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


Ichkeul National Park

Factors affecting the property in 1987*
  • Air pollution
  • Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
  • Subsistence hunting
  • Water (rain/water table)
  • Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Construction of dams; hunting; grazing and air pollution

International Assistance: requests for the property until 1987
Requests approved: 1 (from 1981-1981)
Total amount approved : 30,000 USD
1981 Study on Ichkeul National Park (Approved)   30,000 USD
Missions to the property until 1987**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1987

In response to studies of the drying up of this wetland, the Permanent Delegation of Tunisia has written the Tunisian authorities to suggest it be inscribed on the danger list.

In response, the Minister of Agriculture noted that mitigation measures to safeguard the site are underway and that it is not therefore necessary to consider it for the Danger List.


Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1987

The Committee should request a monitoring report from Tunisia in 1988.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1987
11 COM VIII.19
SOC: Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

19. The representative of Tunisia informed the Committee that a Unesco/World Heritage consultant was currently reviewing the sitatirn of Ichkeul National Park which had been mentioned in the IUCN document: he stated that his country would certainly nominate this site to the List of World Heritage in Danger if this way recommended in the consultant's report.

No draft Decision

Report year: 1987
Date of Inscription: 1980
Category: Natural
Criteria: (x)
Danger List (dates): 1996-2006
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 11COM (1987)

* : 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.