Lorentz National Park
Country
Indonesia
Inscribed in
1999
Criteria
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "significant concern" in the latest assessment cycle. Explore the Conservation Outlook Assessment for the site below. You have the option to access the summary, or the detailed assessment.
Lorentz National Park (2.35 million ha) is the largest protected area in South-East Asia. It is the only protected area in the world to incorporate a continuous, intact transect from snowcap to tropical marine environment, including extensive lowland wetlands. Located at the meeting-point of two colliding continental plates, the area has a complex geology with ongoing mountain formation as well as major sculpting by glaciation. The area also contains fossil sites which provide evidence of the evolution of life on New Guinea, a high level of endemism and the highest level of biodiversity in the region.
© UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Significant concern
Current state and trend of VALUES
High Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Graphic evidence of tectonic collision and uplift strata and the geomorphological effect of the last glacial and post-glacial periods
Criterion
(viii)
LNP has a complex geological structure and is an extraordinary graphic evidence of major elements of the earth’s evolution. The national park’s main mountain range i.e. the Pegunungan Maoke is the direct result of the collision of the Australian tectonic plate with the Pacific plate. Massive marine sediments, comprising mainly limestone and sandstone, have been rapidly uplifted to produce a major cordillera (network of mountain ranges) although of recent origin. This uplift is ongoing (World Heritage Committee, 2013; IUCN, 1999).
The LNP also illustrates the geomorphological effect of the last glacial (Ice Age) and post-glacial period (Holocene Epoch). The main mountain range shows all the evidence of glaciation, including glacial lakes and moraines. Lorentz retains vestigial evidence of the last glaciation with 4 or 5 small remnant glaciers, all retreating rapidly under the present climate warming (World Heritage Committee, 2013; IUCN, 1999). There appears to be no better example of the combined effect of collision of tectonic plates with the secondary major sculpting by glaciation and post glacial events (shoreline accretion). Analogues of this do extend across much of the southern side of the island of New Guinea but only Lorentz retains its glaciers and is a protected area (IUCN, 1999).
The LNP also illustrates the geomorphological effect of the last glacial (Ice Age) and post-glacial period (Holocene Epoch). The main mountain range shows all the evidence of glaciation, including glacial lakes and moraines. Lorentz retains vestigial evidence of the last glaciation with 4 or 5 small remnant glaciers, all retreating rapidly under the present climate warming (World Heritage Committee, 2013; IUCN, 1999). There appears to be no better example of the combined effect of collision of tectonic plates with the secondary major sculpting by glaciation and post glacial events (shoreline accretion). Analogues of this do extend across much of the southern side of the island of New Guinea but only Lorentz retains its glaciers and is a protected area (IUCN, 1999).
Fossil evidence of post Pleistocene mammal extinctions.
Criterion
(viii)
Fossils, particularly from the Pleistocene and Holocene are evidence of post Pleistocene mammal extinctions. These fossil sites are exceptionally valuable as the main sources of evidence of mammal species that have only recently become extinct (State Party of Indonesia, 1999).
The central northern area of the national park has extensive fossil deposits which provide a major evidence of the evolution of life on the New Guinea Island. Some of the fossil sites such as the Kelangurr Cave) are of international significance. And many fossils cover many now extinct species which were endemic to New Guinea such as Protemnodon hopei, a large extinct member of the kangaroo family along with Maokopia ronaldi- a large panda like marsupial of the sub-alpine grasslands (State Party of Indonesia, 1998); IUCN, 1999).
The central northern area of the national park has extensive fossil deposits which provide a major evidence of the evolution of life on the New Guinea Island. Some of the fossil sites such as the Kelangurr Cave) are of international significance. And many fossils cover many now extinct species which were endemic to New Guinea such as Protemnodon hopei, a large extinct member of the kangaroo family along with Maokopia ronaldi- a large panda like marsupial of the sub-alpine grasslands (State Party of Indonesia, 1998); IUCN, 1999).
A centre of on-going ecological and biological evolution
Criterion
(ix)
Lorentz National Park provides evidence of highly developed endemism in both plants and animals, especially for the higher altitudes of the mountains, as expected in a region combining on-going uplift and climatic warming (World Heritage Committee, 2013). The major mountain building uplift to form the central cordillera of the large island of New Guinea is believed to have played a major role in driving relatively rapid biological evolution of species, especially of mammal and bird species. New Guinea is the centre of diversity of the highly distinctive tree kangaroo group with 15 of the recognized 17 taxa being confined to New Guinea. Lorentz is primary habitat for two species, including the most recently discovered and most unusual species, the ground inhabiting Dingiso, Dendrolagus mbaiso. The world famous Birds of Paradise evolved in Australia but underwent major evolutionary radiation in New Guinea to the point where they now have species represented across almost the full altitudinal range on the island. Similarly, the honeyeaters show evidence of a major radiation (State Party of Indonesia, 1999).
Diversity of habitats
Criterion
(x)
Lorentz, with altitudes ranging from 4884 metres to sea level and below, incorporates the greatest altitudinal range, and hence habitat diversity, on the island of New Guinea, indeed the Australian continental plate – from tropical ice cap to tropical sea - making it a globally unique attribute. Furthermore, this transect comprises a continuum of protected intact habitats. Habitats range from limited areas of alpine zone to the very extensive lowland coastal wetlands and mangrove systems.
The national park is one of the world’s great wilderness, comprising two main biomes-lowland and highland. The swampy lowlands of the southern half border with mangrove swamps in the Arafura Sea between New Guinea and Australia. The highlands in the north are 210 km of the glaciated snow-capped mountains of Pegunungan Maoke, comprising of Sudirman Range in the west and Jayawijaya Range in the east. This gradient within a single protected area from sea coast to snow-capped tropical peaks is exceptional (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).
The continuous ecological transect provides a continuum of protected intact habitats. The coastal plain has extensive areas of wetlands, including mangroves along the coast, tidal and freshwater swamp and riparian forests, sedgelands, Pandamus and sago palm formations, and permanently and seasonally flooded peat swamp forests. Lowland rain forest-the richest community, occurs up to 1,000 meters. Lower montane rainforest, which is less rich in tree species occurs between 1,000 meters and 3,000 meters. An abrupt change in vegetation occurs at 3,000 meters. Tree, ferns, bogs, grasslands, and heath vegetation predominate, until at 4,000 meters the alpine zone is reached (IUCN, 1999).
The national park is one of the world’s great wilderness, comprising two main biomes-lowland and highland. The swampy lowlands of the southern half border with mangrove swamps in the Arafura Sea between New Guinea and Australia. The highlands in the north are 210 km of the glaciated snow-capped mountains of Pegunungan Maoke, comprising of Sudirman Range in the west and Jayawijaya Range in the east. This gradient within a single protected area from sea coast to snow-capped tropical peaks is exceptional (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).
The continuous ecological transect provides a continuum of protected intact habitats. The coastal plain has extensive areas of wetlands, including mangroves along the coast, tidal and freshwater swamp and riparian forests, sedgelands, Pandamus and sago palm formations, and permanently and seasonally flooded peat swamp forests. Lowland rain forest-the richest community, occurs up to 1,000 meters. Lower montane rainforest, which is less rich in tree species occurs between 1,000 meters and 3,000 meters. An abrupt change in vegetation occurs at 3,000 meters. Tree, ferns, bogs, grasslands, and heath vegetation predominate, until at 4,000 meters the alpine zone is reached (IUCN, 1999).
Diversity of species
Criterion
(x)
Despite limited surveys, LNP has been recognized as an area of exceptional species diversity. Leading mammalogists have identified it as the most important region for mammal diversity in the Australia-Pacific region. The park is home to approximately 120 mammal species, representing 80% of the total mammalian fauna of Irian Jaya (renamed as Western New Guinea) (IUCN, 1999; LNP Management Authority, 2018). The national park overlaps with more than 5% of the range of 46 mammal species, including two that occur nowhere else, and eight that have more than half their range inside the park (Saout, et al., 2013). Notable mammal species include two tree kangaroos—the endangered Dingiso (Dendrolagus mbaiso) and the vulnerable Doria’s tree kangaroo (Dendrolagus dorianus) (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). The park is also home to two of the world’s three monotremes—the short-beaked echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus) and the long-beaked echidna (Zaglossus bruijinii), the latter being endemic to New Guinea (World Heritage Committee, 2013).
The park’s reptile diversity is equally remarkable, with 324 recorded species alongside 90 amphibian species (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Its swamplands provide habitat for two threatened crocodile species—the estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) (EN) and the New Guinea crocodile (Crocodylus novaeguineae) (VU) (IUCN, 1999). The rare and protected Boelen’s python (Morelia boeleni), endemic to New Guinea, is known only from scattered locations on the island, particularly in the Sudirman Range at altitudes between 1,000 and 2,000 meters (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). The rare Fly River turtle (Carettochelys insculpta) reaches the western edge of its distribution within the park, while the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) are known to feed in the park’s mudflats and seagrass beds (State Party of Indonesia, 1998; Claudino-Sales, 2018). Lorentz’s freshwater ecosystems are estimated to support over 100 species of freshwater fish (UNEP-WCMC, 2011; Claudino-Sales, 2018).
The park is equally rich in avian diversity, with 650 bird species recorded—representing 72% of Papua’s total bird species. This includes 31 species of parrot, 31 species of dove and pigeon, 29 species of sunbird, 13 species of kingfisher, at least 12 species of bird-of-paradise, 6 species of bowerbird, and 4 megapodes (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). LNP also contains significant portions of two Endemic Bird Areas—the Sudirman Range and the South Papuan lowlands. A total of 45 restricted range birds and 9 endemic bird species have been recorded from the park (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
The park’s reptile diversity is equally remarkable, with 324 recorded species alongside 90 amphibian species (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Its swamplands provide habitat for two threatened crocodile species—the estuarine crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) (EN) and the New Guinea crocodile (Crocodylus novaeguineae) (VU) (IUCN, 1999). The rare and protected Boelen’s python (Morelia boeleni), endemic to New Guinea, is known only from scattered locations on the island, particularly in the Sudirman Range at altitudes between 1,000 and 2,000 meters (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). The rare Fly River turtle (Carettochelys insculpta) reaches the western edge of its distribution within the park, while the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) are known to feed in the park’s mudflats and seagrass beds (State Party of Indonesia, 1998; Claudino-Sales, 2018). Lorentz’s freshwater ecosystems are estimated to support over 100 species of freshwater fish (UNEP-WCMC, 2011; Claudino-Sales, 2018).
The park is equally rich in avian diversity, with 650 bird species recorded—representing 72% of Papua’s total bird species. This includes 31 species of parrot, 31 species of dove and pigeon, 29 species of sunbird, 13 species of kingfisher, at least 12 species of bird-of-paradise, 6 species of bowerbird, and 4 megapodes (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). LNP also contains significant portions of two Endemic Bird Areas—the Sudirman Range and the South Papuan lowlands. A total of 45 restricted range birds and 9 endemic bird species have been recorded from the park (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
Rich montane flora with many endemic species and species with overlapping Gondwana and Asian links.
Criterion
(x)
Lorentz contains a substantial area of alpine, sub-alpine and montane habitat, the most extensive in New Guinea, which exhibits a rich diversity of plants which include many local endemics and many relictual Gondwanan species, including Gondwanan conifers with close relatives in temperate Gondwanan fragments in Tasmania, New Zealand and Chile. E.g. Dacrycarpus sp. and Papuacedrus sp.. The Rhododendron group of plants with recognized Asian links, has a centre of diversity in New Guinea with many local endemics and the group is well represented in Lorentz, including the world’s smallest Rhododendron, R.saxifragoides (State Party of Indonesia, 1999). The mountain-building process in the national park created temperate refuges in the tropics for ancient Gondwana species of plants that survived the rising global temperatures since the last ice age (IUCN, 1999). The alpine and sub-alpine environments of LNP are particularly significant in illustrating ancient Gondwanan biological linkages. Ancient conifer species such as Phyllocladus and Nothofagus, found in the temperate montane forests, exhibit clear biogeographical connections to Gondwana, sharing plant genera with southern Australia, New Zealand, and South America as well as with fossil material from Antarctica (IUCN, 1999) (PKHA, 2006). This remarkable presence of temperate vegetation within a tropical landscape highlights the park’s unique ecological value and its role in preserving ancient plant lineages (IUCN, 1999).
Rich cultural heritage
Although LNP was nominated solely for its natural heritage values, the park is rich in cultural heritage, serving as home to diverse Indigenous groups with long established traditions. The Indigenous population includes at least eight, possibly nine, tribal groups: Ndgua, Amungme (Damal), Nakai (Asmat Keenok), Sempan, West Dani, and Komoro. They have inhabited the national park area for over 24,000 years, fostering some of the world's most distinctive and long-isolated cultures. LNP preserves both hunter-gatherer traditions of the lowland peoples and the traditional agricultural practices of the highland communities. While all Indigenous groups within the park maintain connections with surrounding contemporary cultures, their traditions continue to evolve—some at a much faster pace than others (PKHA, 2006).
Superlative natural phenomena and scenic beauty
The LNP includes many areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance. The existence of a relic of a once much larger Pleistocene icecap in the tropics is a globally rare and superlative phenomena. The central mountain range, with its glaciated summit regions, glacial lakes, glaciated payments and huge rocky and rainforest clad escarpments on the precipitous southern fall, plunging dramatically for thousands of meters, represent exceptional natural beauty of global significance (PKHA, 2006).
The many large rivers and network of river channels on the southern lowlands represents one of the great natural lowland river systems of the region and constitutes a natural phenomenon of aesthetic importance (PKHA, 2006).
The many large rivers and network of river channels on the southern lowlands represents one of the great natural lowland river systems of the region and constitutes a natural phenomenon of aesthetic importance (PKHA, 2006).
Assessment information
LNP hosts a remarkable diversity of ecosystems, ranging from marine waters and mangroves of the Arafura Sea to the sub-alpine and alpine areas of the central Papuan mountains. This diversity of ecosystems supports high-levels of genetic and species richness. Many of these attributes, however, are under growing threat from multiple factors. The construction of the Trans-Papua Highway road segment through the sub-alpine, alpine and montane landscapes of the park has led to deforestation, destruction of wildlife habitats, degradation of peatlands near Lake Habbema, and reduction in the lake’s surface area-disrupting the park’s hydrological cycle. Since the opening of the road in 2018, illegal logging pressures have intensified. Increased road connectivity poses a significant risk of further habitat fragmentation from damaging land-use changes. Approximately, 19 mining concessions overlap with about 488 km² of the park, several of which lie in its interior. There is growing concern that the Trans-Papua Highway may provide easier access to these areas, potentially facilitating mineral extraction within the World Heritage Site. The presence of Nothofagus trees in the park’s temperate montane forests is a key component of its OUV, representing ancient Gondwanan plant lineages shared with southern Australia, New Zealand and Southern America. However, this ecological value is under threat from a dieback disease affecting Nothofagus trees. The dieback is suspected to be caused by fungal pathogen infestations potentially introduced through from road construction activities. However, causal linkage remains unproven, and other contributing factors have been suggested- including forest fires during dry seasons, damage by wood-boring beetles, natural species dynamics exacerbated by climate change, other environment stressors. Despite ongoing studies, definitive causes are yet to be established. Forest fires are another threat, particularly to the vulnerable montane and sub-alpine areas in the north. Regular uphill burning on steep slopes such as those above the Baliem Valley has already damaged forest areas in the valley and converted them into grasslands. Hunting, poaching and harvesting pressures also pose a serious threat to several species, including marsupials, cassowaries, birds-of-paradise, turtles, crocodiles, and snakes. The rare Boelen’s python is targeted for pet trade, which is concerning given its restricted distribution in New Guinea. Endangered montane mammals such as the Alpine Woolly Rat and Dingiso also face pressures from hunting. Invasive species also threaten native biodiversity. Several alien fish species—including Tilapia, Snakehead, Walking Catfish, and Climbing Perch—have been introduced in rivers adjoining the park. These species degrade habitats and outcompete native fish, such as the Asian Sea Bass, for space and food. Of particular concern is the distribution of Tilapia fish to the villages within the park, with unknown impacts on native aquatic biodiversity. Lastly, climate change poses a long-term threat to Lorentz’s ecosystems. The glacier near Puncak Jaya—one of only three remaining tropical glaciers in the world—is retreating rapidly due to rising global temperatures. If current trends continue, the glacier is likely to be severely threatened by 2029. This retreat is a stark indicator of global climate change and may lead to cascading ecological impacts, including increased vulnerability and inhabitation pressures in the park’s high-altitude zones.
Roads, Trails & Railroads
(Roads through the property)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
Lake Habbema Road: The 37 km Lake Habbema road was constructed in 1989—prior to the park’s inscription on the World Heritage List—to provide tourist access to Lake Habbema. The road passes through the Nothofagus montane forest and subalpine zone and reaches the alpine zone. Although the fragile glaciated landscape suffered damage due to road construction, the majority of the park’s landscapes remained intact. However, poor route selection, insensitive construction techniques, and lack of maintenance have led to ongoing erosion and rockfalls, contributing to environmental degradation in the vicinity of the road and further downslope (PKHA, 2006; UNESCO and IUCN, 2011).
Biodiversity impacts of construction of Trans-Papua Highway: A far greater threat to the park, however, stems from the Indonesian government’s 2,700-mile-long Trans-Papua Highway project, designed to connect the coastal cities of Papua province—Sorong, Jayapura, and Merauke. A 126-mile stretch of this highway, known as the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road, has been constructed through Lorentz, resulting in extensive damage to parts of the protected area (Jong, 2021; Rochmyaningsih, 2021). The highway’s construction east of Lake Habbema has led to deforestation, destruction of key wildlife habitats, and reduction in the lake’s surface area—disrupting the hydrological cycle and threatening ecosystem sustainability of the park (Laurence, 2019; TAF & LIPI, 2018; Kambu, et al., 2022). The 2008 Mission warned that road construction near the lake was causing erosion, draining peatlands, and degrading perched lagoons. Studies in 2022 further confirmed that highland peatlands had declined as a direct consequence of road construction (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008; Kambu, et al., 2022).
The highlands host the relict Gondwanan Nothofagus forests, which are particularly vulnerable to infestation by the pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi. This pathogen can be spread through road construction, vehicular traffic, logging, and riverine transport of contaminated soil (Sloan, et al., 2019). According to the 2011 Mission Report, the construction of the Lake Habbema road initially contributed to the introduction of Phytophthora cinnamomi, resulting in dieback of Nothofagus forests near the lake (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). Further outbreaks of the pathogen and associated tree dieback have since been observed following the construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road through these sensitive forest areas (Sloan, et al., 2019; Kambu, et al., 2022). In 2022, the State Party reported plans for an additional 40 km road segment—Enarotali–Ilaga–Mulia as part of the Trans-Papuan Highway, posing further threats to the park’s ecological integrity (State Party of Indonesia, 2022; World Heritage Committee, 2023). Concerns have been expressed regarding the project's EIA, particularly for not sufficiently addressing potential impacts on the park’s OUV, including risks of habitat fragmentation and increased illegal logging (World Heritage Committee, 2024). Due to safety concerns and the high cost of construction, work on the new segment has currently been suspended (State Party of Indonesia, 2024).
A bad precedent:
According to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, State Parties are required to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before implementing development activities in and around a World Heritage site. The assessments help identify development alternatives and assess potential adverse impacts on the site's OUV (UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2024). However, construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road was initiated without conducting a prior EIA. The issue was flagged by the Reactive Monitoring Missions in 2008, 2011, and 2014, and reiterated in subsequent World Heritage Committee sessions-32nd (2008), 34th (2010), 35th (2011) and 37th (2013). The Committee recommended cessation of all damaging construction activities until an EIA was completed, along with rehabilitation and mitigation measures for the affected peatlands and raised bogs near Lake Habbema (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). In 2015, the State Party reported that construction on the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road had been suspended pending completion of the EIA, with regular site visits undertaken to monitor compliance (State Party of Indonesia, 2015). The EIA was subsequently submitted in 2016. Upon review of the EIA report, the World Heritage Committee at its 41st Session in 2017 expressed concern that the assessment identified significant environmental risks. Given the sensitivity of Lorentz’s high-altitude ecosystems, including the alpine peatlands surrounding Lake Habbema, the road construction was expected to cause lasting ecological damage and exacerbate climate change impacts (World Heritage Committee, 2017). Despite these warnings, the Indonesian government proceeded with the project, and the road was opened to public use in 2018 (State Party of Indonesia, 2018).
It is important to note that Indonesia’s Law on the Conservation of Living Resources and Ecosystems (No. 5/1990) prohibits activities that are inconsistent with the ecological and biological functions of national parks (State Party of Indonesia, 1990). Additionally, the Forestry Law (No. 41/1999) limits non-forestry developmental activities to production forest areas and protection forest areas, restricting such activities in national parks (State Party of Indonesia, 1999). Despite these legal safeguards, road construction through the forests of LNP proceeded following a 2012 Decree by the Minister of Forestry. The permit was granted to address the need for road connectivity and stimulate economic growth in the otherwise remote regions, particularly to link Wamena in Jayawijaya Regency which is otherwise only accessible by air transport (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; UNESCO and IUCN, 2014; TAF & LIPI, 2018).
Concerns due to increased road connectivity: Indonesia has a history of downgrading or downsizing protected areas to facilitate access to resources such as minerals, timber, and agricultural land. Increased road connectivity within Lorentz poses a significant risk of intensifying pressures to exploit both the park and its surrounding forests (Laurence, 2019). The 2011 Mission warned that extensive road construction would lead to further fragmentation of the park and encourage damaging land-use changes (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). One of the most pressing concerns is the potential for mining expansion. Around 19 concessions overlap approximately 488 km² of the park, with several located in its interior. There is growing concern that the Trans-Papua Highway will facilitate easier access to these mining concessions, potentially leading to mineral extraction within the site (Sloan, et al., 2019). Additionally, reports in 2021 indicated that Indonesia’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources had granted permits to nine mining companies to explore 156,189 hectares inside the park, further raising alarm over the potential for extractive industries to encroach on protected areas (Jong, 2021).The presence of mining concessions undermines confidence that the world heritage site will remain intact (Sloan, et al., 2019).
Given these factors, there is a real and urgent risk that increased road construction inside LNP will lead to greater habitat fragmentation, loss of biodiversity, and increased pressures from resource extraction and deforestation (Laurence, 2019).
Biodiversity impacts of construction of Trans-Papua Highway: A far greater threat to the park, however, stems from the Indonesian government’s 2,700-mile-long Trans-Papua Highway project, designed to connect the coastal cities of Papua province—Sorong, Jayapura, and Merauke. A 126-mile stretch of this highway, known as the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road, has been constructed through Lorentz, resulting in extensive damage to parts of the protected area (Jong, 2021; Rochmyaningsih, 2021). The highway’s construction east of Lake Habbema has led to deforestation, destruction of key wildlife habitats, and reduction in the lake’s surface area—disrupting the hydrological cycle and threatening ecosystem sustainability of the park (Laurence, 2019; TAF & LIPI, 2018; Kambu, et al., 2022). The 2008 Mission warned that road construction near the lake was causing erosion, draining peatlands, and degrading perched lagoons. Studies in 2022 further confirmed that highland peatlands had declined as a direct consequence of road construction (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008; Kambu, et al., 2022).
The highlands host the relict Gondwanan Nothofagus forests, which are particularly vulnerable to infestation by the pathogen Phytophthora cinnamomi. This pathogen can be spread through road construction, vehicular traffic, logging, and riverine transport of contaminated soil (Sloan, et al., 2019). According to the 2011 Mission Report, the construction of the Lake Habbema road initially contributed to the introduction of Phytophthora cinnamomi, resulting in dieback of Nothofagus forests near the lake (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). Further outbreaks of the pathogen and associated tree dieback have since been observed following the construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road through these sensitive forest areas (Sloan, et al., 2019; Kambu, et al., 2022). In 2022, the State Party reported plans for an additional 40 km road segment—Enarotali–Ilaga–Mulia as part of the Trans-Papuan Highway, posing further threats to the park’s ecological integrity (State Party of Indonesia, 2022; World Heritage Committee, 2023). Concerns have been expressed regarding the project's EIA, particularly for not sufficiently addressing potential impacts on the park’s OUV, including risks of habitat fragmentation and increased illegal logging (World Heritage Committee, 2024). Due to safety concerns and the high cost of construction, work on the new segment has currently been suspended (State Party of Indonesia, 2024).
A bad precedent:
According to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, State Parties are required to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before implementing development activities in and around a World Heritage site. The assessments help identify development alternatives and assess potential adverse impacts on the site's OUV (UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2024). However, construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road was initiated without conducting a prior EIA. The issue was flagged by the Reactive Monitoring Missions in 2008, 2011, and 2014, and reiterated in subsequent World Heritage Committee sessions-32nd (2008), 34th (2010), 35th (2011) and 37th (2013). The Committee recommended cessation of all damaging construction activities until an EIA was completed, along with rehabilitation and mitigation measures for the affected peatlands and raised bogs near Lake Habbema (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). In 2015, the State Party reported that construction on the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road had been suspended pending completion of the EIA, with regular site visits undertaken to monitor compliance (State Party of Indonesia, 2015). The EIA was subsequently submitted in 2016. Upon review of the EIA report, the World Heritage Committee at its 41st Session in 2017 expressed concern that the assessment identified significant environmental risks. Given the sensitivity of Lorentz’s high-altitude ecosystems, including the alpine peatlands surrounding Lake Habbema, the road construction was expected to cause lasting ecological damage and exacerbate climate change impacts (World Heritage Committee, 2017). Despite these warnings, the Indonesian government proceeded with the project, and the road was opened to public use in 2018 (State Party of Indonesia, 2018).
It is important to note that Indonesia’s Law on the Conservation of Living Resources and Ecosystems (No. 5/1990) prohibits activities that are inconsistent with the ecological and biological functions of national parks (State Party of Indonesia, 1990). Additionally, the Forestry Law (No. 41/1999) limits non-forestry developmental activities to production forest areas and protection forest areas, restricting such activities in national parks (State Party of Indonesia, 1999). Despite these legal safeguards, road construction through the forests of LNP proceeded following a 2012 Decree by the Minister of Forestry. The permit was granted to address the need for road connectivity and stimulate economic growth in the otherwise remote regions, particularly to link Wamena in Jayawijaya Regency which is otherwise only accessible by air transport (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; UNESCO and IUCN, 2014; TAF & LIPI, 2018).
Concerns due to increased road connectivity: Indonesia has a history of downgrading or downsizing protected areas to facilitate access to resources such as minerals, timber, and agricultural land. Increased road connectivity within Lorentz poses a significant risk of intensifying pressures to exploit both the park and its surrounding forests (Laurence, 2019). The 2011 Mission warned that extensive road construction would lead to further fragmentation of the park and encourage damaging land-use changes (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). One of the most pressing concerns is the potential for mining expansion. Around 19 concessions overlap approximately 488 km² of the park, with several located in its interior. There is growing concern that the Trans-Papua Highway will facilitate easier access to these mining concessions, potentially leading to mineral extraction within the site (Sloan, et al., 2019). Additionally, reports in 2021 indicated that Indonesia’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources had granted permits to nine mining companies to explore 156,189 hectares inside the park, further raising alarm over the potential for extractive industries to encroach on protected areas (Jong, 2021).The presence of mining concessions undermines confidence that the world heritage site will remain intact (Sloan, et al., 2019).
Given these factors, there is a real and urgent risk that increased road construction inside LNP will lead to greater habitat fragmentation, loss of biodiversity, and increased pressures from resource extraction and deforestation (Laurence, 2019).
Pathogens
(Dieback disease threatening Nothofagus forest)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The 2004, 2008, and 2011 Missions first reported forest dieback in the high-altitude Nothofagus forests near the Lake Habbema road (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008; UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). In its 2011 SoC report, the State Party acknowledged that road construction near the lake had likely facilitated the spread of the Phytophthora fungus, which has the potential to damage the highly sensitive sub-alpine Nothofagus forests (State Party of Indonesia, 2011). Since then, multiple monitoring efforts have been undertaken to determine the causes of Nothofagus forest dieback, yielding conflicting conclusions. A 2014 study commissioned by the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation found no direct correlation between the forest dieback and the construction of Lake Habbema road (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). In 2015 and 2016, further studies suggested that road construction may not be the primary factor, positing instead that dieback could be a natural occurrence in Nothofagus population dynamics, potentially exacerbated by climate change (State Party of Indonesia, 2015; State Party of Indonesia, 2016).
Further, due to growing concerns over the role of the later constructed Trans-Papua Highway road in worsening the dieback, additional studies were commissioned. Surveys conducted in 2019 by the Wildlife Conservation Society team found that Nothofagus trees in some areas near the highway exhibited fungal infestations, as well as damage from wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera). In some locations, however, tree mortality was linked to forest fires during the dry season. The team identified 35 fungal species in Nothofagus habitats, including two Fusarium species, but none from the Phytophthora. These results differed from a 2012 survey carried by University of Tanjung Pura, which recorded the presence of both Fusarium and Phytophthora species. Given that more than 30 fungal species were recorded from the survey, WCS researchers concluded that Nothofagus dieback could not be solely attributed to Fusarium or Phytophthora infestations (State Party of Indonesia, 2020; 2022).
While studies commissioned by the LNP Management remain inconclusive regarding the exact causes of dieback, scientific literature indicates that Nothofagus forests are highly susceptible to Phytophthora cinnamomi infection. Human activities that disturb soil such as road construction, vehicle traffic, logging, and riverine transport can significantly contribute to the spread of Phytophthora, particularly when soil disturbance alters natural drainage patterns (Dieback Working Group, 2025; Sloan, et al., 2019). The spread of P. cinnamomi along the Trans-Papua Highway is likely a recent phenomenon due to a lack of prior experience in Indonesia with this pathogen. Best practices for road construction in Nothofagus forests recommend regular disinfection of road-building machinery and soil aggregates to prevent the spread of P. cinnamomi. However, no such precautions were taken during construction, as the pathogen was not initially assessed as a risk (Sloan, et al., 2019).
Further, due to growing concerns over the role of the later constructed Trans-Papua Highway road in worsening the dieback, additional studies were commissioned. Surveys conducted in 2019 by the Wildlife Conservation Society team found that Nothofagus trees in some areas near the highway exhibited fungal infestations, as well as damage from wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera). In some locations, however, tree mortality was linked to forest fires during the dry season. The team identified 35 fungal species in Nothofagus habitats, including two Fusarium species, but none from the Phytophthora. These results differed from a 2012 survey carried by University of Tanjung Pura, which recorded the presence of both Fusarium and Phytophthora species. Given that more than 30 fungal species were recorded from the survey, WCS researchers concluded that Nothofagus dieback could not be solely attributed to Fusarium or Phytophthora infestations (State Party of Indonesia, 2020; 2022).
While studies commissioned by the LNP Management remain inconclusive regarding the exact causes of dieback, scientific literature indicates that Nothofagus forests are highly susceptible to Phytophthora cinnamomi infection. Human activities that disturb soil such as road construction, vehicle traffic, logging, and riverine transport can significantly contribute to the spread of Phytophthora, particularly when soil disturbance alters natural drainage patterns (Dieback Working Group, 2025; Sloan, et al., 2019). The spread of P. cinnamomi along the Trans-Papua Highway is likely a recent phenomenon due to a lack of prior experience in Indonesia with this pathogen. Best practices for road construction in Nothofagus forests recommend regular disinfection of road-building machinery and soil aggregates to prevent the spread of P. cinnamomi. However, no such precautions were taken during construction, as the pathogen was not initially assessed as a risk (Sloan, et al., 2019).
Conflict, Civil Unrest & Security Activities
(On-going civil unrest involving Indigenous communities)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
Since the formal integration of Papua into Indonesia in the 1960’s, there has been a demand for independence amongst certain factions of the Papuan society, leading to instances of civil unrest, including within LNP. Such challenges has implications on the conservation of the property, such as the suspension of the implementation of mitigation action plans for the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road (State Party of Indonesia, 2020; State Party of Indonesia, 2022). The civil unrest represents a constraint on development of the free movement of personnel in the mountainous regions of the park and hence constrains park management and also limits the important tasks of community development, scientific survey and research in the highlands of the park (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014).
Gathering, Harvesting & Controlling Terrestrial Plants & Fungi
(Hunting, poaching and illegal wildlife trade)
Other targeted species names
Carettochelys insculpta, Simalia boeleni, Crocodylus novaeguineae, Crocodylus porosus, Mallomys gunung, Dendrolagus mbaiso, Lorius lory, Crowned pigeons, Eclectus parrots
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Freshwater turtles and snakes in LNP are vulnerable to local extinction due to hunting for consumption and trade (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). The rare Fly River Turtle (also known as the pig-nosed turtle) faces significant threats from meat hunting and egg collection for both local consumption and commercial trade (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). In 2016, nearly 4,000 pig-nosed turtles were confiscated by airport authorities in Jakarta and Timika—a known regional hub for wildlife trade from Papua, located near the park. Most of these turtles are believed to have originated from LNP (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Boelen’s python is reportedly targeted for the pet trade, posing a significant conservation concern. This species has a highly restricted distribution, is considered threatened, and is listed under CITES Appendix II. While not currently facing imminent extinction, species under Appendix II require strict trade regulations to prevent their populations from declining to dangerous levels (PKHA, 2006).
The park’s two crocodile species are also at risk due to hunting pressure and trade (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
Additionally, endangered montane mammals such as the Alpine Woolly Rat and Dingiso face threats from hunting, emphasizing the need to regulate hunting in high-altitude ecosystems (Saout, et al., 2013). There is also a need to regulate bird capturing for both legal and illegal trade. In the markets of Timika and Wamena, located outside the national park, protected bird species such as Crowned pigeons, eclectus parrots, and Black-capped Lory are commonly sold in significant numbers. The plums of bird-of-paradise are also traded in significant amounts. Given the potential for this market to expand rapidly, implementing stricter controls on bird trade is crucial to prevent further exploitation of these species (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
The State Party has reported no large-scale poaching within the property in recent years, stating that hunting occurs only on a small scale by local communities for traditional use and cultural ceremonies (State Party of Indonesia, 2016; 2018). However, this may be a reflection of limitations in the monitoring programme in the park. The 2014 Monitoring Mission also noted media reports suggesting that wildlife species from Papua are being sold in markets across Java and Sumatra. Though it is impossible to identify whether wildlife species sold on markets or over the internet originated from the park, there is a clear need for the park authorities to enhance anti-poaching efforts (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014).
Boelen’s python is reportedly targeted for the pet trade, posing a significant conservation concern. This species has a highly restricted distribution, is considered threatened, and is listed under CITES Appendix II. While not currently facing imminent extinction, species under Appendix II require strict trade regulations to prevent their populations from declining to dangerous levels (PKHA, 2006).
The park’s two crocodile species are also at risk due to hunting pressure and trade (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
Additionally, endangered montane mammals such as the Alpine Woolly Rat and Dingiso face threats from hunting, emphasizing the need to regulate hunting in high-altitude ecosystems (Saout, et al., 2013). There is also a need to regulate bird capturing for both legal and illegal trade. In the markets of Timika and Wamena, located outside the national park, protected bird species such as Crowned pigeons, eclectus parrots, and Black-capped Lory are commonly sold in significant numbers. The plums of bird-of-paradise are also traded in significant amounts. Given the potential for this market to expand rapidly, implementing stricter controls on bird trade is crucial to prevent further exploitation of these species (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
The State Party has reported no large-scale poaching within the property in recent years, stating that hunting occurs only on a small scale by local communities for traditional use and cultural ceremonies (State Party of Indonesia, 2016; 2018). However, this may be a reflection of limitations in the monitoring programme in the park. The 2014 Monitoring Mission also noted media reports suggesting that wildlife species from Papua are being sold in markets across Java and Sumatra. Though it is impossible to identify whether wildlife species sold on markets or over the internet originated from the park, there is a clear need for the park authorities to enhance anti-poaching efforts (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014).
Fishing, Harvesting & Controlling Aquatic Species
(Illegal fishing)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
The 2008 Monitoring Mission reported instances of illegal inshore trawl fishing by large vessels within the marine section of the park (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008). However, in 2011, the LNP Management indicated that this was unlikely to become a major issue, citing regular patrols by the police and Indonesian navy, as well as the area's extreme tidal range and shallow inshore waters, which make navigation difficult for large vessels (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). Subsequent assessments, including the 2014 Mission and subsequent State of Conservation (SoC) reports, did not highlight any further concerns regarding illegal fishing. Nonetheless, to ensure continued protection of the park’s marine section, it remains important for the park management to strengthen monitoring and patrolling efforts.
Invasive / Other Problematic Species, Genes & Pathogens, Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive species)
Invasive/problematic species
Clarias batrachus
Oreochromis mossambicus
Anabas testudineus
Channa striata
Eichhornia crassipes
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
In Indonesia, the introduction of alien fish species is sometimes promoted without assessing potential environmental impacts. In the Timika area, adjacent to the park, four invasive fish species — Walking Catfish (Clarias batrchus), Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambica), Climbing Perch (Anabas testudineus), and Snakehead (Channa striata) have been introduced (PKHA, 2006). These species are known to degrade habitats and outcompete native fish such as the Asian Sea Bass (Lates calcarifer) for space and food. Their establishment is often irreversible, making eradication extremely difficult (State Party of Indonesia, 1998; IUCN Consultation, 2017). Of particular concern is the distribution of Tilapia fish to villages located within the national park through regency government development programs, which poses a significant threat to aquatic ecosystems (IUCN Consultation, 2017). With the opening of the Trans-Papua road near Lake Habbema in the park highlands, access to pristine glacial lakes and river headwaters has become easier which raises the risk of introduction of alien species in these sensitive ecosystems.
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) has also been reported as an invasive species in the region and is known to be particularly problematic once established. The plant has been introduced in lowland rivers in the park (PKHA, 2006). Given the areas extensive wetlands and waterways, proactive monitoring and preventive measures are crucial to control the spread of invasive species and safeguard native biodiversity (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; IUCN Consultation, 2014).
Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) has also been reported as an invasive species in the region and is known to be particularly problematic once established. The plant has been introduced in lowland rivers in the park (PKHA, 2006). Given the areas extensive wetlands and waterways, proactive monitoring and preventive measures are crucial to control the spread of invasive species and safeguard native biodiversity (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; IUCN Consultation, 2014).
Changes in Physical & Chemical Regimes, Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Glacier retreat, warming temperatures and sea level rise)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The Carstensz Glacier, located near the Puncak Jaya peak, is New Guinea’s last remaining tropical glacier. Puncak Jaya, which lies within LNP, is the highest peak between the Himalayas and the Andes. Like other tropical glaciers worldwide, the Carstensz Glacier is highly sensitive to climate change and is retreating rapidly due to anthropogenic warming (Jokiranta, 2020).
The Carstensz Glacier is a remnant of ice masses that have existed for approximately 5,000 years, however, they have been retreating since 1850 CE. Total glacier coverage near the Puncak Jaya declined from approximately 19 km² in 1850 to just 0.34 km² by May 2022 (Permana, et al., 2019). Climatic records show a consistent linear decline in glacier area. Between 2002 and 2015, ice cover diminished by 1.45 km². The 2015–2016 El Niño event further accelerated melting, causing an additional loss of 0.11 km² in a single year. By March 2018, glacier coverage had reduced to just 0.458 km² (Permana, et al., 2019). More recent observations further confirm this alarming trend. In 2024, Indonesia’s Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics reported that the Carstensz Glacier had lost approximately four meters of thickness—equivalent to a 66 percent decrease—between December 2022 and December 2023, based on their latest monitoring (Antara, 2024; Subramanian, 2024). The glacier has experienced significant mass loss, melting from both the surface and the base for years. At the current rate of ice loss, they are projected to disappear entirely within the next decade (Permana, et al., 2019). Beyond glacial retreat, climate warming temperatures may endanger park’s unique alpine ecosystems, which host many endemic, rare, and threatened species. Climate change may render the sub-alpine and montane plateaus more suitable for subsistence agriculture, potentially leading to human migration into these fragile landscape with associated implications for the park and its OUVs. Several small ‘pioneer’ villages are already located at elevations just above 3,000 meters, including one 18 km west of Lake Habbema, within the park boundaries (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Sea-level rise is another major climate-related threat to LNP. The park’s vast coastal wetlands, composed largely of flooded forests at or near sea level, are highly vulnerable. Without a thorough understanding of coastal and river dynamics, the full extent of potential impacts of glacial retreat remains uncertain. However, a one-meter rise in sea level could have regional-scale consequences, drastically altering the park’s lowland ecosystems (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
The Carstensz Glacier is a remnant of ice masses that have existed for approximately 5,000 years, however, they have been retreating since 1850 CE. Total glacier coverage near the Puncak Jaya declined from approximately 19 km² in 1850 to just 0.34 km² by May 2022 (Permana, et al., 2019). Climatic records show a consistent linear decline in glacier area. Between 2002 and 2015, ice cover diminished by 1.45 km². The 2015–2016 El Niño event further accelerated melting, causing an additional loss of 0.11 km² in a single year. By March 2018, glacier coverage had reduced to just 0.458 km² (Permana, et al., 2019). More recent observations further confirm this alarming trend. In 2024, Indonesia’s Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics reported that the Carstensz Glacier had lost approximately four meters of thickness—equivalent to a 66 percent decrease—between December 2022 and December 2023, based on their latest monitoring (Antara, 2024; Subramanian, 2024). The glacier has experienced significant mass loss, melting from both the surface and the base for years. At the current rate of ice loss, they are projected to disappear entirely within the next decade (Permana, et al., 2019). Beyond glacial retreat, climate warming temperatures may endanger park’s unique alpine ecosystems, which host many endemic, rare, and threatened species. Climate change may render the sub-alpine and montane plateaus more suitable for subsistence agriculture, potentially leading to human migration into these fragile landscape with associated implications for the park and its OUVs. Several small ‘pioneer’ villages are already located at elevations just above 3,000 meters, including one 18 km west of Lake Habbema, within the park boundaries (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Sea-level rise is another major climate-related threat to LNP. The park’s vast coastal wetlands, composed largely of flooded forests at or near sea level, are highly vulnerable. Without a thorough understanding of coastal and river dynamics, the full extent of potential impacts of glacial retreat remains uncertain. However, a one-meter rise in sea level could have regional-scale consequences, drastically altering the park’s lowland ecosystems (IUCN Consultation, 2017).
Fire & Fire Management
(Forest fires)
Inside site
, Extent of threat not known
Outside site
Forest fires in the montane forest ecosystems of New Guinea, including those affecting the national park can occur either as small-scale natural events or catastrophic wildfires driven by extreme climatic events. Small-scale fires within the national park are a natural hazard. Raising awareness about the causes and impacts of forest fires among all stakeholders, particularly local communities is crucial as they live in a close relation to forests and are extremely sensitive to forest fires. Their involvement in fire prevention and mitigation efforts is important (State Party of Indonesia, 1998).
In contrast, the large-scale fires triggered by El Niño events can be devastating, affecting thousands of hectares of forest. The extreme dry season of 1997, driven by El Niño, led to catastrophic fires across Western New Guinea, with some affecting the park (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). At least 60,000 hectares of forest in the Western New Guinea was reportedly burnt, though the actual affected area may have been much larger (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). A similar event was reported in 2015, when satellite imagery from NASA revealed widespread fire outbreaks across the Island due to severe El Niño-induced drought conditions (Butler, 2015).
In New Guinea, fire is commonly used for land clearing by smallholders, commercial agricultural developers, and traditional hunters. While seasonal rains usually limit the spread of these fires, prolonged dry periods can allow them to burn uncontrolled for months, spreading into forests (Butler, 2015).
In LNP, montane and sub-alpine areas in the north are most vulnerable. Regular uphill burning on the steep slopes above the Beliem valley have damaged forest areas within the park, and converted them into grasslands (PKHA, 2006). Forest fires have also played a partial role in the dieback of Nothofagus forests near the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road within the national park (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
The information base on fire and impacts on the ecology of Lorentz needs to be documented for designing management strategies that mitigate its impact on forest cover and the park’s biodiversity values.
In contrast, the large-scale fires triggered by El Niño events can be devastating, affecting thousands of hectares of forest. The extreme dry season of 1997, driven by El Niño, led to catastrophic fires across Western New Guinea, with some affecting the park (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). At least 60,000 hectares of forest in the Western New Guinea was reportedly burnt, though the actual affected area may have been much larger (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). A similar event was reported in 2015, when satellite imagery from NASA revealed widespread fire outbreaks across the Island due to severe El Niño-induced drought conditions (Butler, 2015).
In New Guinea, fire is commonly used for land clearing by smallholders, commercial agricultural developers, and traditional hunters. While seasonal rains usually limit the spread of these fires, prolonged dry periods can allow them to burn uncontrolled for months, spreading into forests (Butler, 2015).
In LNP, montane and sub-alpine areas in the north are most vulnerable. Regular uphill burning on the steep slopes above the Beliem valley have damaged forest areas within the park, and converted them into grasslands (PKHA, 2006). Forest fires have also played a partial role in the dieback of Nothofagus forests near the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road within the national park (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
The information base on fire and impacts on the ecology of Lorentz needs to be documented for designing management strategies that mitigate its impact on forest cover and the park’s biodiversity values.
LNP faces a range of potential threats that could compromise its biodiversity and OUV. One such threat arises from oil and gas exploration. The Lorentz area overlaps with the Warim oil and gas block. The reserves located within the park have a capacity of around 640 billion barrels. Indonesia’s Forestry Law prohibits non-forestry activities, including mining and oil and gas exploration, within national parks. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources is reportedly keen to initiate drilling activities within the Warim block. In July 2023, the Ministry sent a letter to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry regarding the overlap between the oil block and the national park area. Although the current status of this proposal remains unclear, it is essential to adhere to the Operational Guidelines, which require a prior EIA for any development planned within or around a World Heritage property. These procedures must be followed before initiating any exploration within the park. Another potential threat to LNP stems from infrastructural development. The park has witnessed rapid development of community residential areas. While these settlements have been accommodated within the designated Special Zone, ongoing urban expansion, driven by population pressures, continues to fuel demand for land and natural resources. In addition to housing, the Special Zone includes areas for potential development transport infrastructure, telecommunications, electricity, education, healthcare, and other public utilities to accommodate unavoidable regional development priorities and other strategic interests. As emphasized by the World Heritage Committee, all proposed developments within the national park must align with its World Heritage status, and no project should proceed without a prior assessment of potential impacts on its OUVs. In addition, PTFI’s Grasberg mine—one of the world’s largest copper and gold mines lies near the Puncak Jaya peak. The mine is situated at an elevation of 4,270 meters above sea level near the Ajkwa River system which drains a 2,100 km² watershed into the Arafura Sea. There is concern over potential marine and estuarine pollution from mine tailings discharged into the Ajkwa River estuary near the national park boundary, with potential longshore drift carrying these tailings into the Arafura Sea and affecting the park’s marine area. Although Monitoring Missions have not found direct evidence of contamination of the park’s marine area by the mine’s tailings, the ongoing operations of the Grasberg mine warrant continued monitoring to prevent any future risk of contamination to the park’s marine environment.
Lastly, forest areas near Lorentz are likely to face logging pressures due to expansion of industrial plantations for oil palm and pulpwood (particularly Acacia and Eucalyptus species). Reports indicate that local government authorities have expressed interests in developing such plantations near the foothills of the national park. Expansion of such plantations heightens the risk of forest fragmentation as large tracts of old-growth forest are converted into extensive monoculture plantations of exotic species. This poses a significant threat to native forest ecosystems and associated biodiversity.
Lastly, forest areas near Lorentz are likely to face logging pressures due to expansion of industrial plantations for oil palm and pulpwood (particularly Acacia and Eucalyptus species). Reports indicate that local government authorities have expressed interests in developing such plantations near the foothills of the national park. Expansion of such plantations heightens the risk of forest fragmentation as large tracts of old-growth forest are converted into extensive monoculture plantations of exotic species. This poses a significant threat to native forest ecosystems and associated biodiversity.
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution
(Risk of mining tailings polluting marine environment)
Outside site
Adjacent to the park’s western boundary, P.T. Freeport Indonesia (PTFI) has been mining copper ore and gold since 1972, with reserves expected to last until 2039 (IUCN, 1999). The open-pit Grasberg mine is one of the world’s largest copper and gold extraction operations and lies near the Puncak Jaya peak (Alonzo, et al., 2016).
During IUCN’s technical evaluation in 1999, it was noted that operations from the Grasberg mine had in past resulted in several environmental and social issues, including displacement of the indigenous Amungme tribe people, river pollution, oil spillages, and deforestation. While these impacts occurred outside the park’s boundary and drainage was confined to a catchment area outside the park, concerns remained regarding potential environmental risks (IUCN, 1999). When Lorentz was designated as a national park in 1997, portions affected by mining activities were excluded from the national park boundary (IUCN, 1999).
PTFIs Grasberg mine is situated at an elevation of 4,270 meters above sea level near the Ajkwa river system, which drains an approximately 2,100km2 watershed into the Arafura Sea (Alonzo, et al., 2016). Studies indicate that of the 1.3 billion metric tonnes of copper ore excavated from the Grasberg mine between 1987 and 2014, only 1-1.5% was viable mineralized copper, while approximately 97% was discharged as tailings into the Ajkwa River system for transport to the Ajkwa Deposition Area (ADA). Continued discharge of heavy metal-rich tailings have led to significant aggradation of the riverbed, reducing the channel’s capacity. Mine tailings that do not settle within the ADA are likely to reach the Arafura Sea–in violation of Indonesian environmental law (Alonzo, et al., 2016). A major concern associated with the mine is the risk of marine and estuarine pollution from tailings discharged into the Ajkwa River estuary near the park boundary, with potential for longshore drift into the marine part of the park (Perlez & Bonner, 2005; State Party of Indonesia, 2006; 2007). However, the Monitoring Mission did not find evidence of direct contamination of the park’s marine area by mine tailings (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008). In 2010, the State Party reported that park authorities were cooperating with PTFI to monitor any mine tailings reaching the park. To mitigate potential sedimentation in marine area, PTFI constructed a major dike and gabions (which extend up to 10km offshore) to slow the flow of tailings and reduce risks to coastal ecosystems of the park (State Party of Indonesia, 2010). Given the ongoing operations of the Freeport mine, the park's marine environment remains at risk of contamination, warranting continued vigilance (IUCN Consultation, 2014).
During IUCN’s technical evaluation in 1999, it was noted that operations from the Grasberg mine had in past resulted in several environmental and social issues, including displacement of the indigenous Amungme tribe people, river pollution, oil spillages, and deforestation. While these impacts occurred outside the park’s boundary and drainage was confined to a catchment area outside the park, concerns remained regarding potential environmental risks (IUCN, 1999). When Lorentz was designated as a national park in 1997, portions affected by mining activities were excluded from the national park boundary (IUCN, 1999).
PTFIs Grasberg mine is situated at an elevation of 4,270 meters above sea level near the Ajkwa river system, which drains an approximately 2,100km2 watershed into the Arafura Sea (Alonzo, et al., 2016). Studies indicate that of the 1.3 billion metric tonnes of copper ore excavated from the Grasberg mine between 1987 and 2014, only 1-1.5% was viable mineralized copper, while approximately 97% was discharged as tailings into the Ajkwa River system for transport to the Ajkwa Deposition Area (ADA). Continued discharge of heavy metal-rich tailings have led to significant aggradation of the riverbed, reducing the channel’s capacity. Mine tailings that do not settle within the ADA are likely to reach the Arafura Sea–in violation of Indonesian environmental law (Alonzo, et al., 2016). A major concern associated with the mine is the risk of marine and estuarine pollution from tailings discharged into the Ajkwa River estuary near the park boundary, with potential for longshore drift into the marine part of the park (Perlez & Bonner, 2005; State Party of Indonesia, 2006; 2007). However, the Monitoring Mission did not find evidence of direct contamination of the park’s marine area by mine tailings (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008). In 2010, the State Party reported that park authorities were cooperating with PTFI to monitor any mine tailings reaching the park. To mitigate potential sedimentation in marine area, PTFI constructed a major dike and gabions (which extend up to 10km offshore) to slow the flow of tailings and reduce risks to coastal ecosystems of the park (State Party of Indonesia, 2010). Given the ongoing operations of the Freeport mine, the park's marine environment remains at risk of contamination, warranting continued vigilance (IUCN Consultation, 2014).
Residential Areas
(Urban development)
Outside site
The Lorentz area spans 10 regencies of Papua Province and has experienced rapid growth in development of residential settlements. These settlements have been accommodated within the Special zone of LNP, as designated in the 2018 Zone Management Plan. However, ongoing urban expansion, driven by population growth, continues to increase demand for land and natural resources (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
The Special zone covers 43,714 hectares of the national park and includes designated areas for housing, public and social infrastructure, transportation facilities (such as roads and airports), telecommunications, electricity infrastructure, and other unavoidable regional development activities (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
While the Management Plan outlines provisions for monitoring the environmental impacts of these infrastructure developments, provisions of the Operational Guidelines should be complied with. First, State Parties intending to initiate new construction projects within a World Heritage Site that may affect its OUV must inform the World Heritage Committee in advance. The notification must be made before drafting key planning documents and taking irreversible decisions. Second, a prior EIA is mandatory for any development project or activity proposed within or around a World Heritage site (UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2024).
The Special zone covers 43,714 hectares of the national park and includes designated areas for housing, public and social infrastructure, transportation facilities (such as roads and airports), telecommunications, electricity infrastructure, and other unavoidable regional development activities (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
While the Management Plan outlines provisions for monitoring the environmental impacts of these infrastructure developments, provisions of the Operational Guidelines should be complied with. First, State Parties intending to initiate new construction projects within a World Heritage Site that may affect its OUV must inform the World Heritage Committee in advance. The notification must be made before drafting key planning documents and taking irreversible decisions. Second, a prior EIA is mandatory for any development project or activity proposed within or around a World Heritage site (UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2024).
Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops, Wood & Pulp Plantations
(Industrial plantations)
Outside site
Since 2010, Western New Guinea has increasingly become a target for new plantation development. As land availability declines elsewhere in the country, plantation companies, particularly, those involved in oil palm and pulpwood have expanded operations into Papua and West Papua provinces. Between 2001 and 2019, approximately 2% of old-growth forest, equating to 748,640 hectares, was lost across Papua (511,882 ha) and West Papua (236,758 ha). Industrial plantations accounted for roughly 28% of this forest loss, with concessionaires converting large blocks of old-growth forest into extensive oil palm and acacia estates (Gaveau, et al., 2021). Forests near LNP may face similar logging pressures, as reports indicate that local authorities have expressed interest in developing oil palm plantations in the inner coastal lowlands near the park’s foothills. Oil palm development has already begun in similar landscapes to the east and west of the park. Expanding plantations in these areas heightens the risk of forest fragmentation, which may invite further developmental pressures and pose additional threats to the park's ecological integrity (IUCN Consultation, 2014).
Oil & Gas exploration/development
(Oil and gas exploration)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Outside site
The LNP partially overlaps with the Warim Oil and Gas Block which contains 13 hydrocarbon prospects with an estimated reserve capacity of more than 21 billion barrels. Among these prospects, the reserves located within Lorentz has the highest capacity, estimated at about 640 million barrels (OILWATCH International, 2007). In 2023, the Indonesian government announced plans to explore oil and gas resources in the Warim block. The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources had also written to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry regarding the overlap of the Warim block with the LNP (VOI Editorial Team, 2023; Huaxia, 2023).
Under Indonesia’s Forest Law, non-forestry activities such as mining and oil and gas exploration are prohibited in protected areas like national parks. Such activities are only permitted in designated production forest area and protection forest area (OILWATCH International, 2007). Furthermore, according to the World Heritage Committee, mineral and oil/gas exploration and exploitation are considered incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. Such activities, along with their associated infrastructure, do not align with the OUVs of these sites and therefore should not be permitted within their boundaries (IUCN, 2013).
The Warim oil block was previously managed by the US Company PT Conoco. In 1999, the Irian Jaya Legislative Council requested the cessation of exploration activities in the national park. That same year, it was reported that Conoco's proposed US$40 million investment had been voluntarily withdrawn (OILWATCH International, 2007; IUCN, 1999).
With the Warim block now released from private company control and identified for oil exploration by the government, careful restraint is essential when conducting exploration activities. Consideration must be given to the potential impacts on LNP's rich biodiversity and the site's World Heritage status.
Under Indonesia’s Forest Law, non-forestry activities such as mining and oil and gas exploration are prohibited in protected areas like national parks. Such activities are only permitted in designated production forest area and protection forest area (OILWATCH International, 2007). Furthermore, according to the World Heritage Committee, mineral and oil/gas exploration and exploitation are considered incompatible with the World Heritage Site status. Such activities, along with their associated infrastructure, do not align with the OUVs of these sites and therefore should not be permitted within their boundaries (IUCN, 2013).
The Warim oil block was previously managed by the US Company PT Conoco. In 1999, the Irian Jaya Legislative Council requested the cessation of exploration activities in the national park. That same year, it was reported that Conoco's proposed US$40 million investment had been voluntarily withdrawn (OILWATCH International, 2007; IUCN, 1999).
With the Warim block now released from private company control and identified for oil exploration by the government, careful restraint is essential when conducting exploration activities. Consideration must be given to the potential impacts on LNP's rich biodiversity and the site's World Heritage status.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
The current management system at LNP includes mechanisms for stakeholder engagement; however, the nature and extent of this engagement remain unclear. In its 2023 Periodic Report, the State Party acknowledges that its current relationship with various stakeholder groups is only ‘fair’ and requires improvement through deeper engagement and increased involvement in park management activities (State Party of Indonesia., 2023).
To strengthen these relationships, the LNP Management Authority has developed a Collaborative Management Agreement with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including, central ministries, provincial government, regional government in 10 regencies, NGOs, academic institutions and private sector in park management. The Agreement envisions a collaborative management structure that will provide an inclusive platform for stakeholders to actively participate in management and take on relevant roles for conservation and sustainability of Lorentz. Given the park’s vast size and complex socio-economic context, such a collaborative approach is not optional but essential for ensuring its effective protection and management (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
While effectiveness of this agreement can only be evaluated overtime, targeted efforts are require to foster deeper and more sustained engagement with government authorities, and Indigenous communities.
Issues in collaboration with Provincial and Regency-level Government Authorities: Papua, like other Indonesian provinces, is administratively divided into Regencies (kabupaten), each governed by an elected regent (bupati). LNP spans ten local government regencies: Jayawijaya, Yahukimo, Nduga, Lanny Jaya, Paniai, Intan Jaya, Mimika, Puncak, Puncak Jaya, and Asmat. These regencies are responsible for delivering essential services to communities living in these areas with consequent pressure for development of services (particularly transportation services) across the park (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; UNESCO and IUCN, 2014; LNP Management Authority, 2020). To accommodate certain unavoidable interests, the 2018 Zoning Plan designates a Special zone which allows for development of social and public utilizes, including roads, airports, telecommunication, electricity, education, and health. However, to ensure that development is controlled and ecologically sustainable, the Management Plan mandates monitoring of activities in the Special Zone. Achieving this requires robust coordination with provincial and regency government departments; regular data sharing on demographic trends, land use changes, and infrastructure projects; ground-level audits and community consultations (LNP Management Authority, 2020). However, effective coordination between LNP Management Authority and government authorities at provincial and regency level is often hindered by imbalances in bureaucratic ranks. Currently, the LNP Authority is a Class II National Office led by a Park Director with an Echelon III-A rank. This is a relatively low position compared to regency-level officials who often hold Echelon II ranks. This disparity limits the Director’s authority to effectively negotiate when discussing key issues, such as road construction and other development pressures, with regency government officials. To enhance capacity to coordinate and negotiate with these authorities, it is critical to elevate the Park Director’s position to Echelon II—reflecting the scale and strategic importance of managing a park that spans ten regencies (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014; LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Current Engagement with Indigenous Communities: Approximately nine Indigenous tribes live permanently or seasonally within the park boundaries. These communities have inhabited the area for over 20,000 years, fostering some of the world's most distinctive and long-isolated cultures. Their close relationship with the park and its ecosystems is deeply rooted in their customary traditions and traditional wisdom. They rely on a variety of biological resources, including agarwood, forest honey, resin, Pandanus sp., and Myrmecodia sp. for subsistence, religious ceremonies, and other local needs (LNP Management Authority, 2018). These Indigenous communities claim traditional ownership of certain areas in the park, considering their customary rights to these areas as paramount (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). While the LNP Management Authority acknowledges the presence of Indigenous communities and their dependence on the park’s resources, their engagement remains limited. The lack of meaningful dialogues and limited awareness among these communities about the park’s World Heritage status often leads to informal arrangements between them and their local government authorities. These arrangements include acceptance of compensation payments for activities such as construction roads carried out by authorities or their contractors on customary lands. These activities are generally not permitted under country’s conservation laws and are incompatible with the park’s biodiversity values (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011).
Proposed Efforts to Improve Community Engagement: To recognize traditional land-use and improve its relations with the community, the Authority has designated 559,089.84 hectares within the park as Traditional Zone under its 2018 Zoning Plan. This zone encompasses customary areas used by indigenous communities for fishing, hunting, gathering, and other traditional practices. Further, long-established community settlements that existed before Lorentz was declared a protected area have been incorporated into the Special Zone (LNP Management Authority, 2018). To facilitate community’s access to the Traditional zone, the Authority has initiated conservation partnerships in Fanamo and Omawita villages in Mimika Regency, with plans to expand these partnerships to Asmat, Jayawijaya, Intan Jaya, and remaining villages in Mimika during the 2021–2030 planning period. The objective is to support indigenous management of 10,000 hectares of the Zone across these four regencies(LNP Management Authority, 2020). The Management Plan also outlines provisions for involving indigenous communities in delineating the boundaries (both physical and mapped) of the Traditional Zone and settlements in the Special zone. The objective is to improve land-use clarity and establish visible boundary markers within these zones across the target regencies (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
The Authority is also working towards increasing community participation in conservation efforts by expanding the network of Masyarakat Mitra Polhut (MMP) or community partner groups in villages within the park. These groups assist the Polhut in conducting forest patrols. Currently, there are six MMPs across the park's three working areas, and the Authority plans to increase this number to ten. Capacity-building initiatives are also planned to enhance the skills and effectiveness of MMP members in supporting forest protection efforts (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Looking ahead, the Authority also plans to establish MMP-led independent patrols. These community-driven patrols offer a more context-sensitive approach to forest monitoring, especially in areas where local communities engage in logging, land clearing for agriculture, or hunting. Through capacity building, the Authority aims to enable MMPs to take a more active role in surveillance and protection, reduce potential conflicts with local communities, and strengthen conservation outcomes (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
To strengthen these relationships, the LNP Management Authority has developed a Collaborative Management Agreement with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including, central ministries, provincial government, regional government in 10 regencies, NGOs, academic institutions and private sector in park management. The Agreement envisions a collaborative management structure that will provide an inclusive platform for stakeholders to actively participate in management and take on relevant roles for conservation and sustainability of Lorentz. Given the park’s vast size and complex socio-economic context, such a collaborative approach is not optional but essential for ensuring its effective protection and management (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
While effectiveness of this agreement can only be evaluated overtime, targeted efforts are require to foster deeper and more sustained engagement with government authorities, and Indigenous communities.
Issues in collaboration with Provincial and Regency-level Government Authorities: Papua, like other Indonesian provinces, is administratively divided into Regencies (kabupaten), each governed by an elected regent (bupati). LNP spans ten local government regencies: Jayawijaya, Yahukimo, Nduga, Lanny Jaya, Paniai, Intan Jaya, Mimika, Puncak, Puncak Jaya, and Asmat. These regencies are responsible for delivering essential services to communities living in these areas with consequent pressure for development of services (particularly transportation services) across the park (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; UNESCO and IUCN, 2014; LNP Management Authority, 2020). To accommodate certain unavoidable interests, the 2018 Zoning Plan designates a Special zone which allows for development of social and public utilizes, including roads, airports, telecommunication, electricity, education, and health. However, to ensure that development is controlled and ecologically sustainable, the Management Plan mandates monitoring of activities in the Special Zone. Achieving this requires robust coordination with provincial and regency government departments; regular data sharing on demographic trends, land use changes, and infrastructure projects; ground-level audits and community consultations (LNP Management Authority, 2020). However, effective coordination between LNP Management Authority and government authorities at provincial and regency level is often hindered by imbalances in bureaucratic ranks. Currently, the LNP Authority is a Class II National Office led by a Park Director with an Echelon III-A rank. This is a relatively low position compared to regency-level officials who often hold Echelon II ranks. This disparity limits the Director’s authority to effectively negotiate when discussing key issues, such as road construction and other development pressures, with regency government officials. To enhance capacity to coordinate and negotiate with these authorities, it is critical to elevate the Park Director’s position to Echelon II—reflecting the scale and strategic importance of managing a park that spans ten regencies (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014; LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Current Engagement with Indigenous Communities: Approximately nine Indigenous tribes live permanently or seasonally within the park boundaries. These communities have inhabited the area for over 20,000 years, fostering some of the world's most distinctive and long-isolated cultures. Their close relationship with the park and its ecosystems is deeply rooted in their customary traditions and traditional wisdom. They rely on a variety of biological resources, including agarwood, forest honey, resin, Pandanus sp., and Myrmecodia sp. for subsistence, religious ceremonies, and other local needs (LNP Management Authority, 2018). These Indigenous communities claim traditional ownership of certain areas in the park, considering their customary rights to these areas as paramount (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). While the LNP Management Authority acknowledges the presence of Indigenous communities and their dependence on the park’s resources, their engagement remains limited. The lack of meaningful dialogues and limited awareness among these communities about the park’s World Heritage status often leads to informal arrangements between them and their local government authorities. These arrangements include acceptance of compensation payments for activities such as construction roads carried out by authorities or their contractors on customary lands. These activities are generally not permitted under country’s conservation laws and are incompatible with the park’s biodiversity values (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011).
Proposed Efforts to Improve Community Engagement: To recognize traditional land-use and improve its relations with the community, the Authority has designated 559,089.84 hectares within the park as Traditional Zone under its 2018 Zoning Plan. This zone encompasses customary areas used by indigenous communities for fishing, hunting, gathering, and other traditional practices. Further, long-established community settlements that existed before Lorentz was declared a protected area have been incorporated into the Special Zone (LNP Management Authority, 2018). To facilitate community’s access to the Traditional zone, the Authority has initiated conservation partnerships in Fanamo and Omawita villages in Mimika Regency, with plans to expand these partnerships to Asmat, Jayawijaya, Intan Jaya, and remaining villages in Mimika during the 2021–2030 planning period. The objective is to support indigenous management of 10,000 hectares of the Zone across these four regencies(LNP Management Authority, 2020). The Management Plan also outlines provisions for involving indigenous communities in delineating the boundaries (both physical and mapped) of the Traditional Zone and settlements in the Special zone. The objective is to improve land-use clarity and establish visible boundary markers within these zones across the target regencies (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
The Authority is also working towards increasing community participation in conservation efforts by expanding the network of Masyarakat Mitra Polhut (MMP) or community partner groups in villages within the park. These groups assist the Polhut in conducting forest patrols. Currently, there are six MMPs across the park's three working areas, and the Authority plans to increase this number to ten. Capacity-building initiatives are also planned to enhance the skills and effectiveness of MMP members in supporting forest protection efforts (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Looking ahead, the Authority also plans to establish MMP-led independent patrols. These community-driven patrols offer a more context-sensitive approach to forest monitoring, especially in areas where local communities engage in logging, land clearing for agriculture, or hunting. Through capacity building, the Authority aims to enable MMPs to take a more active role in surveillance and protection, reduce potential conflicts with local communities, and strengthen conservation outcomes (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Legal framework
The LNP has long been recognized for its exceptional conservation value. Initially designated as the Lorentz Natural Monument by the Dutch Colonial Government in 1919, the area was re-established as a Strict Natural Reserve by the Indonesian government in 1978 (vide Decree No. 44/Kpts/Um/1978), covering 2,150,000 hectares. In 1991, it was identified as a high-priority conservation area under the National Biodiversity Action Plan. In 1996, WWF-Indonesia, in collaboration with the Provincial Department of Forestry, proposed a revision of the reserve’s boundaries and a change in its legal status to a National Park. This proposal was approved by the Director General for Nature Conservation and Forest Protection in July 1996. Subsequently, in March 1997, Lorentz area expanded to 2,505,600 hectares and was officially declared a National Park under Minister of Forestry Decree No. 154/Kbts-II/1997. This expansion included a western extension (Mt. Trikoria, Mt. Rumphius, Lake Habbema area) and coastal waters (State Party of Indonesia, 1998) (PKHA, 2006).
While several legislations influence conservation and management of LNP, the Forestry Law (No. 41/1999) and Law on Conservation of Living Natural Resources and its Ecosystems (No. 5 of 1990) play a key role in governing national parks in Indonesia. Law No 41 ensures protection by strictly prohibiting extraction of timber and non-timber forest products, including logging activities, within national parks. The law also restricts non-forestry developmental activities within national parks, limiting such activities to production forest areas and protection forest areas with a permit from the Minister of Forestry (State Party of Indonesia, 1999).Further reinforcing protection, a 1991 decree issued by the Minister of Forestry and Mines and Energy under Law No. 5 explicitly prohibits mining activities within national park areas (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Further, Law No. 5 guides management of national park through creation of a zoning system, including Core zone, Utilization zone and other zones as deemed necessary (State Party of Indonesia, 1990).
A significant legal development took place in 2012 when the Constitutional Court of Indonesia issued Decision No. 35/PUU-X /2012 (MK 35). This ruling reviewed the Forestry Law in the context of indigenous land rights and annulled the state's ownership over indigenous forests. The Court affirmed that customary forests located within indigenous territories should no longer be classified as state forests under government control. Indigenous communities, however, must provide adequate evidence to establish their traditional territorial claims (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, 2012; Nugroho, 2019). The Management Plan neither mentions MK 35 nor addresses its potential implications for indigenous ownership of customary areas and for the broader governance and management of the park. It is unclear how the LNP Management Authority intends to interpret and operationalize the provisions of MK 35 in practice.
While several legislations influence conservation and management of LNP, the Forestry Law (No. 41/1999) and Law on Conservation of Living Natural Resources and its Ecosystems (No. 5 of 1990) play a key role in governing national parks in Indonesia. Law No 41 ensures protection by strictly prohibiting extraction of timber and non-timber forest products, including logging activities, within national parks. The law also restricts non-forestry developmental activities within national parks, limiting such activities to production forest areas and protection forest areas with a permit from the Minister of Forestry (State Party of Indonesia, 1999).Further reinforcing protection, a 1991 decree issued by the Minister of Forestry and Mines and Energy under Law No. 5 explicitly prohibits mining activities within national park areas (UNEP-WCMC, 2011). Further, Law No. 5 guides management of national park through creation of a zoning system, including Core zone, Utilization zone and other zones as deemed necessary (State Party of Indonesia, 1990).
A significant legal development took place in 2012 when the Constitutional Court of Indonesia issued Decision No. 35/PUU-X /2012 (MK 35). This ruling reviewed the Forestry Law in the context of indigenous land rights and annulled the state's ownership over indigenous forests. The Court affirmed that customary forests located within indigenous territories should no longer be classified as state forests under government control. Indigenous communities, however, must provide adequate evidence to establish their traditional territorial claims (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, 2012; Nugroho, 2019). The Management Plan neither mentions MK 35 nor addresses its potential implications for indigenous ownership of customary areas and for the broader governance and management of the park. It is unclear how the LNP Management Authority intends to interpret and operationalize the provisions of MK 35 in practice.
Governance arrangements
LNPs governance and decision-making structure is constrained by the imbalance in bureaucratic ranks between Park Director and regency-level government authorities. These authorities frequently push for infrastructure development in the highlands to provide critical services to communities in their respective Papuan regencies. These uplands areas, which host ecologically significant montane and alpine ecosystems, are home to biodiversity values such as the Gondwanan relict Nothofagus trees. Yet, these ecological concerns are rarely prioritized in development proposals. The Park Director’s comparatively lower administrative ranks limits their ability to influence regional planning processes or resist unsustainable projects advanced by higher-ranking officials.
The Special Zone which encompasses 43,714.15 hectares was designated especially to accommodate regional development interests from local leaders. Furthermore, as urban expansion continues and demand for land and resource grows, pressures to extend development within the park may intensify. This may heighten the risk of habitat fragmentation, especially in the absence of a more balanced governance framework that can effectively safeguard the park’s biodiversity values. Lastly, the Decision MK 35 has significant implications for the governance of customary forest areas within the national park. The ruling affirms indigenous ownership of these areas by reviewing the Forestry, which previously vested ownership of land within protected areas solely with the central government.
The Special Zone which encompasses 43,714.15 hectares was designated especially to accommodate regional development interests from local leaders. Furthermore, as urban expansion continues and demand for land and resource grows, pressures to extend development within the park may intensify. This may heighten the risk of habitat fragmentation, especially in the absence of a more balanced governance framework that can effectively safeguard the park’s biodiversity values. Lastly, the Decision MK 35 has significant implications for the governance of customary forest areas within the national park. The ruling affirms indigenous ownership of these areas by reviewing the Forestry, which previously vested ownership of land within protected areas solely with the central government.
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
The construction of the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road highlights the limited integration of LNP’s biodiversity values into national, provincial and regional development planning and decision making processes. Several instances throughout in the road’s development highlights this disconnect.
Road construction within Lorentz began near Lake Habbema in 2008 without the necessary permit and an EIA. Although the LNP Management Authority reported this violation to the Minister of Forestry, which then issued instructions to the Governor of Papua to halt construction, the provincial government proceeded with the development (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). In the same year, the Indonesian President recommended establishment of a working group chaired by the Director General for Regional Development (within the Ministry of Home Affairs), to investigate the construction, facilitate discussions between the Authority and provincial and regency governments, and find a solution. However, this recommendation was not actioned (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). In 2009, the Minister of Forestry again intervened, writing to the Papua provincial and regency governments to conduct feasibility studies for all proposed road construction projects in protected areas. Yet, this directive was not implemented. The Papuan government insisted on continuing the construction through the park, emphasizing its importance as part of a larger integrated transport program to provide connectivity to Papua’s isolated regions (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). This insistence prevailed even as the UNESCO World Heritage Centre recommended halting construction due to the ecological risks posed to fragile alpine and subalpine environments around Lake Habbema. The road was ultimately opened for public use in 2018 (World Heritage Committee, 2017; World Heritage Committee, 2019).
An important reason behind this disconnect between the conservation-management objectives of the LNP and the regional development priorities of the provincial and local governments is their limited awareness and understanding of Lorentz’s World heritage Site status and its OUVs. As acknowledged by the State Party in its 2023 Periodic Report, the current level of coordination and relationships between the park management and government authorities is only 'fair' and requires significant improvement (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). A step towards addressing this gap is the Collaborative Management Agreement, which emphasizes the vital role of provincial and regency-level governments in delivering welfare services to local communities while ensuring the sustainability of the park’s ecosystems (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Road construction within Lorentz began near Lake Habbema in 2008 without the necessary permit and an EIA. Although the LNP Management Authority reported this violation to the Minister of Forestry, which then issued instructions to the Governor of Papua to halt construction, the provincial government proceeded with the development (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). In the same year, the Indonesian President recommended establishment of a working group chaired by the Director General for Regional Development (within the Ministry of Home Affairs), to investigate the construction, facilitate discussions between the Authority and provincial and regency governments, and find a solution. However, this recommendation was not actioned (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). In 2009, the Minister of Forestry again intervened, writing to the Papua provincial and regency governments to conduct feasibility studies for all proposed road construction projects in protected areas. Yet, this directive was not implemented. The Papuan government insisted on continuing the construction through the park, emphasizing its importance as part of a larger integrated transport program to provide connectivity to Papua’s isolated regions (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011). This insistence prevailed even as the UNESCO World Heritage Centre recommended halting construction due to the ecological risks posed to fragile alpine and subalpine environments around Lake Habbema. The road was ultimately opened for public use in 2018 (World Heritage Committee, 2017; World Heritage Committee, 2019).
An important reason behind this disconnect between the conservation-management objectives of the LNP and the regional development priorities of the provincial and local governments is their limited awareness and understanding of Lorentz’s World heritage Site status and its OUVs. As acknowledged by the State Party in its 2023 Periodic Report, the current level of coordination and relationships between the park management and government authorities is only 'fair' and requires significant improvement (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). A step towards addressing this gap is the Collaborative Management Agreement, which emphasizes the vital role of provincial and regency-level governments in delivering welfare services to local communities while ensuring the sustainability of the park’s ecosystems (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Boundaries
The boundaries of the national park are known to the LNP Management Authority, but they are not clearly understood by Indigenous communities, highlighting the need for deeper engagement and communication with them (State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
Given the large size, remoteness and rugged terrain in much of the park, the park is to a large degree self-buffering. There is no designated buffer zone surrounding LNP. The Authority has divided the park into eight distinct management zones, including a core zone, a wilderness zone (which serves as a buffer to the core), a traditional use zone for local communities, a utilization zone for nature-based tourism, a rehabilitation zone for restoring degraded ecosystems, and a special zone designated for the development of regional infrastructure such as the Trans-Papua Highway and other nationally strategic projects (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
The Authority is in the process of marking physical and virtual boundaries for these zones. Physical boundaries will be established using real markers in the field, such as zinc plates, wooden boards, or other materials affixed to trees to indicate the limits of each zone. Virtual boundaries, or geo-referenced markers, will be defined using working maps equipped with precise coordinate points for each boundary marker (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Given the large size, remoteness and rugged terrain in much of the park, the park is to a large degree self-buffering. There is no designated buffer zone surrounding LNP. The Authority has divided the park into eight distinct management zones, including a core zone, a wilderness zone (which serves as a buffer to the core), a traditional use zone for local communities, a utilization zone for nature-based tourism, a rehabilitation zone for restoring degraded ecosystems, and a special zone designated for the development of regional infrastructure such as the Trans-Papua Highway and other nationally strategic projects (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
The Authority is in the process of marking physical and virtual boundaries for these zones. Physical boundaries will be established using real markers in the field, such as zinc plates, wooden boards, or other materials affixed to trees to indicate the limits of each zone. Virtual boundaries, or geo-referenced markers, will be defined using working maps equipped with precise coordinate points for each boundary marker (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Overlapping international designations
N/A
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
The World Heritage Committee has issued several decisions and recommendations on different aspects concerning LNP; however, their implementation has shown mixed results.
Road construction: In its 41st session, the Committee expressed concern that the construction of the Habema-Kenyam road through the park posed a significant threat to the park’s fragile alpine ecosystems, which are already vulnerable to the impacts of global climate change (World Heritage Committee, 2017). In 2019 however, the Committee noted with utmost concern that the road had been completed and opened for public use (World Heritage Committee, 2019). Although some mitigation measures, including SMART Patrol, restoration plantations, and biodiversity monitoring have been initiated along the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road, their implementation has been sub-optimal due to deteriorating security situation in the region. In its 44th session, the committee noted that while mitigation efforts remain partially suspended, the road continues to be open to the public (World Heritage Committee, 2021).
Reactive Monitoring Mission: The Committee has repeatedly requested the State Party to invite an IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission since 2017. However, this mission has not yet taken place, primarily due to ongoing security concern in Papua. From the 41st session (2017) to the 46th session (2024), the Committee has reiterated this request. The purpose of the mission is to assess the status and impacts of road developments on the OUVs of the site, evaluate the effectiveness of the Zoning System and Management Plan , and examine other threats, including illegal fishing, logging, and poaching (World Heritage Committee, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2024).
Use of SMART Patrol: The use of Smart patrol technology, particularly the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) which utilizes advanced technology like GPS and mobile applications to enhance patrol operations in Lorentz was first reported in the 41st session. The Committee has encouraged the LNP Management Authority to continue use of the SMART patrolling system to improve efficiency of their conservation and security efforts (World Heritage Committee, 2017).
Road construction: In its 41st session, the Committee expressed concern that the construction of the Habema-Kenyam road through the park posed a significant threat to the park’s fragile alpine ecosystems, which are already vulnerable to the impacts of global climate change (World Heritage Committee, 2017). In 2019 however, the Committee noted with utmost concern that the road had been completed and opened for public use (World Heritage Committee, 2019). Although some mitigation measures, including SMART Patrol, restoration plantations, and biodiversity monitoring have been initiated along the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road, their implementation has been sub-optimal due to deteriorating security situation in the region. In its 44th session, the committee noted that while mitigation efforts remain partially suspended, the road continues to be open to the public (World Heritage Committee, 2021).
Reactive Monitoring Mission: The Committee has repeatedly requested the State Party to invite an IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission since 2017. However, this mission has not yet taken place, primarily due to ongoing security concern in Papua. From the 41st session (2017) to the 46th session (2024), the Committee has reiterated this request. The purpose of the mission is to assess the status and impacts of road developments on the OUVs of the site, evaluate the effectiveness of the Zoning System and Management Plan , and examine other threats, including illegal fishing, logging, and poaching (World Heritage Committee, 2017, 2019, 2021, 2023, 2024).
Use of SMART Patrol: The use of Smart patrol technology, particularly the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) which utilizes advanced technology like GPS and mobile applications to enhance patrol operations in Lorentz was first reported in the 41st session. The Committee has encouraged the LNP Management Authority to continue use of the SMART patrolling system to improve efficiency of their conservation and security efforts (World Heritage Committee, 2017).
Climate action
The glaciers in the Sudirman Mountain Range are among the most significant natural features of LNP. However, these glaciers have been rapidly shrinking in both coverage area and volume of permanent snow, potentially leading to indirect and direct changes in the Lorentz ecosystem. Monitoring conducted by Indonesia’s Meteorology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) between 1942 and 2005, and later from 2010 to 2016, has documented a significant decline in ice coverage. However, precise data on the annual rate of ice loss, including reductions in thickness and area, remains unavailable. Recognizing the urgency of this issue, the LNP Management Authority has emphasized the need for a comprehensive assessment to obtain accurate data on trends and patterns of annual glacial retreat to inform policy decisions, and explore measures to preserve the remaining glacial ice and restore affected ecosystems (LNP Management Authority, 2020). However, the current status of climate action within the existing management structures is unclear.
Management plan and overall management system
Long-term Management Plan 2021-2030: The LNP Management Authority finalized its 10-year Long-term Management Plan (2021–2030) in 2020. This Plan identifies the park’s core conservation values, highlighting its significance as a habitat for numerous protected species native to Irian Jaya and its representation of an exceptional range of ecosystems—from snow-capped mountains to tropical marine environments (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Alongside biodiversity values, the Plan outlines several key challenges including infrastructure development pressures (such as roads, communication towers, and expansion of residential areas), limited biodiversity management capacity due to inadequate data and species knowledge, and a general lack of awareness among indigenous communities about Lorentz’s World Heritage status and conservation importance. This lack of awareness contributes to ongoing threats like agricultural encroachment, hunting, wildlife trade, and logging. Other critical issues include limited collaboration among stakeholders, the dieback of Nothofagus forests, and weak institutional capacity that restricts effective field-level management (LNP Management Authority, 2020). The Plan does not address potential threats to biodiversity arising from the proposed exploration and drilling activities in the Warim Oil and Gas Block which partially overlaps with Lorentz, as well as the local (regency) government’s interests in developing oil palm plantations near the park’s foothills.
The Plan outlines the following management objectives for the 10 year period: strengthening institutional capacity; reducing threats to vital ecosystems supporting flagship species; improving species management; restoring degraded habitats; promoting sustainable resource use through deeper community engagement and livelihood alternatives; and enhancing community participation in park management through conservation partnerships (LNP Management Authority, 2020). While the objectives of the 2021–2030 Management Plan appear comprehensive, the Plan does not reflect on the implementation status or achievements of the previous planning period. It also lacks any discussion of the challenges encountered by the Authority during the earlier period, or how these experiences have informed the current plan. Overall, the Plan provides little insight into the monitoring and evaluation of past or present goals and objectives.
Management Zone Plan: The 2018 Zoning Plan divides the national park into eight management zones. The Core zone (35.05% of the park area) encompasses areas with pristine ecosystems, high species diversity, and critical habitats for nesting, mating, and migratory stopovers. This zone is strictly protected from any activity that may compromise its ecological integrity. Surrounding the core is the Wilderness zone (35.87%), which serves as a buffer and offers additional protection to the core from external threats such as illegal logging (LNP Management Authority, 2018). The Utilization zone (0.43%) includes areas which have potential for a nature tourist destination and a recreation center. The Marine Protection Zone (1.76%), located in the Arafura Sea, safeguards key aquatic species like sawfish, dolphins, hawksbill turtles, and southern New Guinea giant softshell turtles, as well as migratory birds like the rainbow bee-eater and Eurasian whimbrel. No fishing is allowed in this zone (LNP Management Authority, 2018). Recognizing the customary use of natural resources by indigenous communities, 23.81% of the park is allocated as a Traditional Zone (23.81%), where fishing, hunting, gathering, and wood collection for traditional uses can be carried as per customary practices. The Religious Zone (0.75%) supports traditional ceremonies, spiritual practices, and cultural events, and also protects fossil sites that hold historical significance (LNP Management Authority, 2018). The Rehabilitation zone (0.47%) includes areas that have been degraded by illegal logging, extensive fires, infrastructure development such as the construction of the Trans-Papua Road, and Nothofagus forests affected by dieback. These areas are prioritized for ecosystem restoration through species enrichment and the planting of native vegetation. Finally, the Special zone (1.86%) is designated to accommodate development initiatives proposed by provincial and regional governments, as well as infrastructure projects deemed to be of national strategic importance (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
Overall Management System and its Effectiveness: The overall responsibility for managing LNP and ensuring its compliance with the World Heritage Convention lies with the national government of Indonesia. In 2006, through Regulation No. 29/2006, the Ministry of Forestry established the LNP Management Authority as the Technical Implementation Unit for the administration and management. The Authority functions under the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation within the Ministry of Forestry (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). The Authority has its headquarter office in Wamena which was established in 2007. For operational purposes, the park is divided into three management sections: SPTN Region I based in Timika, SPTN Region II in Wamena, and SPTN Region III in Nabire (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Due to constraints in funding, staffing, and infrastructure, the Authority has been unable to conduct field-level management activities such as patrols across the entire park area since establishment of headquarter office in 2007. Their reach remains largely limited to accessible lowland areas leaving remote and mountainous regions largely out of scope (LNP Management Authority, 2020; State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
The Plan outlines the following management objectives for the 10 year period: strengthening institutional capacity; reducing threats to vital ecosystems supporting flagship species; improving species management; restoring degraded habitats; promoting sustainable resource use through deeper community engagement and livelihood alternatives; and enhancing community participation in park management through conservation partnerships (LNP Management Authority, 2020). While the objectives of the 2021–2030 Management Plan appear comprehensive, the Plan does not reflect on the implementation status or achievements of the previous planning period. It also lacks any discussion of the challenges encountered by the Authority during the earlier period, or how these experiences have informed the current plan. Overall, the Plan provides little insight into the monitoring and evaluation of past or present goals and objectives.
Management Zone Plan: The 2018 Zoning Plan divides the national park into eight management zones. The Core zone (35.05% of the park area) encompasses areas with pristine ecosystems, high species diversity, and critical habitats for nesting, mating, and migratory stopovers. This zone is strictly protected from any activity that may compromise its ecological integrity. Surrounding the core is the Wilderness zone (35.87%), which serves as a buffer and offers additional protection to the core from external threats such as illegal logging (LNP Management Authority, 2018). The Utilization zone (0.43%) includes areas which have potential for a nature tourist destination and a recreation center. The Marine Protection Zone (1.76%), located in the Arafura Sea, safeguards key aquatic species like sawfish, dolphins, hawksbill turtles, and southern New Guinea giant softshell turtles, as well as migratory birds like the rainbow bee-eater and Eurasian whimbrel. No fishing is allowed in this zone (LNP Management Authority, 2018). Recognizing the customary use of natural resources by indigenous communities, 23.81% of the park is allocated as a Traditional Zone (23.81%), where fishing, hunting, gathering, and wood collection for traditional uses can be carried as per customary practices. The Religious Zone (0.75%) supports traditional ceremonies, spiritual practices, and cultural events, and also protects fossil sites that hold historical significance (LNP Management Authority, 2018). The Rehabilitation zone (0.47%) includes areas that have been degraded by illegal logging, extensive fires, infrastructure development such as the construction of the Trans-Papua Road, and Nothofagus forests affected by dieback. These areas are prioritized for ecosystem restoration through species enrichment and the planting of native vegetation. Finally, the Special zone (1.86%) is designated to accommodate development initiatives proposed by provincial and regional governments, as well as infrastructure projects deemed to be of national strategic importance (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
Overall Management System and its Effectiveness: The overall responsibility for managing LNP and ensuring its compliance with the World Heritage Convention lies with the national government of Indonesia. In 2006, through Regulation No. 29/2006, the Ministry of Forestry established the LNP Management Authority as the Technical Implementation Unit for the administration and management. The Authority functions under the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation within the Ministry of Forestry (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). The Authority has its headquarter office in Wamena which was established in 2007. For operational purposes, the park is divided into three management sections: SPTN Region I based in Timika, SPTN Region II in Wamena, and SPTN Region III in Nabire (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Due to constraints in funding, staffing, and infrastructure, the Authority has been unable to conduct field-level management activities such as patrols across the entire park area since establishment of headquarter office in 2007. Their reach remains largely limited to accessible lowland areas leaving remote and mountainous regions largely out of scope (LNP Management Authority, 2020; State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
Law enforcement
The LNP is governed under the 1997 Ministerial Decree and protected by Law No 41/1999 and Law No. 5/1990. To enforce these regulations, the LNP field staff execute regular patrols. Locally known as Polhut (Forestry Police), these forest rangers under the Ministry of Environment and Forests are responsible for patrolling and enforcing forestry laws, including combating illegal logging, poaching and harvesting of wild species and protecting national parks.
Since 2016, patrols have utilized the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART), covering 600,000 hectares of the national park area between 2016 and 2018. However, due to the park’s difficult terrain, these patrols have been largely limited to its lowland areas (State Party of Indonesia, 2018). SMART patrols involve teams of forest police and designated community partners from local villages (MMPs). They collect data using GPS devices and SMART software installed on Android phones, store it in a central database (SMART Desktop), and generate standardized reports to guide decision-making. Between 2016 and 2019, SMART patrols have helped LNP team to efficiently monitor field conditions, collect biodiversity data, respond to conservation threats, and engage with indigenous communities (LNP Management Authority, 2019).
Additionally, the LNP Management Authority has installed several information boards as a tool to prohibit criminal activities and misconduct in the park while maintaining the integrity of the property through conservation area management activities. These installations also aim to raise awareness and encourage the active participation of communities in protecting and conserving the national park (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
Challenges in Law Enforcement: While national park regulations prohibit logging, reports indicate that illegal logging persists, particularly in areas accessible by road (e.g., Habbema Road) and by rivers (e.g., Asmat area). These operations not only threaten the park’s biodiversity but also introduce secondary risks such as forest fires, invasive species, and illegal settlements (PKHA, 2006). The opening of the Trans-Papua Highway road has further escalated logging pressures. The commercial exploitation of native wildlife is another major concern. Although hunting and harvesting of flora and fauna by non-indigenous individuals are illegal under No. 41/1999 and Law No. 5/1990, several species—including cassowaries, Estuarine crocodile, New Guinea crocodile, Pig-nosed Turtles, pythons, and orchids—are still targeted for trade (PKHA, 2006). However, due to limited data on these illegal activities, assessing their impact remains difficult. For example, the threatened Boelen’s python, a CITES Appendix-II species, has a restricted distribution, yet there is little information on law enforcement actions taken against its illegal trade (PKHA, 2006). There is also a lack of transparency regarding criminal cases and administrative sanctions imposed by the LNP Management.
Room for improvement: Since 2004, Reactive Monitoring Missions have highlighted severe limitations in law enforcement due to inadequate infrastructure, financial support, and personnel. The Management Plan acknowledges that since the park’s administrative office was established in 2007, field management activities have primarily focused on accessible areas, leaving many portions of the park unmonitored. The plan calls for increased investment in facilities for terrestrial, water, and air patrols, as well as improved monitoring of priority species and core wilderness habitats (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Expanding the SMART patrol program is another priority. The Management Plan acknowledges the effectiveness of SMART in identifying hotspots of illegal logging, poaching and other illicit activities. However, its implementation remains limited, with pilot efforts primarily concentrated in Lorentz SPTN 1 Timika. A broader rollout across all sections of the park is urgently needed to improve surveillance and enforcement capacity. This expansion will require the recruitment and deployment of additional park rangers, as well as dedicated training programs to build technical capacity among park staff. Moreover, existing trained personnel would benefit from more intensive support and refresher training to enhance their proficiency in SMART data collection, analysis, and reporting (LNP Management Authority, 2019).
Coordination with law enforcement authorities: To address challenges, the Management Plan calls for strengthened coordination between Lorentz Polhut and other law enforcement bodies, including the Forestry Police of the Papua Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BBKSDA Papua), the Papua Center for Security and Enforcement of Environmental and Forest Laws (BPPLHK) and Police investigators from the Central Investigation (KORWAS). To integrate the mandates and authorities of these diverse agencies, the Authority is developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) that clearly defines the roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms. The goal is to enhance collective enforcement efforts and ensure the security of LNP’s forests (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Strengthening community involvement: Increasing community involvement is another essential step in improving law enforcement. Currently, six MMPs assist the forest police. However, given the vast expanse of the park, this number is insufficient. The Management Plan aims to increase the number of MMPs to ten, distributed as follows: five in SPTN Region 1 Timika, three in SPTN Region II Wamena, and two in SPTN Region III Nabire (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Since 2016, patrols have utilized the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART), covering 600,000 hectares of the national park area between 2016 and 2018. However, due to the park’s difficult terrain, these patrols have been largely limited to its lowland areas (State Party of Indonesia, 2018). SMART patrols involve teams of forest police and designated community partners from local villages (MMPs). They collect data using GPS devices and SMART software installed on Android phones, store it in a central database (SMART Desktop), and generate standardized reports to guide decision-making. Between 2016 and 2019, SMART patrols have helped LNP team to efficiently monitor field conditions, collect biodiversity data, respond to conservation threats, and engage with indigenous communities (LNP Management Authority, 2019).
Additionally, the LNP Management Authority has installed several information boards as a tool to prohibit criminal activities and misconduct in the park while maintaining the integrity of the property through conservation area management activities. These installations also aim to raise awareness and encourage the active participation of communities in protecting and conserving the national park (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
Challenges in Law Enforcement: While national park regulations prohibit logging, reports indicate that illegal logging persists, particularly in areas accessible by road (e.g., Habbema Road) and by rivers (e.g., Asmat area). These operations not only threaten the park’s biodiversity but also introduce secondary risks such as forest fires, invasive species, and illegal settlements (PKHA, 2006). The opening of the Trans-Papua Highway road has further escalated logging pressures. The commercial exploitation of native wildlife is another major concern. Although hunting and harvesting of flora and fauna by non-indigenous individuals are illegal under No. 41/1999 and Law No. 5/1990, several species—including cassowaries, Estuarine crocodile, New Guinea crocodile, Pig-nosed Turtles, pythons, and orchids—are still targeted for trade (PKHA, 2006). However, due to limited data on these illegal activities, assessing their impact remains difficult. For example, the threatened Boelen’s python, a CITES Appendix-II species, has a restricted distribution, yet there is little information on law enforcement actions taken against its illegal trade (PKHA, 2006). There is also a lack of transparency regarding criminal cases and administrative sanctions imposed by the LNP Management.
Room for improvement: Since 2004, Reactive Monitoring Missions have highlighted severe limitations in law enforcement due to inadequate infrastructure, financial support, and personnel. The Management Plan acknowledges that since the park’s administrative office was established in 2007, field management activities have primarily focused on accessible areas, leaving many portions of the park unmonitored. The plan calls for increased investment in facilities for terrestrial, water, and air patrols, as well as improved monitoring of priority species and core wilderness habitats (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Expanding the SMART patrol program is another priority. The Management Plan acknowledges the effectiveness of SMART in identifying hotspots of illegal logging, poaching and other illicit activities. However, its implementation remains limited, with pilot efforts primarily concentrated in Lorentz SPTN 1 Timika. A broader rollout across all sections of the park is urgently needed to improve surveillance and enforcement capacity. This expansion will require the recruitment and deployment of additional park rangers, as well as dedicated training programs to build technical capacity among park staff. Moreover, existing trained personnel would benefit from more intensive support and refresher training to enhance their proficiency in SMART data collection, analysis, and reporting (LNP Management Authority, 2019).
Coordination with law enforcement authorities: To address challenges, the Management Plan calls for strengthened coordination between Lorentz Polhut and other law enforcement bodies, including the Forestry Police of the Papua Natural Resources Conservation Agency (BBKSDA Papua), the Papua Center for Security and Enforcement of Environmental and Forest Laws (BPPLHK) and Police investigators from the Central Investigation (KORWAS). To integrate the mandates and authorities of these diverse agencies, the Authority is developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) that clearly defines the roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms. The goal is to enhance collective enforcement efforts and ensure the security of LNP’s forests (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Strengthening community involvement: Increasing community involvement is another essential step in improving law enforcement. Currently, six MMPs assist the forest police. However, given the vast expanse of the park, this number is insufficient. The Management Plan aims to increase the number of MMPs to ten, distributed as follows: five in SPTN Region 1 Timika, three in SPTN Region II Wamena, and two in SPTN Region III Nabire (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Sustainable finance
The last Reactive Monitoring Mission assessed the budget allocation for the conservation and management of LNP as inadequate. Although the Ministry of Forestry increased the site's budget by 65% over three years—from IDR 9,695,314,000 in 2011 to IDR 15,047,364,000 in 2014—this remained insufficient to meet management requirements, particularly given on-the-ground security challenges. Considering Lorentz’s vast size, this budget translated to an allocation of only IDR 6,403 (approximately US$0.56) per hectare, which was grossly inadequate (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). In 2023 the State Party acknowledged that the current budget remains insufficient to meet basic management needs, posing a serious constraint on the capacity to manage the national park effectively (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). At present, the national government fully funds the park, but additional financial support from external sources is needed (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). The development of Collaborative Management Agreements with different stakeholder groups is expected to allow LNP Management to supplement its budget with funding beyond government allocations. Another critical issue is how the LNP Management allocates its budget internally. According to the Reactive Monitoring Mission reports, approximately 75% of the budget is spent on operational costs, infrastructure, and staff salaries. A more strategic allocation of resources is necessary—one that aligns spending with the most pressing conservation threats on the ground. It is recommended that budgeting and resource allocation processes be reviewed to ensure that financial resources are directed toward addressing the greatest threats to the property’s OUV (UNESCO and IUCN, 2011; UNESCO and IUCN, 2014).
Staff capacity, training and development
The last Reactive Monitoring Mission raised serious concerns about the inadequacy of human resources. At the time of the mission, the LNP Management Authority employed only 69 staff members, including 35 forest rangers. Given park’s vast expanse of 2.35 million hectares, this meant that, hypothetically, each ranger was responsible for patrolling an area of approximately 67,143 hectares—an impossible task given the park’s challenging terrain (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014). As of September 2020, the staffing situation remained unchanged, with only 53 full-time employees and 16 contract workers. Although updated staffing figures are not available, the State Party has acknowledged that the current human resource capacity-both in terms of staffing levels and technical expertise is insufficient to meet the management needs of the world heritage site (State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
Due to limited personnel and inadequate infrastructure, field management activities have been largely confined to easily accessible areas, leaving vast portions of the park beyond effective reach. To address this gap, the Management Plan aims to strengthen field-based management by establishing additional field-based management units and recruiting and deploying competent personnel to fill critical field positions (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Several training and development priorities have also been identified to enhance staff capacity. First, the LNP Management aims to expand the use of SMART patrols, which requires additional personnel training in data collection and SMART software applications (LNP Management Authority, 2019). Building capacity in SMART patrol is particularly critical as logging and poaching pressures are expected to increase with the construction of the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road, which may facilitate easier access to the park and intensify threats to its forests and wildlife.
Second, due to the diverse ecosystems and vast species richness of LNP, national park managers require specialized training at reputed institutions to enhance their expertise in effective species management. Strengthening staff capacity in species conservation and management is particularly crucial as the Management plans to expand its monitoring efforts by adding more species to its priority list (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Third, effective community engagement is a key component of site-level collaborative management. This requires well-trained personnel with strong competencies in stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution, and participatory management to foster constructive relationships with indigenous communities (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Finally, it is important to act on the recommendations made by previous UNESCO and IUCN Monitoring Missions. The missions acknowledged the LNP Management’s efforts to diversify staff expertise—such as recruiting professionals from agriculture, law, and social sciences, and providing training in GIS and conflict resolution. They also emphasized the need to further strengthen technical and interdisciplinary capacity by hiring specialists in anthropology, alpine ecology and montane botany, and community development. In addition, staff training should be expanded to cover key areas such as protected area planning, environmental impact assessment, and community-based conservation (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014)
Due to limited personnel and inadequate infrastructure, field management activities have been largely confined to easily accessible areas, leaving vast portions of the park beyond effective reach. To address this gap, the Management Plan aims to strengthen field-based management by establishing additional field-based management units and recruiting and deploying competent personnel to fill critical field positions (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Several training and development priorities have also been identified to enhance staff capacity. First, the LNP Management aims to expand the use of SMART patrols, which requires additional personnel training in data collection and SMART software applications (LNP Management Authority, 2019). Building capacity in SMART patrol is particularly critical as logging and poaching pressures are expected to increase with the construction of the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road, which may facilitate easier access to the park and intensify threats to its forests and wildlife.
Second, due to the diverse ecosystems and vast species richness of LNP, national park managers require specialized training at reputed institutions to enhance their expertise in effective species management. Strengthening staff capacity in species conservation and management is particularly crucial as the Management plans to expand its monitoring efforts by adding more species to its priority list (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Third, effective community engagement is a key component of site-level collaborative management. This requires well-trained personnel with strong competencies in stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution, and participatory management to foster constructive relationships with indigenous communities (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Finally, it is important to act on the recommendations made by previous UNESCO and IUCN Monitoring Missions. The missions acknowledged the LNP Management’s efforts to diversify staff expertise—such as recruiting professionals from agriculture, law, and social sciences, and providing training in GIS and conflict resolution. They also emphasized the need to further strengthen technical and interdisciplinary capacity by hiring specialists in anthropology, alpine ecology and montane botany, and community development. In addition, staff training should be expanded to cover key areas such as protected area planning, environmental impact assessment, and community-based conservation (UNESCO and IUCN, 2014)
Education and interpretation programmes
Various stakeholders—including local governments, Indigenous communities, youth, local businesses, NGOs, and both domestic and international visitors—have a low level of awareness about LNP’s status as a World Heritage Site and its OUVs (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). To address this gap, the Management Plan aims to develop effective learning and knowledge-sharing programs. First, an initiative is planned to establish a Regional Information System that provides reliable data on LNP’s natural and cultural significance. This system will be designed to be accessible not only to national park managers but also to the general public, thereby improving managerial capacity and enhancing recognition of LNP’s unique values among external stakeholders (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Second, the Plan provides for outreach programs such as conservation camps, seminars, and educational activities targeting youth in local villages. The objective is to build local champions who can actively participate in conservation efforts and serve as stewards of Lorentz’s ecosystems. This approach is expected to enhance community involvement in conservation while developing a network of future conservation leaders (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Third, the management authority intends to provide coaching, guidance, and mentoring programs for indigenous communities engaged in professional hunting. These efforts aim to reduce excessive hunting of wild animals and unsustainable harvesting of plant species, ensuring the long-term viability of LNP’s biodiversity (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Tourism and visitation management
Overall, tourism in LNP remains limited. However, small-scale ecotourism activities have taken place, primarily in the form of mountaineering at Carstensz Pyramid in the west and Mt. Trikora in the east, and birdwatching tours around Lake Habbema in the northeast. PTFI has supported these activities by constructing a mountaintop airstrip and establishing the village of Tsinga as a fly-in base for mountaineering, directly benefiting local villagers.
Lorentz has significant ecotourism potential. Under the 2018 Zoning Plan, the Utilization Zone covering 10,176.20 hectares holds significant potential for nature-based tourism. This zone encompasses the Lake Habbema area, the Sudirman Mountains, and the surrounding Yapen and Yos Sudarso Islands. It features a variety of natural attractions, including Lake Habbema, Lake Kelabu, Lake Degeli Jagalai, waterfalls, scenic landscapes, marine tourism sites, Carstensz Peak, and Trikora Peak. A range of tourist activities, such as mountain climbing, birdwatching, photography, camping, and sightseeing already take place in this area (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
Despite the strong potential, multiple challenges hinder tourism development, including security concerns, inadequate infrastructure and limited promotional efforts. In its 2023 Periodic Report, the State Party acknowledged the absence of essential tourism and visitor facilities, including a visitor center, site museum, information booths, guided tours, printed brochures, and transport services all of which are necessary to support sustainable tourism (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). To address these gaps, the LNP Management has proposed investments in basic tourism infrastructure, including tourist huts, toilets, ticket booths, shelters, gazebos, and helipads (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
There are also endeavours to develop a Tourism Master Plan to establish administrative and technical guidelines and ensure their integration with regional development strategies. A key priority is capacity-building of indigenous communities through the formation of community-based tourism groups, with trained LNP staff providing support and facilitation. These groups will be actively involved in tourism operations across Lorentz’s three working areas (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Lastly, the management authority aims to monitor impacts of nature tourism, assessing its economic benefits for community groups as well as any potential adverse effects on the conservation of the park area, including waste generation and damage to forest areas (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Lorentz has significant ecotourism potential. Under the 2018 Zoning Plan, the Utilization Zone covering 10,176.20 hectares holds significant potential for nature-based tourism. This zone encompasses the Lake Habbema area, the Sudirman Mountains, and the surrounding Yapen and Yos Sudarso Islands. It features a variety of natural attractions, including Lake Habbema, Lake Kelabu, Lake Degeli Jagalai, waterfalls, scenic landscapes, marine tourism sites, Carstensz Peak, and Trikora Peak. A range of tourist activities, such as mountain climbing, birdwatching, photography, camping, and sightseeing already take place in this area (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
Despite the strong potential, multiple challenges hinder tourism development, including security concerns, inadequate infrastructure and limited promotional efforts. In its 2023 Periodic Report, the State Party acknowledged the absence of essential tourism and visitor facilities, including a visitor center, site museum, information booths, guided tours, printed brochures, and transport services all of which are necessary to support sustainable tourism (State Party of Indonesia, 2023). To address these gaps, the LNP Management has proposed investments in basic tourism infrastructure, including tourist huts, toilets, ticket booths, shelters, gazebos, and helipads (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
There are also endeavours to develop a Tourism Master Plan to establish administrative and technical guidelines and ensure their integration with regional development strategies. A key priority is capacity-building of indigenous communities through the formation of community-based tourism groups, with trained LNP staff providing support and facilitation. These groups will be actively involved in tourism operations across Lorentz’s three working areas (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Lastly, the management authority aims to monitor impacts of nature tourism, assessing its economic benefits for community groups as well as any potential adverse effects on the conservation of the park area, including waste generation and damage to forest areas (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Sustainable use
The Indigenous communities of LNP have long depended on its land and natural resources for hunting, fishing, and the use of wood and vegetation products. Many continue to hunt species traditionally used for subsistence, often employing age-old methods. Targeted species include cuscus, cassowaries, birds-of-paradise, turtles, crocodiles, and snakes. Additionally, various wood and plant products remain integral to their way of life. The Forestry Law recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples to engage in these traditional activities within the park (PKHA, 2006).
However, unsustainable hunting and resource extraction by non-indigenous individuals or for commercial purposes pose a growing threat to LNP’s biodiversity. These activities, which are illegal under the Forestry Law, endanger several species, including cassowaries, estuarine crocodiles, New Guinea crocodiles, Pig-nosed turtles, Boelen’s python, and Orchids (PKHA, 2006). Overexploitation and unsustainable harvesting practices can deplete wild populations in natural habitats and jeopardize the survival of protected and threatened species (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
To promote sustainable resource use, it is crucial to raise awareness about the legal status and ecological consequences of poaching and illegal harvesting. Individuals engaged in such activities without traditional ownership rights should first receive education on these issues, followed by appropriate legal enforcement where necessary (PKHA, 2006). Perpetrators of illegal logging, hunting, and wildlife trade must face sanctions in accordance with Law No. 41/1999 and Law No. 5/1990. Additionally, strengthening forest monitoring and enforcement by field staff is essential to mitigating these threats (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
For Indigenous communities engaged in traditional hunting and resource collection, open dialogue is key to understanding their dependency on natural resources and evolving practices. Community engagement initiatives should raise awareness about conserving the Heritage Site while respecting indigenous traditions (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Given their close relationship with traditional forests, LNP Management plans to conduct ethnobotanical studies to identify species of economic, social, and cultural significance (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Additionally, shifts in traditional resource management and hunting methods due to social changes could amplify their impact on park biodiversity, making it essential for future studies to account for these evolving dynamics (IUCN Consultation, 2014). Lastly, the LNP Management aims to curb excessive harvesting by providing coaching, mentoring, and alternative livelihood opportunities to indigenous communities that align with their local capacities and traditional knowledge. These initiatives enhance community well-being while reducing dependence on forest resources (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Ongoing community empowerment programs include capacity-building and support to micro business such as sustainable agriculture, livestock farming, and traditional handicrafts. One notable example is the production of Noken, a traditional knotted or woven bag crafted by indigenous Papuan communities, recognized by UNESCO as an Intangible Cultural Heritage (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
However, unsustainable hunting and resource extraction by non-indigenous individuals or for commercial purposes pose a growing threat to LNP’s biodiversity. These activities, which are illegal under the Forestry Law, endanger several species, including cassowaries, estuarine crocodiles, New Guinea crocodiles, Pig-nosed turtles, Boelen’s python, and Orchids (PKHA, 2006). Overexploitation and unsustainable harvesting practices can deplete wild populations in natural habitats and jeopardize the survival of protected and threatened species (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
To promote sustainable resource use, it is crucial to raise awareness about the legal status and ecological consequences of poaching and illegal harvesting. Individuals engaged in such activities without traditional ownership rights should first receive education on these issues, followed by appropriate legal enforcement where necessary (PKHA, 2006). Perpetrators of illegal logging, hunting, and wildlife trade must face sanctions in accordance with Law No. 41/1999 and Law No. 5/1990. Additionally, strengthening forest monitoring and enforcement by field staff is essential to mitigating these threats (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
For Indigenous communities engaged in traditional hunting and resource collection, open dialogue is key to understanding their dependency on natural resources and evolving practices. Community engagement initiatives should raise awareness about conserving the Heritage Site while respecting indigenous traditions (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Given their close relationship with traditional forests, LNP Management plans to conduct ethnobotanical studies to identify species of economic, social, and cultural significance (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Additionally, shifts in traditional resource management and hunting methods due to social changes could amplify their impact on park biodiversity, making it essential for future studies to account for these evolving dynamics (IUCN Consultation, 2014). Lastly, the LNP Management aims to curb excessive harvesting by providing coaching, mentoring, and alternative livelihood opportunities to indigenous communities that align with their local capacities and traditional knowledge. These initiatives enhance community well-being while reducing dependence on forest resources (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Ongoing community empowerment programs include capacity-building and support to micro business such as sustainable agriculture, livestock farming, and traditional handicrafts. One notable example is the production of Noken, a traditional knotted or woven bag crafted by indigenous Papuan communities, recognized by UNESCO as an Intangible Cultural Heritage (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
Monitoring
The LNP management has implemented certain measures to monitor the park's biodiversity.
Species Surveys: As outlined in the 2024 SoC report (State Party of Indonesia, 2024), biodiversity monitoring surveys have focused on priority species, including marsupials such as the Mountain Cuscus and Tree-kangaroos, as well as birds like MacGregor’s Honeyeater and Sclater’s Crowned Pigeon. Specialist monitoring has provided insights into these species’ habitats, feeding preferences, and threats. Surveys revealed that Tree-kangaroos inhabit sub-alpine areas, upper mountain habitats, moss forests, and shrubs at elevations of 2,700 to 3,500 meters, where they are protected by the Moni tribe, which regards them as sacred. Mountain Cuscus primarily feeds on Pandanus sp., Schefflera sp., Cyatea attrock, Rhododendron sp., and orchids at altitudes of 2,601–3,373 meters. Sclater’s Crowned Pigeon was observed in mangrove forests, lowland forests, and sago forests (State Party of Indonesia, 2024). However, time series data on population trends and threats affecting these species remains unavailable.
According to the Management Plan, population monitoring also includes Estuarine Crocodiles, New Guinea Crocodiles, and Pig-nosed Turtles, which are threatened by local hunting for trade; however, details are not provided. Over its plan period, the Authority aims to focus on additional priority species for monitoring, including the Greater Yellow Bird-of-Paradise, Echidnas, Canis species, Cassowaries, Parrots, migratory birds, and ancient fern species (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
SMART Patrols: Since 2016, SMART patrols have been conducted to track wildlife movements and identify threats such as land clearing for agriculture, tree felling, hunting, and the harvesting of wild plants. Data is collected using SMART Software on Android devices, stored in SMART Desktop, and standardized reports are generated for decision-making and threat mitigation (State Party of Indonesia, 2018) (State Party of Indonesia, 2020).
Nothofagus dieback Monitoring: Monitoring efforts have also focused on the dieback of Nothofagus sp plant stands. In 2019, surveys conducted by the WCS Indonesia and LNP staff recorded seven Nothofagus species: N. resinosa, N. rubra, N. brassi, N. carii, N. pseudoresinosa, N. nuda, and N. crenata. Dieback locations appeared randomly distributed along the Hebbema-Kenyam road. Some areas showed fungal infections exacerbated by wood-boring insects, while others suffered from forest fires. The team recorded 35 fungi species but not Phytophthora whose infestation was suspected to cause the dieback (State Party of Indonesia, 2022). Further, while Nothofagus regeneration was observed in some areas, further investigation is required to confirm whether the species is undergoing natural succession. Illegal tree felling in certain open areas could threaten the regeneration of Nothofagus seedlings (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
Given the ecological significance of Nothofagus species as one of LNP’s OUVs, their decline poses a serious threat. The Management Plan acknowledges that infrastructure development could impact these forests, but the underlying cause of dieback remains unknown. Collaboration with academic institutions, NGOs, and research organizations is essential to identify and address contributing factors (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Species Surveys: As outlined in the 2024 SoC report (State Party of Indonesia, 2024), biodiversity monitoring surveys have focused on priority species, including marsupials such as the Mountain Cuscus and Tree-kangaroos, as well as birds like MacGregor’s Honeyeater and Sclater’s Crowned Pigeon. Specialist monitoring has provided insights into these species’ habitats, feeding preferences, and threats. Surveys revealed that Tree-kangaroos inhabit sub-alpine areas, upper mountain habitats, moss forests, and shrubs at elevations of 2,700 to 3,500 meters, where they are protected by the Moni tribe, which regards them as sacred. Mountain Cuscus primarily feeds on Pandanus sp., Schefflera sp., Cyatea attrock, Rhododendron sp., and orchids at altitudes of 2,601–3,373 meters. Sclater’s Crowned Pigeon was observed in mangrove forests, lowland forests, and sago forests (State Party of Indonesia, 2024). However, time series data on population trends and threats affecting these species remains unavailable.
According to the Management Plan, population monitoring also includes Estuarine Crocodiles, New Guinea Crocodiles, and Pig-nosed Turtles, which are threatened by local hunting for trade; however, details are not provided. Over its plan period, the Authority aims to focus on additional priority species for monitoring, including the Greater Yellow Bird-of-Paradise, Echidnas, Canis species, Cassowaries, Parrots, migratory birds, and ancient fern species (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
SMART Patrols: Since 2016, SMART patrols have been conducted to track wildlife movements and identify threats such as land clearing for agriculture, tree felling, hunting, and the harvesting of wild plants. Data is collected using SMART Software on Android devices, stored in SMART Desktop, and standardized reports are generated for decision-making and threat mitigation (State Party of Indonesia, 2018) (State Party of Indonesia, 2020).
Nothofagus dieback Monitoring: Monitoring efforts have also focused on the dieback of Nothofagus sp plant stands. In 2019, surveys conducted by the WCS Indonesia and LNP staff recorded seven Nothofagus species: N. resinosa, N. rubra, N. brassi, N. carii, N. pseudoresinosa, N. nuda, and N. crenata. Dieback locations appeared randomly distributed along the Hebbema-Kenyam road. Some areas showed fungal infections exacerbated by wood-boring insects, while others suffered from forest fires. The team recorded 35 fungi species but not Phytophthora whose infestation was suspected to cause the dieback (State Party of Indonesia, 2022). Further, while Nothofagus regeneration was observed in some areas, further investigation is required to confirm whether the species is undergoing natural succession. Illegal tree felling in certain open areas could threaten the regeneration of Nothofagus seedlings (State Party of Indonesia, 2022).
Given the ecological significance of Nothofagus species as one of LNP’s OUVs, their decline poses a serious threat. The Management Plan acknowledges that infrastructure development could impact these forests, but the underlying cause of dieback remains unknown. Collaboration with academic institutions, NGOs, and research organizations is essential to identify and address contributing factors (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Research
The LNP Management has undertaken research to investigate the causes of dieback in Nothofagus sp forests. However, the exact cause remains undetermined, highlighting the need for further research in collaboration with academic institutions and specialists.
Beyond Nothofagus sp dieback, several other priority research areas have been identified. The glacier the near Puncak Jaya peak in the Sudirman mountain range has been retreating. The glacier is one of the few tropical glaciers in the world and its ongoing reduction in area and permanent ice volume may potentially affect the ecosystems of the national park. The Management Plan provides for a comprehensive assessment of glacial recession is essential to guide policy recommendations and implement strategies to preserve the remaining glacial ice and restore affected ecosystems (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Another key research focus is the identification and management of invasive alien species, whose introduction pose a potential threat to the park’s endemic and native species. The Management has proposed a systematic study to identify these invasive species and map their distribution within the park. The findings will serve as a foundation for policies and strategies to handle and control the spread of invasive species (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Additionally, the management authority has emphasized the importance of ethnobotanical research to document the biodiversity potential of the park. The indigenous communities living in and around LNP have deep cultural and subsistence ties to the forest, relying on various plant species for food, traditional practices, and other purposes. Ethnobotanical research will provide valuable insights into species of economic, social, and cultural significance, forming the basis for their sustainable management, preservation, and use by indigenous communities (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Beyond Nothofagus sp dieback, several other priority research areas have been identified. The glacier the near Puncak Jaya peak in the Sudirman mountain range has been retreating. The glacier is one of the few tropical glaciers in the world and its ongoing reduction in area and permanent ice volume may potentially affect the ecosystems of the national park. The Management Plan provides for a comprehensive assessment of glacial recession is essential to guide policy recommendations and implement strategies to preserve the remaining glacial ice and restore affected ecosystems (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Another key research focus is the identification and management of invasive alien species, whose introduction pose a potential threat to the park’s endemic and native species. The Management has proposed a systematic study to identify these invasive species and map their distribution within the park. The findings will serve as a foundation for policies and strategies to handle and control the spread of invasive species (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Additionally, the management authority has emphasized the importance of ethnobotanical research to document the biodiversity potential of the park. The indigenous communities living in and around LNP have deep cultural and subsistence ties to the forest, relying on various plant species for food, traditional practices, and other purposes. Ethnobotanical research will provide valuable insights into species of economic, social, and cultural significance, forming the basis for their sustainable management, preservation, and use by indigenous communities (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
Given the large size, remoteness and largely rugged terrain, LNP is mostly self-buffering and overall requires limited management intervention beyond its boundaries. However, certain external threats pose risks to the park’s ecosystems and biodiversity. One such threat is the development of industrial plantations for oil palm and exotic pulpwood species like Acacia and Eucalyptus. Between 2011 and 2018, industrial plantations were responsible for approximately 28% of deforestation across Papua and West Papua Provinces, resulting in the loss of about 748,640 hectares of old-growth forest as concessionaires cleared large tracts for monoculture cultivation. Forests adjacent to Lorentz are increasingly vulnerable to similar pressures. Reports indicate local government interest in promoting oil palm plantations in the inner coastal lowlands near the park’s foothills, with development already underway in similar landscapes to the park’s east and west. Establishing plantations near Lorentz may create future pressure to expand into the park’s forested areas, potentially leading to forest fragmentation and compromising the park’s ecological integrity. However, the 2021–2030 Management Plan is silent on this threat.
Another external threat comes from the ongoing operations at PTFI’s Grasberg copper and gold mine, located near Puncak Jaya at an elevation of 4,270 meters, close to the headwaters of the Ajkwa River system. This river drains a 2,100 km² watershed into the Arafura Sea. Since 1986, mine tailings have been directly discharged into the Ajkwa River system for transport to the Ajkwa Deposition Area (ADA). Tailings that do not settle within the ADA are likely to reach the Arafura Sea, posing a risk of contamination to the marine environment of the park. The LNP Management Authority, in collaboration with PTFI, has been monitoring for potential mine tailings entering the park’s marine section. While no evidence of tailings entering or contaminating the marine area has been found to date, continued monitoring remains essential given the ongoing operations at Grasberg. The Management Plan, however, neither mentions the mine nor potential threats it may pose to the marine ecosystem of the park.
Invasive and exotic species also present a threat to the native biodiversity. Several non-native fish species (such as Tilapia) and plants (such as water hyacinth) have been introduced into local lakes and streams adjoining the national park, affecting the native aquatic species and their habitats. The LNP Management has proposed to identify invasive species within the park and study their distribution patterns. These studies should be expanded to include areas outside the park to inform strategies for controlling and mitigating the spread of invasive species both within and around Lorentz.
Finally, uncertainty regarding the political and security situation in the region continues to hinder effective management efforts both inside and outside the park.
Another external threat comes from the ongoing operations at PTFI’s Grasberg copper and gold mine, located near Puncak Jaya at an elevation of 4,270 meters, close to the headwaters of the Ajkwa River system. This river drains a 2,100 km² watershed into the Arafura Sea. Since 1986, mine tailings have been directly discharged into the Ajkwa River system for transport to the Ajkwa Deposition Area (ADA). Tailings that do not settle within the ADA are likely to reach the Arafura Sea, posing a risk of contamination to the marine environment of the park. The LNP Management Authority, in collaboration with PTFI, has been monitoring for potential mine tailings entering the park’s marine section. While no evidence of tailings entering or contaminating the marine area has been found to date, continued monitoring remains essential given the ongoing operations at Grasberg. The Management Plan, however, neither mentions the mine nor potential threats it may pose to the marine ecosystem of the park.
Invasive and exotic species also present a threat to the native biodiversity. Several non-native fish species (such as Tilapia) and plants (such as water hyacinth) have been introduced into local lakes and streams adjoining the national park, affecting the native aquatic species and their habitats. The LNP Management has proposed to identify invasive species within the park and study their distribution patterns. These studies should be expanded to include areas outside the park to inform strategies for controlling and mitigating the spread of invasive species both within and around Lorentz.
Finally, uncertainty regarding the political and security situation in the region continues to hinder effective management efforts both inside and outside the park.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
Biodiversity conservation within the national faces multiple challenges, the most significant being road construction. Currently, two roads pass through the park. The 37km Lake Habbema Road, constructed in 1989 to facilitate tourist access from Wamena to Lake Habbema, passes through the Nothofagus montane forest, the subalpine zone and reaches the alpine zone. While the surrounding landscape remained largely intact after its construction, poor route selection, insensitive construction techniques, and inadequate maintenance have led to ongoing erosion and rockfalls, causing environmental degradation along the road corridor and further downslope. A more severe threat arises from the 126 km Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam segment of the Trans-Papua Highway, opened for public use in 2018. The road was constructed to connect Wamena city in Jayawijaya Regency, which previously lacked road or river access and relied entirely on air transport for essential supplies such as fuel, to other regencies. Cutting directly through the park, the road poses serious risks to biodiversity, particularly ancient Nothofagus trees endemic to select areas of the Southern Hemisphere. Since its opening, instances of logging have been reported, with timber being transported out of the park by trucks. Although mitigation measures such as SMART patrols, biodiversity monitoring, and restoration plantations have been introduced, their implementation has been limited due to access restrictions and security concerns.
Local government leaders, responsible for delivering services to communities within their respective regencies, often propose infrastructure development, particularly, road construction project across the park area. The pressure to open areas within park is significant, especially as the LNP’s boundary spans 10 regencies. However, the Park Director, who holds a lower bureaucratic rank (Echelon III-A) compared to regency leaders (typically Echelon II), has limited authority and negotiation capacity to engage with these leaders, and push back against unsustainable developmental pressures within the park. The construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road ultimately reflects this institutional vulnerability, carried out to meet the demands of regency governments to improve connectivity to otherwise remote and isolated areas, despite the ecological risks posed.
Road construction activities are also suspected to contribute to the spread of the Phytophthora fungus, which has the potential to infest the highly sensitive Nothofagus trees in the montane forests, causing significant dieback. As existing studies remain inconclusive in definitively establishing the cause of the dieback, the park’s management plan has proposed engaging with academic institutions, NGOs, and scientific specialists to support monitoring and mitigation efforts.
Another institutional limitation of LNP lies in its constrained management capacity, inadequate human resources, limited financial budgets, and insufficient infrastructure. These constraints have restricted the field presence of LNP staff primarily to accessible lowland areas, leaving the remote highlands largely unmonitored. To enhance field monitoring, the park initiated SMART Patrols in 2016. Field teams using SMART software system have reported improved conservation and law enforcement efforts through better field monitoring, adaptive management of patrol activities, efficient data collection on wildlife and illegal activities, and evidence-based decision making. The patrolling technology, however, is currently implemented only in SPTN Region I (Timika) and is yet to be expanded to other park regions. Scaling up this initiative will require recruitment and deployment of additional forest rangers, as well as their capacity building in data collection, analysis, and reporting using the SMART system. Due to these limitations, threats such as illegal logging, poaching and trade in wild fauna and flora persists, leading to overexploitation and endangering native populations. Logging has particularly escalated following the opening of the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road. Species such as Boelen’s python, Pig-nosed turtles, New Guinea and estuarine crocodiles, various orchids, and many bird species, including Birds of Paradise continue to be targeted for commercial trade. While the Management Plan recommends enhanced coordination with other law enforcement agencies to strengthen enforcement, a SOP integrating the mandates and authorities of these diverse agencies is still under development.
Climate change also poses an urgent and growing threat. The glacier near Puncak Jaya peak, one of the park’s key values and one of only three remaining tropical glaciers in the world has been retreating rapidly. To address this, the LNP management has proposed conducting scientific studies to gather accurate data on annual trends in glacial retreat to better inform conservation planning and decision-making.
Local government leaders, responsible for delivering services to communities within their respective regencies, often propose infrastructure development, particularly, road construction project across the park area. The pressure to open areas within park is significant, especially as the LNP’s boundary spans 10 regencies. However, the Park Director, who holds a lower bureaucratic rank (Echelon III-A) compared to regency leaders (typically Echelon II), has limited authority and negotiation capacity to engage with these leaders, and push back against unsustainable developmental pressures within the park. The construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road ultimately reflects this institutional vulnerability, carried out to meet the demands of regency governments to improve connectivity to otherwise remote and isolated areas, despite the ecological risks posed.
Road construction activities are also suspected to contribute to the spread of the Phytophthora fungus, which has the potential to infest the highly sensitive Nothofagus trees in the montane forests, causing significant dieback. As existing studies remain inconclusive in definitively establishing the cause of the dieback, the park’s management plan has proposed engaging with academic institutions, NGOs, and scientific specialists to support monitoring and mitigation efforts.
Another institutional limitation of LNP lies in its constrained management capacity, inadequate human resources, limited financial budgets, and insufficient infrastructure. These constraints have restricted the field presence of LNP staff primarily to accessible lowland areas, leaving the remote highlands largely unmonitored. To enhance field monitoring, the park initiated SMART Patrols in 2016. Field teams using SMART software system have reported improved conservation and law enforcement efforts through better field monitoring, adaptive management of patrol activities, efficient data collection on wildlife and illegal activities, and evidence-based decision making. The patrolling technology, however, is currently implemented only in SPTN Region I (Timika) and is yet to be expanded to other park regions. Scaling up this initiative will require recruitment and deployment of additional forest rangers, as well as their capacity building in data collection, analysis, and reporting using the SMART system. Due to these limitations, threats such as illegal logging, poaching and trade in wild fauna and flora persists, leading to overexploitation and endangering native populations. Logging has particularly escalated following the opening of the Habbema-Ndgua-Kenyam road. Species such as Boelen’s python, Pig-nosed turtles, New Guinea and estuarine crocodiles, various orchids, and many bird species, including Birds of Paradise continue to be targeted for commercial trade. While the Management Plan recommends enhanced coordination with other law enforcement agencies to strengthen enforcement, a SOP integrating the mandates and authorities of these diverse agencies is still under development.
Climate change also poses an urgent and growing threat. The glacier near Puncak Jaya peak, one of the park’s key values and one of only three remaining tropical glaciers in the world has been retreating rapidly. To address this, the LNP management has proposed conducting scientific studies to gather accurate data on annual trends in glacial retreat to better inform conservation planning and decision-making.
The current management system is not adequate to address the threats within and outside the park, mainly owing to weak institutional capacity. Financially, the park relies on funding from the Ministry of Forestry, and as these budgets are not secure, this poses a significant constraint on management capacity. Due to these challenges, the Authority has been unable to implement essential field-level management across the entire park area. Field patrols have remained confined to accessible lowland areas, leaving much of the remote highlands unmonitored and unmanaged. The limited field presence has allowed illegal logging and trade in wild fauna and flora to persist. Due to limited of species monitoring, the true extent of these threats is difficult to assess. There is also no transparency regarding criminal cases filed and administrative sanctions imposed against those engaged in illegal activities. Since 2016, the patrol teams have been using Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) and other digital applications to effectively monitor field conditions; record species data; identify illegal activity, and engage with indigenous communities. However, SMART has only been deployed in SPTN I Timika section, and expanding its use to the parks remaining sections requires additional field staff and capacity building. To strengthen law enforcement, the Management Plan calls for coordination between LNP field staff and other agencies such as BBKSDA Papua, BPPLHK and KORWAS. However, a SOP to integrate the roles of these different authorities and establish a coordination mechanisms is still under development.
Lorentz spans 10 regencies, each with their own government responsible for delivering services to their local communities with consequent pressures for development of transportation services, across the park. The continuation of construction of the Trans-Papua road, despite Committee's concerns illustrates the limitations of the park's governance system. Park management’s relationship with key stakeholders, including Indigenous communities, provincial government, regional (regency) governments, business, NGOs, and researchers, needs significant strengthening. Given the park’s vast size, complex challenges, and the limited capacity of the LNP Management, collaborative management is essential. A positive step forward was reported in 2022, with the development of a formal Collaborative Management Agreement involving various stakeholders.
Lorentz spans 10 regencies, each with their own government responsible for delivering services to their local communities with consequent pressures for development of transportation services, across the park. The continuation of construction of the Trans-Papua road, despite Committee's concerns illustrates the limitations of the park's governance system. Park management’s relationship with key stakeholders, including Indigenous communities, provincial government, regional (regency) governments, business, NGOs, and researchers, needs significant strengthening. Given the park’s vast size, complex challenges, and the limited capacity of the LNP Management, collaborative management is essential. A positive step forward was reported in 2022, with the development of a formal Collaborative Management Agreement involving various stakeholders.
Good practice examples
Some of the good management practices (existing and proposed) at LNP include:
- SMART Patrol: The use of SMART technology has significantly enhanced conservation efforts in Lorentz National Park. It provides crucial information on patrol routes, wildlife movements, and hotspots for illegal logging and poaching. The system enables efficient data analysis to identify threat trends and patterns, supporting the creation of maps and reports that inform decision-making. SMART Patrols also facilitate adaptive management by allowing conservation teams to adjust their strategies based on real-time data and evolving environmental conditions.
- Proposal for a Collaborative Management Agreement: The LNP Management Authority has developed a collaborative management agreement with relevant central ministries and institutions, Papua’s provincial authorities, regency-level governments, academic institutions, NGOs, and the private sector. The agreement is expected to provide an inclusive platform for different stakeholder to participate in park management and take up roles based on their respective capacities. The agreement envisages an active role for the regency-level authorities in building community welfare activities while maintaining sustainable use of natural resources.
- Community-based conservation initiatives: The Authority aims to strengthen its existing collaboration with designated community partners in local villages, known as Masyarakat Mitra Polhut (MMPs), by initiating independent patrols led by MMPs. Recognizing the traditional dependence of indigenous Papuan communities on LNP’s forests and natural resources, this strategy is designed to engage with communities in a culturally sensitive manner while minimizing the risk of conflict.
- SMART Patrol: The use of SMART technology has significantly enhanced conservation efforts in Lorentz National Park. It provides crucial information on patrol routes, wildlife movements, and hotspots for illegal logging and poaching. The system enables efficient data analysis to identify threat trends and patterns, supporting the creation of maps and reports that inform decision-making. SMART Patrols also facilitate adaptive management by allowing conservation teams to adjust their strategies based on real-time data and evolving environmental conditions.
- Proposal for a Collaborative Management Agreement: The LNP Management Authority has developed a collaborative management agreement with relevant central ministries and institutions, Papua’s provincial authorities, regency-level governments, academic institutions, NGOs, and the private sector. The agreement is expected to provide an inclusive platform for different stakeholder to participate in park management and take up roles based on their respective capacities. The agreement envisages an active role for the regency-level authorities in building community welfare activities while maintaining sustainable use of natural resources.
- Community-based conservation initiatives: The Authority aims to strengthen its existing collaboration with designated community partners in local villages, known as Masyarakat Mitra Polhut (MMPs), by initiating independent patrols led by MMPs. Recognizing the traditional dependence of indigenous Papuan communities on LNP’s forests and natural resources, this strategy is designed to engage with communities in a culturally sensitive manner while minimizing the risk of conflict.
Graphic evidence of tectonic collision and uplift strata and the geomorphological effect of the last glacial and post-glacial periods
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The Carstensz Glacier near the Puncak Jaya peak of the Sudirman mountain range is one the three tropical glaciers left in the world. However, due to ongoing global warming, the glacier has experienced a significant reduction in both area and volume of permanent snow. This decline is likely to directly or indirectly impact the park's ecosystem. Monitoring by BMKG indicates that in 1942, the glacier area measured approximately 10–11 km². By 1972, this had shrunk to 7 km². In 1997, the remaining ice cover was 5 km², which further reduced to 2.5 km² by 2000, and then to 1.8 km². Between 2010 and 2016, the ice cover shrank by an additional 5 meters (LNP Management Authority, 2020). According to the State Party’s 2023 Periodic Report, the current state of conservation of the glacier is “compromised,” and within the next six years, it is projected to become “seriously compromised” (State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
Fossil evidence of post Pleistocene mammal extinctions.
Data Deficient
Trend
Data Deficient
The LNP contains fossil sites that record the evolution of life on the island of New Guinea. Some of the fossils and fossil sites are of international significance, including many now extinct New Guinea endemic species, such as the Protemnodon hopei, a large extinct member of the kangaroo family (IUCN, 1999). Most of these fossils are from late Pleistocene era or Holocene era and so are in the form of sub-fossil cave deposits, which are very vulnerable to disturbance (State Party of Indonesia, 1998). There, however, appears to be no provision of monitoring or update on the condition of the fossil sites and specimens contained within them.
A centre of on-going ecological and biological evolution
Good
Trend
Stable
Given its vast area, largely intact ecological transect from snow-capped mountain peaks to tropical marine environments, including extensive lowland wetlands; and its exceptional diversity of ecosystems and species, LNP remains a globally significant centre for ongoing ecological and biological evolution.
Diversity of habitats
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
LNP hosts a remarkable diversity of ecosystems, including marine and coastal systems, coastal forests, brackish water swamp forests, freshwater swamp forests, lowland forests, lower and upper montane forests, sub-alpine and alpine ecosystems, and snow-covered mountain habitats (LNP Management Authority, 2020). While the ecological transect from tropical glacier to tropical sea remains largely intact, many ecosystems within the park have suffered damage due to forest encroachment, illegal logging, forest fires, hunting, poaching and harvesting pressures, and rapid development of regional residential settlements (LNP Management Authority, 2020). The construction of the Habbema–Ndgua–Kenyam road has led to the degradation of fragile alpine and montane landscapes, particularly in the Lake Habbema basin. This includes damage to ancient Nothofagus sp trees—species endemic to select areas of the Southern Hemisphere, as well as the erosion of peatlands and raised bogs (UNESCO and IUCN, 2008). Furthermore, the opening of the Trans-Papua road has reportedly intensified logging pressures, as evidenced by the transportation of timber in trucks from within the park boundaries (Greenpeace Indonesia, 2023). The presence of exotic species is also altering the biodiversity, structure, and composition of ecosystems within the park (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Areas affected by such degradation fall under the Rehabilitation Zone, which spans 10,973.78 hectares. This zone encompasses damaged and degraded ecosystems that are difficult to restore naturally and therefore require targeted management interventions. These areas have significant derivative impacts that threaten the conservation of the OUVs of the national park (LNP Management Authority, 2018).
Diversity of species
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
LNP is a unique natural landscape, rich in floral and faunal species. It is home to no fewer than 1,200 plant species, 118 mammal species, 66 amphibian species, 403 bird species, more than 50 butterfly species, and several species of microorganisms (LNP Management Authority, 2018). However, species management within the park is not optimal due to limited technical knowledge, budgetary constraints, lack of wildlife database, and absence of species-specific management plans (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Hunting, poaching and harvesting pressures pose significant threats to several species, including Boelen’s Python, Pig-nosed Turtle, Estuarine Crocodile, New Guinea Crocodile, Alpine Woolly Rat, Dingiso and birds such as Southern Cassowary, and various Birds of Paradise (PKHA, 2006; LNP Management Authority, 2020). Additionally, flagship species in the park face potential threats from road construction and the expansion of regional settlements (LNP Management Authority, 2020). However, due to the absence of long-term monitoring surveys, it remains difficult to assess the full impact of these threats on species population trends.
While biodiversity surveys have been conducted routinely for priority species, such as Tree Kangaroos and MacGregor’s Honeyeater since 2015, the efforts have been limited and suboptimal (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Hunting, poaching and harvesting pressures pose significant threats to several species, including Boelen’s Python, Pig-nosed Turtle, Estuarine Crocodile, New Guinea Crocodile, Alpine Woolly Rat, Dingiso and birds such as Southern Cassowary, and various Birds of Paradise (PKHA, 2006; LNP Management Authority, 2020). Additionally, flagship species in the park face potential threats from road construction and the expansion of regional settlements (LNP Management Authority, 2020). However, due to the absence of long-term monitoring surveys, it remains difficult to assess the full impact of these threats on species population trends.
While biodiversity surveys have been conducted routinely for priority species, such as Tree Kangaroos and MacGregor’s Honeyeater since 2015, the efforts have been limited and suboptimal (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Rich montane flora with many endemic species and species with overlapping Gondwana and Asian links.
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Infrastructure development within LNP has not only altered parts of the Lorentz landscape but may also have negatively impacted the temperate Nothofagus sp forests in the park, as indicated by the dieback disease in Nothofagus stands. This dieback has emerged as a serious threat to the long-term sustainability of park’s biodiversity (LNP Management Authority, 2020). Research suggests that infrastructure development fragments Nothofagus habitats, reducing their ability to regenerate as germination conditions deteriorate and land available for growth is reduced (Baldwin, et al., 2018). Given the ecological importance of Nothofagus forests as part of the park’s OUVs, the extent and distribution of dieback have been mapped, along with assessments of damage severity. However, the precise causal factors remain unclear (LNP Management Authority, 2020).
Surveys have pointed to several possible contributing factors, including pathogen infestation linked to road construction, forest fires, wood-borer insect attacks, and climate change. Despite these observations, definitive causal linkages have been difficult to establish.
According to the 2023 Periodic Report, the State Party anticipates that the state of conservation of Nothofagus forests will be “compromised” by the next reporting cycle in 2029 (State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
Surveys have pointed to several possible contributing factors, including pathogen infestation linked to road construction, forest fires, wood-borer insect attacks, and climate change. Despite these observations, definitive causal linkages have been difficult to establish.
According to the 2023 Periodic Report, the State Party anticipates that the state of conservation of Nothofagus forests will be “compromised” by the next reporting cycle in 2029 (State Party of Indonesia, 2023).
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
While the park continues to support an exceptional diversity of ecosystems and serves as a natural habitat for numerous endangered and endemic floral and faunal species, several key attributes are increasingly under threat and require urgent and effective management interventions. One such attribute is the glacier near the Puncak Jaya peak in the Sudirman Range, one of only three remaining tropical glaciers in the world. Estimated to have existed for around 5,000 years, the glacier is now retreating rapidly due to global warming, and its state of conservation is projected to be seriously compromised by 2029. In addition, many mammal, reptile, and bird species are threatened by hunting, poaching and harvesting pressures. The introduction of invasive plant species such as water hyacinth and invasive animals like Tilapia also poses significant risks to native biodiversity. Several ecosystems have also experienced damage and degradation due to forest encroachment, illegal logging, forest fires, and the rapid development of regional infrastructure. The construction of the Trans-Papua Highway, in particular, has led to the degradation of alpine, sub-alpine, and montane landscapes, including, stands of ancient Nothofagus sp trees, which are endemic to limited regions of the Southern Hemisphere, as well as peatlands and raised bogs. Following the road's opening, extensive logging activity has been observed along its length. Logging has not been confined to the immediate roadside; forests have been cleared up to 10 kilometers beyond, with many large trees no longer visible in these areas. Lastly, dieback has been observed in numerous Nothofagus forest stands, which are likely affected by infrastructure development. Although studies have been conducted to identify the causes, the specific causal factors remain unclear. Nevertheless, the ongoing dieback stands presents a serious threat to the sustainability of biodiversity in the park.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important values
Data Deficient
Data Deficient
There is currently no evidence or data indicating whether the trend of this value is improving or deteriorating.
Additional information
History and tradition
There is a rich Indigenous culture in Lorentz. Some tribes share aspects of their culture as a part of minor tourism activities. The Asmat tribe in the lowlands makes significant income from the sale of their world famous wood carvings; not dependent on tourism.
Outdoor recreation and tourism
Tourism remains very minor although there is great potential. Mountaineers are focused on Carstenz Pyramid as one of the ‘ 7 peaks of the world’. Some bird watching tours occur in the Lake Habema part of the park but logistics are problematic and security can be a concern. Both mountaineering and birdwatching have great potential if logistic and security issues can be overcome. There is potential for various forms of adventure tourism.
Importance for research
Much of Lorentz remains unexplored and has high potential for discovery of new species of plants and animals. The large altitudinal range and pristine nature of the park enhances potential for major expansion of natural history knowledge.
LNP possesses great potential for scientific exploration and could support a series of major expeditions. Expansion of scientific knowledge would enhance the potential for increasing benefits flowing from specialized tourism, especially mountaineering and birdwatching. Cultural tourism has untapped potential but Indigenous culture is undervalued externally and being eroded by outside influences.
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
Alonzo, M., Hoek, J. V. D. & Ahmed, N. (2016). Capturing coupled riparian and coastal disturbance from industrial mining using cloud-resilient satellite time series analysis. Scientific Reports, 6(35129).
|
| 2 |
Antara. (2024). El Nino Thins the Only Glacier in Indonesia: BMKG. Jakarta Global, 18 April. Available at: https://jakartaglobe.id/news/el-nino-thins-the-only-glacier…. [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 3 |
Baldwin, H., Barstow, M. & Rivers, M. (2018). The Red List of Nothofagus. Surrey, United Kingdom: Botanic Gardens Conservation International. Available at: https://www.bgci.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Red_List… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 4 |
Butler, R. A. (2015). NASA photo shows New Guinea going up in flames. Mongabay, 7 October. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/nasa-photo-shows-new-guin… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 5 |
Claudino-Sales, V. (2018). Lorentz National Park, Indonesia. In: V. Claudino-Sales, ed. Coastal World Heritage Sites: Coastal Research Library, Volume 28. Dordrecht, Netherlands,: Springer Dordrecht, pp. 557-562. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-024-1528-5 [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 6 |
Cosmo Le B. (2022). Lorentz National Park. The Florentina, 28 February. Available at: https://theflorentina.com/2022/02/28/lorentz-national-park/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 7 |
Dieback Working Group. (2025). Phytophthora Dieback. Available at: https://www.dwg.org.au/about-dieback/phytophthora-dieback/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 8 |
Gaveau, D. L. et al. (2021). Forest loss in Indonesian New Guinea (2001–2019): Trends, drivers and outlook. Biological Conservation, Volume 261. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 9 |
Greenpeace Indonesia. (2023). Deforestation: Playing with Fire-An Analysis of Indonesia's FOLU Net Sink 2030 Policy. Jakarta Pusat: Greenpeace Indonesia. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-southeastasia-sta… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 10 |
Huaxia. (2023). Indonesia to start oil, gas exploration in Papua. Xinhua News, 9 September. Available at: https://english.news.cn/asiapacific/20230920/b2642a67087f42… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 11 |
IUCN Consultation. (2014). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation: Lorentz National Park, Indonesia.
|
| 12 |
IUCN. (1999). World Heritage Nomination-IUCN Technical Evaluation, Lorentz National Park, Indonesia, Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 13 |
IUCN. (2013). IUCN World Heritage Advice Note: Mining and Oil/Gas Projects. Paris (France): UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/iucn_advice_no… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 14 |
Jokiranta, M. (2020). This tropical glacier is rare, revered, and could be gone by next year. Australian Broadcasting Corporation News, 4 December. Available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-04/indonesia-tropical-g… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 15 |
Jong, H. N. (2021). UNESCO calls for closure of road running through World Heritage park in Papua. Mongabay, 11 August. Available at: https://news.mongabay.com/2021/08/unesco-calls-for-closure-… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 16 |
Kambu, Z., Jinca, M. Y., Pallu, M. S. & Ramli, M. I. (2022). Perspectives of the Local Communities on the Development of Trans-Papua Road Infrastructure. Civil Engineering Journal, 8(5), pp. 999-1010.
|
| 17 |
LNP Management Authority. (2019). Report Increasing the Effectiveness of Protection of the Lorentz National Park Area through SMART Patrol Implementation. Papua Province: LNP Management Authority. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 18 |
LNP Management Authority. (2018). Revised Management Zone Plan for Lorentz National Park, Papua Province, Wamena: LNP Management Authority. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 19 |
LNP Management Authority. (2020). Lorentz National Park Long-Term Management Plan 2021-2030. Wamena: Lorentz Natioal Park Authority. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 20 |
Laurence, W. (2019). A Highway Megaproject Tears at the Heart of New Guinea’s Rainforest. Yale Environment 360, 17 January. Available at: https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-highway-megaproject-tears-… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 21 |
Nugroho, H. Y. (2019). ITC Dissertation No. 361-Engaging with Adat People in Sustainable Forest Management,;. The Netherlands: University of Twente. Available at: https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/144405048/nugr… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 22 |
OILWATCH International. (2007). Keep Oil Underground: The only way to fight climate change. Bali: OILWATCH International, Available at: https://www.oilwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Keep_oi… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 23 |
PKHA. (2006). Lorentz National Park World Heritage Area Strategy Action Plan (2005-2010), 2006: Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation.
|
| 24 |
Perlez, J. & Bonner, R. (2005). Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River of Waste. The New York Times, 27 December. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/world/asia/below-a-mount… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 25 |
Permana, D. S., Thompson, L. M.-T. E. & Mark, B. (2019). Disappearance of the last tropical glaciers in the Western Pacific Warm Pool (Papua, Indonesia) appears imminent. PNAS, 116(52), pp. 26382-26388. Available at: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1822037116#:~:text=Sh…. [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 26 |
Rochmyaningsih, D. (2021). Massive road project threatens New Guinea’s biodiversity. Science News, 13 October , 374(6565), pp. 246-247. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/article/massive-road-projec… 23 April 2025]
|
| 27 |
Saout, S. L. et al (2013). Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation. Science Magazine, 342(6160), pp. 803-805. Available at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1239268#:~:text… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 28 |
Sloan, S. et al. (2019). Hidden challenges for conservation and development along the Trans-Papuan economic corridor. Environmental Science and Policy, Volume 92, pp. 98-106. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 29 |
State Party of Indonesia, 2024. Report of the State Party of to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Lorentz National Park, Indonesia. s.l.:The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 30 |
State Party of Indonesia. (1990). Act of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 of 1990 Concerning Conservation of Living Resources and their Ecosystem. Jakarta: Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ins3867.pdf [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 31 |
State Party of Indonesia. (1998). Nomination of Lorentz National Park as a World Heritage List, Jakarta, Indonesia: Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 32 |
State Party of Indonesia. (1999). Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 41 of 1999 regarding Forestry. Jakarta : State Gazaette of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://idenshigen.jp/abs_tft/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/27… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 33 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2006). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of the conservation of the Loretnz National Park (Indonesia). :The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 34 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2007). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of the conservation of the Lorentz National Park (indonesia). :The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 35 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2010). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Commiittee on the state of conservation of the Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)..:The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 36 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2011). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Lorentz National Park, Indonesia, .:The Government of Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 37 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2015). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of the conservation of the Lorentz National Park (Indonesia),.: The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 38 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2016). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of the Lorentz National Park..:The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 39 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2018). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committtee on the state of conservation of the Lorentz National Park, Indonesia..:The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 40 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2020). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of the conservation of Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). .:The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 41 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2022). Report of the State Party of Indonesia to World Heritage Committee on the state of the conservation of Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). s.l.:The Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 42 |
State Party of Indonesia. (2023). Periodic Reporting Cycle 3: Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). Paris (France): UNESCO World Heritage Center . Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 43 |
Subramanian, S. (2024). The Last Glaciers of Indonesia. The Diplomat, 22 May. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2024/05/the-last-glaciers-of-indone…. [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 44 |
TAF & LIPI (2018). Roads for Communities: Building Riad Connectivity Infrastructure fo the Lives of the Indigenous Papuans and the Environment. s.l.:The Asia Foundation (TAF) & Indonesian Institute of Sciences. Available at: [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 45 |
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2012). Verdict in the Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 in the case of Judicial Review of Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta: The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Available at: https://en.mkri.id/download/decision/pdf_Decision_35PUU-X20… [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 46 |
UCN Consultation. (2017). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation Lorentz National Park, Indonesia.
|
| 47 |
UNEP-WCMC. (2011). Lorentz National Park, Indonesia. UNEP-WCMC World Heritage Information Sheet. [Online] Available at: https://www.yichuans.me/datasheet/output/site/lorentz-natio… [Accessed 17 March 2025].
|
| 48 |
UNESCO World Heritage Center. (2024). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris (France): UNESCO World Heritage Center,. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 49 |
UNESCO and IUCN. (2008). Report of the Joint World Heritage Centre-IUCN Reactive Monitoring MIssion to Lorentz National Park, Indonesia, from 2-10 July (2008). Paris, France and Gland, Switzerland: UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 50 |
UNESCO and IUCN. (2011). Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre-IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission to Lorentz National Park (Indonesia), from 19-29 June (2011). Paris, France and Gland, Switzerland: UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 51 |
UNESCO and IUCN. (2014). Report of the World Heritage Reactive Monitoring Mission to Lorentz National Park, Indonesia from 11th March to 18th March 2014, Paris, France and Gland, Switzerland: UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 52 |
VOI Editorial Team. (2023). Nine Percent Of Block Warim Areas Enter Lorentz National Park, SKK Migas Conducts Further Study. Voice of Indonesia (VOI), 22 July. Available at: https://voi.id/en/economy/295457 [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 53 |
World Heritage Committee. (2013). Decision 37 COM 7B.13 Lorentz National Park State of Outstanding Universal Value (Indonesia).. In: Report of the decision of the 37th session of the World Heritage Committee (Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value). Paris, France: UNESOC World Heritage Centre, pp. 24-26. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 54 |
World Heritage Committee. (2017). Decision 41 COM 7B.29 Lorentz National Park (Indonesia).. In: Report of the decisions of the 41st session of the World Heritage Committtee (Krakow, 2017). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, p. 105. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 55 |
World Heritage Committee. (2019). Decision 43 COM 7B.9 Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). In: Report of Decisions adopted during the 43rd session of the World Heritage Committee (Baku, 2019). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 90-91. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 56 |
World Heritage Committee. (2021). Decision 44 COM 7B.94. Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). In: Decisions adopted during the extended 44th session of the World Heritage Committee (Fuzhou, 2021). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 190-191. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents/ [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 57 |
World Heritage Committee. (2023). Decision 45 COM 7B.16. Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). In: Report of the decisions of the 45th session of the World Heritage Committee (Riyadh, 2023). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 31-32. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|
| 58 |
World Heritage Committee. (2024). Decision 46 COM 7B.65. Lorentz National Park (Indonesia). In: Report of the decisions of the 46th session of the World Heritage Committee (New Delhi. 2024). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, pp. 187-188. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/955/documents [Accessed 23 April 2025]
|