MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RUSSIAN FEDERATION

GAPS IN HABITAT PROTECTION IN THE CIRCUMPOLAR
ARCTIC: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS

i

ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT

CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 5

Authors:
I.G. Lysenko, M.J.B. Green, R.A. Luxmoore, C.L. Carey-Noble and S. Kaitala

UNEP MONITORING CENTRE

Under assignment from the Overseas Development Administration

with additional support from the
Directorate for Nature Management, Norway

and in collaboration with
UNEP/GRID-Arendal

February 1996

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2010 with funding from
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

http://www.archive.org/details/gapsinhabitatpro96lyse

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This preliminary study was undertaken by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and
Natural Resources, Russian Federation in collaboration with the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and UNEP/GRID-Arendal under the aegis of the Program for
the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)'. The study was funded from the
Environmental Know How Fund of the Overseas Development Administration, UK, which
is an observer to the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). Additional financial
support was provided by the Directorate for Nature Management, Norway.

This type of international review has necessarily involved close collaboration with a number
of agencies and individuals who have readily made available large digital datasets to WCMC.
In this connection, we should like to thank Lars Kullerud and Frode Abrahamsen
(UNEP/GRID-Arendal), Louiselle St-Laurent and M. Allam (Geographic Information
Systems Division, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada), Don Woodard and Leslie Kerr
(US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska), and Jan Marcin Weslawski (Arctic Ecology Group,
Polish Academy of Sciences) for making available GIS datasets for this study. We also
appreciate the support of Jeanne Pagnan and Gregg Legare (CAFF Secretariat), Berit Lein
and Jan-Petter Huberth Hansen (Directorate for Nature Management, Norway), and Fredrik
Theisen (Norwegian Polar Institute).

This report has been compiled by Igor Lysenko, Russian Institute for Nature Conservation,
Moscow and Michael Green, Richard Luxmoore, Christine Carey and Seppo Kaitala of the
World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK. Vladimir Pitsheliov (Ministry of
Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, Russia), and Jonathan Rhind and Corinna
Ravilious (WCMC) also contributed.

The study was undertaken as part of WCMC’s Agreement of Scientific and Technical
Cooperation with the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, Russia.

' CAFF is one of four programmes of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) adopted by
Ministerial Declaration by Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United
States of America at Rovaniemi, Finland in 1991.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWIEEDGEMENTS ws. uce-yhens, chcuse-) PM dowe pre os i
15 2 ANERODUCTION® {i6Ce: Laas PE Pe dee a ATS Behe ETN 1
2 eBACKGROWND 2... c0cc oc cic. 2) PRR MOM ME EE eye ese es eee a 1
2.1 Nii Oe ees Donate oc geo od 0 0G on 6 Oot once OR memOmnEONOnE. er 1
222), Biodiversity conservation! 5.1.92 Sister feats Ske eye es es 2
eae Gap analysis i 2S Le YS Een. ened aes eM omaeemor. sd» asshole Me 3
OMe VE EOP OU OG Nant cet recut uence eee MMU pa ic 2 seo nicl oye ell 4
3.1 CincumpalarrcATCtiCn sas sry ieee rae ERR acne he ie. os cn auiehome 4
3.2 Spatial datasets ............ © Byeig RHR icifasen’e ye peneamuce Heth ke 4
3.2.1 Vegetation and land cover datasets .........--.-+- eee seers 5
Bien SPECIES CatasetS'tn = Wester ae mepem asl tie etael 6 Seen s sitet a ane 6 eee 8
Be2 sme WildernessminGexcue mee new sien mers ene ged oiroue) an cl (= iso cis 8
QDs IOAN Cooc coe Come oD eee ODL o clole-ceooriolo oo 8
Sh Jer ay Cotas! os, Ale Seams bg into 6-6 Dojo o GG Galo o aio teemmioge oc 9
5 TRUEKS OAS 2s SA on che Gls Manic GALEN COE a uC UIE Oi eA a i ee 10
4.1 VEESRHOM so occ o eo oes ooesooc ou uM OG Udon emu E MOD 10
4.2 IPEWIES. oo Go ob aoc eet Oe OO OG en ean Goce On Ore once cme noe Te 14
4.3 GonstraintSier sre ans eee te RC hese) ot ees oes a Gilet seca ieee 14
SRE COMMEND ATIONS a eaciteicnoe ac iieicieice etre nae sre co cls) cutee 14
RIER ERE NES: pee make, cate) ci ceite tes ites eeret salon ach Wino val oeeabtellar anya aiast a dw av WINS 16
Annex 1 Preliminary list of ecological spatial datasets for the circumpolar Arctic
Annex 2 Preliminary list of spatial datasets for circumpolar Arctic species
Annex 3 Legends used to compile a harmonised vegetation map for the CAFF region
Annex 4 Categories and management objectives of protected areas

1. INTRODUCTION

A key goal of the Programme for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) is to
ensure the conservation and protection of Arctic habitat through the establishment of a
Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN). A preliminary report prepared for CAFF
in 1994 (CAFF, 1994) reviewed the status of protected areas in the circumpolar Arctic and
resulted in the compilation of a relatively complete set of digital data for protected areas.

This report provides a preliminary assessment of the representativeness of CPAN, mainly in
terms of habitat protection. It contributes to the CAFF Work Plan for 1994-95 which called
for the compilation of information on proposed protected areas and an analysis of gaps in the
network of existing and proposed protected areas using Geographical Information System
(GIS) techniques. Russia has lead responsibility for this activity in cooperation with Norway,
under the coordination of the CAFF Secretariat. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC) and UNEP/GRID-Arendal were asked to assist with the technical aspects of the
work. The gap analysis was discussed at a meeting of the CPAN Joint Russian-Norwegian
Steering Group, Oslo, 15-16 May 1995 with a view to preparing a preliminary report in time
for the IV Annual Meeting of the CAFF International Working Group, Moscow, 18-22
September 1995. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources, Russian
Federation requested technical assistance from WCMC under the terms of a Agreement of
Scientific and Technical Cooperation signed in 1993. Dr Igor Lysenko, Russian Institute for
Nature Conservation, carried out the analysis with WCMC.

This report, presented in draft to the [V Annual Meeting of the CAFF International Working
Group, is one of five CPAN documents prepared for submission to the Arctic Environmental
Protection Strategy Ministerial Meeting in March 1996.

246 BACKGROUND
2.1 Arctic

There is intuitive appeal in protecting the world’s remaining relatively pristine ecosystems.
Some of the largest continuous areas of these are in the Arctic. Although the Arctic is low
in overall species diversity, the permanently resident species are endemic to the region, and
many of the migratory species breed only in the Arctic. Careful protection of the breeding
sites and migration routes is therefore needed. The Arctic is particularly vulnerable to climate
‘change and other impacts of global pollution. The depletion of the ozone layer is greatest in
high latitudes and the impacts of ultra violet radiation on wildlife are poorly understood.
Climate warming is likely to be accompanied by a reduction in snow and ice cover which
will decrease the albedo, thereby accelerating the warming. The ocean and atmospheric
circulation patterns are such that large parts of the European Arctic serve as a sink for
pollutants from further south, while the drainage patterns of Northern Asia bring polluted
river waters into the Arctic Ocean from well beyond the Arctic Circle.

Some of the threats are primarily the result of human presence: the construction of
infrastructure, damage to tundra vegetation, disturbance of wildlife breeding colonies, and
refuse disposal. Others result from local industrial activity: disposal of mine tailings,
pollution of water courses or the atmosphere with heavy metals or sulphur, and oil spills.
Others derive mainly from human activities in temperate latitudes: destruction of the ozone

layer, long distance transport of pollutants in the atmosphere, sea or rivers, and global
climate change. One recent example: the 7,714,940 ha Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on
Alaska’s coastal plain and coined ‘America’s Serengeti’ is under immediate threat from a
planned and approved oil industry development (C. Beretz in litt., 1995). Direct exploitation
of some of the large mammal populations, such as bowhead whale and polar bear, has been
largely brought under control. The major problems of over-harvesting now concern
commercial fisheries, which have seriously depleted stocks of cod and capelin, in turn
affecting populations of seabirds. Overstocking of domestic reindeer has led to serious
overgrazing in some areas.

The most serious threats to the Arctic identified by CAFF member countries are:

local pollution from industrial development (oil, mining);

over-harvesting of natural resources, particularly fisheries;

long-range transport of pollutants in rivers, ocean currents and the atmosphere;
global climate change; and

loss of wilderness through human disturbance and infrastructure development (CAFF,
1994).

The development of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy provides the necessary
international mechanism to address these threats and to coordinate conservation planning
throughout the Arctic region under the CPAN initiative.

2.2 Biodiversity conservation

Biodiversity may be considered at genetic (within species, directly measurable by differences
in DNA), species, and ecosystem levels. High genetic diversity is necessary to avoid
inbreeding depression? and susceptibility of populations to factors such as disease. In order
to maintain genetic diversity, geographically extreme parts of a species’ distribution should
be conserved, often within protected areas, and linked via corridors.

Species diversity, commonly equated with species richness, refers to the number of species
occurring within a particular habitat. Centres of threatened, endemic, restricted range and
relic species are an important focus for conservation. In the case of Arctic species, many are
migratory and wholly dependent on the Arctic for their breeding habitat. Thus, particular
emphasis needs to be given to the protection of: breeding, feeding and staging grounds;
population centres; sites of high primary productivity; and migration/dispersal routes.

Consideration of biodiversity at the ecosystem level is more subjective, commonly being
defined by differences in vegetation which, in turn reflect abiotic factors such as soil type,
climate and topography. Terrestrial Arctic environments are close to or beyond the limits of
existence of most organisms. The few species present are the only ones capable of surviving
in these extreme environments. The characteristics which enable them to survive, therefore,
are essential to ensure that these large areas of the globe are inhabited. Moreover, they are
of disproportionately greater importance than those characteristics of organisms inhabiting
more clement environments. Thus, it is preferable to consider conservation at the ecosystem

2 Inbreeding depression is the expression of deleterious genes as a result of mating between related individuals.

2

rather than species level as this avoids the bias against species-poor ecosystems, such as those
of the Arctic.

As part of the CPAN Strategy and Action Plan, it has been recommended that at least 15%
of each ecozone be relatively strictly protected, that is managed in accordance with IUCN
Categories I-V. Gap analysis applied to a suitable vegetation classification system adopted
by CAFF members will provide a means of monitoring progress towards this goal.

The importance of national protected area systems in the Arctic have been reviewed
previously (CAFF, 1994).

2.3 Gap analysis

Conventional approaches to conservation have often focused on addressing threats to
individual species. Such partial approaches are being challenged by a more integrated and
proactive, ecosystem-level method, commonly referred to as gap analysis. This involves
identifying whether or not target populations, species, and ecosystems are adequately
represented within a network of protected areas. The aim is to fill the gaps through strategic
planning and expansion of protected area systems.

Gap analysis is increasingly used in conservation biology to identify gaps in the protection
of biodiversity. It can be used at different scales (local, national, global) depending on
objectives. Gap analysis also serves as a baseline for monitoring environmental changes.

This rapid appraisal technique is inherently attractive in times of restricted budgets and ever-
increasing environmental threats. In the Arctic, it can potentially contribute to long-term
environmental monitoring, promote international collaboration in conservation planning and
foster individual research according to national conservation priorities.

As a minimum, gap analysis can be based on a map of vegetation types or ecosystems. The
level of detail depends on the maps available, the simplest relying on physiognomy or gross
structure of the vegetation. Finer resolution would take into account floristic components of
the vegetation to reflect biogeographic variations. Where species distributions are known,
these can be included, taking particular note of sites of critical importance for breeding,
moulting, feeding and other activities.

Gap analysis can be seen as a central, unifying feature of the CAFF Programme which draws
together all of the information on populations, species and ecosystems to assist in planning
CPAN. It is anticipated that information derived from the following activities will provide
the basis for this analysis:

© Compilation of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAFF Activity 1.3) is
essential for providing a harmonised, fine resolution map of Arctic vegetation types.

¢ The Rare, Endemic Vascular Plants Project (CAFF Activity 2.1) will identify the
distributions of those species of plants which are most in need of protection.

¢ The Pan-Arctic Flora Initiative (CAFF Activity 2.2) will provide information on the
distribution of other species of plants.

e The Rare, Vulnerable and Endangered Fauna Project (CAFF Activity 2.3) will
identify those populations and species of animals most in need of protection.

e The Wildlife Habitat Mapping Project (CAFF Activity 1.2) will identify the potential
distributions of other species of animals.

e The Circumpolar Seabird Working Group and Murre Conservation Strategy
(CAFF Activity 2.4) will identify the sites and size of seabird colonies.

e The Indigenous Knowledge Mapping Project (CAFF Activity 4.1) will identify those
sites which are of critical importance for the conservation of various species of wildlife.

As yet, little of this information is currently compiled or available in a uniform format for
the entire Arctic. Thus, the present study should be regarded as a preliminary analysis which
will be progressively refined as more data become available.

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Circumpolar Arctic

The Arctic is defined by CAFF member countries according to the boundary shown in the
Maps (1-3). The boundary is based on different criteria applied by individual member
countries (CAFF, 1994), with the result that there are often anomalies or inconsistencies
between countries when carrying out analyses at the circumpolar level. One example occurs
along the Alaskan and Canadian border: to the west the vegetation is classified as the extreme
northern limit of the tree line; to the east, it is shown as the northern limit of continuous
forest. The Canadian Arctic, therefore, includes a large area of Northern Boreal and some
Middle Boreal, which is similar, in this respect, to the definition applied in Russia. However,
- Northern and Middle Boreal are absent from Alaska for the reasons given above. The
Scandinavian countries apply a definition based, in part, on the Arctic Circle and, therefore,
include significant areas of Boreal forests (Map 1).

The 10°C July isotherm, floristic Arctic boundary, phytogeographic Arctic boundary, and
continuous/discontinuous permafrost boundary are among a number of alternative ways of
defining the circumpolar Arctic (CAFF, 1994).

3.2 Spatial datasets

At the CPAN Joint Russian-Norwegian Steering Group meeting in Oslo, 15-16 May 1995,
it was agreed that the preliminary analysis of gaps in protecting biodiversity within the
circumpolar Arctic should be based on overlaying the following spatial datasets:

landscape

vegetation

species (e.g. polar bear, beluga whale, caribou, seabird colonies)
wilderness

protected areas

In the event, this preliminary analysis is limited to the representation of land cover or
vegetation types and one target species (polar bear) within protected areas, as the other
datasets could not be compiled for the entire circumpolar Arctic within the time available.

Identifying and documenting relevant spatial datasets and their sources, information overlap
and transfer protocols are prerequisites to compiling circumpolar coverages for gap analysis.
Details of potentially available land cover and target species datasets are summarised in
Annexes 1 and 2, respectively. Within the limited time available, it was possible to utilise
about 20 of these datasets for this preliminary analysis. A number of the datasets were
already held by GRID-Arendal and WCMC, while additional datasets were located elsewhere
and transferred to WCMC via the Internet.

From the available datasets, the following circumpolar coverages were compiled using
WCMC’s GIS:

e Distribution of major vegetation zones and protected areas (Map 1)
e National level of protection of major vegetation zones (Map 2)
e Distribution of polar bears and protected areas (Map 3)

3.2.1 Vegetation and land cover datasets

Schemes for classifying terrestrial vegetation have been devised at various scales, principally
for mapping but also for statistical analyses, such as forest inventories or assessments. Some
are exclusive classifications intended for use at local or national scales, while others are
applied more widely at continental or global! scales. From a biodiversity perspective, it is
particularly important to be able to monitor changes in vegetation cover.

Clearly CAFF member countries have an interest in the development of a common land
cover and land use classification system for conservation planning and monitoring purposes.
The CAFF Circumpolar Vegetation Mapping Project will result in the development of such
a scheme. A meeting to agree on a legend for this map is scheduled in early 1996. For global
comparisons, it is also important to be able to link this into a global vegetation classification
scheme. At an Expert Meeting convened by UNEP/FAO in Geneva in November 1993 it was
agreed to move towards establishing such a scheme. A project to produce comparisons
between different national and regional land cover and land use classification schemes is
underway (Schomaker, 1994).

It is important to recognise that vegetation comprises gradients and mosaics at all scales, with
no discrete boundaries. Therefore, there will always be compromises within any vegetation
classification system. Furthermore, the scale at which a classification is developed will
influence its usefulness for other purposes. Typically, ecoregions (Bailey, 1995), ecozones
(Wiken, 1986) and wildlife habitats (Mirutenko and Kaitala, 1995), which represent a
combination of ecological factors, are more powerful than single-index classification systems.

Given the present absence of the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map, an attempt has been
made to identify datasets of actual vegetation cover rather than potential vegetation or
ecoregion (Annex 1). The best available map of vegetation or land cover was obtained for
each country and the legend from each was harmonised into a common, circumpolar
classification system. Most of the available datasets covered the whole of the respective
countries rather than only the Arctic region. Hence, the level of detail available for the

Arctic is low, resulting in the adoption of a fairly small number of classes in order to achieve
standardisation. The harmonised legend has only six terrestrial categories (Table 1). Due to
time constraints, it was not possible to obtain digital copies of all of the potentially available
national vegetation maps. Where they were missing, a preliminary classification was derived
from the greenness index (NDVI). The following sections describe the data sources.

Canada

The digital 1:7.5 million Canadian Vegetation and Land Cover dataset, based on satellite
imagery, was obtained for the purposes of this analysis (St-Laurent er a/., 1995). A total of
ten classes are distinguished. Tundra was not divided into Mountain and Lowland Tundra;
Transitional Forest and Coniferous Forest were combined into Northern Boreal; and Mixed
Forest and Deciduous Forest were combined into Middle Boreal.

Greenland

No vegetation map was available for Greenland other than the floristic units shown in CAFF
(1994). Hence, the NDVI dataset was divided into three reflectance categories to correspond
with reference areas in Canada, Russia and Alaska showing Glacier and Arctic Desert (not
differentiated), Tundra and Northern Boreal.

Iceland

Although a vegetation map of Iceland exists, it could not be obtained in time for this study.
Thus, the NDVI dataset was divided into three reflectance categories to correspond with
reference areas in Canada, Russia and Alaska, showing Glacier and Arctic Desert (not
differentiated), Tundra and Middle Boreal. It is not clear whether the greenest of these
classes should be equated to Northern or Middle Boreal. The latter was eventually chosen,
following the recommendation of Tuhkanen (1984).

Russia

Digitisation of the 1:4 million scale vegetation map of Russia (REF, 1990) could not be
completed in time for this analysis and so a 1:16 million scale zonation map (Kurnaev, 1990)
was used. The nine categories distinguished for the Arctic region were harmonised as
follows: Arctic desert was equated to Glacier and Arctic Desert; Forest Tundra, Sparse
Forest Taiga, Northern Taiga and Middle Taiga were combined into Northern Boreal; and
Southern Taiga was equated to Middle Boreal.

Scandinavian mainland (Finland, Norway and Sweden)

The vegetation map of Holten and Carey (1992) was used. The Alpine Zone was equated to
Mountain Tundra. Glaciers and Arctic Deserts were differentiated on the basis of the NDVI
dataset.

Svalbard (Norway)

The vegetation of Svalbard has been mapped at a scale of 1:1 million in the National Atlas
of Norway but was not available in digital form in time for this analysis. Consequently, the
NDVI dataset was divided into two reflectance categories to correspond with reference areas
in Canada, Russia and Alaska showing Glacier and Arctic Desert (not differentiated), and
Lowland Tundra.

ySIOy
snonpiseq
[ee10q [ees0q [e0.10q
a1quordde jou aqeordde jou [e2J0q ppl edie) WoyNoSg | [ppm o1ueIDQ | eIPpmu o1UeZ0O aqeortdde jou [e210q 2IPpIy] |S Sao ey IIPPIN 9

ySJOJ
snoJaytuog

ySaIO}
[euonisuesy,

jee10q
U194}I0N

atquorjdde you

e318) O[PPIN
Bale)
ysol0j osiedg
Asepunoq
JAVO episyng | jeasoqg usoyJON ee roa) [eel0g WoyJON a[qvordde jou | jeasoq woyjION | JeeJ0g WoyWON

uOTVEUO;UI

aJ0W
eipun}
(J910R|3
aiquortdds jou

onosy uleyuNno|y eIpun) uleyUNO|] 7 aay vipun) UleyUNO|,
ur papnyou!)

(sot108]3
UI pepnyout) Byep ou
Yesep o101V BC) 1419) Bt) 1409)

9HOIV SIPPIIN

(deur uo papratp
jou) vipuny

vapun}
purlMoy

onWY YysIH aiqeordde you | = espuny pueymo7] atqeordde jou

posinbas
UOTeUIOJUT
2J0Ul

porinbes
UONEULIOJUT

EY COy IN

vapun)

auoz ouldiy ulejyUunoy

_ pesinbaz
(sates uOlBuLOJUI
UI pepnyout) 9J0ul

(so10e|3
Ur pepnjout)

jAasap
3191

spuv] ualeg

pesinbes
uoneULIOyUL
as0ul

aot
pue Mous
quoueULiag

901 pue
MOUS [BIUUaIEg

Jale[O JoINRIH JOIOR[H atqeorjdde jou

rey sod) (r961 (2661 ‘Sowa (2661 ‘SOUd SSOED
BALION | ‘rounsssan ‘5661 ‘A188) 12661 ‘Aaveg pu uajoH) ‘2661 ‘Kauss pure uajoH) (2661 ‘soua) yeu” (2661 ‘Kase pus uajoH) (5661 “10 12 wamey 15) puasa|
‘parqyeas BY¥seIV/WSN uapamg AeMI0N puja] /puejuaa.s) purjury upeues | pastuoueyy

"€ XOUUY UI polsiy ose UONeOIZISSEO
Sty) Suldojaaap Ul pasn spuaday] ‘sula}sAs UOIRIIJISSEID J9AOD pu] PUR UOIIEJEdIA [eUOTIeU 0} diysuorejes sy pue ApNys si} UI Pasn UONEITFISSe[D UOIIeIOSAA postuOUIeA] =|: AGU,

USA (Alaska)

Although a prototype GIS environmental database has been compiled for Alaska (U.S.
Geological Survey, 1994), this project has now ceased and the data could not be located.
Instead, the ecoregions of Bailey (1995) were used. Glacier and Arctic Desert were not
shown. Bering Tundra and Arctic Tundra were combined into Lowland Tundra.

3.2.2 Species datasets
Four types of record may be used to map species distributions:

© point records,

e grid-based occurrence records,

e hybrid point record and range maps, and
e range maps (Scott er al., 1993).

Maps based on all of the above methods were identified, with the exception of grid-based
maps. Of the species datasets identified in Annex 3, the polar bear distribution map was the
most readily available for this preliminary analysis.

A number of additional datasets were originally identified for inclusion in the analysis, but
were not available within the timeframe. These include:

e whale sightings from the International Whaling Commission;

e seabird colonies from the Circumpolar Seabird Working Group, including colonial
seabirds from the Canadian Wildlife Service; and

e threatened plants from the Rare, Endemic Vascular Plants Project.

3.2.3 Wilderness index

A wilderness map has been produced by GRID-Arendal for the Barents Region, comprising
northern parts of Norway, Sweden, Finland and European Russia. Wilderness is defined as
contiguous areas greater than 4000 sq. km and more than 6 km from roads, railways, power
lines and other human installations. This definition is similar to that used by the Sierra Club
et al. (n.d.) but the latter use 5 km as the criterion.

Although it was originally planned to use a wilderness index for the circumpolar Arctic in
this analysis, computing time has been excessive. Currently only Europe is complete, but
GRID-Arendal is now generating the index for North American and Asia.

3.2.4 Protected areas

Spatial data were derived from WCMC’s Biodiversity Map Library and from previously
compiled material (CAFF, 1994). The analysis was restricted to protected areas larger than
1,000 ha and assigned to IUCN Categories I-V, which are defined in Annex 4. It should be
noted that the old 1978 categories system has been used because protected areas have not yet
been classified according to the new system. A significant constraint is that the locations and
boundaries of some protected areas are not known. Thus, estimates of protected area
coverages are conservative. In the case of Russia, the analysis is limited to IUCN Categories
I and II (i.e. national parks and zapovedniks) since data on zakazniks (IUCN Category IV)
were not available.

3.3 Priority setting

The preliminary GIS analysis of gaps in CPAN was carried out using the overlay functions
of ARC/INFO (Version 7). The harmonised vegetation classification and protected areas
coverages were superimposed to generate statistics on the level of protection of each
vegetation zone.

In order to identify priorities for conservation action, the percentage of a vegetation zone
within a country (or region) was plotted against the level of its protection within that country
(or region). The plot is divided into four quadrants, each with the conservation implications
shown in Figure 1. The arrow indicates the direction of increasing priority for conservation
action. For example, a data point, labelled with the appropriate country name, in the bottom
right of a plot indicates that most of the zone lies within that country where little of it is
protected.

Throughout this preliminary analysis, protection is considered adequate if at least 15% of a
zone lies within protected areas (Categories EN) This threshold is based on the CPAN
pratcey. and Action Plan (Section 2.2).

100, _—$>AY tJ
Low national
representation of zone High national representation of zone
5 High protection of zone High protection of zone
—
ae Low priority for
pic conservation action High priority for effective management of existing PAs
>
fh
eet
=|
-_ sg
o)
[S)
S
o—_
oO
=|
°
N
al
°
=
ie}
o—
ed
(9)
2
{o) low national =
a represenation of zone High national representation of zone
ISS .Low protection of zone Low protection of zone
Low regional but high
national priority for
conservation action High priority for conservation action
OL een
0 100

% zone in country/region

Figure 1 _ Definitions of quadrants used to identify priorities for conservation action

4. RESULTS
4.1 Vegetation

The extent to which the major vegetation zones are protected is summarised in Table 2 and
Map 1. In total, 13.2% of the circumpolar Arctic is protected in accordance with IUCN
Categories I-V. Highest protection is afforded to Arctic Desert and Tundra, and least to
Northern Boreal and inshore waters. In the case of Northern Boreal and Middle Boreal, it
should be noted that the results are somewhat artificial, reflecting the position of the CAFF
boundary. Boreal zones do not occur in Alaska, and Middle Boreal is only marginally present
in any of the countries. Boreal vegetation is much more extensive outside the CAFF region,
where a significant proportion of it is protected. Thus, this analysis does not indicate the
overall global extent of protection of these two zones. It should also be noted that all
vegetation types could not be differentiated for all Arctic countries. For example, Arctic
Desert could not be distinguished in Alaska.

Table 2 Degree of protection of major vegetation zones in the circumpolar Arctic

The level of protection of vegetation zones within each country is shown in Table 3 and
Map 2. Most countries or regions (as in the case of Scandinavia) have at least 20% of their
circumpolar Arctic protected, notable exceptions being Canada (6.5%) and Russia (3.6%).
Protected areas coverage is highest in Svalbard, Norway (64.8%) and Greenland, Denmark
(40.9%).

On the basis of data presented in Table 3, national priorities for conservation action are
shown in Figure 2 with respect to each of the major vegetation zones. These can be
summarised as follows:

e Arctic Desert Over 90% is distributed almost equally between Canada, where
protection is afforded to only 7.5%, and Greenland (Denmark), where much of it lies
within Greenland National Park, the world’s largest protected area.

e Mountain Tundra Nearly 70% occurs within Russia, very little of which is protected

within national parks and zapovedniks (nature reserves).

10

Table 3 _ Distribution of major vegetation zones and their level of protection within circumpolar
Arctic countries. Marine protected areas are excluded from this analysis.

Vegetation zone Area
sq. km

Peder ila
Alaska
54
Canada

Northem Boreal 1,902,196 75,543.55

ease a

2.0

freer acti
Denmark/
Greenland | Mountain Tundra | _167,853 | —738s2_ | od
Lod

31,413 10,357.24 32.9

Middle Boreal 58,017 9,569.11

Unclassified 47.78 13.8

346
101,963 23,029.91

Arctic Desert 285,019 69,329.10
1,080,327 18,493.44
Lowland Tundra 1,256,791 o1osaas | 7.2

: 7.2
2,755,438
iMowstain Boreal |. | _asiannl | Woo oo
Sendiuavian
mainland
(includes
Reese Slinormanpora |_| asezi7 | aatirslae! | isa
[Rreerce re al
| Fae moog
[ rns a

Sweden and
Finland)

ee ee ee are
[eee aa MP ier

% protection of zone in country/region

Zone 1 - Arctic Desert Zone 2 - Mountain Tundra

100 100

90 + pale

80 1* Svalbard 80 |-

7 7 |- = Alaska

ak zl

so + ral

49 ¢Scandinavia “Gas 40 |-

20 Heelan py Iceland

* L ®Rhssia eale ee ai
10 = ; « Canada 10 |- ;

L ! L__|Greentand ‘ ; , Russia
a a ey a a a a a ied a ee er rT)
Zone 3 - Lowland Tundra Zone 4 - Northern Boreal

100 100

Ul

90
80
L 7 |-
tt)
x”
40

« Alaska ® Svalbard

SOS ee te
T

Zone 5 - Middle Boreal

100 100
co +
so +
Or
ot
sok
wl
Wr
2 Iceland
x ; ® Canada
, |_ Scandinavia Russia ; ; ;

1) 10 20 0 40 3” it) 70 80 90 100

% zone in country/region

Figure 2 National priorities for conservation action, prioritised according to the extent of major
vegetation zones and their protection within each country. The direction of the arrow
indicates increasing priority for national conservation action.

12

¢ Lowland Tundra Over 85% lies within Canada, where only 9.3% is protected, and
Svalbard (Norway) where representation within protected areas is adequate (37%).

¢ Northern Boreal and Middle Boreal As discussed above, Boreal vegetation is more
extensive beyond the CAFF boundary, where a significant amount is protected. Within
the CAFF region, it occurs mostly in Canada and Russia where representation within
protected areas is low. In the case of Northern Boreal, which comprises 34% of the
vegetation in the CAFF region (Table 2), there is a high priority to increase its
representation within protected areas.

Further analyses, based on more refined classifications, are required to identify gaps in-
habitat protection more precisely, as shown in the example for forests in the former USSR
(Table 4). This particular example is for illustrative purposes only as it treats the former
USSR in isolation from the rest of the CAFF region.

Table 4 _—_Extent of protection of forests in the former USSR

Vegetation zone Total area
sq. km~

[Lowland Tundra | wor |
[Forest Tundra | anos | azn
[Meadows and Sparse ForesuMeadows | 7188 | 525 |
[sea sone
eee)

Protected area”

15687
Middle Taga

Mixed Forest, Broadleaves and 187183 4320
Coniferous Equal

Broadleaf Forest, Northern subzone 171536 3360
Monodominant Forests

Broadleaf Forest, Southern 4988 1563
Polydominant Thermophilic Forest

“

_ —_

o

WwW

F ed BS SS een eS SS
w |S [S&S [eR ]& wv la

Ea ea

5 Steppe, Southern Subzone 1190 ie el Boke. || EO
Northern Semidesert Cie eos

17 Southern Semidesert con pee |

* IUCN Categories I and II only

13

4.2

Fauna

The estimated range and known breeding sites of the polar bear Ursus maritimus is shown
in Map 3 with protected areas overlaid to illustrate how gap analysis can be applied to
individual species. This particular example shows that some polar bear breeding sites lie
within protected areas, but very little of the species’ core range is protected.

4.3

Constraints

A number of constraints have been identified as a result of this preliminary exercise on gap
analysis. They are as follows:

5.

It is often a challenge to acquire data from government sources, particularly for regions
where there is provincial (or state) and federal jurisdictional overlap.

Data ownership and copyright restriction issues, which vary from country to country,
may need to be negotiated.

Compiling a circumpolar vegetation map from a variety of national sources that use
different classification systems can be overcome using technical applications, site
knowledge and interpretation. However, it should be recognised that some ‘smoothing’
of the data is required. Areas of particular concern include the boundaries between
adjacent datasets which, in the case of CAFF, often coincide with national boundaries.

Future gap analysis should benefit from the new vegetation map being compiled under
the CAFF programme.

The limitations of gap analysis should be realised, particularly if data originate from
a variety of sources and have been interpreted differently. It should also be recognised
that such generalised data do not reflect habitat quality. Gap analyses should be
complemented by ground-truthing.

St Laurent et al. (1995) suggest that further consideration should be given to the
interpretation of land cover classes in the case of the Canadian data. The Canadian land
cover classes were selected after careful consideration of the image analysis and
classification challenges inherent in mapping such a diverse and spatially extensive -
area. For example, it was not feasible to differentiate wetland areas. In addition,
vegetation zonation in the Arctic is poorly represented, with the result that areas
dominated by low erect shrubs, dwarf and prostrate shrubs, and by herbs appear in the
same class. Moreover, reflectance values were not sufficiently distinct to differentiate
barren land from sparse vegetation, with woody plants, herbs and non-vascular plants
(lichens and mosses). Further refinement of classification techniques will improve the
product.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This study is a preliminary attempt to evaluate CPAN from a regional perspective. While it
provides an overall picture of conservation status of the circumpolar Arctic, it is necessarily
crude due to limitations in data availability, time and resources. However, it demonstrates

14

the value of gap analysis and the need to carry out more detailed and elaborate evaluations
aS more datasets become available.

In line with priorities identified in the CAFF Annual Work Plan for 1995-1996, it is
recommended that additional gap analysis be undertaken, focusing particularly on using the
wilderness index and distribution data for key plant and animal species. Use should also be
made of the new vegetation map being compiled for the circumpolar Arctic once it becomes
available, but this is unlikely to be in 1996.

Other initiatives include the following:

¢ Support the development and use of classification systems such as ecoregions (Bailey,
1995), ecozones (Wiken, 1986) and Russian landscapes (Kurnaev, 1990) that combine
a number of variables (e.g. geology, climate and vegetation). Promote their application
in land use planning and management.

e Expand and update Annexes 1 and 2. Include comments on quality and additional
sources, with a view to creating a meta-database of resources that would support further
gap analysis work.

e Identify ways and means of repatriating enhanced datasets to those who provided them,

as well as to CAFF members. Make datasets readily available to third parties via the
Internet.

15

REFERENCES

Atlas Arktiki 1985. Atlas of the Arctic Region (in Russian) various scales. 120pp.

Bailey, R.G. (Comp.) 1995. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. Second
edition. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication
1391. 108pp. (with separate map 1:7,500,000).

Berthelsen, C., Mortensen, I.H. and Mortensen, E. 1990. Kalaallit Nunaat Greenland Atlas.
Pilsersuiffik. 120pp.

Brun, M. 1992. Map of wilderness in Norway and Svalbard. (no scale)

Community of Clyde River, NWT 1990. Igalirtuug: A Conservation Proposal for Bowhead
Whales at Isabella Bay, Baffin Island, NWT. WWF Canada. 35pp.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) 1993. The State of Habitat Protection in the
Arctic. 2nd Draft. CAFF Report No. 1 Directorate for Nature Management, Trondheim,
Norway. 199pp.

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) 1994. The State of Protected Areas in the
Circumpolar Arctic 1994. CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 1. Directorate for Nature
Management, Trondheim, Norway. 163pp.

CWS 1995. Canadian seabird database developed by D. Nettleship. Canadian Wildlife
Service (CWS), Halifax, Canada. (unpublished)

Directorate for Nature Management, 1994. Strategies for Protecting Arctic Wilderness.
Proceedings 5th World Wilderness Congress, Tromso, 1993. Trondheim, Norway. 63pp.

Department of Environment (DOE) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 1995.
Canadian landcover dataset. Ottawa, Canada. 1:2,000,000 and 1:7,500,000. (unpublished)

Edin, U., Ristioja, J., and Moen, N-A. 1995. Geographic information technology within the
Barents region, Lapland District Survey Office, Finland. 33pp.

Environment Canada 1989. Visitor Profile and Economic Impact Statement of Northern
National Parks (Reserves) and Historic Sites. Summary Report. Prepared by Thompson
Economic Consulting Services, Calgary, Canada. 59pp.

~ EROS, 1992. NDVI Greenness Index, Earth Resources Observation System (EROS) 1sq. km
resolution, Sioux Falls, USA. (unpublished)

ESA 1995. European Space Agency. European Forest Map. ESA/ESTEC, Noordwijk, The
Netherlands. 1:6,000,000

ESRI 1993. ARC/INFO Digital Chart of the World Series, 1:1 million. Environmental
Systems Research Institute, New York, NY.

FAO 1994. Digitized soil map of the world. Version 2.0. 1:5,000,000. FAO, Rome, Italy.

16

Fenge, T. 1994. Parks and Protected Areas in the North: Completing the Agenda. Northern
Perspectives 22:1-48.

Gerasimov 1964. Atlas of Physical Geography of the World. 1:20,000,000. Moscow, GGK
USSR. (in Russian)

Gribova, S. A. and Karamysheva 1990. Vegetation of the USSR. 1:4,000,000. GUGK,
USSR.

GRID-Arendal 1995. Soil and vegetation maps. Norway. (unpublished)
GRID-Sioux Falls 1995. (River basin database in development)

Holten, J.1. and Carey, P.D. 1992. Responses of natural terrestrial ecosystems to climate
change in Norway. NINA Forskningsrapport 29:1-59.

Hustich, I. 1966. On the Forest-Tundra and the Northern Tree-lines: A preliminary
synthesis. In: Reports from the Kevo SubArctic Research Station, Turun Yliopiston Julkaisuja
Annales Universitatis Turkuensis Sarja Series A, Il. Biologica-Geographica 36. Turun
Yliopisto, Turku.

IUCN Species Survival Commission 1993. Proceedings of the Eleventh Working Meeting of
the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group 25-27 January 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Compilers Wiig, O., Born, E.W. and Garner, G.W. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission No. 10. 192pp.

IUCN 1978. Categories, criteria and objectives for protected areas. IUCN, Morges,
Switzerland. 16pp.

IUCN 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Commission on National
Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 261pp.

IWC 1995. Whale sightings in Arctic Region dataset. (ASCII format) International Whaling
Commission, Cambridge, UK. (unpublished)

Klekowski, R.Z. and Weslawksi, J.M. (Eds) 1995. Supplement II: Atlas of the Marine Fauna
of Southern Spitsbergen. Arctic Ecology Group, University of Gdansk, Poland.

Kurnaev, S.F. 1990. Vegetation map of Russia. 1:16,000,000.

Lysenko, I. 1995. Biodiversity Conservation Program for the Russian Federation. Project
Preparation Component 4: Gap Analysis. Global Environmental Facility. 44pp. (unpublished)

Matishov, G.G. 1991. Barents Sea - Biological and Human Impact. Poster map
(1:3,000,000). Murmansk Marine Biological Institute of Academy of Sciences USSR,
Institute of Oceanology/ Polish Academy of Sciences, and Norwegian Polar Research
Institute.

17

Matishov, G.G. (c. 1995). Ecology of Novaya Zemlya Region. Poster map (1:2,000,000).
Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Sopot Murmansk Marine Biological
Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Murmansk.

Mirutenko, M. and Kaitala, S. 1995. Terrestrial Wildlife Habitats of the Russian Tundra.
Draft. 1:4,000,000. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.

National Audubon Society Alaska (Hawaii Regional Office), Russian Institute of Nature
Conservation, and Indigenous Peoples of Chukotka, Russia 1993. Beringia Natural History
Notebook Series. 25pp.

NORUT 1994. The Barents Region - Environmental Impact. Poster map (no scale). Social
Science Research for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (NORUT), Tromso,
Norway.

Norwegian Polar Institute 1994. Seabird colonies in the Barents Sea, Norway. Database.
(unpublished)

Parks Canada 1992. National Atlas Information Source, Ottawa, Canada. 1:1,000,000.

Parks Canada 1994. Arctic Marine Workshop Proceedings. Freshwater Institute, Winnipeg
Manitoba, 1-2 March 1994. Sponsored by: Park Establishment Branch, National Parks
Directorate, Parks Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage. SOpp. Manitoba, Canada.

Piersma, T. and Davidson, N. (Eds) 1992. The Migration of Knots. Wader Study Group
Bulletin 64, Supplement. 209pp.

Rees, W.G. and Williams, M. 1995. Monitoring the impact of atmospheric pollution on
tundra vegetation in the Russian Arctic: Interim Report. Scott Polar Research Institute,
Cambridge, Technical Reports in Remote Sensing No. 5. 99pp.

REF 1990. Vegetation of the USSR. 1:4,000,000. GUGK, USSR.

Romanenko, Olga 1994. Fishes, Birds and Mammals of Central Beringia - A Taxonomic List
in English and Russian. National Park Service of the Beringian Heritage International Park
Programme, National Audubon Society, and Russian Institute of Nature Conservation and
Reserves, Moscow. 30pp.

Schomaker, M. 1994. FAO and UNEP launch informal working group on land use and land
cover classification. Science International 56:21-22. :

Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H.,
Caicco, S., D’Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Ulliman, J., and Wright, R.G. 1993. Gap
analysis: A geographical approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monograph
123:1-41.

Scott, M.J. (Ed.) 1995. University of Idaho Gap Analysis Bulletin No. 4. Idaho Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Idaho, USA.

18

Sherman, K. and Busch, D.A. 1995. Assessment and monitoring of large marine ecosystems.
In: NATO ASI Series I (28) Evaluating and Monitoring the Health of large-scale Ecosystems,
Eds. Rapport, D.J. Gaudet, C.L., and Calow, D. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.
(Includes world map of large marine ecosystems - no scale)

Sierra Club (n.d.) Map of European Wilderness. 1:1 million. GRID-Arendal, Norway.

SOE, National Conservation Areas Database. State of the Environment Directorate,
Environment Canada, Ottawa. (1:1.5,000,000)

St-Laurent, L., Palko, S., Huffman, T., and Unrau, S. 1995. The Canada Vegetation and
Land Cover: A Raster and Vector Data Set for GIS Applications - Uses in Agriculture. Ninth
Annual Symposium on Geographic Information Systems, GIS 95, Vancouver, Canada.
Pp. 613-619.

Stroud, D.A. 1992. Greenland white-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris international
conservation plan. Prepared for the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Office of
Public Works, Ireland and the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau.

Tomkovich, P.S. 1994. Breeding conditions for waders in Russian tundras in 1993. Wader
Study Group Bulletin 75:27-34.

Tuhkanen S. 1984. A circumpolar system of climatic phytogeographical regions. Arctic
Botanica Fennica 127:1-50.

US Geological Survey 1994. Workshop Summary: Development of a Prototype GIS for Alaska
in Support of the Conservation for Arctic Flora and Fauna. Anchorage, Alaska. 40pp.

USDA 1993. Forest Type Groups of the United States. 1:7,500,000. Forest Service, US
Department of Agriculture, USA.

WCMC 1995. Biodiversity Map Library. 1:1,000,000. WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Weslawski, J.M. and Malinga, M. 1993. Wildlife of Franz Joseph Land. 1:2,000,000. Arctic
Ecology Group, Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Gdansk.

Weslawski, J.M., Tertitzkii, G.M., Beliikov, S.E., Volkov, A.E., and Korte, J. de 1994.
The Wildlife of Severnaya Zemlya. Poster map (no scale). Plancius, Arctisch Centrum and
Arctic Ecology Group, Gdansk.

Weslawski, J.M. 1995. Ecclogy of Jamal Peninsula. Poster map (no scale). Arctic Ecology
Group, Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Gdansk.

Weslawski, J.M. 1995. Seabird distribution in the Barents and Greenland Seas during
summer seasons, 1991-1993. Polish Academy of Sciences, Gdansk.

Wiken, E. 1986. Terrestrial ecozones of Canada. Ecological Land Classifications Series
No. 19. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

19

Yurtsev, B.A. 1994. Floristic division of the Arctic. Journal of Vegetation Science 5:765-
776.

20

| xouuy

‘siskjeue Areurujasd siqy Ul pepnyour you oJam sjaseyep peurjlopuy)

WET
(S661 DWN)

ies Ea

eT S661 _dS-Gndo)

ae Geet ds-anio) (eet “OVD

a ule as-ardo)
wep aman
(S661 Y-ando)

(eet “OVD
66T AS-aTa5) Geet V-drio)

WEI
(S661 OWOA)

(est OVD
Geet V-aTu5)

P66
P66

(%61 ‘sOwd)

oe
WEI
(%661 ‘SOW (S661 OWOA)

WEI
(2661 ‘Sowa ei (5661 WOW) es

WET

(%61 ‘SOD (S661 DNWOAD

(est Ova)
WEI
(S661 IWDA)

WEI
(S661 OWOA)

Geer V-ardo)

(eet “OVD

Gest V-dIdD)

WEI
uolsay Huaeg
WEI (€661 TSA

S661 AS-GIuD
Treet OVD)
Geet _aS-anid) Geet _v-ara5)
WEI
(2661 ‘soua) (5661 OWOM) (€661 Tusa) pus v-CIud) « H
TW
Ge6T “aOS)
WEI : 7
(2661 ‘sowa) (5661 DNDN) (5661 V-aru9) 661 V-dhuo) (£661 1USa) « spre)

Geer as-anId) Geer V-andd)
eer aS-anD)
wend] sedeg] enti] sedea] rentiq] sedeg]entia] wedeal entiq] wedea] tential edeal rewsia] — sedea|eniq] —sadeg
[| xepuy ssouaar | svasy paojorg | xopuy ssousopnm | suseg weary [wos | spuenam | suortasoxgq | uoneraoq | Asyuno3

Weer Van)
Geer Asana)
Says puke SIdINOS Mey) ‘IOIY Iejodurnds19 oy) 1OJ sjaseyep feeds jeotsopooe Jo 3st] AJRUIWI}OIg | XANNVW

eet “OVD

Z xouuy

Tees papooy pu ‘Tess dray ‘Tess mogrey ‘Twos popreaq ‘Twos paluny ,
“meAyoue Arsurunjasd sry O1 popnjour jou om syasuyep pourjsopuy

s27U0j00 prrquas
pusyusaip onosy wesdosng
pus wg muse (661 ‘aransuy Geet Premeeony
(S661 FAsMEIEDA) © FeO UTIFIMION) © pas (6661 “OMD

WSL WSL
(€661 ‘vasn) (€661 vasn)

PueqieAs puw wiemny
“sou (F661 “ransuy
TejOg UeIFoMION) o
(p66
[8 32 Nyemuyea\) o
WU
worday
wAyursZ BAvaon 3
(S661 ‘moqmE) & vneurusg jeurer WU
WU (S661 PIPMETEDN) © warez wAeaon
Paw] qdovor zuwsy wAqursZ wXeAoN W271 paw] ydavos zuws.7 WZ (S661 ogee) &

(€661 ‘eSunpsW WU wAjars7 wABAON (E661 eSurTey uhjuna7 wAvAon pow] qdovor zou]
(S661 moqsneyy) (S661 Moysneyy) o (£661 Prsmvjea) ©

(ree “simancuy
Tajo uwiFomion)

pie wag nusreg
(5661 Fremee244)

1661 AOS) | (p66r epeuea oye)

$o]B9S pue sadinos Jou ‘satdeds s1jdIy sJeOduINdIID 10} syaseyep yeneds Jo sty AreurUoIg 7 XANNV

ANNEX 3 ___ Legends used to compile a harmonised vegetation map for the CAFF region

ALASKA (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Domain Division Lowland test Eee Highland ecoregions
Section Section

1000 Polar | 1200 Tundra 1210 Arctic Tundra =| M1210 Brooks Range =

ALASKA (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

1220 Bering Tundra
1300 Subarctic 1310 Yukon Parkland
1320 Yukon Forest

M1310 Alaska Range

(Bailey, 1995)

Polar Domains

Tundra Division

Arctic Tundra Province

Bering Tundra (Northern) Province

Bering Tundra (Southern) Province

M120 Tundra Regime Mountains

M121 Brooks Range Tundra - Polar Desert Province
Seward Peninsula Tundra - Meadow Province

Bier) aticiena tate MeN Cane Sime ain
oe. es ee |
Sipet anne eae
[es | cot toes tent Reve
[as
ino
[ist

(Bailey, 1995)

Annex 3 i

CANADA

Number of Polygons

ee eee
imal 2 ee ee
iil ing i
ft he ae eae
EE RCL Te ae ee
Oi nim WLS © ae pean a
re nie |
as ree mi. 1
ia. ae SSeS
ra aca A anes
SU ceaaeralle fire

(St Laurent et al., 1995)

Annex 3 ii

FOREST LAND CLASSES

Forest land Land on which trees are the dominant vegetative cover with tree crown cover of 10% or
more. Includes land where trees are stunted owing to site limitations, undetectable owing
disturbance, or temporarily absent.

Continuous Land cover type where forest land cccupies more than 50% of the area.

forest

TREE COVER
Coniferous Continuous forest in which 76-100% of the canopy is composed of coniferous trees.
forest
Broadleaf Continuous forest in which 76-100% of the canopy is composed of broadleaf (deciduous)
forest trees.

Mixed forest | Continuous forest in which 26-75% of the canopy is composed of coniferous and broadleaf
trees.

TREE/SHRUB/HERB/NONVASCULAR

Transitional A mixture of land cover classes where tree cover is discernible but forest land occupies less
forest than 50% of the area.

SHRUB/HERB/NONVASCULAR*
Tundra Low arctic or alpine vegetation with discernible cover. Although generally located beyond

the tree line, low woody plants (ericaceous shrubs, willows, etc.) and patches of stunted
trees may occur.

AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES
CROPS

Cropland Cultivated land with crops, fallow, feedlots, orchards, vineyards nurseries, shelter belts and
hedgerows.

NON-CULTIVATED (SHRUB/HERB)

Rangelands Land supporting native vegetation, shrubs, grass and other herbaceous cover with less than
and pasture 10% tree cover. Includes improved land dedicated to the production of forage, and upland
and lowland meadows.

NON-VEGETATED LAND CLASSES

Perennial Perennial snow fields and glaciers.
Snow or Ice

Barren Land Land without discernible vegetation cover. May include sand, rock, bare soil and open pit
mines.

Built-up area _— Cities and towns of sufficient size to be depicted at the scale of mapping.
NON-LAND CLASSES

Open water

Sea-ice Minimum Cover

Nonvascular Plants lacking an internal vascular system (e.g.mosses, lichens).

Annex 3

GREENLAND/DENMARK

es ee
ete [ictoced Nema
High Arctic

Humid low Arctic

Northern Boreal Zone

(CAFF, 1993)

SCANDINAVIA

Ll ae eeeR OMEN Sei bree vm |
Lake a
Northern boreal zone

Mixed southern, middle and northern boreal subzones

[6 | Souther toret boone
eed
oa

(Holten and Carey, 1992)

Annex 3

Unknown land type

(EROS, 1992)

SOVIET UNION, FORMER

(a) Lowland tundra

(b) Mountain tundra

Forest tundra

(Kumaev, 1990)

Annex 3

- ia es ; a iS i : : .

ee ASW,

7 eis oan, ie t ~ 4 iq .
ne, P — - Se ee ee : a LEO CL oe = ea ,
——_ : ’ }
ae 2 ; >
: pet cet “ is
* '
ia

es

| MEAT WOT

Any gn sraathe a. ME ee 4
sie Scr aL ae.
tn se ai tiartl one

wy _ a
ent Renal ceed
ik RAC aetna Revieeet On

= iyiet Lessin iy
(petra Aftermath emt ig

types avknat

5 nt

a

ws

ANNEX 4

Categories and management objectives of protected areas (after IUCN, 1978)°

Scientific Reserves/Strict Nature Reserve. To protect nature and maintain natural
processes in an undisturbed state in order to have ecologically representative examples
of the natural environment available for scientific study, environmental monitoring,
education, and for the maintenance of genetic resources in a dynamic and evolutionary
State.

National Park. To protect natural and scenic areas of national or international
significance for scientific, educational, and recreational use.

Natural Monument/Natural Landmark. To protect and preserve nationally significant
natural features because of their special interest or unique characteristics.

Managed Nature Reserve/Wildlife Sanctuary. To assure the natural conditions necessary
to protect nationally significant species, groups of species, biotic communities, or
physical features of the environment where these require specific human manipulation
for their perpetration.

Protected Landscapes. To maintain nationally significant natural landscapes which are
characteristic of the harmonious interaction of man and land while providing
opportunities for public enjoyment through recreation and tourism within the normal
life style and economic activity of these areas.

Resource Reserve. To protect the natural resources of the area for future use and
prevent or contain development activities that could affect the resource pending the
establishment of objectives which are based upon appropriate knowledge and planning.

Natural Biotic Area/Anthropological Reserve. To allow the way of life of societies
living in harmony with the environment to continue undisturbed by modern technology.

Multiple-Use Management Area/Managed Resource Area. To provide for the sustained
production of water, timber, wildlife, pasture, and outdoor recreation, with the
conservation of nature primarily orientated to the support of economic activities
(although specific zones may also be designated within these areas to achieve specific
conservation objectives).

Biosphere Reserve. To conserve for present and future use the diversity and integrity
of biotic communities of plants and animals within natural ecosystems, and to safeguard
the genetic diversity of species on which their continuing evolution depends. These are
internationally designated sites managed for research, education and training.

World Heritage Site. To protect the natural features for which the area is considered
to be of outstanding universal significance. This is a select list of the world’s unique
natural and cultural sites nominated by countries that are Party to the World Heritage
Convention.

3 IUCN has introduced a new system of management categories (IUCN, 1994).

Annex 4

mayer FDU) wits) the ly ats Do ENO) Inset ‘ . ie ‘ j Pitt’

n i - 4 -
|. eyes riaiianenens zr wigs onary MBA 4 , ; ma f
4 wrelhecasayety: ee hardest nnagaT i ane docu! byal.) Whats, dint taht -Exeresy 6h AB, Sl aeaeRy
: : ; : i

; grreelnone Lipoenetaal vi ay cet inatiey ec alitelaaa Vieng way mc Lemetlire “yh bhiR

): - Winatodiarlowrs: ful 7 TORO ee omy Coy ty Cedi Me taser i ae L fata
; ri At, |
; _
1 ] = 7 1 Ni if F

merase! tik) Teri Ve ee) ee tue Pevieiiee eeeiega OT ea Hiberiey i
: ok DR Sie Tan er et Sale 5 TG Te [ager boy he:
: j this eealiald ‘ EN Ne et in ONE SE © SB ya
|. aaoathenghe ein, ipa tiie dkms eC) dees) Sit Ua) sate sis Mie ce

oo) ake iran sudiih in Meee ema a ae eats. Ta as ‘eth la

lier dae heen Uva eT. uinunee. Sab ergy ae TOY agate
ley, ey Laan cnatdcy Rb keaton "Wn eet fascia (ean ¥ SPC. aoe aR. hos

| ‘etek wnat PRs: ary ospvry is ancien norm) Ove ae NLA ah

" i e f \ ) iene 100 at ia
sr Asi ampere gan lnyabinee uC Aease is, Anil to. VT onan ant
meibcvionng salheie ee ae agsiinesties pall metal: tach’ ted mchiag?
Megretean 008 alti essai apy ii: Ae

:
|
| bape wee einer’ vd wre od he aroue Neetacsain, mys) Wurst} i Vey
as ont qatilagiog oman baer am rae | een, Way rea Pe Wee ai poli 2 AeaoS
fo eel an neh eign nog Hah pa 5.86 yy ON
F ssc filo ei a wate iT

Peconic ad wrania. bod iaranbau, ie ca

" : . 8 abv pbivirng Ps aie soni Taliep Ve ty eee
ieaatind weserbaaey ales ovayhray 96 2 ‘eit

art, ot a mtory Wit i ;
boitiey oe by

ie saya Wea ins et} HA GYhen in

Ms a ; dearer ney Ge Ahan hres Ahi
/ y F ou Bp eee Hee ed POL TW thes
i“ 1 aden am RM A gran

Uae i fi ‘
Natt ore: shells ci ep dbeahenteliven