Pitons Management Area

• Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure
• Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
• Renewable energy facilities (geothermal energy exploration)
• Absence of strict development control process (issue resolved)
• Invasive/alien terrestrial species (issue resolved)

N/A

On 22 February 2023, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, a summary of which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1161/documents/, providing the following information:

• Funds have been made available to amend the relevant sections of the Physical Planning and Development Act to integrate the recommendations of the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) study of the property;
• Outstanding landscape view monitoring was undertaken to ensure that the scenic views are not significantly altered from the baseline of 2013;
• Challenges with development pressures are noted, particularly on private properties. The monitoring report indicates that there is some development, in particular in Sugar Bay, which does not comply fully with the Policy Area Design Guidelines of the LAC study. There has been no visible progress on the Freedom Bay Development project;
• The property management collaborates with relevant local and national agencies through the Pitons Management Area Advisory Committee (PMAAC) to undertake other relevant monitoring activities for the conservation of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV);
• Funding has been secured for the Renewable Energy Sector Development Project (RESDP), formally known as the Geothermal Resource and Development Project (GRDP). The State Party has recently agreed to exploratory drilling to determine the viability of the geothermal source. This will be accompanied by the necessary Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA);
• Demarcating the boundaries of the property remains a priority activity, in particular defining the zonation within the property, buffer zone boundaries, as well as the marine boundaries. Funds have been secured to undertake this exercise;
• The management authority implemented other activities geared towards increasing public awareness of the property, preserving its World Heritage status and enhancing the sustainable management of the property including a ‘Restoring the Pride Campaign’ and an Annual Summer Camp.

It is welcomed that funding has been secured to integrate the LAC study into the relevant legal and regulatory frameworks. The State Party should be requested to ensure that the recommendations of the LAC study are integrated into legally binding regulations under the Physical Planning Act for Saint Lucia, and to report to the World Heritage Centre, upon adoption of the amended Act.

The confirmation that the Freedom Bay Development Project has continued to not see any noticeable progress is noted. However, it remains of concern that development, particularly in Sugar Bay, has occurred, which does not comply fully with the Policy Area Design Guidelines of the LAC, and noting the potential visual impact on the World Heritage values, it is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to ensure compliance of all approved projects with the LAC regulations.

Recalling the State Party’s reported intention to revise the 2003 Management Plan for the property in 2020, it is regrettable that no update has been provided on this matter. Given the importance of an updated Management Plan to create a framework for the protection and management of the property, it is recommended that the State Party be requested to provide an update on the progress to revise the 2003 Management Plan, which should in particular fully reflect the conclusions of the LAC study and submit this draft revised Management Plan to the World Heritage Centre.

It is noted that funding has been secured for the World Bank RESDP and that exploratory drilling has been agreed to under the project in order to determine the viability of the geothermal source. It is recommended to reiterate the Committee’s previous request (Decision 44 COM 7B.116) that the State Party ensure the property remains off-limits for any future geothermal development activities, and to request the State Party to confirm that drilling will not take place within the property. Further recalling its commitment to undertake the necessary ESIA for any geothermal energy activities, the State Party should be requested to ensure that any potential impacts on the OUV of the property from such activities outside the property are assessed through a comprehensive ESIA, in line with the Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context, and that no activities are approved that would threaten the OUV of the property.

Noting that lack of funding has previously delayed the demarcation of the boundaries of the property, it is welcomed that funding has been secured to undertake this process. It is recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party to complete this process, including to formalize the status of the buffer zone of the property through a Minor Boundary Modification, in conformity with Paragraphs 163 and 164 of the Operational Guidelines, given also the potential future exploratory drilling overlapping this area.