United Nations Environment Programme
Global Environment Facility (GEF) 
Concept Document for Pipeline Entry 
Country:						The Russian Federation
Focal Area:						Biodiversity
Operational Programme:	OP# 2 Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
							OP# 4 Forest Ecosystems
Project title:	An Integrated Ecosystem Approach to Enhance Biodiversity Conservation and Minimise Habitat Fragmentation in the Russian Arctic

Implementing Agency 					UNEP
Executing Agencies	RF State Committee for Environmental Protection (RF SCEP)
Arctic Council Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) 
UNEP/GRID-Arendal (Global Resources Information Data Base - Arendal, Norway)
Estimated Project Costs		
			
PDF B:

GEF						            310,000

Co-financing (Estimated)			
UNEP/GRID	        	  20 000
CAFF Program                50 000 
Government of Norway  150 000
RF State Committee for 
Environmental Protection 93 000
CAFF Secretariat              20 000
CAFF member states        40 000 
							(excluding Norway, Russia)	

WWF-Arctic Programme  20 000

Estimated Project Costs 
Full-project:	2001-2006 (6 years)
			
GEF 	US $ 8.0 million, tbd. during the PDF –B phase

Co-financing	Matching funds from GoR, CAFF and others tbd. during the PDF phase.

Project Background and Context (Baseline Course of Action)

Biodiversity Description

1.	The geographical focus of the project is the Russian Arctic land mass which covers 6.349.780 km2 and constitutes approximately 43% of the circumpolar terrestrial Arctic as defined by Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). (See Appendix 1). The Russian terrestrial Arctic area consists of the following broadly defined ecosystems or ecozones: Polar or Arctic Deserts (102.600 km2), Lowland Tundra (2.021.320 km2), Mountain tundra (1.843.650 km2), Forest Tundra and Northern Taiga including Northern Pinus pumila and Northern Larix sibirica and L. dahurica (2.382.210 km2).  Russia also has the most extended Arctic coastline and several distinct Arctic Seas (Barents, White, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi and Bering). (Up to four sites in this area will be selected, during the project preparatory phases, where ecosystem management models will be implemented.  Selection criteria are discussed in a  later section.) 

2.	The Russian terrestrial Arctic provides nearly half of the habitat at the circumpolar level and serves as the nursery or feeding ground for millions of migratory birds and mammals from the Asian, African and European continents in addition to its stationary fauna.  Compared to temperate and tropical areas, the Arctic is poor in fauna species and especially in endemic species overall. However, measuring Arctic biodiversity strictly in terms of total number of species, or number of endemics, is misleading as Arctic species often have a wide circumpolar or Holarctic distribution and consist of discrete, or largely discrete, subspecies or populations. Thus the low species diversity is frequently compensated for by high genetic diversity. Approximately 270 bird species, mostly migratory, breed in the Russian Arctic. Seven of these are globally threatened.  The State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection (RF SCEP) has identified sixteen (16) Arctic species and subspecies of birds as rare or of special conservation concern within CAFF. Arctic mammals, although few in numbers, are highly adapted to the harsh environmental features of the North and sensitive to environmental changes and intense exploitation levels. Terrestrial mammals, particularly ungulates, need large expanses of undisturbed habitat for their well being to compensate for the relatively low nutrient levels at high latitudes and to ensure reproductive and over-wintering success. About twenty (20) Arctic mammal species and subspecies (mostly marine mammals) have been identified as rare, vulnerable or endangered by RF SCEP. The share of bird and mammal species listed in the Red Data Book of Russia is generally higher in the Arctic than elsewhere8.  Seventy endemic vascular plant species have been identified in the Russian Arctic and only 37% of these rare elements of the vascular flora are currently protected within Russian Nature Reserves (Zapovedniks).

3.	The Russian Arctic ecosystems are now well recognised as major drivers of global climate systems, atmospheric gas exchange and ocean current system. The Russian contribution to the stabilisation and proper functioning of these systems is therefore crucial.

4.	The Russian northern territories are home to 30 formally recognised indigenous peoples’ groups. They still rely extensively on hunting, herding, gathering and other traditional activities for their subsistence and are therefore dependent on healthy ecosystems and abundant wildlife and hunting grounds. 

5.	In addition to their importance for biodiversity, global ecosystem functioning, and cultural heritage conservation, Russia’s northern territories hold enormous forest, mineral, metal and petrochemical resources which are valuable today and which could prove to be of key importance to Russia’s prosperity and future economic security if their use is properly planned and managed.  

6.	The vast ecosystems of Arctic Russia are still relatively undisturbed compared to more southern ones. They are among the last remaining wilderness areas of the world - large enough to allow ecological processes and wildlife populations to fluctuate and biological diversity to evolve and adapt naturally.  However, these areas are under increased pressure due to negative impacts of a shifting political system, poorly controlled and unwise local development activities and possible effects of global change processes. These combined factors threaten to cause irreversible habitat destruction and fragmentation. The permafrost, underlying the thin biologically active layer, augments disturbances and restoration efforts are extremely difficult.  Hence, every effort should be made to reduce disturbances and maintain the global biodiversity benefits provided by Russian Arctic ecosystems. 

National and Regional Policies and Institutional Arrangements 
7.	Russia has an extensive Federal legislation relevant to biodiversity protection and management in the Arctic.  Interdepartmental committees operate to deal with biodiversity, indigenous peoples interests and other large northern conservation issues. However, these conservation management mechanisms have become less effective after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the resulting financial difficulties of the Russian government and lack of government enforcement capability. Consultative and participatory management mechanisms outside of the federal government will therefore have to be based on stakeholder participation and need considerable strengthening if they are to be effective.
8.	Russia has actively participated in and engaged the Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF).  CAFF is one of four programs established to implement the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS), a voluntary arrangement adopted by Ministerial Declaration of the eight Arctic countries (1991). In addition to Russia, this involves Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the United States. The AEPS was launched to collectively address environmental threats to the Arctic region, mainly from long-range transboundary pollution and industrial development. The AEPS has since been absorbed into the Arctic Council, established by Ministerial Declaration (1996) as a “high level forum for co-operation, co-ordination and interaction among the Arctic States on issues of sustainable development and environmental protection”.  In addition to the Arctic countries, four Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations of the north have “Permanent Participant Status” to the Arctic Council and its subsidiary bodies. They are the Aleutian International Association (AIA), the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC), the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON), and the Saami Council.
9.	CAFF was established to work for circumpolar ecosystem conservation. It is the biodiversity conservation arm of the Arctic Council and a forum for scientists, indigenous peoples and conservation managers to collaborate for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of Arctic flora, fauna and their habitats. CAFF is the only intergovernmental program of its kind for the conservation of the Arctic environment and is an important vehicle for Russia’s northern conservation efforts.  As pointed out in the Russian Biodiversity Report8,  “Russia is the program’s [CAFF’s] focal point in the development of a science-based circumpolar network of protected areas and flora conservation” (p. 88). The State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection (RF SCEP) represents Russia’s interests in CAFF.  Its northern indigenous interests are represented by the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON).
10.	Early on the Arctic countries recognised the unique role CAFF could play in relation to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Arctic Ministers therefore asked CAFF to suggest ways to facilitate co-operation among the member countries to advance the goals and objectives of the CBD in the Arctic region.  In response, CAFF delivered a Co-operative Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Arctic Region (1997), patterned largely on relevant provisions of the CBD.  Five objectives were later prioritised into a CAFF Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity, which was endorsed by the Arctic Council in 1998 as a framework for future CAFF activities.  The five objectives address (1) monitoring of biological diversity; (2) conservation of genetic resources, species and their habitats; (3) establishment of protected areas; (4) conservation outside protected areas; and (5) integration of biodiversity conservation objectives into economic activities. These objectives are consistent with CBD and Russian conservation priorities.
Conservation Management
11.	For its biodiversity conservation efforts, Russia has relied heavily on the establishment of zapovedniks, national parks and other types of protected areas.  Protected areas are recognised by all the Arctic countries as an effective and necessary means of conserving Arctic biodiversity and supporting the sustainable use of biological resources. CAFF has developed a comprehensive program to monitor protected areas called the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN). A Strategy and Action Plan for CPAN was approved by the Arctic environmental ministers in 1996.  For Arctic parties to the CBD, CPAN is seen as being instrumental in responding to the obligation in Article 8 of the Convention. CPAN’s goal is to “facilitate implementation of initiatives to establish … an adequate and well managed network of protected areas that has a high probability of maintaining the dynamic biodiversity of the Arctic region in perpetuity”. The resulting network is intended to represent as fully as possible the wide variety of Arctic ecosystems, contribute effectively to maintain viable populations of all Arctic species and serve to maintain ecological and evolutionary processes.
12.	Since the launching of CPAN, 9 new protected areas have been established at the Federal level in the Russian Arctic increasing the total terrestrial area protected by roughly 97.000 km2 and the percentage of Arctic area protected to 5%.  Although impressive progress has been made in recent years, Russia still lags far behind the other Arctic countries in terms of Arctic territory protected (the circumpolar average is 15%), and enforcement of protection regimes in many Arctic protected areas is largely non-existent. Few management mechanisms are in place for habitat conservation outside of strictly protected areas, an area that constitutes almost 95% of Russia’s Arctic landmass.  Furthermore a preliminary circumpolar gap analysis, conducted in support of the CPAN Strategy and Action Plan, suggested that several ecosystems and habitats, critical in terms of biodiversity conservation, are underrepresented. This applies primarily to the more biologically productive systems such as the Northern Taiga, Coastal Zone and Marine areas.  In its Biodiversity Report (p. 36)9,  Russia has pointed out the urgency of establishing additional marine and coastal marine area and a World Bank Study has pointed out the need for better management of Russian forest resources, including the Forest Tundra/Northern Taiga zone. These considerations will be factored into the selection of study area (Model Area).
13.	A necessary prerequisite for sound ecosystem management is comprehensive documentation of the resource base. Inventories and maps are needed in order to identify: (1) areas that are environmentally, economically and socially suitable for commercial use; (2) areas biologically and culturally important for indigenous peoples’ subsistence; (3) areas high in bio-and landscape diversity that should be protected. The use of modern remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) is critical for this.  Russia has already carried out extensive research and data gathering, especially within its zapovedniks and also invested considerable effort in documenting its botanical resources in the High Arctic. On the whole, however, the work that has been done has not been systematically collected and stored. Consequently, what does exist is not readily accessible as a complete body of data for use in e.g. project development, resource mapping and land-use planning. Indeed the development of this project proposal has been hampered by this fact. Russia has pointed to this deficiency, notably in its Biodiversity Report8 and has sought to remedy part of it through several projects, also including international organisations such as CAFF. 
14.	An ongoing gap-analysis in support of CPAN (see below) seeks to identify, based on readily available information, major gaps in habitat protection in the Russian Arctic. Another CAFF project underway, will seek to define, within the context of biodiversity conservation, sacred sites and sanctuaries of indigenous peoples and develop protection criteria for these sites for incorporation into CPAN. CAFF is furthermore preparing an overview report “Arctic Conservation Issues: Status and Trends of Arctic Flora, Fauna and Their Habitats”. The report aims, inter alia, at compiling existing key information on circumpolar Arctic biodiversity, highlighting its cultural and social value and assessing its overall status and health to raise awareness among the general educated public. Although the above mentioned projects will provide an important base and circumpolar context for the PDF phase, especially its documentation part, a solid focused effort will be necessary to improve general habitat management in the Russian Arctic outside the Protected Area System.
15.	GRID-Arendal, together with the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), is completing for CAFF a focused Gap Analysis for the Russian Arctic. This work was based on, and involved experts who completed, the earlier World Bank/GEF Russian biodiversity conservation gap analysis project. Under the leadership of the USA, a GIS vegetation map and database is under development for the circumpolar Arctic desert and tundra ecosystems (treeless areas only). A study completed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and GRID-Arendal concluded that it would be of great benefit to projects like this to produce a circumpolar ecosystems map, using North American methodology.  Existing Russian maps and data sets will make this work possible within reasonable resources. GRID-Arendal also has extensive experience in communicating environmental information using new and informative technologies.  These skills will be used to communicate the results of this project to stakeholders as well as helping to raise awareness of conservation of biodiversity issues in northern Russia.
16.	Within CAFF, GRID-Arendal and WCMC have prepared base maps for the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) and several other Arctic Council related activities. GRID-Arendal and WCMC have recently developed a project for WWF-Arctic Programme, aimed at identifying and describing the 25 largest undisturbed wilderness areas in the circumpolar Arctic. This project will be harmonised with and provide an important background for the PDF-B phase.  Hence, GRID-Arendal, WCMC and Russian institutes are in a good position to conduct the necessary information activity in support of this project.
17.	Russia has bilateral agreements to address biodiversity issues with Norway, Finland, Sweden, Canada, the USA, The Netherlands, Japan, the UK and Germany. Taken together, these agreements cover the following regions of the Russian North: Murmansk, Archangelsk, Karelia, Nenets, Komi, Tajmyr, Yamal, North of Jakutia, Kamchatka, Cukotska and Magadan. It is envisaged that some elements of the project will benefit from collaboration with work undertaken by one or more of these agreements. Furthermore, relevant outputs from these agreements will be available to, and provide important information for the full project. 
Threats to Biodiversity
18.Pressures threatening the integrity of Russian Arctic ecosystems, especially the Lowland Tundra and Forest Tundra/Northern Taiga include: 
•	Habitat fragmentation and destruction by roads, surface pipelines, mining activities and logging. Oil and gas development activities are especially intense in North West Siberia, e.g. west and east of the Ural Mountains, including the Taimyr Peninsula.
•	Unsustainable reindeer grazing. It is estimated that up to 20% of the tundra zone is severely affected9, p.31. Severe damage is also observed in the Forest Tundra/Northern Taiga zones.
•	Illegal hunting, fishing, harvesting, and poaching of wildlife and other natural resources. The collapse of the Soviet social system and resulting poverty of rural and indigenous populations has led to sharp increase in such illegal activities with inefficient Federal mechanism to enforce existing legislation.  
•	Forest and vegetation die-off and formation of technogenic deserts around industrial enterprises. The mining and smelting activities on the Kola Peninsula and in Norilsk are examples where unsustainable development has led to widespread loss of local biological diversity.  Whilst these areas are small in comparison to the circumpolar region as a whole the local damage caused is intense.
•	Local pollution connected with prospecting, extraction, processing and transportation of oil, gas and mineral resources12. 
•	Climate change causing flooding, draining and cryogenic transformation of soils and grounds. Over the last 30 years, average temperatures have been increasing in Siberia, especially its central parts. Predictions from climate models suggest that the Arctic region will be most severely affected by anthropogenically driven climate change processes, although the direction of change varies within the region. Warming will cause extensive permafrost thaw and hydrocarst development and resulting changes in the water balance of the tundra with profound impacts on Arctic flora and fauna. The taiga and tundra systems contain one of the large global repositories of CO2 stored in bogs and soil. The permafrost stores huge amounts of methane, and encloses immense gas deposits. Changes in the permafrost, due to climate change or unsustainable land use, may redirect these substances back into the bio-geochemical cycle. 

Summary: Project Objectives and Description

19.	The full project—to be fully developed using project preparation funds—will develop, and implement, in a few carefully selected Model Areas, integrated ecosystem management strategies (based on a sound information base) to conserve and sustainably use globally significant biodiversity. The project will concentrate its efforts on improving ecosystem management outside designated protected areas where economic development pressures and threats to biodiversity are intense and existing protection measures are weak and inadequate. The Project will encourage and establish mechanisms for full consultation and participation of indigenous peoples, local communities, regional and federal authorities.

20.	These activities have been prioritised by the Russian government and through international co-operative efforts in which Russia participates, in particular the Arctic Council program for Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF).  A CAFF principle is to use a “broad ecosystem-based approach to conservation and management”.  This is consistent with the decisions taken at COP II and IV of the CBD that stated that “the ecosystem approach has been adopted as a framework for the analysis and implementation of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and in the elaboration and implementation of the various thematic and cross-cutting work programmes under the Convention, as appropriate”. 

21.	The full project will serve as a pilot for the development of operational models of integrated ecosystem management of arctic ecosystems for biodiversity conservation. Given the percentage of the northern arctic ecosystems that are located in Russia, integration of national conservation activities into the regional conservation initiatives is essential for success at the regional level. 

22.	Protected areas remain one crucial tool in maintaining biological diversity in the Russian North. The Circumpolar Protected Area Network (CPAN), as described above, will continue to play a principal step in Russia’s and CAFF’s holistic and comprehensive approach to habitat conservation. Information obtained during the documentation phase of this project will assist the selection and establishment of new protected areas. However, partially because significant work is already underway on protected areas under CPAN and elsewhere, the full project’s main focus will be on conserving biodiversity and reducing habitat fragmentation outside protected areas. Lessons learned will be shared throughout the region.

23.	The main objectives of the Project are to:

a)	Develop replicable demonstration models for integrated ecosystem management in the Russian Arctic that:
•	conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and provide a secure livelihood of indigenous and local peoples;
•	mitigate threats to biodiversity, minimise disruption and degradation of natural ecosystems, and promote the maintenance of large tracts of wilderness in a natural, undisturbed state.
b)	Strengthen capacity of federal and local authorities, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders to participate in the design and implementation of ecosystem management plans through provision of technical and professional expertise for: documenting and systematising information on biological and cultural diversity and land-use; for assistance with the establishment of appropriate administrative and consultation mechanisms; and the design and delivery of public awareness and training programs.

Project description

24.	The following activities will be fully elaborated during the project preparatory phase for implementation during the PDF-B phase and full project. 

•	Overview of biodiversity and undisturbed ecosystems in the Russian Arctic 

25.	During the PDF phase, existing key data on Arctic biodiversity will be gathered from Russian institutions, ongoing and completed CAFF and other international projects. This will produce an improved Arctic coverage and overview, and allow re-analysis of the data compiled for the World Bank Biodiversity Conservation project for Russia, the latest CAFF Russian Gap Analysis and the WWF-Arctic Programme and GRID-Arendal Wilderness Mapping project. This will also form the basis for the Russian component of a new circumpolar ecosystems map and Arctic region information database. The priority will be to provide data necessary for final selection and delineation of Model Areas and to allow the planning of future data collection activities to be carried out during the main project. In order to reduce costs and avoid duplication, this will, to a significant extent, be done as an integrated part of ongoing CAFF efforts  (See pt. 14), especially the CAFF Overview Report.  A first version of this report is to be presented to the next meeting of the Arctic Council, scheduled for the Autumn of 2000. The report will receive substantial input from Russia, inter alia from the Russian Biodiversity Report10, and provide a circumpolar introduction to the Arctic and its natural environment..  In addition, more detailed efforts will be made to analyse current and potential opportunities and threats related to biological diversity and natural resources in the region.

•	Designating and Establishing Model Areas

26.	Based on the information gathering, consultations and screening studies conducted during the PDF A and B Phases, a few Model Areas will be selected in which to develop integrated resource management plans for biodiversity conservation. A consultation and participation plan will be completed and implemented ensuring participation by local authorities and regional governmental authorities, indigenous people’s representatives, industry and other stakeholders with interests in the areas selected in order to finalise the necessary consultative and administrative mechanisms.

27.	The long-term goal for Arctic ecosystem conservation is to ensure that all these natural ecosystems, biological- and cultural diversity across their range and functions, are sustained. In light of the enormous size of the Russian Arctic (6.3 million km2), it will be necessary to select a few Model Areas (3-4) for conducting in-depth data inventories, land-use planning and integrated management strategies. These Model Areas can then serve as examples for improved habitat conservation efforts in the region as a whole. Selection criteria will be finalised in consultation with regional and federal authorities, indigenous peoples organisations and other experts.  Various types of information may be included in the selection criteria, e.g. the global and national biodiversity significance of the area; its representativeness within the Arctic environment; its size to ensure an adequate testing of the integrated resource management approach to conservation; and the capacity, resources and interest available from authorities and stakeholders. 

28.	Based on these considerations it is envisaged that Model Areas will be selected within the major ecoregions of Arctic Russia, i.e.:

•	The Barents region and Yamal Peninsula. The Barents and Kara Seas and adjacent terrestrial areas are among the most productive ecoregions of the Arctic. The Barents region has abundant fish stocks (including cod and salmon), marine mammal populations (including walruses, beluga whales and polar bears), and large seabird colonies. The terrestrial portion includes polar desert as well as more productive tundra and extensive northern taiga areas with at least 170 species of vascular plants. Main threats are over-fishing, pollution, heavy industry, oil and gas development, overgrazing and logging. 

•	The Taimyr tundra systems.  The Taimyr region represents one of the most intact and diverse examples of central Eurasian Arctic tundra.  The region provides habitat for ten species of mammals, including polar bears, walruses, wolves and the largest wild reindeer population in Eurasia. About 50 species of bird nest there, several of which are endangered, including the red-breasted goose, white-fronted goose, and Bewick’s swan. Freshwater systems support nearly 60 species of fish.  Main threats are poaching, reindeer grazing, mining, heavy industry and pollution. 

•	Bering region (Chukotka and West Bering Sea) is one of the richest and most diverse subpolar and polar ecosystems in the world that supports huge seabird populations (including nearly 2 million murres and auklets), 14 species of marine mammals like the endangered bowhead and grey whales, and large salmon grounds.  The terrestrial are is a “hot spot” of geese and wader diversity and supports over 40 species of rare endemic vascular plants.  

29.	A few Model Areas will be selected using the draft criteria below as a starting point.  These draft criteria will be finalised during the project preparatory phase in collaboration with project stakeholders.

Model Areas should: 
 
Ecosystems 	-	be widely dispersed, i.e. represent different geographic regions; 	
	-	represent different ecozones and systems (e.g. coastal and marine, lowland tundra, forest tundra/northern taiga etc.); 	
	-	represent an ecological unit (i.e. an entire estuary, watershed etc.);	
	-	contribute to maintaining essential and globally signifincant and relevant evolutionary and ecological processes and biodiversity;	
	-	contribute to filling gaps in ecosystem conservation in the Russian Arctic, i.e. represent systems that are currently underrepresented in e.g. CPAN.	
		
Species and Habitats 	-	support high flora, fauna and habitat diversity (“hot spots”);	
	-	be important habitats for rare, endangered or unique flora (endemic, relic, etc.) and fauna;	
	-	be of high food value for Arctic or indigenous peoples (berries, hunting grounds etc.) or fauna (grazing areas for reindeer, muskox, beluga);	
	-	be important as congregating, breeding and feeding grounds for Arctic fauna, paying particular attention to those species used by local and indigenous populations for subsistence;	
	-	be important for shared species and populations, including migratory birds and other migratory animals;	
	-	be productive marine areas, and important feeding and breeding grounds of marine mammals and seabirds.	
		
Physical Characteristics	-	be in state of wilderness (or naturalness) with large, unfragmented landscapes and habitats;	
	-	be sufficiently large to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem and populations;	
	-	be sufficiently large to allow for the continuing exercise of ecologically compatible subsistence, cultural and traditional practices by indigenous peoples and local populations.	
		
Socio-Economic Criteria	-	be culturally or traditionally important for indigenous peoples of the north;	
	-	reflect different land-use, environmental and management challenges; 	
	-	have potentials to contribute to the economy by virtue of their conservation and sustainable management (i.e. refuge or nursery area, recreation or appreciation by tourists, subsistence by local inhabitants).	
		
Other Practical considerations	-	have high social-, political and communal support;	
	-	represent  considerable knowledge base; 	
	-	have social and educational infrastructure in place, which could  support the implementation process and enhance the probability of succes.	

•	Documentation of Biological and Cultural Diversity in Model Areas

30.	For each of the Model Areas, existing biological, geophysical, cultural and human impact information will be compiled, including preparation of digital data and maps as needed for preparing an analysis of biodiversity and threats to biodiversity. This information will then be used to develop sustainable resource management, land-use and conservation plans. New information will be gathered as needed to support management needs including the use of remote sensing technology to improve base mapping.

•	Analysis of Management Practices in Model Areas

31.	The management practices of various sectors will be compiled and evaluated for efficiency and shortcomings based on current land-use and management practices in each Model Area. The sectors evaluated will include subsistence agriculture, fishing, herding and animal husbandry; forestry, recreation and tourism, oil, gas and other industrial activities.

•	Preparation of Integrated Management Plans for Model Areas

32.	Based on the analysis and documentation above, integrated ecosystem based management plans will be developed for the Model Areas. They will be based on a multi-stakeholder participation and decision-making model and will rely on a socio-economic and ecological analysis of biological resources.

•	Implementation Arrangements 

33.	Implementation mechanisms to be established for the main project will draw on linkages and networks created during the project preparatory phase. It is envisaged that a Steering Committee will be set up for each Model Area. This will be headed by RF SCEP and include representatives from local and indigenous authorities and other stakeholders. Training and capacity building in the implementation of resource and land use management and conservation strategies and action plans will be conducted for the regional authorities at the state committee level.  This will include the preparation of awareness programmes for affected economic sectors, federal and local level authorities, and indigenous and other local peoples.  Training activities will be designed to:
•	Strengthen and improve biodiversity conservation management;
•	Alter traditional but non-sustainable use of natural resources;
•	Develop capacity of regional authorities to utilise land-use planning techniques, environmental impact assessments, environmental technology and economic incentives to improve conservation efforts;
•	Improve legislation, regulations, control mechanisms and enforcement.

Linkages with Other GEF Interventions

34.	The GEF supported “Biodiversity Conservation in Russia” project was launched in 1997 and will end in 2002. It consists of three main components: preparation of an overall Russian Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan, development and strengthening of the Russian Protected Areas System, and a component aimed at the conservation of Lake Baikal and its watershed biodiversity.  This project was designed to cover important parts of Russia’s ecosystems; however, it has no focus on northern ecosystems.  Currently, UNDP/GEF, also in collaboration with the RF SCEP, is developing a portfolio of projects in the Russian Far East, especially in and around the Kamchatka Peninsula. These are: 
•	Demonstrating sustainable conservation of biological diversity in four protected areas in Russia’s Kamchatka Oblast (PDF-B under implementation);
•	Conservation management of wild salmonid diversity in Kamchatka (PDF-B under implementation);
•	North Pacific fisheries stock conservation management (PDF-A under implementation); and
•	Long-term sustainable management of marine biological resources in the Kommandorskye Island (PDF-A – MSP). 
The present project will draw on experiences gained and lessons learnt during the implementation of the above mentioned GEF projects. 

35.	GEF has recently funded two UNEP/PDF projects under the aegis of the Arctic Council. A PDF-B grant has been allocated to the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS) in collaboration with the PAME program to support implementation of the National Plan of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment from Pollution from Land-Based Sources in the Russian Federation. 

36.	UNEP has allocated a PDF-A grant to ICC/RAIPON/AMAP for a project directed at assessing organic pollutants (POPs) in traditional foods of indigenous people’s in northern Russia. An MSP is about to be submitted. 

37.	Both of these UNEP implemented projects focus on contaminants and fall under the GEF Operational Program on International Waters. Although the project described herein will not have any direct links or overlap with existing UNEP/GEF initiatives, the three projects, when taken together, will greatly enhance and improve overall environmental protection and human welfare in the Russian Arctic. Hence project coordination would be greatly enhanced if UNEP was the Implementing Agency for all three. 

38.	UNEP is an observer of the Arctic Coucil and is involved in work of three of its main subsidiary working groups, AMAP, CAFF and PAME, directly and through GRID-Arendal.  In the proposed project, UNEP will be assisting the only country of the Arctic transboundary ecosystem without financial capacity to participate in regional conservation efforts to conserve globally significant biodiversity. 

Incremental Costs

39.	GEF will finance activities that are indispensable for the conservation of biodiversity in the model areas and that generate global environmental benefits.  The GEF will not finance activities that could be justified for reasons other than biodiversity conservation alone and sources of co-financing will be secured during the Block B to support those activities.  UNEP realises that extractive industries must be made responsible for environmental stewardship and the impacts that their business practices have on biodiversity.  GEF resources would not be used to clean up damages caused by these industries nor offer substitute management regimes.

Eligibility 

40.	The Russian Federation is eligible for GEF assistance under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF instrument. In addition, the Russian Federation ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on 5 April 1995.
National level support

41.	Russia’s environmental authorities (RF SCEP) have been a main force in developing CAFF’s Strategic Plan for the Conservation of Arctic Biological Diversity. This proposed project has been developed together with RF SCEP partly to support CAFF’s Strategic Plan and to fulfil obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity thus reaching a level of implementation equal to that of other Arctic nations.

42.	This Project is consistent with Arctic conservation objectives and priorities of the Russian National Strategy and Action Plan for the CBD, which is now close to completion. This applies especially to:
•	rare arctic flora and fauna conservation;
•	further development of the protected areas network in the Russian Arctic;
•	ecological restoration  of disturbed northern ecosystems;
•	information support for and implementation of regional models of biodiversity conservation;
•	biological resource mapping and integrated land-use planning.

43.	In addition to a support letter from the Russian GEF focal point, a letter from the Deputy Chairman of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental protection strongly underlines Russia’s intention to give the project priority through Russia’s international environmental agreements, especially CAFF, and to use Russia’s other bilateral agreements with several countries to contribute to the achievement and implementation of the Project’s activities. Russia has now gained the experience of implementing GEF projects and has the potential to realise this project as well.

44.	The project will be implemented with the full participation of the RF State Committee on Problems of the North (RF SCPN) and RAIPON as a coordinating body for 30 recognised indigenous peoples groups.  Once tentative study areas have been identified, RF SCEP, RF SCPN and RAIPON will facilitate consultations with local authorities, indigenous peoples leaders and other stakeholders in order to determine the feasibility of using these areas as Models in the full Project (see 45).

Status of Project Preparation

45.	A significant amount of work has already been invested in the development of the proposed project with key Russian Government stakeholders and NGOs involved. The RF SCEP has been a major force in the whole process. The RF SCPN (Goskomsever) has been fully consulted and has agreed to facilitate participation of and cooperation with local authorities and sectoral interests, where needed.  RAIPON fully supports the project and agrees to represent indigenous peoples interests and to facilitate consultations with and cooperation of local leaders. 

However, because tentative Model Areas haven’t been fully decided on and due to short, albeit intense, preparation time, it has not been possible up to this point to have direct consultations with local authorities or other stakeholders. 

Per recommendation of the GEFSEC, the project proponents will submit a Block A  request in order to: 

•	narrow down site selection to several tentative Model Areas,
•	develop a more detailed threats analysis for these areas, 
•	conduct necessary preliminary consultations with relevant local authorities and stakeholders in tentative Model Areas

The PDF-A will also be used to identify potential project partners from other Arctic nations (e.g. Canada) with extensive experience in developing and implementing integrated management strategies in similar ecological settings. 

It is expected that a PDF-A will be submitted in mid-October and a PDF Block B to the Intersessional bilateral review meeting scheduled for January 2000.