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

Everglades National Park

United States of America
Factors affecting the property in 2003*
  • Crop production
  • Housing
  • Industrial areas
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Surface water pollution
  • Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Agricultural, industrial and urban developments altering the natural systems;
  • Pollution of the water (nutrients and mercury);
  • Hurricane in August 1992 (issue resolved);
  • Need to elaborate a monitoring plan with benchmarks and indicators
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2003
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2003**

May 1999: World Heritage Centre visit to the site

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2003

WHC:

The State Party provided a report by the US Department of the Interior dated 17 April 2003, which reviews point by point the issues and threats, which led to the inclusion of the site on the Danger List. These are:

 

1. Alterations of the hydrological regime and impacts from adjacent urban growth, including reduced water levels from flood control operations The report lists and briefly describes several projects that have been ongoing in order to try to save the remaining Everglades and restore some of their natural pre-drainage functioning:

·  The Canal 111 series of projects will help facilitate a larger volume of water through Taylor Slough and into northeast Florida Bay. Work has been completed on the removal of portions of the old Park road from Anhinga Trail east to the Park boundary to further facilitate water flows. The report highlights that two of the five pump stations have been completed. In addition, the Canal 111’s supplemental Corps plan has implemented over the last four years special emergency water management actions to protect the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow.

·  The Northeast Shark Slough project may be critical to the survival of several endangered species, including the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, whose population has declined dramatically. As of April 2003, approximately 98% of the total authorised acreage in the East Everglades addition are either in public ownership, condemnation, or have been referred for Declaration of Taking. It is estimated that sufficient funds have been provided to complete the remaining acquisitions.

·  The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) incorporates 68 individual projects focusing on the whole of South Florida, including Everglades National Park. The State Party estimated it would take more than 30 years for projects to be completed.

·  The Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) aims at providing scientific information for restoration processes. The CESI programme is currently refocusing from research and development to model applications and data collection in order to support the evaluation of the CERP and related restoration projects.

 

2. Increased nutrient pollution from agricultural activities. Water quality remains a concern in all restoration projects. To date, more than 16,000 hectares of filtration wetlands are completed, or nearing completion, to cleanse agricultural runoff from northern fields. According to the “Everglades Forever Act” water released into the Everglades by 2006, must contain a limited phosphorous level. The Secretary of the Interior and the Governor of Florida supported the suggestion of the scientists that a maximum level of 10 parts per billion of phosphorous is required to restore and maintain a healthy aquatic system.

 

3. The ecological deterioration of Florida Bay. With generally wetter weather conditions in south Florida since 1994, relatively more fresh water has reached Florida Bay. As a result, water salinity lowered and there have been reductions in the sizes of algae blooms. The report states these conditions help in the planned restoration of natural water flow regimes throughout the Park.

 

IUCN:

The new information provided above has been proposed on a consensual basis between IUCN and the Centre. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2003
27 COM 7A.11
Everglades National Park (United States of America)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Notes the detailed report by the State Party provided on 17 April 2003 and acknowledges the effort and commitment by the State Party in addressing key management problems;

2. Invites the State Party to co-operate with the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to prepare a report by 1 February 2004 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 28th session in 2004, describing the steps the State Party intends to take to develop and implement action plans and define parameters and conditions to monitor progress in the restoration of the property, with a view to facilitating the Committee's future considerations for removing this property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;

3. Decides to retain the Everglades National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as requested by the State Party.

27 COM 8B.2
Properties maintained on the List of World Heritage in Danger

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Following examination of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-03/27.COM/7A),;

2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

  • Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam, Afghanistan (27 COM 7A.21)
  • Butrint, Albania (27 COM 7A.26 )
  • Tipasa, Algeria (27 COM 7A.17)
  • Royal Palaces of Abomey, Benin (27 COM 7A.15)
  • Angkor, Cambodia (27 COM 7A.22)
  • Manovo-Gounda St. Floris National Park, Central African Republic (27 COM 7A.12 )
  • Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve, Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea (27 COM 7A.4)
  • Virunga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo (27 COM 7A.2)
  • Garamba National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo (27 COM 7A.2)
  • Kahuzi-Biega National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo (27 COM 7A.2)
  • Okapi Wildlife Reserve, Democratic Republic of the Congo (27 COM 7A.2) 
  • Salonga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo (27 COM 7A.2)
  • Sangay National Park, Ecuador (27 COM 7A.13)
  • Abu Mena, Egypt (27 COM 7A.18)
  • Simien National Park, Ethiopia (27 COM 7A.3)
  • Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve, Honduras (27 COM 7A.14)
  • Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, India (27 COM 7A.9)
  • Group of Monuments at Hampi, India (27 COM 7A.23)
  • Old City of Jerusalem & its Walls (27COM7A.29)
  • Timbuktu, Mali (27 COM 7A.16)
  • Air & Ténéré Natural Reserves, Niger (27 COM 7A.5)
  • Bahla Fort, Oman (27 COM 7A.19)
  • Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore, Pakistan (27 COM 7A.242)
  • Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, Peru (27 COM 7A.28)
  • Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, Philippines (27 COM 7A.25)
  • Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary, Senegal (27 COM 7A.6)
  • Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia (27 COM 7A.8)
  • Rwenzori Mountains National Park, Uganda (27 COM 7A.7) 
  • Everglades National Park, United States of America (27 COM 7A.11)
  • Historic Town of Zabid, Yemen (27 COM 7A.20)

Draft 27 COM 7 (a) 11

 

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Notes the detailed report by the State Party provided on 17 April 2003 and acknowledges the effort and commitment from the State Party in addressing key management problems,

2. Invites the State Party to co-operate with the Centre and IUCN to prepare a report for submission to the 28th session of the Committee in 2004, describing the steps State Party intends to take to develop and implement action plans and define parameters and conditions to monitor progress in the restoration of the site, with a view to facilitating the Committee’s future considerations for removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger,

3. Decides to retain the Everglades National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as requested by the State Party.

Report year: 2003
United States of America
Date of Inscription: 1979
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)(ix)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1993-2007, 2010-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 27COM (2003)
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