State of Conservation (SOC)
Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (2000)
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
Total Amount Ap proved:198,000USD
|1996||Conservation strategy and preparation of a management plan for ...||30,000 USD|
|1988||Equipment for Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve||20,000 USD|
|1987||Consultant services, training and equipment for improving the ...||30,000 USD|
|1985||Strengthen protection and management of Rio Platano Biosphere ...||20,000 USD|
|1983||Implementation of protective measures, of training activities and ...||26,000 USD|
|1982||Financial contribution towards ecodevelopment programmes and ...||67,025 USD|
|1982||Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve||4,975 USD|
October 2000: joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Extreme pressure with the invasion of refugees and settlers into the Reserve;
- Illegal tree felling;
- Road construction;
- Patuca II hydro power project
Current conservation issues
The State Party, via a letter dated 21 June 2000, invited a Centre/IUCN mission to the site. IUCN and the Centre have collaborated to identify experts to undertake the mission from 22-29 October 2000 and a report on the findings of the mission will be provided at the time of the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. A representative of site-management is expected to present a case study on Rio Platano at the Centre/IUCN workshop on the "Role of World Heritage in Danger Listing in Promoting International Co-operation for the Conservation of World Natural Heritage", in Amman, Jordan, during 6-7 October 2000.
Link to the decision
VIII.10 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Committee was informed that the Centre/IUCN mission to this site was fielded from 24 to 30 October 2000. A preliminary report of the mission indicated that of the ten major recommendations of the previous (1995) Centre/IUCN mission which led to the inclusion of this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger 1996, five have been implemented. Some notable achievements made since 1995 include: completion of a participatory management plan; increasing on-the-ground management presence; establishment of inter-agency control posts in strategic locations; preparation and the beginning of the execution of an inter-institutional action plan; and organization of agro-forestry co-operatives. Continuing concerns regarding the integrity of the site centre around: deforestation rates in the buffer zone that exceed the national average (4%); resettling core-zone family units into the buffer zone and land-titling issues in influence zones; and unacceptable levels of logging and poaching. The mission report acknowledges and appreciates the support given by the German Government to the conservation of Rio Platano. The Committee was informed of a UN Foundation-financed project to link biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism development targeting six sites, including Rio Platano. This project may generate employment and economic benefits via outreach, ecotourism and research activities as recommended by the 1995 mission.
The Committee requested the Centre to transmit the full report of the IUCN/Centre mission to the site to the State Party to obtain formal written responses and comments from the State Party for submission to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee urged the State Party to continue its efforts to improve management of the site. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Committee may wish to review new information that may be available at the time of its session and take necessary decisions and recommend appropriate actions for the consideration of the State Party, advisory bodies and the Centre
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1991 1990 1989 1988
Detailed List of SOC reports
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 2011
Threats to the Site:
a) Illegal logging;
b) Illegal occupation;
c) Reduced capacity of the State Party;
d) General deterioration of law and order and the security situation in the region.
Threats to the Site:
At both its 19th and 20th sessions, the World Heritage Committee heard reports of commercial and agricultural intrusions into the site, threatening the World Heritage values for which it had been inscribed. The advancing agricultural frontier at the west side of the reserve, pushed by small farmers and cattle ranchers, is already reducing the reserve's forest area. The southern and western zones of the Reserve are subject to massive extraction of precious wood such as Caoba (Swietenia macrophylla). Uncontrolled commercial hunting of wild animals is also practised. The introduction of exotic species is threatening to undermine the complex ecosystem of the Reserve. The absence of any management plan and the fact that there is almost no park staff to manage the 525,100 ha site has compounded the problem.
An eleven-point corrective action plan, recommended by a 1996 IUCN conservation status report, has been endorsed by the Minister for the Environment of Honduras and the elaboration of a management plan for Rio Platano is being carried out with a World Heritage Fund contribution, as part of a large-scale project for strengthening the conservation of the site financed by the German GTZ-KFW.
A hydroelectric development project, Patuca II, is currently proposed for implementation near the reserve with potential negative impacts on the site. According to reports, the Government is promoting the rapid implementation of this project. Matters are further complicated by the fact that communications with relevant authorities in Honduras have become difficult following recent damages caused to the country's infrastructure by Hurricane Mitch.
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”).