<
 
 
 
 
×
>
You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) using Archive-It. This page was captured on 05:29:50 Mar 25, 2023, and is part of the UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page.
Loading media information hide

Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

Alejandro de Humboldt National Park

Cuba
Factors affecting the property in 2007*
  • Mining
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2007
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2007**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2007

The original nomination file for this property was considered by the World Heritage Bureau during its 23rd session in July 1999. In the IUCN evaluation report presented at that session, the existence of old and inactive mining concessions located near the area originally nominated by the State Party was clearly identified, and it was indicated that any activation of these concessions could lead to serious impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and its conditions of integrity, should it eventually be inscribed. Based on this, and other information, the Bureau:“... noted that Alejandro de Humboldt National Park is considered to meet natural criteria (ii) and (iv) but decided to defer the nomination to allow approval of the law expanding the Park and approval of an expanded boundary which links the currently isolated core zones. Until this law and this boundary is in place, the integrity of the site cannot be guaranteed.”

 
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2007

 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2007
31 COM 7B.37
Alexander von Humboldt National Park (Cuba)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.       Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,

2.       Reiterates its previous position that mining and oil/gas exploration and exploitation should not occur within the boundaries of a World Heritage property, endorsed by the International Council on Mining and Metals in its Position Statement on Mining and Protected Areas (2003);

3.       Reminds the State Party that any proposals for significant modifications to the boundaries of the property must be done in accordance with the provisions under Paragraph 165 of the Operational Guidelines;

4.       Taking note of the verbal clarification provided by the State Party at the 31st session of the Committee, requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2008, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property, including on the issues raised in its letter dated 18 January 2007 for clarifying the status of the proposed reactivation of mining concessions, for examination by the Committee at its 32nd session in 2008.

Draft Decision: 31 COM 7B.37

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-07/31.COM/7B,

2. Reiterates its previous position that mining and oil/gas exploration and exploitation should not occur within the boundaries of a World Heritage property,

3. Remindsthe State Party that any proposals for significant modifications to the boundaries of the property must be done in accordance with the provisions under Paragraph 165 of the Operational Guidelines.

4. Requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2008, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property, including on the issues raised in its letter dated 18 January 2007 for clarifying the status of the proposed reactivation of mining concessions, for examination by the Committee at its 32nd session in 2008.

Report year: 2007
Cuba
Date of Inscription: 2001
Category: Natural
Criteria: (ix)(x)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 31COM (2007)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top