Lake Baikal
Lake Baikal at the Crossroads(written for the World Lake Vision Action Report, March 2007) Abstract Surrounded by the steep forested mountains of an enormous rift valley, the magnificent and unique Lake Baikal - oldest and deepest lake on earth - contains 20% of the world’s surface freshwater. Baikal is one of the most biologically diverse lakes on earth, some 80% of its living organisms being endemic. Situated centrally in the Eurasian land mass in the Russian Federation, the lake’s basin covers an area of 570,000 square kilometres – 47% of which is in Mongolia - and the lake itself – 31,500 km2. The Baikal region pre-sents all possibilities for sustainable development. However, the impact of human activi-ties on lake and its basin has increased dramatically over the last 60 years. In the space of only half a century, the results of development - a hydroelectric dam, logging, agriculture, settlements, two pulp mills, the Baikal-Amur railway and other highly polluting industries in the lake’s air and water basins, are bringing about disturbing changes in its sensitive ecosystems that have been evolving over some 25 million years! Declarations and strate-gies for the sustainable development of the region and conservation of the lake have been made, but is there the political will necessary to translate these into action? The politics around the lake are equivocal and the notion and principles of sustainable development are not as yet established in the minds of people in all sectors and at all levels of Russian soci-ety. NGOs are playing a key role as watchdogs and in fulfilling practical action towards the realisation of the WLV principles for sustainable lake management. Introduction Lake Baikal is situated centrally in the Eurasian land mass with its extreme continental climate and temperatures varying from - 500 C and lower, to + 350 C or more. The lake influences atmospheric temperature over the surrounding land up to 25 km., cooling in summer and warming in winter. Summer surface temperatures of its waters are rarely above 12 – 14 degrees in the open lake, though observations have shown a positive warm-ing trend of 0.10 every ten years1, the result of global warming. Below a depth of 200 - 250 metres the temperature is constant at around 3.30 - 3.6?. The most ancient lake on Earth, Baikal and its ecosystems have formed over an estimated 25 million years. Its wa-ters have an unusually low mineral content - some 25 - 50% lower than most freshwater lakes, are very clear and oxygenated throughout. The scientific term for lakes of this kind is ‘oligotrophic’. These factors have played a major role in determining the lake’s life. Lake Baikal’s antiquity together with the peculiarities of its hydrology and hydrochemistry are perhaps the main reasons for its biological diversity and the high degree of endemism of its flora and fauna. Some 2,565 species and sub-species of animal and 700 species of plant are found in it, of which something like 80-85% are endemic. The lake’s water catchment area occupies about 570,000 square kilometres, approximately 47% (268.5 km.2) of which is in Mongolia. 300 or more rivers and streams flow into the lake draining this area, and one river – the Angara - flows out. Lake Baikal contains one-fifth of the worlds total surface liquid freshwater. The “Baikal Natural Territory” (BNT) – the official name for part of the air basin and wa-tershed of the lake within the Russian Federation – covers an area about the size of Nor-way (386,000 km2) and has a population of some two and a half million, 70% live in towns. Population density in the Republic of Buryatia, that covers the larger part of the catchment basin of the BNT in Russia, is less than 3 people per square kilometre. By comparison with other lake basins in today’s world, the Baikal region presents all possi-bilities for sustainable development. However, this will require a constant, conscious ef-fort towards this goal. Issues and problems facing the lake Human economic activity in the region of the lake has been increasing dramatically over the past 60 years in the form of the development of chemical, petrochemical and alumin-ium plants to the north-west after the building of a dam and hydro-electric power station on the Angara in Irkutsk, in the 1950s; the construction of two pulp mills on and near the lake and the Baikal-Amur railway along its northern shores in the ‘60s and ‘70s, with related increase in building, logging, industry and agriculture in the basin. Official reports claim that the lake “has not undergone substantial change over the en-tire period of regular observation2,” and that it can be said that, on the whole, the purity of the lake’s waters has been preserved. They do state, however, that there are specific areas of the lake with “insignificant local pollution requiring constant control and moni-toring3,” as, for example around the Baikalsk Pulp Mill, the settlements of the southern basin, the Maloye Morye (a tourist hot spot), and the Baikal-Amur railway in the north. At the same time, scientific literature indicates that the impact of this increased use of natural resources in the lake’s basin is now quite evident. It is reported that the hydro-chemical character of the lake has been disturbed, and changes have occurred in the cycles of endemic phytoplankton4. There has been a change in the species composition of phytoplankton with a decline in native phytoplankton and increase in more common species found in other Siberian freshwater bodies. These were formerly met only in shallow bays, but seldom in Baikal’s open waters5. Growth rates of fish have fallen and there has been a deterioration in their physiological characteristics6. In the case of the main commercially caught fish – omul – this is explained in part by the crash in the population of one of its main sources of food – the yellow-finned goby as a result of over fishing and damage to its spawning grounds with the rise in water level after the building of the dam in Irkutsk7. More recently, increasing blooms of very small phyto-plankton in the lake’s pelagic zone in early spring and summer, and cyanobacteria in bays and river estuaries have been observed8. As the investigators state – “Such blooms can be regarded as an indicator of eutrophication of lake ecosystems.” Relatively very high levels of PCBs have been found in human milk in woman with a high freshwater fish diet living in the village of Onguron on the shores of the lake. The findings indicate that levels of PCBs in the Baikal seal are high enough to have an im-pact on the immune and reproductive systems of seal pups. Research shows that these pollutants are of regional origin and not the result of global transportation. These stud-ies have determined past, present and future sources of PCB pollution in the region - an industrial waste dump in Usolye-Sibirskoye, situated to the north-west of the lake in line with the prevailing winds, and, most likely, leaks from electrical transformers9. The impact of air pollution arising from sources within the BNT has led to “a marked transformation of the forests towards the loss of their environment-forming function10” mainly around the lake’s southern basin. Severe depression has been recorded over an area of 0.5, moderate over 1.9 and slight over more than 8 million hectares of forest. According to official sources, 19% of Lake Baikal’s tributaries can be categorised as unpolluted, 76% as moderately polluted, and 5% as very heavily polluted11. These sources indicate that levels of certain pollutants have increased in places – for example, in the north where the Baikal-Amur railway and related works are situated, though oth-ers have decreased. In the case of the Baikalsk mill, decreases in some pollutants are connected with a fall in production rather than effective prevention measures. In gen-eral, insufficient attention has been given to the problem of waste water treatment at settlements on the lake itself where facilities are still inadequate or non existent. It is suspected that untreated sewage from cattle farms12 and human settlements is a source of phosphorus input into the lake via its tributaries. These changes have occurred in the space of only half a century, while the lake’s eco-systems have been forming over some 25 million years! Baikal’s relative integrity to-day is more the result of the fact that many parts are not easily accessible by land, than because of effective conservation measures. The changes indicate that measures for the sustainable development of the region must include action to correct past mistakes and ill-planned developments, and to prevent new threats increasing the damage already done. Strategies, actions and outcomes - Dream and reality - Since the late 1980s, the question of conservation of the lake and the sustainable develop-ment of the region has been discussed at all levels and, to this end, a federal law, albeit declarative, “On the protection of Lake Baikal” was passed in 1999. By this time spe-cially protected territories - national parks, reserves and nature reserves – had been created immediately around the lake. This constituted a major step towards protection of the lake, though significant management problems in these areas had been built-in from the start. In 1996, thanks to the coordinated efforts of Greenpeace Russia and the then existing fed-eral Committee for the Environment, Lake Baikal and its immediate surroundings, some 8.8 million hectares in area, became a UNESCO World Natural Heritage Site (WNHS). National parks and nature reserves cover 28% of this area. The law and World Heritage status can be said to constitute the documentary legal basis on which to develop and implement a strategy for the sustainable development of the region, and both correspond with the first three WLV Principles. A number of major government documents relating to protection of the lake have been created over the past 20 years including a GEF-financed biodiversity conservation programme in the region that produced a strategy document with its own set of principles corresponding to those of the World Lake Vision13. This was approved by the Russian Ministry for Natural Re-sources (MNS). However, up till now, the primary problems preventing sustainable management of the Lake Baikal catchment basin have been ones of policy, influenced by various vested interests, that contradict sustainability principles. Today, old threats to the lake remain and new ones have emerged. The region reflects the political and economic changes in which Russia has been embroiled over this period, with the result that the declarative strategies have met with setbacks at every step. This is no surprise as the notion and principles of sustainable development have not as yet been established in the minds of people in all sectors and at all levels of society. While the socio-economic development programme for Irkutsk oblast gives no more than lip service to the environment, and that in a traditional way, its first key area of attention is the “opening-up” of the region’s natural resources. As a result of the state party’s failure to implement requirements to reduce existing threats and prevent new ones from arising, the question of Baikal being transferred to the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger has been raised three times already in meet-ings of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The question remains as to how far official declarations professing a policy of sustainable development for the region to ensure the conservation of this unique lake will be confirmed by consistent action to that end. Outcomes of management activities Ten years have passed since Baikal became a World Natural Heritage Site in December 1996. Then, the legislation intended to protect the lake was still in the making. Today, although the Russian Federal law “On the protection of Lake Baikal” was passed in 1999, key by-laws permitting it to be implemented have yet to be passed. These include: definition of the boundaries of three zones – Central, Buffer and Zone of Atmospheric Impact, and an act regulating maximum permissible concentrations of pollutants. Though delays can be explained by the fact that major legislative changes at a national level have been being made since 1999, some events indicate that they reflect pressure by specific interest groups anxious to exploit the region’s resources before protective legislation is in place. As a declared measure of reform, the system of state management and environmental control organisations was reshuffled in 2005, but as yet no concrete improvements re-sulting from this can be observed. On the contrary, though local authorities and federal agencies have been fully aware of threatening developments, they have failed to take appropriate and timely action. So, though theoretically the state recognises Principle 2, 3 and 4 of the WLV Seven Principles of Sustainable Lake Management in relation to Lake Baikal, in reality, up till now, efforts to achieve this end on the part of the federal legislature and federal and regional state agencies have been sluggish and at times even obstructive. Financial support for implementation of the present state Programme for the conserva-tion of Baikal and its catchment basin within the Russian Federation (2002-2010) has not been given in full measure - regional reports state that projects are often incom-plete because of lack of federal funding. It is impossible to understand the relative stages of project development from official reports that concentrate on money spent rather than on results achieved. Progress is hampered by chronic problems of inconsis-tency in planning and development decisions: project design and early stages can be fi-nanced, but later funds dry up or are found to be insufficient. For example, a waste sorting and processing plant in Ulan-Ude, capital of the Buryat Republic, is not func-tioning according to plan because of lack of funding, and the risk of contamination of the river Selenga, Baikal’s largest tributary, by toxic waste still exists. Official sources report that the building of wastewater treatment facilities for the town of Baikalsk, on the shores of the lake, is progressing according to plan and should be in operation in 2007. Till now, the town’s wastewaters have been treated together with the industrial wastewaters of the notorious Baikalsk pulp mill. To implement plans to close its water cycle and eliminate discharges into the lake, separate municipal wastewater facilities are essential. Both federal and regional funds for their construction have been given in stages since 2002. The uninitiated would surely wonder if it normally takes four years to build a wastewater treatment facility! In general, insufficient attention is being given to address the problem of solid waste and wastewater treatment at settlements on the lake itself where facilities are still inadequate or non existent. There have been delays in implementing the programme to modernise the Baikalsk mill, discontinue chlorine bleaching and install a closed water system because of the man-agement’s failure to fulfil its obligations before the Russian government and World Bank. As a result, the World Bank rescinded its former decision to give credit for im-plementing key improvements. Fortunately, the MNS did not accept the company’s proposal that would have delayed implementation of the closed water cycle system until the end of 2008, a year later than planned. This indicates some determination on the part of the Ministry to fulfil Russia’s World Heritage obligations. However, to date the mill continues to pollute Baikal and its environment with its emissions, liquid and solid waste. Sludge tanks stretch eleven kilometres very close to the shores and remain a con-stant source of potentially catastrophic pollution in this seismically active zone. Meas-ures planned in relation to the mill will constitute, when implemented, an improvement, but not a solution to the existing problem. Widely recognised problems include illegal building on the shores of the lake, poaching, illegal logging, pollution by the fleet of vessels using the lake but not complying with requirements for waste disposal, solid municipal and industrial waste. Monitoring of the lake’s condition is still inadequate by comparison with Soviet times. There is a wide-spread failure on the part of state agencies to address the problem of non-compliance with environmental law on the part of companies, organisations and citizens. The period between the passing of the law and the present has been punctuated by a number of attempts to encroach on the central part of the BNT, that is, the World Heri-tage Site. Sessions of the World Heritage Committee from 2001 till 2005 have ex-pressed concern about delays in the passing of the by-laws, the lack of a management plan, violations of the law on protection of the lake, exploration for hydrocarbons in the Selenga delta, and two major projects for oil and gas pipeline construction in the water-shed. The Committee has underlined delays in reporting and inadequate information be-ing provided by the State Party. Development projects, especially plans for mainline oil and gas pipelines, are being monitored from their early stages by the regional NGOs, Baikal Environmental Wave (BEW) and the Buryat Regional Organisation for Baikal (BRO). As far as is possible, the NGOs keep the public informed and take a leading part in public discussions and organise citizens’ environmental impact assessments. It is largely because of the activity of these grassroots organisations that public involvement, theoretically written in legis-lation, is being cemented in practice in the region, though not without considerable ef-fort and pressure on the companies and authorities to fulfil their obligations. Thus, WLV Principle 7 – “Good governance, based on fairness, transparency and empower-ment of all stakeholders, ….” is stated in the law and is being enacted, though not to its full extent, thanks to the activity of the relatively well developed environmental NGOs of the Baikal region. Lessons learned – Can WLV principles be effectively applied?
A dramatic recent case, illustrating the gap between words and deeds, can be seen in plans to construct a mainline oil pipeline through the Lake Baikal WNHS at Baikal’s northern end. It illustrates the complete failure of state agencies and ministries to ensure enforcement of federal law. A direct result of the fact that by-laws concerning the lake have not been enacted, it deserves special mention as it reflects gross violation of WLV principles 2,3,4,5 and 7 on the part of the company, state agencies and the government. Before the NGO BRO initiated an inquiry, the project promoter, the state monopoly pipeline construction and operating company “Transneft,” conducted surveying, includ-ing logging, through the WNHS, with the knowledge and tacit approval of local state agencies despite gross infringements of the law. This indicates that without constant monitoring on the part of citizens and NGOs major violations can occur which could lead to catastrophic consequences. ?? The fact that the project was actually supported by the President of the Buryat Republic and, up till the last minute, by the Governor of Irkutsk oblast, and that there were seri-ous irregularities in the conducting of the state Environmental Impact Assessment, would indicate that there is no true policy of sustainable development amongst the po-litical elite. The proposed export oil pipeline route was to pass 323 km. through the Lake Baikal catchment basin through a dangerously seismically active zone (8 degrees on the Rich-ter scale) with extreme climatic and geological conditions. 130 km. of the pipeline would have been within the Lake Baikal WNHS itself. It was to cut through 130 rivers and streams flowing into Baikal. No plans for extra technical safety measures for a third of these crossings were envisaged. At one point, the pipeline would have been 800 me-tres from the shoreline. It was estimated that in the case of a spill as much as 3-4 thou-sand tons of crude oil could have ended up in Baikal’s tributaries and in the lake itself within 20 minutes to 49 hours, that would cover one-third of the lake’s surface14. It is quite clear that WLV Principles 3 and 4 were being completely ignored. However, the case has also shown the desire and determination of ordinary Russian citi-zens, especially the people of Irkutsk, to protect and conserve Lake Baikal for future generations. Indeed, events of 2006 can truly be described as the second major battle to save the lake from impending catastrophe15. Until the last minute all state agencies re-sponsible for protection of the lake and upholding Russian law, by open support, com-plicity and/or manipulation, had given the go ahead for project implementation despite violations of environmental law. It was only after desperate appeals by Russian and in-ternational NGOs, the Russian scientific community and UNESCO itself, after three mass protests in Irkutsk and demonstrations in other Russian cities, that the Russian president intervened to have the project route redirected to completely avoid the lake’s catchment basin. Logging provides another instance of unsustainable practice. An indicator of unsustain-able use of forest resources is seen in the fact that round logs make up over 50% of tim-ber exports of Irkutsk oblast. FSC (Forest Stewardship Certification) is still in its em-bryonic stages in the region. Illegal logging, at times with the complicity of state agen-cies, is also a problem that has not been adequately addressed by the authorities, though it affects adversely both the environment and the economy. When requested, BEW has taken action to stop illegal logging, on one occasion on the slopes of the Khamardaban mountain range within the buffer zone of the Baikalsky Nature Reserve and the water protection zone of the lake. The case illustrates cooperation between an NGO and the management of a protected territory. However, though the logging was stopped, no action was taken by the authorities to correct the situation. In fact, the violations, initi-ated by the Selenginsk Pulp Plant management, were later covered up by state agencies. At times, however, state agencies make a point of including representatives of the envi-ronmental NGO community in their work. The most recent and significant being a MNR Commission on environmental law enforcement within the Lake Baikal WNHS in September 2005 before a UNESCO mission to the Lake16. Representatives of two re-gional NGOs – BEW and BRO, and Greenpeace Russia participated. Though this was ineffective in putting a stop to the oil pipeline plans, it would seem to have had some repercussions at a regional level in relation to other questions. During the work of this commission, BEW was able to point out cases of illegal building that had been brought to the attention of the public prosecutor’s office but had not apparently gone much fur-ther, and to the fact that state agencies are slow to bring infringements to the prosecu-tor’s attention. Since then, one court ruling to physically remove an illegally built “banya” (washhouse) on the shores of the lake has been carried out, and official acts of state environmental agencies on infringements have increased significantly. One would hope that these are indications of consistent improvements in environmental law en-forcement Experience shows that cooperation between NGOs, the media and state agencies can be an effective tool to increase compliance and environmental law enforcement. This clearly reflects WLV Principles 6 and 7 though, when it occurs, it is more through the determination of NGOs than because it has been “encouraged” by the authorities. BEW has given considerable assistance in the setting up of an Association of minority indigenous peoples in Irkutsk oblast. After only two years fourteen officially registered communities are its collective members. These communities have been adversely af-fected by the economic changes of recent years but, with the help of the Association, they now have a voice to defend their interests and continue their sustainable liveli-hoods. The Association is now creating projects for the sustainable management of Territories of Traditional Land Use and a law is pending that will give these ancestral lands special protective status. In Irkutsk oblast none of these lands are within the Bai-kal catchment basin, but the Association plans to pass on its experience so that indige-nous communities in Buryatia can do the same. NGOs have also played a creative role in the socio-economic-environmental sphere in relation to tourism development. In general, the authorities recognise the region’s po-tential for the development of tourism, and aim to establish a “special economic recrea-tion zone of international significance,” but as yet a programme for this has not been designed. It can already be felt, however, that neither the powers-that-be, nor interest groups having the capital for investment in this sector have a clear idea of the options and possible consequences. The understanding that Baikal’s value as a tourist attraction is in its wildness, character and purity is not fully understood, except by only a few tourist firms and environmental NGOs. The NGO – Great Baikal Trail – has been taking practical steps to develop ‘eco’ tourist practices for many years, organising seminars on the development of bed & breakfast and other services that would boost local economies, and each summer laying and equipping hiking trails around the lake with the help of an international volunteer force. To date, taken all together, the Trail covers some 350 km. and is being used by individ-ual tourists, some tourist companies, and the national parks and nature reserves use them to take tourist groups along. Thus one element of an ‘eco-tourist’ infrastructure is already being developed, thanks to the efforts of this NGO. With 60% of the shoreline protected by national parks and nature reserves, this is the best way forward. Unfortu-nately, in other respects the development of this sector has been unplanned and largely uncontrolled, with the result that the integrity of some of Baikal’s fragile terrestrial (and hence aquatic) ecosystems and landscape are being damaged by inappropriate, often il-legally constructed, buildings, lack of observance of regulations for solid and liquid waste, and noise at some ill-planned tourist centres. So the main lesson learnt over the past 16 years of our experience as an NGO is that NGOs have a vital and key role to play in promoting sustainability, especially when nei-ther the state nor commercial sectors are interested in it. The way forward When the long-awaited by-laws intended to protect Baikal are in place, if they are effec-tive and working, it will be possible to say that tangible progress is being made to real-ise the principles for sustainable lake management in the Lake Baikal region. The story of the oil pipeline has its dark and light sides – the light and most hope-inspiring being the determination of those Russian citizens of all ages who came out onto the streets of Irkutsk in the spring of 2006, in snow and sunshine, to show the president, the regional and national governments, that they want Baikal saved in its natural purity for their own and others’ children. Some people say that their role was not as important as questions of economics or international repute. We disagree. Those people confirmed their choice for the future. The President’s last minute ruling might have saved the lake and made up for failure of law this time, but this is not the way to achieve sustainability. This can be brought about only by constant citizens’ vigilance, and a translation of sustainability principles and practices into easily understandable terms with economic weight. The latter would have to be achieved at a national level. Baikal Wave’s activities will include the design of a programme on ‘education for sus-tainability’ for educational institutions and in-service workshops, work with local au-thorities for the promotion of energy saving and development of an energy saving men-tality, and work towards building up a network for citizens’ control to ensure that de-velopment programmes do not leave a wasteland in their wake. If funds can be raised, BEW has plans for the development of a Pribaikalye integrated environmental monitor-ing programme in the Olkhon district on the north western side of the lake, an area very popular with tourists, but with sensitive ecosystems. This will involve working in part-nership with state agencies, a national park, local authorities and inhabitants. References
|
A journey by train on the banks of baikal, May 2006 The Peace and Majestic Silence of Baikal Turned into "The Industry of Tourism and Recreation" Transneft is Digging a Grave for Baikal The Battle for Baikal: Before its too Late! (from old English site) |