The practice of protecting World Natural Heritage sites in Canada

Kolobov Roman Yur'evich PhD in Law Associate Professor of the Department of International Law and Comparative Jurisprudence of the Irkutsk State University Law Institute; Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law of the East Siberian Branch of the Russian State University of Justice 664082, Russia, Irkutskaya oblast', g. Irkutsk, ul. Ulan-Batorskaya, 10 roman.kolobov@gmail.com Other publications by this author     Ganeva Ekaterina Olegovna PhD in Law Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law of the Irkutsk State University Law Institute; Coordinator of the Youth Research Center of the Research Institute of Legal Protection of Lake Baikal ISU 664082, Russia, Irkutskaya oblast', g. Irkutsk, ul. Ulan-Batorskaya, 10 kareva10@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Kholmogorova Ekaterina Nikolaevna expert, Youth Research Center of the Research Institute of Legal Protection of Baikal, Irkutsk State University 664082, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Ulaanbaatar str., 10 kholmogorova.cat@yandex.ru

Makarenko Elizaveta Konstantinovna expert, Youth Research Center of the Research Institute of Legal Protection of Baikal, Irkutsk State University 664082, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Ulaanbaatar str., 10 elizavetkamorjo@gmail.com

In the modern world, the protection of natural objects is carried out by both national and various international legal instruments, the main of which are international treaties. Among them, the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage stands out ^[1] (hereinafter also the Convention, the World Heritage Convention), designed to protect unique objects of global significance. Natural objects that meet the criteria of outstanding universal value and are included in the World Heritage List (hereinafter also referred to as the List) fall under the international legal regime for the protection of world heritage, as well as under the special national legal norms of individual States adopted in order to fulfill obligations under the Convention. The latter, of course, differ in each State, since the Convention sets only the most general approaches to the protection of the world heritage, leaving the specific forms of implementation of environmental measures at the discretion of individual legal orders. For this reason, the formation of effective domestic means of protecting World Heritage sites involves the study of relevant foreign experience and determining the possibility of its extrapolation to the Russian practice of preserving unique natural objects of world importance. This comparison is of particular importance in relation to the protection of the unique ecosystem of Lake Baikal. This World Heritage Site is exposed to a variety of risk factors, primarily related to human activity. In the international legal aspect, the issues of the preservation of Lake Baikal are constantly raised by the World Heritage Committee (hereinafter also referred to as the Committee). Thus, in the decision of the 44th session of the Committee ^[2], the position was again expressed on the possibility of including the lake in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in the absence of tangible progress in solving the problems that the Committee draws attention to.

An interesting subject for the claimed comparative legal research is Canada. This developed large state, located in the northern latitudes, implements a comprehensive environmental policy, including in relation to unique natural objects. Thus, the object of the study of this article is the practice of Canada's implementation of international obligations for the protection of World heritage sites, expressed primarily in the decisions of the World Heritage Committee. Generalization of such experience will make it possible to identify typical problems of protecting World Heritage sites in developed countries, as well as draw parallels with the protection of Lake Baikal, including by formulating possible directions for borrowing positive foreign experience.

According to the website of the World Heritage Center, there are twenty World Heritage sites in Canada – nine belonging to the category of cultural heritage, ten – natural and one object of a mixed nature (due to the stated subject of this article, we will limit ourselves to analyzing the practice of protecting only natural heritage sites). Describing the general approach of the World Heritage Committee to the analysis of issues of conservation of World Natural Heritage sites in Canada, it is impossible not to note the significant time gaps between the decisions taken, as well as the lack of integrity in the description and settlement of some problems. For example, with regard to the Nahanni National Park in the decisions of the 30th session of the Committee in 2006 (30 COM 7B.22) a serious problem was raised about the possible cumulative effect of mining activities around the boundaries of this World Heritage Site ^[3]. In the analysis of the state of the facility prepared for the 30th session, these threats were disclosed more specifically. Among them, the mining projects of the Canadian Zinc Corporation (Canadian Zinc Corporation) and the problems of building the infrastructure that provides them (construction of a winter road), as well as the opening of the CanTung mine by the North American Tungsten Corporation (North American Tungsten) near the facility were particularly noted. However, according to the information provided on the website of the World Heritage Center, the following decision of the Committee concerning the Nahanni National Park was adopted in 2018 (42 COM 8E), it concerned the approval of a retrospective formulation of outstanding universal value, and the issues raised in 2006 were not subsequently reflected in the decisions of the Committee.

A similar situation was observed with the object "Parks of the Canadian Rocky Mountains". At the 30th session, the Committee, in decision 30 COM 7B.21, requested Canada to minimize and mitigate the adverse effects of the Cheviot mine development. In the analysis of the state of preservation of the object, prepared with the participation of the advisory bodies of the Committee, it was noted on this issue that measures to mitigate the impact on the population of grizzly bears were not fully implemented. But in the future, the problems of the implementation of extractive industry projects were not raised in the documents of the Committee. The subsequent decision on the object under consideration was made in 2014 and concerned the clarification of the boundaries of the object (38 COM 8D) ^[4], and in 2019 a retrospective formulation of outstanding universal value (43 COM 8E) was approved ^[5].

Among the problems often encountered at various World Natural Heritage sites in Canada, the interrelated issues of defining the boundaries of these objects and the development of mineral deposits within the site and, in particular, in the territories adjacent to such objects are particularly acute.

From the point of view of the formal definiteness of the boundaries of World Heritage sites, some problems were noted in the Canadian practice of their protection. In 2005, the Committee considered the state of preservation of the Miguasha National Park (29 COM 7B.17), noting the problem of drilling wells in the buffer zone of this facility. He stressed that such activity was the result of an error – ignorance about the existence of a buffer zone and the corresponding legal regime ^[6]. The authorities of the province of Quebec have taken measures to improve communication between government agencies to prevent such situations. It should be noted that the problems of formal definiteness of the boundaries of World Heritage sites and awareness of them by the public and governing bodies have arisen and are arising at World Heritage sites and in other countries.

Thus, for a long time, the Belarusian authorities and administrations proceeded from the fact that the Belarusian part of the world Heritage site "Belovezhsky Forest" is represented by an area of 5235 hectares, despite the fact that in reality the international legal regime for the protection of the World Heritage extended to an area of 87606 hectares (subject to clarification). Such a misunderstanding, as in the situation with the Miguasha National Park, predetermined the implementation of timber harvesting and work supporting this activity, which are not allowed on the territories of World Heritage sites ^[7]. The problem of formal definiteness of borders was also acute at the World Heritage site "Reserve of the Arabian Antelope (Oryx)" (Oman), which later became the first World Heritage Site excluded from the List. This object was included in the World Heritage List without an exact definition of the boundaries, which further only aggravated the problems of preserving this site. The decision of the Committee on the conservation of the Reserve separately noted the position of the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, who drew attention to the fact that the current difficult situation with the protection of the reserve clearly shows the danger of inclusion in the List of objects in the absence of an accurate definition of their borders ^[8].

The question of the definiteness of the boundaries of the World Heritage site is often raised in relation to the object "Lake Baikal". At the same time, at the level of the bodies of the World Heritage protection system, the issue of borders is resolved, and they did not express any doubts about this ^[9]. At the level of national law, the issue of the borders of Lake Baikal as a World Heritage site is discussed in legal, social and political dimensions. The authors of this article have already noted that in the national legal system, it would not be superfluous to fix in the Federal Law "On the Protection of Lake Baikal" the provision that the boundaries of Lake Baikal as a World Heritage site coincide with the boundaries of the central ecological zone of the Baikal Natural Territory (hereinafter also referred to as the CEZ BPT), with the exception of five settlements: Babushkin, Baikalsk, Kultuk, Severobaikalsk and Slyudyanka ^[9] (it should be noted that in the Canadian Gros-Morne National Park, which is a World Heritage Site, coastal settlements are also excluded from the Park and the World Heritage Site). Such certainty is required for reasons of insufficiently clear presentation of these issues in the documents of the World Heritage Committee.

Another aspect of the problem of definiteness of borders is political. On the one hand, a number of public forces point to the incorrect definition of the boundaries of the World Heritage site "Lake Baikal", on the other hand, the Strategy of Socio–economic Development of the Irkutsk region for the period up to 2036 ^[10] directly establishes the need to study the issue of excluding the territories of settlements from the status of World Heritage sites. Such a proposal requires serious justification from the point of view of the purpose that its authors had in mind (and it is not at all obvious). We can only assume that the immediate purpose of such a proposal is to remove land plots located in settlements within the boundaries of the World Heritage site "Lake Baikal" from the scope of paragraph 4, paragraph 5 of Article 27 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation. This legal provision restricts the circulation of state or municipal owned land plots occupied by objects included in the World Heritage List. But if our assumption is correct, then completely unsuitable means have been chosen to achieve this goal. The fact is that the regulation of property relations is an internal matter of each individual state, and each law and order independently decides on the turnover of land plots, including in cases where they are located within the boundaries of World Heritage sites. If the authors of the relevant provision believe that the specified limitation of turnover does not perform the functions of preserving the World Heritage site (and there are indeed grounds for such a conclusion), then it is logical to change the Land Code of the Russian Federation, i.e., solving the national legal problem by national legal means. At the time of writing this article, the draft law on amendments to Article 27 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation is being considered by the State Duma ^[11].

If the exclusion of settlements from the boundaries of the World Heritage Site is intended to weaken the attention of the Committee and its advisory bodies to the problems of these settlements, then the analysis of the Committee's decision-making practice shows that the ecological condition of the territories adjacent to the borders of the World Heritage site is in constant focus of its attention. In turn, the obligations of States under the Convention relate not only to what happens within the boundaries of the object, but also to all the circumstances that affect its condition. A vivid example of this approach is demonstrated by the experience of Canada's implementation of international obligations under the Convention, considered in this article. The controversial open-pit coal mining project we mentioned earlier at the Cheviot mine, located outside the World Heritage site "Parks of the Canadian Rocky Mountains", 2.8 km from it, nevertheless became the subject of attention of World Heritage bodies. In the Gros-Morne National Park, questions about the compliance of ongoing and planned activities near the World Natural Heritage Site with the obligations of the State under the Convention have repeatedly arisen. Thus, in 2001, the Bureau of the Committee noted Canada's efforts to prevent logging in areas adjacent to the borders of the National Park, since the park was included in the List, including by the criterion of exceptional natural beauty.

In 2013, at the 37th session, the Committee expressed serious concern about plans for hydraulic fracturing in the immediate vicinity from the object, which may affect the outstanding universal value of the object ^[12]. Similar concerns were expressed about the World Heritage site "Wood Buffalo National Park". Back in 1989, at the 13th session, the Committee noted information received from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (hereinafter also - IUCN) concerning industrial development plans near the national Park ^[13]. It was then about plans for the construction of pulp and paper industries. And in 2015, at the 39th session, the Committee expressed concern about the impact of hydroelectric power plants, oil sands development on the facility, as well as plans to develop an open-pit mine near the facility ^[14]. The position on the need to correlate the activities carried out in the territories systemically related to the object was expressed when considering the state of preservation of the Waterton Lakes Glacier International Peace Park at the 34th session of the Committee. The existing threats to the site from possible impacts on wildlife for reasons existing outside the boundaries of the World Heritage Site, including the development of housing and industrial construction, as well as infrastructure development and forestry, were taken into account ^[15]. The IUCN, as an advisory body of the Committee, was more categorical in its conclusion, indicating that such activities are incompatible with the protection of the outstanding universal value of the object ^[16].

A characteristic feature of the protection of the World Heritage is the territorial extension of the obligations under the Convention and to adjacent territories, activities in which may have an impact on the condition of the object. As a matter of fact, this approach can be traced in relation to Lake Baikal. The Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the prospects for the development of various economic projects. These include the development of the city of Baikalsk and the industrial site of the former Baikal Pulp and Paper Mill (the city is not part of the World Heritage Site). Another example is the decisions of the Committee 29 SOM 7B.19 and 30 SOM 7B.18, which draw attention to a serious potential threat – the construction of an oil pipeline outside the boundaries of the World Heritage Site. The Committee explicitly stated that any construction of an oil pipeline crossing the catchment area of Lake Baikal and its main tributaries would be grounds for including the site in the World Heritage List under Threat. Thus, in relation to Lake Baikal, international legal obligations for the protection of the World Heritage extend to adjacent territories that are not formally part of the territory of the World Heritage site.

An analysis of the positions of the World Heritage Committee on the preservation of World Heritage sites in Canada shows that the legal protection of the territories adjacent to the object can be provided by various means. The most adequate from the point of view of the implementation of the international legal regime for the protection of unique natural objects is the regime of the buffer zone of the World Heritage site. At the moment, the legal basis for its establishment is enshrined in the Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (hereinafter also referred to as the Guidelines) in articles 103-107. The creation of a buffer zone is not mandatory, Article 103 stipulates that they are created if it is necessary to ensure proper protection of the object. The buffer zone surrounds the corresponding object and is characterized by certain restrictions on its use and development. Article 104 defines that the buffer zone includes the immediate environment of the object, important panoramas and other territories and attributes that have functional significance for the support of the object and its protection. 

At the same time, the concept of buffer zones can hardly be considered fully developed. Thus, the analysis of the Guidelines shows that there is a need for a clearer coordination of the role of buffer zones and the actual territory of the World Heritage Site. Thus, describing the requirements for the establishment of the boundaries of the World Heritage site, the Guide in Article 101 states that "the boundaries of the object should cover the areas directly adjacent to the territory, which has an outstanding universal value, in order to protect the values of the heritage object from the direct influence of anthropogenic factors and the harmful effects of human resource extraction activities carried out outside the nominated territory". With such a definition, there is a need to define the criteria for distinguishing the World Heritage site itself and the buffer zone. This issue also came to the attention of the World Heritage protection authorities, a separate edition of Articles on World Heritage No. 25 (World Heritage Papers No. 25) was devoted to it, in which the IUCN also noted the possible intersection of its own regime of the World Heritage site and the buffer zone ^[17].

In relation to Canadian World Heritage Sites, a formalized twenty-meter buffer zone has been created at the Rocks with Fossils in Joggins. This facility is located in the northwest of the province of Nova Scotia and includes 689 hectares ^[18]. As indicated in the formulation of outstanding universal value, the rocks of the object are a vivid example of the geological history of the Carboniferous period of Earth evolution. The IUCN conclusion containing an assessment of the submitted nomination materials indicates that the buffer zone, despite its narrow width, performs protective functions of controlling coastal development, but at the same time can be expanded in the future ^[18].

Nevertheless, the formation of a buffer zone is a common method of protecting a World Heritage site, and an analysis of Canada's practice of fulfilling international obligations under the Convention shows that the Committee often strongly recommends considering the creation of a formalized buffer zone for the protection of World Heritage sites.

So, in order to solve the previously mentioned problems related to industrial development near the Wood Buffalo National Park, the Committee asked the Canadian authorities to consider the possibility of creating a buffer zone at the 43rd session in 2019 and the 44th session in 2021 ^[2]. The recommendation to create a buffer zone was also contained in the report of the Responding Monitoring Mission to the object, held in 2016 ^[19]. The problems described earlier with ensuring the preservation of the Gros-Morne National Park also predetermined the formulation by the Committee of recommendations on the formation of a buffer zone of this World Heritage site. At the 40th session in 2016, the Committee took into account the position of the Canadian authorities regarding the sufficiency of national measures to prevent the development of industrial projects near the World Heritage Site, but noted that these measures are temporary, and therefore recommended considering the creation of a buffer zone ^[20]. In 2018, this request was again made in a more urgent form. The Committee pointed out that the creation of a buffer zone remains a key tool to ensure that the facility will not be influenced by unfavorable development projects, such as oil and gas production both onshore and in coastal areas. In this regard, the Committee requested Canada to create an appropriate buffer zone as part of broader conservation measures through transparent consultations with local communities and civil society ^[21].

 At the same time, Canadian practice shows that the Committee can recognize sufficient legal and organizational protection of territories adjacent to World Heritage sites, carried out exclusively in national forms. Such an example is the situation with the preservation of the Nahanni National Park. As noted earlier in this article, in 2006 the World Heritage Committee expressed concern about the development of industrial projects on the sites adjacent to the site. As follows from the decision approving the retrospective formulation of outstanding universal value, in 2009 Canada increased the territory of the national park by 2,500,000 hectares. The total protected area was about 3,000,000 hectares, although the boundaries of the World Heritage Site remained the same. As indicated, the Committee has not taken separate decisions on the state of the World Heritage site "Nahanni National Park" since 2006, but the analyzed wording notes satisfaction with the measures taken. Thus, it is obvious that the adoption of effective measures to protect the territories adjacent to the object, even in the format of purely national organizational and legal institutions, may well meet the requirements of the World Heritage protection system.

These approaches to the protection of the territories adjacent to the object (conditionally, international legal and national) can be extrapolated to the situation with Lake Baikal. It seems that the size of the World Heritage site "Lake Baikal" itself meets the goals of its preservation and, in general, the principle of "do no harm" should apply in matters of international legal regimes for the protection of the lake. By it we mean the need to preserve the positive historical experience that was achieved with the help of the World Heritage regime ^[22]. The creation of the buffer zone of the World Heritage site "Lake Baikal", as well as any planned changes to the territory of the World Heritage site itself, should not entail "printing out" the question of the initial principles of zoning of the Baikal natural territory. At the same time, the buffer zone regime of the World Heritage Site may well be extended to five settlements outside the borders of the World Heritage site "Lake Baikal", which will strengthen the international legal protection of these territories. 

We have already made a proposal on the need to recognize the CEZ BPT as a specially protected natural area (hereinafter also SPNA) of an umbrella type. Such a solution will allow, using purely domestic legal means, to create legal and organizational mechanisms to ensure the unity of the regime of the World Heritage site itself and the five settlements located in its immediate vicinity. The recognition of the CEZ BPT as a specially protected natural area will also allow creating a single administration that could combine the management of both "classic" types of specially protected natural areas within the boundaries of the CEZ BPT, and territories that are not part of any protected area.

One of the main risks of a purely national approach in the establishment of environmental regimes is the fact that decisions on the creation of specially protected natural territories, approval and modification of their borders in the system of current regulatory and legal regulation are taken by executive authorities - in relation to protected areas of the federal level – the Ministry of Natural Resources. This state of affairs has led to the fact that a number of World Heritage sites in some periods remained without proper legal protection. We are talking about changing the boundaries of the Yugyd Va National Park, approved by the order of the Ministry of Natural Resources, in such a way that the Chudnoye deposit was excluded from the territory of the facility. Only the intervention of the Prosecutor's Office and the judiciary allowed to cancel the relevant illegal decisions. A similar situation has developed at the Volcanoes of Kamchatka facility, which is a multicomponent World Heritage Site. Its legal and organizational protection is carried out by the establishment of various protected areas, one of which is the Yuzhno-Kamchatsky Nature Park. In 2020-2021, its borders were changed in order to implement a number of investment projects, which caused an immediate reaction from the World Heritage protection authorities, who pointed out that such actions were inconsistent with the regime of the World Heritage site.

These cases show that even with respect to protected areas that protect World Natural Heritage sites, actions can be taken to change their borders. Therefore, protected areas created in the territories adjacent to such facilities may also be at risk of making short-term tactical management decisions. It seems that one of the solutions to these problems may be the transfer to the federal level of the decision on the creation of protected areas in order to fulfill international obligations by the Russian Federation, as well as the approval and change of their borders by an act of the Government. Such protected areas may include those that are being created in adjacent territories. When creating a unified administration of the Central Economic Zone of the BPT, the territories of five settlements that are buffer zones "de facto" will also enter the scope of its administrative powers. 

Another possible option for an intra–national solution to the issues of protection of territories bordering on World Heritage sites is the formation of a special type of protected area of protected areas – the protected area of the World Heritage site.

As it was shown, the main problem of preserving World Heritage sites in Canada is the development of various industrial facilities. In addition to the various projects for the development of the extractive industry already mentioned, the Committee's decisions also noted the risks of developing hydropower projects. So, back in 1990, in the analysis of the state of the Wood Buffalo National Park, the Committee noted the impact on the hydroelectric power plant (hereinafter also – HPP) on the Peace River. In particular, floods were noted, resulting in the death of bison. In the 2010s, plans are being drawn up for the construction of the Site C and Amisk hydroelectric power plants ^[23]. In 2021, at its 44th session, the Committee, considering the state of preservation of the facility, indicated concern about the lack of inter-institutional management of water resources and the continued development of hydropower projects that take into account outstanding universal value, in the absence of clarity in the regulation of runoff.

Similar trends were observed in the protection of Lake Baikal. The problems of mining within the boundaries of the World Heritage Site were very acute in connection with the plans for the development of the Kholodninsky deposit. The revocation of the license for the relevant works was due to the definition of the boundaries of the BPT CEZ and their combination with the boundaries of Baikal as a World Heritage site and the inability to carry out mining activities due to restrictions approved by the list of activities prohibited in the BPT CEZ.  Among these activities, the approach of the World Heritage protection system bodies is also reflected, which is expressed in the inadmissibility of the implementation of extractive industry projects within the boundaries of World Heritage sites. The development of this approach is connected with the principled position of the International Council on Mining and Metals, which in 2003 made a voluntary commitment not to develop or extract minerals within the boundaries of World Heritage sites. This approach has been established in the practice of the Committee and is consistently carried out in the practice of protecting unique natural objects in different countries.

Similarly, plans for the development of hydropower projects and the consequences of already implemented projects have become acute in the protection of the Baikal ecosystem. For more than ten years, one of the main potential threats has been the problem of the planned construction of hydraulic structures on the Selenga River and its tributaries. The principled position of the World Heritage Committee, demanding to take into account and study possible impacts on the ecosystem of Lake Baikal, played an important role in the normalization of Russian-Mongolian cooperation on these issues ^{[24, p. 118]}.

For a long time, the Committee has been paying attention to the problem of regulating the level of Lake Baikal, which is carried out primarily by setting water discharge standards at the Irkutsk hydroelectric power station. At the 44th session, regret was expressed that the Russian Federation had not conducted an environmental impact assessment (hereinafter also referred to as an EIA) of the impact of existing water use regulations on the outstanding universal value of the lake. The Committee called for the cancellation of all amendments to the regulation of the lake level until the consequences of the impact of water use rules on the specified value are fully understood. The request for the preparation of an EIA and strategic environmental assessment (hereinafter also referred to as SEA) was also made with regard to projects for the development of hydropower projects in Mongolia (along with the transboundary joint SEA of water resources management). The problems of the impact of the development of hydropower projects on World Heritage sites are one of the most serious challenges to the protection of unique ecosystems, since in this issue there is a clash of environmental priorities and very sensitive interests of the energy security of states. Including for these reasons, the international legal regulation of the issues of the planned construction of hydraulic structures at the present stage is represented to a greater extent by acts of the so-called international "soft" law, since states are in no hurry to assume "strict" obligations. One of the documents of this kind is the San Jose Declaration on Sustainable Hydropower, which, in particular, enshrines the obligation not to implement new hydropower projects at World Heritage sites. It seems necessary to work systematically to develop this approach and prevent the construction of hydraulic structures not only on World Heritage sites, but also adjacent territories.

An analysis of the Committee's decisions shows that the requirement to conduct various types of environmental assessment is systematically put forward for objects located on the territory of Canada. In relation to the Wood Buffalo facility, in 2015, it was requested to conduct SEA of cumulative impacts of various development projects on the outstanding universal value of the facility, including the construction of hydroelectric power plants, mines and the development of oil sands in accordance with the provisions of the IUCN recommendations ^[25]. As with Lake Baikal, the Committee asked to refrain from making appropriate decisions ^[14]. With regard to the Gros-Morne National Park, the Committee requested an EIA for drilling and hydraulic fracturing projects (2013 ^[12], 2014 ^[26]), and also that any potential development licenses in the Gulf of St. Lawrence be subject to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with the IUCN recommendations. 

Thus, in modern conditions, conducting various types of environmental assessment is a popular tool for nature protection of unique natural objects. Unfortunately, we have to state that in Russia the legislation on environmental assessment is in the initial stage of formation. The traditional institution for the domestic legal order is the EIA, prepared in the system of current legal regulation within the framework of the state environmental expertise, which is subject to a limited range of documentation justifying the planned economic and other activities, including possible transboundary impacts ^{[27, p. 101]}.But neither the strategic environmental assessment, nor the regional environmental assessment, nor others (including cross-border varieties of these assessments) receive legislative consolidation. In this regard, it seems appropriate to form such legislation on the basis of positive foreign and international experience.

Finally, it should be noted that the World Heritage Committee attaches great importance to taking into account the views of the local population and indigenous peoples in the management and protection of World Natural Heritage sites. In 2015, when considering the condition of the Wood Buffalo facility, Unesco pointed out the lack of involvement of indigenous peoples in monitoring activities, as well as taking into account traditional environmental knowledge ^[14]. In 2017, the Committee requested Canada to ensure the involvement of all legitimate stakeholders and rights holders, including indigenous people, based on mechanisms agreed with them ^[28]. In fact, this request was again made in 2021 at the 44th session of the Committee, especially with regard to the involvement of indigenous peoples ^[2].

And in this matter it is necessary to state a certain similarity with the problems existing at the World Heritage site "Lake Baikal". As is known, there are no special mechanisms in the BPT CEZ for involving the local population in the management of Baikal as a World Heritage Site, as well as ongoing programs for its participation in the processes of monitoring the ecological state of the lake. It seems that in many respects this situation is caused by the lack of consolidated management of the facility and the lack of a management plan for it. The proposed measures to give the CEZ BPT the status of a protected area and the creation of its unified administration will, firstly, ensure the adoption of a management plan for Lake Baikal as a World Heritage site, and, secondly, institutionalize the participation of the local population and indigenous peoples who are most capable of ensuring long-term sustainable use of the territory's resources ^{[29, p. 365]}. through the creation of advisory bodies with their participation.

The conducted research shows the existence of common problems in the preservation of unique natural sites included in the World Heritage List in Canada and the Russian Federation and a significant potential for using positive foreign experience in their solution.