Lake Baikal

No specific measures have been taken to involve local people in the management of the World Heritage site (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2006). There is also a conflict of interest between the development priorities of local and regional governments and the protection of the OUV of the site. In 2019, the degree of public interest and concern about the state of the Lake Baikal grew dramatically. All the visible signs of deterioration (tons of waste and rotting algae on the shores, increasing media reports on the poor state of Baikal water, new industrial projects, skyrocketing tourism and poor infrastructure, etc.) heated the locals’ dissatisfaction and public protests grew to the scale unknown ever before. In March 2019, the illegal construction of the Chinese water bottling plant in the unique area of Talovskie wetlands sparked massive protests related to the poor management and environmental, with about 1,000,000 participants in 43 cities of the Russian Federation. An Appeal with 30,000 signatures was sent to all relevant national and regional authorities, including requirements to ensure public participation in environmental decision-making, the safe rehabilitation of the former Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill’s (BPPM) toxic waste ponds, and to eliminate illegally constructed hotels, stimulate eco-tourism, improve waste water treatment and strengthen control of logging and construction in unaffected natural areas (Simonov and Kreindlin, 2020). However, there is growing anti-conservation sentiment as well. Active opposition of local house owners to existing strict land ownership regulations is exacerbated by poor administrative and enforcement practices. Businessmen and owners of thousands of illegally acquired plots are actively lobbying Irkutsk Oblast authorities, the Republic of Buryatia and the State Duma of the Russian Federation to exclude settlements from the territory of protected areas and the Central Ecological Zone of the BNT, as well as to soften regulations on "prohibited activities" (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

The legal protection of the property is defined by the federal law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal” , modified 18 times since its adoption. This law provides the legal basis for the protection and management of the Baikal Natural Territory and Lake Baikal, also as a World Heritage property.

The Baikal Natural territory includes three main zones, (the central ecological zone (CEZ) the boundaries of which coincide with those of the World Heritage property, which includes Lake Baikal and its islands, the water protection zone as well as the specially protected natural areas adjacent to the lake, a buffer ecological zone located outside the CEZ and including the Russian part of the catchment area of Lake Baikal, the ecological zone of atmospheric influence that covers the area outside the catchment area of Lake Baikal within the territory of the Russian Federation, a 200 km wide territory to the west and northwest outside the catchment area), the boundaries of which and the legal regime of activities were established by law.

The Baikal Natural Territory overlaps with three administrative regions in the Russian Federation: Irkutsk oblast (region), the Republic of Buryatia, and Zabaikalsky Krai (Transbaikal Territory), the third region having no overlap with the CEZ and hence the World Heritage property. In addition, 159 settlements are included within the CEZ (77 in Irkutsk region and 82 in Buryat side).

The Baikal Law also fixes the main principles for utilization of natural resources, including wildlife and water, in each of the three zones listed here above, as well as the legal regimes of traditional uses, recreational and tourism activities, and regulation on waste. Various other federal laws, legal acts and regional and local regulations determine the protection and management of the property compiled under the government monitoring portal for Lake Baikal. In accordance with the law on environmental protection, the Baikal Law imposes also a registration of objects that may have negative impact on the property, as well as various rules for economic activities and facilities, information and monitoring, federal programmes targeted on protection of the lake and related to the law enforcement and liability. This law details as well provisions on specific activities that are allowed for a limited period (e.g., modernization and expansion of railways facilities within the CEZ

The property is governed also by the federal law 33-FZ dated March 14th, 1995 “On specially protected natural areas” which provides the basis for protected areas and activities permitted in their territories. This autonomous legislation lists diverse types of protected areas such as, at the federal (strict nature reserves, national parks, wildlife reserves and nature monuments) and regional levels (nature parks, nature reserves and nature monuments); it also regulates the organization and the management regime of those areas and is applicable to the protected areas located within the property.

The incomplete application, high instability and weaknesses of the Law “On the Protection of Lake Baikal” (Baikal Law) was raised several times in the past and since the last outlook assessment, including in the report of the last reactive monitoring mission (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024). The absence of certain implementing texts and the frequent and numerous legal amendments have reduced the predictability, consistency and security of the legal framework dedicated to the protection of the property and the draft amendment on Article 25 of the law on protection of Lake Baikal as adopted on first reading by the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation in June 2023 could further weaken the legal protection of the property if it were to be definitively voted in the proposed form, constituting a potential threat to the preservation of the OUV of the property (UNESCO/IUCN). The World Heritage Committee adopted also in 2024 a series of measures with regard to the legal protection of the property (Decision 46 COM 7B.52 Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) N 754).

The amendments prepared by February 2025 for 2nd and 3rd hearings propose further weakening of the Baikal Law by potentially permitting clearing of woody vegetation of land plots in settlements, while expansion of municipal lands of each settlement is not restricted by the law, permitting “sanitary cutting” of forests to fight pests and diseases, excluding from “forest fund” land plots (listed in annexes to the bill) earmarked for construction and reconstruction of priority roads, wastewater treatment facilities, engineering structures to confront geological hazards, and water infrastructure, etc. The bill received a preliminary blessing from the president of Russia and may be passed in 2025 (IUCN Consultation, 2025).

The protection of Lake Baikal is under the responsibility of the federal government, coordinated by the Government Commission for the Protection of Lake Baikal established to ensure concerted action by federal executive bodies, and the executive bodies of the Republic of Buryatia, the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Irkutsk Region.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation has the responsibility for the oversight of the protection of the property, determining the executive bodies in charge of specific monitoring, protection and management activities according to their competencies.

The legal protection of the property if overseen by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office

The lack of strategic vision for the integrated management and socioeconomic development in the property was raised by the last monitoring mission (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024)

Although coordination among stakeholders appears to have been improved over time, further legal reinforcement may be needed in key areas, such as control of water pollution, tourism development, and land use planning.

The World Heritage Committee has also repeatedly requested overtime the State Party to develop an integrated management plan for the property that would foster coordination between federal, regional and local stakeholders. As urged by the Committee, this plan should be elaborated after public mandatory consultation and scientific review. It should also lead to the adoption of a retrospective statement of OUV for the property with a clear and high definition of the property's boundaries.

The insufficient integration of public policies carried out at different levels, federal, regional and local, has been highlighted on several occasions by the World Heritage Committee and, again, recently in the report of the last reactive monitoring mission (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024).

This lack of integration was, for example, mentioned on the occasion of the Baikalsk Master Plan regarding which the World Heritage Committee requested that a SEA of this plan be conducted ensuring full compatibility with World Heritage requirements and, more generally, that an integrated management plan for the property be developed.

The boundaries of the World Heritage site, and particularly of its central ecological zone, appear to have been poorly defined and/or documented. Following years of disputing, the boundaries were only recently fully (or partially) legitimized by registration in the National Land Cadaster (Register). Boundaries have until now been contested by various authorities and only in 2020 did the Republic of Buryatia revoke its claim that the boundaries of the World Heritage site coincide with those of the water-protection zone. However, many economic and political actors still hope to change those boundaries and in the current legislative disorder, it cannot be ruled out (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The State Party has still to submit a map delimiting the property boundaries to the World Heritage Centre for the Committee’s approval (Retrospective Inventory of boundaries).

The property overlaps with one Ramsar site (Selenga Delta Ramsar site) and two biosphere reserves (The Baikalsky biosphere reserve and the Barguzinskyi Biosphere Reserve). There is no information available on the effectiveness of collaboration between the different designations, however considering the lack of coordinated regional planning and the overall unregulated and increasing tourism development in the region the management effectiveness of the overlapping designations remains concerning.

The property has been the subject of numerous decisions by the World Heritage Committee since its inscription.

Since the previous outlook assessment, the Committee has reiterated three times a series of concerns on a series of questions previously posed, in relation to the preservation of the property and the maintenance of its integrity (World Heritage Committee 2024, 2023).

Many of these questions and expectations of the Committee have still not found clear, precise and fully satisfactory responses to date, several of them directly questioning the inscription of the property on the list of world heritage properties in danger.

The question of climate change is central in the preservation of the property’s OUV (Lyubov R. Izmest'eva, L.R. 2016); Moore, M.V et al. 2009). The property is affected by significant and growing anthropogenic threats which, combined with the effects of climate change, may have a direct negative impact on its OUV and degrade its integrity.

There is also a risk that fires will reoccur in the future, despite the measures taken to prevent such natural hazards, particularly in the face of climate change. The report of the last reactive monitoring mission concludes that specific efforts should also be made to increase knowledge on direct and indirect effects of climate change on the water quality of the lake and its tributaries, and flows in Lake Baikal (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024).

In summary, it is admitted that climate change will likely further exacerbate the environmental risks within the property in the future and that there is a strong need to strengthen monitoring of its current and potential impacts on its functional integrity that is part of the property’s OUV. There is tendency to use the lake as an element of engineering measures for climate adaptation (e.g. increasingly as the flood-control reservoir), rather than designing nature-based solutions to protect lake ecosystems in the course of climate adaptation (Rivers without Boundaries 2024).

As requested several times by the World Heritage Committee, these conclusions call for further studies and research aiming to improve knowledge on the effects of climate change on the property’s OUV, although the Baikal lake may have shown to date resilience to it according to some scientists.

As repeatedly requested by the World Heritage Committee and in compliance with the Operational Guidelines, the State Party was urged several times to develop an integrated management plan for the property involving all Government entities and other stakeholders; this plan should be elaborated after mandatory public consultation and scientific review, and it should address all current and future major development initiatives that could affect the property and its OUV.

With the establishment of the Unified Baikal Prosecutor's Office around 2017, the work to reveal and rectify violations of environmental law has intensified significantly. According to the prosecutor’s office, in just the two years between January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2019, the persecutors revealed that administration of the Olkhonsky District allocated 369 plots on a leasehold basis and 19 for permanent unlimited use. A significant part of these plots are located within the boundaries of the Pribaikalsky National Park and has been allocated in violation of the established restrictions on land sales. The prosecutor’s office has filed a series of lawsuits to stop the illegal use of or demolish illegally constructed buildings, including tourist facilities. The Baikal Prosecutors' Office also started enforcement of many previously idle provisions of the Law on Conservation of Lake Baikal, and that evoked a lot of criticism from local people who routinely conducted activities in violation of the conservation laws. This in turn increased pressure to soften the laws to allow local economy functioning (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

According to the most recent data provided by the State Party, the level of funding dedicated to the management of the property would be stable, secure in the medium and long term and satisfactory; however, it could be improved (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024b).

However, no precise information is available on the financial volumes committed, nor on the sources and distribution of available funds, between the authorities responsible for managing the various components of the property, and between the activities carried out in the property.

This lack of data does not allow to draw a more robust conclusion on this topic.

According to the most recent data provided by the State Party, the human capacities dedicated to the protection and management of the property would be satisfactory regardless of the types of needs; the same applies to training activities whatever the areas of expertise (conservation, environmental sustainability, community participation and inclusion, risk preparedness, capacity development and education, administration, research and monitoring, raising awareness and public information/communication, marketing and promotion, interpretation, visitor management/tourism and enforcement (custodians, police)) (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2024 b).

However, no precise information is available on the resources committed nor on their allocation and distribution in the different areas of intervention. Since 2020 capacities of independent civil society organisations working on protecting the Lake Baikal ecosystem have been diminished both in Russia and Mongolia due to various reasons (Simonov 2023, Simonov 2024).

The data provided by the State Party nor the various reports and other documents on the state of conservation of the property do not allow a proper assessment of the educational and interpretation activities carried out in the property; the information available is general and limited to certain components of the property; they concern often the entire natural territory of Baikal, only part of which is located within the property.

Under these conditions, it is not possible to draw a precise conclusion on the educational and interpretation efforts carried out in the property.

The data provided by the State Party and the reports and other documents on the state of conservation of the property do not allow a thorough assessment of the number of tourists visiting the property as a whole, or its impacts, with the exception of certain components:
- Pribaskalye strict nature reserve (Zapovednoye Pribaikaliye - a Joint Directorate of 4 Nature Protected Areas: Pribaikalsky National Park, Baikal-Lena Nature Reserve, Tofalarsky and Krasnyy Yar Nature Refuges. Here you can see a visit to all 4 territories, and almost all of them are visitors to the Pribaikalsky Park) (almost 160,000 visitors in, 2022);
- Podlemorye strict nature reserve (Podlemorye is a Joint Directorate of 2 Nature Protected Areas – Zabaikalsky National Park and Barguzin Nature Reserve. The most number of visitors are of the National Park) (almost 52,000 visitors in 2022);
- Baikal State nature biosphere reserve (45,000 visitors in 2022);
- Jerginsky State natural reserve (836 visitors in 2022);
- Sokhondinsky State natural reserve (almost 1,500 visitors in 2022).

According to the State Party, the tourism pressure seems relatively stable and fairly well managed, but its negative effects on the property are increasing (Russian Federation, 2024b).

However, the latest reactive monitoring mission (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024) concluded that the development of tourism in the property is clearly a threat to the preservation of its OUV, in the absence of a common strategic vision among federal, regional and local stakeholders, particularly in relation to the development of these activities in the 2 economic zones set up for this purpose on the shore of the Lake and in the absence of an overall management system for the whole property.

These weaknesses have been highlighted on several occasions in recent years by the World Heritage Committee which has expressed its utmost concern with the significant ascertained and potential threats faced by the property due to, among other reasons, persistent and increasing anthropogenic pressures, notably related to tourism development.

As the property's legal protection regime stands, the sustainable use of natural resources is not a major issue for the preservation of the property's OUV, with the exception of the use of timber and fish resources.

- Logging and all silvicultural management practices are a matter of concern for the preservation of the property's OUV. Should they become allowed in the future, in the property and in its vicinity, large scale and clear-cut logging,including sanitary cuts, as well as artificial plantations following mechanical soil works within the property, may affect the preservation of the values and attributes that convey the property's OUV, The amendment to the article 25 of the Baikal law, as drafted at the time of the last reactive monitoring mission (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024), may threaten the property's OUV if adopted in the form of this draft;
- In the past, fishing activities in the lake led to a drastic reduction in omul populations; restrictions on fishing and restocking efforts have enabled the conservation status of this species to be stabilised at a level of abundance that is still lower than the population levels known in the past. Although the threats to this species appear to have been reduced, all the risks of a deterioration in its conservation status cannot yet be fully ruled out.

The State Party’s has made efforts to set up a comprehensive framework for monitoring the property and to provide open access to information and data on the Lake Baikal Ecological Portal. According to the last reactive monitoring mission, this framework should be strengthened this monitoring, including in demersal and coastal zones of the lake that are not properly covered currently. Coordination should also be improved between the diverse public agencies and academic bodies, with a view to ensuring that monitoring guides management decisions and enables the State Party to deliver timely, reliable and public annual reports on the overall state of conservation of the property.

This monitoring framework should form part of the integrated management plan requested several timers by the World Heritage Committee and be based on the most up-to-date knowledge and reliable data collected by both administrative and scientific stakeholders (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024). In practice, so far monitoring data is not widely used to inform management, while monitoring programs are often disjunct from conservation needs. The Academy of Sciences has been calling to establish comprehensive monitoring of shallow-water ecosystems (Simonov et al 2022). However, most recent study on allowable water level regulation had very little relevant data available on water regime impacts on shallow-water and coastal ecosystems and indicator species (Institute of Systems Dynamics 2024).

Historically and for long, Lake Baikal has been the subject of many studies and research works on the various topics of preservation of its natural values, as shown by the scientific publications available, only a small proportion of which are referenced in this assessment, particularly those published since the previous outlook assessment. Hundreds of scientific publications are issued every year on Baikal, in all fields of expertise.

These publications are generally of high scientific quality and they covers the main themes of preservation of the property's environmental values, which led to its inscription under criteria (ix) and (x).

The complexity of the functioning of the lake ecosystem and the surrounding terrestrial ecosystems, which have an influence on the preservation of the property, requires a high level of research in a very large number of fields of expertise, requiring the use of often sophisticated means and a very long-term work.

It is therefore important for the State Party to continue its research efforts and to strengthen it on the strongest external constraints as well as on cross-cutting issues, such as climate change, which are likely to influence more and more the functional integrity of the property and therefore the preservation of its OUV. Public unavailability of the results of government-sponsored research has been an increasing problem. Cooperation between Russian and foreign scientists and joint publications are constrained due to geopolitical tensions which may further impact the capacity for research in the site.

The management system and governance is not addressing threats outside the site. Furthermore, this system is lacking coordination between the various stakeholders, at federal, regional and local levels; Nor is it based on a shared strategic vision of management for the whole property, as called for by the World Heritage Committee in several decisions since the last outlook assessment (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024).

This is also the opinion of the latest reactive monitoring mission, which concludes on the need to strengthen the strategic approach to this management and to formulate it in a global management plan drawn up in an inclusive manner with all categories of stakeholders.

The current management system is lacking coordination between the various stakeholders, at federal, regional and local levels; Nor is it based on a shared strategic vision of management for the whole property, as called for by the World Heritage Committee in several decisions since the last outlook assessment.

This is also the opinion of the latest reactive monitoring mission, which concludes on the need to strengthen the strategic approach to this management and to formulate it in a global management plan drawn up in an inclusive manner with all categories of stakeholders (UNESCO/IUCN, 2024).