jump to the content
Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Um er-Rasas (Kastrom Mefa'a) (2005)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 0USD

Missions**

ICOMOS Missions in July 2003 and March 2005 

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

The ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination had stressed the following isues: no management structure, no management and conservation plans, lack of security due to open trenches and unstable structures

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

The Committee, at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004), decided to inscribe the property on the World Heritage List, and requested the State Party to submit its annual work plan for the first year following the inscription.  No information was provided at the time of drafting this document, other than a letter from the Department of Antiquities indicating a stability problem at one of the towers.

At the time of drafting the present document, the report of the monitoring mission had not yet reached the Centre.  Therefore, whatever information received prior to the 29th session of the Committee will be reported orally.

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

29COM7B.41
Link to the decision

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev and the Draft Decision 29 COM 7B.41.Rev,29 COM 7B.41.Rev,

2. Having noted the additional information presented by the World Heritage Centre,

3. Recalling Decision 28 COM 14B.22 taken at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

4. Commends the State Party of Jordan for the steps taken towards the establishment of management and conservation plans for the property;

5. Requests the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, as soon as possible, with detailed information regarding the foreseen visitors centre, parking and shelter(s) prior to any decision making, as per paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;

6. Requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to undertake the second foreseen joint monitoring mission, in close consultation with the State Party, and to report on such mission at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006), notably as regards the progress made towards the establishment of an operational management plan and structure.

Draft decision: 29 COM 7B.41

The World Heritage Committee,

1.              Having examined the Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2.              Recalling Decision 28 COM 14 B.22, adotpd at its 28th sessions (Suzhou, 2004),

3.              Regrets that the State Party did not submit to the World Heritage Centre an annual work plan for the first year following the inscription of the site;

4.              Requests the State Party to report to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2006, on the work carried out during the first year since the inscription of the property and to submit its plans for the coming years, for the consideration of the Committee at its 30th session in 2006;

5.              Also requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to carry out the second foreseen monitoring mission to the property, to review the progress achieved by the State Party on the implementation of these plans, and report to the Committee at its 30th session in 2006.

Um er-Rasas (Kastrom Mefa'a)
State Party:
Jordan
Date of Inscription: 2004
Nomination records (Year): 2002
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)(vi)
Documents
Original Documents
WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Other Documents
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports
SOC Reports by year
2013
2011
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Detailed List of SOC reports
Threats*
Management systems/ management plan
Other Threats:
Lack of security due to open trenches and unstable structures

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.