State of Conservation (SOC)
Lorentz National Park (2001)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:41,400USD
|2001||Strategic Planning for the Conservation and Effective Management ...||30,000 USD|
|1996||Nomination file for Lorentz National Reserve||11,400 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Management infrastructure development within the constraints imposed by security risks in the area (issue resolved)
- Disposal of mine tailings (issue resolved)
- Strategic planning and promoting Government-NGO-industry co-operation for conservation
Current conservation issues
The WWF-Office for Sahul Bioregion is now located in Jayapura in Irian Jaya and has provided a report to IUCN on its efforts to strengthen conservation of this site. WWF is providing direct assistance to the conservation of the site through a number of activities: (i) institutional strengthening of three local NGOs to develop skills in Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA), project planning and monitoring, identification and development of alternative income sources, community organization, advocacy and communications; (ii) promoting community-based approaches to natural resources management by documenting traditional practices of the three main ethnic groups using the Park’s resources; (iii) identifying alternative sources of income in order to minimize community dependence on forest resources; (iv) encouraging the recognition of community rights and knowledge and enhancing community participation in site management; and (v) co-operating with Park management to develop an overall management plan as well as plans for the utilization of various management zones.
WWF-Indonesia has financed a range of activities up to the year 2001 and is in the process of submitting proposals for financing a number of new initiatives for the period 2001/2002 and beyond. The WWF-report identifies four activities as needing immediate attention:
· Organization of an integrated planning workshop bringing together all concerned parties;
· Building transparent relationships amongst NGOs, ethnic communities, private sector and the Government;
· Establishment of an institution with multi-stakeholder representation for management of the area; and
· Financing support programmes targeted to research, communities and institutional development and the overall long-term planning and development of the site.
The US$ 30,000 grant approved from the World Heritage Fund by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau will be used for the organization of a series of strategic planning workshops involving the participation of all stakeholders. As noted by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, the Australian Government is also considering assistance up to a sum of about US$ 200,000 for capacity building activities in support of site-management.
Analysis and Conclusion
Link to the decision
(ii) Technical Co-operation
Indonesia - "For the preparation of a Strategic Planning for the Conservation and Effective Management of Lorentz National Park"
VII.28 The Bureau approved an amount of US$30,000, requesting the State Party to work in collaboration with other potential donors, conservation NGOs and the private sector, and in particular the local communities, for the preparation of the strategic plan and seek their full support for the long-term conservation of the Lorentz National Park.
Link to the decision
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 notes the variety of support that is becoming available to the site for strategic planning, capacity building and NGO and community support initiatives. However, recommendations from these activities need to be implemented to ensure a positive impact on the conservation of this site, thus the Bureau encourages relevant donors to support the implementation of recommended priority actions and to co-ordinate their activities. The Committee requests the Centre and IUCN to work through its partners, particularly the UNESCO Office, Jakarta and the IUCN Asia Regional Programme and IUCN/WCPA Vice-Chair for Southeast Asia to promote co-ordinated development and execution of projects and activities in support of Lorentz. The Bureau recalls that in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee made at the time of the site’s inscription in the World Heritage List in 1999 a Centre/IUCN mission to the site is due in late 2002. The Bureau recommends that a full status report on the conservation of the site and the planning of its future management be submitted to the twenty-seventh session of the Bureau in April 2003”
Lorentz National Park
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2014 2013 2011 2010 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000
Detailed List of SOC reports
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”).