CC BY
51
Труды Карельского научного центра РАН № 2. 2013. С. 92-96
КРАТКИЕ СООБЩЕНИЯ
УДК 574.9:502.1
ON THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GREEN BELT OF FENNOSCANDIA
A. Kryshen’, A. Titov, R. Heikkil , A. Gromtsev, O. Kuznetsov,
T. Lindholm, A. Polin
We substantiate the demand for delineation of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia (GBF) and consider the various approaches to and options of drawing the boundaries. The ecosystem-based (biogeographical) approach is suggested as the one that best suits the environmental and socio-economic goals of GBF development. Using this approach the boundaries of GBF on both the Russian and the Finnish side have been described relying on the hydrographic network, and the map showing the main protected areas (PAs) and the GBF boundaries resulting from the application of the formal and the ecosystem-based approaches is provided.
K e y w o r d s : Green Belt of Fennoscandia, boundaries of the Green Belt,
Finnish-Karelian border
А. М. Крышень, А. Ф. Титов, Р. Хейккиля, А. Н. Громцев, О. Л. Кузнецов, Т. Линдхольм, А. К. Полин. О ГРАНИЦАХ ЗЕЛЕНОГО ПОЯСА ФЕННОСКАНДИИ.
Обоснована необходимость определения границ Зеленого пояса Фенноскандии (ЗПФ) и рассмотрены различные подходы и варианты их установления. Экоси-стемный (биогеографический) подход предложен авторами как наиболее соответствующий природоохранным и социально-экономическим задачам развития ЗПФ. На его основе с упором на гидрографическую сеть дано описание границ территории ЗПФ как с российской, так и с финляндской стороны, а также приведена карта с указанием ключевых охраняемых природных территорий (ООПТ) и местоположения границ ЗПФ, проведенных по формальным и экосистемным принципам.
К л ю ч е в ы е с л о в а: Зеленый пояс Фенноскандии, граница зеленого пояса, граница Финляндии и Карелии.
Since the early 1990s, Russian and Finnish scientists have taken much effort to set up the Green Belt of Fennoscandia (GBF) and study it. The progress of the activities has been reported in many publications [Hokkanen et al., 2007; Титов и др., 2009; Боголицын и др., 2011, etc.]. As more data have been accumulated, the GBF idea went far beyond the scope of science, expanding
i.a. to the sphere of governmental and intergovernmental relations, and covering various
dimensions of international and interregional cooperation. An event of paramount importance in this sense was the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of Finland, the Ministry of the Environment of the Kingdom of Norway and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation on cooperation on the development of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia in February 2010.
0
Fig. 1. Boundaries of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia
©
In spite of all that, a fundamental question remains: what is GBF in reality? The common understanding of the concept is that of a network of protected areas (PAs) of different status and subordination along the Russian-Finnish and Russian-Norwegian national borders [Титов и др., 2009]. This is how GBF is defined in the abovementioned Memorandum. On the other hand, the resolution of the GBF Conference, which took place in Petrozavodsk in 2008, claimed that “GBF will facilitate the generation of a holistic environmental-economic domain where the aim of conserving unique northern nature shall take historical and cultural characteristics of local people into account and be integrated with the targets of economic development of respective administrative districts, municipalities and settlements” [Научно-практический семинар ..., 2009 p. 138]. Both Karelian and Finnish scientists stressed that this integrated approach to GBF organization was a cornerstone, conveying the ideal to strive for. Yet, the first thing to do when organizing any space, including GBF, is to delineate, i.e. actually establish its boundaries. Quite obviously, they are essential not only for the environmental, but also for the social and economic goals of borderland development.
As of now, three major approaches to delineation of GBF boundaries have taken shape. The first one is a “formal” approach - GBF covers a 50 km strip on each side of the national border. No doubt, this approach is plain and convenient, but not being based on either economic or ecological grounds it can only be adopted as a temporary option. It suffices to say that in this case the GBF borderline would cross several operating PAs, run across a number of large waterbodies, and so on (Fig. 1).
The second approach proceeds from the need to administrate the development of tourism and other economic activities, as well as the conservation of cultural heritage. It suggests that GBF boundaries are drawn along administrative borders (districts, municipalities). However, border districts and municipalities in both Karelia and Finland differ in size so that the distance from GBF boundary to the national border would vary widely, sometimes reaching 150 km or more. There is another important consideration. Firstly, the original and major objective of GBF establishment is nature conservation, and we must not let the natural formations be subordinate to administrative ones. Secondly, administrative borders tend to be changeable.
We suggest a different approach, which focuses on the original aim of GBF establishment - preservation of ecosystems in
the border area in their natural state. This is an ecosystem-based approach to the organization of certain spatial complexes, and unit boundaries are drawn along clearly identifiable natural formations. Hence, this approach can also be defined as “biogeographical”. Its biological component consists in conservation tasks, and the geographical one - in setting the reference points for drawing lines on the map -in Fennoscandia that would be, first of all, rivers and shores of large lakes, because they are numerous and have different orientations. Besides, it is rivers and lakes that often lend their names to settlements, localities and protected areas in both Finland and Karelia.
The conservation task behind GBF foundation calls for another requirement to its boundaries: where a PA exists or has been planned in the immediate vicinity of the provisional GBF boundary this PA must be comprised within GBF bounds.
Thus, the following three basic items determining the location of the GBF boundary are to be taken into account:
1. Distance to the national border should be around 50 km.
2. GBF boundary should be drawn along riverbanks and lakeshore, including waterside protection zones (the hydrographical principle).
3. PAs in the immediate vicinity of GBF boundary should be included in GBF.
In view of the above, we suggest drawing the GBF boundary in Karelia as follows (north to south, Fig. 1):
1. western shore of Lake Ruvozero;
2. eastern shore of Lake Pyaozero, excluding Lake Topozero;
3. towards the neck between lakes Upper and Middle Kuito, including the Pistojoki River system of lakes;
4. western shore of Lake AlajLrvi;
5. along the Kento River, including all lakes it runs through or along, to the eastern shore of Lake Koivas;
6. from Lake Koivas to the western shore of Lake Nyuk;
7. from the western shore of Lake Nyuk along the Pertijoki River to the western shore of Lake Tikshozero;
8. from the western shore of Lake Tikshozero, including lakes Hedo and Muj, along the Kivioja River, excluding Lake HovdojLrvi, to the western shore of Lake Voloma;
9. from the western shore of Lake Voloma, including the western chain of ridges of the MaanselkL SE spurs to the western shore of Lake Sukkozero;
0
10. from the western shore of Lake Sukkozero along the western shore of Lake Gimolskoye southwards, including lakes MegrijLrvi, VegarusjLrvi to the western shore of Lake SalonjLrvi;
11. from the western shore of Lake Salonj Lrvi along the SarijLrvinjoki River and the Uksunjoki River (incl. Lake SalmenjLrvi) to Lake Ladoga.
The proposed boundary in Finnish territory is the following:
(western boundary of the Fennoscandian Green Belt from north to south)
1. the upper branches of the Oulankajoki River
2. along the eastern shores of Lakes Ala-SuolijLrvi and YlL-SuolijLrvi in the lijoki River basin
3. from the western periphery of Lake Yli-Kitka to the western shore of Lake KostonjLrvi, including Lakes LivojLrvi and KuusijLrvi
4. from the western periphery of Lake KostonjLrvi to the western shore of Lake TyrLjLrvi, along the Kostonjoki River, including Lake JokijLrvi and further to the western shore of Lake Korvuanj Lrvi
5. from Lake Korvuanj Lrvi to the eastern shore of Lake PesiLjLrvi, including Iso Ahvensuo mire reserve
6. from Lake PesiLjLrvi to the western
periphery of Lake LuvanjLrvi via the eastern end of Lake Sakaranj Lrvi
7. from Lake LuvanjLrvi to the western shore of Lake KellojLrvi, including Kinnussuo and Rimpisuo mire reserves and Pellinkangas old-growth forest reserve
8. from Lake KellojLrvi to the western
periphery of Lake OntojLrvi and further to the western end of Lake Pieni TipasjLrvi
9. from Lake Pieni TipasjLrvi to the
northwestern end of Lake Pielinen following the Sivakkajoki River, including Hiidenportti National Park
10. from the northwestern periphery of Lake Pielinen to the western shore of Lake VaikkojLrvi and further to the western shore of Lake KajoonjLrvi
СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРАХ:
Крышень Александр Михайлович
и. о. директора, д. б. н.
Институт леса Карельского научного центра РАН
ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия,
Россия, 185910
эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 769601
11. from Lake KajoonjLrvi to the western shore of Lake ViinijLrvi including Hanhisuo mire reserve
12. from Lake ViinijLrvi along the western shore of Lake HeposelkL and Lake SavonselkL to the northern periphery of Lake Kolovesi, including Kolovesi National Park
13. from Lake Kolovesi to the northern shore of Lake Haukivesi and further along the western shore of Lake Haukivesi
14. from Lake Haukivesi along the western shore of Lake Pihlajavesi to the western shore of Lake Lietvesi and Lake Saimaa
In this paper we have briefly formulated some principles for GBF delineation, with primary considerations for its nature conservation mission and the demand for socio-economic development of border areas. Naturally, both the boundaries and the territory of GBF need to be more thoroughly studied and described, and so they shall be. This communication was meant to draw attention to the challenge of GBF boundary-setting and provoke a discussion. The authors realize there may be other approaches too, but they are subject to discussion to ensure that the final decision is optimal from a variety of viewpoints.
References
Боголицын К. Г., Болотова Н. Л., Громцев А. Н. и др. О единой межрегиональной системе особо охраняемых природных территорий на Европейском Севере // Труды КарНЦ РАН. Сер. «Биогеография». 2011. Вып. 12, № 2. C. 4-11.
Научно-практический семинар «Зеленый пояс Фенноскандии: состояние и перспективы развития» (Петрозаводск, 9-11 июня 2008 г.) // Труды КарНЦ РАН. 2009. № 2. C. 132-138.
Титов А. Ф., Буторин А. А., Громцев А. Н. и др. Зеленый пояс Фенноскандии: состояние и перспективы развития // Труды КарНЦ РАН. 2009. № 2. C.3-11.
Hokkanen T. J., Ieshko E., HeikkilD R. et al. Combining nature protection and local development in the southern part of the Green Belt of Fennoscandia // Terry A., Ullrich K. & Riecken U. (eds.). Green Belt of Europe: From vision to reality: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2006. P.79-91.
Kryshen’, Alexandr
Forest Research Institute, Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences
11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia e-mail: [email protected] tel.: (8142) 769601
0
Титов Александр Федорович
зав. лаб. экологической физиологии растений, чл.-корр. РАН, д. б. н.
Институт биологии Карельского научного центра РАН
ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия,
Россия, 185910
эл. почта: [email protected]
тел.: (8142) 769710
Хейккиля Раймо
Отдел по проблемам трансформации экосистем,
Центр окружающей среды Финляндии Йоэнсуу, Финляндия эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: +358503520888
Громцев Андрей Николаевич
зав. лаб. ландшафтной экологии и охраны лесных экосистем, д. с.-х. н.
Институт леса Карельского научного центра РАН
ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия,
Россия, 185910
эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 768160
Кузнецов Олег Леонидович
зав. лаб. болотных экосистем, д. б. н.
Институт биологии Карельского научного центра РАН ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия, Россия, 185910
эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: (8142) 769810
Линдхольм Тапио
Отдел по проблемам трансформации экосистем,
Центр окружающей среды Финляндии Хельсинки, Финляндия эл. почта: [email protected] тел.: +358407401598
Полин Александр Константинович
ведущий научный сотрудник, к. ф.-м. н.
Институт геологии КарНЦ РАН
ул. Пушкинская, 11, Петрозаводск, Республика Карелия,
Россия, 185910
эл. почта: [email protected]
тел.: (8142) 783630
Titov, Alexandr
Institute of Biology, Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Science
11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia e-mail: [email protected] tel.: (8142) 769710
HeikkilD, Raimo
Finnish Environment Institute, Ecosystem Change Unit, Leading Researcher
Yliopistonkatu 7 (Natura) PL 111 FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland e-mail: [email protected] tel.: +358503520888
Gromtsev, Andrey
Forest Research Institute, Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Science
11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: (8142) 768160
Kuznetsov, Oleg
Institute of Biology, Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Science
11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia e-mail: [email protected] tel.: (8142) 769810
Lindholm, Tapio
Finnish Environment Institute, Ecosystem Change Unit, Leading Expert
Mechelininkatu 34a, P.O. Box 140 Fi-00251, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] tel.: +358407401598
Polin, Alexandr
Institute of Geology, Karelian Research Centre, Russian Academy of Science
11 Pushkinskaya St., 185910 Petrozavodsk, Karelia, Russia e-mail: [email protected] tel.: (8142) 783630
0
