Russian Institutional Framework for International Environmental Cooperation in the Arctic

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

3. INFORMATION EXCHANGE IMPLEMENTATION ENFORCEMENT CONSERVATION PREVENTION REHABILITATION Cooperation Aspects 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. 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 Existing Structures

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

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

8. 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. International OrganizationsFunction: Environmental Protection

9. 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 RussiaFunction: Environmental Protection

10. Russian Agencies International Involvement (by environmental function and sector)

11. 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) Determining Competence Today

12. Functions, Activities, Authorization (marine activities) * Subject to approval by RF Government ** Not required for foreign flag ships

13. 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) International Cooperation Competence Distribution

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! Mikhail M. Kalentchenko sovmis@hotmail.ru NRF 6 4-6 September 2011 Hveragerdi, Iceland