State of Conservation (SOC)
Rwenzori Mountains National Park (2007)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:116,739USD
|2006||Coordinate a fundraising effort for the celebration of the 100 ...||0 USD|
|2005||Rwenzori Mountains National Park, Implementation of Annual ...||19,990 USD|
|2001|| Emergency Assistance for Rwenzori Mountains National Park ...
Reapproval: 10 Jun, 2003 (n°1574 - 41,684 USD)
|1996||Organize the Rwenzori Mountains Scientific Conference (15-16 ...||12,249 USD|
|1995||Equipment for Rwenzori Mountains National Park||20,000 USD|
Joint UNESCO-IUCN mission in 2003
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Mining activities inside the property;
b) Staffing and budgetary deficiencies;
c) Degradation of buffer zone;
d) Impact of tourism and climbing expeditions.
Current conservation issues
In February 2007, the State Party submitted a detailed report on the conservation and management status of the Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) covering the following issues:
a) Park operations and maintenance of infrastructure:
RMNP offices have been established with support from Hima Cement Factory Ltd., WWF, MacArthur Foundation and UNESCO. The outstanding issues are the construction of outposts, staff accommodation, gates, signage, visitor information, education centres and a museum. UWA (Uganda Wildlife Authority), PAMSU (Protected Area Management and Sustainable Use Project), UNESCO and WWF have supported transport facilities for the park. The park has 72 staff members, and further training and capacity building is required.
RMNP collaborates with the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) and other security agencies in intelligence, information gathering, and joint patrols to maintain security in the mountains. This collaboration has reportedly improved the involvement of communities, local government and other stakeholders in site conservation activities.
The revenue internally generated by the UWA currently meets about 47% of recurrent costs. A business plan developed with the help of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) will help to address the issue of sustainable financing for this property.
b) Resource conservation and protection:
The main threats to the area remain illegal logging, wildlife poaching for domestic consumption, and illegal resource harvesting, especially of bamboo.
During 2006, 62% of the scheduled patrols were executed, covering about 70% of the park’s patrolable areas. These activities intensified protection of park resources resulting specifically in a 20% increase in confiscated items.
Other threats include pollution along the central circuit due to poor waste disposal facilities, and the destruction of bogs due to a lack of boardwalks. A comprehensive waste-management plan is being developed. The number of tourists in the park has steadily increased by about 20% since its re-opening in 2003, and has reached about 40% of the level before the closure of the park. Tourism in the park is managed under concession by Rwenzori Mountaineering Services (RMS).
Kilembe Mines Ltd. has a land title for kaolin mining in the park. The State Party requests the assistance of UNESCO to negotiate with Kilembe and encourages the company to honour the commitment of the International Council for Metals and Minerals (ICMM) not to mine in World Heritage properties, made at the World Parks Congress 2003 (Durban).
Park boundary marking has been accomplished, and encroached areas have been reclaimed. However, no Environmental Impact Assessments have been carried out for developments inside and around the park.
UNDP, in collaboration with UWA, UPDF and Anti-mine Trust, is planning to remove mines in the southern sector of the park and the affected locations have been identified.
c) Local community and conservation:
RMNP conducts outreach programmes on soil conservation, water and environmental protection, and income generating projects such as bee keeping and fish farming, in collaboration with relevant government departments, community-based organisations and institutions. The park is cooperating with Wildlife Clubs of Uganda to encourage and support schools in the Rwenzori region to assist forest restoration.
Communities are demanding access to resources such as bamboo, smilax, acalpha, honey and medicinal plants. According to UWA policy, resources up to 3km inside the park boundaries can be used sustainably by the communities. Experts are conducting surveys to determine sustainable levels of resource use, in order to prepare MOUs to be signed with local communities. Five Collaborative Community – Park Boundary Management Agreements have been negotiated and signed by 200 farmers, who are permitted to sustainably utilize the live boundary markers Eucalyptus grandis and Spathodea campanulata.
RMNP has engaged in a deliberate attempt to involve local political leadership in park management.
d) Transboundary collaboration:
WCS has supported a trans-boundary collaboration initiative, which holds quarterly coordination meetings and joint coordinated patrols with Parc National des Virunga (in DRC) along 50 km of the contiguous boundary. Problems include language barriers, movement restrictions at the border, failure to interpret the respective wildlife laws and suspicion because of the security situation.
e) Monitoring and Research:
Data collected by rangers is stored and analysed using a tailor-made program called the Management Information System (MIST). A number of independent research projects have been carried out since 2005. The State Party has identified a need to develop an ecological monitoring plan for the park.
IUCN and the World Heritage Centre appreciate the significant progress made by the State Party in dealing with various threats to the property and in implementing the management plan.
Recently, considerable media attention has been drawn to the melting of glaciers on the Rwenzori Mountains which are reportedly under threat due to global warming. The State Party should consider working with appropriate scientific organisations to monitor this process.
Analysis and Conclusion
Link to the decision
The World Heritage Committee,
1.Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B;
2.Recalling Decision 30 COM 7B.6, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);
3.Notes with appreciation the progress made by the State Party in dealing with the main threats to the property and the implementation of the management plan;
4.Commends the State Party for the cooperation maintained in conservation issues with its neighbouring countries;
5.Calls on Kilembe Mines Ltd. to respect international standards with respect to mining in World Heritage properties, as outlined in the International Council on Mining and Metals Position Statement on Mining and Protected Areas (2003);
6.Requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre updated on the status of the mining activities and other threats to the property and measures to address them as well as on the implementation of Environmental Impact Assessments for any proposed developments;
7.Also requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2009 a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property, including information on the state of implementation of the management plan and the action taken to address threats from illegal logging, poaching, harvesting and mining, as well as information on efforts made for monitoring the melting of glaciers, for examination by the Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.
Draft Decision: 31 COM 7B.9
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B;
2. Recalling Decision 30 COM 7B.6, adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);
3. Notes with appreciation the progress made by the State Party in dealing with the main threats to the property and the implementation of the management plan;
4. Commends the State Party for the cooperation maintained in conservation issues with its neighbouring countries;
5. Requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre updated on the status of the mining activities and other threats to the property and measures to address them as well as on the implementation of Environmental Impact Assessments for any proposed developments;
6. Also requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2009 a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property, including information on the state of implementation of the management plan and the action taken to address threats from illegal logging, poaching, harvesting and mining, as well as information on efforts made for monitoring the melting of glaciers, for examination by the Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
Degradation of buffer zone
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 1999 -2004
Threats to the Site:
The Committee noted the reports on various issues:
- lack of resources,
- suspension of projects,
- serious security issues at the Park due to the conflict in the region,
- a greater part of the Park is not monitored by Park staff.
The Committee expressed its serious concerns regarding the security situation at this site. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to work closely with the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Communication with conservation NGOs and other international organizations present in the region, to discuss ways and means to publicize the need for all parties involved in the conflict in the region to respect the site’s World Heritage status and to develop projects to support site management should be seeked. The Committee decided to inscribe Rwenzori Mountains in 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”).