Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1981
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger 2004-2014
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Continuing deterioration and serious threats affecting the property
Corrective measures identified
a) Updating of the statement of Outstanding Universal Value;
b) Effective implementation of the site management plan.
Previous Committee Decisions see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/144/documents/
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 51,083
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/144/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Total amount provided to the property: Support from the French, Japanese, UNESCO project (USD 1,438,000) and Norwegian Funds-in-Trust provides support for UNESCO rehabilitation project (USD 201,390)
Previous monitoring missions
ICOMOS mission 23 to 27 February 2004
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Ruins damaged by sea erosion;
b) Collapsing monuments;
c) Lack of clear boundary of property and buffer zone;
d) Population pressure; no participation of community;
e) Unclear management systems leading to inactivity;
f) Old legal framework.
Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/144/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2006
During its 29th session, the World Heritage Committee commended the State Party for the efforts undertaken to establish a Management and Conservation Plan and a Tourism Master Plan for the site, and invited the State Party to submit the final document related to these initiatives, and to implement these. The Committee noted with appreciation the continued support provided by the Governments of France and Japan to address problems facing this property. The Committee requested the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2006, a report on the state of conservation of the property including follow up action on the recommendations of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission of 2004, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session in 2006, and decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
In 2005, promotional materials have been produced including full colour brochures entitled ‘Kilwa Kisiwani, An Overview of Its Cultural Heritage’; ‘Songo Mnara, An Overview of Its Cultural Heritage’; ‘Kilwa Kivinje, An Overview of Its Cultural Heritage’; ‘Kilwa Kisiwani, Ancient port City of the East African Coast’. An 89 page well illustrated publication ‘Kilwa Kisiwani, Ancient Port City of the East African Coast’ by Karen Moon, for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, also produced in 2005.
With financial assistance from the World Heritage Fund, an enamelled sand stone sign was prepared for the Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara property written both in English and Swahili.
The World Heritage Centre notes that the State Party is putting significant effort into the conservation, proper management and sustainable development of the site. This involves the local community as well as the international donor community.
The Government of Norway is financing a project amounting to USD 201,390 entitled “Emergency Conservation of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara Endangered World Heritage Sites”. This is implemented by the UNESCO Office in Dar es Salaam. The conservation project, which started in September 2005, is divided into four phases and will essentially entail emergency conservation work at the sites of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara, as well as help train and build capacity of national conservation practitioners.
The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS have received from the Tanzanian Department of Antiquities in December 2005 and March 2006 the following documents. One, a Site Management Plan (dated January 2006). Two, the Kilwa Tourism Master Plan (March 2005) together with other promotional materials and finally, the draft of “Revised nomination file for the World Heritage Sites of the Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara, including the historical town of Kilwa Kivinje”. A further report on the state of conservation of the World Heritage Property was received on 1 March 2006.
The site management plan provides an excellent overview of property history, state of conservation of component sites, management issues and proposals to reconsider boundaries and inclusion of nearby related sites. The management plan articulates clear strategic objectives and is built around a statement of significance for the property. It is worth highlighting the extensive community and stakeholder consultation approach used in developing the plan. This plan parallels and complements the Tourism Plan first submitted as a draft in March 2005. The Tourism Master Plan is comprehensive and its approach and conclusions are well integrated with the approach to management defined in the property management plan
The State Party report of State of Conservation begins by presenting the statement of significance (as defined within the property management plans) and comments concerning integrity/ authenticity. The report describes conditions, issues and problems in many areas of the site. The report also describes various planning and management tools in place to protect and conserve the property, various social and economic pressures affecting the property and monitoring measures in place.
ICOMOS, in its review of these various management reports, tools and initiatives, finds the property management plan well conceived and executed. However, ICOMOS is disappointed that the State Party’s state of conservation report (January 2006) does not address how the management plan is to be implemented and to integrate the many other parallel planning and management procedures and tools already in place.
ICOMOS also notes that the defined aim of the management plan is to “guarantee the proper application of conservation and management approaches that would ensure that the World Heritage Site of Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara is rationalised to include the historic town of Kilwa Kivinje”. However, the State Party’s State of Conservation report does not comment on the intention to extend the nomination. Moreover, the State Party SOC report does reproduce the statement of significance from the management plan which recognizes the extension (to include Kilwa Kivinje) as a part of the property to be managed. ICOMOS further notes that the Committee in its 28th and 29th session did not comment directly on the proposed extension, except to request the State Party to respond to the recommendations of the 2004 ICOMOS mission, which focused on the need - among others - to extend the original nomination to include Kilwa Kivinje.
ICOMOS would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to the work carried out on preparing a statement of significance in the management plan, and the long section in the State Party’s SOC report on integrity/ authenticity. While these efforts place concern for significance at the centre of management decision-making and are very much welcome, ICOMOS notes that the statement of significance prepared ranges beyond the single criterion (number iii) under which the property was inscribed. ICOMOS also notes that the treatment of significance, authenticity and integrity derive from the previous version of the Operational Guidelines, and are not prepared in accord with the requirement of the Operational Guidelines in effect since February 2005.
Accordingly, ICOMOS supports the wisdom of developing a management mechanism which addresses the integrated totality of the territory (including Kilwa Kivinje) but stresses the importance of the State party signalling its intention to extend the inscription to do so as a part of the process, so that the Committee can be made aware of this approach.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM
Decision Adopted: 30 COM 7A.17
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7A,
2. Recalling Decision 29 COM 7A.15, adopted at its 29th session (Durban, 2005),
3. Commends the State Party for the efforts made in 2005 to complete the property management plan and to continue to strengthen measures for the protection of the property;
4. Notes that the State Party's State of Conservation report submitted 30 January 2006, only briefly mentions the recently developed management plan, without defining corrective measures for implementation as the guiding instrument intended to ensure a long term and integrated approach towards the management of the property;
5. Notes that the site management plan section dealing with significance, and the related sections in the State Party's State of Conservation report concerning integrity/ authenticity, reflect significance beyond that recognized in the inscription of the site under criterion (iii), and are not in conformity with the requirements of the Operational Guidelines which relate to the expression of Outstanding Universal Value, authenticity and integrity, and suggests that the State Party modify these sections of the management plan and report to the Committee accordingly;
6. Notes that the management plan prepared for the property encompasses a wider area than that inscribed (in line with the recommendations of the 2004 ICOMOS mission) and invites the State Party to signal its intention to the Committee to propose an extension to the original nomination to include those areas addressed by management plan including Kilwa Kivinje, in order to fully integrate the earlier ruins inscribed with the associated living towns, and to consider whether additional criteria may be necessary to fully capture the Outstanding Universal Value of a larger property;
7. Regrets that the State Party State of Conservation report did not address the recommendations of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission of 2004;
8. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2007, a report on the state of conservation of the property including the following information, for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007:
a) Follow-up action on the recommendations of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission of 2004;
b) Actions taken to update the property's statement of significance and integrity/authenticity assessment according to the current requirements of the Operational Guidelines, and the need to focus the expression of significance on the criterion recognized by inscription;
c) Full and effective implementation of the property management plan of January 2006;
d) Clarification of its intention to submit an extension to the presently inscribed World Heritage property and possibly to submit associated revised criteria.
9. Decides to retain the Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (United Republic of Tanzania) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Decision Adopted: 30 COM 8C.2
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-06/30.COM/7A and WHC-06/30.COM/7A.Add.Rev),
2. Maintains the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
• Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 30 COM 7A.22)
• Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley, (Decision 30 COM 7A.23)
• Azerbaijan, Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Decision 30 COM 7A.29)
• Benin, Royal Palaces of Abomey (Decision 30 COM 7A.16)
• Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.1)
• Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 30 COM 7A.31)
• Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.2)
• Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.3)
• Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.8)
• Democratic Rep. of the Congo Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.6)
• Democratic Rep. of the Congo Virunga National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.7)
• Democratic Rep. of the Congo Garamba National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.4)
• Democratic Rep. of the Congo Salonga National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.5)
• Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 30 COM 7A.19)
• Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.9)
• Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.15)
• India, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (Decision 30 COM 7A.13)
• Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 30 COM 7A.25)
• Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 30 COM 7A.20)
• Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 30 COM 7A.34)
• Nepal, Kathmandu Valley (Decision 30 COM 7A.26)
• Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 30 COM 7A.10)
• Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 30 COM 7A.27)
• Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 30 COM 7A.32)
• Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 30 COM 7A.28)
• United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 28 COM 7A.17)
• United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.14)
• Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 30 COM 7A.33)
• Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 30 COM 7A.21)