Old Town of Galle and its Fortifications

• Commercial development
• Illegal activities
• Management systems/ management plan
• Marine transport infrastructure

On 12 December 2019, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/451/documents/ and presents progress in a number of areas addressed by the Committee as follows:

• The proposed development of Galle Port has been postponed. The State Party is aware that, when the project is resumed, it will need to send detailed information regarding the revised development plans to the World Heritage Centre before implementing them;
• The State Party’s financial support to the Galle Heritage Foundation (GHF) has increased by 17% since 2015; in addition, new income-generating strategies are being identified;
• Conservation of the rampart wall is underway, thanks to funding from the World Bank;
• Regarding the staff needed to implement the Integrated Management Plan (IMP) and the Sustainable Tourism Management Plan (STMP):
  • A new organizational structure is proposed, with the creation of additional specialist positions – this is undergoing a Ministry approval process,
  • The information centre currently has three staff, and there are plans to recruit a tourism specialist to lead activities,
  • It is recognized that existing staff would benefit from capacity building;
• The STMP is being implemented by the GHF and the Ruhunu Tourist Bureau and work includes the following:
  • Within Galle Fort, the information centre at the entrance has been upgraded and new visitor facilities are being provided,
  • Plans are being prepared to use military remains along the rampart wall to house heritage interpretation,
  • The GHF website was relaunched (see http://www.galleheritage.gov.lk/en/) and two apps were created for visitors to Galle Fort.

The major project to develop Galle Port has been postponed, and the State Party remains fully aware of its obligations to report to the World Heritage Centre when revised plans are drawn up.

It is noted that the State Party continues to reinforce the property’s management, that funding for the GHF has increased over time, and that plans are proposed to improve the organizational structure and increase intellectual resources. However, few details have been provided.

Although the IMP is in operation and several steps of the plan have been implemented, it remains unclear how much of the 2016-18 Action Plan has actually been implemented. According to the indicated timetable, the IMP should now be fully functional, but confirmation of progress with its implementation and information on the steps taken towards a new planning cycle are needed.

Furthermore, no information has been provided on the implementation of 2010 Reactive Monitoring mission’s recommendation to strengthen coordination between the GHF and other conservation and development authorities. Nor is it clear how the reinforced management is dealing with challenges facing the property such as, for instance, enforcement action over building work and other planning issues. Information must be provided on progress with the establishment of a consultative council, any sessions held in the last 12 months, and the significant issues it considered.

An important responsibility is placed on the GHF for implementing the IMP and the STMP. It would be helpful to have confirmation of GHF’s staffing structure and annual budget: although funding has reportedly increased by 17% since 2015, this figure is not related to a baseline or inflation, and more information is needed on available financial resources. It appears that a long-term funding strategy is yet to be developed, despite earlier requests. It is advised that GHF’s annual report be submitted to the World Heritage Centre.

Concerning capacity-building initiatives for existing staff, ICCROM could be invited to support the GHF. In addition, a retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), which is a fundamental tool for the management of a World Heritage property, is yet to be adopted and should be finalized as soon as possible.

In terms of the wider situation at the property, which the management structure is addressing, it would be helpful to understand the number of applications for permission to develop buildings and sites within the property over the last two years, especially how many were submitted, approved/refused, and the criteria used to reach this decision. In particular, details are needed on the cricket club and the plans for a new stand, as proposals need to be submitted for review before any decision is made that would be difficult to reverse. 

Although it is noted that conservation work on the rampart wall is underway, no details have been provided on other conservation work or on the development of a Conservation Plan.

Progress with the STMP and the implementation of various visitor-related activities is welcomed. However, many of its recommendations require additional reports, notably on traffic management, visitor capacity, and the preparation of a visionary masterplan. It is not clear whether these have been undertaken or commissioned, or whether the recommendations of the STMP have been modified. Meanwhile, no information was provided on the improvement of the traffic situation in the Old Town, as previously recommended. There still remains a need to appoint a Tourism Officer in the GHF structure. It should be noted that details on tourism development projects should be communicated to the World Heritage Centre in advance of their enactment, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.