Pitons Management Area

• Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
• Renewable energy facilities (geothermal energy exploration)
• Absence of strict development control process (issue resolved)
• Invasive/alien terrestrial species

On 21 December 2015, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1161/documents. The report presents progress as follows :

• As the property continues to attract potential investors and developers, the State Party focuses much of its efforts on the implementation of the recommendations of the 2013 study on the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC), which was endorsed by the Cabinet of Ministers on April 2015 as the tool for appraising applications for development within the property. The integration of the recommendations of the study in the policy framework and other development guidelines for the property are highlighted, including the draft Terms of Reference and Guidance Notes for the incorporation of these recommendations as Regulations within the Physical Planning and Development Act (2001);
• With regards to geothermal resources, the current stage continues to be restricted to non-invasive exploration and is reported to have no impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property at this time. Furthermore, preliminary findings suggest modest, if any, direct overlap between areas of geothermal potential and the property;
• As part of a broader awareness campaign, the State Party organized a successful invasive alien plant eradication exercise on the Gros Piton Nature Trail. Further community outreach and public awareness activities specifically address the World Heritage status of the property;
• The terms of reference for the updating of the Pitons Management Area (PMA) Management Plan are currently under development;
• The LAC study recommended two minor modifications to the zones within the property with different levels of restrictions on development (Policy Areas 1, 3 and 4), which can only be implemented by undertaking a survey for the boundary adjustment. The State Party intends to seek the assistance of the World Heritage Centre in identifying funds for this exercise. It also notes that there are challenges related to boundary demarcation due to private land tenure within the property;
• Construction of villas has already started as part of the Freedom Bay project; however several governmental institutions are involved in monitoring and ensuring compliance with the LAC Study and a “Freedom Bay Monitoring Committee” has been set up for the purpose. Discussions are also ongoing with the developers of the Sugar Beach project with the objective to ensure compliance with the LAC study and the reengagement of the consulting firm responsible for the elaboration of the study has been proposed to provide guidance in that regard.

On 04 May 2016 the World Heritage Centre sent a letter to the State Party regarding third party information which raised concerns about a recent sale of land within the property to a private developer. On 10 May 2016 the State Party responded that the sale had to be abandoned since the land concerned was located in Policy zone 1 where no construction is permitted by the LAC study. 

It is recommended that the Committee welcome the adoption of the LAC study by the Cabinet of Ministers. It is noted that the study appears to have sparked an ongoing and important debate and has directly informed attempts to find a more balanced approach to conservation and development. The accompanying efforts to raise public awareness are commendable. However, the incorporation of the recommendations of the study into enforceable legislation remains to be completed.

According to the State Party report, the earlier concerns about location of potential geothermal resources within or in the immediate vicinity of the property have not materialized. At the current non-invasive exploration stage, recent findings suggest minor to no potential overlap with the property. Nevertheless, any exploration or eventual use of geothermal energy will require adequate assessment of the potential impacts on the property even when the development may not occur within the property itself.

The efforts to eradicate invasive alien plants along a widely used trail, combined with public awareness-raising, are exemplary. At the same time, it is unlikely that an approach restricted to such short-lived events can effectively achieve the eradication of invasive plants. Systematic and permanent monitoring to guide management responses are needed at all times.

The intention to review and revise the Management Plan for the property as part of the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) is noted. However, the State Party does not further elaborate on this process even though it would appear to be highly relevant for the management of the property. It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to provide additional information on this process, including on how the outcomes of the LAC study will be integrated into the review process and what the expected timelines are.

It is noted that the State Party intends to undertake a survey and demarcation adjustments of the boundaries of policy areas within the property and it is therefore recommended that the Committee also request the State Party to provide more details on the planned activities and their objectives, as well as the challenges to demarcation due to private land tenure. 

In the view of the World Heritage Centre and IUCN, the most critical issues continue to be the development projects within the property. In spite of finalization and endorsement of the LAC study and a positively evolving policy framework, it continues to be unclear how decision-making is going to be guided, also given the fact that the process of integration of the recommendations of the LAC study into the Physical Planning and Development Act has only just started.

With regards to the Freedom Bay and Sugar Beach development projects, while it is hoped that dialogue with developers will result in a mutually acceptable balance in line with the World Heritage status of PMA, the continued absence of an enforcement mechanism in case dialogue fails to generate a consensus, including as regards visual integrity, is noted. The confirmation from the State Party that a sale of a land within the Policy area 1 of the property to a private developer has recently been rejected is noted. However, the third party information referred to in the letter sent by the World Heritage Centre also noted that there continues to be an interest from the developer to pursue the construction plans. Recalling the previous request of the Committee “to not allow any developments to proceed if they are considered to exceed the LAC”, it is noted that exceeding the limits of acceptable change would trigger the consideration of the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines.