Doñana National Park
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
- Crop production
- Management systems/ management plan
- Pollution of marine waters
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Restoration work after mining accident in 1998; Agriculture impacts; Extension of the National Park
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**
UNESCO Reactive monitoring mission in November 1998; subsequent joint IUCN/UNESCO and Ramsar Convention missions to each of the Doñana 2005 expert meetings on Hydrological Restoration of Wetlands (1999, 2001 and 2004).
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005
By letter of 31 January 2005, the State Party submitted the proposal to extend the boundaries of the property in order to adjust them to the enlargement of the National Park under Spanish law.
In October 2004, the 3rd Expert Meeting on Hydrological Restoration of Wetlands took place in Huelva, Spain, giving both an update report on the Doñana 2005 programme and the possibility to visit the site. The rehabilitation activities in and around the park continue to be focussed on the implementation of the Doñana 2005 programme with the re-establishment of a balanced ecosystem after the 1998 mining accident. Three out of eight sub-projects are still underway so that the programme is likely to extend beyond 2005.
The buffer zone of the World Heritage property is an anthropogenic transformed landscape consisting of a patchwork of more or less intensely used farmland. The use of subterranean water constitutes another problem, which is particularly evident for the rice cultures near Matalascañas in the South-East of the park. As long as intensive agricultural practices remain intense, the ecosystem and particularly the water quality of Doñana continue to be negatively affected. Regarding the project to enlarge the harbour of Sevilla and to deepen the riverbed of the Guadalquivir to allow for bigger ships to access it, the State Party considered it of only peripheral impact on the park’s ecosystem, if at all, due to the dike between the park and the river.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7B.25
Doñana National Park (Spain)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.27 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Thanks the State Party of Spain for its report and the submission of the extension of the boundaries; and
4. Commends the State Party for the continued restoration efforts made in the framework of “Doñana 2005”;
5. Requests the State Party to keep the Committee informed on a bi-annual basis on the state of conservation of the property, including the progress made in the restoration work.
29 COM 8B.16
Minor Modifications to the boundaries (Doñana National Park )
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Documents WHC-05/29.COM/8B, WHC-05/29.COM/8B.Add 2 and WHC-05/29.COM/INF.8B.2,
2. Decides to extend Doñana National Park (Spain) to bring the boundaries of the World Heritage property in line with the extended National Park; thus the total area of the World Heritage property will be 54,251.7 ha;
3. Commends the State Party of Spain for its efforts to enhance the protection and management of the property.
Draft Decision: 29 COM 7B.25
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.27 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Thanks the State Party for its report and the submission of the extension of the boundaries; and
4. Commends it for the continued restoration efforts made in the framework of Doñana 2005;
5. Requests the State Party to keep the Committee informed on a bi-annual basis on the state of conservation of the property on the progress made in the restoration work.
Spain
* :
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.
