《世界遗产观察组织(WHW):2017年度世界遗产观察报告(英文版)(154页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《世界遗产观察组织(WHW):2017年度世界遗产观察报告(英文版)(154页).pdf(154页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、World Heritage Watch Report 2017World Heritage WatchWorld Heritage WatchWorld Heritage Watch Report 2017Berlin 20172 Bibliographical InformationWorld Heritage Watch:World Heritage Watch Report 2017.Berlin 2017152 pages,with 102 photos and 45 graphics and mapsPublished by World Heritage Watch e.V.Ber
2、lin 2017ISBN 978-3-00-056832-9NE:World Heritage Watch1.World Heritage 2.Civil Society 3.UNESCO 4.Participation 5.Natural Heritage 6.Cultural Heritage 7.Historic Cities 8.Sites 9.Monuments 10.Cultural Landscapes 11.Indigenous Peoples 12.ParticipationWorld Heritage Watch World Heritage Watch e.V.2017T
3、his work with all its parts is protected by copyright.Any use beyond the strict limits of the applicable copyright law without the consent of the publisher is inadmissable and punishable.This refers especially to reproduction of figures and/or text in print or xerography,translations,microforms and
4、the data storage and processing in electronical systems.The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opin-ions whatsoever on the part of the publishers concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its authoriti
5、es,or concerning the frontiers of any country or territory.The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and for the opinions expressed therein,which are not necessarily those of the editors,and do not commit them.No part of this publication may
6、be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publishers except for the quotation of brief passages for the purposes of review.This publication has been produced with support by the Landesstelle fr Entwicklungszusammenarbeit Berlin.The contents of this publication are the sole respon
7、sibility of World Heritage Watch e.V.and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Landesstelle fr Entwicklungszusammenarbeit Berlin.Editorial TeamStephan Doempke and Geoff Law(chief editors)with support from Elena Belokurova,Nigel Crawhall and Martin LenkCover photos:Biaowieza(wikimedia co
8、mmons),Diyarbakir(Sur Conservation Platform),Agadez(Nigel Crawhall),Bali(ProjectKalpa)Back cover map:Martin LenkDesign and Layout:Bianka Gericke,LayoutManufaktur.BerlinPrinted by:Buch-und Offsetdruckerei H.Heenemann GmbH&Co.KG,BerlinSenatsverwaltung fr Wirtschaft,Energie und BetriebeLandesstelle frE
9、ntwicklungs-zusammenarbeit3ContentsPreface .7I.Natural Sites .9Biaowieza Forest in Danger of Destruction.10Robert Cyglicki,Greenpeace Poland,on behalf of NGOsBelarusian Belovezhskaya Pushcha as an Example of Successful Salvation of a World Heritage Site .13Heorhi Kazulka,Belovezhskaya Pushcha 21 cen
10、tury,BelarusWestern Caucasus:Unsolved Problems and New Threats.16Dmitry Shevchenko,Environmental Watch on North CaucasusThe Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve World Heritage Property:Main Threats .20Mikhail Kreindlin and Andrey Petrov,Greenpeace RussiaGolden Mountains of Altai State and Threat
11、s.23Oksana(Oxana)Engoyan,“Altai 21 century”Planned Dams in Mongolia in the Context of Lake Baikal .27Arkadiy Ivanov,Greenpeace Russia Sergey Shapkhaev,Buriat Regional Union for Baikal Eugene Simonov,Rivers without Boundaries CoalitionMajor threats to the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve,Mexico .3
12、1Cecilia Gas,Humberto Fernndez and Manuel Llano,Conservacin Humana ACThreats to the Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California,Mexico .34Humberto Fernndez,Cecilia Gas and Manuel Llano.Conservacion Humana AC.Tanzania:Selous Game Reserve at Risk Through Unsustainable Developments .39Gnter W
13、ippel,MENSCHENRECHTE(HumanRights)3000 e.V.A Letter from the National Committee for Saving the Sundarbans(Bangladesh).43National Committee for Saving the SundarbansTropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra:Habitat for Endangered Wildlife Faces New Threats .46Panut Hadisiswoyo,Founder and Director,Orang
14、utan Information Centre Shayne McGrath,International Conservation Advisor World Heritage and Climate Change A Great Barrier Reef Case Study.49Earthjustice(USA)and Environmental Justice AustraliaDrowning by Numbers:Effects of Global Warming and Fossil Fuel Mining on the Wadden Sea .52Frank Petersen,E
15、llen Kuipers and Esm Gerbens,Waddenvereniging4II.World Heritage Properties and Indigenous Peoples .55Mikisew Cree First Nations Call to Better Safeguard Wood Buffalo National Park .56Melody Lepine,Mikisew Cree First NationTuareg Heritage and International Obligations:Ar&Tnr World Heritage Site in Ni
16、ger.59Nigel Crawhall and Mohamed Ewangaye,Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating CommitteeA Culture and Human Rights Centered Approach at the Tri-National de la Sangha,Central Africa.64Jos-Martial Betoulet-Bangala,Joseph Mukomo Itongwa,Ernesto Noriega and Tatjana Puschkarsky,OrigiNationsWorld Her
17、itage Sites in Botswana Indigenous Perspectives .67Leburu Molatedi Andrias,Diphetogo Lekgowa,Baakantse Satau and Gakemotho Satau,Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating CommitteeThe Hoh Xil World Heritage Nomination:Analysis and Recommendations .71Gabriel Lafitte,independent Tibet specialist and K
18、ate Saunders,International Campaign for TibetIII.Cultural Landscapes and Mixed Sites .75World Heritage at Risk:The Upper Middle Rhine Valley .76Klaus Thomas,Elke Greif-Gossen and Mario Pott,Brgerinitiative RheinpassagenSpaces Of Flows:The Water and Green System In Minsk.80Oxana GourinovitchOhrid Lak
19、e:World Cultural and Natural Heritage in Peril.84Emilija Apostolova Chalovska and Nadezda Apostolova,Ohrid SOSThe Challenges in Preserving Cultural Heritage in Upper Svaneti Communities(Georgia).89Maqi Kvitsiani,Blue Shield GeorgiaGrowing Pains of the Cultural Landscape of Bali:Key Priorities Toward
20、s Sustainable Tourism .92Wiwik Dharmiasih,ProjectKalpa and Yayasan Konservasi Sawah Bali(YKSB)Yunus Arbi,Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of IndonesiaThe Tasmanian Wilderness:Honouring Commitments to Protect Wilderness .95Vica Bayley,The Wilderness Society(Australia)5IV.Historic Cit
21、ies .99Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City Inscribed UNESCO World Heritage Site Since 2004.100Gerry Proctor,Engage LiverpoolHistoric Centre of Vienna Under Heavy Pressure of Real Estate Development.103Herbert Rasinger,Initiative StadtbildschutzHeritage Under Presure:The Case of the Bypass in the Hist
22、oric Town of Gjirokastra,Albania .106Kreshnik Merxhani and Valmira Bozgo,Forum for the Protection of the Values of GjirokastraDestruction of the Old City(Surii)of Diyarbakr Since 2015 and its Current Status .109Ercan Ayboga,Sur Conservation PlatformLamu Old Town World Heritage Property(Kenya).112Kha
23、dija Shekue Famau,Save LamuThe Historic Center of Quito:A Disputed Space .115Mara Rosa Muoz BarrigaV.Monuments and Sites.119The Dilemmas of Mtskheta and the Reasons for its Listing as World Heritage in Danger.120Tamar GelashviliSaint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings,Kiev Pechersk Lavr
24、a .123Iryna Nikiforova,Initiative for St.Andrews PassageProspective World Heritage Sites in the Russian City of Pskov .127Marina Nikolaeva,Pskov Regional Office of Society for Protection of Historical and Cultural LandmarksThe Orange Line Metro Project,Lahore:Civil Society Safeguarding a World Herit
25、age Site .130Imrana Tiwana,Lahore Conservation SocietyThe Issue of the Conservation of the Picture Wall of Lahore Fort,Pakistan .134Zulfiqar Ali Kalhoro,Pakistan Institute of Development EconomicsHeritage Recovery in Nepals Kathmandu Valley The Present Situation .137Alok S.Tuladhar,HimalAsiaAnnex .1
26、41The Authors.142World Heritage Watch .15067PrefaceFor two years 2015 in Bonn and 2016 in Istanbul World Heritage Watch has organized an NGO Forum immediately prior to the Annual Session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee,contin-uing an initiative which had been started by Russian civil society
27、in St.Petersburg in 2012.The Bonn Conference served to establish the role civil society plays in the safeguarding of World Heritage sites,and the potential role it could,or should play in future.In a strategic document,115 partici-pants defined their aspirations towards UNESCO and the World Heritage
28、 Convention.At the Istanbul Conference,there was a thematic focus on civil societys contribution to monitoring progress of World Heritage sites towards sustainability,in terms of both protection and development.Through our participation in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee we understood t
29、hat we must make stronger efforts to make ourselves heard where the decisions are taken.However,this would require a modified approach.While the two conferences have made the many positive contributions of civil society to the World Heritage abundantly clear,their reports had come too late to have a
30、ny immediate effect on the Committee decisions taken only a few days later.The publications,enlightening as they were,could only impress the interested reader or the potential donor but otherwise were little more than for the record.Drawing our conclusion from this experience,we decided(a)that hence
31、forth we would focus our annual work on the sites on the agenda of the next WH Committee meeting,and(b)that the reports we would gather from civil society actors worldwide must be published and distributed to the deci-sion-makers in time ahead of the Committee Meeting in order to allow them to integ
32、rate them and to reconsider any of their positions.This has required an extra effort from everyone involved but in particular from those who prepared reports.They had to focus to a much higher degree on the issues discussed(or not)by State Parties in their State of Conservation Reports,and on the ex
33、tent to which these had actually implemented the requirements from the last Decisions of the World Heritage Committee.It is the aim of World Heritage Watch and the civil society actors who constitute its network to be con-sidered a useful additional player in the decision-making processes of the Wor
34、ld Heritage Convention.We will succeed in this only if we can manage to provide reliable additional information which the Committee does not receive from the State Parties and Advisory Bodies.The World Heritage Watch Report 2017 is the first,albeit modest attempt to reflect this aspiration.With the
35、extremely limited resources we have at our disposal,the result is not always as perfect as we ourselves would like to have it,but we are convinced that most of the material presented here will bring new aspects to light which will help the members of the WH Committee to take better-informed decision
36、s about the sites which are the heritage of all of us.8For their extremely valuable contributions,our thanks go first and foremost to the authors.Elena Belokurova for the Russian-speaking world,and Nigel Crawhall for the indigenous peoples of Africa were of invaluable help in communicating and coord
37、inating,and thus making it possible to receive papers from people and places to which it would otherwise be almost impossible to reach out.Geoff Law from Hobart,Tasmania volunteered to edit the papers,and Martin Lenk through his car-tography and photo research demonstrated again what a difference go
38、od illustrations can make to the understanding of a text.Finally,our heartfelt gratitude goes to computer designer Bianka Gericke who never let us down when things had to be done within deadline.Berlins Landesstelle fr Entwicklungszusammenarbeit the Agency for Development Cooperation of the City-Sta
39、te of Berlin is to be praised for supporting the printing of this volume.It is our sincere hope that the result of the common effort of all of us will not go unnoticed by deci-sion-makers and the wider public alike,and that it will help to safeguard our planets sites of the most outstanding universa
40、l value for future generations to enjoy.Berlin,May 2017The WHW Board of Directors:Stephan Doempke,Uli Grbener,Maritta Koch-Weser,Rolf Kreibich and Silvan Rehfeld I.Natural Sites9Biaowieza Forest in Danger of DestructionRobert Cyglicki,Greenpeace Poland,on behalf of the following coalition of NGOs:Bi
41、aowiea Primeval Forest(BF)is a large tract of forest strad-dling the border between Poland and Belarus.It is widely recognised as the best preserved fragment of mixed decid-uous forest of the northern temperate zone in Europe.The area has an exceptionally high value for nature conservation,including
42、 extensive old-growth forests,and is home to the largest population of the European bison,an iconic species.The BF is a so-called“node of concentration”of biodiversity,and far exceeds all other European forests in numbers of fungi,plant and animal species that occur in its territory.The Biaowiea For
43、est,first inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979,was re-nominated under criteria ix and x in June 2014 as a transboundary property covering the entire forest on both sides of the border between Poland and Belarus.According to the justification for the re-nomination,the extended area protects a
44、 diverse complex of forest ecosys-tems and associated non-forest habitats with their rich biodi-versity of plants,animals and fungi.Of particular importance are old-growth forests,which include extensive undisturbed areas where natural processes continue(criterion ix).The area has a very high propor
45、tion of old-growth forests,with a high amount of dead wood in various stages of decompo-sition.BF has exceptional conservation significance due to the extent of its old-growth stands,which should be inter-preted not just as“stands of old age”but as forest fragments of natural origin,which have conti
46、nuously covered the area for centuries.Biaowiea Forest is also a“hot spot”for biodiversity conser-vation in Central Europe(criterion x).BF provides habitat for 59 mammal species,178 bird species,13 amphibian species,seven reptile species and well over 9,000 insect species.According to the“Management
47、 Plan for the Biaowiea Forest World Heritage Property Roadmap for preparation and implementation”,BF is divided into different manage-ment zones where varied protection regimes are applied.There are zones where strict protection,partial protection I or“partial protection II regime”are applied.Taking
48、 into account the current situation,it is important to mention that in the“partial protection II”zone no wood extraction is allowed.The Polish part of BF is managed by two authorities:about 20%is managed by the Biaowiea National Park and the remaining area(around 80%)is managed by State Forests,a st
49、ate-owned holding.The State Forests area is divided into three administrative Forest Districts(Hajnwka,Biaowiea and Browsk),each of which has a Forest Management Plan(FMP)in place since 2012.These were drawn up for a 10-year period(2012-2021)and each of them sets a reasonable limit on timber harvest
50、.Together,they limit the timber harvest to 469,980 m3 during the 10-year period(averaging about 47,000 m3 logged annually)in the Polish part of BF.The timber-harvest quotas established for the three Forest Districts were largely exhausted by 2015,after only four of the ten years.This resulted in a 2
51、015 proposal to update the FMP for the forest district that had already surpassed its allowable limit.Similar updates are expected soon for the remaining two forest districts as they are approaching their 10-year lim-its,too.The proposed update to the FMP for Forest District Biaowiea proposes a seri
52、ous increase in intensity of logging.The annual logging intensity in the next six years is proposed to increase by a factor of three compared with the original quota set in 2012 which was recognized as sustainable.The proposed logging will include large parts of the BF within the“partial protection
53、II”zone,where logging(including“sanitary felling”and salvage logging)was not foreseen(in contrast to the“active protection of biodiversity and land-scape”zone).Moreover,the intense logging that has already 10 I.Natural SitesFig.1.Forests in the Bialowieza World Heritage propertytaken place in the la
54、st three years across BF was conducted in numerous stands situated in the“partial protection II”zone as well.This all constitutes a serious breach of the obligation to pro-tect the Outstanding Universal Value(OUV)of the World Heritage property the ongoing ecological processes of key importance for t
55、his biodiversity hot-spot,as embod-ied in criterion ix.Intense logging would decrease the area of key habitats supporting the unique biodiversity of the site and adversely affect the potential for restoration.This would also seriously impair the integrity of BF,a breach of the Operational Guidelines
56、 for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,and of the EU Habitats Directive.The foresters claim to be motivated by a desire to halt the outbreak of bark beetle and“save the forest”.Despite these assertions,the outbreak of bark beetle in BF is impossible to halt,given the requirement to
57、 find and fell at least 80%of infested trees.That is impossible in this extensive tract of forest,35%of which is totally protected from logging.In the remaining area,spruce trees are often embedded in a matrix of old oak-hornbeam forests.Applying the proposed silvicul-tural measures in these stands
58、is also logistically unfeasible,given the vast area of the property and the small window of opportunity in which to find and remove the infested trees before the adult insects emerge and disperse to infest other trees.The“sanitary logging”conducted in 2013-2015,including in the protection zones wher
59、e it was not foreseen by World Heritage Property dossier,as well as the large-scale interven-tion allegedly required to address the developing bark-bee-tle outbreak,were not mentioned in the official State of Conservation(SOC)report for BF in 2016.The SOC report for the Polish part of the property i
60、s not complete as it does not present all the information on implementation of the Committee decision(40 COM 7B.92).It also presents opin-ions which are not based on data and scientific knowledge,and,crucially,it attempts to justify increased wood extrac-tion from Biaowiea Forest,thereby threatening
61、 the sites OUV.The increased logging was formally accepted in March 2016.The State Party of Poland attempted to justify its decision by reference to the bark-beetle outbreak.In fact,such outbreaks have been shaping Biaowiea Forest for ages and are part of the natural processes of the forest(criterio
62、n ix).The report of the IUCN Advisory Mission(48 June 2016)says that“bark beetle outbreaks should be considered as a biological pro-cess,in the sense of the World Heritage Convention”and“from the mission experts view,the main objective should be to maintain the overall ecological character of the Bi
63、aowiea Forest and restore it,when necessary,by minimizing human intervention and facilitating the natural processes”As many species and habitats in the Biaowiea Forest are dependent on the abundance of dead wood and old-growth forest stands,their effective protection requires the Polish government t
64、o abandon its plans to increase logging.However,the SOC report said increased logging was“to ena-ble the active conservation of species and habitats”without specifying any species and habitats which would benefit.In fact,the official justifications for increased logging are largely attempts to hide
65、the true motivation commercial wood extraction.Interestingly,the SOC report clearly shows that at least 78%of the wood extraction was commercial.The Committee“considers that such commercial timber extraction would represent a potential danger to the prop-erty in accordance with Paragraph 180 of the
66、Operational Guidelines”(40 COM 7B.92).This decision of the Committee is a long way from being implemented due to the following issues:1.Amendments to the Forest Management Plan for the Biaowiea Forest District are being implemented in Poland which would provide for a threefold increase in logging an
67、d could result in disturbance of natural eco-logical processes.Whats more,logging at Hajnwka and Browsk Forest Districts has been intensified,with wood extraction 50%higher than the yearly average.The regime of management zones for the property has not been respected.Also,39%of the wood(about 50,000
68、 trees)was extracted from a zone excluded from logging.2.The recommendations of the IUCN Advisory Mission of 2016 should be implemented as soon as possible.Very little has been done so far in this regard.3.The OUV of BF,especially natural processes,is endangered by intensified logging.4.The State Pa
69、rty of Poland has still not prepared a proper evaluation of potential impacts of the amendments to the Forest Management Plan on the BF World Heritage site.The State Party is claiming that such an evaluation was included in its Strategic Environmental Assessment,deliv-I.Natural Sites 11Fig.2.Logging
70、 operation,Bialowieza World Heritage property.Photo:Greenpeaceered along with the SOC report.But this was rejected by the WH Committee,IUCN and the European Commission.5.The conclusions of the report of the IUCN Advisory Mission to BF are far from having been“considered with all rel-evant stakeholde
71、rs”,as requested.6.The Committee requested the State Party“to ensure that no commercial timber extraction is permitted within the entirety of the Polish part of the property and considers that such commercial timber extraction would represent a potential danger to the property in accordance with Par
72、agraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines”.Yet 78%of the wood harvested at BF has constituted commercial timber extraction.7.The Polish Ministry of the Environment,through its actions,has not prioritized preparation of the Integrated Management Plan.It took half a year to prepare a small step,a Draft
73、 provisions document,to address that point of the decision.Whats more,that step was made in wrong direction.The Draft provisions do not guarantee that“no actions can be allowed within the entire property that could negatively impact on its OUV”.The Committees decision is therefore far from being imp
74、lem ented.In fact,it was ignored when the State Party implemented its decision to increase logging of BF only two months after the Committee session.The data on logging is dramatic and shows that the State Party of Poland is system-atically transforming the best preserved old-growth forest in Europe
75、 into heavily managed forest of the sort one can find all over Europe.ConclusionsBiaowiea Forest is under threat.The work undertaken by State Forests will have a profound impact on the OUV of Biaowiea and on its state of conservation.Biaowiea Forest is an irreplaceable area for biodiversity conserva
76、tion due to its mostly undisturbed nature.It is an area where in line with criterion ix key ecological processes govern the natural development of terrestrial ecosystems and communities of plants and animals.The significant intensification of logging that has been planned is a serious threat to biod
77、iversity con-servation at Biaowiea Forest.The increased rate of logging,including inside management zones formally excluded from forestry,will bring substantial changes to the conservation status of the Biaowiea Forest.This drastic degradation of the forest environment by high logging intensity will
78、 destroy the on-going ecological pro-cess shaping the forest ecosystem,constituting a significant breach of criteria ix and x of the World Heritage Property.We therefore strongly urgeWorld Heritage Committee to play a vigilant role in preventing any negative changes to the OUV of the Biaowiea Forest
79、 property.We ask you to consider draftingan adequate decision for the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee.We also ask you to adopt the process of Reactive Monitoring,to ensure that the OUV of the property is not threatened by the ongoing intensive logging in Biaowiea Forest.12 I.Natural Sit
80、esFig.3.Logging at forest stand 280 in Biaowiea Forest(Biaowiea Forest District)in the UNESCO zone“Partial Protection II other forests excluded from use”.Photo Dariusz Gatkowski/WWF Poland I.Natural Sites 13Belarusian Belovezhskaya Pushcha as an Example of Successful Salvation of a World Heritage Si
81、teHeorhi Kazulka,Belovezhskaya Pushcha 21 century,BelarusBelovezhskaya Pushcha was the first property,not only in Belarus but in the countries of the former USSR generally(apart from Russia),to be included on the World Heritage List.In 1992,the UNESCO World Heritage Committee inscribed a cross-borde
82、r site as a separate unit“Bialowieza Forest”(141,885 ha,with a buffer zone of 166,708 ha).In Belarus,it was initially a small central section of the strictly protected zone(5,500 hectares).In 2014 the World Heritage status was extended to the entire territory of Belovezhskaya Pushcha(80,100 ha).The
83、Belarusian Belovezhskaya Pushcha has also been part of a National Park(since 1991)and a Biosphere Reserve(since 1993).The World Heritage property in Poland initially covered an area of 4,747 hectares(the Bialowieza National Park only)and was enlarged to 61,785 ha in 2014.The uniqueness and ecologica
84、l value of Belovezhskaya Pushcha comes from the fact that this is ancient,relict,prime-val,virgin,lowland broad-leaved forest,preserved relatively untouched and,in comparison with other lowland forests of Europe,is little disturbed by human economic activity.In addition,this forest provides habitat
85、for several interna-tionally endangered species.Belovezhskaya Pushcha main-tains a unique gene pool and is the standard for natural pro-cesses in lowland Central Europe.The average age of forests in Belovezhskaya Pushcha is more than 100 years.Some of forest sites reach ages of 250-350 years old.In
86、Pushcha there are more than a thousand giant trees(400 to 600-year-old oaks,250-to-350 year old pines and ash,200-to-250 year old spruces,etc).Belovezhskaya Pushcha is home to relict com-munities of plants and animals.As to the number of species of living organisms,it has no equal on the plains of E
87、urope.The flora of Belarusian Belovezhskaya Pushcha includes 1,040 species of higher plants,more than 3,000 species of fungi,270 species of mosses,and more than 290 species of lichens.The fauna includes 59 mammal species,250 bird species,seven reptile species,11 amphibian species,24 species of fish
88、and more than 12,000 species of invertebrate animals.About 10,000 species of insect are registered here alone.Belovezhskaya Pushcha is home for the largest population of bison of the Bialowieza subspecies(more than 512 animals in the Belarusian part)in the world.There are many rare and endangered sp
89、ecies.A serious contradiction of the World Herit-age conceptFrom the very beginning of the World Heritage nomination process,there was a serious contradiction in the Belorussian part of Belovezhskaya Pushcha.An area of 87,400 hectares of the territory of Belovezhskaya Pushcha was absolutely or partl
90、y protected after the Second World War.But only 5,500 hectares(or 7%)of the unique prime-val forest subsequently came under the UNESCO patronage,while the rest of the vast territory(93%)was not within the World Heritage Site.(The“Belovezhskaya Pushcha”National Park now covers an area of 150,083 ha)C
91、learcutting within the protected area was prohibited.Only dead wood in the relevant areas was extracted from the forest.A long-term practice of selective sanitary felling and clearing deadwood allowed preservation,to a certain extent,of the relict forest outside the boundary of the strictly pro-tect
92、ed zone.In addition,the volume of logging was relatively small about 60 to 70 thousand cubic meters per year.However,since 2001,large-scale timber harvesting and a dramatic intensification of other economic activities have taken place in Belovezhskaya Pushcha.The volume of tim-Fig.1.Extension of the
93、 area of the Belovezhskaya Pushcha World Heritage Site in 201414 I.Natural Sitesber harvested reached 250,000 cubic meters per year.An outbreak of bark beetles which affected the spruce stands was the stated occasion for this.But the true reason was the culmination of an industrial woodworking proje
94、ct(the har-vesting of high-quality timber for a huge timber-processing mill),as well as a lack of the concept and methodology for environmentally friendly logging in the protected area of Belovezhskaya Pushcha.This led to a threat to the unique biological diversity and ecological balance within the
95、prime-val forests.The period from 2001 to 2011 will go down in history as mock-ery and barbarism towards the great forest1.This occurred because people whose activities had little in common with wilderness protection,ecologically friendly management,morality and humanism came to rule the national pa
96、rk.In violation of environmental legislation,an attempt was made to introduce primitive forestry technologies typical of regular forestry enterprises.In particular,illegal clear sanitary felling of living forest was conducted;giant trees(pine and spruce)were cut down;scientific plots for permanent f
97、orest mon-itoring were destroyed after logging;and man-made forests were created on a mas-sive scale.In the center of Belovezhskaya Pushcha,an estate of“Father Frost”was illegally built,which became an area of mass tourism.Land drainage in the buffer zone of the National Park was conducted.Even in t
98、he strictly protected zone,com-mercial hunting with the involvement of foreigners was illegally carried out.There were also many other negative things for nature and people such as staff reductions in the Park and persecution and oppression of the local population2.At the same time,the territory of
99、Belovezhskaya Pushcha was closed off from public“green”influence,and any attempts to overcome this ban by independent envi-ronmentalists,journalists and“green”activists were stopped,even in violation of the law.Civilized cooperation with the environmental community was absent.There was a signif-ican
100、t deterioration in the social sphere and in the obser-vation of human rights.These were the hardest times for Belovezhskaya Pushcha in all of its post-war history.During a period of official tyranny and impunity,an uncivilized regime was established,effectively a police state,in which the coun-trys
101、Constitution and legislation were not properly applied3.As a result,the National Park was suspended for a prestigious European Diploma in 2007 for five years.1 http:/bp21.org.by/en/ff/2 http:/bp21.org.by/en/docs/3 http:/bp21.org.by/en/ff/600foto79.htmlInternational public defence of Belovezhskaya Pu
102、shchaTo confront such policies and management within the National Park,an international public campaign was launched in 2003 to defend Belovezhskaya Pushcha4,with the involvement of experts from UNESCO and the Council of Europe,and international environmental organizations such as WWF and Greenpeace
103、.The public-initiative group“Belovezhskaya Pushcha-21 Century”became its core5.The worldwide community learned about the tragedy at Belovezhskaya Pushcha.Letters of protest with a demand to stop barbarity in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha Primeval Forest were sent from everywhere to Belarus.It has brough
104、t suc-cess.Managers of the National Park were forced to react and stop the illegal logging of the best living forests,as well as to reduce the total amount of logging and give up some of the planned ecological adventures.As a result of this public pressure,and with the support of UNESCO,the area of
105、the strictly protected zone of the National Park was doubled in 2004 from 15,000 to 30,000 hectares,with the integration of its separate parts into a single compact area.This was the first significant victory.In 2007,it was announced at the highest governmental level that the strictly protected zone
106、 of Belovezhskaya Pushcha would be expanded to cover the majority of the geographic area of the forest.In 2011,there was a long-awaited change in the National Parks management and the director of Belovezhskaya Pushcha was fired.In 2012,the strictly pro-tected zone of the National Park was once again
107、 enlarged to cover more than 83%of the relict forest.Three genera-4 http:/bp21.org.by/en/docs/5 http:/bp21.org.by/ru/idea/Fig.2.Forest and marshland,Bialowieza World Heritage property.I.Natural Sites 15tions of environmentalists and scientists had fought for this outcome.In 2008,the authoritative Lo
108、ndon-based magazine The Economist published an article“Revolutions coloured green.”It talked about how the environmental movement and initia-tives around the world in countries with problematic political conditions used modern technology for nature protection.Countries where successful campaigns for
109、 ecological pro-tection had occurred included Armenia,Papua New Guinea,Indonesia,Iran,Poland,Egypt and Greece.The article also described the case of Belarus,referring to the BP-21 Public Initiative Group and its successful defence of Belovezhskaya Pushcha:“Or consider the recent history of Belovezhs
110、kaya Pushcha,a forest park straddling Belarus and Poland.The Belarus side is managed by a well-connected agency whose new boss has been urging his staff to cook up arguments in favour of commercial logging.Heorhi Kazulka,a forestry official who lost his job because he refused to play ball,is waging
111、an online battle to publicize the parks destruction.What began as a lone effort has attracted many supporters who offer tips and photographs.”The significance of the extension of the World Heritage propertyThe extension of the World Heritage property to cover the whole territory of Belovezhskaya Pus
112、hcha in Belarus is fully in keeping with the development of ecological tourism and will bring an obvious benefit to this economic sector.Tourism development,in turn,will involve the local population pro-viding services,thus enhancing its well-being.This approach is consistent with the concept of sus
113、tainable development in the Belovezhskaya Pushcha region.And,of course,this will benefit wild nature and biodiversity.All of the above will undoubtedly serve to raise the prestige of both the National Park and the Republic of Belarus in the eyes of the world community.About the current situationIn 2
114、015,the National Park obtained an international certific-ate under the FSC forest-management system.This made it possible to start an open and independent environmental assessment of nature protection in Belovezhskaya Pushcha with public participation,and to put other important issues on the agenda(
115、for example,reduction of the excessively high population of red deer,introduction of environmen-tally-friendly forest-management practices in the economic zone,liquidation of plantations of aggressively intruding species such as red oak).In cooperation with scientists and public environmental organi
116、zations,innovative scientific and technical projects are being carried out within the National Park(such as restoration of drained bogs,rehabilitation of streams,and conservation of the wolf population).At the same time,some of the regions deepest problems were revealed,such as the low activity of t
117、he local popu-lation and insufficient public participation in the manage-ment of the National Park and nature protection.The rea-son for this is the weakness of civil society in Belarus with its non-democratic post-soviet traditions.It will require much effort to change this situation and to democra
118、tize society.ConclusionBelovezhskaya Pushcha has,at last,become officially,fully and strictly protected as a World Heritage site!Today one can say that the 600-year-long period of slow destruction of Belovezhskaya Pushcha Primeval Forest has ended,and a new era of nature conservation and preservatio
119、n has begun.Lastly,Belovezhskaya Pushcha is not only a unique piece of natural heritage but also a place of special spiritual power coming from the living Earth.Its huge spiritual potential should be revived,released and realized.It is quite pos-sib le to achieve a high spiritual state of awareness,
120、which is called enlightenment.In combination with a high standard of nature protection,Belovezhskaya Pushcha should become the Center of spiritual ecology providing a new direction on planet Earth that integrates ecology,humanism,spirituality and love for nature and people.After all,its very name,as
121、 translated from the Belarusian language,has a deep spiritual meaning “Pushcha”,white,pure,undefiled,holy.ReferencesHeorhi Kazulka.Will Belovezhskaya Pushcha be a True World Heritage Site?Bialystok,2005.http:/bp21.org.by/en/books/index4.html16 I.Natural SitesWestern Caucasus:Unsolved Problems and Ne
122、w ThreatsDmitry Shevchenko,Environmental Watch on North CaucasusThe western part of the Greater Caucasus(Western Caucasus)is distinguished by an exceptional diversity of flora and fauna,being one of the main centers of biodiversity in Eurasia.Over six thousand species of plants and animals have been
123、 recorded in this area,which is also famous as the largest mountain forest reserve on the European continent.Forests occupy not less than 60%of the total area of the reserve.In the local flora there are more than three thousand species,out of which 55 species of vascular plants are listed in the Red
124、 Book of Russia.The Western Caucasus is inhabited by a large number of endangered,rare,endemic and relict species of plants and animals.Here are preserved the unchanged natural hab-itats of Caucasian red deer,West Caucasian tur,chamois,Caucasian subspecies of brown bear,and wolf.Twenty-five species
125、of vertebrates living in the Western Caucasus are listed in the Red Data Book of Russia and eight of them are included in the International Red Book.A special place in the ecosystem is occupied by the Caucasian bison.Work on its reintroduction began in the early 1920s.In 1999,a number of natural pro
126、tected areas of the Western Caucasus were included in the eponymous UNESCO World Heritage Site with a total area of 282,500 hectares.The nomination includes the Caucasian state natural biosphere reserve with its buffer zone,the Big Thach nature park,and the following nature monuments:Buyny Mountain
127、Ridge,Fig.1.Map showing proposed changes to zoning in the Western Caucasus to facilitate massive tourism and ski-field developments I.Natural Sites 17Headwaters of Tsitsa River and Headwaters of Pshekh and Pshekhashkh.For the duration of its existence of the Western Caucasus property,the Russian gov
128、ernment has not only failed to take necessary and sufficient measures to preserve its natural integrity,but has also contributed to threats to this territory.1.The situation with the construction of the“Science Center Biosphere“and the road to it from the city of SochiIn 2002,the Russian Minister of
129、 Natural Resources,Vitaly Artyukhov,signed decree No.789“On the establishment of an integrated research and technol-ogy center within the Caucasian State Natural Biosphere Reserve”.According to this document,the objectives of the“sci-entific center”were to include securing the protection of nature w
130、ithin the bio-sphere reserve,research,environmental monitoring,implementing technological and environmental education,and exper-imental work on the productivity of the biocoenosis of the Western Caucasus.Construction work began in 2003 despite a lack of permits and in the absence of positive finding
131、s from the state envi-ronmental impact assessment.By the summer of 2004,the foundation of the“Biosphere-1 facility”was completed and a hostel was built for the staff(“Biosphere-2 facility”).By 2007,the residence and the“hostel”were almost finished,and intensive work began on preparing ski slopes.A s
132、wathe through the fir forest was cleared for a cable car from the entrance of the residence to a ski lift,despite the lack of a permit to do so.Officers of the Kurdzhipskogo Leskhoz(a forest management entity)accidentally discovered this illegal logging.According to their statement,the police depart
133、ment of the Maikop dis-trict of Adygea initiated a criminal case(No.5070431),but on the instructions of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation,the case was relocated from Adygea to Moscow,where it was discontinued after some time1.In 2004,in order to“legalize”th
134、ese constructions the Russian Affairs Department initiated a process to remove an area known as Lunar Glade from the reserve.As a result,about 200 hectares were excluded from the reserve as part of 1 See link:http:/ewnc.org/node/660 in Russianthe“specification of borders”,while remaining within the
135、boundaries of the World Heritage site.In 2013,the“Science Center Biosphere”began to build a road from the village Solokh-Aul(Lazarevsky district of Sochi),which was to reach the barrier at“Babuk-Aul”.Officially,the project was named“Road route to the meteorological sta-tion of the Caucasian Reserve”
136、.About 10 kilometers of this road were constructed within the Caucasian reserve.The construction of the road was accompanied by massive logging in the valley of the Shakhe river,including boxwood groves(Buxus colchica)a Caucasian relic listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation.Along the road
137、from the vil-lage of Solokh-Aul to the barrier at“Babuk-Aul”,construction equipment has been causing soil erosion and disrupting the courses of the streams,thereby polluting the Shakhe River a habitat for trout and the Atlantic salmon.At the end of 2013,the construction of the road was suspended,but
138、 the damage to the mountain landscapes remained and the envi-ronment was not rehabilitated.2.The threat from the proposed complex on the Lagonaki Plateau and changes to the nomination of the Western CaucasusIn June 2010,at the economic forum in St Petersburg,the“Altitude 5642”program was presented,e
139、nvisaging the con-struction of a network of ski resorts worth about$15 billion in the Northern Caucasus,and a framework investment agree-ment was signed between OAO Resorts of the Northern Caucasus and a consortium of creditors under the auspices of the French public-sector financial institution“Dep
140、osits and Consignments Fund”.Fig.2.Map showing boundary changes proposed in nature conservation reserves in the Western Caucasus to facilitate massive development of ski-fields and cable cars18 I.Natural SitesThe most western resort of the proposed chain was“Lagonaki”,on the plateau of the same name
141、,within the bio-sphere zone located inside the World Heritage property.The schematic maps of Altitude 5642 showed that this unique mountain plateau would be severely defaced by roads,ski runs,cable ways and power lines.As well as the Western Caucasus reserve,the planned resort would also affect the
142、nature monument Upper Tsitse River.In 2011,the government of the Russian Federation initiated amendments to the Federal Law“On Special Economic Zones in the Russian Federation,”providing tax breaks for residents of touristic and recreational zones.In addition,the State Duma amended the Federal Law“O
143、n Specially Protected Natural Territories”,allowing the construction of“physical education and sports facilities”within biosphere reserves.The building of infrastructure at the Lagonaki plateau has been restrained only by the uncompromising position of the UNESCO World Heritage Center.But this promp
144、ted the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia,as well as the author-ities of Adygea and the Krasnodar Krai,to re-draft the nomi-nation for the Western Caucasus World Heritage site.The new nomination,on the one hand,planned to increase the area of the World Heritage property by 69,828 hectares by i
145、ncorporating the protected area of the Sochi National Park(on the southern slope of the Greater Caucasus Range).On the other hand,it involved an excision of 6,550 hectares which developers said would“no longer meet the crite-ria for integrity and Outstanding Universal Value(OUV)”.This statement appl
146、ied to the Lagonaki Plateau,most of the Fisht-Oshten mountain range,as well as the area of Lunnaya Polyana.In 2014,this draft of a new nomination for the Western Caucasus was submitted for approval by the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia and then sent to the UNESCO World Heritage Center in Pa
147、ris.3.The threat of extending ski resorts in the Krasnaya Polyana region at the expense of the territory of the Caucasian ReserveIn 2016,Gazprom announced plans to significantly expand its ski mountain-tourist center(MTC)in the Krasnaya Polyana area:the company wants to increase the resorts capacity
148、 from 25,000 people a day to 40,000 by building four more ski resorts on the territory of the Caucasian reserve.The first complex is planned to be located on the top of Mount Tabunnaya.This would involve a cable car from the already existing MTC Gazprom.The intention is to build a tourist center on
149、Tabunnaya,as well as a ski school,a chil-drens entertainment center,attractions,cafes,three res-taurants and a mountain hotel.Gazprom proposes to build a cable car across the valley of the river Pslukh up to the Aishkho ridge.For Aishkho itself there are plans to build restau-rants,two multifunction
150、al centers,and two mountain hotels as well as camping areas.From here the cable car would be extended to the Pseashkho Glacier,where ski-ers could ride nine months a year and where they would be pro-vided with a tourist center,four restaurants and a mountain hotel.Another cable car,according to Gazp
151、roms plans,would stretch from the source of the Pslukh River and will loop the ski area to the Kholodny Glacier.Proponents of the new MTC say that the new 250 km of ski slopes and 83 km of cable cars“will increase the capacity of the resorts by 20 thousand people a day”almost double the current capa
152、city.Fig.3.Development of major ski-field infrastructure,Western Caucasus Photo:Dmitry ShevchenkoFig.4.Development of new roads into the Western Caucasus World Heritage property.Photo:Dmitry Shevchenko I.Natural Sites 19To facilitate such developments inside the Caucasus Reserve,the State Duma passe
153、d a law in 2016 on so-called“Biosphere special zones”,allowing borders of nature reserves to be amended to allow construction of sports and tourist infra-structure.However,the problem was not just the legal obsta-cle,but that,if the infrastructure proposed by Gazprom were established,the Caucasus Re
154、serve would cease to exist as a compact protected nature reserve.Being at the core of the Western Caucasus World Heritage property,this would lead to a complete loss of the propertys environmental value.Fig.5.Mountain scenery,Western Caucasus Photo:Dmitry ShevchenkoSimultaneously with Gazprom,Rosa K
155、hutor LLC announced plans to extend its resort.To the company it seemed that the rented area on the northern slopes of the Aibga Ridge(part of the Sochi National Park)was insufficient to increase the capacity of its resort.It therefore decided to obtain the right to build additional ski infrastructu
156、re on the southern slope of the Aibga Ridge,in the district of the Turikh Mountains,as well as in the upper reaches of the Mzymta River.These areas are unique natural territories from the point of view of biodiversity and include pristine landscapes of forests and mountains.Moreover,Rosa Khutor also
157、 plans to construct two more resorts directly within the boundaries of the Caucasian reserve.The company has already begun building a road to the upper reaches of the river Mzymta.These construction works are conducted inside the former core zone of the Sochi National Park along with large-scale def
158、orestation and dis-turbance of watercourses.To preserve the Western Caucasus World Heritage property,the following measures are required The government of Russia should reject any of the plans by OAO Gazprom and OOO Rosa Khutor to extend ski resorts into the territory of the Caucasian reserve and it
159、s buffer zones;The government of Russia should extend the Caucasus Reserve by including the former Sochi Zakaznik and all or part of the Psebai Zakaznik.This would be done as com-pensation for the excluded areas of the“Biosphere com-plex”,and as compensation for the environmental dam-age caused by c
160、onstruction of the complex and associ-ated roads;The government should establish a buffer zone around the entire Western Caucasus World Heritage site and ensure an appropriate regime for its protection,including restrictions on logging.20 I.Natural SitesThe Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve W
161、orld Heritage Property:Main ThreatsMikhail Kreindlin and Andrey Petrov,Greenpeace RussiaLocated above the Arctic Circle,this property includes the mountainous Wrangel Island(7,608 square kilometres),Herald Island(11 square kilometres)and surrounding waters.It was inscribed in 2004 under criteria ix
162、and x for its rich nat-ural history,unique evolutionary status within the Arctic,and great biodiversity.It provides refuge for whales,walruses,sea birds and snow geese,and has the worlds highest density of ancestral polar-bear dens.Several years ago Wrangel Island started to face threats from possib
163、le oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea and the construction of a military base,although the regime of nature reserve and World Heritage status did not allow for these developments.The 2016 State of Conservation(SOC)Report,submitted to the World Heritage Centre by the State Party(the Russian Federation)i
164、nsists that“A complex of measures for provision of the necessary facilities and cleaning the territory from the accumulated environmental damage during the previous economic activity was carried out on Wrangel Island in 2016 to ensure the security of the Russian Federation.The area of territory,affe
165、cted by these works,is less than 0.001%of the total area of the World Heritage Site“Wrangel Island”;at that the location,earlier engaged in business activities,is in use.Thus,the specified activity does not affect the Outstanding Universal Value(OUV)of World Heritage Site“Wrangel Island”.Although th
166、e installation necessary for ensuring security really does occupy a small area of the World Heritage prop-erty,and thousands of drums left from previous operations will be removed,the area concerned is part of the habitat for fauna protected by international agreements and inscribed on the IUCN Red
167、Data List.So the activities associated with constructing the military base do cause significant harm for these species.According to scientists data,the creation of the military base will inevitably lead to serious disturbance of the natural com-plex due to the constant presence of a considerable num
168、-ber of servicemen on the island,the construction works that have commenced,and the active movements of vessels in the marine area of the nature reserve.The data in the com-ments to the 2015 SOC Report identify cases of poaching and harm to polar bears on the part of contractors engaged in the const
169、ruction of military facilities on Wrangel Island.According to Russian media sourc es,the number of objects and staff of the organizations conducting the construc-tion had grown in 2016.For example,“Spetsstroy”(Federal Agency for Special Construction)of Russia announced that works on eight military-b
170、ase facilities on Wrangel Island will be completed before the end of the year.With this aim,the General Administration of engineering work No.2 working at Spetsstroy had increased the number of construction workers involved in the execution of works to more than 100.Spetsstroy has also confirmed tha
171、t,by the end of the year,it plans to have constructed a garage,boiler room,water-treat-ment plants,residential and administrative complexes,and a modular station for the extraction of water,as well as the position of the en-route radar complex1.According to the Russian Defense Ministry,the newest tr
172、ass radar system(TRLK)“Sopka-2”was put into operation on Wrangel penin-sula in 20162.This was stated to journalists by the chief of the press service of the Eastern Military District(EMD),Colonel Alexander Gordeyev.1 https:/pronedra.ru/weapon/2016/10/22/voennaya-baza/2 Khabarovsk,4 January,TASS corr
173、espondent Sergey Mingazov.http:/air-fly.ru/na-ostrove-vrangelya-v-arkticheskoj-zone-vveden-v-ekspluatat-siyu-radiolokatsionnyj-kompleks.htmlFig.1 Wrangel Walrus I.Natural Sites 21The air bases are located between Wrangel Island in the east(north of the Bering Strait)to the Norwegian border in the we
174、st.Military construction will continue in 2017,despite the fact that it is planned to cut the defense budget by 27%this year3.At the same time,according to experts,any impact that causes anxiety for bears,even the seemingly minor impacts of environmental tourism,can significantly affect the state of
175、 the population of bears on Wrangel Island.The popula-tion of polar bears is now under threat.The website of the“Polar Bear”special program of the Russian Presidential Administration says:“Currently,the major threats to the polar bear are:industrial development of the Arctic,pollu-tion and habitat d
176、estruction as well as direct destruction by poaching.The factor limiting movement of the polar bear is seasonal sea ice.“4 It is necessary to note that during the breeding season polar bears are extremely sensitive and usually do not allow people to approach within a kilometer.“To avoid frightening
177、away polar bears in the nature reserve during passage of vessels 3 http:/inosmi.ru/politic/20170116/238534497.html4 http:/programmes.putin.kremlin.ru/bear/through the ice and on-the-ground passage of vehicles in the nature reserve is impossible.Therefore,severe restrictions should be introduced with
178、in the reserve on the number of cruises,landing sites,routes passing through the territory of the reserve,the number of visitors landing at any one time from vessels,and the size of land groups”.So wrote the head of the scientific department of the reserve and world-famous Arctic zoologist Nikita Ov
179、syannikov last year.Based on monit-oring results,he demanded suspension of the construction of two small eco-tourism lodges on Wrangel Island because even this small intervention had already caused significant damage to the female bears.“We need an independent complex examination of the project and
180、administrative deci-sions to stop the escalation of the anxiety factor for polar bears on Wrangel Island.”Naturally,the construction of the military base will cause much more damage to the population of polar bears,as well as to other species of marine and semi-aquatic animals(such as the walrus,gre
181、y whale and various species of birds).According to previously published information,the director of the reserve recognized that construction affects wildlife within the reserve.“The base is built on the site of the former Ushakovskoe village.We tried to place it outside of the bears passage.On Roger
182、s Bay spit the walruses sometimes appear during autumn,but now because of construction and the frequent flight of helicopters,walruses stopped appearing in this place.”5The OUV for which Wrangel Island was inscribed as World Heritage is therefore under threat.At the same time the Ministry of Natural
183、 Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation developed and published amendments to the Federal Law“On Specially Protected Natural Areas”that foreshadow:Section 2.Changing of boundaries of Federal specially pro-tected natural areas in a case of exclusion of land plots and water bodies from their
184、area is allowed only in relation to:b)land plots and water bodies necessary for realization of activities for organization of defense of the Russian Federation,provision of protection and preservation of the State boundary of the Russian Federation,in the absence of alternative solutions for the pla
185、cement of the respective objects;6Thus the areas occupied by military infrastructure inside the boundaries of the Wrangel World Heritage property could be excluded from the area of the nature reserve by a deci-sion of the President of the Russian Federation.The draft law does not limit the size of t
186、hese excisions(i.e.the area 5 http:/defendingrussia.ru/love/ochistit_ostrov_vrangelya 6 http:/regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=56055Fig.2 Tundra landscape on Wrangel Island Photo:GreenpeaceFig.3 Polar bear on a glacier,Wrangel Island Photo:Greenpeace22 I.Natural Sitesexcluded from the boundaries of th
187、e nature reserve could be extended beyond the area already occupied by the military instal lations on Wrangel Island).The Russian Federation has not submitted to the World Heritage Centre any notification about plans of construc-tion of military objects or about conducting military-training exercise
188、s on the territory of the property.The State Party of the Russian Federation has therefore made decisions and conducted activities that have already damaged the natu-ral system of the World Heritage property and,if continued,could entail the loss of its OUV.The State Party of the Russian Federation
189、is preparing amendments for legislation to legalize the construction of military installations on Wrangel Island and to make their expansion possible.It has therefore not fulfilled the require-ments of the decisions of the World Heritage Committee at its 39th and 40th sessions.The State Party to the
190、 Convention has therefore made decisions and conducted activities that correspond to the criteria for the inscription of the Natural System of Wrangel Island Reserve World Heritage property on the World Heritage in Danger List at the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee.I.Natural Sites 23Gol
191、den Mountains of Altai State and ThreatsOksana(Oxana)Engoyan,“Altai 21 century”The Golden Mountains of Altai were inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1998 under criterion ix for Outstanding Universal Value(OUV).This 1.9-million-hectare property represents the most complete sequence of alt
192、itu-dinal vegetation zones in central Siberia,including steppe,forest steppe,mixed forest,subalpine vegetation and alpine vegetation.It provides important habitat for endangered species such as the snow leopard.The property consists of five clusters.There are two state nature reserves(Altaisky and K
193、atunsky),two nature parks(Belukha and Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park)and a buffer zone around Teletskoye Lake.These reserves provide various degrees of protection.However,threats apply to all clusters and include:Disturbance of wildlife(tourism,particularly uncontrolled tourism);andDestructio
194、n of ecosystems through pollution,logging,soil-cover violations and so on.The Katunskiy and Belukha clusterIn Katunskiy nature reserve and the adjacent Belukha nature park,tourism is organized on a commercial basis.According to the official figures,Belukha nature park was visited by eight thousand p
195、eople in 2015,which is 77%more than in the previous year(2014 5000 people.)Unfortunately,there is no monitoring of the condition of natural systems.The state of conservation of this cluster can be assessed only very approximately.For example,the region contains the head-Fig 5:Protected Areas an Worl
196、d Heritages Sites in the Altai24 I.Natural Siteswaters of the Katun river and in 2014 suffered from a large flood.However,data on the ramifications of this catastrophe for water bodies within the reserve were not published.This situation has resulted in the revival of a proposal for hydroe-lectric p
197、ower stations on the Katun River.The Altaisky and Teletskoe Lake clusterThe Altasky nature reserve and the buffer zone around Teletskoe Lake(its left bank),are also highly exposed to anthropogenic pressures.Factors include:Controlled and uncontrolled tourism.According to offi-cial figures,the reserv
198、e was visited by 68,828 people in 2015;Active development of tourist activities on the left bank of the Chulyshman River accompanied by mass visits to the territory of the reserve,located on the right bank.Large-scale construction of tourist facilities and infra-structure are also occurring on the l
199、ower reaches of the Chulyshman River;An increase in the number of boats:according to official figures,at the beginning of 2016 there were registered 937 units consisting of small vessels(in reality there were many more).This has caused pollution of the lake with oil products;Economic development of
200、the left bank,including min-ing,forestry,tourism and infrastructure development.Despite the recognized environmental value of the Altai Siberian pine forests,the most serious threats arise from forestry activities.Logging in impacted Siberian pine forests is not formally recorded as timber harvestin
201、g and appears in the documents as“sanitary-improving measures”and“forest care”.However,in most cases this is a loophole that allows the logging of Siberian pine as a commodity timber.This leads not only to the extraction of valuable Siberian pine trees,but also to a deterioration in ecological condi
202、tions.It reduces the sustainability of forests and creates eroded hill-sides.Wherever there are roads,there are also the felling of trees,vast wastelands left after clear-cutting,and aban-doned stacks of rubble and rotten wood along the roadsides.This is unacceptable,not only for management of fishi
203、ng resources but also of operational forests.In addition,the Kam-Pari Company Ltd has been granted a licence(number GOA00257BR)for the development of a deposit of gold on the Maly Kalychak River inside the bound-aries of the cluster.It is not known definitely if the develop-ment will proceed,but if
204、the licence period is extended,it may well go ahead.The Maly Kalychak River is a tributary of the Samysh River which flows into Teletskoye Lake.On 2 February 2017,the Prosecutors Office of Turochaksky District identified violations of environmental legislation in the waters of Teletskoe Lake in the
205、Samysh tract,where a road is under construction in the lakes water-protection zone.Although the Court decision has entered into force,the construction of roads to the Samysh will continue.Moreover,as part of the development of a tourist-and-recreational framework around Teletskoye Lake,there are pla
206、ns to build a road more than 15 kilometres long from the village of Iogach to a ski resort on the mountain of Kukuja and to the mouth of the Samysh River1.Residents have protested against plans to“thin out”the taiga along the Teletskoe Lake in order to facilitate road-build-ing.Representatives of th
207、e Tubalar indigenous people live in this village.The pertinent information was confirmed by the Deputy Head of administration of Turochaksky district,Vyacheslav Haravlev2.Development will therefore potentially damage Teletskoye Lake.The World Heritage Committee has repeatedly stated that the develop
208、ment of mineral resources is incompatible with World Heritage status(Decision 36 COM 7B.24).Issuing a license for the development of the gold deposit inside the boundaries of the Altai World Heritage area therefore threat-ens the propertys OUV.Active construction of tourist infrastructure has also b
209、een car-ried out in the buffer zone of Teletskoye Lake.For example,a large tourist base with the name“Altai Village”has been con-structed there.The road and power lines were established in 2015-2016.Associated clearing of forest as well as the grow-ing influx of tourists could damage the propertys O
210、UV.1 http:/www.gorno-altaisk.info/news/729182 http:/www.bankfax.ru/news/104735/Fig.2.Damage to the forest in the Teletskoe Lake area I.Natural Sites 25Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park clusterThe Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park is under growing threat from anthropogenic pressures.According
211、 to official figures,the number of visitors has declined from approxi-mately 700 people in 2015 to about 500 people subse-quently.However,this is untrue.In 2013 the permit regime was abolished for citizens of the Russian Federation.This has contributed to the Parks accessibility.In addition,there is
212、 a growing number of offers from travel agencies to build tour-ist infrastructure within the park.The use of All Terrain Vehicles(ATVs)within the park is an issue.In the territory of the park and on the only public road to it,about 10-12 off-road vehicles have been observed every day,including heavy
213、 vehicles adapted for the transportation of tourists such as KAMAZ and GAZ-66(belonging to the company“Altai-Tour”).There is much evidence of the passage of vehicles and the impacts of parking in the water-protecton zones outside of specially designated places with hard sur-faces(such places dont ex
214、ist within the nature park itself).Unauthorized campsites are characterized by discarded household trash and other waste in the protective zones of the wetlands(lakes Ukok,Kaldzhinkol,Kaldzinkol-bas and Gusinoe).This leads to further disturbance and destruction of ecosystems.Of particular concern is
215、 the bar-headed goose(Anser indicus),which nests on Gusinoe Lake.This species is inscribed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and on the IUCNs Red List.Tourist groups stay on Gusinoe Lake constantly.The website of“Altai-Tour”marks Gusinoe Lake as one of the stops on the automotive tour to the
216、 Ukok Plateau3.The constant presence of large numbers of people,especially during nidicolous(nesting)and post-nidicolous periods,excerbates disturbance of the bar-headed goose and could reduce its numbers within the nature park.There are therefore the following violations of legislation of the Russi
217、an Federation:In accordance with the Water Code of the Russian Fed-eration(article 65),the following activities are prohib-ited inside the boundaries of water-protective zones:“Movement and parking of vehicles(except special vehi-cles),except for their movement and parking on roads in specially equi
218、pped places with hard surfaces”;In accordance with the Federal Law“On Environment Protection”(article 60),activity that leads to a reduction 3 http:/www.altai-tour.ru/tours/avtotury/avtotur-aktru-plato-ukok-teletskoe-ozero/Fig.3.Four-wheel-drive tourism in the Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature ParkFi
219、g.4.Map of the proposed route of the gas pipeline through the Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park26 I.Natural Sitesof the number of rare and endangered animal and plant species and which impairs their habitat,is prohibited;In accordance with the Federal law“On Wildlife”(article 24),activities that
220、 could lead to death,reduction in num-ber,or destruction of habitat of fauna listed in the Red Books are not allowed;In accordance with the Federal Law“On Specially Pro-tected Natural Areas”(article 21)on the territories of nature parks,activity leading to a change in the histori-cally formed natura
221、l landscape,the reduction or destruc-tion of environmental,aesthetic and recreational quali-ties of nature parks,as well as a violation of the mainte-nance regime for historical and cultural monuments,is prohibited;In accordance with the Federal Law“On Environmental Impact Assessment”(article 12),ob
222、jects whose construc-tion or reconstruction occurs on the lands of regional and local specially protected natural areas,with the exclusion of project documentation mentioned in sub-point 7.1 of the article 11 of this Federal Law,in accordance with the legislation of the Russian federation and legisl
223、ation of the subjects of the Russian Federation,is subject to oblig-atory environmental impact assessment.In accordance with the regulations for the Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park Nature Park4,management of the park is to be undertaken by the authorized body of the state of the Altai Republic
224、 in the sphere of environment protection.Operational management of the park is therefore entrusted to the budget institution of the Altai Republic named“Direction of specially protected areas of the Altai Republic”.In practice,however,this institution conducts no surveil-lance in the sphere of organ
225、ization and functioning of the Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park Nature Park.This sit-uation has led to uncontrolled use of the area by tourism interests and consequent harm to natural complexes and their components.As regards the gas pipeline“Altai”(“Power of Siberia-2”),negotiations are contin
226、uing.However,a new scheme for planning of pipeline transport provides for the construction of the“Altai”gas pipeline through the Golden Mountains of Altai World Heritage property.Any claim that there is no significant anthropogenic influence on the territory of the Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature P
227、ark Nature Park does not therefore not correspond to reality.Uncontrolled tourism is inflicting serious anthropogenic pres-sures on the natural ecosystems of the World Heritage prop-erty(Tranquillity Zone of Ukok Nature Park)that could lead to the loss of the propertys OUV.Authorities are not effect
228、ively regulating tourist numbers,restricting the entry of vehicles to the property,or evaluating the damage.Thus,there are suf-ficient grounds for inscribing the Golden Mountains of Altai World Heritage property on the World Heritage in Danger List.It is necessary for a decision to be made about suc
229、h an inscription during the forthcoming 41st Session of the World Heritage Committee.4 Altai Republic 2005;Decree of the Government of Altai Republic 23 May 2005;No.77(in the edition of decrees of the Government of Altai Republic dated 24 April 2006 No.62,21 April 2008 No.87,8 September 2011 No.244,
230、2 August 2012 No.202,15 March 2013 No.68,and 18 August 2015 No.254)Fig.5.A view of the Ukok Plateau in the Golden Mountains of Altai World Heritage property.Photo:Greenpeace I.Natural Sites 27Planned Dams in Mongolia in the Context of Lake BaikalArkadiy Ivanov,Greenpeace Russia Sergey Shapkhaev,Buri
231、at Regional Union for Baikal Eugene Simonov,Rivers without Boundaries CoalitionRussian proverb:“Woe does not come alone”Lake Baikal is an ancient,massive lake in the mountainous Russian region of Siberia,north of the Mongolian border.Considered the deepest lake in the world,it was listed as World He
232、ritage in 1996 under all four natural criteria.The most important current problem affecting Baikal is a decline in shallow-water endemic communities as a result of water warming,a decline in the level of the lake,eutroph-ication,and breeding of the alien species.Despite official recognition of these
233、 problems for years,there has been no systematic management response.In 2016,the Ministry of Natural Resources was forced to admit that the origins of the problem are still not clear.Eutrophication will be further exacerbated by forest and peat fires.It is expected that catastrophic fires in the cat
234、ch-ment area of Baikal in 2015 will inevitably lead to changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of drainage to the lake and could considerably influence the condition of water ecosystems.Little monitoring is done to document these impacts.The only response planned is to open the affected
235、 area to clear-cut“sanitary logging”to prevent pest outbreaks.For these purposes,a draft law allowing clear cut-tings in the Central Environmental Zone of the Baikal Natural Area was developed1 and if adopted may allow“sanitary log-ging”over huge areas,creating a basis for mass abuse.Proposals to so
236、ften restrictions imposed by several other laws and regulations are under consideration,including:To reduce the application of the Federal Law“On Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment”dated 23 November 1995;To amend the Federal Law“On Protection of Baikal Lake”N 94-FZ dated 1 May 1 1999;To reduce the geo
237、graphic scope of the Regulations“On the water protective zone of Baikal Lake”(to be reduced 1 http:/regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=56174 from the whole area of the Central Zone to 500 meters from the shore).An Environment Impact Assessment on development of the“Baikal Harbor”special economic zone(SE
238、Z)on the proper-tys Outstanding Universal Value(OUV)is still absent despite many years of requests.The SEZ has been transferred from federal to provincial authorities and remains dysfunctional.In spite of public statements by the authorities,waste neu-tralization and site restoration of the Baikalsk
239、 Pulp and Paper Mill(BPPM)industrial site have not been conducted and acceptable technologies have not been identified.The period of suspension of the license for development of the Kholodninskoye zinc deposit in the Central Zone ended on 31 December 2014.No new decisions about the future of this li
240、cense have been made until now,thus presenting a potential threat to the OUV of the site.A Management Plan for the Lake Baikal World Heritage property has not been developed and little is known whether there is an official intention to do so.The lack of this plan is aggravated by the relegation of m
241、anagement responsibility from the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Fig.1.Lake Baikal.28 I.Natural SitesRussian Federation,as the leading coordinator of the Baikal Commission,to the Federal Agency of Water Resources(a purely hydro-economic body)which has led to decisions compromising Lake Baikals
242、 protection.On 1 July 2016,the Government of the Russian Federation issued the Decree of No.626“On maximum and minimum values of the water level in Lake Baikal in 2016-2017”.This Decree widens the lim-its of water-level change from one to more than two meters,thus providing better conditions for dow
243、nstream hydro-power and water intake facilities on the Irkutsk Dam that belong to the IrkutskenergoEN+Group.So far permission to violate previous limits has been given only for two years and not forever.The term of this decree expires in 2017 but a desire by the authorities to achieve restoration of
244、 the lake level is not apparent.In 2017,at a public meeting with the Russian Minister of Natural Resources,the experts employed by the Federal Agency of Water Resources responded to a civil-society request for establishing water-level control standards more acceptable to the ecosystem with a stateme
245、nt that“there is no reliable monitoring data showing that regulation adversely affects the ecosystem.”At the same time,the Government stopped funding the oldest monitoring station that had been measuring the characteristics of planktonic communities in the lake for over 70 years.Even minimal mon-ito
246、ring has been reduced2.Domestic problems and potential threats as well as ineffi-cient management in Russia are quite sufficient reasons to 2 http:/ be deeply concerned with the well-being of Lake Baikal.Unfortunately more problems are in the making upstream in Mongolia.Update on plans in MongoliaAs
247、 reported to World Heritage Watch in 2015 and 2016,Mongolia plans massive development of hydropower and water-transfer facilities in the basin of Lake Baikal.There are plans for the Egiin Gol Hydro,the Shuren Hydro and the Orkhon-Gobi HydroWater-transfer complex,with feasibil-ity studies for the lat
248、ter two being supported by the MINIS Project under a World Bank loan.Such projects have been listed as a number-one mitigation measure under Mongolias Nationally Determined Contribution(NDC)under the Paris Agreement,with more than$600 mil-lion of“climate finance”requested from the global community t
249、o assist in its implementation.The Mongolian government has recently made several statements that it is ready to start development of the Egiin Gol and Shuren dams as soon as funds are avail-able.The Egiin Gol Hydro construction is included in the GOM Action Program for 2016-20203,while financ-ing S
250、huren Hydro was again discussed in December 2016 during an official visit to Kuwait4 of the Chairman of the State Great Khural,Mr M.Enkhbold.Meanwhile Mongolia is very slow to implem-ent any requirements stemming from the World Heritage Convention.Virtually nothing has been done to fulfil WHC requir
251、ements regarding Egiin Gol Hydro,the largest ready-to-go dam pro-ject.Construction began in 2015,but was stopped when China EximBank put finance on hold.Full data from the pre-viously conducted EIA has still not been released to the pub-lic,as was noted by locals during a public consultation in Bury
252、at Republic.3 http:/embassyofmongolia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Gov-ernment-action-programme.pdf4 https:/www.news.mn/content/print/320527Fig.2.Proposed dams affecting the catchment of Lake Baikal Map:Rivers without Boundaries I.Natural Sites 29The World Bank MINIS Project has organized consul
253、tations in Russia from March to June 2017 to discuss detailed envi-ronmental and social assessment for the Orkhon and Shuren dams after which it will be finalizing relevant terms of ref-erence(TORs).An important component of the process is a Regional Environmental Assessment(REA,a type of stra-tegic
254、 assessment.So far,the recommendations issued by an IUCN Mission and the Decisions of the WHC Committee have not been sufficiently taken into account in the design of the feasibility-study process.The MINIS Project managers claim they designed their studies to fulfil WHC requirements.We believe that
255、 without radical improvement of those draft TORs,the intended assessment will not properly reflect all possible impacts on Lake Baikal OUV.We have the following concerns:(A)Decision 40 COM 7B.97 of the World Heritage Committee clearly requested“an assessment of cumulative impacts(CIA)of any planned
256、dams and reservoirs in the Selenge river basin that may have an impact on the OUV and integrity of the property”.It also called on parties to jointly develop strategic environmental assessment for future hydropower projects which could potentially affect the property.However,the Shuren and Orkhon pr
257、ojects will have two separate assess-ments for the same Selenge River Basin.Such an arrange-ment will create confusion because the same strategic assessment issues will be addressed twice in the same river basin.Alternatively,a unified assessment for the Orkhon and Shuren projects,if properly implem
258、ented,could satisfy the Committees request.(B)The Committee clearly asked for an assessment of the cumulative impact of the projects.The draft TORs provide for two REAs which are incorporated as small introductory parts in the detailed ESIAs for the Shuren and Orkhon projects.Sealing REAs inside ESI
259、As creates a perverse incentive for a winning consultant to reduce its effort on the former and focus on the latter.The TORs exacerbate this corrupt incen-tive by not specifying sufficient quantifiable requirements for the REA,which will therefore just be considered a prelude to a more detailed ESIA
260、,resulting in no clear conclusion.The draft TORs have also allocated insufficient time(5-6 months)to production of the REA.Less ambitious cumulative impact assessments typically take longer.In addition,payments for deliverables are envisioned only for ESIA outcomes,leaving the consultant without any
261、 incentive to complete the REA in sufficient detail or quality.Meanwhile,the general tasks outlined for the REA are much wider and challenging than those for a standard detailed ESIA.The selection criteria do not require experience by the consultant in strategic assess-ments,REAs and cumulative-impa
262、ct assessments.The underlying reason for combining the REA and cumul-ative impact assessment with the ESIA in the same bidding procedure is very simple:the Mongolian government needs to have completed the ESIA document to seek investors for the dam projects to start construction immediately after th
263、e assessments.If the REA and ESIA were divided into two sep-arate consecutive bidding processes,it would increase the probability of an impartial strategic assessment and full con-sideration of the potential impacts on the propertys OUV.Call for help from the World Heritage CommitteeSince the proces
264、s of consultations in Russia has given civil society groups a chance to request improvement in assess-ment design,Greenpeace and RwB have sought a written opinion from the World Heritage Center regarding neces-sary improvements of the TORs for regional environmental assessments and detailed ESIAs.In
265、 particular:Decision 40 COM 7B.97 clearly asks for the EIA for each of the three dams to be carried out separately from the cumulative impact assessment of any planned dams and reservoirs in the Selenge river basin that may have an impact on the OUV and integrity of the property.Fig.3.Snowfall on th
266、e Selenga River delta,the biggest tributary into Lake Baikal30 I.Natural Sites The REA exercise(including the cumulative-impact assessment)should be separated from the detailed ESIA of each particular dam.This would be more in line with Decision 40 COM 7B.97.It is essential that such an REA is given
267、 sufficient time and resources to proceed(at least not less than is usually required by assessments of similar type and complex-ity).Attempting to save time and money on this strategic assessment would likely result in a failure to identify and assess all potential impacts on the propertys OUV.That
268、the experience of potential consultants in under-taking such assessments should be among key selection criteria.That the arrangement for assessment should not create an incentive for the consultant to drive the REA compo-nents to any predetermined conclusion.That it is highly advisable to incorporat
269、e into terms of reference for assessments the relevant recommenda-tions from the IUCN on assessing impacts on the OUV of World Heritage properties.The first series of public consultations took place in the Republic of Buryatia during last weeks of March 2017 and showed a high degree of interest from
270、 the local population with more than 1300 people attending the meetings with the MINIS Project delegation.Regrettably,the presentations brought from Mongolia were not about ways to study the potential impacts,but about the supposed absence of any impacts on Lake Baikal,which in MINISs opinion has al
271、ready been proven.Consultations have shown not only that local people almost unanimously oppose additional large water infrastructure in the Lake Baikal basin,but also their deep dis-satisfaction with the information presented by MINIS Project Representatives.Resolutions from several consultations c
272、on-tain explicit requirements to divide the REA and ESIA into separate consecutive studies done by different consultants with sufficient funding and appropriate composition of con-sultant teams.People emphasized that a wide consideration of alternatives should help the Mongolian side to determine ot
273、her ways to develop their energy and water resources.At the final consultation event people requested that the MINIS Project directly address the secretariats of relevant conven-tions to get their opinion on the quality of the terms of ref-erence before any assessment is launched.I.Natural Sites 31M
274、ajor threats to the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve,Mexico Cecilia Gas,Humberto Fernndez and Manuel Llano,Conservacin Humana ACThe Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve(MBBR)covers an area of 59,256 hectares and was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008 under criterion vii due to its except
275、ional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.Each year millions of monarch butterflies(Danaus plexippus)migrate from breeding areas in the United States and Canada,travelling more than 4,500 km to hibernate in close-packed clusters of fir forests(Abies religiosa)in a mountainous region of central M
276、exico,creating a magnificent spectacle.However,in recent decades the populations of the monarchs have drastically diminished.According to the World Wildlife Fund Mexico(WWF,2017),the winter of 2014-2015 was the season with the lowest record of the species in hibernation sites in the last 20 years,wi
277、th less than a hectare occupied,in contrast with the more than 18 hectares occupied in the winter of 1996-1997.In 2015 scientific groups and non-governmental organisa-tions from Mexico,the United States and Canada formally asked the UNESCO World Heritage Committee to include the Monarch Butterfly Bi
278、osphere Reserve on the World Heritage List in Danger.Experts in pollination and in the biology of the monarch endorsed this request although it did not pro-ceed.To address these increasing threats,the World Heritage Committee will re-evaluate the property in its 41st session to be held on July 2017
279、in the city of Krakow.Since inscription of the MBBR,the Mexican State has rec-ognised some of the main threats affecting the site,such as the pressures of encroaching human settlements and severe logging.By proposing its inscription as World Heritage,the Mexican State hoped to encourage the establis
280、hment of other protected areas and conservation measures along the migration route within the three countries to achieve greater protection of the monarch(Mexico 2017).However,despite multiple protection-measures and examples of international cooperation,the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve still
281、 faces major problems that jeopardise its Outstanding Universal Value(OUV).The continuing threats to the MBBR have resulted in fol-low-up actions and interest on the part of UNESCO and the Mexican State as well as certain civil-society organisations that work in the area.Mexico has submitted four re
282、ports on the state of conservation to the World Heritage Committee(2010,2011,2015 and 2016)and the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN)submitted one in 2011.In its reports,Mexico has recognised tourism impacts and the severe effects of illegal logging and described the diverse effort
283、s undertaken by the State to counter them.On the other hand,IUCN in its report requested the State Party to raise awareness of the issue and explain the World Heritage status of the reserve and its relevance.Similarly,it recognised the efforts of Mexico to counter the problems of illegal log-ging an
284、d tourism,as well as the management difficulties due to the wide array of landowners within the MBBR.Habitat degradation due to illegal loggingPrivate foundations,diverse NGOs and the Mexican govern-ment have invested several million dollars in the last two dec-ades for the protection and safeguardi
285、ng of the MBBR,to an extent far greater than that received by most other protected areas in Mexico.This investment has had positive results in terms of reducing the illegal logging.According to estima-tions of the WWF(2016),forest degradation in the MBBR due to illegal logging reached 470 hectares i
286、n the period 2003-2005,and by 2015-2016 only 12 hectares were affected.Fig.1:Monarchs hibernating in the Sierra Chincua sanctuary.Photo Humberto Fernndez32 I.Natural SitesNotwithstanding these improvements,degradation of the hibernation sites continues and is evident in numerous areas of the core zo
287、ne of the reserve.Recently,scientists have confirmed that 10 hectares of old-growth forest within the boundaries of the World Heritage property were severely logged in 2015.Illegal logging is an issue that,due to its extent and relevance,has been thoroughly tackled both by the Mexican State and the
288、IUCN in their periodic reports to ensure the integ-rity of the site.Despite these efforts,the situation remains critical and for-est degradation remains one of the main problems within the reserve.Mining:a major threat not reported to the CommitteeAnother threat of particular rele-vance that has not
289、 been addressed by the State Party,or the IUCN,or the Committee,is mining.In fact,there are nine mining concessions within the MBBR that occupy an area of 12,836 hectares(almost 23%of the reserves territory)to extract copper,zinc,lead,silver and gold.The most concerning development is the Angangueo
290、mining project,located in the heart of the MBBR.This was denounced by the NGO Grupo de los Cien in 2016 on the occasion of the Summit of North American Leaders that was held in Canada.The project is to be carried out by Grupo Mxico,the largest Mexican mining company and fourth largest producer of co
291、pper in the world,but also the com-pany responsible for the worst environmental disaster in the countrys recent history due to its mining operations in the State of Sonora.Concession titleHolderConcession surface within buffer zone(ha)Concession surface within core zone(ha)Surface buffer+core zone(h
292、a)175474Jos Luis Contreras Romero 7,60 7,60 178495Jos Luis Contreras Romero 34,73 34,73 220004Industrial Minera Mxico SA de CV 2,90 2,90 225250Comercializadora Sago Import Export SA de CV 4.769,62 803,06 5.572,68 225605Industrial Minera Mxico SA de CV 1.479,18 1,40 1.480,58 228290Comercializadora Sa
293、go Import Export SA de CV 221,66 194,92 416,58 231987Industrial Minera Mxico SA de CV 4.643,87 554,62 5.198,49 232625Fernando Guzmn Chvez y Socios 100,00 100,00 240535J.Gregorio Torres Sandoval 22,39 22,39 TOTAL(hectares)11.281,94 1.554,00 12.835,95 Fig.2:Table of mining concessions within the Monar
294、ch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve.(Source:Secretara de Economa 2017).Elaboration:Manuel Llano.The Angangueo project plans to extract minerals from beneath the main core zone of the MBBR and drain large amounts of water from the subsoil within the area of extrac-tion.However,water is vital for hibernati
295、ng monarchs and to maintain the forest ecosystem.The environmental impact assessment submitted by the company does not mention the inevitable consequences that the opening of the mine will have on the butterflies,which constitute the very essence of the existence of the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere R
296、eserve(Aridjis,2016).Even though the Secretary of the Environment Fig.3:Map with the mining concessions in the core zone Chincua-Campanario-Chivati.(Source:CONANP and Secretara de Economa 2017).Elaboration:Manuel Llano.I.Natural Sites 33and Natural Resources(SEMARNAT)has not yet granted the required
297、 authorisations,the pressure is increasing;the Angangueo project is identified by the Secretary of Economy(a powerful ministry of the federal government in charge of the mining sector)as one of the principal mining projects for 2017.The World Heritage Committee has expressed on multiple occasions th
298、at mineral,oil and gas exploration and exploita-tion are incompatible with World-Heritage status and that such activities should not be undertaken within World Heritage properties(UNESCO,s/f).Mexico,as a State Party to the World Heritage Convention,through decision 37 COM 7 of 2013,was urged to resp
299、ect the commitment of the International Council on Mining and Metals(ICMM)to ensure that no extractive activities are car-ried out within World Heritage properties,and by making every effort to ensure that extractive companies located in their territory cause no damage to the sites.Even though Grupo
300、 Mexico is not part of the ICMM,Mexico as a State Party to the Convention has an obligation not to take any deliberate measures which might directly or indirectly dam-age the cultural and natural heritage situated within the property(Article 6,paragraph 3 of the Convention).Inadequate management of
301、tourismTourism is another serious threat to the property due to the lack of adequate and rigorous management.When mil-lions of butterflies are hibernating,the sanctuaries become extremely fragile and delicate.The visitor-carrying capacity for the sanctuaries is either non-existent,wrongly deter-mine
302、d or not respected.Thousands of people visit the reserve every season in growing numbers each year.They are taken to the sanctuaries by poorly prepared guides that take them too close to the butterflies and do not adequately control the tourists behaviour,allowing disturbances such as noise and sudd
303、en movements.Additionally,the tourism reception centres of the MBBR called“centros de cultura para la conservacin”(centres of culture for conservation),do not really fulfil their functions of interpretation and environmental education.The eco logi-cal information is almost non-existent or very defic
304、ient and poorly communicates the fragility of the sanctuaries and of the monarch butterfly,favouring the sales of food and sou-venirs instead.In addition to these internal problems,there are other major threats that go beyond national sovereignty,such as extreme climatological events,and the use of
305、pesticides and genet-ically modified crops in the United States that eliminate milkweed(Asclepias spp.),the main food of this species of butterfly.Recommendations Strengthen the permanent protection and surveillance systems in the forest throughout the whole year to completely avoid illegal logging.
306、SEMARNAT must resolve as soon as possible the pro-cess of environmental-impact evaluation and land-use change submitted by Grupo Mexico,denying the authorization of the Angangueo mining project.The Mexican State must cancel all mining concessions located within the MBBR.The Monarch Butterfly Biosphe
307、re Reserve should be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger until the State Party solves the imminent threats:logging and mining.Establish and strictly abide by a limit on visitor numbers based on the visitor carrying-capacity of the monarch sanctuaries during the hibernation season in ord
308、er to guarantee the monarchs protection.Improve the management of tourism within the MBBR,both in the training of local guides and in the environ-mental communication carried out by the visitors cen-tres.References Aridjis,H.14 June 2016.Carta sobre la Monarca a los Lideres de Amrica del Norte con M
309、otivo de la Cumbre que tendr lugar en Ottawa el 29 de junio.Senado de la Repblica.Mexico.Mexico 2007.Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve:World Heritage Site Nomination Document.Michoacn.UNESCO(s.f.).World Heritage and Extractive Industries.Available in:20 February 2017WWF 2016.Disminuye 40%la tala c
310、landestina en la Reserva Monarca.Available in:18 February 2017WWF 2017.Superficie forestal ocupada por las colonias de hibernacin de las mariposas monarcas en Mxico 2016-2017.Available in:10 February 2017Fig.4:Butterflies cloak trees within the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere ReservePhoto:Stephan Dmpke3
311、4 I.Natural SitesThreats to the Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California,MexicoHumberto Fernndez,Cecilia Gas and Manuel Llano.Conservacion Humana AC.The Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California com-prise a natural serial property composed of over 250 islands,islets and coas
312、tal areas spread throughout a vast territory of 250,000 square kilometres in the Gulf of California in northwest Mexico.It was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2005 under criteria vii,ix and x due to its outstand-ing beauty,rich marine and terrestrial biodiversity as well as major oceanograph
313、ic processes present within the prop-erty.Its marine productivity sustains an exceptional degree of endemism of fish species and 39%of our planets marine mammal species,including one third of the cetacean spe-cies.The renowned French oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau referred to the Gulf of Califo
314、rnia as the“aquarium of the world”.The isolation and desert features of the islands and of most of the mainland surroundings of the Gulf of California,with its extreme water scarcity,provided shelter from major urban development and other modern uses until the 1960s,except for guano extraction from
315、the islands and a relative mining boom in the second half of the 19th century(Taylor 2001).Although the islands are practically uninhabited,the number and intensity of human activities have been rising in the last decades.Human population is growing in urban and rural areas on the coastline near the
316、 islands,together with large-scale commercial interests from Mexican,American and other international investors,mainly in the fisheries,aqua-culture,tourism and mining sectors.The more than 250 components of the serial property have a total a area of 688,558 hectares with a buffer zone of 1,210,477
317、hectares,which in turn are included in a cluster of 12 protected areas.This high fragmentation makes its pro-tection and management very complex.The threats can vary from region,accessibility and local environment and as such the Mexican government has dealt with them according to islands or groups
318、of priority islands and coastal regions.The main threats to the property acknowledged by Mexico since its inscription as World Heritage are:unsustainable fish-ing regulations and poor surveillance capacity;uncontrolled overfishing;harmful fishing techniques to marine wildlife;massive mortality of wi
319、ldlife due to accidental oil-spills from large crafts;marine and terrestrial pollution;deforestation and soil erosion;habitat modification and disturbance to nesting colonies of avians as well as to sea lions and other cetaceans;introduction of invasive flora and fauna species;poaching and illegal t
320、rafficking of flora and fauna;unsus-tainable tourism practices;large-scale tourist development projects;looting of archaeological remains;and disturbances to indigenous sacred sites.However,it is noteworthy that,amongst the many threats,mining has not been yet recog-nised by the State Party.The vaqu
321、ita and the totoaba species on the brink of extinctionSince 2005,two organisations from the United States have requested that the World Heritage Centre include the prop-erty on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to the critical situation of the endangered“vaquita”porpoise(Phocoena sinus)and th
322、e“totoaba”fish(Totoaba macdonaldi)species,both endemic to the upper Gulf of California.This request was reinstated in 2015.Because of the increasing pressures on both species,in 2016 the World Heritage Committee adopted decision 40 COM 7B.75 requesting the State Party to continue its efforts and tak
323、e urgent additional measures Fig.1.Pelicans and many other resident and migratory birds are sheltered in the islands and islets of the Gulf of California.Photo:Victoria Neamtu.I.Natural Sites 35to address the threats to the vaquita and totoaba,with a view to considering the potential peril to the Ou
324、tstanding Universal Value(OUV)of the property and its possible inscrip-tion on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2017.The International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN)has carried out three evaluations(2005,2007,and 2011)since the inscription of the property,mainly dealing with the mod-i
325、fication to the boundaries of the property.The State Party has submitted two reports to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation(2016 and 2017).In its reports,Mexico describes the initiatives it has undertaken to coun-teract the multiple threats to the property that it acknowl-edges
326、,giving special emphasis to the case of the vaquita and totoaba,which have caught international attention.The State Party has prepared a specific conservation plan to protect these species and has established a dialogue with the Secretary General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangere
327、d Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES),among other measures.However,despite the aforementioned reports and announcements,the current Mexican federal administration has proven its lack of commitment to nature conservation and its incompetence in law enforcement by failing to stop the corruption tha
328、t surrounds the illegal trafficking of the totoaba and the illegal fishing practices that are eliminating the vaquita and certainly making an impact on many other species.The budget for the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources ministry(Semarnat),which is in charge of natural World Heri
329、tage properties,has been cut by 50%from 2014 to present(Llano y Fernndez 2017),obviously dimin-ishing surveillance and management capabilities within the property.In 2015 the estimated total population of the vaquita was 97 individuals.To date,there might be around 30 vaquitas alive(WWF 2017),which
330、leaves very little hope that the worlds most rare marine mammal will avoid extinction.Mining:a major threat not acknowledged by the State PartyAs with the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve,Mexico has not reported to the World Heritage Committee the major threat that mining entails to the Islands a
331、nd Protected Areas of the Gulf of California.This is more appalling since large-scale mining has been taking place within the property and its buffer zones even before its inscription as a World Heritage property.Unfortunately,this serious issue has not been dealt with by the IUCN in its evaluations
332、.The environmental impact of mining and other extractive activities has been widely documented.The World Heritage Committee has expressed on multiple occasions that min-eral,oil and gas exploration and exploitation are incom-patible with World Heritage status and that such activities should not be u
333、ndertaken within World Heritage properties(UNESCO,s/f).Mexico,as a State Party to the World Heritage Convention,through the decision 37 COM 7 of 2013,has been urged to respect the commitment of the International Council on Mining and Metals(ICMM)to ensure that no extractive activities are carried out within World Heritage properties,and by making every effort to ensure that extrac-tive companies l