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

Lorentz National Park

Indonesia
Factors affecting the property in 2000*
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Mining
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2000
Requests approved: 1 (from 1996-1996)
Total amount approved : 11,400 USD
1996 Nomination file for Lorentz National Reserve (Approved)   11,400 USD
Missions to the property until 2000**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000

Previous deliberations:
Twenty-third session of the Committee – paragraph - VIII.3, Section A.1, page 9.
Twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau – paragraph – V.3, Section A, page 38

New information: A member of the Centre staff participated in a meeting to discuss the recommendations of the twenty-third session of the Committee, hosted by the UNESCO Office in Jakarta on 18 February 2000. The representatives of the UNESCO National Commission of Indonesia, Ministry of Forestry and Estate Crops, Ministry of Environment, Freeport-Moran Mining Company, Conoco (oil and gas exploration), WWF-International and WWF-Indonesia and the Indonesian Branch of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) attended the meeting. The site manager as well as the provincial staff of WWF and TNC were present.

All participants agreed to present to the UNESCO National Commission of Indonesia detailed statements on the human resources and financial commitments they are willing to make for the conservation of this site. The industrial concerns, namely Freeport Moran and Conoco, confirmed their interest to contribute to site conservation; Freeport Moran and WWF-Indonesia have already initiated negotiations to set up an Irian Jaya Conservation Trust and will further explore the specific financial commitment they would consider making to the conservation of Lorentz. The statements from the Government, NGOs and the Industrial enterprises outlining the specific contributions they are willing to make for the conservation of Lorentz are expected to be finalized before mid-2000. These contributions will be used to elaborate a three-year action plan, including definitions of expected outputs and indicators of success. The monitoring mission to the site foreseen in 2002, in accordance with the recommendation of the twenty-third session of the Committee (Marrakesh, 1999), will base its evaluation of the state of conservation of the site and the achievements of the three-year action plan.

The Secretariat will encourage the State Party and UNESCO, Jakarta to work with all stakeholders concerned to develop the three-year action plan and submit it for review by the Centre and IUCN before 15 September 2000. The Centre, in consultation with UNESCO, Jakarta, and IUCN will report to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau on the progress made in finalizing the three year action plan.

Action Required
Note: this report was presented to the Bureau for noting only.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2000

The Director of the National Park and a representative of the Freeport Mine presented a case study to the IUCN World Heritage and Mining Technical Workshop, held at IUCN Headquarters in September, 2000. Key issues noted include:

·         Close co-operation between the Lorentz National Park and the Freeport Mining Company. Specifically, the support from Freeport for biodiversity conservation studies and projects within the World Heritage site, as well as potential support for the establishment of a proposed Lorentz Trust Fund.

·         Environmental impacts associated with the mine site, particularly associated with the disposal of tailings. IUCN notes that the mill disposes tailings into a river system that transports tailings to the lowlands area and that the tailings flow toward the sea through the Freeport mining range and not through the Park. Waste is deposited in the sea and for most of the year this waste is pushed in a westerly direction, away from the Park; however, for a number of months a year the current pushes the waste eastwards toward the Park. This has potential impacts on the Park and this aspect should be further investigated and clarified. The Freeport Mine is developing ways to contain and treat this waste and is undertaking a health and ecological risk assessment study.

UNESCO, Jakarta and the UNESCO National Commission of Indonesia are continuing their efforts to urge the National Park Agency, WWF, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and industrial concerns, such as Freeport and Conoco, to co-operate to elaborate a three-year action plan for the conservation of the area, as they had agreed to do during a meeting hosted by the UNESCO Office in Jakarta, in February 2000. Furthermore, the Asia Pacific Focal Point (APFP) for World Heritage in Canberra, Australia, has been enquiring about possibilities for developing projects for Indonesia using Aus-AID support. Establishing a twinning arrangement between Lorentz and the Wet Tropics of Queensland may be considered as one potential component of such a bilateral co-operative project.

 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2000
24 BUR IV.B.78
State of conservation

The Bureau took note of the information provided in the working document on the state of conservation of the following properties:

NATURAL HERITAGE

Comoe National Park (Côte d’Ivoire)

Caves of the Aggtelek and Slovak Karst (Hungary/Slovakia)

The Delegate of Morocco pointed out that the protection of surface water is important in karst systems.

Kaziranga National Park (India)

Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)

Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda) 

CULTURAL HERITAGE

Rock-hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)

Vilnius Historic Centre (Lithuania)

City of Cuzco (Peru)

Chavin (Archaeological Site) (Peru)

Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

24 COM VIII.iii
State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee

 State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee

Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)

Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)

Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)

Gros Morne National Park (Canada)

Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)

Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)

Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)

Komodo National Park (Indonesia)

Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)

Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)

Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)

Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)

Huascarán National Park (Peru)

Danube Delta (Romania)

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)

Doñana National Park (Spain)

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)

Gough Island (United Kingdom)

Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)

Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)

The Bureau may wish to adopt the following and transmit it to the Committee for noting:

“The Bureau encourages the Indonesian authorities to closely collaborate with Freeport and other partners like WWF and TNC who are keen to support the conservation of Lorentz. The Bureau welcomes the idea for the establishment of a Lorentz Trust Fund or similar arrangements to ensure long-term conservation financing for the site. The Bureau requests the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party and Freeport to obtain detailed information on the current practice of tailings disposal from the mining concession adjacent to the Park and the potential threats it may pose to the integrity of the Park. The Bureau endorsed IUCN’s suggestion that Freeport be requested to address this issue as part of the ecological and health risk assessment study it is preparing to undertake in the area.”

Report year: 2000
Indonesia
Date of Inscription: 1999
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)(ix)(x)
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