State of Conservation
States Parties: | South Africa |
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15B |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
Other Threats: | a) Natural values and cultural landscape qualities are not yet reflected in the islands management structure and conservation priorities; b) Fire |
States Parties: | South Africa |
Year: | 2003 |
Document Source: | WHC.03/27.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
Other Threats: | Natural values and cultural landscape qualities are not yet reflected in the islands management structure and conservation priorities |
States Parties: | United Republic of Tanzania |
Year: | 1996 |
Document Source: | WHC-96/CONF.202/2B |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
Other Threats: | General poor state of conservation |
States Parties: | New Zealand |
Year: | 2000 |
Document Source: | WHC-2000/CONF.202/5,WHC-2000/CONF.204/10 |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
States Parties: | New Zealand |
Year: | 1999 |
Document Source: | WHC-99/CONF.209/14 |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
States Parties: | Algeria |
Year: | 2008 |
Document Source: | WHC-08/32.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
Other Threats: | poor conservation conditions for the archaeological remains |
States Parties: | New Zealand |
Year: | 1995 |
Document Source: | WHC-95/CONF.203/5,WHC-95/CONF.203/5 Add.1 |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
States Parties: | Canada United States of America |
Year: | 2010 |
Document Source: | WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
States Parties: | Australia |
Year: | 2001 |
Document Source: | WHC-2001/CONF.205/5 |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
States Parties: | Australia |
Year: | 2000 |
Document Source: | WHC-2000/CONF.203/5,WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.6,WHC-2000/CONF.204/10 |
Threats*: | Invasive/alien terrestrial species |
* :
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.