Gros Morne National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2001*
- Forestry /wood production
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Logging near the World Heritage site
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2001
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2001**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2001
Previous deliberations:
Eleventh session of the Bureau (III.A)
Eleventh session of the Committee (VII.)
Twenty-fourth session of the Committee – paragraph VIII.24 / Annex X page 112.
Main issues: logging.
New information: On 9 May 2001 a fax was received from Parks Canada providing new information on a number of developments since November 2000, which was transmitted to IUCN for review.
Action Required
The Bureau may wish to review any new information which may be available at the Bureau session.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2001
Following the Bureau’s request, the Canadian authorities provided a report concerning the site, dated 14 September 2001, which was transmitted to IUCN for review. The report notes that logging in the Main River watershed near Gros Morne National Park is unchanged since June 2001. There is currently no logging activity in the area. Parks Canada continues to work with the forestry company and provincial government authorities to ensure that the proposed harvesting regime takes into account potential impacts on the World Heritage values and the ecological integrity of the site.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2001
25 BUR V.150-152
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
V.150 The Bureau was informed that on 9 May 2001 a fax was received from Parks Canada providing new information on a number of developments since November 2000, which was transmitted to IUCN for review.
V.151 The Delegate of Canada informed the Bureau that staff from Gros Morne continue to work directly with the forestry company and the provincial government to ensure that the ecological integrity and the World Heritage values of the national park are recognized, taken into account and maintained in the context of forest operations. Canada would be pleased to provide additional information about this issue prior to the next Committee session.
V.152 The Bureau commended the State Party for the efforts to enhance the protection of the site and particularly through the development of suitable solutions to address the effect of logging outside the World Heritage site on the aesthetic values that justified inscription of the site under criterion (iii). The Bureau acknowledged the commitment by the logging company to the conservation of this site by deciding to cease clear cutting in the entire Main River watershed. The Bureau however requested the State Party to keep the Centre informed on progress towards ensuring that proposed alternative harvesting regimes take into full consideration any potential impacts to the ecological integrity of this site.
25 COM VIII
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 decision:
“The Bureau thanks Parks Canada for the report provided and requests the State Party to inform the Centre as soon as new developments occur.”
Canada
* :
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”).
** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.
