1、World Heritage Watch Report 2020World Heritage WatchWorld Heritage WatchWorld Heritage Watch Report 2020Berlin 20202 Bibliographical InformationWorld Heritage Watch:World Heritage Watch Report 2020.Berlin 2020188 pages,with 235 photos and 70 graphics and mapsPublished by World Heritage Watch e.V.Ber

2、lin 2020ISBN 978-3-00-065879-2NE:World Heritage Watch1.World Heritage 2.Civil Society 3.UNESCO 4.Heritage at Risk 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.20

3、20This 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 a

4、nd 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 opinions whatsoever on the part of the publishers concerning the legal status of any country or territory or of its au-thor

5、ities,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 m

6、ay be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publishers except for the quotation of brief passages for the purposes of review.Editorial TeamStephan Doempke(chief editor),Elisa Argenziano,Geoff Law,Andrea Martinez Fernandez,Martin Lenk,Hana Prosser and Michael Turner.Map editor:An

7、drea Martinez FernandezCover photos:Upper left:Aerial view of Lake Neusiedl,Austria,with tourism development in the reed belt.Photo:Markus Stermec-zki.Upper right:Sherpa villagers protesting against poaching and logging in Sagarmatha NP,Nepal.Photo:Lax Man.Lower left:Removal of ram-headed sphinxes a

8、t Karnak Temple in Luxor,Egypt.Photo:.Lower right:Bushfire at Mt.Solitary,Blue Mountains National Park,Australia.Photo:Liam Oakwood.Back cover map:Andrea Martinez FernandezCover,Design and Layout:Bianka Gericke,LayoutManufaktur.BerlinPrinted by:Buch-und Offsetdruckerei H.Heenemann GmbH&Co.KG,Berlin3

9、ContentsI.Natural Properties 9World Heritage-Designated Habitat for Imperiled Vaquita Porpoise In Danger .10Alejandro Olivera,Center for Biological DiversityNew Developments at the Doana World Heritage Site .13Teresa Gil and Juanjo Carmona,WWF SpainThe Worlds Worst Business Case in World Heritage Si

10、te Wadden Sea .17Frank Petersen,WaddenseeverenigingThe Real State of Conservation Report on Slovak Beech Forests.19WOLF Forest Protection MovementLogging in Romanias Paradise Forests .22EuroNatur Foundation and Agent GreenOld New Threats to the Virgin Komi Forests World Heritage Property .26Mikhail

11、Kreyndlin,Andrey Petrov,Alexandra Tevkina,Greenpeace RussiaSki Resorts,Road Construction and Logging in the Western Caucasus.28Mikhail Kreindlin,Greenpeace,Yulia Naberezhnaya,Russian Geographical Society Yuri Vorovskoy,All-Russian Society for the Protection of NatureIle-Alatau State National Park in

12、 Danger .31Valeriy Krylov,Sergey Kuratov,Nataliya Medvedeva and Svetlana Spatar,Ecological Society“Green Salvation”New Threats to the Golden Mountains of Altai World Heritage Property.35Mikhail Kreyndlin,Andrey Petrov,Alexandra Tevkina,Greenpeace RussiaThe Ecological Crisis at Lake Baikal is Exacerb

13、ated by Poor Governance .38Eugene Simonov,Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition Sukhgerel Dugersuren,Rivers without Boundaries Coalition MongoliaVolcanoes of Kamchatka:Impending Threats for its Pristine Beauty .41Irina Panteleeva,Mikhail Kreyndlin,Alexandra Tevkina,Greenpeace Russia,Anas

14、tasia Martynova,ICOMOS RussiaTanzania:Selous Game Reserve losing its status?.44Gnter Wippel,uranium networkThe Hubli-Ankola Rail Line A Threat to the Western Ghats Harbouring the Inscribed Natural World Heritage .Properties in India.47Shaju Thomas,Tropical Institute of Ecological SciencesBangladesh

15、Must Honor World Heritage Committee Requests to Halt Industry Construction near the Sundarbans .50Sultana Kamal,National Committee for Saving the Sundarbans(NCSS)How Australia is Fueling the Destruction of Climate-Vulnerable Australian World Heritage Properties .54Noni Austin and Martin Wagner,Earth

16、justice,Ariane Wilkinson,Environmental Justice Australia4 II.World Heritage Sites and Indigenous Peoples 57What Does the Future Hold for the Grand Canyon World Heritage Site?.58Gnter Wippel,Uranium NetworkTrumps Border Wall Threatens World Heritage Site and Biosphere Reserve .61Alejandro Olivera,Cen

17、ter for Biological Diversity MexicoCanaima National Park:The Fabled“Lost World”Endangered by a Gold Rush .68SOS OrinocoPoaching and Logging in Sagarmatha National Park .73Lax ManIII.Cultural Landscapes and Mixed Sites 79Kujataa A Property Surrounded by Mining Projects .80Niels Henrik Hooge,Friends o

18、f the Earth Denmarks Uranium GroupThe English Lake District a Cultural Landscape Under Threat.85Fritz Groothues,Louise Dunn,Fiona Campbell and Jon Derry(LakesWatch)The World Heritage Upper Middle Rhine Valley Must be Preserved .89Elke Greiff-Gossen,BI RheinpassagenThe Prosecco Region:A UNESCO Area o

19、ut of Control and at Risk of Overbuilding.93Gianluigi Salvador,Pesticide Action Network Italy Tourism Development Threatens the Fert Neusiedler See Cultural Landscape.96Christian Schuhbck,Alliance for Nature,Zoltn Kun,Wildland Research InstituteCurrent State of Affairs in the Natural and Culturo-His

20、torical Region of Kotor .101EXPEDITIO Centre for Sustainable Spatial Development,The Friends of Boka Kotorska Heritage Society The World Heritage Committee and Ohrid Region Destruction:Silent Witness or Passive Accomplice?.104Daniel Scarry,Emilija Apostolova Chalovska and Sonja Dimoska,Ohrid SOS Com

21、munity Perspectives on State UNESCO Management of Balis World Heritage Site .110Wiwik Dharmiasih,Udayana University Fires Pose Catastrophic Threats to Ancient Rainforest in the Tasmanian Wilderness.114Geoff Law,The Wilderness Society,Australia5IV.Historic Cities and Urban Ensembles 119Liverpool Mari

22、time Mercantile City.120Gerry Proctor,Engage LiverpoolEuropean Commission Requires an Environmental Impact Assessment on Viennas Heumarkt Project .124Christian Schuhbck,Alliance For NatureThe Future of Heritage in a World Heritage City:A Critical Analysis of Controversial Cases in Istanbul .127Asli

23、Zeren,Centre dtudes Turques,Ottomanes,Balkaniques et Centrasiatiques,cole des hautes tudes en sciences sociales,ParisLooting and Selling of Stones From the City Walls and Historic Buildings of Diyarbakir .131AnonymousConsiderations for the Reconstruction of the Old Town of Aleppo .134Mamoun Fansa,Fr

24、iends of the Old Town of Aleppo Cable Car Plan Threatens Unique Character and Heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem.138Talya Ezrahi and Yonathan Mizrachi,Emek Shaveh The Al-Hattaba Development Project in Historic Cairo is at Risk.143May al-Ibrashy,Athar LinaProtecting the Medina of Tunis:Reflections

25、 on Current Challenges and Initiatives.148Nora Lafi,Max-Weber-Kolleg,University of ErfurtLamu Old Town under Increased Pressure from Proposed Mega Infrastructure Development.153Mohamed Athman,Save LamuV.Monuments and Sites 157Viennas Otto Wagner Hospital Am Steinhof A Potential World Heritage Site i

26、n Danger .158Christian Schuhbck,Alliance For NatureRelocating Ancient Ram-headed Sphinxes from the Karnak Complex .162AnonymousHassan Abad Moshirs aqueduct in Mehriz,a Site of the Persian Qanat,Iran .166Ghazal NouriConcerns for the Management of the Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace,Lhasa .169I

27、nternational Campaign for TibetHampi:Need for an Inclusive and Integrated Approach to Heritage Conservation-Management .173Krupa Rajangam and EquationsAnnex 177The Authors6 7PrefaceUNESCO World Heritage Sites are the common heritage of humankind,for which the international commu-nity assumes a share

28、d responsibility.Their protection and preservation should enable them,among other things,to serve as places of admiration and education for people from all over the world.The very idea of the common heritage of the world therefore implies that world heritage tourism is something desirable.Now,howeve

29、r,the Covid-19 pandemic has brought tourism almost to a standstill worldwide,which invites a review of developments to date.With the growing prosperity in the global north and increasingly in the Middle East and Asia,ever cheaper air travel,improved infrastructure in developing countries,and the com

30、munication potential of the Inter-net,tourism had taken a tremendous boom worldwide and became the largest legal industry in the world.Cruise ships as big as floating cities unloaded tens of thousands of tourists every day on places like Venice or Dubrovnik,and sites like the Taj Mahal,Angkor Wat an

31、d Machu Picchu were suffocating under the crowds.Elsewhere,influencers and travel bloggers explored the last“untouched”areas and“undiscovered”cult-ural treasures,and sent their impressions from the site all over the world,where within seconds they were picked up by tens of thousands of followers.Wor

32、ld Heritage sites were particularly affected-although they were not the only ones-because they are preferred tourist destinations due to their importance and attractiveness.Without special advertising,tourist numbers skyrocketed as soon as a site was inscribed in the World Heritage List.Particularly

33、 large numbers of tourists quickly collided here with the particularly strong protection required by World Heritage regulations.It is no surprise then that tourism marketing has become an increasingly important motivation for World Heritage nominations,resulting in a danger that the inscription in t

34、he World Heritage List could inadvert-endly turn from an instrument of protection into a factor of threat.The contributions to the World Heritage Watch Report 2020 are an eloquent testimony to this develop-ment.In addition to the well-known threats from mining and other harmful uses of natural resou

35、rces,in-vestor projects,mismanagement and politically motivated interventions often at the expense of ethnic minorities,such as in Lhasa tourism is a primary threat in one third of all sites featured in the Report.Inter-estingly,this affects Europe in particular,including many less well-known sites

36、such as Lake Ohrid in North Macedonia.Too often the local population has no significant influence on these developments:neither on the inscrip-tion of sites in the World Heritage List,the establishment of protection regimes and the restrictions that come with them-which can go as far as evictions(e.

37、g.in Hampi)nor on tourism development and mar-keting.The end result is often just big business,and the objectives of education,meeting the local popul-ation,and the experience of heritage as something held in common are lost on the way.However,these positive aspects of tourism must not be abandoned,

38、especially at World Heritage sites.With the World Heritage Convention,UNESCO has a unique tool at hand to influence developments at World Heritage Sites and to make them role models for sustainable tourism.The UNESCO World Heritage Committee should therefore make a valid tourism plan and technical s

39、tandards for sustainable tourism dev elopment preconditional for inscription in the World Heritage List,and strictly check whether the local 8 population is involved in the management of the site and receives a fair share of its benefits.Their current recommendations for sustainable tourism are non-

40、binding,and greater attention should be given to the subject in nomination,monitoring and reporting procedures.On the basis of their commitment to the common heritage,and in recognition of the fact that World Her-itage sites have a great potential as drivers of regional development,donor countries s

41、hould provide dev-elopment cooperation funds for those countries who cannot manage the planning and development of sustainable tourism with their own resources.Last but not least,the tourism industry itself should have an interest in the best possible visitor experience at world heritage sites.The C

42、ovid-19 pandemic offers World Heritage sites the opportunity to make a fresh start.Everyone involved should think about what kind of tourism we want in the future,and the UNESCO World Heritage Commit-tee should set appropriate and binding guidelines and criteria to achieve this.How can a World Herit

43、age site benefit from its status without being loved/trampled to death by tourists?How can local populations be empowered to fill with dignity their role as custodians of the sites,and to convey the intangible heritage associated with them?The members of the WHW network,based on their their own dail

44、y experience,are in a unique position to assess the ecological,economic and cultural effects of tourism on the ground.They can play an outstanding role in the formulation of tourism policies and guidelines for World Heritage sites,and they should make use of that opportunity with determination.Berli

45、n,May 2020Maritta Koch-Weser,President Stephan Doempke,Chairman of the Board 9 I.Natural Properties10 I.Natural PropertiesWorld Heritage-Designated Habitat for Imperiled Vaquita Porpoise In Danger Alejandro Olivera,Center for Biological DiversityPursuant to the World Heritage Convention,the Islands

46、and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California site located in north-western Mexico was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2005 to protect the areas“extraordinary”“diversity of terres-trial and marine life.”1 The World Heritage Committee identi-fied two endangered species in particular that were

47、 part of the propertys“Outstanding Universal Value”(“OUV”)the criti-cally endangered vaquita,which is a small porpoise endemic only to the upper Gulf of California,and the critically endan-gered totoaba,a large,endemic,marine fish.2Both the vaquita and the totoaba face the same urgent and in-creasin

48、g threat:rampant gillnet fishing within and just outside the Gulf of California World Heritage site.The vaquita is now critically imperiled and on the edge of extinction.The popula-tion dropped precipitously from an estimated 200 in 2012 to 97 1 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cult

49、ural and Natural Heritage,Nov.23,1972,27 U.S.T.37,T.I.A.S.No.8226(“World Heritage Convention”);WHC-05/29.COM/22,Paris,9 Sept.2005,at 117.Of the 891 fish species present in the site,90 are endemic.The site also contains 39%of the worlds total number of species of marine mammals and a third of the wor

50、lds marine cetacean species.WHC.2019.The Islands and Protected Ar-eas of the Gulf of California(Mexico)inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger,Baku,3 July 2019.2 WHC-13/37.COM/8E,Paris,17 May 2013,at 49(Draft Statement of Outstand-ing Universal Value);Decision 37 COM 8E,WHC-13/37.COM/20 Pa

51、ris,5 July 2013(adopting Draft OUV)vaquita in 2014.3 In 2018,scientists reported that fewer than 19 vaquita remained with a minimum known number of six,based on sightings.4 In 2017,scientists estimated that 38,683 tons of totoaba inhabit the Gulf and that offtake through il-legal fishing 1,400 tons

52、was unsustainable.5The primary threat to the vaquitas existence is bycatch,or entangle-ment,in gillnet fishing gear.This includes gillnets set for shrimp and finfish in the Gulf and also illegal gillnets set to catch totoaba.The totoaba is facing a resurgent and growing demand for its swim bladder.P

53、oachers prize totoaba for their swim bladders,which are dried and smuggled by organized crime cartels to China,3 CIRVA(International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita).2014.Re-port of the Fifth Meeting of the International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita.Ensenada,Baja California,Mx

54、ico,8-10 July 2014,Unpublished Report,38pp.,at 24 Jaramillo-Legorreta,A.M.,Cardenas-Hinojosa,G.,Nieto-Garcia,E.,Ro-jas-Bracho,L.,Thomas,L.,Ver Hoef,J.M.,Moore,J,Taylor,B.,Barlow,J.,and Tregenza,N.YEAR.Decline towards extinction of Mexicos vaquita por-poise(Phocoena sinus)Royal Society Open Science.h

55、ttp:/doi.org/10.1098/rsos.1905985 Centro Regional de Investigacin Pesquera y Acuacultura-Guaymas.Informe Final.Evaluacin De La Poblacin De Totoaba En El Golfo De California.Re-sponsable:Dr.Miguel ngel Cisneros Mata.Febrero De 2018.Fig.1:Totoaba Poachers in the Vaquita refuge area.Photo:Sea Shepherd

56、Conservation SocietyFig.2:Dead vaquita.Photo source:Center for Biological Diversity I.Natural Properties 11where they are sold on the black market for prices that can reach US$46,000 per kg.6World Heritage Committee Actions and Mexicos Lack of Effective ResponseUnder the World Heritage Convention,th

57、e Committee may list a World Heritage property as“in Danger”if it is“threatened by serious and specific dangers.”7 These threats may include a se-rious decline in the population of the endangered species of Outstanding Universal Value(OUV)for which the property was legally established to protect.”8T

58、he Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California World Heritage site and its OUV,including the propertys vaquita and totoaba populations,are facing serious and specific dangers,as both species are threatened with extinction if gillnet fishing in-side and adjacent to the World Heritage proper

59、tys boundaries continues.While Mexico has consistently promised to imple-ment new measures to protect the vaquita and reduce totoaba poaching,these measures have failed.In 2015 the Center for Biological Diversity and the Animal Wel-fare Institute filed a formal request to the Committee to inscribe t

60、he Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California on the List of World Heritage in Danger pursuant to its authority under Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention.This issue was first discussed by the Committee at its 40th meeting in 2016,result-ing in a World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive

61、 monitoring mis-sion“to the property to assess its current state of conservation and to evaluate whether the property meets the conditions for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger.”9 That joint mission occurred in April 2017 and found that“ille-gal,unregulated and unsustainable fisher

62、ies remain a concern for the protection of the propertys OUV and efforts to protect the critically endangered vaquita have not been successful”and recommended that the site be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.10 Despite this recommendation,the Com-mittee,in response to extensive lob

63、bying by Mexico,elected not to inscribe the site but,instead to provide Mexico time to implement new regulations and promises(including a“perma-nent”ban on gillnets in a large portion of the site)enacted prior to the 41st meeting.6 Report of the Eleventh meeting of the Comit Internacional para la Re

64、cuper-acin de la Vaquita(CIRVA)7 World Heritage Convention,at Art.11(4).8 UNESCO World Heritage Committee,Operational Guidelines for the Imple-mentation of the World Heritage Convention,WHC 13/01(July 2013)(“WHC Operational Guidelines”),at IV(B)(180)(a).9 Decision 40 COM 7B.75.10 Report on the React

65、ive Monitoring Mission to Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California(Mexico)from 09 to 15 April 2017.A second mission conducted in February 2018 reiterated con-cerns about the status of the vaquita but recommended that the Committee defer a decision on the possible inscription of the prop

66、erty to its 43rd session in 2019 because“it is not pos-sib le to determine how effectively the significant efforts under-taken by the State Party to implement the 2017 recommenda-tions have averted the risk of extinction of the vaquita.”11 The Committee concurred with this recommendation.12 Despite

67、multiple opportunities to demonstrate progress in im-plementing Committee recommendations and protecting the vaquita,Mexicos efforts have failed thereby leading to Mex-ico accepting an“in danger”designation at the 43rd Commit-tee meeting in Baku,Azerbaijan.13 In reaching this decision,the Committee

68、recognized that“illegal fishing has continued and even escalated in the Upper Gulf of California resulting in a threat of imminent extinction of the vaquita population.”14 As a result of the listing,Decision 43 COM 7B.26 requests that Mexico develop a set of corrective measures,a timeframe for their

69、 implementation,and a proposal for the desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger for examination by the Committee at its 44th session in 2020.The threats to the vaquita and the need to urgently address them have been repeatedly emphasized

70、 in other international fora,including by the International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita,15 the International Whaling Commission16 and its Scientific Committee,17 the International Union for Nature Con-servation(IUCN),18 the Convention on International Trade in En-dangered Species of Wi

71、ld Fauna and Flora,19 and the Society for Marine Mammalogy.20 11 Report on the Joint UNESCO World Heritage Centre IUCN Reactive Moni-toring Mission to Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California(Mex-ico)from 12th to 16th February 2018.12 Decision 42 COM 7B.86.13 Decision 43 COM 7B.26.14 Id

72、.15 Report of the Eleventh meeting of the Comit Internacional para la Recuper-acin de la Vaquita(CIRVA).Southwest Fisheries Science Center(SWFSC)in La Jolla,CA,USA February 19-21,2019.http:/www.iucn-csg.org/wp-con-tent/uploads/2019/03/CIRVA-11-Final-Report-6-March.pdf./16 IWC.2018.Summary of Main Ou

73、tcomes,Decisions and Required Actions from the 67th Meeting of the IWC17 Report of the 2019 meeting of the IWC scientific committee.https:/archive.iwc.int/pages/search.php?search=%21collection73 18 https:/iucn-csg.org/vaquita/19 CITES Secretary-General in Mexico to address the Vaquita and Totoaba cr

74、isis fueled by illegal international trade https:/cites.org/eng/CITES_Secre-tary-General_in_Mexico_to_address_Vaquita_and_Totoaba_crisis_fueled_by_illegal_international_trade_3105201920 Presidential Letter Concerning the Vaquita and Gulf of California World Heritage Site.https:/www.marinemammalscien

75、ce.org/letters/vaquita-and-gulf-of-california-world-heritage-site/12 I.Natural PropertiesUrgent Need for Corrective Measures,Financial Support,and ImplementationRecent events demonstrate Mexicos lack of effectiveness and will to halt illegal fishing within the vaquita habitat and the ur-gent need fo

76、r detailed,strong,and immediate corrective meas-ures.On a single day in December 2019,Sea Shepherd Conser-vation Society reported sighting 70 pangas(small boats)setting and retrieving illegal gillnets near the small“zero tolerance area”(an area identified by CIRVA where the few remaining vaquita sur

77、vive and where fishing must not occur)within the Vaquita Refuge.21 In addition,despite the Mexican governments prom-ise to send 600 federal agents,including soldiers and national guard members,to help combat illegal activities and violence in the Upper Gulf of California region,recent media reports

78、ind-icate that to date only a small number have arrived.22Furthermore,Mexicos Lopez Obrador administration has dras-tically cut the budget for agencies responsible for the conserva-tion,management,and protection of the vaquita and its habi-tat,undermining needed conservation efforts.The administra-t

79、ions 2020 budget proposal reduces funding for SEMARNAT,the Mexican environmental ministry,by 21 percent compared 21 Expedition Sights Endangered Vaquita Porpoise and Rampant Fishing Inside Biosphere Reserve(Oct.23,2019):https:/seashepherd.org/2019/10/23/expe-dition-sights-endangered-vaquita-porpoise

80、-andrampant-fishing-inside-bio-sphere-reserve/22 El Gobierno promete 600 federales,llegan unos cuantos.El Universal(Nov.19,2019):https:/.mx/opinion/carlos-loret-de-mola/el-gobierno-promete-600-federales-lleganunos-cuantosto 2018,and PROFEPA,the environmental enforcement agency,was reduced 50 percent

81、 for 2020,compared with 2018.23During the most recent vaquita expedition,conducted by Mexi-can and international scientists in late August and mid-October 2018,three pairs of vaquita were spotted.24 While it is not clear if these observations represent six separate individuals,these sightings demons

82、trate that vaquita remain,as does Mexicos moral and legal obligation to save the species.Despite decades of promises,the Mexican government has not effectively taken action to halt illegal fishing in the vaquita habi-tat.Strong corrective measures,detailing a sufficient number of enforcement personn

83、el to the region,funding,required report-ing,and timelines for demonstrating effectiveness are urgently needed,as well as another monitoring mission to ensure full implementation of the measures.The Committees 2019 deci-sion also opens the possibility of additional financial support to save the vaqu

84、ita.Such support could be helpful particularly to increase enforcement efforts and to fund development of alter-native fishing gear.It is not too late to save this porpoise that,as a consequence of anthropogenic impacts,sits on the precip-ice of extinction.23 2020 expenses budget project for the Mex

85、ican federation:https:/www.ppef.hacienda.gob.mx/work/models/PPEF2020/paquete/egresos/Proyecto_Decreto.pdf;Mexican federation spending budget for 2018:https:/www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5506080&fecha=29/11/201724 https:/iucn-csg.org/vaquitas-with-calves-seen-in-september-2018-field-effort/

86、Fig.3:The different zones of protection in the Upper Gulf of California.Map:Center for Biological Diversity I.Natural Properties 13New Developments at the Doana World Heritage Site Teresa Gil and Juanjo Carmona,WWF SpainWith the objective of assessing the conservation status of the Doana Protected A

87、rea,in the southwest of Spain(Andaluca region),in January 2011 a joint mission was carried out by IUCN,the World Heritage Centre(WHC)and the Ramsar Council Sec-retariat,which concluded with a report detailing the challenges and problems faced,as well as possible solutions.Since then,the UNESCO World

88、 Heritage Committee has taken seven decisions and carried out a second mission in 2015 with its corresponding report on the state of Doana.They reiterate the existence of numerous threats and pressures to the OUV of the Doana World Heritage Site,highlighting the dredging of the Guadalquivir River,th

89、e overexploitation of the Doana aquifer,the increase in irrigated area and the potential impacts of gas and mining projects in the area surrounding the site.It is necessary to continue monitoring the situation of Doana as established in the decision of COM43,in Baku last year.Most of the threats and

90、 pressures are located outside the prop-erty but have or could have an impact within it,affecting its OUV.Scientific evidence is showing this.For example,tempo-ral lagoons(protected at EU level)and associated biodiversity are dis-appearing or degrading(see Daz-Pa-niagua et al.,2019 report).Progress

91、in the implementation of the meas-ures proposed by UNESCO remains scarce and does not resolve the deli-cate situation of the site.Uncontrolled growth of irrigated crops continuesFive years after the approval of the Special Plan of the Forest Crown of Doana by the regional government of Andalusa,the

92、area of illegal red fruit crops continues to grow out of control outside the property but within the river basin that feeds Doana with freshwater.It has in-creased more than 13%to reach 1,653 hectares,according to the WWF Report“Doana under plastic:The non-stop berries invasion”(Oct 2019).The total

93、area of crops in areas that cannot be regulated is 1,653 hectares,which represents 20.7%of the total crops under plastics.These crops represent unfair competition for other farmers and fail to comply with the Forest Crown Spe-cial Plan,as they are located outside the area of possible reg-ularization

94、(irrigable agricultural soils),occupying partly dryland agricultural farms,public utility woodland,areas of special pro-tection of natural resources and ecological corridors.WWF asks the Junta de Andaluca to act at once and implement the Spe-cial Plan,as they have assured UNESCO and the European Com

95、-mission,and eliminate all crops that are not considered by the Special Plan.Since approval in 2014 of the Special Plan,for planning land use north of the Doana Forest Crown in Doana,red berries crops under plastic(strawberry,blueberries,raspberries or blackber-ries)have claimed a greater surface ar

96、ea and economic weight.Fig.1:Location of Doana Protected Area(green boundary line)within the Guadalquivir Estuary as defined in the Gua-dalquivir River Basin Hydrological Plan.Map:WWF Spain14 I.Natural PropertiesDuring the 20152019 period the surface area of red berries crops within the scope of the

97、 Special Plan has increased by 552.5 hectares.This growth is having a huge impact on the quality and quantity of water available for the wetlands of Doana Protected Area,which is on red alert.On the other hand,the report reveals that of the total hec-tares outside irrigable agricultural land,almost

98、1,000 hectares of crops are located in public utility woodlands;380.6 in areas of special protection of natural resources and 166.3 in areas of ecological corridors.Aggressions to agents of the authority and actions to prevent the closure of wellsThe lack of governance in the area of Doana creates a

99、 sense of impunity that has become apparent between September 2018 and July 2019 in the municipality of Lucena del Puerto,one of the municipalities with the largest number of wells and illegal hectares in Doana.In September 2018,a guard of the Guadalquivir Hydrographic Confederation(GHC),the authori

100、ty that watches over the good use of the water resource,was harassed by a group of alleged illegal farmers,while he was doing his inspection and denunciation work of illegal catchments in Doana,to the point of requiring medical assistance.Subsequently,at the end of June 2019,the farmers of Lucena de

101、l Puerto using water il-legally for irrigation again prevented the GHC from doing their duty,even though it was accompanied by National military police.The technicians of the GHC were going to close 77 ille-gal wells in compliance with a ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia-maximum r

102、egional judicial body.The wells have continued open during several weeks,while the illegals demanded an amnesty for themselves,supported by the two parties that lead the Government of Andalusia.Finally,the GHC was able to fulfil its judicial mandate and close the wells.Bad status of the aquiferGHC d

103、ata on the status of aquifers show that the decrease in water reserves continues unstoppable.The Spanish State has initiated a declaration that 60%of the Doana aquifer is in bad Fig.2:Areas of illegal red fruit crops(in red),within the Special Plan of the Forest Crown of Doana,continues to grow out

104、of control outside the property(in green)but within the river basin that feeds Doana with freshwa-ter.Map:WWF SpainFig.3:Intensive agriculture.Red berries in the area surrounding the Doana prop-erty.Photo:WWF SpainFig.4 Farmers preventing the national military authority from closing the illegal well

105、s(summer 2019).Photo:WWF Spain I.Natural Properties 15quantitative state.This proves that their ex-ploitation regime caused primarily by the continuous growth of strawberry and red fruit production is totally unsustainable.The WWF Report“Doana,an aquifer in red alert”from September 2019 analyses the

106、“report on the status of the aquifers in the Doana”.Its main conclusion is that the exploitation regime of the Doana aq-uifer is totally unsustainable since at least half of the 90s of the last century,the ref-erence date taken by said report and that the overall situation of the aquifer is worse th

107、an during the great drought of the mid-1990s.Extraction for irrigated agriculture has been reducing water reserves and has not allowed them to recover,even in years of heavy rains,which has caused the aquifer to have passed from 9 stable sectors and 7 in poor condition(pre-alert,alert,alarm)in 1994,

108、to only 5 stable sectors and 11 in poor condition currently.These data are so overwhelmingly nega-tive that the GHC has been forced to take the most extreme measure that exists in our legislation:to declare three of the five groundwater bodies of the aquifer as“at risk of not achieving good quantita

109、tive status”due to its very bad condition “El Roco”,“Almonte”and“Marismas”.This statement highlights the inaction of the Administration that,despite repeated com-plaints and scientific evidence,have pro-tected this extremely serious situation with-out acting forcefully and effectively,allowing crops

110、 to invade the territory and wells proliferate until reach the current limit sit-uation where much more water is extracted than is recharged.In addition to this Declaration,effective measures must be taken urgently.WWF demands that precautionary measures should be taken against new wells and illegal

111、 crops that are detected.This will prevent the problem from aggravating,and while they are permanently closed they cannot be exploited with consequential damage to the aquifer.Without neglecting the two sectors that are still in good status,urgent and more forceful measures must be taken in the im-m

112、ediate surroundings of the protected area and its river basin in order to recover the aquifer in those affected sectors.This would have a fast and important impact on Doana.In addi-tion,the well-known local problems of the“coastal zone”and“Doana lagoons”sectors must be solved.Quantitative status of

113、aquifer waterbodies(Fig.5)and its evolution(Fig.6)(data source GHC).Maps:WWF SpainFig.7:There are at least 1000 illegal wells and ponds in the surrounding area.Photo:Jorge Sierra16 I.Natural PropertiesDemandsWWF demands the urgent implementation of the following measures:To Junta de Andaluca(Regiona

114、l government)1.Do not modify at all the Special Management Plan of Doana Forest Crown as claimed by illegal agribusinesses with the public support of political parties.2.Close illegal farms(irrigated agricultural area not included as irrigable agricultural land).As an urgent measure,WWF urges to the

115、 Agriculture regional government the imme-diate cessation of the current illegal water extraction,the elimination of illegal farms and the cessation of the use of infrastructure without permission(intakes from streams,ponds,etc.),initiating the corresponding disciplinary or criminal proceedings,as a

116、ppropriate.To Guadalquivir Hydrographic Confederation GHC(Na-tional government.River basin authority)3.Urgently implement the measures provided for in the Wa-ter Law for the Groundwater Bodies(GWBs)at risk of not achieving good qualitative status.4.Adopt precautionary measures to prevent new illegal

117、 ex-traction from the aquifer.5.Comply with the commitment to approve and implement an annual aquifer extraction plan which,based on the up-dated information,adjusts both the public and private allo-cations to the actual availability of water and limits the use of water so that the regime of water s

118、upplies required by the ecosystems is complied with.(Here also IGME(National research institution)plays a key role).To both Junta de Andaluca and GHC6.Implement urgently the measures included in the Special Management Plan for irrigated areas located north of the Doana Forest Crown urgently and in a

119、 coordinated way.7.Develop a Special Land Use Plan outside the scope of the Crown Plan.8.Before carrying out a transfer which in WWFs opinion will involve a waste of public money,will perpetuate the prob-lem of unsustainable water use in the Doana area,and which may lead to a“pull effect”,it is nece

120、ssary to comply with the provisions of the legislation:control water use,re-view water rights,improve remote sensing techniques,im-plement savings measures and,of course,eliminate illegal farms and wells.Basically illegal farmers is the interested group in continuing with an unsustainable use of wat

121、er.Legal ones do not end up detaching themselves from illegal,either because of friend-ship and family relationships,because some are betting on two horses or because of a misunderstood corporatism that makes them not seeing the illegals as unfair competition.They have had political support from all

122、 the political spectrum for years.Since the Special Plan of the Forest Crown of Doana was ap-proved,the support is mostly local.At regional level they have lost some support from the PSOE(socialist party)and have won it among the right parties that now govern Andaluca region.We must highlight the wo

123、rk of Seprona(Environmental Protec-tion Service)and the prosecutors service,and in recent times the work of the GHC and river patrols.Some behaviour change of certain administrations and politicians is because they have started to feel the pinch thanks to the pressure of European markets and Europea

124、n justice that are reacting to WWF actions and pressure.The reality has been pushing decision makers from the most radical denial,to denial with measures-nothing happens,but the administration have declared three parts of the aquifer overexploited.Dredging of the GuadalquivirOn July 8,2019,the Spani

125、sh Supreme Court published its Judg-ment by which the appeal filed by WWF Spain against the in-clusion of the project of Guadalquivir River dredging in the Hy-drological Plan of this river was accepted,for its serious envi-ronmental impact on Doana.The dredging project has been included by the Gover

126、nment of Spain in the last two hydrological plans of the Guadalqui-vir(20092015 and 20162021),and on both occasions,WWF Spain has managed to get the Spanish Supreme Court to rule against said project(STS 02/26/2015 and STS 07/08/2019).The resolutions and reports of UNESCO have been of great help to

127、obtain this judicial victory in defence of the natural values of Doana,as can be read in the Judgment of 08/07/2019 in the Fourth Law Foundation,when the Court considers that the cur-rent dredging project is cancelled.In the opinion of WWF for greater legal certainty,in compliance with this Judgment

128、,the State should carry out two actions:a)That the Government expressly and formally declare,by means of a legally valid administrative act,the current dredging project to be definitively and legally cancelled.This would also comply with the Government demonstration of will before UNESCO.b)That the

129、project is not included in the new Hydrological Plan of the Guadalquivir river basin that is being developed at the moment by GHC and whose procedure of public particip-ation will probably will be reactivated throughout 2020.c)Additionally,the Spanish State should commit to reduce the negative impac

130、ts that the maintenance dredging of the cur-rent Guadalquivir navigation channel has on the Doana Protected Area and its associated ecosystems,as recom-mended by the Scientific Commission that have analysed the state of Guadalquivir river in 2010.ReferenceCarmen Daz-Paniagua,Laura Serrano Martn,Pabl

131、o Garca Murillo,Margarita Florencio Daz,Roco Fernndez Zamudio,Patricia Siljestrom Ribed 2019.In-forme sobre la Repercusin de las extracciones de aguas subterrneas en el sistema de lagunas del manto elico de Doana.WWF Internal report for EU Commission.I.Natural Properties 17The Worlds Worst Business

132、Case in World Heritage Site Wadden SeaFrank Petersen,WaddenseeverenigingClimate Change is real.Preservation of natural World Heritage sites such as the Wadden Sea needs to take the effects of cli-mate change into account.One of the foremost impacts of cli-mate change is a rising sea level.Should the

133、 sea level rise sig-nificantly,shallow inland seas like the Wadden Sea may very well drown.In that case none of the natural characteristics will remain that were crucial to its inscription on the World Her-itage List.The Wadden Sea is a shallow inland sea between the North-West European continent an

134、d a string of sandy islands.Twice a day at low tide the sea turns to land.Brave athletic people can walk from the mainland to one of the islands in the time-win-dow between two tides.Birds have the same time-window to feed from the Waddenseas rich bottom-dwelling populations of mussels and cockles.T

135、he fragile balance of tides and ex-posed seabed is one of natures unique ways to shape land-scape and ecosystems and was key to the nomination by the Dutch,German and Danish governments of the Wadden Sea for UNESCO World Heritage Status.In 2009 the Wadden Sea was accepted on the global list as one o

136、f the worlds natural wonders.Subsequent extensions have occurred.Under UNESCO every government entrusted with the man-agement of a World Heritage Site needs to present a State of Conservation(SOC)Report.The most recent SOC report was submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Secretariat in No-vember 20

137、16.In the report the Danish,Dutch and German gov-ernments express their concern that“climate change may have an impact on many different Wadden Sea ecosystem features and elements,human activities and interests,at various spatial and temporal scales.It is important to recognize that climate change i

138、s a cross-cutting theme.Therefore,dealing with im-pacts of climate change requires an integrative approach across borders,disciplines,sectors and administrative layers(ICZM).”A clear omission in the SOC Report by the three governments(all three parties both to the UNESCO conventions as well as the P

139、aris Agreement on Climate Change)is their failure to relate the positive impacts of the Paris Agreement to the protection of the Wadden Sea.Ensuring no new exploration for fossil fuels underneath the WHS and a global reduction in the emissions of CO2(in other words the use of fossil fuels)may very w

140、ell prevent further impacts of climate change on the Wadden Sea World Heritage property.Fig.1:The Wadden Sea in the Netherlands.Map:Marjolijn Christiansen www.waddensleutels.nl18 I.Natural PropertiesIn their 2016 SOC report the State Parties responsible for the proper management of Wadden Sea World

141、Heritage outline the need for climate change adaptation policies and measures but fail to take any initiative to prevent climate change by al-lowing more fossil-fuel mining underneath the Wadden Sea World Heritage property.Reports by WWF and Waddenvereniging have clearly outlined that new or increas

142、ed extraction of fossil fuels is a threat to the protection and preservation of the Wadden Sea.Specifically,the Dutch government appears to be ignoring these warning signals and intends to facilitate,and financially benefit from,further fossil-fuel extraction beneath the Wadden Sea WHS.State parties

143、,as well as energy companies such as Shell and Exxon/Mobil,are still keen on realizing new projects for fos-sil-fuel mining.Currently the Dutch government aims to ex-stract 4 billion cubic meters of natural gas from underneath the Wadden Sea WHS.This will lead to an additional future CO2 emission of

144、 7.2 billion kilograms.Under the latest Dutch Mining Act,some restrictions have been set on new mining projects.Mining installations are not al-lowed within the legal borders of the Wadden Sea World Her-itage site.However,the use of mining installations only a few meters outside the World Heritage p

145、roperty is still legal.It is not only legal in a crooked kind of,it is also strongly supported by the Dutch government both legally and financially.Know-ing this legal loophole,energy companies and their investors take the somewhat cynical position that“as long as its legal we can do it”.The effects

146、 of fossil-fuel mining on the World Heritage property are however identical.No matter if a mining installation operates within or just outside the legal limits of the WHS,the effects on both nature and climate are the same.In the new Mining Act the Dutch government appears to take the commercial int

147、erests of energy companies far more seriously than its obligation to UNESCO to preserve and protect the out-standing universal values of WHS Wadden Sea.A recent report presented by Waddenvereniging,and peer-re-viewed by some of the most prominent Dutch scientific experts on climate change,clearly wa

148、rns the authorities of the likeli-hood that Wadden Sea will drown1 particularly in the event that the Dutch government continues to facilitate fossil-fuel mining underneath the property.NGOs such as Waddenvereniging have repeatedly presented their concern about the impacts of fossil-fuel mining for

149、the preservation of WHS Wadden Sea because of its local effects.The interrelated local effects of mining in combination with the global effect of using fossil fuels should concern governments 1 Schuttenhelm,Rolf,De toekomst van de Waddenzee:een stijgende zeespiegel over een dalende bodem,https:/wadd

150、envereniging.nl/wv/im-ages/PDF/Toekomst%20van%20de%20Waddenzee/ToekomstvandeWad-denzee_rapport.pdf responsible for the protection and conservation of the Wadden Sea World Heritage property.This applies not only in relation to climate-change adaptation strategies,but perhaps even more so in strategie

151、s to prevent the extraction of fossil fuels from World Heritage sites.There is a lack of such strategies by the Dutch government.It would be both logical as well as useful should the World Her-itage Committee provide clear guidance to all parties to the Convention about the need for the prevention o

152、f CO2 emis-sions due to activities affecting World Heritage sites especially when climate change is considered a potential risk to the site concerned,as is the case for the WHS Wadden Sea.This would also be a way for UNESCO and its World Heritage Committee to contribute to,and strengthen,the Paris A

153、greement on Cli-mate Change.But on a more emotional and moral level it would be wonderful should the WH Committee decide that the worlds most unique natural sites cannot be put in a position where they contrib-ute to the worlds most pressing environmental problem.The Wadden Sea should not be an acco

154、mplice to one of the largest threats to its own preservation and conservation.The commercial pressure to explore and extract fossil fuels from beneath the Wadden Sea is enormous.Various interna-tional energy companies and corporate investors appear to pre-fer numbers over nature.The risk that the Wa

155、dden Sea World Heritage property may drown due to the effects of fossil-fuel mining and global warning are still ignored by the State Parties responsible for its protection and preservation.Knowing the most recent scientific report on climate change and its effect on the Wadden Sea,and knowing the i

156、mmense financial pressure exerted by energy companies on national and local authorities to continue fossil-fuel extraction from beneath the Wadden Sea World Heritage property,we propose that the World Heritage Committee,at its next session,presents clear guidelines that call on the States Parties to

157、:Abstain from any commercial mining initiative within,un-derneath or adjacent to a WHS that will lead to CO2 emis-sions thus ensuring that the conservation of a WHS is also beneficial to the obligations of State Parties under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change;Should the World Heritage Committee

158、adopt such guidelines it will be a huge message of support to the local(Noard East Frys-lan,Texel,Vlieland,Terschelling,Ameland,Schiermonnikoog)as well as regional(Fryslan,Groningen and North Holland prov-inces)authorities that all strongly object to any new fossil fuel mining initiative but then to

159、 be overruled in their concern by the national government of The Netherlands.As it stands,the national government fails to take the genuine concerns of lo-cal communities about the integrity of WHS Wadden Sae in consideration.I.Natural Properties 19The Real State of Conservation Report on Slovak Bee

160、ch ForestsWOLF Forest Protection MovementSlovakian beech forests were inscribed in the UNESCO World Heritage List in 2007 as part of a bilateral(with Ukraine)World Heritage site“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians”.After two extensions in several other countries,the current name of this UNESCO

161、 World Heritage site is“Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe”.In the nomination project,the Slovak components were declared protected on national level as Strict Nature Reserves1 according to the IUCN Protected Area Categories System on an area of 5,770 h

162、ectares.Unfortunately,the Slovak Re-public declared to the UNESCO authorities a state which was non-existent.The territory designated as the Slovak compo-nents has never been protected under the Ia category Strict Nature Reserve,referred to in the nomination project.During the preparation of the nom

163、ination project for the Slovak components in 2005,there were no negotiations with owners and users of the area,general public and non-governmental organizations.The result was the failure to acknowledge the areas as World Heritage by local communities.The problem was also the localization of the are

164、a itself.The only available maps were those attached to the nomination project but the scale of these maps didnt allow to identify and mark the boundaries in the field.Practical protection of the Slo-vak components was therefore impossible.Another problem was that the boundaries in the maps delineat

165、ed an area much smaller than defined in the text documents.1 Category Ia:Strict Nature Reserve-Protected areas that are strictly set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological fea-tures,where human visitation,use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ens

166、ure protection of the conservation values.Such protected areas can serve as indispensable reference areas for scientific research and monitoring:https:/www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-areas-categories/category-ia-strict-nature-reserveEven after inscription on the UNESCO World Heri

167、tage List in 2007,logging and hunting were carried out without restric-tions.Over 3,860 hectares of the area were threatened by per-manent extensive logging activities.Hunting has been occur-ring there continuously,including group hunting,building of new hunting facilities and even hunting for wolve

168、s.In addition,development activities as a new ski resort,which would require permanent deforestation and a new road border crossing to Poland were planned in the area.WOLF has been bringing attention to the inadequate protection of the Slovak components since 2008.During these years we did a lot of

169、activities including communication with the World Heritage Centre and the World Heritage Committee,due to our activities the UNESCO/IUCN advisory and monitoring missions were sent to Slovakia,we have attended World Heritage Com-mittee Sessions in Bonn 2015 and Krakow 2017 where we were lobbying for

170、the proper protection of the property,we did a lot of monitoring in the field,consultations with local stakeholders and local communities and a lot of other activities.Most impor-tantly,we effectively created pressure by the international com-munity on the national government as the OUV of the prope

171、rty has become endangered.We have informed the World Heritage Committee several times about the violation of the protection of Slovak components by Fig.1:The location of Poloniny National Park and Vihorlat Landscape Park,two Slovak components of the“An-cient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpath

172、ians and Other Regions of Europe”.Map:Marek Wieckowski https:/journals.openedition.org/rga/2107/modified by Stephan Doempke20 I.Natural PropertiesSlovak Republic,and our findings have been incorporated in the decisions adopted during the 41st and 43rd session of the Committee2.A warning example is t

173、he development of logging in Zbojsk potok valley in Poloniny National Park since 2006,shown on the aerial photos.This can be for sure considered a serious threat to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.The breaking point was the Decision of the World Heritage Committee(WHC)on its 41st Ses

174、sion in 2017,which was very critical to state of conservation of Slovak components.The World Heritage Committee“Considers that,unless urgent measures are taken to ad-dress the lack of an adequate protection regime of the Slo-2 http:/whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/41com/and https:/whc.unesco.org/en/sessi

175、ons/43com/vak components of the property and to ensure that their boundary delineation is adequate,their protection from logging and other potential threats cannot be guaranteed in the long-term,which would clearly constitute a potential danger to the OUV of this serial transnational property as a w

176、hole,in line with Paragraphs 137 and 180 of the Opera-tional Guidelines”,and“notes with utmost concern that,despite these measures and the voluntary commitment of some entities involved not to carry out logging operations,only parts of the Slovak components of the property are currently legally prot

177、ected against logging”.The reaction of Slovak authorities was to start a renomina-tion process with proposals for new boundaries and new strictly protected areas.A non-intervention regime has been applied within the newly proposed boundaries of the prop-erty either by means of legal protection of ex

178、isting pro-tected areas or beyond these nature reserves.The non-in-tervention regime has been endorsed by two Resolutions of the Slovak Government(no.528/2017 of November 2017 and no.508/2019 of October 2019).To ensure long-term protection,three new projects for nature reserves are in preparation.Fi

179、g.2:Aerial view of Zbojsky potok valley in 2006.Photo:EUROSENSE s.r.o.Fig.3:Aerial view of Zbojsky potok valley in 2016.Photo:EUROSENSE s.r.o.Fig.4:An aerial view of Morsk oko National Nature Reserve shows an un-interrupted forest cover in the entire reserve,with large areas of primary for-est.Photo

180、:WOLF Forest Protection MovementFig.5:Fully undisturbed vegetation cover at Morsk oko.Photo:WOLF Forest Protection Movement I.Natural Properties 21Despite these positive efforts,the former leaders of the Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic in February 2020,a few weeks before the elect

181、ion,were trying to misuse the pro-cess of boundary modification of the Slovak components to abolish the strict protection in the part of the existing Morsk oko National Nature Reserve(see Fig.4 and 5).Their proposal would allow the construction of hotels,guesthouses,roads,logging,hunting and develop

182、ment of tourist infrastructure in the one of the most valuable natural areas in Slovakia.Within the process of public consultation WOLF prepared a comment asking for upholding the strict protection in the whole Morsk oko National Nature Reserve.The comment has been undersigned by 70,000 people in 5

183、days.The mayors of both affected villages also officially expressed their interest in the name of the citizens to preserve the existing strict protec-tion of the whole area,and more than 20 organisations and in-dividuals from all of the world declared their support by sending letters to the World He

184、ritage Centre and national authorities.Thanks to this unbelievably strong support from the public,the new Minister of the Environment,Mr.Jn Budaj,has reopened negotiations and accepted the requirements stated in WOLFs comment.An important lesson learned from this case is the weakness and the lack of

185、 authority of the World Heritage Committee against the State Parties.World Heritage is officially declared as“the priceless and irreplaceable assets,not only of each nation,but of humanity as a whole”but the above stated case study of Slovak beech forests shows very clearly that there are no effecti

186、ve measures to ensure the proper pro-tection of the World Heritage Sites if there is no will of the State Party.Even 13 years after the inscription of the Slovak components on the List of World Heritage Sites they are still missing legal protection.The World Heritage Committee and World Heritage Cen

187、tre can improve their tainted reputation by serious supervision of the ongoing renom-ination process and by putting the pressure on Slovak government to successfully finish the process of es-tablishment of new proposed strictly protected areas(nature reserves).Fig.6:Current zoning situation of the V

188、ihorlat Landscape Park.Morsk Oko National Nature Reserve is partly in the core zone and partly in the buffer zone of the Vihorlat component of the World Heritage prop-erty.Map:State Nature Conservancy of Slovak Republic/modified by Andrea MartinezFig.7:Under the new zoning proposed by the Ministry o

189、f the Environment,most of Morsk oko NNR would become part of the core zone but the level of protection would be downgraded to that of the surrounding Vihorlat Landscape Park.The rationale for drawing the boundary lines remains unclear.Map:State Nature Conserv-ancy of Slovak Republic/modified by Andr

190、ea Martinez22 I.Natural PropertiesLogging in Romanias Paradise ForestsEuroNatur Foundation and Agent GreenWhen one thinks of the natural wonders of Europe,Romania does not necessarily spring to mind as a country home to some of the largest areas of forests of outstanding universal value.However,host

191、ing at least 500,000 hectares of potential pri-mary and old-growth forests(Schickhofer and Schwarz 2019),Romania is easily home to the lions share of intact forests in the European Union outside of Scandinavia.Few would appreciate that Romania is home to some of the largest and healthiest population

192、s of large carnivores-bears,wolves and lynx-in all of Europe.However,these ancient forests are being logged before the eyes of the European Union(EU),even at a time when the European Commission has communicated its intent to step up action to protect and restore the worlds for-ests.Logging,both lega

193、l and illegal,is occurring in Natura 2000 sites,national parks and in the buffer zones of UNESCO World Heritage areas,immediately adjacent to the core inscribed properties.The impacts on the integrity of the World Heritage property are undeniable.In 2007,Europes ancient beech forests were first insc

194、ribed in the World Heritage List,with sites in Slovakia and the Ukraine forming a cross-border property Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians.This site was extended to Germany in 2011,and then 10 countries successfully added further forest sites to the property-now known as Ancient and Primeval

195、Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe-in 2017.This uniquely complex serial site now covers 92,023 ha across more than 40 protected areas located in 12 European countries.The Romanian component of this 2017 extension(23,983 ha)dispro-portionately comprised almost 40%of the 10-c

196、ountry addition(61,660 ha)to the existing site.In total,Romanian forests make up 26%of the entire 12-country World Heritage listing,mak-ing it by far the largest contribution from a country in the EU.These component areas were added to the World Heritage List under criteria(ix)of the World Heritage

197、Convention as they are“outstanding examples representing significant on-going eco-logical and biological processes in the evolution and develop-ment of terrestrial,fresh water,coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals”.The Romanian com-ponents are described,amongst other ri

198、ch ecological and bio-diversity values,as including important refuges of virgin forests,being of a high degree of naturalness,and supporting a vast array of plants and animals including endemic,rare and threat-ened species(Kirchmeir and Kovarovics 2016).However,the Romanian forest sites included in

199、the list certainly do not represent all forests of outstanding universal value.Many forests sites of equal natural value as those included in the property are being logged and under threat from future logging activities.Timeline of significant related World Heritage events2017Romanias forest areas a

200、dded to Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage Listing(Decision 41 COM 8B.7).2018Informal IUCN Field Trip to Domogled Valea Cernei and Se-menic-Cheile Carasului National Parks-visits to logging sites adjacent to World Heritage areas.July 2019

201、Noting with concern,the World Heritage Committee puts Ro-mania on notice for allowing logging within buffer zones of the Romanian components of the World Heritage property.World Heritage Committee requests a Reactive Mission to Ro-mania to assess the situation(Decision 43 COM 7B.13).Nov 2019World He

202、ritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Mission to Romania.Fur-ther forest parcels adjacent to the World Heritage auctioned by Romsilva,Romanias state forest agency only 10 days after the mission is due in Romania.For decades,scientists and conservationists have been raising the alarm about the scale and intens

203、ity of logging in Roma-nia and the governments abject lack of serious commitment to protecting natural values.The situation today,where ancient forests of outstanding universal value continue to be logged,is the consequence of years of terrible forest governance-over-logging,illegal logging,corrupti

204、on,mismanagement and I.Natural Properties 23Fig.1-3:Recent logging of old-growth Beech forest near the Iauna-Craiova compo-nent of the Domogled-Valea Cernei National Park WHS.Maps:Euronatur/Agent Green24 I.Natural Propertiesa ubiquitous defiance of the rule of law.Even in 2017,when the Romanian site

205、s were nominated to be listed,IUCN and World Heritage Centre specialists raised concern over the Romanian governments lack of commitment to the World Heritage Con-vention and the protection of outstanding universal values of natural sites.As a result,commercial logging which threatens the integrity

206、of the UNESCO site through habitat fragmentation and loss con-tinues.At the time of writing,it has been revealed that more forest areas within the UNESCO buffer zone and adjacent the UNESCO listed site-forests containing values equivalent to those within the UNESCO site-will be auctioned at the end

207、of November 2019 and logged in 2020.Domogled-Valea Cernei National Park a case of worse practiceDomogled-Valea Cernei National Park in south-west Romania harbours towering limestone mountain peaks,natural thermal springs,deep gorges,spectacular waterfalls,impressive cave systems,large tracts of anci

208、ent,pristine forests and critical hab-itat for a plethora of protected plants and animals.It contains three component parts of the Ancient and Primeval Beech For-ests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe World Heritage site:Coronini-Bedina,Iauna Craiovei and Ciucevele Cernei.The entire nat

209、ional park outside of the core UNESCO site constitutes the formal buffer zone of the site.The situation in Domogled-Valea Cernei National Park is probably the best understood and also the most serious in regards to commercial logging adjacent the World Heritage site and within the sites formal buffe

210、r zone.Park management staff openly talk about commercial logging within the park as if it is completely normal.Forest manage-ment is intense and commercially driven.It is mainly based upon“progressive cutting”(stepwise removal of all trees of a forest parcel over a period of 10 years)or“conservatio

211、n log-ging”(cutting of openings in the forest to stimulate growth of young trees).This“progressive cutting”simply means that rather than an area being completely cut in one go,it is cut over a period of about 10 to 15 years.According to the World Heritage Centre,“a buffer zone is an area surrounding

212、 the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property”(UNESCO WHC,2017).In many parts of the park,virgin forests that are supposed to be protected under Romanian law but have not yet

213、gone through the difficult bureaucratic process of listing them,are illegally logged without effective criminal prosecution.Even in the strict non-intervention zones of the park,illegal logging has taken place.In 2017,logging and road cutting was identified in virgin for-ests in the upper catchment

214、of the pristine Cerna River.More recently,excursions to the park-including with members of the European Parliament,and during an informal visit with the European director of IUCN-have revealed firsthand the devas-tating commercial logging within the park.Logging progresses into the remotest areas of

215、 the park where the last strongholds of ancient beech forests are found.Only in the spring of 2017,a new logging road was cut in the Radoteasa valley,in the mid-dle of a large untouched forest landscape,which is located be-tween two UNESCO World Heritage site component parts.As has been previously c

216、ommunicated to IUCN and the World Heritage Centre,logging is happening at the immediate border of the UNESCO World Heritage site.In November 2019 Roma-nian conservationists witnessed recent logging activity at the border of the Iauna-Craiova component part of the UNESCO World Heritage property.The b

217、eech forests neighbouring the property-and earmarked for logging-are similar to the forest inside the World Heritage component part and share the same outstanding universal value.Even though they exist within the national park,they are not protected from logging.Domogled-Valea Cernei National Park i

218、s also a designated EU Natura 2000 site.Nevertheless,irreplaceable primary and old-growth forests are continuously being degraded and deteri-orated with approval of the national park administration and Romsilva,Romanias state forestry agency.These future logging plans,supported by the previous Roma-

219、nian government,represent a clear disregard for UNESCO val-ues and for the World Heritage Convention.It is not clear yet how the new government will deal with the progressing log-ging issue in Romanias protected areas.Any deliberate dam-age to a component part in one of the participating countries t

220、hreatens the 12 country property as a whole and the Romanian governments ongoing logging plans,which undermine the en-Fig.4:Logging road within the UNESCO buffer zone Domogled-Valea Cernei Na-tional Park.Photo:Matthias Schickhofer I.Natural Properties 25tire property,could lead to the property being

221、 listed“In Dan-ger”in the future.Romanias ancient forests are a true treasure of European nat-ural and world heritage.Urgent intervention is required to en-sure that as much of what remains of them is protected for all time.In addition,the issue of logging in buffer zones of World Herit-age Areas is

222、 not isolated to the Romanian World Heritage com-ponent sites.We therefore request the World Heritage Com-mittee to urge the World Heritage Centre and advisory bodies to set standards for buffer zone management that clearly pro-hibit industrial exploitation use of recourses-such as commer-cial loggi

223、ng-within buffer zones of World Heritage properties.Natural habitats deserve reliable protection also in buffer zones,in particular when they are of similar value like the ones in-cluded in the UNESCO properties itself.We encourage the World Heritage Committee to support the protection of Romanias a

224、ncient beech forests of outstanding universal value.We respectfully urge the WHC to request the Romanian government to uphold the values of the World Her-itage Convention through the following actions:All logging permits in old-growth and primary forests in national parks and UNESCO World Heritage s

225、ite buffer zones to be cancelled and logging activities to be stopped immediately;All old-growth and primary forests in the national park and UNESCO World Heritage site buffer zones be preserved as designated non-intervention areas(eg.core zones enlarged,UNESCO sites expanded,National Catalogue of V

226、irgin For-ests properly implemented).As almost all forests within the UNESCO buffer zones are under the management and ownership of the Romanian state,this should be achievable without the need for financial compensation for private land owners;National Parks and UNESCO World Heritage sites be pro-m

227、oted as places where nature conservation is paramount and adequately funded and worlds best practice manage-ment prioritises the protection,promotion and restora-tion of natural ecosystems,not the exploitation of natural resources.ReferencesEuropean Commission(2019).EU Communication(2019)on Stepping

228、 up EU Ac-tion to Protect and Restore the Worlds Forests,23 July 2019,viewed 6 No-vember 2019,https:/ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/eu_comm_2019.htmKirchmeir,H.and Kovarovics,A.(eds.)(2016).Nomination Dossier“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe”as extension to the

229、 existing Natural World Heritage Site“Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and the Ancient Beech Forests of Germany”(1133bis).Klagen-furt,409p Schickhofer,M.and Schwarz,U.(2019).PRIMOFARO.Inventory of Potential Pri-mary and Old-Growth Forest Areas in Romania.Report for EuroNatur.UNESCO World He

230、riage Centre(2017).Operational Guidelines for the Imple-mentation of the World Heritage ConventionFig.5:Tree marked for logging adjacent to the border of the World Heritage site Do-mogled Valea-Cernei National Park.Photo:Alexandru Teleaga26 I.Natural PropertiesOld New Threats to the Virgin Komi Fore

231、sts World Heritage Property Mikhail Kreyndlin,Andrey Petrov,Alexandra Tevkina,Greenpeace RussiaIn order to promote gold mining,attempts to withdraw 50,000 hectares of land from the Yugyd Va National Park are continu-ing despite the sites recognition as a significant part of the Vir-gin Komi Forests

232、World Heritage property.1 In 2019,Russian state organizations such as the All-Russian Research Institute of Environmental Protection(VNIIEkolo-gia)(subordinate to the Ministry of Natural Resources of Rus-sia),began preparing documentation relevant to the boundary changes made to the national park.Ac

233、cording to the Terms of Reference of this work,its goals are to assess the damage in-curred by the forest as a result of partial seizure of the national park and World Heritage property.The Government of the Komi Republic has prepared a draft de-cision aimed at the Russian Federal Government regardi

234、ng the changes made to the national parks boundaries,in which it promotes the exclusion of the territory for gold mining.How-ever,as stated by the State Party of Russia,in their 2019 State of Conservation Report,submitted to the World Heritage Cen-tre,“controversial issues about economic activity in

235、 the licensed territory of the Chudnoye deposit have heretofore not been settled”.The territories that are supposed to be attached to the national park are still being largely violated by past economic activity.The forests are subject to logging and exploratory works as well as mass fire clearings.T

236、hese activities are clearly visible on pub-licly available satellite images(see maps).It should be noted that in 2014,Russia made a submission to the World Heritage Center with the aim to apply boundary changes to the World Heritage property.The desired changes included the with-drawal of a site in

237、the northern part of the park,with an area of 48,000 hectares inclusive of the Chudnoye Field,as well as the addition of 180,000 hectares of land south of the park(De-cision 39 COM 7B.23).Preliminarily,the Komi Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted a survey of this territory

238、 and came to the following conclusions.1 https:/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/21/russia-plans-rezone-europes-largest-national-park-access-coveted/The Institute of Biology at the Komi Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences states in a letter,dated 05.24.2013,(No.17641-1256/694):“acco

239、rding to scientists of the Institute of Biology,the expansion of the area of the Virgin Komi Forests at the expense of sites located on the watershed of Schugor and Podcherem rivers in the upper reaches of Il-ych River should not be considered as compensation for the withdrawal from its structure of

240、 a site located in the basin of Balbanju River.Since 2006,specialists from the Institute of Bi-ology have carried out field studies here annually,during which about 70 species of rare species of vascular plants,bryophytes,lichens,and fungi listed in the Red Book of the Komi Republic(2009)were identi

241、fied.“Thus,the information that the Chud-noye territory belongs to disturbed areas that have lost their value and,accordingly,also is of lesser value than the sites pro-posed for inclusion in the boundaries of the World Heritage property,does not correspond to reality.The UNESCO World Heritage Commi

242、ttee has repeatedly(for ex-ample,in decisions 36 COM 7B.242,40 COM 7B.993,42 COM 7B.784 demanded that Russia cease all industrial activities within the boundaries of the Virgin Komi Forests World Heritage prop-erty and that it revoke the license for gold mining in the territ-ory of the Yugyd Va Nati

243、onal Park.The failure of the Russian State party to comply with the deci-sions of the World Heritage Committee is a violation of its ob-ligations to the UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.According to 180b of the Operational Guidelines for the Im-p

244、lementation of the World Heritage Convention,one of the cri-teria for the inscription of properties on the List of World Herit-age in Danger is that the property is faced with major threats,which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteris-tics.Such threats are,for example:i)a modific

245、ation of the legal protective status of the area;2 http:/whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/46733 http:/whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/67624 http:/whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3667 I.Natural Properties 27Thus,the World Heritage Committee should once again re-quest the State Party of Russia revoke the license for gol

246、d min-ing within the boundaries of the Virgin Komi Forests World Her-itage property and abandon attempts to withdraw this territory from the borders of the Yugyd Va National Park.The Committee should also consider the possible inscription of the property to the List of World Heritage in Danger,in th

247、e case that the Rus-sian State Party fails to comply with these requirements.28 I.Natural PropertiesSki Resorts,Road Construction and Logging in the Western CaucasusMikhail Kreindlin,Greenpeace Yulia Naberezhnaya,Russian Geographical Society Yuri Vorovskoy,All-Russian Society for the Protection of N

248、atureThe threats outlined in the 2019 review still remain relevant.Furthermore,the situation in the Western Caucasus World Her-itage Site continues to deteriorate.An increase in man-caused impact was noted at almost all components of the Site or near its boundaries.The reasons for this situation are

249、 directly related to the soft line of UNESCO regarding the systematic non-com-pliance with the Decisions for this site that have been taken place for over ten years.Since the 2014 Winter Olympics,the property has faced a dis-turbing southern neighborhood in the form of alpine ski re-sorts,two of whi

250、ch,Rosa Khutor,LLC and Gazprom,continue to plan for expansion.While Gazprom complies with the cur-rent legislation,so far limiting itself to planning and developing design documentation pending a decision on the establishment of so-called“biosphere polygons”,Rosa Khutor is very aggres-sively expandi

251、ng its infrastructure,ignoring the natural value of the protected area as well as the current environmental legisla-tion regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA)and taking into account public opinion.Within the past year,the ski resort of Rosa Khutor and its affiliate Ober Khutor continued

252、 the construction of two motorways towards the boundaries of the Caucasus Nature Reserve without a State Environmental Re-view,including an EIA and public discussions of the planned economic activity.The second new motorway passes along the southern slope of the Aibga ridge towards the Turyi Mountai

253、ns,also towards the boundary of the Caucasus Nature Reserve.About 20 kilo-meters of dirt road have been laid so far.Both motorways pass through the Sochi National Park,which was supposed to be-come part of the Western Caucasus property and was included in the nomination in 2015,suddenly withdrawn by

254、 the Russian Federation at the final stage,presumably on the initiative of the owners of the Rosa Khutor alpine ski resort.Prior to the 2014 Winter Olympics,it was also planned to add the Sochi Republican State Natural Reserve to the Cau-casus Nature Reserve.Instead of complying with this clause,Roz

255、a-Khutor and its affiliates Ober-Khutor,Dolina Vasta,Ro-za-Club,and Turyev Khutor,leased 220 land plots in the Sochi National Park and the Sochi Republican State Natural Reserve(the upper reaches of Mzymta river)for 49 years1 without ten-dering in order to implement the large-scale investment projec

256、t“Development of the Krasnaya Polyana Territories for the pur-pose of Tourism and Recreation in 2016-2028”.After entering into the lease agreements,the right of the Sochi National Park and the Caucasus Nature Reserve to permanent(indefinite)use of these land plots was terminated.Due to the plans to

257、ex-pand the alpine ski resorts,the implementation of measures was halted for the restoration of the ecosystem of the Mzymta River,integrated environmental monitoring and preparation of compensation measures for the XXII Olympic and XI Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi,which were part of Russias pre-O

258、lym-pic commitments.The large-scale construction planned under the guise of the de-velopment of eco-tourism in the World Heritage Site will inev-itably cause the degradation of natural habitats of the adja-cent part of the Site and,as a result,the loss of its outstanding universal value.It is likely

259、 that after the end of the 2020 win-ter season,Rosa Khutor will commence the construction of the infrastructure facilities directly on the leased land plots in the Engelmann Meadow area,since so far the motorway ends right there.In connection with the plans for expanding ski resorts under the pretex

260、t of the development of eco-tourism,it is required to clearly and unequivocally articulate the closed list of permissible infrastructure facilities to prevent the relaxation of the protec-tion regime and the direct destruction of the protection subject during the process of the eco-tourism developme

261、nt.Further-more,the opinion of the scientific department of the Cauca-sian Reserve and the Sochi National Park should be taken into account at all stages of drafting and implementing the devel-opment programs,first of all when choosing the land plots sub-ject to economic activitiesi and as well as t

262、he permissible rec-reational load.1 In accordance with Resolution No.566-r of the Government of the Russian Federation dated March 30,2017 I.Natural Properties 29In Decision 42COM 7B.80 7,the Committee has expressed se-rious concern about the lease of the land plots aimed at the implementation of la

263、rge-scale sports and recreational projects which immediately border the Site and are located inside the Sochi Federal Nature Reserve and the Sochi National Park.The Committee requested the Russian State Party not to allow any construction of large-scale infrastructure in areas directly adja-cent to

264、the Site,especially in protected areas,if such construc-tion could adversely affect the outstanding universal value of the Site,which should be assessed within the EIA for each pro-posed site in accordance with the IUCN World Heritage Impact Assessment Guidelines.However,construction of the motor-wa

265、ys towards leased plots suggests that UNESCOs position on this issue is still ignored.The territory of the property located in the Republic of Ady-geya also continues to experience increasing human impact,both at and within its boundaries.This concerns chiefly the re-publican natural monuments which

266、 form part of the Heritage Site.In November 2018,a group of public inspectors of the Adygeya Republican branch of the All-Russian Society of Nature Preservation found signs of ongoing large-scale logging in the territory of the“Upper Reaches of Pshekha and Pshekhashkha Rivers”nature monument.Commerc

267、ial logging was carried out in the immediate vicinity of the boundaries of the Caucasus Bio-sphere Reserve under the guise of selective sanitary felling.It was established that the Forest Administration of the Repub-lic of Adygeya had transferred the protected natural territories,including the World

268、 Heritage Site area,for long-term lease to Tsitsa,JSC for logging.According to the inspection mentioned in order to verify the compliance by Tsitsa,JSC with the protec-tion regime of the“Headwaters of Rivers Pshecha and Pshe-chashcha”nature monument,yet another illegal logging was observed in forest

269、 compartment No.45 carried out by Tsitsa,JSC under the guise of selective sanitary felling.The prosecu-tors office of the Republic of Adygeya has also confirmed the illegality of felling vigorous trees.Nevertheless,the Forest Administration of Adygeya has yet nei-ther terminated nor revoked lease ag

270、reements for logging in the natural monument territory,inconsistent with the environ-mental laws of the Russian Federation and its commitments un-der the World Heritage Convention.Tsitsa,the logger,has con-structed a logging road through the territory of the“River Tsitsa headwaters”nature monument,a

271、nd set up a site for cutting the logged wood and its loading onto vehicles,in direct viola-tion of the regime of this natural monument.According to agreement No.20000002 dated April 12,2018,2 construction and installation works on the pro-2 https:/synapsenet.ru/zakupki/fz44/080

272、00197%231-adi-geya-resp-stroitelnomontazhnie-raboti-po-obektu-stroitelstvo-vodozabo-ra-i-magistralnogo-vodovoda-k-naselennim-punktam-majkopskogo-rajo-na-i-goroda-majkopa-pervij-puskovoj-kompleksject“Construction of the water intake and water supply main to the settlements of Maikop district and the

273、city of Maikop(first start-up facility)”are moving forward.This project provides for the construction of a water intake and a water supply main in conjunction with the existing one.The works have been planned within the“River Tsitsa headwaters”nature monument,also,in the boundaries of the“Headwaters

274、 of Rivers Pshekha and Pshekhashkha”nature monument.In or-der to legitimize this from the point of view of Russian legisla-tion,these natural monuments have been transferred to the status of“natural park”,which means differentiated zoning and green light not only for the construction of a water cond

275、uit,but also for the legalization of other types of economic activ-ities that threaten the value of the territory.The most critical part of this project is the planned water intake inside the Caucasus Nature Reserve the Vodopadisty water intake with a capacity of up to 25,000m of water per day,lo-ca

276、ted at the northwest foot of the Fisht mountain.Moreover,it is planned to build a water intake,structures,a building,spring catchment,and to carry out other works without taking into account the protection regime of the reserve.This water intake is probably intended to supply a VIP alpine ski resort

277、 in Lunnaya Polyana,which continues to ignore all the UNESCO recommen-dations made over the past ten years.In addition,the fact that all the territories on the Site,except the Caucasus Nature Reserve,do not have real protection,re-mains a serious problem.From the moment the object was cre-ated,natur

278、al monuments and the buffer zone of the Caucasian reserve function as forestry.In 2019,the Government of Adygea once again raised the question of constructing a ski resort on the Lagonaki Plateau.This time the resort is planned to be located at the headwaters of the Kurdzhips River in the eastern pa

279、rt of Lagonaki Plateau Fig.1:Construction of the water intake and water supply main to the settlements of Maikop district and the city of Maikop(first start-up facility).Photo:Yuri Vorovskoy30 I.Natural Properties(see Fig.2).In addition to the ski slopes,it is planned to build a parking for 1000 car

280、s and hotels with 500 rooms.In the spring of 2020,these plans received support from the federal author-ities.Despite the fact that this territory was initially included in the structure from the position of maintaining territorial integ-rity,for 2020 it is a vivid example of ecosystem restoration.Th

281、e main argument against the construction of skiing infrastructure there is a dense river network in the area,which forms a stra-tegically important supply of drinking water for the population.At the same time,in September 2019,the International Co-or-dinating Council of the Man and the Biosphere(MAB

282、)Pro-gramme announced plans to exclude the Caucasus Biosphere Reserve from the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.This could lead to the removal of the status of the biosphere poly-gon from Lagonaki Plateau and,consequently,to the impossi-bility of developing ski resorts there.To prevent this,ski r

283、esort lobby-ists through State Duma Deputy Vladislav Reznik,introduced a draft law to the Duma according to which a decision on the status of a biosphere reserve can be made only by the Government of the Russian Federation,without taking into ac-count the opinion of UNESCO.3All these factors evidenc

284、e that the Western Caucasus World Heritage Site is under threat.In order to pre-serve its key values it is required to:1.Abandon the plans to construct alpine ski resorts on the Lago-naki Plateau and in the Sochi Nature Reserve,integrate the territory of the Sochi Federal Na-ture Reserve with the Ca

285、ucasus Nature Reserve,having revoked the lease agreements with Roza Khutor and its affiliated legal entities pursuant to the Rus-sian Federation commitments,assumed based on the recom-mendations of UNEP made be-fore the 2014 Winter Olympic Games.2.Ensure the compliance with the recommendations of th

286、e UNESCO World Heritage Committee,which have been given at its annual sessions for ten years since 2008 on transformation of Lunnaya Polyana ski resort into a real re-search center.3 https:/sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/942749-73.Expand the Site territory with the Psebay regional faun al area,which also pur

287、suant to the Russian Federation pre-Olympic commitments must have been transferred to the Caucasus Nature Reserve.4.Provide all areas within the Site territory under the jurisdic-tion of the Republic of Adygeya with real protection.5.Establish an integrated system of the area protection and manageme

288、nt,develop comprehensive plans for manage-ment and monitoring of the state of the key values.6.Exclude from the Krasnodar Region Land Use Planning Scheme4 the plans for the construction of a 500kV over-head high-voltage power line via the territory of the Cauca-sus Nature Reserve,as well as the cons

289、truction of motor-ways across the Site.7.Strengthen legislation for protected areas and the control over its enforcement.4 https:/fgistp.economy.gov.ru/?show_document=true&doc_type=npa_ter-r&uin=03000000020202201808062Fig.2:Border and territory of the site for the planned ski resort.Map:Yulia Nabere

290、zhnaya I.Natural Properties 31Ile-Alatau State National Park in DangerValeriy Krylov,Sergey Kuratov,Nataliya Medvedeva and Svetlana Spatar,Ecological Society“Green Salvation”The Ile-Alatau State National Park(hereafter Ile-Alatau NP)was established in 1996.The park is invaluable for the con-servatio

291、n of biological diversity of the region,ensuring health and well-being of the residents of the Almaty agglomeration.In 2002 Ile-Alatau NP was included in Kazakhstans Tentative List for World Heritage nomination.On the nominated territory there are more than 1200 classes only of higher plants,rare an

292、d disappearing animals.1The legal regime of national parks is regulated by the Law On Specially Protected Natural Territories(hereafter“Law on SPNT”)which declares2 a priority of international treaties,in ac-cordance with the Constitution(Article 4,3)and other laws.What threatens the park?Even on th

293、e territory of national parks listed in the World Her-itage List or Kazakhstans Tentative List,the law allows for ma-nipulation of the land.Zoning can be changed and the area of limited economic activity expanded(and this is already happen-ing).Land lease is encouraged even for a period of 49 years.

294、Moreover,the transfer of lands of SPNTs to the category of reserved lands()that can be privatized became legal.Accordingly,natural habitats of Red List species can be leased out for a long-term use,which will lead to the destruction of ecosystems.This is contrary to the norms of the Convention on Bi

295、ological Diversity which stipulates that each Party to the con-vention shell“promote the protection of ecosystems,natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings”(Article 8d).Fig.2:The Ili-Alatau National Park with its 5 components.Map:Google Earth/Marti

296、n LenkFig.1:Sky-high mountains of the Ili-Alatau National Park.Photo:Green Salvation32 I.Natural PropertiesSuch contradictions in the legislation are enhanced by the ar-bitrary interpretation of conventions allowed by state authori-ties.For example,an attachment to the Prime Ministers reply to a req

297、uest of the Mazhiliss(national parliaments)deputies regarding violations of the Law on SPNTs in Ile-Alatau National Park states:“To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection,conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory,each

298、 State Party to this Convention shall endeavour,in so far as possible,and as appropriate for each country.”3Unauthorized InterventionsAnother major problem is intervention of local executive au-thorities and other agencies in the activity of the national park of national importance.According to Arti

299、cle 10 of the law on SPNTs,representative and executive authorities of regions,cities of national importance and the capital do not have any author-ity to protect,preserve,and use SPNTs of national importance.According to Article 14 2,national parks are SPNTs of national importance.They are managed

300、by the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife(hereinafter“the Committee”)of the Ministry of Ecology,Geology and Natural Resources.Intervention of local authorities in the activity of national parks on the grounds that a part of their territory is located within a city limit is illegal.Article 108 6 of

301、the Land Code states that“inclusion of lands into a city,town,or village limits does not entail ceding of prop-erty or land use rights to these lands.”That is,administrative boundaries do not affect the main activity of national parks and do not change their subordination.Violations of the Land Code

302、Local authorities flagrantly violate the norms of the Land Code.Not only the Akimat(Municipality)of Almaty,but also other agencies interfere in the activity of the Ile-Alatau National Park.Works on strengthening slopes and mudflow protection activi-ties are allowed to be carried out in national park

303、s,but despite of this,transfer of more and more new plots into the category of reserved lands for the construction of various technical facil-ities continues.As a result,the integrity of ecological systems is more and more deteriorating,and their fragmentation is in-creasing.A significant part of th

304、e Ile-Alatau National Park has become inaccessible and even dangerous for visitors.Third-party land use and ownershipNo less serious problem is third-party(outside)land users and tenants.According to the Committee:“During 2017-2018,a commission of the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife.con-ducted a

305、n inventory of land plots in the Ile-Alatau State Na-tional Natural Park.The commission received information that 77 third-party land users located within the national park do not have land title documents.Currently the National Park is taking legal steps to have the land plots returned.“Because of

306、the refusal of the Akimat of the City of Almaty to coordinate,a joint action plan for expropriation of lands from land users who do not have title documents,and the demoli-tion of illegally constructed buildings in the national park has not been approved.In this regard,it is not possible to present

307、an action plan.”4 Along with the identification of third-party land users located within the National Park,the“Adjustment of the feasibility study of the Ile-Alatau State National Natural Park in the part of the master plan for the development of infrastructure”(herein-after“2017 Adjustment”)provide

308、s for a massive lease of lands of the national park.5The review and modification of the functional zones of the na-tional park continue.According to the 2017 Adjustment,the total area of the Ile-Alatau National Park is 199,252 ha.52.8%of the parks land is transferred to the zone of limited economic

309、activity and can be leased out.6 As of 1 July 2017,104 land plots with a total area of more than 560 ha were leased out for a long-term use.25 sites were leased out for short-term use(up to 5 years),including for construction of high-voltage 220 kV power lines which require the arrangement of protec

310、tion strips of 25 m wide from the outside lines on the both sides.In addition to the leased land,there are 167 land plots of out-side users within the park,complicating its efficient manage-ment.According to the 2014 forest inventory documents,their total area is 1,304.257 ha.Despite the negative im

311、pact of the lease on ecological systems,the 2017 Adjustment states:“The Ile-Alatau SNNP is able to offer additional long-term and short-term leases of land,existing and planned buildings and struc-tures for tourist use.Among the residents of the region,the number of businessmen who are willing to in

312、vest in the con-struction of guest houses,tourist centres,and similar facilities with a condition of further long-term lease is currently increas-ing.”7 This means that destruction of the national park is offi-cially sanctioned by state authorities.Fig.3:Abandoned unfnished constructions can be foun

313、d in many canyons in the park;here in Kimasar Canyon.Photo:Green Salvation I.Natural Properties 33At the same time several dozen buildings on the Ile-Alatau NP constructed both before and after the foundation of the park have been abandoned by tenants and outsiders and are grad-ually turning into ru

314、ins and waste dumps(Butakovka Canyon,Turgen Canyon,Almaarasan Canyon and others).LivestockThere is livestock moving and grazing in almost all gorges of the Ile-Alatau NP.A particularly large number of livestock is con-centrated in the Kaskelen and Turgen Canyons.Usually,grazing is uncontrolled,which

315、 leads to destruction of vegetation,con-tributes to soil erosion and the pollution of water sources.Live-stock transfer alien plant species to the National Park.As a result of overgrazing,landslides were observed in the Na-tional Park in 2016-2017.8 Instead of proposing to reduce the number of lives

316、tock,however,the authors of the 2017 Adjust-ment suggest creating sanitary protection zones in the park:“The livestock complexes are proposed to be surrounded by sanitary protection zones,which will be separated from the res-idential area by hedges of tree and shrub plantings.”The authors are not em

317、barrassed by the fact that livestock com-plexes exist although they are illegal even in the zone of lim-ited economic activity.According to the law“On Architectural,Urban Planning and Construction Activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan”:“Sanitary protection zone is a territory separat-ing industri

318、al enterprises and other industrial,municipal and storage facilities in a populated area from nearby residential ar-eas in order to mitigate the impact of adverse factors.”9 The Law on SPNTs does not even mention special-purpose zones.Uncontrolled tourismIle-Alatau National Park is visited by a larg

319、e number of tourists.Exact information on the relationship between organized and unorganized tourism is not publicly available.Thousands of cars enter the Ile-Alatau NP and move uncontrolled.Food stops and other facilities are built along the main roads.The lack of effective control over tourists an

320、d owners of recrea-tional areas results in numerous violations:cluttering up the ter-ritory,making bonfires in prohibited places,cutting down trees,collecting Red List plants,parking cars on river banks,etc.Un-controlled tourism poses a serious threat to strategic natural re-sources.Employees of the

321、 Hydroelectric Power Station propose establishing an appropriate status for the vital Big Almaty Lake.Cascade management is concerned that the unique lake“may significantly suffer from wild tourism.”10 This is confirmed by the words of the Director of the Kazakh-stan Tourism Association,R.Shaikenova

322、.At one of press con-ferences she shared her views on the development of tourism in national parks.“The State Program of(Tourism)Industry Development was launched.Among other things,it includes questions of allocation of land plots,including lands in national parks.The process is very difficult;snat

323、ching a piece of land from the Ministry of Agriculture for construction of tourist in-frastructure is not an easy task.”11Fig.4:The accumulation of car tourists on the shore of the Big Almaty Lake began to lead to the formation of a multi-kilometer traffic jam in the park.Big Almaty Can-yon.Photo:Gr

324、een SalvationFig.5:Open waste bins are installed throughout the park.They are often crowded and attract not only livestock,but wild birds.Big Almaty Canyon.Photo:Green SalvationFig.6:Abandoned construction vehicles in Butakovka Canyon.Photo:Green Salvation34 I.Natural PropertiesConclusionDevelopment

325、s in Kazakhstans national parks are anarchic.The country still lacks policies on environment and forests,biodiver-sity conservation and the development of SPNTs.“There is no single strategic document in the Republic of Kazakhstan that di-rectly provides for the implementation of the Strategic Plan f

326、or the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity for 2011-2020,and the Aichi Objectives for the conservation and sus-tainable use of biodiversity.”12The Committee for Forestry and Wildlife is not guided by the norms of international conventions,primarily the Conven-tion on Biological Diversit

327、y and the World Heritage Conven-tion.Dev elopments in the Ile-Alatau NP are determined by the wishes of the business community such as the primitive use of land for restaurants,saunas,guest houses,ski resorts and even high-voltage power lines,which create additional environmen-tal pressure on the na

328、tional park.The idea of removal of facil-ities unrelated to the parks objectives beyond their borders is not considered at all.Development is planned without taking into account the eco-logical capacity of the national park and recreational loads.The chaotic development of the national park leads to

329、 the destruc-tion of ecosystems.If these trends continue,the national park will lose the ecosystems for which it was created and will never be included in the World Heritage List.References1 http:/whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1681/.2 The law“On Specially Protected Natural Territories,”Article 2,

330、paragraph 4:“If an international treaty ratified by the Republic of Kazakhstan establishes rules other than those contained in this Law,then the rules of the interna-tional treaty apply.”3 Attachment to the reply of the prime-minister dated on December 14,2018 on the deputy request No.DZ-195 dated o

331、n November 15,2018:http:/www.parlam.kz/ru/mazhilis/question-details/15898(date of the website visitMay 15,2019).4 Reply of the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife of April 12,2019 to the re-quest of the Ecological Society“Green Salvation”No.052.5 Adjustment to the feasibility study of the Ile-Alatau

332、 State National Natural Park in the part of the master plan of infrastructure development.“CDZ and GIS“Terra”LLP,”approved by the order of the Chairman of the Committee for Forestry and Wildlife dated January 3,2019,No.17-5-6/1.Almaty,2019,pp.54-66.6 AdjustmentAlmaty,2019,p.15:Thus,conservation zone

333、 and ecological stabilization zone currently cover 78,549 hectares of the park territory,or 39.4%of the total area of the park.7 AdjustmentAlmaty,2019,pp.10-13,47-51,53,93.8 I.I.Kokoreva,I.G.Otradnykh,I.A.Sedina.Anthropogenic impact on natural populations of rare endemic species of the Northern Tien Shan.Almaty,2017,p.29.9 Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 16,2001,No.242-II“On Ar-chitec