Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Capacity Building
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention

2024 47 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 46 COM
2022 45 COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 40 COM 8B.22
Examination of nominations of cultural properties to the World Heritage List

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Documents WHC/16/40.COM/8B and WHC/16/40.COM/INF.8B1,
  2. Inscribes Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia, on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (iii), (iv) and (vi);
  3. Adopts the following Statement of Outstanding Universal Value:

    Brief synthesis

    The megalithic basalt stone structures of the more than 100 islets that form Nan Madol off the shore of Pohnpei Island comprise the remains of stone palaces, temples, mortuaries and residential domains. They represent the ceremonial centre of the Saudeleur dynasty, an era of vibrant Pacific island culture which underwent dramatic changes of settlement and social organisation 1200-1500 CE. Through its archaeological remains, Nan Madol is tangibly associated with Pohnpei’s continuing social and ceremonial traditions and the authority of the Nahnmwarki.

    Criterion (i): The outstanding monumental megalithic architecture of Nan Madol is demonstrated by the wall construction using massive columnar basalt stones, transported from quarries elsewhere on the island, and laid using a distinctive ‘header-stretcher technique’.

    Criterion (iii): Nan Madol bears exceptional testimony to the development of chiefly societies in the Pacific Islands. The huge scale, technical sophistication and concentration of elaborate megalithic structures of Nan Madol bear testimony to complex social and religious practices of the island societies.

    Criterion (iv): The remains of chiefly dwellings, ritual/ceremonial sites, mortuary structures and domestic sites combine as an outstanding example of a monumental ceremonial centre illustrating the period of development of chiefly societies from around 1000 years ago, associated with increasing island populations and intensification of agriculture.

    Criterion (vi): Nan Madol is an expression of the original development of traditional chiefly institutions and systems of governance in the Pacific Islands that continue into the present in the form of the Nahnmwarki system under which Nan Madol is traditionally owned and managed.


    Nan Madol includes all elements necessary to express it Outstanding Universal Value and is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of features and processes which convey the property’s significance. There are no intrusive elements from development or modification, and no reconstructions of the original elements. Due to cessation of use for residential purposes by the 1820s, while retaining religious and traditional significance, the property suffers from overgrowth of vegetation, the effects of storm surge and some stonework collapse. The state of conservation of stone structures is now of extreme concern, rendering the integrity of the property vulnerable.


    The property is authentic in terms of location and setting, intangible culture, spirit and feeling, materials, form and design. The overgrowth of the stone structures and their state of conservation means that many of them are unable to be seen, rendering authenticity vulnerable.

    Protection and management requirements

    Nan Madol is legally protected by the federal government and administered by the Office of National Archives, Culture and Historic Preservation (NACH) through the Historic Preservation Office of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).  It is protected by the state government of Pohnpei under the Pohnpei Historic and Cultural Preservation Act (2002), administered by the Pohnpei Historic Preservation Office. The FSM Constitution acknowledges the customary interests of the traditional chiefs and the property is customarily protected by the Nahnmwarki Madolenihmw.

    A management committee has been set up involving all stakeholders including traditional owners and this collaboration will be consolidated by passage of the proposed Bill LB 392 (expected to pass in October 2016) to create a Nan Madol Historic Preservation Trust with ownership and management under traditional oversight by the Nahnmwarki Chief. The Management Plan is expected to be completed with international financial and technical assistance by mid-2017. This will include appointment of a designated property manager trained in cultural resource management and strategies for risk preparedness, conservation and tourism as well as an ongoing maintenance and monitoring program.

  4. Also inscribes Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia, Federated States of Micronesia, on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
  5. Recommends that the State Party invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission to the property in 2016 to agree on a Desired State of Conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, based on the cultural attributes of Outstanding Universal Value and to be reached through a detailed assessment of the stability of the walls as a base for setting out a conservation strategy and corrective measures that can then be phased and costed. Efforts would then be made with the assistance of ICOMOS and UNESCO to find partners and donors to support this conservation project;
  6. Also recommends that the State Party give urgent consideration to the following:
    1. passing and implementing the new legislation LB 392 (expected by October 2016) which will create a Nan Madol Historic Preservation Trust with ownership and management under traditional oversight by the Nahnmwarki Chief with a Board of traditional authority and will permanently consolidate the resolution of issues regarding ownership and management that was established by the MoU,
    2. extending the management system to include a designated property manager trained in cultural resource management,
    3. developing the management plan to:
      1. include a risk preparedness strategy,
      2. extend the current maintenance program to the full area of the property including removal of silt from the waterways without jeopardizing possible cultural layers on the sea floor,
      3. include the conservation strategy project and corrective measures required to achieve the desired state of conservation,
      4. include a comprehensive tourism strategy to deal with the future impact of tourism on the property;
    4. considering the new UNESCO recommendation on the protection and promotion of museums and collections (17 November 2015) and using the proposed museum to disseminate the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
  7. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2017 a report on the implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017;
  8. Encourages international cooperation to support the conservation project;
  9. Also encourages the submission of Lelu as a serial component when ownership, protection, conservation, funding and management requirements are resolved.

Decision Code
40 COM 8B.22
Inscriptions on the World Heritage List
Report of the Decisions adopted during the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016)
Context of Decision