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
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
2
Cooperation Aspects



INFORMATION
EXCHANGE
IMPLEMENTATION
ENFORCEMENT
FOR



NRF 6
4-6 September 2011
Hveragerdi, Iceland
CONSERVATION
PREVENTION
REHABILITATION
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
NRF 6 4-6 September 2011
Hveragerdi, Iceland
6
Functions/Activities
and International Structures
FUNCTION
Environmental
Protection
ACTIVITIES




Fisheries
Shipping
Mining




INTERNATIONAL
STRUCTURES
Convention on Biological
Diversity*, etc.
Regional Fisheries
Management
Organizations (NEAFC,
NAFO, NASCO, bilateral
commissions)
IMO
International Seabed
Authority (ISA)
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, RFMO’s)
For example:
IMO – MARPOL 73/78
NAFO work on vulnerable marine
ecosystems, etc.
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
Russian Agencies International
Involvement
(by environmental function and sector)
Agreements
MARPOL 1973/78
IMO
Before
1990
USSR Ministry of Sea
and River Fleet
IWC 1946, NEAFC
1980, NASCO 1982
and bilateral fisheries USSR
agreements
Ministry
Bilateral International
for
Agreements on
Agriculture
Environmental
Protection
CBD, CITES, etc.
1990
-
Ministry for
Fisheries
Present
RF Ministry of
Transport
Federal Fisheries
Agency
USSR State
Committee
Ministry for
for Nature
Natural Resources
Protection
and Ecology
-
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)
Agency
Environmen
tal function
Activity
Enforcement
with respect
to activity
Activity
Restrictions
Activity
Permissions
no
Ministry for
Natural
Resources
and Ecology
yes
crosscutting
no
approval
required,
but not for
shipping or
fisheries
Ministry of
Transport
no
shipping
yes*
yes**
no
no
fishing
yes
yes
yes
no
crosscutting
no
approval
required
yes
Federal
Fisheries
Agency
Federal
Security
Service
* 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. Kalentchenko
sovmis@hotmail.ru