i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Old City of Jerusalem and ... 2005

Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls

Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
  • Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
  • Governance
  • High impact research / monitoring activities
  • Housing
  • Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    a) Natural risk factors; b) Conservation of archaeological heritage; c) Deterioration of monuments; d) Alteration of the built fabric.

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Natural risk factors
  • Planning, governance and management processes
  • Impact of archaeological research
  • Conservation of archaeological heritage
  • Deterioration of monuments
  • Alteration of the built fabric, urban environment and visual integrity
  • Traffic, access and circulation
  • Tourism management.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Requests approved: 1 (from 1982-1982)
Total amount approved : 100,000 USD
1982 32-month expert services to undertake an architectural ... (Approved)   100,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**

February-March 2004, World Heritage Centre-ICOMOS-ICCROM

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

At the 28th session of the Committee (Suzhou, 2004), the World Heritage Centre presented a report on the state of conservation of the Old City of Jerusalem based on previous reports by the Special Advisers to the Director-General of UNESCO for Jerusalem, and on the report of the mission carried out in February-March 2004 by UNESCO, the Director-General of ICCROM and the President of ICOMOS (Document WHC-04/28.COM/15A).

This issue has been also examined by the Executive Board and the General Conference of UNESCO. 32 C/Resolution 39 (adopted by the General Conference in October 2003) reiterated “its support for the initiative announced by the Director-General at the 31st session of the General Conference to prepare a comprehensive plan of action to safeguard the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem”. Paragraph 7 of 170 EX/Decision 3.6.1. adopted by the Executive Board in October 2004, encouraged the Director-General “to continue his efforts for the establishment, as soon as possible, of the international committee of independent experts, highly qualified technically and professionally, entrusted with proposing the guidelines of the programmed plan of action and proposals for its implementation and to do so in consultation with the parties concerned”.

Therefore,the Director-General of UNESCO invited aCommittee, composed of twelve high level experts, to meet at UNESCO Headquarters on 26 and 27 January 2005. The experts first reviewed the factors affecting the state of conservation of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem. On this basis, the experts defined the approach for UNESCO’s action and identified possible activities, stressing the need for immediate concrete and visible projects focusing on awareness-raising, community participation and capacity-building. A set of guidelines was agreed upon, providing UNESCO with a framework for elaborating the Action Plan. Based on the guidelines set and proposals made by the Committee of experts, and taking into account the level of resources which will be made available, the Secretariat has started elaborating the Action Plan, and will do so in close consultation with all the concerned parties. Thanks notably to financial contributions expected from the Governments of Italy and Spain, new developments towards safeguarding activities in the Old City of Jerusalem are foreseen in the near future.

Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7A.31
Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan))

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29 COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 15A.31 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Referring to 171 EX/Decision 18, taken at the 171st session of the Executive Board of UNESCO (April 2005), notably “affirming that nothing, in the present decision, which aims at the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem, 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”,

4. Reiterates its concern as to the threats to the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem, as stated in Decision 28 COM 15A.31;

5. Takes note with satisfaction of the continuing efforts of the Director-General of UNESCO in pursuing a comprehensive initiative for the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem;

6. Welcomes and supports the preparation by UNESCO of an Action Plan based on the set of guidelines provided by the International Committee of Experts, as well as proposals for its implementation, in coordination with the concerned parties;

7. Requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress of these recommendations for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

8. Decides to retain the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Read more
29 COM 8C.2
New World Heritage List in Danger

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the of state of conservation reports of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-05/29.COM/7A and WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add),

2. Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

  • Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.20)
  • Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan)(Decision 29 COM 7A.21)
  • Tipasa (Algeria) (Decision 29 COM 7A.16)
  • Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.28)
  • Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin) (Decision 29 COM 7A.13)
  • Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Central African Republic)(Decision 29 COM 7A.1)
  • Comoé National Park (Côte d'Ivoire) (Decision 29 COM 7A.2)
  • Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea) (Decision 29 COM 7A.3)
  • Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Virunga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Garamba National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Salonga National Park (Democratic Rep. of the Congo) (Decision 29 COM 7A.5)
  • Abu Mena (Egypt) (Decision 29 COM 7A.17)
  • Simien National Park (Ethiopia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.4)
  • Cologne Cathedral (Germany) (Decision 28 COM 7A.29)
  • Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) (Decision 29 COM 7A.12)
  • Group of Monuments at Hampi (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.22)
  • Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) (Decision 29 COM 7A.9)
  • Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Islamic Republic of Iran) (Decision 29 COM 7A.23)
  • Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Iraq) (Decision 29 COM 7A.18)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Jerusalem) (Decision 29 COM 7A.31)
  • Kathmandu Valley (Nepal ) (Decision 29 COM 7A.24)
  • Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger) (Decision 29 COM 7A.6)
  • Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan) (Decision 29 COM 7A.25)
  • Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru) (Decision 29 COM 7A.30)
  • Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) (Decision 29 COM 7A.26)
  • Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal) (Decision 29 COM 7A.7)
  • Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) (Decision 29 COM 7A.8)
  • Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (United Republic of Tanzania) (Decision 28 COM 7A.15)
  • Everglades National Park (United States of America) (Decision 29 COM 7A.10)
  • Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen) (Decision 29 COM 7A.19)
Read more

Draft Decision: 29 COM 7A.31

The World Heritage Committee,

1.             Having examined Document WHC-05/29 COM/7A.Add,

2.             Recalling decision 28 COM 15A.31 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3.              Referring to 171 EX/Decision 18 taken at the 171st session of the Executive Board of UNESCO in April 2005, notably “affirming that nothing, in the present decision, which aims at the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem, 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”,

4.              Reiterates its concern as to the threats to the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem, as stated in Decision 28 COM 15A.31;

5.             Takes note with satisfaction of the continuing efforts of the Director-General of UNESCO in pursuing a comprehensive initiative for the safeguarding of the cultural heritage of the Old City of Jerusalem;

6.             Welcomes and supports the preparation by UNESCO of an Action Plan based on the set of guidelines provided by the International Committee of experts, as well as proposals for its implementation;

7.             Requests the World Heritage Centre to report on the progress of these recommendations for examination by the Committee at its 30th session in 2006;

8.             Decides to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Previous 2004 Next 2006
Report year: 2005
Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)
Date of Inscription: 1981
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iii)(vi)
Danger List (dates): 1982-present
Documents examined by the Committee
WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add
arrow_circle_right 29COM (2005)
Exports
Previous 2004 Next 2006

* : 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”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.