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

Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve

Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea
Factors affecting the property in 2012*
  • Financial resources
  • Human resources
  • Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
  • Illegal activities
  • Land conversion
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Mining
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Mining;

b) Influx of refugees;

c) Agricultural encroachment;

d) Deforestation;

e) Poaching;

f) Weak management capacity;

g) Lack of resources;

h) Lack of trans-boundary cooperation.

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Iron-ore mining concession inside the property in Guinea;
  • Arrival of large numbers of refugees from Liberia to areas in and around the Reserve;
  • Insufficient institutional structure. 
Corrective Measures for the property

Adopted, See pages https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1266 and https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1575

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2012

Global amount received for the property: USD 25,282 under the Rapid Response Facility in January 2012 (see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/830/)

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2012
Requests approved: 19 (from 1981-2010)
Total amount approved : 465,222 USD
2010 Atelier international bipartite sur la gestion durable ... (Approved)   30,000 USD
2002 Mount Nimba Biodiversity Conservation project (Approved)   30,000 USD
2001 Training workshop for awarenes raising on the Mount ... (Approved)   10,000 USD
2001 Réunion tripartite Guinée-Côte d'Ivoire-Libéria sur les ... (Approved)   20,000 USD
2000 Evaluation mission to mount Nimba World Heritage site ... (Approved)   30,000 USD
1997 Purchase of hydrological and meteorological equipment ... (Approved)   19,840 USD
1995 Establishment of an administrative centre for Mount ... (Approved)   18,000 USD
1993 Equipment and experts service for Mount Nimba (Approved)   45,000 USD
1993 Financial contribution for consultancies and other ... (Approved)   30,000 USD
1993 Consultancies and other services necessary for setting ... (Approved)   30,000 USD
1992 Organization of an interdisciplinary mission to ... (Approved)   35,000 USD
1992 Organization of a technical meeting for authorities of ... (Approved)   19,500 USD
1989 Purchase of an all terrain vehicle for Mount Nimba (Approved)   20,000 USD
1988 Consultancy mission and meeting for preparing ... (Approved)   15,000 USD
1986 Equipment for Mount Nimba Reserve (Approved)   6,500 USD
1983 Financial contribution to a seminar/workshop on the ... (Approved)   22,000 USD
1983 Consultant services to prepare requests for technical ... (Approved)   6,082 USD
1982 Financial contribution to a tripartite meeting (Guinea, ... (Approved)   8,000 USD
1981 Equipment for Mount Nimba (Approved)   70,300 USD
Missions to the property until 2012**

October/November 1988: World Heritage Centre mission; May 1993: World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission; 1994: IUCN mission; 2000: World Heritage Centre mission; 2007: joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission to Guinea; June 2008: joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission to Côte d’Ivoire. 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2012

On 19 January 2012, the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property. At the time of preparation of this document, no report had been received from the State Party of Guinea. On 25 April, the World Heritage Centre also received from the Ivorian Office of Parks and Reserves (OIPR) a copy of the report of the third tri-national workshop on the management of Mount Nimba Massif, which was held from 6 to 7 December 2011 in Man, Côte d’Ivoire, and a copy of the Management Plan of Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve.

For the portion of the property located in Côte d'Ivoire:

The state of conservation report submitted by Côte d’Ivoire indicates progress in the implementation of corrective measures adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 32nd session, for the portion of the property located in Côte d'Ivoire. The report notes that the consequences of successive crises have led to the destruction of equipment and infrastructures of the Reserve, and a decrease in the budget for its conservation. The crisis situation has also caused the withdrawal of many development partners, making it difficult to mobilize funds for the rehabilitation of the property.

a) Restore the presence of the authority responsible for the protected area - the Ivorian Office of Parks and Reserves (OIPR) - on the site and resume management activities, restore cooperation mechanisms and strengthen communication with local communities

The report of the State Party indicates that the unit of management of protected areas of the West Zone was able to reoccupy the headquarters of the West Zone in Man. The head of the sector of Mount Nimba Reserve was also redeployed to Danané with six agents to perform the field activities. But access to the Reserve is still limited due to lack of logistic facilities, which were looted during the successive crises. The State Party also points out that the premises designated for office use and the existing guard posts must be rehabilitated because of their advanced state of deterioration. It is planned to train a mobile monitoring and anti-poaching brigade composed of thirty officers, which will be based in Man, and which will ensure a minimum of management activities. In the context of the participatory management of the property, the establishment of a local management committee for Mount Nimba Reserve is also envisaged. This committee will be a legal framework for consultation between OIPR and the different stakeholders, including local communities and international NGOs.

In January 2012, the property received USD 25,282 under the Rapid Response Facility for the reestablishment of the guard posts at Kouan-Houlé and Yéalé, the closest bases to the Mount Nimba site. Man and Danané are located far from the Reserve and there is urgent need to ensure an effective presence in that area of the property.

b) Conduct a study on key wildlife species to clarify the status of Outstanding Universal Value of the property and implement a comprehensive monitoring programme to monitor and control threats, including poaching

The report of the State Party indicates that the OIPR plans to conduct studies on key wildlife species and habitat conservation.

c) Define a buffer zone in consultation with local partners, and provide it with the appropriate legal status to strengthen the conservation of the property through sustainable management of natural resources in the buffer zone

The report of the State Party does not mention any actions taken to establish a buffer zone in collaboration with local stakeholders.

d) Develop a Management Plan, in close cooperation with all partners concerned, notably with the local community, and harmonize this plan with the plan being established in Guinea

The State Party notes that the third tri-national workshop on the management of Mount Nimba Massif between Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia took place in Man in Côte d’Ivoire from 5 to 7 December 2011, with support from the World Heritage Fund. This workshop was organized on the occasion of the establishment of joint management between the three countries. The meeting adopted the Declaration of Man on the Tripartite Management of Mount Nimba, in which the managing authorities of the three components of the massif commit to establishing a tri-national mechanism for monitoring actions to be taken for the sustainable conservation of the massif, and to submitting a draft framework agreement to their respective governments. This agreement will enable the creation of a yearly concertation framework as well as a technical committee. Article 4 of this agreement provides for the development and implementation of a trans-boundary Management Plan for Mount Nimba. This Management Plan will be followed by the establishment of a tripartite legal framework for the property and its zones of influence. The report notes that the meeting also adopted the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve Simplified Management Plan developed by the OIPR for the portion of the property located in Côte d'Ivoire.

e) Develop a sustainable funding mechanism for the entire property with the State Party of Guinea

In 2003, in the framework of the establishment of a sustainable funding mechanism for the property, the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire set up the Parks and Reserves Foundation whose main tasks are to facilitate the long-term financing of the conservation of national parks and nature reserves by mobilizing funds and investing these funds in a trust fund in perpetuity. During the tripartite workshop in Man, the Guinean State expressed its readiness to contribute to the establishment of a sustainable funding mechanism for the entire property.

 

For the portion of the property located in Guinea:

As mentioned above, no report was received from the State Party of Guinea. It is therefore not possible to assess the implementation of corrective measures that were adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 31st session for the portion of the property located in Guinea.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN are nevertheless informed that the managing authority of the property, the CEGENS, and the Directorate of Protected Areas of Guinea have been merged since 2011 in view of the establishment of a new structure to be called the Guinean Office for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (OGUIDAP). This new structure will aim to reinforce human and operational capacities of Mount Nimba. The OGUIDAP is also considered a paramilitary structure, which will help strengthen the technical capacity of its personnel especially in the fight against poaching. A recruitment process of agents, followed by military training, began in January 2012. Most of these agents are selected from local communities in the vicinity of the protected areas, such as Mount Nimba.

f) Mining

The World Heritage Centre received a letter dated 16 January 2012 from the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea (SMFG), in response to comments from the World Heritage Centre and IUCN on the proposed draft Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), which had been transmitted in 2011. In their comments, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN had, among other issues, highlighted the fact that the project should be halted if the ESIA concluded that the negative impacts could not be mitigated.

In its letter, the SMFG indicates that it is prepared to apply the precautionary principle as defined by the United Nations, in the absence of scientific certainty about the impacts of mining on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, and that it plans to abandon the mining project if the environmental impact study reveals serious threats to the OUV of the property. The letter provides detailed responses to each comment and a revised version of the TOR in which these comments were taken into account. The letter noted that the TOR were approved by the Ministry of Environment of Guinea in October 2010 and that a consultant responsible for conducting the ESIA has been recruited. The SMFG believes that the ESIA will be finalized during 2013.

The report of the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire noted that no mining concession has been granted in the Ivorian portion of the property, although mining exploration ambitions were expressed some time ago. The State Party further recalls the Tata Steel Company’s waiver of the mining exploration project for the property, following discussions between IUCN, the World Heritage Centre and the Director of the Tata Steel Global Minerals Group.

In Liberia, there is an Arcelor Mittal project located 20 kms from the property. Until now, the State Party of Liberia has not submitted the ESIA for this project. Pollution from mining exploration on the Liberian side could cause the discharge of silt into the rivers towards the Côte d’Ivoire and have negative effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2012

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note the stabilization of the socio-political situation in Côte d’Ivoire and believe that the Ivorian State Party should take all necessary steps to urgently ensure presence on the property, resume the monitoring operations and reoccupy the bases closest to the site at Kouan-Houlé and Yéalé.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN also take note of the organization of the tripartite workshop between Côte d'Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia, and consider that this workshop lays the groundwork for a tri-national management of the property. They recommend that the Committee reiterate its request to the two States Parties to continue this dynamic of transborder management of the property by implementing a consensual Management Plan in which joint monitoring actions will be of the utmost importance.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN note finally that the State of Guinea has not submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property. They consider that with the normalization of the political situation in both Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea, the important institutional changes in Guinea and the implementation of the ESIA by the SMFG, a new joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN reactive monitoring mission is required to develop joint corrective measures for the entire property, together with a timetable for their implementation and the Desired State of Conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and take stock of the ESIA. They further recommend that the World Heritage Committee maintain the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2012
36 COM 7A.3
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d’Ivoire/Guinea) (N 155 bis)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.3, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3. Regrets that the State Party of Guinea did not submit a conservation report on the property as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session, making it impossible to assess the progress of the implementation of corrective measures;

4. Welcomes with satisfaction the dynamics of trans-boundary management of the property as practised by the State Parties of Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia, and reiterates its request to the State Parties of Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire to concretise this commitment to joint management of the property by implementing a common strategy for management and joint monitoring of Mount Nimba;

5. Notes with satisfaction the stabilization of the socio-political situation in Côte d’Ivoire and requests the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire to urgently ensure a presence on the property, resume the monitoring operations and reoccupy the bases closest to the site at Kouan-Houlé and Yéalé;

6. Notes the start of the implementation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) by the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea and reiterates its request that the study be conducted in accordance with the highest international standards, and that it should quantify the potential impact of proposed mining on the property, in close consultation with all stakeholders, and to submit to the World Heritage Committee, any intermediate result;

7. Requests the State Parties of Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire to intensify their efforts to implement corrective measures, especially strengthening of surveillance;

8. Also requests the State Party of Liberia to submit to the World Heritage Centre the ESIA of the potential Arcelor Mittal mining project in Liberia, situated 20 kms from the property, and which could have negative effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

9. Further requests the State Parties of Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission to assess the state of conservation of the property, update the corrective measures and propose a timetable for their implementation, develop a proposal for the Desired State of Conservation in view of the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and evaluate the progress of the ESIA by the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea;

10. Further requests both States Parties to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property and on progress in implementing corrective measures and other recommendations of the 2007 and 2008 missions, and on the progress of the ESIA by the the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

11. Decides to retain the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

36 COM 8C.2
Establishment of the World Heritage List in Danger (Maintained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Following the examination of the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-12/36.COM/7A and WHC-12/36.COM/7A.Add),

2.   Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

    • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 36 COM 7A.25)
    • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 36 COM 7A.26)
    • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 36 COM 7A.15)
    • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.1)
    • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 36 COM 7A.33)
    • Colombia, Los Katíos National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.16)
    • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.2)
    • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.3)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.4)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.5)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.6)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.7)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.8)
    • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 36 COM 7A.20)
    • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.9)
    • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 36 COM 7A.30)
    • Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 36 COM 7A.31)
    • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.17)
    • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 36 COM 7A.13)
    • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 36 COM 7A.21)
    • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 36 COM 7A.22)
    • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 36 COM 7A.27)
    • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 36 COM 7A.23.I)
    • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 36 COM 7A.10)
    • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 36 COM 7A.11)
    • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 36 COM 7A.34)
    • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.12)
    • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 36 COM 7A.32)
    • United Rep. of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 36 COM 7A.19)
    • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 36 COM 7A.18)
    • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.14)
    • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 36 COM 7A.35)
    • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 36 COM 7A.24)
36 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/8E,

2.   Congratulates States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;

3.   Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-12/36.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

    • Australia:  Great Barrier Reef; Lord Howe Island Group; Gondwana Rainforests of Australia; Wet Tropics of Queensland; Fraser Island; Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh / Naracoorte); Heard and McDonald Islands; Macquarie Island; Purnululu National Park;
    • Bangladesh: Historic Mosque City of Bagerhat;
    • Cambodia: Angkor;
    • China: Mount Taishan; The Great Wall; Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and Shenyang; Mogao Caves; Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian; Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Temple and Cemetery of Confucius, and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu; Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains; Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa; Lushan National Park; Mount Emei Scenic Area, including Leshan Giant Buddha Scenic Area; Old Town of Lijiang; Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing; Mount Wuyi; Dazu Rock Carvings; Mount Qincheng and the Dujiangyan Irrigation System; Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom; Sichuan Giant Panda Sanctuaries – Wolong, Mt Siguniang and Jiajin Mountains;
    • Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea: Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve;
    • Democratic People’s Republic of Korea: Complex of Koguryo Tombs;
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo: Virunga National Park; Garamba National Park; Kahuzi-Biega National Park; Salonga National Park;
    • Egypt: Wadi Al-Hitan (Whale Valley);
    • Estonia: Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn;
    • Ethiopia: Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela; Lower Valley of the Awash; Lower Valley of the Omo; Harar Jugol, the Fortified Historic Town;
    • Gambia: Kunta Kinteh Island and Related Sites;
    • Gambia and Senegal: Stone Circles of Senegambia;
    • Ghana: Forts and Castles, Volta, Greater Accra, Central and Western Regions; Asante Traditional Buildings;
    • India: Taj Mahal; Keoladeo National Park; Sundarbans National Park; Nanda Devi and Valley of Flowers National Parks;
    • Indonesia: Borobudur Temple Compounds; Prambanan Temple Compounds;
    • Islamic Republic of Iran: Bam and its Cultural Landscape;
    • Kazakhstan: Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi; Petroglyphs within the Archaeological Landscape of Tamgaly;
    • Madagascar: Tsingy de Bemaraha Strict Nature Reserve; Royal Hill of Ambohimanga;
    • Malaysia: Gunung Mulu National Park;
    • Mali: Timbuktu; Cliff of Bandiagara (Land of the Dogons); Tomb of Askia;
    • Mongolia: Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape;
    • Nepal: Sagarmatha National Park; Kathmandu Valley; Chitwan National Park; Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha;
    • New Zealand: Te Wahipounamu – South West New Zealand; New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands;
    • Nigeria: Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove;
    • Pakistan: Archaeological Ruins at Moenjodaro;
    • Philippines: Baroque Churches of the Philippines; Puerto-Princesa Subterranean River National Park;
    • Republic of Korea: Seokguram Grotto and Bulguksa Temple; Haeinsa Temple Janggyeong Pangeon, the Depositories for the Tripitaka Koreana Woodblocks; Jongmyo Shrine; Changdeokgung Palace Complex; Hwaseong Fortress; Gyeongju Historic Areas; Gochang, Hwasun and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites;
    • Solomon Islands: East Rennell;
    • Thailand: Historic City of Ayutthaya;
    • Turkmenistan: State Historical and Cultural Park “Ancient Merv”; Kunya-Urgench;
    • United Republic of Tanzania: Serengeti National Park; Kondoa Rock-Art Sites; 
    • Uzbekistan: Historic Centre of Bukhara; Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz; Samarkand – Crossroad of Cultures;
    • Viet Nam: Ha Long Bay; My Son Sanctuary; Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park;
    • Zambia and Zimbabwe: Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls;
    • Zimbabwe: Great Zimbabwe National Monument; Khami Ruins National Monument; Matobo Hills;

4.   Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;

5.   Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

    • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
    • World Heritage properties in Africa;
    • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
    • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
    • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America. 
Draft Decision: 36 COM 7A.3

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.3, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3. Regrets that the State Party of Guinea did not submit a conservation report on the property as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session, making it impossible to assess the progress of the implementation of corrective measures;

4. Welcomes with satisfaction the dynamics of trans-boundary management of the property as practised by the State Parties of Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia, and reiterates its request to the State Parties of Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire to concretise this commitment to joint management of the property by implementing a common strategy for management and joint monitoring of Mount Nimba;

5. Notes with satisfaction the stabilization of the socio-political situation in Côte d’Ivoire and requests the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire to urgently ensure a presence on the property, resume the monitoring operations and reoccupy the bases closest to the site at Kouan-Houlé and Yéalé;

6. Notes the start of the implementation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) by the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea and reiterates its request that the study be conducted in accordance with the highest international standards, and that it should quantify the potential impact of proposed mining on the property, in close consultation with all stakeholders, and to submit to the World Heritage Committee, any intermediate result;

7. Requests the State Parties of Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire to intensify their efforts to implement corrective measures, especially strengthening of surveillance;

8. Also requests the State Party of Liberia to submit to the World Heritage Centre the ESIA of the potential Arcelor Mittal mining project in Liberia, situated 20 kms from the property, and which could have negative effects on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

9. Further requests the State Parties of Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission to assess the state of conservation of the property, update the corrective measures and propose a timetable for their implementation, develop a proposal for the Desired State of Conservation in view of the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, and evaluate the progress of the ESIA by the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea;

10. Further requests both States Parties to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, a detailed report on the state of conservation of the property and on progress in implementing corrective measures and other recommendations of the 2007 and 2008 missions, and on the progress of the ESIA by the the Iron Ore Mining Company of Guinea, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

11. Decides to retain the Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2012
Côte d'Ivoire Guinea
Date of Inscription: 1981
Category: Natural
Criteria: (ix)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1992-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 36COM (2012)
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