Area de Conservación Guanacaste

• Financial resources
• Fishing/collecting aquatic resources (weak control over commercial and artisanal fishing)
• Ground transportation infrastructure (Pan-American Highway that bisects the property)
• Human resources
• Illegal activities
• Invasive/alien terrestrial species
• Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
• Renewable energy facilities (Las Pailas I and II geothermal and windpower projects development adjacent to the property)
• Water extraction
• Other Threats: fire (intentional and accidental fires, particularly affecting the dry forests); longstanding subsistence and commercial use of land and resources, prior to inscription on the World Heritage List, with impacts stemming from farming, ranching, logging, pesticide use, introduction of exotic species, sulphur mining, amongst others

From 24 to 29 January 2018, a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN Reactive Monitoring mission visited the property. On 30 November 2018, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report providing the following information (both the State Party report and the mission report are available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/928/documents):

• Highlighting the policy to base the national energy matrix exclusively on renewable sources, the development of geothermal projects in the immediate vicinity of the property is described as a successful attempt to balance and harmonize biodiversity conservation and the promotion of renewable energy;
• The legal framework excludes the possibility of productive activities or infrastructure inside protected areas for purposes other than conservation management;
• Governmental funding constraints are acknowledged, and funding is supplemented by the legal option to enter into cooperation agreements with non-profit conservation organizations and efforts to access innovative conservation funding;
• Capture of yellow-naped parrots (Amazona auropallita) for the pet trade is effectively addressed by a combination of law enforcement and environmental education;
• While research on the mass nesting of Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) is still not fully conclusive, there is no evidence that local factors play a major role in population dynamics. Monitoring and management strategies for the species are in place;
• Costa Rica’s legal and policy approach to divide its terrestrial environment into 11 “conservation areas” is proposed as a suitable alternative to a buffer zone;
• Additional activities include cooperation with fire-fighting brigades of neighbouring communities as part of the property’s Fire Management Program; environmental education in schools of neighbouring communities; and control of illegal activities in the transition to the adjacent agricultural-landscape.

On 11 December 2018, the State Party submitted the full text of a resolution (Resolución Ref. JD-CNC-002-2018) unanimously adopted by the Board of Directors of the governmental National Council for Concessions (CNC). The resolution refers to a private sector initiative to construct a transportation corridor between the two coasts of Costa Rica, known as the Interoceanic Dry Canal (or Canal Seco, in Spanish). The resolution declares the proposal null and void due to non-compliance with numerous mandatory procedural requirements designed to determine the legal, technical, economic and environmental feasibility and public interest.

It became clear during the 2018 Reactive Monitoring mission that the proposal to construct and operate the Interoceanic Dry Canal project within the property directly contradicted applicable legislation and basic World Heritage expectations. It is therefore welcomed that the administrative procedures have been declared null and void. Given previous proposals to modify the legal framework in order to permit excision of land from protected areas to enable infrastructure construction, it will be important for the State Party to continue to ensure that the property is off-limits to industrial development infrastructure, including renewable energy facilities and associated infrastructure, as foreseen under national legislation.

Noting that renewable energy can often conflict with conservation objectives, and while geothermal energy development in the immediate vicinity of a protected area may well be an acceptable societal trade-off, the decision-making process in the case of the property remains unclear. No impact assessments considering the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property appear to have been conducted for the existing and planned geothermal projects. It is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to assess actual and potential impacts of existing and planned geothermal development and associated infrastructure, and engage in systematic monitoring.

The State Party provides no information on wind energy development, despite the mission report’s reference to the projects near the property that have not undergone any assessment relating to the OUV. It is recommended that the State Party be reminded that any new project should undergo a comprehensive assessment of potential impacts on the OUV.

Similarly, the State Party provides no information on the Pan-American Highway crossing the property. Options to reduce the impacts of this existing road should be considered, including the improvement of National Road 4 as an alternative route and any upgrade would require careful assessment of possible impacts on the OUV.

It is further noted that the existing impact assessments on the different renewable energy projects and other projects in the surrounding landscape fail to capture their cumulative impacts of development. It is therefore recommended that a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) be undertaken in line with the IUCN World Heritage Advice Note on Environmental Assessment.

Promising avenues to broaden and diversify conservation funding include Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes and further negotiation with renewable energy actors. The State Party should be encouraged to continue pursuing adequate and reliable funding to support further consolidation of the commendable management and protection efforts.

The surface area of the inscribed property is smaller than the wider area referred to as the Conservation Area (or “protected block”) in the Management Plan. The submission of a Minor Boundary Modification is recommended in order to add a consistent layer of protection. The recently designated Bahía Santa Elena Marine Management Area could likewise be incorporated into the property via the same procedure and for the same reasons.

The State Party’s approach to embed protected areas in much larger spatial management units is acknowledged as compatible with the understanding of buffer zones in the Operational Guidelines. However, the mission report noted that the full potential of the legal and policy framework remains to be realized on land and to be extended to the marine parts of the property. It is recommended that the Committee encourage the State Party to increase the investment in the implementation of its exemplary framework to increase the effectiveness of a de facto buffer zone.