DOCSLIB.ORG

English Alphabets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WHC-03/27COM/INF.8B Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List Report to the World Heritage Committee Twenty-seventh session 30 June – 5 July 2003 - Paris, France Prepared by IUCN – The World Conservation Union May 2003 Table of Contents Index of Evaluations Introduction i Technical Evaluation Reports A. Nominations of Natural Properties to the World Heritage List A1 New Nominations Three Parralel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas, (China ) 1 Ras Mohammed, (Egypt) 13 Saryarka - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan, (Kazakhstan) 19 The Natural System of Wrangel Island Sanctuary, (Russian Federation) 29 Monte San Giorgio, (Switzerland) 41 Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, (Vietnam) 53 A2 Deferred Nominations for which additional information has been received Uvs Nuur Basin, (Russian Federation/Mongolia ) 71 A3 Extension of Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List Gough Island Wildlife Reserve Minor Extension (United Kingdom) 87 B. Nominations of Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List B1 New Nominations Purnululu National Park, (Australia ) 93 Rio de Janeiro: Sugar Loaf, Tijuca Forests, and the Botanical Gardens, (Brazil) 105 Parque Nacional del Este and its buffer zone, (Dominican Republic) 115 Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture, (Portugal) 125 B2 Extensions of Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List Jaú National Park (extension to form the Central Amazon Protected Areas), (Brazil) 133 B3 Extensions of Properties to include Natural Criteria Serra de Capivara National Park, (Brazil) 143 Saint Catherine Area, (Egypt) 151 C. Comments on Cultural Landscape Nominations Valley of the Pradnik River in the Ojcowski National Park, (Poland) 157 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, (United Kingdom) 161 Numerical Index of IUCN Evaluations of properties to be examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session ID Number State Party World Heritage property proposed page 606 Bis Brazil Serra da Capivara National Park 143 740 Bis United Kingdom Gough Island Wildlife Reserve Minor extension 87 769 Rev Russian Uvs Nuur Basin 71 Federation / Mongolia 951 Rev Viet Nam Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park 53 954 Bis Egypt Saint Catherine Area 151 998 Bis Brazil Jaú National Park (extension to form the Central 133 Amazon Protected Areas) 1023 Russian Natural System of "Wrangel Island" Sanctuary 29 Federation 1080 Dominican Parque Nacional del Este and its buffer zone 115 Republic 1083 China Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas 1 1084 United Kingdom Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 161 1085 Poland The Valley of the Pradnik River in the Ojcowski National 157 Park - a unique complex of cultural landscape 1086 Egypt Ras Mohammed 13 1090 Switzerland Monte San Giorgio 41 1094 Australia Purnululu National Park 93 1100 Brazil Rio de Janeiro: Sugar Loaf, Tijuca Forest and the 105 Botanical Gardens 1102 Kazakhstan Saryarka - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan 19 1117 Portugal Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture 125 THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTS 1 May 2003 1. INTRODUCTION This technical evaluation report of natural sites nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List has been conducted by the Programme on Protected Areas (PPA) of IUCN – The World Conservation Union. PPA co-ordinates IUCN's input to the World Heritage Convention. It also co-ordinates activities of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) which is the world's leading expert network of protected area managers and specialists. In carrying out its function under the World Heritage Convention IUCN has been guided by four principles: (i) the need to ensure the highest standards of quality control and institutional memory in relation to technical evaluation, monitoring and other associated activities; (ii) the need to increase the use of specialist networks of IUCN, especially WCPA, but also other relevant IUCN Commissions and specialist networks; (iii) the need to work in support of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and States Parties to examine how IUCN can creatively and effectively support the World Heritage Convention and individual sites as “flagships” for biodiversity conservation; and (iv) the need to increase the level of effective partnership between IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM. Members of the expert network of WCPA carry out the majority of technical evaluation missions. This allows for the involvement of regional natural heritage experts and broadens the capacity of IUCN with regard to its work under the World Heritage Convention. Reports from field missions and comments from a large number of international reviewers are comprehensively examined by the IUCN World Heritage Panel. PPA then prepares the final technical evaluation reports which are outlined in this document. IUCN has also placed emphasis on providing input and support to ICOMOS in relation to cultural landscapes and other cultural nominations which have important natural values. IUCN recognises that nature and culture are strongly linked and that many natural World Heritage sites have important cultural values. The WCPA membership network now totals over 1300 protected area managers and specialists from 120 countries. This network has provided much of the basis for conducting the IUCN technical evaluations. In addition, the Protected Areas Programme has been able to call on experts from IUCN's other five Commissions (Species Survival, Environmental Law, Education and Communication, i Ecosystem Management, and Environmental, Economic and Social Policy), from other specialist officers in the IUCN Secretariat, and from scientific contacts in universities and other international agencies. This highlights the considerable “added value” from investing in the use of the extensive networks of IUCN and partner institutions. 2. FORMAT Each technical evaluation report presents a concise summary of the nomination, a comparison with other similar sites, a review of management and integrity issues and concludes with the assessment of the applicability of the criteria, and a clear recommendation to the World Heritage Committee. Standardised data sheets, prepared for each nomination by UNEP - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), are available in a separate document. 3. SITES REVIEWED 21 site files were reviewed by IUCN in the 2002/2003 period, involving 15 field inspections. These comprised: · 8 natural site nominations (including 1 extension and 1 referred site where additional information had been received), · 7 mixed site nominations (including 3 extensions), and · 6 cultural landscapes. Joint missions were carried out with ICOMOS for all new mixed site nominations. Joint missions were also carried out with ICOMOS to 2 cultural landscapes and the reports for these sites are included in this document. IUCN reviewed an additional 4 cultural landscape nominations and provided comments directly to ICOMOS to assist them in their evaluation process. The files reviewed by IUCN in 2002/2003 are as follows: ID Number State Party World Heritage property proposed A. Nominations of natural properties to the World Heritage List A1. New Nominations 1083 China Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan Protected Areas 1086 Egypt Ras Mohammed 1102 Kazakhstan Saryarka - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan 1023 Russian Federation Natural System of "Wrangel Island" Sanctuary 1090 Switzerland Monte San Giorgio 951 Rev Viet Nam Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park A2. Referred nominations for which additional information has been received 769 Rev Russian Federation Uvs Nuur Basin / Mongolia ii A3. Extension of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List 740 Bis United Kingdom Gough Island Wildlife Reserve Minor extension B. Nominations of mixed properties to the World Heritage List B1. New nominations 1094 Australia Purnululu National Park 1100 Brazil Rio de Janeiro: Sugar Loaf, Tijuca Forest and the Botanical Gardens 1080 Dominican Parque Nacional del Este and its buffer zone Republic 1117 Portugal Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture B2. Extension of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List 998 Bis Brazil Jaú National Park (extension to form the Central Amazon Protected Areas) 606 Bis Brazil Serra da Capivara National Park 954 Bis Egypt Saint Catherine Area C. Nominations of Cultural Landscapes to the World Heritage List C1. Cultural Landscapes for which IUCN took part in a joint field inspection 1085 Poland The Valley of the Pradnik River in the Ojcowski National Park - a unique complex of cultural landscape 1084 United Kingdom Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew C2. Cultural Landscapes for which IUCN provided comments directly to ICOMOS 925 India Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka 1081 Mongolia Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape 1099 South Africa Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape 306 Rev Zimbabwe Matobo Hills 4. REVIEW PROCESS iii In carrying out the Technical Review, IUCN is guided by the Operational Guidelines, which requests IUCN "to be as strict as possible" in evaluating new nominations. The evaluation process (shown in Figure 1) involves five steps: 1. Data Assembly. A standardised data sheet is compiled on the site, using the protected area database at UNEP-WCMC; 2. External Review. The nomination is sent to experts knowledgeable about the site, primarily consisting of members of IUCN specialist commissions and networks and contacts from the region (approx. 85 outside reviewers provided input in relation
Recommended publications
  • Gap Analysis in Support of Cpan: the Russian Arctic

    Gap Analysis in Support of Cpan: the Russian Arctic

    CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No. 9 GAP ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT OF CPAN: THE RUSSIAN ARCTIC Igor Lysenko and David Henry CAFF INTERNATIONAL SECRETRARIAT 2000 This report, prepared by Igor Lysenko, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) and David Henry, United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Global Resource Information Database (GRID)-Arendal, is a technical account of a Gap Analysis Project conducted for the Russian Arctic in 1997-1999 in support of the Circumpolar Protected Areas Network (CPAN) of CAFF. It updates the status and spatial distribution of protected areas within the CAFF area of the Russian Federation and provides, in 22 GIs based maps and several data sets, a wealth of information relevant for present and future management decisions related to habitat conservation in the Russian Arctic. The present Gap Analysis for the Russian Arctic was undertaken in response to the CPAN Strategy and Action Plan requirement for countries to identify gaps in protected area coverage of ecosystems and species and to select sites for further action. Another important objective was to update the Russian data base. The Analysis used a system of twelve landscape units instead of the previously used vegetation zone system as the basis to classify Russia's ecosystems. A comparison of the terrestrial landscape systems against protected area coverage indicates that 27% of the glacier ecosystem is protected, 9.3% of the tundra (treeless portion) and 4.7% of the forest systems within the Arctic boundaries are under protection, but the most important Arctic forested areas have only 0.1% protection. In general, the analysis indicates a negative relationship between ecosystem productivity and protection, which is consistent with findings in 1996.
  • Report of the Portfolio Monitoring Mission in Mongolia

    Report of the Portfolio Monitoring Mission in Mongolia

    AFB/B.28/5 3 October 2016 Adaptation Fund Board Twenty-eighth Meeting Bonn, Germany, 6-7 October 2016 Agenda item 9 REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO MONITORING MISSION IN MONGOLIA AFB/B.28/5 INTRODUCTION Context and scope of the mission 1. As part of the Knowledge Management (KM) Strategy and the secretariat’s work plan for FY16 which was approved by the Adaptation Fund Board (the Board) at its twenty-fifth meeting (Decision B.25/19), the Adaptation Fund Board secretariat (the secretariat) conducts missions to projects/programmes under implementation to collect and analyze lessons learned through its portfolio. So far, such missions have been conducted in Ecuador, Senegal, Honduras, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Argentina and Uruguay. This report covers the FY16 portfolio monitoring mission that took place in June 2016 in the project “Ecosystem Based Adaptation Approach to Maintaining Water Security in Critical Water Catchments in Mongolia” implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2. The mission targeted this project for the following reasons: a) it enables to explore implications of the Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (EBA) approach, including its efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability; b) it may allow drawing lessons from the valuation of ecosystem services; c) it may allow taking stock of the arrangements for monitoring and evaluation, and the value of mid-term review in adjusting progress towards results. Methodology 3. The secretariat was represented by a senior climate change specialist and a junior professional associate. An Adaptation Fund Board alternate member was also part of the delegation. The mission was carried out from 12 to 18 June, and included field visits to project sites.
  • Australian Heritage Grants 2020- 21 Grant Opportunity

    Australian Heritage Grants 2020- 21 Grant Opportunity

    Grant Opportunity Guidelines Australian Heritage Grants 2020- 21 Grant Opportunity Opening date: 9 November 2020 Closing date and time: 5.00pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time 7 January 2021 Please take account of time zone differences when submitting your application. Commonwealth policy Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment entity: Administering entity: Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Enquiries: If you have any questions, contact us on 13 28 46 or [email protected] Date guidelines released: 9 November 2020 Type of grant opportunity: Open competitive Contents 1. Australian Heritage Grants processes...............................................................................4 2. About the grant program ...................................................................................................5 3. Grant amount and grant period .........................................................................................5 3.1. Grants available ......................................................................................................6 3.2. Project period ..........................................................................................................6 4. Eligibility criteria................................................................................................................6 4.1. Who is eligible? .......................................................................................................6 4.2. Additional eligibility requirements ..............................................................................7
  • Hippophae Rhamnoides L.)

    Hippophae Rhamnoides L.)

    International Journal for Research in Agricultural and Food Science ISSN: 2208-2719 Study result of Mongolian natural wild seabuckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) 1Oyungerel.D, 1Bayaraa,G, 1Battumur.S, 1Altangoo.G, 2Nasanjargal.D,1 Gantuya.D, 1Otgontamir Ts. 1 Oyungerel Dechinlkhundev, Head of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research Division, Institute of Plant and Agricultural Sciences,IPAS. P.O.Box-908,Darkhan-Uul- 45047,Mongolia 2Nasanjargal Darjaa, Mongolian National Association of Fruit and Berry.Ulaanbaatar city, Sukhbaatar district 1th Khoroo, Peace avenue 50, Azmon center,room number 503,Mongolia Abstract Seabuckthorn sub specie (Hippophae rhamnoides L. ssp mongolica Rous.) is distributed in confluence of Orkhon-Selenge and basins of Zavkhan Tes, Uvs Tes, Bukhmurun, Tortkhilog Buyant, Khovd, Zavkhan, Borkh and Bulgan rivers. Natural wild seabuckthorn’s permanent distribution is in the western part of Mongolia’s mountainous region of Altai, Khangai and at the Tes, Zavkhan and Khovd rivers with internal flow to Great Lake concave, which starts from Altai and Khangai ranges’ branch mountains and at the Bulgan and other rivers’ valley, which have an external flow. By natural and weather condition, Bulgan aimag is located in humid cool, Selenge aimag is in arid cool, Zavkhan aimag is in arid coolish, Govi-Altai and Khovd aimags are in very arid, Uvs aimag is in arid cool region, respectively. Soil humus was in 0-20 sm depth 1.1-2.3%, 20-40 sm depth 0.6-1.7% at the research area. Soil of Zavkhan river basin had lowest humus content (0.76-1.2%), this includes Mongolian sand area and areas with sandy soil.
  • Cape Range National Park

    Cape Range National Park

    Cape Range National Park Management Plan No 65 2010 R N V E M E O N G T E O H F T W A E I S L T A E R R N A U S T CAPE RANGE NATIONAL PARK Management Plan 2010 Department of Environment and Conservation Conservation Commission of Western Australia VISION By 2020, the park and the Ningaloo Marine Park will be formally recognised amongst the world’s most valuable conservation and nature based tourism icons. The conservation values of the park will be in better condition than at present. This will have been achieved by reducing stress on ecosystems to promote their natural resilience, and facilitating sustainable visitor use. In particular, those values that are not found or are uncommon elsewhere will have been conserved, and their special conservation significance will be recognised by the local community and visitors. The park will continue to support a wide range of nature-based recreational activities with a focus on preserving the remote and natural character of the region. Visitors will continue to enjoy the park, either as day visitors from Exmouth or by camping in the park itself at one of the high quality camping areas. The local community will identify with the park and the adjacent Ningaloo Marine Park, and recognise that its values are of international significance. An increasing number of community members will support and want to be involved in its ongoing management. The Indigenous heritage of the park will be preserved by the ongoing involvement of the traditional custodians, who will have a critical and active role in jointly managing the cultural and conservation values of the park.
  • 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (Archived)

    2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (Archived)

    IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Purnululu National Park - 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) IUCN Conservation Outlook Assessment 2017 (archived) Finalised on 08 November 2017 Please note: this is an archived Conservation Outlook Assessment for Purnululu National Park. To access the most up-to-date Conservation Outlook Assessment for this site, please visit https://www.worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org. Purnululu National Park SITE INFORMATION Country: Australia Inscribed in: 2003 Criteria: (vii) (viii) Site description: The 239,723 ha Purnululu National Park is located in the State of Western Australia. It contains the deeply dissected Bungle Bungle Range composed of Devonian-age quartz sandstone eroded over a period of 20 million years into a series of beehive-shaped towers or cones, whose steeply sloping surfaces are distinctly marked by regular horizontal bands of dark-grey cyanobacterial crust (single-celled photosynthetic organisms). These outstanding examples of cone karst owe their existence and uniqueness to several interacting geological, biological, erosional and climatic phenomena. © UNESCO IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Purnululu National Park - 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) SUMMARY 2017 Conservation Outlook Good Purnululu National Park is a solid example of a site inscribed for landscape and geological outstanding value, but with significant biological importance, both at a regional as well as international scale. Thanks to a low level of threat and good protection and management including the creation of more conservation lands around the property, all values appear to be stable and some are even improving, given that the site was damaged by grazing prior to inscription. While there is always the potential for a catastrophic event such as uncontrolled fire or invasion by alien species, risk management plans are in place although in this case the relatively low level of funding for park management would have to be raised.
  • BIRDS of COLOMBIA - MP3 Sound Collection List of Recordings

    BIRDS of COLOMBIA - MP3 Sound Collection List of Recordings

    BIRDS OF COLOMBIA - MP3 sound collection List of recordings 0003 1 Tawny-breasted Tinamou 1 Song 0:07 Nothocercus julius (26/12/1993 , Podocarpus Cajanuma, Loja, Ecuador, 04.20S,79.10W) © Peter Boesman 0003 2 Tawny-breasted Tinamou 2 Song 0:23 Nothocercus julius (26/5/1996 06:30h, Páramo El Angel (Pacific slope), Carchi, Ecuador, 00.45N,78.03W) © Niels Krabbe 0003 3 Tawny-breasted Tinamou 3 Song () 0:30 Nothocercus julius (12/8/2006 14:45h, Betania area, Tachira, Venezuela, 07.29N,72.24W) © Nick Athanas. 0004 1 Highland Tinamou 1 Song 0:28 Nothocercus bonapartei (26/3/1995 07:15h, Rancho Grande area, Aragua, Venezuela, 10.21N,67.42W) © Peter Boesman 0004 2 Highland Tinamou 2 Song 0:23 Nothocercus bonapartei (10/3/2006 , Choroni road, Aragua, Venezuela, 10.22N,67.35W) © David Van den Schoor 0004 3 Highland Tinamou 3 Song 0:45 Nothocercus bonapartei (March 2009, Rancho Grande area, Aragua, Venezuela, 10.21N,67.42W) © Hans Matheve. 0004 4 Highland Tinamou 4 Song 0:40 Nothocercus bonapartei bonapartei. RNA Reinita Cielo Azul, San Vicente de Chucurí, Santander, Colombia, 1700m, 06:07h, 02-12-2007, N6.50'47" W73.22'30", song. also: Spotted Barbtail, Andean Emerald, Green Violetear © Nick Athanas. 0006 1 Gray Tinamou 1 Song 0:43 Tinamus tao (15/8/2007 18:30h, Nirgua area, San Felipe, Venezuela, 10.15N,68.30W) © Peter Boesman 0006 2 Gray Tinamou 2 Song 0:32 Tinamus tao (4/6/1995 06:15h, Palmichal area, Carabobo, Venezuela, 10.21N,68.12W) (background: Rufous-and-white Wren). © Peter Boesman 0006 3 Gray Tinamou 3 Song 0:04 Tinamus tao (1/2/2006 , Cerro Humo, Sucre, Venezuela, 10.41N,62.37W) © Mark Van Beirs.
  • Parques Nacionais

    Parques Nacionais

    National Parks Brazil BrasiParques Nacionails Brasil Parques Nacionais 2 3 4 5 National Parks Brazil BrasiParques Nacionails 6 7 O Brasil em sua imensidão abriga hoje 69 parques nacionais Brazil in its immensity today houses 69 national parks located situados nas cinco macro-regiões, protegendo no Norte áreas de in the five macro-regions, protecting the northern areas of florestas virgens e praticamente intocadas pelo homem, dunas e virgin forests – virtually untouched by man, dunes and rock pinturas rupestres no Nordeste, a exuberância de Mata Atlântica paintings in the Northeast, the exuberance of the Southeast no Sudeste, os Campos Gerais no Sul e uma flora e fauna do Atlantic Forest, Campos Gerais in the South and the exuberant exuberante do Cerrado no Centro-Oeste. Através desta publica- flora and fauna of the Cerrado in the Midwest. Through this ção a Localiza disponibiliza mais uma vez aos seus clientes e publication, Localiza makes available once more to its clients leitores a possibilidade de descoberta de exemplos bem suce- and readers the chance of discovering successful examples didos de manutenção da riqueza natural, legando às próximas of the maintenance of natural wealth, bequeathing to future gerações áreas de rara beleza. Juntas, elas compõem hoje um generations areas of outstanding beauty. Together they rico mosaico de preservação de nossa inigualável biodiversida- compose today a rich mosaic of conservation of our unique de, de nossa história e também nossa cultura. biodiversity, our history and our culture. Apoio Patrocínio Realização 8 9 Em 1876 o engenheiro abolicionista negro André Rebouças, foi precursor ao idealizar que o Brasil In 1876, the abolitionist engineer André Rebouças was a precursor when he idealized that Brazil destinasse parte de seu território para a criação de áreas protegidas com o intuito de salvaguardar would separate part of its territory to create protected areas with the intention to safeguard in a de forma sistemática, legal e organizada, aspectos importantes de nossos ecossistemas regionais.
  • Migration: on the Move in Alaska

    Migration: on the Move in Alaska

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Alaska Park Science Alaska Region Migration: On the Move in Alaska Volume 17, Issue 1 Alaska Park Science Volume 17, Issue 1 June 2018 Editorial Board: Leigh Welling Jim Lawler Jason J. Taylor Jennifer Pederson Weinberger Guest Editor: Laura Phillips Managing Editor: Nina Chambers Contributing Editor: Stacia Backensto Design: Nina Chambers Contact Alaska Park Science at: [email protected] Alaska Park Science is the semi-annual science journal of the National Park Service Alaska Region. Each issue highlights research and scholarship important to the stewardship of Alaska’s parks. Publication in Alaska Park Science does not signify that the contents reflect the views or policies of the National Park Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute National Park Service endorsement or recommendation. Alaska Park Science is found online at: www.nps.gov/subjects/alaskaparkscience/index.htm Table of Contents Migration: On the Move in Alaska ...............1 Future Challenges for Salmon and the Statewide Movements of Non-territorial Freshwater Ecosystems of Southeast Alaska Golden Eagles in Alaska During the A Survey of Human Migration in Alaska's .......................................................................41 Breeding Season: Information for National Parks through Time .......................5 Developing Effective Conservation Plans ..65 History, Purpose, and Status of Caribou Duck-billed Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae), Movements in Northwest
  • The Cerrado-Pantanal Biodiversity Corridor in Brazil

    The Cerrado-Pantanal Biodiversity Corridor in Brazil

    The Cerrado-Pantanal Biodiversity Corridor in Brazil Pantanal Program Mônica Harris, Erika Guimarães, George Camargo, Cláudia Arcângelo, Elaine Pinto Cerrado Program Ricardo Machado, Mario Barroso, Cristiano Nogueira CI in Brazil • Active since 1988. • Two Hotspots: Atlantic Forest and Cerrado • Three Wilderness Areas: Amazon, Pantanal and Caatinga • Marine Program Cerrado overview • 2,000,000 km2 Savannah • approximately 4,400 of its 10,000 plant species occur nowhere else in the world • 75% loss of the original vegetation cover • Waters from the Cerrado drain into the lower Pantanal Pantanal overview • A 140,000 km2 central floodplain surrounded by a highland belt of Cerrado • Home for at least: – 3,500 species of plants –300fishes –652 birds –102 mammals – 177 reptiles – 40 amphibians • Largest wetland in the world, with extremely high densities of several large vertebrate species The Cerrado – Pantanal Biodiversity Corridor – The Beginning: • Priority Setting Workshop for the Cerrado and the Pantanal (1998) • Partnership:CI, Ministry for the Environment, Funatura, Biodiversitas and UnB. • Priority areas were identified for biodiversity conservation by 250 specialists TheThe ResultsResults:: Priority Areas for the Conservation of the Cerrado and Pantanal Corredores de Biodiversidade Cerrado / Pantanal CorridorsCorridors Chapada dos Guimarães betweenbetween # # thethe CerradoCerrado # Unidade de conservação Pantanal Matogrossense andand thethe Áreas prioritárias Taquaril Emas Rios # Corredores propostos PantanalPantanal Pantanal Rio
  • IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List

    IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List

    WHC-01/CONF.207/INF.4 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List Report to the Extraordinary Bureau of the World Heritage Committee Twenty-fifth session 7 – 8 December 2001 – Helsinki, Finland Prepared by IUCN – The World Conservation Union 20 October 2001 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ii TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTS .............................................................. 1 B. Nominations of mixed properties to the World Heritage List ............................................................. 1 B.1. Palaearctic Realm................................................................................................................................. 1 Cultural Landscape of Fertö-Neusiedler Lake (Austria and Hungary) ................................................ 3 Central Sikhote – Alin (Russian Federation) ..................................................................................... 19 C. Nominations of natural properties to the World Heritage List......................................................... 37 C.2. Afrotropical Realm ............................................................................................................................ 96 Rift Valley Lake Reserves (Kenya) ..................................................................................................
  • RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1

    RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1

    RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 1 No. 33 Summer 2003 Special issue: The Transformation of Protected Areas in Russia A Ten-Year Review PROMOTING BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN RUSSIA AND THROUGHOUT NORTHERN EURASIA RCN #33 21/8/03 13:57 Page 2 CONTENTS CONTENTS Voice from the Wild (Letter from the Editors)......................................1 Ten Years of Teaching and Learning in Bolshaya Kokshaga Zapovednik ...............................................................24 BY WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION The Formation of Regional Associations A Brief History of Modern Russian Nature Reserves..........................2 of Protected Areas........................................................................................................27 A Glossary of Russian Protected Areas...........................................................3 The Growth of Regional Nature Protection: A Case Study from the Orlovskaya Oblast ..............................................29 THE PAST TEN YEARS: Making Friends beyond Boundaries.............................................................30 TRENDS AND CASE STUDIES A Spotlight on Kerzhensky Zapovednik...................................................32 Geographic Development ........................................................................................5 Ecotourism in Protected Areas: Problems and Possibilities......34 Legal Developments in Nature Protection.................................................7 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE Financing Zapovedniks ...........................................................................................10