Biodiversity and Actual Status of Narta and Dukati Lagoons in Albania

India is known for its rich heritage of biodiversity. In biological diversity parlance, India is one of the 17 mega-diverse countries in the world. With only 2.4 % of the world’s area, India accounts for 7–8 % of the world’s recorded plant and animal species. India’s ten biogeographic zones possess an exemplary diversity of ecological habitats like alpine forests, grasslands, wetlands, coastal and marine ecosystems, and desert ecosystems. The large mosaic of distinct agro-ecosystems has contributed to diverse cropping pattern and systems across the country. Amongst the existing biota, 91,307 species of animals of which 2,557 Protista, 12,470 general invertebrates, 69,903 arthropods, 4,994 vertebrates, and 45,500 species of plants as well as 5,650 microbial species have been documented in its 10 bio-geographic regions. India has four out of thirty-four global biodiversity hotspots, which is an indicator of high degree of endemism (of species) in India. About 5,150 plant species and 1,837 animal species are endemic to India. India’s biodiversity includes wild relatives of agricultural crops and domesticated animals. India has 16 major types and 251 subtypes of forests. Indigenous medicine systems utilize nearly 6,500 native plants for both human and animal healthcare. India’s diverse preponderance of native tribal and ethnic groups has contributed significantly in the conservation and diversification of biodiversity. Its cultural and ethnic diversity includes over 550 tribal communities of 227 ethnic groups spread over 5,000 forested villages. India proudly upholds the tradition of nature conservation. In 252 B.C., the Emperor Asoka established protected areas (PAs) for mammals, birds, fish and forests through a proclamation. Jim Corbett National Park covering an area of 325 sq km came into being as the India’s first and world’s third National Park in 1936. India has currently 4.79 % of total geographic area under an elaborate network of PAs, which includes 99 National Parks, 513 wildlife sanctuaries, 43 conservation reserves, 4 community reserves and 3 biodiversity heritage sites. India has a National Wildlife Action Plan, which envisages 10 % of the geographical area of the country under PA coverage. In India, the accelerated loss of biodiversity components over the last few decades has been of great concern. Environmental changes, overexploitation and habitat loss are among the major causes of species loss that, according to certain estimates, is of the order of a species per day. The richness of India’s biological resources and related indigenous knowledge is an asset that needs to be cherished, conserved and judiciously utilized. One of the major challenges before the country lies in adopting a system which helps in utilizing this biodiversity for benefit of humankind without compromising on risking the loss. The intrinsic value of biological diversity and of the ecological, genetic, social, economic, scientific, educational, cultural, recreational and aesthetic values and its components are to be taken care properly for the better management of biological resources and biodiversity for the welfare of human beings for better, and healthier as well as peaceful living on earth. The conservation of biological diversity is a serious and common concern of human beings for better living. The general lack of information and knowledge regarding biological diversity and of the urgent need to develop scientific, technical and institutional capacities to provide the basic understanding is important to plan and implement appropriate measures. It should be recognized that the women in rural play a vital role in the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and affirming the need for the full participation of women at all levels of policy making and implementation for biological diversity conservation. Biodiversity is an important component for economic and social development and poverty eradication and overriding priorities of most of the developing countries in the world. The conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is critical importance of meeting of food, fodder, fiber, health, water and other needs of growing world population for which purpose, access to and sharing of both genetic resources and technologies are essential. It should be determined to conserve and sustainable use of biological diversity for the benefit of present and future generations.

Achieving Coherent Policies for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Ecosystems

Peculiarities of legal regulation of legal relations in the field of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity are considered. The provisions of national and international legislation in this area have been studied, as well as the meaning of the terms «biological diversity» and «sustainable use of biological diversity» from the point of view of law. From the standpoint of law, the program documents are analyzed, based on the provisions of which the state policy in the field of conservation and use of biodiversity is formed, as well as the place of norms on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the environmental legislation of Ukraine. The necessity of developing a single categorical-conceptual apparatus in the field of regulation of relations on conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is substantiated. It is established that the legal regulation of conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is provided mainly by national programs, strategies and other policy documents, and ensuring the requirements of conservation and sustainable use of natural, spatial, species, population and coenotic diversity of biodiversity components. It is noted that the term «biological diversity» and its species (spatial, species, population and coenotic diversity (depending on the level of organization)) are used mainly in setting legal requirements for the protection, use and reproduction of certain natural resources. in order to uniformly apply the term «biodiversity» and understand its meaning, its definition should be introduced into national legislation at the level of natural resource laws. It is also considered necessary to include basic terms, including the concept of «biological diversity», in the future Environmental Code. At the same time, relations in the field of biodiversity (its components) should be considered in the context of its sustainable use as part of a more global concept of sustainable development, where the principle of rational use of natural resources is a key condition for sustainable economic and social development.

SHORT COMMUNICATION INCORPORATING BIODIVERSITY CONSIDERATIONS IN POLICY Shirley Clerkin Shirley Clerkin(e-mail: ecoscape@indigo.ie), NaturalEnvironment Officer, An Taisce, Tailors' Hall, Back Lane, Dublin8, Republic of Ireland. INTRODUCTION We all participate in natural processes, which are facilitated by biodiversity. Changes in lifestyles, farming practices, infrastructure and the way we work and live over the last half-century or so have resulted in dramatic changes in the state of Ireland's biodiversity. The need for policy to incorporate biodiversity considerations is now more urgent than ever before because our ability to cause change is much greater. The 1998 EuropeanCommunityBiodiversityStrategystated, 'Given the projected growth in economic activity, the rate of loss of biodiversity is farmore likely to increase than stabilise' (Commission of the European Communities 1998). The excellent and informative Ireland's environment: amillennium report, published by the Environmental Protection Agency, also demonstrates the links between the growth of GDP and environmental pressures, rating the need to protect our natural resources as an urgent priority (Stapleton et al. 2000). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has produced an important evaluation in a global context of Ireland's performance in biodiversity protection. Ireland is listed by the IUCN and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 1996) as the worst achiever in the OECD, protecting the smallest amount of national territory for biodiversity of all 28 developed nations. In fact, Ireland protects only about 1% of the national territory to strict intemational standards (that is, with national parks, nature reserves and other such stricdly protected areas) (OECD, updated to the year 2000), whereas the average in the developed world is 12% of the national territory (OECD 1996). Special areas of conservation (SACs) and natural heritage areas (NHAs) are not included in these figures because they are not accorded strict protection. Because of the small percentage of national parks and nature reserves in Ireland, NHAs and SACs are at the forefront of the measures that will be put in place to ensure nature conservation and must be carefully managed to maximise their contribution to biodiversity. Support is required, however, from a wide range of other policies, so that protected areas do not become 'islands' in a bio-monoculture. Despite the lack of coverage of national parks and nature reserves, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands recently commissioned a report, via the Heritage Council, on the possibility of lifing the hunting ban on state-owned lands within the minister's control. These lanjs aremainly nature reserves and national parks. Independent UK consultants Just Ecology recommended that the ban not be lifted because of the lack of baseline data on biodiversity in national parks and because the main aim of these areas is the conservation of natural heritage, not recreation or hunting. Biodiversity must be considered in all projects and plans through a combined approach of communication, policy, legislation and sectoral policy integration. The European Commission recommends (1) the development of national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and (2) the integration, as far as possible, of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, progranunes and policies (environment, agriculture, forestry and fisheries polices are generally perceived to be the biggest priority). With regard to the development of national strategies, the National Biodiversity Plan (NBP) was published by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (DAHGI) in April 2002, just before the general election. Itwas published in final form without the wide consultation that An Taisce had recommended. The NBP states that a National Biodiversity Forum, representative of all stakeholders, will be established to provide a mechanism for consultation. The plan contains 91 actions but no specific timeframes or lead agencies and is, in An Taisce's opinion, weak on specifics. The NBP was produced in accordance with Article 6 of the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This convention, signed by 156 countries concerned about threats to biodiversity, contains the central set of international rules on biodiversity. Its parties commit themselves to (1) the conservation of biological diversity, (2) the BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: PROCEEDINOS OF THE ROYAL IRISHACADEMY, VOL. 102B, No...

Biological diversity has inherent value and becomes the basis of various ecosystem services that humans assume support their survival. On the other hand, biological diversity is being lost throughout the world, and the conservation of biological diversity is an extreme problem. National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity 2008 Version (Ministry of the Environment, November, 2008) raises “The conservation in an important area and the formation of the ecological network” as one of seven main themes for conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use. As a part of the construction of an ecosystem network, a policy to set “a green corridor” in the national forests was enforced in 2000 by the Forestry Agency. In this study, “The green corridor of Shikoku Mountainous District” (Tokushima/Ehime/Kochi) was selected from the green corridors set in 22 places in Japan for investigation. Local populations of the Asiatic black bear inhabiting the Shikoku mountainous district are listed in the Red Data Book of Ministry of the Environment for fear of extinction and the fear of extinction is on the rise. Distribution of the Asiatic black bear appears to be limited to the Mt. Tsurugi-san area of “The green corridor of Shikoku Mountainous District” and the surrounding area and “The green corridor” is highly associated with the conservation of this population. The current corridor may not be able to network a suitable habitat for securing a minimum viable population size (MVP) of the Asiatic black bear as calculated by the individual base model. In addition, when it thought about building of the ecological network, there were the places to overlap with the natural park and so on in the corridor. It is necessary to set a broad corridor that includes private and communal forests in the area by cooperating with other measures of the natural park or natural conservation area, the sanctuary. However, most of the private and communal forests in this area are economic forests and forestry is a major local industry. An estimate of the expenses and the burdens to push forward this policy must be considered.JEL Classification: Q2, Q5

INTRODUCTION. Nowadays the issues concerning conservation of marine biological diversity become important for the community of States in the light of the expansion of the scale of economic activity in marine spaces and of the opportunities of using such resources. At the universal contractual level an answer was proposed to a number of questions that have arisen in this area: on March 4, 2023, the text of the Agreement (under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) with a long title: “on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction” was finalized. It is predicted that the entry into force of this Agreement in the future will create a multilateral legal basis for conservation of biological diversity on the high seas, with the orderly use of its biological resources, to protect such diversity based on the principle of cooperation between States.The purpose of the article is to analyze the legal regime of marine genetic resources conservation based on the text of this Agreement.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The subject of this study comprises international treaties, international customs, general principles of international law and other sources of international law related to conservation of marine biodiversity in general. The methodological basis of the research is represented by a wide range of research methods, namely: formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and system-structural methods. In addition, the author applied the methods of analysis and generalization.RESEARCH RESULTS. The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the international legal regime of marine genetic resources based on the provisions of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. The author considers the history of the development of the draſt Agreement, analyzes its main provisions, and pays special attention to its innovative legal mechanisms.The author proposes their assessment of the content of the draſt Agreement as a universal legal basis for the conservation of marine biological diversity, and suggests some options for strengthening international cooperation in this area.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. As a result of the study, it can be stated that the draſt Agreement, prepared over many years of negotiations and published in March 2023, is a significant political and legal achievement of a universal level in the field of marine biodiversity conservation. At the same time, one can not fail to note the rather general nature of this document, as well as the fact that the entry into force of the Agreement may also require considerable time: objectively, the interests of developed and developing countries in this area are not always close; moreover, each State party to the Agreement accepts the obligation, among other things, that the use of marine natural resources should be linked to the obligation to protect marine environment, and this is always sensitive: a number of developed countries, as is known, under the pretext of economic concern, impose on developing States “green” products of their enterprises, which exacerbates the gap between developed and developing States.That is why the author comes to the conclusion that the international community, along with the development of a universal international treaty, could take the path of developing regional agreements to clarify such a legal regime, which would also contribute to the strengthening of the legal regime for biodiversity conservation at the universal level.

This paper will consider whether the ‘International Legally Binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction’ (BBNJ agreement) could provide the basis for an integrated framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in the area beyond national jurisdiction, and if in doing so, it could in turn give any impetus to the obligation of States to protect the marine environment stipulated in Article 192 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). To answer this question, Section 2 will briefly explain the gaps in two relevant international treaties for conservation and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). Section 3 will clarify the binding character of the BBNJ agreement in comparison to the existing relevant international agreements, such as the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement and the Part xi Agreement. Section 4 will analyse provisions in area-based management tools and the environment impact assessment stipulated in the BBNJ draft text, to assess their role as an important basis for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. Based on these analyses of the BBNJ draft text, Section 5 will then turn to consider the necessary elements that stand to play potentially significant roles as legally-binding tools for the conservation and sustainable use of the marine biological diversity of ABNJ. Three such elements are to be identified, the first being the binding effect of the due diligence obligation imposed by the BBNJ agreement, which could serve as a global tool for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. The second element is the means to ensure effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement, wherein the institutional framework would play a decisive role. The third element is the characteristics of the due diligence obligation referred to in the first point. As a further consideration, Section 6 will also specifically examine the due diligence obligation for the protection of marine biological diversity of ABNJ.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of the successful international treaties that is steadily progressing with the realization of its stated objectives. Conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of biological resources and equitable sharing of benefits with the people for utilization of their traditional knowledge and resources are gaining global acceptance. When the CBD addresses the larger issues of global biodiversity conservation and utilization of biological resources for developmental purposes, the specific problems concerning biosafety brought out by biotechnology, and access and benefit sharing are left to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, respectively. The Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress emerging out of living modified organisms is the latest addition under the CBD. India, being one of the oldest surviving civilizations with indigenous people and their wisdom and as one of the megadiverse countries, has high stakes in conserving biological diversity and protecting the traditional knowledge base of its indigenous and local communities. India has many domestic legal and policy instruments to govern biodiversity and biosafety issues. This chapter critically looks at the international legal obligations for India under the CBD as well as the Cartagena Protocol, Nagoya Protocol and the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol and evaluates the level of their domestic implementation in India. Recently, the Government of India has ratified both the Protocols under the CBD, and many changes are expected in the domestic regulatory frameworks. This chapter will examine the effectiveness of existing domestic regulatory mechanisms and the alternative options available to India in implementing the CBD and its Protocols.

The ecosystem approach—as endorsed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CDB) in 2000—is a strategy for holistic, sustainable, and equitable natural resource management, to be implemented via the 12 Malawi Principles. These principles describe the need to manage nature in terms of dynamic ecosystems, while fully engaging with local peoples. It is an ambitious concept. Today, the term is common throughout the research and policy literature on environmental management. However, multiple meanings have been attached to the term, resulting in confusion. We reviewed references to the ecosystem approach from 1957 to 2012 and identified 3 primary uses: as an alternative to ecosystem management or ecosystem-based management; in reference to an integrated and equitable approach to resource management as per the CBD; and as a term signifying a focus on understanding and valuing ecosystem services. Although uses of this term and its variants may overlap in meaning, typically, they do not entirely reflect the ethos of the ecosystem approach as defined by the CBD. For example, there is presently an increasing emphasis on ecosystem services, but focusing on these alone does not promote decentralization of management or use of all forms of knowledge, both of which are integral to the CBD’s concept. We highlight that the Malawi Principles are at risk of being forgotten. To better understand these principles, more effort to implement them is required. Such efforts should be evaluated, ideally with comparative approaches, before allowing the CBD’s concept of holistic and socially engaged management to be abandoned or superseded. It is possible that attempts to implement all 12 principles together will face many challenges, but they may also offer a unique way to promote holistic and equitable governance of natural resources. Therefore, we believe that the CBD’s concept of the ecosystem approach demands more attention.La Necesidad de Desenredar Conceptos Clave del Argot Ambiente-EstrategiaResumenLa estrategia ambiental – como es promocionada por la Convención Biológica sobre Diversidad en 2000 – es una estrategia para un manejo holístico, sustentable y equitativo de recursos naturales, que habrá de implementarse por vía de los 12 Principios de Malawi. Estos principios describen la necesidad de manejar la naturaleza en términos de ecosistemas dinámicos, mientras se compromete totalmente con las personas locales. Es un concepto ambicioso. Hoy en día, el término es común en la investigación y la literatura de políticas sobre el manejo ambiente. Sin embargo, se han relacionado múltiples significados con el término, lo que resulta en confusión. Revisamos referencias a la estrategia ambiental de 1957 a 2012 e identificamos tres usos principales: como una alternativa para manejo ambiental o basado en ecosistemas; en referencia a una estrategia integrada y equitativa para el manejo de recursos según la CBD; y como un término que indica un enfoque en el entendimiento y la valuación de los servicios ambientales. Aunque los usos de este término y sus variantes pueden traslaparse en su significado, típicamente no reflejan en su totalidad los valores de la estrategia ambiental como fue definida por la CBD. Por ejemplo, actualmente hay un énfasis creciente en los servicios ambientales, pero enfocarse solamente en estos no promueve la descentralización del manejo o el uso de todas las formas de conocimiento, siendo ambas integrales para el concepto de la CBD. Resaltamos que los Principios de Malawi están en riesgo de ser olvidados. Para entender mejor estos principios, se requiere de más esfuerzo para implementarlos. Dichos esfuerzos deben ser evaluados, idóneamente con estrategias comparativas, antes de permitir que el concepto de la CBD de manejo holístico y comprometido socialmente sea abandonado o reemplazado. Es posible que los intentos por implementar los 12 principios juntos enfrentarán muchos obstáculos, pero también pueden ofrecer una forma única de promover el gobierno holístico y equitativo de los recursos naturales. Así, creemos que el concepto de estrategia ambiental de la CBD exige mayor atención.

Effective support for the sustainable development of the Carpathian region cannot be provided by only one country, therefore interregional and transnational cooperation is necessary. The article analyzes the provisions of the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, which was adopted on May 22, 2003 in Kyiv, as well as its protocols (Protocol on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological and Landscape Diversity dated May 22, 2003, Kyiv, Protocol on Sustainable Forest Management dated May 27, 2011, Bratislava, Protocol on Sustainable Tourism dated May 27, 2011, Bratislava, Protocol on Sustainable Transport dated September 26, 2014, Mikulov, Development Protocol of Agriculture and Rural Areas dated October 12, 2017). It was established that the specified international legal acts are part of the national legislation and ensure: a) comprehensive legal regulation of the protection of the Carpathians as a unique natural, social, ethno-cultural and economic object, which is based on the principles of proper management and sustainable development; b) an integrated approach to the legal protection of the Carpathians in terms of preservation and sustainable use of biological and landscape diversity, sustainable forest management, sustainable tourism, sustainable transport, sustainable development of agriculture and rural areas; c) an ecosystem approach to the use and preservation of natural resources of the Ukrainian Carpathians. At the same time, the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians, as well as the protocols to it, have a number of legal defects, in particular, some poor wording of norms, insufficient provisions ensuring the implementation of the prescriptions of the specified international legal acts, lack of provisions on responding to violations of obligations. In order to fulfill Ukraine's international obligations, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on October 20, 2019, by Resolution No. 880, approved the State Development Program of the Ukrainian Carpathian Region for 2020-2022. The article found out that the priority directions for the sustainable development of the mountainous territories of the Ukrainian Carpathians provided for by the State Program fully implement the provisions of the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians and its protocols. Achieving the goal of the State Program will be ensured by implementing program measures in four priorities (directions): a) formation of a competitive economy of mountain areas; b) abolition of infrastructural restrictions, development of spatially balanced road, industrial and social infrastructure; c) development of tourism potential by preserving and supporting cultural heritage and traditional crafts of the local population; balanced use of natural healing and recreational resources; d) ensuring environmental safety by restoring forests and optimizing the structure of landscapes; improving the sanitary, hygienic and ecological condition of settlements; construction and modernization of anti-erosion, hydrotechnical, anti-karst, anti-avalanche structures, as well as carrying out measures to protect against flooding and inundation, aimed at preventing the development of dangerous geological processes on the territory. The article found that due to the lack of targeted funding from the state budget, the implementation of the Program in 2020 was only 76%. As with any state program, the issue of financing the State Program for the Development of the Ukrainian Carpathian Region for 2020-2022 deserves special attention. In accordance with the section "Amount of financial, material, technical and labor resources necessary for the implementation of the Program", the financial support of the Program is carried out at the expense of funds provided for in the state budget for the relevant year, funds of local budgets, as well as at the expense of international financial and technical assistance and other sources not prohibited by law. Therefore, in order to achieve the tasks set by the State Program, the authors draw attention to the need to adjust the financial and economic mechanism of its provision, although this is extremely difficult in the conditions of martial law.

INTRODUCTION. Treaty and customary rules of International Law of the Sea provide for the duty of States to protect and preserve the marine environment, using for this purpose “the best” means. States shall also cooperate in elaborating legal mechanisms for the protection and preservation of the marine environment on a universal, regional or bilateral basis. Universal treaty sources of modern international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS), among other numerous rules on protection and preservation of the marine environment, provide for the adoption by the coastal states more stringent ecological laws and regulations in “clearly defined” areas. Different terms are used for designating such areas in UNCLOS and other international instruments such as Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973 modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 1973/78); Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; the Protocols adopted by the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP); documents of International Maritime Organization (IMO). Such terms are used: “special areas”; “marine protected areas”; “marine protected territories”; “particularly sensitive areas”. Not all these terms are used in UNCLOS and none of them is defined by the rules of this convention. Convention on Biological Diversity provides for the definition of “marine protected areas”, but only for the purpose of conservation of biodiversity. This paper addresses optional approaches to interpreting rules of international law which are relevant to marine protected areas and practice of states in designating such areas, first and foremost, in the waters of Arctic and Antarctic, where the consequences of marine pollution might be irreversible.MATERIALS AND METHODS. This paper demonstrates the evolving legal basis of international cooperation of states in establishing marine protected areas beginning from the text of the Washington convention of 1926, materials of the Committee of Experts of the League of Nations, the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by Ships, 1973 as amended by Protocol 1978, and documents of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Particular attention is devoted to interpreting the rules on special areas provided in UNCLOS. The paper addresses also the relevant rules of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992; UNEP Protocols, beginning with the first of them – “the Protocol on Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas”, adopted in 1982; and also relevant soft-law documents such as “Guidelines for the Designation of Special Areas and the Identification of Particularly Sensitive Areas”, adopted by the Assembly IMO in 1991 and famous “Agenda for XXI”, adopted by the Rio Environmental Conference in 1992 and relevant documents of the Johannesburg Summit, 2002. The focus of the research is directed to legal materials of designating marine protected areas in the Arctic and Antarctic.RESEARCH RESULTS. International Law is developed by more and more maturing legal mechanisms of different level, including treaty level, which relate to designating marine protected areas and to governance theirof. Different classifications of such areas are suggested in legal literature, taking into account different terms used in relevant sources of international law. It is suggested in legal literature to make accent on differentiating between the term “special areas”, as it is provided in MARPOL 1973/78 and the same term used in UNCLOS. As a result of this research it is suggested a different approach. The practice of states in pursuing environmental protection, as noted in the paper, reveals a trend not to fragment relevant legal notions, applicable to designating special protected areas at sea in defined limits and thus not to create additional confusion of legal terms but rather to consolidation, comprehensive interpretation of international law rules applicable to special areas. Within this trend it is suggested that the term “marine protected areas” as a generic term is interpreted in a wide context, not limiting it to the meaning of the term, used in a specific international agreement. According to such a wide approach rules of international law on marine protected areas in their cumulative effect provide not only duties of states to protect marine environment; not only that more stringent environmental measures in such areas are aimed at protection from pollution by oil or other pollutants; such stringent measures are aimed also at preservation of ecosystems, ecological complexes, including marine living resources. The economic activities in such areas might be restricted or even prohibited in order to achieve specific environmental purposes, including preservation of marine endemics and other rare marine living resources; including also sustainability of marine bioproductivity and monitoring the state of ecological balance in such areas. The coastal states may also adopt laws and regulations relating to special environmental governance of such areas.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. While according to MARPOL 1973/78 the legal regime of “special areas” is limited by more stringent measures for preventing pollution of the sea from vessels, the legal regime of marine protected areas is different, according to cumulative effect of relevant rules provided in UNCLOS, Conservation of Marine Biodiversity, the UNEP Protocols to regional sea conventions and other sources of international law relating to preservation and protection of the marine environment. Firstly, according to the latter sources, the legal status of marine protected areas is defined not only a broader context, but also as an on-going process, with perspectives of its development and individual framing, taking into account the oceanographical and ecological conditions of a concrete marine area which is qualified as specially protected. Secondly, almost universal recognition in legal teachings of a broad meaning of the term “marine protected areas” does not mean that designation of such areas is the most effective at the universal level. Though the first Intergovernmental Conference in September 2018 demonstrated the common intention of states to prepare at the universal level the Agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, no one expects a speedy conclusion of such an agreement, even of framework character. In this context it is concluded in the paper that more perspective are regional and bilateral levels of interaction of states concerned for designating marine protected areas, with more detailed consideration of the relevant oceanographical and ecological conditions of a particular marine region and special character of shipping traffic in such a region. In practical terms, issues of interpretation and application of rules of international law on marine protected areas are very important for the relatively young practice of designating such areas in the Arctic, which is nevertheless very sensitive for each Arctic states as shown in the paper.

Abstract. Paleoecological records are replete with examples of biotic responses to past climate change and human impact, but how can we use these records in the conservation of current and future biodiversity? A recently published list of (One Hundred Questions of Importance to the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity) (Sutherland et al., 2009) highlights a number of key research questions that need a temporal perspective. Many of these questions are related to the determination of ecological processes in order to assess ecosystem function and services, climate change-integrated conservation strategies, and ecosystem management and restoration. However, it is noticeable that not a single contributor to this list was from the paleo-research community and that extremely few paleo-records are ever used in the development of terrestrial conservation management plans. This lack of dialogue between conservationists and the paleo-community is partially driven by a perception that the data provided by paleoecological records are purely descriptive and not of relevance to the day-to-day management and conservation of biological diversity. This paper illustrates, through a series of case-studies, how long-term ecological records (>50 years) can provide a test of predictions and assumptions of ecological processes that are directly relevant to management strategies necessary to retain biological diversity in a changing climate. This discussion paper includes information on diversity baselines, thresholds, resilience, and restoration of ecological processes.

Background The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimates that roughly 22,000 species worldwide are threatened with extinction (IUCN 2014). This number is predicted to increase due to the impacts of human activities (Sala et al. 2000), but also as more species are described and have their extinction risk assessed. As a consequence of the extinction of species, intergovernmental policies and agreements have been developed to conserve biological diversity, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which has three main objectives: (1) conservation of biological diversity; (2) sustainable use of the components of biological diversity; and (3) fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (Convention on Biological Diversity 2003).

The article analyzes the importance of the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians of 2003 (Carpathian Convention). Carpathian Convention created favourable conditions for the conservation of landscapes and biological diversity of mountain ecosystems of the Carpathian region. Carpathian Convention is a framework instrument, in other words, it determines the general principles concerning the solution of environmental, social and economic problems of the region. The Protocol on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological and Landscape Diversity to the Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians has been analyzed. The advantages of international cooperation of the countries of the Carpathian region in achieving a common comprehensive result – conservation of biodiversity and improvement of social and economic level of the region and its inhabitants on the grounds of sustainable development have been defined. Carpathian Convention coordinates the economic needs with the social and environmental protection, promotes the conservation of the unique and authentic cultural and natural heritage of the Carpathian ecoregion for present and future generations. Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians provides the creation of the Carpathian ecological network as a type of ecological networks at the sub-regional level, which is a part of the Pan-European ecological network. Ukraine consistently follows the bilateral and multilateral agreements, concluded with neighboring countries, concerning the protection of the environment and is involved in the creation of cross-border elements of the national ecological network. The peculiarities of the Carpathian network of protected areas have been considered. The Carpathian network of protected areas is a special form of international cooperation in environmental protection, which consists in determining by the Conference of the Parties to the Carpathian Convention the list of protected areas and in approving of regulations about them. The Conference of the Parties to the Carpathian Convention encourages the administrations of these protected areas to participate actively in international cooperation and exchange of experience in the field of the conservation of the unique biological and landscape diversity, and to reduce the negative impact on the environment of the region of the Ukrainian Carpathians. The author proves that the Carpathian Convention, except the traditional approaches concerning the protection of separate areas and species, recognizes the necessity of a broader approach to the conservation of nature. Parties to the Carpathian Convention are obliged to improve the conservation and sustainable management on the areas that are outside of protected areas, with the help of the ecosystem approach. Such an ecosystem approach to the sustainable management is applied to the spatial planning, integrated water management, agriculture, forestry, transport, infrastructure, industry, energy, tourism and cultural heritage conservation. Herewith, the interests of environmental protection shall be taken into account during the development and implementation of the economic and social policies

The conservation of biological diversity is a serious and common concern. The better management of biological resources and biodiversity is essential for the welfare of human beings. As per the international obligation the Government of India, enacted the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. This Act provides conservation of biological diversity, presently there are many lacunas are present in this Act. But the cumbersome process regarding the permission and application of patent is the most impeding provision. New amendment in Biological Diversity Act 2002 endeavors to tune it with the Nagoya Convention. Secondly to remove the lacunas of the present Act and to create a favorable climate for collaborative research and investment. In new amendment Act it is also aimed to simplify the patent application procedure. In new amendment Act Ayush practitioners have been exempted from the Act’s scope. In new amendment Act seeks to bring more foreign investment in biological resources, research, patent and commercial utilization, without compromising the national interest. The major concern with the amendment bill is that the corporate or foreign interest could use the loopholes of permission given to traditional medicine and use it for commercial purposes, without sharing the benefits with the conservers of biodiversity. It is imperative that new laws not only be regulatory, but also be executed with the involvement of local people, particularly village sabhas and panchayats.