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

Lorentz National Park

Indonesia
Factors affecting the property in 2014*
  • Financial resources
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Human resources
  • Illegal activities
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Nothofagus dieback

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 2014
Requests approved: 2 (from 1996-2001)
Total amount approved : 41,400 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014

At its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013), the Committee requested the State Party to submit a report on the state of conservation of the property by 1 February 2015, and to invite an IUCN reactive monitoring mission to assess the impacts from road construction and to assist the State Party with developing a conservation strategy that will ensure the conservation and strict protection of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), the report of which would be for examination by the Committee at its 38th session in 2014. The mission to Jakarta and the Provincial capital Jayapura took place from 11 to 18 March 2014. Its report is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/. A field visit was not included, due to security concerns.

While recognizing the significant effort by the State Party to improve the management of the property, including through a 65% increase in the property’s management budget over the past three years, the finalization of a Collaborative Management Agreement, and an increase in staff capacity, the mission considers that management capacity and effectiveness remain insufficient. The main concerns in that regard are noted to be as follows, among others:

  • The property’s human and financial resources remain insufficient and funding (USD 0.56/ha) is not strategically allocated to the property’s management needs, with 75% allocated to support costs;
  • The 2010-2029 Management Plan and the Zonation Document do not adequately reflect the property’s OUV. The zonation of the property is very patchy and extremely difficult to monitor and manage, dominated by use zones, while core zones are often small residual areas;
  • No monitoring mechanism exists to facilitate early detection of and response to threats.

The mission further reported as follows:

  • The construction of the Habema-Kenyem road through the property has continued for 90 km since the 2011 joint UNESCO/IUCN reactive monitoring mission, with only 22 km remaining to be completed. Construction has currently been halted, pending completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The State Party is committed to applying the highest standards to the EIA and to mitigating any impacts of the road through technological and managerial measures, including restoration of damaged areas;
  • Recent investigations as to the cause of the Nothofagus dieback are not conclusive and require further investigation;
  • Wildlife trade in species from Papua is significant, which could represent a major threat to the property’s OUV. Further investigation is needed to establish the level of poaching in the property.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2014

The State Party has made efforts to address some of the identified issues, in particular to improve management capacity and its commitment to apply the highest standards to the EIA of the Habema-Kenyem road and to mitigate the impacts from the road and restore damaged areas. The recent development of a Collaborative Management Agreement is welcomed, and it is recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party to formalize this agreement.

The mission considered that despite the known impacts of the Habema-Kenyem road, and notwithstanding the limited recent scientific field survey activities, the OUV of the property remains intact, mainly due to its large scale (2.35 million ha), remoteness, difficult terrain and relative absence of roads. However, it is critical that there is no further development of infrastructure or other development pressure anywhere in the property.

As noted by the mission, the low management effectiveness of the property, while improving, remains a significant concern for its future protection. If the property’s management cannot be significantly improved in the short term, its OUV and conditions of integrity are likely to become increasingly threatened. It is recommended that the Committeeurge the State Party to further increase the number of forest rangers available to the property, as well as the level of funding, including by seeking more national and international partnerships in support of the property, including with the private sector. It is also recommended that the Committeerequest the State Party to urgently revise the management plan and zonation scheme for the property in order to ensure that these adequately reflect its OUV. Furthermore, the State Party’s commitment to mitigate the impacts of the Habema-Kenyem road through managerial measures should include the development and implementation of an integrated monitoring mechanism in order to ensure early detection of and response to emerging threats, such as poaching, illegal logging, and the establishment of illegal settlements.

It is recognized that roads may bring economic and social benefits to small isolated indigenous communities in the property. However, it should be noted that roads can result in many secondary impacts on conservation values. There is significant concern that the construction of the Habema-Kenyem road has continued for 90 km since the 2011 mission, despite the Committee’s request in Decision 35 COM 7B.15 to cease all road construction. The current stop on construction works is well noted, and it is crucial that construction works do not continue prior to a rigorous EIA having been completed, including a specific assessment of direct and indirect impacts on the property’s OUV, in conformity with IUCN’s World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment. If effective monitoring and strict control of the road and its impacts, and of any future development pressures, cannot be guaranteed, the danger to the property’s OUV is likely to increase to the point where the property could meet the criteria for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

It is further recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to conduct further investigations to the cause of the Nothofagus dieback disease and to the level of poaching in the property.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2014
38 COM 7B.67
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia) (N 955)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 7B.13, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
  3. Notes with appreciation the State Party’s efforts to improve the property’s management capacity, and welcomes the State Party’s commitment, as expressed during the mission, to apply the highest standards to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Habema-Kenyem road;
  4. Notes with concern that despite the absence of an EIA, significant road construction has been allowed to continue until recently;
  5. Requests the State Party to rigorously ensure that the current halt imposed on further road construction remains in place until the EIA has been completed, in conformity with IUCN’s World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment and its recommendations fully implemented, and adequate technological and managerial measures are being implemented to avoid and mitigate impacts of the road on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), including the development and implementation of an integrated monitoring mechanism to detect and respond to threats as soon as they arise;
  6. Also requests the State Party to submit the completed EIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines ;
  7. Urges the State Party to guarantee effective monitoring and strict control of the road and its impact and control of any future development pressures, related or not to the presence of the road, and considers that if this cannot be achieved, the property could meet, in the near future, the conditions for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and reiterates its request to 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;
  8. Further requests the State Party to urgently revise the property’s management plan and zonation scheme, in order to ensure that they adequately reflect the property’s OUV, and to provide an electronic and three printed copies of the draft revised management plan and zonation scheme to the World Heritage Centre as soon as it is available, for review by IUCN;
  9. Also urges the State Party to undertake an assessment of the level of poaching in the property, and to conduct further in-depth investigations to the cause of the Nothofagus dieback disease, including an assessment of the health of all Nothofagus forests in the property as well as an action plan to address the dieback, in collaboration with international experts, as required;
  10. Requests furthermore the State Party to fully implement all the recommendations of the 2014 IUCN reactive monitoring mission;
  11. Reiterates its call 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;
  12. Requests moreover the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015, a report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and on progress achieved with the implementation of the recommendations of the 2008, 2011, and 2014 reactive monitoring missions, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015.

Draft Decision:   38 COM 7B.67

The World Heritage Committee,

  1.   Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B.Add,
  2.   Recalling Decision 37 COM 7B.13, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
  3.   Notes with appreciation the State Party’s efforts to improve the property’s management capacity, and welcomes the State Party’s commitment, as expressed during the mission, to apply the highest standards to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Habema-Kenyem road;
  4.   Notes with concern that despite the absence of an EIA, significant road construction has been allowed to continue until recently;
  5.   Requests the State Party to rigorously ensure that the current halt imposed on further road construction remains in place until the EIA has been completed, in conformity with IUCN’s World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment and its recommendations fully implemented, and adequate technological and managerial measures are being implemented to avoid and mitigate impacts of the road on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), including the development and implementation of an integrated monitoring mechanism to detect and respond to threats as soon as they arise;
  6.   Also requests the State Party to submit the completed EIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  7.   Urges the State Party to guarantee effective monitoring and strict control of the road and its impact and control of any future development pressures, related or not to the presence of the road, and considers that if this cannot be achieved, the property could meet, in the near future, the conditions for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and reiterates its request to 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;
  8.   Further requests the State Party to urgently revise the property’s management plan and zonation scheme, in order to ensure that they adequately reflect the property’s OUV, and to provide an electronic and three printed copies of the draft revised management plan and zonation scheme to the World Heritage Centre as soon as it is available, for review by IUCN;
  9.   Also urges the State Party to undertake an assessment of the level of poaching in the property, and to conduct further in-depth investigations to the cause of the Nothofagus dieback disease, including an assessment of the health of all Nothofagus forests in the property as well as an action plan to address the dieback, in collaboration with international experts, as required;
  10.   Requests furthermore the State Party to fully implement all the recommendations of the 2014 IUCN reactive monitoring mission;
  11.   Reiterates its call 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;
  12.   Requests moreover the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015, a report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the state of conservation of the property and on progress achieved with the implementation of the recommendations of the 2008, 2011, and 2014 reactive monitoring missions, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015.
Report year: 2014
Indonesia
Date of Inscription: 1999
Category: Natural
Criteria: (viii)(ix)(x)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 38COM (2014)
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