Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1996
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger N/A
Previous Committee Decisions see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/593/documents/
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 40,000
For details, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/593/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Previous monitoring missions
September 2006: UNESCO expert mission; January-February 2008: Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Lack of an effective site-management authority;
b) Absence of appropriate land-use regulations in the face of development pressure;
c) Need for a buffer zone;
d) Poor site interpretation and museum display
Illustrative material see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/593/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2011
The State Party report was submitted to the World Heritage Centre on 27 January 2011. The report addresses the issue of the site potentially satisfying additional World Heritage criteria, and responds to issues identified in Decision 33 COM 7B.72 (Seville, 2009). The report addresses the following main points:
a) Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
The State Party submitted to the World Heritage Centre a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session in 2012.
b) Authority of the site manager to control development through appropriate land-use regulations
The State Party report emphasises that the planning regulations are now in place to enable the manager to control development. However, the application of National Law No. 26/2007 and Regulation No. 26/2008 on National Spatial Planning, which gives additional controls for World Heritage property as National Strategic Areas (KSN), have not yet been finalised; application to designate the area a National Vital Object has not been finalised; and the establishment of a new Management Board has not been finalised. While these proposed mechanisms appear to satisfy the World Heritage Committee’s concerns, it is essential that they are implemented in practice.
c) Setting up of archaeological and socio-cultural impact procedures for development
The report indicates that while a Memorandum of Understanding and a Cooperation Agreement exist between the Central Java Government and the Sragen and Karangayar Regencies, Environmental Impact Assessment (which would include archaeological and socio-cultural impacts) is not regulated by these agreements. Implementation of an Environmental Impact Assessment process is foreseen by the State Party, but again it is essential that this is implemented in practice.
d) Involving the residents as stakeholders in property management
The report states that a number of programs are developed to involve the community in the property management, which are valuable initiatives. The 2008 World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission recommended three approaches central to resolving current problems at the property which have not yet been addressed
e) Control over sand mining
The report indicates that sand mining in the fossiliferous soil by villagers has been a problem, solved by compensating miners and closing the sand pits. This, however, is a reactive solution that would not appear to deter future sand mining. Identification of alternate sand sources and a community involvement approach need to be considered to prevent sand mining in the longer term.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the opinion that a number of decisions still need to be made to apply the most effective aspects of national law to the protection of the property, and that the establishment of the new Management Board needs to be finalised in order to ensure effective management and conservation of the property. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are also of the opinion that an effective heritage impact assessment process should be carried out.
Given that the property has a resident population of approximately 200,000, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider it essential that efforts continue to involve the community in the management and conservation of the property. The State Party should address the detailed actions recommended by the 2008 reactive monitoring mission to achieve that objective. It should also develop long-term solutions to the illegal mining of sand within the property.
Decision Adopted: 35 COM 7B.70
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-11/35.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.72, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),
3. Notes the progress made by the State Party in developing the management system for the site and acknowledges the information provided on the actions being taken to implement effective management of the site;
4. Urges the State Party to continue its work to address the actions recommended at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009), including:
a) implementing an effective heritage impact assessment process within the property,
b) involving the residents as key stakeholders of the property;
5. Also urges the State Party to:
a) finalise the legal and administrative measures required to protect and manage the property,
b) develop mechanisms to prevent illegal sand mining at the property;
6. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, a progress report on the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014.