State of Conservation (SOC)
Iguaçu National Park (1998)
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);
- Sound pollution (helicopters)
Current conservation issues
Since 1997, the Bureau and the Committee have repeatedly called for the permanent closure of the18 km road traversing this Park which had been illegally opened by local people. The Bureau, at its twenty-second session (June, 1998) requested the Centre and IUCN to undertake a joint mission to review the situation and to assist the State Party to mitigate the threats to the Park and asked the State Party to provide by 15 September 1998: (i) a copy of the revitalisation programme and a time frame for the rehabilitation of damaged areas; and (ii) a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site and actions taken with regard to the permanent closure of the road.
The Bureau was informed of a new threat to Iguaçu’s integrity, arising from plans to fill a hydropower reservoir in Southwest Brazil that would divert a considerable volume of Iguaçu’s waters for seven to eight weeks every year.
Analysis and Conclusion
The Bureau reiterated its request that the State Party provide information on items (i) and (ii) as described above and on plans to divert Iguacu’s waters to fill a hydropower reservoir in South-west Brazil. The Bureau also noted that a Centre/IUCN mission to the site could be scheduled in March 1999 in order to determine whether the site needs to be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Link to the decision
VII.27 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV on the following properties:
Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
Nanda Devi National Park (India)
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)
Virgin Komi Forests (Russian Federation)
Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
Thung Yai-Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand)
St. Kilda (United Kingdom)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
The Committee noted the UN official name for the State Party: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2014 2012 2010 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1992 1991
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”).