Administration
Budget
Capacity Building
Communication
Community
Conservation
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Partnerships
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Reports
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention








2029 27 GA
2027 26 GA
2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 28 COM 15B.22
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Recalling the recommendation of the report of the monitoring mission in 2001 to include the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger,

2. Welcomes the collaboration between the Russian authorities, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre in addressing co-operation and communication issues;

3. Notes the results of the high-level mission and the detailed report provided by the Russian authorities on 10 March 2004 and acknowledges the efforts of the State Party in enhancing the conservation of this property;

4. Requests, while noting the complex environmental and socio-economic issues associated to the conservation and development of Lake Baikal, that:
a) the State Party provide further clarification on the level of implementation of the ecological zoning for Lake Baikal and its adoption under the Federal Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal”,
b) the State Party continue providing to each session of the Committee reports on the state of conservation of the property, on progress achieved on the different programmes implemented in the property, particularly on the reprofiling of the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, and the results of the ecological monitoring programme and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project that is under implementation in the area,
c) the States Parties of the Russian Federation and Mongolia enhance their cooperation in designing and implementing a plan to reduce the sources of pollution occurring in the Selenga River Basin; the two States Parties may wish to submit a request for International Assistance from the World Heritage Fund to support the planning phase of this co-operation,
d) the State Party implement previous recommendations of the Committee to provide training to hunters to avoid unnecessary deaths of animals that are wounded during hunting,
e) the State Party, working with the World Heritage Centre and IUCN, develop a long-term project proposal oriented towards obtaining additional financial resources for the conservation and sustainable development of Lake Baikal; such a proposal may include a component to support the joint efforts of the States Parties of the Russian Federation and Mongolia to address the pollution of the Selenga River.

5. Notes that the outcome of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed transportation routes which was reported to the Mission was negative and requests that any future proposal avoids the World Heritage property and that no route is selected through the watershed of Lake Baikal without first undertaking a comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) to international standards;

6. Further notes the concerns regarding the potential impact of oil and gas pipelines on the outstanding universal value of the property and considers that any such proposal should undergo a comprehensive Environment Impact Assessment to international standards;

7. Requests the State Party to take measures to minimize and, preferably eliminate all direct and indirect threats to the World Heritage property;

8. Further requests the State Party to provide in co-operation with the IUCN an upto- date report to the World Heritage Centre including on any decisions or proposed alternative to the oil and gas transportation route and the issues noted under paragraph 4 above by 1 February 2005, for examination by the Committee at its 29th session in 2005.
Decision Code
28 COM 15B.22
Themes
Conservation
Focal Point
EUR/NA
States Parties 1
Properties 1
Year
2004
State of conservation reports
2004 Lake Baikal
Documents
WHC-04/28.COM/26
Decisions of the 28th session of the World Heritage Committee
Other Documents (1)
Report on the UNESCO/IUCN High‐level Mission to Lake Baikal, 11-12 November 2003