Iguazu National Park

a) Proposed development of hydropower dams;

b) Illegal logging and hunting;

c) Uncoordinated developments;

d) Lack of transboundary cooperation;

e) Lack of sustainable financing;

f) Problems associated with public use;

g) Lack of a comprehensive public use plan.

On 31 January 2012, the State Party submitted a detailed report on the state of conservation of IguazuNational Park. The report addresses the following issues raised by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 34 COM 7B.30:

a) Transboundary cooperation and coordination of management

At its 34th session, the World Heritage Committee was informed by the State Party of Brazil of the impending signature of an international cooperation agreement designed to facilitate transboundary cooperation on park management with Iguazu National Park in Argentina, another World Heritage property immediately across the Iguazu River. The State Party makes no reference to that agreement in its current report, though it indicates that there is increased transboundary cooperation, as evidenced by the joint publication of a pamphlet on visitor facilities at both properties. The report notes that a joint review of Management Plans, progress on which was requested by the Committee, was not possible at this time, given that the Argentinian plan had been developed in 1988 and required an immediate revision, whereas the Brazilian plan had only recently been finalized and there was little scope for revision at this point. The report notes that the Inter-American Development Bank has provided funding to support the revision of the property’s Management Plan. Based on the information provided, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that there appears to have been very little progress in strengthening transboundary cooperation in the management of the two properties, and that plans for stronger cooperation expressed earlier have not come to fruition.

b) Hydroelectric dams and additional infrastructure plans

The State Party’s report includes a lengthy hydrographic study on the impacts on river water flow at the falls from the series of hydroelectric dams constructed upstream on the Iguazu River. It concludes that there was a measurable reduction in both the extreme low water and high water events. The nearest and most recent dam (Caixa – built in 1999) is 200 km upstream from the falls. The study indicates that the dam’s distance, and the fact that the river downstream from the dam flows in large part through protected areas (from which other tributaries flow into the river), contributes significantly to the attenuation of any potentially negative impacts from the dam on water quality and flow. The study seems to discredit earlier claims of a weekly variation in flow due to weekend closure of the dam’s sluice gates. The State Party’s report indicates that there are no plans for any hydroelectric dam construction that may affect the property on the Argentinian side, though it appears from internet based reports that the Corpus Christi hydroelectric dam project, located approximately 250 km downstream from the property, but having an unknown impact on water levels at the property, is still being considered. Similarly, recent media reports suggest that consideration of the Baixo Iguaçu Hydroelectric project on the Brazilian side in the immediate vicinity of the property is renewed. The report on the state of conservation of IguaçuNational Park (Brazil) further discusses this issue.  

The State Party notes the presence of a long existing dirt road running through the property, indicating that it may one day be subjected to pressure to have it paved, though appears to indicate that no such pressure currently exists. 

c) Biodiversity conservation

The State Party lists several ecological research projects currently underway in the property, though no specific relation between these studies and management interventions are noted. It states that the detailed biodiversity report submitted to the World Heritage Centre in 2009 indicated that overall conservation of the property was good, and that this conclusion remains valid. Main biodiversity threats are identified as those emanating from the presence of mostly aquatic introduced species, and particular concern is raised over river bank ecosystems. No additional information is provided on the threat of agricultural development in the Argentine Peninsula Bottleneck, a stretch of privately owned land in Argentina that is a key biological corridor between the two properties, as noted by the 2008 reactive monitoring mission. At the Committee’s 34th session, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN had noted that deforestation in the Argentine Peninsula Bottleneck is increasingly limiting genetic flows between certain species’ populations, including jaguars, which results in shifts in forest ecosystem dynamics, and should therefore be monitored by both States Parties. 

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note the on-going absence of meaningful progress in regards to formal transboundary cooperation. Ideally, these two distinct properties, which are similar in many ways, should be considered as one single property under the Convention. In the absence of this situation, it is incumbent upon the respective States Parties of Argentina and Brazil to enhance transboundary management cooperation, through formal international agreements under which joint work plans could be regularly developed, implemented and monitored. Hydroelectric dams play a large role in water flow through this property, and continued monitoring of their impacts, along with that of plans for new dam projects is required. The mention of introduced species as a new threat to the property’s Outstanding Universal Value should be carefully monitored and appropriate conservation action taken.