jump to the content
Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Kakadu National Park (1991)

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

Mining projects; Protected area considered inadequate at the time of inscription

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

The Bureau was pleased to note that the Australian Commonwealth Government had decided not to allow mining at the Coronation Hill, located in an area that was to be nominated as part of the proposed Stage III of the extension of this World Heritage Site. Since Stage III of the proposed extension of the Kakadu National Park was estimated to be very much higher than 10% of the original extent of this property, the Bureau recommended that the proposed extension be considered as a new nomination. Accordingly, the Australian authorities have nominated the entire Kakadu National Park, including the re-nomination of Stages I and II which were already included on the World Heritage List, and a nomination of Stage III of the extension of this site.

The nomination has already been transmitted to IUCN and ICOMOS for evaluation during 1992.

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

No draft Decision

Kakadu National Park
State Party:
Australia
Date of Inscription: 1981
Nomination records (Year): 1980, 1991, 2011
Category: Mixed
Criteria: (i)(vi)(vii)(ix)(x)
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2005
2004
1991
1986
Threats*
  • Mining
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:
Documents
SC.91/CONF.002/04
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 1645

* : 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.