Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve

• Mining
• Influx of refugees
• Agricultural encroachment
• Deforestation
• Poaching
• Weak management capacity
• Lack of resources
• Lack of trans-boundary cooperation

• Iron-ore mining concession inside the property in Guinea
• Arrival of large numbers of refugees from Liberia to areas in and around the Reserve
• Insufficient institutional structure 

Adopted, see pages https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1266 and https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1575

Total amount granted:  USD 25,282 from the Rapid Response Facility in January 2012 (see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/830/)

On 28 January 2015 and 20 March 2015, both the States Parties of Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea respectively submitted reports on the state of conservation of the property, which are available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/155/documents/ and address the following:

• The implementation of the corrective measures was compromised by the Ebola outbreak in the region, causing all field activities in Guinea to be suspended for 9 months. The Ebola crisis was used to educate local communities on the danger of consuming bush meat. The management plan for the component in Guinea was finalized and is awaiting approval. The evaluation of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funded Nimba project was postponed to 2015, but the management authority started working on a proposal for a follow up phase, which would focus on the transboundary management of the property.
• The 6th tri-national workshop (Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia), planned in Côte d’Ivoire end 2014, was also postponed, and therefore no progress was made on the development of an overall management plan, a harmonized ecological monitoring system and a permanent funding system for the entire property.

The report submitted by Côte d‘Ivoire notes the following progress:

• The surveillance in the property was further stepped up. A patrol truck and several motorbikes were acquired and monthly patrols were organized, resulting in the destruction of snares and the confiscation of fishing material;
• The parks agency received an International Assistance grant to support the organization of transboundary surveillance patrols, but these could not yet be organized as a result of the crisis due to the epidemic;
• Work with the communities was strengthened, in particular efforts to intensify agriculture outside the property but also alternative revenue generating activities;
• Two further community forest reserves were established as part of a buffer zone around the property.

Both reports note that the management authorities continue to lack sufficient funding and equipment.

In relation to the mining projects, Guinea notes in its report that the Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) are on-going. Despite the ESIA of the project of the Société des Mines de Fer de Guinée (SMFG) being well advanced, the project was delayed due to the Ebola crisis and a major change in ownership of the Company. West Africa Exploration (WAE), however, organized information sessions on the results of its ESIA. The ESIA was submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review on 2 April 2015. The mission, which was planned to ensure that there is no overlap between the SAMA exploration concession and the property, had to be postponed because of the Ebola crisis, but the report of Guinea notes that no exploration is planned in the property.

The impacts of the Ebola crisis have seriously affected the implementation of the corrective measures since the previous session of the Committee. Activities in the Guinea part of the property were virtually halted and the implementation of important transboundary activities, in particular the development of an overall management plan, a joint ecological monitoring system and a trust fund for the property, as well as the start of joint patrolling between the two components, which had been decided at the tri-national meeting in Liberia in 2013, could not be implemented. The impacts of the Ebola crisis are likely to present important additional challenges for the management authority, CEGENS, in Guinea, which has limited capacity and needs technical and financial support.

In Côte d’Ivoire, significant efforts have been undertaken since the end of the conflict to re-assert the OIPR’s (Office Ivoirien des Parcs et Réserves) authority over the property and re-build its management capacity. The on-going work to restore the integrity of the property, develop community forests to act as a buffer zone and intensify the cooperation with the local communities should be welcomed.

So far, no progress was made in mobilizing additional funding from the GEF to consolidate the results of the first phase of the Nimba project and to enlarge its scope to the entire property. It is hoped that the humanitarian crisis, which was caused by Ebola, will not prevent further investment in the conservation of the property and the sustainable development of its neighboring communities. It will be important that the project evaluation, which was postponed to 2015, identifies which activities are most effective in safeguarding the integrity of the property and takes into account the adopted corrective measures.

In terms of mining activities, at the request of the Guinean authorities, a meeting was organized on 4 September 2013, at the World Heritage Centre, to discuss the feasibility study developed by WAE. At the meeting, it became clear that the feasibility study did not include detailed baseline studies which would allow a proper ESIA, in accordance with the highest international standards, as was requested by the Committee at its 37th session (Decision 37 COM 7A.3). It was also pointed out that given the proximity of the SMFG and WAE proposed projects, it would be crucial to carefully evaluate the cumulative impacts of both projects. In September 2014, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN were approached by a consultant company engaged by WAE to do a “Rapid Cumulative Impact Assessment”. IUCN pointed out that a rapid assessment is not appropriate in the context of a World Heritage Site, where potential impacts, including cumulative impacts, of proposed developments on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) require thorough assessment. The ESIA, which was submitted in April 2015, is currently being reviewed by IUCN and World Heritage Centre. However, a preliminary review indicates that no additional baseline studies were conducted and that no specific review on the impact of the proposed project on the OUV of the property is included. The ESIA also looks at the WAE project in isolation and there is no consideration of possible cumulative impacts, as mentioned above. It is recommended that the Committee express its concern that the preliminary review indicates that the ESIA has not been conducted in accordance with the highest international standards and reiterate its previous position on the need to develop a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to allow for the cumulative impacts of the different projects to be fully considered, and also urge the State Party not to take any decision before the SEA has been reviewed by IUCN and World Heritage Centre and discussed by the Committee.

It is further noted that the State Party of Guinea’s report confirms that no exploration activities are foreseen inside the property in the SAMA Resources exploration permit but recommends that it reiterates its request to the State Party to ensure that the boundaries of the permit do not overlap with the property.

Based on the above, it is recommended that the Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.