Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve

a)         Illegal settlements;
b)  Illegal livestock grazing and agricultural encroachment;
c)  Illegal logging;
d)  Illegal commercial fishing;
e)  Poaching;
f)  Alien invasive species;
g)  Management deficiencies;
h)  Potential impacts from hydroelectric development projects Patuca I,II and  III;
i)  Lack of law enforcement;
j)  Lack of clarity regarding land tenure and access to natural resources.

• Illegal logging;
• Illegal occupation;
• Reduced capacity of the State Party;
• General deterioration of law and order and the security situation in the region.

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4439

Total amount granted: USD 80,000 (in addition to approximately USD 100,000 of in-kind technical assistance) under the management effectiveness assessment project “Enhancing our Heritage”. 

The State Party submitted a report on the property’s state of conservation on 18 January 2013. Responses to the corrective measures identified at the time of inscription of the property onto the List of World Heritage in Danger are as follows:

a)  Establish permanent and systematic monitoring to identify encroachment and land use changes of the entire protected area, and if possible the broader region, and relocate illegal occupants who have recently settled on the property, in particular in the core zone of the Rio Plátano Biosphere Reserve

The State Party reports on a number of initiatives contributing to this measure, based on satellite imagery, aerial surveys and a series of checkpoints and patrols operated by the armed forces (200 soldiers in 13 detachments).  It recognized the need to coordinate these efforts, and is currently setting up a monitoring platform to systematize and integrate different monitoring approaches.  Results from recent monitoring indicate a loss of 39,763 hectares of forest cover between 2007 and 2011.  However, because the study area encompasses the Biosphere Reserve boundaries as per the 1997 expansion decree, which is larger than the World Heritage property (850,000 ha vs. 350,000 ha), it is difficult to gauge to what extent the property itself is affected. The State Party notes that the core zone of the Biosphere Reserve, which is clearly within the property boundaries, has suffered relatively little deforestation (29 hectares per year), though new illegal settlers were once again observed, despite recent State Party success in removing previous illegal settlers last year. The State Party indicates that it is currently taking action to remove them. 

b)  Continue efforts to negotiate and clarify access to land and natural resources while enforcing existing land tenure and access arrangements and explore opportunities for more meaningful co-management with a particular focus on the indigenous communities of the cultural zone

The State Party reports that 107,683 hectares of land have been organized through community forest management contracts, giving 12 neighbouring communities (indigenous and other) access to resources for economic, environmental and social benefits.  It also reports that forest management plans have been approved for 9 cooperatives affecting lands within the Biosphere Reserve, along with the granting of 5 business licenses for commercial extraction of precious woods. Maps provided illustrate that a significant part of these permits and plans are granted for activities located clearly within the World Heritage property. Therefore, there is the potential of a conflict between resource extraction permits and the conservation of the property’s OUV. 

c)  In cooperation with the indigenous communities concerned, complete land tenure and resource access arrangements adapted to their historical and cultural contexts

With continuing support from German government aid, a land titling procedure specific to the needs and cultural contexts of indigenous communities was developed and officially recognized by law in August 2012.  According to information from the State Party, the process is reported to have been fully discussed with affected communities, with free prior and informed consent having been obtained. The State Party expects to grant titles to at least 3 communities in 2013.

d)  In coordination with the World Heritage Centre and IUCN, review in a timely manner, any projects for the construction of hydroelectric dams on the Patuca River until it has been clearly demonstrated to the World Heritage Committee that they will not negatively impact the property's OUV;

Though the Committee indicated in Decision 36 COM 7A.17 that it considered the Patuca III dam did not pose a threat to the property’s OUV, the State Party reports that the 40 natural resource conservation mitigation measures recommended by the environmental impact assessment had been fully met. Both the World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that the dam’s distance from the property and the presence of several tributaries of the Patuca River downstream of the dam, could potentially mitigate negative impacts. Nevertheless, IUCN recalls that indirect or long-term impacts, such as displacement of local communities, in particular as a result of potential loss of livelihood of downstream communities due to changes in water flow, further complicating the land tenure issue, and impacts on aquatic migratory species downstream from the dam should also be noted. Furthermore, recalling the Committee’s request that the State Party redefine the property’s boundaries so that its Outstanding Universal Value can be better conserved (Decision 35 COM 7B.31, 36 COM 7A.17), IUCN notes that the dam may impact areas that could be considered for inclusion in the property and also recalls that other protected areas in the region may be impacted.

e)  Provide the necessary human resources and logistical capacity to the agencies responsible for the protection and management of the property to enable them to regularly monitor and deal with illegal activities affecting the property;

The State Party reports on the strengthening of the legal and oversight framework for the conservation of the property, along with the formulation of strategies regarding government involvement.  It states that it is actively seeking international support for additional help in carrying out activities necessary for the management of the property.  No specific information is provided on any actual institutional strengthening in terms of human or material resources.

f)  Using the on-going management planning process, seek to coordinate the many actors, various institutions and external supporters involved in Río Plátano in order to significantly improve coherence, effectiveness and efficiency of future management in addressing the issues affecting the property;

The State Party does not specifically address this measure in its report.  The inter-ministerial ad-hoc committee for the property is reported to have been strengthened.

Beyond the corrective measures identified by the World Heritage Committee, additional issues were requested to be addressed:

i) Property boundary design

The updated International Assistance request was submitted to the World Heritage Centre in late 2012 and discussions on its content and budget are on-going. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that the revised request is exclusively to support illegal logging control work. However, given that there are several active projects endeavoringto address this issue there is little to demonstrate post-project longer term outcomes for a small project on illegal logging that is not linked in with the other ongoing projects. They are of the view that the priority would be to establish clarity on the property’s boundaries, with a focus on re-nomination, as recommended by the World Heritage Committee inDecisions35 COM 7B.31 and 36 COM 7A.17, and as referred in the 2011 UNESCO/IUCN reactive monitoring mission. IUCN notes that it would be able to support the preparation of a revised request. Currently, the property boundaries as officially recognized under the World Heritage Convention by a clarification in Decision 36 COM 8D, no longer coincide with the actual boundaries as recognized under Honduran legislation.  This issue should be resolved to guarantee that the OUV of the property will be protected over the longer term. 

ii) Increase in illegal drug trans-shipment activities in and near the property

No reference is made to any targeted effort on this issue.  The State Party reports the presence of 200 members of the military in the region, occupying check points and monitoring for illegal activities.   

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that gradual progress is being made in regards to several of the corrective measures, particularly in terms of systematic monitoring, land titling and the formalization of resource use agreements (measures a, b and c).  The State Party is implementing mitigation measures for the Patuca III dam, however IUCN recalls that indirect or long-term impacts, such as displacement of local communities, further complicating the land tenure issue, and impacts on aquatic migratory species downstream from the dam as a result of changes in water flow, should also be noted. IUCN also recalls that the dam may impact areas that could be considered for inclusion in the property, as well as other protected areas in the region. The property appears to remain seriously under- serviced on the part of relevant government institutions.  The State Party’s indications that it is seeking international support to help it deal with this issue is encouraging, but no explicit progress is reported.  It is not clear if the Committee’s request to ensure greater coordination amongst the various agencies and supporters of the property’s conservation is being adequately met by the inter-ministerial ad-hoc committee on the Biosphere Reserve.

Little substantive information has been provided in regards to the efforts undertaken to end the use of the property as a drug trans-shipment area. This activity had been noted in the 2011 joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN mission report as a serious long term threat to the property, undermining the rule of law and challenging the security of government representatives in the area.

Of overarching importance in addressing the above-noted issues is the need to reassess the property boundaries in light of significant changes to the original Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve boundaries and zonation scheme. The State Party approved the modification of limits by national legislation but no consultation was undertaken with the World Heritage Committee. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the Committee urge the State Party to submit a revised International Assistance request on this issue. Until this issue is addressed to the satisfaction of the World Heritage Committee, the property’s integrity cannot be guaranteed nor can the corrective measures be put in place. In light of the above, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.