State of Conservation (SOC)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
$79,000 to date plus $275,000 IUCN support in 1994 (funded by Germany)
International Assistance granted to the property
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 208,632USD
|1994||International Conference on Ngorongoro, in Bellagio, Italy|
|1990||Purchase of a Land Rover and radio equipment for the ...||49,782 USD|
|1988||Purchase of 2 vehicles (one tipper truck and one 4x4 pick-up) for ...||50,000 USD|
|1988||Contribution to the purchase of associated spare parts for ...||10,000 USD|
|1987||Purchase of a Land Rover for anti-poaching activities in ...||17,500 USD|
|1987||Participation of a specialist from Ngorongoro Conservation Area ...||4,000 USD|
|1987||Additional costs of equipment for Ngorongoro Conservation Area||2,000 USD|
|1986||Equipment to strengthen the protection of Ngorongoro Conservation ...||20,000 USD|
|1980||Additional financial assistance for the preparation of a ...||7,000 USD|
|1979||Financial grant for establishment of a management plan for ...||24,950 USD|
|1979||12-month fellowship in law/administration for Ngorongoro ...||18,000 USD|
|1979||Drawing up by an architect-museologist of a project for the ...||5,400 USD|
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Shortcomings in the management and lack of resources (issues resolved)
- Residents allowed to grow crops inside the World Heritage site
Current conservation issues
At its last session the World Heritage Committee recalled that the site was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1990 as a result of technical assistance and improvements in its management. Subsequently, IUCN informed the Committee of serious problems relating to agricultural encroachment on the site. In addition, it was brought to the attention of the Committee that cultural resources relating to the early footprints of man in the Olduvai Gorge were also being threatened. However, the Getty Conservation Institute is undertaking work with regard to the cultural aspects of the site, in particular planning for the conservation of the Laetoli Hominid footprint site. IUCN will undertake a further monitoring mission with respect to the natural features. The Centre informed the relevant authorities about the Committee's concerns and is awaiting an answer.
[+ Oral report to the World Heritage Committee]
CONSERVATION STATUS REPORT (only in English)
1. PROPERTY: NGORONGORO CONSERVATION AREA (Tanzania)
2. DATE INSCRIBED AND CRITERIA: 1979; criteria not recorded
3. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM WORLD HERITAGE FUND: $79,000 to date plus $275,000 IUCN support in 1994 (funded by Germany)
4. CONDITION OF PROPERTY:
IUCN has previously reported on the impact that the illegal and random cultivation has had on this site. No official replies from the Tanzanian authorities have been received but independent information on farming activity shows it has not diminished. An NGO called the "Friends of Serengeti" have protested strongly to the Government and suggested alternative areas where cultivation could be encouraged. The Ngorongoro Board has not taken a strong stand on the issue.
With no improvement in the situation and no response from Government, IUCN is considering recommending that the site be considered for the List of World Heritage in Danger at the December meeting of the Committee. This recommendation will be considered during a field mission to the site proposed for October by IUCN HQ and regional office staff. As an IUCN management planner is due to begin work in the NCA in the near future, the progress on this project will also be reviewed. It has been suggested that the management planning process may be futile if the policy on cultivation is not sorted out first. A subsequent follow-up implementation project to be funded by KFW (Germany) is also expected but it has been recommended that this should be withheld until cultivation is phased out.
6. SUGGESTED ACTION BY THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU:
The Bureau should again express its concern over cultivation in the site and lack of any response to its inquiries. At the same time it should welcome the preparation of the management plan and encourage the authorities to cooperate in the October mission to the site.
Analysis and Conclusion
Link to the decision
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) (Tanzania)
The Committee recalled that at its last session it expressed serious concerns over the Tanzanian Government's new policy to open NCA to agriculture. The Committee was informed that, though Cultivation is continuing to spread, there appears to be some control preventing its random expansion. Nevertheless, the Committee remained concerned that the expansion of agriculture is taking away traditional pastoral lands of Masai who, as a last resort to ensure their own food security, are being forced to clear lands for subsistence agriculture. The NCA is the most profitable of all Tanzanian state enterprises earning approximately US$ 4.5 million annually, of which the local people receive only a marginal share at present.
Despite the concerns outlined above, the committee was satisfied to note that the NCA management and NCA Board are actively seeking solutions to the issues and are cooperating with IUCN in preparing a management plan. The Committee requested the Centre to write to the Tanzanian authorities, reminding them of the international significance of, and the interest in NCA and encourage them to take urgent measures, e. g. sharing tourism revenues, which will ensure the conservation of natural resources and the welfare of the Masai and minimize the need for cultivating land within the vicinity of NCA. The Committee requested IUCN to prepare, in cooperation with its Regional Office in Nairobi, a follow-up report on the state of conservation of NCA for its next session in 1995.
Link to the decision
In examining the 10 technical cooperation requests for cultural properties, 2 submitted by ICCROM and 8 by State Parties, the Bureau decided, in accordance with previous decisions taken by the Committee, to give priority to activities for properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and to those having a catalytic effect rather than for the funding of specific restoration works.
Requests approved by the Bureau
1. The Historic Town of Ouro Preto (Brazil) - US$20,000
The Bureau approved US$20,000 out of the total amount of US$50,000, subject to obtaining assurance that the balance of US$30,000 for the construction of 5 houses for the relocation of the affected inhabitants be funded by other sources.
2. ICCROM Technical Assistance - US$25,000
The Bureau approved this financial support to the ICCROM Technical Assistance programme to supply institution of State Parties, free of charge, with basic documentation, scientific and didactic equipment and conservation products.
3. Printing of Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, by B.M. Feilden and J. Jokilehto - US$6,900
The Bureau approved this request to support the printing cost of the French-language edition of this publication if othersources, notably of the Francophone community cannot be identified.
Requests not approved by the Bureau
1. Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania) (International Conference on Ngorongoro, in Bellagio, Italy)
The Bureau, while recognizing the value of the proposed international conference in Italy for the Tanzanian conservators, did not recommend approval of this request in view of other requests of higher priority and due to the availability of other funding sources for this conference at the Rockfeller Foundation in Italy.
2. Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Bureau did not recommend the approval by the Committee of this request for US$90,000. It recommended that the Committee requests the Syrian authorities to prepare a global and coherent conservation programme for this site in accordance with the recommendations of the UNESCO expert mission which took place in December 1993.
Link to the decision
The Committee noted that the Bureau in examining the ten technical cooperation requests for cultural properties, two submitted by ICCROM and eight by States Parties, gave priority to activities for properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger and to those having a catalytic affect rather than for the funding of specific restoration works, in accordance with previous decisions taken by the Committee.
Reauests approved by the Bureau:
- The Historic Town of Ouro Preto (Brazil) - US$20,000
The Bureau approved US$20,000 out of the total amount of US$50,000, subject to obtaining assurance that the balance of US$30,000 for the construction of five houses for the relocation of the affected inhabitants is funded by other sources.
- ICCROM Technical Assistance - US$25,000
The Bureau approved this financial support to the ICCROM Technical Assistance Programme to supply institutions of State Parties, free of charge, with basic documentation, scientific and didactic equipment and conservation products.
- Printing of Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites, by B.M. Feilden and J. Jokilehto - US$6,900
The Bureau approved this request to support the printing cost of the French-language edition of this publication if other sources, notably of the Fra-ncophone community cannot be identified.
Requests approved by the Committee:
The Committee approved the following requests on the basis of the recommendations of the Bureau:
- Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia) - US$50,000
The Committee approved the full requested amount of US$ 50,000 for, inter alia, the purchase of equipment for the documentation centre; expertise for the development of a tourism development plan; promotional and educational material and activities on World Heritage in Dubrovnik.
- Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland) - US$100,000
The Committee approved this request for US$100,000 to purchase the dehumidifying equipment required for the preservation of the salt sculptures of this World Heritage Site in Danger.
- Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) - US$52,000
The Committee approved the requested US$ 52,000 for the deployment of a UNESCO international technical advisor for 6 months in view of the serious and urgent need for strengthen measures to redress the present state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley.
- The Complex of the Hue Monuments (Vietnam) - US$108,000
(Upgrading of the Hue Conservation Laboratory)
The Committee approved the amount of US$108,000 to meet the cost of laboratory equipment purchase (US$ 72,700) and related short-term training to enable the Hue authorities to have the basic facilities to overcome the present obstacles to conservation. The World Heritage Centre should, however, be consulted on the list of equipment, and approve the detailed specification and cost estimate; as well as the selection of the international experts.
- Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) - US$80,000
(Restoration of the mosaics of Hagia-Sophia)
The Committee approved an amount of $80,000 to complete the final phase of this restoration project.
Requests not approved by the Committee:
- Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania)
(International Conference on Ngorongoro, in Bellagio, Italy)
The Committee endorsed the Bureau's view not to approve this request although the value of the proposed international conference in Italy for the Tanzanian conservators is recognized, and in view of the fact that other funding sources are available for this Conference at the Rockefeller Foundation in Italy.
- Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)
The Committee did not approve this request for US$90,000 but suggested that the Syrian authorities submit an alternative request to prepare a global and coherent conservation programme for this site in accordance with the recommendations of the UNESCO expert mission which took place in December 1993.
No draft Decision
Ngorongoro Conservation Area
- Crop production
Inscription on the Danger List
Threats to the Site:
Shortcomings in the management and protection of the property
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”).