protect taiga everyday. Ecological Group «Taiga», Krasnoarmeyskiy raion Public Organization. Roshchino. US$5,716. Khabarovsk City Public Organization of Disabled Children's Parents (ORIDI). Khabarovsk. US$700. Clean river begin from me. Student Scientific Society, initiative group. Khabarovsk. US$3,000. Green landing party-2. Dousha Lesa (‘forest soul'), initiative group. Sovetskaya Gavan. US$700. Operation Pervotsvet. Ecological Education Center, Far Eastern youth public organization. Vladivostok. US$225. Project ‘Be alive, park'. Pervotsvet (‘primrose'), public socio-ecological organization. Luchegorsk. US$700. Project ‘Clean air'. Center for Public Ecological Expertise, Khabarovsk public institution. Khabarovsk. US$692. Let's protect the nature of the Lower Amur. Knigolyub (‘bibliophile'), initiative group. Nikolaevsk-na-Amure. US$700. The future is in our hands. Uragus, public organization. Terney. US$700. Clean nature is better for people. Nature Protection Team «Lower Amur Ecological Inspection», initiative group. Komsomolsk-na-Amure. US$700. Volunteers and Scallywags (typical phenomenon in winter rivers and lakes whereby fish die through lack of oxygen). Initiative group attached to Khanka Zapovednik. Spassk-Dalniy. US$699. Alive Khanka. Young Ecologist, initiative group. Kamen-Rybolov. US$500.


Christoph Eberhard• E-mail : [email protected] Site internet : Les droits de l'homme face à la complexité : une approche anthropologique et (première version d'un aticle à paraître dans Droit & Société n° 51-52 / 2002) Mots clefs : droits de l'homme, anthropologie dynamique du Droit, dialogue interculturel, pluralisme,

Microsoft word - tianjexcessheat.doc

Tian, J., et al. "Excess heat" and "heat after death" in a gas loading hydrogen/palladium system. in The 9thInternational Conference on Cold Fusion, Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2002. Tsinghua Univ.,Beijing, China: Tsinghua Univ. Press. "EXCESS HEAT"AND "HEAT AFTER DEATH"IN A GAS- LOADING HYDROGEN/PALLADIUM SYSTEM