DENISOV V.V. Murmansk Marine Biological Institute RAS, Russia

The problems of complex (integrated) approach to the management of marine nature-economic systems which introduction is considered to be the basis of harmonization of their multi-functionality acquired significance in recent years.

This interest evoked due to the fact that sectoral and authority approaches to management are ineffective, that leads to conflicts between bodies of nature management and to the increase of anthropogenic threat to marine ecosystems in the areas of intensive economical activity. No wonder that Norway, USA and Canada have already started working out management plans for the Large Marine Ecosystems (LME), seas (or their separate large sectors) as unified geographic objects. In view of shelf resources development The Barents Sea should be the focal point of the problem.

The concept of the integrated approach should include four compulsory components:

Firstly, interrelation and interdependency between all major ecosystem components within singled out (chosen/ defined) area of water, water column, bottom and coasts (biotic/ abiotic) should be taken into consideration;

Secondly, management actions are to be planned and implemented in the context of long-term strategy of the development;

Thirdly, interrelations between different bodies of nature management and closely related to them social-ecological interests and values are to be considered conjointly;

In the fourth place, territorial contradictions in nature management should be solved by means of search for a mechanism of corporative interests transformation into the state ones so that to achieve strategic compromise.

The system of opinions and methods in this field is just being formed in Russia. It seems to be quite perspective to apply to marine management administrative ideas, developed for land. The case in point is adaptation and development of mechanisms responsible for realization of two management activity categories- anticipating management and operational monitoring management. Both types of management are interconnected as they are directed to the achievement of common purpose: to the rationalization of nature exploitation.

Mechanism of the anticipating management includes a number of sequent actions: study of the initial state of marine ecosystems and its analysis from the positions of human economic activity —> forecast of the anthropogenic changes of the system and their estimation —» selection of methods and arrangements to minimize negative consequences —» ecological expertise of projects. This universal sequence of actions in the essence is the core of the current EIA procedure. Methodology and practice of marine EIA were worked out in MMBI and successfully practiced, in particular, when the ecological grounding of the Stockman gas-condensate field was carried out. While adaptation of anticipating management methods to the marine complexes the EIA methodology should be applied already not only to separate projects but also to geographical areas where particular industries function. With all this going on, the role of the so-called "cumulative impacts" rises. The major distinctive feature is "dereliction", as in practice it is difficult to reveal the origin of the cumulative impacts according the place, time and sometimes the source which hampers their estimation.

In this presentation the operation procedure of the strategic analysis, forecast and management of the marine ecosystem is suggested as the basis for the nature management. Let us dwell on its major features. Any impacts according to this procedure are grouped not only by separate projects, by types of economic activity but functionally as well. Fulfilled on initial stages territorial sectoral EIAs (for instance, for oil-gas excavation) continue at subsequent stages of the general procedure as functional EIAs (inter-sectoral). All meaningful sources of possible extractions, emissions and occupations formed by different types of activity are revealed, summed up inside the limits of the geographical region at that. Semi-quantitative procedure based on the idea of ecosystem significant or "valued" components is the most convenient ground to carry out such EIAs. This method is realized through the estimation (calculation) of areas of the spatial-temporal crossings of valuable species inhabitancy (for instance, red king crab) places with the areas inside of which some factors of ecological impact (contamination, withdrawal, noise etc) act. As the result of the fulfillment of the functional cumulative EIA there appear estimations (though incomplete) of what might happen with valuable components of the ecosystem in case it is subjected either to the summary contamination (physical, chemical, biological) or to the summary extraction (withdrawal of biological resources, excavation of mineral resources), or to the summary occupation of water areas, bottom, while economic exploitation of the common area.

To obtain consequence estimations of each functional impact it is reasonable to use different indicators. Methodically the extraction is estimated easier (though not always easy) as for quoted species of biological resources the coastal control of production unloading in the ports exists. Emission consequences are more difficult to estimate. Bioindicators are irreplaceable for ecotoxicological manifestations. As a rule, these are sessile species (benthos). Other types of emission, for instance, physical contamination, demand knowledge of physiology and behavior of animals. Finally the occupation in simplest cases manifests itself in the extraction of biota that is in the death due to the physical impact. Joint effects of emission and occupation along the ecosystem chain appearing at the partial loss of the inhabitancy area or its modification are more difficult for tracing.

In the majority of cases construction of simple models of the type (impact-reaction- state) is possible, but more frequent one has to confine himself to expert estimations. It should be stated that fulfillment of the functional EIA demands high qualification from the executors who must have good understanding in the ecosystem organization of a specific basin. Functional approach to EIA is important as ecological consequences of the emission, extraction and occupation manifest themselves in different spatial-temporal scales: extraction of bioresources - this is commercial mortality (short-term effect), emission - sometimes death, more often - chemical ill health (average-term and long-term effects), and occupation often combines both as its function is integrative. Evidently, these differences are to be taken into consideration at the management.

Strategic Ecological Estimation or SEE is the next stage of the procedure under discussion, which results are included into the criteria selection basis of strategic directions of the territorial development. To realize the arrangements of the anticipating management and owing to its integrity, space and long-term duration SEE needs framed political-economic prerequisites (ecological-economic priorities).

Complex management of coastal zones or CMCZ might be considered as the most effective approach to the management in the situation under discussion (marine nature exploitation). Earlier this approach was applied mainly to the discrete relatively slam geographical regions (from tens to hundreds square kilometers), as its purpose was coordination of ecological and political "entries" into coastal objects of management. But recently the practice of CMCZ application is characterized by a quick widening of the sphere of its application - from coastal till large marine areas as functionally shelves become more and more densely connected with land.

Introduction of anticipating management methods based on the projecting of environmentally friendly natural- technical systems is rather important in the Barents Sea for the new branch- oil-gas excavation on the shelf. In this sphere in contrast to fisheries practical activity only begins and there are real pre-requisites to plan and to realize complex of the arrangements for the establishment of biosphere stable oil-gas province here. Accumulated international experience and especially Norwegian one and transfer of oil-gas firms to the technology of «zero» discharge give optimistic chances to future nature exploiters and all citizens.

Transfer to the integrated management means finalizing of progressive sequence of the initial object states: «primeval» marine system —> exploited non-managed (unregulated) system —> sectorally (authority) managed system —> complexly (territorially) managed system.

To analyze the effectiveness of any management it is necessary to give the estimation criteria of management actions. Preservation of the ecosystem "health" at the given (projected) level of economic loadings should be selected as the major criteria. For this purpose it is necessary to know "the norm" of health of a specific ecosystem, to be able to calculate anomaly values and to have agreed impressions in what limits deviations from "norms" will be acceptable for the society in the context of providing the sustainable development. All these problems are very complicated and developed insufficiently in the marine geoecology and nature exploitation as they are directly connected with the sustainability theory of marine nature -technical systems.

While the transfer to the model of the integrated management the estimation of its effectiveness appears more complicated as it is necessary to find the improvement criterion of the state of managed nature - economic system health of not simply in respect to an unregulated system but in respect to a regulated previously ineffective system, for instance, managed on the basis of sectoral approaches. If in the first case availability of bioecological "health" criteria is sufficient, in the second case it is necessary to add social criteria to them. It should be transferred, in particular, to the more «voluminous» estimation of the ecosystem state according to which support of not one but multitude of potential forms of ecosystem resources usage will be considered the index of health.

In the frames of socio-ecological measurement ecological "health" or "ill health" is to be evaluated considering all real costs i.e. subsides (financial, energy, other flows) for support of economic activity. Subsides as a rule, lead to the degradation of the environment and re-exploitation of its potential resources, as they promote the growth of excessive extractions, emissions and occupation. All exploited ecosystems together with this depend inevitably on external additional inputs of energy, matter etc. Thus, it cannot be (it is impossible) stated that the highest value is «natural» environment (position of the extreme «green peace» movements). As we discuss exploited systems it is necessary to stick to the principal point of view: health does not mean survival, it is development in conditions manner and ways of meeting human requirements i.e. it is an ecological-economic compromise.

For the Barents Sea its (health) achievement should be directed to:

a. harmonically develop all the required by the society and the world community types of activity;

b. preserve current low levels of chemical contamination of water and biota;

с. provide a sustainable exploitation of bioresources at a safe for the ecosystem level;

d. support biodiversity on a stable level preserving balance of aboriginal trophodynamic linkages.

Selecting institutional formation of the integrated management of the marine nature exploitation it is necessary to guarantee (support) three major functions:

1. Inter-governmental coordination of problems of economic development and protection of ecosystem resources;

2. Ecological grounding of all the types of economic activity (procedures EIA, CEIA SEE) and a mechanism of issuing licenses (expertise);

3. Obtaining of agreements of all the departments, organizations, firms etc. for the acceptance of rules and decisions on the integrated management.

Establishment of the Councils on the Marine activity (both: federal and regional) including representatives of all major marine sectors of economics, and society (manufacturers, officials, scientists, the public) seems a rational form of the management integration on the intergovernmental level. Major task of these Councils an is advance agreement advance of jurisdiction, economic practice, and gradual correction of citizens mentality for the interests of provision the territorial sustainable development on the regional, national and international levels. As marine areas are included juridically into the competence of federal authorities the activity of these Councils should provide the integrated basis for the realization of the public usage resources asset management principles on behalf of the RF Government (but not its separate Ministries).

In spite of the fact that the role of these Councils nowadays is more of a recommendation character, as it is executed in the frames of legislation in force and authorities of authority organs the very fact of their establishment is a very important step in the direction of the marine nature management integration.

OIL AND GAS OF ARCTIC SHELF 2006 (PROCEEDINGS OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE)