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

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Everglades National Park 2019

Everglades National Park

United States of America
Factors affecting the property in 2019*
  • Housing
  • Invasive / alien freshwater species
  • Storms
  • Surface water pollution
  • Water infrastructure
  • Other Threats:

    Mercury contamination of fish and wildlife

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Water infrastructure (Quantity and quality of water entering the property)
  • Housing (Urban encroachment)
  • Surface water pollution and Pollution of marine waters (Agricultural fertilizer pollution, Mercury contamination of fish and wildlife)
  • Water infrastructure (Lowered water levels due to flood control measures)
  • Storms (Damage from hurricanes)
  • Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species (Exotic invasive plant and animal species)
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

The property was re-inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, on the request of the State Party, due to concerns that the property's aquatic ecosystem continues to deteriorate, in particular as a result of:

  • Alterations of the hydrological regime (quantity, timing, and distribution of Shark Slough inflows)
  • Adjacent urban and agricultural growth (flood protection and water supply requirements that affect the property's resources by lowering water levels)
  • Increased nutrient pollution from upstream agricultural activities;
  • Protection and management of Florida Bay resulting in significant reduction of both marine and estuarine biodiversty
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4348

Corrective Measures for the property

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1275 
Updated: see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4348

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1062 
Updated: see pages https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4348 and https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4958/
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2019
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2019**

April 2006: IUCN participation in a technical workshop to identify benchmarks and corrective measures; January 2011: joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission

1999 WHC Mission Report, Everglades National Park, May 1999
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2019

On 5 March 2019, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/76/documents/, and provides, inter alia, the following updated information:

  • Highest performance levels for water quality and water deliveries into Taylor Slough and Northeast Shark River Slough (SRS) were attained in the wake of unusually wet conditions in 2017 and 2018. These wet conditions were also due to frequent storms, including Hurricane Irma in 2017, which damaged large swaths of mangrove forests and seagrass communities. However, the affected ecosystems are reported to have already substantially recovered. Large “supercolonies” of wading birds returned to the property;
  • Key projects forming the basis for the 2006 corrective measures have been completed in 2018: Everglades Construction Project (ECP), Modified Water Deliveries (MWD), and Canal-111 South Dade (C-111). The next generation restoration projects – Western Everglades Restoration Project (WERP), Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP), Tamiami Trail Next Steps (TTNS), and the Restoration Strategies (RS) project – were complemented by the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir (EAAR) project, which aims to re-direct discharges from Lake Okeechobee southwards to the property. Key construction milestones and the achievement of the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) are expected by 2025-2026;
  • In 2019, the Florida Appeals Court granted authority to conduct exploratory oil and gas drilling within the Water Conservation Areas located upstream of the property.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2019

The considerable progress in implementing the 2006 corrective measures is commendable. In order to attain the DSOCR, the on-going efforts will need to be sustained over time and the State Party should particularly be commended for engaging the next generation restoration projects and for committing as much as USD 2.5 billion for the restoration of the Everglades over the next four years. In terms of the 14 Indicators of Integrity, it is noted that water quality targets are met and that “supercolonies” of wading birds returned to the property with highest nesting and fledging success in 50 years. However, most of the other indicators are stagnating or declining. Especially, invasive alien species (IAS) remain a serious concern. Whilst recognizing the continued focus of the park’s management to address IAS, a long-term resource mobilization is required to control the existing IAS, and noting the existence of additional IAS outside of the property that have not yet been introduced to the property, emphasis should be placed on prevention and early detection with rapid response measures.

The increasing number of extreme weather events emphasises the growing importance of the impacts of climate change for the property. While a severe El Niño event in 2015 had led to a setback in the implementation of corrective measures because of an exceptionally dry season, record water levels were attained in 2017 and 2018 due to exceptionally wet seasons resulting from the high frequency of storms. Considering the vulnerability of the property to the impacts of climate change, in particular sea-level rise, it is appreciated that the 2015 General Management Plan (GMP) recommends concrete responses, including the enhancement of ecosystem resilience and the minimization of other stressors on park resources. Since the Policy Document on Impacts of Climate Change and World Heritage describes World Heritage properties as laboratories where monitoring, mitigation and adaptation processes can be applied, tested and improved, it is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to formally submit the GMP to the World Heritage Centre and IUCN.

The decision by the Florida Appeals Court to grant authority to conduct exploratory oil and gas drilling within the Water Conservation Areas located upstream of the property is of serious concern, due to potential downstream impacts on the property. It needs to be noted that no oil or gas permit has been issued in the Everglades for 50 years. The decision also seems to be in contradiction to the GMP recommendation to minimize other stressors on the property. The Committee’s established positions on the incompatibility of oil and gas exploration and exploitation with World Heritage status should be recalled in this respect, whilst noting that the activity is outside of the property. It is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to ensure a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is undertaken to assess the possible impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, in line with the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment. This EIA should be completed and submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN before any hydrocarbon drilling activities are conducted.

In its Decision 41 COM 7A.1, the Committee requested the State Party to inform the World Heritage Centre about the potential for hydraulic fracturing projects in proximity of the property and about the proposal for a utility transmission line along the eastern border of the property. As no information has been received on this, it is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request in this regard.

Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2019
43 COM 7A.3
Everglades National Park (United States of America) (N 76)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 41 COM 7A.1, adopted at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017),
  3. Welcomes the progress achieved in implementing the 2006 corrective measures and notes with satisfaction that their full operational benefits are expected to be in place by mid-June 2020, that water quality targets have already been met and that “supercolonies” of wading birds have returned to the property;
  4. Commends the State Party for also implementing next generation restoration projects in order to achieve the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) by 2025-2026, and congratulates it for committing as much as USD 2.5 billion over four years to advance the restoration of the Everglades;
  5. Notes with concern the ongoing threat from invasive alien species (IAS), and requests the State Party to ensure a continued, long-term allocation of resources to control the existing IAS inside the property, and for the mangement strategy to emphasize prevention and early detection with rapid response measures;
  6. Appreciates that the General Management Plan (GMP) of the property aims to respond to the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, and reiterates its requests to the State Party to submit the GMP to the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;
  7. Also recalling its established position on the incompatibility of oil and gas exploration and exploitation with World Heritage status, notes with utmost concern the prospect of exploratory drilling within the Water Conservation Areas located upstream of the property, and urges the State Party to ensure a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that assesses the possible impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property is undertaken, in line with the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment, and to submit the EIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN as a matter of priority and before conducting any hydrocarbon drilling activities;
  8. Also reiterates its request to the State Party to inform the World Heritage Centre about the potential for hydraulic fracturing projects in proximity of the property and the proposal of a utility transmission line along its eastern border;
  9. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 44th session in 2020;
  10. Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Read more
43 COM 8C.2
Update of the List of World Heritage in Danger (Retained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC/19/43.COM/7A, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.2, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.3 and WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.3.Corr),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 43 COM 7A.41)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision43 COM 7A.42)
  • Austria, Historic Centre of Vienna (Decision 43 COM 7A.45)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 43 COM 7A.48)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.5)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.6)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.7)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.8)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.9)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.10)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.11)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 43 COM 7A.17)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.4)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 43 COM 7A.1)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 43 COM 7A.18)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 43 COM 7A.19)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 43 COM 7A.20)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 43 COM 7A.22)
  • Kenya, Lake Turkana National Parks (Decision 43 COM 7A.12)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Cyrene (Decision 43 COM 7A.23)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna (Decision 43 COM 7A.24)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Sabratha (Decision 43 COM 7A.25)
  • Libya, Old Town of Ghadamès (Decision 43 COM 7A.26)
  • Libya, Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus (Decision 43 COM 7A.27)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 43 COM 7A.13)
  • Mali, Old Towns of Djenné (Decision 43 COM 7A.53)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 43 COM 7A.54)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 43 COM 7A.55)
  • Micronesia (Federated States of), Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia (Decision 43 COM 7A.43)
  • Niger, Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 43 COM 7A.14)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 43 COM 7A.30)
  • Palestine, Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town (Decision 43 COM 7A.29)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 43 COM 7A.50)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 43 COM 7A.51)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.15)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 43 COM 7A.46)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 43 COM 7A.2)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 43 COM 7A.31)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 43 COM 7A.32)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 43 COM 7A.33)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 43 COM 7A.34)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 43 COM 7A.35)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 43 COM 7A.36)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 43 COM 7A.56)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 43 COM 7A.47)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.16)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.3)
  • Uzbekistan, Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Decision 43 COM 7A.44)
  • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Coro and its Port (Decision 43 COM 7A.52)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 43 COM 7A.38)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 43 COM 7A.39)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 43 COM 7A.40)
Read more
43 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Documents WHC/19/43.COM/8E and WHC/19/43.COM/8E.Add,
  2. Commends the States Parties for the work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties located within their territories;
  3. Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC/19/43.COM/8E and WHC/19/43.COM/8E.Add, for the following World Heritage properties:

    ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

    • India, Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park
    • India, Churches and Convents of Goa
    • India, Ellora Caves
    • India, Fatehpur Sikri
    • India, Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram
    • India, Khajuraho Group of Monuments

    EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA

    • Canada, Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks
    • Croatia, Plitvice Lakes National Park
    • France, Canal du Midi
    • France, Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Former Abbey of Saint-Rémi and Palace of Tau, Reims
    • France, Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs
    • France, Vézelay, Church and Hill
    • Italy, Archaeological Areas of Pompei, Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata
    • Italy, Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and Other Franciscan Sites
    • Italy, Historic Centre of Urbino
    • Italy, Val d'Orcia
    • United States of America, Carlsbad Caverns National Park
    • United States of America, Everglades National Park
    • United States of America, Grand Canyon National Park
    • United States of America, Redwood National and State Parks;
  4. Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger will be reviewed in priority by the Advisory Bodies;
  5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to upload the two language versions on its website.
Read more
Draft Decision: 43 COM 7A.3

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 41 COM 7A.1, adopted at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017),
  3. Welcomes the progress achieved in implementing the 2006 corrective measures and notes with satisfaction that their full operational benefits are expected to be in place by mid-June 2020, that water quality targets have already been met and that “supercolonies” of wading birds have returned to the property;
  4. Commends the State Party for also implementing next generation restoration projects in order to achieve the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) by 2025-2026, and congratulates it for committing as much as USD 2.5 billion over four years to advance the restoration of the Everglades;
  5. Notes with concern the ongoing threat from invasive alien species (IAS), and requests the State Party to ensure a continued, long-term allocation of resources to control the existing IAS inside the property, and for the mangement strategy to emphasize prevention and early detection with rapid response measures;
  6. Appreciates that the General Management Plan (GMP) of the property aims to respond to the impacts of climate change, including sea-level rise, and reiterates its requests to the State Party to submit the GMP to the World Heritage Centre and IUCN;
  7. Also recalling its established position on the incompatibility of oil and gas exploration and exploitation with World Heritage status, notes with utmost concern the prospect of exploratory drilling within the Water Conservation Areas located upstream of the property, and urges the State Party to ensure a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that assesses the possible impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property is undertaken, in line with the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment, and to submit the EIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN as a matter of priority and before conducting any hydrocarbon drilling activities;
  8. Also reiterates its request to the State Party to inform the World Heritage Centre about the potential for hydraulic fracturing projects in proximity of the property and the proposal of a utility transmission line along its eastern border;
  9. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 44th session in 2020;
  10. Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Previous 2018 Next 2021
Report year: 2019
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
WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2019) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 43COM (2019)
Exports
Previous 2018 Next 2021

* : 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