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

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

East Rennell

Solomon Islands
Factors affecting the property in 2024*
  • Changes to oceanic waters
  • Fishing/collecting aquatic resources
  • Forestry /wood production
  • Invasive/alien terrestrial species
  • Legal framework
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Mining
  • Storms
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Changes to oceanic waters
  • Fishing/collecting aquatic resources (Over-exploitation of coconut crab and other marine resources)
  • Forestry/wood production (Commercial logging)
  • Invasive/alien terrestrial species
  • Storms
  • Mining
  • Management systems/management plans (Management planning and administration of the property)
  • Legal framework (Legislation)
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Logging
  • Invasive species
  • Over-exploitation of coconut crab and other marine resources
  • Climate change
  • Legislation, management planning and administration of the property
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
Corrective Measures for the property
Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2024

Total amount granted: USD 56,689 UNESCO/Netherlands Funds-in-Trust (2015): Technical Support to East Rennell; USD 35,000, UNESCO/Flanders Funds-in-Trust (2015): Support to East Rennell; USD 38,398, UNESCO/Netherlands Funds-in-Trust (2019-present); and USD 298,000, UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust (2022-present): Developing sustainable livelihoods in East Rennell

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2024
Requests approved: 3 (from 2006-2024)
Total amount approved : 85,835 USD
Missions to the property until 2024**

March–April 2005: UNESCO/IUCN Monitoring mission; October 2012: IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission; November 2015: World Heritage Centre/IUCN Advisory mission; May 2019: joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2024

On 29 February 2024, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/854/documents/, which reports the following:

  • Despite limited resources made available by the national government, some progress has been made towards achieving the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), notably addressing issues of invasive alien species (IAS), establishing an effective network of protected areas, and developing sustainable livelihoods in East Rennell;
  • A carbon financing project is being implemented led by “Live & Learn Environmental Education” in collaboration with local communities and national and provincial governments to support forest conservation and community development through the sale of carbon credits;
  • “BirdLife International” together with “Lake Tegano World Heritage Site Association” (LTWHSA) and in collaboration with the concerned ministries is supporting efforts to establish sustainable IAS/rodent control in four communities and province-wide biosecurity, to contribute to food security, livelihood resilience, conservation of endemic species and national and regional IAS responses, including recruitment of local rangers, installation of rodenticide baits, establishment of community-based monitoring and undertaking of a socio-economic baseline assessment;
  • Meetings took place with customary landowners to apply the Protected Areas Act 2010 in East Rennell with support from the Global Environment Facility GEF-6 funded project ‘Ensuring Resilient Ecosystems and Representative Protected Areas in Solomon Islands’ led by the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM). As a result, the State Party indicates that twelve “tribal groups” submitted their Expression of Interest (EOI), while four are yet to submit theirs. A new Management Plan will be developed following the finalization of a land use map;
  • An investigation was undertaken by MECDM following the mass mortality of flying foxes in 2021, which concluded that they may have become locally extinct in the property;
  • The environmental damages caused by the grounding of the barge (SAPOR 2302) in the property in 2021 persist. Landowners are facing challenges to take legal action to pursuit the case;
  • Planning of livelihood activities is underway with support of the UNESCO/Netherlands and UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust, including consultation meetings planned for May 2024;
  • An International Assistance request was submitted by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development (MEHRD) to accelerate the implementation of the DSOCR. The current timeframe for achieving the DSOCR by 2025 is feasible.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2024

The State Party’s continued efforts towards the implementation of the corrective measures to achieve the DSOCR within the current timeframe, in close cooperation with local communities and provincial, national and international partners are appreciated. In order to ensure long-term, sustainable allocation of budget for the property, the Committee should reiterate once again its request to adopt, as a matter of urgency, a new Cabinet Paper with the commitments and associated budget of the respective ministries.

The support by international NGOs “Live & Learn Environmental Education” and “BirdLife International” to explore carbon financing as a viable alternative to logging and other land use and to control rodents and IAS is welcomed, as they are addressing three out of five corrective measures for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, i.e., forest cover, extractive activities (logging and mining) and IAS. It is reiterated that, if the assessment confirms that it will not be possible to completely eradicate invasive rats, the State Party might wish to propose an update of the DSOCR, in which the eradication of rats is currently listed as a method of verification, and the State Party should develop and implement an adequately resourced strategy to focus on minimizing the impact of already introduced invasive species and fully operationalize effective biosecurity measures.

The significant progress made by the State Party in obtaining consensus from the customary landowners to apply the Protected Areas Act 2010, which resulted in the submission of the EOIs from three-quarters of the “tribal groups”, to be followed by the development of a new Management Plan is welcomed. It should be encouraged that the consultations continue to obtain full consent from all the customary landowners to ensure legal protection for the entire property, in particular, against existing and potential threats of mining and commercial logging in the area adjacent to the property.

It is regrettable that no information was provided by the State Party concerning the previously reported bauxite mining exploration proposal, recalling that local communities have opposed the proposal. It is recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to clarify the status of the mining proposal, recalling the Committee’s position that mining, including exploration, is considered incompatible with the World Heritage status (Decision 37 COM 7).

It is of utmost concern that an investigation undertaken by MECDM following the mass mortality of flying foxes in 2021, appears to confirm the flying fox to have become locally extinct in the property. Given that the property is inscribed under criterion (ix) for attributes including flying fox species, one of which is endemic to Rennell Island, further details of the results of the investigation are needed. It is requested that the State Party undertake further study and clarify whether flying fox have become locally extinct from the property, and further investigate the cause of mortality. Noting the reported possible sightings of a flying fox species in West Rennell that may have disappeared from the property, the State Party is encouraged to survey to determine if measures to promote restoration of the population across the Island could be identified and implemented.

It is also of utmost concern that communities still suffer from the damages caused by the grounding of the barge (SAPOR 2302) in 2021, and that no compensation has been made following the assessment which estimated USD 1.6 million damage to the coral reefs. It is recommended that the Committee reiterates its request to the responsible company and licensee of SAPOR 2302 to adhere to the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment, with regards to compensation of the ecological, cultural and socio-economic impacts of the grounding and urges the State Party to support the communities in their claims for compensation.

The State Party’s continued efforts to develop livelihood activities for local communities with support of the UNESCO/Netherlands and UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust as well as to accelerate the implementation of the DSOCR through applying to the International Assistance are welcomed. The international community should be encouraged to continue providing necessary support to the State Party, both financially and technically, to meet the current timeframe to achieve the DSOCR by 2025, as well as climate change funding to conduct an integrated vulnerability assessment of the property.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2024
Draft Decision: 46 COM 7A.57

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/24/46.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 45 COM 7A.16 adopted at its extended 45th session (Riyadh, 2023),
  3. Appreciates the State Party’s continued efforts towards the implementation of the corrective measures to achieve the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) within the current timeframe, in close cooperation with local communities and provincial, national and international partners,
  4. Reiterates once again its request to the State Party to adopt, as a matter of urgency, a new Cabinet Paper with the commitments and associated budgets of the respective ministries reflected in the budget allocation for the next fiscal year;
  5. Welcomes the support provided by international NGOs for the implementation of some corrective measures, notably the carbon financing project led by “Live & Learn Environmental Education” and the IAS/rodent control project led by “BirdLife International”;
  6. Also welcomes the significant progress made by the State Party towards obtaining consensus from the customary landowners to apply the Protected Areas Act 2010 to the property, and the intention to develop a new Management Plan, and requests the State Party to continue its efforts to obtain full consent from all the customary landowners in East Rennell to ensure legal protection for the entire property including the adjacent area in order to address ongoing and potential threats of mining and commercial logging;
  7. Regrets that no information was provided by the State Party concerning the previously reported bauxite mining exploration proposal, recalling its position that mining, including exploration, is considered incompatible with World Heritage status, reiterates its request to the State Party to clarify the status of the mining proposal;
  8. Expresses its utmost concern that the flying fox species which are recognized as an attribute of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), appear to have become locally extinct in the property according to a recent investigation following a 2021 mass mortality event, also requests the State Party to clarify further the results of the surveys by submitting information for each species of flying fox, and further investigate the cause and the reported possible sightings in West Rennell to determine the potential for natural restoration of the population across the Island;
  9. Also expresses its utmost concern that the environmental damages and socio-economic impacts on local communities caused by the grounding of the barge SAPOR 2302 in 2021 persist, and that no compensation has been made to date, also reiterates its request to the responsible company and licensee of SAPOR 2302 to adhere to the conclusions and recommendations of the assessment conducted in 2021, with regards to compensation of the ecological, cultural and socio-economic impacts of the grounding and urges the State Party to support the communities in their claims for compensation;
  10. Further welcomes the State Party’s continued efforts to develop livelihood activities for East Rennell communities with support of the UNESCO/Netherlands and UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust as well as to accelerate the implementation of the DSOCR through applying to the International Assistance;
  11. Calls upon the international community to continue providing the State Party necessary support, both financially and technically, to meet the current timeframe to achieve the DSOCR by 2025, as well as climate change funding to conduct an integrated vulnerability assessment of the property;
  12. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2025, 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 47th session;
  13. Decides to retain East Rennell (Solomon Islands) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Report year: 2024
Solomon Islands
Date of Inscription: 1998
Category: Natural
Criteria: (ix)
Danger List (dates): 2013-present
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2024) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 46COM (2024)
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