State of Conservation
Komodo National Park
Factors affecting the property in 1999*
- Fire (widlfires)
- Fishing/collecting aquatic resources
- Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
- Illegal activities
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Preparation of a zonation map of Komodo National Park (issue resolved)
- Population pressure
- Forest fires
- Poaching (deer)
- Coral blasting
- Fish poisoning
- Tourism pressures
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1999
Requests approved: 3
Total amount approved : 119,500 USD
|1995||Purchase of a boat and of an additional GPS system for Komodo ... (Approved)||30,000 USD|
|1994||Further strengthening the Komodo National Park's infrastructure ... (Approved)||40,000 USD|
|1993||Equipment purchase and staff training for Komodo National Park (Approved)||49,500 USD|
Missions to the property until 1999**
July 1995: evaluation mission on the state of conservation (mission cancelled)
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1999
Summary of previous deliberations: Since the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List in 1991, the site has benefited from financial assistance from the Fund for the purchase of boats and for training staff in marine protected area management in Queensland, Australia. A monitoring report on the site was provided via the UNESCO Office, Jakarta, to the Centre in 1995.
New information: IUCN has informed the Centre that it has received a report indicating an increase in illegal dynamite and cyanide fishing in coastal waters which has had a serious impact on large areas of coral in the northern half of the marine component of the Park. The Nature Conservancy has provided two speedboats for patrolling the coastal waters but destructive fishing techniques have had a major impact. Immigration to the islands is increasing bringing more pressure on fisheries resources.
The Bureau may request the State Party to consider inviting a monitoring mission to the site to assess the damage caused by destructive fishing practices and to jointly review management issues and identify priority measures needed to build management capacity and for international assistance.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1999
Twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau – Chapter IV.34
New information: The Permanent Delegate of Indonesia, via his letter of 4 October 1999, has responded to the Bureau’s observations and recommendations and has informed the Centre that his Government, i.e. the Directorate General for Natural Protection and Conservation, is also very much concerned about indications of an increase in illegal dynamite and cyanide fishing in the coastal waters of Komodo National Park. He has pointed out that a Government team is due to visit the site soon and assess the damage.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1999
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Since the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List in 1991, the site has benefited from financial assistance from the Fund for the purchase of boats and for training staff in marine protected area management in Queensland, Australia. A monitoring report on the site was provided via the UNESCO Office, Jakarta, to the Centre in 1995. IUCN informed the Centre that it has received a report indicating an increase in illegal dynamite and cyanide fishing in coastal waters which has had a serious impact on large areas of coral in the northern half of the marine component of the Park. The Nature Conservancy has provided two speedboats for patrolling the coastal waters but destructive fishing techniques have had a major impact. Immigration to the islands is increasing bringing more pressure on fishery resources.
The Bureau requested the State Party to consider inviting a monitoring mission to the site to assess the damage caused by destructive fishing practices and to jointly review management issues and identify priority measures needed to build management capacity and for international assistance. IUCN noted that funding should be provided for any additional monitoring missions foreseen by the Bureau.
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 requests the State Party to submit to the Centre, before 15 April 2000, a report on the findings of the Government mission to the Komodo National Park and an assessment of the threats posed by increase in illegal fishing in coastal waters and possible mitigation measures that need to be undertaken. The Bureau requests the Centre and IUCN review that report and submit their findings and recommendations, including the need for any additional Centre/IUCN mission that may still prevail, for examination by the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau in mid-2000.”
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”).