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

Abu Mena

Egypt
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Water (rain/water table)
  • Other Threats:

    Lack of consolidation and engineering measures

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Raising groundwater level, lack of consolidation, engineering and management measures.

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Requests approved: 1 (from 2001-2001)
Total amount approved : 7,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**

September 2002, UNESCO mission of an expert in hydrology.

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

Two reports were submitted to the World Heritage Centre by the Egyptian National Commission for UNESCO: A report about the state of the monumental area of Abu Mina, submitted in December 2004 and A technical report concerning the project of decreasing the underground water levels in the monumental area of Abu Mena (2 pages), submitted in January 2005.

The first report (which is undated) recapitulates in three pages the measures taken since the site was discovered in 1905 to address the problems associated with the rising underground water level. These problems have become more acute since 1990, and recognition in 1998 of the severity of the situation led to the initiation by the Supreme Council of Antiquities of a comprehensive analysis of the site and proposals for its solution. The project was put out to tender without response. Meanwhile, again quoting this report, ‘the level of the underground water which threatens the monumental area of Abu Mena is still increasing as some monumental hills in the area collapsed.’ This is accompanied by a poor photocopy of a map with a legend in Arabic referring to the 1956 decree of national registration of the site.

Attached to this report is a paper entitled On the water problems at Abu Mina by Peter Grossman (whose affiliation or qualifications are not stated) dated 12 November 2004, which sets out two alternative approaches to the problem: the first involves the digging of a series of shafts linked below ground by tunnels from which the water could be pumped, thereby lowering the water table by 1–2m (inadequate in the view of the author); the cheaper and more effective alternative would be to stop any further supply of water from a much larger area around the archaeologically sensitive area (entailing paying compensation to those farmers who would lose their land).

The second report (which is also undated) briefly summarizes twenty ‘works’ (including, inter alia, financial estimates) to be undertaken within a period of three years, which provide a minimal response to the Committee’s request for an Action Plan to solve the problem of the rising groundwater.

However, these reports, complementing the alarming report received from the State Party in February 2004 and presented to the World Heritage Committee at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004), increase the fears about the loss of the outstanding universal value for which the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List and its integrity, and add to the criteria which led to its inscription on the World Heritage List in Danger. Should the situation continue to deteriorate and should no concrete action be taken by the State Party as regards the implementation of the recommendations, the Committee could envisage, according to paragraphs 192 to 198 of the Operational Guidelines, the possibility of removing the site of Abu Mena from the World Heritage List in the future.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7A.17
Abu Mena (Egypt)

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 15A.17 taken at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Takes note with concern of the information provided by the State Party of Egypt and expresses its concerns over the deterioration of the property caused by rising groundwater levels and other threats;

4. Invites the international community to support the State Party in its efforts towards removing the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;

5. Urges the State Party to adopt long-term and sustainable measures with all the concerned national institutions, along the lines of the recommendations contained in the UNESCO Mission Report of 2002 and the Committee’s Decisions 27 COM 7A.18 and 28 COM 15A.17;

6. Requests the State Party to invite a joint mission of the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, within the next two months, to the property in order to:

a) assess the situation of the property – both in terms of the state of conservation of the archaeological remains and in terms of the hydrological issue;

b) evaluate the loss of outstanding universal value of the property and of its integrity;

c) review the proposed project;

d) determine the necessary steps towards the implementation of the recommendation referred in paragraph 5, including the setting up of benchmarks with a time frame for their fulfillment, the setting up of an emergency plan while the project is taking place, and the formulation of proposals for a buffer zone ; and

e) provide the necessary elements to orient the Committee in recommending a program of corrective measures;

7. Further requests the State Party to submit, by 1 February 2006, a report on the progress made in implementing the abovementioned recommendations for the examination of the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006).

8. Decides to consider at its 30th session, in consultation with the State Party and on the basis of the information provided by the mission and the State Party, whether the property should be retained in the World Heritage List in Danger and the World Heritage List.

9. Also decides to retain Abu Mena (Egypt) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
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)

Draft Decision: 29 COM 7A.17

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2. Recalling Decision 28 COM 15A.17 taken at its 28th sessions (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Takes note with concern of the information provided by the State Party and expresses its concerns over the deterioration of the property caused by rising groundwater levels and other threats;

4. Urges the State Party to adopt long-term and sustainable measures with all the concerned national institutions, along the lines of the recommendations contained in the UNESCO Mission Report of 2002 and the Committee’s Decisions 27 COM 7A.18 and 28 COM 15A.17;

5. Requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, in co-operation with the State Party, to undertake a mission to the property in order to assess the situation – both in terms of the state of conservation of the archaeological remains and in terms of the hydrological issue – review the proposed project, and determine the necessary steps towards the implementation of the above recommendations;

6. Requests the State Party to submit, by 1 February 2006, a report on the progress made in implementing these recommendations for the examination of the Committee at its 30th session of 2006;

7. Decides to retain Abu Mena on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2005
Egypt
Date of Inscription: 1979
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)
Danger List (dates): 2001-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 29COM (2005)
Exports

* : 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.


top