State of Conservation (SOC)
Iguazu National Park
Iguaçu National Park (1991)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:0USD
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Administration of the falls (Argentina)
Current conservation issues
[Oral report by IUCN and the Secretariat]
Link to the decision
Iguazu National Park (Argentina) and Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
The Committee noted that eight helicopters simultaneously overfly these adjacent sites which cover the same waterfall area. Over 7,000 visitors had registered complaints and local conservation groups are opposed to the use of helicopters in the area because it contravenes legal regulations for air traffic over protected areas. The Brazilian Delegate informed the Committee that a working group had been established to study the matter with a view to introducing more stringent regulatory measures for helicopter tourism. The Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the authorities of Argentina in order to request information on steps taken by them.
No draft Decision
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2012 2012 2010 2010 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1992 1991 1986
Detailed List of SOC reports
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 1999 -2001
Threats to the Site:
The Committee noted that an IUCN/UNESCO mission was carried out to this site in March 1999 and dealt with four issues relevant to the integrity of this World
- The Colon road,
- Helicopter flights,
- Dams on the Iguaçu River,
- Management planning.
The Committee recognized the efforts made by the State Party to implement the recommendations of the mission. However, in the absence of satisfactory progress with regard to the permanent closure of the road and the implementation of the recovery plan, the Committee decided to include Iguacu National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
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”).