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 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
198 Decisions
0 Resolutions
Year start: 1996close
Year end: 1996close
By Year
The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth session examined a monitoring report prepared by the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention. This report indicated that the new water control structure allowed for an inflow of water on a small scale and that a colony of the Dalmatian Pelican had been re-established. The report concluded, however, that the integrity of the site had not yet been adequately restored. The Committee, therefore, decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Bulgarian authorities to prepare a status ...
Following an endorsement by the last session of the World Heritage Committee, a multinational rapid assessment mission was organized by the Centre and the Croatian authorities from 5 to 9 May 1996. The mission reviewed the state of conservation of the site, identified impact and damages caused by armed conflict to park facilities infrastructure, reviewed the legislative, administrative and management frameworks, assessed the socioeconomic situation of the site with regard to tourism potential and proposed summary recommendations. The full report of the mission was presented to the Bureau ...
The Bureau recalled that the site was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from poachers, boundary encroachment and the adverse impacts of unplanned road construction. It furthermore recalled that at its last session, the World Heritage Committee called for an Environmental Impact Assessment of the road construction in the Park and requested information from INEFAN, the National Park administration, on road modifications, a land tenure study and steps for an updated management plan. Meanwhile, a copy of the land tenure study which was concluded in March of ...
The Bureau recalled that the site was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of negative impacts from a proposed iron-ore mining project and threats due to the arrival of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries. The Bureau took note of a Round Table on Mount Nimba which was held in Conakry (Guinea) on 17 and 18 April 1996 organized by the Ministry for Energy and Environment in collaboration with the "Mission Française de Cooperation et d'Action Culturelle". The Round Table included representatives of the following donor countries and ...
The Bureau recalled that the site was included in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 and that at the nineteenth session of the Committee the Observer of India invited members of the World Heritage Committee and the Director of the Centre to visit New Delhi, Assam and Manas. IUCN informed the Bureau that a member of the Rhino Specialist Group has recently visited the site and a full report will be available at the next session of the Bureau. The scheduling of a mission to the site is under discussion. In the absence of any precise information, uncertainties remain concerning the ...
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 as it was affected by civil disturbances and that a peace agreement was signed on 9 October 1994. In 1995 a dialogue was established between the parties, which has paved the way for a return to a normal situation and may allow for a detailed evaluation of the state of conservation of the site as well as the development of an action programme for its recovery. The Bureau was informed that an IUCN project of 1 Million US$ is underway at the site to assist in re-establishing the management regime ...
The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1993 and that the World Heritage Committee at its last session examined a detailed monitoring report, presented by the State Party, which outlined the long­term restoration work necessary to restore the balance of the Everglades ecosystem. The State Party presented a preliminary monitoring report dated May 1996 outlining the Government's efforts to protect the site. The report acknowledges that despite significant progress made (acquisition of additional land, improved ecological indicators), ...
The Bureau recalled that, at its nineteenth session, the World Heritage Committee decided that, on the basis of both ascertained dangers and potential threats, Yellowstone National Park be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that the State Party should provide the Committee with reports on the results of the Environmental Impact Statement and mitigating actions. In such a report dated May 1996, the State Party advised the Centre about the different remedial actions taken. This includes long-term control programmes to counter the non-native lake trout introduction, public ...
The Bureau recalled that Virunga National Park was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger in December 1994, due to the tragic events in Rwanda and the subsequent massive influx of refugees from that country. Virunga National Park, situated on the border between Rwanda and Uganda, has been destabilized by the uncontrolled arrival of refugees, causing deforestation and poaching within its boundaries. The Centre wrote to the authorities requesting that the World Heritage Committee be informed about any action to be undertaken to stop poaching operations within the site and to ...
The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its nineteenth session discussed a report presented by IUCN, which underlined the infrastructural developments in the "Bow Corridor" and their impact on the integrity of the site. IUCN advised the Centre that it had submitted a brief to the Task Force which is due to report in September 1996. The Bureau recommended that the Bureau at its twentieth extraordinary session in November 1996 examines the Task Force report.
The Bureau considered the report of the mission led by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee (1-11 June 1996) to examine the situation of the Galapagos Islands and to formulate recommendations to improve the situation. The Bureau commended the Ecuador Government for its support to that mission and fully endorsed the recommendations contained in the report (see INF.12). The Bureau concluded that serious problems exist, such that immediate remedial actions are essential to safeguard the values of the World Heritage site and the surrounding marine areas, while recognizing the ...
The Centre and IUCN have received a report on a Field Study on the flora and fauna of the Simen Mountains prepared by the University of Berne (Switzerland). The report indicates a deterioration of the Walia ibex population and that other large mammals (such as bushbuck and bushpig) have become extremely rare. In addition, IUCN stressed the serious situation at the ite, including the loss of biodiversity, the encroachment at the borders of the site, and the impacts of the road construction. An Action Plan for the site was proposed by the University of Berne. The report of the University of ...
The Bureau recalled the detailed monitoring report prepared by an IUCN mission to the site in November 1995. This report noted the threats to the site, including agricultural intrusion and the implementation of land reform programmes. IUCN informed the Bureau that the Minister of Environment is in agreement with the findings. A number of follow-up actions, including the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, was recommended. The Centre received a brief state of conservation report dated 30 April 1996 from the Honduran Minister of Environment, which indicated the ...
The Bureau requested the Centre to write a letter of appreciation to the Indonesian authorities expressing satisfaction on the actions taken and commending them for the detailed state of conservation report received for Komodo National Park from the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation of the Ministry of Forestry dated February 1996.
The Bureau urged the State Party to keep the Committee informed about the proposed expansion of the industrial salt production project and to ensure the integrity of the site. The Delegate of Mexico informed the Bureau that in July 1994 the ESSA Salt Mining Company submitted to the National Institute of Ecology an environmental impact study proposal to extend its installations. This proposal was refused by the National Institute of Ecology (INE) in February 1995. On 23 June 1995 the ESSA Company expressed interest in submitting a new study for evaluation by the INE. In 26 February 1996, ...
The Centre received a progress report, dated March 1996, on the ongoing planning activities for the site and a schedule of activities. IUCN noted several recent developments in the Sanctuary that are of concern: (1) the poaching of thirteen Oryx and (2) the construction of a reverse osmosis plant which has resulted in significant damage to the desert habitat. The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the Omani authorities encouraging them to provide the definition of the final boundaries of the site and expressing concern over the poaching and construction activities.
The Bureau reiterated the request issued by the World Heritage Committee that a cultural resources inventory of the site be carried out and clarifications be provided on the road developments which may threaten the integrity of the site.
The Bureau reiterated the request issued by the World Heritage Committee to the authorities to provide a map of the revised boundaries of the site and encouraged the State Party to finalize new legislation and to prepare a management plan.
The Bureau was informed that the report of IUCN will be presented to the twentieth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee and examined at that time.
The Bureau reiterated the request issued by the World Heritage Committee for information on the potential threats and the measures being taken to ensure that they are minimized.
Sites: Ha Long Bay
top