State of Conservation (SOC)
Sangay National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2004*
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
- Illegal activities
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Agriculture Pressure; Logging; Overflights; Lack of capacity in conservation techniques; Lack of management mechanism (including legislation); Lack of monitoring system; Lack of human or financial resources; Lack of institution coordination; Fundamental change/diminution of protection
International Assistance granted to the property until 2004
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 58,500USD
|1993||Equipement for Sangay National Park||28,500 USD|
|1985||Public awareness programmes for local communities and training of ...||30,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 2004**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2004
At its 27th session, the Committee requested the State Party, with the support of the UNESCO/UNF/IUCN “Enhancing our Heritage project” and the Fundación Natura “Sangay project”, to provide a detailed update to the Centre on the state of conservation of Sangay National Park, including benchmarks and indicators relevant to monitoring programmes that could facilitate the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. A report by the coordinators of the “Enhancing Our Heritage Project” and the “Fundación Natura Project” was received on 10 February 2004, though without any reference to benchmarks and indicators. No formal report from the State Party has been received.
The report noted that that the construction of the Guamote – Macas road is expected to be completed by mid-2005 with the digging of a small tunnel section of about 800 m. Though the report states that an environmental impact study was undertaken prior to the construction of this section, there is no information on mitigation measures applied. At its 27th session, the Committee urged the State Party that all possible mitigation measures be applied to reduce the impacts of the road on the property. The Centre has not received any information with regard to the application of such measures.
The report also notes that no oil or mining activities are taking place either within, or surrounding the property, and that an army corps of engineers continues to lend support to the control of illegal removal of timber in the Andean zone of the Park. Since 2002, the State Party has introduced new forest management norms and a system of forest monitoring (called “Vigilancia Verde”). This monitoring mechanism provides for controls on the main roads against the illegal removal of timber in the Sangay National Park and its buffer zone.
In 2001, Fundación Natura supported two studies on hunting in the Amazon buffer zone inhabited by local Shuar communities. Both studies point to a reduction in hunting activities in the buffer zone. This is apparently due mainly to the distance that separates the Shuar communities from the property and the significant involvement of these indigenous groups in hunting management activities. In the farms along the Guamote-Macas road, the conflict between wildlife and agriculture remains unchanged.
The studies note that since 1999, the relationship between protected area staff and the local communities, which had been problematic in the past, has improved significantly and that an environment of mutual trust, understanding and respect has developed. Furthermore, the Ministry of Environment has established new mechanisms to promote greater stakeholder participation in protected area management, including management committees and technical support groups, involving local governments, universities, non-governmental organizations and the business sector. This strategy has been implemented successfully in several protected areas and is now tested for Sangay National Park.
In the Guamote-Macas area, the Park administration and the settlers have jointly established management criteria and zoning for land use activities in the area adjacent to the road. At present the “Sangay Project” is working with local communities to implement alternative sustainable use practices for natural resource management. The goal is to reduce poverty in the area, which is an underlying factor that triggers deforestation and other non sustainable activities.
The Ministry of Environment in collaboration with “Sangay project” prepared a census of properties in the vicinity of the Guamote-Macas road. This report provides current information on land tenure and resource status. This information should provide a basis for the resolution of land tenure issues and the prevention of further immigration to the area.
In response to a call to bilateral and multilateral donors to fund priority activities in the management plan, IUCN notes that additional financial support has been provided by the Government of the Netherlands.
Subject to the results of an evaluation mission and to the State Party’s agreement, a recommendation with regard to the removal of this property from the List of World Heritage in Danger shall be presented to the 29th session of the Committee in 2005.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2004
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)The World Heritage Committee, 1. Commends the State Party for its efforts in addressing key integrity issues in the management of the property; 2. Also commends the Government of the Netherlands for providing financial support to conserving Sangay National Park and encourages it to continue doing so; 3. Appreciates the efforts of Fundación Natura in assisting the State Party to avoid land use conflict issues and to support sustainable development activities among the local residents; 4. Invites the State Party to continue working with Fundación Natura and other partners and stakeholders to reconcile human-wildlife conflicts along the Guamote-Macas road; 5. Requests the World Heritage Centre and IUCN in co-operation with the State Party to undertake a mission to the property to confirm progress achieved in addressing conservation threats in view of consideration of by the Committee of the removal of the Sangay National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger at its 29th session in 2005; 6. Decides to retain Sangay National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
List of World Heritage in Danger
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Following examination of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-04/28.COM/15A Rev),
2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam, Afghanistan (Decision 28 COM 15A.21)
- Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan (Decision 28 COM 15A.22)
- Butrint, Albania (Decision 28 COM 15A.28)
- Tipasa, Algeria (Decision 28 COM 15A.16)
- Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower, Azerbaijan (Decision 28 COM 15A.29)
- Royal Palaces of Abomey, Benin (Decision 28 COM 15A.14)
- Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park, Central African Republic (Decision 28 COM 15A.1)
- Comoé National Park, Côte d'Ivoire (Decision 28 COM 15A.2 )
- Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve, Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea (Decision 28 COM 15A.5)
- Okapi Wildlife Reserve, Democratic Rep. of the Congo (Decision 28 COM 15A.3)
- Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Democratic Rep. of the Congo (Decision 28 COM 15A.3)
- Virunga National Park, Democratic Rep. of the Congo (Decision 28 COM 15A.3)
- Garamba National Park, Democratic Rep. of the Congo (Decision 28 COM 15A.3)
- Salonga National Park, Democratic Rep. of the Congo (Decision 28 COM 15A.3)
- Sangay National Park, Ecuador (Decision 28 COM 15A.12)
- Abu Mena, Egypt (Decision 28 COM 15A.17)
- Simien National Park, Ethiopia
- (Decision 28 COM 15A.4)
- Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras (Decision 28 COM 15A.13)
- Group of Monuments at Hampi, India (Decision 28 COM 15A.24)
- Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, India (Decision 28 COM 15A.10)
- Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat), Iraq (Decision 28 COM 15A.18)
- Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, Jerusalem (Decision 28 COM 15A.31)
- Timbuktu, Mali (Decision 28 COM 15A. 15)
- Kathmandu Valley, Nepal (Decision 28 COM 15A.25)
- Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves, Niger (Decision 28 COM 15A.6)
- Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore, Pakistan (Decision 28 COM 15A.26)
- Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone, Peru (Decision 28 COM 15A.30)
- Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, Philippines (Decision 28 COM 15A.27)
- Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary, Senegal (Decision 28 COM 15A.7 )
- Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia (Decision 28 COM 15A.9)
- Everglades National Park, United States of America (Decision 28 COM 15A.11)
- Historic Town of Zabid, Yemen (Decision 28 COM 15A.20)
Draft Decision: 28 COM 15A.12
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Commends the State Party for its efforts in addressing key integrity issues in the management of the property;
2. Commends the Government of the Netherlands for providing financial support to conserving Sangay National Park and encourages it to continue doing so;
3. Commends the efforts of Fundación Natura in assisting the State Party to avoid land use conflict issues and to support sustainable development activities among the local residents;
4. Invites the State Party to continue working with Fundación Natura and other partners and stakeholders to reconcile human-wildlife conflicts along the Guamote-Macas road;
5. Requests the State Party to invite a joint IUCN/Centre mission to the property to confirm progress achieved in addressing conservation threats in view of consideration by the Committee of the removal of the Sangay National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger at its 29th session in 2005;
6. Decides to retain Sangay National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
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”).