State of Conservation (SOC)

Total amount provided to the property: USD 1,800,000 for the 3-year UNF/UNFIP Project (2005-2007) - Partnership for the Conservation of Sumatra Natural Heritage. 

Requests Approved: 0 (from2005-2005)
Total Amount Ap proved: 66,600USD

2006: UNESCO / IUCN reactive monitoring mission; 2007: World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission; February 2009: World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission. 

a) Agricultural encroachment;

b) Illegal logging;

c) Poaching;

d) Road construction;

e) Institutional and governance weaknesses.

At the time of inscription in 2004, the IUCN evaluation report recognized roads and road building as an immediate and present threat to the property which also facilitated poaching, encroachment and illegal logging. IUCN recommended inscribing the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the same time as inscribing the property on the World Heritage List. This proposal was not accepted, but continued loss of forest cover, encroachment and declines in populations of wildlife led to discussions of Danger Listing in 2006 and 2007, following two further reactive monitoring missions. The World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission of 2007 noted that the efforts of the State Party had not been able to halt the various human activities degrading the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property and that further consideration of the inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger should occur after a further mission in 2009 and based on progress reported by the State Party.

No state of conservation report was received from the State Party in 2009. The report below is based on the findings of the joint UNESCO / IUCN reactive monitoring mission which took place in February 2009.

The mission recognized the efforts of the State Party in the face of extensive threats within and adjacent to each of the three components of the property: Bukit Barisan, Gunung Leuser and Kerinci Seblat. The mission noted that the Emergency action plan (EAP) proposed by the 2007 mission has not been fully implemented but considered that it was not realistic to expect that the EAP be completed in only two years.

The mission observed park authorities and partners have continued to make improvements in relation to issues noted by the 2007 reactive monitoring mission in Gunung Leuser National Park (GLNP), including boundary demarcation and signage of the national park, prosecution of illegal logging and encroachment. Further progress in addressing threats to GLNP requires political recognition and support at the highest levels. Many threats are caused by factors outside the jurisdiction of the property; thus solving these issues requires cooperation between all national and local stakeholders. Higher level and more integrated inter-agency working is needed to address the need for relocation of displaced peoples, land-use management, local socio-economic development, and law enforcement.

Threats observed by the mission in Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP), related mainly to encroachment, illegal logging and road construction. Although all of the road construction projects have been halted, as reported by the 2007 mission, the 2009 mission observed that some forest roads are accessible by cars or motorcycles and have been extended locally, since 2008. The mission also came across evidence of very recent illegal logging and agricultural encroachments deep inside the property. As in the case for GLNP, these issues cannot be controlled by action only of the forest service, and therefore need stronger political support and commitment at all levels. Most of the pressures on the integrity of KSNP come from outside its boundaries, where the park authorities have no legal competence to intervene directly. The mission met local stakeholders at district level, who had a negative perception towards the property, and considered its presence impeded economic development. However, progress was noted by the mission where positive measures were taken to stop the expansion of encroached areas and to restore degraded forests. Local NGOs, committed to wildlife research and monitoring, and forest restoration and the promotion of alternative livelihoods are also actively involved in KSNP. The mission also identified traffic on existing public roads having a negative impact on wildlife and affecting the connectivity between the Southern and the Northern parts of KSNP. The mission concludes that amongst the three cluster sites, KSNP is the most exposed to external pressures and threats.

The 2009 mission assessed changes to the state of conservation of Bukit Barisan National Park (BBNP) with difficulty as it was not visited by the mission in 2007. The 2009 mission was impressed by the high degree of integrity of the Southern part of this cluster. In contrast, large areas located in the North-Eastern part of BBNP have heavily suffered from encroachment and the mission considered that these areas no longer have Outstanding Universal Value. The mission noted that this situation already partly existed at the time of the inscription of the property, and considered that there are areas that should not have been included in the property at that time and should now be excised from the property, especially noting that the conditions in these areas have continued to deteriorate since inscription. The mission also concluded that the State party should be urged to propose the nomination of a buffer zone to secure the proper conservation of the property. The mission considered that this could include areas situated outside the property and that such a status might also be an appropriate solution for the areas inside the property, where the conditions of integrity are not fulfilled as noted above.

The 2009 mission noted some progress in addressing illegal logging, road construction, as well as in implementing the Emergency action plan, experimental restoration of degraded forests and improving boundary demarcation and signage of the property. The mission was impressed by the work done by the park authorities in cooperation with local NGOs and other stakeholders, to conserve the wildlife and promote local sustainable development. Despite these improvements, the property continues to face severe threats to the values for which it was inscribed; it remains under heavy pressure from encroachment that continues to expand along most of the perimeter of the property. A scientific restoration plan of degraded areas is required and should be coordinated at national level. Furthermore, improved monitoring of the integrity of the property in relation to wildlife values, encroachment, logging and invasive species, is needed and should be integrated with monitoring for all the three components of the property and designed at the scale of the entire property allow long-term monitoring. Key aspects of the Emergency action plan drawn up by the State Party remain to be completed. The 2009 mission highlights the need for higher level and more integrated approach to addressing the threats to the property and illegal activities that are not being controlled adequately. The key points of action recommended by the mission are summarized in the draft decision below.

The 2009 mission again considered the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It concluded that the level of threats to the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property remain critical. It also noted the strong opinion of the State Party expressed to the mission that inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger would create a negative perception and could hinder efforts to restore the integrity and effective protection and management of the property. The mission considered on balance that the benefits of inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger were outweighed by the possibility that such inscription could reduce political will to act in relation to the conservation concerns facing the property.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that there has been some progress in some aspects of the management of the property, but that critical issues of encroachment continue and represent a clear danger to the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN also note with concern the lack of integration between the components of the property and that no comprehensive state of conservation report, including all three components of the property, is available. IUCN notes with only 10% of Sumatra’s natural forest ecosystem remaining, and the majority of this now found predominantly within the property, failure to protect its Outstanding Universal Value and integrity will lead to permanent fragmentation of the habitats of the key species within the property including the Sumatran tiger, rhino, orangutan and elephant.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that is the third monitoring mission to visit the property in the four years since its inscription on the World Heritage List, and that each mission has confirmed the assessment of IUCN at the time of inscription that the levels of threats to the property meet the requirements for inclusion of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Based on the State Party’s view to the mission regarding the List of World Heritage in Danger, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN regret that the State Party continues to regard the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger as a criticism, rather than a means to strengthen international support for the property, as intended within the Convention. In the present situation, and based on the findings of the three missions that have taken place to the property, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that the conditions for the property to be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger are clearly met, as a means to promote and assist the immediate action required by the State Party in order to respond to the issues of concern. The World Heritage Centre has written to the State Party to express this view and to also emphasize the positive intended role of the List of World Heritage in Danger to assist properties in addressing critical threats to their Outstanding Universal Value and integrity. The findings of the 2009 mission would provide a basis for the definition of the required corrective measures and the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that additional support should be provided to assist the State Party to follow up on the recommendations of the 2009 mission, and that close attention should be paid to this matter by the World Heritage Centre and the regional office of UNESCO. The State Party should also be invited and supported to submit a request for international assistance, to support the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations. IUCN considers that this could most effectively be done within the application of a management effectiveness assessment process such as that of the UNESCO/IUCN/UNF Enhancing Our Heritage project.