The global spotlight intensifies on Russia’s environmental stewardship as a critical deadline approaches: February 1, 2026. By this date, Moscow must submit a comprehensive report to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee detailing its efforts to preserve the “Volcanoes of Kamchatka,” a pristine natural wonder inscribed on UNESCO’s prestigious list. This heightened scrutiny stems directly from the ambitious “Three Volcanoes” tourism project, envisioned as the largest of its kind in the region, whose development has raised profound alarms among conservationists worldwide.
The project, first announced in 2019, immediately ignited a firestorm of controversy. Environmental groups, both within Russia and internationally, voiced grave concerns over the potentially catastrophic increase in anthropogenic pressure on an ecosystem of unparalleled global significance. Even at the planning stage, it became clear that realizing the vast resort would necessitate excising approximately 15,000 hectares from the “Yuzhno-Kamchatsky” Natural Park, a protected area integral to the UNESCO World Heritage Site. These changes were controversially approved by federal and regional authorities in 2020, effectively delisting a vital portion of the UNESCO-protected territory.
The lands in question are not merely undeveloped tracts; they represent landscapes of exceptional importance to both Kamchatka and the Russian Federation. They encompass vital mountain and coastal areas, critical spawning rivers for Pacific salmon, and crucial habitats for rare and endangered species, including the magnificent Steller’s Sea Eagle and the Peregrine Falcon. Scientists estimate that the excluded territory alone supports up to 40% of the entire Steller’s Sea Eagle population recorded within the park. The loss of these lands is irreversible, as even attempts at subsequent restoration would fundamentally compromise the integrity of the natural complex, directly contravening the 1972 UNESCO Convention.
On two prior occasions, in 2021 and 2023, Russia teetered on the brink of having “Volcanoes of Kamchatka” relegated to UNESCO’s “List of World Heritage in Danger.” Such a designation carries significant and long-lasting reputational damage for any nation, signaling severe shortcomings in its environmental protection commitments. Only through immense diplomatic efforts was Russia able to avert this looming threat.
However, the challenges persist. A resolution from the latest UNESCO World Heritage Committee session in July 2025 explicitly highlighted a myriad of unresolved issues. Despite Russia’s assertions about relocating the “Three Volcanoes” infrastructure outside the protected zone, UNESCO experts emphasize that they still lack crucial detailed maps, comprehensive project documentation, and a thorough environmental impact assessment (EIA). The sheer proximity of such an enormous construction project to a World Heritage Site already constitutes a significant risk factor, demanding meticulous analysis and continuous, rigorous monitoring.
From UNESCO’s perspective, the situation remains exceedingly serious. The organization has once again issued a stark warning to the Russian side, reiterating its consideration of placing “Volcanoes of Kamchatka” on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee’s ultimatum stands: Russia must provide an exhaustive report on its conservation efforts by February 1, 2026.
Beyond the international outcry, the “Three Volcanoes” project has also sparked considerable local dissent. Residents of the Yelizovsky district have voiced concerns that the resort would siphon off essential geothermal energy resources, leaving their homes without electricity and heating during the harsh Kamchatkan winters. The resort’s ambitious energy demands, intended to power hotels, ski lifts, and shops, threaten to exhaust a finite resource, prioritizing commercial development over the basic needs of local communities.
Experts view the “Three Volcanoes” saga as a stark illustration of critical deficiencies within Russia’s current environmental legislation and protection mechanisms. The existing system of ecological review, they argue, often fails to provide genuine protection for unique ecosystems when confronted with large-scale investment projects. Public consultations frequently devolve into mere formalities, with decisions concerning land appropriation often driven by economic expediency rather than paramount environmental conservation criteria.
The initial vision for “Three Volcanoes” – to create modern, environmentally responsible tourism in Kamchatka – held the promise of becoming a model for “green” development. In practice, however, the project has starkly exposed how a lack of strategic planning, independent expert review, and stringent oversight can lead to a distortion of principles: instead of sustainable tourism, there is exploitation; instead of genuine development, there is environmental degradation.
Six years after its inception, the “Three Volcanoes” narrative serves not only to underscore the imperative for unified and transparent environmental assessment standards for tourism initiatives within protected areas but also highlights a broader, systemic issue: Russia’s persistent struggle to balance economic imperatives with ecological preservation. Similar environmental risks, experts warn, are emerging in other prized natural regions across the country, from Kislovodsk National Park to Crimea, where resort developments are often pushed through without adequate environmental impact analysis. For Kamchatka and Russia’s entire system of nature conservation, this case must serve as a profound lesson. If Russia genuinely aspires to foster sustainable tourism, it is paramount that environmental protection interests are unequivocally prioritized over commercial gains, and public trust in state environmental procedures is urgently restored.