State of Conservation
Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls
(Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan))
Factors affecting the property in 2011*
- Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
- High impact research / monitoring activities
- Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
a) Natural risk factorse) Deterioration of monuments;
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Natural risk factors;
b) Lack of planning, governance and management processes;
c) Alteration of the urban and social fabric;
d) Impact of archaeological excavations;
e) Deterioration of monuments;
f) Urban environment and visual integrity;
g) Traffic, access and circulation.
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
(cf. Document CLT 82/CH/CONF.015/8)
“[…] they considered that the situation of this property corresponds to the criteria mentioned in the ICOMOS note and, in particular, to criteria (e) (significant loss of historical authenticity) and (f) (important loss of cultural significance) as far as "ascertained danger" is concerned, and to criteria (a) (modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection), (b) (lack of conservation policy) and (d) (threatening effects of town planning) as far as "potential danger" is concerned. […]”
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
The political context does not allow the definition of a Desired state of conservation at this stage.
Corrective Measures for the property
Within the present context, only specific activities are possible, such as the implementation of those foreseen within the UNESCO Action Plan for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem.
Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
The timeframe is linked to the evolution of the overall situation on the ground. More specifically, the implementation of the Action Plan is subject to the availability of extra-budgetary ressources.
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2011
Total amount provided to the property: approximately USD 4,000,000 (since 1988)
International Assistance granted to the property until 2011
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Approved: 100,000USD
|1982||32-month expert services to undertake an architectural survey of ...||100,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 2011**
February-March 2004: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM mission; from September 2005 to May 2008: 6 experts missions within the framework of the elaboration of the Action Plan for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem; February-March 2007: special World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM mission sent by the Director-General of UNESCO for the issue of the Mughrabi ascent; August 2007, January and February 2008: missions for the application of the Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism; March and December 2009: World Heritage Centre missions.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011
A report was transmitted to the World Heritage Centre by the Jordanian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO on 11 February 2011, and by the Israeli Permanent Delegation to UNESCO on 22 February 2011.
I. Report from the Israeli authorities
It is to be noted that since 1967, the Old City of Jerusalem is de facto administered by the Israeli authorities. Therefore, all new constructions and conservation projects are in principle subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the Municipality and usually supervised by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).
The report of the Israeli authorities presents a whole range of activities. Most of them are similar to the ones reported on in the 2010 report and will therefore not be repeated in the present document. Updates are summarized hereunder:
a) Planning and related actions
Following the mapping of the state of the various infrastructures, renovations works have been undertaken in Jaffa Gate/Bab el Khalil, the road going from Damascus Gate to the Western Wall and the Armenian Patriarch’s road. Concurrently with the upgrading of infrastructure, the upgrading of facades is on-going on Omar Ben el-Hatab square near Jaffa Gate and will be undertaken in the Jewish quarter in 2011.
A Master Plan for accessibility within the OldCity includes accessible tourist information and street signage, tourist routes, elevators, transport services for the handicapped, public restrooms, etc. A new traffic management plan was also implemented in the OldCity allowing access only to emergency vehicles, public transport and residents. Traffic has decreased accordingly.
A Master Plan for the lighting of the OldCity is being prepared in order to illuminate the City walls and other main monuments.
b) Conservation projects:
Conservation of the OldCity walls continues so as to complete the full rehabilitation during 2011.
The restoration of the “Open Cardo” has been completed, while conservation work will continue on the bedrock beneath it. The conservation of the GermanCrusaderChurch has been completed. The conservation and reconstruction of the façade of the Roman Gate beneath Damascus Gate and the rehabilitation of the public square were carried out, and a survey conducted on the part of the Western Wall called the “Small Kotel”, for works to be undertaken in 2011.
Conservation works will also continue in 2011 on the “Seventh Station”, the facades of the Armenian bridge, the Muristan and the Ecce Homo Arch on the Via Dolorosa.
c) Archaeological works:
The report mentions various archaeological excavations, often linked with building projects. It notes that within the framework of the street upgrading around Jaffa Gate, archaeological excavations were carried out revealing a section of the Roman Decomanus and a part of the upper aqueduct. The remains were documented and recovered.
The archaeological works in the Western Wall tunnels continue, including stabilisation of the tunnels and the completion of the conservation of the Hasmonean tunnel. Numerous vaulted rooms were conserved. Additional excavations were undertaken around the base of the arch opposite Wilson’s arch.
Excavations were also carried out as part of the tourist development of the Archaeological Park of the Ophel gardens extra-muros as well as the clearing of the drainage channel leading from the Siloan pool to the Ophel archaeological gardens, including the stabilisation of the ceiling of the Herodian duct.
d) Construction works
The report focuses on the projects foreseen on the Western Wall Plaza. It indicates that an overall proposal coordinates all plans, surveys and archaeological finds in the area. It also expresses preservation and architectural design principles for the public realm and the proposed buildings and sets out a policy for the plaza. The report also notes that the proposal has been adopted by the Local and District Planning Commissions on 26 October 2010.
Further to a letter from the World Heritage Centre requesting clarifications on this plan, the Permanent Delegation of Israel informed UNESCO that “representation has been made to the courts concerning the validity of these proposals […] and therefore the status of the proposals is still under debate”.
The work concerns notably the Strauss building (additional office space, restrooms and a police station) at the northern side of the plaza, and on the western side an educational institute including offices, an information centre, an auditorium, above antiquities unearthed by the excavations, proposed by the Western Wall Heritage Foundation. Another plan for extending and upgrading the Davidson Centre has been initiated as well as a plan for the elevator connecting the Jewish quarter to the plaza to include more functions.
e) Plans and activities at Mount Zion
The report contains a chapter on the projects at MountZion, outside the City walls, indicating that work will start in July 2011. It will improve the circulation among the various sites, parking facilities, repaving, signage, and lighting. Conservation activities and archaeological excavations are being carried out in the area, notably in the complex of the Tomb of King David and the Cenacle. A plan is also being prepared for the area adjacent to the City walls between Zion Gate and Jaffa Gate for the development of an educational garden with an upper archaeological promenade.
The document also reports on work carried out by the Waqf administration within the Haram ash-Sharif, under the observation of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
II. Report from the Jordanian authorities
The report received from the Permanent Delegation of Jordan provides information based on the Jordanian Awqaf Authorities (JAA) observations on the ground. It presents activities undertaken by the JAA and information on the Israeli action in the OldCity. Among the activities of the JAA are the following:
a) Restoration of the plastering and mosaic decoration inside the Dome of the Rock;
b) Restoration of the plaster, stone and marble decoration of the Mehrab Zakariyya in Al-Aqsa Mosque;
c) Rehabilitation of the internal lighting system of Al-Aqsa Mosque;
d) Laying the lead sheet over the roof of the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex;
e) Organization of three training courses on the restoration of the mosaics in the Dome of the Rock by a Jordanian expert;
f) Restoration of the interior marble cladding of the walls of the Dome of the Rock;
g) Completing the restoration of the mortar lining of the masonry walls and ceilings of the fifth colonnade of Al-Marwani Mosque (the restoration of the sixth colonnade was ceased due to the ban imposed on the Jordanian technicians by the Israeli authorities);
h) Study for the restoration of the columns of the Al-Marwani Mosque.
The report also mentions the cooperation with UNESCO for the rehabilitation of the manuscript restoration centre and for the Islamic Museum, and the appointment of four additional staff by the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs (see below). The paragraphs related to the Mughrabi Gate Ascent are reflected below in part VI. In addition, the report indicates that the Jordanian experts noticed fallen stones from the Northern Ottoman wall and that, despite their willingness to implement the emergency restoration and stabilization of the wall, the Israeli authorities announced their intention to undertake the work themselves. In this respect, the Jordanian authorities recall the provisions of the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty.
In a second chapter of the report, the Jordanian authorities express their deep concern about the archaeological excavations in the town of Silwan, including the digging of tunnels towards the Al-Aqsa Mosque linking the city and the Haram ash-Sharif compound, causing collapses of buildings above. Other excavations are reported to continue in Al-Ward street, on the Western Wall (Al-Buraq) Plaza, below the offices of the Waqf and other buildings nearby, as well as expanding from the Western Wall tunnel affecting buildings such as Al-Manjaqiah, Al-Umariyyah and Al-Jawhariah schools. The report deplores the building of a synagogue using reinforced concrete walls and columns on Al-Ward street, for which Waqf land was seized near Hammam Al-Ain and Hammam Al-Shifa, as well as the confiscation of the Al-TankaziehMamlukiSchool for police stationning. It notes the transportation of archaeological remains from excavated sites in Silwan and from land adjacent to the Haram ash-Sahrif, including a large antique stone which was moved outside the Knesset in West Jerusalem.
The report raises the issue of the movement restrictions imposed by the Israeli authorities on the staff of the JAA, the prohibition to transport the necessary restoration materials, to execute the lighting project of the yards of Al Haram ash-Sharif, and to use the Golden Gate building.
III. Action Plan for the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem
The remaining funds of the first phase of the Action Plan funded by the Italian Government have been allocated to a new conservation/training project – the Rehabilitation of Al Saha Compound Facades - to be carried out with the Technical Unit of the Franciscan Custodia of the Holy Land. The project’s training component, which is fundamental to improving the conservation skills of local workers, involves testing the Rehabilitation Manual produced in the framework of the Action Plan.
The conservation project of the Saint JohnProdromosChurch, funded by the Leventis Foundation from Cyprus, and implemented in close collaboration with the Greek-Orthodox Patriarchate, started in July 2009. The architectural survey was carried out by the experts selected by the World Heritage Centre and the Patriarchate. With the completion of additional work that focused on archaeological research and humidity measures, the detailed restoration project will shortly be finalized.
IV. Brainstorming session
At its 34th session (July 2010, Brasilia, Brazil), the World Heritage Committee adopted Decision 34 COM 7A.20 by which it encouraged “the Director-General to take the necessary measures, in consultation and cooperation with the concerned parties, to reactivate and reinvigorate the implementation of the short-, medium- and long-term objectives of the Action Plan, including training, education and cultural activities, and the preservation of sites and monuments of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls as inscribed on the World Heritage List”.
The Director-General invited Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian authorities to send experts to a “brainstorming session” at UNESCO Headquarters on 14 October 2010. The aim of this session was to discuss the means to reactivate the UNESCO Action Plan for the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem, as well as the potential framework for the Terms of Reference of the reactive monitoring mission requested by the World Heritage Committee.
The group of experts, committed to the conservation of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, and to maintaining its “Outstanding Universal Value”, recommended the following priority actions:
a) building confidence and find ways to establish cooperation;
b) updating the Action Plan, its work plan and timetable;
c) With reference to paragraph 11 of Decision 34 COM 7A.20, identifying appropriate mechanisms for UNESCO (e.g. a technical team and/or unit) to improve technical assistance for the implementation of the Action Plan and the safeguarding of the values of the site, by providing advice and support for the process of granting permits and facilitating safeguarding work and site access;
d) Develop awareness-raising programmes, academic cooperation and cultural activities, targeting towards youth and women.
The World Heritage Committee had also requested “a joint World Heritage Centre/ICCROM/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission” to the property as referred to in the Operational Guidelines to assess and advise on progress made in the implementation of the Action Plan and, in cooperation and consultation with the concerned parties, to identify appropriate operational and financial mechanisms and modalities to strengthen technical cooperation with all concerned parties in the framework of the Action Plan”. During the meeting of 14 October, a potential framework for the terms of reference of the mission was discussed, and agreed upon. The main purpose of this mission will be to resume contact with the parties concerned so as to reactivate and reinvigorate the implementation of the UNESCO Action Plan for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem. The participants to the brainstorming session stressed that, as the first step, the foreseen mission should define a new baseline for the Action Plan, by updating the 2004 Report presented to the Director-General, the Executive Board of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee, as follows:
a) review the on-going or foreseen projects in the property, based on the information provided by the parties concerned, and assess the state of conservation of the property, according to paragraphs 169 to 177 of the Operational Guidelines, and in particular Paragraph 172;
b) assess and advise on progress made in the implementation of the Action Plan to date;
c) hold consultations with the parties concerned with a view to identifying appropriate operational and financial mechanisms and modalities to strengthen technical cooperation with all concerned parties in the framework of the Action Plan;
d) report thereon to the Director-General.
On 1 February and on 1 April 2011, the World Heritage Centre wrote to the Permanent Delegation of Israel to UNESCO requesting to authorize the joint World Heritage Centre/ICCROM/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission and no response was received to this date.
V. Other projects
The project for the development of an Architectural Heritage Preservation Institute in Jerusalem, funded by the European Commission (EUR 700,000), and implemented in partnership with the Welfare Association, has been completed. The Welfare Association has organized a series of training courses and workshops based on the curriculum developed by ICCROM. It also produced two publications and training manuals, created a project database, technical library and web site, and carried out awareness-raising sessions. A final workshop was organized in Jerusalem on 23 February 2011 to review the achievements of the project and discuss future action.
As a follow-up to the project for the establishment of a Centre for Restoration of Islamic Manuscripts, located in the Madrasa Al Ashrayfiyyah within the Haram al-Sharif, a capacity-building project, with funding from the Organization’s regular programme (USD 190,000) is underway in order to provide training to new and existing staff in the fields of paper restoration and electronic inventorying. The objective is to ensure the long-term conservation of the Madrasa’s invaluable collection of manuscripts and other historic documents.
Following the recruitment of four permanent staff by the Jordanian authorities, the development of the project for the Safeguarding, Refurbishment and Revitalization of the Islamic Museum of the Haram ash-Sharif and its Collection, funded by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (USD 1,130,000), which started in 2009, is progressing. The Museum’s staff participated in the first training module in inventorying the museum’s collection in January 2011. UNESCO is currently in the process of procuring basic computer equipment that will be used to undertake the electronic inventory.
VI. The Mughrabi Ascent
Since it 31st session (Christchurch, New Zealand, July 2007), the World Heritage Committee repeatedly requested “the World Heritage Centre to facilitate the professional encounter at the technical level between Israeli, Jordanian and Waqf experts to discuss the detailed proposals for the proposed final design of the Mughrabi ascent, prior to any final decision”. Two such meetings took place in Jerusalem on 13 January and 24 February 2008 but unfortunately, no other meeting took place since that date.
In their report of January 2011, the Israeli authorities indicate that: "Following the decision of the National Council for Planning and Construction, an alternative plan for the Mughrabi ascent was prepared in order to maintain the authenticity and integrity of the site reflected in the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee and its Advisory Bodies. The Plan was approved by the District Planning Commission (31.10.10) and the process of obtaining a building permit is now underway."
Following the request of the World Heritage Centre, the revised plans were transmitted to the World Heritage Centre on 2 May 2011. They will be examined by the Advisory Bodies.
In their report, the Jordanian authorities noted that the Jordanian experts were able to spend four hours on the site on 23 May 2010, as well as on 8 August and 28 November 2010, to discuss the differences between the proposals of the two parties, but that no agreement has been reached on the design. In a letter dated 10 May 2011, the Jordanian authorities expressed their concern and disapproval of the unilateral steps taken in this regard and stated that “Jordan shall not accept any process that falls short of enabling it to fulfil its right to safeguard Al-Magharbeh Gate Pathway and its walls”.
The “Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism”, requested by the UNESCO Executive Board at its 176th session and by the World Heritage Committee is applied for Jerusalem with regard to the Mughrabi ascent since the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee. Nine reports were prepared by the World Heritage Centre in this respect and forwarded to the concerned parties and the members of the World Heritage Committee.
VII. 185th and 186th sessions of the Executive Board of UNESCO
During the 185th session of the Executive Board, document 185 EX/5 related to the Mughrabi Ascent and document 185 EX/14 concerning the Old city of Jerusalem were presented to the members of the Board. Two draft decisions were submitted by several Member States. Despite considerable effort to reach a consensus, the decisions were put to vote and adopted at a large majority. At its 186th session, the Executive Board also examined these items and adopted decisions by which it “recalls its previous decisions” and “decides to include these items on the agenda of the 187th session of the Executive Board”.
VIII. Draft Decision
The Draft Decision will be presented to the World Heritage Committee during the session.
 The issue of the archaeological excavations carried out since 1967 by the Israeli authorities in the Old City of Jerusalem is also the subject of consideration by the Governing Bodies of UNESCO. These archaeological campaigns are in contradiction with article VI. 32 of the 1956 New Delhi Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations, related to excavations in occupied territory.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2011
Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (C 148 rev)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7A.20, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),
3. Recalling the relevant provisions on the protection of cultural heritage including the four Geneva Conventions (1949), the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954, the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972, the inscription of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls at the request of Jordan on the World Heritage List (1981) and on the List of World Heritage in Danger (1982), and the recommendations, resolutions and decisions of UNESCO,
4. Reaffirming that nothing in the present decision, which aims at the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, shall in any way affect the relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions, in particular the relevant Security Council resolutions on the legal status of Jerusalem,
5. Affirming the importance of maintaining the integrity and authenticity in the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls on both sides,
6. Affirms the necessity of cooperation to facilitate access to the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, including heritage sites therein, in the context of the UNESCO Conventions for the protection of the cultural heritage, and recognizes the concerns expressed regarding the restricting obstacles imposed by the Israeli authorities on the freedom of access;
7. Thanks international donors for their generous contributions to the UNESCO Action Plan for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem and both sides of its Walls, and calls upon the international donor community to further support, through extra-budgetary funding, activities aimed at the safeguarding of the integrity, and authenticity of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem and both sides of its Walls;
8. Requests the World Heritage Centre to make technical expertise and assistance available for the current and future conservation works foreseen in and around the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls, taking into consideration the activities foreseen in the context of the Action Plan, as needed;
9. Regrets the Israeli refusal to comply with the World Heritage Centre and UNESCO decisions and requests Israel to timely cooperate and facilitate the implementation of the World Heritage Committee Decision 34 COM7A.20 which requests, inter alia, a joint World Heritage Centre/ICCROM/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls;
10. Also regrets the persistence of the Israeli archaeological excavations and works in the Old City of Jerusalem and on both sides of its Walls, and the failure of Israel to provide the World Heritage Centre with adequate and comprehensive information about its archeological activities thereon, and asks the Israeli authorities to cease such excavations and works in conformity with the UNESCO Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage;
11. Asks, in this regard, that the World Heritage Centre states in its relevant reports on the obstacles related to the provision of such information by the Israeli authorities and also requests the World Heritage Centre to play a proactive role;
12. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to apply the Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism to the Old City of Jerusalem and on both sides of its Walls, and also requests that the World Heritage Centre validates in a concrete manner the flow of information provided by the concerned parties on the ongoing activities in and around the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls;
13. Encourages the Director-General of UNESCO to take the necessary measures, in consultation and cooperation with the concerned parties, to reactivate and reinvigorate the implementation of the short-, medium- and long-term objectives of the Action Plan, including training, education and cultural activities, and the preservation of sites and monuments of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls as inscribed on the World Heritage List;
14. Thanks the Director-General of UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre for steps undertaken in the implementation of the Action Plan for the Safeguarding of the Cultural Heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem and further requests them to report on this matter and on the state of conservation of the property at its 36th session in 2012;
15. Recalling 176 EX/Special Plenary Meeting/Decision, adopted by the Executive Board of UNESCO at its 176th session, World Heritage Committee Decision 34 COM 7A.20, and relevant Executive Board decisions,
16. Noting the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Reinforced Monitoring Reports prepared by the World Heritage Centre,
17. Recognizes the concerns regarding the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Commission on the town planning scheme for the Mughrabi Ascent and the subsequent decision by Israel's National Council for Planning and Construction to adopt "an alternative plan for the Mughrabi Ascent", approved on 31 October 2010 by the above-mentioned Commission;
18. Reaffirms, in this regard, that no measures, unilateral or otherwise, should be taken including those which may affect the authenticity and integrity of the site, in contravention with the relevant provisions of the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954 and of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972;
19. Acknowledges receipt of the Jordanian design for the restoration and preservation of the Mughrabi Ascent, submitted to the World Heritage Centre on 27 May 2011, and thanks Jordan for its cooperation, in accordance with the relevant provisions of UNESCO Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage;
20. Also reaffirms, in this regard, that the UNESCO process for the follow up of the design of the Mughrabi Ascent is to be coordinated with all parties concerned, in accordance with the spirit and content of previous World Heritage Committee decisions, despite the fact that Israel is informing the World Heritage Centre with its "alternative plan for the Mughrabi Ascent", and requests that the World Heritage Centre be proactive and follows closely, in the context of the Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism, the developments associated with this process;
21. Notes with satisfaction the access providedby Israel to the Mughrabi Ascent for Jordanian and Waqf experts on 23 May, 8 August and 28 November 2010 and reiterates its request that Israel continues the cooperation commenced with all concerned parties, in particular with Jordanian and Waqf experts;
22. Reiterates the call on the Director-General of UNESCO to organize a follow-up meeting of experts as soon as possible, once the parties concerned have reached an agreement;
23. Decides to continue applying the Reinforced Monitoring Mechanism for the state of conservation of the Mughrabi Ascent, and further requests a report from the World Heritage Centre at least every three months, until the 36th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2012;
24. Decides to retain the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Establishment of the World Heritage List in Danger (Retained Properties)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Following the examination of the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-11/35.COM/7A, WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add and WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add.Corr),
2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
- Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 35 COM 7A.24)
- Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 35 COM 7A.25)
- Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 35 COM 7A.15)
- Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.1)
- Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 35 COM 7A.32)
- Colombia, Los Katios National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.16)
- Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.2)
- Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 35 COM 7A.3)
- Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.4)
- Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.5)
- Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.6)
- Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.7)
- Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 35 COM 7A.8)
- Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 35 COM 7A.19)
- Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.9)
- Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 35 COM 7A.29)
- Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 35 COM 7A.30)
- Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 35 COM 7A.20)
- Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 35 COM 7A.21)
- Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 35 COM 7A.26)
- Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 35 COM 7A.22)
- Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 35 COM 7A.10)
- Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 35 COM 7A.11)
- Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 35 COM 7A.27)
- Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 35 COM 7A.33)
- Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 35 COM 7A.28)
- Senegal, Niokolo Koba National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.12)
- Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 35 COM 7A.31)
- United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 35 COM 7A.18)
- Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 35 COM 7A.17)
- United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.14)
- Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 35 COM 7A.34)
- Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 35 COM 7A.23)
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”).