iucn evaluation of nominations of natural and...

155
WHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List Report to the World Heritage Committee Thirtieth session July 2005 - Vilnius, Lithuania Prepared by IUCN - The World Conservation Union May 2006

Upload: others

Post on 20-Jul-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage

IUCN Evaluation of Nominations ofNatural and Mixed Properties

to the World Heritage List

Report to the World Heritage CommitteeThirtieth session

July 2005 - Vilnius, Lithuania

Prepared by IUCN - The World Conservation UnionMay 2006

Page 2: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 3: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Table of Contents

oNegaP

noitcudortnI i

stropeRnoitaulavElacnihceTNCUI

sA eitreporPlarutaN

1 sA eitreporPlarutaNfosnoitanimoNweN

Arab States

lakbuoT-occoroM 1

cificaP/aisA

nijaiJdnagnainungiS.tMgnoloW,yrautcnaSadnaPtnaiGnauhciS-anihCsniatnuoM

9

oenroBfoegatireHtserofniaRredrobsnarT-aisyalaM/aisenodnI 91

aciremAhtroN/eporuE

najiabrezAfostseroFnakriH-najiabrezA 92

tnilKcitlaB-ainotsE 53

aluHeht,yawylFnoitargiMyellaVtfiRtaerGehT-learsI 54

alusninePnairebIehtfosetiSetinhcIruasoniD-niapS 55

naebbiraC/aciremAnitaL

eniraMlanoitancinaecOdnalatsaoC,sdnalsIoleplaMdnaanogroG-aibmoloCcificaPlaciporTnretsaEs'aibmoloCfoskraP

56

2A egatireHdlroWehtnodebircsniseitreporPlarutaNfonoisnetxEtsiL

aciremAhtroN/eporuE

)tsaoChgiHehtotnoisnetxenasa(ogalepihcrAnekravKehT-dnalniF 57

B seitreporPdexiM

1 sB eitreporpdeximrofsnoitanimonweN

acirfA

kraPlanoitaNakiyN-iwalaM 38

2 lB anoitiddahcihwrofseitreporPdexiMfosnoitanimonderrefeRdeviecerneebsahnoitamrofni

acirfA

adnakO-époLfoepacsdnallarutluctcilerdnametsysocE-nobaG 19

Page 4: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

oNegaP

stropeRnoitaulavElacnihceTNCUI

C seitreporPlarutluC

C seitreporPepacsdnaLlarutluCrofsnoitanimoNweN

cificaP/aisA

massAnireviRartupamharBfomaertsdimniilujaMfodnalsIreviR-aidnI 79

aciremAhtroN/eporuE

sennevéCdnaesessuaCehT-ecnarF 99

aliuqeTfoseitilicaFlairtsudnItneicnAehtdnaepacsdnaLevagAehT-ocixeM 301

epacsdnaLgniniMnoveDtseWdnallawnroC-modgniKdetinU 501

Page 5: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

NUMERICAL INDEX OF IUCN EVALUATIONS OF PROPERTIES TO BE EXAMINED BY THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

AT ITS 30TH SESSION

ºNDI ytraPetatS lasoporPytreporPegatireHdlroW oNegaP

veR092 iwalaM kraPlanoitaNakiyN 38

siB898 dnalniFnoisnetxenasa(ogalepihcrAnekravKehT

)tsaoChgiHehtot57

veR7411 nobaGfoepacsdnallarutluctcilerdnametsysocE

adnakO-époL19

3511 ecnarF sennevéCdnasessuaCehT 99

8611 occoroM lakbuoT 1

7911 aisyalaM/aisenodnI oenroBfoegatireHtserofniaRredrobsnarT 91

4021 niapSnairebIehtfosetiSetinhcIruasoniD

alusnineP55

6021 aidnIfomaertsdimniilujaMfodnalsIreviR

massAnireviRartupamharB79

9021 ocixeMtneicnAehtdnaepacsdnaLevagAehT

aliuqeTfoseitilicaFlairtsudnI301

0121 ainotsE tnilKcitlaB 53

2121 najiabrezA najiabrezAfostseroFnakriH 92

3121 anihCgnoloW-yrautcnaSadnaPtnaiGnauhciS

sniatnuoMnijaiJdnagnainungiS.tM9

5121 modgniKdetinUgniniMnoveDtseWdnallawnroC

epacsdnaL501

6121 aibmoloCdnalatsaoC,sdnalsIoleplaMdnaanogroG

foskraPeniraMlanoitancinaecOcificaPlaciporTnretsaEs'aibmoloC

56

9121 learsInoitargiMyellaVtfiRtaerGehT-learsI

aluHeht,yawylF54

Page 6: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 7: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 i

1. INTRODUCTION

This technical evaluation report of natural and mixedproperties nominated for inclusion on the World HeritageList has been conducted by the Programme on ProtectedAreas (PPA) of IUCN – The World Conservation Union.PPA co-ordinates IUCN’s input to the World HeritageConvention. It also co-ordinates the activities of IUCN’sWorld Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) whichis the world’s leading expert network of protected areamanagers and specialists.

In carrying out its function under the World HeritageConvention IUCN has been guided by four principles:

(i) the need to ensure the highest standards ofquality control and institutional memory in relationto technical evaluation, monitoring and otherassociated activities;

(ii) the need to increase the use of specialistnetworks of IUCN, especially WCPA, but alsoother relevant IUCN Commissions and specialistnetworks;

(iii) the need to work in support of the UNESCO WorldHeritage Centre and States Parties to examinehow IUCN can creatively and effectively supportthe World Heritage Convention and individualproperties as “flagships” for conservation; and

(iv) the need to increase the level of effectivepartnership between IUCN and the WorldHeritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM.

Members of the expert network of WCPA carry out themajority of technical evaluation missions. This allowsfor the involvement of regional natural heritage expertsand broadens the capacity of IUCN with regard to itswork under the World Heritage Convention. Reportsfrom field missions and comments from a large numberof international reviewers are comprehensivelyexamined by the IUCN World Heritage Panel. PPA thenprepares the final technical evaluation reports which arepresented in this document.

IUCN has also placed emphasis on providing input andsupport to ICOMOS in relation to cultural landscapeswhich have important natural values. IUCN recognisesthat nature and culture are strongly linked and that manynatural World Heritage properties have important culturalvalues.

The WCPA membership network now totals over 1400protected area managers and specialists from 120countries. This network has provided much of the basis

THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTS OF WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATIONS

May 2006

for conducting the IUCN technical evaluations. Inaddition, PPA has been able to call on experts fromIUCN’s other five Commissions (Species Survival,Environmental Law, Education and Communication,Ecosystem Management, and Environmental, Economicand Social Policy), from international earth scienceunions, other specialist offices in the IUCN Secretariat,and from scientific contacts in universities and otherinternational agencies. This highlights the considerable“added value” from investing in the use of the extensivenetworks of IUCN and partner institutions.

During 2005 IUCN commissioned an external review ofits work on World Heritage evaluations, which wascarried out by Dr. Christina Cameron. This resulted in anumber of recommendations to improve IUCN’s workand the majority of these are currently beingimplemented. The final review and the IUCNmanagement response are available on IUCN’swebsite.

2. EVALUATION PROCESS

In carrying out the technical evaluation of nominationsIUCN is guided by the Operational Guidelines of theConvention. The evaluation process is carried out overthe period of one year, from the receipt of nominations atIUCN in April and the submission of the IUCN evaluationreport to the World Heritage Centre in May of the followingyear. The process (outlined in Figure 1) involves thefollowing key steps:

1. Data Assembly. A standardised data sheet iscompiled on the nominated property by UNEP’sWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), using the nomination document, theWorld Database on Protected Areas and otheravailable reference material;

2. External Review. The nomination is sent toindependent experts knowledgeable about theproperty or the natural values it represents, notablymembers of WCPA, other IUCN specialistcommissions and scientific networks or NGOsworking in the region (approx. 100 externalreviewers provided input in relation to theproperties examined in 2005/2006);

3. Field Inspection. Missions composed of one ormore IUCN experts are sent to evaluate thenominated property on the ground and to discussthe nomination with the relevant national and localauthorities, local communities and otherstakeholders. Missions usually take place

Page 8: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ii IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

between May and November. In the case of mixedproperties and certain cultural landscapes,missions are joint with ICOMOS.

4. IUCN World Heritage Panel Review. The IUCNWorld Heritage Panel of experts meets at leastonce per year, usually in December at IUCNHeadquarters in Switzerland to examine eachnomination. A second meeting or conference callsare arranged as necessary. The Panel intensivelyreviews the nomination dossiers, field missionreports, comments from external reviewers, thedatasheets and associated background material,and provides its technical advice to IUCN onrecommendations for each nomination. A finalreport is prepared and forwarded to the WorldHeritage Centre in May for distribution to themembers of the World Heritage Committee.

5. Final Recommendations. IUCN presents, withthe support of images and maps, the results andrecommendations of its evaluation process to theWorld Heritage Committee at its annual sessionin June or July, and responds to any questions.The World Heritage Committee makes the finaldecision on whether or not to inscribe the propertyon the World Heritage List.

It should be noted that IUCN seeks to develop andmaintain a dialogue with the State Party throughout theevaluation process to allow the State Party everyopportunity to supply all the necessary information andto clarify any questions that may arise. For this reason,there are three occasions at which IUCN may requestfurther information from the State Party. These are:

• Before the field mission – IUCN sends the StateParty, usually directly to the person organisingthe mission in the host country, a briefing on themission, in many cases raising specificquestions and issues that should be discussedduring the mission. This allows the State Party toprepare properly in advance.

• Directly after the field mission – Based ondiscussions during the field mission, IUCN maysend an official letter requesting supplementaryinformation before the IUCN World HeritagePanel meets in December, to ensure that thePanel has all the information necessary to makea recommendation on the nomination.

• After the World Heritage Panel – If the WorldHeritage Panel finds some questions sti l lunanswered or further issues arising, a final letterwill be sent to the State Party requestingsupplementary information by a specific deadline.That deadline must be adhered to strictly in orderto allow IUCN to complete its evaluation.

Note: If the information provided by the State Party at thetime of nomination and during the mission is adequate,IUCN does not request supplementary information. It isexpected that supplementary information will be inresponse to specific questions and should not include

completely revised nomination documents or majorchanges.In the technical evaluation of nominated properties, theUdvardy Biogeographic Province concept is used forcomparison of nominations with other similar properties.This method makes comparisons of natural propertiesmore objective and provides a practical means ofassessing similarity. At the same time, World Heritageproperties are expected to contain special features,habitats and faunistic or floristic peculiarities that canalso be compared on a broader biome basis. It isstressed that the Biogeographical Province concept isused as a basis for comparison only and does not implythat World Heritage properties are to be selected solelyon this criteria. In addition, global classification systems,such as Conservation International Hotspots, WWFEcoregions, Birdlife International Endemic Bird Areas,IUCN/WWF Centres of Plant Diversity and the IUCN/SSCHabitat Classification, and the recent IUCN Analysis ofthe World Heritage List are used to identify properties ofglobal significance. The guiding principle is that WorldHeritage properties are only those areas of outstandinguniversal value.

Finally, the evaluation process is aided by the publicationof some 20 reference volumes on the world’s protectedareas published by IUCN, UNEP-WCMC and severalother publishers. These include (1) Reviews of ProtectedArea Systems in Oceania, Africa, and Asia; (2) the fourvolume directory of Protected Areas of the World; (3) thethree volume directory of Coral Reefs of the World; (4)the six volume Conservation Atlas series; (5) The fourvolume “A Global Representative System of MarineProtected Areas; and (6) Centres of Plant Diversity.These documents together provide system-wideoverviews which allow comparison of the conservationimportance of protected areas throughout the world.

3. THE IUCN WORLD HERITAGE PANEL

Purpose: The Panel advises IUCN on its work on WorldHeritage, particularly in relation to the evaluation of WorldHeritage nominations. The Panel normally meets oncea year for a week in December. Depending on theprogress made with evaluations, and the requirementfor follow up action, a further shorter meeting in thefollowing March/April may be required. Additionally, thePanel operates by email and/or teleconference, asrequired.

Functions: A core role that the Panel performs is toprovide a technical peer review process for theconsideration of nominations, leading to the formaladoption of advice to IUCN on the recommendations itshould make to the World Heritage Committee. In doingthis, the Panel examines each available nominationdocument, the field evaluation report, reviewers’comments and other material, and uses this to helpprepare IUCN’s advice, including IUCNrecommendations relating to inscription under specifiedcriteria, to the World Heritage Committee (and, in thecase of cultural landscapes, advice to ICOMOS). It mayalso advise IUCN on other matters concerning WorldHeritage, including the State of Conservation of WorldHeritage properties and on policy matters relating to theConvention. Though it takes account of the policy context

Page 9: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 iii

of IUCN’s work under the Convention, its primary role isto deliver scientific and technical advice to IUCN, whichhas the final responsibility for the recommendationsmade to the World Heritage Committee.

Membership: The members of the Panel comprise a)those IUCN staff with direct responsibility for IUCN’sWorld Heritage work, and b) other IUCN staff,Commission members and external experts selectedfor their high level of experience with the World HeritageConvention. Thus the members are:

• The Head of the IUCN Programme on ProtectedAreas (Chair)

• Other staff of the Programme on Protected Areas(2)

• The IUCN World Heritage Senior Advisor (1)• The WCPA Vice Chair for World Heritage (1)• The Head of Protected Areas Programme at UNEP-

WCMC (1)• Up to three other technical advisors, whose

expertise is recognized at a global level in relationto World Heritage (3)

The Panel’s preparations and its meetings are facilitatedthrough the work of the World Heritage Project Officer(who serves as the Executive Officer for the Panel).The Panel may also be attended by other IUCN staff(particularly from other Global Programmes withexpertise in the subject matter of particular nominations),Commission members (including the Chair of WCPA)and outside experts, upon invitation, for specific itemsas necessary. The Director General of IUCN and theDirector of Global Programmes are also invited to attenda session of the Panel for a full briefing on the processand recommendations.

4. FORMAT OF EVALUATION REPORTS

Each technical evaluation report presents a concisesummary of the nominated property, a comparison withother similar properties, a review of management andintegrity issues and concludes with the assessment ofthe applicability of the criteria, and a clearrecommendation in the form of a draft decision to theWorld Heritage Committee. Standardised data sheets,prepared for each natural or mixed nomination by UNEP- World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC),are available separately on request. In addition, IUCNhas carried out desk reviews for cultural landscapescontaining natural values, and provided its detailedcomments to ICOMOS. This report contains a shortsummary of IUCN’s comments on each culturallandscape nomination reviewed.

5. PROPERTIES EXAMINED IN 2005 /2006

15 nomination dossiers were examined by IUCNin the 2005/2006 period, involving 11 fieldinspections. These comprised:

• 9 natural property nominations (including 8new nominations, and 1 extension),

• 2 mixed property nominations (including 1 newnomination and 1 referral), and

• 4 cultural landscapes.

Joint missions were carried out with ICOMOS for themixed property and one cultural landscape.

6. COMMENTS ON 31 MARCH DEADLINE FORSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

In the 2005 / 2006 period, IUCN has sought to ensurethat States Parties have the opportunity to provide all thenecessary information on their nominated propertiesthrough the process outlined in section 2 above. As perthe decision of the World Heritage Committee at its 28th

session in July 2004 (28 COM 14B.57), IUCN has nottaken into consideration or included any informationsubmitted by States Parties after 31 March 2005. It isnoted that, as per the decision of the Committee at its 7th

Extraordinary session in December 2004 (7 EXT.COM4B.1), the viability of the deadline of 31 March is to beevaluated at the 30th session of the Committee.

Based on this trial period during 2005 and 2006, IUCNconsiders that the 31 March is too late to receivesupplementary information for the following reasons:

i) All IUCN evaluation reports must be completed andtranslated by mid-April so that they may be,formatted and printed in time for submission to theWorld Heritage Centre in mid-May;

ii) IUCN needs to consult widely with its evaluators,external reviewers, regional offices and the WorldHeritage Panel, on supplementary informationreceived and requires adequate time to do thisproperly;

iii) The majority of States Parties who submittedsupplementary information in 2006, submitted thisat the very last minute, often on the 31 March;

iv) A number of States Parties submitted substantialamounts of new information, including revisednomination documents without highlighting the newinformation therein, on the 31 March;

As a result of the above issues, IUCN was put underenormous pressure in 2005 and 2006 to complete itsevaluations within the timeline provided. Therefore, IUCNrecommends that the deadline for the submission ofsupplementary information be brought forward to the28 February of the year of examination of thenomination. IUCN would then ensure that it requestssupplementary information from States Parties beforethe end of December.

In addition, IUCN recommends that the World HeritageCommittee clearly define the meaning of supplementaryinformation, so that States Parties cannot submitsubstantial new information and revised nominationsat the last minute. IUCN considers supplementaryinformation to include responses to specific questionsraised by the Advisory Bodies.

Page 10: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

iv IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As in previous years, this report is a group product towhich a vast number of people have contributed.Acknowledgements for advice received are due to theexternal evaluators and reviewers, and numerous IUCNstaff at Headquarters and in the field. Many otherscontributed inputs during field inspections. This supportis acknowledged with deep gratitude.

IUCN World Heritage Panel

Field Inspection

Consultation with:Government Officials

Local NGOsLocal CommunitiesOther Stakeholders

External ReviewersUNEP – World

Conservation MonitoringCentre(UNEP-

WCMC)Datasheet

IUCN Programme onProtected Areas

UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Figure 1: IUCN Evaluation Process

IUCN REPORT TO WORLD HERITAGECOMMITTEE

Page 11: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

A1 New Nominations

A. Nominations of Natural Properties to the World Heritage List

Page 12: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 13: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ARAB STATES

TOUBKAL

MOROCCO

Page 14: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 15: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

TOUBKAL (MOROCCO) ID N° 1168

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 1

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN requested supplementaryinformation following the IUCN World Heritage Panel on the 31 January 2006, and the State Partyresponse was received on the 28 March 2006.

iii) IUCN/WCMC Data Sheet: 4 References.

iv) Additional Documentation Consulted: Aubert J., 1956. Contribution à l’étude des Plécoptères d’Afriquedu Nord, Bulletin de la Société entomologique Suisse, CH, 17pp; Aubert J., 1961. Contribution à l’étudedes Plécoptères du Maroc, Bulletin de la Société entomologique Suisse, CH, 10pp; Maselli D., 1995.L’écosystème montagnard agro-sylvo-pastoral de Tagoundaft (Haut-Atlas occidental, Maroc) :ressources, processus et problèmes d’une utilisation durable, Geographica Bernensia, Universitéde Berne, CH, 198pp.; Galland N., 1988. Recherche sur l’origine de la flore orophile du Maroc, Etudecaryologique et cytogéographique, Travaux de l’Institut scientifique, Rabat, 169pp.; Galland N., 1990.Les taxons boréo-montagnards des hautes montagnes d’Afrique du Nord : leur significationbiogéographique pour les domaines atlasique et alpien, Rev. Valdotaine Hist. Nat., 7pp.; Higgins L.G.et Riley N.D., 1975. Guide des Papillons d’Europe, Rhopalocères, Delachaux et Niestlé Ed., Neuchâtelet Paris, 421pp.; Lamnaouer D., 2002. Programme de l’UICN en Afrique du Nord : Phase III, Etatd’avancement : Détermination des espèces en danger dans le Parc National d Toubkal, 8pp., http:www.chm.ma/gestion et conservation/parcs nationaux. htm; Lafontaine R.-M., Beudels - Jamar R.C. etDevillers P., 1999. Rapport sur l’état et les perspectives d’une espèce, Gazella cuvieri, in CMS TechnicalSeries Publication No 4, UNEP/CMS Secrétariat, Bonn, D.,10pp.; Shackleton D.M.,1997. Wild Sheepand Goats and their Relatives, Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Caprinae, UICN,Gland, CH et Cambridge, UK, 390 + VIIpp., (includes an article on Barbary Sheep in Morocco, IUCN/SSCCaprinae Specialist Group, pp 34-38); Boitani L. et al., 1999. Gazella cuvieri, Ammotragus lervia (in: ADatabank for the Conservation and Management of the African Mammals, European Commission etIEA-Istituto di Ecologia Applicata, Roma, I,) 8pp.; Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Luttecontre la Désertification, 2004. Parcs Nationaux et Réserves Naturelles du Maroc, Rabat, 21pp.; ElGraoui M., 2005. Catalogue, Le Patrimoine Rupestre Marocain, Ministère de la Culture, Centre Nationaldu Patrimoine Rupestre, 11 planches doubles + 4pp. de couvertures; El Graoui M., 2005. Sauvegarde etmise en valeur de l’aire rupestre de l’Oukaïmeden, (Haut-Atlas), projet du Ministère de la Culture,Direction du Patrimoine Culturel, Centre National du Patrimoine Rupestre, 10pp. (non publié).

v) Consultations: 9 external reviewers. The mission met with the Secretary General of the Ministry ofCulture, the Inspector of Historical Sites and Monuments of Marrakech (Ministry of Culture), the RegionalDirector for Water and Forests of the High Atlas, the Director of the Toubkal National Park, the Presidentof the District (Commune) of Toubkal, the President of Guides of Imlil Mountains and the Authorities ofthe Isle tribe.

vi) Field Visit : Pierre Goeldlin, December 2005

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: April 2006

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The nominated property, Toubkal, comprising ToubkalNational Park (TNP), is located in the Central High AtlasMountains, including the Djebel Toubkal, which at4,167m is the highest point of the Atlas Mountain Range,and the highest mountain in North Africa. The total areaof the nominated property is 103,678 ha, and includes a

core zone of 38,526ha and a buffer zone of 65,152 ha.The core area of the property is approximately 25 kmlong and 15 km wide. It is nearly entirely above an altitudeof 2,000m and includes a number of peaks that reachabove 3,000 m. A very small area located to the NorthWest of the core zone rises up from an altitude of 1,400m, and lies adjacent to the Takherkhort protected area,a part of the buffer zone of the nominated property.

Page 16: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Toubkal - Morocco

2 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

The High Atlas range was formed as the result of thecollision of the African plate against the Europeancontinent. The High Atlas range is more than 700 kmlong, is orientated along a West SW-East NE axis fromCape Gir on the Atlantic coast to the Algerian-Moroccoborder. It is divided into three sectors distinguished bytheir underlying geology; the Western High Atlas, thelargest portion of the Atlas where peaks do not rise above3,700 m, running from the western end of the Tizi-n-Test(Oued N’Fiss) mountain range; the Central High Atlas,including the highest peaks (Djebel Toubkal at 4167 m)extending from Tizi–n–Test to Tizi–n–Tichka; and theEastern High Atlas, from Tizi–n–Tichka to the easternend of the High Atlas mountain range (Galland N. 1988).The slopes of the Western High Atlas include areas ofcrystalline rocks as well as very large areas of schistand the Eastern High Atlas comprises foldedlimestones. By contrast, the high mountain ranges ofthe Central High Atlas comprise Precambrian volcanicrocks structures (Galland N. 1988), as well as Cambrianand Quaternary sedimentary strata.

TNP is part of the Mediterranean climatic realm, atemperate zone characterized by a dry summer seasonand a colder wet season. Precipitation ranges from 250-300 mm in lower elevation areas and 1200 mm at highelevations including snowfall (above 800-1,000 m inwinter).

A transect running from the foot of the nominated propertyto its highest peaks shows a bioclimatic transition fromthermomediterranean to an oromediterranean (Alpine)climate. At the foothills of the southern slopes of theTNP an inframediterranean or presaharian climate isfound, thus within a short distance there is a transitionfrom a hot desert climate to a cold desert climate. Thelatter climate is only found at the boundaries of the TNPand within its buffer zone. The High Atlas, and morespecifically the Toubkal mountain range, constitutes anatural climatic barrier between the Mediterraneanclimate of Morocco and the world’s largest hot desert,the Sahara.

525 species and sub-species of vascular plants, within67 plant families are found in the TNP. This represents43% of the known flora of the High Atlas and 13% ofMorocco’s flora. Overall, much of the flora may becategorized as being of Mediterranean origin, howeverseveral species, such as Spring and Fringed Gentianare also commonly found in northern and central Europeand even in Asia. The flora also includes limitedoccurrences of tropical species. The flora of the TNP ischaracterized by a high degree of endemism,comprising 154 taxa comprising 58% of the endemicspecies of the High Atlas and 25% of all endemicspecies found in Morocco.

The bulk of the nominated property lies above 2,000mand the landscape above this altitude is characterizedby a wooded steppe with thorn bushes. Some speciesof trees, including Juniper and Evergreen Oak haveadapted to this rugged environment and are found up to2,500 – 3,000 meters. The only flora above 3,000m aresparsely scattered grassy Moroccan species (35species in all, of which 25 are endemic). Sixty-onearomatic, medicinal, endemic, rare or endangeredplants are found in the TNP (D. Lamnaouer, 2002), of

which 23 species are considered to be extremely rare.Summer grazing by livestock is quite intense above thetreeline.

Only 12% of the TNP and its buffer zone is forested,though the forest is mainly secondary, fragmented,overgrazed and over-exploited. Forests include BerberThuya, endemic to the Magreb (with a few scatteredstands reported in Malta and in the southeastern partsof Spain), Red Juniper, Evergreen oak, Juniper and thehighly threatened Atlas Cypress, endemic to Moroccoand the Aghbar forest (5000 ha) located in the N’Fissvalley at the extreme western edge of the buffer zone.

Most of the bird fauna of the TNP is Palearctic. 95 nestingspecies have been reported including several raptorssuch as Bearded Vulture, Egyptian Vulture, GoldenEagle, Bonelli’s Eagle and Booted Eagle. In all, twelvespecies of raptors exist in the TNP. Several species andsub-species of butterflies have been described, six ofwhich are endemic to Morocco. Fourteen species ofamphibians and 15 species of reptiles have beenreported in the TNP region, including seven endemic toMorocco. Nineteen of these amphibians and reptilesare likely to inhabit the central zone of the TNP, mostothers are found in the buffer zone.

The nomination document lists 33 mammals based onthe Overall Management Plan for Morocco’s ProtectedAreas (Plan Directeur des Aires Protégées du Maroc(1992)). Since the presence of certain species in theTNP is based on old literature, the actual number isuncertain but could be lower. Three of the 33 speciesmentioned in the list are vulnerable, namely: Barbarysheep, Horseshoe Bat and Barbary Ape. Finally theCuvier’s Gazelle is classified as endangered. It shouldbe noted that the nomination document has a numberof information gaps for several species.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

Since 1978 the Committee has inscribed 71 mountainWorld Heritage properties, making it the bestrepresented biome in the World Heritage List. Fromthese 8 properties are in the Afrotropical BiogeographicalRegion (Udvardy, 1976), where the nominated propertyis located. TNP has been nominated under criteria (i),(ii) and (iv).

In relation to criterion (i) the geology of the property ischaracterized by Cambrian and Quaternary strata.These geological periods are well represented alreadyon the World Heritage list with properties that includethe best examples of such periods, such as BurgessShale in the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)for the Cambrian, and Naracoorte in the Australian FossilMammal Sites (Australia) for the Quaternary. While thenomination argues that another key feature of the propertyis that it represents the result of the collision of the Africanplate against the European continent, this is in fact acommon origin for most mountain ranges on the planet.Besides, a number of World Heritage properties alreadyrepresent the best examples of tectonic and structuralfeatures, such as Gros Morne National Park (Canada);

Page 17: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Toubkal - Morocco ID N° 1168

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 3

Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park and Macquarie Island(Australia); and the Three Parallel Rivers of YunnanProtected Areas (China), just to mention a few. The IUCNGlobal Thematic Study on Geological Heritage (IUCN,2005) has not identified this as a priority area.

Criterion (i) makes reference to the existance ofsignificant geomorphic or physiographic featureswhich represent the landscape products of active orpast processes, which can be identified as significantphysical landscape features. The nominated propertyrepresents a portion of the Atlas Mountain range but, asnoted above, this biome is well represented in the WorldHeritage List by more impressive examples such asSagarmatha National Park (Nepal, including MountEverest the highest peak in the world with 8,848m);Huascaran National Park (Peru, at 6,768m); KilimanjaroNational Park (Tanzania, including the highest peak inAfrica at 5,963m); Rwenzori Mountains National Park(Uganda, with 5,109m in Mount Margherita) andYosemite National Park (USA, with a number of peaksover 4,000m). All these examples also include a numberof other outstanding geomorphological features suchas deep gorges and glacial features. TNP is only the23rd highest peak in Africa (highest in North Africa/Atlas)and the Atlas Mountains are the third highest range inAfrica. Overall IUCN concludes that TNP is of nationaland regional importance but not of OutstandingUniversal Value (OUV) in relation to this criterion.

In relation to criterion (ii) one key element considered byIUCN in assessing OUV of mountain properties is theextent to which nominated properties are able to protectecological processes occurring within mountainecosystems. In this regard TNP is far below the mediansize of mountain World Heritage properties which is285,000ha. The nomination argues the case forconsideration of OUV based on its interest as a climaticbarrier. In fact this is a common feature of mountainranges as they normally produce such an effect in localand regional climatic conditions. There are othermountain ranges already represented in the WorldHeritage List that have the same “climatic barrier”features as the High Atlas. For instance, the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn (Switzerland), where on theBernese side there is high precipitation while on theRhône valley (Valais) side to the south, the climate isthe driest found in Switzerland. A similar influence isassociated with the mountains within the HumboldtNational Park (Cuba) which captures at its northern-most part over 90% of the rain occurring in this area,thus creating in its southern portion a desert area withless than 400mm of rain per year. Furthermore, thereare other World Heritage mountain properties that exhibitand maintain much more complex ecological processessuch as Huanglong in China, which protects snow-capped peaks, glaciers, a variety of forests ecosystemsand karst processes. Also Lorentz National Park(Indonesia) is the only protected area in the world toprotect a continous transect from snowcap to tropicalmarine environments, including extensive lowlandwetlands. IUCN therefore considers that TNP is ofregional importance but not of global significance inrelation to criterion (ii).

In relation to criterion (iv) the nomination reported thepresence in TNP of 525 species and sub-species ofvascular plants (29% are endemics), 33 mammals, 95nesting species of birds; 14 species of amphibians and15 species of reptiles. As noted above, the nominationpresents major gaps in relation to biodiversity data,thus making it difficult for IUCN to make a properassessment of this criterion. However, it is unlikely thatTNP would rank highly in relation to this criterion whencompared to other mountain properties on the WorldHeritage List. For example: Waterton GlacierInternational Peace Park (Canada/USA) comprises 5large ecoregions that provide habitats for 1,258 speciesof vascular plants, 280 birds and 60 mammals; and theThree Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas (China)protects 6,000 plants in 22 vegetation types, 173mammals, 414 birds, 59 reptiles, 36 amphibians and76 species of fish. Other mountain properties on theWorld Heritage List have a higher percentage of endemicspecies; for example, 67% of species in the HumboltNational Park (Cuba) are endemic.

Finally it is important to note that the IUCN GlobalThematic Study on Mountain Protected Areas, whichidentified potential properties which may meritconsideration for World Heritage listing (IUCN, 2002),did not identify this property as having potential formeeting natural criteria for OUV. This study in fact notedthe potential of this property to be considered as aBiosphere Reserve due to the human population livingin and around its boundaries.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal Status and ownership

The TNP was established under the name “ParcNational du Toubkal” on the 19 January 1942, by a VizirialOrder. This had been preceded by two Vizirial Orders onthe 11 of September and on the 26th of September 1934defining the procedure that had to be followed to createa National Park. The TNP was established with an areaof 36,000 ha which today represents the central zone. Atpresent, only a general code of good conduct that doesnot have force of law governs the behavior of visitors tothe area. The law on forests (1917) specifically allows acitizen to use the wood and pasture areas in forestedzones. This law is not conductive to, or coherent with,the sustainable management of natural resources.Several subsequent Dahirs (Vizirial Orders) haveamended this law in order to reinforce it in relation toforest conservation.

Supplementary information provided by the State Partyhas confirmed that at the present time there is no specificlegal protection for either the TNP or its buffer zone. TheState Party considers there are difficulties in bothinstituting and enforcing such protection due to the levelsof human use within the area. Nevertheless, a lawestablishing the status of National Park and othercategories of protected areas is currently being reviewed,and, if adopted, will permit the development of bothmeasures to secure better protection and effectivemanagement of the area.

Page 18: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Toubkal - Morocco

4 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Land ownership within the TNP area is understood tobe 10 % in private hands; 33% in common lands and57% in public forest domains.

4.2 Boundaries

The boundaries of the TNP have been slightly modifiedrecently to integrate certain significant topographicfeatures and contour lines, to facilitate its control andmanagement. There are plans to mark its boundarieswith posts. Most of the TNP’s boundaries are above2,000m and above the tree line, which is not favorablefor many species with habitat requirements that arelarger than TNP and its buffer zone. There are severalrivers and streams within the buffer zone that have beenclassified as sites with specific biological and ecologicalinterest (SIBE-sites d’intérêt biologique et écologique).In addition there areas of rare vegetation, such as thecypress forest of Aghbar, which are of scientific andconservation interest and their inclusion within the TNPwould allow their protection. Overall IUCN considers thatthe boundaries of the property are not adequate to ensurethe protection of its values, particularly its wildlife.

4.3 Management

The TNP is managed by the Regional Directorate forWater, Forest and Conservation of Soils of the Ministryof Agriculture, through the Parks’ Management unit. Atri-annual management plan (2005-2008) has beenprepared and is being implemented; however the legalstatus of this plan is not clear from the nominationdocument. The management unit directly in charge ofimplementing the plan is currently understaffed and thelevel of management is low. The management zoningof the TNP is based on a central zone and a buffer zone.The central zone is further sub-divided into three typesof zones: natural protected zones, natural managedsanctuaries and managed natural resource zones. Thisimplies that different human activities such as nomadicgrazing, collecting of firewood and tourism are permitedwithin the central zone of TNP but the lack of adequatecontrol and management of these activities are in factthreatening the sustainability of the Park’s naturalresources. On the other hand the management andprotection regime of the buffer zone is based on thegoodwill of the local population that lives in or close tothis area. The buffer zone does not have the legalframework nor the management capacity required tofully fuction as a true buffer zone for the park. It would bevery useful to develop and implement a set of rulesgoverning the use and management of this area so thatit could become an effective buffer zone for the TNP andcontribute towards the sustainable development of theregion.

4.4 Threats

Key threats to TNP are mainly associated with theimpacts of land use practices. Erosion of the landscapeand the loss of a considerable forested biomass due tocutting of wood for domestic use, as well as large-scaleclear cutting for the production of charcoal, have occurred.Significant erosion has reduced the availability ofpastureland and in particular the evergreen oak areas.Loss of biological productivity and a higher human

population in the area has led to more intense grazingby livestock which in turn leads to loss of forest coverand overgrazing of the open areas. The carrying capacityof the area has been greatly exceeded which hasaccelerated soil erosion.

It has been estimated (based on a 1993 census) thatup to 32,000 inhabitants live in the buffer zone of theTNP. Only one village, Amenzel, is located inside TNP’scentral zone. Overall, 55% of the total population live onthe northern slopes of the mountain range and is verypoor, depending on a local subsistence economy forsurvival.

The overuse of water for irrigation could lead to problemswith the natural freshwater ecosystems of the area.Because of increased human populations, rivers arebeing increasingly polluted by livestock and otherinappropriate human activities.

The area’s key species of fauna are affected by habitatdestruction, illegal hunting as well as threats due toferal dogs, and these factors also impede conservationefforts and reintroduction programmes for certain gamespecies. The collection of medicinal and aromatic plantsby pulling the plants out of the ground is threatening thesurvival of many rare and/or endemic species.

Tourism is gradually increasing. If it is not strictlyregulated within a framework of rules and regulations itwill develop inappropriately and will threaten the area’snatural and cultural values. This is already happeningwith the cave drawings in Oukaïmeden.

At the present time, IUCN concludes that the nominatedproperty does not meet conditions of integrity.

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

There are a number of cultural values such as cavedrawings, dry stone wall terraces, traditional villages(douars) that require attention in preparing andimplementing an integrated management plan for thisarea.

Two UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are located close tothe nominated property, namely: The Oasis du SudMarocain Biosphere Reserve and the ArganeraieBiosphere Reserve that includes the world’s only forestof Argania spinosa. The TNP has excellent potential asa Biosphere Reserve and could potentially be linkedwith these Biosphere Reserves.

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENTOF SIGNIFICANCE

Toubkal is nominated on the basis of natural criteria (i),(ii), and (iv).

Criterion (i) Earth history and geological features

Page 19: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Toubkal - Morocco ID N° 1168

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 5

The geology of the nominated property is characterizedby Cambrian and Quaternary strata. These geologicalperiods are well represented already on the WorldHeritage List with properties that include the bestexamples of such periods. Whilst the nomination arguesthat another key feature of the property is that itrepresents the result of the collision of the African plateagainst the European continent, this is in fact a commonorigin for most mountain ranges on the planet. Moreover,a number of World Heritage properties already representthe best examples of tectonic and structural features.TNP is only the 23rd highest peak in Africa and the AtlasMountains are the third highest range in Africa, thus thereare other World Heritage properties, as well as othermountain protected areas, that display more impressiveand complex geomorphological features. The IUCNGlobal Thematic Study on Geological Heritage has notidentified this as a priority area. IUCN considers that thenominated property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (ii) Ecological processes

TNP does not have a size that allows it to protect the keyecological processes occurring on this mountain range.The nomination argues the case for OutstandingUniversal Value based on its interest as a climatic barrier.In fact this is a common feature of mountain ranges asthey normally produce such effects in local and regionalclimatic conditions. There are other mountain rangesalready represented in the World Heritage List that havethe same “climatic barrier” features as the High Atlas.Furthermore there are other World Heritage propertiesthat exhibit and maintain much more complex ecologicalprocesses, such as Lorentz National Park (Indonesia),which is the only protected area in the world to protect acontinous transect from snowcap to tropical marineenvironments, including extensive lowland wetlands.IUCN considers that the nominated property does notmeet this criterion.

Criterion (iv) Biodiversity and threatened species

The nomination presents major gaps in relation to dataon biodiversity, making it difficult for IUCN to make aproper assessment of this criterion. However, it isunlikely that TNP would rank highly in relation to thiscriterion when compared to other mountain propertiesinscribed in the World Heritage List on the basis of thiscriterion which protect habitats comprising highernumber of species of flora and fauna, as well as higherpercentages of endemism. IUCN considers that thenominated property does not meet this criterion.

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends the World Heritage Committee notto inscribe Toubkal on the World Heritage List on thebasis of natural criteria.

IUCN further recommends that the World HeritageCommittee encourage the State Party to address therange of issues impacting on the integrity of ToubkalNational Park, and take the following actions:

a) To provide effective legal protection for ToubkalNational Park, and other protected areas inMorocco;

b) To reinforce Toubkal National Park’smanagement capacity both in relation to humanand financial resources;

c) To implement suitable measures to bring the useof natural resources in Toubkal National Park andits buffer zone within sustainable limits; and

d) To consider the scope for including ToubkalNational Park within the framework of otherBiosphere Reserves existing in this region.

Page 20: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Toubkal - Morocco

6 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: Location of nominated property

Page 21: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Toubkal - Morocco ID N° 1168

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 7

Map 2: Boundaries of nominated property

Page 22: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 23: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ASIA / PACIFIC

SICHUAN GIANT PANDA SANCTUARYWOLONG, MT. SIGUNIANG AND JIAJIN MOUNTAINS

CHINA

Page 24: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 25: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

SICHUAN GIANT PANDA SANCTUARY – WOLONG, MT. SIGUNIANG AND JIAJIN MOUNTAINS(CHINA) - ID N° 1213

INTRODUCTORY NOTE: This is the third time the State Party (China) has nominated a natural World Heritageproperty for the protection of Giant Pandas. Parts of the currently nominated property have been included within thetwo previous nominations, specifically the Wolong National Nature Reserve (nominated in 1986 as the WolongGiant Panda Reserve) and the Mt Qingcheng and Dujiangyan National Park (nominated in 2000 as part of the MtQingcheng and Dujiangyan Irrigation System). In both cases the World Heritage Committee noted the potential ofthe property to meet natural criteria but deferred the proposal to enable the State Party to bring forward a largernomination and to address management issues.

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April, 2005

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN requested supplementaryinformation on the 28 October, 2005 following the IUCN Evaluation Mission. The State Party response wasreceived on 5 December, 2005, including revised boundaries and responses to all the issues raised bythe IUCN mission. Additional information was requested from the State Party on 31 January, 2006 followingthe IUCN World Heritage Panel meeting in January 2006. A response to this request was received from theState Party on 23 March, 2006.

iii) IUCN / WCMC Data Sheet: five references

iv) Additional Literature Consulted : IUCN/WWF. 1995 Centres of Plant Diversity. Vol. 2; MacKinnon, J., Xie Y.,Lysenko s., Chape S., May I., and Brown C. GIS Assessment of the Status of Protected Areas in EastAsia. IUCN/UNEP-WCMC; Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Gustavo, A.B., Kent, J., 2000.Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853-8; Thorsell, J., and Hamilton, L., 2002. AGlobal Overview of Mountain Protected Areas on the World Heritage List. Working Paper 6. IUCN; Xie,Y., Wang S., and Schei, P. (Eds), (2004) China’s Protected Areas. China Council for InternationalCooperation on Environment and Development; Mackinnon, J. et al 1996. A Biodiversity Review of China.WWF; Ministry of Construction (2002); China State Environmental Protection Administration (1998). China’sBiodiversity: A Country Study, China Environmental Science Press, Beijing

v) Consultations : 15 external reviewers. Extensive consultations were undertaken in China during the fieldvisit, including with representatives of relevant government agencies, local communities, researchers andother stakeholders.

vi) Field visit : David Sheppard and Bill Bleisch, September/October 2005.

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: 11 April, 2006

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 9

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The nominated property, the Sichuan Giant PandaSanctuary (SGPS), is located in the Qionglai and JiajinMountains between the Chengdu Plateau and theQinghai-Tibetan Plateau. It fringes the Sichuan basinon the west and is located approximately 100 km fromChengdu City. SGPS includes seven nature reservesand nine scenic parks in four prefectures and covers anarea of 924,500 ha, surrounded by a buffer zone of527,100 ha. The high ranges of the Qionglai Mountainsare predominantly Triassic siltstone, limestone andslate, while the western half of the Jiajin Mountains, theircontinuation to the south, are mainly Permo-carboniferous rock. On the east side of the mountains

the land is heavily ridged, forested and deeply dissectedby the valleys and gorges of perennial rivers falling fromthe glaciated snow-covered peaks and alpinemeadows. The range of landforms within the nominatedproperty contributes to its high scenic value. More than20 special scenic areas have been identified within theproperty, each possessing its own unique features.These include steep forested valleys, scenic rivers, rockycrags, wide alpine meadows and the mountain peaksof Mt Siguniang.

Fauna: The nominated property protects the main habitatof the giant panda, which is recognized as a “NationalTreasure” of China and is a flagship for global

Page 26: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China

10 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

conservation efforts. The giant panda is listed as anendangered species under the IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species and is inscribed as a Class 1Protected Animal by the Chinese Government. Thisspecies is a relict species from the paleo-tropic forestsof the Tertiary Era and has evolved into a uniquespecialized herbivore of the Order Carnivora. The giantpanda feeds almost exclusively on bamboo in the wildand its preferred habitat is between 2,200m to 3,200m.As a unique single species and family the giant pandais highly significant in taxonomy and is very importantfor studying mammal classification and evolution. Withinthe nominated property the main centres of giant pandapopulation are in the Wolong Reserve in Wenchuancounty in the northeast; Fengtongzhai Reserve in Baoxingcounty in the southeast; and in Mt. Jiajin Provincial Parkin the Jiajin Mountains to the southwest. The nominatedproperty features a number of other endemic andthreatened animal species. There are 542 species ofvertebrates, including 109 species of mammals in 25families (more than 20 % of all Chinese mammals).Globally endangered mammals, apart from the giantpanda, are the red panda, the snow leopard and cloudedleopard. The nominated property is an important centreof endemism for some bird taxa and features 365 birdsin 45 families, 300 of which breed locally.

Flora: The total flora of the nominated property is between5,000 and 6,000 species in over 1,000 genera. 50genera are endemic to China (20% of its total) and 67plant species are nationally protected. The reasons forthis diversity include the wide range of different habitattypes afforded by the large altitudinal range, sharpclimatic gradation, the variety of rock and soil types andthe wide and complex connections with other majorfloristic regions. Within the nominated property there are794 angiosperm genera, (77% of China’s total), 24gymnosperm, 70 pteridophyte and 102 bryophytegenera. Many species are relicts, isolated during theextreme climatic fluctuations of the Pleistocene in themoisture trap created by the high plateau to the west.The nominated property has many representatives ofplants with long evolutionary histories; species such asthe dove tree are often referred to as living fossils. It isprobable that there are many species yet to bediscovered. The nominated property is a significantglobal diversity centre for many plant groups such asroses, peonies, magnolias, maples, primroses,bamboos and rhododendrons. More than 100 speciesof rhododendron are listed for the area. Of the property’s22 orchid species, nearly 40% are endemic. Manywestern ornamental garden plants were discovered inthese mountains. The property is a major source andgene pool for hundreds of traditional medicinal plants,many now rare and endangered.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

Comparison for giant panda conservation: There isparticular emphasis on the importance of the propertyas habitat for the giant panda. The giant panda occursonly in China in a very narrow belt within WesternSichuan, south western Gansu and southern Shaanxi.It is estimated that the nominated property includesapproximately 500 giant pandas representing more than30% of the global population (1,600 Pandas). Giant

pandas are conserved in nearly 40 other nature reservesin China, including the nature reserves in MinshanMountains, Qinling Mountains, Liangshan Mountainsand Xiangling Mountains. However, the nominatedproperty constitutes the largest and most significantremaining contiguous area of panda habitat in Chinaand thus the world. It is also the most important sourceof giant panda for establishing the captive breedingpopulation of the species. The presence of giant pandaswithin the nominated property and in other naturereserves in China underlines the importance of effectivelandscape level planning which protects the habitatwithin these reserves, and the areas between them, toensure the long term survival of the giant panda.

Worldwide comparison with similar World Heritageproperties: The nominated property features significantaltitudinal zonation, with an altitudinal range of 5,670m,from the subtropical, through temperate to alpine zones.A comparable altitudinal zonation exists in the ThreeParallel Rivers World Heritage property in Yunnan, China(5,980m), which also rises from the subtropical to thealpine, and in Kinabalu Park in Malaysia (3,943m). Figure1 compares flora, bird and mammal species of thenominated property with other comparable WorldHeritage properties worldwide, (including Kilimanjarowith a range of 4,065m and the temperate site ofYosemite).

The nominated property compares favourably with othercomparable World Heritage property. The concentrationof diversity on Kinabalu, a property of three-quarters thearea, is similar, but its iconic mammal, the orang-utan,is more widely dispersed in Malaysia and Indonesiathan the panda is in central China. The nominatedproperty is one of the botanically richest sites of anytemperate region in the world or indeed anywhereoutside of the tropical rain forests. It is important for birdconservation and two Endemic Bird Areas (as definedby Birdlife International) occur within the nominatedproperty. This significance is reinforced by itsclassification as one of the world’s top 25 BiodiversityHotspots selected by Conservation International (CI)(Myers et al, 2000) and as one of the Global 200Ecoregions defined by WWF. Underlining thecomparative importance is the large size of thenominated property and the fact that it protects a widevariety of topography, geology, and plant and animalspecies.

Comparison with other World Heritage properties inChina: Four other Chinese World Heritage propertieshave been inscribed under natural criterion (iv): MountEmei Scenic Area, Mount Huangshan, Mount Wuyi andthe Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan. Comparativebiodiversity data are summarized in the Figure 2 below.

The nominated property has significantly higherbiodiversity values and global significance than all otherChinese World Heritage properties except the ThreeParallel Rivers of Yunnan property, which is much larger.In addition, the nominated property has some featuresin common with Jiuzhaigou (72,000 ha) and Huanglong(70,000 ha), both within the Minshan in northern Sichuan.These properties are primarily listed for their scenicbeauty and geochemical phenomenon, especially theirtravertine terraces and pools. They are high altitude

Page 27: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 11

ytreporpegatireHdlroW )ah(eziS tnalPseiceps

lammaMseiceps

seicepsdriB

)ASU(enotswolleY 002,998 050,1 85 092

)ASU(.P.NetimesoY 002,803 004,1> 47 032

)ASU(.P.NcipmylO 006,963 005 05 081

)ASU(.P.NsniatnuoMykomStaerG 000,902 005,1 05> 002>

)lapeN(.P.NahtamragaS 000,332 0002.c 82 251

)aisyalaM(kraPulabaniK 003,57 000,6-000,5 211 623

)ainaznaT(P.NorajnamiliK 003,81 005,2 041 971

ytreporPdetanimoN 005,429 000,4> 231 563>

ytreporpegatireHdlroW )ah(eziS tnalPseiceps

lammaMseiceps

driBseiceps

aerAcinecSiemEtnuoM 004,51 002,3 15 652

nahsgnauHtnuoM 004,51 008.c 84 071

iyuWtnuoM 579,99 888,2 17 652

sreviRlellaraPeerhT 000,086,1 000,6 371 714

ytreporPdetanimoN 005,429 000,4> 231 563>

properties and do not have the altitudinal range,topographical complexity and biodiversity of thenominated property.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal Status

The nominated property is covered by a range of lawsand regulations at national and provincial levels. Theseinclude the “Regulations of the People’s Republic ofChina on Nature Reserves” and “Regulations on theManagement of Nature Reserves of Sichuan Province”.A specific regulation relating to protection of WorldHeritage in Sichuan Province has been developed, toapply to the nominated property, and this represents thefirst of its kind in China. These regulations provide anadequate legal framework for protection of the nominatedproperty. The challenge is to ensure their effectiveimplementation and to ensure there is effectivecoordination between all relevant agencies andstakeholders.

4.2 Boundaries

The boundaries of the nominated property have beendesigned to maximise the protection of panda habitatbased on the latest panda survey data, carried out in2003-2004, as well as the distribution of existing natural

habitat. The original boundary of the nominated propertyincluded towns, agricultural development and a numberof infrastructure developments. The issue of boundarieswas discussed in detail by the IUCN evaluation missionin October 2005, and IUCN requested the boundariesof the nominated property be revised to address anumber of key issues. An amended boundary wassubmitted by the State Party in December 2005 torespond to these points. The key features of the newboundary are that it has been revised to:

(a) Allow a clearer and simpler zonation: The boundaryof the nomination has been revised to delineate thestrictly protected core zone and a surrounding buffer zonein which agriculture and some other human activitiesare allowed. Only the core area constitutes thenominated property.

(b) Exclude towns, villages, agriculture land, majorinfrastructures and sites of high impact tourism: Thetownships of Wolong (Shawan) and Gengde within theWolong Nature Reserve are now excluded from thenominated property. All other townships are locatedoutside the boundary of the nominated property. The oldTibetan town of Yaoji lies in the centre of the nominatedarea. The town has extensive agricultural farmland andit is proposed to build a dam and establish a 400 hareservoir at this site. This site is therefore not suitablefor inclusion within the World Heritage property and isexcluded as an enclave. This is discussed further underpoint 4.4 below. The earlier proposed boundary has been

Figure 1. Comparison of nominated property to other comparable World Heritage properties worldwide

Figure 2. Comparison of nominated property to other comparable World Heritage properties in China

Page 28: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China

12 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

adjusted at several other peripheral valleys whereagricultural lands need to be excluded from the WorldHeritage property. An exception is made for the valley ofDengchigou. Although this valley is largely agriculturaland houses a number of farmers, it constitutes a veryimportant scientific type locality collecting site. Themarble mines of Guobaiyan (Baiyunshan andHongjunzhandao) are excluded as enclaves from thenominated property. Other small scattered mines andfactories within the nominated property will be closed,infrastructure removed and the areas rehabilitated. Otherminor infrastructure exists within the nominated property,including roads, bridges, trails, scattered farms andwater pipes and electricity pylons. Approval of thisnomination would give the management agenciesgreater authority to control and, where necessary,eliminate their impacts and allow habitat restoration.The total of such partially disturbed areas remains lessthan 5% of the area of the nominated property. The longterm objective should be to relocate or removeinfrastructure which is not essential for on goingmanagement of the property.

(c) Coincide with existing reserve boundaries, particularlycore zones: The nominated property corresponds withthe boundaries of a number of existing protected areas,apart from a few areas of state forest lands that will beadded for reasons of size and completeness. A processshould be initiated to complete the boundaryrationalization, including the addition of areas of stateforest and other areas, to ensure that all areas withinthe nominated property have the highest level ofprotective status. This should be completed within aperiod of two years.

(d) Include the most important habitats for conservation,particularly for panda conservation: The boundaries ofthe nominated property have been designed to maximisethe protection of giant panda habitat based on the latestpanda survey data, carried out in 2003-4, as well as thedistribution of existing natural habitat. ConservationInternational (CI) has undertaken a GIS overlay exerciseto identify areas of high biodiversity priority and two verydetailed surveys of giant pandas (survey 2: 1986-8 andsurvey 3: 1998-2002) give precise locations of the extentof giant panda occupation. The data points from boththese surveys have been overlaid over the boundarymaps and satellite background to show the contiguityand degree of inclusion achieved. Minor boundaryrevisions have marginally improved this cover andopened up future potential for eventually relinking theQionglai panda populations with other populations inMinshan (across the Min River in Dujiangyan sector)and with populations in south east Tianquan; as well asto narrow the gap at Baoxing township whereoccasionally pandas may cross the Baoxing river.Accordingly, the revised boundary now constitutes themost important portion of remaining giant panda habitatsout of the mountain systems still containing wild pandas.It has the largest connected area of occupied giant pandahabitat in Sichuan, the largest area of suitable “potential”habitat for giant panda and is less fragmented than othermountain ranges in Sichuan.

4.3 Management

General Government agencies at different levels inChina have shown great enthusiasm and commitmentto safeguard the biodiversity values of the nominatedproperty. It is important that this enthusiasm is matchedwith a commitment to ensure the nominated property isadequately staffed and resourced. The level ofmanagement between the different components of thenominated property varies considerably at present, withthe highest level of management at the Wolong NatureReserve and with lower levels of management in theother reserves within the nominated property.

Management Plan A management plan has beenprepared for the nominated property and has thefollowing goal: “The biodiversity, ecosystem and habitatof the giant panda will be effectively protected in theworld heritage site and social and economicdevelopment of the human population in the area willbe harmonized with the natural environment guidelinesfor the area and for management of different types ofuse”. The management plan identifies a number ofmanagement objectives and a zoning plan which flowfrom this goal. There is a general aim of maintaining ahigher standard of protection within the core zone, andalso to avoid further habitat fragmentation and loss ofconnectivity, particularly between centers of current giantpanda distribution. The management plan is acomprehensive document and provides a soundframework for site management. However, managementarrangements within the nominated property arecomplex, including seven nature reserves and ninescenic parks in four prefectures and a range of differentprefectural, provincial and national governmentmanagement agencies. Effective coordination, as wellas the clarification of responsibilities of the differentagencies involved, will be essential if the managementplan is to be effectively implemented.

World Heritage Management Committee (WHMC) Themanagement plan establishes a mechanism to achievecoordination, through the establishment of a WorldHeritage Management Committee formed under theProvincial Government. With this arrangement amanagement office has been established under theDepartment of Construction with executive responsibilityfor management of World Heritage properties. TheWHMC will play a particularly significant role in relationto: building consensus among individual agencies;developing and coordinating new managementprogrammes; and monitoring the effectiveness ofconservation efforts. It is essential that the WHMC begiven sufficient powers and has real authority andfinancial resources to ensure it can carry out its roleeffectively. Direct involvement of national government inWorld Heritage management and in the Committee isessential in providing authority and coordination tostrengthen site management. In particular, the centralMinistry of Construction Office should play a strong role.The WHMC must be involved in the review and approvalof major development proposals which may impact onthe natural values of the nominated property. In addition,any subsequent revision of the management plan andassociated site development plans within the nominatedproperty should be approved by the WHMC.

Page 29: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 13

Staffing and training: There are currently more than 500conservation staff working within the nominated property,including more than 40 senior professional staff. Themajority of these staff work in the Wolong NatureReserve. It is important that the level of staffing isprogressively increased within all reserves within thenominated property, with the aim of ensuring the level ofstaffing and management is equivalent to that within theWolong Nature Reserve within a ten year period. Trainingshould be based on a training needs assessment, andshould be coordinated through the Sichuan WorldHeritage Administration Office. It should include aspectssuch as training in basic protected areas skills, such asmonitoring and the application of GIS methods, as wellas the development of study tours and trainingworkshops to other relevant natural World Heritageproperties to broaden the experience of local staff.

Budget: The funding for protected area managementwithin the nominated property from 1963 to 2000 wasRMB 320,000,000 (USD 38,325,000 at 2000 rates). Thisfunding is provided from the national government, theSichuan Provincial government, and from relevantprefectural and county governments. In addition therehas been substantial donor investment, particularlywithin the Wolong Nature Reserve. From 2003 to 2010the projected budget is RMB 1,956,000,000 (about USD233,500,000). This increased funding proposedappears to be adequate but this should be regularlyreviewed. It is important that: (a) funding is allocated inline with the provisions of the management plan for theproperty; (b) that current levels of government funding,at all levels, are increased; and (c) that planning andimplementation of the budget for the nominated propertyis overseen by the WHMC.

4.4 Threats

Dam Construction at Yaoji: The town of Yaoji is locatedin a valley in the middle of Baoxing county just south ofWolong, thus placing it within the geographic centre ofthe nominated property. Yaoji has been a Tibetan townfor hundreds of years and agricultural developmentaround the town is of long standing. Giant pandas haveretreated to higher elevations where there are widehabitat connections on both the north-west and south-east sides of the valley. This area has limited naturalvalues and has been excluded from the nominatedproperty as an enclave. It is noted that the World HeritageCommittee has previously approved the inscription ofenclaves within natural World Heritage properties, suchas is in relation to the Kakadu National Park in Australia.Plans are well advanced to build a hydroelectric dam atYaoji and to establish a 400 ha reservoir at this site. Thetown of Yaoji is adjacent to the proposed dam site andthe State Party provided the following advice on the damat Yaoji in December, 2005 and in March 2006: (a) damconstruction and associated flooding will displaceapproximately 2,000 people who will be resettled withinthe boundary of the enclave, within existing farmlandand degraded secondary forest/scrub land; a re-settlement plan has been developed and is beingimplemented; (b) the dam impoundment, when it is fullat a height of 2,140m, is entirely within the boundary ofthe enclave and does not encroach on the nominatedproperty; (c) water from the dam will be channeled along18 km of low bore (3-4 meters diameter) underground

pipes which will be tunneled several hundred metersdeep through the mountains and will not affect the surfacevegetation or panda habitat above; (d) The StateEnvironmental Protection Authority will undertakehydrological monitoring of the river; and (e) there is nopanda habitat loss involved in the construction of thisdam.

It appears that dam construction will not have a majorimpact on the nominated property, in view of the fact thatimpacts are concentrated within the existing enclave.There may be potential for indirect impact on thenominated property but this cannot be ascertained atthis stage. Should the property be inscribed on the WorldHeritage List, it is critical that: (a) the impact of the damand the associated relocation of people from Yaoji, onthe values of the property be closely monitored; (b)effective mitigation measures are applied to minimizethe impacts associated with dam construction, theimpoundment and the relocation of the village; wherepossible measures to encourage the establishment ofpanda habitat should be implemented; and (c) impactsand mitigation measures be assessed two years afterinscription.

Ecotourism and the Wolong Tourism Development Plan:There is considerable potential for the growth of tourismwithin and adjacent to the nominated property. Forexample, it is reported that the tourist growth to thenominated property exceeded 48% (from 430,000 to640,000) over the last three year period. Tourism canhave both positive and negative impacts and it isessential that it is carefully planned and sympathetic tothe values of the property. There are a number ofproposals to develop tourism within and adjacent to thenominated property. The nomination document notesthat 12 scenic resources are ‘to be developed’ withinthe nominated property and there are currently majortourism proposals, within the Wolong Valley,concentrated in two towns, Wolong (Shawan) andGengda, through the development and implementationof the Wolong Tourism Development Plan. This Planincludes proposals for major development, includingexpansion of accommodation, up to a limit of 7,300 beds.The appropriateness of some of the proposeddevelopments has been questioned such as proposalsto build a cable car in Panda Valley. The followingprinciples should apply to the development of tourismwithin the property: (a) all major tourism developmentand associated infrastructure should be outside thenominated property, and should be located either withinthe buffer zone or adjacent areas; (b) clear limits shouldbe established on tourism development, specificallyaccommodation, within and adjacent to the nominatedproperty; (c) carrying capacity limits should be definedfor sensitive natural areas within and adjacent to theproperty; and (d) the focus on tourism development withinand adjacent to the nominated property should be toencourage appreciation and understanding of thenatural values of the property, particularly the importantrole of the property in panda conservation; and (e) anyincome deriving from tourism in and adjacent to thenominated property should benefit conservation effortswithin the property. In relation to the Wolong TourismDevelopment Plan it is considered that an independentexpert review should be undertaken of the existing plan,under the direction of the World Heritage Management

Page 30: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China

14 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Office, to assess the impacts of the proposals on valueswithin the nominated property and to recommendmodifications that may be required.

Road Construction - Yingxiu – Xiaojin road: There iscurrently a proposal to upgrade the county road that nowcrosses from Yingxiu through Wolong Nature Reserve,across Balangshan Pass and down to Xiaojin.Upgrading will involve widening parts of the road andalso developing a 10 km tunnel at the Balangshan Pass.Alternative routes are currently under consideration forthis tunnel. This road is currently located within the bufferzone and within part of the nominated property. Thedevelopment of a tunnel at Balangshan Pass will reducetraffic flow across the pass and would thus reduce noisepollution and disturbance to alpine fauna, flora andenvironment. An environmental impact study has beenundertaken and a number of mitigation measuresproposed. It is not anticipated that there would be majoradverse impact on the values of the nominated propertyfrom this upgrading. However, there may be potential forincreased traffic flow within the Wolong Valley and thisshould be carefully monitored by the World HeritageManagement Office.

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

5.1 Scientific Research and Education

The nominated property is very important for researchand education. Substantial research programmes havebeen implemented within parts of the nominatedproperty, particularly within the Wolong Nature Reserve,for many years. A number of national panda surveys havebeen conducted and these have progressively improvedthe state of knowledge regarding panda distribution andecology. Assistance from international NGOs, includingWWF and CI has been very important in assistingresearch and monitoring programmes within thenominated property. The successful Wolong PandaBreeding Centre at Hetaoping was set up in 1983 andis the world’s largest and most successful captivebreeding centre for giant panda. It has provided a majorfocus for research efforts, as well as being a majorsource for pandas sent to many domestic andinternational zoos. The nominated property has thusmade an important contribution to scientific research,public education and international cooperation. Thisshould continue. It is important that field research becontinued and expanded throughout all of the nominatedproperty. A clear research programme should bedeveloped for the property. All applications for conductingresearch must be submitted to the responsiblemanagement agency concerned, but must also becommunicated with and coordinated by the SichuanWorld Heritage Administration Office.

5.2 Landscape Level Planning

Fragmentation of habitat makes it essential that largeintact areas of panda habitat are adequately protectedand also that green corridors are established to enablemovement of panda species and to avoid inbreeding ofpanda populations. Accordingly, it is very important to

ensure habitat connectivity between the nominatedproperty and surrounding areas where pandas arelocated. Special attention should be placed onmaintaining connectivity across vulnerable bottlenecksor corridors in the distribution of giant pandas. Thelocation and design of corridors should be based onthe best information, particularly that available fromsatellite images and field surveys, especially the thirdnational panda survey and ongoing monitoring by staffwithin the nominated property. Where corridors havebeen encroached by logging or agricultural activities, anactive programme of habitat restoration should beapplied involving planting of relevant native species,particularly those which improve panda habitat.

5.3 Cultural Values

The nominated property appears to have importantcultural values. Records of the giant panda date back2,500 years, and a Han emperor once set up a pandabreeding house. The temples of Mount Qingcheng whereTaoism is believed to have been founded, and the 2,200-year old Dujiangyan irrigation system to the north of thenominated property, were inscribed on the WorldHeritage List for cultural values in 2000. MountSiguniang, within the nominated property, is consideredto be a sacred mountain by Tibetans. To the south inBaoxing are early Han buildings and the 19th centuryFranco-Qing mission station at Dengchigou, where PèreDavid, the French missionary who first described thepanda, was based. It is important that cultural valueswithin the nominated property are identified andappropriately protected.

5.4 Local Populations

Following the revision of the boundaries, all county townsare located outside the nominated property; 41townships seats are located within the buffer zone. Localcommunities have shown a strong interest in pandaconservation and their involvement in supporting themanagement of the nominated property should beencouraged. There have been a number of direct andindirect impacts on local communities in and aroundthe property in recent years. These include: (a) theclosure of a number of development projects, including176 mines and polluting factories; (b) the suspensionof a number of small to medium hydropower projectsinside the nominated property and the buffer zone; (c)and a logging ban associated with the Natural ForestProtection Programme and the “grain to green” habitatrestoration programme. These are positive initiativeswhich should be supported but it is important that localcommunities are not unfairly deprived of opportunitiesfor satisfactory livelihoods. Local people should beallowed and assisted to derive benefits from appropriatetourism associated with the property. They should alsobe informed and involved, where possible, inmanagement of the property.

Page 31: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 15

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENTOF SIGNIFICANCE

The Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary has beennominated under all four natural criteria. Previous IUCNevaluations of giant panda nominations in China havenoted the potential to meet natural World Heritagecriteria.

Criterion (i): Earth’s history and geological features

The high ranges of the Qionglai Mountains arepredominantly Triassic siltstone, limestone and slate,and the western half of the Jiajin Mountains are mainlyPermo-carboniferous rock. The property has evidenceof glacial and tectonic activity and has features a diverserange of rocks of different ages and types. There are anumber of glaciers, and a high region of U-shapedvalleys, horns, cirques and arêtes. The property providesgood examples not only of glaciation (past and present)but also of fluvial incision under relatively pristine subtropical conditions. There is the prospect for futuregeomorphological research on the processes operatingin a dynamic range of biomes, including landslides,debris flows, flood events and seismic effects. Thesecharacteristics are of interest but are not of outstandingvalue. The key features of the property are not uncommonin other areas of the world and they are also representedwithin other World Heritage properties. IUCN considersthat the nominated property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (ii): Ecological Processes

The nominated property protects a range of naturalsystems, reflecting the high level of altitudinal zonation.Many elements of the flora and fauna are abundant,diversified and complicated in their origins – as is to beexpected in a mixing zone between the subtropical floraof East Asia and the temperate flora of the Himalayan/Qingzang Plateau. Accordingly, the property plays a keyrole in understanding the evolution of the flora and faunaof Central and South West China. However, the diversityof natural systems is better represented within othermountain / forest sites in China, particularly the ThreeParallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas, where thedramatic expression of ecological processes hasresulted in a far more dramatic mix of geological, climaticand topographical effects. The range of natural systemsis also better expressed in a range of World Heritageproperties outside of China. IUCN considers that thenominated property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (iii): Superlative natural phenomena ornatural beauty and aesthetic importance

The property has important scenic value, reflecting therange of landforms and features within the nominatedproperty which contribute to its high scenic value. Anumber of scenic areas have been identified within theproperty, including representation of steep forestedvalleys, scenic rivers, wide alpine meadows andmountain peaks. The scenery of Mt Siguniang itself isdramatic. However, IUCN concludes that the scenicvalues within the property are better displayed withinmany other World Heritage properties. Mountain scenery,for example is better represented within properties such

as Sagarmatha National Park, Nepal. IUCN considersthat the nominated property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (iv): Biodiversity and threatened species

There is a strong and compelling case for inscription ofthe nominated property under this criterion. The propertyincludes more than 30% of the world’s population ofgiant panda and constitutes the largest and mostsignificant remaining contiguous area of panda habitatin the world. It is also the most important source of giantpanda for establishing the captive breeding populationof the species. The nominated property is also one ofthe botanically richest sites of any temperate region inthe world or indeed anywhere outside of the tropical rainforests. This significance is reinforced by itsclassification as one of the world’s top 25 BiodiversityHotspots selected by Conservation International and theGlobal 200 Ecoregions defined by WWF. Underliningthe outstanding value is the large size of the nominatedproperty and the fact that it protects a wide variety oftopography, geology, and plant and animal species. Thenominated property has exceptional value for biodiversityconservation and can demonstrate how ecosystemmanagement systems can work across the borders ofnational and provincial protected areas. IUCN considersthat the nominated property meets this criterion.

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends that the Committee inscribe theSichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary: Wolong, Mt Siguniangand Jiajin Mountains (China) on the World Heritage Liston the basis of natural criterion (iv).

IUCN also recommends that the State Party berequested to:

a) ensure the “Sichuan World Heritage ManagementCommittee” has sufficient powers, resources andauthority to ensure it can effectively carry out its rolein relation to management of the property, includingin relation to the review and approval of any majordevelopment proposals which may impact on thenatural values of the nominated property;

b) review existing infrastructure within the property witha view to better controlling impacts and, wherepossible, removing infrastructure and allowinghabitat restoration with native species;

c) review the possibilities for future addition of areasof high nature conservation value to the property,with priority to those areas which are particularlyimportant for panda habitat and which are close to,but outside, the property. Options for developingconservation corridors linking the property with othersuitable areas of panda habitat should also bereviewed;

d) progressively increase the level of staffing andresources within all reserves within the property,with the aim of ensuring that the level of staffing andmanagement in all areas of the property is equivalent

Page 32: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China

16 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

to that within the Wolong Nature Reserve within aten year period;

e) in relation to the existing and proposed dams,ensure that: (a) the impact of the dam at Yaoji, andthe associated relocation of people, on the valuesof the property be closely monitored; (b) effectivemitigation measures are applied at Yaoji tominimize the impacts associated with damconstruction, the impoundment and the relocationof the vil lage; with priority to implementingmeasures to encourage the establishment of pandahabitat; and (c) no additional dams are built withinthe property;

f) in relation to the Wolong Tourism Development Plan,undertake an independent expert review of theexisting plan, under the direction of the WorldHeritage Management Office, to assess the impactsof the proposals on values within the nominatedproperty and to recommend modifications that maybe required. The World Heritage Office should alsoplay a role in establishing tourism developmentguidelines, review of proposals and developmentof recommendations for mitigation of impacts forany major tourism development which may affectthe values of the property;

g) address other management issues included in thisevaluation report, including in relation to localpopulations, scientific research and education; and

h) consider changing the name of the nominatedproperty to “The Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuaries”from the currently proposed name of: “The SichuanGiant Panda Sanctuary: Wolong, Mt Siguniang andJiajin Mountains”

IUCN recommends that Committee encourage the StateParty to invite a mission to the property in 3 years toassess the implementation of the aboverecommendations and other recommendations outlinedin the IUCN Evaluation Report.

Finally, IUCN commends the State Party for the processof consultation and scientific research involved in thepreparation of the nomination dossier for this property,and for effectively addressing IUCN recommendationsto enhance the conservation and management of theproperty.

Page 33: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 17

Map 1: Location of nominated property

Page 34: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuary - Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains - China

18 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 2: Boundaries of nominated property

Page 35: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ASIA / PACIFIC

TRANSBORDER RAINFOREST HERITAGE OF BORNEO

INDONESIA & MALAYSIA

Page 36: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 37: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

TRANSBORDER RAINFOREST HERITAGE OF BORNEO

(INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA) – ID N° 1197

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005.

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN requested supplementaryinformation on 31 January 2006, after the first IUCN WH Panel meeting. Responses were received fromthe States Parties of Indonesia (24 March 2006) and Malaysia (27 March 2006), including supplementaryinformation on transboundary management arrangements.

iii) IUCN/WCMC Data Sheet: 6 references.

iv) Additional Literature Consulted: Kuswanda. M., Chai. P.P.K, Nengah Surati Jaya. I. (Eds) (1999) The 1997Borneo Biodiversity Expedition to the Trans-boundary Biodiversity Conservation Area of Betung-KerihunNational Park and Lanjak-Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary. ITTO, WWF Indonesia, PHKA; Management PlanBetung Kerihun National Park, West Kalimantan 2000-2024: Executive Summary. WWF, 2004. TreasureIsland at Risk – Status of Forest, Wildlife and related threats. WWF, 2004. Borneo’s Lost World. Newlydiscovered species of Borneo. WWF, 2005. Proceedings of Workshop “Heart of Borneo: Three Counties,One Conservation Vision”. EU and Indonesian Ministry of Forestry, 2004. Penanganan Kasus IllegalLogging di Taman Nasional Betung Kerihun.

v) Consultations: Five external reviewers. Representatiives of Sarawak Forestry Department, SarawakForestry Corporation, Malaysian National Commission for UNESCO, Malaysian Ministry of Culture, Artsand Heritage, Indonesian Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation, Kapuas HuluDistrict local government and WWF Indonesia.

vi) Field visit: Geoff Vincent, December 2005.

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: 11 April 2006

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 19

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The nominated transboundary property, the TransborderRainforest Heritage of Borneo (TRHB), is composed ofthree contiguous protected areas, two in Sarawak,Malaysia and one in West Kalimantan, Indonesia.Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary (LEWS) in Malaysiais an IUCN Category IV area (Habitat/SpeciesManagement Area) although it is managed more like aCategory Ia protected area (Strict Nature Reserve)because “human manipulation for optimummanagement” (as required under the IUCN Category IVdefinition) is at present minimal or absent. Batang AiNational Park (BANP) in Malaysia and Betung KerihunNational Park (BKNP) in Indonesia are Category II areas(National Parks). The property is located on the northernborder of West Kalimantan Province and in adjoiningsouthern Sarawak, in the Kapuas Hulu mountains. Thenominated property is characterized by a humid wettropical climate, receiving between 2800 mm and 5500mm of rainfall annually with relative humidity between30% and 100% and diurnal temperatures between 21°Cand 27°C.

BKNP, the largest site (approx. 800,000 ha), occupiesthe headwaters of the Kapuas River in the localgovernment district of Kapuas Hulu, north of its majortown, Putussibau. LEWS (219,000 ha) and BANP (32,000ha) lie 230 km and 250 km respectively due east ofKuching. The total area of the nominated property isabout 1,050,000 ha excluding buffer zones.

The property is composed of rainforest-coveredmountains ranging in altitude from 60 m (in LEWS) to1960m (in BKNP). The three sites are in the westernBoven Kapuas Mountains in Sarawak and on the southside of the Kapuas Hulu Mountains in West Kalimantan.

LEWS in Sarawak comprises most of the rugged hillywatersheds of the Rajang River in the north and theLupar River in the south. The bedrock is composed ofshales and calcareous sandstone. This is stronglydissected in the south where the tributaries run in deeplyeroded valleys of shale. The tributaries draining to thenorth are broad. The land rises from 60m in river floodplains to 1285m in Bukit Lanjak. Most of the Sanctuary iscovered by skeletal soils. The watersheds receive amean annual rainfall of 3,500mm, with a very smallpercentage infiltrating into the soil thus generating flash

Page 38: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1197 Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia

20 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

ytreporpdetanimoN ytraPetatS ecnivorP )ah(aerA

)SWEL(yrautcnaSefildliWuamitnEkajnaL aisyalaM kawaraS 000,912

)PNAB(kraPlanoitaNiAgnataB aisyalaM kawaraS 000,23

)PNKB(kraPlanoitaNnuhireKgnuteB aisenodnI natnamilaKtseW 000,008

LATOT 00,150,1

floods that can rise to 6 meters in two hours. LEWScontains eight distinct forest types which are home to2,807 species of vascular plants comprising 65% of treespecies. There are 53 species of mammals including,in the southern part of the Santuary, the highest densityof orangutans reported for Borneo with 1.73 individualsper km². There is a rich diversity of birds with 241species recorded in the Sanctuary, representing 40% ofall the birds species reported for Borneo. It also includesa rich herpetofauna with 51 amphibians, 12 lizards and13 snakes. The Sanctuary’s river sytem supports a richaquatic fauna consisiting of 82 species of freshwaterfishes. A total of 62 species of animals are threatenedaccording to the IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2000).

BANP covers the small Batang Ai catchment which drainsto a hydro-electric dam. Forest covers the terrain whichrises steeply from 100m to 975m on Bukit Ensanga.Almost the whole area of the national park is covered byfour different types of forest; although a large proportionis secondary forest more than 30 years old that havegrown in areas used for agriculture until the early 1960s.BANP contains 19 species of mammals, 121 speciesof bids and 63 species of freshwater fishes.

BKNP in West Kalimantan stretches about 350 km alongthe southern side of the Kapuas Hulu Mountains andthe western slopes of the Muller Mountains. Its terrain ishilly to mountainous rising from 150m to 1960m on Mt.Kerihun, the highest of the 179 peaks in the park. Thebedrock of the Kapuas range is composed of much-folded crystalline schists, with slate, sandstones andlimestone. The Park’s hundreds of streams and riversare the headwaters of the great westward flowingKapuas River. Its main tributaries in the Park are between50 km and 100 km long. They are, from west to east, theEmbaloh, Sibau-Menjakan, Mendalam, Hulu Kapuas/Koheng and Bungan rivers. The soil types are varied;podzolic yellow-red soils with latosols predominate, withalluvial and decomposed glei and organosols in low-lying areas. BKNP is influenced by high rainfall that canreach over 5,500mm/year. The vegetation ischaracterized by 8 forest types that harbor 1,254 speciesof flora with a relatively high diversity of orchidscomprising 97 species. It also contains 54 species ofmammals, 300 species of birds, 59 amphibians, 53reptiles and 186 species of fresh-water fishes. Thewildlife protected by BKNP includes 81 threatenedspecies of fauna according to the IUCN Red List (IUCN,2000)

The nominated property as a whole includes ten patchesof relatively undisturbed tropical rainforest ecosystems.

In the three protected areas, 2,807 plant species havebeen identified. 145 plants were listed as globallythreatened in the 2000 IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies. Of these 49 species are critically endangered,29 endangered and 42 vulnerable. Current records forthe whole nominated property’s wildlife include 73species of mammals, 300 species of birds, 218 speciesof fishes, and over 1,000 species of insects. The propertyis the last remaining natural habitat of a population ofup to 4,000 endangered Bornean orangutan, which areconcentrated towards the western end of the property,straddling the international border. The bay cat, oncethought to be extinct, also occurs. The property provideshabitat for 75 Bornean endemic species: 3 mammals,26 amphibians, 6 reptiles, 2 tortoises, 25 birds and 13fish. Discoveries of plants and animals, either new tothe area or new to science, are frequent.

3. COMPARISONS WITH OTHER AREAS

The nominated transboundary property has beennominated on the basis of natural criteria (i), (ii) and (iv)(according to paragraph 44(a) of the OperationalGuidelines (OG, 2002)).

In relation to criterion (i), the nomination documentargues that the property meets this criterion based onits importance in representing several geological agesfrom Paleozoic to the beginning of the Oligocene.However, neither the statement of significance, nor thecomparative analysis within the nomination outlines itsgeological and paleonthological values, and thejustification under natural criterion (i) provides only adescription of the geology of the nominated property.Due to the tropical vegetation of the area, the levels ofgeological exposures are very low, and scope for in-depth study is limited. Geological values for the periodsrepresented by the geology reported from the nominatedproperty are well represented by a number of spectaculargeological WH properties, such as Dinosaur ProvincialPark (Canada), Dorset/East Devon (U.K.), Ischigualasto-Talampaya (Argentina) and Monte San Giorgio(Switzerland). No specific features of internationalgeological or paleonthological significance have beennoted in the nominated property.

The nomination document makes a case for criteria (ii)and (iv) on the basis of the diversity of ecosystems andspecies existing in TBRH. However, the rainforest

Table 1. Extent of the nominated transboundary property

Page 39: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia ID N° 1197

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 21

covering the mountains of this property have a flora andfauna comparable in richness with those of other tropicalrainforest WH properties located in Malaysia andIndonesia, as shown in Table 2 below.

As noted in Table 2 there are five similar andcomplementary WH properties in Indonesia andMalaysia; all are forested, with great diversity of floraand fauna, and rise from low lands to mountain peaks.

In relation to criterion (ii) Gunung Mulu and Kinabalu,both in Borneo, cover a much higher variety ofecosystems and, in the case of Gunung Mulu, it contains17 floristic regions. Lorentz National Park and theTropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra in Indonesiaalso cover a high variety of ecosystems and, in the caseof Sumatra, which is double the size of the nominatedproperty, it also includes an active volcano. In additionUjong Kulon (Indonesia) covers important lowland forestecosystems as well as rich coral reefs formations. Allthese properties are closely related but each ischaracteristic of a different island of the archipelago;Gunung Mulu being the most similar to the nominatedproperty.

In relation to criterion (iv), the nominated property, whencompared to the other five existing WH properties inMalaysia and Indonesia, has proportionately fewerrecorded species of plants, mammals and reptiles.However the nominated property contains more speciesof fish and considerably higher number of endemic andthreatened species. It also represents the last remainingnatural habitat of a population of up to 4,000 endangeredBornean orangutan.

In conclusion the nominated property does not rank highlyin relation to criteria (i) and (ii) when compared to otherWorld Heritage properties in Malaysia and Indonesia;however it is of higher importance in relation to criterion(iv).

4. INTEGRITY

4.1. Legal Status and ownership

Malaysia declared LEWS a protected forest in 1940 anda wildlife sanctuary in 1983. The 600,000 ha BentuangKerimun Nature Reserve was declared by Ministry ofAgriculture decree in 1982, enlarged to 800,000 ha byMinistry of Forestry Decree #118/Kpts-II, declared aNational Park by Ministry of Forestry Decree #467/Kpts-II in 1995, and renamed Betung Kerihun National Park,its current name, by Ministry of Forestry Decree #510/Kpts-II in 1999. BANP is a fully constituted National Parkin accordance with the National Parks and NatureReserves Ordinance (cap. 127) of the State of Sarawak,Malaysia. The park was opened to the public in 1994. Inthe same year the Indonesian and Malaysiangovernments created a Transboundary ConservationArea covering the three sites.

BKNP is owned by the Republic of Indonesia and theState Government of West Kalimantan. It is administeredby the BKNP Management Authority under the Director-

General of Forest Protection and Forest Conservation(PHKA) within the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry. LEWSand BANP are owned by the State Government ofMalaysia and administered by the Protected Areas andBiodiversity Conservation Division of the SarawakForestry Corporation in accordance with a managementservices agreement with the Minister of Forests.

4.2 Boundaries

Boundary integrity of the property is compromised by thedeeply dissected boundary of LEWS and to a lesserextent, BANP, and by the imprecise and unsurveyedsouthern boundary of BKNP. In the former case, it isproposed by the state government of Malaysia to addthree areas to LEWS and two areas to BANP tosubstantially resolve this issue. These are remaininingforest areas that will significantly enhance the integrityof these sites, although it is not yet clear when thedecision to expand LEWS and BANP will be adopted.

The southern boundary of BKNP was established byMinisterial decree and has not been surveyed. Apartfrom the identification of this boundary by the installationof posts and small signs at a few key riverside locations,no work has been done to really enforce the boundary.This is a significant impediment to effectivemanagement. Illegal activity is difficult to control withoutaccurate boundary identification and there is the riskthat adjacent land use will advertently or inadvertentlyencroach upon the park. Boundary identification in BKNPis also hampered by the lack of accurate large-scaletopographic maps. The 2000-2024 Management Planfor BKNP proposed rationalisation of the southernboundary. Two options were considered, the first basedon catchment boundaries and the second on locallandmarks. The catchment boundary proposal wouldincorporate more land into BKNP and add to the area ofkarst partially incorporated in the Tanjung Lokang areaat the south-eastern end of the Park. It is essential thatthe chosen option for boundary rationalisation beimplemented and the southern boundary of BKNPappropriately marked on the ground to ensuresurveillance and patrolling.

4.3 Management

All three protected areas have management plans, butall require updating and revision. The plan for BANPwas prepared by the Wildlife Conservation International(WCI) and published in 1993 with an intended span ofapplication of 3 years. The LEWS plan was prepared bythe International Trade in Timber Organisation (ITTO)and Sarawak Forest Department and published in 1996with an inferred span of 5 years. The management Planfor BKNP was prepared by ITTO, WWF and PHKA andpublished in 1999 to be implemented over 25 years,2000-2024. This plan is seen by a number of experts asexcessively optimistic and over-ambitious in the scope,objectives and resources required for its implementation.

The extent to which any of these plans has beenimplemented is unclear as systematic evaluationprogrammes have not been carried out. The extent towhich interested communities and stakeholders wereengaged in the planning process is equally unclear. The

Page 40: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1197 Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia

22 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

ytreporP )ah(aerA .pStnalP efildliW srehtO

detanimon(BHRT)ytreporp

000,050,1 stnalp541(708,2yllabolgsadetsil

)denetaerht

.ps003,slammam.ps37-revodna,sehsif.ps812,sdrib

.stcesnifo.ps0001.scimednenaenroB57-

tatibahlarutangniniamertsaL-000,4otpufonoitalupopafo

natugnaronaenroBderegnadne

lanidutitlam069,1-m06-.egnar

citsirolf01sedulcnitI-.senoz

lanoitaNuluMgnunuG)aisyalaM(kraP

000,25 mlap111(005,3)seicepse

55,sdrib072,slammam8-.ps002revo,sehsif84,selitper

.anuafevacfo

senozcitsirolf71sedulcnitI-.seulavlacigoloegtnatropmI-

.yrenecstsrakevisserpmI-

)aisyalaM(kraPulabaniK 000,57 000,6ot5 -owt,sdrib623,slammam211-.selitpernaenroBllafosdriht

m090,4sehcaeR-rofytisreviDtnalPfoertneC-

.aisAES

kraPlanoitaNztneroL)aisenodnI(

006,505,2 000,2-002,1 .ps056,slammamfo.ps461-hsifretawhserffo.ps001,sdrib

stcesnifo.ps000,051dna

m008,4sehcaeR-noitategevlanidutitlaevif5-

.senoz

tserofniaRlaciporTfoegatireH

)aisenodnI(artamuS

000,005,2 cimedne71(000,01)areneg

085,slammamfo.ps042-dnaselitperfo.ps002,sdrib.sehsiffo.ps03,snaibihpma

sedulcni(m008,3sehcaeR-)onaclovevitca

002s'FWWenofotraP-rofsnoigerocElabolG

noitavresnoC

lanoitaNnoluKgnujU)aisenodnI(kraP

000,021hcihwmorf(

ah733,44)eniram

.ps005revO eguferlelbaivgniniamertsaL-.sonihrnavaJrof

.sdribfo.ps072-.snoitamrofsfeerlarochciR-

aotakarKehtsedulcnInavaJerardnaonaclov

.tserofdnalwol

Table 2: Comparison between the nominated property and other properties located in the same region

manager of BKNP has expressed the view that a morerelevant, practical operational plan is required and hascommenced development of a more modest 5 year planfor the Park.

All three sites proposed in this transboundarynomination are experiencing difficulty in securing andretaining qualified staff that can contribute to the effectivemanagement of the sites. This is particularly the casein LEWS, where all seven professional roles are vacantand apparently have been since the creation of theSarawak Forestry Corporation in 1996. Both BANP andLEWS employ local people on either rotational contractsbetween families in longhouses, or on a permanentbasis. BKNP employs few local people; park staff aremostly appointed to posts from elsewhere in Indonesia.Whilst the Sarawak Forestry Corporation has moremodern systems than PHKA, management capacity inall cases is hampered by the lack of up-to-datemanagement plans, lack of modern business supportsystems and lack of management reporting andevaluation systems, including established managementobjectives, performance indicators, measures andannual performance targets.

In terms of paid staff, BANP has one warden(professionally qualified) located at Nanga Delok RangerStation and eight field staff located at three Ranger

stations (one of which is shared with LEWS). LEWS hasone professional manager located in Kuching and 16field staff located at three Ranger Stations (one sharedwith BANP). BKNP has one professional park managerlocated in Putussibau, 24 professional staff, 29 field staffand five technicians located at Park headquarters inPutussibau and two section offices. When in the field,BKNP staff work from seven outposts.

Despite a number of requests during the field mission,no budget information was made available from theSarawak Forestry Corporation (SFC) for themanagement of BANP and LEWS. Experts andinstitutions interviewed, however, suggest that the SFCbudget may be under some pressure in the comingfinancial year and operational budgets may need to becut. It was suggested that this may be by up to 50%. Thecurrent budget of BKNP is in the region of IDR 2-3 billionper annum (or approx. USD 215,000-320,000). TheIndonesian government has recently declared 20National Parks in the country’s “model parks”programme and has dramatically reconfigured theallocation of resources to ensure that the identified parksreceive a greater share of resources. The result of thisprogramme for BKNP will see its budget double in 2006to IDR 6 billion (about USD 640,000).

Page 41: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia ID N° 1197

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 23

Each of the three Parks has, or is developing, oneresearch station: BANP at Lubang Baya Ranger Stationas a centre for mammal research, concentrating onBornean Orang-utan; LEWS at Nanga Bloh RangerStation as a centre for botanical research; and BKNP atthe junction of Sungai Menyakan and the Sibau River.This latter facility was built by WWF and is used for rangerand local community education, as well as a base formonitoring forest plots established by a Japaneseuniversity in 2000. None of the facilities has permanentresearch staff; all rely on externally funded researchprojects to maintain programmes. Capacity-buildingprogrammes for local communities funded by NGOs,principally ITTO and WWF, include the establishment ofplots to determine the potential of native plants formedicinal or agricultural production.

The lack of an integrated management framework forthe conservation and management of the property is ofconcern. The additional information provided by theStates Parties of Malaysia and Indonesia (March 2006)noted that a transnational forum has been establishedfor discussing conservation and management issuesand addressing them in a concerted and integrated way.However, this forum neither includes mechanisms forimplementing activities on the ground nor dealing withissues associated to adjacent landuses such ascommercial logging. It is important to note, however,that more effective transbounddary cooperation was inplace when ITTO was sponsoring cross-bordercollaboration through conservation projects. The StateParty of Malaysia, in its supplementary information,recognises the need to reactive transboundaryconservation projects as a mechanism to supporteffective collaboration between the countries.

4.4 Threats

Adjacent and intrusive land uses, both legal and illegal,threaten the integrity of the transboundary property, atleast the boundaries of the three protected areas.

4.4.1 Logging

Licensed logging operations in Sarawak have, or are inthe process of harvesting timber from the entire areabordering the northern boundary of BKNP. Despite theexistence of codes of practice for sustainable timberharvesting in Sarawak, logging concession holders, theircontractors and sub-contractors appear not to be heldaccountable for harvesting operations, with the resultthat significant erosion and siltation occurs downstreamof their concessions, including within LEWS. Thedevelopment of logging roads for timber felling andextraction has also opened this remote border region toaccess for other purposes, including illegal logging,hunting, fishing, wildlife and agarwood collection,particularly across the national border in Indonesia.

In Indonesia there has been a policy since 1998 ofdecentralised administration. This has weakened theability of the central government to preserve protectedareas and to control their economic exploitation by localinterests. Despite local government having declared theKapuas Hulu District a conservation district, there is littleeffort being applied to educate and involve the communityin appreciation of the benefits that may flow from such a

declaration. Local government still considers thepresence of BKNP a drain on its resources. Leadershipand guidance for local government should be providednationally by PHKA, supported if necessary by nationalconservation legislation. At the national level, amemorandum of understanding has been signedbetween PHKA and the police to control illegal logging.A meeting of key Indonesian officials including theMinisters of Forests and Justice, the Chief of Police andregional representatives, was proposed in Jakarta on16-17 January 2006 to address the issue. Internationally,a joint Indonesia / Malaysia committee has beenestablished to regulate il legal logging, althoughresponsible agencies have found it difficult to get thematter onto the agenda of Malindo, the key bilateral forumfor Malaysia and Indonesia. A key issue for both StatesParties to address will be to devise and implementcomplementary processes in each country aimed atconsistent regulation and documentation for timberharvested and traded within and out of the region.

It has been reported that illegal logging crews are heavilyarmed and will violently repel intrusion by law-enforcement agencies. The Indonesian army (TNI) hasprimary responsibility for border control but displays littleinterest in controlling the traffic of illegal timber or otherforest products, including endangered wildlife, acrossthe border. Locally, however, there are encouraging signsof cooperation between local government, police andpark management in BKNP. The prosecution and jailingof three Malaysians and the pending prosecution of sixothers, for the illegal construction of 33 km of road andthe illegal extraction of timber from BKNP in December2004 is a much-celebrated example in Kapuas HuluDistrict of West Kalimantan. However, there is somedoubt about the integrity of the operation, given that asignificant amount of seized logging equipment,including bulldozers, log trucks, log loaders, etc. wasnot properly secured and quickly disappeared back toMalaysia. Some smaller seized plant items and milledtimber are still on public display in the police yard inPutussibau.

4.4.2 Oil Palm Plantations

In October 2005 the Indonesian government announceda plan to plant 1.8 million ha of oil palm in the borderregion of West and East Kalimantan. There wassignificant adverse reaction to this proposal as it wasunclear whether protected areas would be affected ornot. In contrast, a survey conducted by the Ministry ofAgriculture revealed that less than 200,000 ha ofundeveloped or under-utilised land in Kalimantan issuitable for palm oil production. Local NGOs areconcerned about palm oil development because it isnot part of indigenous culture and will not benefit localcommunities. Two meetings were held in January 2006to discuss oil palm development in Kalimantan: the firstbetween government agencies and the second involvingNGOs, research institutions and local communities. Aletter was sent from the Minister of Forestry to thePresident of the Republic of Indonesia requestingconfirmation that he will not allow any further conversionof natural forest to palm oil plantation. The additionalinformation provided by the State Party of Indonesiaconfirmed that further conversion of natural forest willnot occur. However it does not provide information on

Page 42: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1197 Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia

24 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

how this decision will be effectively enforced.

4.4.3 Other threats & communityinvolvement

Other land use pressures on the integrity of the nominatedproperty include illegal gold-mining in the east of BKNP,which causes considerable erosion and water pollution.Communities generally retain rights to harvest forestresources from the property, including fish, other non-protected fauna, timber, rattan, fruit and medicinal plants,provided it is not used for commercial gain. Howeverthere is evidence of over-harvesting of agarwood andthe premature harvesting of swiftlet nests. Also theproperty suffers some il legal encroachment andpoaching of timber, wildlife and forest resources. Todeal with these pressures, significant resources havebeen invested by both the management agencies andNGOs (principally ITTO and WWF) to provide alternativesources of income for local communities, some of whichstill live within the protected areas. These communities,principally Iban and Dayak, are being provided with fundsand training through capacity building projects toestablish native fruit orchards and vegetable gardens,medicinal plant nurseries, fish farms, craft making,tourist homestay programs and some ecotourismproducts.

A potential benefit from this investment is yielded throughlocal community acceptance of the protected areas asalternative sources of income and a reinforcement thatprotection from exploitation will lead to a sustainablelevel of production for local purposes. Sarawak is welladvanced in developing this idea, with a comprehensiveprogramme involving the appointment of honorarywildlife rangers in local communities and theappointment of local people on contract (either rotatingbetween longhouses or on a permanent basis) toprovide park maintenance assistance. There isconsequently a reasonably high level of acceptance ofprotected areas from local communities living within oradjacent to the property in Sarawak.

The same cannot be said of Indonesia. Communityengagement programs are much less advanced in andaround BKNP, with the result that there is somecommunity resistance to the Park and an inclination tobe influenced by others who seek to gain illegal accessto timber, gold and other resources, including fish andwildlife. To offset this, WWF has a significant programmerunning from Putussibau, the major town of the KapuasHulu local government district which borders BKNP. Thisprogramme seeks to raise awareness about thepotential benefits of BKNP and, through broad-basedsocial programmes, educate and build capacity and selfsufficiency in local communities. Through amemorandum of understanding with PHKA, WWF fundsprojects in the Park including research expeditions,management planning and training programmes forpark staff in ecology and related subjects.

BKNP management has recognised that managementand protection programmes will only progress if the localcommunity is effectively engaged. The Park managerhas recently embarked upon the development of a“collaborative” 5-year plan for the Park, involving local

communities and NGOs. It is intended that this plan willbe more realistic and operationally grounded than the25-year Management Plan developed in 1999. In thisway, BKNP management seeks to construct a “socialfence” to strengthen the integrity of the park.

Based on the issues discussed above, IUCN considersthat the transboundary nominated property does not meetthe conditions of integrity.

5. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA /STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo(Indonesia and Malaysia) has been nominated undernatural criteria (i), (iii) and (iv).

Criterion (i): Earth’s history and geological features

The nomination document outlines the geologicalevolution of the island of Borneo but fails to makesignificant direct linkage to the nominated property. Thenomination records the geological formation existing inthe nominated property but it does not articulate howthey might be significant in the wider context of thegeological evolution of Borneo, let alone their globalsignificance. The nomination document argues that theproperty meets this criterion based on its importance inrepresenting several geological ages from Paleozoic tothe beginning of the Oligocene. Geological values forthe periods represented in the nominated property arehowever well represented by a number of spectaculargeological WH properties, such as Dinosaur ProvincialPark (Canada), Dorset and East Devon Coast (U.K.),Ischigualasto-Talampaya (Argentina) and Monte SanGiorgio (Switzerland). IUCN concludes that the geologicalvalues of the nominated property are of nationalimportance, but do not provide any case for outstandinguniversal value. IUCN considers that the nominatedtransboundary property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (ii): Ecological processes

Whilst the nominated property supports importantecological and biological processes; there are other WHproperties in Indonesia and Malaysia that contain agreater diversity of ecosystems and therefore support ahigher variety of ecological processes. Gunung Muluand Kinabalu, both in Borneo, cover a much higher varietyof ecosystems and, in the case of Gunung Mulu, itcontains 17 floristic regions. Lorentz National Park andthe Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra in Indonesiaalso cover a high variety of ecosystems and, in the caseof Sumatra, which is double the size of the nominatedproperty, it also includes an active volcano. In additionUjong Kulon (Indonesia) covers important lowland forestecosystems as well as rich coral reefs formations. IUCNconsiders that the nominated transboundary propertydoes not meet this criterion.

Criterion (iv): Biodiversity and threatened species

The nominated property ranks highly when compared toother exisiting WH properties in the region for its high

Page 43: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia ID N° 1197

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 25

number of endemic and globally threatened species,including 75 endemic Bornean species of plants andanimals, in one of the two largest aggregations ofprotected areas on the island of Borneo. Discoveries ofplants and animals, either new to the area or new toscience, are frequent. The tropical rainforest ecosystemsalso protect the last remaining natural habitat of apopulation of up to 4000 endangered Borneanorangutan, which are concentrated towards the westernend of the property, straddling the international border.IUCN considers that the nominated transboundaryproperty meets this criterion.

6. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends that the Committee defer theinscription of the Transborder Rainforest Heritage ofBorneo (Indonesia and Malaysia) on the World HeritageList on the basis of natural criterion (iv) as thetransboundary property does not meet the requiredconditions of integrity at present.

IUCN recommends the Committee that the futureinscription of the transboundary property should bedependent on the effective implementation by the StatesParties of Indonesia and Malaysia of the followingrecommendations:

a) Joint preparation and implemention of a bilateralmanagement framework for the transboundaryproperty, which should be supported by adequateinstitutional arrangements and adequate humanand financial resources to ensure the effectiveimplementation of joint conservation andmanagement actions in the field.

b) Joint preparation and implementation of anemergency action plan in order to prevent, detectand control illegal, unregulated activities impactingthe long-term integrity of the property.

c) Rationalisation by the State Party of Indonesia ofthe southern boundary of Betung Kerihun NationalPark and the necessary statutory measures enactedto ensure effective control of illegal logging.

IUCN commends the States Parties of Indonesia andMalaysia for their efforts in promoting transboundarycooperation for the conservation and management ofthe Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo.

Page 44: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1197 Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia

26 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: General Location of Nominated transboundary property

Page 45: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Transborder Rainforest Heritage of Borneo - Indonesia and Malaysia ID N° 1197

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 27

Map 2: Boundaries of nominated transboundary property

Page 46: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 47: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

HIRKAN FORESTS OF AZERBAIJAN

AZERBAIJAN

Page 48: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 49: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

HIRKAN FORESTS OF AZERBAIJAN (AZERBAIJAN) ID N°: 1212

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 29

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April, 2005

ii) Additional information officially requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN requestedsupplementary information on the 26 August, 2005 following the IUCN evaluation mission. The StateParty response was received on the 19 October, 2005. Additional information was requested from theState Party on 31 January, 2006 following the IUCN World Heritage Panel meeting in January, 2006. Aresponse to this request was received from the State Party on 29 March, 2006.

iii) IUCN/WCMC Data Sheet: 7 references

iv) Additional Literature Consulted: Nosrati, K. et al. (ed.) (2004). Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt undintegriertes Management der Kaspischen Wälder (Nordiran). Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn-BadGodesberg; Schmidt, P.A. (2005). Naturschutz in Kaukasien. Handbuch Naturschutz undLandschaftspflege, Landsberg; Schmidt, P.A. (2005). Biologische Vielfalt und ihr Schutz in derKaukasusregion. Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn-Bad Godesberg; Schroeder, F.-G. (1998). Lehrbuchder Pflanzengeographie. Quelle & Meyer, Wiesbaden.

v) Consultations: 11 external reviewers. Consultations were undertaken during the evaluation missionincluding with representatives of relevant government agencies, local communities and otherstakeholders.

vi) Field Visit: Gerhard Heiss, 7 – 15 August, 2005.

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: April 2006

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The Hirkan Forests of Azerbaijan (HFA) covers an areaof 21,435 ha and is located in the south-eastern regionof the country, within the Talish Mountains and Lenkoranlowlands ecoregions. The area is mountainous andalmost completely covered with broadleaved deciduousforests. The Main Talish ridge stretches from the north-west to the south-east along the border with Iran andhas side ridges into Azerbaijan which run from the south-west to the north-east. The nominated property coversseveral of these side ridges (ridges Ulyasi andShandangalasi) in the south-eastern part of Azerbaijanand includes the main ridge at the peak Shandan-Qalasi,which forms the highest point of the property.

The nominated property mainly includes features fromthe tertiary period (from Paleocene to mid Mioceneinclusively). The oldest features of the Paleocene periodare found in the south-eastern part of the property. Cliffsof limestone are found in many places with fossils ofupper cretaceous fauna. Low Eocene features, the so-called Kosmalyan Assise, stretch along the borderbetween Azerbaijan and Iran. Shandan-Qalasi is one ofthe volcanic centres of the Main Talish ridge and islocated in the south-eastern section of the nominatedproperty. The dominant soil types of HFA are various typesof yellow soils, the so-called Ferrasols.

The Astarachay river is the main river within the property;it runs along the border with Iran and forms the southernboundary of the property. Its side tributaries, theIstisuchay and Nivyshtaruchay rivers, have their sourceswithin the property near Shandan-Qalasi and join withthe Astarachay river before leaving the reserve. They cutthrough volcanogenic, volcanogenic-sedimentary andsedimentary rocks and form valleys with steep slopes.The rivers of the northern part cross the HFA or form itsboundary but most of these river systems are locatedoutside the property.

The property comprises the westernmost part of theCaspian Forests which, together with the EuxinianForests, are considered as important refuges of arcto-tertiary vegetation. It is assumed that Caspian Forestshave provided a continuous forest cover for 2.5 millionyears and feature the highest species diversity amongsummergreen broadleaved deciduous forests of WestEurasia. There are 95 tree species and over 110 shrubspecies found within the Caspian Forests and all of themare found within the nominated property. Thewesternmost position, with its warm, humid climate andthe enrichment by many species of the Caucasus region,make HFA the richest floristic site of all Caspian Forests.HFA includes 1,296 species of vascular plants of which29 species are endemics of Azerbaijan and 29 speciesare endemics of Caucasia.

Page 50: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1212 Hirkan Forests of Azerbaijan - Azerbaijan

30 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Caspian Forests comprise four main forest types:

• The Hirkanian lowland forests with chestnutoak, ironwood, Caucasian elm and date-plum,partly in combination with different alderspecies in alluvial forests;

• The Hirkanian colline forests with chestnut oakand hornbeam up to 750 m a.s.l;

• The montane forests with oriental beech andHirkanian box-tree up to 1,800 m a.s.l; and

• The alto-montane forests with Persian oak andoriental hornbeam over 1,800 m a.s.l.

Besides tiny patches which are seriously affected byvarious human activities, Hirkanian lowland forests havebeen destroyed completely. HFA includes Hirkaniancolline and montane forests of which 40% belong to thecolline and 60% to the montane zone. Ironwood,Caucasian elm and date-plum, characteristic treespecies of lowland forests, can also be found in theHirkanian colline forests. Important tree species foundwithin the property include the endemic ironwood, theCaucasian elm, and Albizia julibrissin. The property isvery rich in mosses, lichens and fungi but scientificresearch on those groups has not been undertaken yet.

The HFA helps protect several regionally significant andendangered species of fauna. The fauna within theproperty includes 47 mammals, including localendemics of Shelkovnikov’s vole and Hirkan wood-mouse, brown bear, lynx, wolf, golden jackal, jungle cat,European otter and the leopard. 118 species of birdsoccur, including the white-tailed eagle, cinereous vulture,Egyptian vulture, osprey, peregrine falcon and endemicsubspecies of Caspian tit and great spottedwoodpecker. 22 reptile species and 10 amphibianspecies, including the Caucasian parsley frog, alsooccur in the property.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

The nominated property is located within the Caucasian-Iranian Highlands biogeographical province. Thisprovince is presently represented by the WesternCaucasus World Heritage property, covering 301,068ha, which was inscribed on the basis of its floraldiversity, as it represents one of the global centres ofplant diversity.

Many similar habitats, landscapes and species occurwithin the existing Western Caucasus property and theHFA, although the Western Caucusus property is muchlarger (over 300,000 ha compared to over 21,000 ha).The nominated property is not normally considered tobe part of the Caucasus mountain range; rather, it iswithin the neighbouring Talish mountains, which lackthe high mountainous belt of the Caucasus mountainrange. Both properties are covered by deciduous forestscharacterized by oak and hornbeam forests and havesimilar wildlife, although the Western Caucasus propertyalso includes an introduced population of European

bison. The Western Caucasus World Heritage propertyrepresents a high mountain vegetation complex withforests of mixed coniferous and deciduous type.Dominant tree species are Caucasian fir, oriental spruceand oriental beech. Towards the Black Sea on lowaltitudes, a small part of the property is covered withmixed oak forests of submediterranean character.

The HFA represents the relict Hyrkanian Forests found inthe eastern Caucasus region. The importance of the HFAby comparison with the Western Caucusus property restson the distinctiveness of the Hyrkanian forests asnemoral forests, i.e. temperate deciduous broad-leavedforests, which differ from the typical mesophyticdeciduous broad-leaved forests; their peculiaritiescharacterize them as hygro-thermophilous mixeddeciduous broad-leaved forests. The uniqueness ofthese forests reflects their status as arcto-tertiaryelements providing continuous forest cover since theUpper Tertiary (Pliocene Epoch) period, thus providingimportant refuges for natural woodland of Tertiary origin.

The climate is similar within the existing WesternCaucasus World Heritage property and the HFA, althoughthe Russian property, as it is north of the Azerbaijanproperty, is colder in both the summer and winterseasons. The Russian property also shows somewhatgreater variations in climate, landscapes and wildlife dueto its greater range of relief (up to 3360 metres versus2400 metres).

The Hirkan forests extend across the international frontierinto Iran and are recognised as an important forestcommunity in Iran. Specifically, the same type ofHyrkanian forest ecosystems within HFA occur in theElburs mountain range of Iran. The Golestan NationalPark covering 91,895 hectares is part of the CaspianForests and is located in the east of Iran, near the borderwith Turkmenistan. This site is considered to be one ofthe best protected areas in Iran. There are other naturereserves and forest reserves which protect Caspian(Hirkan) Forests within the Islamic Republic of Iran,including the Alborz-e Markazi and Lisar Nature Reserves,and the Siavoude Roudbar Forest Reserve. Thepresence of these important areas would suggest theremay be potential for a future transnational serial WorldHeritage property between Azerbaijan and Iran to protectHyrkanian forest ecosystems. There is an important needfor close and effective cooperation between the twocountries to ensure effective forest and wildlifeconservation.

Deciduous broad leaved forests, represented within theHFA, are also found in other World Heritage propertiesaround the world, including the Greater Smoky MountainsNational Park (USA), Belovezhskaya Pushcha/BialowiezaForest (Belarus/Poland) and Plitvice Lakes National Park(Croatia) and Mt Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China)and Yakushima and Shirakami-Sanchi (Japan). TheGreat Smoky Mountains National Park represents therichest and most diverse forests of the temperatedeciduous broad-leaved forest region of North America.It is much larger than HFA (209,000 ha) and includessummergreen broadleaf deciduous forests with high treespecies diversity (130 species). This property was themajor North American Pleistocene refuge for temperatefauna and flora and features a large number of endemic

Page 51: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Hirkan Forests of Azerbaijan - Azerbaijan ID N° 1212

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 31

species as well as rich species biodiversity, with over3,500 plant species. The Mt Emei and Leshan GiantBuddha World Heritage property was inscribed for itshigh plant species diversity and large number of endemicspecies (320). The high plant species diversity reflectsthe location of the property at the interface of two floristicregions and its wide vertical zonation. TheBelovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest is located inthe transition-zone of boreal (coniferous) and nemoral(broadleaf deciduous) forest types. It is a lowland forestof the plains and dominated by different types of mixedEnglish oak and spruce-pine forests. Although, it isconsidered as one of the richest forests of Europe itsnumber of vascular plants is about 60% of that withinthe HFA property.

In conclusion it is clear that the HFA has important naturalvalues. The property has a relict flora that survived theice ages and protects a rich assemblage of plantspecies that are not found together elsewhere. It has ahigh diversity of plant species that is at a similiar levelwith some other comparable forest properties inscribedon the World Heritage List. It is noted that there are veryimportant areas of the same forest type in Iran whichunderline the potential of the property as a transnationalserial World Heritage property.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal status

The Hirkan National Park was established in 2004, byPresidential Decree 81 of 9th February 2004. The HirkanNational Park is composed by the former Hirkan StrictNature Reserve with 2,904 ha (Lenkoran district)enlarged by 18,531 ha forests of the Astara (17,909 ha)and Lenkoran (622 ha) districts. The Hirkan forests werefirst protected in 1936, through the establishment of theHirkan Strict Nature Reserve. The protected area hasundergone several name and status changes since itwas first established. The total area of the nominatedproperty is owned by the state.

4.2 Boundaries

A number of issues were identified by the IUCNevaluation in relation to the original boundariessubmitted by the State Party, including: (a) a number oflegal and illegal villages, 18 in total, were included withinthe original boundary of HFA; (b) a number of importantareas, including the Hirkan Forest Sanctuary, were notincluded; (c) there was no buffer zone surrounding thenominated property; and (d) the corridor linking thenorthern section of the HFA was less than 500 metreswide which is insufficient to allow for adequate wildlifemovement. These issues were raised by IUCN duringthe evaluation mission in August 2005 and in subsequentcorrespondence from IUCN. The State Party respondedby a number of boundary changes which: (a) excludedthree of the largest villages (comprising an area of 100ha); (b) widened the narrow part of the nomination from500 metres to 1,500 metres by adding an area of StateSanctuary the same size as that excluded for the villages,i.e. 100ha; and (c) identified plans to establish a bufferzone around the nominated property.

IUCN commends the positive response from the StateParty to the suggested boundary changes. However, it isnoted that the nominated property is small and that theHirkanian forest is more extensive than that included inthe nominated property and extends across theinternational frontier to Iran. The relatively small size ofthe nomination, especially for mammal viabil ity,combined with the long and convoluted boundaries is acause for concern. Options for expanding the boundariesof the property should be further considered, includingadditional forest areas of high conservation value. It isalso noted that the majority of the current boundary runsthrough difficult terrain, making boundary demarcationand supervision difficult. IUCN further notes that thebuffer zone has not formally been established and isstill in the planning stage.

4.3 Management

A management plan has been prepared by the StateParty, with assistance from WWF, and is awaiting officialapproval. Long term management of HFA requires clearand effective direction through an approvedmanagement plan and the management plan shouldbe finalized as quickly as possible. Financial and staffresources are currently inadequate for the effectivemanagement of the property at the level required for aWorld Heritage property and more resources arerequired to ensure the effective management. Priorityneeds to be placed on increasing the level of funding,ensuring adequate equipment for protected areamanagement and increasing the level of staff trainingwithin the property. Close cooperation with internationalNGOs (such as WWF Caucasus and NABU) offer veryuseful support for the future management of HFA,however long-term site integrity will require additionalinvestment by the State Party. Thus, finalization of themanagement plan and a guarantee of adequateresources to ensure its implementation are essential.

4.4 Threats

A number of legal and illegal settlements within thenominated property pose a threat to the integrity of theproperty, particularly through activities such as grazing.The commitment by the State Party to exclude three ofthe settlements, comprising an area of 100 ha, from thenominated property is a positive development. Optionsfor further rationalization and removal of settlements fromthe nominated property should be reviewed andassessed and priority should be given to the removal ofillegal settlements.

Grazing by cattle is another issue affecting the integrityof the nominated property. More than 5,000 cattlecurrently graze within the property and there is currentlyneither sufficient staff nor equipment for keeping themout of the core zones.

Two roads intersect the northern part of the nominatedarea. Both are in poor condition (without asphalt) withlow traffic intensity. However, traffic intensity of thenorthern road connecting settlements of Daster and Mikishould be regulated by giving higher planning priority toa road running around HFA.

Page 52: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1212 Hirkan Forests of Azerbaijan - Azerbaijan

32 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

About 35 ha are listed in the management plan draft asbeing used for agricultural use, mainly located aroundthe settlements. The exclusion of the biggest settlementsfrom the nomination area will decrease the area ofagricultural use. Some illegal cutting of timber alsooccurs but this is of a low intensity.

At present IUCN considers that the nominated propertydoes not meet the conditions of integrity.

5. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENT OFSIGNIFICANCE

The HFA has been proposed under all four naturalcriteria.

Criterion (i): Earth history and geological processes

HFA exhibits features of Earth history and geologicalprocesses which are of national or regional interest.Volcanic features represented within the property arenot comparable with other properties already inscribedon the World Heritage List for volcanic features. It is notedthat Shandan-Galasi is not the centre of ancient volcaniceruptions but is the southeastern most summit withinthe volcanic Talish ridge. Diversity of geomorphologicand physical-geographic features within the nominatedproperty are common and are represented in many otherareas. This small property does not seem to representa globally significant example of a specific stage of Earthhistory. In summary, IUCN considers the geologicalvalues of this property to be of regional rather than globalinterest. IUCN considers the nominated property doesnot meet this criterion.

Criterion (ii): Ecological processes

The nomination claims that the property meets thiscriterion due to the age of the forests within the property,and the fact that they might have been largely undisturbedby human activity since the tertiary period. An interestingrange of altitudes, climate, and wildlife is located in theproperty. However, this does not by itself demonstrateoutstanding universal value as the ecological processesoccurring on this property are better manifested in otherWorld Heritage properties such the Western Caucasus.As a result of evolutionary processes, the Hirkan forestsrepresent a tertiary relic, and include several endemictree, insect, bird and mammal species. However, thesize of HFA is small, the level of isolation is high andanthropogenic pressures on the small corridor in thenorth of the area as well as woodland grazing of cattledo not provide favourable conditions for maintainingnatural ecological processes. This propertydemonstrates strong national and regional significance,rather than a global level of significance. IUCN considersthat the nominated property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (iii): Superlative natural phenomena ornatural beauty and aesthetic importance

HFA includes areas of high scenic value. However thesefeatures are of national or regional, rather than globalsignificance. The area is characterized by round shaped

mountains and V-shaped valleys. The aesthetic beautyof forests which are the overall dominating landscapefeature is clear but is not comparable with other similarproperties inscribed on the World Herirage List underthis criterion. It is also noted, whilst the forests andgorges are of high scenic value, there are many similarlandscapes in Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, Iran, Russiaand even Azerbaijan itself. IUCN considers that thenominated property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (iv): Biodiversity and threatened species

The property has a relict flora that survived the ice agesand protects a rich assemblage of plant species thatare not found together elsewhere. It has a high diversityof plant species that is at a similiar level with someother comparable forest properties inscribed on theWorld Heritage List. HFA is the richest floristic site of allCaspian Forests, including 1,296 species of vascularplants of which 29 species are endemics of Azerbaijanand 29 species are endemics of Caucasia. This vascularplant diversity is comparable with World Heritageproperties in North America and East Asia. However,IUCN notes that this property is of small size and onlyprotects part of the Hirkanian Forests which also occurin a number of areas within the neighbouring country ofIran. IUCN considers that the nominated property mayhave the potential to meet this criterion, particularly if itwas linked as a transnational serial property with otherHirkanian forest sites in Iran.

6. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends that the Committee deferexamination of the nomination of the Hirkan Forests ofAzerbaijan to the World Heritage List on the basis ofnatural criterion (iv), to allow the State Party to consideroptions for renominating the property as part of atransnational serial property with other Hirkanian forestareas in Iran.

IUCN recommends that the State Party also considerthe following issues relating to the integrity of thenominated property:

(a) options for expanding the boundaries of theproperty to include additional forest areas ofhigh conservation value;

(b) the need to formally establish the buffer zonefor the property;

(c) the need to finalise and adopt the managementplan and ensure adequate resources for itsimplementation; and

(d) the need to effectively address threats to theproperty, including the removal of il legalsettlements and the management of grazing.

Page 53: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Hirkan Forests of Azerbaijan - Azerbaijan ID N° 1212

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 33

Map 1: Location of the nominated property

Page 54: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1212 Hirkan Forests of Azerbaijan - Azerbaijan

34 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 2: Boundaries of the nominated property

Page 55: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

BALTIC KLINT

ESTONIA

Page 56: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 57: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

BALTIC KLINT (ESTONIA) – ID N° 1210

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN sent a letter with a numberof questions to the State Party following the field visit on the 17 November 2005. The State Party, inresponse provided supplementary information, dated 3 January 2006, including a revised justification forinscription, comparative analysis and information on integrity issues. The State Party also decided tonominate the property under natural criterion (i) only, instead of all four natural criterion as in the originalsubmission. The IUCN evaluation is based mainly on this supplementary information.

iii) IUCN/WCMC Data Sheet: 13 references

iv) Additional documentation consulted: Dingwall, P. , Weighell, A., Badman, T. 2005. Geological WorldHeritage: A Global Framework, IUCN. 51p. Wells, R.T. 1996 Earth’s geological history - a contextualframework for assessment of world fossil site nominations. Working Paper No.1, Global Theme Study.IUCN, 43p. Raukas, A. (Ed) 1996. Estonian Environment: Past, Present and Future. Ministry of theEnvironment of Estonia, Environment Information Centre. Suuroja, K., 2005. Põhja-Eesti Klint OÜ EestiGeoloogiakeskus; Talvi, T. (Ed) 1999. Osmussaar - an island in the Baltic Sea, Estonia Maritima, No.4,210p. Webby B.D., et al. 2004. The Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event, Columbia UniversityPress. Stanley, S.M. 1999. Earth System History, W H Freeman and Company, 615p. Wicander, R. &Monroe, J.S. 1993 (2nd Ed) Historical Geology: Evolution of the Earth and Life Through Time, WestPublishing Company, 640p.

v) Consultations: 10 external reviewers. Various government officials from the Ministry of the Environment,geologists from the Geological Survey of Estonia and the Institute of Geology, Tallinn Technical University,representatives of UNESCO Estonia office, officials of the Lahemaa National Park and representatives oflocal authorities, the business community and NGOs.

vi) Field visit: Chris Wood, 4-9 November, 2005.

vii) Date of approval of report by IUCN: 11 April 2006

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 35

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The Baltic Klint is a linear escarpment, that extends W-Efor 1200km from the Swedish island of Öland, acrossthe Baltic Sea and North Coast of Estonia to the southernshore of Lake Ladoga, east of St. Petersberg, Russia.The escarpment is formed in Cambrian and Ordovician(Lower Palaeozoic) sedimentary rocks, c.540-460 millionyears old. For a considerable part of its length, east ofÖland, the Klint lies below sea level, but it emerges innorth-west Estonia on the island of Osmussaar. TheKlint’s next eastward occurrence is on the Pakri Islands,after which it forms the major part of the north coast ofEstonia. Throughout its length in Estonia the Klint formsa low plateau, truncated by a north-facing sea cliff. Thecliff ranges in height from 6-7m at Osmussaar to almost56m at Ontika. It is this 250km long coastal cliff sectionin Estonia that forms the subject of this nomination. Thenominated property is proposed as a serial property,comprising eight separate reserves spaced evenly alongthe length of the northern coastline of Estonia. The totalarea of the nominated property is 3760ha.

The eight reserves are considered to protect the bestgeological exposures, landforms and habitats within theKlint escarpment:

Osmussaar Landscape Reserve: Only 6-7m of thegeological succession is represented here, where itexposes Middle Ordovician fossiliferous limestone bedsoverlying Lower Ordovician glauconitic sandstone.

The Pakri Landscape Reserve is located on theadjacent Väike-Pakri and Suur-Pakri islands and PakriPeninsula. At the tip of the peninsula the full Cambrian-Middle Ordovician succession is exposed in a 24.8mhigh cliff, while the succession on Väike-Pakri cliff is13m, exposing only Ordovician strata.

The Türisalu Landscape Reserve contains animportant 37m high cliff that displays the full Cambrian- Middle Ordovician succession.

The smallest of the reserves is the Ülgase NatureConservation Area. This protects the higher of two klint

Page 58: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1210 Baltic Klint - Estonia

36 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

ytreporpdetanimoN )ah(eziS

evreseRepacsdnaLraassumsO 974

evreseRepacsdnaLirkaP 3541

evreseRepacsdnaLulasirüT 72

aerAnoitavresnoCerutaNesaglÜ 22

tnempracseiskuuM-ertisT 26

evreseRepacsdnaLakitnO 2121

evreseRepacsdnaLetiäP 821

evreseRepacsdnaLairdU 773

LATOT 0673

escarpments, lying approx. 1km inland from the coastline(the lower is just 100-200m from the coastline). Thesite exposes Ordovician carbonate rocks above a 20mwide talus slope covered with deciduous forest. Thissite also preserves evidence of mining of phosphorous.

The Tsitre-Muuksi escarpment is located in theLahemaa National Park and lies approx. 1km inlandfrom the coastline. The site represents a former, nowuplifted coastline, with two peninsulas, and anembayment. The upper part of the 32m high Muuksiescarpment exposes Ordovician limestones, while themore westerly located Tsitre cliff has cut Upper Cambriansiltstones and sandstones. The 6m high Turjekelderwaterfall is a notable feature here.

The Ontika Landscape Reserve contains the longest(20km) and highest (55.6m) stretch of the Klint withinthe nomination. The reserve has a sheer cliff, belowwhich a talus slope tumbles onto the beach. The fullsuccession of Cambrian and Ordovician strata isexposed here, starting with blue clays at the bottom anddolomitized and richly fossiliferous limestones at thetop. Estonia’s highest waterfalls tumble over the klint atValaste (30m high), Saka (12m) and Karjaoru (9m).

The Päite Landscape Reserve and adjacent UdriaLandscape Reserve are located near the border withRussia. The combined length of the cliff in these tworeserves is 2.5km and it reaches 30m in height. Thereserves protect virtually the full succession of Cambrianand Ordovician strata.

The nomination also mentions the nationally / regionallysignificant feature of the Neugrund Meteorite Crater,which lies offshore of the Estonian coast but is notincluded in the nomination.

The rocks of the Baltic Klint form an uninterruptedoutcrop of Lower Cambrian to Middle Ordovician strata,exposing a sucession of c. 80 million years, depositedin a shallow, nearshore seas. The stratigraphicalsequence begins with Lower Cambrian clays andsandstones, overlain by Upper Cambrian and LowerOrdovician sandstones and argillites. These beds are

followed by Lower and Middle Ordovician glauconite-bearing rocks, in turn overlain by Middle Ordovicianlimestones and dolostones. The rocks have not beensubstantially affected by tectonics, and so the rock stratahave considerable lateral extent and show consistencyfrom west to east. The stratigraphy is notable as it hasnot been thermally altered or metamorphosed, and itincludes several internationally important type sectionswhich form the basis of regional and local stratigraphicalschemes. The rocks of the Baltic Klint are regarded asamongst the best successions of Cambrian-MiddleOrdovician rocks associated with Baltica - one of themain continents present on Earth during the LowerPalaeozoic. However it is noted that the geologicalstability has led to a sequence which is condensed, andwithin which some periods of time are not representedin the rock record. Sequences for Baltica in Norway,Siljan and in South Estonia and Latvia are reported asbeing more complete in stratigraphic terms.

The strata contain a rich fossil record of the groups thatthrived in the seas of the around the Baltica continent. Inthe Cambrian, fossils of tri lobites, brachiopods,molluscs, conodonts and acritarchs are common, whilein the Ordovician a much greater diversity is represented.The microfossil remains of the Klint have also been thesubject of a number of studies that are important on aninternational scale, whilst several fossil species havetheir type locality in sections of the Klint). The Klint istherefore of notable scientific importance in relation toevidence of Lower Palaeozoic shallow-water biota andof particular, although not unique, importance for thefossil record of the faunal province of Baltica. Thegeology of the Klint has been the subject of scientificstudy both by Estonian and international researchersover a considerable period of time, with the earliestdescription provided by Hupel (1737-1819). Fossilsfrom the Klint are included in the collections of museumsaround the world, including those of the British Museum,Smithsonian Institute, and the Swedish Museum ofNatural History.

Two particularly important biotic events fall within thetime span of the geological record of the Klint: the‘Cambrian Explosion of Life’ and the ‘Great Ordovician

Table 1: Extent of nominated serial property

Page 59: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Baltic Klint - Estonia ID N° 1210

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 37

Biodiversification Event’. While the Cambrian fossilrecord of the Klint is not especially representative of thefirst event, the Ordovician part of the succession hasmade a contribution, along with the evidence from anumber of other localit ies worldwide to theunderstanding of the most rapid increase in biodiversityduring the Ordovician. The development of the Klint as alandform may have begun as early as the end of theOrdovician. However, its present form is the result ofprocesses active in the Cenozoic, and more recentlyduring the Pleistocene and Holocene and its presentform was moulded under the effects of a retreating icesheet and changing land/sea levels.

The nominated property has significant associatednatural values. All of the eight sites of this serialnomination are members of the European Natura 2000network, and the vegetation of forest and alvar meadowsis of regional (European) importance. The western endof the Estonian Klint is on a major migratory flyway (EastAtlantic Flyway) for waterbirds and coastal species andthe coastline and sea adjacent to the Osmussaar, Pakriand Türisalu landscape reserves has been identified byBirdLife International as a European Important Bird Area(IBA). All reserves have good representation of nationallyand regionally important animal species.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

3.1 Escarpment landform

Escarpments can form through a number of means, andare very common landscape features, ubiquousthroughout the world. Many sites on the World HeritageList contain escarpments, but in these cases they havebeen deemed to be supportive of the principal values forwhich the properties were inscribed. As such theexistence of an escarpment is, in principle, a weak basisof a claim of outstanding universal value, unless it hasspectacular form or geological significance.

The Baltic Klint is certainly a very long escarpment, eventhough a significant part lies beneath the surface of theBaltic Sea (and much of it lies outside Estonia). However,it does not rise to any great height (maximum of 55.6m inthe Ontika Landscape Reserve). Scientifically betterknown escarpments, such as the Cotswolds (UK) riseto greater heights , but are not so long (max. 200km).Some other escarpments in the world are longer, usuallyhigher and far more spectacular than the Baltic Klint.These include, the Great Escarpment of South Africa (upto 1000m high), the escarpments of the African Rift Valley(fault scarps), and the Great Escarpment that parallelsvirtually the entire east coast of Australia. The nominationdocument describes a number of other comparableescarpments. The Bandiagara Escarpment is an existingWorld Heritage property in Mali, formed in Cambrian/Ordovician sandstones. It is higher (100-500m), but notas long (150km) as the Baltic Klint, and does not havethe same scientific value in its geomorphology,stratigraphy and palaeontology. The escarpments of theSouthern Ontario Lowlands of Canada (Black RiverEscarpment, the Magnesium Limestone Escarpmentand the Niagara Escarpment), have, like the Baltic Klint,formed at the transition zone between shield and platform.

The Black River Escarpment is a low (7-23m high)cuesta formed in Upper Ordovician limestones, whilethe longer (750km) and higher (540m) NiagaraEscarpment is locally reported to contain ‘some of thebest exposures of rocks and fossils of the Ordovicianand Silurian Periods (405-500 million years old) to befound anywhere in the world.’ Another well-known NorthAmerican example is the 300m high Helderbergescarpment, near Albany, New York State, formed ofMiddle and Upper Ordovician rocks, in places with acapping of Silurian and occasionally Devonian strata.The nomination ascribes a particular significance to theage of the Klint landform, but whilst it is clear that therocks of the Klint are unusual in having remained nearthe Earth’s surface for a long period of time, the landformitself has a complex history and its present form probablyowes much to recent and ongoing processes operativeduring the Quaternary.

The cliff face of the Klint has a distinctive physical form,particularly in the east of the country. However it neverrises more than 56m above sea level and rarely is theunbroken face more than 30m high. As a physical featureit does not rank with the great sea cliffs of the world,such as Ireland’s cliffs of Moher (230m high) or theGiant’s Causeway Coast; the Kalaupapa peninsula,Molakai, Hawaii; Disembarco del Granma, Cuba; theNullabor coast, Australia; or even the post-glacial raisedcliff-line that borders the southern coast of Iceland. Thereare also a number of marine cliff sites on the WorldHeritage List, such as the Dorset and East Devon Coast,which demonstrate much greater scale and variety offorms.

In summary, IUCN considers that the geomorphologicalinterests of the Klint are of regional importance, but fallshort of the standards required to demonstrateoutstanding universal value.

3.2 Stratigraphy and Palaeontology

The Klint is formed of Upper Cambrian and Lower andMiddle Ordovician marine deposits, with an associatedfossil fauna. There are many other exposures of strataof these ages around the world. The stratigraphy isdistinguished by being relatively unaltered by geologicalprocesses since deposition, however it has manycomparators in terms of the record of earth’s history ofgreater extent, completeness and importance relative tohistoric and modern study.

In relation to the record of life, the Cambrian andOrdovician periods were important in seeing a planet-wide Cambrian Explosion of Life, followed by a rapiddiversification of marine life (termed the Great OrdovicianBiodiversification Event). The most important of theworld’s Lower Palaeozoic fossil sites are Chengjiang(China), the Sirius Passet Formation (Greenland), theBaltic ‘Orsten’-Alum Shale (Sweden), the Soom Shale(South Africa), the the Utica Shale of New York State(USA), the Burgess Shale in Yoho National Park(Canada), and the Gros Morne National Park (Canada).The last two are existing World Heritage properties. Incomparison with the Baltic Klint, with the exception ofGros Morne, all of these are sites where soft-bodiedanimals have been preserved, and the Burgess Shale,the Chengjiang and the Soom Shale are recognised as

Page 60: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1210 Baltic Klint - Estonia

38 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

the most important Lower Palaeozoic lagerstätten. TheKlint deposits are a very good, but not globallyoutstanding, example of the more normal preserved (i.e.preserving hard but not soft parts) fossil remains of theLower Palaeozoic, which are known from a substantialnumber of localities worldwide. The fossils of the BalticKlint certainly have a particular importance within Europeas one of the best records of the fossil faunas of theBaltica palaeo-continent, and have made a number ofcontributions to international studies of various LowerPalaeozoic groups. However these values are notsufficient to be regarded as being of outstandinguniversal value, and are considerably removed from thevalues embodied in fossil sites that have been inscribedon the World Heritage List to date.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1. Legal Status and Ownership

All eight reserves in the serial nomination are protectedunder the Act on Protected Natural Objects (1994 and1998) and the Nature Conservation Act (2004) and assuch are subject to special protection measures. Thestatus of the sites is shown in Table 2, although it shouldbe noted that land reform is still underway in Estonia.

In legal terms, Osmussaar, Pakri, Türisalu and OntikaLandscape Reserves were designated under the Act onProtected Natural Objects (1994 and 1998). The Tsitre-Muuksi escarpment forms a part of the territory ofLahemaa National Park, revised protection rules forwhich were approved in 1997. The Ülgase NatureConservation Area and Päite and Udria LandscapeReserves are currently subject to temporary restrictionsof economic activity under Ministerial Regulation 24,April 2004, until protection rules receive state approval.IUCN considers that the legal protection for the propertymeets the necessary integrity requirements of theOperational Guidelines.

4.2. Boundaries

The boundaries of the properties are clear anduncontroversial. None of the reserves have a buffer zone,which, because they are primarily geological andlandscape reserves, is not deemed necessary. Thesensitive zones of each reserve are the seaward facingcliff, the Klint forest and the beach; these being naturallyprotected between the cliff and the sea. As there isnegligible tide in the Baltic, there is no intertidal zone toprotect and the property stops at the shore line. Theonly properties that do not have a coastline are Ülgaseand Tsitre-Muuksi escarpments, but these are bufferedwithin other protected areas (Rabala Historical/CulturalReserve and Lahemaa National Park respectively). Inrelation to the representation of the Baltic Klint as a whole,the extent of the landform included within the nominatedseries is relatively small, and the nomination does notgive a clear account as to whether the interests in Russiaand Sweden are adequately represented by the seriesin Estonia. It is, however, understood that the majority ofgood exposures of the Klint lie within Estonia.

4.3. Management

The eight reserves of the serial property are zoned intospecial or limited management zones. In SpecialManagement Zones all use of natural resources isprohibited, while in Limited Management Zones someeconomic activity is allowed but is regulated.Permissible or non-permissible activities in these zonesare the subject of protection rules and each protectedarea has its own set of protection rules.

The management authority of the reserves lies with theMinistry of the Environment and is executed centrallythrough its recently formed (1 January, 2006) State NatureConservation Centre (SNCC). The SNCC is also thebody responsible for administering the overallmanagement of any possible future World Heritageproperty. As all the 8 component sites are Natura 2000sites, the SNCC is responsible for regular reporting onthe conservation management of these areas to theEuropean Commission.. Day-to-day management ofthe reserves is undertaken by four staff of the relevantSNCC Regional Departments. Co-operation with localmunicipalit ies and county governments in themanagement of the reserves remains an importantpriority. Under these new arrangements on-goingecological research and monitoring, and conservationand recreational management tasks will continue to befunded by the State (Environment Ministry andEnvironmental Fund), local authorities, and with the helpof volunteers. A specific budget for the management ofthe proposed World Heritage property has not beendecided.

Management plans and site-specific protection ruleshave been agreed for three reserves (Osmussaar, Pakriand Türisalu Landscape Reserves). Management plansfor Ontika Landscape Reserve and Lahemaa NationalPark (Tsitre-Muuksi Escarpment) are under preparation,while those for the Ülgase Nature Conservation Area,and the Päite and Udria Landscape Reserves, remainto be started.

4.4. Threats and Human Use

The only reserve with any permanent residents is theOntika Landscape Reserve, which has about 200residents in the Limited Management Zone andOsmussaar which has 3 permanent residents. Themain economic pressures in the reserves come fromanimal grazing (mainly sheep) and recreation. The mostintensively visited reserves are Pakri, Türisalu andOntika. Visitor numbers are also high at the Tsitre andMuuksi escarpment. However, neither grazing pressurenor recreational impacts on the reserves are serious.The only exception is at Türisalu, a site adjacent to aprincipal road and car park, which suffers from highseasonal visitor numbers to the beach, with resultingtrampling and littering. The dumping or wind-blow oflitter (and in some cases substantial objects, such ascars) over the cliff of most reserves remains a problem.There are good attempts throughout the property tomanage visitors through construction of designatedpathways and the distribution of interpretation panelsand leaflets, while visitor viewing platforms have beenconstructed at the Pakri and Ontika reserves.

Page 61: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Baltic Klint - Estonia ID N° 1210

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 39

evreseR etatSpihsrenwo

pihsrenwoetavirP tnemmoC

evreseRepacsdnaLraassumsO %001

evreseRepacsdnaLirkaP %03 ropihsrenwoetavirp%07otdesaelereboteud

sdnahetavirp

tnilKehthtaenebaerA.esuetatsnillitsllAniniamerot)enoZtnemeganaMlaicepS(

pihsrenwoetats

evreseRepacsdnaLulasirüT %001

aerA.snoCerutaNesaglÜ %001

nitnempracsEiskuuM-ertisTkraPlanoitaNaamehaL

%001 raamehaLfotrapsapihsrenwoetatSkraPlanoitaN

evreseRepacsdnaLakitnO %09 %01 otssapotylekiltnilKevobadnaleroMtnilKehthtaenebaerA.pihsrenwoetavirp

niniamerot)enoZtnemeganaMlaicepS(.pihsrenwoetats

epacsdnaLairdUdnaetiäPsevreseR

%75 %34

Many of the reserves are beginning to experienceincreased visitor pressure. The Lahemaa National Parkreceives an estimated 100,000 visitors annually, whilethe Türisalu and Ontika landscape reserves are heavilyvisited, especially the former which is located nearTallinn and has a good beach. The national and regionalauthorities are investing in the interpretation of sites,with all now displaying good information panels. Thereis also a range of very good interpretive literature and anumber of visitor centres have been opened in recentyears. Perhaps of greatest influence in linking all of thereserves is the opening of the Estonian section of theE9 European Long-distance Footpath, which traversesthe whole of the north Estonian coastline.

Due to their coastal locations, all of the reserve areaswere formerly in the possession of the Soviet Army. Whilethere have been considerable efforts to clean-up themost seriously polluted sites, residual impacts remain(e.g. abandoned buildings and military hardware litteringsites, and possible residual ground pollution). In thePakri and Türisalu reserves old military debris remainsa problem, while material dredged from the Paldiskiharbour occasionally washes ashore. A principal concernis the impact that a possible future oil spill related to theAlexela Oil Terminal, Paldiski, might have on the PakriLandscape Reserve, although a contingency plan toprotect the geology and wildlife of this reserve isapparently in place. At the eastern end of the site asimilar threat occurs at Sillamäe, where a large tailingpond for settling the highly polluted water (radio-activewaste and oil shale ashes) discharged from the SILMETplant has been built into the Baltic Sea. This site iscurrently undergoing clean-up, but until this is completethere remains the threat of leakage into the Gulf ofFinland. In the same area, the Ontika LandscapeReserve suffers from poor air quality because of thenearby Kohtla-Järve chemical and thermal power plants.

Table 2. Legal status of component sites in nominated property

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

5.1. Justification for serial approach

When serial properties, such as this one, are evaluated,IUCN poses a standard set of three questions:

(a) What is the justification for the serial approach?

A serial approach is justified for this nomination becausegood exposure and accessibility is discontinuous. Theeight reserves that make up this serial property representthe best scientific and most accessible sites forgeological research, public enjoyment and natureconservation. They are well-chosen to show thevariations in the geology and landform of the Klint, atleast within the Estonian sections.

(b) Are the separate components of the propertyfunctionally linked?

There are tangible scientific linkages between the sites,and they are linked functionally as reserves managedby the SNCC of the Ministry of the Environment (althoughnot as yet with a single dedicated managementprogramme), and for recreational purposes by the E9European Long-distance Footpath.

(c) Is there an overall management framework for allof the components?

While all of the component parts fall under themanagement authority of the SNCC, they are managedindividually on the ground by regional staff. However,consistency of management is ensured by thecentralised planning and administration provided by therecently re-organised SNCC and the necessity ofmanaging the eight reserves as Natura 2000 sites to acommon high standard. An overall administrative unitwithin the SNCC is foreseen should the propoerty beinscribed on the WH List.

Page 62: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1210 Baltic Klint - Estonia

40 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENTOF SIGNIFICANCE

Although the original nomination cited three natural WorldHeritage criteria, the State Party has subsequentlyconfirmed that this serial property is nominated undernatural criterion (i) only.

Criterion (i): Earth history and geological features

The Baltic Klint is notable as a long coastal escarpment.However such features are ubiquitous andcommonplace on the surface of the Earth. Within theworld’s escarpments, the Baltic Klint is surpassed bymany sites in terms of both height and length. As acoastal landform the Klint is also surpassed by manysites world-wide in terms of scale and diversity.

The Klint displays a geological significance related tothe history of the earth and record of life that is of regionalimportance in providing an understanding of thepalaeogeography and palaeontology of the ‘Baltica’continent. However, taking a global basis forcomparison, there are a large number of sites ofequivalent or greater value for stratigraphy andpalaeontology of these periods elsewhere in the world.IUCN, therefore, considers that the nominated serialproperty does not meet this criterion.

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends the World Heritage Committee notto inscribe the Baltic Klint (Estonia) on the World HeritageList on the basis of natural criteria.

The World Heritage Committee may, however, wish tocongratulate the State Party on the development of acoordinated approach to the management of the BalticKlint. IUCN recommends that the Committee encouragethe State Party to further develop the valuable work putinto preparing the World Heritage nomination throughthe investigation of more appropriate mechanisms torecognise the values of the Baltic Klint, and throughcontinued support for the management of the protectedsites that make up the nomination. Appropriatemechanisms might include promotion via the Europeanand UNESCO Geoparks programmes.

IUCN recommends that the World Heritage Committeeshould note with appreciation the leadership andcontinuing commitment by the State Party to restoringthe integrity of the coastal environment, followingprevious environmental pollution.

Page 63: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Baltic Klint - Estonia ID N° 1210

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 41

Map 1: General Location of Nominated serial property

Map 2: Osmussar Cliff

Page 64: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1210 Baltic Klint - Estonia

42 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 3: Pakri

Map 4: Türisalu Cliff

Page 65: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Baltic Klint - Estonia ID N° 1210

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 43

Map 5: Ulgase

Map 5: Tsitre- Muuksi Escarpment

Page 66: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1210 Baltic Klint - Estonia

44 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 7: Paite and Udria

This map shows both the Päite and Udria component of the proposed serial World Heritage property. Päite Cliff,which was previously proposed as a part of Udria Landscape Reserve, was established as a separate PäiteLandscape Reserve with its own protection rules in 2005.

Map 6: Saka-Ontika-Toila Cliff

Page 67: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

THE GREAT RIFT VALLEY MIGRATION FLYWAYTHE HULA

ISRAEL

Page 68: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 69: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

THE GREAT RIFT VALLEY MIGRATION FLYWAY, THE HULA (ISRAEL) – ID N° 1219

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 45

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005.

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN requested supplementaryinformation on 15 December 2005 and 31 January 2006, after the field visit and the first IUCN WH Panel.The State Party responses were received on 13 January and 26 March 2006, including supplementaryinformation on Biodiversity and a draft Summary Nomination Statement for the first site in a potential serialtransnational nomination.

iii) IUCN / WCMC Data Sheet : 5 references

iv) Additional Literature Consulted : Anonymous, 2002. Bridging the Rift. Final Report and Recommendationsof the Great Rift Valley Expert Meeting, The Dead Sea, Israel, 30 September-4 October 2002. IsraelNational Commission for UNESCO, 59 pp. + annexes. Baruch, U. & Bottema, S. 1999. A new pollendiagram from Lake Hula, vegetational, climatic and anthropogenic implications. In: Kawanabe, H.,Coulter, G.W. & Roosevelt, A.C. (Eds.). Ancient Lakes, their cultural and biological diversity. KenobiProductions, pp. 75-86. Ministry of the Environment 2005. The right of nature to water in Israel. 3 pp.www.unep.org/gc/gc23/documents/Israel.pdf. Thorsell, J., Ferster Levy, R. & Sigaty, T. 1997. A globaloverview of wetland and marine protected areas on the World Heritage List. A Contribution to theGlobal Theme Study of World Heritage Natural Sites. Natural Heritage Programme, IUCN, Gland,Switzerland, 23 pp. + maps + annexes. BirdLife International 2005. Migrating Soaring Birds in the MiddleEast and North Africa. BirdLife International 2005. Middle Eastern Important Bird Areas. Scott Weidensaul.1999. Living on the wind: Across the hemisphere with migratory birds. North Point Press, a division ofFarrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC, New York, USA. Pistorius, Alan. 1981. The Country Journal Book of Birdingand Bird Attraction. Norton NY, USA. Buttler, R. Davidson, N and Morrison, G. 2001. Global-scale shorebirddistribution in relation to productivity of near-shore ocean waters. In Waterbirds, Vol. 24(2).

v) Consultations: 10 external reviewers. Representatives of the Israel National Commission for UNESCO,the Vice Prime Minister’s Office, the Hula Valley Administration, Hula Management Committee such asKeren Kayementh Leisreal (KKL), the Lake Kinneret Basin Authority, the Water Commission, the IsraelNature and Parks Authority, several agriculture and tourism stakeholders, the Hula reserve and LakeAgmon area managers, representatives from scientific and monitoring bodies, environmental NGOs, awater law expert, and the National Committee of IUCN, were also consulted.

vi) Field visit: Olivier Hamerlynck, November 2005.

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: 11 April 2006

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The Hula Valley is situated at the northern end of theGreat Rift Valley where it is at its narrowest part (4-8 kmacross). It is a key migratory pathway for close to a millionsoaring birds over the narrow land bridge that connectsEurope, Asia and Africa. The nominated propertyincludes two core areas, the Hula Reserve and LakeAgmon, which are closely connected protected wetlandareas (869 ha). The southernmost is the Hula Reserve,a Ramsar site, on a rehabilitated part of the former LakeHula and connected to the small Einan Springs Reserve.It contains the world’s most northerly Papyrus swamp.About 2 km to the north, the 482 ha Lake Agmon is aman-made wetland on the subsided peat soils of the

former Hula marsh, fed by a rehabilitated meanderingsection of the Jordan River, which provides high qualityfresh water from the upper part of the watershed. Thesetwo protected areas are surrounded by a buffer zone of5,227 ha which comprises peat lands, agricultural andfish pounds. The total area of the nominated property,including its two core areas and the buffer zone, is 6,096ha.

The property has been nominated based on itssignificant role in the Great Rift Valley migratory pathway.The existing freshwater wetlands in a water-stressedregion, though small, are the last (or first) staging postbefore (or after) the migratory birds cross a vast expanseof desert. Considering the current trends in wetland

Page 70: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1219 The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel

46 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

protection and management in the Levant, where mostwetlands have been drained, or so altered that they areno longer ecologically functional for wildlife, the relativeimportance of the Hula wetlands can be expected tocontinue to increase. The wetlands provide breedinghabitat for two globally threatened resident waterbirdspecies and 18 globally threatened migratory species(IUCN, 2000); most notably for Marbled Teal, PigmyCormorant and Ferruginous Duck. The property is ofhigh functional significance for wintering Greater Spottedand Imperial Eagle. There are significant populationsof an additional 16 waterbird species at various times ofthe year, with over 50,000 wintering waterbirds, 10,000cranes, as well as over 1000 pairs of five heron species.Breeding success of many species in the Palearctic mayalso be positively influenced by the feeding opportunitiesthe Hula Valley stopover offers in Spring.

The nominated property is also recognised as a majorbottleneck1 for migratory birds (BirdLife International,2006). In autumn, the one million birds crossing thearea include the entire world population of LesserSpotted Eagle, the entire Palearctic population of WhitePelican and Levant Sparrowhawk, and significantpopulations of White and Black Stork, Common Craneand Honey Buzzard. During migration it is possible toview over 100,000 birds in one day.

In addition to its bird population, the nominated propertyalso offers protection to the Eurasian River Otter andAllenby’s Gerbil, both considered threatened (IUCN,2000). Another 41 mammal species (including a globallythreatened subspecies of Fallow Deer), 20 reptiles andamphibians and 21 species of fish are present in thenominated property. Some 357 species of plants havebeen recorded, eight of which are nationally endangered.The biological diversity across different taxonomicgroups is linked to the location of the nominated propertyat the crossroads of five biogeographical provinceswhere Palearctic (Eurasian, Mediterranean, Irano-Turanian) and Ethiopian (Paleotropic, Saharo-Arabian)species intermingle.

3. COMPARISONS WITH OTHER AREAS

The property has been nominated under natural criteria(ii), (iii) and (iv) according to paragraph 44(a) of theOperational Guidelines (2002). The State Party isproposing this property as a stand-alone nominationwhilst considering its potential as a first step in a serialtransnational nomination across the Great Rift Valley.

The case for Outstanding Universal Value is based onthe importance of the property in relation to bird migration,particularly for Palearctic birds, in the context of the GreatRift Valley Migration Flyway. This opens a number of keytechnical issues and integrity challenges that requirecareful considerations by the World Heritage Committee.These are:

1 A migration bottleneck is a site at which, during certain, usually relatively short, well-defined seasons of the year, large numbersof migratory birds regularly pass through or over. The concentration of birds at these sites at such times is a consequence of boththe site’s geographical location and their local topography (BIrdLife International, 2001).

Technical issues:

Bird migration has evolved over a long period of timedue to the influence of glaciation and warming of theclimate. Therefore, migration is considered a globalbiological phenomenon in response to a process(cooling and warming of the planet) rather than aprocess in itself (reviewer’s comment, 2006).However, the World Heritage Convention and itsOperational Guidelines (OG) are particularly orientedto include outstanding examples of “on-goingecological and biological processes”.

The main purpose of the World Heritage Convention(Article 2) is to ensure the protection of naturalfeatures, physiographical formations and naturalsites, which should be clearly delineated in the field(paragraph D.43; OG 2002). Thus the Convention isnot well suited for dealing with natural phenomenonsuch as migration that occurs across differentgeographical patterns over different periods of time.

In relation to bird migration, the concept ofOutstanding Universal Value and associated criteriafor natural properties have been applied by theCommittee until now to properties that play asignificant role for migratory birds; such as Bancd’Arguin National Park (Mauritania); Djoudj NationalBird Sanctuary (Senegal); and Ichkeul National Park(Tunisia); just to mention a few examples. The ‘case-law’ applied by the Committee is in line with expertadvice received by IUCN on the crucial need toconserve ‘mega-sites’ that are critical for theconservation of a variety of migratory speciesthroughout the different existing global migratoryroutes. A number of these ‘mega-sites’ have alreadybeen well defined through monitoring and research.

Integrity issues:

Migration is not a discrete phenomenon that caneasily be confined to a particular site as differentspecies of birds have different patterns of migrationand those patterns may change over time influencedby climate change, destruction of key habitatsassociated to stop-over areas, and the developmentof certain types of infrastructure(telecommunications systems, lighthouses,energy transmission lines, etc).

The property has been nominated under naturalcriteria. However, it is in itself a modified landscape,subject to active management including economicpractices and ecological restoration activities.Furthermore, the case of Outstanding UniversalValue for the nominated property is based on thediversity of species that can be viewed from the HulaValley twice a year during migration when the birdsfly over the property. The maintenance of thisphenomenon is not depending on the nominatedproperty but on the occurrence of a number ofconditions at global and regional scales as noted inthe point above.

Page 71: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel ID N° 1219

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 47

The nominated property is just one site within thenorthern part of the Great Rift Valley Migration Flywaythat stretches over 7,000 km. In itself the nominatedproperty does not contain, as requested in theconditions of integrity (paragraph 44.b), thenecessary elements to ensure the conservation ofmigratory birds along the flyway. This fact isrecognized in the nomination which rightly arguesfor the need to apply a transnational serial approachalong the Great Rift Valley.

The nomination makes a case for criterion (ii) on thebasis of its importance as a significant bird migrationroute and a site that allows the observation, appreciationand study of bird migration. From these assumptions,and taking into account the key points noted above, thereare two key questions that need to be addressed inmaking a comparative analysis for this criterion:

etuoR yrtnuoC launnAtnuoC

rebmuNseicepS

denetaerhT)NCUI(seicepS

sdriBcitcraeN

aciremAlartneC ocixeM,zurcareV noillim5-3 92 1

amanaP noillim3-2 51 1

htroNlartneC )saxeT(SU noillim1 82 1

aciremAhtroN )nagihciM(SU 000,002 12 1

)sttesuhcassaM(SU noillim3-2 91 2

sdriBcitcraelaP

yellaVtfiRnrehtroN learsI noillim1 74 5

)tpygE(zeuS 000,005 71 2

yellaVtfiRlartneC )acirfA(ituobijD 000,005 62 2

eporuEnretsaE )yekruT(surohpsoB 000,003 52 3

eporuEnretseW )niapS(ratlarbiGfotiartS 000,003 53 6

Sources: Nearctic migration from www.Hawkwatch.org, Palearctic migration: www.birdlife.org,www.osme.org, www.iucn.org, http://ims.wcmc.org.uk, Weidensaul, S. 1999.

1. How important is the Northern Rift Valley Migrationbottleneck in the global context?

From Table 1 it can be noted that, while the Northern RiftValley is the most import flyway for Paleartic Birds, it is ofsecondary importance at the global level whencompared to the flyway for Nearctic Birds. In addition,the nominated property is just one of the several stop-over sites and other points from which this naturalphenomenon can be observed and studied; even withinIsrael where soaring bird migration occurs as reflectedin the map on the following page.

2. How important is the nominated property whencompared to other stop-over sites in the globalcontext?

The nomination document and the additionalinformation provided by the State Party argue a case forthe property meeting criteria based on its importance asa stop-over site for migrating birds. Therefore, it isessential to also address a global comparison on thisissue.

From table 2 it is clear that, while the nominated propertyis important particularly at the regional level, it does notrank highly at a global level when compared to critically

important ’mega-sites‘ for bird migration, such as theWadden Sea, Banc d’Arguin National Park and the Northcoast of Suriname, French Guiana and Brazil.

The property has been nominated under natural criteria(ii), (iii) and (iv). Thus it is necessary to assess how toproperty stands on these criteria when compared to otherWorld Heritage properties.

The nomination argues that criterion (iii) is applied onthe basis of the phenomenon of massive, concentratedbird migration. However, as shown in table 1, there areother important migration bottlenecks where thisphenomenon can be observed. In fact it is noted that thescientific community considers that Veracruz (Mexico)represents the largest concentration of migrant raptorsin the world, and one of the most critical migratorybottlenecks on the planet. Over the years the total counthas averaged more than 3 million raptors each autumn(Weidensaul, S. 1999).

Criterion (iii) has been applied to 23 natural WorldHeritage properties with major wetlands as a result ofthese being a combination of large natural areas andthe wildlife they contain. The nomination argues that insuch World Heritage properties “the birds are spreadout over time and space, which limits a visitor’s ability to

Table 1. Soaring bird migration data for major bottleneck sites worldwide

Page 72: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1219 The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel

48 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

view a few tens of thousands of birds at any time”.However, the same argument can be applied to thenominated property as its richness in relation to birdsoccurs during the migration period, mainly in autumnand spring. The nomination also fails to recognize thatproperties inscribed under criterion (iii) are the result ofa combination of exceptional physiographic features andnot only justified on the existing wildlife. This is, forexample, the case of Pantanal Conservation Area (Brazil)where the spectacular landscape existing in the area isenriched by the diversity and abundance of wildlife, notonly birds. According to previous decisions taken by theWorld Heritage Committee, it is the quality of the overallnatural landscape which merits the application of thiscriterion. Furthermore, according to the OperationalGuidelines, criterion (iii) is applied to properties that“contain” superlative natural phenomena or areas ofexceptional natural beauty. In the case of the nominatedproperty, the area does not “contain” a largeconcentration of birds as the majority of them are in factjust flying over the property or staying as winter orsummer visitors. This is a major difference with, forexample, the Pantanal World Heritage property as mostbirds are permanent residents in the property.

In relation to criterion (iv), the nomination documentclaims the importance of the Hula Valley within the GreatRift Valley Migration Flyway as its wetlands andassociated agricultural areas represent an importantstop-over site for migrating birds crossing this arid zone.However, as the nomination document fully recognises,there are other important wetlands that serve as stop-over sites for migrating birds using this flyway. Fromthese wetlands, 17 have been recognised under theRamsar Convention, including the wetlands complex ofLakes Baringo, Bogoria, Nakuru and Naivasha, whichhas also been nominated for World Heritage status(Great Rift Valley Lake Reserves, Kenya) but deferred forfurther work by the State Party. In a flyway that stretchesover 7,000 km it is, as recognised in the nominationdocument, essential to apply a serial approach. However,the first property for inscription in a phased approachshould be of Outstanding Universal Value in its own right,

as noted in the Operational Guidelines. Consideringthe results from the comparative analysis it is not clearthat the Hula Valley is fulfilling this requirement.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal status and ownership

The State of Israel owns all the land of the core areas inthe nominated property. The non-reserved land isleased under special agreements by various farmingassociations from settlements under the jurisdiction ofthe Upper Galilee Regional Council. Within the corearea, the Hula Nature Reserve was established in 1964and designated as a Ramsar site in 1996. A KerenKayementh Leisreal (KKL) started the Lake Agmonrestoration project in 1994 and its protection andmanagement is governed by the hydrological andecological provisions under this project, which ensuresan adequate status of protection. Since 1999, itsimmediate surroundings are designated for tourismdevelopment, operated by a local cooperative.

4.2 Boundaries

The two core areas of the nominated property and thebuffer zone form a distinct and logical managementunit within the Upper Jordan River catchment. However,the freshwater wetlands that form the core areas aresmall and dependent on human intervention for theirwater supply. Upstream from the property the emphasisis on maximising water quality and flow to Lake Kinneret.The property uses part of this water to maintain thewetland functions and to minimise the contaminationof the water by nutrients from the peat. Most of the peatwater, as well as the outflow from the fishponds andthe town are locally purified, partially pumped out of thecatchment for use in orchards on the western flanks ofthe Naftali range and partially diluted for use in theReserve. The core areas and buffer zone are functionallylinked and the two core areas are geographically close.

Observing stations for the Northern valleys soaring bird migration survey in Israel

Page 73: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel ID N° 1219

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 49

SETIS SDRIBFO.ONLATOT ECRUOS/STNEMMOC

eporuE

kramneD,sdnalrehteNehT(aeSneddaW)ynamreGdna

noillim6.2-2.2 )4991,lateetfotleM(sdnalsillams,dnaltewlatsaoC)sPSfotsiLevitatneTnidedulcnI(

)eniarkU(fluGhsaviS noillim42.1-89.0 1991,lateokcinrehC

)KU(yrautsEsemahTretaerG 000,003 dribretaWlanoitanretnIsecruos(smetsysocesdnalteW)susneC

)niapS(kraPlanoitaNanañoD 000,054-024 sdribfoseiceps563,ytreporpegatireHdlroW.)4002,NPAO(

acirfA

)ainatiruaM(kraPlanoitaNniugrA'dcnaB noillim60.2 sdribfoseiceps02,ytreporpegatireHdlroW)8991,latestrawZ(dedrocer

)uassiBaeniuG(sogajiBsodogalepihcrA 000,057 )8891,strawZ(smetsysocesdnalteWdnasdnalsI

)lageneS(yrautcnaSdriBlanoitaNjduojD noillim2-5.1 sdribfoseiceps321,ytreporpegatireHdlroW.)3002,CMCW-PENU(

)aisinuT(kraPlanoitaNluekhcI 000,004 sdribfoseiceps581,ytreporpegatireHdlroW.)3002,CMCW-PENU(

)ayneK(evreseRlanoitaNairogoBekaL noillim2 ,sdribfoseiceps153,gnitsilHWrofetisderrefeD)1002,NCUI(etuoryrotargiMyellaVtfiRnihtiwdetacol

)ayneK(kraPlanoitaNurukaNekaL noillim5.1 ,sdribfoseiceps084,gnitsilHWrofetisderrefeD)1002,NCUI(etuoryrotargiMyellaVtfiRnihtiwdetacol

naecOnaidnI/tsaEelddiM

aibarAiduaS,setatSfluG(fluGnaibarA)narIdna

noillim4 tressedotdetaicossasmetsysocednalteW.)1991,latestrawZ(smetsysoce

)learsI(aluH noillim1 tressedotdetaicossasmetsysocednalteWnoitanimoN(sdribfoseiceps313,smetsysoce

)tnemucod

aciremAhtroN

atleDreviRmiwkoksuK-nokuYlartneC)ASU(

noillim2-1 lednaHdnalliG(metsysdnaltewlatsaocdnaenireviR)0991

)ASU(kraPlanoitaNsedalgrevE 000,084-054 nretseWehtnimetsysoceevorgnamtsegraL,CMCW-PENU(,sdribfoseiceps004,erehpsimeH

.)2002

)ocixeM(erbeiLedojOanugaL 000,051-001 seiceps721,ytreporpHWoniacziVlEfotrapsmroftI)1002,CMCW-PENU(sdribfo

aciremAhtuoS

anaiuGhcnerF,emaniruSfotsaochtroNlizarBdna

noillim1.2 ehtnisaeralarutanenitsirptsebehtfoemosedulcnIehtnideredisnocsetisforebmuna,tnenitnoc

foseiceps003revo,seitraPsetatSfostsilevitatneT)9891,ssoR&nosirroM(sdrib

Table 2. Comparison showing key stop-over sites for migrating birds.

The trend in the agricultural land in between is for anincreased role of management for conservation(woodlands, temporary wetlands). Though the processof peat subsidence has been slowed, the areas to thenorth of the Lake Agmon are still losing agricultural valueand this is likely to lead to expansion of the wetlands inthe near future. However, this nomination also poses

the question of whether the boundaries should includethe airspace above the nominate property in order toenforce the protection of birds flying over the property.

4.3 Management

Page 74: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1219 The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel

50 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

The core areas contain a variety of wetland types withflowing, permanent and temporary open water, floatingvegetation, marshes, reedbeds, etc. in a predominantlydryland area. Though small and largely rehabilitated orman-made, the core areas have an adequate level ofprotection especially since the quality and quantity ofwater supplied has improved (2002) and its provisionhas become legally binding (2004).

There are two approved management plans underimplementation, one for the Hula Reserve (1975) andone for Lake Agmon and the buffer zone (1999) and acomprehensive plan for the entire nominated propertyis being developed within the framework of thedevelopment plan for the entire catchment. Themanaging authority of the property is a nested set ofcommittees dealing with a variety of issues, workingunder the auspices of an overarching Hula committeein charge of the entire valley. Each committee includesrepresentatives from different levels of government, fromnon-governmental and community organisations andfrom other stakeholders.

There is substantial management capacity on theproperty. The reserve has six permanent staff and LakeAgmon has two, which is adequate as the stakeholderassociation runs the visitor centre and manages thetourism. Stakeholder-farmers in the buffer zone have ahigh level of understanding of the management issuesand are actively involved. The entire watershed is closelymonitored and intensively researched and the resultsare directly fed into management through the fourcommittees. There is additional support on managementand conservation issues from various KKLdepartments, from the science division of the Natureand Park’s Authority and environmental NGO’s. This isespecially effective in the prevention of damage to cropsand fishponds, important to ensure continued farmerstakeholder support. The main source of income formanagement activities is from entry fees; whilst the WaterCommission and KKL are the main contributors to LakeAgmon. Local farmers also contribute financially to themanagement of the nominated property, representing10% of the budget.

In the buffer zone there are detailed instructions on landuse practices (permanent green cover, high water table)and restrictions on pesticide and fertiliser use. There isclose collaboration between the farmers and theconservation organisations to reduce damage to cropsand fishponds while still providing enough food for birdenergetics (fish stocking in the reserves, crane feeding,etc.). Because of the importance of the catchment for thenation’s water, the development plans for the UpperGalilee Region are restrictive on industrial and housingdevelopment and emphasize the maintenance of highquality open areas, favouring the development ofconservation and ecotourism. Local farmers are activelyinvesting in tourism, which is increasingly a source ofincome to replace farming.

The hydrological management of Lake Hula, theestablishment and rehabilitation of the Hula Reserve,and the creation of Lake Agmon, have all beenaccompanied by substantial research efforts and theseare continuing with a strong component of internationalcollaboration, e.g. EU Life ‘land of flowing waters’, Duke

University, the German funded programme ‘Globalchange in the hydrological cycle’ (GLOWA) on five riverbasins including the Jordan River. Bird migration hasbecome a hot research topic internationally and anumber of top researchers are actively involved inresearch within the nominated property and the overallGreat Rift Valley Flyway.

4.4 Threats

In contrast to much of the region, where hunting isconsidered the main threat to migratory birds (BirdLifeInternational, 2003), hunting is not a major activity inIsrael (5000 licences, 80% of which are mainly targetingnon-migratory dryland species such as partridges andwild boar).

Visitor management is well regulated and includesobligatory parking at the visitor centres, the provision ofa range of internal transport options at Lake Agmon(bicycles, electrical carts, buses, mobile hide, etc.),tourist trails and viewing opportunities from hides.However, visitor pressure is on the increase, with250,000 visitors per year at present and it is expected toreach 500,000 in the next 2-3 years. The expandingnetwork of nature trails and hides on the property willaccommodate this, though portions will remain closedand dedicated to conservation and research.Increasingly the public is diverted to the widersurroundings by the development of trails to the north ofthe property and in the Naftali range, where additionallookouts are under construction.

Long-term severe drought could seriously damage thearea, even though the water supply is legally guaranteed.In such a situation, water shortage in the core areas willharm breeding birds in particular. Climate change is animportant driving force in the evolution of bird migrationand current trends will affect migrating birds, e.g. byshortening some migration flyways with more birdsremaining in more northerly areas and making it difficultfor others when staging posts in between are lost. Activelymanaged and conserved stop-over sites will tend tobecome more important for the survival of individual birdsspecies. In addition, the security situation in the regionremains volatile and armed conflict, with damage tomanagement infrastructure, is a possibility.

Finally, whilst this section addresses the conditions ofintegrity of the nominated property, it is essential toemphasize that, as noted in section 3 above, the propertyon its own cannot ensure the conservation of the differentbirds species using the Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway.This, as noted in the nomination document, requires aconcerted effort of the States Parties sharing thisimportant natural phenomenon.

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

5.1 Other values: The peat soils of the nominatedproperty contain an excellent paleo-ecological record,quite unique in a region where wetlands that accumulateorganic matter over extended time periods are scarce.Whilst some areas have been analyzed for pollen, thepeat may still yield additional information on climatic

Page 75: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel ID N° 1219

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 51

and ecological changes in the region over the past fewhundred thousand years.

5.2 Justification for Serial Approach: The Great RiftValley is a unique geological feature but also animportant migration route for wildlife, mainly formammals and birds. The flyway contains a number ofstopover sites, usually wetlands, as well as bottlenecksfor migratory birds, where large concentrations can beobserved and where birds are also most vulnerable fortheir conservation. A serial nomination is expected tolink up the most important sites along the flyway, fromwhich the Hula Valley should potentially be one of them.However, the nomination as well as the additionalinformation provided by the State Party, whilstrecognising the need for a serial approach, does notinclude any plan for nominating a number of sites thatshould form such serial transnational nomination;neither is it clear what the actual commitment fromdifferent States Parties is in order to work together inpreparing such a serial nomination. Therefore, at thispoint, IUCN considers it premature to make anyassessment on a potential serial nomination for theGreat Rift Valley Migration Flyway.

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA/STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula hasbeen nominated under natural criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Criterion (ii): Ecological processes

Bird migration is a global natural phenomenon thatcannot be associated to a single site. Whilst thenominated property offers an important window into thisphenomenon, it cannot be considered in itself the bestexample representing it. The essential ecologicalprocesses occurring in the nominated property arecurrently maintained by human intervention.Furthermore the migration process can only besustained if other key sites along the Great Rift Valleycan continue to provide stop-over functions to migratoryspecies. As noted in section 3 there are other sitesalong this flyway that play a much more important roleas stop-over sites for migratory birds. Therefore, thenominated property cannot be considered outstandingin its own right to support the conservation of migratoryspecies along the Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway,which requires a serial transnational approach. IUCNconsiders that the nominated property does not meetthis criterion.

Criterion (iii): Superlative natural phenomena ornatural beauty and aesthetic importance

The visible part of the autumn bird migration observedat the nominated property, where thousands to tens ofthousands of soaring birds of dozens of species can beseen in a single day, is a result of a global phenomenoninstead of being directly linked to the natural features ofthe nominated property. Whilst the property and widersurroundings including the Great Rift Valley escarpmentsare aesthetically pleasing, these features do not rankhighly when compared to other properties already

inscribed under this criterion in the World Heritage List.IUCN considers that the nominated property does notmeet this criterion.

Criterion (iv): Biodiversity and threatened species

Whilst the nominated property is an important stop-oversite for a number of globally threatened bird speciessuch as for the Marbled Teal (breeding) and GreaterSpotted and Imperial Eagles (migrating and wintering),the nominated property is functionally of regionalsignificance in the context of the Great Rift Valley MigrationFlyway and does not rank as highly as other importantstop-over sites worldwide. IUCN considers that thenominated property does not meet this criterion.

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends the Committee not to inscribe theGreat Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula (Israel) onthe World Heritage List on the basis of natural criteria.

IUCN congratulates the State Party of Israel for its effortsin promoting a serial nomination for the Great Rift ValleyMigration Flyway, and encourages other States Partieslocated within this region to work together in preparing aserial transnational nomination addressing the differentvalues existing in the Great Rift Valley.

Page 76: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1219 The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel

52 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: Location of nominated property

Page 77: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Great Rift Valley Migration Flyway, the Hula - Israel ID N° 1219

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 53

Map 2: Boundaries of nominated property

Page 78: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 79: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

DINOSAUR ICHNITE SITES OFTHE IBERIAN PENINSULA

SPAIN

Page 80: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 81: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

DINOSAUR ICHNITE SITES OF THE IBERIAN PENINSULA1 (SPAIN) – ID N° 1204

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 55

Explanatory note on the extent of the nomination: The nominated property comprises 216 surface exposures ofrocks containing dinosaur footprints in Spain. These localities are identified by the State Party as the ‘basic sites’of the nomination. The nomination identifies and describes in detail 35 sites selected from within the 216 basicsites. In fact these 35 ‘selected sites’ include 51 of the basic sites as some of these have been grouped in anumber of clusters. IUCN’s evaluation report is based on the evaluation mission, which visited the 35 ‘selectedsites’ described in the nomination document, and where maps have been received to the scale and level of detailrequired by the Operational Guidelines. The reports received from external reviewers also focused on the assessmentof the 35 ‘selected sites’. As noted in section 5 of this report there remain issues regarding the extent of thenominated property, and the practicalities of inclusion of 216 basic sites.

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: The State Party providedsupplementary information on the 2 November 2005 following the IUCN field visit, and on the 29 March2006 (by email), following questions from the IUCN World Heritage Panel in January 2006. Hardcopies of the supplementary information, including detailed maps not received by email on 29 March,arrived on the 3 April at the World Heritage Centre and 10 April at IUCN. The new maps were thereforenot examined.

iii) IUCN/WCMC Data Sheet: four references

iv) Additional Literature Consulted: Thulborn, A. (1990). Dinosaur Traces. Chapman and Hall, London,394pp.; Lockley, M. and Meyer, C. (2000). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints in Europe.Columbia University Press. New York, 323pp.; Lockley, M. (1991). Tracking Dinosaurs. CambridgeUniversity Press, 252pp.; Lockley, M. and Hunt, A. (1995). Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprintsof the Western United States. Columbia University Press. 336pp.; Gillette, D. and Lockley. M. (1989).Dinosaur Tracks and Traces. Cambridge University Press. 480pp. Pérez-Lorente, F. (2003).Dinosaurios Y Otros Reptiles Mesozoicos En España. Gobierno de La Rioja, 444pp.

v) Consultations: 7 external reviewers. The mission also met with representatives of the State Party,regional and local government representatives, scientists and local communities.

vi) Field Visit: Dr Gérard Collin and Dr Patrick McKeever, 22 September – 1 October, 2005

vi) Date of IUCN approval of this report: 11 April 2006

1 The nomination dossier and supplementary information alternatively uses ‘in’,‘on’ and of in the title of the serial property. IUCNconsiders that ‘of ’may be the most appropriate wording in English.

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The fossil localities: The nominated serial property, theDinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula (Icnitasde Dinosaurio de la Península Ibérica - IDPI), comprises216 fossil localities, or surface exposures of rockscontaining dinosaur footprints (ichnites), within theterritory of six Autonomous Communities in Spain:Asturias, Castilla y León, La Rioja, Aragón, Valencia andCatalunya. These localities are identified by the StateParty as the ‘basic sites’ of the nomination. Thenomination also identifies 35 sites selected from within

the 216 basic sites. These 35 ‘selected sites’ include51 of the basic sites – some of which have been grouped.The numbers of basic and selected fossil sites withineach Autonomous Community is shown in the Table 1.

The landscapes within which the fossil localities arefound are varied. In Asturias the localities are situatedon the seashore, generally on the cliffs or associated tothe layer of loose rock debris at their feet. The localitiesof Castilla y León are all located in the northern part ofthe region (Provincias de Burgos and Soria). The mainlandscape is a high plateau (“meseta”) characterised

Page 82: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1204 Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain

56 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

suomonotuAytinummoC

setisdetceleS setiscisaB

sairutsA 4 81

nóeLyallitsaC 9 84

ajoiRaL 31 011

nógarA 4 71

aynulataC 4 41

aicnelaV 1 9

latoT 53 612

by a scarce low vegetation and some forestations ofpine trees. The areas near the sites are rural, includingonly small villages. The localities in La Rioja are situatedat the south of the beginning of the Ebro plain. They arefound in the sierras or in the narrow valleys that flowtoward the Ebro. The areas near the sites in La Riojaare also rural, although some places in Arnedillo receivea lot of tourist visits. Aragón is a mountainous regiondirectly related to the Pyrenees. The localities aresituated in remote parts of the region and the landscapesare dominated by sedimentary hills covered by lowvegetation. In Valencia the localities are located in alandscape of dry plateaus, covered by dry forest andshrubs, most of the streams are seasonal (the site ofTambuc is located in one these dry valleys). The area isrural with mainly fields of almond and olive trees. Thesites of Catalunya are situated in the mountainouscounter forts of the Pyrenees (Serra de Montsec, 1677mhigh). The landscape is characterised by pasture landsand forests.

The fossil localities are all situated in rural areas, inplaces where the quality of the landscapes gives anadditional interest to the dinosaur ichnite sites. Many ofthe sites are close to protected areas (Natural Reserveof the Ria de Villaviciosa in Asturias, National GameReserve of Santa Cruz de Yanguas in Castilla y León,Specially Protected Area of the Canyon del Rio Leza inLa Rioja, Biosphere Reserve of Munilla in La Rioja,National Game Reserve of Muela de Cortes de Pallarsin Valencia, and Serra del Montsec in Catalunya). Theseareas protect a range of regionally and nationallyimportant plant species

The fossils: Unlike body fossils which are the staticremains of dead animals, trace fossils (or “ichnites”)are sedimentary structures which were made by livinganimals. As such they provide information directly aboutthe behaviour and ecology of the living animal. However,interpretation of ichnites requires caution. Ichnite shapeand size may reflect a number of conditions and not justthe physical size of the feet of the animal that made it.The same animal or indeed the same foot can berepresented by various types of trackway and printdependent on such things as substrate conditions,speed of movement of the animal at the time andsubsequent erosion (leading to undertracks).

The nominated property includes dinosaur ichnites fromeach period within the age of the dinosaurs (Triassic,Jurassic and Cretaceous periods), although it isquestionable whether the property can really be claimedto represent the entire period in question. The record isstrongly biased towards second half of the Age ofDinosaurs from the Oxfordian / Kimmeridgian of theUpper Jurassic to the Maastrichtian at the close of theCretaceous Period some 90 million years later. None ofthe 35 selected sites, and only one of the 216 basicsites, is from the Triassic Period.

The IDPI localit ies represent a broad range ofenvironments from a deltaic channel overflow system,as at Faro de Tazones (Asturias) to a lacustrineenvironment, as at La Cela (La Rioja), to muddyfloodplains, such as at Fumanya Sud (Catalunya). Theseenvironments represent just some of the Mesozoicenvironments in which dinosaurs lived. The ichnitesthemselves are fully representative of the main groupsof dinosaur (theropods, sauropods and ornithopods)and often more than one such group is represented ateach site.

The 35 selected sites together help to build up a pictureof north-east Spain during the second half of the Mesozoicand, in particular, of the lifestyle and behaviour of differentgroups of dinosaur. The quantity and quality of thetrackways, however, is somewhat variable, ranging fromlarge sites of widely acknowledged internationalimportance such as those at Fumanya (Catalunya) andLa Era del Peladillo (La Rioja), to sites of more regionalor local interest, such as those at Galve (Aragón) andSerrantes (Oris, in Castilla y León). Furthermore thequantity of information is very variable. While this is notto be unexpected given that dinosaur ichnology is arelatively recent area of dedicated geological study, itdoes mean that the real scientific value of understudiedsites such as La Pellejera (La Rioja), where only anestimated 25% of the site has been studied, or LosTormos (Soria, in Castilla y León) where no behaviouralanalysis has yet been carried out, has yet to be fullyrealised. Of course this also clearly means there is widescope for future study and research.

As a whole, the 35 ‘selected sites’ of the nominatedproperty provide a series of insights into the life of

Table 1. The numbers of basic and selected fossil sites within each autonomous community

Page 83: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain ID N° 1204

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 57

dinosaurs during the second half of the Mesozoic. Thesites provide evidence of a dynamic group of animalswith complex social behavioural patterns. While mosttracks yield evidence of walking animals, others indicaterunning, swimming or even jumping animals (La Virgendel Campo, La Rioja). Many of the trackways appearrandom in orientation while others at individual sitesshow preferred alignments indicating preferred walkingdirections or herding. Some surfaces are trampled bynumerous prints and trackways and in one spectacularexample at Fumanya (Catalunya), two trackways remainparallel to each other even through turns, demonstratingbeyond doubt the gregarious nature of these animals.Across the 35 ‘selected sites’, print size is variable fromsmall ornithopod prints such as those at Las Cerradicas(Aragón), to sauropod prints of 125cm across (Playa dela Griega, Asturias), which (the variables involved in printformation aside) are bigger than any skeletal fossilremains recovered anywhere in the world to date. Thesites also provide evidence of animals of different agesfrom family groups with young such as at La Era delPeladillo (La Rioja), to the trackways of old animals suchas at La Cuesta de Andorra (La Rioja). The sites of theIDPI are distributed across a substantial area of Spain,although this arguably a relatively small area on theglobal scale.

3. COMPARISONS WITH OTHER AREAS

While the first dinosaur trackways were recorded in 1802,the study of dinosaur ichnology has only recentlybecome a significant subject of study. Over the last threedecades the number of recorded sites of dinosaurtrackways across the world has multiplied. Thenominated property is certainly rated by reviewers as anarea of international importance in relation to the studyof dinosaur footprints, but it is not the only such area,and not necessarily the primary area of importance. Newfindings in Bolivia, dating from near the end of the Age ofDinosaurs, include one trackway over 350m long. TheLark Quarry site in Australia includes 3000 prints and isconsidered to record a stampede of small dinosaurssome 95 million years ago. At Goseong, Republic ofKorea, trackways belonging to Sauropods, ornithopodsand therapods are recorded from mid-Cretaceous times.Sites across Colorado, Texas, New Mexico and Utah inthe USA record many other types of dinosaur behaviourincluding herding.

The find in Bolivia at Cal Orcko is the subject of anapproved international preparatory assistance requestto the World Heritage Fund. In 1998 an internationalteam of palaeontologists assessed this site as thelargest site of dinosaur tracks in the world, with thehighest diversity of tracks and the longest dinosaurtrackway ever found. This site in Bolivia is not discussedin the comparative analysis prepared by the State Partyas part of this nomination.

The age of the dinosaurs is already represented on theWorld Heritage List by three properties with terrestrialfossil remains, although none of these were inscribedon the basis of trackways alone. Ischigualasto-Talampaya in Argentina was inscribed because itcontains a complete sequence of fossil iferouscontinental sediments representing the entire TriassicPeriod (45 million years) of geological history. Theproperty includes evidence of the earliest dinosaurs asthey made their transition from the archosaurs. Moreoverit also records the contemporaneous evolution ofmammals. Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada) hasyielded over 150 complete dinosaur skeleton, as wellas additional disorganised concentrations of bonesdating from 75 million years ago in the late Cretaceous.The Dorset and East Devon Coast (United Kingdom)contains rocks, and a series of internationally importantfossil localities from all three periods of the Mesozoic,including in an outstanding and accessible marinesequence of Jurassic strata. Terrestrial sediments arerarer and dinosaur trackways here are limited to a shortperiod of time at the Jurassic – Cretaceous boundary.Other palaeontological sites inscribed on the WorldHeritage List do not contain the remains of dinosaurs.

IUCN notes that the World Heritage Committee haspreviously taken a strong position regarding the needfor fossil sites to be accompanied by a thorough globalcomparative analysis. Whilst IUCN recognises that theevidence of dinosaurs provided by traces is differentfrom, and complementary to, the evidence provided byskeletal and body remains, it considers that dinosaurfossil sites as a whole should be taken as the frameworkwithin which comparison is carried out. The comparativeanalysis provided by the nomination document is deficientin considering only dinosaur footprint sites, rather thanall dinosaur fossil sites, and in providing a cleardistinction of the nominated property in relation to therelevant importance of other World Heritage fossilproperties2.

IUCN noted in its request for further information to theState Party (31 January 2006) that such a comparativeanalysis was required in order to consider in more detailwhether a nomination of dinosaur ichnites on the IberianPeninsula (in conceptual terms) could be demonstratedto meet the requirements of outstanding universal value.The State Party has agreed that such an analysis wouldbe more appropriate than that offered to date, which isessentially quantitative. The State Party providesconsiderable detail about its proposed methodology toenhance the comparative analysis within itssupplementary information.

A further key issue in relation to both the comparativeanalysis and the analysis of the conditions of integrity ofthe nominated property is that it refers to the IberianPeninsula but does not consider other Iberian track sitesin Portugal. IUCN notes that five track sites in Portugalare designated as national monuments, and are statedto include the world’s longest sauropod trackway, andthe most accessible Middle Jurassic track. These sites

2 Although a fossil checklist is normally completed by IUCN in relation to fossil properties, IUCN considers that therange of potential revisions required, including further global comparative analysis by the State Party of Spainmakes the completion of the checklist premature at this stage

Page 84: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1204 Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain

58 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

would appear therefore to display complementary valuesto those in Spain. IUCN raised this as a further keyissue in its request for supplementary information fromthe State Party of Spain. The State Party has respondedby initiating a dialogue with the State Party of Portugalregarding possible participation in a serial transboundarynomination. IUCN is not aware of the response of theState Party of Portugal at the time of finalising the presentevaluation report.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal Status and ownership

The protection of the nominated palaeontological sitesis provided by the Spanish Historical Heritage Law (16/1985) and its Royal Decree (111/1986) as a culturalheritage. Article one, second paragraph, of the SpanishHistorical Heritage Law guarantees the maximumprotection to sites declared as “Properties of CulturalInterest” (Bien de Interés Cultural or B.I.C.). Theprotection of palaeontological sites is also provided bythe Spanish Law (6/2001) and its Royal Decree (1302/1986) on Environmental Impact Assessment that obligesprivate and public promoters of works to make a previousstudy of the impacts on the environment and on theheritage.

In every one of the Autonomous Communities,complementary laws and decrees exist in order to protectthe different components of this nominated serialproperty:

• In Asturias, they are protected as Natural Monuments(Law 5/1991 on protected natural areas) and asCultural Sites (Law 1/2001 on cultural heritage).

• In Castilla y León, the sites are protected as NaturalMonuments (Law 8/1991 on protected natural areas)and Historical Sites (Law 12/2002 on culturalheritage).

• In La Rioja, the sites are protected as cultural,historical and heritage properties (Decree 20/2001on the regulations concerning the administrativecompetences) and as Historical Sites (Decree 34/2000 on the declaration of 40 dinosaurs ichnite sitesas historical sites). They are also protected by thelaws on environmental protection (5/2002) and thelaw on the conservation of natural areas (4/2003).

• In Aragón, the sites are protected by the law on culturalparks (12/1997), the law on protected natural areas(6/1998), and the law on cultural heritage (3/1999)and, finally, with the decree (22/01/2003) that hasgiven them a status of Property of Cultural Interest.

• In Catalunya, the sites are protected by the law oncultural heritage (9/1993) that gives them the statusof Property of Cultural Interest, as well as by the lawon natural protected areas (12/1985).

• In Valencia, the sites are protected by the law onnatural protected areas (11/1994) which gives them

the status of Sites of Interest, as well as by the lawon the cultural heritage (4/1998), that gives them thepossibility of being classified as Properties of CulturalInterest, as Properties of Local Relevance, or asPalaeontological Vigilance Areas.

Despite the complexity of the Spanish administrativeorganisation, legal protection arrangements are in place.The national and regional interests for the protection ofthe dinosaur ichnite sites are fully demonstrated by theset of laws and decrees. The specific quality of thisheritage (partially natural, partially cultural) is respectedby protection related to both fields.

The ownership of the nominated dinosaur ichnite sitesis primarily public, although significant numbers are inprivate ownership (up to 25% of the 216 basic sites).

4.2 Boundaries

Each of the 35 ‘selected sites’ is composed of two areas:a core area and a buffer zone. The core area includesthe exposures where ichnites have been observed,scientifically recorded, protected by law and eventuallyconserved by physical means. The limits are defined bythe coordinates identified using a Global PositioningSystem (GPS). The core area is also defined bycartography at 1:50000 scale (Ministry of DefenceGeographical Institute). A general table gives thereference data of the core areas organised byAutonomous Communities (registration number, nameof the site, name of the municipality, apices, surface,access, geological period). Buffer zone boundaries havebeen defined based on the possibility of extension ofthe ichnites outside of the already discovered tracks.

The mapping of the remaining 165 ‘basic sites’ was notcompleted to the same level of the 35 ‘selected sites’ aspart of the original nomination. Additional informationprovided by the State Party appears to include detailedmaps for all the basic sites but these were not receivedbefore the deadline of 31 March. Due to practicalconsiderations, it was also not possible to visit the largenumber of ‘basic sites’ during the evaluation missionand IUCN is therefore unable to comment on theadequacy of these boundaries in the field.

A further issue in relation to the boundaries is the extentof the serial nomination and this is discussed in thesection below on the justification of a serial approach.

4.3 Management

Each Autonomous Community works in the fields ofresearch, conservation, protection, and communicationfor the dinosaur ichnite sites. Research studies are setup every year by different universities and museums. Ayearly symposium is also organised by La RiojaAutonomous Community, with the participation ofinternational experts in the field of dinosaur ichnites.

Studies on ichnite management are led at the level ofeach Autonomous Community. They are then used forthe preparation of risk maps and plans of restorationand consolidation. A private agency, composed ofspecialists in archaeology, palaeontology and

Page 85: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain ID N° 1204

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 59

conservation, is contracted regularly for the in situconservation, and training is provided by the TeruelPalaeontological Complex Foundation (Aragón).

The fossil localities are protected using varioustechniques, depending on the type of site and theadministration in charge of management. This caninclude sealing the small cracks in surface or coveringexcavations with earth following study. Pesticides areemployed in order to avoid the development of vegetation.Some localities are protected from heavy visitation bybarriers; and from rain and temperature change byshelters or stone walls to divert rainwater.

There has been considerable effort to communicate theinterest of the ichnites to visitors. Signposts exist at everysite, including short information on the status ofprotection or more detailed interpretation on the ichnites.In each Autonomous Community visitors are able toaccess leaflets and booklets on the dinosaurs and theirtracks in general and on the specific sites of the region.Various museums and interpretation centres providecomplementary information, including large facilities atMuseo del Jurásico de Asturias, and Dinopolis in Aragón,or small exhibitions, such as in the villages of Salas deLos Infantes (Castilla y León) or Igea (La Rioja).

A Coordinating Committee of the six AutonomousCommunities and the Spanish State was created inMarch 2003. This Committee is responsible for apalaeontological research support plan; a plan for thedeclaration and delimitation of Properties of CulturalInterest; and a plan for the dissemination and evaluationof Palaeontological Heritage. In order to help the work ofthe Committee, a Technical Standing Committee hasbeen established with a group of scientific and heritageexperts. Its work is carried out within a managementplan and is concerned with technical activities(documentation, conservation, research, protection);administrative activities (authorisations, inspections, co-ordination, prescriptions, procedures); and promotionand dissemination activities (valuation of the properties,drafting of dissemination projects, drawing up of thepromotional plans).

Each Autonomous Community has a set of plans for theresearch related to the dinosaur ichnite sites; theconservation and protection of the sites; and thecommunication relating to the sites. Castilla y León iscurrently developing an ambitious general project forthe management of the heritage of the region. Based onthe field evaluation and review of availabledocumentation, IUCN considers that there remainssome lack of precision on the organisation of theactivities in terms of firm timescales, except for thosewithin Castilla y León. The additional informationprovided by the State Party on 29 March 2006 noted thatthe different Autonomous Communities involved in thisnomination are already progressing in preparing acommon management framework for the serial propertywhich will be implemented through funding allocated byeach Autonomous Community.

IUCN’s evaluation mission consistently noted the greatinterest and pride felt among local people for thedinosaur trackways from right across the north and east

of Spain. This interest was not limited to scientists,curators and public servants, but includes local mayorsand politicians, who are supportive of and directlyinvolved in activities related to the ichnites. This includesboth preservation measures and the equipping ofinformation centres and interpretive and researchprogrammes. The conservation and the interpretationof the fossil localities are clearly seen as valuable forsustainable economic development in a number of theregions that are both relatively poor and isolated.

4.4 Threats

Natural pressures are important considerations in theconservation of dinosaur ichnite sites. The action of thesun, wind, water, and differences of temperature, canlead to the creation and enlargement of cracks andfissures in the rocks and the flaking of surfaces. InAsturias, the sites are all situated along the sea shoreand are subjected to continuous mechanical, chemicaland biological erosion of waves and tides. Vegetationgrowing on the surface itself (mosses, lichens, algae)or plants using the fissures or cracks can also affect theconservation of the tracks. Effective measures (covers,rock restoration, regular cleaning of the vegetation) limitthe impact of the environmental pressures. In somecases, the tracks have been moulded as a precautionor even the originals have been taken off the sites (themoulds or the original are conserved in the regionalmuseums).

There are no polluting industries in the neighbourhoodof the sites, and analysis of a number of sites has notidentified any damage from atmospheric pollution.Tourism is currently limited to a few very accessiblelocalities and viewing points, paths, raised walkwaysand passing points have been created to avoid thevisitors stepping on the tracks. The risk of removal oftracks by collectors exists but does not represent a realthreat at the moment. State legislation provides for heavypenalties for acts of vandalism or looting.

In conclusion, on the basis of the sites visited during theevaluation mission, IUCN considers that the nominatedproperty is well managed in relation to both natural andman-made threats, at a level that meets the best ofinternational standards for dinosaur footprint localities.

IUCN considers that the level of legal protection andmanagement of the nominated property is sufficient tomeet the conditions of integrity. However the nominationdoes not meet conditions of integrity in relation to theextent of the property and adequacy of boundaries.Adequacy of management can only be fully assessedwhen more information on the extent of a final nominationis defined and understood.

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

5.1 Discrepancy of information

IUCN raised with the State Party its concern that, withinthe ‘selected sites’, key points such as the extent of thenominated areas varied within the nomination

Page 86: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1204 Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain

60 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

documentation. The State Party noted in response (29March 2006) that there are four sources of discrepancyin the information provided, that the nomination needsto be updated, and that this will affect the data on thevalues within the nominated property. The State Partyhas also agreed that section 2 and 3 of the nominationneed to be rewritten because ‘the vast quantity ofcomplementary information sent subsequent to theofficial submission of the file has got to the point that itmakes it harder for the evaluators to understand’.

5.2 Justification for Serial Approach

When IUCN evaluates a serial nomination it asks thefollowing questions:

a) What is the justification for the serial approach?

In principle a serial approach to the recognition of fossilsites is justifiable. Rock exposures from a coherentgroup of strata can be geographically separated due thenature of the structural geology, local geomorphologyand land cover. In practice, however, IUCN considersthat the nominated serial property in this case is tooextensive. The series includes a suite of properties thatrange from those of a demonstrable internationalimportance to those which on their own are, at the most,of national interest. Whilst these properties may containdetailed aspects not seen in other Spanish ichnitelocalities, their inclusion establishes an open-endedpotential for further small, nationally important sites tobe added to the series. IUCN considers that the StateParty needs to rethink its conceptual framework to makea more focussed selection of sites that represent thevalues of the IDPI that are considered to be of‘outstanding universal value’.

b) Are the separate elements of the propertyfunctionally linked?

There are two key issues that need to be consideredwhen assessing this point. Firstly, whilst the key entrypoint to argue for a link between the different componentsof this serial nomination is their geographical distributionin the Iberian Peninsula (keeping aside the fact that onlysites in Spain have been nominated), this is hardlyconvincing as an appropriate basis for defining a serialnomination of dinosaur ichnites as the geography of theworld of the ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’ was completelydifferent from the present day. Secondly, as noted in point(a) above, the conceptual framework of this nominationis inadequate as it has not demonstrated a coherentand distinctive rationale that links these footprints. Inother words, what is the distinctive claim of these tracesthat would make them of ‘outstanding universal value’in the global context? In the absence of this clearconceptual framework they are arguably no more linkedthan other dinosaur footprint localities that can be foundin other countries around the world. Thus, based on thepresent nomination document, IUCN believes that thefunctional link of the different components of this serialnomination has not been clearly demonstrated.

c) Is there an overall management framework for allthe units?

There is an overall coordinating structure for the IDPIand a range of management arrangements. HoweverIUCN is concerned that the series proposed is too largeto be practicably manageable as a coherent WorldHeritage property. IUCN considers that the logisticalchallenges for the State Party in managing the selectedand basic sites at the level required under the WorldHeritage Convention to be too large. At the same time,the size and complexity of the nominated property wouldbe extremely difficult for the World Heritage Committeeto monitor effectively.

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENTOF SIGNIFICANCE

The Dinosaur Ichnite Sites in the Iberian Peninsula havebeen nominated on the basis of natural criteria (i), (ii)and (iii).

Criterion (i): Earth’s history and geological features

IUCN considers that the nominated serial property is ofinternational importance in relation to the record ofdinosaur ichnites, and thus of importance inunderstanding dinosaur evolution and behaviour. TheIDPI record the fossil traces of living, active dinosaursfrom the upper part of the Mesozoic era. Taken as awhole, they provide, in a relatively small geographicalarea, a valuable insight into the behaviour of the largestgroup of animals the Earth has ever seen, across alarge span of time during which they lived.

However the nomination has not demonstrated that anomination based solely on dinosaur footprints can beregarded as being of outstanding universal value, norhas a thorough, global comparative analysis beencarried out to demonstrate the importance of the propertyrelative to other known dinosaur sites. Other individualdinosaur trackway sites elsewhere in the world are citedas being longer, larger or more diverse, and may provideequivalent or better behavioural evidence to that providedby the nominated serial property. The nomination alsohas a significant weakness as it does not consider sitesof known international significance in Portugal. IUCNconsiders that a more conceptually focused nomination,including at least key Portuguese footprint localities, mayhave potential to meet this criterion. However the serialproperty, as currently nominated, does not meet thiscriterion.

Criterion (ii): Ecological processes

The sites of the IDPI record the traces of once livinganimals. However, they do not provide evidence on theevolution or development of dinosaurs as a group ofanimals; they give evidence only of how these animalsbehaved. Furthermore, as these are the fossil traces oflong-extinct animals, they do not represent on-goingecological and biological processes. In addition, whilstthe fossil traces are located in rural areas containingnatural and semi-natural landscapes, the ecological

Page 87: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain ID N° 1204

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 61

processes associated to these areas are only of localor national significance. IUCN considers that thenominated serial property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (iii): Superlative natural phenomena or naturalbeauty and aesthetic importance

Whilst several of the IDPI series are large andinternationally important fossil localities, overall theseries does not include sites and landscapes ofinternationally exceptional aesthetic value. Fossillocalities have consistently been assessed under naturalcriterion (i) alone and there are no reasons to adopt anexceptional approach for this nominated property. IUCNconsiders that the nominated serial property does notmeet this criterion.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of the need for in-depth assessment andsubstantial revision of this nomination, IUCNrecommends the World Heritage Committee to deferexamination of the nomination of the Dinosaur IchniteSites of the Iberian Peninsula to the World Heritage Liston the basis of natural criterion (i).

IUCN further recommends that, in reconsidering thepotential to strengthen the possible case for OutstandingUniversal Value of the nomination, the State Party giveparticular attention to:

a) A definition of a more focused conceptual frameworkthat can clearly demonstrates the relationship ofdinosaur ichnite sites in Spain to other importantfossil sites in Portugal;

b) The relationship of any revised nomination to theinterests of the footprint site in Bolivia, currently thesubject of preparatory assistance funded by theWorld Heritage Fund;

c) The need for a thorough, global comparativeanalysis, including justification for a property basedon dinosaur ichnites to be considered as being ofoutstanding universal value;

d) The need for a serial nomination to be coherentand manageable, focussed around a much smallernumber of localities and with all the elementsselected relating to global significance.

IUCN recognises and highly commends the exceptionalamount of detailed work that is represented by thepresent nomination and the exemplary cooperative andparticipatory approach to site conservation and research.IUCN recommends the Committee to note andcommend the significant commitment that has beengiven to the recognition of the values of the nominatedserial property by the State Party, the AutonomousCommunities, the different communes involved and theircitizens.

Page 88: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1204 Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain

62 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: Locations of the nominated serial property

Page 89: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Dinosaur Ichnite Sites of the Iberian Peninsula - Spain ID N° 1204

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 63

Map 2: Locations of the 214 sites in the nominated serial property

Page 90: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 91: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

LATIN AMERICA / CARIBBEAN

GORGONA AND MALPELO ISLANDS,COASTAL AND OCEANIC NATIONAL MARINE PARKS

OF COLOMBIA’S EASTERN TROPICAL PACIIFC

COLOMBIA

Page 92: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 93: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

GORGONA AND MALPELO ISLANDS, COASTAL & OCEANIC NATIONAL MARINE PARKS

OF COLOMBIA’S EASTERN TROPICAL PACIFIC (COLOMBIA) – ID N° 1216

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 65

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Additional information requested and provided by the State Party: IUCN requested supplementaryinformation on 7 December 2005, after the field mission, and on 31 January 2006 after the first meeting ofthe IUCN WH Panel. State Party responses were received on 10 January, 2006 and 13 March, 2006respectively.

iii) IUCN/WCMC Data Sheet: 10 references

iv) Additional Literature Consulted: Proceedings of the World Heritage Marine Biodiversity Workshop,Hanoi, Vietnam, World Heritage papers 4; A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.Vol. III, GBRMPA, WB, IUCN, 1995;. Biota y Ecosistemas de Gorgona, Aguirre, J. and O. Rangel (eds),Fondo para la Protección del Medio Ambiente –FEN- Colombia; Estudio Petrográfico y Geoquímica delas Rocas Volcánicas y Plutónicas de la Isla Gorgona, Arndt, N. and Revillon, S. 1998, informe, Universidadde Rennes, Francia; Malpelo Islas Oceánicas de Colombia, Brando, A., Pral. H.V., and Cantera J.R., 1992,Banco de Occidente; Geología de la Isla Malpelo, Informe Final de la Investigación Presentado a laUnidad Administrativa Especial del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales, 2004; Monitoreo de AvesAcuáticas (Marinas y Playeras) y su Articulación como Herramienta en la Planificación, Manejo yConservación de Tres Áreas Protegidas del Pacífico Sur de Colombia, Calidris, 2004; Plan de ManejoPreliminar de los Recursos Icticos del Parque Nacional Natural Gorgona y Su Área de Influencia,Castillo B. et al, 2004; Gorgona Marina, Contribución al Conocimiento de una Isla Única, INVEMAR, seriePublicaciones Especiales No. 7, Santa Marta, 2001; Plan de Manejo, Sanctuario de Fauna y Flora Malpelo,2005-2009, Unidad Administrativa del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales, Fundación Malpelo;Plan de Manejo, Parque Nacional Natural Gorgona, 2005-2009, Parques Nacionales Naturales deColombia, Dirección Territorial Suroccidente, Cali.

v) Consultations: 4 external reviewers; Directors and Staff of the General Directorate of National NaturalParks and the National Academy of Sciences; Naval Officers in Bogota and Buenaventura; staff of INVEMAR,Fundación Malpelo and Conservation International/Colombia; Municipal authorities and communityorganisations of Guapi.

vi) Field Visit: Carl Gustaf Lundin. 15-26 November, 2005.

vii) Date of approval of this report: April 2006

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The nominated serial property, Gorgona and MalpeloIslands (GMI), comprises two main areas and covers atotal area of 919,187 ha as detailed below:

Gorgona Natural National Park (GNNP) is locatedapproximately 35 km off the coast of Cauca(Department). Gorgona has a total land area of 1333.29ha and a marine area of 60,353.71 ha including thecontinental shelf slope down to more than 1000 m.

Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary (MFFS) is located506 km from the closest Colombian sea port,Buenaventura, Valle del Cauca (Department) andcomprises a land area of 350 ha, and a marine area of857,150 ha to a depth of 3,400 m.

There is no marine buffer zone connecting these twoareas.

Though separated by approximately 440 km, the twomarine protected areas included in this serialnomination share the same marine currents (CaliforniaCurrent, North Equatorial Countercurrent, EquatorialUndercurrent, Equatorial Countercurrent, SouthEquatorial Countercurrent, Humboldt Current,Colombian Current and the Panamanian CyclonicCountercurrent). However, due to the proximity ofGorgona to the continent, the ecological processes andoceanographic regime occurring around this island aremuch more influenced by the continent. On the otherhand, Malpelo represents the farthest Colombian islandfrom the continent in the Pacific Ocean and it is highlyimportant for the dispersion and recruitment of benthonic

Page 94: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1216 Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia

66 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Table 1. Extent of the nominated serial property

ytreporpdetanimoN )ah(dnaL )ah(aeS )ah(latoT

PNNanogroG 92.3331 17.353,06 786,16

SFFoleplaM 053 051,758 005,758

92.3861 17.305,719 781,919

larvae and for maintenance and re-population of fishstocks in the surrounding oceanic waters, as reportedfor other islands around the world.

GNNP and MFFS are linked in an ecological marinecorridor along the waters of the Eastern Tropical Pacific(ETP) which includes other islands such asRevillagigedo, Cocos, Galapagos, Coiba and Clipperton.This corridor is essential for the survival of emblematicspecies, such as the humpback whale, the whale shark,the devil ray, and 2 sea turtles.

At least 208 fish species, 43 birds species, 11 hard coralspecies, 44 crustacean species, 18 echinodermsspecies, 42 mollusk species and 11 marine mammalsspecies are present at both GNNP and MFFS.Taxonomic studies are currently incomplete, especiallywith respect to invertebrates, and therefore the numberof species could be even greater.

Biogeographically the marine habitats of Gorgona andMalpelo are complementary. Malpelo exhibits typicaloceanic habitats (to a depth of 3400 m), while Gorgonaincludes coastal habitats, such as superficial softbottoms (less than 80 m in depth) which are influencedby coastal runoff. Coastal species such as catfish andthe Pacific anchovy, as well as oceanic species such astuna fish, and sailfish are frequently observed in the serialproperty. However, the landscapes of both islands andthe ecological processes occurring on them are verydifferent. Malpelo Island is almost free of vegetation andsubject to an oceanic regime that conditioned theexistence of extreme ecological conditions, whileGorgona Island is much more influenced by the continentand contains tropical rainforest and abundant freshwater.

These marine protected areas preserve important habitatfor endangered marine and terrestrial species underseveral categories of threats. According to the IUCNRed List of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2000) thisincludes 4 spp. in the critical risk category (Hawaiianpetrel, giant grouper, and the hawksbill and leatherbackturtles), 8 spp. in the endangered category, and 17 spp.in the vulnerable category.

Gorgona Natural National Park (GNNP)

The geology of GNNP includes a large variety of maficand ultramafic volcanic rocks (basalts, tuff, breccias,pyroclastic rocks, komatiites, gabbros and peridotites).This allows a detailed and complete study in a singlelocality of the whole original material which developedduring the formation of the Caribbean-ColombianVolcanic Province (Arndt and Révillon, 1998). The islandis noted in particular for the occurrence of the most recent(Mesozoic) komatiites known in the world. Komatiites

are an unusual type of lava with low silica content, and ahigh magnesian concentration (MgO). Almost allkomatiites are known from Archaean rocks of up to 3billion years old, whereas the Gorgona komatiites aremuch younger at c.90 million years. The Gorgonakomatiites are currently an important element within anumber of the studies of the interior structure and coolinghistory of the Earth.

GNNP protects important ecosystems of the tropics: coralreefs and very humid tropical rain forest. Gorgona’s coralreefs are some of the most developed and diverse inthe Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) (Zapata, 2001a). Withan approximate extension of 30 hectares, coralline lifecover extends over 75% of the reef and supports 19species of scleractinian corals and a complexarrangement of other invertebrates and reef fishes.Additionally the forest in Gorgona, with a canopy of over30m high, is well conserved, with patches of primaryforest in some areas and second growth forest, withover 20 years of re-growth, in others. This is the result ofthe development of a penal colony on the island, whichwas in operation between 1958 and 1985. During thisperiod much forest was cut and exotic speciesintroduced. This forest represents critical habitat fortwelve endemic species or subspecies such as the bluelizard, the bananaquit and the red-legged honeycreeper.

The confluence in GNNP of continental marineenvironments on the leeward side of the island, withdepths of less than 85m, and of oceanic environmentson the seaward side, with depths down to 1000m, addsto the variety of marine habitats (submarine rockyoutcrops, coral reefs, sand bottoms and several depthprofiles) and terrestrial environments (very humid tropicalrain forest, cliffs, beaches and emergent rocks). Thisprovides the conditions for the existence of highbiological diversity in an insular marine area of relativelysmall size (381 fish species, 154 bird species, over 500species of mollusks), making GNNP an area of scientificinterest.

GNNP provides important habitat for 29 species inseveral threatened categories. It is estimated that around10% to 30% of the estimated population of 2600individuals of the ETP´s humpback whales, consideredvulnerable by IUCN, visit the park during their annualmigration from June to December, 36% of which arecalves (Flórez-Gonzalez and Capella, 1995; Soler et al,in review). The giant grouper, listed as criticallyendangered by IUCN and listed in Appendix I in CITES,inhabits the waters of Gorgona. GNNP is also a breedingarea for green turtle and a feeding area for black turtle(Amorocho et al, 2001). Both species are consideredendangered by IUCN and also listed in Appendices Iand II of CITES. The numbers of some species withinthe property, particularly of marine mollusks and other

Page 95: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia ID N° 1216

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 67

lower taxonomic groups are likely to increase, oncedeeper water investigations are conducted.

Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary (MFFS)

Malpelo, a seamount considered as the maximumelevation of the Malpelo Ridge, is widely recognized asone of the top diving sites in the world (Shark Diver, June1998; Plongeurs International, June 2003; Sub, 2003;Plongee Magazine, August 2004; Ca m’interesse,February 2004; Buceadores, June 2004; Skin Diver,2004). It provides important critical habitat for a numberof internationally threatened marine species, and is amajor source of nutrients and an important area ofaggregation of marine biodiversity.

The influence of several marine currents and the variedbathymetry of the Malpelo Range are the key factors whichgive rise to this complex and rich ecosystem. Thesurrounding waters of this oceanic island supportmassive populations of pelagic bony fishes, sharks,marine mammals and sea turtles (Brando et al, 1992).One of the most outstanding features of Malpelo is thatit is one of the few places in the world to record confirmedsightings of the short-nosed ragged–toothed shark, adeepwater shark. Additionally very large aggregations ofpelagic species, including outstanding schools of over200 individuals of hammerhead sharks, over 1000individuals of silky sharks, whale sharks and tuna havebeen recorded around the island (Malpelo Foundation’sobservation). There are also barracuda, endangeredeagle and manta rays, and great numbers of stripedbonito, snappers and travelly. Also to be found are thevulnerable Pacific seahorse and two endemic speciesof sea stars. Many more marine species probably remainto be described, especially among the invertebrates.

Terrestrially, Malpelo’s ecosystems provides habitat tofive endemic species of plants. The rocky outcroppingssupport the largest colony of masked boobies in theworld with over 40,000 individuals (Pitman and Jehl,1998; Calidris, 2004). Furthermore, this island supportsimportant populations of endangered bird species suchas the swallow-tailed gull, masked booby, and Hawaiianpetrel.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

Of the 160 natural properties currently included on theWorld Heritage List (2005), only 18 have been nominatedpredominately for outstanding marine attributes.Additionally the Pacific Ocean, which accounts for 40%of the Earth’s surface, is represented by eight naturalWorld Heritage properties: East Rennell, HawaiiVolcanoes, Henderson Island, Galapagos, Coiba Island,Cocos Island, Lord Howe Island and the Great BarrierReef.

This serial property has been nominated under all fournatural criteria.

In relation to criterion (i) the geological significance ofGMI is mainly claimed based on Gorgona’s geologicalfeatures. However, whilst the komatiites of Gorgona are

unusual because of their young age, komatiites are betterknown and much more extensive in Archaean exposuresin Australia, South Africa, Canada and the Baltic Shield.The type locality for these rocks is the Komati River inSouth Africa, after which they are named. The Caribbean-Colombian Volcanic Province is one of numerous LargeIgneous Provinces recognized on the Earth, and Gorgonais a key locality for its study. Overall the komatiites ofGorgona are far too specific and specialised a feature tobe accepted as being of outstanding universal value.On the other hand, whilst Malpelo is a seamountconsidered as the maximum elevation of the MalpeloRidge, there are other World Heritage properties alsoassociated to seamounts, such as Brazilian AtlanticIslands, that present a more complex geological andgeomorphological setting. In addition the GalapagosIslands, also in the Eastern Pacific, show activevolcanism.

The case on criterion (ii) is made primarily on the claimthat MFFS and GNNP are important components of themarine corridor connecting the islands and seamountsof the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP). Whilst the marineecosystems of GNNP are important in the context of thiscorridor the ecological processes that it supports arenot different or unique in relation to other World Heritageproperties located in the Eastern Tropical Pacific. In fact,Coiba National Park is by far more important due to theprotection it offers from the effects of the El Niño/SouthernOscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, thus playing a criticalrole in maintaining a more stable marine environmentthan the other pacific islands, and providing larval andpost-larval “seeds” of many marine species.

However, Malpelo Island is particularly noteworthy as anoasis in an “oceanic desert” for a large number of pelagicboney fishes, such as tuna, and many species of sharks,as well as for marine mammals and turtles. This oasiseffect is enhanced by the effective no-fishing zoneestablished around the island, which is the largest no-take reserve in the Eastern Tropical Pacific1; by theabsence of fisheries in or around the area; and by thenon-existence of invasive species. In addition, fishingclose to the limits of the MFFS will remain limitedbecause of the lack of biogeographic features thataggregate fish to the surrounding oceanic waters. Thus,the ecological processes associated to MFFS, supportedby its effective protection, provides a true “reservoir” forsharks, giant grouper and billfish which can be expectedto continue to thrive in the area free from the fishingpressures. This ecological role is essential to maintainand replenish the population of these species in theETP if populations in other existing marine protectedareas eventually collapse due to over fishing.

In relation to criterion (iii) the terrestrial environments ofGNNP and MFFS do not compare highly when comparedto the exceptional beauty of other World Heritageproperties, such as the Galapagos Islands. It isimportant to note that Cocos Island exhibits impressivecoastal cliffs, partially covered by tropical forestsproducing a much more impressive landscape than thatexhibited by GNNP and MFFS, and yet Cocos was notinscribed under criterion (iii) as it didn’t rank highly whencompared to other properties. On the other hand, thesubmarine environment of the MFFS, characterized bysteep walls, caves, and large aggregations of large

Page 96: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1216 Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia

68 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

predators and pelagic species, is indeed a phenomenonof outstanding natural beauty and aesthetic importance.It is one of the few areas in the world where largepredators and pelagic species can be observed in largenumbers in an undisturbed environment where theymaintain behavioral patterns relatively free from humaninfluence. The superlative nature of this area is wellrecognized by the major diving magazines of the world,which rank it as a top dive destination. On the contrary,the submarine environment of GNNP does not rankhighly when compared to those existing in GalapagosIslands, Coiba and Cocos; all of them characterized bya variety of submarine forms with abundant marine lifein very clear waters, as opposed to GNNP where turbidityassociated to sediments coming from the continentsubstantially limits its aesthetic value. Most of the largefishes have also been removed from the GNNP marineenvironment. In addition the forests of Gorgona arelargely secondary growth and not particularly significantin terms of their beauty.

In relation to criterion (iv) it is important to compare thenominated property with other World Heritage propertiesin the same region. Table 2 provides a comparisonbetween three existing properties and the nominatedserial property. These islands are all suitable forcomparison as they form part of the Eastern TropicalPacific (ETP).

Based on existing studies on marine biodiversityreflected in table 2, it can be concluded that theColombian nominated serial property ranks higher thanCocos Island in terms of fish and mammal species.However the nominated serial property ranks lower thanGalapagos Islands and Coiba National Park. Gorgonais the richest in terms of birds, which is expected due toits proximity to the continent that allows the presence ofa variety of both terrestrial and marine bird species.

Malpelo, with its extended marine protected area,including seamounts, is likely to add a number of newmarine species, including endemic species.

The oceanic World Heritage properties included in table2 all include the same charismatic species but innumbers that vary considerably. For example, Malpelohas the largest masked booby colony, but Galapagoshas larger colonies of red footed boobies and blue footedboobies. The high degree of rainfall and proximity to thecontinent makes Gorgona, as well as Coiba particularlyrich in terrestrial species. The mid-oceanic location andassociated upwelling of Cocos, Galapagos and Malpeloprovide conditions that attract large oceanic species offish.

However, the ecological isolation of Malpelo is onlycomparable to that of the Galapagos Islands and,contrary to Galapagos, Malpelo does not suffer from anyreported alien invasive species. The relatively lownumber of visitors makes it unlikely that introductionswill be made, either on land or in the ocean. This is notthe case for Cocos and Galapagos, where alieninvasives are prevalent and remain a difficultmanagement issue to addresses. The situation ofMalpelo makes it the ‘easiest’ reserve for fisheriescontrol since there is no domestic fishing industrytargeting the reserve, unlike both Galapagos and Cocosthat have significant domestic industries and quiteconflictive relationships with the protected areaadministrations. Gorgona, due to its low level ofdevelopment, also suffers less risk in terms of a newintroduction of invasive species than the other areas.

The uniqueness of the oceanic islands (Cocos, Malpeloand Galapagos) is greater due to their isolation fromsedentary species. The coastal islands, such as Coibaand Gorgona, however, receive considerable influence

Table 2. Basic information of key protected areas of the ETP.

niseitreporPHWPTE

)2mk(aerA foepyTdnalsI

ataDytisrevidoiByeK serutaeFyeKrehtO

lanoitaNdnalsIsocoCkraP

)aciRatsoC(

000,2 cinaecO ,sdrib59,sehsif003+slammameniram01+

dimuhyramirpybylniamderevoC-.tseroflaciport

.seicepscigalepegralstcetorP-

kraPlanoitaNabioC)amanaP(

521,072 latnenitnoC ,sdrib741,sehsif537slammameniram91

laciportdimuhyramirpfosehctaP-.tserof

,ytisrevidoibeniramfotopstohstcetorP-.seicepscimednelarevesgnidulcni

sdnalsIsogapalaG)rodaucE(

000,331 cinaecO ,sdrib051,sehsif444slammameniram42

stnerruceniramlarevesfotopgnitleM-.ytisrevidoibeniramhgihdenoitidnoc

.msinaclovevitcA-.msimednefolevelhgiH-

larutaNanogroGkraPlanoitaN

)aibmoloC(

8.616 latnenitnoC ,sdrib451,sehsif183slammameniram51

laciportfosehctapwefsniatniaM-.stserofniar

.saerafeerlaroctnatropmI-

dnaanuaFoleplaMyrautcnaSarolF

)aibmoloC(

575,8 cinaecO ,sdrib94,sehsif493slammameniram71

cigalepfosnoitagerggaegralyreV-.seiceps

deksamfoynoloctsegralehttroppuS-dlrowehtniseiboob

Page 97: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia ID N° 1216

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 69

from adjacent continental areas. Thus, the terrestrialhabitat of these islands is a subset of the morebiologically diverse continental areas, showingsimilarit ies in relation to the existing terrestrialecosystems and the species they contain.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal status

The nominated serial property is owned entirely by theColombian government. Legal protection of the MalpeloFFS began in 1995 when the island was declared aprotected area by Ministerial Resolution. In 1996, theprotected area was extended to include a marinecomponent 6 nautical miles around the island, and in2003 the marine area was extended once again to itscurrent size. The same year, the International MaritimeOrganisation declared the Malpelo FFS a ParticularlySensitive Sea Area, making it off-limits to commercialshipping. The Gorgona National Natural Park wascreated by Ministerial Decree in 1985. A marine bufferzone was established in 1995 by Ministerial Decree toinclude the breeding habitat of the humpback whale.

4.2 Boundaries

The Gorgona NNP has been in place for 20 years andincludes a significant part of the marine area surroundingthe island; however its current size is considered by anumber of experts as not sufficient to conserve its marinebiodiversity. The Malpelo FFS has recently beenexpanded to include a significantly larger marine area(14 times than the original extension when established),thus providing better protection to marine biodiversity.There are currently no plans for further extensions to thetwo areas.

4.3 Management

Management of the areas is carried out by the ColombianPark Service. A single administrative unit has been createdfor the management of Malpelo and Gorgona under thecoordination of a single Park Director. The ManagementPlans of the two component sites were developed usingthe same methodology, though it should be noted that theyare largely descriptive and provide little guidance for day-to-day management. The proposed managementprogrammes aim at establishing integrated managementfor the two component sites. Furthermore, these areas arekey for the National Fisheries Management Plan of theColombian Pacific region, since they are importantrecruitment areas for larvae for the adjacent waters, andintegral components of the Eastern Pacific SeascapeProject being led by Conservation International with fundingfrom the United Nations and Walton Family Foundations.

There is a concession programme under way in Gorgonathat will give a private operator the right to run the facilitieson the island. Local fishermen sometimes seek shelteron Gorgona, but are not allowed to fish in the marinepark. On Malpelo there will be no land facilities availablefor tourism development, as it will all be boat-basedusing an existing mooring. All trips on land will be ofshort duration, and with limited impact.

Given their remote locations, sustainable finance formanagement of these two protected areas is an ongoingconcern. However, steps are being taken by the ColombianPark Service, the Colombian National Protected AreasConservation Trust Fund, and interested NGOs, to developthe mechanisms to assure that sustainable finance isattained within a relatively short period.

Gorgona is currently managed with limited resources andmaintenance is insufficient, which, in the humid climate ofthe island, leads to a sense of decay. The many facilitiesleft behind from the penal colony times are all in differentlevels of dilapidation. The high humidity makes upkeepcentral to any management effort, and that is lacking at thistime. Since the concessioning of facilities to a privateoperator has not yet taken effect, it is hard to assess if thiswill improve overall maintenance. The relatively high numberof scientific studies that have been conducted in Gorgonashould make it a key site of future scientific studies and inparticular restoration efforts. However, given the poor stateof the library and the limited effort that has gone intorestoration, it is as yet unclear whether the scientificpotential can be fulfilled.

Conflicts with the coastal population are currently minimal.However, with high population growth and fisheries beingthe main economic activity of poor coastal communities,the lack of effort by the current park administration toaddress these issues is notable. Community leadersseemed relatively unaware of the values of Gorgona, andthere was no sense of ownership of, or pride in, the property.The overall effectiveness of the management regimes forthe Malpelo FFS and Gorgona NNP have not beenevaluated on a systematic basis, but it appears thatsignificant effort will be required to bring that of GorgonaNNP up to the level of World Heritage standards.

The situation in Malpelo is very different. A joint patrolvessel is, manned by the park service and the navy andcarries out periodic patrolling. This will reduce, if noteliminate, the main threat of commercial fishing toMalpelo. Currently, this is the only threat to theenvironmental quality of Malpelo. Strong NGOengagement has led to increased sources of financewhich ensure that, even if the government is unable toraise the necessary funds, sufficient funding will remainavailable to continue the patrols for the foreseeablefuture. Limited dive tourism will generate some of therevenue needed to cover management costs. Theremoteness of Malpelo makes community relationsrather simple, particularly since there is virtually nodomestic pressure to exploit the fisheries resource.Regular patrols by the Navy and Park Service should besufficient to discourage most illegal activities. The currentlevel of management should be adequate to manageMalpelo FFS for the benefit of coming generations.

4.4 Threats and Human use

4.4.1 Human Occupation

Gorgona is currently inhabited only by Park Servicepersonnel. This will change later this year with the arrivalof the tourism concessions. Malpelo has a populationof 6 military personnel that rotates every couple ofmonths. There are no local inhabitants in either Gorgona

Page 98: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1216 Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia

70 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

or Malpelo. With the arrival of the patrol boat, anadditional 10 or so people will be in the Malpelo FSSpermanently, but on a rotating basis. Both areas receivevisitors; on Gorgona they will be based on land, and inMalpelo at sea.

4.4.2 Fisheries

Fishing in Gorgona is primarily conducted by localfishermen and has led to depletion of many of the toppredators and large fishes. The size of the area makesmaintaining healthy fish populations difficult and it isunlikely that there will be any significant recovery in theshort term. On the contrary, in Malpelo the fish stocksare in good condition with large numbers of top predatorsand well preserved ecosystems. Illegal fishing fromneighboring countries could be a potential problem, butwith the semi-permanent presence of a patrol vessel inthe areas, the threat is likely to be significantly reduced.

4.4.3 Research

Due to its isolation from civil conflict, Gorgona has beena refuge not just for flora and fauna, but forconservationists as well. Research began some 20years ago, and today university research programmesare ongoing, complemented by NGOs implementingmonitoring and conservation programmes. The islandprovides an opportunity to study one of the wettest placesin the world with annual rainfall of 6900 mm and no dryseason. Its proximity to the continental shelf providesrelatively easy access to a great variety of habitats, thoughmost are influenced by continental processes.

The two parks are well placed for study of climate inducedchanges (ENSO) due to their proximity to a variety ofocean currents. Evolution and colonization are beingstudied to great effect in these parks, especially giventhe diversity of habitats they contain.

Malpelo with its rich oceanic life permits the study oflarge predators in a largely pristine environment. Withthe risk of pollution and predatory fisheries being verysmall, Malpelo is likely to remain in very good condition.While comparatively little research has conductedaround Malpelo, some of the recent studies are of highquality.

However, the level of scientific research in the tworeserves is still not globally significant. In comparisonwith Galapagos, these areas are still poorly understood.In particular, Malpelo has much scientific work still to bedone. The status of collections in Gorgona is also aconstraint for further work. Neither site has had researchconducted below a depth of 200 m.

4.5 Other threats

Climate change induced shifts in water temperatureremains a great threat. Events in Galapagos over recentyears illustrate how significant such a threat can be withsignificant loss of live corals and reduction in theabundance of many species. To date there have beenno similar impacts on Malpelo and Gorgona. The localoceanographic conditions are probably the mainexplanation for this lack of devastation.

Nutrient runoff from the Colombian mainland has thepotential of significantly impacting Gorgona NNP. At thistime there are no clear signs of smothering of the reefs,but visibility can be poor at times, and the runoff effectsare likely to be of some significance in the medium termfuture if adequate measures to control erosion from thecontinent are not designed and implemented.

5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

When IUCN evaluates a serial nomination, such as thisone, it asks the following questions:

(a) What is the rational for a serial nomination? Therationale for serial nomination is based on theecological connections between GNNP and MFFS, thecomplementarities of terrestrial and marine habitatsdiversity between these sites and the need to ensuretheir integrated management to enhance the protectionof marine biodiversity. As noted above, there are alimited number of species that are present in bothsites and further research may find that the number ofshared species could be higher than currentestimates. However the sharing of species is quitecommon in the marine environment and it is not asufficiently strong element to argue for a serialapproach.

(b) Are the separate components of the propertyfunctionally linked? As noted previously, thoughseparated by 440 km, there is an ecological andbiological connection between MFFS and GNNP.The connection is the product of shared marinecurrents and oceanographic regimes which alsoinfluenced the sharing of a number of marinespecies. However, as noted above, this is acommon feature in the marine environment and thedegree of ecological connectivity has yet to bedetermined by genetic connectivity studies. Suchstudies are being designed for some groups such ascorals and zooxanthels. For sharks, the use oftelemetry tracking technology will help in future todetermine the connectivity between these sites. Whileit is expected that both areas are probably importantfor the dispersion and recruitment of benthic larvae,and for the maintenance and re-population of fishstocks in the surrounding waters, there is no specificscientific evidence that the MFFS and GNNP areactually functionally linked in this way. In the specificcase of MFFS, there is probably a stronger case for aserial nomination with Galapagos, Cocos Island andCoiba on which the survival of highly migratory andemblematic species depends, such as thehumpback whale, the whale shark, the devil ray, andsea turtles.

(c) Is there an overall management framework forthe two components? As noted previously, a singleadministrative unit has been created for themanagement of the MFFS and GNNP; the sameplanning methodologies and managementprogrammes are being used in each area; bothprotected areas are important components of theregional fisheries management plan; and both

Page 99: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia ID N° 1216

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 71

areas are usually included in recreational divingtours. However, these linkages are common amongmany protected areas that are managed as part oftheir broader landscape/seascape and do notnecessarily constitute an argument for serialnomination.

In conclusion, it is the view of IUCN that the case for a serialnomination has not been demonstrated. There are nostudies completed as yet that clearly show a strongfunctional link between the two nominated areas. From amanagement perspective the issues to be addressed arequite different and few if any of the same technologies andtechnical personnel will be engaged on a day to day basis.

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENTOF SIGNIFICANCE

The serial property has been nominated under all fournatural criteria.

Criterion (i): Earth’s History and Geological Features

Only the geological values for Gorgona Island have beendescribed in the nomination document. The geology ofGorgona is of regional importance in relation to theunderstanding of the Caribbean-Colombian VolcanicProvince. However this is one of many such provincesand does not have a special claim to global geologicalpreeminence. The komatiites of Gorgona aredistinguished as the youngest known examples of thisunusual volcanic rock type, however this is too specificand specialized a feature to be accepted as being ofoutstanding universal value. IUCN considers that thenominated serial property does not meet this criterion.

Criterion (ii): Ecological Processes

Malpelo and Gorgona are important for the conservationof the marine biodiversity associated to the EasternTropical Pacific Seascape. However, only Malpelo FFSis particularly noteworthy as an oasis in an “oceanicdesert” for a large number of pelagic boney fishes suchas tuna and many species of sharks, as well as formarine mammals and turtles. This oasis effect isenhanced by the protection existing around the island,which is the largest no-fishing zone in the EasternTropical Pacific. Thus, the ecological processesassociated to Malpelo FFS, supported by its effectiveprotection, provides a true “reservoir” for sharks, giantgrouper and billfish, which can be expected to continueto thrive in the area free from the fishing pressures. Thisecological role is essential to maintain and replenishthe population of these species in the ETP if populationsin other existing marine protected areas eventuallycollapse due to over fishing. IUCN considers that theMalpelo FFS meets this criterion, but that the GorgonaNNP does not.

Criterion (iii): Superlative Natural Phenomena orBeauty and Aesthetic Importance

The marine environment of the Malpelo FFS,characterized by steep walls, caves, and large

aggregations of large predators and pelagic species, isindeed a phenomenon of outstanding natural beautyand aesthetic importance. It is one of the few areas inthe world where large predators and pelagic speciescan be observed in large numbers in an undisturbedenvironment where they maintain behavioral patternsrelatively free from human influence. The superlativenature of this area is well recognized by the major divingmagazines of the world, which rank it as a top divedestination. On the contrary most of the large fishes ofthe marine environment of the Gorgona NNP have beenremoved, and these environments are affected bysedimentation from continental sources, thus limitingits natural beauty for divers and snorkelers. The forestsof Gorgona are largely secondary growth and notparticularly significant in terms of their beauty. IUCNconsiders that Malpelo FFS meets this criterion, but thatGorgona NNP does not.

Criterion (iv): Biodiversity and threatened species

The levels of biodiversity and number of threatenedspecies of the Malpelo FFS and Gorgona NNP do notvary significantly from that found in Cocos Island;however they rank lower than the levels of biodiversityexisting in Coiba National Park and the GalapagosIslands. Furthermore Galapagos Islands arecharacterized by the presence of a large number ofendemic species. IUCN considers that the nominatedserial property does not meet this criterion

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends that the Committee inscribe theMalpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary on the WorldHeritage List on the basis of natural criteria (ii) and (iii).

On the other hand, IUCN recommends the Committeenot to inscribe Gorgona Natural National Park on theWorld Heritage List on the basis of natural criteria.

Furthermore, the Committee may wish to recommendthe State Party to:

a) improve the management of Malpelo Fauna andFlora Sanctuary, including through theimplementation of a programme to ensure that illegalfishing pressure is avoided permanently in the areasin and around the sanctuary;

b) strengthen tourism management and develop thefunding base for long term management of bothGorgona Natural National Park and Malpelo Faunaand Flora Sanctuary; and

c) commence research on the deeper waters in bothareas, including seamounts within them.

IUCN commends the State Party for its continued effortsin conserving these important protected marine areas,as well as the NGOs, other institutions and privatepartners that are contributing to their conservation andmanagement.

Page 100: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1216 Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia

72 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: General Location of Nominated Serial Property

Page 101: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia ID N° 1216

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 73

Map 2. Boundaries of Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary (before extension of marine boundaries)

Page 102: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1216 Gorgona and Malpelo Islands, Coastal and Oceanic National Marine Parks - Colombia

74 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 3: Boundaries of Gorgona Natural National Park

Page 103: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

A2 Extension of Natural Properties inscribedon the World Heritage List

A. Nominations of Natural Properties to the World Heritage List

Page 104: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 105: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

THE KVARKEN ARCHIPELAGO

(proposed extension to the High Coast of Sweden)

FINLAND

Page 106: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 107: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

THE KVARKEN ARCHIPELAGO (FINLAND) - ID N° 898 Bis

(Proposed extension to The High Coast of Sweden)

Background note: The Kvarken Archipelago is proposed as an extension to the existing World Heritage (WH)property of the High Coast of Sweden, inscribed on the WH List in 2000. The High Coast was inscribed undernatural criterion (i) as one of the places in the world that is experiencing isostatic uplift as a result of deglaciation.The Committee was also informed at the time by the delegate of Finland that a nomination (serial transboundary)for the nearby KA area was in preparation.

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: At the conclusion of the IUCN fieldevaluation in August, 2005, it was decided by the Finnish State Party that a reduction in boundaries of theproperty was needed to provide a more focused and coherent nomination. Documentation was adjusted andnew maps were prepared and sent to the WH Centre and IUCN on 29 September, 2005.

iii) IUCN-WCMC Data Sheet : 7 references

iv) Additional Literature Consulted: Nordic Council of Ministers. 1996. Nordic World Heritage: Proposals forNew Areas for the UNESCO World Heritage List; Dingwall, P. et al. 2005. Geological World Heritage: A GlobalFramework. Global Theme Study. IUCN; Gilligan, B. et al. 2005. Management Effectiveness Evaluation ofFinland’s Protected Areas. Metsahallitaus, Helsinki; Anon. 2003. The High Coast – A World Heritage Site.Vasternorrland County; Lammi, S. and Sevola, P. 2004. New Land. Vaasa; Geological Survey of Sweden. 1994.National Atlas of Sweden; Ehlers, J. et al. 1995. Glacial Deposits in NE Europe. Rotterdam; Flint, R. 1971.Glacial and Quaternary Geology. Wiley; Seppala, M. ed. 2005. The Physical Geography of Fennoscandia.Oxford University Press; Larsen, C.F. et al. 2005. Rapid viscoelastic uplift in southeast Alaska caused by post-Little Ice Age glacial retreat, in Earth and Planetary Science Letters 23, 548-560.

v) Consultations: 9 external reviewers. Officials from Ministry of Environment, West Finland Natural Heritage,Geological Survey of Finland, West Finland Regional Environment Centre, Regional Council of Ostrobothnia,Municipality mayors.

vi) Field Visit: Jim Thorsell, August, 2005

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: 11 April 2006

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 75

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The Kvarken Archipelago (KA) in the Gulf of Bothnia offthe west coast of Finland extends over some 70kilometres from east to west and by 60 kilometres fromnorth to south. The total Archipelago consists of 6,550islands and islets formed of glacial moraines that areslowly rising from the sea. The nomination consists oftwo core areas within this region with a total area of194,400 ha of land (15%) and sea (85%). The KAextension, if approved, would more than double the sizeof the existing High Coast WH property in Sweden(142,500 ha).

Area of proposed KA extension to High Coast WHproperty

Core site A: 160,000 haCore site B: 34,400 haTotal area: 194,400 ha

The nominated area includes 5600 islands, the highestof which is 20m asl. Landforms in the KA were createdmostly by glacial action over a pre-Cambrian peneplainduring the last Ice Age, between 10,000 - 24,000 yearsago. They are characterised by extensive morainedeposits, a shallow brackish sea of low salinity, and ashoreline 2416 kilometres long. The majorgeomorphologic feature is the unusual ridgedwashboard moraines or “De Geer moraines” formedby the melting of the continental ice sheet. Several

Page 108: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 The Kvarken Archipelago (Extension to the High Coast of Sweden) - Finland

76 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

formations are represented in the property: mainland,island, coasts and open sea including relativelyunaltered underwater geological features. As aconsequence of the advancing shoreline, islandsappear and unite, peninsulas expand, lakes evolve frombays and develop into marshes and peat fens, resultingin an unusual variety of environmental gradients, bothtopographic and hydrographic.

The formation of new islands occurs because theproperty is in the centre of the Fennoscandian land upliftarea, which is continually emerging from the sea as aresult of isostatic rebound. This occurs when landpreviously weighed down under the weight of a glacierslowly lifts after the glacier has disappeared. Theproperty complements the High Coast WH property inSweden, 150 kilometres to the southwest, which is alsorising at a similar rate. The last glacier to cover the wholeScandinavian Peninsula drained on the east and southtowards the present White Sea, Gulf of Finland and BalticSea with the Earth’s crust depressed beneath it. Thetotal initial depression is assumed to have been about900 - 1,000 meters when the Scandinavian Ice Sheetwas 3,400m-3,700 meters thick. The land started to lift20,000 years ago, as de-glaciation began. During thefirst thousand years of uplift, the rebound rate was up to100mm per year. The present uplift rate is 8 to 8.5mmper year, increasing the land area of the archipelago byone square kilometre a year. The sea at the NorthernKvarken strait is only 25m deep at a sill across the mouthof the Bay of Bothnia. At the present rate Finland andSweden will be connected by a land bridge across thestrait within 2,500 years, when the Bay will become thelargest freshwater lake in Europe. Isostatic rebound islikely to continue for 10,000 - 12,500 years in the Kvarkenarea and the uplift will probably be between 100 and125 metres.

The islands are covered by deposits both glacial andpost-glacial: drumlins and flute lines parallel to the flow;hummocky, transverse, terminal and de Geer morainesat right angles to it as well as thick till deposits and agreat number of boulder fields. The profusion of the DeGeer moraines is the most notable feature. The meltingand disintegrating ice front reached the Kvarken area10,600-10,400 years ago when the area was coveredby a 250-270m deep glacial lake. A floating and fracturingice front with calving icebergs was typical of glacialmarine conditions during this stage. Varved claychronology has shown that the annual withdrawal ofthe ice margin was fast, up to 200-500m per year, leavingthe regular ridges of till which reflect the probablepositions of the intermittently retreating margin of ice.

The climate is southern boreal, influenced by the sea.Snow and ice cover lasts between 140-150 days a yearand rainfall is 400mm. KA is a dynamic landscape, mostobvious in flat and shallow areas where uplift issupplemented by sedimentation. The continuallyemerging shores are colonized by pioneer specieswhich are gradually replaced by a succession of plantcommunities as the land rises in various ways due tothe large number of environmental gradients. Seashorehabitats are very heterogeneous and represent severalNatura 2000 coastal habitat types. The Archipelago ison an important migratory route and offers excellentbreeding habitats for birds. There are important Balticpopulations of black guillemot (6,000 pairs, a quarter of

the Baltic population) and razorbill (1,000 pairs); alsoCaspian and Arctic terns, whitetailed eagle (35 pairs),osprey and great scaup. Thousands of roughleggedbuzzards and cranes also migrate through. Marinemammals living in the KA are typical for the Baltic regionsuch as grey and ringed seals. As with the plants, themild climate encourages many southern species ofanimals which come to their northern limit of distributionhere.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

This section closely follows the text of the IUCN evaluationon the comparison of the High Coast in Sweden aspresented to the Committee in 2000.

3.1 Comparison with other World Heritage properties

There are 200 protected areas in the West EurasianTaiga Biogeographic Province, including one mixed WHproperty in Sweden (The Laponian Area) and threenatural WH properties (the High Coast of Sweden, theVirgin Komi Forest in Russia and the West NorwegianFjords). Apart from the High Coast (HC), these existingproperties are much larger and also display a wide rangeof geological features. They do not, however, illustratethe isostatic uplift phenomena that occurs in the KA,except, of course, the HC, to which KA is being proposedas an extension.

Many other areas in the Baltic Sea region and Gulf ofBothnia contain archipelagos with moraine landformswhich display raised coastlines including severalidentified in the 1996 Nordic World Heritage report ofproposed natural sites. None of these have thegeological diversity of the KA nor have the extent of uplift.

There are 71 properties inscribed on the WH List undergeological/earth science criteria, many of which containglacial landforms and several of which have and areexperiencing uplift (e.g. Gros Morne, Los Glaciares andMacquarie Island). The only property, however, inscribedunder the theme of “Ice Ages” in the Global GeologicalTheme Study (IUCN, 2005) is the HC in Sweden. Thereare also 10 natural WH properties under the coastalsystems earth sciences theme (IUCN, 2005), some ofwhich (e.g. St. Elias Parks, Henderson Island, TeWahipounamu - Southwest New Zealand and the PitonsManagement Area) i l lustrate raised coastlinephenomenon. Recent research along the coast ofsoutheast Alaska including parts of the St. Elias ParksWH property indicates uplift rates three times that ofthose found in Fennoscandia (i.e. as high as 32mm peryear). Part of this is due to the tectonic setting of coastalAlaska which is fundamentally different than thecontinental shield of Fennoscandia, but nevertheless,the rate of uplift in Alaska is the highest yet recorded inthe world. The distinctiveness of the KA (along with theHC) is that the isostatic uplift is entirely due to thedisappearance of a continental ice sheet, the long periodof uplift (up to 20,000 years) and the range of coastaland marine landform features displayed as a result.

Page 109: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Kvarken Archipelago (Extension to the High Coast of Sweden) - Finland ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 77

3.2 Comparison with other areas experiencingisostatic rebound

Another major area with comparable isostatic uplift isfound in Richmond Gulf in south-eastern Hudson’s Bay(Canada). This area has a similar history of glaciationand uplifted land. Deglaciation occurred about 1,000years later and the present uplift rate is higher at 11-13mm per year. It also lies on a Precambrian bedrockpeneplain, with deep paleozoic sediments, but unlikethe boulder-rich moraine of the archipelago, the morainesof Hudson Bay are boulder-poor, owing to softer rocks.De Geer moraines, drumlin fields, transverse morainesand hummocky moraines occur there but do not formarchipelagoes. The wide low-lying western coasts ofHudson Bay area are a wetland-dominated landscape,which is lacking in the Northern Kvarken. The east coastsresemble it more, having a more broken topography andthin stunted forests. But the climatic, topographic, andgeomorphological differences are considerable andmake the area less nutrient-rich and diverse than thearchipelago. The sub-arctic macroclimate of Hudson Baywith permafrost, salt water, strong winds, and a deep,long lasting snow cover affect the structure and dynamicsof its coastal ecosystems more than land uplift, the effectsof which are more obvious in the Kvarken Archipelago.

Isostatic phenomena are also evident in the northernand western shores of the White Sea on the periphery ofthe Fennoscandian shield. The land uplift rate is only1,0-2,5 mm per year. Drumlins, end moraines and DeGeer moraines (also called “washboard” moraines) dooccur there but do not form archipelagos. The StockholmSkargard in Sweden is a larger archipelago with some24,000 islands. It has also experienced some uplift, butis mostly lacking in glacial t i l l deposits whichcharacterize other coastal areas in the Bothnian SeaRegion.

In conclusion, the KA and the HC are one of severalplaces in the world that are experiencing uplift as a resultof deglaciation. Isostatic rebound is well-illustrated inthis area and is among the highest known, althoughrecent data from Alaska suggest that uplift rates aremuch more rapid there (but over a much shorter periodof time). Both the HC and the KA have been well-documented scientifically, and are essentially the “typearea” for research on isostacy, the phenomenon havingbeen first recognised and studied there (Flint, 1971).

Other natural values of the KA (wildlife and vegetationsuccession processes) are also important but relativelycommon and do not stand out as unique at aninternational level. Useful information is also providedon the aquatic environment in Appendix 3 of thenomination which indicates the regionally importantvalues of the marine area.

Similarly, the scenic values of the KA, consisting of ablend of farmland, coastline and islands, areharmonious, but typical of much of the rural landscapeof northern Europe

3.3 Relation of the Kvarken Area to the High Coast

Unlike the predominantly erosional HC, the KA is amoraine archipelago. Its flat topography comprises

glacial till deposited by the melting ice sheet and formedinto hummocky moraines and drumlins rising 20-30mabove sea level. The archipelagos are mostly less than1,000 years old. Uplift of the shallow seabed rapidlytransforms bays into fladas and glo-lakes (two types oflagoons), then into freshwater lakes, even over thelifetime of a single human generation. Plant successionis equally rapid on the newly created land, displayingmarked shoreline zonation. Each phase of uplift has itsown characteristic vegetation assemblage, with youngmarshes of sedges at sea level extending through aseries of successional stages to mature spruce forestfurthest from the shore.

While the HC and the Kvarken have isostatic rebound incommon, they are geologically contrasting areas withmarked differences in topography. This in turn hasimportant implications for differences in plant and animallife. The HC has a dramatic land surface of bedrockhills, high islands, steep shores and deep bays andstraits -features that do not otherwise occur in the Balticregion. The KA is a low-relief area of extensivearchipelagos of till and intervening shallow sea andunique depositional features notable the De Greer (orwashboard) moraines. The HC is also much older,revealing 10,000 years of geological evolution, asopposed to the corresponding 2,000-year history of theKvarken.

The HC is, therefore, a relatively stable biologicalenvironment, while the KA, whose low-lying landscapeis constantly changing due to rising land, is biologicallyhighly dynamic, with plants and animals continuouslycolonising newly emergent land surfaces andsuccessional habitats. Thus, the HC and KA areas differconsiderably in the ways land uplift processes act onthe biota. They are, in fact, complementary in terms oftheir biophysical evolution. They represent, respectively,the high and low topographical extremes of post-glacialuplifted landscapes in the Baltic.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal status and ownership

A variety of protective measures cover 80% of theproperty, including several sites in the Natura 2000Network (governed by EU Directives on Habitats andBirds and in process of expansion), a RAMSAR site andnational measures under the Nature Conservation Act.In the remaining 20% the geological values are alsoprotected under national legislation. As in the HC, thereis also a portion of the land area and sea frontage ownedprivately or by village communities. A much greater extentof land and sea, however, in KA, as compared to the HC,is owned by the State.

4.2 Boundaries

Definition of boundaries of the property went throughseveral iterations and much input from the GeologicalSurvey of Finland. Final deliberations resulted in twocore areas of land and sea where the major focus ofgeological features occurs. Only the most superlativeterrestrial formations and formations lying in the shallow

Page 110: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 The Kvarken Archipelago (Extension to the High Coast of Sweden) - Finland

78 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

sea are included in the two core areas as well as themajority of the moraine features. While the geologicalboundaries of the property do not coincide with legal oradministrative boundaries, the science behind theirselection is justified and IUCN considers that the twocore areas incorporate the essence of the KA. A de factobuffer zone around the property is provided for in theregional plan for Ostrobothnia, and the geological valueswill be taken into consideration in local and regionalplanning.

4.3 Management

The Regional Council of Ostrobothnia promotes thesustainable development and protection of thearchipelago and funnels the funds for various EUfinanced programs. It is also including special statusfor a buffer zone around the nominated area as part ofthe regional plan. The main responsibility for natureconservation and environmental protection rests withthe Metsähallitus (Forest and Park Service) and the WestFinland Regional Environmental Centre which controlsmost land-uses, regulates and permits small-scalefarming, fishing and forestry. The municipalities areresponsible for planning and land use within theirjurisdictions. Detailed management plans for the areainclude recent local shore master plans for theArchipelago by the municipalities of Malax, Vaasa andKorsnäs. Cooperation is planned with the Swedish HCproperty where the geologic processes arecomplementary. For public presentation there are twonature stations and one museum within the area. A visitorcentre (“House of the Sea”) is also planned near theroad entrance to the property.

4.4 Threats

Although there are some threats to the biological valuesof the property (e.g. environmental toxins, agriculturalrunoff and dredging), there are no threats to thegeological values of the KA. The resident humanpopulation of 2500 in the KA (compared to 4500 in theHC) is engaged in small scale traditional farming,forestry and fishing, all of which have negligible impacton geological values. Tourism pressures are not at ahigh level (200,000 annually) but will certainly increasein future. Some 600 summer cottages are foundthroughout the KA but these also pose minimal threats.Both of these issues are adequately addressed intourism and recreation plans for the property. A long termchange in the area may come from the effects of globalwarming (sea level rise) which may moderate the rate ofuplift.

4.5 Serial property

When serial properties, such as this one, are evaluated,IUCN poses a standard set of three questions:

a) What is the justification for the serial approach?The nominated property was selected by a panel ofexperts who determined that two focus areascontained the full range of glacial features thatcomprise the international values of the property.Each of the two core areas as well as the contrastingsite of the HC has a different morphology and geologyand displays a different range of geomorphological

features. The two parts of the nomination are thuscomplementary and reinforce the rationale foraddition to the existing HC WH property.

b) Are the separate elements of the propertyfunctionally linked? At their closest point, the twocore areas are 7 km apart and are separated only byopen sea and a few islands. KA is some 150 kmfrom the HC on the east coast of Sweden. The entirearea was covered by the Scandinavian continentalice sheet and its features are derived from the aftereffects of its retreat.

c) Is there an overall management framework for allthe components? Under the RegionalEnvironmental Centre two working groups are to beestablished once the property is included as anextension of the Swedish HC. One to coordinate theland-uses, conservation and management of theexisting mix of protected and unprotected private,municipal and state lands. The second will promotesustainable tourist and other enterprises. Botheventually will share common guidelines with theirSwedish counterparts. The Kvarken Council is across-border association to promote cooperationbetween Finnish and Swedish municipalities. Theentire area on the Finnish side is covered under theregional plan prepared by the Regional council ofOstrobothnia.

5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

5.1 Name of property: In a letter from the SwedishMinister for Education, Research and Culture dated31.01.2005, it was noted that Sweden had “…noobjection to the designation of the Kvarken archipelagoas a serial nomination to form an international extensionof Sweden’s High Coast World Heritage site.” In a follow-up letter of 19.09.2005, the same office agreed to thename High Coast/Kvarken Archipelago as the collectivename for the property.

5.2 Public support: A five year process of consultationwas involved in the preparation of this nomination. Also,a “Statement of Intent” regarding future sustainablemanagement for the property has been signed by all thelocal management authorities and municipalitiesconcerned (Appendix 10 in the nomination). The processis thus both “bottom up” and “top down” and ensureslong term cooperation for the KA.

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA /STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The Kvarken Archipelago has been nominated as atransboundary serial property under natural criterion (i).

Criterion (i): Earth’s History and Geological Features

The Kvarken Archipelago, with its 5600 islands andsurrounding sea, is of exceptional geological value fortwo main reasons. First, it is an area of rapid glacio-

Page 111: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Kvarken Archipelago (Extension to the High Coast of Sweden) - Finland ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 79

isostatic uplift with rates that are among the highest inthe world. The uplift has been ongoing for thousands ofyears and is associated with major changes in the waterbodies in post glacial times. The Kvarken, along withthe existing High Coast, its Swedish equivalent on thewest coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, are key areas for theunderstanding of the processes of crustal response tothe melting of the continental ice sheet. Second, theKvarken area possesses a distinctive array of glacialdepositional landforms, such as De Greer moraines,which add to the variety of glacial landscapes featuresin the region and reinforce the previous validity of theHigh Coast inscription. IUCN considers that thenominated property meets this criterion

IUCN also notes that this property has other importantand complementary natural values but these aresecondary to the criterion used in the nomination. Theyare, however, being considered in the integratedmanagement of KA region.

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends that the Committee extend the HighCoast World Heritage property (Sweden) to include theKvarken Archipelago (Finland) on the basis of naturalcriterion (i).

The property thus becomes a serial transboundaryproperty of both Finland and Sweden with the new nameof High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago (Sweden/Finland).The total size of the transboundary serial property willbe 336,900 ha as detailed below.

Total area of property:

ytraPetatS emanytreporP )ah(dnaL )ah(aeS )ah(latoT

nedewS tsaoChgiH 005,26 000,08 005,241

dnalniF )AeroC(ogalepihcrAnekravK 065,62 044,331 000,061

dnalniF )BeroC(ogalepihcrAnekravK 2.386,2 8.617,13 004,43

009,633

Page 112: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1213 The Kvarken Archipelago (Extension to the High Coast of Sweden) - Finland

80 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: Location of nominated property

Page 113: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Kvarken Archipelago (Extension to the High Coast of Sweden) - Finland ID N° 1213

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 81

Map 2: Boundaries of nominated property

Page 114: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 115: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

B1 New Nominations

B. Nominations of Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List

Page 116: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 117: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

AFRICA

NYIKA NATIONAL PARK

MALAWI

Page 118: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 119: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

NYIKA NATIONAL PARK (MALAWI) – ID N° 290 REV

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 83

Background Note: The Nyika National Park was first nominated as a natural property in 1983 and evaluated byIUCN for the 8th Session of the World Heritage Committee (1984). The IUCN evaluation at the time noted that “theNyika National Park is of scientific interest for its montane flora and avifauna and of conservation importance for itswatershed protection values. However, the area is not seen to have ‘superlative’ values of international significanceand many of its features are found in other protected areas in the region, including two existing World HeritageSites”. The Committee decision (1984) states: “Although this property does not fulfil the World Heritage criteria ofoutstanding universal value, the Committee however noted the importance of this property on the national andregional levels.” It is noted in paragraph 158 of the Operational Guidelines (2005) that, “if the Committee decidesthat a property should not be inscribed on the World Heritage List, the nomination may not again be presented to theCommittee except in exceptional circumstances……new discoveries, new scientific information about the property,or different criteria.…”.

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Additional information requested from and provided by the State Party: IUCN requested additionalinformation on 31 January 2006, notably in relation to the comparative analysis, and the State Party respondedwith an updated nomination document on the 31 March 2006.

iii) IUCN-WCMC data sheet: 2 references (the nomination contains a bibliography of 162 references)

iv) Additional literature consulted: Nyika National Park Master Plan (2004) Department of National Parksand Wildlife, Malawi; Plants of the Nyika Plateau, (2005) J Burrows and C Willis SABN Report 31, SouthAfrican Botanical Network; Biosearch Nyika: Scientific Exploration of the Nyika NP, Malawi [ed] M JOverton (several volumes), Biosearch, Lincolnshire – source of much of the data on species; EndemicBird Areas of the World (1998) A J Stattersfield et al, Birdlife International; Cambridge; Centres of PlantDiversity volume 1: Africa (1994) [eds] S D Davies, V H Heywood and A C Hamilton; WWF, Gland; TheNyika Experience: Reminiscences of Malawi’s first National Park; [eds] F and R Dorward, The WildlifeSociety of Malawi; Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A conservation assessment (2004)[eds] N Burgess et al, WWF and Island Press; Study on the Development of Transboundary NaturalResource Management Areas in Southern Africa: Environmental Context (1999) D Cumming, BiodiversitySupport Program; The World List of Threatened Trees (1998) S Oldfield, C Lusty and A MacKinven, WorldConservation Monitoring Centre and IUCN, Cambridge; The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals(1997) J Kingdon, A&C Black Publishers, London; Birds of Eastern Africa (1995) Ber van Perlo, HarperCollins, London; Biomass Assessment (1989) A Millington et al, Earthscan and ETC Foundation, London;Rare Birds of the World (1988), G Mountfort, Collins, London; Review of the Protected Areas System inthe Afrotropical Realm (1986), IUCN/UNEP, Gland; Eastern Arc Mountains and Southern Rift in HotspotsRevisited (2005), R A Mittermeier et al, Conservation International, Washington.

v) Consultations: 6 external reviewers. Staff at the Department of National Parks and Wildlife; National Parkstaff including research, outreach, education, enforcement and rangers; staff at ecotourism lodge andguides; staff at the museum; three local chiefs whose traditional lands cover the whole protected area.

vi) Field visit: Nigel Dudley (IUCN) and Edward Matenga (ICOMOS), September 2005.

vii) Date of IUCN approval of this report: 11 April 2006

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES:

Nyika National Park (NNP), IUCN protected area categoryII, covers 313,400ha of which 94,000ha is high plateau.It is located in northern Malawi, with a 20 km areabordering a national park of the same name in Zambia.

There is no buffer zone. The property is nominated as amixed World Heritage property.

The Nyika plateau is bounded by the Rift Valley to thenorth, and by major faults marked by Lake Malawi andthe Luanga Valley. Most of the area is above 1800 metres,rising to 2600 metres at the highest point and the geology

Page 120: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 290 Rev Nyika National Park - Malawi

84 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

is mainly made up of crystalline and granitic gneisses.The NNP area has been impacted by humans forthousands of years but retains a largely natural ecology.Immediately prior to its establishment, around 5,000people lived in NNP practising a mixture of hunting andfarming and a relatively low level of settlement has takenplace for thousands of years. Vegetation on the lowerslopes is predominantly Brachystegia woodland with thelarge majority of the upland plateau covered in shortgrass and herbaceous plants. In addition, there is a richorchid flora, small patches of evergreen woodland andimportant fragments of juniper forest, some extremelyold, marking the southernmost limit of Juniperusprocera. Some individual trees are at least severalhundred years old. There is also a 500ha Scots pineplantation in one part of the plateau. The landscape isdominated by rolling hills with occasional rocky outcrops,some of which include caves. There are relatively fewrivers and one small permanent body of standing water,known as Lake Kaulimi. The weather is cool, fallingbelow freezing on some nights in the winter, and rainfallis relatively high. The catchment supplies 40 per cent ofwater for the northern part of Malawi.

NNP is one of the seven high plateau afromontaneregions in sub-Saharan Africa. It is in the Southern RiftMontane Forest-Grassland Mosaic Ecoregion. Theplateau is a centre of endemism and is included in theTanzania-Malawi Mountains Endemic Bird Area and asa Centre of Plant Diversity and Endemism. NNP hasmoderate levels of endemism, across a wide range ofgroups. Much additional information about species hasbeen collected over the last twenty years including bypark staff, from regular volunteer scientific expeditionsand work by the South African Botanical Network.Endemism is hard to prove conclusively, particularlywhen so much of the surrounding area has not beensurveyed, but the following figures are indicative: 33endemic flowering plants (mainly in grassland zone)including 4 endemic orchid species; 1 endemic speciesof frog (not 6 as stated in the nomination); 8 endemicspecies of small mammals, including 3 species of molerat and 2-3 species of shrew (data not confirmed); and 5endemic butterfly species.

On a Malawian scale, the NNP contains less habitatdiversity than Mount Mulanje (the latter also has moreendemic species). Diversity is particularly high fororchids, with over 200 species recorded to date. In total,1817 taxa of flowering plant have been recorded, from684 genera and 160 families. Around 95 species ofmammals and 426 species of birds have been recorded,47 reptile species, 34 amphibian species and manyinsects including 220 species of butterfly. Key largermammals include reedbuck, eland, roan antelope, zebra,warthog and common duiker. There is a healthypopulation of leopard, a small and declining populationof elephants and occasional visits from lions, but noresident population. Unfortunately, since the NNP wasoriginally nominated in 1984, there have beencatastrophic declines in reedbuck and eland populations(reduced to 20-30% of their previous numbers). Censusfigures of roan antelope and zebra, however, haveremained relatively stable.

In addition to the endemic species described above,several other species have important populations within

NNP. For example, the park hosts the world’s largestbreeding population of blue swallow.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER SITES

NNP is a part of one of 7 isolated highland plateaus inAfrica (see map below). These “afromontane” zones canbe likened to an archipelago of islands of montanehabitat separated by a sea of lowland forests, woodlandsand savanna. Throughout this archipelago,approximately 90 protected areas have beenestablished, of which nine are WH natural properties(Simen, Mt Kenya, Ngorongoro, Drakensberg, Bwindi,Rwenzori, Virunga, Kahuzi Biega and Mount Nimba)which all include afromontane habitats. In addition, adecision on Bale Mountains in the Ethiopian highlandshas been deferred. All of these areas have varyingphysiography with some being of volcanic origin, severalbeing uplifted sedimentary strata, and several related tothe rift zone of the African Rift Valley System (as in thecase for NNP). Although precise data is not available,NNP has much less habitat diversity than the nearbySouthern Highlands of Tanzania which is in the sameeco-region (Kitulo Plateau National Park). The EasternArc Mountains in neighbouring Tanzania also display amuch higher level of endemism and biodiversity andare on the Tentative List submitted by that country.

The 7 components of the afromontane biogeographicalunit are of exceptional biological value for their distinctflora and (to a lesser extent) fauna, and landform features,and there is much overlap in vegetation, species andcommunities. Some comparative data on selectedafromontane protected areas indicates the relativeimportance of the NNP:

• NNP is of intermediate size (313,400ha) ascompared to existing afromontane WH properties,exceeded by Ngorongoro Conservation Area(829,000ha) Virunga National Park (790,000ha) andKahuzi-Biega National Park (600,000ha);

• The altitudinal range (and thus habitat diversity) ofNNP (2026m) is exceeded by all but one of the nineexisting WH properties where relative reliefs of 3000to over 4000 metres are recorded;

• Although floral diversity in NNP is high (1225species), almost double these amounts arerecorded in the Drakensberg (2153 species), MountNimba (2004 species) WH properties, as well assites in the Albertine Rift, which itself is home to about5800 plant species (data not available for individualsites). The Southern Rift ecoregion, where NNP issituated, is also known to be biologically less diversethan the adjacent Eastern Arc mountains in Tanzania;

• The mammal diversity in NNP (95 species) is alsosubstantially lower than in Virunga National Park (200species), Kahuzi-Biega National Park (194 species),Kilimanjaro (140 species) and Bwindi ImpenetrableForest (120 species). Similarly, bird diversity in NNP(426 species) is exceeded by several otherafromontane sites such as Virunga (800 species),

Page 121: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Nyika National Park - Malawi ID N° 290 Rev

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 85

Ngorongoro CA (over 500 species) and the Rwenzorimountains (543 species);

• Endemicity is high in all afromontane areas but onceagain the levels in the NNP are less than those foundin all groups in other WH properties as well as withMt. Mulanje Biosphere Reserve (77 endemic plantsversus 33 in NNP), a site also on Malawi’s TentativeList.

Despite some gaps in data and recognising broadregional differences in species composition, severalconclusions can be drawn from the above figures:

• NNP is one of 90 protected areas in the afromontaneregions of Africa. It is of medium size compared tothe existing 9 WH properties in this biogeographicregion but has less altitude variation than most.

• Endemism levels are higher in most existingafromontane WH properties than in NNP, though thereis a lack of comparative data on all sites.

• Habitat variety and biodiversity levels are high butare generally less than for most groups in existingafromontane WH properties and other sites on theTentative Lists for Malawi and Tanzania.

• Many montane plant species and plant communitiesfound in NNP also occur in other African highlandareas. All of these areas have a number of plantspecies and communities that are distinctive inspecific ways. For example, NNP has a greater extentof Brachystegia woodlands than other sites. Similarly,NNP’s large fauna is typical of the region and doesnot contain significant populations except for roanantelope for which it is regionally important.

• NNP’s landscape is characterised by open rollinggrasslands bordered by dissected valleys, which,together with some small wetlands and waterfallscombine to provide high scenic value. It does not,however, contain any landform feature comparableto the spectacular scenery found in the existing WHproperties in other afromontane regions, such asSimen Mountains, Kilimanjaro, the Drakensberg andthe Rwenzori Mountains (all inscribed under criterion(iii)).

In summary, as the Committee concluded in 1984, NNPis an area of clear significance at the national andregional level but its international significance has notbeen demonstrated. Although further information hasbecome available on the natural values of the propertysince the original nomination, this is not of a magnitudeto modify the conclusion reached in 1984. Most of thenatural values are already contained or exceeded inimportance in other WH properties in the afromontaneregion.

Map1: Afromontane zones

Page 122: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 290 Rev Nyika National Park - Malawi

86 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal status

NNP is a legally gazetted, state-owned protected areaunder the control of the Department of National Parksand Wildlife. Parts of the plateau have been protectedsince the 1930s, when fragments of the unusual juniperforest were reserved. The national park was establishedin January 1966 under the Game Ordinance, when itcovered 93,000ha. The area was more than tripled insize in June 1978, when the current borders were set(and when many people were removed from the park).

4.2 Boundaries

The boundaries of the property are clear and acceptedby the surrounding population. NNP is large enough toprovide protection for the ecosystem. The propertystretches across most of the width of Malawi at this point,stopping a few miles from the shore of Lake Malawi.There is no buffer zone, nor a realistic chance of creatingone as people who were moved from the property whenit was established have in many cases settled close tothe boundary. Actual encroachment seems to be rarealthough as discussed below there are a number ofproblems relating to poaching and fire. Agricultural useof surrounding areas is increasing. Virtually no Miombowoodland remains along the road to the entry gate andthe woodland corridor connecting NNP to the VwasaMarsh wildlife reserve has disappeared. Some of theboundary of the property follows the national border withZambia, where it is contiguous with a much smaller(8000 ha) protected area, the similarly named NyikaNational Park. Currently a Memorandum ofUnderstanding has been signed between the two parksbut discussions about a formal joint managementapproach are still ongoing.

4.3 Management

Management responsibility lies with the park manager,who reports to the Department of National Parks andWildlife, with headquarters in Lilongwe and a regionaloffice in Mzuzu. NNP is being managed to a Master Plandeveloped in 2004. The Park’s current staff membersinclude a Manager, Research officer and Education andExtension officer, 9 Technical Officers, 46 technicalassistants and 4 maintenance staff. It is admitted thatthis is currently insufficient to manage the park, beingjust over half the number of positions identified. A privatetrust is providing voluntary support, particularly with firecontrol and there is considerable volunteer effort inresearch.

4.3.1 Local communities: No people live permanentlywithin the national park although there are workers atthe lodge and some rangers. Around 5000 people wererelocated when the park was expanded in 1978, usuallyto less productive land and areas with higher incidenceof malaria, and this has created resentment. Theseissues are being addressed by the development of aseries of collaborative management initiatives, with 78natural resource committees, 66 beekeeping clubs anda revenue sharing scheme, which transfers a proportionof the gate money to local communities. Although local

people were at one time completely excluded from thepark, these restrictions have been relaxed. Local peopleare allowed to place beehives in the park, generatingaround 8 tonnes of honey a year, and to collect naturalresources, e.g. medicinal plants, wild fruit and grass,which are monitored. Communities can also now use arange of sacred sites (a waterfall, mountain and lake)for rain-making ceremonies and this takes placewhenever elders believe it to be necessary. Managersadmit that problems remain. However, the three chiefswhose traditional lands include part of the park all statedthat their attitudes to the NNP were changing to beingmore positive than in the past. They all expressed supportfor the World Heritage nomination. The current apparentsoftening of opposition needs to be built upon. Inparticular, NNP should capitalise on its protected statusto build income amongst local communities, for exampleby investigating value added options for products fromthe protected areas, such as organic certification ofhoney for export; this generates considerable revenuefor rural communities in Zambia.

4.3.2 Staffing: Managers, technical staff and rangersare well informed, appeared to have a goodunderstanding of the ecology and were clearly used tobeing in the field; however staffing levels are currentlyless than they need to be. Staff have uniforms, vehicles,a well-appointed headquarters building, computers andemail connection and roads are well maintained in thepark.

4.3.3 Monitoring: The NNP has a system of monitoringin place, focusing on bracken expansion, illegal fires,staffing levels, visitor numbers, poaching data, levels ofthose natural resources where extraction is allowed andpopulations of key species (elephants, roan antelope,eland, zebra and reedbuck). Priorities for additionalmonitoring would be for those other mammal and birdspecies identified as being of regional importance. Itwill also be important to monitor implementation of thenew management plan and associated annual workplans and a standardised system for reporting will beneeded.

4.3.4 Visitors: There are currently about 1500 visitors ayear to the property. This is the same as twenty yearsago although is recovering from a dip in between.Accommodation is limited to one lodge complex, somesimpler accommodation and camping grounds but isnot currently being fully utilised. Accommodation at thepark remains too expensive for many national visitors.Visitors can go walking with a guide, horse riding andon game drives. There is a small exhibition in a dedicatedbuilding at the edge of the park, which provides a lot ofuseful information and has some exhibits; there weresome inaccuracies in information given (for instancespecies listed which staff said were not present). Over-visitation is clearly not a problem at the current time,indeed there is an argument for increasing visitornumbers as this would not impact significantly on wildlifeand would increase income flow to both the park andneighbouring communities.

4.4 Threats

4.4.1 Poaching: Poaching of wildlife is currently a majorproblem and unless stopped will lead to the extirpation

Page 123: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Nyika National Park - Malawi ID N° 290 Rev

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 87

of some species. It is estimated that there are around280 professional part-time poachers, deploying around220 mainly locally made muzzle-loading firearms andtaking 400-500 antelope a year. Some antelopepopulations have fallen by 75% in the last decade. In theimmediate term, the poaching of antelope is the mostcritical problem facing NNP and failure to reduce thishas resulted in serious loss of wildlife values; however,there does now seem to be a serious attempt to addressthis issue. A new law enforcement officer has beenappointed, who has had success in controlling poachingin other protected areas and has an action plan agreedfor addressing the problem. In the first half of 2005 therehave been 24 convictions and confiscation of 20 firearms;eight poachers caught with animals have beensentenced to four years in prison. The officer predicts adownturn in poaching in 2-3 years but clearly this issueneeds to be monitored. Other forms of poaching arealso problematic, including removal of orchid tubers andtimber.

4.4.2 Fire: The Nyika plateau is managed through patchburning to reduce the risks of intense fires; someresearch suggests that this has few impacts onbiodiversity but further investigation is warranted,particularly with respect to its role in encouraging invasivespecies. Illegal fire setting is a major problem. Fires areset accidentally by poachers, or to maintain open habitatfor hunting or sometimes as revenge (for instance if apoacher is arrested). Park managers believe thatdeliberate patch burning is needed to maintain theecosystem but that major fires at the wrong time of yearare damaging and amongst other things may increasethe risk of spread of invasive species. Fire patrols aremounted but there is much evidence of uncontrolledburning.

4.4.3 Invasive species: The existing Scots pineplantation creates some problems with invasionalthough this is not out of control and there is a gradualprogramme to reduce the plantation to a fifth of its currentsize using the remaining timber in the tourism lodge. Amuch more serious problem is invasion by bracken fernfrom Europe which is spreading in many patchesthroughout the park. It appears that bracken tends toflourish after fire being a primary coloniser and gaininga rapid foothold on bare ground. Currently no controlmechanisms are in place and if unchecked this could intime seriously compromise the integrity of theecosystem. In the longer term, invasive bracken couldbe a critical challenge in maintaining the integrity of thehigh level grasslands that are at the heart of the region’simportance.

5. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

5.1. Cultural Values

The property is nominated as a mixed property. As inmany apparently natural sites, evidence of humanhabitation in NNP can be seen very widely and there areclear links between natural and cultural values. Some ofthe most distinctive geographical features – includingthe pool, largest waterfall, caves and the most distinctiverock outcrop – have sacred values. Cave paintings are

also found along with sites of iron smelting and theremains of smelters. Although some of the results ofhuman activity pose management challenges, such asthe pine plantation and the invasive bracken, others haveimportant values of their own. Continued use ofBrachystegia woodland for collection of honey andmedicinal plants continues this tradition and does notundermine conservation efforts. The cultural aspectsappeared to be only partly developed by the park staffand further work is recommended, particularly withrespect to slave routes and remains of the Ngomiinvasion.

5.2 Nomination Document

It was pointed out by several reviewers that the documentsubmitted did not include a sufficient comparison sectionand contains a number of errors, inconsistencies andgaps in data. IUCN has provided a list of corrections tothe Malawian authorities but the document is still deficientin some sections.

6. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA /STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The property is nominated under both natural and culturalvalues but only the former are considered in this report.NNP has been proposed under natural criteria (iii) and(iv).

Criterion (iii) : Natural phenomena, beauty andaesthetic importance

NNP has important aesthetic values, and is differentfrom most mountain islands in the afromontane region,being a rolling incised plateau. Compared to moredramatic landscapes found in other existingafromontane World Heritage properties, however,aesthetic values are of secondary importance and arenot regarded as globally significant. IUCN does notconsider that the nominated property meets this criterion.

Criterion (iv) : Biological diversity and threatenedspecies

As is true for all portions of the afromontane regions,NNP is one of several centres of endemism, althoughthe level of endemism is not as high level as in otherWorld Heritage properties in the same region. Importantpopulations of roan antelope and several bird speciesoccur, as well as rich orchid flora, but these are regardedat the regional rather than international level ofimportance. Woodland areas in the lowland (which makeup two thirds of the property) are also very important in aregion where deforestation and loss of forest quality havebeen rampant. NNP, however, is surpassed inbiodiversity values by the nine existing World Heritageproperties in the Afromontane region and is not judgedto be of international significance as previously decidedby the 8th session of the World Heritage Committee(1984). IUCN does not consider that the nominatedproperty meets this criterion.

Page 124: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 290 Rev Nyika National Park - Malawi

88 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

In addition, IUCN has a number of concerns over integrityissues as outlined in section 4.

7. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN recommends the Committee not to inscribe NyikaNational Park on the World Heritage List on the basis ofnatural criteria.

Page 125: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Nyika National Park - Malawi ID N° 290 Rev

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 89

Map 1: Location and boundaries of nominated property

Page 126: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 127: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

B2 Mixed referred nominations for which additional informationhas been recieved

B. Nominations of Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List

Page 128: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 129: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

AFRICA

ECOSYSTEM AND RELICT CULTURAL LANDSCAPEOF LOPE-OKANDA

GABON

Page 130: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 131: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

ECOSYSTEM AND RELICT CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF LOPÉ-OKANDA

(GABON) - ID Nº 1147 REV

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 91

Background note: The IUCN technical evaluation of the Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda,nominated by Gabon as a mixed property and cultural landscape in 2004, was presented to the 29th Session of theWorld Heritage Committee (Durban, 2005). IUCN’s evaluation noted that the property had the potential to meetnatural criterion (ii), but, because “it does not emerge as a key property in terms of the biodiversity prioritisationsystems examined by IUCN, nor was it identified as a key tropical forest property for WH designation”, IUCNconsidered that the nominated property did not meet criterion (iv). The evaluation recommended that the State Partyundertake a process to revise the Tentative List so that it clearly identifies priorities for World Heritage in Gabon. Itstressed the need to substantially increase management capacity at the property to effectively address the integrityissues and to give priority to (a) adopting and implementing a management plan; (b) increasing staff levels withinthe Lopé National Park; and (c) clarifying the leading management authority and the respective roles andresponsibilities of the Conseil National des Parcs Nationaux (CNPN) and the Direction de la Faune et de la Chasse(DFC) in the management of the Park.

IUCN, therefore, recommended the property be deferred. However, following discussion at its 29th session, theWorld Heritage Committee decided (Decision 29 COM 8B.17) to refer the nomination back to the State Party ofGabon, on the basis of natural values, in order “to allow the State Party to provide an improved comparative analysisthat demonstrates the outstanding universal value of the property, considering other protected areas in Gabon andthe region, and in relation to detailed inventories of fauna and flora, as available.” The Decision also requested toincrease management capacity at the property “to effectively address integrity requirements, and to confirm the longterm management, planning and staffing arrangements, to ensure the overall sustainable management of theproperty, including the relationship of its cultural and natural values”. It also recommended that “the position of thenominated property be confirmed in relation to other potential World Heritage properties in Gabon. In relation tonatural values, this should include the examination of possibilities for serial and transboundary nominations”. TheCommittee also referred the nomination on the basis of its cultural values, and these are the subject of a separatereport by ICOMOS.

1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On 30 January 2006, the Gabon State Party submitted a new, updated nomination document for the same property,but with slightly modified boundaries to include a number of sites of cultural importance in response in particular tothe ICOMOS evaluation of 2005. The new nominated property includes Lopé National Park (LNP) (491,292 ha) andits buffer zone (150,000 ha). The boundary has been “extended to include the 7 historical complexes” (distinctclusters of archaeological sites, most of them non contiguous to LNP, encompassing a total of 20,700 ha).

The document provides a limited amount of additional data on the natural values of the property. It stresses theabundance of newly discovered endemic plants, and gives updated figures for the number of species known (orestimated) in various taxa, as well as new estimations for populations of primates. Compared with the previousdocument, it is noted that one species of primate (Miopithecus ogoouensis) was added. The presence of a fewindividuals of hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibious), thought to be extinct in this area, is now reported.Recent discovery of 3 new species of amphibians and reptiles suggests that Mt Iboundji (an historical complex15km SE of the Park, but included in its buffer zone) is an important refuge for these species.

The State Party also submitted:

• A letter from the Ministry of Arts and Culture, in charge of Popular Education, introducing the nomination “inaccordance with the recommendations adopted by the World Heritage Committee meeting in Durban (SouthAfrica,) in July 2005”.

• A new Management Plan for Lopé National Park (2006 - 2011) including a zoning map;

• A new map of the nominated property, including the limits of LNP, its buffer zone, and the location of the 7historical complexes;

• Copies of new legislation related to the gazettement of 7 historical complexes by the Ministry of Culture and Arts.

Page 132: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1147 Rev. Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda - Gabon

92 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

2. EVALUATION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This revised nomination for the Ecosystem and RelictCultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda has not fullyaddressed the recommendations of IUCN and the WorldHeritage Committee (Durban, 2005). IUCN’s evaluationof the revised nomination, in relation to the decision ofthe Committee is as follows:

• No adequate comparative analysis is offered inrelation to the case for outstanding universal valueof the property. The revised nomination bringssome new arguments stressing the biologicalimportance of LNP in terms of its biodiversityrichness, but it is only focussed on a description ofthe values of Lopé, and does not compare thesedata with similar sets from other rainforest areasin the region and worldwide. The new proposedformulation of the outstanding universal value forwhich the property is nominated under naturalcriterion (iv), is now geographically restricted to“Atlantic Central Africa”; thus making a regionalapproach to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)concept which relates to global significance;

• Although the nominated property is included withinthe Tentative List of Gabon, a critical evaluation ofthe justification for LNP did not form part of therevision of the Tentative List of Gabon, nor did thisprocess consider potential serial andtransboundary nominations with other forest areasidentified as part of the Tentative List;

• Staffing levels appear to remain inadequate. Whilethe zoning map locates 7 control posts, the newnomination document only states that staff levelwas increased from 5 (2003) to 8 (2005) but that astaff level of 40 is necessary. The document statesthat the staff is assisted in its work by neighbouringbrigades and by 50 agents working for projectsmanaged by the Wildlife Conservation Society(WCS) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL).The revised nomination recognizes that the lowlevel of park staff “renders the organization of anyprotection and conservation activity veryproblematic”.

• The Park Management Plan has been noticeablyimproved since 2004, however it still does notprovide details on many aspects of the long termmanagement, planning and staffing arrangementsthat are necessary to ensure the overall sustainablemanagement of the property. Although financial inputin 2005 by Gabonese institutions (CNPN and DFC:45,000$) and contributions from partners (est.1,080,000$) are given, there is no long term fundingcommitment from partners and no indication of thelevel of funding that the Government plans toreserve annually for salaries, operations andinvestments in the nominated property over the nextfew years;

• The document does not clearly state what therespective roles and responsibilities of the CNPNand the DFC are in the management of the park.

While the CNPN (an Inter-Ministerial Committeedepending from the Presidency) is technically incharge of the Park, the staff depends from the DFC(under the Ministère des Eaux et Forêts et del’Environnement). As in 2003, this document statesthat a Scientific Committee and a Commission duSite “are in the process of being formed”.

• While the link between the natural and culturalvalues of the property are more explicitly presentedin the revised nomination, the link between themanagement of the Park and the management ofthe 7 Historical Complexes situated in the Park’sBuffer Zone is still unclear. While LNP staff isresponsible for the protection of the Park and thecontrol of activities in its 5km-wide Buffer Zone, thedocument does not state any formal arrangementbetween Ministries giving CNPN full responsibilityfor the conservation and management of theHistorical Complexes. The Arrêtés Ministériels (17January 2006) of the Ministry of Arts and Culture, incharge of Popular Education, gazetting theseComplexes as “Aires Culturelles Protégées” do noteven mention their proximity to LNP or a jointmanagement regime.

IUCN considers that it has not yet been convincinglydemonstrated in the revised nomination that the integrityrequirements in relation to the nominated property havebeen met.

3. APPLICATION OF CRITERIA / STATEMENTOF SIGNIFICANCE

The property is nominated as a mixed property and acultural landscape Its natural values are proposed forinscription on the basis of natural criteria (ii) and (iv) :

Criterion (ii): Ecological processes

The nominated property demonstrates an unusualinterface between forest and savannah environments,and an interesting manifestation of evolutionaryprocesses in terms of habitat adaptation to post-glacialclimatic changes. However, the global – as opposed tothe regional – significance of the area has still not beendemonstrated by the limited additional informationprovided in the revised nomination. IUCN considers thatthe nominated property may have potential to meet thiscriterion.

Criterion (iv): Biodiversity and threatened species

The nominated property is regionally important in termsof the species that it contains but the additionalinformation provided in the revised nomination does notsupport the case for meeting this criterion. As noted inthe 2005 evaluation of this nominated property it doesnot emerge as a key property in terms of the biodiversityprioritisation systems examined by IUCN, nor was itidentified as a key tropical forest property for WHdesignation at the Berastagi meeting in 1999. For thesereasons, IUCN considers that the nominated propertydoes not meet this criterion.

Page 133: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda - Gabon ID N° 1147 Rev.

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 93

In conclusion IUCN considers that, whilst there has beensome progress towards improving the managementarrangements of Lopé-Okanda, the lack of comparativeanalysis and the limited additional data and informationprovided on the ecosystems and biodiversity of thenominated property are sti l l not addressing theuncertainty over whether or not the property meetscriterion (ii). Therefore IUCN’s conclusions regardingthe evaluation of this property as presented to the 29th

Session of the World Heritage Committee remainessentially unchanged.

4. RECOMMENDATION

IUCN acknowledges the decision of the 29th session ofthe World Heritage Committee to refer this nomination,rather than accept IUCN’s recommendation of deferral.IUCN considers, however, that more work needs to bedone and more time is required by the State Party todevelop the case for this nomination. .Therefore IUCNrecommends that the World Heritage Committee deferexamination of the Ecosystem and Relict CulturalLandscape of Lopé-Okanda, Gabon to the WorldHeritage List on the basis of natural criterion (ii) in orderto:

a) Allow the State Party to provide a full andthorough global comparative analysis thatdemonstrates the outstanding universal valueof the property, considering other protectedareas in Gabon and the region, and in relationto detailed inventories of fauna and flora, asavailable.

b) Address the need for increased managementcapacity at the property to effectively meet theconditions of integrity and to support theimplementation of the new Management Planof Lopé National Park, placing priority onconfirming staffing arrangements and long termfinancing commitments, to ensure the overallsustainable management of the property,including the relationship of its cultural andnatural values.

IUCN also recommends that the Committee express itsappreciation to the State Party for the work that has beencarried out to improve the management plan for LopéNational Park, and that the States Parties of Gabon,Congo and Cameroon be invited to discuss the feasibilityof preparing a serial transnational nomination ofrainforest protected areas, whilst enhancing theirexisting collaboration in the framework of COMIFAC andRAPAC initiatives.

Page 134: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1147 Rev. Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda - Gabon

94 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Map 1: Location of nominated property

Page 135: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

Ecosystem and Relict Cultural Landscape of Lopé-Okanda - Gabon ID N° 1147 Rev.

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 95

Map 2: Boundaries of nominated property

Page 136: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 137: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

C. New Nominations for Cultural Landscape Properties

Page 138: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 139: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ASIA / PACIFIC

RIVER ISLAND OF MAJULI IN MIDSTREAM OFBRAHMAPUTRA RIVER IN ASSAM

INDIA

Page 140: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 141: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

RIVER ISLAND OF MAJULI IN MIDSTREAM OF BRAHMAPUTRA RIVER IN ASSAM

(INDIA) ID N° 1206

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 97

IUCN carried out a desk review of this cultural landscape nomination, the full text of which was provided to ICOMOSas an input to their evaluation process. This is a brief summary for the information of the World Heritage Committee.

Natural Values

The nominated property consists of the river island of Majuli, located in the mid-river delta system of the BrahmaputraRiver, the largest mid-river delta system in the world, and a number of small wetlands partially surrounding it. Theisland is the result of the large scale accumulation of sediments from the Brahmaputra River and its tributaries.Inhabited since the 15th Century, the nominated property has been subject to traditional and harmonious land andwater use since then and most of the areas are under traditional use practices today, including agriculture, grassingand fishing. The property is subject to cycles of flooding (mainly during the Monsoon season) and dry periods inwinter. These cycles not only dominate the natural processes occurring in the area but also condition the use ofland and water resources each season.

The nomination dossier refers to the use of native flora and fauna for economic, social and religious reasons; andthe importance of the area, particularly its wetlands and paddy fields, for local and migratory birds, and as abreeding place for the endangered river dolphin. However, it is lacking a detailed inventory of flora and fauna of theproperty, including existing threatened and endangered species, and an assessment of their state of conservation.Further information is required in relation to how the traditional practices (i) have contributed to develop and/orconserve a wide range of varieties of cultivated crops and domesticated livestock; and (ii) are contributing to supportand enhance a variety of ecological niches that play a key role in protecting native and migratory species, particularlyendangered and threatened species.

Management aspects and long-term protection

The proposed boundaries encompass the key areas associated to the property and ensure the protection of itsimmediate surrounding landscape as a way to maintain its visual quality and identity. However, the property is veryvulnerable to any changes that may occur in the upper watershed and it would be beneficial to extend the buffer zoneto the north to allow management of a greater part of this watershed. Establishing the legal status of the property asa protected area and identifying its management category are also of key importance. A proposed managementplan for the property identifies overall management objectives but there is a need for detailed guidance on activities,operations and resources to ensure its effective implementation. IUCN suggests that the State Party should alsoexplore mechanisms to streamline existing institutional coordination and project development. In addition, tourismdevelopment requires careful consideration in order to avoid impacts that could affect the fragile balance existingbetween people and nature in Majuli.

Overall, however, the survival of Majuli Island depends on ecological processes which cannot be totally controlledby management activities. In fact the island itself is depending on the river’s cycles of sedimentation and erosion.IUCN is concerned that, in the light of predicted climate change impacts, the risk and impact of increased floodingevents may jeopardize the existence of the property, causing people to resettle in other areas – a process that isalready occurring. The proposed management plan recognises the need to prepare a Risk Management Plan forMajuli and IUCN considers that this should be of the highest priority for the State Party. Nonetheless, ensuring thelong-term protection and existence of the property cannot be totally guaranteed.

Page 142: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 143: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

THE CAUSSES AND CEVENNES

FRANCE

Page 144: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 145: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

THE CAUSSES AND CÉVENNES (FRANCE) – ID N° 1153

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 99

1. DOCUMENTATION

i) Date nomination received by IUCN: April 2005

ii) Consultations: The mission met with national, regional and local authorities, community leaders, protectedarea staff, local NGOs and other experts.

iii) Field visit: Henry Cleere (ICOMOS) and Pierre Galland (IUCN), 18-22 September, 2005

iv) Date of approval of report by IUCN: April 2006

2. SUMMARY OF NATURAL VALUES

The nominated property of the Causses and Cévennesis an area of 476,400 ha in south-east France, with anadditional buffer zone of 162,600 ha. The nominatedproperty and buffer zone cover slightly over 1% of thetotal land area of France. The property includes theCévennes National Park (321,380 ha), the GrandsCausses Natural Regional Park (315,949 ha), and anumber of other areas benefiting from coordinatedmanagement focussed on environmental values. Thenominated area consists of three natural units ofdifferent geologic origin (karst, schist and granite) whichcombine to form a high diversity of landscapes andecosystems. The landscape has been largely createdby centuries of human activities which have alsocontributed to an increase in the biological diversity,especially notable in the large karstic plateaux of theCausses, and the terraced agriculture and the openhighland grazing areas of the Cévennes.

Although the upper parts of the property receive thehighest amount of precipitation of the country, water hasalways been a limiting factor for the vegetation and theagro-pastoral activities. Typical for areas underMediterranean influence, most of the precipitation occursin autumn or winter, and summers are very dry. Asubstantial network of channels and other smallequipment have been set up in order to ensure a supplyof water for domestic use, irrigation and energyproduction (water mills). Most of these networks are stillin use today. Very few dams have been built, leavingmost of the valleys intact, including the spectacularGorges of Tarn and Jonte.

The nomination provides a good description of a rangeof geological, habitat, species and landscape values.Most of the noticeable species communities,ecosystems and landscapes have been significantlyinfluenced by human activities and are currentlymaintained through these activities. It is therefore correctto describe the property as an organically evolving culturallandscape. In this respect and based on Annex 6 of the

Operational Guidelines, IUCN considers that there arefour kinds of natural values that are likely to be mostevident in such landscapes: conservation of natural andsemi-natural systems, and of wild species of fauna andflora; conservation of biodiversity within farming systems;sustainable land use; and enhancement of scenicbeauty. IUCN comments on each of these aspects forthe nominated property are as follows:

Conservation of natural and semi-natural systems, andof wild species of fauna and flora

The nominated property is a good example of howtraditional land use patterns have:

• helped support and contribute to an increaseof wild species of flora and fauna. Many orchidpopulations, for example, are very welldeveloped as a consequence of the extensivegrazing activities on the karst plateaux;

• contributed to the protection of naturalecosystems and human settlements byproviding protection against erosion andflooding of the lower valleys, while ensuringwater supply for animal flocks and crops duringthe dry season; and

• created numerous semi-natural habitats;different types for each of the three majorgeomorphologic units.

The Causses and Cévennes lie at a biogeographiccrossroads between Mediterranean and Atlantic regions;the size of the property, its integrity and its elevation rangecontribute certainly to the maintenance of the geneticdiversity for numerous plants and insects, offering apotential for migration in case of climate change ormodification of human practices.

Page 146: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1153 The Causses and Cévennes - France

100 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

Conservation of biodiversity within farming systems

To some extent the traditional activities have lead to theselection of well adapted animal breeds (of sheep andcows) and cultivated crops (chestnut trees, etc.).However these breeds are not necessarilycorresponding to the current market driving forces andmight disappear or might be conserved as “relict” fromthe past. The same applies to traditional practices, liketranshumance or extensive, low-input farming.

Sustainable land use

The land use practices established within the nominatedproperty are a good example of how traditionalagricultural methods respect land capability by adaptingagro-pastoral practices to the landscape and itsgeomorphologic features; conserve the quality andquantity of soil by replanting forests on slopes prone toerosion; and manage rainwater, by increasing waterretention through building of terraces and providingirrigation water during the dry season.

Enhancement of scenic beauty

In addition to a range of dramatic natural landscapefeatures, such as the Gorges du Tarn and de la Jonte,the nominated property displays a range of scenic andaesthetic qualities, deriving from the integration of thetraditional construction into the landscape (on cliffs,along streams or ridges, etc.) and from using localstones (limestone or schist stones and roof slabs).Traditional pastoral activities have kept open thetranshumance roads (drailles), maintained semi openhabitats and have contributed to the conservation of thecultural elements like dolmen or other spiritualwitnesses. The preservation of in-situ semi-natural andcultural elements is enhanced by a number of museumdisplays, projects to rehabilitate building complexes,small exhibitions and visitor trails.

3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS

The nomination contains a clear comparative analysisthat recognises that the features displayed by theCausses and Cévennes are found individually in manyother places around the world, but identifies a numberof points of differentiation in each case, and a claim forpreeminence in Europe due to the richness, coherenceand complementarity of the landscapes and itsconstituent values and features.

IUCN notes that the nominated property is consideredto be a site characteristic of upland/mountain areasadjacent to the Mediterranean coast, with both evidenceof the history of occupation and still active agro-pastoralpractices which have disappeared or have beensignificantly modified in many areas. OtherMediterranean type areas outside of Europe do notdisplay the same cultural and historical values nor asimilar integration of the activities into the landscape.

IUCN agrees with the evaluation in the nomination thatthe factors identified are not unique to the Cévennesand Causses, and whilst they demonstrate a number ofparticular and specialised characteristics, the

differentiation from other areas appears to rely on arather complex and narrowly-based distinction. IUCNconsiders that it will be important for the ICOMOSevaluation to carefully consider the nature of this claimin relation to the many other upland areas in Europe thatcould be considered to display values of a similar naturethat could also be used to argue for outstanding universalvalue.

4. INTEGRITY

4.1 Legal Status and ownership

A large number of protection measures are in force. TheCévennes National Park, including 117 communes, wasestablished in September 1970 under the Law of 22July 1960, and has been a UNESCO Biosphere Reservesince 1985, while the Grands Causses Natural RegionalPark, covering 94 communes, was established in 1995under the Law of 5 July 1972. The Centre permanentd’initiative pour l’Environnement (CPIE) des Caussesméridionaux, set up in accordance with 1901 legislation,represents 28 communes and enables these collectivegroups to prepare and implement policies and activitiesof common interest. Private property covers some three-quarters of the nominated area. On September 15, 2005,a supervising / coordination body was created under thename of AVECC – Association de Valorisation desEspaces Causses et Cévennes (see section 4.3 below).

4.2 Boundaries

The property’s boundaries are the result of a longprocess of negotiation with local and regional authorities,and appear to be quite logical. The boundaries havebeen determined mainly according to natural physicalcriteria, such as the border of the elevated plateaux(Causses) or valleys / mountain ranges in the Cévennes.The addition of the buffer zone appears to ensure theinclusion of the communities bordering the property. Themain towns surrounding the property have beendesignated as ‘Gateway Towns’ in order to takeadvantage of the potential World Heritage designation.

It is for ICOMOS to judge the adequacy of the boundariesin relation to the claim for outstanding universal value.IUCN considers that they are more than adequate toencompass the natural values of the property and toensure their conservation, but is concerned by the extentof the property and subsequent potential managementdifficulties as outlined below.

4.3 Management

The management of the property is mostly in the handsof three principal bodies: the Cévennes National Park,the Grands Causses Natural Regional Park and theCentre permanent d’initiative pour l’Environnement(CPIE) des Causses méridionaux. These threeorganisations maintain very good relations and havebeen very active in the nomination preparation. However,their real influence on the human activities is relativelylimited, most of the land being private property. Even onthe state land the potential for intervention or limitation

Page 147: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

The Causses and Cévennes - France ID N° 1153

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 101

of specific activities is limited. The regional authorities,namely the Préfets (local representatives of the centralgovernment) and the Conseils Généraux (Departmentalauthorities) are very much supporting these institutions,as well as the “communautés de communes” (groupsof community councils) created to handle local issues.

The management of the nominated property needs tobe well coordinated to ensure coherent managementacross the three different physical units, integrating theauthorities of the five French Departments and the threelarge management bodies. On September 15, 2005, asupervising / coordination body was created under thename of AVECC – Association de Valorisation desEspaces Causses et Cévennes and this is a noticeablestep toward an integrated management. Goodcollaboration between the Préfets and the ConseilsGénéraux is also a positive factor for management.

Nevertheless IUCN notes that the managementorganisation of this large and diverse area is verycomplex, and only recently formed. There is likely to bea considerable ongoing challenge to maintain cohesionbetween the substantial and different managementbodies responsible for the property. The multiplicity oflabels for the area and other designations could be quiteconfusing for the visitors and a global reflection on theway the property will be presented in the future shouldtake place in order to ensure a coherent approach.

In the immediate future it is clear that all the institutionsinvolved in the property’s management have the supportof the political authorities, and the necessary budget tooperate. It is not clear, however, if they will have accessto the much larger financial means necessary to supportthe farmers and other local actors in the future forlandscape conservation through traditional activities. Theexistence of Departmental funds for acquiring land,which is then leased to applicants for farming, eco-tourism and promotion of local products, is an exampleof a positive measure to partly address this concern.

4.4 Threats

The whole nominated area is maintained through theperpetuation of traditional activities and the support ofmanagement teams to address issues created by thedecrease of traditional practices – such as the use ofmechanical scrub clearance. Many small organizationshave been created to support local initiatives and localfarmers. However, the whole agricultural system appearsto be quite fragile and very much depending upon currentpolicy, in particular the European agriculture and foodregulations. As an example, the enforcement of aregulation prohibiting cheese making from un-pasteurised milk could lead to a dramatic decline ofpractices of the 1’600 farmers depending upon theRoquefort factories. Cessation of subsidies to farmersfor landscape maintenance is also an importantthreatening factor, along with the lack of training for youngfarmers specific to the property’s characteristics.

Visitation numbers are quite high, supported by a densenetwork of visitor facilities and large amount of visitorinformation. The State Party expects that World Heritagedesignation would bring a significant increase in visitorsbut it appears that very little has been planned regarding

the management of tourist flows and in particular, motortraffic. A coordinated effort is required in this regard andalternative transportation mechanisms considered,along with the development of low impact tourism likehiking, biking, sightseeing, and bird watching.

Water management has always been one of the majorconcerns for the area. The uneven distribution of theprecipitation has forced the local people to developsophisticated systems for water retention and run-offcontrol. Pollution does not seem to be a major issue.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The nominated property of the Causses and Cévennesdisplays a variety of important natural values, resultingfrom both the natural landscape and geology, and theinteraction of nature with human settlement and pastoralagriculture over a long period of time. These landscapeand natural elements contribute significantly to a well-preserved and dynamic cultural landscape.

IUCN considers that the natural values of the propertyare of a national and regional (European) significance,rather than global significance. It is for ICOMOS todetermine the validity of the claim for outstandinguniversal value as a cultural landscape in relation to thecultural criteria, and, in this regard, IUCN has suggestedthat ICOMOS may wish to consider :

a) the relationship of this cultural landscapenomination to potential claims that could beadvanced by other European upland/mountainareas such as national parks, including thoseon existing tentative lists;

b) the justification for the size of the nominatedproperty;

c) the issues created by the complexity of thecurrent and proposed managementarrangements; and

d) the relationship of the proposed property to theexisting protected areas that lie within it.

IUCN notes the presence of a number of potential threatsand management issues. In relation to the natural valuesof the property, particular attention should be placed onthe maintenance of traditional activities likely to preservethe existing natural and semi-natural habitats and thespecies dependant on them. Effort should be made torehabilitate sites that have been transformed orabandoned, returning them to semi-natural habitatsthrough traditional practices and by reintroducingdomestic species. The key threat appears to beuncertainty over the sustainability of the traditionalagricultural use of the area in the face of changingEuropean agricultural policy and funding.

IUCN finally notes the impressive communitycollaboration that is evident from this nomination,reflected in a consistent commitment to the nominationencountered at all levels throughout the evaluation

Page 148: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

ID N° 1153 The Causses and Cévennes - France

102 IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006

mission. IUCN congratulates all of the authorities andpartners involved in achieving this level of consensus,and the creative approach that has been taken throughthe initiative to connect existing protected areas to thesurrounding area and communities.

Page 149: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

THE AGAVE LANDSCAPE AND THE ANCIENTINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES OF TEQUILA

MEXICO

Page 150: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 151: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

THE AGAVE LANDSCAPE AND THE ANCIENT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES OF

TEQUILA (MEXICO) - ID N° 1209

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 103

IUCN carried out a desk review of this cultural landscape nomination, the full text of which was provided to ICOMOSas an input to their evaluation process. This is a brief summary for the information of the World Heritage Committee.

Natural Values

The nominated property is located in an area characterized by a hilly relief of volcanic origin, dissected by a numberof rivers; mainly the Santiago River which forms a canyon at the northern part of the property. Another importantnatural feature is that associated to Mount Tequila, an inactive volcano reaching 2,900m. The region has a sub-tropical semi-arid climate with an annual rainfall of 1,100mm. The volcanic rocks and soils present in the areaensure good retention of water in important aquifers that are essential for social and economic activities. Most ofthe area used to be covered by natural tropical forest where different species of the genus Ficus were predominant(e.g. the name of Cerro Amatitán is originally from the amerindian language, náhuatl, and means “forest of amates”which is given to ficus glabrata). The nominated property is located in the region of Jalisco, one of the mostbiodiversity rich areas in Mexico, containing 25% of all the species of flora reported for the country.

Most of the original natural ecosystems have been modified by mankind for hundreds of years, in order to adapt itfor agriculture and industry. In particular the domestication of the blue maguey plant, Agave tequiliana, leading tothe production of mezcal and mezcal wine, has created a unique type of landscape. Culture influenced this trait tothe extent that the blue agave is now known in cultivation only, with no wild relatives in the area. There are patchesof natural forest and old regenerated secondary forest; such as those associated to “Hacienda La Primavera”where more than 1,000 species of plants have been reported (SEMARNAT, 2004) including a high diversity oforchid. The nomination, however, lacks detail on the flora and fauna of the region or how the Agave cultivationcontributes to biodiversity conservation, particularly to the survival of a number of species of bats and hummingbirds.

Management aspects

IUCN notes a number of suggestions relating to the maintenance and restoration of the natural values of thenominated property. For instance, a descriptive biological inventory of the area would help to establish a baselinefor their conservation and management. It is suggested that the conservation of the remaining isolated forestremnants, especially on Mount Tequila, figure as an important component of management of the natural values ofthe property. The impact of the extensive use of herbicides and insecticides within the property is not insignificantand it could affect the long-term quality of the water in existing aquifers. Poor soil conservation practices arecommon in the area and reductions in habitat for nectar-feeding bats and hummingbirds require managementactions that would improve the environmental and aesthetic integrity of the area. The dependence on a very limitedgenetic stock of the blue agave species has resulted in an aggressive disease outbreak that has been the subjectof a book, “Tequila – A Natural and Cultural History”, by Ana Valenzuela-Zapata and Gary Paul Nabhan (2003).

IUCN suggests that all the above are important aspects of this cultural landscape nomination and should berecognized as part of the interplay between nature and culture. IUCN recommends that the State Party recognizeand respond to the above concerns in future management and monitoring of the property.

Page 152: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 153: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

EUROPE / NORTH AMERICA

CORNWALL AND WEST DEVON MINING LANDSCAPE

UNITED KINGDOM

Page 154: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
Page 155: IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and …whc.unesco.org/archive/2006/whc06-30com-inf8b2e.pdfWHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural

WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATION – IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION

CORNWALL AND WEST DEVON MINING LANDSCAPE (UNITED KINGDOM) - ID N° 1215

IUCN World Heritage Evaluation Report May 2006 105

IUCN undertook a desk review of the Cultural Landscape nomination, the full text of which was provided to ICOMOSas an input to their evaluation process. Subsequently, the IUCN World Heritage Panel noted additional points andapproved the following brief summary for the information of the World Heritage Committee:

Natural values

IUCN considers that the natural values of the property are evident, though concentrated in the 37% of the nominatedproperty that lies within a Category V protected area (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). It also notes that severalsites within the nominated property, including the highly unusual habitats and plant communities created by someof the former waste and spoil tips, have been nominated for inclusion as part of the European system of SpecialAreas of Conservation or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest. However, these habitats and plantcommunities are distinctive precisely because they have adapted to some of the most polluted land in the UK,which has had and continues to have considerable impact, not only on the natural communities of the waste andspoil tips, but on the downstream aquatic and estuarine environments as well. Indeed, the issue of toxicity is a clearmanifestation of the interaction of humans and nature in this special environment, and might be given moreprominent recognition as an important element of the cultural landscape.

Management aspects

IUCN is pleased to note that these natural qualities and the associated designations have been taken into accountin the nomination. The case for listing of this property as a cultural landscape, “a combined work of man andnature”, was not, in the opinion of IUCN, adequately addressed in the nomination document. Thus, it is recommendedthat this central theme be given prominence in the management programme for the property. IUCN considers thatnature conservation, landscape protection, contamination control, and the featuring of human/nature relationshipsare important elements to be recognized as critical to delivering the objectives of the nominated property, andshould not be seen as in any way obstructive to them. In general, IUCN welcomes the aims of the ManagementPlan, and advises that policies for biodiversity, landscape protection, contamination control, and the recognition ofhuman/nature relationships should be fully integrated into the future management of the property.

IUCN concurs with the ICOMOS recommendation to refer the nomination and suggests that the State Party give dueconsideration to the points outlined above.