jump to the content

State of Conservation (SOC)

Everglades National Park (1993)

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
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

Agricultural, industrial and urban developments altering the natural systems; Hurricane in August 1992

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

The Bureau noted that the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew has had a wide range of impacts on the ecology of Everglades and that the site has been entered on the "Montreux Record", the equivalent of a 'danger list' under the Ramsar Convention. A monitoring report on Everglades, which was submitted at the Ramsar Conference in Japan, from 9 to 16 June 1993, should provide directions for preparing a future detailed state of conservation report on the Everglades, however at this point the World Heritage Centre has not yet received this report.

Conclusion
Decision
  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

17COMX
Link to the decision

Everglades National Park (United States of America)

The Committee recalled that the damage caused to the site by Hurricane Andrew on 24 August 1992 was discussed at the sixteenth session of the Committee. Further discussion on the ecological impacts took place at the seventeenth session of the Bureau. IUCN reported that it had not been able to carry out a site mission.

The United States Delegation informed the Committee that the Superintendent of the Everglades National Park was present and that he would be pleased to present a report. The Superintendent indicated that a significant number of threats to the Park have existed since the time of its listing in 1979. These are still present, including alterations to the hydrological regime as well as impacts from adjacent urban growth. Several new threats, both man­made and natural, have aggravated conditions since the initial listing. These include increased nutrient pollution from agricultural activities, reduced water levels from flood control operations and mercury contamination of fish and wildlife. In addition, there had been a dramatic ecological deterioration of Florida Bay, as well as the severe effects of Hurricane Andrew. In response to these conditions, substantial Government actions have been initiated in recent years. Legal actions and negotiations to resolve nutrient pollution are very close to a successful conclusion. An addition of 107,000 acres to protect the north-eastern part of the Park has been incorporated. Structural changes in the water management regime to restore the water level in the north-eastern addition are underway. Experiments are being carried out with respect to optimum water deliveries:

The Government provided 4.5 million US$ for monitoring and research, as well as a significant increase in other management funding. A major new emphasis and commitment has also been undertaken to accomplish long-term restoration through ecosystem management of the entire south Florida system. This brought all appropriate federal agencies together in a collaborative effort which should shortly include state and local governments.

In conclusion, the report stated that the outcome of these efforts was by no means certain, however the outlook was hopeful. At the request of the Chair, IUCN underlined its agreement with the report given and suggested that the Everglades National Park should be a candidate for the List of World Heritage in Danger.

After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed to include the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and asked the Centre to communicate with the appropriate authorities. The Committee recognized the extensive research and other work underway to alleviate the threats to the Everglades National Park. It therefore congratulated the Government of the United States of America on the new initiatives it had taken and encouraged it to continue its efforts to restore the ecological balance of the Everglade ecosystem. IUCN was invited to monitor and assess the results of the restorative efforts.

 

17COMXI
Link to the decision

Everglades National Park (United States of America)

The Committee's considerations and recommendations regarding the state of conservation of this site are described in Chapter X.2 of this report.

 

No draft Decision

Everglades National Park
State Party:
United States of America
Date of Inscription: 1979
Nomination records (Year): 1979
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)(ix)(x)
SOC Reports
SOC Reports by year
2013
2012
2011
2010
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
1994
1993
1992
1989
Detailed List of SOC reports
Threats*
Crop production
Housing
Industrial areas
Storms
Surface water pollution
Water infrastructure
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 2010
Threats to the Site:

The property was re-inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, on the request of the State Party, due to concerns that the property's aquatic ecosystem continues to deteriorate, in particular as a result of:

  • Alterations of the hydrological regime (quantity, timing, and distribution of Shark Slough inflows);
  • Adjacent urban and agricultural growth (flood protection and water supply requirements that affect the property's resources by lowering water levels);
  •   Increased nutrient pollution from upstream agricultural activities;
  •  Protection and management of FloridaBay resulting in significant reduction of both marine and estuarine biodiverstiy.

 

Year: 1993 -2007
Threats to the Site:

The site was inscribed on the List of the World Heritage in Danger in 1993 after the park's Superintendent informed the Committee of extensive damage to Everglades' ecology due to a number of causes including:

  • nearby urban growth,
  • pollution from fertilisers,
  • mercury poisoning of fish and wildlife,
  • a fall in water levels caused by flood protection measures.

In addition, on 24 August 1992, Hurricane Andrew altered much of Florida Bay and its ecological systems and destroyed the park's visitor centre.

 



* : 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.