Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1981
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger N/A
Previous Committee Decisions see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147/documents/
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 0
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Previous monitoring missions
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/147/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1986
The boundaries of this site have been considerably enlarged to include an important wetland area which should add to the viability of this property.
During a visit to Australian National Park and Wildlife Service offices in Canberra in January, IUCN was informed that notation of this extension would be given to the Secretariat. The new area would be included as a part of the existing World Heritage Site, without need for a new nomination.
The question of proposed mining in the park, however, is a matter of concern and clarification of these plans has been requested by the Secretariat.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies
Decision Adopted: 10COM VIII
Kakadu National Park (Stage II)
The leader of the Australian Delegation requested permission to put before the World Heritage Committee an order of the Federal Court of Australia. He read this in full to the Committee and then made it available to delegates. The Australian Delegation then requested the World Heritage Committee to defer, until further notice, the consideration of State II of the Kakadu National Park as part of the Kakadu World Heritage Property already inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981. The Committee agreed. The representative of IUCN noted that the 1981 review had indicated that the existing area of the nomination would be inadequate and the hope that Kakadu Stage II would be added. He said this would increase the viability and integrity of the nomination. Having now seen the new management plan he considered the whole nomination would be a superb area and commended the Australian Government for proposing to add it to the list. He had seen officials in Canberra last January and asked for more information on the extension, noting that this was not a new nomination. The boundary extension was quite extensive but this had been foreseen in 1981. The main question now concerned the mining which would affect the integrity of the Park. He had seen the Australian Prime Minister's statements questioning mining and would need further information from officials.