russian institutional framework for international environmental cooperation in the arctic

6TH OPEN ASSEMBLY OF THE NORTHERN RESEARCH FORUM4th -6th September 2011, Hveragerdi, Iceland

Russian Institutional Framework for International Environmental

Cooperation in the ArcticMikhail M. Kalentchenko

The Council for Interdisciplinary Research Murmansk, Russia

NRF 64-6 September 2011Hveragerdi, 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

Cooperation Aspects

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

IMPLEMENTATION ENFORCEMENT

CONSERVATION PREVENTION REHABILITATION

FOR

NRF 64-6 September 2011Hveragerdi, Iceland

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

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

Major Shipping Nations

6NRF 6 4-6 September 2011

Hveragerdi, Iceland

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

International OrganizationsFunction: Environmental Protection

Environmental function is characteristic of not only specialized organizations, but also of organizations with general competence (UN agencies) and sectoral organizations (IMO, RFMO’s)

For example: - IMO – MARPOL 73/78- NAFO work on vulnerable marine

ecosystems, etc.

RussiaFunction: 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

Russian Agencies International Involvement (by environmental function and sector)

AgreementsBefore 1990

1990 Present

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 Agricultur

e

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. - -

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)

Functions, Activities, Authorization (marine activities)

AgencyEnvironmental function Activity

ActivityRestrictions

Activity Permissions

Enforcement with respect to activity

Ministry for Natural Resources and Ecology

yescross-cutting

no

approval required,

but not for shipping or

fisheries

no

Ministry of Transport

no shipping yes* yes** no

Federal Fisheries Agency

no fishing yes yes yes

Federal Security Service

nocross-cutting

noapproval required

yes

* Subject to approval by RF Government** Not required for foreign flag ships

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)

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

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

Case Study:Russian Marine Protected Areas

Location of Especially Protected Nature Areas

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)

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!

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

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

NRF 6 4-6 September 2011 Hveragerdi, Iceland

Mikhail M. Kalentchenkosovmis@hotmail.ru