Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Lorentz National Park

Indonesia
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
  • Civil unrest
  • Financial resources
  • Fishing/collecting aquatic resources
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Housing
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Mining
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Mining;
  • Security limitations;
  • Development threats;
  • Exploitation of marine resources;
  • Absence of a co-ordinating agency;
  • Absence of a finalized strategic management plan;
  • Park boundaries not physically demarcated;
  • Inadequate financing. 
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 2 (from 1996-2001)
Total amount approved : 41,400 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

2004: IUCN mission; 2008: UNESCO/IUCN Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission; 2011: UNESCO/IUCN Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

The State Party did not submit a report on the state of conservation of the property as requested by Decision 35 COM 7B.15 adopted at the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO, 2011).

In the absence of a report from the State Party and a scarcity of information from other sources about the conservation status of the property, it is unclear if any activities have been undertaken to implement the decision of the World Heritage Committee and the recommendations of the 2008 and 2011 reactive monitoring missions.

a) Infrastructure development

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that the Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011) had expressed its grave concern that road construction within the property had not ceased as repeatedly requested by the Committee. They also recall that road development in the property is driven by a provincial plan to provide an integrated transport programme for the development of new local government areas in Papua. They further recall that following an interdepartmental meeting on 1 April 2011, the Directorate of Highways of the Ministry of Public Works had instructed its regional office in Papua to cease road development in the Lake Habema region until the Ministry of Forestry issued a permit.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note with concern recent media reports dated 16 April 2013, indicating that the Trans-Papua Highway plan is to be revived. They note that within that plan, the proposed Jayapura – Wamena – Mulia road is most likely to negatively impact on the property, especially if it would adopt the route via the globally unique and fragile equatorial alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems of the property, which have already been damaged by road construction of the Lake Habema – Nduga – Kenyem road. They note that the latter road remains a serious and immediate concern. They consider that whilst these impacts have been relatively localised, the damage being done to unique and fragile peat bogs will take hundreds of years to rehabilitate, and if road construction is completed as proposed, large areas of the property will be segmented and opened to other threatening processes including human settlement, illegal logging and poaching, introduction of alien species and uncontrolled tourist access. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note that unless the broader implications of the proposed road development strategy are specifically addressed, the resulting fragmentation of the largely intact wilderness of the property is likely to result in the irreversible loss of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of significant parts of the property.

They recall that the Committee, at its 35th session, urged the State Party to commission a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the integrated transport programme for Papua province as it relates to the property, in order to identify the least environmentally damaging transport options, including alternatives to road building. On 16 April 2013, the World Heritage Centre sent a letter to the State Party requesting more information about the revival of the Trans-Papua Highway plan, and the measures taken by the State Party to ensure the protection of the property’s OUV. At the time of writing of this report, no reply had yet been received from the State Party.

b) Forest dieback

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that the State Party, in its 2011 report to the Committee, acknowledged that the road construction facilitates the spread of Phytophthora fungus which causes dieback in temperate Nothofagus forest in the vicinity of the Lake Habema road. They also recall that at the time, the State Party stated that investigation and action to address forest dieback was expected to be conducted in 2011-2012. In the absence of a report from the State Party, it is not clear if the expected investigation has taken place, and which, if any, actions are being implemented to address this issue.

c)  Management issues

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that the 2010 International Workshop on Effective Management of Lorentz National Park World Heritage site identified a number of management issues, including a lack of implementation of the management policy, local government decentralization, unclear boundaries between regencies, limited communication between stakeholders, lack of World Heritage regulations, limited management capacity, and insufficient detail in the management plan regarding zonation, community traditional rights and use of local/traditional knowledge. They note that although the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan has been adopted, on-ground action has been delayed while a management plan and zonation plan are prepared. These plans were scheduled for completion in 2011 but their current status is unknown. They also recall that the Committee, at its 35th session, considered that the management planning process should be based on the protection of the property’s OUV.  They recall that the 2011 reactive monitoring mission to the property observed that effective management intervention has been seriously hampered by conflicting objectives for the site between government agencies, different levels of government and customary owners, which generate tensions between national, provincial, regency and local governments so as to constitute an escalating threat to sound management of the property. This renders the Lorentz National Park Bureau virtually powerless to oppose development pressures and customary owners of the park entering into arrangements with provincial and regency governments and their contractors who undertake works in the park contrary to national legislation.

Whilst IUCN has received reports that both management planning and management capacity are improving, concern remains that they are currently inadequate to meet the challenges of such a large and complex area. Key strategies proposed in the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan for participatory planning, protection, biodiversity conservation, cultural heritage conservation and sustainable use appear not to have been implemented. The main reasons for this have previously been identified to be inadequate staff training and inadequate resourcing of on-ground management programmes, combined with overlapping or conflicting jurisdictional issues at all levels of government. In the long term this situation could lead to an increasing threat to the integrity of the property.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recall that the property’s inscription on the World Heritage List is in part justified by the fact that it is the only protected area in the world which incorporates a continuous, intact transect from snow cap to tropical marine environment. They therefore consider that if the Jayapura – Wamena – Mulia road is constructed through the property, and if construction of the Lake Habema – Nduga – Kenyem road continues, they would represent a clear potential danger to its Outstanding Universal Value in line with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines, and be a clear basis for the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the Committee regret that the State Party did not provide a report on the state of conservation of the property, without which it is extremely difficult to assess progress achieved by the State Party in the implementation of requests made by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 35 COM 7B.15.  They recommend that the Committee request the State Party to provide a comprehensive report on the current state of conservation of the property, including a detailed report on progress achieved with the implementation of Decision 35 COM 7B.15, and the 2008 and 2011 mission recommendations, particularly: the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the integrated transport programme for Papua Province as it relates to the property; investigation and treatment of forest dieback, and development of management guidelines to contain the spread of dieback disease; development and implementation of a strategy to engage customary owners in park management decision-making processes; any budget reviews that may have been undertaken to redirect resources to address the major threats to the property’s OUV;  the current status and, if available, copies of the draft Management Plan and zonation plan; and progress in building the capacity of park staff to manage complex ecological, technical and sociological issues. They also recommend that the Committee consider the need for a further reactive monitoring mission to the property on the basis of an examination of the State Party’s report at its 38th session in 2014.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN further recommend that the Committee urge the State Party to fully implement the recommendations of the 2010 International Workshop on Effective Management of Lorentz National Park World Heritage Site. Noting concern about the jurisdictional conflicts between national, provincial and local governments and customary owners, they recommend that the Committee urge the State Party to convene a high level national meeting, in cooperation with IUCN and UNESCO, to review in a comprehensive manner the management and governance arrangements between these levels of government and customary owners, in order to facilitate and streamline the coordinated and cooperative management of the property.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.13
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia) (N 955)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 3 5 COM 7B.1 5 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Takes note that the State Party did not submit its report by 1 February 2013 , and notes the information provided by the State Party in its report of 22 May 2013;

4.  Notes with serious concern the State Party’s intent to proceed with the construction of the Lake Habema – Nduga – Kenyem road without undertaking a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the integrated transport plan for Papua, and considers that the continuation of construction of the Lake Habema – Nduga – Kenyam road and the proposed Jayapura – Wamena – Mulia road, if built through the property would represent a clear potential danger to its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) in line with paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines , and be a clear basis for the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

5.  Urges the State Party to rigorously ensure the protection and conservation of the property’s OUV, and prevent the fragmentation of the largely intact wilderness that makes up the property;

6.  Requests the State Party to provide detailed information about the revival of the Trans-Papua Highway plan, and the measures taken to ensure the protection of the property’s OUV;

7.  Reiterates its request to the State Party to fully implement the 2008 and 2011 monitoring mission recommendations, and to prioritize the following:

a)  Cease all road construction in the property and rehabilitate recently constructed roads and mitigate their impacts,

b)  Further investigate and address forest die-back, and develop management guidelines for all relevant stakeholders undertaking activities within the property to contain the spread of the die-back disease,

c)  Review the budgeting for the property in order to ensure that resources are directed to address the major threats to its OUV,

d)  Build the capacity of park staff to manage complex ecological, technical and sociological issues;

8.  Also requests the State Party to provide an electronic copy and three printed copies of the Management Plan and zoning plan for review by the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;

9.  Further requests the State Party to invite an IUCN reactive monitoring mission to the property in order to assess its state of conservation, in particular in relation to impacts from road construction, to assist the State Party with developing a conservation strategy that will ensure the conservation and strict protection of the property’s OUV, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014;

10.  Calls upon the international community to support the State Party in resolving the severe constraints to the effective operation of the Park management including funding, limited monitoring and surveillance equipment, and limited staff capacity and technical expertise;

11.  Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015 a report on the state of conservation of the property, including progress achieved in implementing the recommendations of the 2008 and 2011 monitoring missions, as well as the results of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the integrated transport programme for Papua Province, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015 .

37 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value
The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8E and WHC-13/37.COM/8E.Add,

2.  Congratulates States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;

3.  Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

  • Andorra: Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley;
  • Argentina: Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas; Jesuit Block and Estancias of Córdoba; Quebrada de Humahuaca; Iguazu National Park;
  • Australia: Shark Bay, Western Australia; Greater Blue Mountains Area; Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens; Willandra Lakes Region; Kakadu National Park;
  • Austria / Hungary: Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape;
  • Bangladesh: The Sundarbans; Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara at Paharpur;
  • Belgium : La Grand-Place, Brussels;
  • Belgium / France: Belfries of Belgium and France;
  • Bolivia: Fuerte de Samaipata; Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture; Historic City of Sucre; Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos;
  • Brazil: Serra da Capivara National Park;
  • Chile: Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works; Rapa Nui National Park; Churches of Chiloé; Sewell Mining Town; Historic quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaiso;
  • China: Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Mount Huangshan; Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde; Ancient City of Ping Yao; Classical Gardens of Suzhou; Summer Palace, an Imperial Garden in Beijing; Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui – Xidi and Hongcun; Longmen Grottoes; Yungang Grottoes; Yin Xu; Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Historic center of Macao; Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor;
  • Colombia: Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena; Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox; San Agustín Archaeological Park; National Archeological Park of Tierradentro;
  • Costa Rica: Area de Conservación Guanacaste;
  • Cuba: Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios; Desembarco del Granma National Park; Alejandro de Humboldt National Park; Old Havana;
  • Cyprus: Choirokoitia; Painted Churches in the Troodos Region;
  • Denmark: Kronborg Castle;
  • Ecuador: City of Quito; Historic Centre of Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca; Galápagos Islands;
  • El Salvador: Joya de Cerén Archaeological Site;
  • Ethiopia: Aksum; Fasil Ghebbi;
  • Finland / Sweden: High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago;
  • Guatemala: Archeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua; Antigua Guatemala;
  • Germany: Classical Weimar; Messel Pit Fossil Site; Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier; Aachen Cathedral; Cologne Cathedral; Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Historic Centres of Stralsund and Wismar; Museumsinsel (Museum Island), Berlin; Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof; Speyer Cathedral; Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of Bremen; Town of Bamberg;
  • Greece: Mount Athos;
  • Honduras: Maya Site of Copan;
  • Hungary: Old Village of Hollókő and its Surroundings; Millenary Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma and its Natural Environment; Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs (Sopianae); Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape; Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta; Budapest, including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue;
  • Hungary / Slovakia: Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst;
  • India: Sun Temple, Konârak; Group of Monuments at Hampi; Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya; Elephanta Caves; Great Living Chola Temples; Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus); Mountain Railways of India;
  • Indonesia: Ujung Kulon National Park; Komodo National Park; Lorentz National Park; Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra; Sangiran Early Man Site;
  • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Pasargadae; Takht-e Soleyman;
  • Ireland: Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne;
  • Italy: Venice and its Lagoon;
  • Japan: Yakushima; Shirakami-Sanchi; Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area; Shiretoko; Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities); Shrines and Temples of Nikko; Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range; Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; Himeji-jo;
  • Latvia: Historic Centre of Riga;
  • Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Town of Luang Prabang;
  • Lithuania: Vilnius Historic Centre;
  • Luxembourg: City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications;
  • Malaysia: Kinabalu Park;
  • Mauritius: Aapravasi Ghat;
  • Mexico: Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan; Historic Centre of Morelia; Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl; Historic Monuments Zone of Querétaro; Historic Fortified Town of Campeche; Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Querétaro; Agave Landscape and the Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Ancient Maya City of Calakmul, Campeche; Archaeological Monuments Zone of Xochicalco; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan; Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Albán; Sian Ka’an; Luis Barragán House and Studio; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Pre-hispanic town of Uxmal; Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; El Tajin, Pre-Hispanic City;
  • Netherlands: Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station); Schokland and Surroundings; Droogmakerij de Beemster (Beemster Polder); Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House);
  • Nicaragua: Ruins of León Viejo;
  • Nigeria: Sukur Cultural Landscape;
  • Norway: Rock Art of Alta; Urnes Stave Church; Bryggen;
  • Oman: Archaeological Sites of Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn;
  • Pakistan: Taxila; Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta; Rohtas Fort; Buddhist Ruins of Takht-i-Bahi and Neighbouring City Remains at Sahr-i-Bahlol;
  • Panama: Darien National Park; Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá;
  • Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
  • Peru: City of Cuzco; Chavin (Archaeological Site); Historic Centre of Lima; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu;
  • Philippines: Historic town of Vigan;
  • South Africa: uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park;
  • Switzerland: Abbey of St Gall; Benedictine Convent of St John at Müstair; Old City of Berne; Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of Bellinzona;
  • Thailand: Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex; Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries; Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site;
  • Turkey: Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia; Nemrut Dağ; Great Mosque and Hospital of Divriği; Hierapolis-Pamukkale;
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Blaenavon Industrial Landscape; Blenheim Palace; Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church; Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd; City of Bath; Durham Castle and Cathedral; Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast; Heart of Neolithic Orkney; Ironbridge Gorge; Maritime Greenwich; New Lanark; Old and New Towns of Edinburgh; Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey; Tower of London; St Kilda; Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church;
  • Uruguay: Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento;
  • Uzbekistan: Itchan Kala;
  • Venezuela : Coro and its Port; Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas;

4.  Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;

5.  Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

  • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
  • World Heritage properties in Africa;
  • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
  • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
  • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America;

6.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to harmonise all sub-headings in the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value where appropriate and when resources and staff time allow to carry out this work;

7.  Also requests the State Parties, Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Centre to ensure the use of gender-neutral language in the Statements proposed for adoption to the World Heritage Committee;

8.  Further requests the World Heritage Centre to keep the adopted Statements in line with subsequent decisions by the World Heritage Committee concerning name changes of World Heritage properties, and to reflect them throughout the text of the Statements, in consultation with States Parties and Advisory Bodies;

9.  Finally requests the States Parties to provide support to the World Heritage Centre for translation of the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value into English or French respectively, and finally requests the Centre to upload these onto its web-pages.

Draft Decision : 37 COM 7B.13

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 3 5 COM 7B.1 5 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Regrets that the State Party did not submit its report on the state of conservation of the property, as requested by the Committee at its 35th session;

4.  Notes with serious concern the reports indicating that the Trans-Papua Highway plan may be revived without a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the integrated transport plan for Papua as it relates to the property having been undertaken, and considers that the continuation of construction of the Lake Habema – Nduga – Kenyem road and the proposed Jayapura – Wamena – Mulia road, if built through the property, would represent a clear potential danger to its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) in line with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines, and be a clear basis for the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

5.  Requests the State Party to provide detailed information about the revival of the Trans-Papua Highway plan, and the measures taken to ensure the protection of the property’s OUV;

6.  Reiterates its request to the State Party to fully implement the 2008 and 2011 mission recommendations, and to prioritize the following:

a)  Cease all road construction in the property and rehabilitate recently constructed roads and mitigate their impacts,

b)  Investigate and address forest dieback, and develop management guidelines for all relevant stakeholders undertaking activities within the property to contain the spread of the dieback disease,

c)  Develop and implement a strategy to engage customary owners in park management decision-making processes,

d)  Review the budgeting for the property in order to ensure that resources are directed to address the major threats to its OUV,

e)  Review the draft Management Plan and zonation plan using protection of OUV as the primary basis for zone allocation,

f)  Build the capacity of park staff to manage complex ecological, technical and sociological issues;

7.  Urges the State Party to convene a high level national meeting, in cooperation with IUCN and UNESCO, to review in a comprehensive manner the management and governance arrangements between national, provincial and local governments and customary owners, in order to facilitate and streamline the coordinated and cooperative management of the property, and to fully implement the recommendations of the 2010 International Workshop on Effective Management of Lorentz National Park World Heritage Site;

8.  Calls upon the international community to support the State Party in resolving the severe constraints to the effective operation of the park management including funding, limited monitoring and surveillance equipment, and limited staff capacity and technical expertise;

9.  Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, a report on the state of conservation of the property, including progress achieved in implementing the recommendations of the 2008 and 2011 missions, as well as the results of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the integrated transport programme for Papua Province, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.

 

Report year: 2013
Indonesia
Date of Inscription: 1999
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)(ix)(x)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
Exports

* : 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.


top