serial natural world heritage properties - challenges for
TRANSCRIPT
Serial Natural World Heritage Properties –
Challenges for Nomination and Management
Proceedings of a workshop organised by
the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) in cooperation with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) November 7th - 11th, 2009
Editor: Barbara Engels
CONTENT
Page
1. Introduction 3
1.1 Aims of the meeting 3
1.2 Participants 4
1.3 Outputs of the meeting 4
2. Conclusions 5
2.1 General Conclusions 5
2.2 Outstanding universal value of serial properties 6
2.3 Linkages between component parts 6
2.4 Selection and number of component parts 6
2.5 Management 8
2.6 Danger listing and delisting 8
2.7 Extensions 9
2.8 Transnational serial properties 9
3. Recommendations 10
4. Annexes 12
ANNEX 1: Summaries of presentations ANNEX 2: Analysis of serial natural World Heritage evaluations, K. Howard, IUCN ANNEX 3: Programme ANNEX 4: List of participants
2
1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an expert meeting on “Serial Natural World Heritage Properties – Challenges for Nomination and Management” held at the International Academy for Nature Conservation, Vilm, Germany from 7th to 11th November 2009. The meeting was organized by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) with funding from the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) as an integral part of their work on Natural World Heritage and in close cooperation with the IUCN and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. The expert meeting was a follow-up to a first meeting held in November 2008 bringing together World Heritage experts, site managers and Committee members to discuss the present situation, challenges and opportunities of Serial Natural World Heritage properties. The workshop had identified various areas where further expertise and guidance is needed (Nominations and Management of Serial Natural World Heritage Properties - Present Situation, Challenges and Opportunities, BfN-Skripten 248, 2009, Bonn; http://www.bfn.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/Skript_248.pdf). The 2009 meeting was designed to further discuss the issues and refine the conclusions and recommendations identified during the last workshop. It aims at feeding in experiences and further recommendations to the process of developing draft guidance for serial and transnational World Heritage. The results of the 2009 meeting in combination with the 2008 report will be presented to the expert meeting on “Serial transnational World Heritage properties” which will be held from 25th to 27th of February 2010 in Switzerland in the view to discuss the results also from a cultural perspective and to provide joint conclusions and recommendations to the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010. 1.1 Aims of the meeting The workshop aims were to: • to further refine the concept of serial properties based on examples for serial properties’ “stories”
illustrating how Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) can be displayed • to compile further advice on applying OUV to serial sites; • based on an analysis on IUCN current practise of evaluation of serial nominations the workshop
aims at providing further guidance on the questions of functional linkages and connectivity; • to provide advice on preparing nominations, guidance for comparative analysis, advice on
choosing relevant component parts (internal comparative analysis, minimum / maximum / optimum number of component parts)
• to discuss the management, monitoring and reporting of serial properties and to collect best practices in serial site management (develop models and advice on serial site management) including cooperative management mechanisms).
3
The workshop therefore included the following steps/issues: • The workshop recapitulated the outcomes of the 2008 expert workshop as outlined in the
respective report and reviewed these outcomes in order to follow up on and refine identified questions, topics and conclusions.
• The 2008 workshop inter alia recommended that the IUCN review the use of its evaluation framework for serial nominations based on three guiding questions. These three questions have been used in the past and define and reconsider the use of the work “functional” in relation to functional linkage as it means different things for the different criteria. The establishment of a list of possible linkages was also suggested. IUCN has undertaken this work and published it as “Analysis of natural World Heritage Evaluations” (see Annex 2). This analysis has been presented during the workshop and the conclusions and recommendations have been discussed during the workshop.
• Presentations of different Serial Natural World Heritage Properties from different UNESCO regions (including transnational properties and examples from the cultural sector; see Annex 1) as a basis to identify case studies and best practices.
1.2 Participants Criteria for the participation were expertise in nominating, managing and evaluating World Heritage properties. Participants had the following background:
- Representatives of Serial Natural World Heritage Properties from different UNESCO
regions; - Natural heritage experts (e.g. members of IUCN WCPA and others) and cultural heritage
experts (including expertise on cultural landscapes); - Experts involved in IUCN evaluations of natural properties; - Representatives of the UNESCO WH Centre and the IUCN.
A list of participants is included in Annex 4. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the delegations of Sweden and Australia to the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. 1.3 Outputs of the meeting The workshop produced the following outputs:
- This workshop report - A CD-ROM containing all background information and presentations of the workshop,
included in this report;
4
2. Conclusions 2.1 General Conclusions Communication of serial properties Beyond a convincing technical justification participants noted the need for and communication of a “common-sense” rationale enabling the broader public to understand and appreciate the linkages and coherence of several components as different chapters of one book. Consistent approach to serial properties The workshop concluded that serial properties may have negative impacts on the credibility of the World Heritage list and noted that the requested overall management framework is a critical element for credibility. Therefore the workshop reinforced the 2008 conclusion to regard and treat serial properties and single properties in a consistent way. The participants noted that the Committee might wish to limit serial nominations. They therefore concluded that an explicit encouragement of States Parties to nominate serial properties might be contra productive. However, the workshop concluded that the best advice and guidance should be made available for States Parties to elaborate on serial nominations Evaluation framework as an essential part of the processes The workshop considered that the Advisory Body evaluation is a fundamental step in the Convention’s processes to increase this credibility. The workshop participants therefore agreed that the application of a consistent and comprehensive evaluation framework to serial properties is indispensable. The participants welcomed the analysis that IUCN had undertaken to review its existent evaluation approach as detailed in Annex 2. Furthermore the workshop participants suggested that the applicability to serial cultural properties of the IUCN approach should be discussed at the upcoming workshop in Switzerland 2010. Processes leading to serial nominations Based on the presented analysis the workshop participants acknowledged that often the submission of a single nomination and its subsequent evaluation leads to a serial nomination (as these nominations as single properties do not reach the threshold for OUV). In various cases the Advisory Body IUCN has even suggested a nomination as a serial property (e.g. Cape Floral region, Lena Pillars). This confirms the important role of the evaluation process in providing advice to States Parties.. The workshop participants noted that further investigation and selection of case studies for further guidance would be useful.
5
2.2 Outstanding universal value of serial properties – Justification of the serial approach
The workshop participants: • Reaffirmed the definition given at the 2008 meeting the a serial property is “a property where
two or more component parts are required to express the Outstanding Universal Value”; • Concluded that the application of OUV for serial properties does not differ from single
properties and that the same strict application of OUV and integrity is needed to ensure credibility of the WH list. This should be underlined by the Operational Guidelines;
• Pointed out the essential question to ask is “What is the story to be told – do you need more than one component part to convey the story?
• Concluded that the choice of criteria is important for serial properties as it determines the status of protection to be met by all components and is relevant for the choice and number of component parts (an internal analysis comparing the potential component parts is seen as a suitable instrument). Therefore, the identification of joint criteria is seen as an important step in the nomination process. During the discussion it became clear that the individual component parts have different sets of values (which would fit more than one criterion) but are finally part of one World Heritage property united under one OUV.
• Recognised that different thresholds to justify OUV for natural and cultural properties might be applicable and that best practice examples are useful to illustrate the differences.
The workshop identified the following case studies: Gondwana Rainforests, Australia: The component parts represent patches of the most ancient vegetation. They tell the story of ancient vegetation which still exists and play a significant role for biodiversity conservation. The series covers the whole range of rainforest habitats with a complete array of species. The component parts add up illustrate the biodiversity and evolutionary story of the rainforests. Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California, Mexico: component parts to cover a gradient/variety within one ecosystem 2.3 Linkages between component parts Based on the analysis presented on IUCN’s evaluation practice the notion of “functional linkages” between component parts was discussed. It was recognised that the following linkages need to be considered: landscape links, ecological links, geomorphic or geological links, biological links and institutional links. The workshop participants concluded that functional links should be required when necessary for the effective protection of a serial property. These links should be considered as links that provide landscape, ecological, evolutionary or habitat connectivity as required depending on the values of the nominated property or Institutional linkages (e.g. by a protected area administration).
2.4 Selection and number of component parts The workshop participants reaffirmed the 2008 conclusion that each component part should be a significant contribution to OUV by a) adding distinct features for fulfilling the criteria and b) enhancing integrity. All component parts are required to have agreed/established management principles/objectives. The number of component parts should be the minimum number that are
6
adequate to establish OUV and ensure integrity. It was noted that the „internal comparative analysis“ is an important step for determining the number of component parts. The workshop participants concluded that there is no single right number. The adequate number of component parts strongly depends on criteria:
• In general, an “all-inclusive approach” can be distinguished from the approach of “representativeness” (making a site representative).
• For properties under criterion vii and viii “representativeness” is regarded as the most relevant approach.
• Replication (of values) might be important in the context of climate change. • For properties nominated under criterion ix the ecosystem perspective is essential and the
question of functional (ecological) linkages is relevant. • The number of component parts for properties under criteria ix and x may also be
influenced by the minimum critical size of the individual area which is needed for protection and the distance between isolated fragmented patches of ecosystems.
• The question “how much is needed” is most relevant for fragmented ecosystems/habitats and more guidance on the criterion x is urgently needed.
• For properties under criterion x the duplication of values/features might be accepted (redundancy), when adding to integrity (Example: Cape Floral region) as the inclusion of similar values can be necessary to ensure integrity/ protection whilst properties under criterion viii might need components parts which contribute to representativeness.
In addition the workshop participants noted that in nomination practice the following might impact on the choice of and the number of component parts:
• Scientific findings and conclusions may differ from political interests • Existing protected areas and their boundary design play an important role in the selection
Case Studies: The 2008 workshop called for the identification of best practice case studies for each criterion to illustrate the type and number of component parts required. It would be valuable to compile the lessons from such successful examples of serial nominations in a specific compendium. By criteria the following examples were identified in the course of the workshop: Criterion vii: The Monarch Butterfly Reserve, Mexico (a coverage of 70% of the ecosystem was evaluated to be sufficient, but the evaluation suggested extensions) Criterion viii Australian Fossil Site, Australia (had been deferred as single property, then nominated with three component parts and finally inscribed with two inscribed) High Coast/Kvarken, Sweden/Finland Criterion ix: Gondwana Rainforests, Australia: (1st serial inscription) The Wadden Sea, Germany/The Netherlands (a 3rd country future phase at time of inscription envisaged) Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians, Slovak Republic/Ukraine
7
Criterion x: Cape Floral Region, South Africa (good practice for the scientific selection of components) 2.5 Management The workshop endorsed the outcomes on management of serial properties of the 2008 meeting and stressed the crucial importance of a “functioning management”. This should include the management at the component part level and the coordination between the component parts. The workshop participants recommended the following requirements for the management of serial properties: To achieve joint management, the OUV has to be translated into a shared set of overall goals and subsequently into tangible and measurable objectives for the component parts. A joint approach to define the objectives is advisable, but not all objectives need to be similar for all component parts that make up the serial site. Based on the objectives, a set of indicators can be defined that can be used to measure the management performance and determine whether or not the objectives are being met. The workshop participants concluded that serial property management needs adequate resources for all parts of the management process (e.g., research and analysis, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, adaptation) both in terms of funding and personal capacity. With regard to the evaluation process, the workshop participants pointed out the difficulty for both Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Committee to judge that adequate management is implemented versus good intentions that are announced. The workshop concluded that guidance for the Advisory Bodies’ evaluators is needed. Furthermore, the workshop noted that in terms of management, transboundary properties and some single properties involving more then one management authority could be considered as serial as well and might serve as case studies for serial properties (Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Białowieża Forest, Belarus/Poland, Poland/Belarus und Laponian Area, Sweden). Case studies: Monarch Butterfly, Mexico: One joint management plan exist as a the three component parts are part of one protected area Struve Geodetic Arc, 10 States Parties: coordinated framework agreement for ten countries with a functioning management structure The Wadden Sea, Germany/The Netherlands: The joint management existed already long before the nomination and has proven its effectiveness. 2.6 Danger listing and delisting The workshop participants reaffirmed the 2008 workshop conclusions that in principle, the loss of values in one component part of a serial property can threaten the status of the whole series as such a loss may result in the overall threat to or even loss of Outstanding Universal Value of the series. The workshop participants concluded that the challenge is to define the limits when the
8
state of conservation of one component part threatens the OUV of the whole series. This needs careful evaluation and should be measured against the Statement of OUV. The workshop participants noted that the judgement might be difficult for properties which have been extended (e.g. when the added component looses its values) and pointed out that the single properties where the size/area had been reduced might be used as reference cases. The workshop participants recognised that among the serial natural properties only one case of Danger listing exist (Belize Barrier Reef) and this case study could be further investigated. 2.7 Extensions: The workshop participants concluded that extensions to serial properties should enhance the total values of the property or improve integrity. It was noted that for extensions management would be a factor limiting the number of extended component parts. The workshop participants noted that extensions could include the addition of new criteria but this would mean a new nomination. During workshop discussions the question was raised how inscribed properties can be combined to a new serial property telling a ”different” story (case of the “Viking sites”) and what the motivation and benefits of the partners would be to join in such a series. Case studies: Islands and Protected areas of the Gulf of California, Mexico High Coast/Kvarken Archipelago, Sweden/Finland 2.8 Transnational serial properties The workshop participants noted that transnational natural serial properties are still exceptions (only 5 of 36 serial properties are transnational) and that the overall discussions (especially at Committee level) often focus on these properties. The workshop participants recognised that transnational serial properties may have specific political implications in the case of danger-listing and delisting. The workshop participants concluded that for large transnational serial properties an additional umbrella framework is seen as a good alternative and should be further developed as an alternative approach. The workshop recognised the need for transnational properties to take into account different policies (this being especially important for management questions). The workshop participants identified the following case studies which might be used to illustrate nomination processes (including the selection of criteria) and management in transnational serial properties:
• High Coast/Kvarken Archipelago, Sweden/Finland • Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Białowieża Forest, Belarus/Poland: for management; even if
this a single property) • The Wadden Sea, Germany/The Netherlands: example where long-term cooperation was
the basis for the nomination
9
3. Recommendations The workshop participants agreed on the following preliminary recommendations differentiated by targeted audience. These should be discussed and further refined at the workshop hosted by Switzerland. World Heritage Committee:
• to consider that the difficulties (need for technical expertise and financial implications) of serial nominations might lead to a further imbalance of the World Heritage List
• to consider the possibility of limiting the number of serial nominations per year • to amend paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines in order to better reflect the current
practice in nominating and evaluating serial natural properties (e.g. reflecting the component relationship for natural properties by including clear requirements for the consideration and evaluation of functional linkages by criterion)
• to amend the formats for nominations and Tentative Lists to integrate the specific requirements for serial properties; details see WS report 2008
• to consider the option of elaborating a specific section on serial properties in Annex 3 of the Operational Guidelines which deals with “specific types of properties”.
• to consider a request for the elaboration of a “Compendium” on serial World Heritage properties including case studies (on establishment of OUV, selection of component parts, management, extensions, transnational properties)
• to explore in collaboration with the Advisory bodies options for an alternative approach to large, complex transnational serial nominations
• to take into account possible conflicts of interest between different protection requirements when serial properties are nominated both under natural and cultural criteria (mixed Sites)
• The lack of clarity on the exact thresholds for management requirements is particularly obvious when it comes to serial sites. However, the reflect and epitomize a broader need to reflect on the definition of management standards and corresponding criteria and indicators as an orientation for nomination, evaluation and monitoring to recommend to the Advisory bodies to elaborate on the “resurrection of the discussion on principles”
States Parties to the Convention:
• To carefully consider the additional costs, workload and complexity of serial nominations • To use the Periodic Reporting processes to enhance harmonisation of Tentative Lists • To use thematic studies when identifying potential (serial) WH properties
World Heritage Centre: • to review the inscribed properties and identify all that are considered as serial properties
and make sure that these can readily be found in databases, websites etc. Likewise, errors can be corrected, as the workshop discussions suggest that some properties might incorrectly be considered as serial sites whereas some serial sites may not be recognized as such (reasoning: some properties in database are considered to have several component parts but are contiguous and only the management is of serial character, e.g. Laponian area/Sweden)
• to elaborate/propose in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies revised formats for nomination and Tentative Lists to integrate the specific needs of serial properties
10
Advisory Bodies (especially IUCN): • to consistently apply it’s evaluation framework (three questions) and in this context to
provide further guidance on the aspect of “functional linkages”. This includes detailed guidance for its evaluators/reviewers (according to the amended format and Operational Guidelines).
• to specifically train their evaluators (in order to achieve a most consistent approach to the evaluation of serial nominations)
• to develop a Compendium on serial World Heritage including answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) and selected case studies (topics as well as case studies for this Compendium have been identified by this expert workshop); to identify open questions on serial World Heritage
• to add to the existing “Management Planning for Natural World Heritage Properties” a section on serial properties and make them easily available for World Heritage managers
• To provide early advice to States Parties (also in order to limit the number of new serial nominations) and to facilitate the contact between States Parties and experts to advise on serial nominations
• To evaluate the (additional) costs and workload of the evaluation of serial properties compared to single properties.
Follow-up The workshop suggested that the recommendations and conclusions from this workshop should be presented and discussed in light of the cultural heritage perspective. The workshop in Switzerland in February 2010 offers an ideal opportunity to do this. Therefore the workshop participants recommend to the colleagues convening in Switzerland in February 2010 to take into account these recommendations from the cultural perspective. While pointing out possible difference the integration of approaches should be sought and reflected in overall conclusions and recommendations for consideration of the World Heritage Committee 2010.
11
Annex 1: Summaries of presentations of serial World Heritage Properties This Annex displays a selection of summaries of some of the presentations on (inscribed and proposed) Serial World Heritage Properties presented during the workshop. The full list of presentations can be found in the programme (Annex 2). INSCRIBED SERIAL NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES Case Study 1: Gondwana Rainforests of Australia Presented by Kate Ferros, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Name of the property:
Gondwana Rainforests of Australia
States Party Australia Year of Inscription: 1986 listed as Australian East Coast Sub-tropical and Temperate Rainforest Parks
1992 renominated to include additional reserves 1994 re-listed as Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves (Australia) 2007 renamed Gondwana Rainforests of Australia
Number of component parts:
42 separate areas, some contiguous, occurring in eight groups of reserves in the Australian States of New South Wales and Queensland.
Criteria
Criterion (viii) To be outstanding examples representing major stages of the earth’s history, including record of life. Significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features. Criterion (ix) To be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals. Criterion (x) To contain the most important and significant habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science and conservation.
Size The World Heritage Area totals 366,515 ha. The largest individual component is 102 820 ha (part of Oxley Wild Rivers National Park), and the smallest is 6 ha, Spicers Gap Conservation Park and Res12018 managed by Queensland Corrective Services. The 42 areas are situated between latitudes 27.830° S and 32.233° S, and longitudes 151.288° E and 153.370° E, and distributed across an area of roughly 500 km x 130 km, totalling 65000 km2.
Maximum distance between component parts
~87 km (Barrington Tops National Park to Mt Seaview Nature Reserve, in the south of the property)
1. Description – Main features of the property The Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area (the Gondwana Rainforests) represents the major remaining areas of rainforest in south-east Queensland (Qld) and north-east New South Wales (NSW), and includes the most extensive areas of subtropical rainforest in the world, large areas of warm temperate rainforest and nearly all of the Antarctic beech (Nothofagus
12
moorei) cool temperate rainforest. Few places on earth contain so many plants and animals which remain relatively unchanged from their ancestors in the fossil record. The World Heritage site is made up of 42 public reserves, ranging in size from 6 ha to over 100 000 ha and including national parks, nature reserves and other Crown reserves. It has a total area of 366,515 ha. Located between the major Australian cities of Brisbane in south-east Queensland and Newcastle in NSW, the Gondwana Rainforests is situated in an area with one of the fastest growing populations in Australia. The region is one of the most popular tourist destination centres in Australia with over 2 million visits each year. Most of the reserves in the Gondwana Rainforests are accessible from major population centres. 2. Outstanding Universal Value Gondwana Rainforests of Australia is included on the World Heritage List under three criteria. The World Heritage values of the property are related to its unique biota and landforms. The area provides the major refugia for the remaining Gondwanan rainforest flora and fauna, and its spectacular landforms are outstanding examples of ongoing geological processes. The Gondwana Rainforests also provides a significant network of habitats for more than 200 rare or threatened plant and animal species. The Gondwana Rainforests is comprised of eight separate groups of reserves. While each of these groups demonstrates OUV, and has important nature conservation values in its own right, the full significance of the property becomes evident only when viewed as a whole. Each of the groups makes a unique contribution, like the chapters in a book, to the story of the evolution of the Australian rainforest biota and landform, from its Gondwanan origins to the present. Due to its fragmentation and consequent isolation of populations of plants and animals, ongoing evolution may continue in the Gondwana Rainforests as species adjust to changing conditions in genetic isolation. In addition, many plants and animals found in the Gondwana Rainforests have naturally disjunct distributions or are locally restricted to a few sites. The Gondwana Rainforests is a living text-book of biogeography; the distribution patterns of its plants and animals provide an on-going demonstration of evolutionary processes.
3. Justification of the serial approach Rainforest occurs in NSW and south east Qld as discontinuous patches surrounded by fire-prone eucalypt forest and agricultural lands. These patches range in size from tiny gully stands to lush forests covering large valleys and ranges. This fragmentation is a result of many factors, both ancient and modern. These include the natural contraction of rainforest as a result of the drying of the Australian continent over millions of years, the use of fire as a land management tool by Aboriginal people over thousands of years, massive clearing for agriculture in the late nineteenth
13
and early twentieth centuries, and large-scale mechanised logging of rainforest and surrounding forest types in the mid to late twentieth century. Only a quarter of the rainforest present in Australia at the time of European settlement remains, and the Gondwana Rainforests protects some of the largest and best stands of rainforest habitat in this region. Recognising the importance of protecting these remaining, isolated areas, in 1992, when the area was re-nominated to include the Qld reserves, IUCN, on the recommendation of the World Heritage Bureau, recommended the site be further extended to include a number of additional areas in NSW. All of these areas were inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1994. World Heritage Listing has supported the conservation of broader areas of remnant rainforest. Since the World Heritage listing, there have been major expansions in the national park estate in both NSW and Qld, including significant additional areas of rainforest that could be added to the property in the future. 4. Management responsibilities Australia has a three-tiered system of government, with the Australian (or Commonwealth), State and Local governments having differing roles and responsibilities. As State Party to the World Heritage Convention, the Australian Government nominated the Gondwana Rainforests to the World Heritage List and accepted an obligation to ensure the identification, protection, conservation, rehabilitation and presentation of the property and its transmission to future generations. Ownership and management of the reserves within Gondwana Rainforests is however the responsibility of State agencies: Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. Land adjacent to the national parks and reserves includes public land managed by State agencies for both conservation and production, and numerous private holdings regulated by 26 different local government areas. Legislation World Heritage is a matter of national environmental significance under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This legislation protects the World Heritage values of the Gondwana Rainforests so that any action, either inside or outside the site’s boundaries, which may affect the values of the site is referred for approval to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Substantial civil and criminal penalties can apply for breaches of the Act. In addition, Regulations to the Act contain principles for the management of World Heritage properties. Additional legislative arrangements for the protection of areas vary between States and for different land tenures, and include the Qld Nature Conservation Act 1992, and the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Cross-jurisdictional coordination Since 1993, the Australian, New South Wales and Queensland Governments have recognised the need for coordinated, consistent and cooperative management to ensure the protection of the integrity and the outstanding universal value of Gondwana Rainforests. Mechanisms have been progressively introduced to ensure closer liaison, cooperation and consistency of management at all levels within the managing agencies. Governments agreed in 1993 to establish a Coordinating Committee of on-ground managers and in 1997 a Steering Committee to set and oversee strategic policy for the site. Two further committees were established in 2002; the Community Advisory Committee and the Technical and Scientific Advisory Committee. To articulate management aims and coordinate strategic directions for the property as a whole, the three governments developed a Strategic Overview for Management in 2000 with input from the Advisory committees. Currently being updated, the Strategic Overview will guide cooperative management, presentation and transmission of Gondwana Rainforests’ World Heritage values up to 2016. Funding
14
Funding for the management of the Gondwana Rainforests is largely the responsibility of the State management agencies. However, funding has been made available by the Australian Government to assist with additional management and presentation activities. The Australian Government has also funded the position of the Gondwana Rainforests Executive Officer and provided funding support for the Advisory Committees since 1994.
5. Lessons Learnt Among the management challenges for the Gondwana Rainforests are the cross-jurisdictional nature of the property, its complex boundaries, and the very extent of the property. The cooperation of all responsible agencies and coordination of policies, approaches and activities is essential. Because many parts of the property are only part of reserved areas, they are not afforded any higher investment or protection than the reserves as a whole. Often it is only with the provision of additional funding that World Heritage values are the focus of direct management action by the State agencies. Management activities (including interpretation) and threats to the values of the property are diverse and not uniform across the property, at times making prioritisation of action across the property difficult within the finite resources available. Baseline biological and ecological data is lacking for large parts of the biota. Threatening processes that are specific to particular locations can be dealt with in the context of each reserve, but there are other threats – such as climate change, inappropriate fire regimes, invasion by pest species, and impacts of fragmentation and isolation – that are shared by the site as a whole. Coordinated strategies involving both management agencies, and other land managers, conducted at a landscape scale are required to reduce the pressure on species and ecological systems from these threats. The extent of the property has created challenges for stakeholder representation and interaction with management, particularly in relation to Aboriginal groups. Although the property is not listed under any of the ‘cultural’ criteria, cultural values exist and Aboriginal groups continue to have an association with the property. There is Aboriginal representation on the Community Advisory Committee, but the property spans the country of numerous groups and it is not appropriate for one group to speak for another group’s country.
15
Case Study 2: High Coats/Kvarken Archipelago Presented by Rolf Löfgren, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Name of the property: High Coast - Kvarken Archipelago
States Party Schweden/Finland Year of Inscription: 2000
Extension: 2006 (KA) Number of component parts: 3 (HC 1, KA 2) Criteria
Criterion viii
Size 334 000 ha (HC 140 000 ha, KA 194 000 ha)Maximum distance between component parts 70km 1. Description The High Coast (Sweden) and the Kvarken Archipelago (Finland) are situated in the Gulf of Bothnia, a northern extension of the Baltic Sea. The two areas expose different aspects of land rise after the last ice-age. The 5,600 islands of the Kvarken Archipelago feature unusual ridged washboard moraines, ‘De Geer moraines’, formed by the melting of the continental ice sheet. The flat Archipelago lifts at rates that are among the highest in the world. As a consequence islands appear and unite, peninsulas expand and lakes evolve from bays and develop into marshes and peat fens. The High Coast is a hilly coastland that also has been largely shaped by the combined processes of glaciation, glacial retreat and the emergence of new land from the sea. Since the last retreat of the ice from the High Coast 9,600 years ago, the uplift has been in the order of 285 m which is the highest known ''rebound'' in the World. The site affords outstanding opportunities for the understanding of the important processes that formed the glaciated and land uplift areas of the Earth's surface. 2. World Heritage history The High Coast was nominated for WH inscription in 1998 according to criteria VII, VIII and IX. The nomination was deferred by the WH- committee. The major reason was lack of comparative analysis with other land uplift areas. The relationship with the Kvarken Archipelago should also be evaluated. Comprehensive new documentation was then worked out and after renomination the area was inscribed in 2000 according to criteria VIII. The work to nominate the Kvarken Archipelago as a WH-site started on regional level almost at the same time as on the High Coast. The basic idea was then to have a transnational site across the most narrow part of the Baltic including islands and main land areas on the Swedish side. The Swedish central environmental and geological authorities could not agree on this as the Swedish part was regarded as of national value but not OUV. According to OUV, the High Coast was considered as the only suitable site on the Swedish side. The nomination work on the Kvarken Archipelago in Finland restarted in 2001. The concept for the nomination was changed to an extension of the High Coast. After comprehensive documentation, the area was nominated and inscribed by the Committee in 2006. 3. Justification of the serial approach
• The areas in Sweden and Finland represent different and completing aspects of post-glacial uplifted landscapes in the Baltic
• The landrise gives different effects on the biota in the areas • The extension of The High Coast with the Kvarken Archipelago enhances the total value of
the WH- site
16
Functional linkage between the sites consist mainly of cooperation between the management bodies; the County Administrative Board in Härnösand (Sweden) and the Forest and Park Service in Vaasa (Finland). 4. Management A management and development plan for the Kvarken Archipelago has recently been published by the Forest and Park Service. The objective of the plan is to coordinate and describe various activities in the area and to promot its natural assets. It also describes the responibilities of different parties concerning management and control of the site. Visions for the future development regarding information, turism etc is also demonstrated. The plan is a comlement to other planning and management tools, which controls the land use, including protected areas management plans and other plans based on national legislation. A similar new management plan is under preparation for the High Coast.
Fig. 1: High Coast and Kvarken Archipelago Fig. 2: Location of High Coast 5. Lessons learnt The High Coast – Kvarken Archipleago was finally carried out successfully as a transnational WH-property. Among the experience that came out from the project the following ought to be mentioned. It is important that all parties involved in the work, on central, regional and local level are well aware of:
• The WH standards (operational guidelines) • The culture and working process of the WH-committee and the advisory bodies • The global approach of the WHC. The need to realise OUV. • The need of time and finance for the nomination process
These aspects are basics in all WH nominations, but in serial ones there is need for special consideration. Other experiences are:
• Protection-measures (legislation, rules for protected areas) has to be comparable and understood between countries working with a transnational serial site.
• The same criteria has to be valid in different parts of a natural transnational serial site in order to define ”the same type of property, geological formation, ecosystem type” etc.
17
High Coast. Shingelfields (old shorelines) Kvarken Archipelagi. De Geer moraines. at a former sea-inlet, now a bog 200 m above (Photo: Arto Hämäläinen) the present sea-level. (Photo: Rolf Löfgren) Case Study 3: Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California Presented by Maria Pia Gallina, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas Name of the property: Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California States Party Mexico Year of Inscription: 2005 Number of component parts: 9 extended to 11 in 2007
Criteria
vii, ix and x
Size 736,812 ha Maximum distance between component parts ~100 km between some of the components 1. Description/Main features of the property Criterion (vii): The serial property is of striking natural beauty and provides a dramatic setting due to the rugged forms of the islands, with high cliffs and sandy beaches contrasting with the brilliant reflection from the desert and the surrounding turquoise waters. The diversity of forms and colours is complemented by a wealth of birds and marine life. The diversity and abundance of marine life associated to spectacular submarine forms and high water transparency makes the property a diver’s paradise. Criterion (ix): The property ranks higher than other marine and insular WH properties as it represents a unique example in which, in a very short distance, there are simultaneously “bridge islands” (populated by land in ocean level decline during glaciations) and oceanic islands (populated by sea and air). As noted by Georges E. Lindsay “The Sea of Cortez and its Islands have been called a natural laboratory for the investigation of speciation”. Moreover, almost all major oceanographic processes occurring in the planet’s oceans are present in the property, giving it extraordinary importance for the study of marine and coastal processes. These processes are indeed supporting the high marine productivity and biodiversity richness that characterize the Gulf of California. Criterion (x): The diversity of terrestrial and marine life in the serial property is extraordinary and constitutes a unique ecoregion of high priority for biodiversity onservation. The number of species of vascular plants (695) present in this serial property is higher than that reported in other marine and insular properties included in the WH List. The number of species of fish (891) is also highest
18
when compared to a number of marine and insular properties. In addition the marine endemism is important, with 90 endemic fishes. The serial property contains 39% of the world’s total number of marine mammal’s species and a third of the world’s total number of marine cetacean’s species. In addition the serial property includes a good sample of the Sonora desert ecosystems, considered one of the richest deserts in the world from the biodiversity point of view. 2. Outstanding Universal Value It is an area of desert land and fertile seas, is one of the most ecologically intact ecosystems in the world, valuable both to science and for fisheries, with great diversity of marine mammals and macro-invertebrates, endemic reptiles and cacti. It is one of the World Wildlife Fund’s 200 globally most important ecoregions, recognised by Mexico as a priority for conservation The serial property comprises 244 islands, coastal islets and marine areas. The components extends 1,557 km from the Colorado River Delta in the North to 270 km South-east of the tip of the Baja California Peninsula, which parallels the mainland for about 1,130 km. It represents a unique example in which, in a very short distance, there are simultaneously “bridge islands” (populated by land in ocean level decline during glaciations) and oceanic islands (populated by sea and air) 3. Justification of the serial approach The Gulf of California represents a unique ecoregion where the huge biodiversity and marine productivity is the result of complex ocean-land-islands interactions supported by complex ecological and oceanographic processes. Also all of the islands are different, representing a complex natural puzzle, in which each of them plays a particular ecological role. Individually, each island and marine area displays different geological, geomorphological and ecological features that fit within the overall framework of the Gulf of California. It is therefore very difficult, if not impossible, to try to identify a single area that could be representative of this complex region. There is a strong functional linkage between all components included in this serial property associated to the influence of the climatic, geomorphological and complex oceanographic processes occurring in the Gulf. There are also strong biological connections among them. For example, marine mammals and frigate birds that have been marked by photographic techniques are changing locations between the islands throughout the year as the marine productivity patterns change, particularly during the autumn and winter. 4. Management There is an Integrated Management Programme for the entire serial property (Programa de Manejo del Área de Protección de las Islas del Golfo de California), approved by the government of Mexico in the year 2000, which guides conservation and management activities in all of the protected areas of the Gulf. Additionally, each protected area has its own Management Programme integrating the terrestrial and marine areas. Conservation Management The Gulf is an area valuable to science, increasingly for tourism and for an economic fishery.
- All the components are federal and managed by The National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP). The administrative organization of Conanp is represented by nine Directors in charge of the 11 Protected Areas, depending of three Regional Offices (there are nine in the country). They report to a General Director and he does to the National Commissioner.
- There is an Integrated Management Programme for the entire serial property, the Islands of the Gulf of California, which guides conservation and management activities and other ten PA have their own management programme, integrating the terrestrial and marine areas. A wide participative process is included.
- A system for monitoring key indicators of the state of conservation is in place.
19
- Law enforcement through the Secretary of Navy and the National Attorney for Environment Protection in coordination with Conanp.
- The government and the society participated in a regional planning process to define a better balance between the productive activities and the environmental protection, resulting in the Marine Ecological Planning Programme for the Gulf of California in 2006.
- Another valuable planning instrument is the Marine Gap Analysis of Priority Areas for Conservation, concluded in 2007, that will guide the directions for conservation and sustainable use of resources.
- Sources of expertise and training are being sought from national and international sources. A Coalition for Sustainability in the Gulf of California brings together Mexican and international funds as well as NGOs collaboration.
5. Lessons learnt There are very good research studies about the rich biodiversity of the region. Also control and eradication of invasive and exotic species in islands is a very important management subject. Because of the large extentions of this property, and the many stakeholders involved, research institutes, universities and NGOs, they have organized in order to coordinate the different activities in the region. Problems and Management Constraints Isolation, desert heat and scarce water have largely preserved the Gulf islands in the past, but threats to marine resources and the fragile islands ecosystems are present. Alien species like predators have been introduced in some islands, threatening the native and endemic species and the delicate existing balance. Tourism developments will also put a great pressure, as tourists and even research scientists degrade habitats, cause erosion, leave waste and disturb the breeding grounds of birds and sea lions. Increasing numbers of fishermen using improved equipment and illegal fishing are affecting resources, and large distances between islands and mainland make government surveillance, monitoring and closed seasons observation very difficult to attend.
National Commissioner
General Director of Regional Operation
Regional Director
PA Director PA Director
Regional Director
PA Director
Headquarters
20
Map: Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California
21
Case Study 4: Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve Presented by Maria Pia Gallina, Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas Name of the property: Monarch Butterfly Biosphere ReserveStates Party Mexico Year of Inscription: 2008 Number of component parts: 3 (Recommended to be extended) Criteria
vii
Size 13,552 ha 1. Description/Main features of the property The biosphere reserve where this property lies are rugged forested mountains about 100 miles northwest of Mexico City. Every autumn, millions of butterflies from wide areas of eastern North America return to the site and cluster on small areas of the forest reserve, coloring its trees orange and literally bending their branches under their collective weight. In the spring, these butterflies begin an 8 month migration that takes them all the way to Eastern Canada and back, during which time four successive generations are born and die. How they find their way back to their overwintering site is a mystery. 2. OUV (“story”) Values The Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve World Heritage property protects key overwintering sites for the monarch butterfly. The overwintering concentration of butterflies in the property is a superlative natural phenomenon. The millions of monarch butterflies that return to the property every year bend tree branches by their weight, fill the sky when they take flight, and make a sound like light rain with the beating of their wings. Witnessing this unique phenomenon is an exceptional experience of nature.
Criterion (vii): The overwintering concentration of the monarch butterfly in the property is the most dramatic manifestation of the phenomenon of insect migration. Up to a billion monarch butterflies return annually, from breeding areas as far away as Canada, to land in close-packed clusters within 14 overwintering colonies in the oyamel fir forests of central Mexico. The property protects 8 of these colonies and an estimated 70% of the total overwintering population of the monarch butterfly’s eastern population.
Integrity The property includes more than half of the overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly’s eastern population. They provide a good sample of the areas that are essential for maintaining this superlative natural phenomenon. The maintenance of the standing forest and the microclimates that they create is the key management requirement, thus any threat to the forests is of utmost concern. Illegal logging is a known threat to the property with potential direct impacts on its Outstanding Universal Value. Public use has been increasing and the levels of visitation and infrastructure provided require careful control both in relation to impacts on the ecosystem and the quality of experience provided by the property to visitors. Due to its migratory nature, the maintenance of the overwintering phenomenon also requires attention to the conservation of the monarch butterfly by those countries through which it travels during its life cycle.
3. Justification of the serial approach (including functional linkages) The serial approach is justified because of the disjunctive nature of the major overwintering colonies of the monarch butterfly. These colonies occur only in large and dense tracts of oyamel fir forest that are restricted to the higher mountains of the Transvolcanic Range. Some of these colonies are separated by lower mountains and valleys that are heavily populated and retain limited natural habitats.
22
The superlative natural phenomenon of the overwintering concentration of the monarch butterfly in the remaining oyamel fi r forest tracts provides the thematic framework for the serial approach. Although the descendants of the individuals of each colony apparently return to that same colony, the colonies in the three separate components of the nominated property are functionally linked in that they jointly provide the majority of the overwintering habitat that is essential to the eastern population of the monarch butterfly. Two of the three components are further linked through a joint buffer zone.
4. Management Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve has a unique or joint Management plan for the three different components, They have the same frameworks, concepts, guidelines, under the National Commission of Natural Protected Areas. Direct management activities are implemented by one CONANP’s Regional Division that have a Director in the MBBR and permanent staff working in the protection of the PA with three components. Conservation, protection, restoration, and management is supported by State and local governments, NGO’s and fundamentally by indigenous and local communities, surrounding the WH Property. Requirements for Protection and Management The principal focus of protection and management has been to prevent illegal logging in the property. Priorities to achieve this include concerted planning and action between all relevant federal, state and local agencies, and work with local communities on environmental protection and the provision of alternative livelihoods to logging. As the overwintering phenomenon is a significant attractor to visitors, management also is beeing directed to achieving sustainable public use of the property. This will respect the quality of the visitor experience and promote benefit-sharing
23
mechanisms for local communities as an incentive to enhance their support to the conservation of the property. Continued investment in coordinated continent-wide management of the migratory phenomenon is a further important dimension of site management. Achieving all of these priorities will require the provision of adequate and sustained institutional and financial support.
National Commissioner
General Director of Regional Operation
Regional Director
PA Director PA Director
Regional Director
Director of Monarch
Butterfly BR
Headquarters
24
Case Study 5: Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Bialowieza Forest Presented by Renata Krzysciak-Kosinska, Bialowieza National Park Name of the property: Belovezhskaya Pushcha / Bialowieza Forest States Party Belarus / Poland Year of Inscription: 1979
Extension: 1992 Number of component parts: It is not inscribed as serial property however there are at least four
separate components. Criteria
Criterion vii
Size 92 675 ha Maximum distance between component parts
~4 km
1. Description – Main features of the property The “Belovezskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest” World Heritage Site covers the central part of the Bialowieza Forest, across the border of Poland and Belarus. It encompasses the best preserved fragment of the two adjacent national parks and protects the unique temperate deciduous forest of primeval character with additional mixed and pure coniferous stands. It is the last remnant of the forest type which prevailed across Europe in the past. This natural forest with natural processes never disrupted is excellent habitat for numerous species of rare fauna, such as forest dwelling birds, saproxylic invertebrates as well as fungi. It is a multi-species and uneven-aged tree stand with a diverse spatial structure with exceptionally high amount of dead wood. The mean age of tree stand is 140 years. It is the last place where the largest terrestrial mammal of Europe, the European bison, survived in nature till the beginning of the 20th century. After restoration of the species, it roams the entire area of the Bialowieza Forest. Apart from the European bison, the Bialowieza Forest is home for four other ungulates such as elk, red deer, roe deer and wild boar. It hosts also big carnivores like wolf and lynx and the smaller once as otter, pine marten, polecat and many others. This community gives us rare opportunity to observe special predator and prey relations. Avifauna is reach in forest-dwelling birds including species which are confined to old treestands and dead trees with white-backed and three-toed woodpeckers on the top of the list. There are over 10 000 invertebrate species known from the area but each year new species are observed. The whole nature and all processes met there are under protection. Within the strictly protected area one would find exceptionally high amounts of dead trees. While it is estimated that there is approximately 400 cubic metres of wood volume per hectare another 120 cubic metres are dead trees, standing or lying on the forest floor in different phases of decomposition. There are numerous threats to the environment, nevertheless as long as natural processes are allowed to run with no human interference natural values of the site should not be endangered.
25
2. Outstanding Universal Value Even though there was no statement of outstanding universal value attached to the nomination dossier, the following phenomena may be regarded as such:
• Ancient forest where natural processes were not interrupted during historic times
• Numerous relict species of primeval forest
• Free ranging European bison population
• presence of rare and endangered species, e.g. wolf, lynx, three-toed and white-backed
woodpeckers, numerous plant and fungi species and unique relations among all the
components.
3. Justification of the serial approach The site was not inscribed as the serial one however it consists of several separate components. In addition both parts belonging to different State Parties are divided by border fence which is a strong barrier for most mammals, in particular for ungulates with the European bison on top of the list. Moreover, following the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee the State Parties are preparing a re-nomination dossier and wish to further extend the property on Polish side of the border. Analysis of the state of conservation of the Bialowieza Forest outside of the national park will show whether the new proposed nomination should be a serial one.
4. Management Even though the site is the transboundary property, there is no joint management body nor management system. Nevertheless, on both sides of the border the area
26
designated as the World Heritage Site is managed in a similar way. The strictly protected area which forms the main part of the World Heritage Site is excluded from most of human activity. Carrying out the scientific research is allowed here, but only if they are non invasive and do not alter natural components and processes, no experiments are allowed. Field courses for students and higher grades of school children are possible after receiving the permission from the Director of the Park. Visiting is possible only with a qualified guide and in a limited area. There is no hunting and no timber exploitation. There is no officially established buffer zone for the transboundary World Heritage Site on either side of the border. Nevertheless, in both countries there are areas which may serve as the buffer zone, mainly the remaining parts of both parks with limited forest management.
27
Properties on the Tentative List of the State Party to be considered for nomination Serial and Transnational World Heritage Properties on the Russian Tentative List Presented by Alexey Butorin & Mariya Kladovschikova, Natural Heritage Protection Fund/Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences Natural World Heritage in Russia: Properties inscribed on the Tentative List
• Magadansky Reserve (7.02.2005) – serial property • Daurian Steppes (7.02.2005) – serial transnational property • Putorana Plateau (7.02.2005) * • Lena Pillars (11.07.2006) * • Commander Islands (7.02.2005) • Great Vasyugan Mire (06.03.2007) • Krasnoyarsk Pillars (06.03.2007) • Ilmensky Ridge (11.08.2008)
* submitted to the WHC Case Study 1: Serial Property Magadansky Reserve Proposed name of the property Magadansky Reserve States Party Russian Federation Status Inscribed on the Russian Tentative List Number of component parts: 4 Criteria
vii, ix, x
Size 884 000 ha Maximum distance between component parts ~200-500 km Conservation status State Nature Reserve
Figure 1: Magadansky State Nature Reserve (Photo: Alexey Butorin) Currently the nomination is preparing for 7 years and going to be submitted to the World Heritage Centre before the 1st of February 2010. The Magadansky Reserve consists of 4 separate clusters: Kava-Chelomjinsky (bogged watershed of rivers Kava and Chelomja), Olsky (western end of the Koni peninsula), Yamsky (Pjagina peninsula and Yamskie/Yama islands) and Seimchansky, the most remote cluster from the Sea of
28
Okhotsk coast (Kolyma head water) (picture 2). These clusters representing the richness of landscapes of the Magadansky Region as well as the entire range of ecosystems typical for the northern Far East taiga that still remain undisturbed here.
Figure 2: Magadansky Reserve Property location and component parts
Among geological and geo-morphological monuments stands out the glacier relief zone of the Koni peninsula where mountains of 1300-1500 m high form cirques and rocky ridges. Numerous are Alpine lakes and waterfalls. Of great interest are river fluvial plains at the Kolyma head water area formed in thick alluviation strata - the so-called alluvial flood plains. The Nature Reserve represent 729 vascular plant species, 32 fish species, 173 bird and 39 mammal species are found within the area of the Reserve. Those clusters of the Reserve that lie in the coastal zone of the Sea of Okhotsk contain the Northern Pacific's largest bird rookeries. Among the bird species found in the Reserve there are many of those included into the IUCN Red Data Book: Steller's sea eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon and a small population of fishing owls nest in the Reserve, and golden eagle, white-tailed eagle and Bewick's swan are encountered in the Reserve's area. A relic Siberian spruce forest has been found in the Yamskoy cluster that means it is located 1,000 km away from its primary habitats in Yakutia and in the Khabarovsky Region. The largest of the Yamskiye Islands is known as the northernmost reproductive rookery of the Eared seal in the Sea of Okhotsk. At present Magadansky Reserve has an operation plan which is consider being a base of the management plan.
29
Case Study 2: Serial transnational Property Daurian Steppes Proposed name of the property Duarian Steppes States Party Russian Federation, China, Mongolia Status Inscribed on the Russian Tentative List Number of component parts: 2 or 3 (under discussion) Criteria
ix, x
Size 1,175 million ha Maximum distance between component parts ~200-500 km Conservation status State Biosphere Nature Reserve, Federal Preserve
Figure 3: Daurian Steppes (Russian part) (Photo: Alexey Butorin) Currently the nomination is preparing for 6 years. The Daursky Nature Reserve represents a number of excellently preserved ecosystems of the Central Asia steppes. It is an area crossed by one of the largest migration routes of waterfowl, as well as of bird species living near water. 37 of these species have been included into the Russian Federation Red Data Book, 20 - into the IUCN Red Data Book. The area has a status of biosphere nature reserve and is a part of international level aquatic and bog preserve "Toreyskiye Lakes". Toreyskiye Lakes are of the scientific interest as unique act of nature. The hydrological regime of Lakes is inconstant: the maximum ponding phase takes turns for drying each 30-60 years. The causes of this fluctuation as well as theirs real rhythm remains a scientific enigma. The area of the Daursky Nature Reserve is a home of 314 bird and 47 animal species including dzeren (black-tailed gazelle) that cannot be encountered elsewhere in Russia, rare manul and Daursky hedgehog. The flora biodiversity is represented by 360 vascular plant species, 3 of which have been inscribed into the Russian Federation Red Data Book. In this area, one can also find stripes of pine forests - a natural phenomenon unique for steppes of the Zabaikalye region. At present Daursky Nature Reserve has a management plan matched with the main required standards. According to the preliminary agreement, which was draw out by the mixed focus group during the workshop related to the nomination, the property will include State Natural Biosphere Reserve "Daursky", the Federal Preserve "Tsasucheysky Bor" (Russia), Strictly Protected Natural Area "Daguur Mongol" (Mongolia) and Biosphere Reserve "Dalai Nor" (China) (table 1 and picture 4).
Table 1
Serial transnational property «Daurian Steppes»
30
№ Name Area (ha) Criteria
1. Biosphere Reserve "Dalai Nor" (China)
Site – 45 082 Buf. zone – 22 816
2. Strictly Protected Natural Area "Daguur Mongol" (Mongolia)
Site – 103 000 Buf. zone – 615 000
3. State Natural Biosphere Reserve "Daursky“ (Russia)
Site – 45 790 Buf. zone – 163 530
ix, x
4. Federal Preserve "Tsasucheysky Bor" (Russia)
Site – 57 867 Buf. zone –
TOTAL
Site – 251 739 Buf. zone – 801 346
Figure 4: Daurian Nature Protected Areas The map executed by State Natural Biosphere Reserve “Daursky”
31
Annex 2: ANALYSIS OF SERIAL NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE EVALUATIONS Kathryn Howard, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................32
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................33
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................33
2. METHOD.............................................................................................................34
3. RESULTS............................................................................................................34 3.1. Use of Evaluation Questions............................................................................34 3.2. Justification for Serial Approach.......................................................................34 3.3. Functional Linkage of Component Parts ..........................................................36 3.4. Effective Overall Management Framework ......................................................37
4. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................39 4.1. Justification for Serial Approach.......................................................................39 4.2. Functional Linkage of Component Parts ..........................................................41 4.3. Effective Overall Management Framework ......................................................45
5. CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................45 5.1. Evaluating Justification for Serial Approach.....................................................46 5.2. Evaluating Functional Linkage of Component Parts ........................................46 5.3. Evaluating Overall Management Framework ...................................................46
6. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................46
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................47
APPENDIX 1 WHC-08/32.COM/10B 2008 .................................................................49
APPENDIX 2 List of interviewees ...............................................................................51
32
ABSTRACT
There are 39 serial natural and mixed properties inscribed under the World Heritage Convention. The IUCN, as one of the Convention’s advisory bodies has developed and used a practical approach to evaluating serial properties by asking what is the justification for the serial approach, are the separate component parts functionally linked and is there an effective overall management framework for the property. With recent concern about the use of the serial approach, this paper analyzes the IUCN evaluation of serial properties and recommends ways to improve the evaluation process. 22 of the 39 serial properties referred to the three guiding questions in their respective evaluation reports. The serial approach has been justified in terms of enhancing the property’s integrity, rather than strict compliance with the in the World Heritage Convention Operational Guidelines paragraph on serial properties. Functional linkage was evaluated in diverse ways. The connectivity conservation approach suggests a way to make this aspect of the evaluation process more consistent. Management arrangements varied greatly with 72% of serial properties having a joint management plan, a joint framework or joint body. A joint body was suggested as the most effective means to coordinate the management of the separate components of serial properties. Enhanced evaluation guidance is needed by nominators, managers, evaluators and reviewers of World Heritage properties.
1. INTRODUCTION
Until 1986 natural World Heritage properties were inscribed as single properties on the World Heritage list. Yet with the listing of the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage property comprising 16 distinct, geographically separated areas as one serial property, a new approach to inscribing World Heritage properties came into being. Increasing numbers of properties have been inscribed using this serial approach and the governing body of the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee, has acknowledged some unanswered questions regarding serial properties and requested the secretariat, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Convention’s Advisory Bodies for more guidance on serial properties (Appendix 1 WHC-08/32.COM/10B 2008).
The IUCN, as one of the Convention’s Advisory Bodies and the evaluator of natural World Heritage nominations, has developed and used a practical approach to evaluating serial nominations by assessing additional questions. They are;
• What is the justification for the serial approach? • Are the separate component parts of the nominated property functionally linked in relation
to the requirements of the Operational Guidelines? • Is there an effective overall management framework for all the component parts of the
nominated property?
An expert workshop on serial natural World Heritage properties held in November 2008 recommended that the IUCN review how these three questions have been used in the past and define and reconsider the use of the work “functional” in relation to functional linkage as it means different things for the different criteria and different biota. The establishment of a list of possible linkages was also suggested (ENGELS et al. 2009b).
This paper describes the findings of the review undertaken to assess the usefulness and consistency of these questions in evaluating serial nominations. The paper is structured as follows. The methodology is described in the next section with the results of the review presented in the third section. Results are discussed with reference to concepts from a literature review in the fourth section. The paper concludes with recommendations to improve the evaluation procedure.
33
2. METHOD
The review was carried out between August and October 2009. Pertinent documents including Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (hereafter referred to as the Operational Guidelines), IUCN Guidelines for evaluators and desk reviewers of natural and mixed World Heritage serial nominations, the nomination dossiers themselves, evaluation and reviewer reports, monitoring files, state of conservation and Committee reports were systematically reviewed at IUCN headquarters. Data was also sourced from reports from the UNESCO website and World Heritage datasheets from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre website.
A desk analysis, relying on interpreting information primarily from the evaluation reports is inherently subjective. Therefore evaluators of serial property nominations were contacted to verify the interpretation of the evaluation reports. It is important to note that the IUCN evaluation procedure relies on information from field evaluators, a number of desk top reviewers and an independent panel to produce a final evaluation report and recommendation.
Eleven semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with various World Heritage evaluators and managers. Interviews were also conducted with UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre staff. The open-ended question format provided a consistent framework to discuss specific issues but also allowed interviewees to raise other relevant matters. A list of interview questions and respondents is provided in Appendix 2.
A literature review on ecological linkages, wildlife corridors, conservation connectivity and buffer zones was undertaken to determine approaches in World Heritage with approaches in other discourses.
3. RESULTS
39 natural and mixed serial World Heritage properties (37 natural and two mixed) were identified as of September 2009. Results are discussed separately in terms of serial approach, functional linkage and management effectiveness. Full results are provided in Appendix 3.
3.1. Use of Evaluation Questions
The evaluation reports were reviewed to determine how consistently IUCN has used the three guiding questions used in their evaluations of the 39 natural and mixed serial properties. The guiding questions were explicitly referred to in 22 of the 39 evaluation reports. Some properties may not have initially been considered as serial properties so the three questions not asked during the evaluation e.g. Dorset and East Devon Coast. As IUCN states it considers these questions for all serial properties, it should make every effort to apply them to all serial property evaluations. Attention should be paid to using the guiding questions when evaluating extensions turning existing properties into serial properties.
3.2. Justification for Serial Approach
The justification of applying a serial approach is evaluated during the evaluation process but this is hindered by the absence of a clear definition for a serial property leading to uncertainty on when a serial approach is justified.
ENGELS et al. (2009a) define serial World Heritage properties as “properties with two or more distinct, geographically separated areas that together are included on the World Heritage List”. ENGELS et al. (2009b) definition of “a property where two or more component parts are required to express the Outstanding Universal Value” was presented to the thirty-third session of the World Heritage Committee.
34
The only formally recognized guidance is that provided by the Operational Guidelines in which paragraph 137 states serial properties “will include component parts related because they belong to:
a) The same historico-cultural group; b) The same type of property which is characteristic of the geographical zone; c) The same geological, geomorphological formation, the same biogeographic province or
the same ecosystem type; and provided it is the series as a whole – and not necessarily the individual parts of it – which are of outstanding universal value” (UNESCO 2008b). Despite minor wording changes the intent of this paragraph has remained consistent since 1988 when the second serial natural property was inscribed, yet the nomination criteria and conditions of integrity have changed over this time, calling into question the usefulness of this description of a serial property.
The evaluation procedure follows the Operational Guidelines. Therefore evaluating the serial approach justification should correspond with how serial properties are referred to in the Operational Guidelines. The IUCN guidelines for evaluators and reviewers simply ask for an evaluation of the serial approach justification without stating what the justification should be based on. Evaluators, when asked how they evaluated whether the serial approach was justified, said that it was the best way to represent the diversity of a fragmented landscape and allow its story to be told.
The evaluation reports for the 39 inscribed serial natural and mixed properties were reviewed to see if the relationship of component parts and hence justification for the serial approach, followed the Operational Guidelines. Additional data, on which of the 193 global biogeographic provinces described by Udvardy each serial property was found in, was sourced from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre datasheets. Results are showing in Figure 1.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Same geologicformation
Samegeomorphological
formation
Samebiogeographic
province
Same ecosystemtype
Did not f it any listedcomponentrelationship
Component relationships as per Operational Guidelines
Num
ber o
f Ser
ial P
rope
rtie
s
Figure 1. Number of serial properties where the justification for the serial approach met the conditions of paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines
The only component relationship described in the Operational Guidelines which seemed relevant is c) components belong to the same geological, geomorphological formation, the same
35
biogeographic province or the same ecosystem type, with most components belonging to the same biogeographic province.
Ten serial properties contained components which did not appear to fit the options described by the Operational Guidelines. Mainly this was due to properties containing components which spanned biogeographical provinces or had different, but complementary geological or geomorphic formations, rather than the same formations called for in the Operational Guidelines. In those cases it was presented as reinforcing the rationale for the serial approach, rather than undermining it. Most of the properties spanning biological provinces have their components within the same WWF-identified ecoregion; 238 ecoregions prioritized for conservation action (Change citation) e.g. Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Madagascar), Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California (Mexico), Laponian Area (Sweden), and Socotra Archipelago (Yemen). However some properties, because of their size or location, also span ecoregions e.g. Uvs Nuur, Mongolia/Russian Federation.
It is illuminating that fourteen of the 39 inscribed serial properties were originally nominated as single properties, but then withdrawn, deferred or referred and later resubmitted as a serial nomination. Others have not been yet been resubmitted as a serial nomination e.g. Islands of Hawar, Kingdom of Bahrain. This indicates that State Parties need clearer advice on when a serial approach should be used.
Thus it appears that the evaluation of the justification for the serial approach is not being guided by paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines on serial properties and that guidance on applying the serial approach is required during both the nomination and evaluation procedure. Ways to address these issues are explored further in the discussion.
3.3. Functional Linkage of Component Parts
The functional linkage between the components of a serial property is evaluated during the evaluation process, but what functional linkage means and how it should be evaluated is unclear. The Operational Guidelines do not explicitly refer to functional links between component parts nor does the Nomination Form. This evaluation question has been developed by IUCN as a way to further assess the integrity of a serial property (Tim Badman pers. comm.) but there is no guidance for nominators or evaluators on this matter.
This is not to suggest that landscape linkages are not recognized as important in the World Heritage discourse or that evaluating the functional links within serial properties is considered inappropriate. The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress in 2003 emphasized that protected areas, including World Heritage properties, can not fulfill their objectives if they are managed as isolated islands. Instead they need to be linked to other protected areas and surrounding lands via ecological, economic, institutional and cultural linkages (IUCN 2005). It was been suggested that all natural World Heritage properties should be contained in a Biosphere reserve or that buffer zones could connect the different components of a serial property (MARTIN & PIATTI 2009, PATRY 2005).
The 39 serial property evaluation reports were reviewed to determine how functional linkage between component parts had been considered and evaluated. Confusion was noted between the evaluation of the serial approach and the evaluation of the functional links between component parts. Similar responses were sometimes given to both questions, rather than one evaluating why components should be linked and one assessing how they are linked. Descriptions of functional linkage were placed as best as possible into one of types of functional linkage listed in Table 1 below.
36
Type of functional linkage described in evaluation report Number of evaluation reports referring to type of functional
linkage Landscape values 1 Buffers 8 Corridors 9
Landscape
Close proximity 4
22
Ecological process 2 Oceanographic process/ marine corridors 10 Hydrological regimes 5
Ecological
Climatic conditions 4
21
Geomorphic or geological Geomorphologic or geological processes link
11 11
Biological Biological processes 10 10 Legal 1 Institutional Management 3
4
Functional linkage weak Weak functional link 3 3 Table 1. Number of serial property evaluation reports which referred to various types of functional linkage between component parts
A wide diversity of functional linkages was referred to in the evaluation reports, but these could be grouped into five broad areas: landscape links, ecological links, geomorphic or geological links, biological links and institutional links. Most serial properties contain components which are functionally linked to some degree, but it was described as weak for three serial properties. These were the Greater Blue Mountains Area (Australia), Tropical Rainforests of Sumatra (Indonesia), and West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord (Norway). Only one instance was encountered where poor functional linkage between component parts led to a serial nomination being inscribed as a single property. The decision to inscribe the Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary in Colombia as a single property referred to a genetic connectivity study which had not determined the ecological connectivity of a nominated component.
Interviewees supported evaluating the functional linkages between serial component parts and suggested a variety of ways to interpret it often commenting that it depended on which criteria serial properties were nominated under with linkages considered less important for geological properties but very important for forest ecosystems. Apart from geomorphologic or geological processes linking properties nominated under criterion (viii), no other clear correlation was seen between the criteria a serial property was inscribed under and type of functional link described between components. Corridors most often linked marine or forest ecosystems.
Given the lack of guidance on functional linkage in the Operational Guidelines and the IUCN Guidelines for Evaluators and Reviewers, the variety in its application and evaluation is not unexpected and reaffirms the need for consistent guidance. There is a plethora of approaches and terminology related to functional linkage and their appropriateness to serial World Heritage properties is considered in the discussion.
3.4. Effective Overall Management Framework
The Operational Guidelines call for the coordinated management of the separate components of serial properties (UNESCO 2008b). Interpreting this requirement, IUCN evaluates if there is an effective overall management framework in place for all the component parts. Given the diversity of management arrangements and that actual effectiveness may not reflect the described management arrangements, evaluating if properties have an effective overall management framework is not easy.
37
Whilst recognizing this diversity, management arrangements for serial properties could be classified into one of five management classifications adapted from those used in ENGELS et al (2009a):
• no management plan; • separate management plans and bodies; • separate management plans and bodies but with joint framework; • separate management plans with joint body; or • joint management plan.
Serial properties with a joint management plan, joint framework or joint body could be considered as meeting the Operational Guidelines requirement for coordinated management and an overall management framework. The evaluation and monitoring reports for the thirty-nice serial properties were reviewed and evaluation of management arrangements classified into one of the groupings described above. Results are shown in Figure 2.
NO MANAGEMENT PLAN5%
SEPARATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
AND BODIES23%
SEPARATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
AND BODIES WITH JOINT FRAMEWORK
23%
SEPARATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
WITH JOINT BODY10%
JOINT MANAGEMENT PLAN39%
Figure 2. Proportion of serial natural properties evaluated as having various types of management arrangements
A wide variety of management arrangements are evident at serial properties. 72% of serial properties have a joint management plan, a joint framework or joint body. The remaining properties have either no management plans or only separate management plans for their component parts. Two serial properties were recommended for deferral until management was enhanced, but were inscribed nevertheless.
This review suggests that there is a wide diversity in the management arrangements for serial properties. This is considered further in the discussion.
38
4. DISCUSSION
Here results are discussed considering findings from the interviews and the literature review.
4.1. Justification for Serial Approach
The review of serial properties suggests that further guidance on applying the serial approach is required during both the nomination and evaluation procedure. Amendments are proposed to the IUCN Guidelines to Evaluators and Reviewers to partially address these shortcomings. Amendments could also be proposed to the Operational Guidelines and nomination form.
Amendments could be made to the accepted relationship of serial property components described in paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines e.g. complementary rather than the same geomorphologic formation or “belonging to the same ecoregion”. This could be useful for properties nominated for significant ongoing ecological and biological processes or the in-situ conservation of biological diversity which are often large, contain multiple habitats and ecosystem types and span biogeographical provinces. However as some properties span ecoregions, they would continue to fail this relationship threshold. This suggests that amending the Operational Guidelines in this way would not be helpful.
Instead, if a serial World Heritage property is accepted as one requiring two or more component parts to express outstanding universal value, the values of the property are more likely to be preserved if components are included because they enhance the integrity of the property, rather than just because they are in the same biogeographic province for example. Therefore it may be more useful to evaluate the serial approach justification against the existing integrity conditions in the Operational Guidelines. Paragraphs 87-95 describe the integrity conditions for each of the four natural inscription criteria (see Box 1).
39
Box 1. Operational Guidelines integrity conditions for each natural criterion
To test the usefulness of this approach, the justifications of the serial approach in the 39 serial property evaluation reports were reviewed. If the justification referred to meeting the conditions of integrity for the criterion or criteria it was nominated under, a point was scored under that respective criterion. As many properties were nominated under multiple criteria, some evaluation reports referred to multiple conditions of integrity. Therefore the total number of references to integrity conditions is greater than 39, the number of evaluation reports. Results are shown in Table 2. Operational Guidelines conditions of integrity for each natural criterion
Criterion (vii ) integrity
conditions
Criterion (viii) integrity
conditions
Criterion (ix) integrity
conditions
Criterion (x) integrity
conditions
Did not fulfill integrity
conditions Number of serial property evaluation reports that referred to conditions of integrity to justify the serial approach
3 17 20 15 1
40
Table 2. Number of serial property evaluation reports that referred to Operational Guidelines conditions of integrity to justify the serial approach.
Overall this approach is considered in line with the way the serial approach is currently justified and evaluated rather than an evaluation based on the narrow description of serial properties in paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines. Only the Greater Blue Mountains Area, Australia was considered to not fulfill the conditions of integrity and it was recommended for deferral but inscribed nevertheless.
4.2. Functional Linkage of Component Parts
There is no guidance on the functional linkage of serial property components in the Operational Guidelines, Nomination Form or the IUCN Guidelines to Evaluators and Reviewers. This analysis has shown that functional linkage can and has been interpreted in a variety of ways and guidance is needed during the nomination and evaluation procedure alike. There is a plethora of approaches and terminology related to the concept of functional linkage which could guide the application and evaluation of links between the component parts of serial World Heritage properties. Various approaches from the literature and their applicability to serial properties are discussed below.
4.2.1. Corridor links
Many of the ideas on functional linkage have come from the terrestrial conservation biology discourse shaped by island biogeography theory, habitat fragmentation studies and reserve design principles (See a review in BENNETT & MULONGOY 2006). The potential disadvantages of wildlife corridors e.g. fire and pest spread and their cost have been discussed in the literature, however BEIER & NOSS (1998) reviewed numerous habitat fragmentation studies and concluded that well-designed studies do show that corridors are valuable conservation tools and increase linkage between habitats. They address habitat fragmentation which threatens biodiversity and the integrity of ecological processes (BENNETT 2003, SANDWITH & LOCKWOOD 2006, BEIER et al 2008) an important issue for many, but not all, serial natural World Heritage properties. Figure 2 shows three types of corridor linkages described in the conservation literature:
• stepping stone corridors: core areas linked via habitat patches that provide resources and refuges;
• linear corridors: core areas are linked via a continuous corridor; and • landscape corridors: core areas linked via a mosaic of different quality habitats.
41
Figure 3. Types of corridor linkages (BENNETT & MULONGOY 2006)
BENNETT (2004) describes the suitability of these various corridor linkages depending on species’ mobility and habitat-disturbance tolerance and relevant ecological processes. Thus, assessments can be made on when a linear corridor will provide more actual linkage than a stepping stone corridor or vice versa. If the core areas of Figure 3 are considered as the components of a serial property, the functional linkage evaluation could consider what type of corridor linkage exists between the components and their appropriateness depending on the species being conserved in the serial property. This is then a useful approach for evaluating the functional linkage needs for particular species, or groups of species, within serial properties nominated for terrestrial ecological or biological values.
4.2.2. Quantifying vegetated/coastal links
Parks Victoria assesses protected areas connectivity to surrounding vegetation or coast lines. They assess the percentage of a park boundary which is linked to indigenous vegetation or coastlines and categorize results into largely connected (>75%), substantially connected (75>50%), partially linked (50>25%) and largely isolated (<25%) (PARKS VICTORIA, 2000). As this approach quantifies a protected area’s links to the surrounding landscape, rather than to other protected areas, it is less applicable to assessing the links between serial property components. It is also not applicable for properties nominated for their geological or natural beauty values or properties with freshwater or desert ecosystems.
4.2.3. Connectivity conservation
Connectivity, the degree of species and process movement between different areas, is made up of two components: the spatial arrangements of habitats and a functional component of how species or processes used the physical elements (CROOK AND SANJAYAN 2006). LINDENMAYER AND FISHER (2006) suggested that wildlife corridors provide three different types of connectivity: habitat, landscape and ecological, for different species and process and at different scales. Ecological connectivity was considered to include aspects relating to species interaction, disturbance, hydrology, climate change and evolutionary processes. Landscape connectivity, the patterns of vegetation cover perceived by humans, does not necessarily relate to species’ habitat or ecosystem therefore three types of connectivity needed to be managed separately to conserve biota in modified landscapes.
42
Connectivity conservation has evolved from the conservation biology and landscape management discourses and aims to protect and create connectivity and hence ecosystem resilience to change, by conserving large areas of land including, but not limited to, protected areas e.g. the Yellowstone to Yukon initiative in North America and the Alps to Atherton initiative in Australia (WORBOYS 2009). He summarizes the four types of connectivity that need to be managed for conservation purposes:
• Habitat connectivity: connectedness of habitat patches for a species; • Landscape connectivity: connectedness of landscape from a human perspective; • Ecological connectivity: connectedness of ecological processes; and • Evolutionary connectivity: connectedness of spatially dependent evolutionary processes.
The Convention on Biological Diversity sets a connectivity conservation goal within its Programme of Work on Protected Areas of “By 2015 all protected areas and protected area systems are integrated into the wider land and seascape by applying the landscape approach and taking into account ecological connectivity and the concept where appropriate of ecological networks” (WORBOYS 2008). A global guide to connectivity conservation management is to be published by Earthscan in 2010. The connectivity conservation approach could provide the framework to evaluate functional linkages.
4.2.4. Applying the connectivity conservation approach to the evaluation of serial property functional links
Connectivity conservation is considered to provide a good framework for evaluating functional links between serial property components. Firstly, because it recognizes functional linkage as more than physical connectedness, it can provide a framework for evaluating properties nominated under each of the four nomination criteria. That is properties nominated under criteria ix should demonstrate ecological connectivity while properties nominated under criteria x should demonstrate habitat connectivity. It is important to emphasize that although most serial properties will require connected components for integrity reasons, others may simply be a representative cluster of components which do not need to be functionally linked to protect the property’s outstanding universal values. Secondly, it is not solely terrestrial so could equally apply to desert, freshwater and marine ecosystems also covered by the World Heritage Convention. It could apply to all species, process and scales. As the World Heritage Committee has noted that criterion (x) should not be used in relation to a single species (IUCN 2008), habitat connectivity in a World Heritage context should not refer to a single species but to a suite of species. This aligns with current linkage design techniques which are based on a multiple focal species approach recognizing that information does not exist on the optimal linkage requirements for most species (BEIER et al 2008). Thirdly, by providing broad guidance on connectivity rather than specifying what tool or corridor to use, State Parties retain flexibility in determining how to provide connectivity between components. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, it could assist in the selection of component parts by encouraging thought on what type of connectivity is needed to other areas to preserve the integrity and values of the nominated property.
How the connectivity conservation approach could be applied to different nomination criteria is shown in Table 3 using serial natural World Heritage property examples.
Nomination Criteria Type of Connectivity
Serial World Heritage properties demonstrating connectivity between components
Criteria (vii)
Contain superlative natural phenomenon or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance
Landscape: connectedness of landscape from a
human perspective
Dolomites, Italy. Inscribed in 2009 under criteria (vii)(viii) demonstrates landscape connectivity via a conceptual link: The nine component parts, including 18 peaks which rise above 3,000m, are functionally linked in the sense of representing complementary natural values of the Dolomites.
43
Nomination Criteria Type of Connectivity
Serial World Heritage properties demonstrating connectivity between components
Criteria (viii)
Be outstanding examples representing major stages of Earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features
Evolutionary: connectedness of
spatially dependent evolutionary processes
Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh / Naracoorte). Inscribed in 1994 under criteria (viii)(ix) demonstrates evolutionary connectivity: Components show the evolutionary history of a biotic assemblage over an extended period of geological time.
Criteria (ix)
Be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals
Ecological: connectedness of
ecological processes
Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas Reserves, Brazil. Inscribed in 2001 under criteria (vii)(ix)(x) demonstrates ecological connectivity via a marine corridor link: Components share the same marine currents and oceanographic regime with ecological corridors on which a number of species such as turtles, dolphins and sharks' survival depends.
Criteria (x)
Contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation
Habitat: connectedness of
habitat patches for a species
Golden Mountains of Altai, Russian Federation. Inscribed in 1998 under criteria (x) demonstrates habitat connectivity via a stepping stone corridor link: The property contains extremely important habitat for the protection of a number of globally threatened species including the Snow Leopard and the Altai argali.
Table 3. Examples of different types and strengths of connectivity between components of selected serial World Heritage properties nominated under different criteria
4.2.5. Buffer Zones as an operational model
Operationalzing functional linkage requirements could follow the model of how buffer zones are treated in the Operational Guidelines. Like buffer zones they help to conserve the outstanding universal values of a World Heritage property without being inscribed themselves. Like functional links, buffer zones have recently been much discussed and outcomes could also be applied to functional links. This suggests that as a minimum the following aspects should be considered:
• Functional links should be required wherever necessary for the effective protection of a serial property;
• Functional links should be defined – here as those that provide landscape, ecological, evolutionary or habitat connectivity between the components of a serial property;
• The nomination form should require an explanation of how components are connected or if not, why links are not required;
• Functional links should not be inscribed as part of the World Heritage property: • Functional links should have appropriate legal or customary restrictions placed on them: • If modifications to functional links would affect the outstanding universal values of the
property, proposals threatening them should be subject to the approval of the World Heritage Committee. For instance a dam or highway that could threaten wildlife movement between components could be considered by the World Heritage Committee. It is unlikely that State Parties would support this level of intervention but is worth raising if World Heritage properties are actually going to be managed as part of the wider landscape rather than as isolated islands.
This approach to functional linkages could be introduced into updated Operational Guidelines, manuals, forms and IUCN guidelines for evaluators and reviewers.
44
4.3. Effective Overall Management Framework
The review of the evaluation of management arrangements shows a wide variety of more and less effective management mechanisms are used at serial properties. Whilst recognizing the diversity of management techniques and local institutional settings, highlighting the difficulty of specifying minimum management standards, two aspects were identified by interviewees as important for the coordinated management of a serial property:
• having a statement of outstanding universal value; and • a coordinating governance body, especially for transnational properties.
Having a statement of outstanding universal value was seen as a way to facilitate the harmonization of management objectives of component parts. A programme is currently underway to prepare statements of universal values for all properties which currently do not have them. Without a clear statement of what the property is being managed for, harmonized management of the separate components is unlikely especially when managed by different authorities and in the absence of a coordinated management framework or body. This leads to the question of whether baseline indicators of a property’s outstanding universal value should be established which can then be monitored over time. Monitoring threats is particularly important if one accepts that a threat to one component is a threat to the whole property. Baseline indicators are a desirable goal, but could be very resource demanding and may duplicate already existing monitoring systems e.g. for a biosphere reserve or national protected area containing the World Heritage property. However, discussion on this aspect is beyond the scope of this paper.
Many interviewees suggested a joint body was necessary for the effective, coordinated management of a serial property, particularly transnational serial properties which face many barriers including political, legal, institutional and language differences. A joint management plan was seen as less useful than a joint body in this context. The body could oversee harmonized management of the component parts by coordinating communication, monitoring and reporting and establishing an agreed response to threats. Evaluators noted that although State Parties may not implement specific management arrangements for serial properties until the nomination is inscribed, making the evaluation more theoretical, the body which prepared the nomination is ideally placed to form the nucleus of such a body. Its effectiveness could indicate the future effectiveness of the proposed joint body.
Evaluators and managers alike noted difficulties in evaluating management during a short evaluation mission given the greater diversity and complexity of serial properties. It was suggested that management effectiveness assessments (as described in the Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit), should be undertaken prior to monitoring or evaluation missions. This would highlight particular aspects of concern and provide more information for the evaluator.
It was further suggested that IUCN should provide earlier management advice during the development of a serial nomination rather than just during the final evaluation stage. IUCN could potentially provide or coordinate World Heritage expertise to assist management planning during the nomination stage. IUCN’s web based PALNet - Protected Areas Learning Network which facilitates communication between protected area specialists and the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) could be utilized more to encourage knowledge exchange. The vast membership of the WCPA would ensure independence in the provision of management advice and management evaluation. Again, this is constrained by resource and funding availability.
5. CONCLUSION
Just over half the evaluations of inscribed serial properties explicitly referred to the three guiding questions developed for serial properties. Providing improved guidance on the serial approach and the three serial property evaluation questions to evaluators and reviewers, as well as management oversight of the final evaluation report, is expected to lead to a more consistent use and application of these questions during the evaluation procedure.
45
5.1. Evaluating Justification for Serial Approach
The definition of a serial as presented to the 33rd session of the World Heritage Committee along with the integrity conditions in the Operational Guidelines have guided the evaluation of the serial approach, not consistency with paragraph 137 on serial properties. Therefore the serial approach has been justified when multiple component parts are required to express outstanding universal value and meet conditions of integrity. This should become the basis for assessing the serial approach and the nomination forms and manuals for State Parties and the IUCN Guidelines for Evaluators and Reviewers should be amended accordingly. An amendment to paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines should be proposed. IUCN should investigate additional ways to provide early advice to State Parties on specific serial property nominations.
5.2. Evaluating Functional Linkage of Component Parts
Guidance on functional linkages could be based on the model of how buffer zones are treated in the Operational Guidelines. They are required wherever necessary to preserve the values of the property. Some serial properties may be a representative cluster of components and do not need to be linked to protect the outstanding universal value of the property as a whole. Functional links need to be defined and this is suggested to be based on the connectivity conservation approach which recognizes that four types of connectivity that may need to be managed depending on the values of the property being conserved: landscape, ecological, evolutionary or habitat connectivity. These broadly relate to the four nomination criteria and could be provided via different types of corridors. Functional links are not inscribed as part of the World Heritage property, although may be subject to some form of legal or customary restriction. Although modifications to functional links which would affect the outstanding universal values of the property could be subject to the approval of the World Heritage Committee, it is unlikely that State Parties would support this level of intervention so is not proposed here. This approach to functional links should then guide their evaluation and the IUCN Guidelines for Evaluators and Reviewers, along with the nomination form, should be amended accordingly.
5.3. Evaluating Overall Management Framework
Recognizing the diversity of management techniques and local institutional settings, two issues were identified as important for the coordinated management of a serial property; having a statement of outstanding universal value and a coordinating management body, especially for transnational properties. Establishing baseline indicators relating to the statements of outstanding universal value for monitoring over time should also be investigated. Management effectiveness assessments should be encouraged as both a pre evaluation and pre monitoring tool. IUCN should promote the use of PALNet and seek funding mechanisms to mobilize its WCPA members to provide management planning advice, especially during the nomination stage.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Include the three guiding questions in all evaluation reports for serial natural and mixed World Heritage properties.
Recommendation 2: Consider that the serial approach is justified when two or more component parts are required to express outstanding universal value and enhance the integrity of the property. Recommendation 3: Amend IUCN Guidelines for Evaluators and Reviewers and other relevant manuals accordingly.
46
Recommendation 4: Propose amendments to paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines and the nomination form during their next review. Recommendation 5: Investigate ways to provide early advice to State Parties on when a serial approach to a World Heritage property is appropriate. Recommendation 6: Require functional links when necessary for the effective protection of a serial property. Consider them as links that provide landscape, ecological, evolutionary or habitat connectivity as required depending on the values of the nominated property.
Recommendation 7: Propose amendments to the nomination form and additions to the Operational Guidelines during their next review describing functional linkage requirements following the buffer zones format in the Operational Guidelines
Recommendation 8: Amend IUCN Guidelines for Evaluators and Reviewers: Are the component parts functionally linked in terms of Landscape, Ecological, Evolutionary or Habitat connectivity depending on which criterion they are nominated under?
Recommendation 10: Continue to assist with the program ensuring all properties have statements of outstanding universal value
Recommendation 11: Investigate using baseline indicators to monitor threats to outstanding universal values
Recommendation 12: Advocate that serial properties have a joint management body and propose a similar amendment to the Operational Guidelines when they are next reviewed. Recommendation 13: Enhance access to management expertise via existing networks and tools including management effectiveness assessments during nomination and management stages.
REFERENCES BEIER, P., MAJKA, D. & SPENCER, W. (2008): Forks in the road: Choices in Procedures for Designing Wildland Linkages. Conservation Biology Vol. 22, No. 4.
BEIER, P. & NOSS, R. (1998): Do habitat corridors provide connectivity. Conservation Biology Vol. 12, No. 6.
BENNETT, A. (2003): Linkages in Practice: a Review of their Conservation Practice. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
BENNETT, G. (2004): Linkages in the Landscape. The Role of Corridors and Connectivity in Wildlife Conservation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
BENNETT, G. & MULONGOY, K. (2006): Review of Experience with Ecological Networks, Corridors and Buffer Zones. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Technical Series No. 23, Montreal, Canada.
ENGELS, B. KOCH & BADMAN, T. (2009a): Serial Natural World Heritage Properties. IUCN World Heritage Studies No. 6, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
ENGELS, B. OHNESORGE, B. & BURMESTER, A (Eds) (2009b): Nominations and Management of Serial Natural World Heritage Properties, German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany.
47
IUCN (2005): Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
IUCN (2008): Outstanding Universal Value. Standards for Natural World Heritage. IUCN World Heritage Studies Number One. Gland, Switzerland.
MARTIN, O. & PIATTI, G. (Eds) (2009): World Heritage and buffer Zones 2008. World Heritage Papers 25. Paris, France.
PARKS VICTORIA (2000): State of the Parks 2000. Park Profiles. Parks Victoria, Australia.
PATRY, M. (Ed) (2005): World Heritage at the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Durban (South Africa) 8-17 September 2003. UNESCO, Paris, France.
SANDWITH, T. & LOCKWOOD, M. (2006): Linking the Landscape in LOCKWOOD, M., WORBOYS, G. & KOTHARI, A. (Eds) Managing Protected Areas. A Global Guide. Earthscan, UK & USA.
THORSELL, J. & HOGAN, R. (2009): IUCN Evaluation of World Heritage Nominations. Some Suggestions to Evaluators for IUCN Evaluation Missions and IUCN Technical Evaluation Reports. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
WORBOYS, G. (2008): The 2008 Mountain Transboundary Protected Area and Connectivity Conservation Workshop Report. IUCN, WCPA 11-15 November 2008.
WORBOYS, G. (2009): Towards transboundary co-operation and management of the Altai-Sayan mega connectivity conservation corridor. An IUCN WCPA Mission Report.
UNESCO (2008a): Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit. World Heritage Papers 23. UNESCO.
UNESCO (2008b): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
48
APPENDIX 1 WHC-08/32.COM/10B 2008
The World Heritage Committee, 1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/10B; 2. Recalling Decision 29 COM 18A adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005), 3. Notes the developing range of discussions on the nomination of serial transnational properties as a positive expression of international cooperation in line with the aims and objectives of the World Heritage Convention; 4. Acknowledges the need to enhance the guidance to States Parties, Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre on the policies and procedures linked to the nomination and management of serial national and transnational properties; 5. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre to consult States Parties further on the issues raised in Document WHC-08/32.COM/10B, particularly the need to revise paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines and the challenges and benefits of serial national and transnational nominations, through a Circular Letter; 6. Requests the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Advisory Bodies, to organize an expert meeting to reflect on current and future practice and strategies for serial national and transnational nominations, taking account of the debate at the 32nd session and the input received through the Circular Letter. The meeting that takes place should address the following subjects, among others: a) revision of paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines, which states that "the series as a whole - and not necessarily the individual parts of it - [must be] of Outstanding Universal Value" b) the risk of damaging the credibility of the World Heritage List by including properties on it, within serial national and transnational nominations, that would not merit inscription by themselves; c) the role of the World Heritage Centre in promoting and coordinating serial national and transnational nominations, and potential conflict of interest; d) clarification of the ultimate objectives of promoting serial national and transnational nominations as an approach under the Convention; e) strategies for funding the evaluation of complex serial national and transnational nominations. f) issues associated with losing the identity of individual World Heritage properties when they are subsumed by a larger, serial national or transnational nomination. 7. Requests the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to prepare an information document for consideration at the 33rd session of the Committee in 2009, providing a list of all existing serial properties on the World Heritage List and of all the known potential future serial nominations; 8. Requests the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to propose amendments to the Operational Guidelines and more detailed guidelines, if necessary, for the nomination of serial national and transnational properties, for consideration at the 33rd session of the Committee in 2009. 9. Takes note that an expert workshop is proposed for November 2008 in Vilm (Germany), which will reflect on current and future practice and strategies for nomination and management of serial transnational natural World Heritage properties, and will update the Committee on progress with this discussion at its 33rd Session in 2009. 10. Requests the World Heritage Centre to seek extrabudgetary funding to support the expert meeting referred in paragraph 6 above.
49
50
APPENDIX 2 List of interviewees
Name Institution Guy Palmer Manager
CapeNature, Scientific Services, South Africa Alan Putney* WCPA Thematic Vice Chair for World Heritage
Nevada, USA Barbara Engels Project Officer, International Nature Conservation, Bundesamt für
Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany Marc Patry Programme specialist
Special Projects Unit, UNESCO Alessandro Balsamo
Nominations and Tentative Lists Management Policy and Statutory Implementation Section, UNESCO
Dr. Mechtild Rössler Chief, Europe & North America, UNESCO Feng Jing Programme specialist
Asia and the Pacific Section, UNESCO Dr Wendy Strahm* Biodiversity consultant
La Criblette, Burtigny, Switzerland Steve Bourne* Visitor Services Manager
Naracoorte and Tantanoola Caves, Australia Dr Gerard Collin* International Consultant
Le Cap d`Agde, France Bastian Bomhard* Programme Officer
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK * Has evaluated a natural World Heritage nomination
51
Annex 3: Programme of the workshop
Programme
Saturday, 7th November, 2009 18:20 Registration and dinner
19:30
Welcome by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (G.STOLPE, BfN) Introduction to the workshop (T. JÄGER, IUCN & B. ENGELS, BfN) Introduction of participants
Sunday, 8th November, 2009 07:30 Breakfast The concept of serial properties
09:00 Introduction and overview (including outcome of the 2008 meeting) (B. ENGELS)
10:00 Case studies on OUV of serial properties:
a) Applying OUV to natural and cultural serial properties – Comparison of the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia (inscribed 1986) with the Australian Convict Sites (nominated 2008) (K. FEROS, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts) b) The High Coast – Kvarken Archipelago – The use of WH criteria for a serial transboundary property (R. LÖFGREN, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency)
11:00 Coffee break and group photo 11:30
Plenary discussion
12:30 Lunch 13:30 Guided tour of Vilm Island (A.STRAUSS, BfN)
15:00 Coffee
Functional linkages and Connectivity
15:30 The serial approach and functional linkages - Presentation of study work (K. HOWARD, IUCN)
16:00 Evaluating serial properties - some lessons from South Africa (W. STRAHM)
16:30 Plenary discussion 18:30 Dinner
52
20:00 Informal get-together Monday, 9th November, 2009 07:30
Breakfast
Identification and preparation of Serial nominations 9:00 Introduction and guiding questions (T. JAEGER, IUCN) 9:30 Case studies (25 min each)
a) Waddensea, Germany/Netherlands (B. ENGELS, WADDENSEA WH
GROUP) b) Western Ghats, India (V. KARTHIKEYAN, Wildlife Institute of India)
c) Daurian Steppes (Russia-Mongolia-China) (M. KLADOVSHCHIKOVA, Natural Heritage Protection Fund, Russia)
d) Viking sites: Example form cultural sector (M. MALUCK, State Office for Archaeology, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany)
11:00 Coffee Break 11:30 Discussion and/or Group work Management, monitoring and reporting of serial and transnational properties 14:00 Case studies (continued) e) Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California (P. GALLINA,
Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Mexico) f) Laponian Area (R. LÖFGREN) g) Bialowieza National Park (R. KRZYSCIAK-KOSINSKA, Bialowieza National
Park, Poland) 15:00 Discussion 16:00 Coffee 16:30 Group work 17:30 Presentation of working group and discussion 18:30 Dinner 19:30 Informal get-together Tuesday, 10th November, 2009 07:30 Breakfast Excursion to Jasmund National Park
08:25 Excursion to Jasmund National Park, component part of the planned beech forest extension nomination (H.Knapp, BfN)
Lunch will be provided during the excursion 14:25 Boat to Vilm Conclusions and recommendations 15:00 Joint work on conclusions and recommendations 16:00 Coffee
53
54
16:00 Joint work on conclusions and recommendations (workshop report, follow-up process)
18:00 Evaluation and closure of the workshop (G.STOLPE, A. STRAUSS, BFN) 18:30 Dinner 20:00 Farewell party (to be organised by the participants) Wednesday, 11th November, 2008 07:30 Breakfast 09:20 Departure from Vilm (alternative: departure 07:25) 15:08 14:44
Arrival Hamburg Airport (alternative: arrival 12:48) or Arrival Berlin Tegel Airport (alternative: arrival 12:44)
Annex 4: List of Participants No. Name Institution Address Country Phone/Fax/e-mail 1. Collins, Tim
Department for Environment & Heritage, South Australia
Unit 3, 17 Lennon Street Clare, South Australia 5453
Australia Tel.: +61 8/8841-3408 Fax: +61 8/8841-3411 e-mail: [email protected]
2. Douvere, Fanny
UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Marine Programme
7, place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris
France Tel.: +33 1/45681562 Fax: e-mail: [email protected]
3. Engels, Barbara Chair
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Division for International Nature Conservation
Konstantinstr. 110 53179 Bonn
Germany Tel.: +49 228/8491-1746 Fax: +49 228/8491-1719 e-mail: [email protected]
4. Feros, Kate
Australian Government Department of the Environment, Wter, Heritage and the Arts
5 Farrell Place ACT 2601 Canberra City
Australia Tel.: +61 26274/2002 Fax: +61 26274/2095 e-mail: [email protected]
5. Howard, Kathryn
IUCN Programme on Protected Areas
28 rue Mauverney 01196 Gland
Switzerland Tel.: +49 /15226224586 Fax: e-mail: [email protected]
6. Jäger, Tilman
IUCN Programme on Protected Areas
28 rue Mauverney 01196 Gland
Switzerland Tel.: +41 22 99 0158/ Fax: +41 22 99 0025/ e-mail: [email protected]
7. Kladovshchikova, Mariya
Natural Heritage Protection Fund
1 Khvostov per., 13/1 109017, Moscow
Russian Federation
Tel.: +7 499/2380360 Fax: +7 499/1509293 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
8. Krzysciak-Kosinska, Renata
Bialowieza National Park
Park Palacowy 5 17 - 230 Bialowieza
Poland Tel.: +48 85/6812348-33 Fax: +48 85/6812306 e-mail: [email protected]
55
No. Name Institution Address Country Phone/Fax/e-mail
9. Löfgren, Rolf
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
106 48 Stockholm
Sweden Tel.: +46 8/6981392 Fax: e-mail: [email protected]
10. Maluck, Matthias
State Office for Archaeology, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany Schloss Annettenhöh
Brockdorff-Rantzau-Str. 70 24837 Schleswig
Germany Tel.: +49 4621/38736 Fax: +49 4621/38755 e-mail: [email protected]
11. Maria Pia Gallina, Tessaro
Comisión Nacional De Áreas Naturales Protegidas
Camino al Ajusco No. 200, piso 3. Col. Jardines en la Montaña C.P.14210. Mexico D.F.
Mexico Tel.: +52 55/5449-7045 Fax: e-mail: [email protected]
12. Stolpe, Gisela Organisation
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Academy for Nature Conservation Isle of Vilm
Isle of Vilm 18581 Putbus
Germany Tel.: +49 (0)38301/86-113 Fax: +49 (0)38301/86-117 e-mail: [email protected]
13. Strahm, Wendy
Consultant
La Criblette 1268 Burtigny
Switzerland Tel.: +41 22/36677-88 Fax: +41 22/36677-88 e-mail: [email protected]
14. Strauss, Andrea
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Isle of Vilm 18581 Putbus
Germany Tel.: +49 38301/86-147 Fax: +49 38301/86-117 e-mail: [email protected]
15. Vasudevan, Karthikeyan
Wildlife Institute of India
P.O.Box 18 Dehradun 248001, Uttarakhand
India Tel.: +91 135/2640111-115 Fax: +91 135/2640111 e-mail: [email protected]
56