Lorentz National Park

• Mining
• Human resources (Security limitations)
• Ground transport infrastructure (Development threats)
• Fishing/collecting aquatic resources (Exploitation of marine resources)
• Management systems/management plans (Absence of a co-ordinating agency, Absence of a finalized strategic management plan, Park boundaries not physically demarcated)
• Financial resources (Inadequate financing)
• Other climate change impacts (Nothofagus dieback)
• Illegal activities

N/A

On 31 January 2024, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents, providing the following information:

• The State Party expresses its commitment to follow Committee recommendations and support protection and management of the property through ongoing implementation of SMART (‘Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool’) patrols, completing the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for road development plans, implementing mitigation measures for the Habema-Kenyam road, and monitoring dieback of Nothofagus species along the road. Due to security, technical and COVID-19 pandemic reasons, more time and assistance is required to implement all programmes in the property;
• A summary of the national park zonation (revised in 2013) and the 2021–2030 Long-Term Management Plan for the property is provided, and the original documents (in Indonesian) are appended and being translated into English;
• Regarding the Special Use Zone, to date no proposal for the construction or improvement of the pioneer airport within the property has been submitted. The State Party reiterates its commitment to follow advice in line with paragraphs 118bis and 172;
• Regarding the Trans-Papuan Highway, construction of the Enarotali-Ilaga-Mulia section crossing the property has been halted since the end of 2021 due to safety factors and high construction costs. It remains an unpaved dirt road with a high slope that cannot be passed by vehicles. A translation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the 239 km Sugapa-Ilaga-Mulia section (submitted in Indonesian in 2022) is appended, and is stated to include a clear assessment of the cumulative impacts of road developments on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property;
• Biodiversity monitoring activities include field surveys, cameras, and remote sensing in the property as well as species specific surveys including monitoring of Nothofagus species, for which international collaboration is welcomed;
• The State Party stands ready to discuss further the planning of the pending IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission.

The State Party’s commitment to continuing implementation of management measures is noted with appreciation, as are the submitted summaries of the revised national park zonation and 2021-2030 Management Plan for the property. Effective implementation of the Management Plan objectives, such as to increase institutional capacity, reduce threats, enhance species management, restore degraded ecosystems, and strengthen community capacity and involvement, will support long-term protection of the property.

Recalling that the Special Use Zone allows certain development within the property, the State Party’s commitment to ensuring developments are compatible with the protection of OUV is appreciated. However, it remains of utmost concern that the Trans-Papuan Highway was included within the Special Use Zone and proceeded without adequate assessment of its impacts on the OUV of the property including its integrity. It is recalled that, in 2022, the State Party confirmed the Trans-Papuan Highway (strategic infrastructure project under the 2020-2024 Medium-Term National Development Plan) crosses the property at two sections: Enarotali-Ilaga-Mulia (ca 40 km in the north) and Habema-Kenyam (ca 209 km in the east). Regarding Habema-Kenyam, the Committee has repeatedly raised concerns: e.g., the completion of an adequate EIA (38 COM 7B.67; 39 COM 7B.12), impacts such as additional risk for fragile alpine environments (41 COM 7B.29; 43 COM 7B.9; 44 COM 7B.94), and completion of the road (43 COM 7B.9), and urged the implementation of mitigation measures and to report on these (43 COM 7B.9; 44 COM 7B.94; 45 COM 7B.16) and a clear Action Plan (45 COM 7B.16). Whilst the State Party’s commitment to continue mitigation measures for the Habema-Kenyam road is noted, the development and submission of a clear Action Plan, including a timeline for the rehabilitation of all areas damaged by the road construction, and a plan to monitor its impacts, remains to be provided.

Regarding the Sugapa-Ilaga-Mulia segment, the submitted EIA does not adequately consider the impact on the OUV. Whilst the final route avoids construction in the “core” zone (i.e., the property), it still crosses the property and therefore requires an assessment in relation to all attributes of the OUV. The EIA also identifies negative impacts including during construction (such as loss of vegetation and disturbance of wild animals along the road footprint) and operation (such as easier access for “forest encroachers” and illegal logging; increased traffic noise affecting wildlife). However, the EMP proposes very limited response measures and fails to consider the integrity of the property and to address the threats of illegal logging and encroachment. Noting that the construction of this section has been halted since 2021 due to safety and costs, construction should not be restarted before an assessment of impacts on the OUV and consideration of alternatives has been undertaken, and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any negative impacts on the OUV are identified, in line with the Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments in a World Heritage Context.

Although the State Party states its commitment to completing an SEA for road developments, the report also states that cumulative impacts are “inseparable” from the aforementioned EIA and no detailed information on the SEA was provided. It should be clarified that EIAs should indeed include assessments of interactions between the proposed project and others, but that SEAs are better suited to assessing cumulative impacts of multiple projects at a landscape-scale and at setting strategic mitigation measures that can apply consistently to all projects.

The biodiversity monitoring activities, particularly surveying of Nothofagus species, are noted positively. Long-term monitoring of the property should be ensured in line with the Management Plan, and the State Party is encouraged to engage in international collaboration on Nothofagus dieback, as needed, to ensure long-term management of these species.

Finally, it remains urgent that the Reactive Monitoring mission requested since 2017 is implemented as soon as possible to assess the various threats, particularly road development pressure and the effectiveness of the zoning to ensure the long-term protection of the OUV.