Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Lake Baikal Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

Lake Baikal Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

Lake Baikal Experience and Lessons Learned Brief

Anthony J. Brunello*, Tahoe-Baikal Institute, South Tahoe, CA, USA, [email protected] Valery C. Molotov, Ministry of Natural Resources, Committee for the Protection of Baikal, Ulan Ude, , Russian Federation Batbayar Dugherkhuu, Federal Baikal Committee, Charles Goldman, University of California, Davis, CA, USA Erjen Khamaganova, Ministry of Natural Resources, Committee for the Protection of Baikal, Ulan Ude, Buryatia, Russian Federation Tatiana Strijhova, Baikal Foundation, , Russian Federation Rachel Sigman, Tahoe-Baikal Institute, South Lake Tahoe, CA, USA

* Corresponding author

The watershed (Figure 1), a critical watershed for France. The length of the lake is 636 km and width ranges from both the Russian Federation () and Mongolia, faces 80 to 27 km. Lake Baikal is home to over 1,500 endemic enormous management challenges, many not uncommon and plant species, a characteristic that is closely connected in post-Soviet economies. In particular, issues such as with its age and unique natural development. inadequate coordination among federal and state resource management agencies, increasing pressure for economic Over three hundred and sixty rivers and streams fl ow into Lake development in the , and declining levels of domestic Baikal with only one river fl owing out, the River, located and international funding for resource management programs, on Baikal’s northwest shore. Clarity within the lake reaches 40- are prevalent within the watershed. 50 m in some areas. The residence time of fl owing into

This paper focuses on the Lake /$.(%$,.$/%$6,1 1 Baikal watershed and includes 'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\ a summary of the science, ,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\ 2EODVWRU5HSXEOLF%RXQGDU\ policy, and economics of the 8SSHU$QJDUD5 5LYHU 6HYHUREDLNDOVN $QJDUD5 region; an assessment of the /DNH 6HOHFWHG&LW\ current watershed management 7KH$QJDUD5 IORZVLQWRWKH structures around Baikal; an

16 Lake Baikal across Lake Baikal, or the “Inland Sea”, as it is named. In designed to regulate all economic and environmental activities the 13th century Genghis Khan proclaimed the lake and the in the watershed, which was not passed by Parliament until land around it “the Great Forbiddance Zone” prohibited from 1999. In 2000, the Baikal Commission was abolished by the development. In the 17th century the fi rst Russian pioneers Ministry of Natural Resources, and a Federal Environmental came to the lake and, profoundly impressed by its enigmatic Protection Agency for Baikal— “Baikalpriroda”— is now power and incomparable purity, named Baikal the “Sacred responsible for coordinating amongst resource management Sea”. Over 1,200 archaeological sites have been found around agencies in the watershed (see Section 4 for more information Baikal, including rock drawings, stone walls and remains of on policy developments). ancient settlements. The Huns, Kaganates of the Zhouzhanhs, ancient Turks, Uighurs and Kidanhs were known to have lived 1.5 Economic Status around the lake and were even mentioned in ancient Chinese chronicles and historical Muslim manuscripts. Differences in economic development both within the Russian states of the Baikal watershed and among the Russian Along the eastern shore of Baikal is the Republic of Buryatia and Mongolian portions of the watershed are signifi cant. where the Buryats, of Mongolian descent and the largest First, overall economic development within each country, ethnic minority group in Siberia, live. The Republic was created as measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, in 1923 with the joining of Buryat-Mongol and Mongol-Buryat was US$2,610 for Russia and US$480 for Mongolia (by . The capital of the Republic is Ulan-Ude, and has Atlas method; World Bank 2003). In Russia, both Irkutsk a population of 386,000 people. Buddhism and Russian and Buryatia’s economies are based on their considerable Orthodox are the two primary religions in the area with several mineral wealth of gold, coal, oil and gas, rare metals (niobium, Buddhist temples just outside the city center. tantalum, lithium, rubidium), 47 kinds of precious and semi- precious stones (lazurite, charoite, etc.), common salt and On the northern shore of Baikal is the Irkutsk where potassium carbonate, iron ore, manganese, titanium, and the city of Irkutsk, the chief administrative and economic mineral building materials (magnesite, dolomite, etc.). center of Siberia, is located. Irkutsk was settled in the early 1660s and was home to the “Decembrists” (one of several Domestic has historically been important within fi nal destinations) of the 1825 uprising who were exiled to the Lake Baikal watershed and is recovering from a decline the area bringing a Siberian renaissance to the area. Irkutsk experienced in the 1990s. Before the fall of the , is now a central destination on the popular Trans-Siberian over a million domestic tourists travelled to Lake Baikal each Railroad and is known for its educational institutions, scientifi c year. Since 1990, this number has signifi cantly dropped with contributions, and culture. The fi rst Siberian branch of the roughly 100,000 tourists visiting Baikal each year (Cook USSR Academy of Sciences was established in Irkutsk in 1946. 2003). The early 1990s saw a number of international efforts to develop tourism, and eco-tourism in particular, as an 1.4 Political Overview alternative to unsustainable economic development. The designation of Lake Baikal as a UN World Heritage Site in The territory of the Baikal watershed is extremely complex in 1996 promised locals a host of new tourists that would travel terms of its political and administrative arrangements. Political to Baikal. International tourist numbers appear to be rising borders split the Baikal watershed practically in half between slowly, but domestic tourist visits have risen signifi cantly in Russia and Mongolia, although Lake Baikal itself lies entirely the last decade as “New ” increase leisure spending within Russia (note Figure 1). Within the watershed there within the country. International tourism is expanding but are 3 separate Russian states (Oblasts or Republics) and 1 tourists are still hesitant to visit Baikal due to outdated Autonomous Region; 12 different Mongolian states (); transportation modes, poor accommodations, and diffi culties over 45 national parks, strict nature reserves and signifi cant getting to Baikal. cultural sites in both regions; and over 25 counties (rayons) in Russia and 116 counties in Mongolia (28 of which are divided The tourism sector is also expected to grow in the coming by the watershed boundary). years due to recent laws making it easier for Russians to purchase second and third homes around the lakeshore, Both Russian and Mongolian national, state, and local and due to international efforts to increase eco-tourism in environmental regulations are administered by their respective the watershed. For example, the recently completed GEF Ministries of Natural Resources, with each state having Biodiversity Project funded, among many other projects, over separate branches responsible for maintaining state and 100 different organizations working to develop environmental local environmental quality standards. In 1993, the Baikal awareness projects with many providing environmentally- Commission was established to coordinate policies between friendly tourism opportunities as a side benefi t. The US the three sub-federal governments of the Russian portion of Agency for International Development (USAID) also recently the Baikal watershed. The mission of the Baikal Commission funded an effort to promote low-impact tourism at Baikal by was to facilitate the involvement of all levels of government and developing the “Great Baikal ” (GBT). The GBT will create stakeholders while focusing on the watershed as a single entity. a path around the lake intended to draw visitors from around In 1994, the Baikal Commission drafted the “Baikal Law”, a law the world.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 17 1.5.1 as one of the most dynamic sectors of Mongolia’s economy. The Irkutsk Oblast continues to be the base of Russian Gold production has grown ten-fold from 1993 to 2000 making economic expansion towards the . The most productive the country currently the 15th largest producer of gold in the sector within Irkutsk has been its energy sector. Timber is world. also a major driver of the Irkutsk economy producing 8% of Russia’s cardboard and over 50% of its pulp, including almost 2. Environmental Impact Assessment 100% of Russia’s cord pulp and over 50% of its viscose pulp. The regional share of the total volume of timber production Environmental impacts within the Lake Baikal watershed in Russia increased from 12.5% in 1994 to 15.3% in 1995. The are generated from numerous point and non-point pollution largest enterprises are the Bratskkomplex, the Ust-llimsky sources. The most signifi cant air pollution sources are located factory, and the BPPM. The region is one of the largest just north of Lake Baikal (in the Irkutsk Oblast) and in several consumers of electrical and thermal energy in Siberia (EIA Russian industrial centers just south of the lake at 2001). Irkutsk produces almost a quarter of Russian aluminum and Ulan Ude. Water pollution sources fl ow almost entirely into with two central aluminum manufacturers in Irkutsk and the southern portion of Lake Baikal from Russia and Mongolia, . The Oil and Chemical fi rm produces 31% of the leaving the northern end of the lake relatively pristine. regional oil production, with the Irkutsk region accounting for more than half of the commercial chemical production of East Russian academic sources often state 40-60% of total non- Siberia. point source water pollution is generated from the Mongolian portion of the watershed. However, this is nearly impossible Signifi cant high-quality timber resources exist within the Lake to confi rm since no environmental assessment has identifi ed Baikal watershed. The Russian portion of the watershed has the most signifi cant pollution sources and the highest over 20 million ha of forested land (42% is estimated to be concentration sources for both the Russian and Mongolian harvestable) and over 2.1 billion m3 of timber. The Mongolian portions of the Lake Baikal watershed. However, much is portion of the watershed has over 5 million ha of forested land known about point sources in the waershed. Consequently, (30% is estimated to be harvestable) and over 500 million m3 environmental clean-up efforts are focused largely on of timber (TACIS 1999). Forests are predominantly coniferous improving water quality conditions in and around the major with larch and pine covering over 80% of the total forested cities of Ulan Ude (Russia) and Ulan Bator (Mongolia) and area (Bisnes 2000). several of the most signifi cant pollution sources downstream from Ulan Ude to the shores of Lake Baikal (about a 160 km 1.5.2 Republic of Buryatia stretch of the Selenga River). The Republic of Buryatia is abundant in natural resources but remote and dependent on federal subsidies. The region is also The most famous and contested air and water pollution source currently undergoing a diffi cult economic and social transition. at Lake Baikal is the only major source located on the lake— The major industries in Buryatia are power production, mining, the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill (BPPM). The factory is found timber, machine building, and sheep husbandry. In 1999, on the southern shore of Baikal and creates over 50,000 m3 industrial enterprises produced 29% of the Republic’s GDP, and of water pollution and 20,000 tons of air pollution each year. total production grew by 14%. Buryatia has over 500 known Despite signifi cant domestic and international efforts to close minerals, including large deposits of lead, gold, silver, quartz, the factory, it is still operating with a relatively uncertain future. sandstone, molybdenum, tungsten, fl uorspar, and asbestos. In Unfortunately, signifi cant fi nancial and political resources have terms of production, the region process over 15% of Russia’s focused on the Baikalsk factory over the last decade taking total tungsten with the third largest facility of its kind and over attention away from other more signifi cant pollution sources 30% of all molybdenum (including 20% of high grade ores in within the watershed. Russia). There are over 205 placer and 13 ore gold fi elds in Buryatia, which produced a total of 4,080 kilograms in 1994. Below is a brief assessment of major environmental impacts in the region. The information is separated by major industrial 1.5.3 Mongolia sources and includes general descriptions of the types of The economy in northern Mongolia is based on agriculture, pollutants as well as available information on pollution levels husbandry, and mining. In Mongolia, large deposits of , and concentrations. In general, there is an abundance of gold, tungsten, and lead are found in the Baikal watershed. information on point and non-point source pollution sources Over the last 10 years gold mining has boomed in Mongolia’s for the immediate lake watershed. However, gathering and northeast region. There are 42 licensed mines in the synthesizing this information is a Herculean task leaving the gold fi eld alone, which is located in the Yeroo sub-watershed. current situation of an inadequate supply of reliable, current, As of 1998, at least 25 other placer gold mines were active in coordinated information on environmental impacts in both the same drainage area. Russia and Mongolia. Watershed-wide environmental quality data does not exist, and the scattered information that does The mining sector is Mongolia’s single largest industry, exist is largely for the Russian part of the watershed. Mongolia accounting for 55% of industrial output and more than 40% environmental quality information typically focuses on sub- of export earnings. In recent years, gold mining has emerged

18 Lake Baikal watersheds fl owing into the Selenga watershed (typically the treatment. In 1991, none of these operations met discharge Tuul and Urdun rivers, or Lake Hovsgol). standards and “would need signifi cant upgrades which will include facilities for nutrient removal, alternative technologies 2.1 Oil and Mineral Resources to disinfection” (Williams and Conroy 1991).

The Baikal watershed is rich in mineral and energy resources. 2.3 Pulp and Paper Industries Unfortunately, gold, molybdenum-tungsten, granite, uranium, and sand mine operations in both Mongolia and Russia are Timber harvesting within the watershed has been declining typically ineffi cient, use little or no environmental mitigation over the last decade due to decreasing domestic demand, measures, and use outdated technologies and methods. For increased transportation costs, and an increase of uncontrolled example, the 10-12 gold mining operations in the Russian forest fi res. Before 1990, almost all harvesting was conducted portion of the watershed still use cyanide and mercury to by clear cutting and was directed at large-sized pine sawlogs. extract gold, as well as large water cannons separate gold Timber harvesting was outlawed within the immediate from soil and rock. These operations, typically found near the “ecological zone” in the early 1990s. Russian/Mongolian border, generate signifi cant levels of iron, sulfur, chloride, mercury, and nitrogen into the Selenga River. Two of the largest pulp and paper plants are in the southern Baikal cities of Baikalsk (on the lake shore) and Selenginsk Recent environmental assessments of mining operations in (40 km south of the lake). Both plants use a sulfate processing Buryatia ranked the tungsten and molybdenum mining sites technique and produce between 170,000-200,000 tons per as having the highest environmental impacts in the region year of bleached pulp, and consume close to 250 m3 of process (Robinson 2001). The uranium mine in Khiagda (also within the water per ton of pulp produced. The Baikalsk plant has an Selenga watershed) is currently being considered as a national additional bleaching process that uses chlorine dioxide that “catastrophe” area (similar to receiving “Superfund” status in produces organo-chlorine compounds, but now has a closed the US) due to its signifi cant mine water discharge impacts, loop system that collects the majority of pollutants before acidic tailings, and community radon exposure (Robinson entering the lake. 2001). The BPPM is the only industrial enterprise actually located Countless copper and gold mines also exist in Mongolia, and discharging its wastewater directly into the lake. which are renowned for having little or no mitigation efforts Countless attempts to close the plant have failed due to the in place. For example, the regional government in Zaamar has local communities dependence on the factory for jobs and an environmental inspection budget of roughly US$1,200/year sustenance (over 3,000 of the 15,000 residents of Baikalsk for a gold fi eld that in 2001 produced almost US$40 million in work at the plant). In addition, numerous plans have been revenues. developed that would shift operations from cellulose production to a less-resource intensive use. One future environmental impact is the transport of gas around the southwestern shores of Lake Baikal. Russia already The most recent plans to retrofi t the BPPM was initiated has the world’s largest gas reserves with a signifi cant portion in a 1992 Federal Decree (#925), and secured in a recent lying within the Irkutsk Oblast. Irkutsk processes over 441,000 presidential decree from Vladimir (#574), that would barrels of oil per day (EIA 2002). Currently, Russia is planning develop a comprehensive program on “The re-profi ling of to export gas from a large gas reserve just 200 km north of the BPPM and socio-economic development of the town of Baikal at the Kovykta deposit to and/or Japan. The issue Baikalsk (2000-2010)”, developed by the Siberian Branch is the proposed gas pipeline would potentially travel 2,400 km of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The plan, reviewed by to the Daging fi eld in northern China requiring pipelines to be the Federal Government in 2001, has a two-step process built along the shores of Lake Baikal through several national for retrofi tting the plant including: (a) installing a closed parks and several sensitive areas for migratory birds. Besides wastewater treatment plant (which assumes the bleaching visual impacts and threats to wildlife habitat, seismic activities process cannot be eliminated); and (b) developing a paper in the region threaten oil spills that could risk human health and cardboard production facility while continuing to produce and safety. Environmental Impact Assessments are currently pulp. Only the fi rst phase has been approved; the second being conducted to assess the proposed pipeline routes. phase is still under review by the Federal Government. The World Bank has authorized the use of US$25 million in loan 2.2 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities funds to support the retrofi t program for BPPM.

There are four large municipal wastewater treatment facilities 2.4 Thermal and Electric Power Stations within the Russian portion of the Baikal watershed: Ulan Ude (200,000 m3/day), the Severobaikalsk BAM Facility (2,000 Within the Baikal watershed, major electric and thermal power m3/day), the Severobaikalsk facility (1,600 m3/day) and the stations are found near the city centers of Irkutsk, Ulan Ude, Selenginsk facility (capacity unknown). All of these facilities and Ulan Bator. Over 18,000 MW stored capacity resides in the are known to use secondary treatment or activated sludge

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 19 Baikal watershed including coal-fi red, hydropower, and diesel 2.5 Agricultural Pollution plants. Agricultural pollution is assumed to be signifi cant within the Within Russia, Irkutsk is the major electricity provider in the Baikal watershed, but data on its impacts has been sparse. watershed with “” being the 2nd largest power Pollutants such as suspended solids, nutrients, organics, toxic generating company in Russia. The company’s key advantage organics, human pathogens, and inorganic salts are known to is that 70% of its 13,000 MW capacity is from hydropower exist from the intensive agriculture and husbandry practiced stored within the Irkutsk and Angarsk dams. Construction of within the watershed. the dams in the 1950s raised the lake level by 1-2 m fl ooding valuable , depleting forests due to inundation (e.g. 2.6 Hunting and Fishing north of Ust-) depleting sensitive fi sh habitat, and fl ooding of settlements located in the northern and southern Fishing and hunting are relatively minor threats across the shores of Lake Baikal. In 1999, a law was passed that created watershed, but are becoming bigger problems in centralized a maximum and minimum water level to reduce environmental areas along the lakeshore, and within the larger watershed. impacts. The other 30% of Irkutsk’s power is generated from Poverty within the region has exacerbated the problem as have 13 coal-fi red thermal plants that co-generate electricity and signifi cant declines in funding for monitoring fi sh and wildlife heat. Irkutskenergo provides more than 5% of Russia’s total populations. Fishing has become less of an impact since the electricity production with 61% of total electricity provided for mid-1990s after the state fi shing enterprise collapsed. There regional smelters, pulp and paper manufacturers, refi neries are 15 “commercial” fi sh species within the lake and over 50 and chemical producers. different registered commercial fi shing enterprises (Buyentuev 1999). In Buryatia, the major power stations in Ulan Ude, Guzinoozersk, and Severobaikalsk are all coal-fi red stations. In Mongolia, among the 25 fi sh species inhabiting the The power plants use low-sulfur coal and have not met air Selenga and its tributaries is the largest, wholly-freshwater quality standards since 1991 due to fl ue gas de-sulfurifi cation salmonid, the taimen (Hucho taimen) which historically facilities not being installed (Williams and Conroy 1991). No reached weights up to 95 kg and 2 m in length (Matveyev et hydroelectric stations exist in Buryatia. al. 1998). Unfortunately, taimen populations have decreased in their native habitat and are facing similar problems as western salmonids, such as the alteration of spawning

Table 2. Total Air Emissions in Russian Baikal Settlements (1998-2001) (1,000 tons/year). Territory 1998 1999 2000 2001 % Change Krasnochikoi Rayon 15.46 12.25 5.90 1.30 -92 Baikal Port 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.02 -75 Kultuk Settlement 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.27 -43 Irkutsk City 82.50 54.00 56.40 53.00 -36 Angarsk City 176.80 155.80 131.50 128.00 -28 Sludjanka City 4.90 4.75 4.35 3.60 -27 Gusinoozerks Region 42.00 30.85 32.26 32.00 -24 City 13.00 11.40 11.30 10.00 -23 Usolie-Sibirskoe City 40.70 38.50 37.10 33.20 -18 Petrovsk-Zabaikalsky City 7.04 5.90 1.50 5.80 -18 Selenginsk Settlement 3.68 1.63 3.49 3.20 -13 Ulan-Ude City 61.85 53.49 55.96 55.00 -11 City 30.00 27.30 28.30 27.40 -9 Listvjanka Village 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 Kyakta Region 6.16 5.89 6.22 6.20 1 Baikalsk City 8.05 8.76 8.84 8.57 6 Severobaikalsk City 3.90 4.57 5.04 4.90 26 Region 2.28 2.09 12.20 12.40 444 Total 498.92 363.76 400.68 384.91 -23 Source: Baikal Commission Report for 1999 and State Environmental Reports for 2002 from Ministry of Natural Resources offi ces in Irkutsk, Buryatia, and Chita.

20 Lake Baikal habitat, increased water quality degradation, and overfi shing. 2.8 Water Pollution The taimen is now listed as an in both Mongolia and Russia (Matveyev et al. 1998; Baasanjav and Point and non-point sources of pollution are located within Tsend-Ayush 2001). Recent intensive placer gold mining in both the Russian and Mongolian portions of the watershed. Mongolia is drastically altering the riparian landscape in some Major point sources of pollution in Russia are located south of regions (Bazuin et al. 2000) and threatening the natural river Lake Baikal in the cities of Ulan Ude, Selenginsk, Gusinoozersk ecosystems posing serious dangers for environmentally- and Baikalsk; in the mining complexes in Kabansk, Kamensk, sensitive species such as the taimen. , and Kyakta in the south; and in the mining districts of Mongolia and in Ulan Bator. The most intensive Hunting in the region is focused on sable, rabbit, deer, and pollution sources are generated from mining of ore, uranium, the Baikal “Nerpa” seal. Hunting for the Nerpa has attracted and gold and through the processing of limestone, clay, international attention due largely to the campaigning of sand, and gravel. Chemicals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, and and the local NGO “Baikal Wave” for the seal’s fl uorine are still used for gold mining, which are caught in mine protection, but also because of the questionable calculation residue and eventually leak into local water systems. of the average of 6,000 hunting licenses distributed each year. The total population is estimated at over 80,000 seals, which Table 3 shows total water effl uent in six major Russian decreased signifi cantly in the 1997-1999 due to a massive die- settlements between 1998-2001. Table 3 shows total emissions off blamed on several potential causes including high toxin in this cross-section have increased only slightly. However, concentrations generated from local pollution found within similar to air emissions within this same period, total the seals, and a viral infection similar to that found in Caspian concentrations have decreased for all cities but the BPPM, Sea seals. which has had total emissions increase almost 47% in this period. This is troubling since Baikalsk is located right on the 2.7 Air Pollution lakeshore.

Air pollution at Lake Baikal is generated largely from sources 3. Watershed Management Assessment in the north, and from sources close to the lake in the south. Air pollution is deposited largely along the southern shores Over the last 50 years, watershed management efforts at Lake of Baikal and consists of particulates, sulfur, nitrogen, Baikal have progressed from a strictly resource extraction focus carbon oxides, and other pollutants. Sources include power in the 1950s, to a management and educational development plants, the Baikalsk and Selenginsk cellulose factories, other focus in the 1990s to the current period of transition. Policy- industrial sources and agriculture. Although the industrial makers currently have a number of development paths to sector remains the major contributor to Baikal’s air pollution, choose from including the choice of utilizing progressive the transportation sector (autos, bus, and trains) is playing an watershed management tools and methods developed in the increasingly signifi cant role. last decade that balance environmental, social, and economic goals, or to pursue intensive development options that could Table 2 shows air emission trends in a select number of increase economic gains in the short term, but jeopardize Baikal settlements. The table shows two interesting trends. environmental integrity and human health in the long run. First, the majority of total emissions in each city has declined The path taken in the next decade in regards to environmental signifi cantly since 1998. Second, the four out of fi ve cities that policy could very likely guide development within the region for show increased air pollution totals since 1998 (the last fi ve the next century. This long-term trajectory is based on current listed in the table) are located either on, or right next to the decisions because economic development is just beginning to shores of Lake Baikal. take hold in Russia, in general, and at Baikal, in particular. For example, recent legislation allowing housing developments around the shores could bring a huge infl ux of development

Table 3. Total Water Effl uent in Russian Baikal Settlements (1998-2001) (m3 effl uent/year). Location 1998 1999 2000 2001 % Change BPPM 33.70 42.20 48.20 49.40 47 Sludjanka 2.00 1.67 1.88 1.81 -10 Ulan Ude 51.60 50.20 51.89 50.70 -2 Kabansk Rayon 4.52 4.39 4.29 4.20 -7 Severobaikalsk 2.15 2.69 1.83 1.95 -9 25.00 22.70 22.00 22.00 -12 Total 118.97 123.85 130.09 130.06 9 Source: Baikal Commission Report for 1999 and State Environmental Reports for 2002 from Ministry of Natural Resources offi ces in Irkutsk, Buryatia, and Chita.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 21 pressures on Baikal’s shoreline. Once constructed, it would funded thousands of projects supporting government, NGOs, be impossible to then reverse development trends towards and local citizens. conservation priorities. From 1991 to 1996, a USAID-funded team cooperated with Despite the diffi cult institutional and economic situation within Russian and Mongolian policy-makers and scientists to the watershed, progress has been made in protecting Lake develop the fi rst land-use plan for the entire Lake Baikal Baikal and its watershed over the last 15 years. The sections watershed. This plan (often called the “Davis Plan” after below provide a brief summary of these developments, an the project’s leader George Davis) provided the groundwork assessment of the current resource management institutions for subsequent international projects to understand the in place, and an assessment of one project that has worked vast scale and challenges in trying to develop a coordinated to improve resource management efforts at Lake Baikal—the watershed management plan for the area. Unfortunately, the Global Environmental Facility’s Russian Biodiversity plan received minimal political support due to poor planning Conservation Project. Information is focused largely on the by project leaders, and was diffi cult to interpret to Russian Russian portion of the watershed due to the limited number of and Mongolian circumstances since it was based on planning projects, fi nancing, and assistance to Mongolia for improving efforts developed in the . environmental management conditions for the Mongolian portion of the Baikal watershed. In 1993, Russia established a “Baikal Commission” which included 17 representatives from federal, state, and local 3.1 Watershed Management History government. The Commission’s task was to establish a coordinated Russian effort to protect the Russian-portion of The fi rst period of coordinated resource management at the Baikal watershed. This was the fi rst regional government Baikal began in the 1950s when Soviet leaders saw Baikal as body formed to look at the regional economic and an engine for national economic development. The Irkutsk environmental conditions within the Baikal watershed and was dam, constructed in 1956, was one of the fi rst large scale a major step in coordinating Baikal’s multiple political players. water diversion projects in Siberia. The dam and its resulting However, Mongolia was still left out of watershed management hydropower preceded the development of a series of resource discussions. In trying to develop a regional management plan extraction or mineral processing enterprises in the region. framework for the Baikal watershed, the Baikal Commission Construction of the dam raised the entire surface of the lake 1-2 developed a draft “Baikal Law” which included specifi c m, depending on the time of year. The Baikalsk Pulp and Paper environmental and social goals for the watershed, work plans Mill (BPPM) was built just after 1960. The BPPM’s construction for their realization, and indicators measuring the progress of on Baikal’s lakeshore caused considerable controversy when these plans in meeting objectives. As will be explained below, constructed and spurred local protests thought to be the the Baikal Law was probably too progressive for its time and birth of Russia’s current environmental movement. Numerous was signifi cantly altered, stripped of substance, and eventually aluminum processing, timber harvesting, and mining passed in 1999. operations were also developed around Baikal prior to 1985. Between 1994 to 1996, the Russian portion of the watershed In the early 1980s, signs of environmental damage around received signifi cant international attention boosting its Baikal from logging, transport of these logs on the lake, stature as a global treasure. The Selenga Delta connected to and pollution from BPPM brought Baikal’s fi rst watershed Lake Baikal was made a Ramsar site in 1994 for its signifi cant management legislation. Federal Decree #434 was passed wetland and bird populations. In 1996, Lake Baikal including in 1987 and banned logging and transport of logs in the its immediate drainage area was made a UN World Heritage Baikal watershed. In 1989, a second monumental Federal Site, but the designation excluded four settlements within Decree was passed that forced Irkutsk, Chita, and Buryatia the watershed: Baikalsk, Severobaikalsk, Selenginsk, and to develop a “Comprehensive Plan for Watershed Protection” Sluydyanka. In Mongolia, the Terhiyn Tsagaan Nuur reserve for Lake Baikal, and areas 4-6 km inland from Baikal’s shore. southwest of Lake Hovsgol was made a Ramsar site in 1998. Although the resulting plan was more a vision statement than management plan, it began a decade long process in widening In 1996, the Global Environmental Facility funded a policy-makers geographic perspective of what “watershed” US$20 million Russian Biodiversity Conservation Project, actually means. implemented by the World Bank. The project had a specifi c component looking at the Lake Baikal watershed which is The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 created an institutional described in more detail below. vacuum in developing watershed management plans and programs for the watershed. Domestic efforts to develop plans 3.2 Current Watershed Management Assessment were greatly enhanced from assistance from international multi-national and unilateral development programs such as Four major issues characterize the current resource the World Bank, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), USAID, management situation at Baikal. German Development Agency (GTZ), EU/TACIS, which have First, there is little or no coordinated management:

22 Lake Baikal • between the two countries within the watershed (Russia Federal Order 234 (passed 26 March 2001), which regulates the and Mongolia); required water level of Baikal by the Irkutsk Hydropower Plant. This law restricts the water level variation to one meter. In • between policy-makers, scientists, and non-profi t August 2002, a decree was passed providing a list of forbidden agencies representing the four Russian states activities within the “Central Ecological Zone”. This decree is surrounding the Russian portion of the watershed important in providing more detail for specifi c restrictions (Irkutsk, Chita, Buryatia, and the Ust Ordynskiy such as the extraction of oil and gas exploration. However, Autonomous Region); or, the three zones have still not been specifi cally defi ned leaving a gray area in terms of where specifi c boundaries begin and • between Russia’s Federal Government and State end. Two additional laws are currently being discussed in Agencies. Russian Parliament including a law on ecological monitoring and another on ecological thresholds for the use, disposal, and Second, funding is declining at the federal, state, and resulting impacts of “harmful substances to Lake Baikal” as international levels for planning, stated in Article 14 of the Baikal Law. monitoring and restoration programs. Further weakening the strength of the Baikal Law is the lack Third, federal and state priorities emphasize regional economic of a strong regulatory agency responsible for enforcing the development over environmental conservation. law. The Baikal Commission previously coordinated resource management issues amongst the Russian territories. However, And fourth, there is no coordinated environmental research when the Ministry of Natural Resources incorporated the and monitoring program for Lake Baikal or its watershed. former State Committee on in 2000, the Baikal Commission was abolished leaving another policy vacuum for In attempts to coordinate resource protection efforts within the protection of Lake Baikal. Despite the Baikal Commission’s the Baikal watershed, the Russian Parliament passed the slow process in developing policies, it was useful for “Baikal Law” in 1999 that became the fi rst federal land-use coordinating and mediating among the numerous agencies regulation for a specifi c Russian territory. The Baikal law within the Baikal watershed. includes four main sections: (1) a general overview of problems /$.(%$,.$/³=21(62),1)/8(1&(´ at Baikal; (2) an outline of 'UDLQDJH%DVLQ%RXQGDU\ the three regions (presented ,QWHUQDWLRQDO%RXQGDU\ in Figure 2 below) requiring $WPRVSKHULF,QIOXHQFH=RQH %XIIHU=RQH  special protection including &HQWUDO(FRORJLFDO=RQH &HQWUDO 5LYHU the “central ecological” zone, (FRORJLFDO /DNH the “atmospheric infl uence” =RQH 6HOHFWHG&LW\  zone, and the “buffer” zone; (3) a description of maximum $WPRVSKHULF  allowable pollution within the ,QIOXHQFH =RQH central ecological zone; and /DNH (4) a list of existing federal %DLNDO regulations on the protection of Lake Baikal. ,UNXWVN 5866,$1 8ODQ 8GH )(' The Baikal Law has been an   important step in providing the foundation and coordinating framework for protection of Lake Baikal among the numerous resource management agencies %XIIHU within the watershed. However, =RQH 021*2/,$ details within the law are not specifi c in how state and local 8ODQ%DWRU governments must comply with “keeping air quality to acceptable standards,” for example. Due its lack of specifi c direction, several subsequent %RXQGDULHVDQGORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWH laws associated with the Baikal ,/(&1( DQGVKRXOGQRWEHFRQVLGHUHGDXWKRULWDWLYH Law have been passed such as Figure 2. Baikal “Zones of Infl uence” as Explained in the Baikal Law.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 23 5HJLRQDO(3$ IRU/DNH%DLNDO

3UHVLGHQWRI 0LQLVWU\RI )HGHUDO(3$IRU%DLNDO /RFDO&RRUGLQDWLRQ 5XVVLDQ 1DWXUDO ³%DLNDOSULURGD´ &RXQFLORQ%DLNDO 3DUOLPHQW 5HVRXUFHV

2WKHU)HGHUDO$JHQFLHV 5HJLRQDO 6WDWHDQG/RFDO DQG0LQLVWULHV $JHQFLHV *RYHUQPHQW

Figure 3. Russian Federal Structure for the Management of the Baikal Watershed.

In September 2002, the Federal Government established a resources to existing projects. For example, the 6-year, US$7 Federal Environmental Protection Agency on Baikal, titled million GEF Biodiversity project ended in May 2003; GTZ “Baikalpriroda”, formed with special jurisdiction to enforce the has completed its land-use planning programs; EU/TACIS Baikal Law, and to coordinate the numerous federal and state completed its projects focusing on watershed management, agencies at Baikal, as presented in Appendix 1. Figure 3 shows feasibility studies on the pulp industry and national and a rough outline of the current government structure with local forest fi re protection; and USAID is focusing largely on Baikalpriroda placed between the Local Coordination Council small, segregated environmental advocacy and economic (responsible for working with local governments, NGOs, and development programs in cooperation with the Foundation for public service organizations) the regional and federal Ministry Russian and American Economic Cooperation (FRAEC). of Natural Resources agencies, as well as the responsibilities of “other” federal agencies. Mongolia’s management efforts within the Lake Baikal watershed have focused on developing legislation that will Baikalpriroda is also responsible for coordinating with amend their existing Mongolian “Water Law” and focus on Mongolia on all transboundary water issues, and on the “responsibilities for pollution of nature and the environment” Selenga watershed, in particular. This role as international which will set pollution fees. Federal funding is going towards transboundary coordinator is Russia’s fi rst government-led fi nishing a land-use plan for the Mongolian-portion of the effort to look at the entire Baikal watershed and determine Selenga watershed, strengthening monitoring capacity on the a management structure that works for both Russia and Selenga and Tuul Rivers, restoring water quality on the Tuul Mongolia. Figure 4 shows the structure of the “Russian/ River (especially downstream from urban areas and mining Mongolian Transboundary Water Agreement”, its governing sites), and purifying wastewater on these two rivers. structure, and the specifi c project themes within this agreement. The goal is to complete a land-use plan and implementation schedule between the two countries by 2010. Production of an annual report looking at transboundary issues is currently being planned between the two countries. 5XVVLDQ0RQJROLDQ 7UDQVERXQGDU\:DWHU$JUHHPHQW 5XVVLDQDQG0RQJROLDQ015²/HDG$JHQFLHV Despite the importance of Baikalpriroda’s role in coordinating policies within the watershed, its fi nancial and staffi ng roles are inadequate for this role. In 2002, Baikalpriroda’s budget 6HOHQJD:DWHUVKHG:RUNLQJ*URXS was slightly less than 30 million rubles (less than US$1 million) )HGHUDO6WDWHDQG/RFDO5HSUHVHQWDWLYHV with a total staff of 15. 5XVVLDQ015(39LFH0LQLVWHU²&R&KDLU 0RQJROLDQ0159LFH0LQLVWHU²&R&KDLU While Baikalpriroda’s budget has at least remained constant over the past two years, state and international funding for -RLQW7UDQVERXQGDU\3URMHFWV resource protection efforts have signifi cantly declined. For %DLNDOSULURGD²/HDG$JHQF\ example, state agencies promised almost 200 million rubles in 5HJLRQDO'HYHORSPHQW 2002, but only 96 million was actually distributed. In addition, 3ROOXWLRQ0RQLWRULQJ long-term international development programs funded 6HOHQJD:DWHUVKHG&RRSHUDWLRQ 3URWHFWLRQRI)LVK+DELWDWDQG(FRV\VWHP through the GEF, USAID, EU/TACIS, and GTZ are closing down, shifting to projects that promote “economic development” or Figure 4. Russia and Mongolia Transboundary Cooperative environmental-advocacy programs, or signifi cantly decreasing Agreement Structure.

24 Lake Baikal 3.3 Assessment of the GEF Biodiversity Conservation and implementing mechanisms and approaches which will Project mainstream biodiversity conservation and environmental protection into the policy making process; iii) assessing the In 1996, the GEF initiated a project focused on protecting protected area institutional framework and subsequently Russia’s biodiversity, and improving Russia’s national and strengthening its effectiveness; iv) enabling the participation regional biodiversity conservation management infrastructure. of all interested stakeholders, including aboriginal peoples The US$20.1 million project was completed in May 2003. and local communities into biodiversity conservation; and v) The project included four components including: (1) a developing an inter-regional demonstration of inter-sectoral “Strategic Overview Component” (13% of total costs); (2) biodiversity conservation and environmentally sustainable a “Protected Areas Component” (53% of total costs); (3) a natural resource management (World Bank 1996).” “Lake Baikal Regional Component” (25% of total costs); and (4) a “Project Management and Coordination Component” The Lake Baikal component (titled “Component 3” in project (9% of total costs). More specifi c objectives for the overall documents) of the GEF project received US$7 million to program included: “i) supporting the development of complete three programs including: federal and regional biodiversity strategies; ii) developing

Table 4. Objectives and Partial Results of the GEF Baikal Regional Biodiversity Component. Category Primary Objective Results • Supporting the development of a general biodiversity policy for three administrative territories of the Baikal • Approval of Strategy and Action Plan for Lake Baikal Region (BR) Ecosystem Biodiversity Conservation by the Republic • Involvement of local population in biodiversity of Buryatia, Irkutsk and Chita Oblasts and the Ministry conservation, including public discussion of the Lake of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (RF) Interregional Baikal Declaration, Strategy and Action Plan • 73 protocols signed by organizations on Baikal Activities • Development and implementation of an interregional protection administration of Lake Baikal in the framework of the GEF • Baikal Component Supervisory Committee and Project project Implementation Group (PIG) established • Creation of common computerized databases relevant to • Databases created the protection of living nature in the BR • Improvement of the Environmental Monitoring System in Buryatia • Designation of Ecological Network sites • Sustainable Forest Management • Improvement of land-use system in Khilok River basin Regional Activities • Environmental • Reforestation at model territories in the Republic of • Management plans for Zakazniks Buryatia • GIS mapping of Forest Resources in all regions • Improvement of nature use management system in model territories • Ecological Education concepts developed Designation of 8 new Natural Protected Areas (NPAs) • Habitat restoration of 35 • Refuges established for conservation of wetland and fl ood-lands • Natural Landscapes reconstructed • Disposal of man-made waste • Establishment of new reserves • Creation of Education programs, manuals, and handbooks • 103 training programs • Implementation of Local Initiatives Small Grant Program • 30 fi eld ecological camps Local Biodiversity • Stimulation and Support of local initiatives on biodiversity • Consultative information centers created in 5 cities Initiatives conservation in Baikal Region to shape “Baikal Ideology” and 6 villages and unifi ed interregional environmental policy • Contacts established with mass media • 60 publications • 100 booklets brochures and bulletins • TV and fi lms created • Exhibitions • 28 Internet sites • 251 seminars and conferences • Over 69 mass public actions with an ecological slant • 73 public environmental organizations created • New areas allotted for outdoor leisure activity • Support of environmental protection initiatives Source: Annex 4 of the Baikal Regional Component, Draft Results Overview.

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 25 • Inter-regional Activities (US$0.9 million)—This • passing a regional “Biodiversity Strategy” tied to the program focused on linkages between economics Baikal Law. and environmental protection, data collection and dissemination and development of uniform legal, A signifi cant portion of the project’s success was in the Local environmental, and economic regulatory mechanisms; Grants Initiative, which created a more public arm of the program that helped energize the other two parts of the Baikal • Regional Activities (US$2.5 million)—This program Component. In total, GEF staff have estimated over 80,000 focused on sustainable forest management, people were reached through the duration of the program. environmental education, modeling agriculture projects and management plans for watersheds of three rivers Table 5 shows that through the Local Grants Initiative nearly entering Lake Baikal from each of the three surrounding 300 grants totaling US$2 million were distributed over a three- states; and, year period with 60% of the grants for less than US$5,000. Over 50% of the grants were distributed in Buryatia, 35% • Local Biodiversity Initiative (US$2.5 million)—This in Irkutsk, and around 15% in Chita to individuals, NGOs, program distributed small grants to NGOs, institutions, academic institutions, national parks, schools, and others. local communities, businesses and individuals to encourage small-scale biodiversity protection and Of the 296 grants distributed, over 100 were for development sustainable development activities in the Baikal and distribution of environmental education media; 70 were watershed. for actual restoration projects; 13 were for environmental management related projects, and 16 supported scientifi c Although the GEF Baikal project was specifi cally focused on research. biodiversity protection efforts within the Russian portion of the Baikal watershed, many projects were directly related In reviewing the GEF Baikal Biodiversity Component, it should to improving inter-regional management, environmental be remembered the diffi cult political environment in which education, and strengthening the mentioned Baikal Law—all this project was implemented. During the development of this necessary in improving watershed management efforts at Lake program, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Baikal. Table 4 provides a partial list of objectives and results Resources was signifi cantly altered with a large number of from the GEF Baikal component. project managers turning over. In addition, the project was contained within two levels of projects implemented by the Overall, despite a very slow start for the Baikal component, the World Bank including the Russian Biodiversity Conservation project was successful in: Project and the US$280 million Russian Environmental Management Project making management for this specifi c • developing signifi cant written and visual environmental sub-project diffi cult. Finally, the former federal Baikal education media; Commission responsible for coordinating all policies at Baikal was disbanded in 2000; it would have been responsible for • supporting a wide range of environmental education assisting in regional biodiversity conservation efforts. and research entities evenly distributed across the entire watershed; With these diffi cult political issues aside, several areas could have been improved within the GEF project. First, within the • assisting the development of the tools and institutional design of the project, more effort should have been made frameworks for improved resource management; and, to incorporate international (Mongolian), regional and local government goals into the regional planning efforts to ensure its long-term success. This idea was discussed in the initial GEF project planning stages, but was not adopted since it Table 5. Summary of GEF Baikal Local Grants Initiative. would have increased the project implementation time, and Number of Grant Competitions (1998- 14 would have required a regional GEF project. In addition, this 2001) project should have incorporated scientists or policy-makers Grant Applications Received 1,758 from the Mongolian portion of the watershed. It is understood Grants Approved by Board and this was a biodiversity project and not an international waters 296 Financed program. However, if the project was truly planning to conserve Total Grant Money Distributed US$1,939,866 regional biodiversity, fl ora and fauna are seldom infl uenced by political boundaries and should be managed in a bio-regional % of total grants distributed for less 59.5% framework. The Regional Biodiversity Strategy does seem to than US$5,000 be the main policy success of the program which did work to % of total grants distributed between 38.7% coordinate with all levels of government. US$5,000 and US$20,000 % of total grants greater than 1.87% Second, the majority of follow up materials and reviews for US$20,000 the GEF project provide limited information about the regional

26 Lake Baikal and inter-regional activities of the Baikal program and how 70% of the water fl owing into Lake Baikal. Expected future they have infl uenced regional biodiversity planning in the economic growth in Mongolia could bring a signifi cant rise in Baikal watershed. One successful product has been regional pollution levels, thereby increasing pressures between the two biodiversity legislation. countries. Both countries should work together through their respective federal environment ministries to coordinate land- Third, despite the obvious success of the local grant initiative, use, monitoring, and restoration projects for the watershed. there seems to be no larger focus on how selected projects will help in the larger goal of either protecting regional biodiversity Programs such as the GEF Local Grant Initiative should or improving capabilities of regional resource management continue in order to empower and educate local communities institutions. on the benefi ts of protecting the environmental quality of Lake Baikal. Visitors and residents to Lake Baikal can easily Fourth, it is unclear how successful projects developed under see the benefi ts of the US$2 million in GEF small grant funds the GEF project will continue to receive funding now that the distributed to over 260 individuals and organizations in the project is over. A “Lake Baikal Foundation” was developed Russian portion of the Baikal watershed. Environmental within the project to help fund and continue certain projects, conservation and education messages are now apparent in but little information is available yet as to the structure of this every type of popular media in Baikal. Although these types organization. of programs could be more focused, the Baikal program reached out to a wide sector of local constituents, empowering 4. Lessons Learned and Next Steps individuals in all economic strata to highlight their personal efforts in protecting Lake Baikal. In looking at domestic, regional, and international watershed management efforts at Lake Baikal over the last 15 years, Local government agencies, staff, NGOs and residents several important lessons can be learned that should be have built up signifi cant knowledge capital on watershed incorporated into future resource management efforts. management tools and methods over the last decade. Now, assistance is needed to develop, implement and enforce Strong, effective, regional coordination among government creative new watershed management strategies. Millions resource management institutions at Baikal is essential of dollars in development assistance has been brought to for effective long-term watershed management. Currently, Baikal since 1990 in the form of regional planning tools such this does not exist. The lack of an intergovernmental and as GIS, international experts, and other signifi cant educational interregional body to facilitate communication between resources. After a decade of learning these tools and national, state, local, and international government and developing plans, now is the time for regional agencies to fully non-government agencies is one of the most important implement a unique strategy. This would also include passing gaps in watershed management at Lake Baikal. A successful and enforcing laws that fall under the guidance of the existing coordination effort could assist the region in harmonizing Baikal Law and developing more concrete boundaries for its 3 regional environmental legislation which in turn could assist defi ned “ecological zones”. economic development. Coordination would also assist regional monitoring efforts in synthesizing, analyzing, and A coordinated research and monitoring program is needed assessing new and existing data and presenting environmental to look at environmental impacts within the entire Baikal thresholds for protection of the watershed. watershed. Currently, no coordinated research and monitoring program exists within the Baikal watershed. However, Lake Baikal Watershed Management policies must link with signifi cant regional environmental quality data exists on regional economic development priorities, or risk being Lake Baikal. Regional budgets continue to decrease with less ignored. Policy-makers should work hard to show the economic money being applied to scientifi c research. Consequently, and social benefi ts of proposed environmental conservation policy-makers do not possess any cohesive set of water legislation, projects, or policies in the Baikal watershed. For quality information that would help them decide upon future example, improvements to water quality should be connected development in Buryatia and Mongolia. Efforts should be made with the resulting health benefi ts, or increases in tourism to establish a long-term research and monitoring program that potential. In the mining sector, it is relatively straightforward measures environmental impacts throughout the watershed. to show how small investments in new technology can greatly This would also greatly assist resource management decisions reduce environmental impacts in some regions. in preserving the world’s largest freshwater lake.

Mongolia should be incorporated into all Baikal watershed 5. Acknowledgements management discussions. The defi nition of “watershed management” to many working at Baikal has progressed The authors would like to thank Bill Wilson, Paul Grigoriev, from meaning only the lake, to typically just the Russian Andrey Kushlin, John Tracy, and Gary Cook for providing portion of the watershed. The Selenga watershed in Mongolia comments. Any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility provides over 60% of the water (and possibly an equivalent of the authors. level of pollutants) fl owing into the river providing almost

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 27 6. References which any of the authors are associated, any judgment on the legal or other status of any territory, or any endorsement or Baasanjav, G. and Y. Tsend-Ayush. 2001. Mongol Orny Zagas acceptance of any boundary. [Fish of Mongolia]. ADMON Publishing Company: .

Bazuin, G., R. Grayson, F. McBride, and I. Barclay. 2000. “Review of the Gold Dredges in Mongolia, with comments on mitigation of environmental impacts.” World Placer Journal 1: 90-106.

Borodin, A. and E. Syroechkovski. 1983. Zapovedniki SSSR. Lesnaya Promyshlennost Publishing House: .

Matveyev, A.N., N.M. Pronin, V.P. Samusenok, and C.R. Bronte. 1998. “Ecology of Siberia Taimen (Hucho taimen) in the Lake Baikal Basin.” J. Research 24(4): 905-916.

Robinson, W.P. 2001. “Identifi cation of Potential Water Quality Risks to Lake Baikal’s Largest Tributary, the Selenga River, from Mining and other sources: A Preliminary Investigation.” Paper prepared for Baikalwatch. Earth Island Institute: , CA, USA.

TACIS (Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States). 1999. Sustainable Forestry in the Baikal Basin. TACIS.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization). 1996. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage: Report from 20th Session, 2-7 December, 1996, Merida, Mexico. (Available at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom96.htm#754).

Williams, D.S. and Conroy, A.D. 1991. Principal Point Pollution Sources in the Lake Baikal Watershed with Observations on Necessary Investments, Priorities, and Techniques to Minimize Pollutant Discharge. Report prepared for Davis and Associates: Wadhams, NY.

World Bank. 1996. Russian Federation Biodiversity Conservation Project: Project Document. World Bank: Washington, DC.

World Bank. 2003. GNI per capita 2003, Atlas Method and PPP. (Tables available at http://www.worldbank.org)

Disclaimer

The fi ndings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of The World Bank and its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent, nor do they necessarily represent the view of the organizations, agencies or governments to which any of the authors are associated. Also, the colors, boundaries, denominations, and classifi cations in this report do not imply, on the part of The World Bank and its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent, and the organizations, agencies or governments to

28 Lake Baikal Appendix Russian State and Regional Resource Management Institutions Cooperating with the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) for Protection of Lake Baikal.

Institution Roles Federal Service of Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet) (Irkutsk Agency of • state ecological monitoring Hydrometeorology, Agency of Hydrometeorology (Chita) and Buryat Center for Hydrometeorology (Ulan-Ude) • state water monitoring • water protection zones State Agency of Sanitary and Epidemiological Control of the • licensing of water use Russian Federation (4 territorial centers in particular) • state control in water protection and use • exploitation of reservoirs • transboundary pollution control • licensing and quotas for water use • development of two comprehensive schemes of use and State Fishery Committee of the Russian Federation, its protection of natural resources on the Baikal Natural territorial bodies Baikalrybvod (Baikal Basin Fishery Agency Territory and on the Selenga River with headquarters in Ulan-Ude and branches in 4 regions of • research and restoration of fi sh and bioresources the Russian Federation) • research and protection of rare and endemic species • ecological zoning East Siberian Fishery Research Institute (Vostsibrybvod) • research and restoration of fi sh and bioresources Ulan-Ude • development of comprehensive schemes of use and protection of natural resources on the Baikal Natural Territorial Agencies for control, protection and restoration of Territory game and wildlife resources of the Republic of Buryatia, and • assessment of permissible number of game for hunting Chita and Irkutsk Oblasts • research and protection of rare and endemic species • ecological zoning • water protection zones State Land Resources and Land Planning Committee of • ecological zoning the Russian Federation (Land use Committee of Buryatia, • development of two comprehensive schemes of use and Chamber of the Land Cadastre, Irkutsk region, etc.) protection of natural resources on the Baikal Natural Territory and on the Selenga River • control of safety of hydrotechnical facilities • fl ood prevention Ministry of Emergencies • forest and steppe fi re prevention • prevention of technology-related catastrophes Ministry of Health Care of the Republic of Buryatia; State Committee for the Affairs of Youth, Tourism and Sports of • management and licensing of recreational resources the Republic of Buryatia; Ministry of Culture; Ministry of • environmental education Education of the Republic of Buryatia; and corresponding • cultural environmental traditions departments of the regional Administrations of Chita and Irkutsk Oblasts Attorney General Offi ce and Inspectorates; Tterritorial Divisions of State Technical Inspection of Mining and • control and inspections of environmental compliance and Industry; Inspectorates on Oil, Transport, and River enforcement Transportation • public hearings of proposed decisions • public control Local self-governance and NGOs • environmental initiatives • promotion of ecological awareness

Experience and Lessons Learned Brief 29

Top View