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
172 Decisions
0 Resolutions
Year start: 1998close
Year end: 1998close
By Year
The Bureau reviewed state of conservation reports on thirteen of the fifteen natural World Heritage sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was informed that no new information was received with regard to the two natural World Heritage sites of the United States of America, namely the Everglades and Yellowstone National Parks, and that up-to-date information on the state of conservation of those two sites, based on reports requested from the State Party by 15 September 1998, and expected to be received by then, will be submitted to the twenty-second session of ...
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its nineteenth session (Berlin, 1995), had requested the Bulgarian authorities to submit, in 1998, a status report on measures taken to mitigate threats to the integrity of this site. Hence, the Bureau requested the Bulgarian authorities to submit the threat mitigation status report to the Centre before 15 September 1998, and IUCN to review that report and to make recommendations to the twenty-second session of the Committee. The Bureau suggested that the State Party consider inviting an IUCN mission to the site for verification of the results ...
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session, was seriously concerned about the uncontrolled poaching by armed groups which had resulted in the death of four members of the Park staff in 1997 and the decimation of more than 80% of the Park's wildlife populations. Deteriorating security conditions had brought tourism to a halt. The Committee had welcomed the efforts of the Government of CAR to assign site management responsibilities to a private Foundation and had requested the Centre and IUCN to contact the State Party and the Foundation to prepare a detailed state of ...
Virunga National Park, Garamba National Park, Kahuzi Biega National Park, Okapi Faunal Reserve The Bureau recalled that the four sites under consideration were declared as World Heritage in Danger by the Committee, during the years between 1994 and 1997, when the country had been affected by war and civil strife. The Bureau after reviewing the report of the Secretariat, based on the reports received through IUCN and other international NGO partners, decided to: (i) reiterate the Committee’s concerns for the conservation and management of the four sites and recommended that ...
The Bureau noted that at its last session, the Committee was informed that colonisation and small-scale mining activities had been stopped, a new management plan was nearing finalisation and that several conservation projects funded by WWF had begun. The Committee had also urged the Centre, in collaboration with IUCN, agreement with the State Party and possible support from WWF, to plan and organise a site visit to address the problem of the Guamote-Macas road construction project and other threats to the integrity of the site.  The Bureau learnt that IUCN has received considerable ...
The Bureau recalled that the Regional authorities in Bahir Dar, where Simen National Park is located, had expressed their disagreement with the decision of the Committee, taken at its twentieth session (Merida, 1996), to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the efforts undertaken by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks of Ethiopia and the UNESCO Office in Addis Ababa to provide more information to the Bahir Dar authorities on the meaning and implications of the Committee’s decision to include Simen in the List of World ...
The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session, had requested the State Party (Guinea) and the Centre to contact the relevant mining companies, which foresee exploiting an iron-ore mine in the vicinity of the Reserve, to learn more details of their interest and willingness to set up an international foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Bureau was informed that the Secretariat was intending to participate at a meeting, on 25 June 1998, jointly organised by the “Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique” (CNRS) and a certain number of French ...
The Bureau recalled that the Committee included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996, and requested the State Party to implement the eleven-point corrective action plan that had been endorsed by the Minister for the Environment of Honduras. The Bureau noted that the elaboration of a management plan is being carried out with a contribution of US$ 30,000 from the World Heritage Fund, as part of a large scale project for strengthening the conservation of Rio Platano financed by GTZ-KFW (Germany). Furthermore, the Bureau learnt from IUCN that a hydroelectric development ...
The Bureau recalled the fact that the Committee, at its last session, had noted that the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) of India and the State Government of Assam had begun implementing a 2-3 year rehabilitation plan at a total estimated cost of US$ 2,135,000 of which US$ 235,000 had been requested by the State Party as emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The Committee was satisfied with the use of the first instalment of US$ 75,000, approved by the Bureau at its twenty-first session in June 1997. This was used for the purchase of three vehicles, two boats and ...
The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth (Merida, 1996) and twenty-first (Naples, 1997) sessions approved a mission to this site to: evaluate the state of conservation of the site; determine the significance of prevailing threats to the site; compare data and information on the Reserve before and after its inclusion in the List of the World Heritage in Danger (1992); prepare a long-term action plan for the protection of the site with the assistance of the IUCN field project staff; and prepare a detailed report for the twenty-second session of the Committee. Although a ...
The Bureau recalled that the Committee inscribed Ichkeul on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996 and requested the Tunisian authorities to provide a programme of corrective measures to reverse the degradation of the site. It alerted them to the possibility of the deletion of Ichkeul from the World Heritage List, if rehabilitation of the site were not possible. Following discussions on a "Report on the action programme for the safeguarding of Ichkeul National Park", submitted by the "Ministère de l'environnement et de l'aménagement du territoire", which had been critically reviewed ...
The Bureau welcomed the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures at Butrinti and the start of the process that should lead to the adoption of a management plan for the site. It recommended that due attention be given to the problem of illicit traffic of archaeological objects from Butrinti as well as the unauthorised constructions in its vicinity.  The Observer of Greece repeated the interest of her country to collaborate in and provide expert advice for the preservation of Butrinti. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to submit a progress report to the ...
Sites: Butrint
The Bureau expressed its appreciation for the report of the Secretariat and for the continued efforts of UNESCO in mobilising international co-operation for the protection, preservation and presentation of the site of Angkor, especially through the International Co-ordinating Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of Angkor. The Bureau, however, requested UNESCO to continue its work in the strengthening of training activities for local and national capacity-building, especially in measures prohibiting and preventing the illicit traffic of cultural property. In this regard, and ...
Sites: Angkor
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Croatian authorities had submitted a substantive report on the state of conservation of Dubrovnik requesting the Committee to delete the Old City of Dubrovnik from the List of World Heritage in Danger. ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it was greatly impressed by the restoration works undertaken in Dubrovnik and that it strongly supported the request made by Croatia. The Bureau congratulated the Croatian authorities on the progress made in the restoration and rehabilitation of the city. With great satisfaction, the Bureau decided to recommend ...
Having taken note of the report of the Secretariat concerning the situation at the Bahla Fort, the Bureau thanked the Omani authorities for their effort in safeguarding the site. However, considering the serious deterioration of the monument, the Bureau requested the Omani authorities to continue the collaboration with the international expert and inform the Committee of the progress through the Secretariat. In this connection, it approved the continuation of co-operation on a cost-sharing basis as previously agreed, to continue rehabilitation and prepare a management plan for the site. ...
Sites: Bahla Fort
The Bureau commended the Government of Peru for its initiative to prepare a management plan for the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone. It requested the Government to submit a second report on the progress made in this respect by 15 September 1998 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-second session. The Bureau furthermore requested the Government to inform the Committee on the impact of the El Nino phenomenon, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the emergency measures taken.
The Bureau, at its twenty-first extraordinary session in November 1997, requested that the Australian authorities provide specific information on the results of the financial review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA). The Bureau noted that the Minister for the Environment of Australia has informed the Centre that the financial review of the GBRMPA has been completed, and that more detailed information on the recommendations of that review would be made available to the Centre as soon as the Government has considered those recommendations and has taken relevant ...
The Observer of Australia informed the Bureau that the granting of a petroleum exploration permit, on 29 November 1996, by the State Government of West Australia was brought to the attention of the Commonwealth Government in January 1997. In Australia decisions to issue mining exploration permits are taken at the level of the State Government. The State Government appeared to have been unaware that the area for which an exploration permit was issued was located within the World Heritage site. Following the intervention of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, the Environmental ...
The Observer of Australia informed the Bureau that based on the concern that clearing may have occurred within the World Heritage property, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment appointed a senior officer from the Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA) as an inspector under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act (1983). This official would determine the nature of any vegetation clearance that may have occurred on private properties within the World Heritage area. The investigator reported three cases of clearing, two of which were within the World Heritage area. Based on ...
The Bureau recalled that at its twenty-first ordinary session it requested the Brazilian authorities to close the 18km road traversing the Park that had been illegally re-opened by local people. The Committee at its last session (Naples, 1997), was informed by IUCN that the road had been temporarily closed, and that several actions had been undertaken by the Brazilian authorities to strengthen management of the Park. Nevertheless, the Committee called for the permanent closure of the road and requested the Brazilian authorities to provide information concerning the rehabilitation of the ...
top