IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

Lake Baikal

2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

SITE INFORMATION Country: Russian Federation Inscribed in: 1996 Criteria: (vii) (viii) (ix) (x)

Situated in south-east Siberia, the 3.15-million-ha Lake Baikal is the oldest (25 million years) and deepest (1,700 m) lake in the world. It contains 20% of the world's total unfrozen freshwater reserve. Known as the 'Galapagos of Russia', its age and isolation have produced one of the world's richest and most unusual freshwater faunas, which is of exceptional value to evolutionary science. © UNESCO

SUMMARY

2020 Conservation Outlook Finalised on 07 Dec 2020

SIGNIFICANT CONCERN

The conservation outlook of Lake Baikal is of concern because of ongoing pollution, as well as new emerging threats, such as large-scale tourism development, poor sewage treatment causing nearshore eutrophication, and climate change. The potential of hydroelectric developments on the Selenga and Orkhon Rivers in Mongolia, as well as the current temporary Regulation allowing a marked increase in range of lake water level fluctuations regulated by the Irkutsk Dam in Russia, are also of high concern. The decision to close the Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill has been a positive step, but its implementation and mitigation of past negative impacts will require time and significant efforts. Lack of progress in this regard to date is of concern. At the same time, the overall protection and management regime of the World Heritage site remains insufficient due to an inadequate legal framework and a fragmented and overcomplicated institutional setup. The site’s values are still well preserved and largely intact; however, high concerns have emerged in the recent years regarding rapid ecological changes in the coastal zone. The long-term conservation of the World Heritage site will depend on many factors, including the overall improvement of management effectiveness, development a site-wide ecological monitoring system, as well as measures undertaken to address the new emerging threats, particularly nearshore eutrophication. Of particular concern is the possible further significant weakening of the existing regulatory framework through the recently proposed introduction of a range of amendments to existing laws and regulations, which would facilitate development projects, weakening requirements for undertaking environmental impact assessments and provide for higher possible levels of pollutants discharge to the Lake. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

FULL ASSESSMENT

Description of values

Values

World Heritage values

▶ Oldest, deepest and largest (by volume) freshwater Criterion:(vii) ecosystem in the World

The Baikal Lake ecosystem has existed for more than 20 million years. According to V.D. Mats (2010- 2011), the geological history of Baikal is subdivided into 3 stages: Archaeo-Baikal (70 – 30-27 mln years), Pre-Baikal (ca 30-27 – 3.5 mln years) and Lake Baikal (3.5 mln years – present). In addition to being the oldest lake, it is also the deepest lake in the world (1,638 m deep) and contains 23,600 km3 of freshwater (ca. 20% of the global unfrozen freshwater reserves) (Kozhov, 1963; UNEP-WCMC, 2011; World Heritage Committee, 1996). It is a globally unique ecosystem with at least 2,640 species of animals (ca. 56% endemic) and 1,000 species of plants (ca. 15% endemic) (Timoshkin, 2001; 2010- 2011). Lake Baikal has unique features (e.g. freshwater endemic sponge forests and specialized cryophilic, interstitial and freshwater hydrothermal vent communities), food-webs and system properties (including an exceptional self-purification capacity, high oxygen concentration throughout the water column and exceptionally low particulate matter concentrations) have evolved here.

▶ Freshwater invertebrate fauna Criterion:(x)

The freshwater invertebrate fauna of Lake Baikal counts ca. 2,640 species, ca. 56% of which are endemic and highly adapted to this cold, deep and oxygen rich freshwater ecosystem. Invertebrate groups with ciliophorans, sponges, flat- and round worms, rotifers, oligochaetes, leeches, polychaetes, snails, amphipods, copepods, and caddisflies (Timoshkin, 2001; 2010-2011; UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

▶ Freshwater vertebrate fauna Criterion:(x)

There are 61 species of fish in Lake Baikal, 39 of which are endemic (Sideleva, 2003). The most diversified and unique is the Cottoid fish fauna, which includes 33 species and subspecies (45% of the world fauna of freshwater sculpins). Notable examples include two endemic sturgeon species (Acipenser schrenskii and A. baeri baicalensis) the Omul (Coregonus autumnalis migratorius), two species of Baikal Oilfish (Comephorus spp.) with completely pelagic life style and endemic deep-water Abyssocottidae sculpins with completely reduced lateral line channel system. A highly iconic vertebrate species of the lake is the endemic Baikal Seal (Pusa sibirica).

▶ Aquatic plants Criterion:(x)

15% of the 1,000 species of aquatic plants of the lake are endemic. The same is true for a third of its 560 species of algae (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Green macrophytes of Draparnaldioides genus, Cladophoraceae and benthonic diatoms are the most diversified and endemic rich groups among floristic biodiversity (Izhboldina, 2007; Pomazkina Rodionova and, 2014; Boedeker et al., 2016).

▶ Geological features Criterion:(viii)

The formation of the geological structures in the Baikal rift zone took place during the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras and there are a number of significant geological features (World Heritage Committee, 1996). Continental scale active rift valley system that has been existing since the Mesozoic. There are a wide range of specific geological features associated with this system, including extinct volcanoes, relict landslide circuses, abrasion caverns, hot and mineral springs (World Heritage Committee, 2006). During the long geological history, Baikal has accumulated ca. 7.5 km thick sediment layers on the bottom (Hutchinson et al., 1992). In combination with the great depth (1,620 m) it makes IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

Baikal the deepest continental rift (depression) on the planet.

▶ Freshwater, terrestrial and littoral ecosystems Criterion:(ix)

The evolution of aquatic life that has taken place over this long period has resulted in an exceptionally unique and endemic fauna and flora (Kozhov, 1964; Timoshkin, 1997; World Heritage Committee, 1996). Lake Baikal is situated at the intersection of three bio-geological areas: east Siberian Taiga to the North and West, trans-Baikal coniferous forests to the East and Altay-Sayan Mountain forest to the South (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). This and the considerable altitudinal gradients surrounding the lake (445-2,840 masl) support a wide range of different ecosystem types around the lake, with corresponding differences in fauna, flora and vegetation. There are also important littoral wetland ecosystems, such as the Selenga Delta, parts of which form a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance.

Other important biodiversity values

▶ Terrestrial flora

There are 800 species of vascular plants in the Lake Baikal area. Most of the terrestrial flora is associated with various forest ecosystems, such as Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris) forest to the East, Dahurian Larch (Larix gmelina) forest along the northern shore, and Stone Pine (Pinus sibirica) and Siberian Larch (Larix sibirica) forests along the western shores (and parts of the eastern shores). Some plant species are associated with wetlands and tundra systems of higher altitudes (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Endemism is not as pronounced as among aquatic flora of the lake. The area slightly overlaps with a global Centre of Plant Diversity (Davis & Heywood, 1994).

▶ Terrestrial fauna

The terrestrial fauna of the Lake Baikal area is less distinctive than its freshwater fauna, but also significant. Both the southern and the northern shore have ca. 70 species of mammals (Lyamkin, 2004), including a number of globally threatened species such as Musk Deer (Moschus moschiferus, assessed as Vulnerable (VU) in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species), as well as Altai Weasel (Mustela altaia), Otter (Lutra lutra) and Pallas’s Cat (Ocotolobus manul), all assessed as of Near Threatened (NT) (UNEP- WCMC, 2011; IUCN, 2012b). The avifauna of both the northern and the southern shore of Lake Baikal numbers over 300 species (Popov, 2004) including globally threatened species such as the Critically Endangered (CR) Siberian Crane (Leucogeranus leucogeranus), the Endangered (EN) Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug), the three Vulnerable (VU) Swan Goose (Anser cygnoides), Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) and Great Bustard (Otis tarda), as well as the Neat Threatened (NT) Asian Dowitcher (Limnodromus semipalmatus) (UNEP-WCMC, 2011; IUCN, 2012b).

Assessment information

Threats

Current Threats High Threat

There is clear scientific evidence of negative impacts of a number of factors rapidly progressing in the coastal zone of Lake Baikal. Several of these are the consequence of increasing eutrophication in combination with changes in the annual water balance. The most harmful is the mass extinction of the main natural biofilters of the coastal zone – endemic Lubomirskiidae sponges – at the scale of the entire Lake. Rapid and mass proliferation of non-typical Spirogyra algae (ca. 30-40-50% of the coastal line), replacing the aborigeneous macrophyte species and suppressing the oxyphilic endemic invertebrates; mass development of cyanoprocaryotes (which have proven ability to produce dangerous toxins) in the near shore zone and on the sponges; giant algal wash-ups; significant changes in the structure and quantitative characteristics of the near-the-settlement planktonic communities; unclear situation with Coregonus migratorius, persistent organic pollutants (POP) bioaccumulation in Baikal seal etc., are all examples of negative trends. These facts, in combination with increasing coastal taiga fires, absence of the proper bilge water treatment stations and properly functioning sewage treatment stations, rapid IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

increase in tourism infrastructure and visitor numbers represent high threats to the Lake’s ecosystem.

▶ Household Sewage/ Urban Waste Water Very High Threat (Eutrophication) Inside site, extent of threat not known

Significant and large-scale modifications in composition and productivity of the dominant macroalgae in two local South Baikal bays (Bolshye Koty and Listvyanichny) were reported in 2010-2011 by two independent groups of experts (Kravtsova et al., 2014; Timoshkin et al., 2014). Some time later, mass development of non-typical for open Baikal green filamentous algae of Spirogyra genus (at 0.5–10 m depths) and abundant late autumn bloom of another filamentous algae (Stigeoclonium tenue) was detected in the shore line zone (first algal belt), which is normally occupied by Ulothrix zonata filaments. Stigeoclonium tenue has been associated with recently observed nuisance blooms in Lake Baikal (Ozersky et al., 2018). Explosive growth of benthic Spirogyra began approximately in 2011 in localized coastal areas and in 2013–2014, Spirogyra mass blooming was detected in the shallow water zone at the scale of almost entire lake (Timoshkin et al., 2015; 2016). The inflow of groundwater contaminated by human waste has been shown to be the primary cause of coastal eutrophication and the most severe examples of excess Spirogyra growth are occurring near coastal towns that lack wastewater treatment facilities (Timoshkin et al., 2018). Several other negative ecological processes in the coastal zone have been described, such as mass development of toxic cyanobacteria (Namsaraev et al., 2018), mass extinction and diseases of endemic Lubomirskiidae sponges (Khanaev et al., 2018) and snails (Timoshkin et al., 2016). Additionally, poor quality of the sewage water treatment at all stations around the Lake’s coast could be observed. The most comprehensive interdisciplinary description of the Baikal coastal zone is given by Timoshkin et al. (2015, 2016). The most extensive multiyear pollution and deep transformations in the benthic and plankton communities, accompanied by the largest ever known Spirogyra algae wash ups (up to 90 kg per m2) observed on the beaches of North basin (near Tyya river mouth) is thought to have been caused by improperly purified sewages of Severobaikalsk city (Timoshkin et al., 2014a). Deep transformations in macrozoobenthos communities in the mass Spirogyra development areas and in plankton communities of near shore areas of the Lake were reported by Rozhkova et al. (2016) and Bondarenko and Logacheva (2016). Three areas of Baikal, characterized by year round massive development of Spirogyra and deep benthic community transformation were proposed by scientists to be considered as zones of ecological damage (Li, 2017). Eutrophication causes perennial stress in the most sensitive and important parts of the ecosystem, and even increasing water levels in 2020 did not alleviate the effects according to recent reports (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Tourism/ Recreation Areas High Threat (Uncontrolled and irresponsible tourism infrastructure Inside site, extent of threat not known development) Outside site

Uncontrolled and irresponsible tourism development has had a considerable localized impact on parts of the World Heritage site around the lake’s southern shore and particularly Maloe Morye (e.g. construction, including illegal, near the lake’s shore, operation of large yachts without appropriate infrastructure), and parts of Olchon Island. In 2010 visitor numbers reached 674,300, which equals a 30% increase from 2003 (Rosabal & Rao 2011). Increase in the tourist number has led to rapid construction of private hotels near the shoreline. Rapid (often – illegal) construction of hotels, guest houses and other types of accommodation without any waste water purification systems and with buildings often located less than 100 m above the shoreline are of particular concern in the settlements on the west coast, such as Listvyanka, Bol. Koty, Bol. Goloustnoe (IUCN Consultation, 2017). In 2018, eight facilities of illegal construction planned for use or used as tourist camps were found within the Pribaikalsky National Park (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2018). Not less worrying is the development of "Special Economic Zones for Tourism Development" (SEZ), which were created in Baikalsk and Turka (Buryatia) by weakening protection controls to attract investors. In the case of Turka (SEZ Baikalskaya Havan-Baikal Harbor), the project has led to gradual clearing of several square kilometers of natural vegetation on the lakeshore and development of dykes and marinas at the Turka River mouth (without apparent tangible economic effect) (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The Republic of Buryatia is proposing to expand the Baikal Harbor SEZ (3,283 hectares) and to develop a new lakeshore ski resort at Mamai Mountain, to the west of the Baikalsky Nature Reserve. The IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment of the development plans for the SEZ, which were repeatedly requested by the World Heritage Committee, have not been carried out (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Presently, the Ministry of Economic Development proposes amendments to the Law on Protection of Lake Baikal to ease conversion of forested lands into land for tourism development in order to facilitate expansion of SEZ in other areas (Ministry of Economic Development, 2020).

▶ Tourism/ visitors/ recreation High Threat (Increasing number of visitors) Inside site, extent of threat not known

The most popular tourist/recreation areas are Maloe More strait and Olkhon Island (Middle basin); bays of the western coast of South basin, particularly Listvyanka, Bolshye Koty, Bolshoe Goloustnoe settlements and Aya Bay. Lake Baikal became the most popular recreation destination among the Russian World Heritage sites in 2017 (Tourism Agency of Irkutsk Region, 2017). The number of visitors in 2016 increased by about 45 per cent in comparison with the 2015 level (Baikal Info, 2016). Visitor numbers in Pribaikalsky National Park have increased rapidly over the last few years, from about 32,000 in 2016 to about 83,500 in 2017 and 139,252 in 2018 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2016, 2017, 2018). Direct anthropogenic impacts are reported from uncontrolled land and water transport and violation of the established environmental regime, such as illegal harvesting, hunting and fishing.

▶ Solid Waste High Threat (Solid waste) Inside site, extent of threat not known

The problem of solid waste and garbage increases year by year being most serious in the recreational centers such as Listvyanka town, bays of Maloe More and to Olkhon Island. This Island has 1,651 residents distributed among 9 small settlements with Khuzhir being the largest with 1,350 permanent residents (official data of the Olkhon administration of Irkutsk District, 2016). The Island is the largest island of Lake Baikal (730 km2) and receives ≥ 800,000 tourists annually, mainly in summer, (Lenta, 2016); however, since 2014 many hotels are occupied year-round. There is significant lack of scientific knowledge on this problem in Baikal basin. The distribution, composition and amount of solid waste at 33 sites located along the coast of Baikal and in the coastal area of the Selenga upper delta were assessed by Potapskaya et al. (2016). Accumulation of waste was found both in the most visited places and in coastal areas difficult to access, where light and floating garbage is transferred by winds, storms, and swashes. Mass-spectrometry ICP methods identified a high concentration of moving sodium, chlorine, nickel, titanium, cadmium, arsenic, antimony compounds in the elemental composition of coastal detritus accumulation.

▶ Water Pollution High Threat (Water pollution from household sewage and waste water) Inside site, scattered(5-15%)

Hydrochemical and microbiological analyses of the sewages from the sewage water purification stations located in the coastal cities of Severobaikalsk, Kichera, Ust-Barguzin, Babushkin, Baikalsk, Slyudyanka were performed by Timoshkin et al. (2014a; 2015; 2016). The analyses of Severobaikalsk, Slyudyanka sewages were performed regularly (ca 1-2 times per year), finding neither of them to function properly as the nutrient concentrations (P and N) were extremely high. High concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria, exceeding different existing standards (EPA, 1986; SRSR, Sanitary Regulations and Standards of Russia, 2000; Official Journal of the European Union, 2006), were detected at the end of the tourism season (September, 2014) in many localities, in surface and near-bottom water layers of the coastal zone as well as interstitial waters, especially under coastal algal mats in the splash zone (no official regulations occur in the above cited documents for the interstitial waters of the beaches and the splash zone). For instance, water samples, collected near the Khuzhir Settlement exceeded USEPA standards by 3.3 fold (E. coli) and 10.7 fold (enterococci), EU standards by 3.1 (E. coli) and 6.5 fold (enterococci), and Russian Federation standards by 6 fold (TCB only; enterococci are not regulated). Importantly, the three coastal settlements where the high concentrations of fecal indicator bacteria were found (Listvyanka Settlement, Khuzhir Settlement and Khakusy Bay) are each located in a different basin of the lake, and they have comparatively small permanent populations. However, they are among the most popular sightseeing and recreational destinations at Lake Baikal. These results suggest that IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

intensification of tourism and recreational activities, coupled with inadequate wastewater treatment, are the main causes of bacterial contamination of Lake Baikal's coastal zone. Parfenova et al. (2016) provide the general assessment of the microbiological monitoring of Lake Baikal ecosystem, mainly concentrated on the pelagic zone. Studies between 2013 and 2017 on the fecal pollution in the main tributaries surrounding Listvyanka (South Baikal) have revealed that the lower parts of four streams, located within the settlements, becomes heavily polluted in June and August-September, while the upper parts of the streams and small rivers, located in neighboring taiga area, remain pollution free. However, there is also a year-round injection into the tributaries, and coastal zone, of inadequately treated wastewater with very high concentrations of nutrients and especially phosphate (P) concentrations, which often reach shocking values (from the cities of Severobaikalsk, Babushkin, Slyudyanka) (Kravtsova et al., 2014; Timoshkin et al., 2016). Recently the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation (n.d., a) proposed amending effluent regulations for Lake Baikal which, if accepted, will allow companies, hotels and other organizations, located around the coasts, to significantly increase the total load of sewage and the concentration of nutrients and different pollutants in the sewage. In an open letter, scientists have urged the Government of the Russian Federation to develop an appropriate program of action to reduce pollutant loadings and to put this approach into practice in order to keep the lake at least in its present condition (Timoshkin et al., 2019). The proposed new regulation would provide for the possibility of a significant increase in the concentration of many chemicals (from 2 to 25 times, including nutrients, petroleum products, synthetic components of detergents, carcinogenic chemicals etc.) in the wastewater discharged into the coastal zone. Allowing this would lead to an ecological crisis with irreversible consequences and a sharp deterioration in the water quality of Lake Baikal (Timoshkin et al., 2019).

▶ Water Pollution Data Deficient (Unregulated bilge water disposal and treatment) Inside site, extent of threat not known Outside site The Eastern-Siberian Inland Navigation Company (largest on Baikal) carries out the regular service (trans-Baikalian lines including) on significant areas of the South and Middle basins (Irkutsk Oblast and Buryat Republic) of Lake Baikal. The number of smaller private shipping services is rapidly increasing. Estimation of the total ship numbers varies significantly: from over 2,000 to more than 5,000. According to Kapitalist (2014), 246 ships and about 6,400 small size vessels were registered in Baikal and Irkutsk reservoir area. There are only two bilge water (BW) collection stations: at the northern top (Severobaikalsk city) and Baikal settlement (South basin) accepting the BW for money. According to data from the Limnological Institute, the approximate total BW volume from the ships, registered on Baikal, should not be less than 417 tons per year. The BW stations however, received 12.2 tons only (navigation period of 2014 – 2015). Judging from this information, the length of the Lake (636 km) and the total approximate ship number (more than 2,000) the illegal BW discharge in the Lake should be considered a threat with poorly understood consequences. However, in 2020 specialized new ships to collect bilge water started their operation (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Water Pollution High Threat (Water pollution from past activities of the Baikalsk Paper and Inside site, extent of threat not known Pulp Mill) Outside site

During its operation, the Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill (BPPM) dumped a large amount of waste water into the lake (reaching 16-17 km into the lake), causing an increase of key pollutants including phenol and mercury up to 10 times the maximum permissible concentrations (Rosabal & Rao, 2011; Zhelnina, 2019). In 2013, a decision was taken to permanently close down the mill and all facilities were shut down as of December 2013 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2014). However, limited information is available on specific actions planned to mitigate the impact from the past operations (e.g., sludge ponds near the lakeshore). In particular, a commonly accepted (following strict ecological expertise) and scientifically based program to mitigate the impact from the past operations is urgently needed at the federal level. The President of Russian Federation, during his visit of Irkutsk (August 2017) paid special attention to Baikal protection and elaborated a kind of verdict to the respective governmental officials. One of the recent government orders (assignment [No Пр-1602, п.1 ], Kremlin, 2017) instructs the IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

complete removal of pollutants related to former activities of the BPPM in order to restore the areas. “Rosgeologiya Co” was elected as the company responsible for the cleaning and restoration of the polluted area (Irkutsk Media, 2017). Nearly 6.5 million tons of poisonous solid and liquid waste were accumulated during 50 years of the mill’s operation, which is stored in what was supposed to be temporary ponds along the lakeshore. The area is prone to floods, high seismic activity and mudslide hazards, threatening to overflow the toxic waste ponds, and the consequences of a major failure into Lake Baikal would be catastrophic (Zhelnina, 2019; Petley, 2019; Williams, 2019; The Siberian Times, 2019). On 12 of September 2019, the President of the Russian Federation issued an order on compliance with the Law on Lake Baikal's conservation and environmental rehabilitation (Kremlin, 2019), which calls on the Government to eliminate the environmental damage caused by the BPPM. However, recent reports indicate that no progress has been made to eliminate the impacts (Vladimirovich, 2018), although the risk of toxic leakage to the lake and flash floods damaging storage facilities is very high. Despite an order for an international tender process, the government has undertaken a sole source selection of an implementing agency "GES-Energostroy", as well as for opening new coastal areas for development of infrastructure and industry (Simonov and Kreyndlin, 2020). "GES-Energostroy" started "emergency" operations by pumping certain pollutants from the sludge ponds into old tanks of defunct sewage treatment faculties of the BPPM, without prior EIA, and also named burning ("termoliz") of accumulated sludge as one preferred technology to get rid of "accumulated waste" of the BPPM (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Water Pollution High Threat (Pollution by heavy metals) Inside site, extent of threat not known

Ozersky et al. (2017) investigated the history of heavy metal (V, Cu, Zn, Cd, Hg, Tl, Pb, U) pollution in Lake Baikal seals over the past eight decades. C and N stable isotope analysis (SIA) and laser-ablation ICP-MS of seal teeth were used to examine changes in feeding ecology, heavy metal levels associated with life history events and long-term variation in metal exposure. SIA did not suggest large changes in the feeding ecology of Baikal seals over the past 80 years. LA-ICPMS analyses revealed element-specific ontogenetic variability in metal concentrations, likely related to maternal transfer, changes in food sources and starvation. Hg and Cd levels in seals varied significantly across the time series, with concentrations peaking in the 1960s - 1970s but then declining to contemporary levels similar to those observed in the 1930s and 1940s. The decline in seal Hg concentrations in recent decades was most likely driven by a reduction in Hg inputs to the lake (Poste et al., 2018). Trends in atmospheric emissions of Hg suggest that local sources as well as emissions from eastern Russia and Europe may be important contributors of Hg to Lake Baikal and that, despite the size of Lake Baikal, its food web appears to respond rapidly to changing inputs of contaminants.

▶ Hunting and trapping, Fishing / Harvesting Aquatic Data Deficient Resources Inside site, extent of threat not known (Overfishing of Baikal omul and decrease in available fish-stock)

General information and estimations of the total number and biomass of the leading commercial fish species, Coregonus migratorius (omul) in the lake differs significantly between the data provided by academic Limnological Institute SD RAS (Irkutsk, obtained by hydroacoustic method) and by the federal Baikalrybvod (Ulan-Ude, obtained by traditional net sampling and counting of the spawning specimens, entering the rivers). In any case, the fishing deficiency is evident at present. The number of the spawning omul population decreased by approximately 2 times (Romanov, 2014). According to preliminary estimations, 2.7 million fish entered the Upper Angara for spawning in 2010, while in 2013 this number decreased to just 1.1 million. There is no scientifically supported and generally accepted viewpoint on this problem so far. The decrease in available fish stocks likely has multiple causes and huge social dimension, which in turn has environmental consequences. Illegal fishing, structural changes in the pelagic ecosystem (including food sources for omul), changes in temperature regime, regulation of the water levels by the Irkutsk reservoir, pollution, rapid eutrophication of coastal waters, introduction of invasive alien species, as well as deterioration of spawning grounds in Selenge River, are considered as the main issues (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The respective governmental organizations (such as Rosrybolovstvo, or the Federal fishery agency) IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

announced the necessity to accept the ban on commercial fishing in 2017. Due to uncertain information and lack of scientific consensus, the ban was postponed until 2018 (Kork, 2017). After the ban was imposed, it became an important factor in increasing poverty among dependent people along the lakeshore and redirecting their activities towards extraction of other natural resources. Fisheries decline spurred local authorities to activate a campaign to start hunting of fish-eating predators, namely Baikal Seal and Great Cormorant (IUCN Consultation, 2020). In addition, a significant decrease in fish stocks of various species in Lake Arangatuy and Chivyrkuisky Bay in Zabaikalsky National Park, as well as in the rivers of the Baikal and Kabansky Nature Reserve area and in the River Selenga delta as a whole has been reported recently (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019). Latent eutrophication near recreational areas in combination with climatic and hydrological fluctuations are found to be drivers for algal blooms and decreasing fish stocks, as well as deteriorating food supplies, in particular the biomass of the crustacean amphipod gammarus (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2019).

▶ Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species High Threat (Invasive species) Inside site, extent of threat not known

The most widely distributed invasive macrophyte species is Elodea canadensis, first found in Baikal at the end of 1970s. At present, elodea is known from many localities with maximum abundance in bays (Chyvyrkuy, Barguzin) and gulfs. Another group of alien species – green filamentous alga – spirogyra – became widely distributed in benthos of the coastal zone of Baikal since ca 2010. According to Timoshkin et al. (2016), the distribution area of Spirogyra spp. covered over 30% of the coastal zone of the Lake. The problem of Spirogyra penetration in Baikal and its natural history (whether the Spirogyra is an invasive species or not) is under debate. The distribution of both water plants is limited to shallow water zones. Five introduced fish species (their parasitofauna included) have been found in Baikal; of them Perccottus glenii is becoming the most widespread one, successfully occupying coastal communities (Pronin et al., 1998). Recent studies have shown that many endemic species are now being replaced by trivial common species of freshwater organisms, which previously were abundant in tributaries but not in the Lake (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Logging/ Wood Harvesting High Threat (Intensification of wood production in the catchment area of the Outside site Lake)

Current intensification of the wood production in the catchment area of the Lake needs to be considered as one of the potentially serious threats for the Baikal ecosystem (decrease of tributaries water balance, etc.). Some sources note attempts to modify the federal Law on Baikal regarding the wood harvesting around the Lake (Nodelman, 2017). The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation applied for a permission to modify the Law and allow “sanitary cleaning” in the taiga areas that suffered from numerous forest fires in 2015-2017. Potentially this may lead to illegal tree-felling and further deforestation of not only burned, but also untouched areas around Baikal. Rapid deforestation of the central ecological zone of the Lake will negatively influence the annual water balance of the tributaries and may affect the Lake’s water level and the structure of the coastal communities. Wood production may also be exacerbated by the development of energy production facilities to replace coal-burning ones. The first such proposal is being considered in fall of 2020 for Baikalsk (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Fire/ Fire Suppression Very High Threat (Coastal forest fires) Inside site, extent of threat not known Outside site Increasing intensity of coastal forest fires within the last decade (SCANEX, n.d.), affecting not only the continental parts, but also the isles (ca. 70% of the forest on unique Bolschoy Ushkaniy Island – North Basin – suffered from strong fire in 2015) should be considered as one of the most significant threats for Baikal ecosystem. For example, about 900,000 and 500,000 hectares of near Baikal forests suffered in IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

2015 from intense fires in Buryat Republic and Irkutsk district respectively (Activatica, 2016). It includes (1) mass mortality of terrestrial animals and plants; (2) nutrient enrichment of the water ecosystem (=eutrophication) by means of atmospheric deposition, (2a) ground waters and (2b) tributary waters; (3) soil/water contamination by forest fire products (PCB etc.) that might be bioaccumulated in the hydrobionts; (4) coastal soil erosion/landscape modifications; and (5) changes in the tributary water balance, which may affect the Lake’s water level. These processes are poorly studied. Almost nothing is known about possible impacts of the fire suppression methods and deposition of fire atmospheric aerosols on Baikal ecosystem. In 2017, several mostly natural fires affected between 400 and 600 ha each in three protected areas within the World Heritage site, in addition to one larger fire in the Baikalo-Lensky Reserve affecting 13,409 ha. While wildfires have been successfully contained in the last couple of years and their extent has been limited compared to the major outbreak of 2015, their frequent occurrence demonstrates the persistent high risk of fire (UNESCO, 2018).

▶ Droughts, Temperature extremes High Threat (Climate change) Inside site, throughout(>50%) Outside site Water temperature and ice cover have been responding strongly to climate change in the recent past, with a trend towards warmer and wetter winters. This is likely to have multiple consequences on ecosystem dynamics, the extent of which at this stage is difficult to predict (Moore et al., 2009). An increase in lake water temperature has been documented in the offshore pelagic zone of Lake Baikal by various scientists (Shimaraev et al., 2002; Troitskaya et al., 2003; Hampton et al., 2008; Katz et al., 2011; Sizova et al., 2013; Shimaraev and Domysheva, 2013). Additionally, some researchers established a positive relationship between surface water temperatures in May-October and the biomass of Baikal phyto- and zooplankton (Shimaraev et al., 1994; Afanasyeva and Shimaraev, 2006). Subsequently, others have suggested that warmer waters may have contributed to an increase in thermophilic zooplankton in the pelagic zone of Lake Baikal (Afanasyeva and Shimaraev, 2006; Hampton et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2009; Izmest’eva et al., 2016; Silow et al., 2016), and created a welcoming environment for invasive species causing problems for endemics (Dye et al., 2019). On the other hand, no correlation was found between the surface water temperature increase and the mass development of Spirogyra (Timoshkin, 2016; Timoshkin et al., 2016, 2017). Over the last two decades, Lake Baikal has also been influenced by prolonged droughts, culminating in 2014 when the Selenge River only brought half the water volume it normally supplies to the lake and water levels were gradually declining (Dye et al., 2019). In a recent sensitivity analysis of the response of Lake Baikal to climate change, Piccolroaz and Toffolon (2018) showed that the lake is sensitive to climate change to an extent that its ecosystem and water quality may undergo profound disturbances and that the deep ventilation mechanism, whereby large amounts of oxygenated surface water sink to the bottom of the lake, is particularly sensitive to changes in wind speed.

▶ Renewable Energy High Threat (Water level fluctuations due to dam operations) Inside site, throughout(>50%) Outside site In the 1960s, the 660 MW Irkutsk Hydro was built on the outflowing Angara River, using Lake Baikal as its hydropower reservoir. The integrity of the lake ecosystem has been severely affected by the Irkutskaya hydropower dam structures, raising water levels by 1m, and the unnatural regulation of water levels that augment natural cycles. This has led to increase in erosion, losses in endemic and economically important fish, degradation of unique coastal ecosystems and historic relics (Dye et al., 2019). To prevent further damage, the limitation of allowable water-level change was explicitly prescribed by a Government Resolution in 2001, but it did not address the unnatural timing and frequency of lake level fluctuations and had no special provisions for years of flood or extreme drought. Following a prolonged period of drought, a temporary Resolution from 2015, later refined and extended several times (with the present Resolution ending in 2020), permitted the Irkutsk hydroelectric complex to use water resources below the minimum level established by the 2001 Resolution, and thereby lowering levels in Lake Baikal. This has been a reason for concern in the last few years. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

In the latest 2018-2020 temporary Resolution, the allowable lake level fluctuation was increased from 1m to 2.31 m, with 0.44m below and 0.85m above limits imposed by the 2001 Resolution (Simonov and Kreyndlin, 2020). This has not only impacted lake ecosystems, but also affected lakeshore rural communities, who in 2015-2017 experienced shortages of drinking water due to dropping water levels in wells as well as a decrease in fisheries due to shrinking spawning grounds (Dye et al., 2019). Besides this, the Head of Buryat Republic in his letter to the Ministry of Natural Resources also mentioned increase in peat-fires and obstacles to traditional fishing. Another obvious consequence is the degradation of wetlands in Selenge River Delta and negative changes in nesting conditions for rare water birds (IUCN Consultation, 2020). By regulating water flow, the Irkutsk Hydro has the technical capacity to alleviate some extreme climate impacts, but instead it is operated in a way that exacerbates the negative consequences for the ecosystem and people due to conflicting needs for energy generation and water supply to cool thermal power plants (Dye et al., 2019). In 2015, an alternative solution to the problem was proposed — to maintain the water level by reducing winter discharge in the Angara River to its natural low-flow values — but it would have required deepening the water intake structure at the Cogeneration Coal Thermal Plant#10, which is owned by En+ Group (that also owns Irkutsk Hydro), and this "climate adaptation" measure was rejected by the company (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Some measures have recently been taken to minimize lake level fluctuations following the years of drought and low lake levels (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2018). However, the EIA, which was requested by the World Heritage Committee, has only been partially completed and the concern about potential impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of Lake Baikal remains (UNESCO, 2018; World Heritage Committee, 2018).

▶ Roads/ Railroads Data Deficient (Development of "main infrastructure", which entails forest Inside site, widespread(15-50%) clearing and a waiver of EIA requirement) Outside site

A law on “Specific regulations pertaining to modernization and upgrade of the main infrastructure” was adopted by the State Duma on July 15, 2020. The Law removes EIA (“ecological expertiza”) requirements from any projects undertaken on sub-national protected areas. Till 2025 it also allows placement of “main infrastructure” (according to the list determined by the Government) across national-level protected areas and Baikal Natural Territory without EIA, as well as allows logging and changing land title of forest areas in Lake Baikal World Heritage Site (and the whole Baikal Natural Territory) for railroad construction and related infrastructure. The Law also allows for the proceeding with development of “main infrastructure” before any necessary “state assessments are completed” and without full incorporation of the new projects into territorial planning schemes. This means that no public consultations need to be held prior to development of the “main infrastructure” (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Railroad expansion projects are currently implemented at no less than ten locations within the Lake Baikal World Heritage Site and have already become subject of this Law. Many more projects in widening the railroad and "associated infrastructure" are ready to be implemented. As a reaction to extreme public outcry, the regional governments signed a legally non-binding "safeguard" plan with Russian Railroads Co. to make-up for the removal of EIA requirements and potential damage caused by logging. In many areas, the railroad is expanded in immediate vicinity of the Lake and this threat has synergy with negative impacts expected from the new temporary Resolution on water level regulation, which allows to raise Lake Baikal level 0.85m higher than was prescribed by the government in the 2001 Resolution. Such high levels lead to damage of railroads and additional construction of embankments and dykes along the Lake with negative environmental impacts. (IUCN Consultation, 2020) In the long-term, it is also important to assess how planned increased transportation of various polluting and dangerous substances along the lakeshore will impact pollution levels and likelihood of accidents with subsequent toxic spills, especially given the EIA waiver granted to those projects and that there is no longer a legal framework for conducting such an assessment (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

Potential Threats Very High Threat

The planned extensive additional tourism developments (both in terms of new areas included and IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

envisaged visitor numbers) pose a significant potential threat to the site’s values. The potential of hydroelectric developments on the Selenga and Orkhon Rivers in Mongolia remains of very high concern. The World Heritage Committee has repeatedly requested the States Parties of Mongolia and the Russian Federation to jointly develop a Strategic Environmental Assessment for any future hydropower and water management projects, which could potentially affect the World Heritage site, taking into account any existing and planned projects on the territory of both countries. However, no progress has been achieved in this regard so far. On the contrary, the Russian Federation increased allowed fluctuations in lake water level by 2.3 times and proposed to allow such regulation by hydropower in perpetuity, without having completed an EIA. In addition, as long as the 6.5 million tons toxic waste from the closed Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill remain untreated and stored in ponds along the lakeshore, this will also remain a very high potential threat to the lake ecosystem as the area is prone to floods, high seismic activity and mudslides, which could cause disastrous outbursts of the toxic waste to the lake.

▶ Dams/ Water Management or Use Very High Threat (Hydropower projects and proposed construction of dams and Inside site, extent of threat not known reservoirs on the Selenga, Eg and Orkhon Rivers)

The proposed development of hydropower projects in Mongolia has been discussed for a number of years now and the World Heritage Committee expressed its concerns about potential impacts on Lake Baikal in several Decisions (World Heritage Committee, 2017, 2018). The projects include the Egiin Gol project, the Shuren hydropower project and the Orkhon River project. New dams built upstream may present the last drop that triggers an abrupt loss of resilience and degradation of the Lake Baikal ecosystem. If built, the dams in Mongolia will disrupt the transport of sediments, destroy spawning habitats and block migration of economically valuable and endemic fish, such as Baikal omul and Baikal sturgeon listed by the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Dye et al., 2019). Recently it has been confirmed by the State Party of Mongolia that an assessment of potential impacts of the projects specifically on Lake Baikal and its biodiversity will be undertaken. However, the World Heritage Committee also repeatedly requested the States Parties of Mongolia and the Russian Federation to jointly undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for any future hydropower and water management projects, which could potentially affect the World Heritage site (UNESCO, 2017). Until now, only a Regional Environmental Assessment (REA) has been planned for Shuren hydropower and Orkhon River projects, however, it is still unclear how this would address the requests for a comprehensive transboundary SEA. In addition, the World Bank financed MINIS Project, within the framework of which the REA had been planned, closed in December 2019, leaving support and safeguarding uncertain (Rivers without Boundaries, 2019a). Furthermore, the new temporary Regulation regarding the water level of Lake Baikal, which provide for a wider fluctuation range than that allowed by the 2001 Resolution of the Government, was proposed to be made permanent by the Russian Water Authority and draft regulations were posted for comments in September 2020 (IUCN Consultation, 2020). This is worrying, considering that in its last Decision (42 COM 7B.76) – which has not yet been implemented – the World Heritage Committee urged for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of potential impacts of existing water use and management regulations on the OUV of the World Heritage site to be elaborated, in line with IUCN’s World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment, and not to introduce any further changes in the regulations until their effects on the site are fully understood (World Heritage Committee, 2018). A draft Resolution publicized in September 2020, allows the lake level to be raised 0.85m higher than in the original Resolution from 2001. The stated reason for such changes is a need to protect "unauthorized construction" along Angara River in Irkutsk and Angarsk from floods, which constrain the ability of Irkutsk hydropower dam to release water during "high water inflow periods". In September 2020, the lake level rose to the maximum prescribed by the old 2001 Resolution (457 meters ASL in the Pacific System) and will likely exceed it. Lake Baikal is, consequently, planned to be used as a flood- control reservoir to solve shortcomings of Irkutskaya Hydro operations caused by illegal constructions in the Angara River floodplain (IUCN Consultation, 2020). In the past (1983-1995), artificially high water levels raised by the hydropower dam caused extreme shore erosion, coupled with sediment transport and release of huge volumes of additional nutrients, which changes the environment for the Lake's biota. The effects of artificial water regulation could result in significant impacts and EIAs and SEAs therefore need to consider these potential implications. To date the SEA of the Mongolian projects have not been IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

completed and an EIA on the impacts of water level fluctuations on the OUV of Lake Baikal was only "partially completed" before abandoned by Russian Federation in 2016 (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The unique biodiversity and water quality of Baikal may be greatly impacted by these projects and the consequences are unpredictable (Komarova, 2017).

▶ Industrial/ Military Effluents Very High Threat (Pollution from the former Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill) Inside site, extent of threat not known

In 2013, a decision was taken to permanently close down the Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill and all facilities were shut down as of December 2013 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2014). However, limited information is available on specific actions planned to mitigate the impact from the past operations (e.g., sludge ponds near the lake shore). In particular, a commonly accepted (after strict ecological expertise) and scientifically based program on the actions to mitigate the impact from the past operations at the federal level is urgently needed. The effectiveness of the program will need to be evaluated in the future in order to assess whether pollution from the former mill remains a potential threat. The President of the Russian Federation during his visit to Irkutsk (August 2017) paid special attention to the protection of Lake Baikal and issued a number of requests to the respective governmental officials. One of them (No Пр-1602, п.1, Kremlin, 2017) is to restore the areas polluted by former activities of the paper and pulp mill (Vedomosti, 2017). A company has recently been selected for the liquidation of toxic waste; however, concerns have been expressed with regards to the absence of a proper bidding and selection process and with regards to past environmental performance of the company (Interfax, 2020; Rosprirodnadzor, 2020). As of today, there is nearly 6.5 million tons of toxic waste from 50 years of the mill operation stored in ponds along the lakeshore. This constitutes a very high potential threat as the area is prone to floods, high seismic activity and mudslides, which could cause a disastrous outburst of the toxic waste to the Lake Baikal with serious consequences for the lake ecosystem (Petley, 2019; The Siberian Times, 2019).

▶ Water Pollution Very High Threat (Potential threat from the synergetic effect of pollutants) Inside site, extent of threat not known

Fortunately, present concentrations of organochlorine contaminants in the water of the pelagic zone of Lake Baikal are below international regulatory standards. However, this masks an important problem. Experts who test the toxicity of chemicals extracted from aquatic environments normally focus on concentrations of separate, individual contaminants. Yet in nature, organisms are exposed to a “cocktail of contaminants,” where a mixture of organochlorine compounds, for example, consisting of individual chemicals (in particular, pesticides) at low, allowable concentrations, significantly harms aquatic communities (Kortenkamp, 2008; Relyea, 2009; Servan-Schreiber, 2014). Although the synergistic effect of multiple contaminants on freshwater ecosystems is beginning to receive scrutiny, it has never been examined for the unique and potentially sensitive communities of Lake Baikal. Therefore, the discharge of an “organochlorine cocktail” into the littoral zone of Northern Baikal via the failed wastewater treatment plant and from aerosols may potentially be very dangerous for sensitive biota of the oligotrophic and endemic biota (Timoshkin et al., 2016).

▶ Avalanches/ Landslides High Threat (Avalanches/ landslides especially in combination with an Inside site, extent of threat not known earthquake in some localities )

At the former Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill, there are still many old ponds filled by poisonous sludge from the production years. Earthquakes in the vicinities of Baikalsk city could set off avalanches and landslides (which happened in 1930 and 1970 in the area), overflowing and destroying the sludge ponds. This is of serious concern, as the sludge may be extremely hazardous for the Baikal ecosystem (Timoshkin, 2014). IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

▶ Mining/ Quarrying Low Threat (Mining) Inside site, extent of threat not known

The license of the LLC “Invest-Euro-Company” for the Kholodninskoye gold deposit was suspended and the application was officially withdrawn by the company (UNESCO, 2016). Therefore, this potential threat is currently assessed as low.

Overall assessment of threats Very High Threat

There is clear scientific evidence of negative impacts of a number of factors rapidly progressing in the coastal zone of Lake Baikal, including mass proliferation of non-typical Spirogyra algae and significant changes in the structure of the near-the-settlement planktonic communities. The eutrophication of the coastal waters should be considered as the most important threat to the oligotrophic and unique freshwater ecosystem of Lake Baikal. These facts, in combination with increasing coastal taiga fires, absence of proper bilge water treatment stations and properly functioning sewage treatment stations, rapid increase in tourism infrastructure and visitor numbers, represent a very high threat to the Lake’s ecosystem. The toxic by-products of ca. 60-years long functioning of the Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill represent one of the most significant potential threats. As long as the 6.5 million tons toxic waste from the closed Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill remain untreated and stored in ponds along the lakeshore, this will also remain a very high potential threat to the lake ecosystem as the area is prone to floods, high seismic activity and mudslides, which could cause disastrous outbursts of the toxic waste to the Lake. The development of hydroelectric projects on the Selenga and Orkhon Rivers in Mongolia is another very high threat, as well as increased range of water level fluctuation by hydropower operations at the Irkutsk Dam in Russia.

Protection and management

Assessing Protection and Management

▶ Management system Serious Concern

The World Heritage site lacks a unified management system and a central management authority. It consists of 3 Nature Reserves, 2 National Parks, 2 Managed Reserves, as well as poorly defined (also in terms of management regime) coastal protection central ecological zones (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). These appear poorly coordinated. A management plan aimed at protection of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the entire World Heritage site is missing (Rosabal & Rao, 2011, WHC, 2006). The only coherent attempt was made once, when in 1999-2001 a Strategy and Action plan for Conservation of the Lake Baikal Biodiversity was developed by a wide spectrum of stakeholders and signed by three provinces and national Ministry of Natural Resources (Strategy, 2001). However, the Strategy had no lasting coordination or reporting mechanism and its implementation has never been evaluated. Although many World Heritage Committee decisions have called for development of an integrated management plan (e.g. Decision: 38 COM 7B.76, 39 COM 7B.22, 40 COM 7B.97 and 42 COM 7B.76), the management of the site as a whole has recently further deteriorated (Simonov and Kreindlin, 2020). In an Order by the Russian President on compliance with the law on Lake Baikal’s conservation and environmental rehabilitation, issued on 12 September 2019 (Kremlin, 2019), the Government was instructed to review the compliance with the commitments to protect Lake Baikal as a World Heritage site and comprehensively improve the management system. The progress of implementing the Order is currently not known. In January 2019, the Russian Presidential Council on Strategic Planning approved a National Project entitled ‘Ecology’, which includes the ‘Preservation of Lake Baikal 2019-2024’ as one of specific focus areas. In absence of the overall management plan for the World Heritage site, this sub-project can be considered a key part of de-facto management system for the Lake. However, the project objectives have been criticised for not adequately addressing key threats and even for causing further harm. It was IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

noted in a press release by the National Audit Agency that the forerunner (the ‘Federal Program on Lake Baikal’) achieved barely 40% of its 66 intended outcome (Vladimirovich, 2018).

▶ Effectiveness of management system Some Concern

No management effectiveness assessment of the entire World Heritage site or parts thereof has been published. Since 2009, eutrophication, poaching, unauthorized development, and environmentally irresponsible tourism have much worsened (IUCN Consultation, 2013). Furthermore, an integrated approach to the management of the World Heritage site and integration with other relevant sectors and planning instruments (tourism infrastructure approval, water management regulations) continues to be lacking (IUCN Consultation, 2017). The legal and administrative system that governs the Lake Baikal protection is being actively revised by multiple actors without much coordination and consideration for the preservation of the OUV. In addition to the lack of an effective management system of the entire World Heritage site, great challenges lie in governance mechanisms beyond the protected areas: water regime and pollution management, regulation of development outside of protected areas, and overall reform of legal and administrative system (Simonov and Kreindlin, 2020).

▶ Boundaries Some Concern

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

▶ Integration into regional and national planning systems Some Concern

The development of several Special Economic Zones for tourism show that the objective “conservation and management of the OUV of the World Heritage site” in accordance with the WHC Operational Guidelines is not integrated and mainstreamed into regional and national planning systems. Overall, unregulated and increasing tourism development in the region remains of high concern (IUCN Consultation, 2017) and requires a regional level approach to planning, which takes into account the values and vulnerability of Lake Baikal. Furthermore, there is certain lack of collaboration between the two administrative territories (Irkutsk District and Republic of Buryatiya) on whose territory Lake Baikal is located, particularly with regards to elaboration of effective scientific and protection and monitoring programs (IUCN Consultation, 2017).

▶ Relationships with local people Some Concern

No specific measures have been taken to involve local people in the management of the World Heritage site (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2006). There is also a conflict of interest between the development priorities of local and regional governments and the protection of the OUV of the site. In 2019, the degree of public interest and concern about the state of the Lake Baikal grew dramatically. All the visible signs of deterioration (tons of waste and rotting algae on the shores, increasing media reports on the poor state of Baikal water, new industrial projects, skyrocketing tourism and poor infrastructure, etc.) heated the locals’ dissatisfaction and public protests grew to the scale unknown ever before. In March 2019, the illegal construction of the Chinese water bottling plant in the unique area of Talovskie wetlands sparked massive protests related to the poor management and environmental, with about 1,000,000 participants in 43 cities of the Russian Federation. An Appeal with 30,000 signatures was sent to all relevant national and regional authorities, including requirements to ensure public participation in environmental decision-making, the safe rehabilitation of the former Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill’s (BPPM) toxic waste ponds, and to eliminate illegally constructed hotels, stimulate eco-tourism, improve waste water treatment and strengthen control of logging and construction in unaffected natural areas (Simonov and Kreindlin, 2020). However, there is growing anti-conservation sentiment as well. Active opposition of local house owners IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

to existing strict land ownership regulations is exacerbated by poor administrative and enforcement practices. Businessmen and owners of thousands of illegally acquired plots are actively lobbying Irkutsk Oblast authorities, the Republic of Buryatia and the State Duma of the Russian Federation to exclude settlements from the territory of protected areas and the Central Ecological Zone of the BNT, as well as to soften regulations on "prohibited activities" (IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Legal framework Serious Concern

Although there is a special Law for the Conservation of Lake Baikal, the legal framework is ineffective overall as it does not prevent major negative impacts and allows development of large tourism infrastructure inside the World Heritage site, with potentially serious consequences for its OUV (Rosabal & Rao, 2011). Implementation of environmental legislation in the case of Lake Baikal has not stopped harmful operations and activities (such as those of the BPPM). On 12 of September 2019, the President of the Russian Federation issued an order on compliance with this special Law (Kremlin, 2019), which among other things called on the Government to eliminate the environmental damage caused by the BPPM. However, a number of amendments to existing legislation have been proposed, such as for example introducing new “Special Ecological Zones” which would not be covered by many of the current environmental restrictions and could therefore be applied to the BPPM “for the purpose of integrated development, including for the elimination of accumulated environmental damage”. If adopted, there is a fear that this amendment would weaken environmental protection and lead the way for lobbyists to seek allocation for such zones in other areas around Baikal and ultimately to the aggravation of the degradation of the lake (Vasilieva, 2020). Other proposed legislative amendments would include weakening of existing requirements for undertaking environmental impact assessments for certain projects and would amend the list of activities prohibited within the central ecological zone of Lake Baikal, introducing exemptions for certain projects (Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation, n.d., b). A temporary one-year Decree in 2017, later extended to 2021, provided for greater fluctuations in the water level of Lake Baikal than those prescribed by Government Regulations in 2001 to protect the lake from further damage caused by artificial regulation. This is of concern given that no assessment has been undertaken of potential impacts on the World Heritage site and its values (UNESCO, 2017). Of particular concern are also regulations regarding discharge of sewage, including the Federal Law 63 regarding the officially permitted discharge of purified sewage with very high (for Baikal ecosystem) nutrient concentrations into the Lake. For example, it allows to discharge into Lake Baikal purified sewage that may contain up to 1 mg/l of P(PO4), which is several orders of magnitude higher than the natural concentrations of this nutrient in the oligotrophic Baikal waters (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Recently the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology (n.d., a) proposed amending effluent regulations for Lake Baikal. If accepted, this would provide for a significant increase in the concentration of many chemicals (from 2 to 25 times, including nutrients, petroleum products, synthetic components of detergents, carcinogenic chemicals etc.) in the wastewater discharged into the lake, potentially leading to an irreversible ecological crisis (Timoshkin et al., 2019).

▶ Law enforcement Some Concern

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

▶ Implementation of Committee decisions and Serious Concern recommendations

Many recommendations and requests of the World Heritage Committee have not been addressed by the State Party thus far, such as regarding legal measures for the protection of the World Heritage site, implementation of the recommendations of the 2005 reactive monitoring mission, developing an integrated management plan for the World Heritage site and clarification of tourism development plans. A number of World Heritage Committee Decisions included requests with regards to the proposed hydropower projects development on the territory of Mongolia, and specifically a request to the States Parties of Mongolia and the Russian Federation to jointly develop a Strategic Environmental Assessment for any future hydropower and water management projects, which might have negative impacts on the World Heritage site, including an assessment of alternative solutions. However, this request has not been fully implemented to date (UNESCO, 2017, 2018). Decision 42 COM 7B.76 includes requests to stop introducing further changes of the limits on lake level fluctuation until an EIA on the impacts on the OUV of Lake Baikal has been undertaken; to develop a site- wide ecological monitoring system to identify causes of e.g. algal blooms and decreases in fish stocks; and to submit an EIA, including an assessment of possible options for the future uses of the former Baikal pulp and paper mill site (World Heritage Committee, 2018). None of these requests were entirely addressed in the following State of Conservation report by the State Party and there seems to be an increasing lack of compliance with World Heritage Committee Decisions (State Party of Russia, 2018; IUCN Consultation, 2020).

▶ Sustainable use Data Deficient

A draft “Complex Scheme for the Protection and Use of Natural Resources in Baikal Natural Territory” was reportedly pending approval in 2005 (Rosabal & Debonnet, 2005), but its fate since then is unclear. It is not clear how quotas for natural resource use are defined in the area, and how licenses are distributed. One of the key performance indicators of the new ‘Preservation of Lake Baikal 2019-2024’ national sub- project is to release 753 million artificially bred fish and larvae of Omul and Sturgeon to support fisheries. However, as highlighted by Simonov and Kreindlin (2020), artificially bred fish are unlikely to sustain the diversity of native fish fauna and no EIA has been undertaken for the project.

▶ Sustainable finance Some Concern

Funding is insufficient (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2006). Funding comes in general from the federal and state budgets, which provided only one third of the funds needed in 2005 (Rosabal & Debonnet, 2005). In addition, the two National Parks gain some funds from tourism income (UNEP- WCMC, 2011). Financial support from the federal/local authorities and respective scientific institutions is rather limited and not sustainable/stable at present (IUCN Consultation, 2017). According to Simonov and Kreyndlin (2020), only 27% of 2019 budget was used for the ‘Preservation of Lake Baikal 2019-2024’ national sub-project, which has also been criticised by the National Audit Agency for spending funds allocated for its implementation without achieving the expected result (Vladimirovich, 2018).

▶ Staff capacity, training, and development Mostly Effective

Staff numbers of all protected area components comprising the World Heritage site, except Selenga Delta Ramsar site (7) and Pribaikalskiy National Park (ca. 200) are unknown. Staff training levels of the various protected areas are likely to vary. In general, access to specialist staff for education, conservation management/ promotion/ interpretation and visitor management has been characterized as good, average and bad, respectively (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2006). It has previously been noted that the staff of the laboratories of the Ministry of Natural Resources dealing with monitoring of Lake Baikal need to be trained on specific aspects of monitoring, such as identification of the massively developing benthonic macrophytes, sponge diseases, etc. (IUCN Consultation, 2017). IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

▶ Education and interpretation programs Data Deficient

The awareness of the World Heritage site and its values among visitors, local communities and local authorities was characterized as “adequate” in 2006 (State Party of the Russian Federation, 2006), but no details about education and interpretation programmes are available.

▶ Tourism and visitation management Serious Concern

Although the World Heritage site has strong tourism potential, and tourism is developing rapidly, this is not happening in a sufficiently planned and sustainable way, leading to considerable threats to the site’s OUV (Rosabal & Debonnet, 2005). A sustainable tourism development strategy for the site is missing (IUCN, 2009). In recent years, both tourism infrastructure development and visitors numbers have been increasing dramatically, with negative impacts already visible (IUCN Consultation, 2017).

▶ Monitoring Some Concern

There are several monitoring programmes for pollutants, species, land use, and forest fires implemented within the World Heritage site, under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology (World Heritage Committee, 2006), and involving Rospirrodnadzor, the Main Department of Natural Resources of the Republic of Buryatia, the East-Siberian Research Institute of Geology, the Biology Institute of Irkutsk State University (Moore et al., 2009), Geophysics and Mineral Resources, and other organizations (Rosprirodnadzor, 2011). The federal program of Lake Baikal monitoring undertaken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology needs urgent revision (Timoshkin et al., 2014; 2015; 2016), as none of the important ecological parameters is included to this monitoring scheme. The list of POPs (and other organic pollutants) for mandatory and regular monitoring of their concentrations needs to be significantly broaden, it has to be done not only in the pelagic zone and in pelagic species, but special attention should be paid to the coastal zone and benthic flora and fauna. The development of a World Heritage site-wide ecological monitoring system in order to identify the causes of alarming ecological changes in Lake Baikal was first requested by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 40 COM 7B.97, and then reiterated in Decisions 41 COM 7B.6 and 42 COM 7B.76 as the issue of inadequate monitoring remained (World Heritage Committee, 2016, 2017, 2018). In September 2019, the President of the Russian Federation issued an order on compliance with the law on Lake Baikal’s conservation and environmental rehabilitation, specifically including: “The instructions for the Government also include improvement of state environmental monitoring of the unique eco-system of Lake Baikal; monitoring the aquatic animal and plant life in Lake Baikal; prevention of and response to risks of upsetting Lake Baikal’s ecosystem; analysis of the reserves and fishing pressure on its biological resources; and measures on the conservation and reproduction of its unique aquatic biological resources.” (Kremlin, 2019). However, no detailed information on the revision of the state environmental monitoring system is yet available.

▶ Research Mostly Effective

Considerable research has been conducted at Lake Baikal. The Limnological Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Irkutsk State University have been active there since 1928, under various names (LI SB RAS, 2012; Kozhova & Izmest’eva, 1998) and numerous international research teams have worked at the lake since 1991. However, there is a lack of coordination of scientific and monitoring activities (Rosabal & Debonnet, 2005; Moore et al. 2009). Research is also severely underfunded and often its results are not considered in decision-making and management practices. Thus, the new "National Project Ecology" in part on Lake Baikal was developed without sufficient input or assessment by relevant scientific institutions and as a result contained some activities and indicators irrelevant to Lake Baikal conservation (IUCN Consultation, 2020). There is a similar trend with the development of new regulations, which is not based on scientific analysis and resulting drafts are not subject to formalized assessment of potential changes in impacts on Lake Baikal. For the last five years, scientists have been proposing to conduct yearly studies to determine ecological requirements to water level regulation in Lake Baikal in conjunction with other problems, but the Ministry of Natural Resources still has not ordered such work despite the extreme need to develop environmentally sound regulations IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

(IUCN Consultation, 2020).

Overall assessment of protection and management Serious Concern

The current protection and management regime of the World Heritage site is ineffective in relation to the main current and emerging threats (mainly water pollution, uncontrolled development of tourism infrastructure, possible hydropower development in Mongolia and potentially unsustainable natural resource use). This ineffectiveness is primarily caused by the fragmented and complicated institutional setup for management, lack of integrated legal framework, as well as a number of additional weaknesses, such as low levels of funding, an inadequate monitoring programme and differences in human resources capacities of component protected areas that make up the World Heritage site. Of particular concern is the possible further significant weakening of the existing regulatory framework through the recently proposed introduction of a range of amendments to existing laws and regulations, which would facilitate development projects, weakening requirements for undertaking environmental impact assessments and provide for higher possible levels of pollutants discharge to the Lake.

▶ Assessment of the effectiveness of protection and Some Concern management in addressing threats outside the site

A number of threats originate from outside the World Heritage site, including pollution, uncontrolled tourism infrastructure development and recently potential threats from hydropower projects development in Mongolia. An integrated approach, centered on the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of the site, is urgently needed in order to guarantee its long-term protection and ensure inter-sectorial coordination to mitigate and prevent these multiple threats.

State and trend of values

Assessing the current state and trend of values

World Heritage values

▶ Oldest, deepest and largest (by volume) freshwater Low Concern ecosystem in the World Trend:Stable

Lake Baikal remains the oldest and largest freshwater body in the world; however, its ecosystem is becoming increasingly threatened by a number of negative factors (see below).

▶ Freshwater invertebrate fauna High Concern Trend:Deteriorating

There is a clear scientific evidence of worrying ecological processes, rapidly progressing within the coastal zone. The most harmful is the mass extinction of the main natural biofilters of the coastal zone – endemic Lubomirskiidae sponges – at the scale of entire Lake. Rapid and mass proliferation of the Spirogyra algae (observed along ca. 30-40-50% of the coastal line); mass development of cyanoprocaryotes (with proven ability to produce dangerous toxins) in the near shore zone and on the sponges; giant algal wash-ups; significant changes in the structure and quantitative characteristics of the near-the-settlement planktonic communities; are just some of the examples showing the deep and rapid ecological degradation of the coastal zone, which became evident in the last five years (Timoshkin, et al., 2015, 2018; Timoshkin, 2016; Khanaev et al., 2018; Namsaraev et al., 2018).

▶ Freshwater vertebrate fauna High Concern Trend:Deteriorating

General information and estimations of the total number and biomass of the leading commercial fish species, Coregonus migratorius (omul) in the lake differs significantly between the data provided by IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

academic Limnological Institute SD RAS (Irkutsk, obtained by hydroacoustic method) and by the federal Baikalrybvod (Ulan-Ude, obtained by traditional net sampling and counting of the spawning specimens, entering the rivers). In any case, the fishing deficiency is evident at present. The number of the spawning omul population decreased by approximately 2 times (Romanov, 2014). According to preliminary estimations, 2.7 million fish entered the Upper Angara for spawning in 2010, while in 2013 this number decreased to just 1.1 million. There is no scientifically supported and generally accepted viewpoint on this problem so far. Illegal fishing, structural changes in the pelagic ecosystem (including food sources for omul), changes in temperature regime, pollution, rapid eutrophication of coastal waters, introduction of invasive alien species, as well as deterioration of spawning grounds in Selenge River are considered as the main issues. In addition, artificial regulation of water level is believed to affect life cycles and reproduction success in several groups of fish including omul and littoral benthic cottoids (IUCN Consultation, 2020). The respective governmental organizations (such as Rosrybolovstvo, or the Federal fishery agency) announced the necessity to accept the ban on commercial fishing in 2017. Due to uncertain information and lack of scientific consensus the ban has been postponed until 2018 (Kork, 2017). Baikal omul, sturgeon and other endemic fish are also threatened by hydropower and artificial lake level regulations. Hydropower projects planned in Mongolia threaten to destroy spawning habitats and block migration routes, while dropping lake levels caused by permitting increased water resources use by Irkutsk Hydro below the minimum level established by the 2001 Resolution has led to shrinking spawning grounds (Dye et al., 2019; Simonov and Kreindlin, 2020).

▶ Aquatic plants Data Deficient Trend:Data Deficient

No systematic information about the conservation state of freshwater flora is available. However, a recent review of current research (Timoshkin, 2019) mentions that many endemic and typical Baikal species are being replaced by ubiquitous Siberian aquatic organisms (including species of flora).

▶ Geological features Good Trend:Stable

The values associated with the rift valley system are not affected by anthropogenic pressures.

▶ Freshwater, terrestrial and littoral ecosystems High Concern Trend:Deteriorating

Terrestrial ecosystems within the World Heritage site have so far been preserved, but are increasingly negatively affected by uncontrolled and irresponsible tourism development along an increasing part of the shoreline (IUCN, 2012a, Rosabal & Debonnet, 2005, Rosabal & Rao, 2011). The overall condition and water quality of Lake Baikal in its central and deep zone remain good. However, there is a clear scientific evidence of eutrophication and worrying ecological processes, rapidly progressing within the coastal zone. The most harmful is the mass extinction of the main natural biofilters of the coastal zone – endemic Lubomirskiidae sponges – at the scale of entire Lake. Rapid and mass proliferation of the Spirogyra algae (observed along ca. 30-40-50% of the coastal line); mass development of cyanoprocaryotes (with proven ability to produce dangerous toxins) in the near shore zone and on the sponges; giant algal wash-ups; significant changes in the structure and quantitative characteristics of the near-the-settlement planktonic communities; unclear current state of the population of the Baikal omul are just some of the examples showing the deep and rapid ecological degradation of the coastal zone which became evident in the last decade (Timoshkin, et al., 2015, 2018; Timoshkin, 2016; Khanaev et al., 2018; Namsaraev et al., 2018).

Summary of the Values

▶ Assessment of the current state and trend of World High Concern Heritage values Trend: Deteriorating

The hydrochemical parameters and the water quality in the central and deep zone of Lake Baikal remain stable and good. The site still includes large areas of untouched wilderness and natural IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

landscapes. However, there is a clear scientific evidence of eutrophication and worrying ecological processes, rapidly progressing within the coastal zone. The most harmful is the mass extinction of the main natural biofilters of the coastal zone – endemic Lubomirskiidae sponges – at the scale of entire Lake. Rapid and mass proliferation of the Spirogyra algae (observed along ca. 30-40-50% of the coastal line); mass development of cyanoprocaryotes (with proven ability to produce dangerous toxins) in the near shore zone and on the sponges; giant algal wash-ups; significant changes in the structure and quantitative characteristics of the near-the-settlement planktonic communities; unclear current state of the population of the Baikal omul are just some of the examples showing the deep and rapid ecological degradation of the coastal zone which became evident in the last decade.

▶ Assessment of the current state and trend of other High Concern important biodiversity values Trend: Deteriorating

Together with their ecosystems, terrestrial and littoral flora and fauna are inferred to be increasingly negatively affected by uncontrolled and irresponsible tourism development, coupled with other negative impact factors (forest fires, expansion of major transportation infrastructure, etc.). Several of the terrestrial species of the World Heritage site are globally threatened (IUCN, 2012b).

Additional information

Benefits

Understanding Benefits

▶ Legal subsistence hunting of wild game

Legal hunting of wild game in the taiga around Lake Baikal is one of the traditional way of life in Irkutsk district and Buryatia for professional hunters (by quotes and licenses) and local communities.

▶ Collection of wild plants and mushrooms

Collection of wild plants (medical grass, wild berries) and mushrooms around the Lake is practiced by local communities in Irkutsk district and Buryatia.

▶ Commercial wells

There are several private companies producing bottled Biakal water. One example is “Woda Baikala” (Baikal Water, n.d.). It is produced on the coasts of the Lake, in Listvyanka settlement; the water is pumped from the depth of about 500 m, about 1500 m from the shoreline. Lake Baikal is an inertial system: it needs approximately 400 years to completely substitute its waters from its tributaries. The integral influence of certain mechanisms of exchange causes the annual partial renewal of deep Baikal waters. The age of Baikal water at a depth of over 250 m changes from 7.2 to 11.1 years in different years and different areas. The age was determined with the help of chemical tracers, such as dissolved atmospheric freon and tritium/helium (for References, see Khodzher et al., 2006). Therefore the water, taken for bottling from the depth of 500 m is significantly older and, therefore (at least, theoretically), less influenced by the current negative processes (pollution). Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit : - Pollution : Impact level - Low, Trend - Increasing

▶ History and tradition

Lake Baikal area is full of archeological enigmas and is the real center of archeological investigations (Karnyshev, 2010). There are many historical memorials such as ancient (ca. 2500 years old) rock paintings in Aya, Sagan-Zaba and other bays (human bodies, fish, different animals etc.). The map of the main archeological sites, monuments and excavations includes 61 separate stations; their short IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

description is given by Gryunova (2012).

▶ Sacred natural sites or landscapes

The are very many sacred natural sites and landscapes, mostly associated with Buddhism tradition. One of the most famous ones is Shamany Cape on Olkhon Island. Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit : - Habitat change : Impact level - Low, Trend - Continuing

▶ Sacred or symbolic plants or animals

Historically, many local species have been considered as sacred by local people (buryats, evenks and others). These species include the Baikal seal and the brown bear.

▶ Collection of medicinal resources for local use

A large number of plant, animal and mineral resources have been used for medical purposes. The most famous one is fat of Baikal seal (traditionally used to heal and prevent lung diseases) (Fanatbaikala, n.d).

▶ Outdoor recreation and tourism

Baikal provides excellent and exciting possibilities for outdoor recreation and tourism for different types of visitors. Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit : - Pollution : Impact level - Low, Trend - Increasing - Overexploitation : Impact level - Low, Trend - Increasing - Habitat change : Impact level - Low, Trend - Continuing

▶ Contribution to education

Due to unique biological and geological features, Lake Baikal is inspiring and admired destination of scientists and students around the world. It is known, that the Lake is an embryonic ocean. Many geological features of the Lake (age, large volume and depths, sediment thickness, presence of hydrovents, etc.) and biological peculiarities (presence of seal, pelagic sculpins, amphipods; specialized cryophilic, hydrovents) are similar with oceanic ecosystems. Commonly accepted, that Baikal is a natural laboratory for investigations of riftogenesis, general questions of evolution, speciation, etc.

▶ Carbon sequestration

The area around the Lake is very sparsely populated; the giant regions of the Lake’s catchment area are covered by wild taiga and forests with high capability for carbon sequestration Factors negatively affecting provision of this benefit : - Habitat change : Impact level - Low, Trend - Increasing

Deforestation and taiga fires are the most dangerous negative factors affecting the provision of this benefit.

▶ Tourism-related income, Provision of jobs

It is difficult to estimate the importance of Lake Baikal for the economy of Irkutsk district and Buryatia, but it is very significant. Standard official estimations of the total tourist-related income for Irkutsk district in 2015 differs within 0.7 – 1 % of the total income. Interestingly, independent experts estimate the development of Pribaikalye region for the nearest future (one of the factors – tremendous annual growth of the Chinese tourist number): increasing the total tourist number to 5 million people will provide job opportunities for about 50,000 people. The total annual economic effect will be as high as 700 billion rouble.

Summary of benefits

Generally, Lake Baikal provides an extremely wide range of rich and partly as yet unutilized benefits which IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

– provided it is managed in a sustainable way – may contribute significantly to the livelihoods, economy, science and spiritual well-being of local inhabitants, the citizens of the Russian Federation and humankind. Lake Baikal harbors an enormous quantity of pure drinking water and an unusual diversity of endemic life forms (Kozhov, 1963; Timoshkin, 2001). Specifically, Baikal contains one fifth of the total amount of unfrozen freshwaters of the globe. Lake Baikal is first among lakes in terms of its exceptional taxonomic diversity; more than 2660 animal and more than 1000 plant species and subspecies have been described, with ca. 60% of the animal species being endemic (Timoshkin, 2010-2011). Therefore, the lake is an ideal natural laboratory for investigating questions regarding evolution and processes of endemic speciation. Many endemic invertebrates (sponges, for instance) should be considered as potential sources for new biologically active substances and medicines (for example - antibiotics). IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

REFERENCES

№ References

1 Activatica (2016). Forest fires in Baikal natural territory. Activatica, 26 April 2016. http://activatica.org/problems/view/id/511/version/622

2 Afanasyeva, E.L., Shimaraev, M.N. (2006). Long-term zooplankton variations in the pelagial of Lake Baikal under global warming. In: Alimov, A.F., Bul’on, V.V. (Eds.), Aquatic ecology at the dawn of the XXI century. KMK Scientific Press Ltd., Moscow, pp. 253–265.

3 Anenkhronov, O. and Pronin, N. (2008).’ Lake Baikal’s Selenga River Delta: Biodiversity, Conservation and Sustainable Development’. (PPT Presentationat USGS Delta Conference) [Electronic reference] < http://deltas.usgs.gov/presentations/Anenkhonov_Pronin.pdf&…;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

4 Back to the Selenga Delta. April 23, 2014. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140321164657.h…

5 Baikal Info (2016). The number of tourists in the Irkutsk region increased by 45%. Baikal Info, 27/09/2016. http://baikal-info.ru/kolichestvo-turistov-v-irkutskoy-obla…

6 Baikal Report (2013). ON THE STATE OF LAKE BAIKAL AND MEASURES FOR ITS PROTECTION IN 2013. https://yadi.sk/i/A42lNjmibvKGX

7 Baikal Water (n.d.). Water quality Lake Baikal. http://www.baikal.ru/ru/baikal/faqs/baikal_info_water.html

8 Bell, P. R. F., Elmetri I., and Lapointe B. E. (2014). Evidence of large-scale chronic eutrophication in the Great Barrier Reef: quantification of chlorophyll “a” thresholds for sustaining coral reef communities // AMBIO. 2014. Vol. 43. pp. 361–376.

9 Belykh O.I., Tikhonova I.V., Kuzmin A.V., Sorokovikova E.G., Fedorova G.A., Khanaev I.V., Sherbakova T.A., Timoshkin O.A. (2016). First detection of benthic cyanobacteria in Lake Baikal producing paralytic shellfish toxins / Toxicon. - 121. - р. 36-40.

10 Boedeker Ch., Leliaert F., Zuccarello G. (2016). Molecular phylogeny of the CLADOPHORACEAE (CLADOPHORALES, ULVOPHYCEAE), with the resurrection of Acrocladus naegeli and Willeella Boergesen and the description of Lubrica gen. nov. and Preudorhizoclonium gen. nov. // J. Phycol. DOI: 10.1111/jpy.12457

11 Bondarenko N.A., Logacheva N.F. (2016). Structural changes in the phytoplankton of coastal zone of Lake Baikal // Hydrobiological Journal. - Volume 52 (№ 6). – pp. 17–26.

12 Bondarenko N.A., Malnik V.V., Vishnyakov V.S., Rozhkova N.A., Sinyukovich V.N., Gorshkova A.S., Timoshkin O.A., Matveev A.N. (2015). Current ecological condition of Selenga River delta biota (Baikal Lake basin) under the conditions of unstable hydrological regime. 1. Microbial community and algae // Hydrobiological journal, Vol. 51, No 5, pp. 17 – 28.

13 Dye, B.J., Simonov, E., Lafitte, G., Bennett, K., Scarry, D., Lepcha, T., Lepcha, G., Wagh, S., Kemman, A. and Eyler, B. (2019). Heritage Dammed: Water Infrastructure Impacts on World Heritage Sites and Free Flowing Rivers; Rivers without Boundaries, World Heritage Watch: Moscow, Russia, 2019 (p. 132). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33037.38883.

14 EP (1986). Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria for bacteria, 1986. US EPA, EPA440/–84-002.

15 Fanatbaikala (n.d). Medicinal Herbs Baikal. http://fanatbaikala.ru/celebnye-travy-bajjkala/ IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

16 Gorshkov A.G., Kustova O.V., Dzyuba E.V., Sakharova Yu.M., Shishlyannikov S.M., Khutoryansky V.A. (2017). Polychlorinated Biphenils in water ecosystem of Lake Baikal // Khimiya v interesakh ustoichivogo rasvitiya (Chemistry for the benefit of sustainable development), Vol. 25, pp. 269 – 278.

17 Goryunova O.I. Ancient man and archeological monuments on Baikal coasts. . In: Baikalogy, Chapter 8.1, Rusinek O.T., Takhteev V.V., Gladkochub D.P., Khodzher T.V., Budenev N.M. (Eds.), pp. 880-897.

18 Government of the Russian Federation (2012). Order in accordance to Point 4 Article 10 of the Federal law from 14 March 1995, No. 33 FZ. (in Russian)

19 Grachev M.A. (2002). On current condition of ecological system of Lake Baikal. Novosibirsk, SD RAS Publ., 156 p.

20 Gusev O.K. (2016). Phalacrocorax carbo on Baikal // Russian Ornithological Journal, Vol. 25, express issue1274, pp. 1372-1387.

21 Hampton, S.E., Izmest’eva, L. R., Moore, M. V., Katz, S. L., Dennis, B. and Silow, E. A. (2008). `Sixty years of environmental change in the world’s largest freshwater lake – Lake Baikal, Siberia`. Global Change Biology 14: 1947-1958.

22 Heywood, V. H. and Hamilton, A. C. (eds.) (1994).’Centres of Plant Diversity. A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation’. Vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: WWF/IUCN.

23 Hutchinson D. R., Golmshtok A. Ya., Zonenshain L. P. et al. (1992). Depositional and tectonic framework of the rift basins of Lake Baikal from multichannel seismic data // Geology, Vol. 20, p. 589-592.

24 IUCN (2008). ‘State of Conservation Report: Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) (N754)’. [Electronic reference]

25 IUCN (2009). ‘State of Conservation Report: Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) (N754)’. [Electronic reference] . Accessed 10 July 2012.

26 IUCN (2012a). ‘WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add: State of Conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List’. [Electronic reference] << http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/36COM/documents/>>;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

27 IUCN (2012b). ‘The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species’. [Electronic reference] http://www.iucnredlist.org/. Accessed 10 July 2012.

28 Interfax (2020). Liquidator of chemical waste dumps in the Volga region will deal with waste of Baikal CBK. Interfax, 23 March 2020. https://www.interfax.ru/russia/700452

29 Irkutsk Media (2017). Rosgeology will deal with waste disposal of Baikal CBK. Irkutsk Media 29 August 2017. http://irkutskmedia.ru/news/617883/

30 Izhboldina L.A. (2007). Guide and Key to benthonic and periphyton algae of Lake Baikal (meio- and macrophytes) with short notes on their ecology. Novosibirsk, Nauka-Center Publ., 248 p.

31 Izmest’eva, L.R., Moore, M.V., Hampton, S.E., Ferwerda, C.J., Gray, D.K., Woo, K.H., Pislegina, H.F., Krashchuk, L.S., Shimaraeva, S.V., Silow, E.A. (2016). Lake-wide physical and biological trends associated with warming in Lake Baikal. J. Great Lakes Res. 42, 6–17.

32 Kapitalist (2014). Baikal fleet: At the start of commercial navigation. No. 3 (74), by Yaroslav Knyazev. http://www.kapitalpress.ru/kapitalist/archive/2014/74/2112/

33 Karnyshev A.D. (2010). Baikal many-sided (literally – having many faces), mysterious, multilingual. Third edition. (http://irkipedia.ru/content/arheologiya_baykalskoy_prirodno…) IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

34 Katz, S.L., Hampton, S.E., Izmest'eva, L.R., Moore, M.V. (2011). Influence of long-distance climate teleconnection on seasonality of water temperature in the world's largest lake - Lake Baikal, Siberia. PLoS ONE. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014688

35 Khanaev, I. V., Kravtsova, L. S., Maikova, O. O., Bukshuk, N. A., Sakirko, M. V., Kulakova, N. V., Butina, T.V., Nebesnykh, I.A. & Belikov, S. I. (2018). Current state of the sponge fauna (Porifera: Lubomirskiidae) of Lake Baikal: Sponge disease and the problem of conservation of diversity. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44(1), pp.77-85.

36 Khazheeva, Z. I., Tulokhonov, A. K., Yao, R., and Weiping, H.U. (2008). `Seasonal and spatial distribution of heavy metals in the Selenga River Delta`. Journal of Geographical Sciences 18: 319-333.

37 Khodzher T.V., Domysheva V.M., Sorokovikova L.M., Golobokova L.P. (2016). Methods for monitoring the chemical composition of Lake Baikal water // In: Novel methods for monitoring and managing land and water resources in Siberia, Mueller L., Sheudshen A.K., Eulenstein F. (Eds.). Springer, pp. 113–132.

38 Komarova V. (2017). Construction of the hydroelectric power stations in Mongolia can become unpredictable factor for Baikal // Vostochno-Sibirskaya Pravda. May 3, 2017. http://www.vsp.ru/2017/05/03/stroitelstvo-ges-v-mnr-mozhet-…

39 Kommersant Irkutsk (2012). ‘Liquidation commission established at the Baikalsk Paper and Pulp Mill’. Kommersant No. 124 (4906) [Online news item] ;. Accessed 10 July 2012. (in Russian)

40 Kork, B. (2017). There's nothing to catch! The ban on omul fishing will not affect amateur fishermen. vsp.ru, 4 July 2017. http://www.vsp.ru/2017/07/04/nechego-lovit/

41 Kortenkamp A., (2008). Breast Cancer and Exposure to Hormonally Active Chemicals: An Appraisal of the Scientific Evidence. Chemical Health Monitor Alliance, London.

42 Kozhov M.M. (1964). Lake Baikal and its life. Dr W Junk Publ., the Hague, 344 p.

43 Kozhova O. and Pavlov B. (1995) Ecological consequences of the water level rise in Lake Baikal due to the Irkutsk hydroelectric station (HES) construction. Proceedings of the Ecological Problems International Science Conference dedicated to the memory of Prof.M.Kozhov. Volume II. pp145-149. Science Publishers. Novosibirsk 1995

44 Kozhova OM, Izmest’eva LR. 1998. Lake Baikal: Evolution and Biodiversity. Backhuys.

45 Kravtsova, L.S., L.A. Izhboldina, I.V. Khanaev, G.V. Pomazkina, E.V. Rodionova,V.M. Domysheva, M.V. Sakirko, I.V. Tomberg, T. Ya. Kostornova, O.S. Kravchenko, A.B. Kupchinsky. 2014. Nearshore benthic blooms of filamentous green algae in Lake Baikal. Journal of Great Lakes Research 40:441-448.

46 Kremlin (2017). List of instructions following the meeting on the environmental development of the Baikal Natural Territory. The President of the Russian Federation, Kremlin, 14 August 2017. http://kremlin.ru/acts/assignments/orders/55355

47 Kremlin (2019). Instructions following verification of compliance with law on Lake Baikal’s conservation and environmental rehabilitation. The President of the Russian Federation, Kremlin, 12 September 2019. http://en.kremlin.ru/acts/news/61526

48 Kucklick J.R., Harvey H.R., Ostrom P.H., Ostrom N.E., Baker J.E. (1996). Organochlorine.H dynamics in the pelagic food web of Lake Baikal // Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 15, No 8, pp. 1388 – 1400. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

49 Kuzmin M.I., et al. 2005. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in the Baikal Region: Sources, Long- distance Transfer, and Risk Assessment [in Russian]. Institute of Geography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Mamontov A, Mamontova EA, Tarasova EN, McLachlan MS. 2000. Tracing the sources of PCDD/Fs and PCBs to Lake Baikal. Environment Science and Technology 34: 741–747.

50 Lenta (2016). Baikal Reservation: How residents of Buryatia were restricted in their rights in the fight for the environment. Lenta.Ru 23 March 2016. https://lenta.ru/articles/2016/03/23/baikal/

51 Levi K.G., Zadonina N.V. (2012). Тatural hazards Baikal region. In: Baikalogy, Chapter 9, Rusinek O.T., Takhteev V.V., Gladkochub D.P., Khodzher T.V., Budenev N.M. (Eds.), pp. 1019 – 1070.

52 Li Yu (2017). Human footprint. Abundant Spirogyra alga blooms in coastal zone of Lake Baikal related to anthropogenic activity // Vostochno-Sibirskaya Pravda, No 18; May 9, 2017. http://www.vsp.ru/sp- issue-print/149969/

53 Limnological Institute of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (2012). General information. [online resource] ;. Accessed 10 July 2012

54 Lyamkin V.F. (2004). Mammals (Mammalia) // Index of Animal Species Inhabiting Lake Baikal and Its Catchment Area. Vol. 1, Book 2, Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., pp. 1199-1251.

55 Mamontov A.A., Tarasova E.N., Mamontova N.I. (1997). Correlation of PCB concentration with component content of trophic status in Lake Baikal // Organohalogen Compounds. Vol. 32, pp.263 – 267.

56 Mamontova E.A., Tarasova E.N., Mamontov A.A. (2017). PCBs and OCPs in human milk in Eastern Siberia, Russia: Levels, temporal trends and infant exposure assessment // Chemosphere, Vol. 178, pp. 239-248.

57 Masrukho S. (2017). Baikal crisis: the most pure lake became hostage to diplomatic gamesmanship ( https://openrussia.org/mobile/notes/706219/)

58 Mats V.D. (2010-2011). Geological factors in the formation of unique biodiversity in Baikal ecosystem // Index of Animal Species Inhabiting Lake Baikal and Its Catchment Area. Vol. 2, Book 2, Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., pp. 1406-1419.

59 Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation (n.d., a). On amending the Russian Government's resolution of February 29, 2000 No. 176 https://regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=8810

60 Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of Russian Federation (n.d., b). On the approval of the list of activities prohibited in the central ecological zone of the Baikal natural territory. https://regulation.gov.ru/projects/List/AdvancedSearch#depa…

61 Molotov, V. S. (1999).’ Fish Resources and Commercial Fishery’. In: V. P. Orlov, N.G. Rybalsky (eds.) The State Management of the Baikal Region Nature Resources. Moskow: NIA-Priroda Publishers. [Online extract] ;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

62 Moore, M. V., Hampton, S. E., Izmest’eva, L.- R., Silow, E. A., Peshkova, E. V. and Pavlov, B. K. (2009). ‘Climate change and the world’s “Sacred Sea” – Lake Baikal, Siberia’. BioScience 59: 405-417.

63 Namsaraev, Z., Melnikova, A., Ivanov, V., Komova, A., & Teslyuk, A. (2018, February). Cyanobacterial bloom in the world largest freshwater lake Baikal. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 032039). IOP Publishing.

64 Nodelman, V. (2017). The Ministry of Natural Resources has proposed to allow continuous logging near Baikal. IZ, 28 August 2017. https://iz.ru/636384/valeriia-nodelman/minprirody-predlozhi… IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

65 Official Journal of the European Union (2006). DIRECTIVE 2006/7/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 February 2006 Concerning the Management of Bathing Water Quality and Repealing Directive 76/160/EEC.

66 Ogawa N., Yoshii K., Melnik N.G., Bondarenko N.A., Timoshkin O.A., Smirnova-Zalumi N.S., Smirnov V.V., Wada E. (2000). Carbon and nitrogen isotope studies of the pelagic ecosystem and environmental fluctuations of Lake Baikal. Lake Baikal. A Mirror in Time and Space for Understanding Global Change Processes. Minoura (ed.), Elsevier Publ., pp. 262-272.

67 Ozersky T., Pastukhov M.V., Poste A.E., Deng X.Y., Moore M.V. (2017). Long-Term and Ontogenetic Patterns of Heavy Metal Contamination in Lake Baikal Seals (Pusa sibirica) // Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00995

68 Ozersky, T., Volkova, E. A., Bondarenko, N. A., Timoshkin, O. A., Malnik, V. V., Domysheva, V. M., & Hampton, S. E. (2018). Nutrient limitation of benthic algae in Lake Baikal, Russia. Freshwater Science, 37(3), pp.472-482.

69 Parfenova V.V., Belkova N.L., Pestunova O.S., Suslova M.Yu., Pavlova O.N. (2016). Methods for monitoring the chemical composition of Lake Baikal water // In: Novel methods for monitoring and managing land and water resources in Siberia, Mueller L., Sheudshen A.K., Eulenstein F. (Eds.). Springer, pp. 133–155.

70 Petley, D. (2019). Baikalsk: a horrifying example of a high risk waste storage facility in Russia. American Geophysical Union [online blog], 30 July 2019. Available at: https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2019/07/30/baikalsk-1/ (Accessed July 2020)

71 Piccolroaz, S., and Toffolon, M. (2018). The fate of Lake Baikal: how climate change may alter deep ventilation in the largest lake on Earth. Climatic change, 150(3-4), pp.181-194

72 Pomazkina G.V., Rodionova E.V. (2014). Diatoms of Cymbellaceae family from Lake Baikal. Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., 241 p.

73 Popov V.V. (2004). Birds (Aves) // Index of Animal Species Inhabiting Lake Baikal and Its Catchment Area. Vol. 1, Book 2, Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., pp. 1062-1198.

74 Popovskaya G.I., Tashlikova N.A. (2008). Phytoplankton. The Selenga River delta as a natural biofilter and indicator of the condition of Lake Baikal. Vol. 15, pp. 88 – 101.

75 Poste, A. E., Pastukhov, M. V., Braaten, H. F. V., Ozersky, T., & Moore, M. (2018). Past and present mercury accumulation in the Lake Baikal seal: Temporal trends, effects of life history, and toxicological implications. Environmental toxicology and chemistry, 37(5), pp.1476-1486.

76 Potapskaya N.V., Kulikova N.N., Timoshkin O.A.,, Zaitseva E.P., Nepokrytykh A.V., Malnik V.V. (2016). Estimation of the solid domestic wastes in the coastal zone of Lake Baikal and Selenga River delta // Geography and Natural Resources, No 1, pp. 61–69.

77 Pronin N.M., Selgebi D., Litvinov A.G., Pronina S.V. Comparative ecology and parasitic fauna of exotic invaders into great lakes of the world: rotan (Perccottus glehni) into the Lake Baikal and the ruffe (Gymnocephalus cernuus) into the Lake Superior]. Sibirskiy ekologicheskiy zhurnal [Siberian Journal of Ecology], 1998, no. 5, pp. 397–406.

78 Relyea R.A. (2009). A cocktail of contaminants: how mixtures of pesticides at low concentrations affect aquatic communities. Oecologia 159, 363–376.

79 Republic of Buryatia Information Portal (2012). ‘«Baikal harbor» Special Economic Zone of tourism and vacation type’. [online resource] ;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

80 Roberts, S. 2014. Using carbon isotopes to study Lake Baikal. http://britgeopeople.blogspot.com/2014/07/using-carbon-isot… IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

81 Romanov M. (2014). Omul – at the bottom of the “demographic pit”? // Mir Baikala, Vol. 1(41), pp. 70- 73. (http://www.baikal-center.ru/books/element.php?ID=99561)

82 Rosabal, P. and Debonnet, G. (2005). ‘Mission Report: Reactive Monitoring Mission to Lake Baikal (Russian Federation) 21-31 October 2005’. [Electronic reference] < http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/754/documents/>;. Accessed 10 July 2012

83 Rosabal, P. and Rao, K. (2011). ‘Mission Report: High Level Mission lake Baikal (Russian Federation) 10- 15 July 2011’. [Electronic reference] ;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

84 Rosprirodnadzor (2012). Protection of Lake Baikal. [online resource] < http://www.geol.irk.ru/baikal/baikal.htm>;. Accessed 10 July 2012. (in Russian)

85 Rosprirodnadzor (2020). Rosprirodnadzor wins in legal disputes with GazEnergoStroy-Environmental Technologies LLC. Rosprirodnadzor Press Office, 11 March 2020. https://rpn.gov.ru/news/rosprirodnadzor_vyigral_v_sudebnykh…

86 Rozhkova N.A., Timoshkin, O.A., Nepokrytykh A.V., Maximova N.V., Bondarenko N.A. (2016). Abrupt changes in the macrozoobenthos communites of stony littoral of Lake Baikal under mass development of Spirogyra green filamenteous algae // Dalnauka Publ., Vladivostok, Russian Federation, August 24- 27, 2016; p. 103.

87 Ryabtsev V. (2017). Forests around Baikal face the destruction. http://activatica.org/blogs/view/id/3858/title/lesam-baykal…

88 Ryabtsev V.V. (2017). Let’s begin to kill Phalacrocorax carbo on Baikal? (http://irk-pal.ru/nachnem- mochit-baklanov-na-bajkale/)

89 SCANEX (n.d.). Map of fires. http://fires.ru

90 SRSR (Sanitary Regulations and Standards of Russia) (2000). SRS, 2.1.5.980–00.

91 Servan-Schreiber D. (2014). Anticancer. A new way of life. RIPOL classic, Moscow.

92 Shimaraev, M., Sinyukovich, V., Sizova, L., Troitskaya, E., Kuimova, L. (2015). Ice-thermal and water regime of Lake Baikal during 1950–2014. Abstract Book of the 9th Symposium of European Freshwater Sciences. Unimail, Geneva. URL: http://www.freshwatersciences.eu/files/Abstract_book_SEFS9…

93 Shimaraev, M.N., Domysheva, V.M. (2013). Trends in hydrological and hydrochemical processes in Lake Baikal under conditions of modern climate change. In: Goldman, C.R. et al. (Eds.), Climatic Change and Global Warming of Inland Waters. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Chichester, pp. 43–66.

94 Shimaraev, M.N., Kuimova, L.N., Sinyukovich, V.N., Tsekhanovskii, V.V. (2002). Manifestation of global climatic changes in Lake Baikal during the 20th century. Dokl. Earth Sci. 383A, 288–291.

95 Shimaraev, M.N., Starygina, L.N. (2010). Zonal air circulation, climate and hydrological processes on Baikal (1968–2007). Geography and Natural Resources 3, 62–68.

96 Shimaraev, M.N., Verbolov, V.I., Granin, N.G., Sherstyankin, P.P. (1994). Physical limnology of Lake Baikal: a review 2. Irkutsk–Okayama, p. 81.

97 Sideleva V.G. (2003). The endemic fishes of Lake Baikal. Backhuys Publ., Leiden, 270 p.

98 Silow, E. A., 2013. The present state of human impact on Lake Baikal // Journal of Siberian Federal University. Biology Vol. 4 (6), pp. 388 – 404.

99 Silow, E.A., Krashchuk, L.S., Onuchin, K.A., Pislegina, H.V., Rusanovskaya, O.O., Shimaraeva, S.V. (2016). Some recent trends regarding Lake Baikal phytoplankton and zooplankton. Lakes Reservoirs Res. Manage. 21, 40–44. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

10 Simonov and Kreyndlin (2020). Why the Lake Baikal May Be Inscribed on the Danger List in 2021? 0 Report to UNESCO compiled by Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition (RwB) and Greenpeace Russia. 10.13140/RG.2.2.16607.61603. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340444005

10 Sizova, L.N., Kuimova, L.N., Shimaraev, M.N. (2013). Air circulation influence on ice-thermal processes 1 in Baikal in 1950–2010. Geography and Natural Resources 2, 74–83.

10 State Party of Russia (2014). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state 2 of conservation of Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). [online] Russian Federation, pp.1-8. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

10 State Party of Russia (2016). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state 3 of conservation of Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). [online] Russian Federation, pp.1-8. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

10 State Party of Russia (2017). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state 4 of conservation of Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). [online] Russian Federation, pp.1-9. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

10 State Party of Russia (2018). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state 5 of conservation of Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). [online] Russian Federation, pp.1-20. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

10 Stepanenko V.N. (2014-2016). Phalacrocorax carbo on Baikal // Official site of Zapovednoe Pribaikalye 6 Natural Reserve (http://baikal-1.ru/nature/fauna/aves/aves-150605-phalacroco…)

10 Strategy (2001) Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia, GEF project "Biodiversity conservation in 7 Russia" (TF028315), Lake Baikal Ecosystem Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. 48 pages. "POO Oikumena" Publishers. Approved by Ministry of Natural Resources on June 6, 2001; Approved by the governments of three provinces 01.11.2000; (in Russian: Стратегия сохранения биоразнообразия экосистемы озера Байкал. https://zakon-region2.ru/4/168171/ Accesed on September 20, 2020).

10 The Siberian Times (2019). Pure waters of Lake Baikal in danger from 6.5 million tons of toxic waste. 8 The Siberian Times [online], 5 August 2019. Available at: https://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/features/pure-w… (Accessed July 2020)

10 The United Nations World Water Development Report, 2015. Water for a Sustainable World. UNESCO, 9 Paris (URL:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002318/231823E.pdf).

11 Timoshkin D.O. (2014). http://baikal-info.ru/sel-mozhet-razrushit-hranilishcha-yad… 0

11 Timoshkin O. A., Bondarenko N. A., Volkova Ye. A., Tomberg I. V., Vishnyakov V. S., Malnik V. V. 1 (2014). Mass Development of Green Filamentous Algae of the Genera Spirogyra and Stigeoclonium (Chlorophyta) in the Littoral Zone of the Southern Part of Lake Baikal // Hydrobiological Journal. Vol. 50 (№ 5). – p. 15–26.

11 Timoshkin O. A., Sakirko M.V., Annenkov V.V., Chebykin E., Nepokrytykh A.V., Zaytseva E.P., 2 Sheveleva N.G., Malnik V.V., Luhnev A.G., Ivanov E.A., Korotkoruchko V.A. Baikal: Coastal zone ecology. Limnological Institute reports on emergency in Severobaikalsk vicinities (2014a). Arguments of the week (Argumenty nedeli), East Siberia, No 9 (401).

11 Timoshkin O.A. (1997). Biodiversity of Baikal fauna: state-of-the-art // New Scope on Boreal 3 Ecosystems in East Siberia: Proc. of the Intern. Workshop, Kyoto, Jap; 23-25 nov.1994 (DIWPA Ser.). Wada E. et al. eds. Novosibirsk: Russ. Akad. of Sci. Siberian Branch; 1997; Vol. 2, pp. 35-76. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

11 Timoshkin O.A. (2001). Lake Baikal: Diversity of Fauna, Problems of its immiscibility and origin, 4 ecology and “exotic” communities // Index of Animal Species Inhabiting Lake Baikal and Its Catchment Area. Vol. 1, Book 1, Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., pp. 16-73.

11 Timoshkin O.A. (2010-2011). Main tendencies in research of ancient lakes biodiversity; most 5 interesting recent discoveries in biodiversity of Lake Baikal // Index of Animal Species Inhabiting Lake Baikal and Its Catchment Area. Vol. 2, Book 2, Novosibirsk, Nauka Publ., pp. 1423-1428.

11 Timoshkin O.A. (2016). Ecological crisis in coastal zone of lake Baikal (East Siberia): short description 6 and reasoning // Third International Symposium of Benthological Society of Asia. Dalnauka Publ., Vladivostok, Russian Federation, August 24-27, 2016; pp. 157–160.

11 Timoshkin O.A., Samsonov D.P., Yamamuro M., Mооre M.V., Belykh O.I., Malnik V.V., Sakirko M.V., 7 Shirokaya A.A., Bondarenko N.A., Domysheva V.M., Fedorova G.A., Kochetkov A.I., Kuzmin A.V., Luhnev A.G., Medvezhonkova O.V., Nepokrytykh A.V., Pasynkova E.M., Poberezhnaya A.E., Potapskaya N.V., Rozhkova N.A., Sheveleva N.G., Tikhonova I.V., Timoshkina E.M., Tomberg I.V., Volkova E.A., Zaytseva E.P., Zvereva Yu.M., Kupchinskiy A.B., Bukshuk N.A. (2016) / RAPID ECOLOGICAL CHANGE IN THE COASTAL ZONE OF LAKE BAIKAL (EAST SIBERIA): IS THE SITE OF THE WORLD’S GREATEST FRESHWATER BIODIVERSITY IN DANGER? /Journal of Great Lakes Research 42, pp. 487-497.

11 Timoshkin, O. A., Moore, M. V., Kulikova, N. N., Tomberg, I. V., Malnik, V. V., Shimaraev, M. N., 8 Troitskaya, E.S., Shirokaya, A.A., Sinyukovich, V.N., Zaitseva, E.P., Domysheva, V.M., Yamamuro, M., Poberezhnaya, A.E. & Domysheva, V. M. (2018). Groundwater contamination by sewage causes benthic algal outbreaks in the littoral zone of Lake Baikal (East Siberia). Journal of Great Lakes Research, 44(2), 230-244.

11 Timoshkin, O.A., Bondarenko, N.A., Kulikova, N.N., Lukhnev, A.G., Maximova, N.V., Malnik, V.V., Moore, 9 M.V., Nepokrytykh, A.V., Obolkina, L.A., Rozhkova, N.A. and Shirokaya, A.A. (2019). Protection of Lake Baikal requires more stringent, not more lenient, environmental regulation. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 45(3), pp.401-402.

12 Timoshkin, O.A., Malnik, V.V., Sakirko, M.V., Boedeker Ch. (2015). Ecological crisis on Lake Baikal: 0 Diagnosed by scientists // Science First Hand. – No 2 (41). – P. 25–41.

12 Tourism Agency of Irkutsk Region. (2017). Tourist flow statistics. 1 http://irkobl.ru/sites/tour/topical/page.php

12 Troitskaya, E.S., Shimaraev, M.N., Tsekhanovskiy, V.V. (2003). Many year changes of surface water 2 temperature in Baikal. Geography and Natural Resources 2, 47–50.

12 UNDEP-GEF. 2013. Hotspot Assessment for TDA for Baikal Basin. http://iwlearn.net/iw- 3 projects/4029/reports/hotspot-assessm…

12 UNEP-WCMC (2011). Lake Baikal, Russian Federation. UNEP-WCMC World Heritage Information Sheets. 4 [Electronic reference]

12 UNESCO (2016). Report on the State of Conservation of Lake Baikal, Russian Federation. State of 5 Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp.2. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

12 UNESCO (2017). Report on the State of Conservation of Lake Baikal, Russian Federation. State of 6 Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp.2. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

12 UNESCO (2018). Report on the State of Conservation of Lake Baikal, Russian Federation. State of 7 Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp.2. Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3756>; [Accessed August 2020]. IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Lake Baikal - 2020 Conservation Outlook Assessment

№ References

12 Vedomosti (2017). Putin instructed to eliminate the consequences of the activities of the Baikal CBK. 8 Vedomosti, 17 August 2017. https://m.vedomosti.ru/business/news/2017/08/17/729950-puti…

12 Vladimirovich, N.S. (2018). The National Audit Agency notes the risks of failure to achieve the 9 expected results of the FTP "Protection of Lake Baikal". The National Audit Agency, [Press release in Russian], 29 November 2018. Available at: https://ach.gov.ru/news/schetnaya-palata-otmechaet-riski- ne… (Accessed: August 2020)

13 Web of Knowledge (2012). Search results “Lake Baikal”. [online resource] < 0 http://apps.webofknowledge.com/>;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

13 Williams, D. (2019). Pure Waters of Lake Baikal in Danger From 6.5 million Tons of Toxic Waste. 1 Outdoor Revival [online news], 6 September 2019. Available at: https://www.outdoorrevival.com/news/lake-baikal.html (Accessed July 2020)

13 World Heritage Centre (2006). ‘Periodic Reporting Summary. Lake Baikal, Russian Federation’. 2 [Electronic reference] ;. Accessed 10 July 2012.

13 World Heritage Committee (2014). 38 COM 7B.76. Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). In: Report of 3 decisions of the 38th session of the World Heritage Committee (Doha, 2014). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6062>; [Accessed August 2020].

13 World Heritage Committee (2015). 39 COM 7B.22. Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). In: Report of 4 decisions of the 39th session of the World Heritage Committee (Bonn, 2015). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

13 World Heritage Committee (2016). 40 COM 7B.97. Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). In: Report of 5 decisions of the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee (Istanbul, 2016). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

13 World Heritage Committee (2017). 41 COM 7B.6. Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). In: Report of 6 decisions of the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee (Krakow, 2017). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: ; [Accessed August 2020].

13 World Heritage Committee (2018). Decision : 42 COM 7B.76. Lake Baikal (Russian Federation). In: 7 Report of decisions of the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Manama, 2018). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: < https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7305>; [Accessed August 2020].

13 Zhelnina, D. (2019). 6 mln tons of toxic wastes on bank of Lake Baikal: closed Baikal pulp and paper 8 mill threatens lake. Foundation MERIDIAN Dobra [online article], 10.01.2019. Available at: https://meridiandobra.ru/en/6-mln-tons-of-toxic-wastes-on-b… (Accessed July 2020).

13 Zohary, T. and I. Ostrovsky. 2011. Ecological impacts of excessive water level fluctuations in stratified 9 freshwater lakes. Inland Waters 1:47-59.