State of Conservation (SOC)
Lake Baikal (2000)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:33,200USD
|2000||International Bakail seminar on law projects dealing with the ...||18,200 USD|
|1990||Technical experts meeting for discussing conservation management ...||15,000 USD|
July 1997: World Heritage Centre mission
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Pollution of the Lake
- Questions about the legal status of some parts along the border of the site (issue resolved)
- Lack of resources
Current conservation issues
A representative of the World Heritage Centre participated in the international workshop on “Sustainable Development of the World Heritage site Lake Baikal. Preparations of Recommendations to the Subordinate Legislation of the Federal Law on Protection of Lake Baikal” held in Irkutsk and Baikalsk from 10 to 12 July 2000. The Workshop was organised and financed by Greenpeace Russia and a number of Government agencies, NGOs, and international donor agencies attended. The necessity for a unique body for the whole region was recognised, however it was questioned whether the Baikal Commission could fulfil this role. The final recommendations have not yet been received and the information on the state of conservation of the site received by the State Party is dated “end of 1999”. IUCN noted that a workshop on Lake Baikal was held in July 2000 and that this meeting and other reports have indicated:
· Continuing concerns about the discharge of waste waters into Lake Baikal, particularly from the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill. It is noted that this is leading to the build up of organochlorine compounds well in excess of Federal standards.
· A delay in the preparation of a detailed plan for the conversion of the Pulp and Paper Mill. The meeting did not provide any clarification on whether or not the plan would be implemented. The meeting also noted that re-profiling of the plant is not going to solve the existing sewage and sludge problem.
· Concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of the Federal Law on Lake Baikal.
· Lack of local and regional awareness of the World Heritage Bureau requests for a State of Conservation Report for this site, as well as lack of awareness on the implications of listing the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
· Other major threats to the integrity of the site, including impacts from unregulated hunting and fishing and impacts associated with extensive building development.
IUCN also noted that the State Committee on Environmental Protection has been abolished. The specific implications for World Heritage sites in the Russian Federation are unclear.
Link to the decision
State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)
Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Huascarán National Park (Peru)
Danube Delta (Romania)
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following decision:
“The Bureau expresses its concern that no updated information was received from the State Party on this property and that other recent reports indicate serious threats to this site and that a case may exist for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requests the State Party invite a mission to this site in 2001 to ascertain whether it should be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.”
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
Detailed List of SOC reports
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).