6th open assembly of the northern research forum 4th -6th september 2011, hveragerdi, iceland...
TRANSCRIPT
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. [email protected]