Purnululu National Park
Country
Australia
Inscribed in
2003
Criteria
(vii)
(viii)
The conservation outlook for this site has been assessed as "good with some concerns" 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.
The 239,723 ha Purnululu National Park is located in the State of Western Australia. It contains the deeply dissected Bungle Bungle Range composed of Devonian-age quartz sandstone eroded over a period of 20 million years into a series of beehive-shaped towers or cones, whose steeply sloping surfaces are distinctly marked by regular horizontal bands of dark-grey cyanobacterial crust (single-celled photosynthetic organisms). These outstanding examples of cone karst owe their existence and uniqueness to several interacting geological, biological, erosional and climatic phenomena. © UNESCO
Summary
2025 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
11 Oct 2025
Good with some concerns
Current state and trend of VALUES
Low Concern
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Description of values
Outstanding beautiful landscape of sculpted and banded sandstone
Criterion
(vii)
Spectacularly incised landscape of sculptured rocks which contains superlative examples of beehive-shaped karst sandstone rising 250 metres above the surrounding semi-arid savannah grasslands. These dramatically sculptured structures, unrivalled in their scale, extent, grandeur and diversity of form anywhere in the world, undergo remarkable daily and seasonal variation in appearance, including striking colour transition following rain and with the positioning of the sun (World Heritage Committee, 2012).
A highly distinctive landscape of landforms and life forms
Criterion
(vii)
The intricate maze of towers is accentuated by sinuous, narrow, sheer-sided gorges lined with majestic Livistona fan palms. These and the soaring cliffs up to 250 metres high are cut by seasonal waterfalls and pools, creating the major tourist attractions in the park with evocative names such as Echidna Chasm, Piccaninny and Cathedral Gorges. The diversity of landforms and ecosystems elsewhere in the park are representative of the semi-arid landscape in which Purnululu is located and provide a sympathetic visual buffer for the massif (World Heritage Committee, 2012).
Outstanding example of cone karst in sandstones
Criterion
(viii)
Unique depositional processes and weathering have given the cone karst towers their spectacular black and orange banded appearance. Nowhere else is the process of cone karst formation on sandstone so clearly demonstrated, including an exceptional degree of evidence of geomorphic processes of dissolution, weathering and erosion in an ancient, stable sedimentary landscape. The Bungle Bungle Ranges of the Park also display to an exceptional degree evidence of geomorphic processes of dissolution, weathering and erosion in the evolution of landforms under a savannah climatic regime within an ancient, stable sedimentary landscape (World Heritage Committee, 2012).
Mammals including some threatened species and others at the edge of their range
Mammals considered to be poorly known, rare or near-threatened in Western Australia’s Priority List for fauna include the northern short-tailed mouse (Leggadina lakedownensis) and the rock ringtail possum (Petropseudes dahli). Non-threatened mammals include the Ningbing antechinus (Pseudantechinus ningbing) and at least four species of Macropod, the northern nail-tail wallaby (Onychogalea unguifera), common walleroo (Macropus robustus), agile wallaby (M. agilis) and short-eared rock-wallaby (Petrogale brachyotis). The large-footed mouse-eared bat (Myotis adversus) reaches the southernmost (inland) limit of its range (Woirnarski, 1992; CALM, 1995). There are historical records of the EPBC listed greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis [Vulnerable]) and northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus [Endangered]) (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Birds including some threatened species
Bird species include the purple-crowned fairy-wren (Malurus coronatus coronatus) (Endangered), the grey falcon (Falco hypoleucos) (Vulnerable) and the previously Endangered (now listed as Near Threatened) Gouldian finch (Erythrura gouldiae). The Australian bustard (Ardeotis australis), previously believed threatened, is now classified as Least Concern. All these are rare grassland species. The oriental plover (Charadrius veredus) and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) are specially protected in WA under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the former as a migratory species. The site is also the southern (inland) limit for bar-breasted honeyeater (Ramsayornis fasciatus) (State Party of Australia, 2002; Woirnarski, 1992; CALM, 1995; Birdlife, 2012).
Rich reptile fauna
Species recorded from the World Heritage site include many species of skinks, including the critically endangered Northern blue-tongued skink (Tiliqua scincoides intermedia) and the nocturnal Western soil crevice skink (Proablepharus reginae), said to be a relict species. Other large reptiles include the Kimberley rock monitor (Varanus glauerti), King's goanna (V. kingorum), spiny-tailed monitor (V. acanthurus) and undescribed species of gecko (Gehrya sp nov.), skink (Lerista sp nov.) and turtle (Chelodina sp nov.) (Woinarski, 1992; CALM, 1995). Other species include Gehyra koira, Lerista bunglebungle and Chelodina kutchlingi (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Important number of frogs with restricted distribution
12 species of frogs recorded from the property, conservation status not checked. Copland's rock frog (Litoria coplandi) and splendid tree frog (L. splendida) are both Least Concern (Woinarski, 1992; CALM, 2006; Hero et al., 2004).
Transitional vegetation and relict and endemic species
Vegetation between the northern tropical monsoonal savannah and inland arid desert biogeographical realms includes some 619 species of vascular plants (Woinarski, 1992). Its transitional location has made the Park a centre of endemism for spinifex grass Triodia spp., resulting in the highest density of spinifex species in Australia, including T. bunglensis, which is endemic to the Park. The southernmost penetration of monsoonal savanna species bring relict species, including the fern Taenitis pinnata, resurrection grass (Micraira spp.) and tall palms Livistona victoriae, all which grow in microenvironments of the deeper valleys (Morton et al., 1995). 13 plant species are considered to be relict species. Several plant species exist in the Park which were previously not recorded in Western Australia or are of very limited occurrence (Figgs and Moseley, 1988; State Party of Australia, 2002; Woinarski, 1992; Woinarski, 2012.; CALM, 1995; CALM, 2006). Nine plant species have only been recorded from the Park and are considered to be poorly known and possibly threatened (Acacia zatrichota, Doodia caudata, Eriachne imbricata, Grevillea psilantha, Lindernia eremophiloides, Stephania japonica var. japonica, Taenitis pinnata, Triodia bunglensis and Triumfetta aspera).
Aboriginal connection to the landscape
Local Aboriginal people maintain a strong connection to this ancient landscape, a continual connection and association expressed through story, song, art and visits. People continue to use resources that have sustained their lives for thousands of years and work closely with the government to ensure cultural obligations towards looking after the landscape are continued.
Assessment information
The geological values of the site are threatened by climate change, fire, and increased tourism. While the current level of threat is low, this is expected to increase i.e. directly from from climate change and indirectly due to the influence of weeds on fire regime. Impacts of visitors remain stable and manageable. The threat to the property's ecology arising from invasive species, particularly the interacting impacts of cane toads and feral cats, is a serious concern. The potential interaction between the threats of climate change, possible catastrophic wildfires and floods, and the 'invasional meltdown' due to exotic species such as cane toads and feral cats poses a growing threat to the ecology and therefore a significant component of the scenery of Purnululu National Park. While the geological features that constitute the main component of the property's OUV face a low or unknown degree of threat, the vegetation of the landscape within which these occur faces an increasing threat. If ancient life forms such as the Livistona palms are adversely affected, the impact on the property's OUV under criterion (vii) may be significant.
Fire & Fire Management
(Wildfires)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Changing fire regimes due to climate change are a threat to most terrestrial World Heritage sites in Australia (Bowman, 2016; Scheiter et al., 2015). The Livistona fan palms that occur in Purnululu's gorges are part of the site's documented OUV (WH Committee, 2012) that is vulnerable to increased fires. Concern has been expressed about the impact of fires on the friable sandstone walls of the karst features (Mann, 2013). The Increased potential for bushfires near the striated rock formation may affect the cyanobacteria and aesthetic features (criterion vii); the main way to moderate this threat is to carry out controlled burning earlier in the season (CSIRO, 2022). The Australian and Western Australian governments have put programs in place to manage these threats accordingly. Purnululu Conservation Park and the Ord River Regeneration Reserve located adjacent to the Park allow for controlled burning to be undertaken to mitigate bushfires, which are a key threatening process to the vegetation of the massif.
Previously fires were monitored, and action was only implemented when fires progressed toward infrastructure or access roads. Alternative suppression techniques have more recently been practised in the Kimberley Region with “Remote Insertion” (use of helicopter) of ground resources. This so far has proved successful and allowed efficient, direct attack on fires to prevent them from developing in size (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Continuation of a prescribed burning program is necessary to reduce the extent and intensity of wildfires (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Prescribed burning has been reported from time to time (DBCA, 2014). Uncontrolled fires have been identified as a 'high threat' to the savannah vegetation (IUCN Consultation, 2024; CSIRO, 2022) but data remains deficient to determine whether the key geological attributes of the property are seriously threatened.
Previously fires were monitored, and action was only implemented when fires progressed toward infrastructure or access roads. Alternative suppression techniques have more recently been practised in the Kimberley Region with “Remote Insertion” (use of helicopter) of ground resources. This so far has proved successful and allowed efficient, direct attack on fires to prevent them from developing in size (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Continuation of a prescribed burning program is necessary to reduce the extent and intensity of wildfires (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Prescribed burning has been reported from time to time (DBCA, 2014). Uncontrolled fires have been identified as a 'high threat' to the savannah vegetation (IUCN Consultation, 2024; CSIRO, 2022) but data remains deficient to determine whether the key geological attributes of the property are seriously threatened.
Recreational Activities
(Tourist impacts)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
Special karst features are vulnerable to damage from inappropriate or excessive use (Dingwall, 2003). However, these features are regularly monitored and are managed with strategies including interpretive signage and the marking of designated walking trails (IUCN Consultation, 2020). In 2013, a Walk Trails Project was funded under the Australian Government's 'Caring for Country' program where trails were rerouted to reduce the risk of erosion and loss of vegetation caused by tourism pressure (IUCN Consultation, 2017). Apart from fluctuations during the Covid-19 years, visitor numbers have remained steady at about 25,000 visitors per annum over the last 5 years (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Any anticipated significant increase beyond this number would require assessment of impacts and possibly the implementation of additional measures to ensure maintenance of visitor experiences and integrity of popular parts of the property.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive plants)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
Weeds were identified as a problem in the 1995 management plan (CALM, 1995). Some grassy weeds like Buffel grass change the fire regime when hummock grasslands are invaded, increasing the extent and frequency of fire (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Additionally, weeds can also change the grass structure and seed availability which can disadvantage small ground dwelling and ground-feeding mammals, reptiles and birds (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Seventeen weed species (2.8% of the flora) were recorded in the Bungle Bungle area following a 1989 survey, several of which constituted a substantial management problem (Woinarski, 1992). The report expressed particular concern with the effects of feral animals and exotic plants on the park's ecology and their relationship to rehabilitation of degraded lands. Since this report was published, a further 13 weed species have been recorded in the park, with one of these (Grader Grass – Themeda quadrivalvis) no longer present in the 2022 survey at known locations (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Weed management programs (including during the wet season) are being implemented to reduce the spread of weeds and eradicate new infestations (IUCN Consultation, 2020). A wet-season weed program is continuing as part of normal operations along with a reduction in the numbers of feral herbivores due to culling and fencing. Data remains deficient to determine whether the weed load is widespread or confined to roadsides and other disturbed areas.
Seventeen weed species (2.8% of the flora) were recorded in the Bungle Bungle area following a 1989 survey, several of which constituted a substantial management problem (Woinarski, 1992). The report expressed particular concern with the effects of feral animals and exotic plants on the park's ecology and their relationship to rehabilitation of degraded lands. Since this report was published, a further 13 weed species have been recorded in the park, with one of these (Grader Grass – Themeda quadrivalvis) no longer present in the 2022 survey at known locations (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Weed management programs (including during the wet season) are being implemented to reduce the spread of weeds and eradicate new infestations (IUCN Consultation, 2020). A wet-season weed program is continuing as part of normal operations along with a reduction in the numbers of feral herbivores due to culling and fencing. Data remains deficient to determine whether the weed load is widespread or confined to roadsides and other disturbed areas.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Invasive animals including cane toads (Rhinella marine), feral cats (Felis catus) and foxes (Vuples vulpes))
Invasive/problematic species
Rhinella marina
Felis catus
Vulpes vulpes
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
The long-predicted arrival of cane toads in Purnululu National Park was confirmed in 2012-13 (Radford et al, 2020). This invasive species is a pernicious threat across northern Australia because toxins in the toad's skin causes cardiac arrest in predators attempting to ingest them; other impacts include the toads' own predation, competition for food, and alteration of ecosystems (Doody et al, 2023; WA Government, 2021). The toads' predictable, unimpeded march across tropical Australia has been accompanied by ecological impacts that are still being studied. The threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads is a national strategy to guide efforts by all levels of government, research organisations and non-government organisations in reducing the impacts of cane toads on native animals and ecosystems (DCCEEW, 2011). The Western Australian (WA) government also has a cane-toad strategy (WA Government, 2021) whose objectives are to mitigate the toad's impacts and to foster collaboration and research in tackling this pest in relevant parts of WA (an immense area of which Purnululu is only a small part). While the strategy contains various initiatives and research programmes, none of the actions in the strategy aside from providing a cane toad drop off box and information to visitors has occurred at this site due to low conservation values in the area and native species of focus for the strategy do not occur in Purnululu National Park (IUCN Consultation, 2024). There is no known means of eradicating the cane toad. Research continues in the hope of discovering effective means of mitigating the impact of this pernicious pest, while ensuring satellite populations of toads do not establish elsewhere in Western Australia ahead of the current frontline (IUCN Consultations, 2017 and 2024; WA Government, 2021).
Feral cats are a ubiquitous problem in Australia, with no known means of eradication. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats 2024 (DCCEEW, 2024) helps to guide Australia’s response to the impacts of feral cats on biodiversity. It identifies the research, management and other actions needed to ensure the long-term survival of native species and ecological communities affected by predation by feral cats. The Western Australian government has a Feral Cat Strategy 2023-2028 (DBCA, 2023) which is focused on monitoring strategies, research, operational implementation of landscape management at high value conservation sites and collaboration and coordination. It is identified in this section as a threatening process due to research that finds feral cats to be a significant threat to all native species in Australia. It is unknown how long feral cats have been at the site, but native species declines were recorded in early 2000’s before cane toads arrived.
Recent information suggests that foxes have been sighted in Purnululu, and if confirmed is a significant concern to the future of existing mammal species. In tandem with a changed fire regime, these ecological invasive animal impacts could alter part of the biota that help constitute the OUV of the property. While impacts on fauna could be severe, this attribute is not part of the property's OUV, therefore the overall threat is categorised as low.
Feral cats are a ubiquitous problem in Australia, with no known means of eradication. The threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats 2024 (DCCEEW, 2024) helps to guide Australia’s response to the impacts of feral cats on biodiversity. It identifies the research, management and other actions needed to ensure the long-term survival of native species and ecological communities affected by predation by feral cats. The Western Australian government has a Feral Cat Strategy 2023-2028 (DBCA, 2023) which is focused on monitoring strategies, research, operational implementation of landscape management at high value conservation sites and collaboration and coordination. It is identified in this section as a threatening process due to research that finds feral cats to be a significant threat to all native species in Australia. It is unknown how long feral cats have been at the site, but native species declines were recorded in early 2000’s before cane toads arrived.
Recent information suggests that foxes have been sighted in Purnululu, and if confirmed is a significant concern to the future of existing mammal species. In tandem with a changed fire regime, these ecological invasive animal impacts could alter part of the biota that help constitute the OUV of the property. While impacts on fauna could be severe, this attribute is not part of the property's OUV, therefore the overall threat is categorised as low.
Changes in Physical & Chemical Regimes, Changes in Temperature Regimes, Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regime
(Impacts on ecosystems due to climate change)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Australia's World Heritage properties are facing unprecedented threats due to climate change (Howarth, 2023; CSIRO, 2022). Exacerbated climatic extremes, reduced or heavily increased rainfall, higher temperatures and increased risk of extreme weather events such as flash flooding and cyclonic activity may cause changes in the abundance and distribution of native flora and fauna populations, or alter underlying geological and geomorphologic values (Australian National University, 2009). In 2015, Australia's leading government scientific organisation, the CSIRO, released a set of climate-change projections indicating that the monsoonal north-west region will increase in average temperatures across all seasons, and while changes in rainfall are unclear, extreme rainfall events are projected to be more intense but with fewer occurrences of tropical cyclones (CSIRO, 2015). Monitoring of local conditions such as wind, erosion and cyclones is required to gauge the effects of these processes, which are likely to increase due to climate change (IUCN Consultation, 2017). An altered fire regime could adversely affect both relict vegetation and the surfaces of at least some of the karstic sandstone cones, the property's most prominent natural attribute - see above (Mann, 2013; CSIRO, 2022).
Terrestrial Animal Farming, Ranching & Herding
(Large feral herbivores)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Outside site
This threat was ameliorated when feral animals and livestock (some 25,000 cattle, 4,000 donkeys and several camels) were removed from Purnululu National Park in the 1980-90s. Areas of ex-pastoral lands adjoining Purnululu Conservation Reserve are adding considerable buffer areas surrounding the World Heritage site (UNESCO, 2011), however, feral livestock animals remain in select areas of the park (IUCN Consultation, 2024). The remoteness and difficulty of relocating feral livestock continues to impact rehabilitation and biodiversity (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Feral camels, horses, pigs and donkeys have been subject to regular and frequent large-scale control actions, such as aerial shooting programs (yearly since 2011) (IUCN Consultations, 2020 and 2024). Ineffective fencing along the property's very lengthy boundary means that stray livestock and feral animals remain a problem, however recent programs suggest that the threat is low, particularly for the property's OUV (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
The majority of previous potential threats have now become current threats. Due to the park boundaries not being watershed boundaries, but rather watercourses, there is the potential future impact of mining beyond the site boundaries impacting the site due to effluents. However, currently no mining activities are occurring in the catchments upstream.
Water-borne & other effluent Pollution
(Mining effluents)
Outside site
Mineral exploration and mining are generally prohibited in the park by the WA government, however there are processes under the Mining Act 1978 and Petroleum and Geothermal Energy Resources Act 1967 to allow access to CALM Act (Conservation and Land Management Act) lands to undertake mining and petroleum activities. However, the Commonwealth legislation offers protection as any action that will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance such as the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of a World Heritage property, must refer that action to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment. This referral is required under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), to determine whether the action is a ‘controlled action’. Controlled actions undergo rigorous impact assessment and may not proceed without approval under the EPBC Act.
Exploration and mining are possible in the neighbouring Purnululu Conservation Park and Ord River Regeneration Reserve, any potential impacts on World Heritage values are required to be addressed through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (State Party of Australia, 2024). However, when the property was inscribed in 2003, it was noted that the park boundaries were not ideal, being mainly water courses rather than watershed boundaries. This meant undesirable impacts from mining that might occur in catchments upstream of the park were less easily controlled (IUCN, 2003; World Heritage Committee, 2012). It appears that no such mining activity is currently occurring.
Exploration and mining are possible in the neighbouring Purnululu Conservation Park and Ord River Regeneration Reserve, any potential impacts on World Heritage values are required to be addressed through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (State Party of Australia, 2024). However, when the property was inscribed in 2003, it was noted that the park boundaries were not ideal, being mainly water courses rather than watershed boundaries. This meant undesirable impacts from mining that might occur in catchments upstream of the park were less easily controlled (IUCN, 2003; World Heritage Committee, 2012). It appears that no such mining activity is currently occurring.
Involvement of stakeholders and rightsholders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, in decision-making processes
It has been reported that the long-running native-title case involving two Aboriginal groups (the Gidja and Jaru) with competing native-title claims over Purnululu National Park has been resolved (WA Government, 2023). Since then, an additional living area lease has been granted and a Native Title Prescribed Body Corporate (NTPBC) has been established, however the path to a cohesive and functioning NTPBC takes time (IUCN Consultation, 2025).
In its decision 35 COM 7B.9 the World Heritage Committee encouraged the State Party of Australia "to develop an interim management plan, in order to give due consideration to the property's indigenous cultural values while the native title case is ongoing, and to address traditional landowners' concerns, by considering potential stricter regulations on tourism access to culturally significant sites" (World Heritage Committee, 2011). The management plan for Purnululu National Park was supposed to be updated in 2017 which would have been undertaken in consultation with the native title claimant groups. However, to date, no updated management plan has been developed. The Purnululu National Park World Heritage Advisory Committee, which held its first meeting in 2015, includes members representing the two Aboriginal groups (IUCN Consultation, 2017). The Advisory Committee provides advice to the Western Australian and Australian governments on matters related to the protection, conservation, presentation and management of the World Heritage site, as well as identifying research priorities (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
In its decision 35 COM 7B.9 the World Heritage Committee encouraged the State Party of Australia "to develop an interim management plan, in order to give due consideration to the property's indigenous cultural values while the native title case is ongoing, and to address traditional landowners' concerns, by considering potential stricter regulations on tourism access to culturally significant sites" (World Heritage Committee, 2011). The management plan for Purnululu National Park was supposed to be updated in 2017 which would have been undertaken in consultation with the native title claimant groups. However, to date, no updated management plan has been developed. The Purnululu National Park World Heritage Advisory Committee, which held its first meeting in 2015, includes members representing the two Aboriginal groups (IUCN Consultation, 2017). The Advisory Committee provides advice to the Western Australian and Australian governments on matters related to the protection, conservation, presentation and management of the World Heritage site, as well as identifying research priorities (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Legal framework
The legal framework pertaining to World Heritage properties in Australia is set out by the Australian Government (State Party of Australia, 2024) and presents a worthy set of management objectives. These are backed up by the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which has a section devoted to protecting Australia's World Heritage properties. Any new development proposals within World Heritage properties are subject to assessment and approval under the EPBC Act if they are considered likely by the government to have significant impacts on World Heritage values and other protected matters, such as threatened species. In the case of Purnululu National Park, practical day-to-day management is carried out by an agency of the Western Australian government, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA), under the Western Australian Conservation and Land Management Act 1984. Threatened and other specially protected species are also protected in Western Australia under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Native Title was determined in December 2022 with both Purnululu and Gajangana Jaru claimants recognised as native title holders for the area (WA Government, 2023). Overall, the legal framework is strong.
Governance arrangements
The Western Australian Government Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions is responsible for day-to-day management of the property (Australian Government 2022). Liaison with Traditional Owners on park management has been primarily via the Purnululu National Park World Heritage Advisory Committee and direct community consultation. Consultation with Bungle Bungle Aboriginal Corporation has commenced since native title determination in December 2022 (IUCN Consultation, 2025).
Integration into local, regional and national planning systems (including sea/landscape connectivity)
The complex native title claim affecting the World Heritage property (UNESCO, 2011) was resolved in December 2022 when the Federal Court recognised the Purnululu and Gajangana Jaru claimants as native-title holders over the world heritage-listed national park (WA Today 2022, WA Government 2023). However, there has been little progress in updating the 1995-2005 management plan. Proposed developments within the World Heritage site are covered by relevant State laws and the Australian Government's EPBC Act.
Boundaries
Purnululu National Park includes the full extent of the Bungle Bungle Range, which is buffered by protected land on all sides including spinifex- and mulga-dominated sand plains within the Park to the north, south and east. In the west the dominant feature is that of the Osmond Ranges which lie within the adjoining Purnululu Conservation Park (PCP). At the time of nomination, it was noted that the park boundaries were not ideal, being mainly water courses rather than watershed boundaries; this could potentially allow incursion of undesirable impacts from neighbouring areas in catchments upstream of the park, such as waste effluent from mining activities; the State Party was therefore encouraged to incorporate the PCP into the national park and World Heritage site (IUCN, 2003). In 2011, the State Party reported that 46,875 ha had been added to the PCP with another 15,583 ha scheduled for addition in 2015 (UNESCO, 2011). While these reserved lands form a practical buffer zone, they have not been yet officially added to the buffer zone of the inscribed World Heritage site. While there were no permanent inhabitants within the site at time of inscription, today there is seasonal visitation by traditional owners in two of the three areas designated as special “Living Area Leases” (World Heritage Committee, 2012). In 2021, UNESCO recorded the clarification of the boundaries by Australia (World Heritage Committee, 2021).
Overlapping international designations
N/A
Implementation of World Heritage Committee decisions and recommendations
Some points raised in the Decision 35 COM 7B.9 of the World Heritage Committee in 2011, particularly those related to the development of an interim management plan (World Heritage Committee 2011), have yet to be implemented. It appears that the native-title case that was resolved in December 2022, which means there is a backlog of management actions to be addressed.
Climate action
The 1995-2005 management plan predates the routine inclusion of 'climate action' as an issue to be addressed, so information is not readily available. Recent documents (CSIRO, 2022) have identified the risk of intensifying wildfires to the aesthetics of the property and said that carrying out prescribed burning earlier in the season is one means of ameliorating this threat, but there is insufficient data to know whether this is occurring.
Management plan and overall management system
The approved management plan for Purnululu National Park is the 1995-2005 plan (Government of Western Australia, 2019). It has not been revised, even by way of an interim plan, despite recommendations that this should occur (WH Committee, 2011) because of the native-title case that was resolved only in December 2022 (WA Today 2022; WA Government 2023). The fact that the date of the management plan (1995) precedes the inscription of the property (2003) means that the protection of OUV is not an explicit objective. This situation has persisted for the 21 years since Purnululu was inscribed and for the previous Conservation Outlook assessment. The management plan also pre-dates the arrival in the park (around 2012) of the pernicious exotic pest, the cane toad (Radford et al, 2020), so the plan outlines no measures for controlling the toad numbers or ameliorating the toad's impacts. As for the management structure, the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) is the main Western Australian government agency responsible for the management of the site. The Purnululu World Heritage Advisory Committee includes several Indigenous representatives, a scientific representative, a tourism representative and a representative of local government (Government of Western Australia, 2019b). The Purnululu World Heritage Advisory Committee submitted a further request another call to the Western Australian Government’s environment minister in 2024 to expedite an update to the management plan (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Law enforcement
Enforcement of the relevant legislation within the World Heritage property is effective (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Sustainable finance
It has been previously noted that Purnululu National Park World Heritage site has not been funded to the same level as some of Australia’s other World Heritage sites due to the perceived resilience of its values and low levels of visitation (UNESCO, 2011). The Australian Government currently provides AUD $140,000 per annum for five years, from July 2023 (IUCN COnsultation, 2024), for employment of a Project/Executive Officer and to support the World Heritage Advisory Committee. All other finance is via Western Australian government agencies or NGOs (IUCN Consultations, 2020 and 2024).
Staff capacity, training and development
An employee-development program has been in place for several years, with all rangers undertaking certificates in conservation and land management. Purnululu National Park employs 8 staff members that include a senior ranger, ranger, three seasonal rangers and three seasonal staff for the visitor centre (IUCN Consultations, 2020 and 2024). Additional district staff are utilised for projects directly related to the National Park including monitoring, prescribed fire, civil works operations, feral-animal control and administrative support. However, the workload associated with this remote national park, with its long distances to be traversed on rough roads, with creeping new threats (such as cane toads to be gathered from popular sites and then disposed of), and with services for visitors to be carried out, is very high for such a small contingent of rangers.
Education and interpretation programmes
Interpretative and educational materials provided by DBCA through government websites are generally excellent and well integrated with on-the-ground signage (DPCA, 2018). There has been a successful introduction of various education programs, including an interactive activity book for children to maximise their learning when visiting the park (IUCN Consultation, 2020). New technologies such as virtual and 'augmented' reality are being used to enhance engagement of visitors and other with the property's attributes (IUCN Consultation, 2024). Now that the Native Title has been determined, there are efforts to develop the interpretation of indigenous knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge (IUCN Consultation, 2024).
Tourism and visitation management
Visitation to Purnululu has remained steady over the last 10 years, with 24,500 visits in 2014-15 and 25,000 visits in 2023-24; significant fluctuations occurred due to COVID-19, with visitation dropping to 13,000 visits in 2019-20 before peaking at 30,000 visits in 2021-22, which correlated with WA’s border closures; borders opened again in March 2022 (IUCN Consultation, 2024). While the numbers have probably remained at manageable levels due to the remoteness of the site, some concerns have been expressed about impacts of visitation on culturally sensitive sites (Department of Environment and Conservation, 2010). Overall, however, tourism appears to be effectively managed, particularly vehicle access to the park via Spring Creek Track since tenure was secured via an easement in 2017. This access road is maintained as a four-wheel-drive track track to protect the wilderness experience that the Purnululu National Park's remoteness provides (IUCN Consultations, 2020 and 2024). One area of concern is the high volume of helicopter-based tourism whose noise can impact the experience of those on the ground who seek an immersion in the property's natural attributes (IUCN Consultation, 2024; Eastwood, 2010).
Sustainable use
The use of the site for tourism and recreational purposes appears to be sustainable (IUCN Consultations, 2017 and 2024), with access and facilities limited and regulated. The property is a remote one, so visitor numbers are limited by difficulty of access. One impact to be strictly monitored and controlled is that of noise from sight-seeing aircraft. As far back as 2010, there was ‘a semi-constant hum in the gorge' from such aircraft (Eastwood, 2010). Restrictions apply to the routes and landing sites for helicopters taking passengers on scenic flights.
Monitoring
Increased monitoring would be beneficial in order to address some threats more effectively, particularly those posed by invasive species (IUCN Consultations, 2017 and 2024). Additional reports pertaining to the 'invasional meltdown' described by Doody et al (2023) and the impacts of climate change are desirable.
Research
The Purnululu World Heritage Advisory Committee identifies research priorities which will contribute to the conservation of the site's OUV and establish the scientific basis of management principles for the property (IUCN Consultation, 2017). However, little up-to-date information on current research programmes could be found. One source said there are currently no active research projects but that an application to obtain funding to do additional fauna monitoring work will be progressed in 2024; a small group of university students conducted a short field project looking at native bee species within the park in 2022 (IUCN Consultation, 2024). The paucity of research programs in a park affected by the advent of destructive invasive species during a period of escalating climate change is of serious concern.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats outside the site
The increase in conservation lands surrounding the World Heritage property remarked on by the World Heritage Committee (35 COM 7B.9, 2011) was very positive. However, mining and mineral exploration are permitted inside the conservation reserves that constitute the buffer. When the 1995-2005 management plan is updated, it should address this issue as well as provide guidance for how these lower-status conservation reserves can fulfil their role as a buffer zone.
Effectiveness of management system and governance in addressing threats inside the site
The overall legal framework governing management and protection of Purnululu National Park is strong. However, the absence of an up-to-date management plan to provide guidance to staff is of concern. The outdated management plan (1995-2005) predates the property's inscription as World Heritage, the advent of the cane toad, the determination of native title for the land, and the emergence of climate change as a threatening process to be routinely considered in all major management decisions. Despite the resolution of the long-running native-title case in December 2022, no significant progress has been made in preparing a new management plan. The small team of rangers in this remote and rugged national park does its best to deal with visitors' needs, day-to-day tasks, dealing with invasive species, and confronting the escalating evidence of climate change, but requires additional staff and support from government.
The framework for management and protection of World Heritage properties provided by the Western Australian and Australian governments is very strong. However, Purnululu National Park is disadvantaged by the absence of an up-to-date management plan to provide critical guidance regarding the main challenges for the park. Until a new plan is prepared, the small team of park rangers in this remote location will do the best they can subject to the constraints of workload and remoteness. An evaluation of the effectiveness of management by the State Party and World Heritage authorities will be desirable during the process of revising the 1995-2005 management plan. The park's major geological landforms are robust, but the ecology of the landscape within which they occur faces escalating threats from climate change, consequent changes in fire regimes, and the invasion of invasive species such as the cane toad. These large-scale, intensifying and possibly interacting influences mean that responding to issues on an ad hoc basis is no longer adequate. The overdue process of involving the community, including Traditional Owners, experts and management staff, in the preparation of a new management plan to confront these issues should help address the concerns over management of Purnululu National Park.
Outstanding beautiful landscape of sculpted and banded sandstone
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
Landscapes and their aesthetic values remain well preserved (IUCN Consultation, 2020). No decline of their features has been reported, either through formal processes or in the general media. However, fire regimes altered due to climate change could result in intensifying wildfires adjacent to the property's sandstone landforms, with potential impacts on their aesthetics (Mann, 2013; CSIRO, 2022). It is not possible for this assessment to judge the potential extent of such an impact.
A highly distinctive landscape of landforms and life forms
Low Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The SOUV refers to 'majestic Livistona fan palms' and other vegetation under criterion (vii). These attributes are less robust than the sandstone landforms and are correspondingly more vulnerable to an altered fire regime or the depredations caused by invasive species. An up-to-date management plan to provide a benchmark against which strategies for managing these threats can be judged, and in the face of warnings about the impacts of climate change and invasive species (CSIRO, 2022; Radford et al., 2020; Doody et al., 2023) is necessary to ensure that strategies are in place to maintain these attributes.
Outstanding example of cone karst in sandstones
Good
Trend
Data Deficient
No decline in geological features of the site has been reported, either formally through World Heritage processes or in the general media. However, the absence of recent monitoring information or an updated management plan means that it is not possible to determine whether this value will be reliably maintained in the face of floods and fires that will intensify due to climate change.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
Deteriorating
No decline in the geological features of the property or in the aesthetic values of the property's landscapes has been recorded. However, the SOUV refers to 'majestic Livistona fan palms' and other vegetation under criterion (vii). These attributes are less robust than the sandstone landforms and are more vulnerable to an altered fire regime or the depredations caused by invasive species.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Data Deficient
Data Deficient
An assessment of the threats from a changed fire regime due to climate change and from invasion by alien species such as cane toads and cats, and by destructive interactions between invasive species, is essential.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important values
Good
Improving
Aboriginal people and their indigenous and traditional ecological knowledge are increasingly being recognised at the national and regional levels. Incorporating interpretation programmes in the visitor experiences will further improve this value.
Additional information
Wilderness and iconic features
Despite much of the visitation being conducted by helicopters and light aircraft which is destroying some of the wilderness value, vast areas of the site are still wilderness accessible only by foot. Protection of wilderness character is one of the objectives of management (CALM, 1995).
History and tradition
The cultural values of the hunter-gatherer society among the Aboriginal traditional owners of Purnululu are highly significant (State Party of Australia, 2002). Customary activities such as hunting and gathering for food and medicine, ceremonial events and cultural activities are permitted within the Park under Customary Activity provisions in Western Australian government legislation.
An updated management plan is required to clarify joint management arrangements and to describe traditional practices authorised within the site.
An updated management plan is required to clarify joint management arrangements and to describe traditional practices authorised within the site.
Outdoor recreation and tourism
Visitor numbers are stable at around 25,000 people per annum. There are numerous websites pertaining to outdoor recreation that refer to Purnululu National Park in glowing terms. The remoteness helps protects the site's values and contributes to the sense of achievement experienced by visitors.
Importance for research
The site is important for building knowledge and disseminating information at a local and non-local scale, although currently this is relatively minor.
Purnululu appears in recent literature with research pertaining to biodiversity (Rosauer et al., 2018), tourism (Strickland-Munro & Moore, 2014), invasive species (Rollins, Richardson & Shine, 2015), geomorphology and landscape.
Purnululu appears in recent literature with research pertaining to biodiversity (Rosauer et al., 2018), tourism (Strickland-Munro & Moore, 2014), invasive species (Rollins, Richardson & Shine, 2015), geomorphology and landscape.
Purnululu National Park benefits are principally the conservation of a stunning landscape with high biodiversity, geological and cultural values. There are some monetary benefits from tourism and provision of jobs for maintaining the site, although benefits for local (Indigenous) people are lat present argely intangible and non-pecuniary (e.g. transmission of cultural knowledge).
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
BirdLife International (2012). Falco hypoleucos; Ardeotis australis; Erythrura gouldiae; Malurus coronatus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. Downloaded on 15 September 2012.
|
| 2 |
CALM (1995). Purnululu National Park management plan, 1995-2005. Dept. of Conservation and Land Management for the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority, Perth, W.A 62 pp.
|
| 3 |
CALM (2006). Purnululu National Park brochure. Dept of Conservation & Land Management.
|
| 4 |
CSIRO (2015). Climate change in Australia: Projections for Australia’s NRM regions. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. 222p. Available at: https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/media/ccia/2.1…
|
| 5 |
CSIRO (2022). The implications of climate change for World Heritage properties in Australia: assessment of impacts and vulnerabilities. Managers of World Heritage Properties in Australia, and Indigenous Reference Group and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Canberra. CC BY 4.0.
|
| 6 |
DBCA (2014). Prescribed burning helps protect Bungle Bungle rock art. Government of Western Australia, Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions, Perth, WA. Available at: https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/news/media-statements/item/442-p…
|
| 7 |
DBCA (2023). Western Australian Feral Cat Strategy 2023–2028. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Perth. 7 pp. Available at: https://www.dbca.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/west…
|
| 8 |
DCCEEW (2011). Threat abatement plan for the biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by cane toads. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Australian Government. Available at: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threaten…
|
| 9 |
DCCEEW (2024). Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats 2024. Department of Climate Change, Energy the Environment and Water, Australian Government. Available at: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threaten…
|
| 10 |
DPCA (2018). Purnululu National Park World Heritage Area Visitor Guide. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA. Available at: https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/park/purnululu
|
| 11 |
Department of Environment and Conservation (2010). Purnululu National Park Management Plan 1995-2005 Performance Assessment 12-month review of findings. Government of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.conservation.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/purn…
|
| 12 |
Dingwall, P. (2003). Purnululu’s Bungle Bungle karst joins the world’s conservation Elite. ACKMA Journal No. 52, p. 18.
|
| 13 |
Doody, J. S., Rhind, D., McHenry, C. M., & Clulow, S. (2023). Invasional meltdown-under? Toads facilitate cats by removing a naïve top predator. Wildlife Research, 51(1).
|
| 14 |
Eastwood, K (2010). Purnululu: a fragile icon. Australian Geographic, 7 May 2010. Available at: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/travel/travel-desti…
|
| 15 |
Government of Western Australia (2019). Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. Parks and Wildlife Service. Approved management plans. [online]. Available at: <https://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/parks/management-plans/approved-…;. [Accessed 28 December 2019].
|
| 16 |
Government of Western Australia (2019b). Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions. World Heritage advisory committees [online]. Available at <https://www.dbca.wa.gov.au/parks-and-wildlife-service/world…;. [Accessed 28 December 2019].
|
| 17 |
Hero, J.M, Horner, P. & Roberts, D. (2004). Litoria coplandi. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. Downloaded on 15 September 2012.
|
| 18 |
Howarth, C. (2023). CSIRO – Australia’s World Heritage Sites are facing unprecedented challenges from climate change. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Published online 28 July 2023. Available at: https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/july/climate…
|
| 19 |
IUCN (2003). World Heritage Nomination-IUCN Technical Evaluation 1094: Purnululu National Park (Australia). Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1094/documents/
|
| 20 |
IUCN Consultation (2024). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation on the 2020 Outlook site assessment: Purnululu National Park, Australia.
|
| 21 |
IUCN Consultation (2025). IUCN World Heritage Confidential Consultation on the draft 2025 Outlook site assessment: Purnululu National Park, Australia.
|
| 22 |
Mann, J. (2013), 'Maintaining the Outstanding Universal Value of Australia's World Heritage Areas: the manager’s perspective World Heritage in Western Australia', in Figgis et al (ed.), Keeping the Outstanding Exceptional: The Future of World Heritage in Australia. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney. Available at: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/29149/1/ACIUCN_World_Heri…
|
| 23 |
Morton, S. R., Short, J. & Baker, R.D. (1995). Refugia for Biological Diversity in Arid and Semi-arid Australia. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 4. Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport, and Territories, Canberra, Australia.
|
| 24 |
Radford, I. J., Woolley, L. A., Dickman, C. R., Corey, B., Trembath, D., & Fairman, R. (2020). Invasive anuran driven trophic cascade: an alternative hypothesis for recent critical weight range mammal collapses across northern Australia. Biological Invasions, 22(6), 1967-1982.
|
| 25 |
Rollins, L.A., Richardson, M.F., & Shine, R. (2015). A genetic perspective on rapid evolution in cane toads (Rhinella marina). Molecular Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 9, pp. 2264-2276.
|
| 26 |
Rosauer, D.F., Byrne, M., Blom, M.P.K., Coates, D.J., Donnellan, S., Doughty, P., Keogh, J.S., Kinloch, J., Laver, R.J., Myers, C., Oliver, P.M., Potter, S., Rabosky, D.L., Afonso Silva, A.C., Smith, J. & Moritz, C. (2018). Real-world conservation planning for evolutionary diversity in the Kimberley, Australia, sidesteps uncertain taxonomy. Conservation Letters, Vol. 11, No. 4, p. e12438.
|
| 27 |
State Party of Australia (2002). Nomination of Purnululu National Park. Environment Australia. 86 pp.+ annexes. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1094/documents/
|
| 28 |
State Party of Australia (2024). Management of Australia's World Heritage Properties. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Australian Government. Available at: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/parks-heritage/heritage/about/wor… (viewed 28 October 2024).
|
| 29 |
Strickland-Munro, J., & Moore, S. (2014). Exploring the impacts of protected area tourism on local communities using a resilience approach. Koedoe: African Protected Area Conservation and Science, 56(2), 1-10.
|
| 30 |
UNESCO (2011). Item 7B of the Provisional Agenda: State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List [online], UNESCO. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2011/whc11-35com-7Be.pdf
|
| 31 |
WA Government (2021). Cane Toad Strategy for Western Australia 2021-2026. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, Parks and Wildlife Service. Government of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.dbca.wa.gov.au/media/1921/download
|
| 32 |
WA Government (2023). Ceremony to celebrate historic Purnululu Native Title determination. Government of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.wa.gov.au/government/media-statements/McGowan-L… (viewed 29 October 2024).
|
| 33 |
WA Today (2022). Australia’s oldest active native title claim finally resolved. WA Today by Ramsey, M. Published online 19 December 2022. Available at: https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/austr… (viewed 29 October 2024).
|
| 34 |
Woinarski, J.C.Z. (2012). Northwestern Australia. WWF Ecoregions. World Wildlife Fund. Available at: http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/aa0709. Downloaded 15 September, 2012.
|
| 35 |
Woirnarski, J.C.Z. (ed). (1992). A survey of the wildlife and vegetation of Purnululu (Bungle Bungle) National Park and adjacent area. Wildlife Research Bulletin No. 6. Department of Conservation and Land Management.142 pp.
|
| 36 |
World Heritage Committee (2011). Decision : 35 COM 7B.9 Purnululu National Park (Australia) (N 1094) [online], UNESCO, viewed 28 December 2019. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4417
|
| 37 |
World Heritage Committee (2012). WHC-12/36.COM/8E: Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/document/117094 (viewed 28-31 October 2024).
|
| 38 |
World Heritage Committee (2021). WHC/21/44.COM/8D. Clarifications of property boundaries and areas by States Parties. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/document/187786 (viewed 29 October 2024).
|