The Practice of Protecting World Natural Heritage Sites in Africa

The Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter also the World Heritage Convention, the Convention) ^[1] unites a significant part of modern states in an effort to preserve and pass on to future generations the unique creations of man and nature. It enshrines the most general obligations of States to identify, preserve and promote World Heritage sites, leaving specific forms of implementation of relevant measures to national legislation. Since the adoption of the Convention, the World Heritage List (hereinafter also the List) has been continuously expanded ^{[2, p. 29]}. The unity of approaches in achieving the objectives of the Convention is ensured, first of all, by the existence of a system of world Heritage protection bodies, the central place in which is occupied by the World Heritage Committee (hereinafter also referred to as the Committee), which considers various issues of the preservation of World Heritage sites. The difference in the national practice of preserving such objects determines the importance of comparative legal studies of the protection of the world natural heritage. At the moment, in the Russian legal doctrine, the practice of protecting World Natural heritage sites abroad, unfortunately, practically does not receive coverage. At the same time, consideration of the peculiarities of environmental protection activities at World Heritage sites in foreign countries will allow both to take into account the problems arising abroad and to adjust the policy in relations with the system of world Heritage protection bodies. As you know, the Committee raises acute issues related to the preservation of natural objects, which acquire a deep public resonance. A striking example of this is the attitude of the Committee to the problems of protecting Lake Baikal.

In this paper, we will turn to the experience of protecting World Natural heritage sites in African countries. Significant differences in the climatic, economic and social conditions of environmental policy are not, however, an insurmountable obstacle to drawing lessons from the experience of these countries for the protection of unique natural objects in Russia.  The subject of the study will be the practice of fulfilling international obligations under the World Heritage Convention at the sites "Manovo-Gounda-Saint-Floris National Park" (Central African Republic) and "National Parks on Lake Turkana" (Kenya), to which the first two parts of the article will be devoted. In the third part, we will try, despite these differences, to summarize the conclusions that are significant for the Russian practice of protecting World Heritage sites, which will deepen the understanding of the approaches of the world Heritage protection system to the preservation of unique natural objects.

1. The Manovo-Gounda-Saint-Floris National Park was included in the World Heritage List in 1988. As follows from the conclusion ^[3] of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (hereinafter also – IUCN) based on the results of consideration of the nomination materials, the national protection of this area has been carried out since the 30s of the XX century. The area of the nominated object was 1740000 hectares, it was included in the List according to criteria 2 and 4 (9 and 10 in the new numbering). As noted by the IUCN, from a biological point of view, the object represents perhaps the most important savanna ecosystem in west and central Africa. Its biodiversity is represented by endangered flora elements and extremely diverse fauna. The International Union for Conservation of Nature also noted two problems in the protection of the park's ecosystems, which will only worsen in the coming years: illegal grazing and poaching. In addition, mass poverty is one of the main obstacles to the effective protection of ecosystems of the Manovo-Gounda-Saint-Floris National Park.

The Central African Republic is among the least developed countries, so independent financing of environmental protection measures is almost impossible. An analysis of the Committee's decisions since 1988 shows that the issue of the lack of resources and the search for sources of funding has been raised constantly. A significant part of the funds came as aid from foreign countries. The Bureau of the Committee noted the financing by the European Economic Community of a ten-year project (1988-1998) in the amount of $27,000,000 ^[4], which did not lead to the creation of an effective management system ^[5], but contributed to the suspension of individual deterioration of the Park. In the future, the European Union implemented ECOFAC and ECOFAUNE programs in the CAR. International funds were allocated in 2015 within the framework of the Central African biodiversity conservation program under the auspices of the African Development Bank (US$ 260,000). Some funds were also allocated within the framework of the World Heritage protection system, but their scale was insignificant compared to the support programs of developed foreign countries. For example, in 2001, an emergency sum of $150,000 was allocated.

The lack of funding has also led to changes in management policy. In 1992, the Bureau of the Committee noted the intentions of the President of the CAR to transfer the management of the object to a private foundation and asked the World Heritage Center to conduct a joint assessment with the IUCN of the consequences of the implementation of such a proposal ^[6]. The following year, the Bureau also noted the lack of financial and human resources in the country to ensure effective management of the facility, as well as the government's interest in privatizing or leasing the site ^[7]. Attempts by a private French company to develop tourism projects encountered problems with the physical safety of staff and tourists, as a result of which, already in 1997, the Bureau Committee noted the cessation of tourism at the facility ^[8]. In the future, the Committee made constant efforts to organize international assistance to the facility, calling on possible donors to help the National Park, and these efforts obviously led to certain results. At the 44th session, the Committee noted the significant funding provided by the Government of Norway.

The financial insolvency of the State and its institutions (as well as neighboring States), the poverty of the local population and the high crime rate predetermined by this caused the emergence of another problem of protecting the analyzed World Heritage site – poaching. As noted earlier, this problem was indicated even when considering the nomination materials, and subsequently it became one of the main threats to the preservation of the ecosystem of the National Park. If in 1993 the materials of the Bureau of the Committee used a very diplomatic expression that "poaching from neighboring countries is of a serious nature and poses high risks for those who are trying to prevent it" ^[9], then already in 1997, at the 21st session of the Committee, information about heavily armed groups of poachers and about the murder of four Park employees ^[10]. It was also noted that about 80 percent of wild animals are illegally harvested for commercial purposes.

In 1997, the site was included in the List of World Heritage in Danger. At the same time, tragic deaths of park employees continued in subsequent years ^[11]. A monitoring mission that visited the facility in 2006 indicated that the State controls only 20 percent of the park's territory. The Committee has been noting since the mid-2000s that the outstanding universal value that led to the inclusion of the object in the List is under serious threat. At the 43rd session, the preservation of such a value was described as "highly questionable" due to the fact that the mission that visited the site in 2019 pointed to the almost complete disappearance of large mammals and expressed serious doubts about the preservation of the integrity of the site. In this regard, the Committee decided to grant a four-year delay to analyze the possibility of restoring the integrity of the object, which determines its outstanding universal value. Among the encouraging factors in 2021, at the 44th session of the Committee, the conclusion of an agreement between the CAR Government and the main armed group was noted, which made it possible to improve the security situation.

One of the specific threats to the condition of the World Heritage site under consideration is cattle breeding. In the report of the mission that visited the facility in 2019, such a system of animal husbandry organization was characterized as contributing to arms trafficking, poaching, creating social conflicts and causing environmental degradation due to overgrazing. In 2021, the World Heritage Committee asked the CAR authorities to fully implement a strategy for the management of livestock breeding, which provides for the creation of permitted zones and corridors outside the World Heritage Site, as well as to continue efforts to strengthen international cooperation with Chad on this issue, including by creating a complex of transboundary specially protected natural territories. At the time of writing this article, the Manovo-Gounda-Saint-Floris National Park continues to remain on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

2. The second object, which will be discussed, faced slightly different problems than the previously considered Manovo-Gounda-Saint-Floris National Park. These are National Parks on Lake Turkana. Initially, two national parks were nominated as a World Heritage Site in 1997: Sibiloi and Central Island. The IUCN assessment indicates that Lake Turkana (formerly Lake Rudolf) is a lake with a drainage basin receiving 80 percent of the water from the Omo River in Ethiopia. In addition to protecting the rich avifauna (more than 350 species) and animal species living in the desert, the National Park provides protection for the fossils of primitive man and other mammals in the Koobi-Fora area. Central Island National Park is a volcanic island located 10 kilometers from the border of Sibiloi National Park ^[12].

In 2001, the facility was expanded to include the South Island National Park, and the facility received its current name - "National Parks on Lake Turkana". At the same time, the Committee stressed the need to prepare an integrated facility management plan. According to the website of the World Heritage Center, in the next ten years, the Committee did not make decisions about the condition of the object.

In 2011, for the first time, a problem was noted that would become dominant among the risks to the environmental condition of the facility. It is connected with plans for the construction of hydroelectric power plants. At the 35th session, the Committee expressed concern about the plans for the construction of the Gibe-3 hydroelectric power plant on the Omo River, since it delivers almost 90 percent of the water to the lake. At the same time, in the analysis of the state of the facility prepared for the 35th session of the Committee, it was indicated that the African Development Bank conducted an environmental impact assessment (hereinafter also referred to as an EIA), the report on the results of which concluded that filling a very large reservoir of the planned hydroelectric power plant would deprive the lake of 85 percent of the normal annual inflow into the lake and will cause a significant decrease in its level. The African Development Bank, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank refused to finance this project.

Due to possible environmental risks, the Committee called on Ethiopia to immediately suspend the construction of the Gibe-3 hydroelectric power plant, expressed concern about the plans for the subsequent construction of the Gibe-4 and Gibe-5 dams, and also insisted that all financial institutions refrain from financing projects and take into account the decisions of the World Heritage Committee when deciding on such financing ^[13].

The responding mission that visited the site in 2012 noted the shortcomings of the EIA submitted by Ethiopia, the main one of which was its limited territorial coverage, since it did not consider effects outside the country's borders and, accordingly, on Lake Turkana. It should be noted that the mission recommended that the site be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger, but the Committee at its 36th session in 2012 did not take such a decision, suggesting other measures to respond to the situation. In particular, both States were invited to conduct a joint Strategic Environmental Assessment, and a request was reiterated for the suspension of construction and associated irrigation projects related to the production of sugar cane.

By 2014, the Committee welcomed bilateral contacts between Kenya and Ethiopia on the impact of the Gibe-3 project on the ecosystem of Lake Turkana and asked Ethiopia not to start filling the reservoir until the completion of the strategic environmental assessment (hereinafter also SEA) and to develop corrective measures with the support of the World Heritage Center and IUCN ^[14]. However, the Committee's requests both in terms of SEA and in terms of suspending the launch of the hydroelectric power plant were not satisfied. In terms of preparing a strategic environmental assessment, judging by the available materials of the World Heritage Committee, a draft of the terms of reference has been prepared, but it has not yet been implemented.

As indicated, the construction of the dam also entailed the development of projects for the cultivation and processing of sugar cane, for which the Committee also requested an EIA (at the time of writing this article, it was not submitted). We are talking about the development of the Kuraz project. In the analysis of the state of the facility prepared by the IUCN for the 39th session of the Committee ^[15], it is noted that the development of projects for the cultivation and processing of sugar cane in the Omo Valley can have a long-term impact on the outstanding universal value of the facility. A more detailed consideration of these issues was contained in the conclusion of the Advisory Bodies of the Committee for its 42nd session ^[16]. Thus, it is indicated that the project includes four factories (in the original project – five) and the cultivation of 100,000 hectares of land. The heritage impact assessment presented by Ethiopia concludes that the planned project has little impact on the site, although, as indicated in the conclusion, the reasons for such a conclusion remain unclear from the assessment text.

The inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage Sites under Threat occurred in 2018 at the 42nd session of the Committee. The Committee pointed out that, due to the impact on water supply and the lake ecosystem, the continuation of work at the Gibe-3 station and the Kuraz project in Ethiopia, without taking into account the Committee's requests to conduct an impact assessment before the work, including the implementation of mitigation measures, poses a potential danger to the facility in accordance with Article 180 of the Guidelines ^[17].

As follows from the analysis of the decisions of the Committee and its advisory bodies, in the second half of the 2010s, poaching and issues of biodiversity conservation began to appear among the problems of the ecological state of the facility. At the 44th session of the World Heritage Committee, held in 2021, these provisions were added to justify the inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

3. As noted, the problems of protecting unique natural objects in Africa and Russia differ significantly, due to differences in economic, social and cultural development. At the same time, we believe that the law enforcement practice of the World Heritage Committee in relation to the two sites under consideration allows us to summarize the conclusions for a deeper understanding of the approaches of the World Heritage protection system.

As it was shown, one of the main problems in the protection of unique natural objects in Africa is an acute shortage of financial resources. In the Russian Federation, environmental protection measures on Lake Baikal are funded in sufficient volume, so in 2022 6,657.12 million rubles were allocated for them, in 2023 the financing of the project "Preservation of Lake Baikal" is planned to increase from 4.2 billion rubles to 14.158 billion rubles ^[18].

At the same time, there is often dissatisfaction in the public consciousness with the fact that the international community, represented by the bodies of the World Heritage protection system, imposes various restrictive requirements, but does not provide any financial assistance for their implementation. In principle, such an approach does not correspond to the content of international legal obligations under the Convention. The latter enshrines in Article 4 a provision according to which each State Party recognizes that the obligations for the protection and preservation of the world heritage located on its territory are primarily imposed on it. Practice shows that the provision of assistance from UNESCO is, as a rule, modest in size, and such assistance is not capable of solving infrastructure problems at facilities. For example, the assistance provided for Lake Baikal was US$ 15,000 in 1990 for the preparation of the nomination and US$ 18,200 in 2000 for the international seminar. From the analysis of the practice of protecting the Manovo-Gounda-Saint-Floris National Park, it is obvious that the Committee's appeals to potential donors for funding are much more effective. However, with regard to the conservation of natural objects on the territory of the Russian Federation, such assistance from foreign governments and non-profit organizations is not required. Conservation and financing of environmental measures should be based on the realization that Russia, as a world power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an integral member of the international community, demonstrates strict compliance with the principles and norms of international law and the will to pass on to future generations unique cultural and natural objects.

Very often, information appears in the media about the possibility of excluding Baikal from the World Heritage List ^[19]. However, the Guide ^[20] states that there are only two grounds for such an exception: the deterioration of the condition of the object, which resulted in the loss of the characteristics that led to its inclusion in the List, and the failure to implement corrective measures submitted at the time of nomination (Article 192). There are no such circumstances in relation to Lake Baikal, and besides, the practice analyzed in this article shows that the Committee is in no hurry to exclude objects from the List (as well as to include objects in the List of World Heritage in Danger), giving the State the opportunity to implement measures to ensure the preservation of the object.

The described problems of the construction of hydraulic structures in Ethiopia and the analysis of the Committee's approaches to dealing with this problem seem very promising both for the formation of approaches to interaction with the Mongolian authorities on the construction of hydroelectric power plants on the Selenga (the main tributary of Lake Baikal) and with other neighboring states in the future.

The first conclusion is the obvious need for the early formation of an international regulatory framework with bordering foreign states. Practice shows that when a decision on the implementation of a project is made, it is difficult to suspend its implementation. Therefore, systematic work is needed to involve neighboring States in the system of international treaties of a general and special nature. The first include, first of all, the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context and the Aarhus Convention, to which the Russian Federation has not yet joined ^{[21, p. 128]}, the second – bilateral treaties on the protection and use of transboundary rivers and lakes containing detailed provisions, including the construction of hydraulic structures.

The second conclusion that can be formulated based on the results of the study is the statement of the important role of the World Heritage Convention in the development of hydropower. Despite the fact that the Gibe-3 hydroelectric power plant was built in Ethiopia, it should be noted that the position of the Committee made it possible to significantly limit the sources of funding for the implementation of these projects. And with regard to the construction of a hydroelectric power station on the Selenga River, she acted as one of the key factors in changing Mongolia's position on cooperation with Russia and conducting a regional environmental assessment. Therefore, if the construction of hydraulic structures on the Selenga River is continued without taking into account the national interests of the Russian Federation, such a mechanism of the Convention as inclusion in the List of World Heritage under Threat ^{[22, p. 16]} may significantly limit the possibilities of finding credit financing for the implementation of these projects. In addition, it should be noted that the process of "greening" the banking sector of the world economy cannot take place simultaneously. Therefore, it seems necessary to develop and popularize various environmental initiatives in the field of banking. Today, for example, the principles of responsible banking have been adopted under the auspices of UNEP ^[23]. At the same time, it is very expedient to develop such a document regarding the financing of projects that may have an impact on the world cultural and natural heritage. Internal banking documents often explicitly stipulate the refusal to finance projects that may have a negative impact on the outstanding universal value of World Heritage sites. But the approval of such a document at the level of an authoritative organization or an international forum can increase their potential.