State of Conservation (SOC)
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (2000)
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:345,222USD
|2000||Evaluation mission to mount Nimba World Heritage site inscribed ...||30,000 USD|
|1997||Purchase of hydrological and meteorological equipment for Mount ...||19,840 USD|
|1995||Establishment of an administrative centre for Mount Nimba||18,000 USD|
|1993||Equipment and experts service for Mount Nimba||45,000 USD|
|1993||Consultancies and other services necessary for setting up a ...||30,000 USD|
|1992||Organization of an interdisciplinary mission to ascertain ...||35,000 USD|
|1992||Organization of a technical meeting for authorities of Côte ...||19,500 USD|
|1989||Purchase of an all terrain vehicle for Mount Nimba||20,000 USD|
|1988||Consultancy mission and meeting for preparing technical ...||15,000 USD|
|1986||Equipment for Mount Nimba Reserve||6,500 USD|
|1983||Financial contribution to a seminar/workshop on the elaboration ...||22,000 USD|
|1983||Consultant services to prepare requests for technical cooperation ...||6,082 USD|
|1982||Financial contribution to a tripartite meeting (Guinea, Ivory ...||8,000 USD|
|1981||Equipment for Mount Nimba||70,300 USD|
November 1988: June-July 1992: UNESCO field visit; May 1993: joint UNESCO/UNDP/IUCN mission; 1994: 2nd expert mission; August-September 2000: expert mission with UNDP
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Lack of Management Plan;
- Lack of funding;
- New railway;
- Proposed reduction of the protected area;
- Refugees from Liberia
Current conservation issues
At its twenty-fourth ordinary session (26 June - 1 July, 2000; Paris) the Bureau approved a sum of US$ 30,000 to strengthen institutional capacity of the Centre for Environmental Management of Mt. Nimba (CEGEN) and to support a consultant mission to the site to review the state of conservation of the site. The mission was also expected to explore with UNDP, the role of CEGEN in the implementation of the GEF project for the management of Mt. Nimba and participatory development in lands adjoining the site. The three-week mission of the consultant began on 24 August 2000; preliminary information received from the consultant reveal that the site is heavily degraded. Since 1996, settlers in the buffer zone have exploited the forests. A more detailed report of the consultant’s mission is expected shortly.
At a World Heritage and Mining Technical Workshop, held at IUCN Headquarters from 20-23 September, 2000, the case of Mt. Nimba was discussed and participants noted that key issues at this site include: (a) the need for clear boundary demarcation, taking into consideration the boundaries proposed at the time of inscription and changes proposed subsequently; (b) the need for effective transboundary co-operation between the two States Parties (Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire) as well as Liberia which has yet to ratify the Convention; and (c) the need to stimulate fund-raising efforts for this site, based on previous proposals and recommendations, including those made by the Committee concerning the establishment of a fund or a foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba.
The Director General of CEGEN is due to make a presentation on the case of Mt. Nimba at the Centre/IUCN workshop on the "Role of World Heritage in Danger Listing in Promoting International Co-operation for the Conservation of World Natural Heritage", in Amman, Jordan, during 6-7 October 2000.
Link to the decision
VIII.9 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The Committee noted that at a World Heritage and Mining Technical Workshop, held at IUCN Headquarters from 20- 23 September, 2000, the case of Mt. Nimba was discussed and participants noted that key issues at this site include: (a) the need for clear boundary demarcation, taking into consideration the boundaries proposed at the time of inscription and changes proposed subsequently; (b) the need for effective transboundary co-operation between the two States Parties (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire) as well as Liberia, which has yet to ratify the Convention; and (c) the need to stimulate fund-raising efforts for this site, based on previous proposals and recommendations, including those made by the Committee concerning the establishment of a fund or a foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Director General of CEGEN (Centre for Environmental Management of Mt. Nimba), presented a paper at the Amman Workshop which reiterated the findings reported at the World Heritage and Mining Workshop referred to above. In that context, the Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN cooperate with CEGEN and relevant authorities in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia to address points (a), (b) and (c), as described above, and prepare an action plan describing specific measures to be taken within a defined time period. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Committee may wish to review new information that may be available at the time of its session and take necessary decisions and recommend appropriate actions for the consideration of the State Party, advisory bodies and the Centre.
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1987 1986 1984
Detailed List of SOC reports
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 1992
Threats to the Site:
The Reserve was inscribed on the List of the World Heritage in Danger as a result of two factors:
- a proposed iron-ore mining concession to an international consortium;
- the arrival of a large number of refugees to areas in and around the Guinean part of the site.
The granting of the concession was announced in 1992 and included portions of the WH site.
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”).