Vredefort Dome

The site was inscribed in 2005 but owing to protracted delays in negotiations between the State Party and private landowners, a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was only signed in 2012 (State Party of South Africa, 2013). A State of Conservation report was released in 2015. Following gazetting of a Public Entity for the WH site by National Treasury in April 2015, a WH site Project Manager was appointed to accelerate the proclamation of the site, drawing up of the Conservation Regulations and establishment of the Management Authority. Drafts of both the Conservation and MA regulations were submitted, but consensus has not been reached among the landowner associations and negotiations continue (State Party of South Africa, 2016; IUCN consultation, 2014). It was confirmed that this remains the case to date with resistance amongst the landowners to the proclamation of the WH site (IUCN consultation, 2025).

Despite progress in the State Party's release of the State of Conservation report (State Party of South Africa, 2015) and drafts of both the Conservation Regulations and Management Authority Regulations that are necessary for the establishment of the Management Authority, some landowner associations have still not accepted all aspects of the Management Regulations (RSA, 2016). These regulations comply with national legislation and, until agreement is reached by all stakeholders, the WH site is not recognised in South African law. Negotiations are apparently continuing (State Party of South Africa, 2016, 2017; IUCN consultation, 2025). Although inscribed on the UNESCO WH list, the South African World Heritage Convention Act, 1999 only legally recognises a WH site if it has been inscribed in the UNESCO WH list and it has been proclaimed by the Minister by publication of a notice in the government gazette. As such, the Vredefort Dome WH site has no legal status in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act and is thus also not recognised as a protected area in terms of South Africa’s National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003. It therefore does not enjoy the protective provisions (e.g. prohibition of mining) of this Act.

The Management Authority has not yet been established (State Party of South Africa, 2013, 2016, 2017, 2021, IUCN consultation, 2025). As the Vredefort Dome WH site has not been proclaimed in terms of South Africa's World Heritage Convention Act, 1999, a management authority cannot be assigned to it. According to the State Party of South Africa (2021), interim arrangements involve management and annual reporting on the state of the WH site by the provincial authorities in the Free State and North West provinces facilitated by an interim Governmental Steering Committee. The effectiveness of the Management Authority, once it is established, will depend on a clear definition of its responsibilities, the availability of sufficient funding, and the strength of cooperation with existing organisations and institutions (UNESCO and IUCN, 2010). A particular challenge remains in the high proportion of private land ownership in the site, and the large numbers of landowners.

In support of spatial planning related to the WH site, the state has developed and published a Vredefort Dome Environmental Management Framework (EMF) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (No. 107 of 1998). EMFs give force to the powers of the Minister or a provincial member of the executive council (MEC) to identify geographical areas in which specified activities may not be commenced without prior authorisation from the Minister or the MEC. As such EMFs act as spatial screening mechanisms for environmental impact assessments (EIAs), provide a strategic context for EIA applications and inform strategic spatial planning. EMFs must thus be considered in other spatial planning tools such as spatial development frameworks developed at local government levels.

The State Party has initiated the process of modifying the property's buffer zone boundaries where they transect individual farms (State Party of South Africa, 2016). A decision was made by South Africa not to demarcate the boundaries of the three satellite sites, as their current good condition is in part due to their exact locations not being generally known (State Party of South Africa, 2013). There remains uncertainty about whether the boundaries of these three satellite sites have been legally defined (UNESCO, 2013). In addition, the boundaries provided at the time of nomination did not align with farm/cadastral boundaries which poses technical, legal and management challenges. Furthermore, it was discovered that areas of superlative value were not included within the property boundaries. To rectify this circumstance, the boundaries of the property will be re-evaluated and aligned to existing cadastral boundaries and the core area expanded to include areas of superlative value that were previously excluded (IUCN Consultation, 2020). Until the WH site is formally proclaimed in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999, its boundaries will not be formally legally defined. Such proclamations are accompanied by a schedule of properties to which the proclamation applies and a Surveyor General (SG) diagram when the boundaries deviate from the cadastral boundaries of the properties included.

There is no overlapping international designation, although the WHS straddles two provincial boundaries within South Africa. There are no overlapping Man and Biosphere Reserves and no overlapping Ramsar sites.

The State Party has pursued the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee related to the site in drawing up draft regulations for the site, however consensus with certain landowner associations has not yet been reached (State Party of South Africa, 2016; 2017; IUCN consultation, 2025). Consultation and/or dispute resolution is ongoing. As such the recommendations of the Committee regarding collaboration with landowners, clear legally defined boundaries, and the completion and implementation of the IMP, within two years of inscription, have not been undertaken.

As a formally approved IMP for the WH site has not been developed and adopted, no specific provisions would have been made to protect the OUV from the negative impacts of climate change. It must be noted however that climate change is unlikely to have significant impacts on the geological values.

The Vredefort Dome WH site does not have a formally approved integrated management plan (IMP). As such it is not clear how values have been identified, what management objectives and desired outcomes have been set and what the key threats are. There is thus no plan to guide management and to determine whether objectives are being achieved. The absence of a management authority further compounds the inability to manage the WH site and to develop additional effective management systems.

Without the WH site having been proclaimed in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act, 1999, without a management authority having been appointed and without an IMP having been prepared and formally approved, the ability to undertake law enforcement in the site is significantly compromised. The absence of a management authority means that staff cannot be trained and employed to undertake law enforcement activities and the statutory provisions of the World Heritage Convention Act and the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act cannot be enforced.

The State Party funded a Project Manager to speed up the site proclamation and establishment of the Management Authority (State Party of South Africa, 2016). However, the Management Authority is not yet operating (State Party of South Africa, 2016; IUCN consultation, 2025). There is insufficient information to assess the level of funding invested in the management of the World Heritage site within the current interim management arrangements. According to the latest Periodic Reporting submitted by the State Party, the site's budget is been managed from Head Office and not at the Vredefort Dome Project Management Office (State Party of South Africa, 2021). Local Government provide occasionally funding for projects, and according to the O.F.S. Landowners Association there has been no funding forthcoming from the Government (State Party of South Africa, 2021). Existing funding sources are not considered secure (State Party of South Africa, 2021). In terms of assessing the level of funding necessary to manage the site, this would be undertaken in preparing the IMP and it is unlikely that financial resources are adequate to implement the measures required to maintain the site's values.

Human resources partly meet the management needs of the World Heritage property (State Party of South Africa, 2021). As there is no management authority established or assigned to the WH site, there is no site-based capacity building plan or programme in place. Management of the property is implemented by external staff and skills are not transferred (state Party of South Africa, 2021).

In the absence of an operating Management Authority, there is as yet no formal education and awareness programme about the values of the site in place, although the ongoing interactions between stakeholders and the government have created significant awareness among stakeholders. Education and awareness is mostly done at the Venterskroon Information Centre (State Party of South Africa, 2021).

The Management Authority is not yet operating, and an overall tourism management plan is lacking. Given the preponderance of sites on private land, visitor access is largely controlled through a few locally-based tourism operators (State Party of South Africa, 2021) who, in general, appear to be minimising negative visitor impacts; however, no coherent site-based management or assessment/accreditation of the operators has been undertaken. The lack of a central operational Interpretation centre remains a major problem from the perspective of raising stakeholder awareness of site values and of growing visitor numbers and visitor awareness of site values (State Party of South Africa, 2016; 2013; UNESCO and IUCN, 2010; IUCN consultation, 2025). Steps have been taken to regulate illegal tourism infrastructure developments within the World Heritage Site primarily through the publication of the Vredefort EMF (State Party of South Africa, 2013; IUCN consultation, 2025).

Geological resources may be affected by research sampling or by vandalism or "souvenir taking" by visitors, which could damage key sites. The former is not yet regulated by permitting of researchers by a Scientific Board; the latter relies on the fact that most tourist visitors gain site access on privately-owned land under supervision of a limited number of tour guides, and numbers are relatively limited. Unsupervised visitor access to geological sites has the potential to cause direct impacts to the geological evidence that underpins the inscription of Vredefort Dome on the World Heritage List. Increased eco- and adventure tourism activity also has potential for environmental degradation. There is currently insufficient information available to assess the measures that are needed to regulate sustainable use of the WH site.

Monitoring of pollution of the Vaal River is in place, as well as monitoring of tourism developments to ensure compliance with environmental and development legislation (State Party of South Africa, 2013). No formal or regular monitoring of geological sites is being undertaken, but researchers and guides do exchange information in this regard.

The recognition the WH status is based on more than a century of research, which continues. Vetting of research proposals and monitoring of geological sampling by a Scientific Advisory Board is still not possible as the Management Authority has not yet been constituted. Thus, no targeted geological research programme acknowledged and supported by the WHS structures exists. Many geological sites are visited each year by research groups, including international research groups, as well as student groups. Research in the site is mostly been done by the North West University on a annual basis by the Geology Department as part of student training (State Party of South Africa, 2021). Research results are not shared with the public and need to be requested from the university. Hammer marks are prevalent throughout the WH site. Limiting geological sample damage is thus largely dependent on individual researchers. Archaeological research in the site operates under its own national and international norms and standards and, thus, is highly effectively managed. As with recreational visitors, the absence of regulation and monitoring of researchers, there is a risk that geological and other phenomena may be removed from the site for private or institutional (university) collections. In addition, there is a concern that geological sampling and analysis may compound the mining threat to the property.

The Management Authority has not been appointed (State Party of South Africa, 2017; IUCN consultation, 2025). Once the Management Authority becomes operational, its effectiveness in addressing threats outside the property will depend on the strength of collaboration with relevant authorities, institutions, and organisations. As the WH site has not been legally proclaimed within South Africa and an IMP has not been prepared or approved the ability to manage threats outside the site and to establish agreed buffer areas is compromised.

The WH site is not legally proclaimed in terms of South Africa's World Heritage Convention Act and is not recognised as a protected area in terms of South Africa's National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act. Because of its lack of legal status, no Management Authority has been assigned to it, and no integrated management plan has been prepared or approved. The only control that can be exerted in influencing land use in the WH site is through the Vredefort EMF, which is largely reactionary triggering the need for environmental impact assessments associated with specified activities. As such, there is little to no management and governance that addresses threats inside the site.