State of Conservation
Komodo National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2001*
- Fire (widlfires)
- Illegal activities
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
- Management systems/ management plan
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 2001
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 2001**
July 1995: evaluation mission on the state of conservation (mission cancelled); September 2000: joint UNESCO/IUCN mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2001
The State Party had submitted a report on the state of conservation of the site using the format prescribed in the periodic reporting brochure and this report has been reviewed by IUCN. The State Party report notes that:
· The 25-year Management Plan for the site was completed in June 2000. The plan includes the expansion of the Park, to include an extension at Gili Banta and a connection to Gili Mota. The proposed extensions will add 504 square kilometres to the area of the Park, 479 km of which will be marine habitat. The new Park would therefore comprise 27% terrestrial and 73% marine areas. The proposed extension is based on the high level of coral and fish diversity and associated aesthetic value, biological corridors, and the importance of areas for migration of cetaceans.
· The plan also includes a new zoning system for the Park, dividing the Park into 7 zones covering both marine and terrestrial environments as follows: core zone; wilderness zone with limited tourism; tourism zone; traditional use zone; pelagic use zone; special research and training zone; and traditional settlement zone. Regulations have been formulated for each zone. A map of the Park is being completed and will be disseminated widely.
· According to the ongoing coral reef and fish monitoring programme conducted by The Nature Conservancy of USA (TNC) and Park personnel, a slow recovery, i.e. 2% increase in hard coral per year, has been occurring around Komodo since 1996. Eight demersal fish spawning grounds have been identified within the park waters. As a consequence the Park has applied regulations to prohibit demersal fish exploitation during the spawning season.
· In the terrestrial sector, forest fires occur frequently, largely the result of human activities during the dry season. Deer poaching has been a significant threat to the integrity of the Park, with poachers using fire to herd deer. Park patrols involve local police, navy and army personnel, as Park rangers are not equipped with firearms.
· The report states that a floating boat patrol, equipped with communication systems to allow contact with Park headquarters, has been added to the law enforcement programme. Overall, the incidences of dynamite and cyanide fishing and deer poaching have declined significantly with improved and intensified patrolling.
· Park regulations prohibit anyone from entering the Park without a permit, except official local people practicing traditional fishing. Despite this prohibition, illegal fishermen originating from other islands continues to be a significant issue.
TNC has been working on an innovative management scheme for the Park. This approach would involve TNC, the private tourism sector and the government of Indonesia in a partnership to establish sustainable financing for the Park. IUCN has been playing a supportive role and providing some technical input, in co-operation with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) which is helping to support the project. The Indonesian Government formally wrote to the UNESCO Office in Jakarta, Indonesia, requesting UNESCO’s views on the joint TNC/Government of Indonesia/tourism sector initiative. The establishment of the tourism concession is seen as a sustainable financing mechanism to be tested within the framework of the implementation of the 25-year Management Plan.
IUCN has commended ongoing discussions on sustainable financing and collaborative management of the Park. UNESCO Office, Jakarta has also supported the establishment of the tourism management concession in principle but has stressed the need to closely monitor the work of the concession and all other projects designed to support the implementation of the 25-year Management Plan.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2001
Reports on SOC of natural properties inscribed noted by the Committee
Reports on the state of conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List noted by the Committee
Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
Fraser Island (Australia)
The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Nahanni National Park (Canada)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst (Hungary/Slovakia)
The Committee noted that the issues raised concern only the Slovak part of this transboundary site.
Sundarbans National Park (India)
The Delegate of India informed the Committee that there is no National Waterways Project that is planned or likely to impact this site.
Kaziranga National Park (India)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)
The Observer of Indonesia thanked the Australian authorities for their financial assistance. He informed the Committee that it would be difficult to comply with the deadline of 1 February and that a report could be provided by the end of March 2002.
Aeolian Islands (Italy)
The Observer of Italy confirmed that there was a court decision on 4 December 2001, which is not yet public, but that it is hoped to be available soon. She informed the Committee that the collaboration between the autonomous regional Government and the central Government has commenced and that a meeting will take place to find a solution.
Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Delegate of Egypt brought to the attention of the Committee the importance of protecting the wetlands, which are known to be important rest places for the migratory birds along their routes. He suggested that the World Heritage Centre should have a plan defining the wetlands, which are important for the birds and to use this information for establishing "satellite" World Heritage sites. IUCN informed of the co-operation between the World Heritage Centre and the Ramsar Convention as well as with Bird Life International for the protection of the wetlands. He also highlighted the importance of the surrounding areas to the World Heritage sites and the links with the Man and Biosphere programme for the protection of the sites. The Secretariat informed of the on-going discussions with the Secretariat of the Convention of Migratory Species to establish a Memorandum of Understanding between these two Conventions.
Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)
Sian Ka'an (Mexico)
The Delegate of Mexico informed that the confirmation of the Ecological Land-Use Plan is in its final phase and consequently she asked that the deadline for the report requested by the Bureau be set for 15 May 2002 for examination at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June.
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
Western Caucasus (Russian Federation)
Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)
Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (United Kingdom)
St Kilda (United Kingdom)
Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America)
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following:
“The Bureau welcomes the several initiatives to strengthen protection of the site and acknowledges the important contributions that TNC, IFC, GEF, the tourism sector and other partners are making towards the long-term conservation and sustainable financing of Komodo National Park. However, the Bureau notes with concern that the illegal entry of outsiders from other islands continues to be an important management issue and invites the Government of Indonesia to consider providing increased resources for patrolling the marine environment of the Park, especially in light of the marine extension. The Bureau invites the State Party to provide, before 1 February 2002, a status report on the establishment of the tourism management concession and a timeframe for nominating the extensions to the Park for inclusion in the World Heritage site, to enable the Bureau to review the information at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.”
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”).