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

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








2024 47 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 46 COM
2022 17 EXT.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 42 COM 7B.66
The Ahwar of Southern Iraq: Refuge of Biodiversity and the Relict Landscape of the Mesopotamian Cities (Iraq) (C/N 1481)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 40 COM 8B.16, adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016),
  3. Welcomes establishment of an inter-ministerial committee for the management of the property, the completion of the Strategy for Water and Land Resources in Iraq (SWLRI) and the recognition of the Iraqi marshlands as a legitimate water user and, noting the competing demands for water between different users in Iraq, also welcomes the ongoing efforts for reform of water governance;
  4. Urges the State Party to take appropriate measures for providing the property with the adequate amount of water within its national capacity;
  5. Further welcomes the ongoing efforts towards the establishment of long-term water sharing agreements between the States Parties of Iraq, Iran and Turkey and strongly encourages all three States Parties to continue these efforts, so as to ensure the provision of adequate amounts of water for the property that can sustain its biodiversity, and considers that non-fulfilment of minimum water requirements could represent a potential danger to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, in accordance with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines;
  6. While acknowledging the prevailing conditions in Iraq, notes with significant concern the continued absence of adequate legal protection for the majority of the natural components in the property, as well as the State Party’s statement that law enforcement remains a challenge, and also considers that this situation could represent a potential danger to the OUV of the property, in accordance with Paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines;
  7. Also notes with concern the significant challenges reported upon by the State Party, related to illegal bird hunting and overfishing, and further considers that in the continued absence of legal protection for most of the property and without sufficient management capacity, these issues are unlikely to be effectively controlled;
  8. Reiterates its request to the State Party to:
    1. Conduct further studies regarding minimum water flows needed to sustain the biodiversity and ecological processes of the property, and demonstrate that these water flows are being provided,
    2. Complete the designation of all of the natural components of the property as protected areas, as a matter of utmost urgency, and ensure effective legal protection to regulate oil and gas concessions, and other potentially impacting activities in the buffer zones of the property,
    3. Provide support for the maintenance of the traditional ecological knowledge held by the men and women of the Ma’adan “Marsh Arabs” communities, and for rights-based approaches to management, recognising the customary use of the property;
  9. Further notes with significant concern the continued vulnerability of the property to oil and gas developments and, recalling its established position that oil and gas exploration and exploitation are incompatible with World Heritage status, strongly urges the State Party to make a permanent commitment not to explore for or exploit oil and gas within the property, and to ensure that any such activities outside the property do not cause a negative impact on its OUV;
  10. Welcomes furthermore the re-instatement of international archaeological teams at Uruk, Ur and Eridu, and the decision to concentrate on conservation; notes progress with work on detailed maps and surveys; nevertheless, in the light of the dire state of conservation at the time of inscription and on-going losses of archaeological layers, also urges the State Party to accelerate work on surveys and maps in order, to develop baseline data for all future work, including monitoring;
  11. Requests the State Party to put in place a structured approach for overall conservation work through the development of conservation plans for each of the three archaeological sites, coupled with operational action plans;
  12. Takes note with concern of the increasing tourism interest in the property in light of the lack of adequate consolidation and maintenance of the excavated areas of Uruk, Ur and Eridu at the time of inscription, the on-going loss of the archaeological remains from erosion and collapse, and the sensitive ecosystem of the marshes, also requests the State Party to develop and implement an overall tourism plan for the whole property, to regulate visitation, ensure visitors’ safety, and sustainable and adequate tourism practices, infrastructure and facilities;
  13. Recalls to the State Party its obligation to submit any planned construction projects to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies before their commencement;
  14. Further requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission to the property, to assess its current state of conservation and the potential impact of water flow, oil and gas exploration and exploitation, illegal bird hunting, over-fishing, archaeological conservation needs, increased visitation and lack of adequate legal protection, on the property’s OUV;
  15. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2019, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 43rd session in 2019.
Documents
WHC/18/42.COM/18
Decisions adopted during the 42nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Manama, 2018)
Context of Decision
WHC-18/42.COM/7B.Add
top