Iguaçu National Park
Factors affecting the property in 1991*
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
- Input of excess energy
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Administration of the falls (Argentina)
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1991
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 1991**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1991
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1991
15 BUR VI.28
Iguazu National Park (Argentina) / Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
The Bureau recalled that these two sites cover the same waterfall area which extends across the two countries. The Bureau was concerned that, for tourist purposes, eight helicopters now simultaneously overfly the falls causing serious acoustic disturbance in an otherwise natural setting, and that more than 7,000 visitors have registered complaints. The Bureau also noted that local non-governmental organizations are opposing the use of helicopters as an inappropriate activity that contravenes legal air traffic regulations for flights over protected areas. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to convey these concerns to the authorities of Argentina and Brazil and suggest that they cooperate in devising management strategies to control helicopter tourism of the area.
15 COM VIII
SOC: Iguazu National Park (Argentina) and Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
Iguazu National Park (Argentina) and Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
The Committee noted that eight helicopters simultaneously overfly these adjacent sites which cover the same waterfall area. Over 7,000 visitors had registered complaints and local conservation groups are opposed to the use of helicopters in the area because it contravenes legal regulations for air traffic over protected areas. The Brazilian Delegate informed the Committee that a working group had been established to study the matter with a view to introducing more stringent regulatory measures for helicopter tourism. The Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the authorities of Argentina in order to request information on steps taken by them.
Documents examined by the Committee15COM (1991)
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.