1. 6TH OPEN ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTHERN RESEARCH FORUM 4th -6th September 2011, Hveragerdi, Iceland Russian Institutional Framework for International Environmental Cooperation in the Arctic Mikhail M. Kalentchenko The Council for Interdisciplinary Research Murmansk, Russia

2. NRF 6 4-6 September 2011 Hveragerdi, Iceland 2 Overview Cooperation aspects Functions, Activities and Structures Function: Environmental Protection Activities: Shipping and Fisheries Structures: Competence and Interaction Case study: Russian Arctic MPAs Conclusions

3. Cooperation Aspects INFORMATION EXCHANGE IMPLEMENTATION ENFORCEMENT CONSERVATION PREVENTION REHABILITATION FOR NRF 6 4-6 September 2011 Hveragerdi, Iceland

4. Potential Jurisdiction of 5 Coastal States Present legal regime of the Arctic marine areas is governed by the Law of the Sea Convention 1982 Functional development implies different structures for different activities Source: www.durham.ac.uk/ibru

5. Existing Structures comprehensive international arrangements with institutionalized cooperation models are in place for major maritime activities (shipping and fishery) – IMO and RFMO limitations on freedom of navigation outside 12-mile zone cannot be dealt with outside IMO it is unlikely that flag state jurisdiction over vessels will be abandoned for the sake of the Arctic by major shipping nations

6. Major Shipping Nations 6 NRF 6 4-6 September 2011 Hveragerdi, Iceland

7. Functions/Activities and International Structures Environmental Protection Fisheries Shipping Mining Convention on Biological Diversity*, etc. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (NEAFC, NAFO, NASCO, bilateral commissions) IMO International Seabed Authority (ISA) FUNCTION ACTIVITIES INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURES

8. International Organizations Function: Environmental Protection Environmental function is characteristic of not only specialized organizations, but also of organizations with general competence (UN agencies) and sectoral organizations (IMO, RFMOs) For example: - IMO – MARPOL 73/78 - NAFO work on vulnerable marine ecosystems, etc.

9. Russia Function: Environmental Protection Before 1992 All Ministries of the USSR were to carry out nature protection measures within their scope Coordination and supervision of implementation of international environmental obligations was responsibility of special inter-ministerial body Present Situation Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology stands alone as no other ministry is responsible for environmental protection Sectoral ministries are responsible exclusively for successful development of activities in question

10. Russian Agencies International Involvement (by environmental function and sector) Agreements Before 1990 1990Present MARPOL 1973/78 USSR Ministry of Sea and River Fleet RF Ministry of Transport IMO IWC 1946, NEAFC 1980, NASCO 1982 and bilateral fisheries agreements USSR Ministry for Agriculture Ministry for Fisheries Federal Fisheries Agency Bilateral International Agreements on Environmental Protection USSR State Committee for Nature Protection Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology CBD, CITES, etc.--

11. Determining Competence Today Overall structure and functions of federal agencies are determined by the RF President (Decree) Presidential Decrees normally (but not necessarily) reflect Federal Laws Responsibility for Russian participation in international organizations are determined by the RF Government (Order)

12. Functions, Activities, Authorization (marine activities) Agency Environmen tal function Activity Restrictions Activity Permissions Enforcement with respect to activity Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology yes cross- cutting no approval required, but not for shipping or fisheries no Ministry of Transport noshippingyes*yes**no Federal Fisheries Agency nofishingyes Federal Security Service no cross- cutting no approval required yes * Subject to approval by RF Government ** Not required for foreign flag ships

13. International Cooperation Competence Distribution Ministry of Foreign Affaires Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology Federal Fisheries Agency (fisheries) Ministry of Transport (shipping) Arctic Council (general competence, environment) UNEP AMAP (monitoring) CBD, CITES, bilateral environmental agreements ICES (marine science) RFMOs (fisheries management, environmental issues) IMO (shipping, environmental issues)

14. This is reality Representatives of Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology do not participate in work of IMO, RFMOs, ICES Representatives of Federal Fisheries Agency and Ministry of Transport do not participate in work within the framework of UNEP, CBD and bilateral environmental agreements and do not have to implement environmental protection measures unless specifically ordered

15. Implications Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology - cannot offer constructive and targeted impact mitigation measures due to lack of information on actual pressure status -is unable to introduce restrictions on shipping and fisheries that fall under the competence of other Ministries (agencies) Sectoral ministries - do not propose environmental measures – not their duty - will oppose general prohibitions as inadequate

16. Case Study: Russian Marine Protected Areas Location of Especially Protected Nature Areas

17. Peculiarities Include marine areas within 12-mile zone Regulatory framework (restrictions, administration, enforcement) - Federal Law On Especially Protected Nature Areas 33-FZ (1995) Administrator – Rosprirodnadzor (Federal Agency under the Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology) Restrictions on fisheries and shipping should not contravene Federal Laws On the Territorial Sea and Adjacent Zone (1998) and On Aqautic Biological Resources (2004)

18. Shipping Restrictions Navigation through marine areas designated as part of especially protected nature areas is prohibited outside established navigation lanes since 1980 Navigation lanes have not been established so far Navigation through MPAs is not restricted!

19. Conclusions Sole responsible body (Minprirody) is lacking both capacity and authority Russian participation in environmental cooperation in the Arctic is hampered by lack of coordination between relevant structures on national level Activity based management bodies shall not be relieved of environmental function

20. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! NRF 6 4-6 September 2011 Hveragerdi, Iceland Mikhail M. Kalentchenko sovmis@hotmail.ru