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

Abu Mena

Egypt
Factors affecting the property in 2011*
  • Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Water (rain/water table)
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Rise in the water table
  • Impact on structures due to earth trembling and other forms of damage likely to result from the use of heavy earth-moving equipment
  • Lack of conservation plan, defining short-, medium-, and long-term objectives and establishing technical parameters (materials, techniques, etc)
  • Need for a management plan, to include research, presentation and interpretation, the role of stakeholders (e.g. the Mar Mena community), staffing, sponsorship, visitor facilities, access, etc.
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • A land-reclamation programme and irrigation scheme with no appropriate drainage mechanism, for the agricultural development of the region has caused a dramatic rise in the water table
  • The destruction of numerous cisterns, disseminated around the property, has entailed the collapse of several overlying structures. Huge underground cavities have opened in the north-western region of the property
  • A large, banked road has been built to enable movement within the property 
Corrective Measures for the property

a) Implementation of a rapid condition survey of all excavated remains and urgent conservation measures in order to provide protection to structures against earth trembling and other forms of damage likely to result from the use of heavy earth-moving equipment

b) Lowering of the water table by means of drainage ditches and pipes, inside and around the archaeological area

c) Establishment of an efficient system for monitoring the water table in the archaeological site and in the surrounding zones

d) Preparation of a conservation plan, defining short-, medium-, and long-term objectives and establishing technical parameters (materials, techniques, etc)

e) Consultations with stakeholders with the objective of preparing a management plan, to include research, presentation and interpretation, the role of stakeholders (e.g. the Mar Mena community), staffing, sponsorship, visitor facilities, access, etc.

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
In its report presented in 2007, the State Party announced the completion of the works by 2010
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2011
Requests approved: 1 (from 2001-2001)
Total amount approved : 7,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2011**

2002: Expert mission; 2005: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; December 2009: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011

The State Party did not submit a state of conservation report which was requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010). Due to the popular uprising of early 2011 and the present political context, no official information has been received on the state of conservation of the property or on the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures that have been identified for the property. Prior factors that remain to be addressed include the completion of the condition survey to prescribe measures for a holistic conservation plan that would include proposals for intervention, monitoring and maintenance, the finalisation and implementation of the management plan, the definition of the buffer zone and the establishment and enforcement of regulatory measures to ensure the effective protection of the inscribed property.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2011

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies would like to underscore the importance of the continuity of implementing measures to address the threats that warranted the inscription of the property in the List of World Heritage in Danger and consider that in light of the existing situation additional assistance will be required to ensure a greater level of support at the international and national level to continue with the implementation of the identified corrective measures.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2011
35 COM 7A.19
Abu Mena (Egypt) (C 90)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7A.17, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Requests the State Party to continue its work on all the corrective measures adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

4. Reiterates its request to review the draft retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and to develop a proposal for the Desired state of conservation, with a revised timeframe for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

5. Reiterates its invitation to the State Party to submit a request for International Assistance to the World Heritage Fund to support the preparation of the requested conservation and management plans and to provide a basis for shaping and articulating priority needs;

6. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

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

35 COM 8C.2
Establishment of the World Heritage List in Danger (Retained 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-11/35.COM/7A, WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add and WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add.Corr),

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

  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 35 COM 7A.24)
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 35 COM 7A.25)
  • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 35 COM 7A.15)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.1)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 35 COM 7A.32)
  • Colombia, Los Katios National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.16)
  • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.2)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 35 COM 7A.3)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.4)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.5)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.6)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.7)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 35 COM 7A.8)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 35 COM 7A.19)
  • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.9)
  • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 35 COM 7A.29)
  • Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 35 COM 7A.30)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 35 COM 7A.20)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 35 COM  7A.21)
  • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 35 COM 7A.26)
  • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 35 COM 7A.22)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 35 COM 7A.10)
  • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 35 COM 7A.11)
  • Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 35 COM 7A.27)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 35 COM 7A.33)
  • Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 35 COM 7A.28)
  • Senegal, Niokolo Koba National Park (Decision 35 COM  7A.12)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 35 COM 7A.31)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 35 COM 7A.18)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 35 COM 7A.17)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 35 COM 7A.14)
  • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 35 COM 7A.34)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 35 COM 7A.23)
Draft Decision: 35 COM 7A.19

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7A.17, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Requests the State Party to continue its work on all the corrective measures adopted at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);

4. Reiterates its request to review the draft retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value and to develop a proposal for the desired state of conservation, with a revised timeframe for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

5. Reiterates its invitation to the State Party to submit a request for International Assistance to the World Heritage Fund to support the preparation of the requested conservation and management plans and to provide a basis for shaping and articulating priority needs;

6. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property andthe implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012;

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

Report year: 2011
Egypt
Date of Inscription: 1979
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)
Danger List (dates): 2001-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 35COM (2011)
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