State of Conservation (SOC)
Golden Mountains of Altai
Factors affecting the property in 2012*
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Major linear utilities
- Oil and gas
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Impacts of a road project across the property;
b) Gas pipeline construction plans.
International Assistance granted to the property until 2012
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 0USD
Missions to the property until 2012**
2001: UNESCO/UNDP mission; 2007: World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission.
|2012||Reactive Monitoring Mission, Golden Mountains of Altai, Russian Federation, 10 - 15 May 2012|
|2007||Report on the Mission to Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation), 3-8 September 2007|
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2012
On 10 February 2012, a report was submitted by the State Party providing some information on the current status of the gas pipeline project, on the implementation of the recommendations of the 2007 monitoring mission as well as on the state of conservation of Altaisky Strict Nature Reserve (ASNR) and Katunsky Strict Nature Reserve (KSNR), two of the five components of the property. From 9 to 15 May 2012, a joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN monitoring mission visited the property and had discussions with the Ministry for Natural Resources (MNR) and the authorities of the Altai Republic, the managers of the different components of the property and various stakeholders, including representatives of local communities and environmental NGOs. Unfortunately the pipeline developer, Gazprom refused to meet with the mission team, in spite of its insistence that the State Party set up such a meeting. At the time of preparation of this report the mission report was not yet finalized. However, it will be made available as soon as possible at http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/36COM
Based on the State Party report, on its discussions and the field visit, the mission reviewed the status of the pipeline project, the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2007 mission and the state of conservation of the property:
a) Gas pipeline project
The mission was informed by the federal and regional authorities that no final decision has been made on the pipeline project. According to the State Party report, the pipeline developer Gazprom has prepared an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) “Substantiation report for investments of the Altai project”. In spite of several requests by the World Heritage Centre and the mission team in advance to the mission and during the mission, no copy of this document was provided. Officials of MNR noted however that this EIA was to be considered as an internal document by Gazprom as part of its review of the potential investment in the pipeline project and therefore it had not been submitted to the Ministry. They further stressed that in line with the federal legislation, a detailed EIA on the pipeline project would have to be submitted by Gazprom for review by the relevant control agency of MNR. A decision on the project would be based on the results of this EIA. As so far no details on the project design, nor an EIA has been submitted, they considered that the project was only at an initial stage. They further noted that no final agreement had been reached with China on the economic conditions of gas delivery. They also mentioned that the Vice Minister for Natural Resources in a reply to a letter of an environmental NGO dated July 2011 had expressed the opinion that the construction of the pipeline across the property would be a violation of Russia’s international obligations to the Convention and that MNR considered it advisable to study alternative routes.
The mission notes that documentation available on the website of Gazprom reports that in September 2010 it signed an agreement defining the “extended major terms and conditions for natural gas supplies from Russia to China with the China National Petroleum Cooperation”, which sets the key commercial parameters of the forthcoming gas delivery to the Chinese market via the western route. The document includes a map which shows that the planned route will cross the Ukok Quiet Zone Nature Park (UQZNP), one of the five components of the property.
The document states that first supplies are planned for 2015 and that specific feasibility studies of supply routes have been completed, including “an environmental impact assessment and the protection of archaeological and historic sites in the pipeline construction area with due consideration for the Altai Golden Mountains natural reservation”. The mission was also provided by environmental NGOs with a copy of a letter of a Gazprom contractor to the director of one of the nature parks situated on the pipeline route of November 2011, which states that the internal decision on the Altai gas pipeline project had been made by Gazprom in March 2009. The mission further received reports that the Gazprom contractors have started preparatory topographical and geographical survey work, including permafrost drilling in UQZNP and also hired specialists to inventory key cultural and historical heritage sites along the pipeline route.
While the authorities of the Altai Republic stated they were not aware of such works, the mission was presented with photographic evidence of such works and this was also confirmed by representatives of local communities. The mission was further informed that these works were undertaken without the necessary authorisations and that the regional prosecutor confirmed the illegality of these works following an appeal by environmental NGOs, but that the Ministry of Forestry of the Altai Republic did not take action to stop them.
The mission visited the area where the works had been undertaken, including the area of a major fire, which according to environmental NGOs was caused by the survey work, but could not confirm that this fire was linked to the works that were undertaken.
The mission was further informed by environmental NGOs that Gazprom had informed them that alternative routes for the pipeline through Mongolia and Kazakhstan in order to avoid crossing the property could not be considered. As mentioned above, on the last day of the mission Gazprom informed MNR that they were not willing to receive the mission team as “for the moment there was no Altai pipeline project”.
The mission concludes that while Gazprom has not yet submitted the relevant documentation of the Altai gas pipeline project to the federal authorities to obtain the authorisation for the pipeline to cross the property, it has advanced on the preparatory work project since the 2007 mission. This preparatory work represents a significant investment and included survey work inside the property. Furthermore, Gazprom does not seem willing to consider alternative routes, as was requested by the World Heritage Committee and suggested by MNR. The mission team in the different meetings reiterated the position of the World Heritage Committee, that any decision to go forward with the gas pipeline project through the property would constitute a threat to its Outstanding Universal Value and represent a clear case for inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as documented in Decisions 35 COM 7B.26 and 32 COM 7B.22. The mission also notes the strong concern from representatives of the local and indigenous communities that the project would affect the cultural significance of the Ukok plateau, which includes old burial sites and cultural monuments and is regarded a sacred area.
b) Implementation of the recommendations of the 2007 monitoring mission
The mission discussed and reviewed the progress made in the implementation of part of the recommendations of the 2007 mission. It was informed that Management Plans had been developed for all components of the property, including a zoning plan of the nature parks. In addition a general management strategy 2009 - 2015 for the overall property has been developed, which foresees the implementation of many of the 2007 mission recommendations. The mission noted the high management standard of the ASNR and KSNS, managed by the federal authorities. However, it considered that in spite of efforts by the regional authorities to improve the situation, management capacity of the UQZNP and Belukha Mountain Nature Park (BMNP) remains insufficient. Staffing numbers have increased slightly but remain insufficient, and nature park inspectors continue to lack the necessary legal authority to perform their protection mandate, in spite of the fact that the mission team received information that a new federal legislation enacted in 2011 makes it possible for the Altai Republic to provide them with such powers. The mission was also informed that special regulations were developed for the management of the fifth component of the Property Lake Teletskoye Nature Monument (LTNM), which includes the part of the lake not included in the ASNR. The mission was further informed of the creation of a new nature park around the Chulishman River which provides additional protection to the southern part of the Lake and will be a buffer for the southern part of the ASNR.
In terms of tourism, studies have been undertaken to determine the acceptable tourism pressure in the different components including maximum numbers for alpinists wanting to climb the Belugha mountain. The mission team was also informed that a special monitoring group on the anthropological influence of the recreation zones around Lake Teletskoye has been established. However an overall sustainable tourism strategy for the entire property has not yet been developed. The mission considers that given the increasing tourism development in Altai, such a strategy should be developed urgently and could be the basis for a reflection on an overall policy of tourism development for the Altai Republic, promoting its rich natural and cultural heritage.
Significant progress was also made in increasing transboundary cooperation in protected area management. In 2011 a transboundary biosphere reserve was established between the KSNR and the Katon-Karagaysky National Park (KKNP) in Kazakhstan, with BMNP as one of the buffer zones. KKNP also borders the western part of UQZNP. A joint management committee was established and a transboundary Management Plan developed. The State Party is also negotiating a cooperation agreement with Mongolia. The Altai Tavan Bogd National Park in Mongolia borders the Eastern part of UQZNP and the newly established Saylyugemsky National Park (SNP) in the Altai Republic. Officials of MNR estimated that this agreement could be signed by the end of the year.
The mission was informed that data on monitoring of iconic wildlife species, and also monitoring of climate change, are gathered in a common database with scientific support of academic institutions.
The 2009-2015 management strategy for the site also foresees work on the transboundary extension of the property with Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan, including also the new SNP mentioned above and the re-nomination of the property under cultural criteria. The authorities of the Altai Republic, including the Minister for Culture voiced their strong support for this.
The mission concluded that significant progress has been made on the implementation of the recommendations of the 2007 mission and welcomed the fact that the management strategy for the property refers to these recommendations and foresees a clear timeline until 2015 for their implementation. The mission considers, however, that additional efforts are needed to strengthen the management capacity of the regional protected areas in terms of staffing, budget and regulatory powers as well as on developing a clear regional vision on tourism, that optimizes the remarkable cultural and natural interests of the protected areas of the Altai region and widely, of the Altai wilderness.
c) State of conservation of the property
The mission concluded that the state of conservation of the property has not significantly changed compared to the 2007 mission and that its Outstanding Universal Value continued to be preserved. It considers that the property still benefits from a very high integrity. Apart from the issue of the pipeline, the main threats are the important pressure on natural resources by some traditional use practices, such as poaching, and also grazing pressure in the traditional use zone of the UQZNP and the increasing pressure from tourism. To address these pressures, it will be important to continue to strengthen the management capacity of the nature parks and to work on a sustainable tourism strategy for the property, which could be bases on a policy on sustainable tourism for the Altai republic. The mission also notes that while the Strict Nature Reserves benefit of a very strict protection regime, the legal status of the regional nature parks is weak. This problem has also been observed in other World Heritage properties in the Russian Federation which comprise regional protected areas and the mission team would like to reiterate previous proposals to address it through a specific legislation on natural World Heritage properties. The mission further notes the new Federal Law No. 365-FZ dated 30 November 2011, which has significantly weakened the protection regime of Strict Nature Reserves, making it possible to accommodate large scale tourism infrastructure such as ski infrastructure. While there seems no such plans currently foreseen for KSNR and ASNR, this issue should be addressed at federal level as it affects the protection status of all natural World Heritage sites in the Russian Federation.
Another significant threat to the property is the impact of climate change. The mission notes that several efforts are on-going to monitor and better understand these impacts.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Center and the Advisory Bodies in 2012
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note the conclusion of the mission that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property continues to be preserved and that progress was made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2007 mission.
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN take note of the affirmation by the State Party that no decision had been made on the Altai gas pipeline project and that such a decision will be based on an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the Russian legislation. They also welcome the statement of the Vice Minister for Natural Resources to environmental NGOs 5that the construction of the pipeline across the property would be a violation of Russia’s international obligations to the Convention and that alternative routes need to be envisaged. However, they note that despite this affirmation, the pipeline developer Gazprom is conducting preparatory work on the pipeline route, including in the property in violation of national legislation. They therefore recommend that the World Heritage Committee reiterates its position, that any decision to go forward with the gas pipeline project through the property would constitute a threat to its Outstanding Universal Value and represent a clear case for inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2012
Draft Decision: 36 COM 7B.25
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decisions 35 COM 7B.26, 33 COM 7B.27 and 32 COM 7B.22 adopted at its 35th (UNESCO, 2011), 33rd (Seville, 2009) and 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) sessions respectively,
3. Takes note of the conclusion of the 2012 World Heritage Centre/IUCN monitoring mission that the Outstanding Universal Value of the property continues to be preserved, and welcomes the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2007 mission;
4. Also takes note of the affirmation by the State Party that no official decision has been made on the Altai gas pipeline project and that such a decision will be based on an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the Russian legislation;
5. Expresses its utmost concern that in spite of this affirmation, the pipeline developer Gazprom is conducting preparatory work on the pipeline route, including within the World Heritage property in violation of Russia’s protected area legislation;
6. Reiterates that any decision to go forward with the gas pipeline project through the property would constitute a threat to its Outstanding Universal Value and represent a clear case for inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
7. Urges the State Party to make an unequivocal decision to abandon the construction of the Altai gas pipeline through the property as requested in Decision 33 COM 7B.27, to ensure that no further preparatory works are undertaken within the property, and to ensure that the pipeline developer Gazprom considers alternative routes;
8. Also urges the State Party to ensure that Environmental Impact Assessments are submitted to the World Heritage Centre for any infrastructure development in or around the property which could affect its Outstanding Universal Value, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
9. Requests the State Party to continue its efforts to implement the recommendations of the 2007 monitoring mission as updated by the 2012 monitoring mission, in particular:
a) Ensure the implementation of the 2009-2015 general management strategy for the property,
b) Strengthen the management capacity of the Ukok Quiet Zone and Belugha Mountain Nature Parks in terms of staffing and budget,
c) Ensure that the inspectors of the nature parks have the necessary legal authority to perform their protection mandate by making the necessary legal provisions at the level of the Altai Republic;
d) Assess the impacts of grazing on the biodiversity in the traditional use zone of the Ukok Quiet Zone and develop a policy for the sustainable use of the natural resources in the traditional use zones in the property in close cooperation with the indigenous communities using these areas,
e) Develop an overall strategy for sustainable tourism of the property, which could be the basis to set the policy for sustainable tourism at the level of the Altai Republic,
f) Further strengthen the transboundary cooperation with Mongolia and China based on the experience with Kazakstan,
g) Strengthen the cooperation with the civil society and in particular the indigenous communities, taking advantage of their knowledge relevant for the management of the property,
h) Assess the cultural values of the property for its possible renomination under cultural criteria;
10. Recommends that the State Party continue the process on extending the property, including key areas in Altai Republic, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan;
11. Also expresses its utmost concern about Federal Law No. 365-FZ dated 30 November 2011, which significantly weakens the protection status of Strict Nature Reserves and therefore could affect the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties in the Russian Federation and reiterates its request to the State Party to take appropriate legal measures to maintain a high level protection of the World Heritage properties on its territory, in accordance with Paragraph 15(f) of the Operational Guidelines;
12. Also recommends that all legal issues concerning natural properties in the Russian Federation, which are composed of federal and regional protected areas, be addressed through a comprehensive national legal framework for the protection and management of natural World Heritage properties in order to ensure the fulfilment of the State Party's obligations under the Convention, and also requests the State Party to convene a high-level workshop to assist in developing such a framework, in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;
13. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, a report on the state of conservation of the property, including an update on the status of the proposed pipeline, on the Environmental Impact Assessment process as well as on progress in the implementation of the 2012 monitoring mission recommendations, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013.
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”).