Area de Conservación Guanacaste

• Financial resources
• Fishing/collecting aquatic resources (weak control over commercial and artisanal fishing)
• Ground transportation infrastructure (Pan-American Highway that bisects the property)
• Human resources
• Illegal activities
• Invasive/alien terrestrial species
• Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
• Renewable energy facilities (Las Pailas I and II geothermal and windpower projects development adjacent to the property)
• Water extraction
• Other Threats: fire (intentional and accidental fires, particularly affecting the dry forests); longstanding subsistence and commercial use of land and resources, prior to inscription on the World Heritage List, with impacts stemming from farming, ranching, logging, pesticide use, introduction of exotic species, sulphur mining, amongst others

N/A

On 1 December 2022, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at and reports the following:

• No active or approved infrastructure, energy or agricultural projects exist within the property or its buffer zone;
• Following formal rejection of the Interoceanic Dry Canal project, the company CANSEC S.A. continues to promote the project, described by the State Party as irresponsible, lacking technical and financial support, showing incomplete documentation and inconsistencies, and therefore not viable;
• The concept of an Atlantic Mega Transshipment Terminal is being promoted by AMEGA Ltd. Following an initial focus on the Caribbean coast. A future project phase could encompass a Mega Pacific Terminal and a coast-to-coast high-speed cargo train connection. No formal proposal has been submitted and full commitment to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property is expressed;
• Geothermal projects (Las Pailas I/II and Borinquen I/II) and wind power projects (Orosi and Alisios) near the property are compliant with national standards and regulations, and accompanied by cooperation with management authorities of the property and wildlife research. The World Heritage Centre will be informed of possible future projects in the vicinity of the property;
• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for new project proposals in the wider conservation area are to consider fully the OUV and the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment, including the proposed Playa Santo Tomás hotel development during its pre-feasibility phase;
• A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) will be undertaken prior to considering further renewable energy projects within applicable regulations;
• While the local government supports road impact mitigation, including through the Green and Living Tunnel approach, efforts were hampered by a serious case of corruption involving the National Roads Council (CONAVI);
• The Bahía Santa Elena Marine Management Area (AMMBSE), recommended for inclusion in the property, still lacks the necessary administrative conditions to guarantee its adequate conservation and management, especially due to the lack of personnel and economic resources for marine management;
• Climate change adaptation programmes are underway, including land acquisition (more than 500 ha) to add to the ‘conservation portfolio’ outside the property, educational programmes and development of a local (Canton La Cruz) climate adaptation action plan;
• The financial crisis and reduced tourism revenues negatively impacted the overall management capacity.

The confirmed absence of any existing or proposed infrastructure, agricultural or renewable energy projects in the property is welcomed. Continued private sector interest in the formally rejected Dry Canal project and promotion of another large-scale port project, which may affect the property’s OUV are noted with appreciation, along with the State Party assurance to keep the Committee informed and renewed commitment to the protection of the property. The proactive development of initiatives to address the impacts of climate change on the property are also appreciated.

The explicit integration of the OUV of World Heritage properties into EIA processes and growing SEA capacities are welcome developments. The State Party confirmation that the Playa Santo Tomás hotel project is to be assessed in line with the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment is reassuring, however it is recommended that the State Party be made aware of the new Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context, which should be applied to impact assessments going forward.

In the context of the repeated Committee requests for an SEA, the State Party’s confirmation to undertake an SEA is appreciated. Taking note that the State Party recently concluded an SEA for the Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves/La Amistad National Park World Heritage property (Costa Rica/Panama), national level exchanges to learn and build on the experience will be highly valuable. The SEA should address cumulative effects on the OUV of the property, taking into account existing geothermal development and wind energy projects in the immediate vicinity of the property. This would be critical to understand and develop a strategy for future development projects in the wider setting of the property, whilst ensuring the conservation of the OUV of the property.

It is of concern that options to mitigate road impacts were limited given that the Inter-American Highway bisects part of the property, reportedly due to corruption and impacts of the financial crisis. The financial crisis also impeded further development of the National Ecological Route 918 and the State Party again provides no information on National Road 4 as an alternative route to bypass the property. The local government commitment to the Green and Living Tunnel is therefore important. It is recommended that the Committee reiterate its requests to continue monitoring and mitigating all impacts from roads.

AMMBSE is important as a highly valuable and vulnerable marine area, as well as part of the growing conservation area based on an innovative, more participatory approach. The State Party insistence to establish adequate management and stakeholder involvement prior to the submission of a Minor Boundary Modification (MBM) proposal to include AMMBSE is encouraging. Eventually, an MBM is strongly recommended and should consider not only the inclusion of AMMBSE, but also address the wider discrepancy between the Conservation Area/“protected block” as nationally defined (163,000 ha of land and 43,000 ha of sea) and the smaller World Heritage property (147,000 ha of land and sea) so as to fully harmonise the configuration of the property with the boundaries of existing management units.

Despite the development of agro-landscape zones and regional conservation areas surrounding the property to consolidate the protection of the OUV, it is recalled that no formal buffer zone has been determined. The formalisation of a terrestrial and marine buffer zone via an MBM should be further pursued, in line with the 2018 Reactive Monitoring mission recommendation.