State of Conservation (SOC)
Białowieża Forest (Belarus,Poland)
Factors affecting the property in 1999*
- Forestry /wood production
- Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Logging operations;
- Need for a management plan
International Assistance granted to the property until 1999
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Approved: 0USD
Missions to the property until 1999**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1999
Summary of previous deliberations: At its twenty-second extraordinary session (Kyoto, 1998) the Bureau commended the Polish authorities for submitting an extension of the Bialowieza Forest and reiterated its previous request that the two States Parties co-operate to prepare a management plan for the Belarus part and consider removing the fence separating the two parts.
New information: IUCN has informed the Centre that the IUCN evaluation of the extension of the Bialowieza Forest of Poland will be submitted to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau (November, 1999). At that time IUCN will also provide an analysis of trans-frontier management issues in this site and recommendations to the consideration of the Bureau.
The Bureau may wish to request IUCN to provide an up-to-date state of conservation report on this site to its twenty-third extraordinary session in November 1999.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1999
Twenty-second session of the Committee – page 94 of Annex IV.
Twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau – Chapter IV. 26
New information: IUCN has informed the Centre that the IUCN evaluation of the extension of the Bialowieza Forest of Poland will be submitted to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau under the agenda item “ Nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List”. IUCN also notes that the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Forestry has launched “The Contract for Bialowieza Forest” with its major goal of enlarging national park boundaries to the whole forest complex in 2000. However, a final decision has not been taken yet and discussions have reached a crucial point at present with a range of opinions in relation to the desirability of extending the National Park boundaries. IUCN also notes that a management plan for Bialowieza National Park is now under preparation.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1999
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/ Poland)
At its twenty-second extraordinary session (Kyoto, 1998) the Bureau commended the Polish authorities for submitting an extension of the Bialowieza Forest and reiterated its previous request that the two States Parties co-operate to prepare a management plan for the Belarus part and consider removing the fence separating the two parts. IUCN informed the Bureau that the IUCN evaluation of the extension of the Bialowieza Forest of Poland would be submitted to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau. At that time IUCN, will also provide an analysis of transborder management issues in this site and associated recommendations for consideration by the Bureau.
The Bureau requested IUCN to provide an up-to-date state of conservation report on this site to its twenty-third extraordinary session in November 1999.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest - Extension (Belarus/Poland)
Property: Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest - Extension
Id. N°: 33-627 Bis
State Party: Belarus / Poland
The Committee recalled that IUCN informed the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau that the proposed extension would provide an important contribution to the biodiversity of the Polish part of the existing World Heritage site, in particular through the oligothrophic pinewoods. However, they are not significant for the existing World Heritage site as a whole.
The Committee decided not to include the extension into the existing World Heritage site.
The Committee commended the Polish Government for its initiative for expanding the existing National Park and to give legal protection to the whole unit.
State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee
X.28 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-99/CONF.209/6) included as Annex VIII to this report. Additional observations made during the Committee session are reflected below.
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
The Delegate of Australia thanked IUCN for the consultative process started, which could be a model for other State Parties. He also informed the Committee that the area of marine protection around Macquerie Island had been extended and now comprises 16 million ha, the world's largest highly protected marine zone.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
The Delegate of Colombia informed the Committee that a visit by a delegation from the Ministry for Environment to Los Katios was recently carried out. The visit included areas that were previously not accessible. He emphasized that the proposal to grant collective land ownership over 100,000ha would be outside the Park in the buffer zone. He commented that his Government would be pleased to receive the visit of the monitoring mission to this site in 2000. The Colombian authorities have enhanced transboundary co-operation with Darien National Park (Panama) and strengthened the protected area system.
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
The Observer of the United States underlined his Government's role in safeguarding Galapagos Islands and congratulated the Government of Ecuador on progress made. He noted the landmark decision of the Galapagos Law and questioned whether it had been implemented, in particular concerning the forty-mile zone. The Secretariat informed the Committee that some threats related to illegal fishing have been reported. IUCN noted the implementation of this pioneering legislation is vital and specific regulations need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The Delegate of Ecuador provided information from the Ministry of Environment noting progress concerning control of introduced species and general improvements in relation to biodiversity conservation at the site. Concerning the control of the 40-mile zone, she stated that the law has not yet been implemented, but that the basis for the conservation and environmental control is there. She thanked the Committee for all its efforts to safeguard the Galapagos.
Kaziranga National Park (India)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park (Kenya)
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
The Observer of Nepal expressed his gratitude for the international support for the important project on tourism carried out at Sagarmatha National Park. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted that it is a ground-breaking project.
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Delegate of Thailand noted the raised serious concerns raised by the Bureau regarding the management of this site, given the decline in numbers of the Arabian Oryx and the fact that the boundary marking and management planning is long overdue for completion. He recalled that the Committee inscribed the site without legislation and management plan in December 1994. He highlighted the Operational Guidelines in relation to the deletion of properties. The Delegate of Benin noted that rigour was not always applied in the past years and that a number of sites would not have been accepted if they were presented today. Concerning the question of deletion, a site would be put first on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate of Thailand made it clear that he had not proposed the deletion of the site from the World Heritage List and that he was totally aware of the modalities in that respect. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted that similar problems concerned a number of sites and that these issues would certainly be dealt with by the periodic reporting process. IUCN pointed out that it had consistently raised concerns about this site. IUCN noted that legislation does not have effect if there is not sufficient resources for its implementation. The Chairperson reminded the Committee members about the rarity of Arab natural sites on the List. In concluding, the Chairperson thanked the Committee for the debate and noted that awareness needs to be raised in countries about the World Heritage Convention, its obligations and World Heritage values to be preserved for future generations, in particular among decision-makers. He thanked the Delegate of Thailand for his statement and encouraged the Committee to further reflect on how to enhance the protection of World Heritage sites.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
The Observer of Russia requested that the information provided during the adoption of the report of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau on this site be included in the Bureau report.
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following text and transmit it to the Committee for noting:
“The Bureau commends the authorities for their efforts to expand the Bialowieza National Park and to complete the management plan.”
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”).