Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection
Country
Panama
Inscribed in
2005
Criteria
(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.
Coiba National Park, off the southwest coast of Panama, protects Coiba Island, 38 smaller islands and the surrounding marine areas within the Gulf of Chiriqui. Protected from the cold winds and effects of El Niño, Coiba’s Pacific tropical moist forest maintains exceptionally high levels of endemism of mammals, birds and plants due to the ongoing evolution of new species. It is also the last refuge for a number of threatened animals such as the crested eagle. The property is an outstanding natural laboratory for scientific research and provides a key ecological link to the Tropical Eastern Pacific for the transit and survival of pelagic fish and marine mammals. © UNESCO
Summary
2020 Conservation Outlook
Finalised on
03 Dec 2020
Significant concern
Current state and trend of VALUES
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
Overall THREATS
Overall PROTECTION and MANAGEMENT
Full assessment
Finalised on
03 Dec 2020
Description of values
High variety of endemic terrestrial species
Criterion
(x)
The forests of Coiba Island contain many endemic species and subspecies, including mammals (e.g. Coiba Agouti; Coiba Howler Monkey), birds (e.g. Coiba Spinetail), more than 60 plants and numerous invertebrates (State Party of Panama, 2005; STRI, 2015).
High diversity of threatened marine fish and cetaceans
Criterion
(x)
The marine ecosystems within the property include more than 760 species of marine fishes, 33 species of sharks and 20 species of cetaceans. Schooling Scalloped Hammerheads as well as Black Tip, Silky and Oceanic Whitetip Sharks can be encountered on the Hannibal Bank (State Party of Panama, 2005). Coiba’s shallower waters are used by Humpback Whales for raising calves and are grouping areas for Whale Sharks. Coiba is important for commercial fish species like the Silk Snapper, which forms spawning aggregations around Coiba, where this activity was reported for the first time in the Pacific of Central America.The islands within the property are the only group of inshore islands in the tropical eastern Pacific that have significant populations of trans-Pacific fishes, namely, Indo-Pacific species that have established themselves in the eastern Pacific (State Party of Panama, 2005; STRI, 2015).
Important areas for marine turtles
Criterion
(x)
Coiba has extensive beaches for turtle nesting and some of the largest extension of seagrasses known in Panama’s Pacific. The site supports some of the largest groups of the Critically Endangered Hawksbill Turtle in the region (STRI, 2015).
Outstanding natural laboratory for scientific research
Criterion
(ix)
Despite the short time of isolation of the islands of the Gulf of Chiriquí on an evolutionary timeframe, new species are being formed, which is evident from the levels of endemism reported for many groups (mammals, birds, plants), making the Coiba National Park an outstanding natural laboratory for scientific research (State Party of Panama, 2005). More than 800 scientific papers have been published to date based on research from Coiba (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Key ecological link in the Tropical Eastern Pacific
Criterion
(ix)
The Eastern Pacific reefs, such as those within the property, are characterized by complex biological interactions of their inhabitants and provide a key ecological link in the Tropical Eastern Pacific for the transit and survival of numerous pelagic fish as well as marine mammals (State Party of Panama, 2005).
Coral reefs
Criterion
(x)
The coral reef zones and coral communities of Coiba are among the largest and most diverse in the American Pacific and recent studies have found high levels of endemism (STRI, 2015).
Refuge for species disappeared from mainland Panama
Coiba serves as the last refuge for species that have largely disappeared from the rest of Panama, such as the Scarlet Macaw (State Party of Panama, 2005; World Heritage Committee, 2014).
Assessment information
Unregulated tourism development has been a cause for concern in the past, with tourism rapidly increasing in recent years. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 on tourism are still unclear. It is nontheless encouraging that a Stategic Environmental Assessment is planned to be prepared for the World Heritage site, including evaluation of preferred options for sustainable economic development in the site and in the surrounding region. Despite the adoption in 2018 of new fishing regulations for the Special Zone of Marine Protection after a long absence of any regulations for this area, unsustainable commercial fishing remains a very high threat to the site and concerns have been expressed that the regulations in their current form appeared to be insufficient to guaranteed the protection of the site's values. Capacity to enforce even the existing regulations is also been estimated is insufficient.
Invasive Non-Native/ Alien Species
(Feral livestock (cattle, horses, buffalo) on Coiba Island)
Inside site
, Scattered(5-15%)
Presence of feral livestock represented a significant threat in the past due to degradation of native vegetation and erosion, which in turn caused siltation of reefs adjacent to the Island (UNESCO, 2011; UNESCO, 2015). However, a successfuly eradication programme has been undertaken. Absence of cows and horses could be confirmed and the remaining population of buffaloes has been reported to be very low (UNESCO, 2019). A follow up and monitoring programme has also been established and mostly recently, presence of only one buffalo has been reported (State Party of Panama, 2020).
Other Activities
(Naval base on Coiba Island)
Inside site
, Localised(<5%)
The principle threat that the small naval base on Coiba could have would be the inadvertent introduction of alien plant or animal species to the island. While biosafety training was reported to be in place (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014), there was no evidence that there was any biosafety plan at the naval base nor at the much more frequented Park Headquarters at Gambute (IUCN, 2017). However, the navy could help control illegal fishing practices and increase security for Park personnel and tourists in case of emergency (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014; IUCN, 2017).
Tourism/ visitors/ recreation
(Unregulated tourism and coastal development)
Inside site
, Widespread(15-50%)
Outside site
Tourism has been increasing rapidly, with a 42% increase reported in 2017 from 2014-2015 (from around 10,000 to 17,200 visitors, with international tourists comprising about 78%) (IUCN, 2017) and associated development has been of concern in the past. In terms of direct impacts, disturbance of some species, for example, whale sharks, has been noted, including signs of changing behaviour due to disturbance from humans (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
The impacts of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic on tourist numbers are still unclear. However, it is encouraging that a Stategic Environmental Impacts Assessment is planned to be prepared for the World Heritage site, including evaluation of preferred options for sustainable economic development in the site and in the surrounding region (State Party of Panama, 2020).
The impacts of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic on tourist numbers are still unclear. However, it is encouraging that a Stategic Environmental Impacts Assessment is planned to be prepared for the World Heritage site, including evaluation of preferred options for sustainable economic development in the site and in the surrounding region (State Party of Panama, 2020).
Fishing / Harvesting Aquatic Resources
(Fishing)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
Industrial, commercial, artisanal, and sport fishing within the World Heritage site, both legal and illegal, are unsustainable and pose the main threats to the site (Maté et al., 2015).
Regulations for fishing activities in the Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP), which forms part of the World Heritage site, were approved in January 2018. The SZMP was subdivided into three sub-zones: Hannibal Bank Habitat Protection Zone, Montuosa Island Marine Reserve and the Resource Management Zone, the latter covering the majority of the SZMP. Fishing is completely prohibited only within the Montuosa Island Marine Reserve. Commercial fishing is allowed in the two other sub-zones. Further specific regulations outlined include seasonal bans on fishing of certain species (snapper and dorado), and restrictions on fishing gear and size of boats (UNESCO, 2019). However, concerns remain that the regulations in their current form essentially allow commercial fishing in almost 98% of the SZMP (UNESCO, 2019), including in the Hannibal Bank Habitat Protection Zone considered as one of the priority conservation areas (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014).
Regulations for fishing activities in the Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP), which forms part of the World Heritage site, were approved in January 2018. The SZMP was subdivided into three sub-zones: Hannibal Bank Habitat Protection Zone, Montuosa Island Marine Reserve and the Resource Management Zone, the latter covering the majority of the SZMP. Fishing is completely prohibited only within the Montuosa Island Marine Reserve. Commercial fishing is allowed in the two other sub-zones. Further specific regulations outlined include seasonal bans on fishing of certain species (snapper and dorado), and restrictions on fishing gear and size of boats (UNESCO, 2019). However, concerns remain that the regulations in their current form essentially allow commercial fishing in almost 98% of the SZMP (UNESCO, 2019), including in the Hannibal Bank Habitat Protection Zone considered as one of the priority conservation areas (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014).
Potential development of islands to the north of Coiba National Park and increased tourism have been a concern in the past and will require effective control and enforcement, as well as the proper development and implementation of management instruments, once pressures from increasing tourism resume in the future. Climate change could result in heat stress (among other issues) impacting coral reefs through bleaching and mortality and could also be an important threat.
Housing/ Urban Areas, Tourism/ Recreation Areas
(Coastal development)
Outside site
Plans to accelerate coastal development in the islands to the north, near Coiba National Park limits, which could exacerbate recreational and sports fishing pressures and significantly increase water pollution, were of concern in the past (IUCN, 2017).
The review of the Public Use Plan further proposed some significant expansions of existing infrastructure within the World Heritage site, including different types of accommodation facilities, which might go beyond the scope of improving existing facilities (UNESCO, 2018).
It is encouraging that a Stategic Environmental Impacts Assessment is planned to be prepared for the World Heritage site, including evaluation of preferred options for sustainable economic development in the site and in the surrounding region (State Party of Panama, 2020).
The review of the Public Use Plan further proposed some significant expansions of existing infrastructure within the World Heritage site, including different types of accommodation facilities, which might go beyond the scope of improving existing facilities (UNESCO, 2018).
It is encouraging that a Stategic Environmental Impacts Assessment is planned to be prepared for the World Heritage site, including evaluation of preferred options for sustainable economic development in the site and in the surrounding region (State Party of Panama, 2020).
Ocean acidification, Temperature extremes, Storms/Flooding
(Climate change)
Inside site
, Throughout(>50%)
Outside site
The Gulf of Chiriquí is said to be generally protected from the effects of the El Niño current (State Party of Panama, 2005) but this is without taking into account global warming, associated changes in severe weather events, and sea-level rise. Landslips along the steep island slopes into the sea were observed, probably due to extreme weather, thus the World Heritage site is at high risk through global change (IUCN, 2017).
Climate change has also been impacting coral reefs for more than three decades through the bleaching and mortality of corals due to heat stress. Further predicted warming is projected to exceed the ability of reefs to survive within 1-3 decades for the majority of World Heritage sites containing coral reefs. In the past years, more than three-quarters all natural World Heritage sites, containing corals (including Coiba National Park) have been affected by severe and/or repeated heat stress (Heron et. al, 2017). However, corals in the World Heritage site have also signs of high thermal-tolerance and adaptability (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Climate change has also been impacting coral reefs for more than three decades through the bleaching and mortality of corals due to heat stress. Further predicted warming is projected to exceed the ability of reefs to survive within 1-3 decades for the majority of World Heritage sites containing coral reefs. In the past years, more than three-quarters all natural World Heritage sites, containing corals (including Coiba National Park) have been affected by severe and/or repeated heat stress (Heron et. al, 2017). However, corals in the World Heritage site have also signs of high thermal-tolerance and adaptability (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Unregulated tourism development has been a cause for concern in the past, with tourism rapidly increasing in recent years. However, the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 on tourism are still unclear. It is nonetheless encouraging that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is planned to be prepared for the World Heritage site, including evaluation of preferred options for sustainable economic development in the site and in the surrounding region. Potential development of islands to the north of Coiba National Park and increasing development pressures have been a concern in the past and will require effective control and enforcement, as well as the proper development and implementation of management instruments, once pressures from increasing tourism resume in the future. Despite the adoption in 2018 of new fishing regulations for the Special Zone of Marine Protection after a long absence of any regulations for this area, unsustainable commercial fishing remains a very high threat to the site and concerns have been expressed that the regulations in their current form appeared to be insufficient to guaranteed the protection of the site's values. Capacity to enforce even the existing regulations is also been estimated is insufficient. Climate change also adds to the other existing threats and its impacts are predicted to only increase in the future.
Management system
The World Heritage site consists of the Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP). The Management Plan for the Coiba National Park was developed in 2009, however, it did not cover SZMP, and the levels of funding, staff, and facilities were inadequate to implement it. The Plan expired in 2014 and extended for 5 years. The Management Plan for Coiba National Park is now going to be revised, which will be linked to the preparation of a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the World Heritage site and surrounding areas (State Party of Panama, 2019).
A Public Use Plan (PUP) was elaborated for the Coiba National Park in accordance with the provisions of the Management Plan approved in 2018. The PUP was reviewed and revealed limitations in regard of zonation and significant expansion of existing infrastructure within the site as well as doubts about the negative impacts of the infrastructure expansion associated increase of visitor numbers (UNESCO, 2018).
A Public Use Plan (PUP) was elaborated for the Coiba National Park in accordance with the provisions of the Management Plan approved in 2018. The PUP was reviewed and revealed limitations in regard of zonation and significant expansion of existing infrastructure within the site as well as doubts about the negative impacts of the infrastructure expansion associated increase of visitor numbers (UNESCO, 2018).
Effectiveness of management system
Overall lack of enforcement of existing regulations for commercial, artisanal, and sports fishing, also evidenced by the decline in some commercial fisheries, lack of effective surveillance and monitoring (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014; UNESCO, 2018), and lack of engagement with local communities (apart from with the fishermen entering the Park and Park staff who come from the local communities) indicate a low level of management effectiveness.
Boundaries
If the SZMP was effectively managed, the boundaries of the World Heritage site should be sufficient to conserve its Outstanding Universal Value (IUCN, 2017).
Integration into regional and national planning systems
Coiba forms part of the “Marine Conservation Corridor of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape” (CMAR). The other three World Heritage sites which form part of this network, Malpelo (Colombia), Cocos Island (Costa Rica) and Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), have much stricter fishing regulations than those of Coiba. Legislation was enacted in 2014 to strengthen protection of Whale Sharks in the marine reserve of the Canales de Afuera (IUCN, 2017); however, concerns remain over conservation of whale sharks and other highly migratory species (IUCN Consultation, 2020).
Relationships with local people
While mayors of adjacent municipalities as well as the Governor of the province are actively involved in the Executive Council, there was still little evidence of current cooperation and capacity building with the local authorities and fishing communities, even though some projects have been undertaken in the past (IUCN, 2017).
Legal framework
Coiba National Park was established by Resolution No. 021 (1991) of the National Authority of the Environment. Furthermore, the World Heritage site is protected under National Law 44, adopted by the Legislative Assembly in 2004, establishing Coiba National Park and a Special Zone of Marine Protection within the Gulf of Chiriqui. The Law established the boundaries of the National Park along with its Zone of Marine Protection, as well as the protection and management regulations for both of these areas (World Heritage Committee, 2014).
Law enforcement
Patrolling efforts in the Coiba National Park have been considered insufficient, and very little patrolling and enforcement is undertaken in the SZMP (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014; IUCN, 2017; UNESCO, 2019). Documentation on fines for illegal activities was either unavailable or the fines were very few and little, despite reports of illegal activities within the site (IUCN, 2017).
Implementation of Committee decisions and recommendations
Some Committee decisions have been addressed to a certain degree, however, some remain to be implemented.
In its most recent Decision in 2019, the Committee expressed concern that while some recommendations of the 2014 and 2016 missions were reflected in the fishing regulations for the Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP) approved in January 2018, overall the regulations appeared to be insufficient to protect the site from unsustainable commercial fishing (World Heritage Committee, 2019).
In its most recent Decision in 2019, the Committee expressed concern that while some recommendations of the 2014 and 2016 missions were reflected in the fishing regulations for the Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP) approved in January 2018, overall the regulations appeared to be insufficient to protect the site from unsustainable commercial fishing (World Heritage Committee, 2019).
Sustainable use
Provisions for the sustainable use of the World Heritage site for conservation, tourism, and fisheries are covered in the Management Plan and the Sustainable Fisheries Management Plan (for the Park), but these plans are not being implemented plus fisheries for at least one commercial fish (snappers) have been demonstrated to be unsustainable (Vega et al., 2016; IUCN, 2017). Concerns have also been expressed about the level of fishing occurring within the SZMP due to the lack of regulations (UNESCO, 2018 and 2019).
Sustainable finance
Levels of funding had been considered insufficient in the past. However, mechanisms including the Coiba Fund, inscribed in law, should improve the situation once the fund is operationalised (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014; IUCN, 2017). Resrouces still appear to be insufficient to ensure effective surveillance and law enforcement (UNESCO, 2019).
Staff capacity, training, and development
Staff require additional training and development to be able to effectively implement the Management Plan (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014; IUCN, 2017).
Education and interpretation programs
An interpretation centre on the island and new interpretive walks for visitors, as well as plans for more interpretation in the new public use plan, are positive. There is no information about educational programmes about the World Heritage site to the local population on the mainland (IUCN, 2017). In 2019-2020, rehabilitation projects were planned to improve the visitor center and the signaling and interpretation in all trails, funded by an Inter-American Development Bank loan (UNESCO, 2019).
Tourism and visitation management
Currently tourist management (particularly by visiting cruise ships and sport fishermen) needs improvement (IUCN, 2017).
A Public Use Plan (PUP) was elaborated for the World Heritage site in 2018. However, concerns were expressed that it would provide for significant expansion of tourism infrastructure within the site (UNESCO, 2018).
A Public Use Plan (PUP) was elaborated for the World Heritage site in 2018. However, concerns were expressed that it would provide for significant expansion of tourism infrastructure within the site (UNESCO, 2018).
Monitoring
Some assessments of commercial fisheries within the Coiba National Park have been undertaken (Vega et al., 2015) but systematic biodiversity monitoring for all of the values of the site is still lacking; currently only anecdotal reports on the situation exist (UNESCO/IUCN, 2014; IUCN, 2017).
Further alignment in terms of monitoring is also needed between the Coiba National Park and the SZMP, e.g. in terms of key indicator species (UNESCO, 2019).
Further alignment in terms of monitoring is also needed between the Coiba National Park and the SZMP, e.g. in terms of key indicator species (UNESCO, 2019).
Research
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) and Conservation International have provided support for research activities related to the World Heritage site, especially in developing the Management Plan. In 2015 the STRI initiated a "BioBlitz" of the site and many new records for the site, including endemics were discovered (STRI, 2015).
The on-going absence of a clear management framework for the entire World Heritage site, which comprises the Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection, lack of clarity concerning coastal zone development, weakness of law enforcement and slow progress in resolving issues repeatedly underlined by the World Heritage Committee remain of concern. While a number of positive steps have been taken, in light of the most recent concerns by the World Heritage Committee, further consideration of the fishing regulations within the Special Zone of Marine Protection is needed. Beyond the regulations themselves, capacity for effective enforcement remains of concern, both within the Coiba National Park and the SZMP. The recently announced revision of the Management Plan for Coiba National Park and the development of a Strategic Environmental Assessment for the World Heritage and its surrounding areas can provide a good opportunity to develop a coherent management framework for this World Heritage site.
Assessment of the effectiveness of protection and management in addressing threats outside the site
Data Deficient
Previously, concerns have been expressed about potential tourism development on the islands to the north of the World Heritage site as well as to a lesser extent along the coast adjacent to the site, however, no up-to-date information is available about these developments.
Assessment of the current state and trend of World Heritage values
High Concern
Trend
Deteriorating
The current state of World Heritage values of the site is of high concern, mainly due to the effect that unsustainable fishing is having on the marine values. On the other hand, the removal of livestock from the Coiba island is positive, especially in terms of vegetation regrowth, and conservation prospects are more positive for the terrestrial part of the site. However, comprehensive data on many species and habitats is lacking. For the marine part, while data is also lacking, the existing data indicate high level of concern. A number of monitoring programmes have recently been started, such as for example the baseline assessment of the occurrence and distribution of cetaceans, which will allow to better assess some trends in the future.
Assessment of the current state and trend of other important biodiversity values
Low Concern
Trend
Data Deficient
Coiba remains the only place where scarlet macaws (Ara macao) can be observed in Panama, as this species is threatened at national level. However, trends on the populations of this species in Coiba are not available.
Additional information
Tourism-related income,
Provision of jobs
Park staff are mostly recruited locally, and increased tourism provides additional jobs to service-related industries (IUCN, 2017).
Importance for research,
Contribution to education,
Collection of genetic material
The island is an important "natural laboratory" for species evolution and interactions. Researchers from the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups Project (ICBG), funded through the National Institutes of Health and the pharmaceutical industry, have collected marine and terrestrial samples for bioprospecting for the last ten years and some active molecules have been identified from the Park (IUCN, 2014; IUCN, 2017).
Fishing areas and conservation of fish stocks
By law artisanal, subsistence and sport fishing is allowed in the Coiba National Park in addition to fishing in the SZMP. Fishing employs local and non-local people, particularly those who export fish caught inside the Park to the US, even if this practice is unsustainable (Vega et al., 2016).
While fishing is beneficial to people, concerns have been expressed that the current levels of fishing are unsustainable.
Outdoor recreation and tourism
Tourism is increasing with national and international visitor numbers increasing 42% from 2014-2015 (with around 17,200 visitors of which international tourists comprise about 78%). This includes recreational diving, beach activities, hiking and nature observation, and recreational and commercial sport fishing. A number of cruise ships also visit the Park on a regular basis (ANAM, 2009; IUCN, 2017),
Increased tourism brings increased risk of invasive species, disturbance and pollution as well as increased development to accommodate the tourists.
The site provides an important nearly pristine area for research and discovery. Tourism (in particular diving and increasingly nature-watching) and fishing contribute significantly to the local economy, although fishing within the site has been demonstrated to be unsustainable, thus will not continue to provide benefits in the long term. The main benefit of this protected area should be to act as a refuge for marine life that would then provide benefits in areas beyond the boundaries of the site.
| № | Organization | Brief description of Active Projects | Website |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MiAmbiente and various NGOs | Coiba forms part of the CMAR Marine Conservation and Sustainable Development Corridor of the Eastern Pacific (Galapagos-Cocos-Coiba-Gorgona-Malpelo Islands) and the MiAmbiente partipates in this network through workshops to improve management. |
http://cmarpacifico.org/web-cmar/
|
| 2 | Mar Viva, MiAmbiente | MarViva has been very active in strengthening fishermen’s organizations and communities around Coiba and in developing and enforcing the Management Plan. No current projects specifically aimed at Coiba have been identified, but several projects aimed at ensuring that fishing is sustainable will have an impact on Coiba. |
www.marviva.net
|
| 3 | Natura-ANCON | A rural community tourism in the area of influence of Parque Nacional Coiba-Golf de Chiriquí, and implementation of the tourism program of ARTURIS (Association of Sustainable Rural Tourism) has been completed. It is not known if this project will be continued, although increased capacity-building of the local community to participate in sustainable tourism would be very desirable. One challenge is that many tourists speak English, while the local community does not, thus foreign language courses may be very helpful in helping the local community benefit from the increasing number of foreign tourists. |
www.naturapanama.org
|
| 4 | Conservation International | Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape Initiative. It aims to monitor and to protect The Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape from threats like illegal fishing, overfishing and pollution. It has supported the creation or expansion of more than 20 marine protected areas (MPAs) and working to restore the critical coastal areas, end destructive fishing practices such as overfishing and trawling and coordinate cooperation among the governments of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador to create a more sustainable Pacific Ocean. |
https://www.conservation.org/places/Eastern-Tropical-Pacific-Seascape
|
References
| № | References |
|---|---|
| 1 |
ANAM (2009). Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Coiba, Sitio de Patrimonio Natural de la Humanidad. Versíón Final. Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente. 132 pp.
|
| 2 |
Conservation International. (2019). Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape. [online] Available at: https://www.conservation.org/places/Eastern-Tropical-Pacifi… (Accessed 18 july 2020).
|
| 3 |
Heron et al. (2017). Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs: A First Global Scientific Assessment. Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre. [online] Available at: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/16386 (Accessed 10 July 2020).
|
| 4 |
IUCN (2017). Report on the IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission to Coiba National Park and Its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama) (2017). [online] Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/>; [Accessed 30 November 2020].
|
| 5 |
Maté, J.L, Vega, A.J., Tovar, D. & Arcia, E. (2015). Plan de Aprovechamiento Pesquero Sostenible del Parque Nacional Coiba. Versión Popular. Ciudad de Panamá, República de Panamá. 58 pp.
|
| 6 |
Ministerio de Ambiente (2019). Informe técnico. Proyecto "Ocurrencia y distribución de cetáceos en el Parque nacional Coiba, Provincia de Veraguas, 2019".
|
| 7 |
STRI (2015). Coiba BioBlitz. Trópicos. Magazine of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Instutute, April, 2015. 38 pp. https://www.stri.si.edu/sites/tropicos/pdf/TROPICOS_Apr_201…
|
| 8 |
State Party of Panama (2005). Nomination of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection as a World Heritage Site. [online] Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/>; [Accessed 30 November 2020].
|
| 9 |
State Party of Panama (2011). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama). [online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/ (Accessed 10 July 2020).
|
| 10 |
State Party of Panama (2011). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama). [online] Ministry of Environment, Government of Panama. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/ (Accessed 10 July 2020).
|
| 11 |
State Party of Panama. (2018). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama). [online] Ministry of Environment, Government of Panama. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/ (Accessed 10 July 2020).
|
| 12 |
State Party of Panama. (2019). Report of the State Party to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama). [online] Ministry of Environment, Government of Panama. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/ (Accessed 10 July 2019).
|
| 13 |
UNESCO (2018). Report on the State of Conservation of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection, Panama. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3760 (Accessed 12 June 2020).
|
| 14 |
UNESCO and IUCN (2014). Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre – IUCN Reactive Monitoring Mission to Coiba National Park and Its Special Zone of Marine Protection (Panama), from 12 to 17 January (2014). [online] Paris, France and Gland, Switzerland: UNESCO World Heritage Centre and IUCN. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/>; [Accessed 30 November 2020].
|
| 15 |
UNESCO. (2019). Report on the State of Conservation of Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection, Panama. State of Conservation Information System of the World Heritage Centre. [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3917 (Accessed 12 June 2020).
|
| 16 |
Vega, A.J. Robles, Y.A. & Maté, J.L. (2016). La pesca artesanal en el Parque Nacional Coiba y zona de influencia. Biología y pesquería de sus principales recursos, con recommendaciones de manejo. Fundación MarViva, Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá. 67 pp.
|
| 17 |
World Heritage Committee (2014). Decision: 38 COM 8E. Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (Panama). In: Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th Session (Doha, 2014). [online] Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1138/documents/>; [Accessed 30 November 2020].
|