Lake Baikal

• Gas and oil pipeline project across the World Heritage property in 2006 (issue resolved)
• Management Systems/Management Plan (lack of adequate management system)
• Legal framework (uncertain legal protection)
• Pollution from paper mill and domestic wastewater
• Illegal activities (timber harvesting, construction on the lake shore, sale of land)
• Impacts of tourism/visitor/recreation (tourism development)
• Fire (wildfires in the Baikal region in 2015)
• Upstream planned and existing dam infrastructure in Russia and Mongolia

On 29 November 2019, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/754/documents, reporting the following:

• The previously permitted expansion of water level limits in Lake Baikal (2016-2017) was extended by a Decree (December 27, 2017) “On maximum and minimum values of the water level in Lake Baikal in 2018-2020”;
• Due to persisting low-water conditions, measures were introduced to minimise lake level fluctuations;
• An assessment of the impact on the Outstanding Universal Values (OUV) of the property from the water level regime concluded that from 2014-2019 no damage was caused to the environment by ranges of fluctuations in the Lake Baikal level;
• The joint Russian-Mongolian working group noted the importance of implementing comprehensive environmental, social and economic assessment of any planned hydro-technical facilities to identify risks to Lake Baikal and its tributaries and has agreed to analyse the cumulative effect of planned projects, water resources and electricity consumption over the next 20 years;
• A significant decrease in fish stocks in several parts of the lake, adjacent lakes and rivers, as well as continued eutrophication is reported;
• A draft Action Plan to improve the system for forest fire protection was developed.

The World Heritage Centre sent several letters to the State Party, requesting clarification regarding third party information raising concerns about following issues:

• On 2 April 2019, regarding potential weakening of the regulations on allowable levels of pollutants discharging into Lake Baikal;
• On 26 February 2020, regarding various issues including eutrophication, invasive species, pollution, uncontrolled tourism and proposed weakening of regulations;
• On 23 April 2020, regarding selection without a proper competitive process of a company for the liquidation of the toxic waste from the former Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill (BPPM);
• On 13, 22 and 30 July and 7 August 2020, regarding proposed new legislation that would allow certain investment projects to be exempted from the compulsory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures; new legislation removing the requirement to undertake impact assessment for certain infrastructure projects; the new draft of the “List of activities prohibited in the Central Ecological zone of the Baikal Nature Territory”, which would exempt certain investment projects, and proposed amendments to the “Law on the Protection of Lake Baikal” facilitating conversion of forest lands;
• On 16 September 2020, regarding legislative modifications to remove binding limits of the water level fluctuation of Lake Baikal mandated by the Law on the Protection of Lake Baikal and further on 2 November 2020 regarding allowable limits for dam flow and resulting fluctuations in the level of Lake Baikal;
• On 11 January 2021, regarding the amendment of the “List of Activities Prohibited at Lake Baikal Nature Territory” to potentially allow more economic activities within the property and further weakening of environmental regulations;
• On 19, 25 January and 30 March 2021, regarding the modifications to federal law pertaining to the allowable water level fluctuations of Lake Baikal among other weakening of regulatory restrictions, as well as other threats that continue to affect the property.

The State Party replied on 15 April 2021, noting that in 2018 new boundaries of the Lake Baikal water protection zone were approved, which resulted in exclusion of some additional inter-settlement areas, but that this is not expected to result in any negative impact on the property. Regarding the water level fluctuations, it is reported that a permanent regulatory document is currently being considered, which would provide for an extended range of water level regulation under conditions of extreme high or extreme low water level.

On 15 March 2019, the World Heritage Centre sent a letter to the State Party of Mongolia requesting clarification regarding third party information about the current status of the Regional Environmental Assessment (REA) for the planned hydropower projects in Mongolia. The State Party of Mongolia replied on 4 April 2019 providing updated Terms of Reference (ToR) of the REA and confirming that it will include many elements of a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and on 17 May 2019, outlining the planned process for the development of the REA for the Shuren and Orkhon projects and the requested additional study on biodiversity impacts of the planned Egiin Gol hydropower plant project (EGHPP).

On 18 November 2019, the State Party of Mongolia sent further information on the implementation of Decision 42 COM 7B.76. A French and Mongolian consortium has been selected to conduct the additional 15-month study on potential impacts of the EGHPP project on the biodiversity of Selenge River and Lake Baikal, and the joint Mongolian-Russian Working Group has agreed on the ToR for the REA. At the time of preparing this report, no additional information has been provided to the World Heritage Centre.

A number of factors have continued to negatively affect the property resulting in continued deterioration of its ecological condition. Of particular concern is the weakening of existing regulatory framework through amendments to existing laws, and the introduction of new legislation that would relax allowable levels of pollutants. While some of these proposed changes have not been approved yet, the scale of the weakening of the regulatory provisions, at the time when the property’s ecological condition continues to deteriorate, is such that it can be concluded that, if all these legislative changes proceed, the property would face potential danger in line with Paragraph 180(b) i) and iv) of the Operational Guidelines. It is therefore recommended that the World Heritage Committee urge the State Party to undertake a comprehensive review of all proposed legislative changes and their interdependencies that could potentially affect the property, and urge it not to approve any changes that would dilute the existing protection regime of the property. It is further recommended that based on this review, the Law on the Protection of Lake Baikal is strengthened to ensure the protection of the OUV of the property through a cross-sectoral approach.

While the information provided by the State Party regarding the measures undertaken to minimise water level fluctuations following a number of years of drought in the region causing low lake levels is noted, it is regrettable that the Committee’s request to undertake a complete and comprehensive EIA of the impacts of existing water use and management regulations on the OUV of the property has not been implemented. This is of particular concern given the confirmation by the State Party that a permanent regulatory document that provides for an extended range of water level regulation is currently being considered. While the information that the research project on the links between water levels and the ecological conditions of the Lake did not observe any damage on the environment is noted, such assessment cannot replace a comprehensive EIA, requested by the Committee. It is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to revoke any amendments which allow changes of the limits on fluctuation and not to approve any further regulatory changes until the impacts of all existing water use and management regulations on the OUV of the property are fully understood through a complete and comprehensive EIA.

It is also regrettable that the State Party did not provide any further information on the different projects developed in the different Special Economic Zones (SEZ) located within or overlapping with the property, nor on the EIA. The reported increase of illegal constructions on the lake shore, even within protected areas, is also of major concern. It is recommended the Committee reiterate its request to submit as a matter of urgency a SEA for all SEZs regarding existing and future developments and their cumulative impacts on the OUV of the property and urges the State Party to address the problem of illegal constructions.

It is further regrettable that no information has been provided by the State Party regarding the planned EIA for the remediation of the former BPPM site. It is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to develop and submit this EIA and, ensure that the best possible options are chosen in terms of selection of technologies and implementing entities.

While welcoming efforts to address forest fire protection, no information was provided on the assessment of impacts of forest fires on the lake ecosystem, as requested by the Committee.

It is further recommended that the Committee request the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission to the property to assess the increasing deterioration of the ecological conditions of the property and to review the threat posed to it by the different legislative changes, the existing and proposed developments in the SEZ and the remediation plans for the former BPPM, ensuring that, given the complexity of the issues, the mission can meet with all the relevant national and regional authorities and has access to all relevant legislative documents. It is further recommended that, in order to be able to assess the full range of issues potentially affecting the hydrological and ecological conditions of the property, the mission should be given an opportunity to discuss relevant issues with the representatives of the State Party of Mongolia through appropriate means.

The report by the State Party of Mongolia that the ToR for the REA for Shuren and Orkhon hydropower projects have now been finalised and an international consortium will conduct a separate 15-month study on potential impacts of the EGHPP project on the biodiversity of the property, are noted. While the confirmation that the REA will include elements of an SEA, as well as cumulative impact assessment, energy and water option studies, as well as legal and institutional assessments, is welcomed, it remains unclear how this process would specifically address the Committee’s request to the States Parties to develop a transboundary SEA. It is therefore recommended that the Committee reiterate its requests to the States Parties in this regard.