Features of protection of transboundary objects of the world natural heritage: Russian and foreign experience (part 1)

Kolobov Roman Yurievich 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; Head of the Fundamental Research Department of the Research Institute of Legal Protection of Lake Baikal of Irkutsk State University 664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Ivan Franko str., 23a roman.kolobov@gmail.com Other publications by this author     Ditsevich Yaroslava Borisovna PhD in Law Leading Researcher of the Department of Theory and History of State and Law, Irkutsk Law Insitute (branch) of the University of Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation 664035, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Shevtsova str., 1 yaroslavadi@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Cherdakova Larisa Anatol'evna PhD in Law Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Civil Law of the East Siberian Branch of the Russian State University of Justice 664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, ul. Ivan Franko, 23A l.docent@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Suvorova Ariadna Vladimirovna Expert of the Youth Research Center of the Research Institute of Legal Protection of Baikal ISU 664082, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Ulaanbaatar str., 10 suvorova.999@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

The study was carried out with the support of the RFBR in the framework of scientific project No. 20-011-00618.

Introduction

Nature serves as the basis for human existence and social activity. With the development of productive forces, man began to appropriate more and more natural resources, which led to the emergence of a state that is commonly referred to in the literature as an ecological crisis^[1]. It has led to the need to find a balance between the withdrawal and consumption of natural resources, on the one hand, and ensuring their renewal on the other. The problems of protection of unique natural objects of global importance cause a special public response and, as a rule, receive wide coverage in the media. Last but not least, such attention has caused the emergence of international legal instruments for the protection of natural objects of exceptional global importance. The central one is the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage^[2] (hereinafter also the World Heritage Convention, the Convention), which creates the regulatory and organizational foundations for the identification, protection and popularization of the World heritage. The regulatory framework is represented by the Convention, the Guidelines adopted in its development for the Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines) and various acts of the so–called international "soft" law^[3].

The center of the organizational system of world Heritage protection is the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter also referred to as the World Heritage Committee, the Committee), which annually reviews the state of preservation of objects included in the World Heritage List (hereinafter also referred to as the List) on the basis of an analysis prepared by its advisory body on World Natural Heritage sites (hereinafter referred to as the List). also – OVPN) – The International Union for Conservation of Nature (hereinafter also – IUCN) and the World Heritage Center acting as the secretariat. The Convention is a non-self-executing international treaty, and this circumstance determines the need to use national legal forms of preservation of World Heritage sites. Assessment of compliance of these forms with the provisions of the World Heritage protection system is one of the tasks of the Committee. In this regard, the analysis of its law enforcement practice is a prerequisite for building an effective national system for the protection of World Heritage sites and ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

Despite its uniqueness and exclusivity, World Heritage sites can also be grouped. A special kind of such objects are objects located simultaneously in several countries. Nature does not recognize the boundaries established by man, so such ecosystems cause the emergence of special legal structures that ensure their preservation. In the World Heritage protection system, they are cross-border and transnational serial objects.  Currently, there are two World Heritage sites in the Russian Federation, the protection and management of which is carried out in coordination with Mongolia: These are the Ubsunur basin and the Landscapes of Dauria. Generalization of the practice of international legal protection of cross-border and transnational World Heritage sites will allow using positive foreign experience, as well as avoiding the repetition of typical mistakes.

The novelty of this study is determined by the fact that there are practically no legal studies of the practice of protecting World Heritage sites in general and cross-border (transnational) objects in particular. The object of the study is the practice of international legal protection of cross-border (transnational) World Heritage sites, expressed primarily in the decisions of the Committee and its advisory bodies. The immediate subject of the study is the implementation of such protection at the World Heritage sites of the V-Arli-Panjari Complex, located on the territories of Benin, Niger and Burkina Faso, the Wadden Sea (Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands), as well as the previously mentioned Russian sites - the Landscapes of Dauria and the Ubsunur Basin.

The first part of the article will describe the international legal regulation of the creation and preservation of cross-border (transnational) World Heritage sites. In the second and third parts of the article, the practice of international legal protection of these foreign goods - "V–Arli-Panjari" and the Wadden Sea will be covered. In the final part of this work, some features of the international legal protection of the Landscapes of Dauria and the Ubsunur Basin will be disclosed, as well as possible directions for improving the regulatory principles of the protection of the World natural heritage in general and cross-border (transnational) objects in particular will be formulated.

           Organizational and legal framework for the protection of transboundary World Heritage sites

  The starting points of this study should be the analysis of the conceptual apparatus used in the world Heritage protection system, the identification of signs of transnational (cross-border) World Heritage sites, their correlation with related concepts and the identification of general requirements for the organization of management at such sites. The Convention does not use the concepts of "object" and "site" of world heritage, the terms "heritage" and "value" are used in its Russian text (for example, in articles 2 and 3). In turn, the text of the Manual practically does not use the concepts of "heritage" and "natural heritage", while preference is given to the expression "world Heritage site". The Guidelines recognize objects located on the territory of all relevant States parties to the Convention that have adjacent borders as transboundary (paragraph 134 of the Guidelines). In other words, the location of cross-border objects presupposes the presence of adjacent borders and the "superimposition" of a World Heritage site on them. In this way, cross-border objects differ from serial transnational objects: the latter retain the sign of being located on the territory of different countries, but there is no need for physical contact of their borders (paragraph 138 (b) of the Manual). It is quite logical that in the absence of adjacent borders of parts of a serial (both transnational and purely national) object, the Management requires the presence of clearly defined links between such parts (paragraph 137), which manifest themselves in a number of parameters disclosed in this paragraph. By and large, the requirement to substantiate the connectivity of the components of a serial transnational object distinguishes it from a cross-border one. Other differences between them are insignificant for the World Heritage system.

      It should be noted that the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the Committee are not always consistent in the use of words in the documents adopted when evaluating the nomination materials. For example, in the materials of the evaluation of the nomination of the object "Landscapes of Dauria", the concept of "cross-border serial object" is used, although such a term is not used in the Manual (including in the edition in force in 2016). With that said, further in the text of the article, both types of objects will be designated by the abbreviation TOVPN.

A number of provisions of the Guide affecting the legal regime of cross-border objects relate to the process of their nomination, which are reduced to stating the need for the consent of all States on whose territory the nominated territory is located to be included in the List (paragraph 136 of the Guide) and the formation of preliminary lists of objects to be nominated in the future (Annex 2B of the Guide). These rules are purely procedural in nature and are not of interest for detailed analysis.

Being on the territory of different states determines the main organizational and legal consequences for the regime of their protection. It consists in the need to form joint management bodies (paragraph 135) and, as a consequence, in carrying out a common policy for their conservation and sustainable use.

The management does not establish specific forms of organization of joint management of the inventory, which fully corresponds to the approaches of the World Heritage protection system that have developed over more than fifty years. States independently choose the forms and methods of fulfilling their obligations under the Convention, taking into account national environmental experience and legal traditions. In this regard, the analysis of the Committee's practice in terms of assessing the compliance of measures taken by States for the protection and management of goods with the standards of the World Heritage site protection system is of particular importance. Its results will allow, on the one hand, to use advanced international and foreign approaches to the protection of unique natural objects, on the other – to ensure the fulfillment of the international obligations assumed.

A significant role in the normative system of world heritage protection is played by various acts of the so- called "soft law", located in different parts of the spectrum of this phenomenon. The most common of them are the documents adopted on the basis of various thematic seminars and guidelines prepared by the IUCN and supported by the decisions of the Committee. There is no specialized manual on the management and protection of protected areas, developed exclusively for the World Heritage system, however, the IUCN Commission on Protected Areas published a collection of best practices on the organization of management in transboundary protected areas^[4]. These are the foundations of the normative consolidation of the international legal regime of the TOVPN.

 The practice of protecting the World Heritage Site Complex "V-Arli-Panjari"

The first object that will be the direct subject of this study is the V–Arli-Panjari Complex, currently located on the territory of three countries (Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger). The complex is one of the most important ecosystems in the West African savanna belt^[5].

 Initially, in 1996, the National Park "B", located in Niger, was included in the List. It received its name because of the w-shaped bend of the Niger River^{[5, C. 95.]}. In the evaluation of the nomination materials conducted by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, it was noted that the specified national park is included in the List of wetland lands in accordance with the Ramsar Convention of 1971^[6], since it has significant hydrological resources^{[7, C. 43]}.  However, other provisions of the analyzed document are contradictory and clearly demonstrate the systemic shortcomings that existed in the work of the IUCN as an advisory body of the Committee in the first decades of the Convention's operation. Comparing with other specially protected natural areas (hereinafter also – protected areas) in this region, the IUCN notes that the National Park B is not distinguished by biological criteria (compared to other specially protected areas of the region), but it is distinguished by the fact that it is the only large protected area adjacent to the banks of the Niger River, at the same time, its characteristics are typical and are found in many other parks in the region ^{[8, C. 45]}. In the final part of the assessment, the IUCN explicitly points out that the park does not have international significance and does not meet the criteria of World Heritage (even if it were nominated as a transboundary object). The recommendations formulated by the IUCN in the assessment are also very extensive. The Advisory Body again pointed out that "the nominated object does not meet the criteria of the Convention, however, taking into account the importance of the park at the national level and noting the recent progress in the organization of management, the Committee may wish to support the recent decision of the Program "Man and the Biosphere" to consolidate the status of the National Park as of the biosphere reserve (simultaneously with urgent recommendations for the inclusion of adjacent territories in the structure of the facility) and to call on sponsors to provide assistance in ensuring the functioning of the park" ^{[8, p. 48]}.

As a result, a situation has developed atypical for the sphere of international relations under consideration, in which the IUCN stated the absence of an outstanding universal value, but did not specifically indicate the need to refuse to include the national park in the List. Distracting from the immediate topic of the study, it should be noted that the IUCN advisory opinions of the period of the first decades of the existence of the World Heritage protection system were not always distinguished by thoughtfulness and consistency of conclusions. A striking example of this is the situation with the Selous Hunting Reserve (Tanzania). The mention of plans for the construction of hydroelectric power plants in the IUCN technical assessment of 1982 led to the actual authorization of such construction on the territory of the OVPN and the refusal to exclude the object from the List, despite serious interference with the integrity of the ecosystem of the reserve^[8].

The decision to include the object in the List, adopted at the 20th session of the Committee in 1996, is also unusual. The Committee noted the doubts of the IUCN on the one hand, and on the other hand, reflected in the decision the results of the "Subregional training seminar for managers of biosphere reserves and World Heritage Sites from French–speaking Africa" held in La Topoa, whose experts spoke in favor of including the National Park in the List according to the second and fourth criteria. As a result, the decision was taken by vote and two-thirds of the Committee members voted for the inclusion of the object in the List. As a result, the Committee stated in its decision that it was adopted in contradiction with the opinion of the advisory body^[9].

The expansion of the World Heritage Site at the expense of protected areas located in two border countries has stretched for more than twenty years, during which unsuccessful attempts were made to nominate the Panjari National Park from Benin. For example, in 2011, the Committee postponed consideration of the nomination for a number of reasons. These, in particular, included the incompatibility of the criteria of the two objects, the inadequacy of the boundaries of the nominated object, the need to prepare a joint formulation with the Nigerian object of outstanding universal value^[10]. The granting of a transboundary status to the World Heritage site under consideration took place in 2017 as a result of decisions taken at the forty-first session of the Committee. The World Heritage Site National Park "B" has become the Complex "V-Arli-Panjari" due to the inclusion of protected areas located in the territories of Benin and Burkina Faso. At the same time, the Committee approved the compliance of the new facility with the ninth and tenth criteria of outstanding universal value, thus removing the previously existing problem of compliance of the natural complex with the criteria of outstanding universal value. Simultaneously with the transfrontier character of the newly created facility, the formulation of outstanding universal value was approved, the mandatory preparation of which was fixed in the Manual in the second half of the 2000s. Within its framework, the compliance of the object with the integrity requirements, as well as management and protection standards adopted in the World Heritage protection system was revealed^[11]. As indicated in the nomination materials, there are four specially protected natural territories with a total area of 1494831 hectares in the territories of Benin and Burkina Faso, surrounded by buffer zones with an area of 1101221 hectares^[12].

The peculiarity of transnational and cross–border facilities is their location on the territories of different states, and, accordingly, the need for legal registration of coordination of procedures for the protection and management of such facilities. Regulation of these processes requires the development of special international and national legal structures. Since this study has, first of all, an international legal orientation, the primary forms will be those that exist in the international regulatory system. The classical forms of such an organization are international treaties concluded in order to protect individual elements of the ecosystem. The first of such agreements in relation to the object in question was concluded in 1984 between Burkina Faso and Benin, and in 1986 Niger joined it^{[13, C. 13]}. In the future, more general agreements were concluded between the three countries, creating a coordinated management system for the natural complex in question. In 2008, an Agreement was concluded on the coordinated management of the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve in^[14], and in 2019 – a Trilateral Agreement between the Republic of Benin, Burkina Faso and the Republic of Niger on the harmonized management of protected Areas of the transboundary complex "V-Arli-Panjari"^[15] (hereinafter – the Trilateral Agreement). Taking into account the subject of this study, the provisions of this agreement are of interest, defining the basis of joint activities for the protection of the analyzed World Heritage site. The positive features of this international treaty should include, first of all, the formulation of principles used to achieve the objectives of the agreement. Among these principles, attention is drawn to the need to ensure the participation of the local population in the management of the facility, which will prevent conflicts. Together with this principle, the fair distribution of benefits from the management of the facility is also fixed. The system of World Heritage site management planning documents introduced by the Tripartite Agreement is also very interesting. In accordance with article five of the analyzed document, the most general nature is the master plan for the management of the Complex (schema directeur d'amenagement du complexe W-Arly-Pendjari), approved at the level of ministers of environmental protection of the three countries. It contains a strategy of regional actions for the protection and sustainable use of the complex. This article also provides for its validity period – 20 years. According to available information, the current master plan was prepared even before the signing of the Trilateral Agreement in 2014 and its validity period is determined by the period until 2033^[16].

The second document, adopted in accordance with Article 6 of the analyzed agreement, is a plan for the arrangement and management of the Complex (plan d'amenagement et de gestion). This document is intended to ensure the practical implementation of the master plan for the management of the Complex.

The third type of planning documents adopted within the framework of international cooperation between the three countries is a business plan (plan d'affaire). As stipulated in the seventh article of the agreement, it serves as a financial and economic tool for the implementation of the device plan and planning of the Complex. The business plan is accepted for five years.

A trilateral agreement creates a detailed organizational system for managing a transboundary natural complex. It is headed by a Ministerial Council, which includes ministers in the field of environmental protection of the three states. This body is endowed, first of all, with political power to determine strategic directions for the protection of the Complex, to ensure the harmonization of the requirements of national legislation on the conservation of its biodiversity, as well as a number of administrative powers to approve management plans and budgets developed by the Technical Executive Committee (le comite de suivi technique). The legal status of this committee is determined by Article 10 of the Tripartite Agreement. The composition of this body assumes the participation of heads of national specially protected natural territories, representatives of non-governmental organizations and local self-government bodies. The purpose of its activity is to ensure the implementation of strategic directions set by the Ministerial Council. For its implementation, it is endowed, in particular, with the authority to monitor the implementation of management plans.

The expert body in accordance with the Tripartite Agreement is the Scientific Council, consisting of nine scientists who carry out their activities on a voluntary basis (Article 11). His competence includes issues of scientific support of the activities of management bodies. The general organizational powers under the Tripartite Agreement are assigned to the Executive Secretariat, which prepares meetings of the Ministerial Council, implements decisions of other bodies established in accordance with the agreement and implements other powers.

Separately, it is necessary to note the institutional framework created in accordance with the Tripartite Agreement for the participation of the general public in the protection of the ecosystem of the Complex. The thirteenth article of the agreement provides for the holding of a multilateral forum (le forum multi-acteur), and also provides for the obligation of bodies established in accordance with the agreement to create mechanisms for informing the public about events held in accordance with it, as well as, if possible, to involve the population in the implementation of such events.

The conclusion of the trilateral agreement was supported by the World Heritage Committee^[17], the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the World Heritage Center^{[18, p. 80]}.

The assessment of the effectiveness of the formed structures is premature at the moment, since too little time has passed since the signing of the new agreement (taking into account the COVID-19 pandemic). The environmental condition of the object is also negatively affected by the reasons caused by a systemic shortage of financial resources and general political instability, which are also characteristic of the protection of other World Heritage sites located in Africa^[19]. These include the presence of armed terrorist groups on the territory of the facility, poaching, animal husbandry, gold mining and other factors.

The second foreign World Heritage site, the management practice of which will be the subject of analysis in this article, is the Wadden Sea, located on the territories of Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. This object was included in the List in 2009, although the first attempt to inscribe it took place in 1989 by Germany, but the application was withdrawn for joint nomination with Denmark and the Netherlands^[20]. The inclusion of the object in the List took place 20 years later in 2009 on the basis of a joint application from Germany and the Netherlands according to three criteria (eighth, ninth and tenth). In the conclusion of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, based on the results of consideration of the nomination materials, it is noted that the Wadden Sea is an extremely long coastal wetland system with a rich fauna^[21].

The expansion of the facility under consideration at the expense of its part located on the territory of Denmark took place at the thirty-eighth session of the Committee in 2014. Despite the fact that the IUCN conclusions of 2009 and 2014 indicated a sufficiently large number of threats to the ecological state of the site, they rarely became the subject of attention of the World Heritage Committee. At the initial introduction in 2009, the Committee requested to prepare a strategy for the development of tourism at the site and supported the efforts of Germany and the Netherlands to implement measures to control invasive species. In 2014, when the Danish component of the facility was included, the Committee asked all three States to prepare a unified management plan for the facility, as well as to continue to expand monitoring of the impact of fishing^[22] on its condition. At the same time, such problems as plans for gas production^[23], the impact of climate change on the state of the ecosystem^[24],[25], as well as pollution of the sea by nano- and microplastic particles^[26] were noted in science.

As noted in the profile sociological studies, the initial nomination of the object met with an ambiguous assessment of the local population and other groups of stakeholders. Among the most obvious risks mentioned by the participants of public discussions in the Netherlands, the loss of autonomy and the ambiguity of the consequences of including the object in the List were highlighted ^{[27, p. 301]}. The wadden Sea has been ensuring the existence of local communities for a long time, which are afraid of interference in their life activities by both the structures of the European Union and UNESCO. On the other hand, both at the time preceding the insription of the Wadden Sea and later, indeed, the rather general nature of the obligations of States under the Convention makes itself felt. And if experts in the field of international law can structure the world Heritage protection regime, highlighting the most likely trends in its implementation in national legal systems, then the general public needs more definite and unambiguous answers. These problems manifest themselves at various sites, including in Russia.

At the level of trilateral cooperation, the international legal system for the protection of the Wadden Sea is represented by various documents and organizational structures. The historical basis of this interaction is the Joint Declaration on the Protection of the Wadden Sea, signed on December 9, 1982 by representatives of the three countries^[28]. The 2010 version of the Declaration (hereinafter referred to as the Declaration) is currently in effect. This document, as well as the Trilateral Agreement discussed in the first part of the article, have a common focus – the creation of conditions for international cooperation of states in the field of protection of unique ecosystems, but the Declaration uses slightly different legal and technical techniques. So, in the second section of this document, the so-called guiding principle and the vision of the Wadden Sea are fixed. As a guiding principle of the protected area of the Wadden Sea, it is proclaimed to achieve, as far as possible, a natural and sustainable ecosystem in which natural processes take place intact.  This principle is aimed at solving a number of tasks, the main part of which is related to the conservation of biodiversity and sea water quality. Apart from this row is the task of maintaining the picturesque qualities of the landscape, in particular, the variety of landscape types and characteristics of the open landscape, including the perception of nature and landscape. This "human" dimension of the Wadden Sea is also emphasized in the allocated purposes according to section three of the Declaration: its paragraph (C.) also enshrines the need to maintain the landscape and cultural heritage.

The use of the phrase "vision" of the Wadden Sea is also unusual: it is "a unique natural and dynamic ecosystem with characteristic biodiversity, wide open landscapes and rich cultural heritage belonging to everyone, and in a sustainable way bringing benefits to present and future generations" (Article 2.2).

Among the specific areas of international cooperation identified in the fourth section of the Declaration, management coordination is highlighted, including the preparation and implementation of the Wadden Sea Plan, as well as scientific research and monitoring, ensuring opportunities for sustainable development of the Wadden Sea, taking into account its natural and cultural value. The creation of opportunities for educating the public (especially young people) on the protection of the ecosystems of the Wadden Sea, strengthening international cooperation and improving the international image of the facility are highlighted as separate areas.

The Declaration created the basis for the formation of a system of bodies performing functions for the protection of the Wadden Sea. This system of bodies is headed by the Tripartite Government Council on the Wadden Sea, acting at the ministerial level, which carries out political and strategic management of cooperation. The executive body is the Wadden Sea Committee (board), responsible for the implementation of the Declaration and decisions of the Council. The third level is the Joint Secretariat for the Wadden Sea, which provides organizational support to the Council and the Committee. Its activities are carried out on the basis of an administrative agreement between the ministries of environmental protection of the three countries^[29]. The activity of this basic structure of bodies is provided by more than ten working groups created to address individual issues (for example, tourism, fishing, migratory bird species, etc.). It should be noted that at the level of national regulation, the management of ecosystem protection is extremely multifaceted. For example, at the time of the expansion of the facility in 2014, its Dutch part was managed by five ministries, three provinces and eighteen municipalities, and various non-profit organizations were involved in the decision-making process^[30].

A special place in the management structure of the analyzed object is occupied by the Forum of the Wadden Sea region (hereinafter also the Forum). This structure was established in 2002 at the Ninth Government Conference as an independent platform for discussing the problems of protecting the marine ecosystem. At the moment, the Forum operates as a non-profit legal entity of German law and has its own internal structure. The supreme governing body is the plenary sessions, convened twice a year, at which representatives of various sectors of the economy, environmental organizations, local and regional authorities discuss and adopt resolutions on the most pressing problems of preserving the marine ecosystem. The Forum's activities are provided by its own secretariat and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management group.  In sociological studies conducted, inter alia, by interviewing Forum participants, it is noted that some of them initially expressed a lack of understanding of the mechanisms of influence on the adoption of legally binding decisions within the framework of Trilateral cooperation, since they represent a "soft link" ^{[31, p.332]}. Indeed, the decisions of the Forum do not have direct administrative force, however, the holding of this event, which is a significant platform for communication between participants in environmental activities, creates the opportunity to coordinate various interests, helps to identify non-obvious problems of ecosystem protection and ensure the real involvement of all stakeholders in the field of protection of the Wadden Sea.

From the point of view of the analysis of the processes of protection of the considered natural complex, the system of management plans is primarily of interest. At the time of writing this article, the Wadden Sea Management Plan, adopted in 2010, is in effect.^[32] This rather voluminous document describes the general management processes for the protection and sustainable use of the analyzed World Heritage site. The format of the article does not imply a detailed assessment of each section of the management plan, so we will focus on the most general provisions defining the basics of environmental protection in relation to the Wadden Sea. These include, first of all, the management principles operating in addition to the guiding principle discussed earlier in this article. These include the principle of displacement, according to which harmful activity at the facility should be moved to places where it will cause less harm to the environment. Of interest is the principle of compensation, which involves the implementation of compensatory measures against the harmful consequences of activities that cannot be avoided. The principle of using the best available technologies and environmental practices (as defined by the Paris Commission) prescribes to focus on the world's advanced standards in nature protection.

The second general document supplementing the management plan of 2010 is the Integrated Management Plan for the World Heritage Site "Wadden Sea" (hereinafter referred to as the Integrated Plan), the final adoption of which took place on May 15, 2023.^[33] As noted earlier in this article, the preparation of a general management plan in accordance with the standards of the World Heritage protection system was conditioned by the recommendation of the Committee formulated in decision 38 COM 8B.13, which approved the expansion of the boundaries of the site. The Integrated Plan indicates that it is an "umbrella" document for existing management plans, one of the main tasks of which is to make the Wadden Sea management system more understandable.

The presentation of the key areas of management of the Wadden Sea facility should be considered very successful, in which the main content of activities in each area is presented in a concise form accessible to the general public. There are five such areas: regulation of fishing, tourism, shipping and port activities, energy and flood protection. Attention is drawn to the clear formulation of environmental priorities for each of these areas. Thus, with regard to fisheries, further improvement of sustainable fisheries, which does not have a negative impact on the ecosystem, are fixed as management goals. The purpose of tourism management is to preserve and strengthen the support of tourists, the local population, local entrepreneurs and other stakeholders in the tourism sector of the economy for the ideas of nature conservation by promoting the implementation of the Strategy for the Development of Sustainable Tourism and relevant management plans. Such a formulation of the purpose of managing tourist activities at the facility should be recognized as very successful, since it assumes primary consideration of the interests of nature conservation before obtaining short-term economic benefits.

An important component of the Comprehensive Plan is the disclosure of mechanisms for cooperation with the scientific community in order to preserve the ecosystem of the Wadden Sea (Chapter 6). The subject of scientific research in the field of marine ecosystem protection is disclosed in the Trilateral Research Agenda, and its implementation is handled by the Trilateral Program Committee for Wadden Sea Research. One of the means of communicating to the public the results of scientific expertise and monitoring of the ecosystem of the considered OVPN are reports on the state of the quality of the Wadden Sea, in the preparation of which more than a hundred scientists take part, in which the main problems of the ecosystem state are highlighted.

The last set of issues that we want to draw attention to as part of the analysis of the Comprehensive Plan is the description of international cooperation activities. In addition to cooperation with countries where migratory bird species live, within the framework of Trilateral Cooperation, close cooperation is being carried out with the Republic of Korea on the exchange of management practices of natural objects, approaches to monitoring, education and interaction with the public. Separately, it should be noted that Trilateral cooperation supports the preparation of the nomination of the Getbol tidal plains located in Korea, which were included in the List in 2021 at the forty-fourth session of the Committee^[34]. Cooperation between different countries on the protection of unique natural objects, especially those located in different geographical regions, serves not only the goals of the development of the World Heritage protection system, but also the solution of more general tasks of ensuring humanitarian cooperation.

Specialized management plans are being adopted for the protection and sustainable use of the sea. This is, for example, the Wadden Sea Seal Management Plan for 2023-2027^[35]. Within the framework of cooperation, a Strategic Framework for the Migration Route in the Wadden Sea (Wadden Sea Flyway Initiative Strategic Framework) for 2022-2029 was adopted^[36]. These documents establish the basis for coordinating the activities of States to protect individual elements of the marine ecosystem, define the goals and objectives of such cooperation and the main activities carried out. A climate change adaptation strategy adopted in 2014 was formulated as an independent action plan^[37]. Despite the global nature of climate change processes, this document attempts to form local measures to reduce the negative effects of this phenomenon.

In the context of this study, documents adopted in trilateral cooperation on the implementation of obligations under the World Heritage Convention are of particular interest. These include the Roadmap "The Strategy of the Wadden Sea as a World Heritage Site for 2014-2020"^[38]. As indicated in this document, the protection and management of outstanding universal value is a central task of Trilateral Cooperation on the Wadden Sea. The strategy provides for the implementation of several work themes: preservation and international cooperation; development of the World Heritage brand; information and education; development of sustainable tourism; support for regional sustainable development; support for scientific research and monitoring. Each of these directions is accompanied by a specific action plan.

An essential feature of the organization of the management of the world Heritage site "Wadden Sea" both at the international and national level is to ensure the interaction of representatives of the public, science and various levels of public authority. As noted earlier, the Wadden Sea has become a point of intersection of interests of various social groups. The local population is interested in maintaining the existing status quo in land use issues, business is interested in the development of gas fields and the construction of energy infrastructure facilities (in particular, wind farms) and the withdrawal of biological resources.

In such conditions, the paradigm of protection of the Wadden Sea has shifted from the establishment of prohibitions to ensure sustainable development. As has been correctly pointed out in the literature, with this approach, the emphasis is shifted from the issue of preserving the state of the object to preserving its values, since it is impossible to "freeze" such a state either for natural or social reasons ^{[39, p.11]}. Therefore, in the management of the facility, there are relations of cooperation between various groups of subjects with independent interests, jointly developing optimal solutions that allow finding a balance between the interests of nature protection and the priorities of socio-economic development of society. In particular, a decision was made on the admissibility of natural gas production on the territory of the facility, part of the proceeds from which were sent to the Wadden Sea Fund, thanks to which it was possible to increase its size to 800,000 million euros ^{[39, p.8]}.

At the present stage, the protection of the Wadden Sea ecosystem is often described in science as a demonstration of the so-called second way of producing scientific knowledge, characterized by interdisciplinarity, applied nature and involvement in its process of various social actors, not only professional scientists^[40]. As an example of such cooperation, one can cite the practice of developing environmental management systems in the ports of the Wadden Sea, carried out on the principles of cooperation between various groups of stakeholders and the "joint production" of scientific knowledge^[41].

The implementation of such approaches implies a significant information openness of the management processes of the World Heritage Site. The profile information portal on the Internet contains information intended for different groups of interested persons^[42]. In particular, both general information about the organization of management and protection of the facility, as well as specialized legal and technical documents (management plans, strategies, etc.) are available.

This practice confirms the practical significance of the proposals made by the authors of this publication on the need to develop activities in Russia to create specialized complex thematic information resources on the Internet in order to improve the protection of World Heritage sites, environmental education of the population, as well as to counter violations of environmental legislation that can lead to deterioration of the unique ecosystems within the World Heritage sites.