Everglades National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
- Ground water pollution
- Housing
- Surface water pollution
- Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- urban development
- alterations of the hydrological regime
- agricultural pollution
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005
The State Party submitted a report dated 27 January 2005 which provides an update on efforts in addressing previously identified threats to the integrity of the property.
In relation to alterations of the hydrological regime and impacts from adjacent urban growth, it is reported that new federal appropriations for 2005 include approximately US$138 million for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) and associated restoration projects. The State Party reported that the State of Florida recently announced an initiative fund to accelerate elements of CERP, and a commitment of more than US $1.5 billion. The State Party noted that the United States Congress authorized a project to address park restoration needs along the eastern boundary of the national park. Specifically, this project is intended to slow and limit water loss from the park through ground water seepage, and to restore more natural water flows and levels. It is reported that on 23 December 2004, the President of the United States signed Public Law 108-483 authorizing the exchange of certain lands in Everglades National Park as a crucial step in the implementation of this restoration project. The State Party also reports an increase in the numbers of Cape Sable Seaside Sparrows, an endangered bird that is considered as an indicator species of biological recovery: numbers rose from 3216 birds in 2003 to 3584 birds in 2004.
The State of Florida and the park authorities have carried out significant efforts to monitor water quality entering the park and there is regular reporting on nutrient pollution from agricultural activities, in an effort to reduce phosphorus levels in waters discharged into the Everglades. In addition, the State of Florida recently announced plans to accelerate petitions under the CERP, including the possible addition of 18,000 acres of additional storm water treatment areas upstream of the park.
The State Party reported a general lowering of water salinity and reductions in the sizes of algae blooms due to increased fresh water entry into Florida bay through localized rainfall and through drainage from more northern areas of the park. This suggests that attempts to restore water flows through the extent of the park, once they are made operational, will be effective in helping to restore the ecological balance of the bay.
IUCN was informed that the National Research Council has urged federal and state agencies to accelerate acquisition or protection of land crucial to the recovery of Florida's Everglades before it becomes developed or too expensive.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7A.10
Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A and having noted the conclusions of Document WHC-05/29.COM/11A,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.11, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Notes the detailed report by the State Party of United States of America provided on 27 January 2005 on the progress made on the different programmes to restore and conserve this property;
4. Commends the State Party for efforts made in enhancing the state of conservation of Everglades National Park and for securing additional financial resources to address the threats to the property;
5. Requests the State Party to report by 1 February 2006, for examination of the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006), on how the threats have been met, in order to guide the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;
6. Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.29 COM 8C.2
New World Heritage List in Danger
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined the of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-05/29.COM/7A and WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add),
2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.20)
- Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.21)
- Tipasa (Algeria) (Decision 29 COM 7A.16)
- Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.28)
- Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin) (Decision 29 COM 7A.13)
- Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic)(Decision 29 COM 7A.1)
- Comoé National Park (Côte d'Ivoire) (Decision 29 COM 7A.2)
- Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea) (Decision 29 COM 7A.3)
- Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Virunga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Garamba National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Salonga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
- Abu Mena (Egypt) (Decision 29 COM 7A.17)
- Simien National Park (Ethiopia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.4)
- Cologne Cathedral (Germany) (Decision 28 COM 7A.29)
- Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) (Decision 29 COM 7A.12)
- Group of Monuments at Hampi (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.22)
- Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.9)
- Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Islamic Republic of Iran) (Decision 29 COM 7A.23)
- Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Iraq) (Decision 29 COM 7A.18)
- Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Jerusalem) (Decision 29 COM 7A.31)
- Kathmandu Valley (Nepal ) (Decision 29 COM 7A.24)
- Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger) (Decision 29 COM 7A.6)
- Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.25)
- Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (Decision 29 COM 7A.30)
- Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) (Decision 29 COM 7A.26)
- Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) (Decision 29 COM 7A.7)
- Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.8)
- Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (United Republic of Tanzania) (Decision 28 COM 7A.15)
- Everglades National Park (United States of America) (Decision 29 COM 7A.10)
- Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) (Decision 29 COM 7A.19)
Draft Decision: 29 COM 7A.10
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A and having noted the conclusions of Document WHC-05/29.COM/11A,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.11adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Notes the detailed report by the State Party provided on 27 January 2005 on the progress made on the different programmes to restore and conserve this property;
4. Commends the State Party for efforts made in enhancing the state of conservation of Everglades National Park and for securing additional financial resources to address the threats to the property;
5. Invites the State Party to prepare an updated report by 1 February 2006 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session in 2006, describing further the progress made in the restoration and conservation of the property, and steps and benchmarks proposed, in collaboration with IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, to guide the possible removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;
6. Decides to retain Everglades National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
United States of America
Exports
* :
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).
** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.
