Interaction of National and International Environmental Protection Policies on a District‑by‑District Basis (As in the Case of World Natural Heritage Sites)

The general patterns of interaction between national and international territorial policies to nature protection are analyzed. The practice of protecting World Natural Heritage sites is used as a supporting material. Significant historical experience in the use of territorial nature protection measures and the inevitability of internationalization of their use after the formation of nation states are asserted. The territorial nature of the World Natural Heritage protection regime is substantiated, and the need for its implementation in national legal forms of nature protection is demonstrated. The genesis of the classification of modern specially protected natural territories at the international level is shown, and contradictions related to the recognition of their social role are revealed. The obtained conclusions are correlated with the development of the world heritage protection system, the strengthening of the discourse of the rights of local communities to use unique natural objects is noted, the predominance of specially protected natural territories as a national form of legal protection of World Natural heritage sites is established. The international legal concept of «other effective environmental protection measures on a district basis» is investigated, its potential for preserving biodiversity and possible risks associated with weakening the protection regime of World Natural Heritage Sites are demonstrated. The regime of the central ecological zone of the Baikal natural territory is considered as a complex case of the organization of territorial approaches to nature protection. Its place in the system of the considered categories is determined, ways of improving the protection of the Lake Baikal World Heritage Site are shown. The proposal to create a federal territory within its borders is critically evaluated. The necessity of recognizing the central ecological zone of the Baikal natural territory as a specially protected natural territory sui generis is defended.

1. Alekseev YaV, Korchagina DA, Kulikov DA, et al. Features of development, reproduction and forecast of development by 2040 of the raw material base of lead and zinc in Russia. Otechestvennaya geologiya. 2024;2:19- 37. (In Russ.).

2. Anisimov AP. Territorial nature protection in Russia and the Republic of Slovakia: Comparative legal aspect. Vestnik Tomskogo universiteta. Pravo. 2017;26:91-99. (In Russ.).

3. Arrowsmith C, Mirksrimi SH. The history of the changing nature of protected area management objectives. Environmental Resources Research. 2017;5(1):73-87.

4. Boitani L, Cowling RM, Dublin HT, Mace M, Parrish J, Possingham HP, Pressey RL, Rondinini C, Wilson KA. Change the IUCN Protected Area Categories to Reflect Biodiversity Outcomes. PLoS Biology. 6(3):436-438.

5. Carroll MB. SDRs — A Sui Generis Concept in International Monetary Law. International Lawyer. 4:(2):269-275.

6. Categories, objectives and criteria for protected areas. A final report. Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. August. 1978. IUCN, Morges; 1978.

7. Chibilev AA, Akhmedenov KM, Ramazanov SK. Prospects for the development of a network of territorial nature protection in Western Kazakhstan. Byulleten Orenburgskogo nauchnogo centra UrO RAN. 2018;4:1-13. (In Russ.).

8. Claudet J, Ban NC, Blythe J, Briggs J, et al. Avoiding the misuse of other effective area-based conservation measures in the wake of the blue economy. One Earth. 5(9):969-974.

9. Colten CE, Dilsaver LM. The Hidden Landscape of Yosemite National Park. Journal of Cultural Geography. 2005;22(2):27-50.

10. Dudley N, Parrish JD, Redford KH, Stolton S. The revised IUCN protected area management categories: The debate and ways forward. Oryx. 2010;44(4):485-490.

11. Fitzsimons JA, Partridge T, Keen R. Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in Australia: Key Considerations for Assessment and Implementation. Conservation. 2024;4:(2):176-200.

12. Hirons S, Collins CM, Singh M. Assessing variation in the effectiveness of IUCN protected area categorization. What remotely sensed forest integrity and human modification reveals across the major tropical forest biomes. Ecological Indicators. 2022;143. Article 109337.

13. Jackson TW. The Creation of Yellowstone National Park. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review. 1942;29(2):187- 206.

14. Kopsieker L, Disselhoff T. The contribution of private land conservation to 30 × 30 in Germany. Frontiers in Conservation Science. 2024;4. Art. 1324928.

15. Laffoley D, Dudley N, Jonas H, MacKinnon D, MacKinnon K, Hockings M, Woodley S. An introduction to «other effective area-based conservation measures» under Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Origin, interpretation and emerging ocean issues. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Fresh Water Ecosystems. 2017;27:130-137.

16. MacKenzie JM. The Empire of Nature, Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism. Manchester University Press; 1988.

17. MacKinnon D, Lemieux CJ, Beazley K, Woodley S, Helie R, Perron J, Elliott J, Haas C, Langlois J, Lazaruk H, Beechy T, Gray P. Canada and Aichi Biodiversity Target 11: Understanding «other effective area-based conservation measures» in the context of the broader target. Biodiversity Conservation. 2015;24:3559-3581.

18. Mallarach JM, Morrison J, Kothari A, Sarmiento F, Atauri JA, Wishitemi B. In defense of protected landscapes. A reply to some criticisms of category v protected areas and suggestions for improvement. Defining Protected Areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. Dudley N, Stolton S. editors. IUCN. Gland; 2008. P. 31–37.

19. McNeely JA, Miller KR. IUCN, National Parks, and Protected Areas: Priorities for Action. Environmental Conservation. 1983;10(1):13-21.

20. Minin E, Leader-Williams N, Bradshaw CJA. Banning Trophy Hunting Will Exacerbate Biodiversity Loss. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2016;31(2):99-102.

21. Mu H, Li X, Wen Y, Huang Y, et al. A global record of annual terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018. Scientific Data. 2022;9. Art. 176.

22. Osei-Tutu JJ. Emerging Scholars Series: A Sui Generis Regime for Traditional Knowledge: The Cultural Divide in Intellectual Property Law. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review. 2011;15 (1):147-215.

23. Oxley I. Towards the Integrated Management of Scotland’s Cultural Heritage: Examining Historic Shipwrecks as Marine Environmental Resources. World Archaeology. 32(3):413-426.

24. Paterson A. Scoping the Potential Influence of Law on Terrestrially Located Other Effective Area Based Conservation Measures. Law, Environment and Development Journal. 2023;18(1):32-50.

25. Phelan W. What Is Sui Generis About the European Union? Costly International Cooperation in a Self-Contained Regime. International Studies Review. 2012;14(3):367-385.

26. Phillips A. A short history of the international system of protected areas management categories. Defining Protected Areas: An international conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. Dudley N, Stolton S, editors. IUCN. Gland; 2008. P. 13–17.

27. Phillips A. Turning Ideas on Their Head: The New Paradigm for Protected Areas. The George Wright Forum. 2003;20(2):8-32.

28. Prendergast DK, Adams WM. Colonial wildlife conservation and the origins of the Society for the Preservation of the Wild Fauna of the Empire (1903–1914). Oryx. 2003;37(2):251-260.

29. Ryzhenkov AYa. On the principles of protection of Lake Baikal. Vestnik Omskoy yuridicheskoy akademii. 2018;2:137-141. (In Russ.).

30. Shafer CL. Arguments for and against IUCN protected area management category VI with a review of state versus community governance. Journal for Nature Conservation. Vol. 53. art. 125697.

31. Sheppard D. The New Paradigm for Protected Areas: Implications for Managing Visitors in Protected Areas. Exploring the Nature of Management. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland, 13–17 September 2006. Siegrist D, Clivaz C, Hunziker M, Iten S, editors. University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland; 2006. P. 33–45.

32. Skripnik II, Solntsev AM. The international mechanism of states’ compliance with obligations to manage protected natural territories. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya «Yuridicheskie nauki» [RUDN Journal. Legal Sciences Series]. 2012;2:224-240. (In Russ.).

33. Smith A. East Rennell World Heritage Site: Misunderstandings, inconsistencies and opportunities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the Pacific Islands. International Journal of Heritage Studies. 2011;17:(6):592-607.

34. Tishkov AA. One hundred years of methodology of territorial nature protection of Russia (on the 100th anniversary of nature conservation). Izvestiya Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Seriya geograficheskaya. 2017;1:8-19. (In Russ.).

35. Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications. 2016;7. Art. 12558.