jump to the content

State of Conservation (SOC)

Pirin National Park (1986)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 0USD

Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Development of a hotel and a ski resort 

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

The report requested at the 9th Committee meeting has not yet been received.

Conclusion
Decision
  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

10COMIX.A.14-15
Link to the decision

14. As in previous years, IUCN reported on the conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger. An information document (CC-86/CONF.003/INF.4) prepared by IUCN presented up-to-date information on some 16 natural properties.

15. The Committee was glad to learn of improvements or of a stabilisation in the previously deteriorating situation of certain properties, notably Djoudj National Park (Senegal), Ngorongoro Conservation area (Tanzania) and Garamba National Park (Zaire) (all inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger). Improvements were also noted for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia), Pirin National Park (Bulgaria), Manas Tiger Reserve (India), Niokolo Koba National Park (Senegal) and Aldabra Atoll (Seychelles). The Committee requested IUCN to keep it informed of the conservation status of Iguazu and Los Glaciares National Parks (Argentina), Mt. Nimba (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) and Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia).

 

No draft decision proposed

Pirin National Park
State Party:
Bulgaria
Date of Inscription: 1983
Nomination records (Year): 2006, 2007, 1982, 2009
Category: Natural
Criteria: (vii)(viii)(ix)
SOC Reports
SOC Reports by year
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2007
2005
2004
1991
1986
1985
Detailed List of SOC reports
Threats*
Impacts of tourism/visitor/recreation
Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure


* : 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.