Everglades National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2014*
- Ground water pollution
- 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
- Quantity and quality of water entering the property;
- Urban encroachment;
- Agricultural fertiliser pollution;
- Mercury contamination of fish and wildlife;
- Lowered water levels due to flood control measures;
- Damage from hurricanes;
- 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 biodiverstiy.
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/1062;
Updated: 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: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4348 and https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4958/
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2014
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2014**
April 2006: IUCN participation in a technical workshop to identify benchmarks and corrective measures; January 2011: joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014
A report on the state of conservation of the property was requested by the World Heritage Committee for its 39th session in 2015. The Committee’s request (Decision 37 COM 7A.15) for a report in 2015 rather than 2014 was based on the view that the implementation of the corrective measures and improvement of the indicators of the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, would likely take at least another ten years.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2014
The World Heritage Centre and IUCN recommend that the World Heritage Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2014
38 COM 7A.30
Everglades National Park (United States of America) (N 76)
The World Heritage Committee,
- Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7A,
- Recalling Decision 37 COM 7A.15, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
- Reiterates the request that the State Party submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property, including progress achieved in implementing the corrective measures and in meeting the indicators developed for the Desired state of conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015;
- Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
38 COM 8C.2
Update of the List of World Heritage in Danger (retained sites)
The World Heritage Committee,
- Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-14/38.COM/7A and WHC-14/38.COM/7A.Add),
- Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 38 COM 7A.14)
- Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 38 COM 7A.15)
- Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 38 COM 7A.31)
- Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.34)
- Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 38 COM 7A.21)
- Colombia, Los Katíos National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.32)
- Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.35)
- Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 38 COM 7A.36)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.37)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.38)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.39)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.40)
- Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 38 COM 7A.41)
- Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 38 COM 7A.1)
- Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.43)
- Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 38 COM 7A.16)
- Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 38 COM 7A.17)
- Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 38 COM 7A.33)
- Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 38 COM 7A.28)
- Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 38 COM 7A.2)
- Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 38 COM 7A.3)
- Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 38 COM 7A.4)
- Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 38 COM 7A.44)
- Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 38 COM 7A.24)
- Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 38 COM 7A.25)
- Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 38 COM 7A.45)
- Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 38 COM 7A.5)
- Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 38 COM 7A.20)
- Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 38 COM 7A.22)
- Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.46)
- Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 38 COM 7A.18)
- Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 38 COM 7A.29)
- Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 38 COM 7A.12)
- Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 38 COM 7A.12)
- Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 38 COM 7A.12)
- Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 38 COM 7A.12)
- Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 38 COM 7A.12)
- Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 38 COM 7A.12)
- Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 38 COM 7A.26)
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 38 COM 7A.19)
- United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 38 COM 7A.30)
- Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 38 COM 7A.23)
- Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 38 COM 7A.13)
Draft Decision: 38 COM 7A.30
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7A,
2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 7A.15, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
3. Reiterates the request that the State Party submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property, including progress achieved in implementing the corrective measures and in meeting the indicators developed for the Desired state of conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015;
4. Decides to retain Everglades National Park (United States of America) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
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.