Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve
Country
Russian Federation
Inscribed in
2004
Criteria
(ix)
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Located well above the Arctic Circle, the site includes the mountainous Wrangel Island (7,608 km2), Herald Island (11 km2) and surrounding waters. Wrangel was not glaciated during the Quaternary Ice Age, resulting in exceptionally high levels of biodiversity for this region. The island boasts the world’s largest population of Pacific walrus and the highest density of ancestral polar bear dens. It is a major feeding ground for the grey whale migrating from Mexico and the northernmost nesting ground for 100 migratory bird species, many endangered. Currently, 417 species and subspecies of vascular plants have been identified on the island, double that of any other Arctic tundra territory of comparable size and more than any other Arctic island. Some species are derivative of widespread continental forms, others are the result of recent hybridization, and 23 are endemic. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 أكتوبر 2025
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Exceptionally diverse and abundant terrestrial and marine Arctic mammal fauna
Criterion
(x)
The World Heritage site has seven species of resident terrestrial mammals, including Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) (VU) (350-600 dens on Wrangel Island and another 100 dens on Herald Island). It also hosts the largest rookeries of Pacific Walrus (Odeobenus rosmarus), with up to 10,000 individuals. Other species include Grey Whale (Eschrichtius gibbosus) and Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) (VU) (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).
Exceptionally diverse Arctic avifauna
Criterion
(x)
170 bird species were recorded in the World Heritage site, 62 of which breed on Wrangel Island (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2012). There are possibly two endemic bird (sub-)species (Directorate of Wrangel Island Reserve, 2003). The site boasts very high bird diversity in comparison with other Arctic sites (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). The islands are an important stopover on Pacific-Beringia flyway of bird mirgration (Alerstam et al., 2007; Hedenstrom et al., 2009; UNEP-WCMC, 2011). The World Heritage site also hosts the only large breeding accumulation of Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) in Asia (Boyd and Cooke, 2000; UNEP-WCMC, 2011).
Exceptionally diverse Arctic invertebrate fauna
Criterion
(x)
The invertebrate fauna of the site is very rich for Arctic standards and includes 31 species of spider, 58 species of beetles, and 42 species of butterflies, including many species that are usually only found much further South (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). With 16 species recorded, the hoverfly fauna of Wrangel Island is richer than on most other Arctic islands (Barkalov and Khruleva, 2021).
Exceptionally rich Arctic plant diversity and endemism
Criterion
(x)
Wrangel Island remained non-glaciated during making the island a refugium. The varied topographic and microclimatic conditions give rise to diverse habitats. The island is subdivided into the following vegetation zones: southern variant of polar desert zone; northern variant of Arctic tundra subzone; southern variant of Arctic tundra subzone; northern variant of typical tundra subzone (Kholod, 2013; Brodo et al., 2022). 417 plant species and sub-species of vascular plants, including 21 endemic species and 4 endemic subspecies (UNEP-WCMC, 2011), 331 moss and 310 lichen species were recorded in the site (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2012), including the northernmost occurrence of several plant communities (Sekretareva 1994, 1998). The site has the highest plant diversity in the high Arctic (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2012). Recently, an additional 32 lichens, 26 mosses and 11 liverwort species and one lichenicolous fungus were recorded whilst noting the arrival of several species that are new to the island and/or Chukotka (Evdokimov, et al., 2022), potentially linked to climate change.
Exceptional example of past and ongoing speciation
Criterion
(ix)
Wrangel Island holds an unparalleled 21 species and 4 subspecies of endemic flora (Petrovsky, 1997), numerous endemic invertebrate species and several endemic vertebrate subspecies or isolated populations considered to be in the process of speciation, such as the Wrangel lemming (UNEP-WCMC, 2011; World Heritage Committee, 2004).
Exceptional example of an Arctic island ecosystem with exceptionally long-lasting succession
Criterion
(ix)
Ecological succession at Wrangel Island has been uninterrupted by glaciation (Gualtieri et al., 2005), which has lead to a unique diversity of ecosystems, communities and habitats on the island (Sekretareva, 1994, 1998; UNEP-WCMC, 2011). As a result, Wrangel Island has the highest biodiversity of any high Arctic Island (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). The Island also functions as a barrier to drifting sea ice resulting in the Wrangel polynya during spring and a dipole in ice thickness (Ross et al., 2024), which generates a habitat diversity with niches for different marine mammals.
Assessment information
Human impact within Wrangel Island Reserve has been minimal and localized for a long time. A military base has been constructed on the island and its operations may represent a very serious threat to the sites values and integrity, however, the scope of this activity appears to remain limited for the time being. Oil prospecting in the vicinity of the World Heritage site remains as principal and very serious threat to the site's values and integrity, with impact assessments still lacking.
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Damage from 4*4 tracks )
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Numerous tracks from before the designation of the Reserve are still visible; current policy is to use existing tracks (IUCN, 2004). Overland traffic, for tourism and operations, through riparian areas may impact habitat for riparian species including avifauna. Increased use is expected with potential further development of tourism industry (Communication during UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission, 2017).
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution, Garbage & Solid Waste
(Abandoned settlements )
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
There are some abandoned military and civilian settlements from before the reserve’s designation, some with waste and contained oil accumulations (IUCN 2004). They have little impact on the ecosystem in their vicinity, but thawing in the wake of climate change likely releases pollutants. Garbage and material of abandoned settlements are successively removed (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2011, State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019). Over 3,000 tons have been removed since 2015. An evaluation of accumulated environmental damage from past activities began in 2022 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024). However, whilst cleanup efforts are reported to continue, it was planned to remove 25,000 tons of scrap metal and 100,000 metal drums by 2023 (WHC, 2025).
Oil & Gas exploration/development
(Geophysical prospecting for oil )
Outside site
Research has previously indicated that the hydrocarbon potential in the South Chukchi Basin may be significantly higher than suggested (Verzhbitsky et al., 2012), and that tectonic conditions are appropriate for successful hydrocarbon exploration in the Russian part of the Chukchi Sea Shelf (Agasheva et al., 2016). However, potential hydrocarbon exploitation in the vicinity of the World Heritage site would also pose a threat to its values and integrity due to pollution, disturbance and risks of oil spills. The interplay of oceanic advection, limited emergency response capacities and arctic weather conditions suggests that Wrangel Island, including important polar bear habitat (Wilson et al., 2018), would likely be affected by spills even in considerable distances from the site (Kelly et al., 2018).
Geophysical prospecting that was being conducted in the vicinity of the site might have had serious negative impacts, particularly on some marine mammals and some bird species (Programme of complex geophysical investigations in the areas of "Northern Wrangel -1", "Northern Wrangel - 2" and "Southern Chukchi" in 2014-2015). Density maps on marine traffic monitoring platforms (e.g. vesselfinder.com) indicate grid-shaped marine traffic approximately 74 nautical miles off the northwerstern coast of Wrangel Island. In spite of several requests for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by the World Heritage Committee, seismic exploration is reported to be continuing in the offshore waters of the East Siberian and Chukchi seas in the proximity of the property without an EIA assessing impacts on the attributes of the site's OUV. These activities are reported to not affect the property, but evidence supporting this claim is not provided. Currently, no oil production requiring an EIA is reported to be planned or underway in the areas adjacent to the property. In case exploitation in the offshore waters outside of the property will be considered, a rigourous EIA would be required prior to the approval of any oil extraction. It is confirmed that an EIA would indeed be a condition prior to the approval of oil extraction in the offshore waters outside of the property (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024). However, in advance to a proposal for exploitation, early documentations such as a scoping report for the EIA should be establised with a specific focus on the OUV of the site and subject to review at international level before the full EIA proceeds and any decision is taken (WHC, 2025).
Geophysical prospecting that was being conducted in the vicinity of the site might have had serious negative impacts, particularly on some marine mammals and some bird species (Programme of complex geophysical investigations in the areas of "Northern Wrangel -1", "Northern Wrangel - 2" and "Southern Chukchi" in 2014-2015). Density maps on marine traffic monitoring platforms (e.g. vesselfinder.com) indicate grid-shaped marine traffic approximately 74 nautical miles off the northwerstern coast of Wrangel Island. In spite of several requests for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by the World Heritage Committee, seismic exploration is reported to be continuing in the offshore waters of the East Siberian and Chukchi seas in the proximity of the property without an EIA assessing impacts on the attributes of the site's OUV. These activities are reported to not affect the property, but evidence supporting this claim is not provided. Currently, no oil production requiring an EIA is reported to be planned or underway in the areas adjacent to the property. In case exploitation in the offshore waters outside of the property will be considered, a rigourous EIA would be required prior to the approval of any oil extraction. It is confirmed that an EIA would indeed be a condition prior to the approval of oil extraction in the offshore waters outside of the property (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024). However, in advance to a proposal for exploitation, early documentations such as a scoping report for the EIA should be establised with a specific focus on the OUV of the site and subject to review at international level before the full EIA proceeds and any decision is taken (WHC, 2025).
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Introduced reindeer and muskoxen herds; brown bears extending their range to the site )
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Reindeer herds led to localized overgrazing of tundra vegetation and trampling damage to nesting birds (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). This might recur if reindeer or muskoxen populations grow, which is expected (Cuyler et al., 2019). A new, potentially important change, to the site's ecosystem is the arrival of the Brown Bear (Ursus arctos) which may result in new interspecies interactions and knock-on ecological effects (Babiy et al., 2022).
Conflict, Civil Unrest & Security Activities
(Construction and maintenance of a military base )
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Construction of a naval military base began on Wrangel Island in late 2014 (various news sources, e.g. Bodner & Eremenko, 2014; Kjellén, 2022). This can have very serious impacts on the fragile environment of the island not only during the construction phase, but also due to continuous human presence during its future operation. It is reported that military operations ensure full compliance with environmental regulations. No further infrastructure would be planned (WHC, 2025). However, detailed information on the impacts of military facilities on the site’s OUV has not been provided, in spite of the Committee's several requests since 2018. It should be recalled once more that the 2017 Reactive Monitoring mission concluded that inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger may be warranted if it is not proven that military presence within the property does not constitute an ascertained danger to its OUV (IUCN and UNESCO, 2017). Nevertheless, recent literature suggests that (a) military personnel removed scrap metal on the former Zvezdny airfield and in Somnitelnaya Bay (Shevchuk, 2024), and that (b) the new base would have a more basic outfit with its primary function being likely operating air-surveillance radars without an airfield and without e.g. missile systems (Kjellén, 2022) Satellite images appear to confirm this and limited footprint on the southern coast of the island in the area of a former settlement. Provided that the current situation does not change, the threat may be considered, at the time of the present assessment, as less severe than in previous assessments.
There are several potential threats which might increasingly compromise the integrity of the site’s values, unless appropriate measures to assess and control them are taken. The extent to which climate change affects the values of the site needs to be measured more systematically, but progress has been made in this regard (see protection and management section). Tourism development could become a threat unless planned carefully and based on a rigorous EIA. However, tourism remained very low in recent years and is no longer expected to grow. The potential future exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves represents the principal threat to the site, but there do not appear to be any concrete plans for exploitation for the time being. Maritime traffic and ice breaking in the vicinity of Wrangel Island Reserve may represent very serious threats to the sites values and integrity, unless monitored and managed carefully. For the time being, maritime traffic on the eastern part of the northern sea route appears to be very limited. New plans for increasing visitation and expansion of tourism infrastructure are of concern. Together with above issues, these factors may exacerbate risks and disturbance in the marine and terrestrial ecosystem of Wrangel and Herald Islands.
Recreational Activities
(Disturbance by tourists )
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Although currently relatively tightly controlled and localized (MoNRE of RF, 2012), disturbance by tourists has had a noticeable effect in the past and might increase, if accessibility and visitor numbers increase (IUCN, 2004). Some tourist accommodation has been constructed and new overland vehicles purchased. Plans exist for increased visitation especially through cruise ships (increase in numbers and stops within the boundary of the World Heritage site) (UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission, 2017). The 2020-2024 Management Plan sets out the ambition to step up, promote and diversify touristic activity (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019). However, at the end of 2024, it is reported that no further facilities are being planned in addition to the now 6 non-permanent tourist accommodations powered by renewable energy. Visitation levels remain very low with only 66 tourists having visited the property in 2023 and two visits by cruise ships and one visit by helicopter in 2024 (WHC, 2025). As tourism remained very limited in scope and is no longer expected to increase, the threat from tourism appears to be negligible at the time of this assessment.
Shipping Lanes
(Maritime transportation, shipping and icebreaking )
Outside site
A northern sea route has had limited activity due to harsh climatic conditions and low population density and industrial activity. With thickness and extent of sea ice reduced (relative to averages) (Stephenson et al., 2013), increases in maritime transportation (especially for LNG and oil) and industrial activity has, even at low levels, potential negative impacts on ecosystem processes and biodiversity. Increased likelihood of spills would put Wrangel Island at risk (Kelly et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2018; Huntington et al., 2023). Changes to the dipole in sea ice thickness can affect the formation of the Wrangel Island polynya, with potential effects on food availability of marine mammals (e.g. polar bears and Pacific walrus) (Ross, et al., 2024). Ice dynamics could be further impacted by increased ice-breaking activity. The shipping season extended with ice retreat since 1979 with the route now operating year-round. Whilst freight traffic along the northern sea route has increased by more than twenty times in 25 years (Makarov et al., 2022), traffic remains limited in the eastern part of the route for various reasons. For instance, it is possible to obtain approximate information on ice-free conditions only 2-3 months in advance. The ice-free period remains short and varies greatly undermining reliable planning of transits accross the northern sea route (Marsz et al, 2024). Literature also acknowledges that the northern sea route still requires modernisation of the route infrastructure. For international transit, procedures for foreign-flagged ships to pass through are yet to be defined (Maksimov and Pyataev, 2023) and sovereignty of rights imply the denial of the principle of freedom of navigation (Makarov et al., 2022). Consequently, tonnages particularly in the eastern section of the route remained low, ranging from 0 to 0.1 million tons between 2013 and 2018. Trans-arctic transit voyages showed very low levels in the same period compared to destinational shipping tonnages. Wrangel Island counted 4 voyages on average (Li et al., 2021). This low level of maritime traffic is also indicated by density mapping on maritime traffic tracking tools (e.g. vesselfinder.com). Therefore, the concerns raised by the 2017 Reactive Monitoring missions regarding increasing marine traffic do not appear to have materialised for the time being. At the time of this assessment, the threat level from marine traffic may thus be considered low, though the assessment may change if marine traffic on the eastern part of the northern sea route gains traction.
Changes in Temperature Regimes
(Continued and accelerated climate change)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
The high Arctic and Arctic Ocean is marked by a reduction of sea ice cover (Stroeve et al., 2012) and climate change induced shifts in the terrestrial environment (Prowse et al., 2009). Secondary effects of these phenomena on terrestrial ecosystems (Jia et al., 2009) and Arctic marine mammals (Rode et al. 2014, 2018) have been found in other locations of the high Arctic. Besides rising temperatures, declining sea ice and a changing wind and precipitation regime, the World Heritage site is subject to increasingly frequent rain-on-snow (ROS) events and ice tidal surges affecting some cold-adapted mammals, such as musk oxen (Berger et al., 2018). Anecdotal evidence indicates increased walrus mortality during a year of marked pack-ice retreat (Ovsyanikov et al., 2007). Increasing ROS events could also lead maternal polar bear dens to colapse, leading to reproductive failure (Stirling and Derocher, 1993).
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
Only two local families are present and the majority of the site is uninhabited. The site is also very remote with very limited access options. This results in generally very limited potential for conflict. However, the site and its wildlife plays an important role for both indigenous and non-indigenous people in Chukotka.
Legal framework
Wrangel Island and Herald Island were designated as Strict Nature Reserve (Zapovednik) by Decree 189, 1975 (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).
Governance arrangements
The site is federal property under the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian federation and is managed by the director of the Wrangel Island Reserve.There is adequate coordination between all bodies/levels involved in the management of the property (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024b).
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
The World Heritage site is relatively isolated and therefore the need for the management to be embedded into regional planning is more limited than elsewhere. However, the integration of World Heritage status of the site in the wider planning of the use of the surrounding marine areas (potential hydrocarbon exploitation, northern sea route) would need to be significantly strengthened.
Boundaries
Boundaries are generally sufficient and adequate as inscribed on the World Heritage List. However, there is an indication of exclusions for the Ushakovskoe settlement and immediate surroundings, however no formal maps and survey descriptions have been provided and no boundary modification request has been received by the World Heritage Centre. A 24 nautical miles protected zone around islands was established in 2013, which serves as buffer zone of the site.
Overlapping international designations
Wetlands on the Ramsar Prospective List (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024b)
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
A number of World Heritage Committee requests remain to be addressed, including those related to current and potential impacts of military facilities and associated activities; elaboration of an Environmental Impact Assessment for the possible impacts on the World Heritage site of hydrocarbon drilling activities in the Yuzhno-Chukotski, Severo-Vrangelski-1 and -2 blocks (World Heritage Committee, 2023, 2019, 2018 and 2017).
Climate action
A comprehensive database has been created to monitor impacts from climate change on the site's Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). This monitoring focuses on microclimatic conditions and indicator species (WHC, 2025). This database may serve as important resource for climate change impacts in the wider Arctic and should inform management decisions, also in respect of the site's changing ecological carrying capacity. Recent research suggests monitoring of bryophytes as being of particular importance for climate change monitoring (Evdokimov, 2022).
Management plan and overall management system
The World Heritage site is relatively isolated, arguably requiring only limited management action. The new 2020-2024 Management Plan articulates more clearly goals and targets to be achieved by 2024.The site was also included into national three-year plan for high-priority protected areas in the Russian Federation (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2011). However, practical integration into national planning system has also been reported as weak (IUCN, 2004).
At the time of this assessment, the Site Management Plan 2020-2024 is being updated for the period of 2025 to 2030 for approval in February 2025 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024; WHC, 2025).
At the time of this assessment, the Site Management Plan 2020-2024 is being updated for the period of 2025 to 2030 for approval in February 2025 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024; WHC, 2025).
Law enforcement
Enforcement by the Reserve staff was generally considered effective, but some damage from careless behavior of rotational staff on site has been reported (IUCN, 2004; UNESCO/IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission 2017). Concerns have recently been raised regarding infractions related to human wildlife conduct regarding the reported killing of a polar bear a few years ago. The UNESCO/IUCN reactive monitoring mission (2017) requested, but did not receive information regarding the current status of this case.
Sustainable finance
Annual operational funding for ongoing management seems to have declined whilst project based funding has increased for construction and clean up. Tourism revenues may increase (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Significant financial, human, and technical resource limitations have been noted (WHC, 2025).
Staff capacity, training and development
Initially, 20 staff, including 3 scientists and 2 educational staff, were reported at the time of inscription, mostly stationed outside the site (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). 7 security inspectors were trained according to the management plan (WHC, 2008), but no further information on staff training and development programmes is available. For the current management cycle, there is concern over positions not being filled or under-filled and staff retention (UNESCO/IUCN, 2017). Significant financial, human, and technical resource limitations have been noted (WHC, 2025).
Education and interpretation programmes
The World Heritage site is very remote. An ecological museum and interpretative trails were planned following inscription (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2011). Onsite and remotely delivered interpretation could better elaborate on biodiversity values and ecosystem processes rather than focusing on wildlife viewing opportunities related to large mammals (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Tourism and visitation management
The World Heritage site is very remote and rarely visited. In 2017, at least three groups of tourists visited the site (UNESCO/IUCN, 2017). New or renovated tourism accommodation, an ecological museum and interpretative trails have been constructed over the years (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2011; UNESCO, 2008; UNESCO/IUCN, 2017, WHC, 2025). In total, 6 non-permanent tourist accommodations powered by renewable energy are currently in place. No further facilities are being planned. 66 tourists visited the property in 2023. Two visits by (small) cruise ships and one visit by helicopter were scheduled for 2024 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024). Given the limited visitor numbers and the levelling out of these small-scale tourism developments, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) do not appear to be needed at this stage (WHC, 2025). However, it will be important to ensure that tourism activity remains short-term, localised and non-intrusive (e.g. no hunting). Given the remote location and fragility of the ecosystem, human waste and fuel management facilities and processes (IUCN Consultation, 2017) likely remain a challenge.
Sustainable use
The World Heritage site is used for reindeer herding and tourism, but sustainable management measures for either are unclear. Potential for increased disturbance by tourists with the expansion of tourism infrastructure and activities is on concern (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Monitoring
Weather monitoring is being undertaken at Ushakovskoe, the main settlement and entry point to Wrangel island. Regular research has been reported, monitoring 15 animal species (particularly Polar Bear, Snowy Owl, Snow Goose), vegetation cover, condition of watercourses and historical objects (UNEP-WCMC, 2011; UNESCO, 2012). However, wildlife monitoring has been improved through unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and photo recorders, facilitating the monitoring of polar bears, musk oxen, and reindeer (WHC, 2025). It is important to ensure a non-intrusive application of these technologies to avoid e.g. additional stress for polar bears suffering from rising temparatures. The use of UAVs should be reviewed and limit disturbance to wildlife (Casson et al., 2016). Long-term monitoring of species and microclimates continues, but remain constrained due to limited resources. Regarding climate change, the creation of a comprehensive database to monitor impacts from climate change on the site's Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024; WHC, 2025) represents an important improvement of the site's monitoring along with the use of UAVs and photo traps if applied in a non-intrusive fashion.
Therefore, whilst constraints in terms of resourcing remain, there appears to be a positive trend in terms of monitoring.
Therefore, whilst constraints in terms of resourcing remain, there appears to be a positive trend in terms of monitoring.
Research
An extensive scientific research programme (particularly on Polar Bear, Snowy Owl and Snow Goose) has been ongoing since establishment of the reserve, mainly being carried out by visiting scientists, but full potential of the site for research has not been fully explored yet (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). As mentioned above, progress has been made regarding monitoring of climate change effects. Site management staff plays an important role in providing research on the site with relevance for the wider Arctic (e.g. Babiy, et al., 2022).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
It is noted that exploitation in the offshore waters outside of the property would be subject to an EIA prior to the approval of oil extraction. However, it is of serious concern that, in spite of several requests for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by the World Heritage Committee, seismic exploration has been conducted in the offshore waters of the East Siberian and Chukchi seas near the property. The possible impacts from seismic prospecting on the site's OUV have not been systematically assessed (WHC, 2025). This suggests that threats from outside the site are not effectively addressed.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Values of the site are sufficiently protected overall (IUCN, 2004), even if this owes more to lack of anthropogenic pressure than active management. There appears to be no plan nor human resources to support management of the marine component of the Reserve (IUCN Consultation, 2017; State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019).
330 tons of garbage have been removed from the island in 2018. However, it is currently unclear how and by when the remaining 25,000 tons of scrap metal and 100,000 metal drums counted in the 2013-2017 Management Plan will be removed (UNESCO, 2019). The 2020-2024 Management Plan highlights the objective to clear the territory of anthropogenic debris, but does not set out a plan and timeline for the completion of the removal (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019).
330 tons of garbage have been removed from the island in 2018. However, it is currently unclear how and by when the remaining 25,000 tons of scrap metal and 100,000 metal drums counted in the 2013-2017 Management Plan will be removed (UNESCO, 2019). The 2020-2024 Management Plan highlights the objective to clear the territory of anthropogenic debris, but does not set out a plan and timeline for the completion of the removal (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019).
The World Heritage site has enjoyed a period of limited anthropogenic pressure since the establishment of Wrangel Island Nature Reserve in 1975, which allowed it to maintain the integrity of its values in spite of a relatively poorly resourced management regime. However, a number of emerging threats from climate change, tourism development, oil exploration/exploitation exploitation and maritime navigation (including shipping and tourism) may increasingly challenge its management and require its strengthening in key areas. Significant financial, human, and technical resource limitations have been noted.
Exceptionally diverse and abundant terrestrial and marine Arctic mammal fauna
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
There is some evidence of increased Pacific walrus mortality, which may not be systematically monitored, possibly due to sea ice retreat, in 2007 (Ovsyanikov, 2007). No reports about negative population trends in other mammals of the World Heritage site specifically could be found, although in general, sea ice retreat following climate change is known to also affect polar bears (Rode et al. 2015). Integrated Population Modeling, consistent with other studies and the State Party of the Russian Federation (2019) and UNESCO (2019), suggests that the Chukchi Sea subpopulation of polar bears has been productive, whilst it remains uncertain how long the subpopulation can cope with continued sea-ice loss due to climate change (Regehr et al., 2018); however, Wrangel and Herald Islands remain an important northernmost land habitat for Chukchi Sea polar bears (Rode et al., 2015). The population trend for polar bears was estimated as stable for Wrangel Island (Gruzdev et al., 2014). Recent modelling of snowdrift habitat suggest that the distribution or area did not change between 1980 to 2020 and that snow conditions may not limit den habitat until ∼2100 (Chinn, 2023).
Whilst the mammal fauna appears to be preserved, potential threats from outside the property may put at risk the site's terrestrial and marine biodiversity. Offshore oil spills may likely affect polar bear habitats (Wilson et al., 2018). Cuyler et al. (2019) reported a musk ox population of approximately 1,000 with an increasing population trend.
Whilst the mammal fauna appears to be preserved, potential threats from outside the property may put at risk the site's terrestrial and marine biodiversity. Offshore oil spills may likely affect polar bear habitats (Wilson et al., 2018). Cuyler et al. (2019) reported a musk ox population of approximately 1,000 with an increasing population trend.
Exceptionally diverse Arctic avifauna
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
No deterioration of conservation status of any bird species or community has been reported since inscription, partly due to reduction of trampling by livestock (which affects snow geese) (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). While no population trends for key bird species are available, some estimates of current population numbers in the World Heritage site are available for some species, including Vulnerable long-tailed duck (Clangula hyemalis) (estimated population size 5000) and Near Threatened common eider (Somateria mollissima) (estimated population size 2000) (Gruzdev et al., 2014; State Nature Reserve Wrangel Island, 2020). Whilst no deterioration of conservation status of any bird species or community has been reported, potential threats from inside (military base) the property may put at risk the site's terrestrial and marine biodiversity.
Exceptionally diverse Arctic invertebrate fauna
Good
Trend
Stable
No deterioration of conservation status of any invertebrate species or community has been reported since inscription, but there is no monitoring of these species. (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Khruleva and Stekolshchikov (2019) suggest an increase in aphid species diversity as a result of a warmer climate on Wrangel Island. The newly established monitoring of climate change effects may play an important role in observing changes in invertabrate fauna. Important advances in research have been achieved (e.g. Barkalov and Khruleva, 2021).
Exceptionally rich Arctic plant diversity and endemism
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
No deterioration of conservation status of any plant species or community has been reported since inscription, partly due to reduction of grazing pressure on the site. A recovery of reindeer and muskoxen standing stock has been reported previously (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). The site's flora may be affected by human presence and vehicle use (both tourism and military), by new waste as well as by release of pollutants from garbage due to thawing. However, it is acknowledged that no further increase in visitation is expected with human presence remaining very limited on the site.
Exceptional example of past and ongoing speciation
Good
Trend
Stable
The overall value of the site as a speciation hotspot has remained intact since the creation of Wrangel Island Nature Reserve and no major negative trends have been reported since.
Exceptional example of an Arctic island ecosystem with exceptionally long-lasting succession
Low Concern
Trend
Stable
The overall ecosystem values of the site have remained undisturbed since the creation of Wrangel Island Nature Reserve and no major negative trends have been reported since. However, impacts of climate change and reduction of sea ice on terrestrial ecosystems (Jia et al., 2009) and Arctic marine mammals (Gleason and Rode, 2009; Schliebe et al., 2008) have been found in other locations of the high Arctic. Whilst a systematic monitoring system for climate change has not been operational for a long time, a new database for climate change effects has been introduced recently (WHC, 2025). No deterioration has been reported thus far, though the site is evidently impacted by global warming (UNESCO and IUCN, 2017). Following collection of data in the coming years, the state and trend will need to be reassessed. The understanding of the site's ecosystem has been improved thanks to recent research, such as by Barkalov and Khruleva (2021) or Babiy (2022).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Stable
The current state of the World Heritage values appears to be of low concern as no major deterioration has been reported since inscription. The overall trend of most of the values appears stable and monitoring and knowledge of the site has improved, although further effort should be encouraged to systematically monitor and respond effectively to climate change, impacts from military activities, tourism and maritime development.
Additional information
Food,
Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks
No information on coastal fisheries around Wrangel Island is available but it is likely that some fisheries activities are ongoing.
Outdoor recreation and tourism
Tourism is currently practiced at low intensity on site, but there are plans to upgrade tourism use (MoNRE, 2011; World Heritage Centre, 2012; State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019).
Knowledge,
Importance for research
The site has already contributed significantly to the overall scientific understanding of the Arctic (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Additionally, it may turn into a biological climate change impact monitoring centre (IUCN, 2004), if the required monitoring programmes are developed.
Due to its remoteness, extremely low population and hostile conditions, Wrangel Island Reserve offers only limited direct benefits. At the same time, the site is of considerable value not only to nature conservation, but also to science (a role that could be further strengthened) and as a place to experience the natural beauty of the Arctic.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Administration of Wrangel Island Nature Reserve | Various research projects on the ecosystem and biota of the property, many with direct relevance to conservation. See references for details. |
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Agasheva, M., Stoupakova, A., Suslova, A., and Karpov, Y. (2016). Tectonics of Chukchi Sea Shelf sedimentary basins and its influence on petroleum systems. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 18, EGU General Assembly 2016.
|
| 2 |
Alerstam, T., Baeckman, J., Gudmundsson, G. A., Hedenstroem, A., Henningsson, S. S., Karlsson, H., Rosen, M. and Strandberg, R. (2007). ´A polar system of intercontinental bird migration´. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 274(1625):2523-2530.
|
| 3 |
Babiy, U. V., Salomashkina, V. V., Kulemeev, P. S., Kholodova, M. V., Gruzdev, A. R., et al. (2022). First evidence of a brown bear on Wrangel Island, Russia. Ursus, 2022(33e4): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-20-00024.1
|
| 4 |
Barkalov, A.V., Khruleva, O.A. (2021). Hoverflies (Diptera, Syrphidae) of Wrangel Island (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, Russia). Nature Conservation Research. Заповедная наука, 6(1): 78–87. https://dx.doi.org/10.24189/ncr.2021.013.
|
| 5 |
Bodener, M., & Eremenko, A. (2014). Russia Starts Building Military Bases in the Arctic. [online] Article news - The Moscow Times. Available at: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/archive/russia-starts-buildi… [Accessed on 20 June 2025]
|
| 6 |
Boyd, W. S. and Cooke, F. (2000). `Changes in the wintering distribution of Wrangel Island Snow Geese Anser c. caerulescens`. Wildfowl 51:59-66.
|
| 7 |
Brodo, F., Lantsov, V.I., and Khruleva, O.A. (2022). The subgenus Arctotipula Alexander in the genus Tipula Linnaeus (Diptera: Tipulidae) on Wrangel Island, Russia (Chukotka Autonomous Okrug). The Canadian Entomologist, 154, e45, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2022.35.
|
| 8 |
Casson, S.A., Martin V.G., Watson, A., Stringer, A., Kormos, C.F. (eds.). Locke, H., Ghosh, S., Carver, S., McDonald, T., Sloan, S.S., Merculieff, I., Hendee, J., Dawson, C., Moore, S., Newsome, D., McCool, S., Semler, R., Martin, S., Dvorak, R., Armatas, C., Swain, R., Barr, B., Krause, D., Whittington-Evans, N., Gilbert, T., Hamilton, L., Holtrop, J., Tricker, J., Landres, P., Mejicano, Gilbert, T., Mackey, B., Aykroyd, T., Zimmerman, B., Thomas, J. (2016). Wilderness Protected Areas: Management guidelines for IUCN Category 1b protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. x + 92pp.
|
| 9 |
Chinn, S.M., Liston, G.E. and Wilson, R.R. (2023). Assessing past and future climatic influences on the availability of polar bear maternal denning habitat on Wrangel Island. Ecological Modelling, 484, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2023.110479.
|
| 10 |
Cuyler, C., Rowell, J., Adamczewski, J., Anderson, M., Blake, J., Bretten, T., Brodeur, V., Campbell, M., Checkley, S.L., Cluff, H.D. and Côté, S.D., (2019). Muskox status, recent variation, and uncertain future. Ambio, pp.1-15.
|
| 11 |
Directorate of Wrangel Island Reserve (2003) Nomination “Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve for Inscription into the World Cultural and Natural Heritage List of UNESCO. (electronic reference). < http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1023rev.pdf>; accessed 27 February 2012.
|
| 12 |
Evdokimov, G., Afonina, O., Konoreva, L., Obabko, R., Mamontov, Y., Chesnokov, S., Frolov, I.V. and Babiy, U.V. (2022). Flora of lichens, mosses and liverworts of Wrangel Island: New records. Polish Polar Research, 43, 2, pp. 145-163, 10.24425/ppr.2022.140361.
|
| 13 |
Gleason, J. S. and Rode, K. D. (2009) ´Polar Bear Distribution and Habitat Association Reflect Long-term Changes in Fall Sea Ice Conditions in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea´. Arctic 62(4):405-417.
|
| 14 |
Gruzdev, A.R., N.G. Ovsyanikov, I.E. Meniushina, O.A. Khruleva, A.A. Novichkova, L.M. Berezyuk, E.A. Volobueva (2014). Cadastral information on Wrangel Island State Nature Reserve (for 2010-2014). Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation Pevek, Russia. [In Russian].
|
| 15 |
Gualtieri, L., Vartanyan, S. L., Brigham-Grette, J. and Anderson, P. M. (2005). ´Evidence for an ice-free Wrangel Island, northeast Siberia during the Last Glacial Maximum´. Boreas 34(3):264-273.
|
| 16 |
Hedenstrom, A., Alerstam, T., Backman, J., Gudmundsson, G. A., Henningsson, S., Karlsson, H., Rosen, M. and Strandberg, R. (2009). ´Radar Observations of Arctic Bird Migration in the Beringia Region´. Arctic 62(1):25-37.
|
| 17 |
Huntington, H.P., Olsen, J., Zdor, E., Zagorskiy, A., Shin, H.C., Romanenko, O., Kaltenborn, B., Dawson, J., Davies, J. and Abou-Abbsi, E. (2023). Effects of Arctic commercial shipping on environments and communities: context, governance, priorities. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 118, 103731, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103731.
|
| 18 |
IUCN (2004). Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation) ID No 1023 Rev. In: IUCN Evaluation of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List, WHC-04/28.COM/INF.14B. pp.115-123. < http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1023…; accessed 27 February 2012.
|
| 19 |
IUCN and UNESCO. (2017). Reactive Monitoring Mission Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation). Gland, Switzerland and Paris, France: IUCN and UNESCO World Heritage Centre. [online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1023/documents/ ; (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 20 |
Jia, G. J., Epstein, H. E. and Walker, D. A. (2009). ´Vegetation greening in the Canadian arctic related to decadal warming`. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11(12):2231-2238.
|
| 21 |
Kelly, S., Popova, E., Aksenov, Y., Marsh, R. and Yool, A., (2018). Lagrangian modeling of Arctic Ocean circulation pathways: impact of advection on spread of pollutants. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 123(4), pp.2882-2902.
|
| 22 |
Kholod, S.S. (2013). Zonation in the plant cover on Wrangel Island: syntaxonomical approach. Vegetation of Russia, 23: 89–121. [In Russian, with English summary.]
|
| 23 |
Khruleva, O.A. and Stekolshchikov, A.V., (2019). Additions to the aphid fauna of Wrangel Island due to climate change with redescription of the oviparous female of Pterocomma groenlandicum Hille Ris Lambers, 1952 (Hemiptera Aphidoidea). Zootaxa, 4615(3), pp.511-528.
|
| 24 |
Kjellén, J. (2022). The Russian Northern Fleet and the (Re)militarisation of the Arctic. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 13, pp. 34–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.23865/arctic.v13.3338.
|
| 25 |
Li, X., Otsuka, N. and Brigham, L.W. (2021). Spatial and temporal variations of recent shipping along the Northern Sea Route. Polar Science, 27, 100569, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2020.100569.
|
| 26 |
Makarov,D., Makarova, O., Mayurov, N., Mayurovc, P. and Turova, V. (2022). Development prospects and importance of the Northern Sea Route, X International Scientific Siberian Transport Forum. Transportation Research Procedia, 63, pp. 1114–1120. 10.1016/j.trpro.2022.06.114.
|
| 27 |
Maksimov, S. and Pyataev, M. (2023). Transport infrastructure of Russia: International corridors and transport hubs. E3S Web of Conferences 460, 06016, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346006016.
|
| 28 |
Marsz, A.A., Pastusiak, T. and Styszyńska, A. (2024). Trends of Opening and Closing date for Navigation on the Northern Sea Route in the Light of Changes in Ice Cover on the Seas of the Siberian Shelf in the Years 2008-2022. The International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 18, 3, pp. 487-492. DOI: 10.12716/1001.18.03.01.
|
| 29 |
Ovsyanikov, N. G., Menyushina, I. E. and Bezrukov, A. V. (2007). ´Unusual Pacific Walrus mortality at Wrangel Island in 2007´. In: Marine Mammals of the Holarctic, pp. 413-416. Odessa.
|
| 30 |
Petrovsky, V. V. (1997). ´Areas of intensive plant speciation in the Beringian Arctic Shelf´. Opera Botanica 0(132):19-25.
|
| 31 |
Regehr, E.V., N.J. Hostetter, R.R. Wilson, K.D. Rode, M. St. Martin, and S.J. Converse. 2018. Integrated population modeling provides the first empirical estimates of vital rates and abundance for polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Scientific Reports 8:16780.
|
| 32 |
Rode, K.D., R.R. Wilson, E.V. Regehr, M. St. Martin, D.C. Douglas, and J. Olson (2015). Increased land use by Chukchi Sea polar bears in relation to changing sea ice conditions. PLoS One 10:e0142213.
|
| 33 |
Ross, S., Moore, G. W. K., & Laidre, K. L. (2024). An examination of the Wrangel Island sea ice thickness dipole. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 129, e2023JC020425. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JC020425.
|
| 34 |
Schliebe, S., Rode, K. D., Gleason, J. S., Wilder, J., Proffitt, K., Evans, T. J. and Miller, S. (2008). ´Effects of sea ice extent and food availability on spatial and temporal distribution of polar bears during the fall open-water period in the Southern Beaufort Sea´. Polar Biology 31(8):999-1010.
|
| 35 |
Sekretareva, N. A. (1994). ´The willow shrub communities in Wrangel Island´. Botanicheskii Zhurnal (St. Petersburg) 79(12): 58-64.
|
| 36 |
Sekretareva, N. A. (1998). ´The tundra zonal communities in the upper reaches of the Neizvestnaya River (Wrangel Island)´. Botanicheskii Zhurnal (St. Petersburg) 83(3):99-107.
|
| 37 |
Shevchuk, A. V. (2024) Ecological Aspects of Arctic Development. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 12, 128-137. doi: 10.4236/gep.2024.124009.
|
| 38 |
State Nature Reserve Wrangel Island (2020). Chronicles of Nature of Wrangel Island State Nature Reserve for 2019. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation; State Nature Reserve «Wrangel Island». Pevek, Russia. [In Russian].
|
| 39 |
State Party of the Russian Federation (2019). MEDIUM-TERM MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF FEDERAL STATE BUDGET INSTITUTION WRANGEL ISLAND STATE NATURE RESERVE 2020-2024. A short version. THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION, Federal State Budget Institution Wrangel Island State Nature Reserve. Moscow, 2019.
|
| 40 |
State Party of the Russian Federation (2024). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation). [online] State Party of Russian Federation. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/document/218355 (Accessed 23 April 2025).
|
| 41 |
State Party of the Russian Federation (2024b). Periodic Reporting Cycle 3, Section II: Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation). [online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/document/217582 [Accessed on 23 June 2025]
|
| 42 |
State Party of the Russian Federation. (2019). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation). [online] State Party of Russian Federation. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1023/documents/ (Accessed 22 October 2019).
|
| 43 |
State Party of the Russian Federation. (2020). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation). [online] State Party of Russian Federation. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1023/documents/ (Accessed 5 March 2020).
|
| 44 |
Stephenson, S.R., Smith, L.C., Brigham, L.W. and Agnew, J.A. (2013). Projected 21st century changes Arctic marine access. Climate Change 118 (3-4):885-899
|
| 45 |
UNEP-WCMC (2011). Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve, Chukotka, Russian Federation. UNEP-WCMC World Heritage Information Sheets. (electronic reference) accessed 27 February 2012.
|
| 46 |
Verzhbitsky, V., Sokolov, S., Tuchkova, M., Frantzen, E.M., Little, A. and Lobkovsky, L.I. (2012). The south Chukchi sedimentary Basin (Chukchi Sea, Russian Arctic): Age, structural pattern, and hydrocarbon potential. AAPG Memoir, pp.267-290.
|
| 47 |
WHC (2012). Natural System of “Wrangel Island” Reserve (Russian Federation) (N1023)’. In WHC Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, WHC-12/36.COM/7B, accessed 27 July 2012.
|
| 48 |
Wilson, R.R., Perham, C., French-McCay, D.P. and Balouskus, R., (2018). Potential impacts of offshore oil spills on polar bears in the Chukchi Sea. Environmental pollution, 235, pp.652-659.
|
| 49 |
World Heritage Committee (2008). Natural System of “Wrangel Island” Reserve (Russian Federation) (N1023)’. In WHC Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, WHC-08/32.COM/7B pp.59-60. accessed 27 February 2012.
|
| 50 |
World Heritage Committee (2009). Natural System of “Wrangel Island” Reserve (Russian Federation) (N1023)’. In WHC Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, WHC-09/33.COM/7B pp.85-87. accessed 27 February 2012.
|
| 51 |
World Heritage Committee (2012). Natural System of “Wrangel Island” Reserve (Russian Federation) (N1023)’. In Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, WHC-12/36.COM/7B. Accessed 27 July 2012.
|
| 52 |
World Heritage Committee (2023). Decision 45 COM 7B.25 - Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve (Russian Federation) (N 1023rev). [online] In: WHC-23/45.COM/7B.Add. UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/8299 [Accessed on 23 June 2025]
|
| 53 |
World Heritage Committee (WHC) (2025). Report on the State of Conservation of the Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve, Russian Federation. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/ (in press, 23 April 2025).
|
| 54 |
corridors and transport hubs. E3S Web of Conferences 460, 06016, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346006016.
|