Ngorongoro Conservation Area
Factors affecting the property in 1999*
- Ground transport infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Shortcomings in the management and lack of resources (issues resolved)
- Residents allowed to grow crops inside the World Heritage site (issue resolved)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 1999
$79,000 to date plus $275,000 IUCN support in 1994 (funded by Germany)
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1999
Total amount approved : 216,132 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1999
Previous deliberations: Ngorongoro Conservation Area was included in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1984 due to poaching and threats posed by illegal agricultural encroachments. Continuous monitoring and technical assistance projects contributed towards improving the state of conservation leading to the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1989.
New information: IUCN’s East African Regional Office has been approached by a consultancy firm working with the Tanzanian Ministry of Works to provide input to a feasibility study on a gravel access road to Loliondo (the administrative centre of the Ngorongoro District). Four routes are being considered for upgrading. Two of the routes proposed would pass through the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The other route would cut across the eastern end of Olduvai Gorge. However, there are two other possible alignments that start from Monduli and Mto-wa-Mbu. The two roads would come together near Engaruka, from where the road would pass between Lake Natron and Oldonyo Lengai volcano before ascending the Rift Valley escarpment towards Loliondo. IUCN has welcomed the consultative approach taken by the Government of Tanzania in the planning phase of this road. IUCN considers that options should be carefully considered and should take fully into account potential impacts on the values of these two sites.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1999
23 COM X.B.28
State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee
X.28 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-99/CONF.209/6) included as Annex VIII to this report. Additional observations made during the Committee session are reflected below.
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
The Delegate of Australia thanked IUCN for the consultative process started, which could be a model for other State Parties. He also informed the Committee that the area of marine protection around Macquerie Island had been extended and now comprises 16 million ha, the world's largest highly protected marine zone.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
The Delegate of Colombia informed the Committee that a visit by a delegation from the Ministry for Environment to Los Katios was recently carried out. The visit included areas that were previously not accessible. He emphasized that the proposal to grant collective land ownership over 100,000ha would be outside the Park in the buffer zone. He commented that his Government would be pleased to receive the visit of the monitoring mission to this site in 2000. The Colombian authorities have enhanced transboundary co-operation with Darien National Park (Panama) and strengthened the protected area system.
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
The Observer of the United States underlined his Government's role in safeguarding Galapagos Islands and congratulated the Government of Ecuador on progress made. He noted the landmark decision of the Galapagos Law and questioned whether it had been implemented, in particular concerning the forty-mile zone. The Secretariat informed the Committee that some threats related to illegal fishing have been reported. IUCN noted the implementation of this pioneering legislation is vital and specific regulations need to be developed and implemented as soon as possible. The Delegate of Ecuador provided information from the Ministry of Environment noting progress concerning control of introduced species and general improvements in relation to biodiversity conservation at the site. Concerning the control of the 40-mile zone, she stated that the law has not yet been implemented, but that the basis for the conservation and environmental control is there. She thanked the Committee for all its efforts to safeguard the Galapagos.
Kaziranga National Park (India)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park (Kenya)
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
The Observer of Nepal expressed his gratitude for the international support for the important project on tourism carried out at Sagarmatha National Park. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted that it is a ground-breaking project.
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Delegate of Thailand noted the raised serious concerns raised by the Bureau regarding the management of this site, given the decline in numbers of the Arabian Oryx and the fact that the boundary marking and management planning is long overdue for completion. He recalled that the Committee inscribed the site without legislation and management plan in December 1994. He highlighted the Operational Guidelines in relation to the deletion of properties. The Delegate of Benin noted that rigour was not always applied in the past years and that a number of sites would not have been accepted if they were presented today. Concerning the question of deletion, a site would be put first on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate of Thailand made it clear that he had not proposed the deletion of the site from the World Heritage List and that he was totally aware of the modalities in that respect. The Observer of the United Kingdom noted that similar problems concerned a number of sites and that these issues would certainly be dealt with by the periodic reporting process. IUCN pointed out that it had consistently raised concerns about this site. IUCN noted that legislation does not have effect if there is not sufficient resources for its implementation. The Chairperson reminded the Committee members about the rarity of Arab natural sites on the List. In concluding, the Chairperson thanked the Committee for the debate and noted that awareness needs to be raised in countries about the World Heritage Convention, its obligations and World Heritage values to be preserved for future generations, in particular among decision-makers. He thanked the Delegate of Thailand for his statement and encouraged the Committee to further reflect on how to enhance the protection of World Heritage sites.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
The Observer of Russia requested that the information provided during the adoption of the report of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau on this site be included in the Bureau report.
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
23 COM XV.6.3
International Assistance for Cultural Heritage submitted to the Chairperson
3. International Assistance for Cultural Heritage
The Committee noted that the following thirteen requests for a total amount of US$ 203,729 had been submitted for examination and approval by the Chairperson for cultural heritage:
3.AFRICA(a).I BOTSWANA Preparatory assistance
Tsolido nomination preparation
US$ 19,094 requested US$ 19,094 recommended for approval
3.AFRICA(a).IV KENYA Preparatory assistance
Preparation of the Lamu nomination dossier
US$ 15,924 requested US$ 15,924 recommended for approval
3.AFRICA(a).VI TOGO Preparatory assistance
US$ 18,085 requested US$ 18,085 recommended for approval
3.AFRICA(d).II TANZANIA Technical Co-operation
Radio calls & solar panels for the Ruins of Kilwa and Songo Mnara, the Ngorongoro Conservation Area
US$ 19,426 requested approval recommended after further clarification is received
3.ASIA(a).I CHINA Preparatory assistance
Expert Meeting & preparation of group nomination of ancient canal towns of Jiangnan, China
US$ 20,000 requested US$ 20,000 recommended for approval
3.ASIA(a).III INDIA Preparatory assistance
Nomination of Padmanabhapuram Palace, Tamil Nadu
US$ 15,000 requested US$ 16,362 recommended for approval
3.ASIA(c).III NEPAL & NORWAY Training assistance
Tourism training workshop in Kathmandu Valley
US$ 17,000 requested US$ 17,000 recommended for approval
3.ASIA(d).I PAKISTAN Technical Co-operation
Research & documentation for enhancement of Master Plan of Shalamar Gardens
US$ 10,000 requested US$ 10,000 recommended for approval
3.ASIA.(e).I REPUBLIC of KOREA Promotional assistance
Publication of World Heritage Fortress Cities seminar background documentation
US$ 10,000 requested US$ 10,000 recommended for approval
3.LATIN(b).I GUATEMALA Emergency assistance
Rehabilitation of Quirigua
US$ 32,248 requested US$ 27,248 recommended for approval
3.LATIN(b).II GUATEMALA Emergency assistance
Clean up and preventive measures for Antigua Guatemala
US$ 20,216 requested US$ 20,216 recommended for approval
3.LATIN(c).I BRAZIL Training assistance
Evaluation of CECRE regional training programme
US$ 14,800 requested US$ 14,800 recommended for approval
3.LATIN(c).II DOMINICA Training assistance
Preparation of training course on cultural heritage
US$ 15,000 requested US$ 15,000 recommended for approval
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following text and transmit it to the Committee for noting:
“The Bureau invites the State Party to fully extend its co-operation to involve UNESCO and IUCN in the consultation process and in considering the various options available, and searching for new alternatives if necessary, with a view to minimising impacts of the road construction project on the two World Heritage sites. The Bureau requests the Centre and IUCN submit a status report on the proposed road construction project, impacts of the various options available on the two sites and recommendations which the Bureau could submit to the consideration of the State Party at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in mid-2000.”
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”).