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

Tyre

Lebanon
Factors affecting the property in 2011*
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Housing
  • Illegal activities
  • Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Marine transport infrastructure
  • Other Threats:

    Insufficient maintenance

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Need for an international safeguarding campaign (issue resolved)
  • Construction of a tourist complex (land fill) (issue resolved)
  • Construction project of a large fish market (issue resolved)
  • Construction project of a coastal motorway (issue resolved)
  • Uncontrolled construction  (issue resolved)
  • Project to build a new tourist marina (issue resolved)
  • Road construction project (issue resolved)
  • Need for a Urbain Master Plan for the city
  • Lack of management mechanism (including legislation) 
  • Important and often uncontrolled urban development
  • Public works, tourism developments
  • Absence of a management and conservation plan
  • Insufficient maintenance
  • Major highway development near the property and the redevelopment of the port
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2011

Total amount provided to the property: USD 19,173 from 1997 to 2001 for the International Safeguarding Campaign 

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2011
Requests approved: 4 (from 1986-2001)
Total amount approved : 29,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2011**

2004: Evaluation mission by the UNESCO Office in Beirut; September 2006: UNESCO mission following the 2006 summer conflict; February 2009: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission; 2011: joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011

The State Party has not submitted a state of conservation report as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010).

In the absence of a state of conservation report from the State Party, there is a lack of any indication that the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee or those arising from earlier sessions have been addressed. These relate in particular to the following concerns:

    • The incomplete archaeological and urban mapping to enable identification of site resources and enable their management, including the definition of the site boundary and its buffer zones;
    • The intended progress of the highway construction work affecting archaeological resources;
    • The continued degradation of the cultural resources due to climatic conditions, failing past interventions and urban encroachment;
    • The potential reinstatement of the moratorium on new development on government owned properties on, and in the vicinity of, the site (expired in 2009);
    • The status of plans for the new marina development and underwater protection scheme for the entire island of Tyre;
    • The lack of a conservation and site management plan for identification of priorities, responsibilities, time lines, clear targets and indicators.
    • l>

Information was received by the World Heritage Centre indicating that important works were currently undertaken in the port of Tyre, in contradiction with Decision 28 COM 15B.48. A letter was addressed by the World Heritage Centre to the State Party on 29 March 2011 requesting detailed information on these alleged developments. No answer was received at the time of drafting this report.

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

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies would like to reiterate that no report has been submitted by the State Party and that the joint mission requested by the World Heritage Committee at its last session could not be organized. They note the lack of management measures for the property and the threats to its Outstanding Universal Value as identified in the Reactive Monitoring Mission Report of 2009, which describes “the overall state of conservation of the site of the Ancient City is in an alarming condition.”

None of the recommendations of the 2009 World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission appear to have been addressed, nor the decisions of the World Heritage Committee at its 30th (Vilnius, 2006), 31st (Christchurch, 2007), 32nd (Quebec City, 2008), 33rd (Seville, 2009) and 34th (Brasilia, 2010) sessions. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2011
35 COM 7B.51
Tyre (Lebanon) (C 299)

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7B.57, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010),

3. Takes note that the State Party has provided a state of conservation report for the property, and additional information on the management plan, on improved institutional mechanisms, and information and studies related to ongoing developments at the property, as requested since 2006, and specifically Decisions 32COM7B.60, 33COM7B.57 and 34COM7B.57;

4. Strongly encourages the State Party to establish as soon as possible a buffer zone to protect the property from excessive development and to submit a request for boundary modification to this end according to paragraphs 163-165 of the Operational Guidelines;

5. Requests the State Party to invite as soon as possible the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property in order to evaluate, at its 36th session in 2012, the progress accomplished;

6. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, a report on the implementation of the above for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012 with a view to considering, in the case of confirmation of the ascertained or potential danger to Outstanding Universal Value, the possible inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Draft Decision: 35 COM 7B.51

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2. Recalling Decision 34 COM 7B.57, adopted at its 34th session (Brasilia, 2010);

3. Regrets that the State Party has not responded to the recommendations of the 2009 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission;

4. Also regrets that the State Party has not provided a state of conservation report for the property, nor additional information on the management plan, on improved institutional mechanisms, and information and studies related to ongoing developments at the property, as requested since 2006, and specifically Decisions 32 COM 7B.60, 33 COM 7B.57 and 34 COM 7B.57;

5. Strongly encourages the State Party to establish as soon as possible a buffer zone to protect the property from excessive development and to submit a request for boundary modification to this end according to paragraphs 163-165 of the Operational Guidelines;

6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property in order to assess any changes in the state of conservation of the property since the 2009 mission;

7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2012, a report on the state of conservation of the property and on the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012, with a view to considering, in the absence of substantial progress, the possible inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2011
Lebanon
Date of Inscription: 1984
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(vi)
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