DOCSLIB.ORG

MOUNT KENYA – LEWA CONSERVANCY (Extension of Mount Kenya National Park / Natural Forest)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MOUNT KENYA – LEWA CONSERVANCY (Extension of Mount Kenya National Park / Natural Forest) WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B2 IUCN Evaluations of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List th IUCN Report for the World Heritage Committee, 37 Session Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 16 - 27 June 2013 IUCN Evaluations of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List Table of Contents Executive summary table Alphabetical index and IUCN field evaluators Introduction A. Natural Properties Page Nº A1. New Nominations of Natural Properties Africa Kenya – Mount Kenya-Lewa Wildlife Conservancy 3 (extension of Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest) Namibia – Namib Sand Sea 15 Asia / Pacific China – Xinjiang Tianshan 27 India – Great Himalayan National Park 41 Philippines – Mount Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary 53 Viet Nam – Cat Tien National Park 63 Europe / North America Italy – Mount Etna 75 Latin America / Caribbean Mexico - El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve 85 A2. Deferred Nominations of Natural Properties Asia / Pacific Tajikistan – Tajik National Park (Mountains of the Pamirs) 99 B. Mixed Properties Page Nº B1. New Nominations of Mixed Properties Africa Guinée Bissau – Archipel des Bijagós - Motom Moranghajogo 113 Lesotho – Sehlabathebe National Park (extension of uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park) 125 Europe / North America Canada – Pimachiowin Aki 135 Russian Federation – Sviyazhsk Historical, Architectural, Natural and Landscape complex 145 B2. Minor Boundary Modifications of Mixed Properties Asia / Pacific Australia – Tasmanian Wilderness See document WHC-13/37.COM/INF.8B2.Add C. Cultural Properties C1. New nominations of Cultural Landscapes Africa Madagascar – Zoma de l’Isandra 155 Asia / Pacific China – Cultural Landscape of Honghe Hani Rice Terraces 159 Iran – Cultural Landscape of Maymand 163 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF IUCN EVALUATIONS TO THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE Meets protection and Meets one or more natural criteria Meets conditions of integrity management requirements Name of the State Note ) / property ) ) ) Party vii viii ix x (ID number) ( ( ( ( required rotection in in rotection Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Integrity Boundaries Threats addressed Justification of approach serial Protection status Management zone Buffer P surrounding arrea ission m Paragraphs of the Operational 78, 108- Guidelines for the 118, 77 77 77 77 78, 87-95 99-102 78, 98 137 78, 132.4 103-107 Implementation of the World 132.4, Heritage Convention 135 Further IUCN Recommendation Mount Kenya- Lewa Wildlife Kenya Extension yes ̶ yes ̶ yes yes yes part yes yes yes no I Conservancy (800 Bis) Namib Sand Sea Namibia yes yes yes yes yes yes yes ̶ yes yes yes no I (1430) Xinjiang Tianshan China yes ̶ yes ̶ yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no I (1414) Great Himalayan India National Park no ̶ ̶ part part part yes no yes yes part yes D (1406) Mt. Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Philippines ̶ ̶ ̶ part no part yes ̶ yes yes part yes D Sanctuary (1403) Cat Tien National Viet Nam Park ̶ ̶ ̶ no no no no ̶ yes no no no NI (1323) Mount Etna Italy no yes no ̶ yes yes yes ̶ yes yes yes no I (1427) OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE Meets protection and Meets one or more natural criteria Meets conditions of integrity management requirements Name of the State Note ) / property ) ) ) Party vii viii ix x (ID number) ( ( ( ( required rotection in in rotection Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion Integrity Boundaries Threats addressed Justification of approach serial Protection status Management zone Buffer P surrounding arrea ission m Paragraphs of the Operational 78, 108- Guidelines for the 118, 77 77 77 77 78, 87-95 99-102 78, 98 137 78, 132.4 103-107 Implementation of the World 132.4, Heritage Convention 135 Further IUCN Recommendation El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Mexico yes yes ̶ yes yes yes yes ̶ yes yes yes no I Altar Biosphere Reserve (1410) Tajik National Park (Mountains Deferred Tajikistan yes yes ̶ no yes yes yes ̶ yes yes yes no I of the Pamirs) nomination (1252 Rev) Archipel des Guinée Bijagós – Motom Mixed site part ̶ part part no no part ̶ no no no yes D Bissau Moranghajogo (1431) Sehlabathebe Extension / Lesotho National Park yes ̶ ̶ yes yes yes yes ̶ yes part part no I Mixed site (985 Bis) Pimachiowin Aki Canada Mixed site ̶ ̶ part ̶ no no yes ̶ yes yes yes yes D (1415) Sviyazhsk Russian Complex Mixed site no ̶ ̶ ̶ no no part ̶ yes no no no NI Federation (1419) KEYS yes met I inscribe / approve part partially met NI non inscribe no not met R refer ̶ not applicable D defer ALPHABETICAL INDEX State Party ID No. Property Page Canada 1415 Pimachiowin Aki 135 China 1414 Xinjiang Tianshan 27 Guinée Bissau 1431 Archipel des Bijagós – Motom Moranghajogo 113 India 1406 Great Himalayan National Park 41 Italy 1427 Mount Etna 75 Kenya 800 Bis Mount Kenya-Lewa Wildlife Conservancy 3 Lesotho 985 Bis Sehlabathebe National Park 125 Mexico 1410 El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve 85 Namibia 1430 Namib Sand Sea 15 Philippines 1403 Mt. Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary 53 Russian Federation 1419 Sviyazhsk Historical, Architectural, Natural and Landscape complex 145 Tajikistan 1252 Rev Tajik National Park (Mountains of the Pamirs) 99 Viet Nam 1323 Cat Tien National Park World Heritage Site 63 IUCN FIELD EVALUATORS Site Name Pimachiowin Aki David Mihalic Xinjiang Tianshan Pierre Galland and Andrew Scanlon Archipel des Bijagós – Motom Moranghajogo Wendy Strahm and Djafarou Tiomoko Great Himalayan National Park Graeme Worboys Mount Etna Bastian Bertzky Mount Kenya-Lewa Wildlife Conservancy Roger Porter Sehlabathebe National Park Moses Mapesa El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Doris Cordero and Tilman Jaeger Reserve Namib Sand Sea Peter Howard and Darlington Munyikwa Mt. Hamiguitan Range Wildlife Sanctuary Naomi Doak Sviyazhsk Historical, Architectural, Natural and Kalev Sepp Landscape complex Tajik National Park (Mountains of the Pamirs) Sarango Radnaaragchaa and Les Molloy Cat Tien National Park World Heritage Site Tobias Garstecki and Leigh Vickery It should be noted that the IUCN field evaluators are part of a broader evaluation approach detailed in the introduction of this report. THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT OF WORLD HERITAGE NOMINATIONS April 2013 1. INTRODUCTION nongovernmental organizations and scientific contacts in universities and other international agencies. This This technical evaluation report of natural and mixed highlights the considerable “added value” from properties nominated for inclusion on the World investing in the use of the extensive networks of IUCN Heritage List has been conducted by the World and partner institutions. Heritage Programme of IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). In close cooperation with These networks allow for the increasing involvement of IUCN Global Protected Areas Programme (GPAP) and regional natural heritage experts and broaden the other units of IUCN both at headquarters and in the capacity of IUCN with regard to its work under the regions, the World Heritage Programme co-ordinates World Heritage Convention. Reports from field IUCN’s input to the World Heritage Convention. It also missions and comments from a large number of works closely with IUCN’s World Commission on external reviewers are comprehensively examined by Protected Areas (WCPA), the world’s leading expert the IUCN World Heritage Panel. The IUCN World network of protected area managers and specialists, Heritage Programme then prepares the final technical and other Commissions, members and partners of evaluation reports which are presented in this IUCN. document and represent the corporate position of IUCN on World Heritage evaluations. IUCN has also IUCN’s evaluations are conducted according to the placed emphasis on providing input and support to Operational Guidelines that the World Heritage ICOMOS in relation to those cultural landscapes which Committee has agreed, and are the essential have important natural values. Since 2009 IUCN has framework for the application of the evaluation extended its cooperation with ICOMOS, including process. In carrying out its function under the World coordination in relation to the evaluation of mixed sites Heritage Convention, IUCN has been guided by four and cultural landscapes. IUCN and ICOMOS have also principles: enhanced the coordination of their panel processes as requested by the World Heritage Committee. (i) ensuring the highest standards of quality control and institutional memory in relation to In 2012-13 IUCN has continued to work on the technical evaluation, monitoring and other Upstream Process, as will be debated in the relevant associated activities; item on the Committee’s agenda. (ii) increasing the use of specialist networks of IUCN, especially WCPA, but also other 2. EVALUATION PROCESS relevant IUCN Commissions and specialist networks; In carrying out the technical evaluation of nominations IUCN is guided by the Operational Guidelines to the (iii) working in support of the UNESCO World World Heritage Convention. The evaluation process is Heritage Centre and States Parties to examine carried out over the period of one year, from the how IUCN can creatively and effectively receipt of nominations at IUCN in March and the support the World Heritage Convention and submission of the IUCN evaluation report to the World individual properties as “flagships” for Heritage Centre in May of the following year. The conservation; and process outlined at the end of this introduction involves the following steps: (iv) increasing the level of effective partnership between IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, 1. External Review. The nomination is sent to ICOMOS and ICCROM. independent experts knowledgeable about the property or its natural values, including Members of the expert network of WCPA carry out the members of WCPA, other IUCN specialist majority of technical evaluation missions, supported by commissions and scientific networks or NGOs other specialists where appropriate. The WCPA working in the region. IUCN received almost network now totals more than 1700 protected area 130 external reviews in relation to the managers and specialists from 140 countries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Habitat Fragmentation of the Kwazulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld, a Threatened Ecosystem
    Bothalia - African Biodiversity & Conservation ISSN: (Online) 2311-9284, (Print) 0006-8241 Page 1 of 10 Original Research Assessing habitat fragmentation of the KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld, a threatened ecosystem Authors: Background: The KwaZulu-Natal Sandstone Sourveld (KZN SS) is a grassland ecosystem 1 Rowan Naicker categorised as endangered by the terms of the National Environmental Management: Mathieu Rouget1 Onisimo Mutanga1 Biodiversity Act (Act 10 of 2004). Pressure from urbanisation has led to the remaining areas of the KZN SS being physically fragmented, causing low connectivity levels which have Affiliations: diminished the biological persistence of this ecosystem. 1School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Objectives: This study aimed to quantify the overall level of habitat fragmentation of the KZN University of KwaZulu-Natal, SS and determine the level of connectivity within the ecosystem, and patches of the KZN SS South Africa occurring in the eThekwini Municipal area. Using graph theory, we compared the effectiveness Research Project no.: of broad-scale and fine-scale data sets in quantifying habitat fragmentation. NRF grant no 84157 Methods: The Conefor Sensinode software, which employs the bases of graph theory, was Corresponding author: chosen to aid in assessing fragmentation levels. The integral index of connectivity (IIC) (values Mathieu Rouget, range from 0 to 1, with 1 highlighting optimal connectivity) was chosen as the best index to [email protected] determine landscape connectivity. Dates: Results: The KZN SS was shown to be highly fragmented, especially at dispersal distances less Received: 23 May 2016 than 500 m. This resulted in very low connectivity levels, with the highest IIC value recorded Accepted: 19 Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Ezemvelo Kwazulu-Natal Wildlife
    EZEMVELO KWAZULU-NATAL WILDLIFE 2021 APPLICATION HUNTING PACKAGES (for South African citizens only – Not for resale) FOR NTININI CONTROLLED HUNTING AREA 1 NATURAL RESOURCE TRADE DIVISION 2021 APPLICATION HUNTING PACKAGES FOR NTININI CONTROLLED HUNTING AREA NB: PLEASE FAMILIARISE YOURSELF WITH THE FOLLOWING ENCLOSED DOCUMENTS: APPLICATION PROCEDURES CONDITIONS OF ENTRY AND CODE OF CONDUCT Please note for all hunts: a. Maximum of two hunters and two non-hunters per package. b. Only 1 (one) hunt will take place at a time. c. All hunts are four nights – leave on morning of the fifth day. d. Cost per application: R50.00 each (Non – refundable). e. All hunts are available for local amateur hunters who are paid up members of an amateur hunting association and have been proficiency graded, (not “bona 2 fide” hunting status) both in theory and practical aspects. Copies of certificates to this effect must be attached to the applications. f. These hunts are not for re-sale and should the applicant not take up the hunt, it will be offered to the next person on the waiting list. g. These are non-trophy hunts. h. No Quad Bikes or Recreational Vehicles will be allowed in the hunting area. Only 4 x 4 LDV’s will be allowed in the hunting area. i. All hunters must contact the Conservation Manager: Mr Raymond Zikhali on 082 921 5272 before arriving at the Reserve. j. No cold room or skinning facilities are provided. Hunters are requested to make their own arrangements for the cold storage of carcasses during the hunt. DETAILS OF HUNTING PACKAGES Mixed Hunts Number NA1 Number Species Sex Each Total 4 Impala Males 1 800 7 200 1 Blue Wildebeest Males 4 000 4 000 1 Kudu Male 6 000 6 000 1 Blesbok Male 2 000 2 000 Sub Total 19 200 Accommodation 4 000 Guiding Fee 600 Total 23 800 50% Deposit of above total is payable on confirmation of the hunt.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural History and Conservation Genetics of the Federally Endangered Mitchell’S Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii
    NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm A DISSRETATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Entomology Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior – Dual Major 2012 ABSTRACT NATURAL HISTORY AND CONSERVATION GENETICS OF THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED MITCHELL’S SATYR BUTTERFLY, NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII By Christopher Alan Hamm The Mitchell’s satyr butterfly, Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii, is a federally endangered species with protected populations found in Michigan, Indiana, and wherever else populations may be discovered. The conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr began to be called into question when populations of a phenotypically similar butterfly were discovered in the eastern United States. It is unclear if these recently discovered populations are N. m. mitchellii and thus warrant protection. In order to clarify the conservation status of the Mitchell’s satyr I first acquired sample sizes large enough for population genetic analysis I developed a method of non- lethal sampling that has no detectable effect on the survival of the butterfly. I then traveled to all regions in which N. mitchellii is known to be extant and collected genetic samples. Using a variety of population genetic techniques I demonstrated that the federally protected populations in Michigan and Indiana are genetically distinct from the recently discovered populations in the southern US. I also detected the presence of the reproductive endosymbiotic bacterium Wolbachia, and surveyed addition Lepidoptera of conservation concern. This survey revealed that Wolbachia is a real concern for conservation managers and should be addressed in management plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Wildlife in African Landscapes Kenya’S Ewaso Ecosystem
    Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press smithsonian contributions to zoology • number 632 Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press AConserving Chronology Wildlife of Middlein African Missouri Landscapes Plains Kenya’sVillage Ewaso SitesEcosystem Edited by NicholasBy Craig J. M. Georgiadis Johnson with contributions by Stanley A. Ahler, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Emphasis upon publication as a means of “diffusing knowledge” was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: “It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge.” This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, com- mencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Smithsonian Contributions to Botany Smithsonian Contributions to History and Technology Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to Museum Conservation Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report on the research and collections of its various museums and bureaus. The Smithsonian Contributions Series are distributed via mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institu- tions throughout the world. Manuscripts submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press from authors with direct affilia- tion with the various Smithsonian museums or bureaus and are subject to peer review and review for compliance with manuscript preparation guidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Hylomyscus Denniae Group (Rodentia: Muridae) in Eastern Africa, with Comments on the Generic Allocation of Epimys Endorobae Heller
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 119(2):293–325. 2006. Review of the Hylomyscus denniae group (Rodentia: Muridae) in eastern Africa, with comments on the generic allocation of Epimys endorobae Heller Michael D. Carleton, Julian C. Kerbis Peterhans, and William T. Stanley (MDC) Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-0108, U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]; (JKP) University College, Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.; Department of Zoology, Division of Mammals, The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]; (WTS) Department of Zoology, Division of Mammals, The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—The status and distribution of eastern African populations currently assigned to Hylomyscus denniae are reviewed based on morpho- logical and morphometric comparisons. Three species are considered valid, each confined largely to wet montane forest above 2000 meters: H. denniae (Thomas, 1906) proper from the Ruwenzori Mountains in the northern Albertine Rift (west-central Uganda and contiguous D. R. Congo); H. vulcanorum Lo¨nnberg & Gyldenstolpe, 1925 from mountains in the central Albertine Rift (southwestern Uganda, easternmost D. R. Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi); and H. endorobae (Heller, 1910) from mountains bounding the Gregory Rift Valley (west-central Kenya). Although endorobae has been interpreted as a small form of Praomys, additional data are presented that reinforce its membership within Hylomyscus and that clarify the status of Hylomyscus and Praomys as distinct genus-group taxa. The 12 species of Hylomyscus now currently recognized are provisionally arranged in six species groups (H.
    [Show full text]
  • Fragmentation and Seed Dispersal in Freshwater Wetlands
    Fragmentation and seed dispersal in freshwater wetlands Fragmentatie en zaadverspreiding in zoetwaterwetlands ISBN: 978-94-6108-290-9 Cover: Hester Soomers Grafische vormgeving: Gildeprint Enschede Figuren: Geomedia, Faculteit Geowetenschappen, Universiteit Utrecht Foto’s: Hester Soomers Printed by: Gildeprint, Enschede Printed on FSC certified paper © 2012 Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden verveelvoudigd, opgeslagen in een geautomatiseerd gegevensbestand, of openbaar gemaakt, in enige vorm of op enig wijze, hetzij elektronisch, mechanisch, door fotokopieën, opnamen, of op enig andere manier, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de rechthebbende. Fragmentation and seed dispersal in freshwater wetlands Fragmentatie en zaadverspreiding in zoetwaterwetlands (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. G.J. van der Zwaan, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op woensdag 30 mei 2012 des middags te 4.15 uur door Hester Soomers geboren op 5 augustus 1977 te Heerlen Promotoren: Prof.dr. M.J. Wassen Prof.dr. J.T.A. Verhoeven Co-promotor: Dr. P.A. Verweij CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 7 Chapter 2 The effect of habitat fragmentation and abiotic factors on fen plant occurrence 29 Chapter 3 Factors influencing the seed source and sink functions of a floodplain nature reserve in the Netherlands 51 Chapter 4 The dispersal and deposition of hydrochorous
    [Show full text]
  • Spore Dispersal Vectors
    Glime, J. M. 2017. Adaptive Strategies: Spore Dispersal Vectors. Chapt. 4-9. In: Glime, J. M. Bryophyte Ecology. Volume 1. 4-9-1 Physiological Ecology. Ebook sponsored by Michigan Technological University and the International Association of Bryologists. Last updated 3 June 2020 and available at <http://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/bryophyte-ecology/>. CHAPTER 4-9 ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES: SPORE DISPERSAL VECTORS TABLE OF CONTENTS Dispersal Types ............................................................................................................................................ 4-9-2 Wind Dispersal ............................................................................................................................................. 4-9-2 Splachnaceae ......................................................................................................................................... 4-9-4 Liverworts ............................................................................................................................................. 4-9-5 Invasive Species .................................................................................................................................... 4-9-5 Decay Dispersal............................................................................................................................................ 4-9-6 Animal Dispersal .......................................................................................................................................... 4-9-9 Earthworms ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE the Sonoran Desert Has 2,000 Endemic Plant Species—More Than Anywhere Else in North America
    in the shadow of the wall: borderlands conservation hotspots on the line Borderlands Conservation Hotspot 2. Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE The Sonoran Desert has 2,000 endemic plant species—more than anywhere else in North America. hink deserts are wastelands? A visit to one of the national monuments or national wildlife refuges in the Sonoran Desert could change your mind. These borderlands are teeming with plants and animals impressively adapted to extreme conditions. T During your visit you might encounter a biologist, a volunteer or a local activist in awe of the place and dedicated to protecting it. The Sonoran Desert is so important to the natural heritage of the United States and Mexico that both countries are vested in conservation lands and programs and on a joint mission to preserve it. “A border wall,” says one conservation coalition leader, “harms our mission” (Campbell 2017). The Sonoran Desert is one of the largest intact wild areas mountains, where they find nesting cavities and swoop in the country, 100,387 square miles stretching across the between cactuses and trees to hunt lizards and other prey. southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. This Rare desert bighorn sheep stick to the steep, rocky slopes of desert is renowned for columnar cactuses like saguaro, organ isolated desert mountain ranges where they keep a watchful pipe and cardón. Lesser known is the fact that the Sonoran eye for predators. One of the most endangered mammals in Desert has more endemic plant species—2,000—than North America, Sonoran pronghorn still occasionally cross anywhere else in North America (Nabhan 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • Forests Warranting Further Consideration As Potential World
    Forest Protected Areas Warranting Further Consideration as Potential WH Forest Sites: Summaries from Various and Thematic Regional Analyses (Compendium produced by Marc Patry, for the proceedings of the 2nd World Heritage Forest meeting, held at Nancy, France, March 11-13, 2005) Four separate initiatives have been carried out in the past 10 years in an effort to help guide the process of identifying and nominating new WH Forest sites. The first, carried out by Thorsell and Sigaty (1997), addresses forests worldwide, and was developed based on the authors’ shared knowledge of protected forests worldwide. The second focuses exclusively on tropical forests and was assembled by the participants at the 1998 WH Forest meeting in Berastagi, Indonesia (CIFOR, 1999). A third initiative consists of potential boreal forest sites developed by the participants to an expert meeting on boreal forests, held in St. Petersberg in 2003. Finally, a fourth, carried out jointly between UNEP and IUCN applied a more systematic approach (IUCN, 2004). Though aiming at narrowing the field of potential candidate sites, these initiatives do not automatically imply that all of the listed forest areas would meet the criteria for inscription on the WH List, and conversely, nor do they imply that any site left off the list would not meet these criteria. Since these lists were developed, several of the proposed sites have been inscribed on the WH List, while others have been the subject of nominations, but were not inscribed, for various reasons. The lists below are reproduced here in an effort to facilitate access to this information and to guide future nomination initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Putorana Plateau - 2014 Conservation Outlook Assessment (Archived)
    IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Putorana Plateau - 2014 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) IUCN Conservation Outlook Assessment 2014 (archived) Finalised on 25 May 2014 Please note: this is an archived Conservation Outlook Assessment for Putorana Plateau. To access the most up-to-date Conservation Outlook Assessment for this site, please visit https://www.worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org. Putorana Plateau عقوملا تامولعم Country: Russian Federation Inscribed in: 2010 Criteria: (vii) (ix) This site coincides with the area of the Putoransky State Nature Reserve, and is located in the central part of the Putorana Plateau in northern Central Siberia. It is situated about 100 km north of the Arctic Circle. The part of the plateau inscribed on the World Heritage List harbours a complete set of subarctic and arctic ecosystems in an isolated mountain range, including pristine taiga, forest tundra, tundra and arctic desert systems, as well as untouched cold-water lake and river systems. A major reindeer migration route crosses the property, which represents an exceptional, large-scale and increasingly rare natural phenomenon. © UNESCO صخلملا 2014 Conservation Outlook Good Because of its remoteness, inaccessibility, low population density and low level of infrastructure development (with resulting limited anthropogenic threats), as well as its overall effective protection and management regime, this property has one of the best conservation outlooks of all natural World Heritage sites in the Russian Federation.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographical Names and Sustainable Tourism
    No. 59 NOVEMBERNo. 59 NOVEMBER 2020 2020 Geographical Names and Sustainable Tourism Socio- Institutional cultural Sustainable Tourism Economic Environmental Table of Contents The Information Bulletin of the United Nations MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRPERSON ............................................... 3 Group of Experts on Geographical Names (formerly Reconsidérer notre mobilité ......................................................... 3 UNGEGN Newsletter) is issued twice a year by the Secretariat of the Group of Experts. The Secretariat Reconsider our mobility ............................................................... 4 is served by the Statistics Division (UNSD), MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARIAT ................................................. 5 Department for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Secretariat of the United Nations. Contributions “Geographical names and sustainable tourism ............................ 5 and reports received from the Experts of the Group, IN MEMORIAM ................................................................................ 7 its Linguistic/Geographical Divisions and its Working Groups are reviewed and edited jointly by the Danutė Janė Mardosienė (1947-2020) ........................................ 7 Secretariat and the UNGEGN Working Group on SPECIAL FEATURE: GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES AND SUSTAINABLE Publicity and Funding. Contributions for the TOURISM ......................................................................................... 9 Information Bulletin can only be considered when they are made
    [Show full text]
  • National Reports on Wetlands in South China Sea
    United Nations UNEP/GEF South China Sea Global Environment Environment Programme Project Facility “Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand” National Reports on Wetlands in South China Sea First published in Thailand in 2008 by the United Nations Environment Programme. Copyright © 2008, United Nations Environment Programme This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publicationas a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP/GEF Project Co-ordinating Unit, United Nations Environment Programme, UN Building, 2nd Floor Block B, Rajdamnern Avenue, Bangkok 10200, Thailand. Tel. +66 2 288 1886 Fax. +66 2 288 1094 http://www.unepscs.org DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of UNEP or the GEF. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP, of the GEF, or of any cooperating organisation concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, of its authorities, or of the delineation of its territories or boundaries. Cover Photo: A vast coastal estuary in Koh Kong Province of Cambodia. Photo by Mr. Koch Savath. For citation purposes this document may be cited as: UNEP, 2008.
    [Show full text]