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 2016*
  • 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
  • Mining
  • Influx of refugees
  • Agricultural encroachment
  • Deforestation
  • Poaching
  • Weak management capacity
  • Lack of resources
  • 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 page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4982

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

In progress

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2016

Total amount granted:  USD 25,282 from the Rapid Response Facility in January 2012 (see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/830/)

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2016
Requests approved: 21 (from 1981-2015)
Total amount approved : 512,588 USD
2015 Appui à la capitalisation des acquis du programme de ... (Approved)   27,000 USD
2014 Protection de la biodiversité de la Réserve naturelle ... (Approved)   20,366 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 2016**

October/November 1988: World Heritage Centre mission; 1993: Joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission; 1994: IUCN mission; 2000: World Heritage Centre mission; 2007: Joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission to Guinea; 2008: Joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission to Côte d’Ivoire; 2013: Joint World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2016

On 9 February 2016, the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire submitted its report on the state of conservation of the property, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/155/documents/. On 20 March 2016, the State Party of Guinea submitted a report on the activities carried out within the framework of the project for protection of the biodiversity of the property through integrated and participatory management financed by the World Heritage Fund.

The report of the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire indicated the following:

  • The boundaries of the property have been revised with the participation of the local communities and have been marked on the ground. Their validation should be effective in 2016 with the adoption of a decree redefining and updating the boundaries of the Ivorian part of the property;
  • Funding from the World Heritage Fund was mobilized to strengthen surveillance, estimated at a cost of 1000 man-days;
  • Joint patrols that were planned by the two countries could not be carried out for reasons related to the Ebola epidemic in Guinea;
  • Forest officers were trained in anti-poaching. Thirty will be assigned to Mount Nimba;
  • Adjustments and a strengthening of surveillance are foreseen during the 2016-2020 period.

The report only describes the efforts made for surveillance of the property, the main results of which are as follows:

  • Almost all of the poaching tracks are closed;
  • Nests of chimpanzees, more than twenty monkeys, duikers, buffalos, bush pigs, bongos, birds, squirrels and traces of other animals have been observed;

The report of the State Party of Guinea provides the following information:

  • Four awareness-raising meetings were organized focusing on specific issues of the four areas of the property. 234 people participated;
  • Patrols were carried out and were successful in apprehending poachers, and identifying illegal occupants;
  • 18 terminals were installed to finalize the geo-referencing of the boundaries of the property;
  • Ecological monitoring of 3 species (unspecified) was initiated;
  • A meeting to approve the management and conservation plan of the site was organized.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2016

The efforts made by the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire in monitoring as well as updating the property boundaries are welcomed. However, the reference to a decree of "redefinition" of boundaries seems to go beyond the materialization of the limits as recommended by the mission in 2013, which found that the demarcation on the ground had erroneously excluded a 500 to 750 hectares cleared parcel of the property containing a cacao plantation. More details are therefore needed on this decree to confirm that the limits are not redefined to exclude these degraded areas of the property.

However, the absence of a functioning ecological monitoring system at the two components of the property does not enable an evaluation of the impact of human pressure on its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Poaching is the only human pressure recalled by the State Party of Côte d’Ivoire, whilst agricultural enchroachment and timber exploitation are also problematique. It is therefore recommended that the Committee reiterates its request to the States Parties of Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea to implement a joint system of monitoring the property to control all anthropogenic pressures.

The management difficulties experienced in both countries are more marked in the Guinean part where human and operational resources have decreased significantly since the end of the UNDP / GEF (Global Environment Facility) project in 2013. Although eight new cases of Ebola have been confirmed since February 2016 in the southern region of Guinea, the stabilization of the sanitary situation should enable the two States Parties to resume their efforts towards the implementation of corrective measures and to set a timetable for achieving them. Thus, it is recommended that the Committee also reiterates its request to both States Parties to partner with UNDP and GEF to develop the second phase of the Nimba project, which would concern the two components, to promote the implementation of corrective measures for safeguarding the integrity of the property.

The report provided by the State Party of Guinea allows of recognition of the progress made in several actions requested by the Committee, particularly in terms of awareness-raising of local communities, surveillance and the demarcation of the site. These different accomplishments reflect a positive trend that should be pursued and strengthened. The report, however, remains insufficient, as various information requested by the Committee is not reflected therein. Notably, no information is provided regarding the status of the mining projects of West Africa Exploration (WAE) and the Société des Mines de Fer de Guinée (SMFG), nor of environmental impact assessments (EIAs). Recalling the significant concern expressed by the Committee at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015) regarding the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) of the operating concession granted to WAE and which was not conducted in accordance with international standards as initially requested in Decision 37 COM 7A.3 (Phnom Penh, 2013), it is recommended that the Committee reiterates this request to the State Party of Guinea. It is also recommended that the Committee also reiterates its request to the State Party of Guinea to develop a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of all mining projects being developed or planned in the environs of the property and to revise the boundaries of the exploration permit granted to the SAMA Resources Company to ensure that there is no overlapping with the property.

Finally, it is recommended that the Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2016
40 COM 7A.36
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d’Ivoire/Guinea) (N 155bis)
The World Heritage Committee,
  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7A.3, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Notes the efforts made by the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire to strengthen the monitoring and update the property boundaries with the participation of the local communities but requests the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire to provide details of the decree for the redefinition of the boundaries;
  4. Also notes the progress made by the State Party of Guinea in the implementation of the international assistance project for the protection of the biodiversity of the property by an integrated and participatory management, financed by the World Heritage Fund, encourages the State Party of Guinea to continue and strengthen the actions being carried out, but regrets that the report provided does not give information about several measures requested by the Committee;
  5. Further notes that the implementation of corrective measures continued to be affected by the health crisis caused by the Ebola epidemic, and considers however that the normalization of the health situation in the region should enable the States Parties to resume their efforts to implement the corrective measures;
  6. Reiterates its requests to both States Parties to implement a joint monitoring system of the property to control all anthropogenic pressures, and to partner with UNDP and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to develop the second phase of the Nimba Project, to concern the entire property, in order to promote the implementation of the corrective measures to safeguard the integrity of the property;
  7. Also requests the State Party of Guinea to strictly ensure the preparation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the West Africa Exploration Company in accordance with international standards as requested in Decision 37 COM 7A.3 (Phnom Penh, 2013), and to submit this ESIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN, before authorizing the project;
  8. Also reiterates its request to the State Party of Guinea to develop a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), in line with international standards, to qualify and quantity all the potential cumulative impacts of various mining projects planned on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, as recommended by the 2013 monitoring mission for the property and the IUCN World Heritage advice note on Environmental Assessment, and submit the results to the World Heritage Centre, for review by IUCN, before any decision on these projects, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  9. Further reiterates its request to the State Party of Guinea to revise the boundaries of the exploration permit granted to the SAMA Resources Company to ensure that there is no overlapping with the property;
  10. Further requests the States Parties of Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, a joint 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 41st session in 2017 ;
  11. Decides to retain Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
40 COM 8C.2
Update of the list of World Heritage in Danger (retained sites)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC/16/40.COM/7A, WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add and WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add.2),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 40 COM 7A.26)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 40 COM 7A.27)
  • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 40 COM 7A.32)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 40 COM 7A.1)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.34)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 40 COM 7A.2)
  • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.35)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.36)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.37)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.38)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.39)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.40)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.41)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 40 COM 7A.9)
  • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.43)
  • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 40 COM 7A.28)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.33)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 40 COM 7A.48)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 40 COM 7A.10)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 40 COM 7A.11)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 40 COM 7A.12)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 40 COM 7A.13)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 40 COM 7A.44)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 40 COM 7A.6)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 40 COM 7A.7)
  • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 40 COM 7A.45)
  • Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 40 COM 7A.14)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 40 COM 7A.15)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 40 COM 7A.3)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 40 COM 7A.4)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.46)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 40 COM 7A. 30)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 40 COM 7A.49)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 40 COM 7A.16)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 40 COM 7A.17)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 40 COM 7A.18)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 40 COM 7A.19)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 40 COM 7A.20)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 40 COM 7A.21)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 40 COM 7A.8)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 40 COM 7A.31)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.47)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.50)
  • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 40 COM 7A.5)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 40 COM 7A.23)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 40 COM 7A.24)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 40 COM 7A.25).
Draft Decision: 40 COM 7A.36

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7A.3, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Notes the efforts made by the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire to strengthen the monitoring and update the property boundaries with the participation of the local communities but requests the State Party of Côte d'Ivoire to provide details of the decree for the redefinition of the boundaries;
  4. Also notes the progress made by the State Party of Guinea in the implementation of the international assistance project for the protection of the biodiversity of the property by an integrated and participatory management, financed by the World Heritage Fund, encourages the State Party of Guinea to continue and strengthen the actions being carried out, but regrets that the report provided does not give information about several measures requested by the Committee;
  5. Further notes that the implementation of corrective measures continued to be affected by the health crisis caused by the Ebola epidemic, and considers however that the normalization of the health situation in the region should enable the States Parties to resume their efforts to implement the corrective measures;
  6. Reiterates its requests to both States Parties to implement a joint monitoring system of the property to control all anthropogenic pressures, and to partner with UNDP and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to develop the second phase of the Nimba Project, to concern the entire property, in order to promote the implementation of the corrective measures to safeguard the integrity of the property;
  7. Also requests the State Party of Guinea to strictly ensure the preparation of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) of the West Africa Exploration Company in accordance with international standards as requested in Decision 37 COM 7A.3 (Phnom Penh, 2013), and to submit this ESIA to the World Heritage Centre for review by IUCN, before authorizing the project;
  8. Also reiterates its request to the State Party of Guinea to develop a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), in line with international standards, to qualify and quantity all the potential cumulative impacts of various mining projects planned on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, as recommended by the 2013 monitoring mission for the property and the IUCN World Heritage advice note on Environmental Assessment, and submit the results to the World Heritage Centre, for review by IUCN, before any decision on these projects, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  9. Further reiterates its request to the State Party of Guinea to revise the boundaries of the exploration permit granted to the SAMA Resources Company to ensure that there is no overlapping with the property;
  10. Further requests the States Parties of Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, a joint 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 41st session in 2017 ;
  11. Decides to retain Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Report year: 2016
Côte d'Ivoire Guinea
Date of Inscription: 1981
Category: Natural
Criteria: (ix)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1992-present
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2016) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 40COM (2016)
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