State of Conservation (SOC)
Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls (1998)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:0USD
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Project to construct a dam across the gorge (issue resolved)
Current conservation issues
The Bureau was informed that IUCN had reviewed the “Scoping Report: Potential impacts associated with the proposed development of the Mosi-Oa-Tunya Hotel Complex”, prepared by the Division of Water, Environment and Forestry Technology, CSIR, South Africa. This report was commissioned by Sun International, the company that would like to develop this hotel complex on the Zambian side of this trans-border
World Heritage site. From IUCN’s point of view, the key issues of concern are that: (a) the location of the proposed development is within the boundaries of the site and particularly close to the banks of the rivers; (b) institutional support that should be provided by the Zambian Government to address environmental problems is not defined; (c) given that the site belongs to two States Parties, the Government of Zambia needs to discuss the project with the Government of Zimbabwe, to seek the latter’s agreement on implementation policies, procedures and schedules.
The response of the Zimbabwean Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (ZDNPWLM) to the hotel development proposal of Sun International has been transmitted to the Centre, on 25 September 1998, by the Zimbabwe National Commission for UNESCO, ZDNPWLM has emphasised the need to preserve the World Heritage site as a global asset and stressed that any development proposal should be subject to EIA procedures that invite full public involvement. ZDNPWLM has pointed out that it lacks details and information on the hotel development proposal. Hence, ZDNPWLM is unable to make specific and constructive comments or endorse the development proposal.
The Bureau requested the Centre to co-operate with the IUCN Regional Office for Southern Africa to organize a bi-national meeting to bring representatives the Governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe together. The meeting should be designed and organized in a manner so as to clarify issues concerning this development project in accordance with the joint responsibility of the two States Parties to conserve and properly manage this trans-border World Heritage property. The Bureau also supported the ZDNPWLM’s position to emphasise the need to preserve the World Heritage site as a global asset and that any development proposal should be subject to EIA procedures with full public involvement.
Link to the decision
VII.27 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV on the following properties:
Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
Nanda Devi National Park (India)
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)
Virgin Komi Forests (Russian Federation)
Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)
Thung Yai-Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand)
St. Kilda (United Kingdom)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
The Committee noted the UN official name for the State Party: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
No draft Decision
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
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”).