to upgrade them to National Parks, as originally foreseen in the nomination, or to revise their zoning, foreseeing adequate integrally protected zones to ensure conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that this issue needs to be addressed urgently. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome the establishment of the centralized management structure for the 4 regional components of the property but reiterate the need to set up an overall coordination structure for the entire property, covering the two federal administered and the four regional administered components.
Develop an integrated management plan for the entire property. The report notes that an integrated management plan for the property is currently being drafted with the support of the UNDP/GEF project ”Demonstrating Sustainable Conservation of Biodiversity in Four Protected Areas in Russia’s Kamchatka Oblast” but is not yet finalised. However, it is not clear from the report if this plan will consider all 6 components of the property or only the 4 Nature Parks. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN reiterate that an overall management plan for the entire property is necessary, with management objectives based on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
Develop or revise the management plans for each of the component parks. The State Party reports that the management plans for all the component parks of the property have been updated. However, it is unclear whether the plans define their management objectives based on the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property, as recommended by the 2007 mission nor how they will be resourced to ensure their implementation. It is also unclear whether the recently updated management plans for these parks include a revision of their zonation to better conserve their biodiversity values, as recommended by the 2007 mission. No information was provided on the recommendation of the 2007 mission to establish an access policy for the nature parks as part of their management plans.
Precisely set all boundaries for the property within the management plan through geo-referencing. The boundaries identified at the time of inscription were geo- referenced in 2009, as recommended by the 2007 mission. While no boundaries were changed, geo-referencing revealed that most of the property’s components are larger than originally indicated at the time of inscription: The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome this work and recommend the State Party to submit updated detailed maps of the entire property as soon as possible.
Staffing and budgets of the property. The report provides information on the staffing of the property and the budgets of the 4 Nature Parks. The report notes that ranger numbers continue to be insufficient in relation to the size of the property. This is in particular the case for the nature parks. The report notes that to address this issue anti-poaching brigades were set up at the regional level, drawing on staff of other control agencies. Budgets of both the Federal and Regional components of the site also remain inadequate to meet management needs.
In 2009, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN noted NGO reports concerning plans to change the regulations of Bystrinsky National Park to allow geological prospecting, as well as plans to alter park boundaries in order to accommodate mining. The State Party confirms that no mining or geothermal projects is taking place in the property and that no geological prospecting has taken place in any of the component sites, nor is it foreseen in the future. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN welcome this confirmation but remain concerned about the new ‘Volcanoes of Kamchatka’ Regulations which according to information received by IUCN would permit geological prospecting within the Nature Parks.
State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add, p. 42