Durmitor National Park
Factors affecting the property in 1984*
- Surface water pollution
- Water infrastructure
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1984
Total amount approved : 9,000 USD
|1981||2 experts missions in Durmitor National Park (Approved)||9,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 1984**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1984
IUCN informed the Committee that three of the republics of Yugoslavia planned to construct a hydro-electric dam which would flood a large part of the Tara River Canyon in Durmitor National park, and that the construction of a lead
processing factory threatened to pollute the area.
The observer from Yugoslavia confirmed that these threats still exist and that meetings were being held in Yugoslavia to try to resolve the problem.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1984
The Committee requested the Secretariat to invite the Yugoslav authorities to keep it informed of the situation and to report to the Bureau at its next session.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1984
8 COM XIII.40
State of Conservation on Four Natural Properties
40. The Representative of IUCN recalled that the Committee at its seventh session had encouraged the advisory non-governmental organisations to collect information through their contacts and to inform the Committee on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties. IUCN reported to the Committee on four natural properties as follows:
a) Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
IUCN reported that the National Park personnel had apparently abandoned this park and that the area has been in the hands of armed groups. Although the group had informally assured IUCN that no damage had occurred in the park, however, IUCN still did not possess precise up-to-date information on the conservation status of this site. The Committee requested the Secretariat to invite the Ethiopian authorities to supply all possible information on the subject.
b) Mount Nimba (Guinea and Ivory Coast)
IUCN recalled that the workshop supported by the World Heritage Fund to establish a research programme and an integrated management plan for this property had taken place at Mount Nimba in December 1983. The report of this workshop had stressed that the property is under severe pressure from poaching. The situation is further exacerbated by the lack of trained personnel and surveillance patrols. Considerable support had been already provided from the World Heritage Fund, including a financial contribution to the costs of constructing mountain, shelters for the patrols. The representative of Guinea agreed that the situation was critical and the Committee requested the Secretariat and the Chairman of the Committee to draw the Guinean authorities' attention to the need to ensure the protection of this World Heritage property.
c) Tai National Park (Ivory Coast)
IUCN reported that this site was still under very serious threat due to poaching, gold prospection, tree-felling, and subsequent encroachment. The World Wildlife Fund had been discussing the means whereby international support could be raised to mitigate the situation. IUCN noted that unless conditions improved, this property might have to be recommended for inscription in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Secretariat to draw the attention of the Ivory Coast authorities on the need to ensure the protection of this World Heritage property.
d) Durmitor National Park (Yugoslavia)
IUCN informed the Committee. that, three of the republics of Yugoslavia planned to construct a hydro-electric dam which would flood a large part of the Tara River Canyon in Durmitor National park, and that the construction of a lead processing factory threatened to pollute the area. The observer from Yugoslavia confirmed that these threats still exist and that meetings were being held in Yugoslavia to try to resolve the problem. The Committee requested the Secretariat to invite the Yugoslav authorities to keep it informed of the situation and to report to the Bureau at its next session.
No draft decision proposed
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”).