Arja Vasama

Käsivarsi Case 2012-2013:Management Planning Project for a wilderness area or a new N.P.?

18.9.2013 Jokkmokk

3

Käsivarsi Wilderness

4

Management Planning Area 2012

• Malla is strictly protected Nature Reserve• on Saana there are two small protected areas• the area around Saana and Kilpisjärvi village is not protected• Käsivarsi Wilderness, Malla and Saana are all Natura 2000 -

areas• Wilderness area is designed according to Wilderness Act, the

others to Nature Conservation Act• All area is state-owned

5

• Käsivarsi Wilderness Area management plan was made in 1999, but Env.Min. didn’t approve it before 2008

• There was a need to renovate it because the world has been changing: there are new tourism products and peoples’ hiking habits have changed also

• Saana fjell and the the whole area around Kilpisjärvi village is very popular, and needed management as well

• Officially Malla is the one and only protected area in Finland were reindeer grazing is not allowed. Unfortunately reindeer have occupied the area and a discussion has been going on whether it should be fenced: should be decided during the planning process

6

• First we looked for all interest groups using the area or somehow interested in it and asked them to nominate their representative in the negotiating board

• 20 persons were nominated, from 15 different organisations (Enontekiö municipality, local entrepreneurs, Saami Parliament, Saami museum, Reindeer Herders Ass., Käsivarsi reindeer herding cooperative, Karesuvanto and Kilpisjärvi villages, FANC Lapland, Forest Research Institute, local hunting and fishing organisations, Suomen latu (the Outdoor Association of Finland, Lapinkylät)

• MH has committed to Akwe:Kon –process. In this case we didn’t have the guidelines yet, and Saami Parliament has 4 representatives in the board. According to our new guidelines, it is better to have a separate Akwe:Kon -group

7

I STATE AND LAND USE HISTORY OF PLANNING AREA

10. Hunting and fishing IV STRATEGIES AND

MEASURESVI MONITORING

1. Planning area description and status

11. Research use19. Measures: nature conservation and restoration

28A. Impact of MP action

2. Statement of purpose of establishment (by site)

12. Other land use 20. Measures: cultural heritage 28B. Implementation of MP

3. Public participation: stakeholders

II KEY VALUES AND THREAT ANALYSIS

21A. Measures: visitors and recreational facilities

VII REFERENCES

4. Inland and marine waters13. Key conservation and use values

21B. Measures: interpretation 29. References

5. Geological features 14. Threat analysis22. Measures: hunting and fishing

VIII APPENDICES

6A. Habitats summary: Natura 2000 habitat types

III GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 23. Measures: other land useApp. 1. Regulations of privately owned sites

6B. Habitats summary: nationally threatened

15. Mitigation of threats24. Measures: administration and cooperation

App. 2. Provincial land use plan map

7A. Species summary: Habitats/Birds Directives

16. Development opportunities25. Measures: buildings (other than on form 21)

App. 3A. List of Natura 2000 habitats (by site)

7 B. Species summary: nationally threatened

17. Vision 26. ResourcesApp. 3B. List of Natura 2000 species (by site)

8. Cultural heritage18A. Zonation: recreation and nature tourism zone

V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

App. 4. Proposal for site regulations

9A. Nature recreation: visitors and facilities

18B. Zonation: remote zone App. 5. Statement summary

9B. Nature interpretation: participants and services

18C. Zonation: restricted zone App. 6. Photos

27. Environmental impact assessment

Management planning contents in protected areas

8

Basic data collected by NHS

• Biotope inventories• Flora inventories and surveys• Inventorying of birds of prey and other avifauna• Monitoring of bear, wolverine, wolf and Arctic fox, • Fish surveys• Butterfly and moth surveys• Visitor monitoring and visitor surveys

9

Cultural Heritage

• Inventories near to Kilpisjärvi Village 2010-2011 and in the wilderness area 2012

• Tens of new prehistoric relics found, many other cultural heritage sites mapped

• One of the most interesting objects was an arrowhead, found near to the Norwegian border in 2012. It might be very old and only few of them have ever been found in Finland

10

Working with the negotiating board

• Meetings held• Discussion about values, different interest groups value the

areas in different ways• Cultural values, nature values, • Fishing, hunting, reindeer herding, tourism…

• Is something threatening these values?• What is needed to make sure that we don’t lose anything

valuable?

11

N.P. plan

• Last November our work changed• Min.Env. got 4 proposals for new N.P:s, one of them Käsivarren

suurtunturit • Ministry asked MH to find out what are the preconditions for a

N.P.• We continued with the same stakeholders • Tight time schedule, beginning in Feb -13• Minister Niinistö visited Kilpisjärvi in June• At the beginning of the process minister promised not to

establish a N.P. without local support• Municipality and the tourist enterpreneurs were against the idea

at the very beginning, before they even knew what is coming

12

At the moment

• The local opinions are very divided• Mostly the common opinion seems to be strongly against the

park, but N.P. has got some support also, (often silent)• Local people are afraid that they’ll lose their rights, for instance

they would not be allowed to drive skidoos freely in the park• Entrepreneurs fear that the park would stop their businesses at

once because the use of motorized vehicles would be forbidden• MH has been trying to find out these fears and whether it is

possible to make compromises and find a solution to at least most of them

13

Participatory tools used during the process

• Several meetings with the negotiating board• Public meetings: Hetta, Karesuvanto and Kilpisjärvi. In 2012

thema management planning and 2013 N.P. • Internet discussion 2012. (M.P.) and 2013 (N.P.)

http://yhteiso.luontoon.fi/keskustelupalsta/ , (in saami also), • During the N.P. process several questionnaires with which MH

tried to find out which part of the possible park area were the most important for stakeholders and what are their main ways to use the area

14

Käsivarsi N.P. Plan

•Smallest area (A) around Kilpisjärvi only 7500 ha•The biggest area (A+B+C+D) 230 000 ha•Unique landscape and nature, especially A and B-areas

• N.B! transboundary cooperation (Reisa)

15

What next?

• N.P. survey draft will be published in the end of September and MH asks for opinions on it

• Everybody has the right to say• MH collects the opinions and passes them and the whole survey

to ministry before Christmas• Minister Niinistö makes the final decision whether or not he’s

going to begin the process in Government and Parliament

• And then the management planning will go on again..

Kiitos!