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

Simien National Park

Ethiopia
Factors affecting the property in 2010*
  • Ground transport infrastructure
  • Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
  • Land conversion
  • Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
  • Other Threats:

    a) Declining populations of Walia ibex, Ethiopian wolf and other large mammal species;

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Declining populations of Walia ibex, Ethiopian wolf and other large mammal species;

b) Increasing human populations and livestock numbers in the park;

c) Agricultural encroachment;

d) Road construction.

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Depletion of the Walia ibex population and of other large mammals;
  • Encroachment;
  • Impacts of road construction.
Corrective Measures for the property

The following corrective measures were identified by the 2006 World Heritage Centre / IUCN mission and adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006):

a) Finalize the extension of the Simien Mountains National Park (SMNP) to include the Silki Yared – Kiddis Yared Mountains and the Ras Dejen Mountain with the interlinking corridors;

b) Gazette the new park boundaries, including the extensions of Lemalimo, Mesarerya, the Silki Yared – Kiddis Yared Mountains and the Ras Dejen Mountain, as well as the realignment of the boundary to exclude certain villages;

c) Develop a strategy and action plan, as part of the planned management plan revision, to significantly reduce the impact of livestock grazing on the conservation of the property by introducing no grazing and limited grazing zones based on ecological criteria, and by setting up a strict management regime in zones where grazing will still be tolerated in the short to medium term, and secure funding for its implementation;

d) Develop a strategy and action plan, as part of the planned management plan revision to support the development of alternative livelihoods for the people living within the park as well as its immediate vicinity, in order to limit in the medium term their impact on the natural resources of the property, and secure funding for its implementation.

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2010
Requests approved: 9 (from 1978-2008)
Total amount approved : 293,171 USD
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2010

On 28 April 2010, the State Party submitted a brief report on the state of conservation of the property. This report provides an update on the implementation of the corrective measures. From 12to 14 October 2009, a joint UNESCO/ IUCN reactive monitoring mission visited the property. This mission found that significant progress has been made in implementing the corrective measures adopted by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006). The mission report is available online at the following web address: http:/whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/34COM/.

The mission evaluated the progress achieved by the State Party in fulfilling the corrective measures set out by the Committee at is 30th session in 2006:

a) Finalize the extension of the Simien Mountains National Park (SMNP) to include the Silki Yared – Kiddis Yared Mountains and the Ras Dejen Mountain with the interlinking corridors

 

The park has been extended from an area of approximately 136 km2 to approximately 400 km2 with the inclusion of four new sectors linked by habitat corridors. The new sectors are all free of settlement and cultivation and boundaries have been negotiated and agreed with local communities. The extension areas include some of the best habitat for Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf, and will contribute significantly to the conservation of these two highly endangered endemic species, as well as other wildlife.

A critical element of this extension has been the voluntary resettlement of approximately 165 households from the village of Arkwasiye which was located in a critical wildlife corridor linking the original park area with the Silki - Kiddis Yared mountains extension to the northeast. The relocation of these households was partly funded (approximately 15% of the total budget) through the World Heritage Fund and has created the opportunity for wildlife to disperse between these two major habitat blocks, whilst improving the livelihoods of those who were relocated.

The mission considers that this corrective measure is fully implemented.

 

b) Gazette the new park boundaries, including the extensions of Lemalimo, Mesarerya, the Silki Yared – Kiddis Yared Mountains and the Ras Dejen Mountain, as well as the realignment of the boundary to exclude certain villages

 

The boundaries of the extended park have been aligned after exhaustive consultations with local communities in every area. Villages at the foot of the escarpment have been excluded from the park area. The precise location of points along the agreed boundary line has been recorded by Geographical Positioning System (GPS), and strategic points (e.g. where the boundary passes next to cultivated plots, homesteads etc) were marked with red paint on naturally occurring rocks. Furthermore, 300 concrete beacons have been installed all around the extended park area. However, the boundary demarcations are not clear and, in some cases, not visible. Therefore, further work on the physical demarcation of the boundary is therefore required. In addition to the physical demarcation, a draft gazette was prepared by the Amhara State Parks Development and Protection Authority (PaDPA), prior to the recent transfer of responsibility to the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA).

In terms of the legal gazetting of the extended park, the mission noted that EWCA is concerned that gazetting a new boundary into national legislation may require the preparation of a completely new World Heritage nomination dossier. This concern was fuelled partly by the opinion expressed in the previous UNESCO/ IUCN monitoring mission report of 2006 which stated that ”This will require a re-nomination of the property as this will be a significant boundary change.” The mission has sought further clarification on this from the World Heritage Centre and concludes that:

a) in terms of the Operational Guidelines, the proposed extension would require that a new nomination be prepared, including an evaluation mission;

b) the documentation does not need to be anywhere near as extensive as a nomination for a new property because potentially the values for which the existing property was inscribed will remain the same. However, it would be essential to update and review the existing documentation on the property;

c) the required ‘new nomination’ should include a detailed map of the new boundary, and focus on how the extension and boundary modification will enhance the Outstanding Universal Value of the inscribed property;

d) the State Party could request International Assistance from the World Heritage Funds to obtain consultant support to prepare the necessary documentation. IUCN is also willing to provide technical advice and identify expert support to assist the State Party in addressing the requirements of a new nomination.

The mission considers that concern over World Heritage status should not be allowed to delay the necessary gazetting of the extension into national law, which is a separate issue. Moreover, the mission is of the view that unless the newly aligned boundaries of the park coincide with the World Heritage property, there would be a situation where (a) certain villages, have been excluded from the park, but remain within the inscribed property; and (b) critical parts of the range of Walia ibex and Ethiopian wolf are excluded from the inscribed property, although they are the flagship species providing justification for the property’s inscription under criterion (x). 

In summary, the mission considers that some further work is required, both in terms of physical demarcation in the field, and the legal process, to fully satisfy the requirements of corrective measure (b).

 

c) Develop a strategy and action plan, as part of the planned management plan revision, to significantly reduce the impact of livestock grazing on the conservation of the property by introducing no grazing and limited grazing zones based on ecological criteria, and by setting up a strict management regime in zones where grazing will still be tolerated in the short to medium term, and secure funding for its implementation

 

A ‘Grazing Pressure Reduction Strategy Document’ (GPRSD) has been prepared (July 2007) by consultants under contract to PaDPA. This document identifies a series of interventions aimed at zonation of the park for different intensities of grazing, limiting grazing rights, reducing animal numbers, improving animal health and engaging local communities. The five year intervention is expected to cost approximately 110 million Birr (approximately USD 9 million).

Some interventions have already been made to reduce grazing pressure, with financial support from the existing Austrian-funded Sustainable Resource Management Programme, which are encouraging signs that progress can be made. However, it is clear that intensive grazing by domestic stock remains the most critical and intractable problem affecting the ecological integrity of the property. Under national parks law, grazing in national parks is illegal, and the authorities do not want to ‘legitimise’ it by giving it prominence in the formal management plan, preferring to develop a comprehensive grazing reduction strategy as a separate issue. The mission does not accept this rationale for excluding the grazing strategy from the management plan, when it is clearly such a crucial issue, and particularly when an entire chapter of the management plan is devoted to the ‘Settlement Management Programme’ (another illegal activity in the park). Unfortunately, the Grazing Pressure Reduction Strategy Document also has a number of shortcomings and lacks specific verifiable targets for grazing reduction, as well as maps of areas that might be considered as ‘no grazing’ or ‘limited grazing’ zones. Furthermore, there is no indication that efforts have been made to introduce the ‘grazing reduction strategy’ to potential donors, and it is questionable (given the national focus on food security) whether any donor could be found to support such an expensive strategy in its totality as presently documented. 

The mission therefore concludes that much remains to be done to satisfy the requirement of corrective measure (c). 

d) Develop a strategy and action plan, as part of the planned management plan revision to support the development of alternative livelihoods for the people living within the park as well as its immediate vicinity, in order to limit in the medium term their impact on the natural resources of the property, and secure funding for its implementation.

An alternative livelihoods strategy document has been prepared by an international consultant funded by the World Heritage Centre. This identifies 29 different private businesses and cooperatives through which 586 households currently living inside the park can find alternative sustainable livelihoods and move out of the park. Implementation of the strategy would take five years at a cost of approximately US$ 8.7 million. Funding has not yet been secured, and no significant progress has been made in finding alternative livelihoods for those who remain resident inside the park.

As with the grazing reduction strategy, the mission team has significant doubts over the viability of raising USD 8.7 million from the donor community to fund the alternative livelihoods strategy in its present form, and a more pragmatic approach may be to implement elements of it as the opportunity arises. The present proposal implies an investment of USD 15,000 per household/ job created, which may prove to be prohibitively high. The Arkwasiye relocation involved several donors (notably UNESCO, Austrian Development Cooperation and Frankfurt Zoological Society), with the majority of funds (68%) provided by the Amhara Regional government, In this case 165 households were successfully relocated at a total cost of USD 194,000, or USD 1,175 per household. A similar approach may prove to be necessary elsewhere.

The mission concludes that whilst an alternative livelihoods strategy had been prepared, there is no indication of funding to implement it, and further work is required to satisfy the requirements of corrective measure (d). 

The mission concludes that despite the progress achieved, much work is still needed to reduce the threats that led to inscription on the World Heritage List in Danger. The mission was encouraged by the recent successful voluntary relocation of 165 households from the village of Arkwasiye, as this sets a precedent for similar exercises in future. Members of other park communities, including notably the village of Gich (which lies at the very core of the park) are said to be willing to voluntarily relocate if compensated in a similar way and resettled within the same district. There has been strong growth in tourism numbers and revenue, assisted by the completion of an up-market lodge in 2006 and new hotels in Debark. Visitor numbers have almost doubled since 2006 (from 6019 to 11,648), and increased ten-fold since the property was listed as being In Danger. The direct benefits from tourism to local communities have done much to improve attitudes towards the park, and gain acceptance for necessary conservation measures.

The mission further noted that wildlife census statistics indicate that populations of the highly endangered endemic Walia Ibex and Ethiopian Wolf have continued to increase and are now approximately double what they were when the property was listed as being In Danger in 1996. A comprehensive 10-year management plan has also been completed with the financial assistance of the World Heritage Fund.The mission team also notes that a decision has been taken to align the new road to Dilyibza through Chiroleba, thus avoiding the critical ‘Arkwasiye wildlife corridor’, as recommended by the 2006 mission

The mission team carried out an initial review of the draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value submitted by the State Party. This was followed by a more detailed review undertaken by IUCN, which was agreed by the State Party and will be presented to the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session.

The World Heritage Centre and IUCN acknowledge the considerable efforts towards restoring the Outstanding Universal Value of the property and the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures. However, they note that two of the main threats to the values and integrity, namely the extensive grazing pressure in the property and the important part of the property encroached by agriculture, have not yet been addressed. They acknowledge the work undertaken to develop strategies to address these threats but are concerned that so far no funding has been secured to implement them. They therefore support the recommendation of the mission that the property should remain on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that State Party should continue to implement the three existing corrective measures that have not been finalized. The mission made some specific recommendations on the work which remains to be done and discussed these with the State party.

The mission reiterated the recommendation of the World Heritage Committee that the State Party urgently organise a donor conference in order to seek the necessary funding for implementation of the grazing and alternative livelihood strategies, which are key to satisfying the conditions set out in the corrective measures. In response to this proposal, funding was provided to the State Party from the World Heritage Fund in December 2009. The donor conference was initially scheduled for February 2010, but was postponed by the State Party, in order to ensure the participation of major donors. The World Heritage Centre is still waiting for a new proposal for a date of the conference. If a donor conference is organised in 2010 and is successful, and the boundary gazetting can be included in the legislative programme for the next Parliamentary session, the mission team considers that a follow-up mission could be undertaken in advance of the 35th World Heritage Committee meeting, thus allowing the property to be removed from the List of World Heritage In Danger at that time.

To further enhance the scope for removal of the property from the Danger List at the earliest opportunity, the mission proposed specific targets for a Desired state of conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger that could be achieved without full donor support of the current project-based strategies for reducing threats. These are detailed in the mission report. The World Heritage Centre and IUCN consider that these objectives should be met before the property can be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2010
34 COM 7A.9
Simien Mountains National Park (Ethiopia) (N 9)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7A.9, adopted at its 33rd session (Sevilla, 2009),

3. Commends the State Party for the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006) but notes the assessment by the 2009 UNESCO/IUCN mission that their implementation has not yet been completed;

4. Also notes that the two main threats to the Outstanding Universal Value, namely uncontrolled grazing and agricultural encroachment in the property, have not yet been effectively addressed;

5. Acknowledges the strategies developed by the State Party to address these threats but expresses its concern that so far no funding has been identified for their implementation of these strategies;

6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to organize as soon as possible the donor conference for which funding has been provided from the World Heritage Fund in order to identify potential donors, as a first step for possible removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger in the near future, and calls upon the international community to financially support the implementation of the grazing management and alternative livelihoods strategies;

7. Considers that the indicators, that describe the Desired State of Conservation and measure the restoration of the values and ecological integrity of the property, as established by the 2009 monitoring mission, should be reached to enable the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;

8. Urges the State Party to continue its efforts to implement the three remaining unmet corrective measures by prioritizing the following actions, as detailed in the 2009 mission report:

a) Boundary gazetting: improve the on-the-ground demarcation of the property and finalize its gazetting into national law;

b) Livestock reduction: review the Grazing Pressure Reduction Strategy to identify priorities and partners and funding for its implementation;

c) Alternative livelihoods: identify and implement the lessons learned from the recent successful voluntary relocation of 165 households from the village of Arkwasiye, and seek support from development NGO, donors and the government for the provision of alternative livelihoods;

9. Recommends to the State Party to implement the other recommendations of the 2009 mission on management planning, tourism planning and management, road and power supply alignments and climate change adaptation;

10. Requests the State Party to submit the proposed extension of the property through the preparation of a new nomination, considers that the documentation would not need to be as extensive as a nomination for a new property, and invites the State Party to apply for International Assistance to support this process;

11. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a report on the state of conservation of the property, in particular on progress accomplished in the implementation of corrective measures and the other recommendations of the 2009 mission, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011 in view of removing the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger in the near future.

12. Decides to retain Simien Mountains National Park (Ethiopia) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

34 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-10/34.COM/7A, WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add and WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add.2),

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

  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 34 COM 7A.22)
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 34 COM 7A.23)
  • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 34 COM 7A.13)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.1)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 34 COM 7A.29)
  • Colombia, Los Katios National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.14)
  • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.2)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 34 COM 7A.3)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Virunga National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.4)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.5)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Garamba National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.6)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Salonga National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.7)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 34 COM 7A.8)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 34 COM 7A.17)
  • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.9)
  • Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 34 COM 7A.27)
  • India, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (Decision 34 COM 7A.12)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 34 COM 7A.18)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 34 COM 7A.19)
  • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 34 COM 7A.24)
  • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 34 COM 7A.20)
  • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 34 COM 7A.10)
  • Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 34 COM 7A.25)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 34 COM 7A.30)
  • Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 34 COM 7A.26)
  • Senegal, Niokolo Koba National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.11)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 34 COM 7A.28)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 34 COM 7A.16)
  • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 34 COM 7A.31)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 34 COM 7A.21)
34 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/8E,

2. Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex I of Documents WHC-10/34.COM/8E, WHC-10/34.COM/8E.Add and WHC-10/34.COM/8E.Add.2 for the following World Heritage properties: 

  • Algeria: Al Qal'a of Beni Hammad; M'Zab Valley; Djémila; Tipasa; Tassili n'Ajjer; Timgad; Kasbah of Algiers;
  • Austria: Historic Centre of the City of Salzburg; Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn; Hallstatt-Dachstein / Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape;
  • Bulgaria: Boyana Church; Madara Rider; Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak; Rock-Hewn Churches of Ivanovo; Rila Monastery; Ancient City of Nessebar; Thracian Tomb of Sveshtari;
  • Côte d'Ivoire: Comoé National Park;
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo: Okapi Wildlife Reserve;
  • Denmark: Jelling Mounds, Runic Stones and Church; Roskilde Cathedral;
  • Ethiopia: SimienNational Park;
  • Israel: Masada; Old City of Acre; White City of Tel-Aviv - the Modern Movement; Incense Route - Desert Cities in the Negev; Biblical Tels - Megiddo, Hazor, Beer Sheba;
  • Jordan: Petra; Quseir Amra; Um er-Rasas (Kastrom Mefa'a);
  • Lebanon: Anjar; Byblos; Baalbek; Tyre; Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy Valley) and the Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz-el-Rab);
  • Malawi: Lake Malawi National Park;
  • Mauritania: Banc d'Arguin National Park; Ancient Ksour of Ouadane, Chinguetti, Tichitt and Oualata;
  • Morocco: Ksar of Ait-Ben-Haddou; Historic City of Meknes; Archaeological Site of Volubilis; Medina of Essaouira (formerly Mogador); Medina of Fez; Medina of Marrakesh; Medina of Tétouan (formerly known as Titawin); Portuguese City of Mazagan (El Jadida);
  • Niger: Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves; W National Park of Niger;
  • Oman: Bahla Fort;
  • Portugal: Laurisilva of Madeira;
  • Senegal: Island of Gorée; Niokolo-Koba National Park;
  • Seychelles: Aldabra Atoll; Vallée de Mai Nature Reserve;
  • South Africa: Fossil Hominid Sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai, and Environs.
  • Spain: Cathedral, Alcázar and Archivo de Indias in Seville ;
  • Sudan: Gebel Barkal and the Sites of the Napatan Region;
  • Syrian Arab Republic: Ancient City of Bosra; Ancient City of Aleppo; Crac des Chevaliers and Qal'at Salah El-Din; City of Damascus; Site of Palmyra;
  • Tunisia: Archaeological Site of Carthage; Amphitheatre of El Jem; Ichkeul National Park; Medina of Sousse; Kairouan; Medina of Tunis; Punic Town of Kerkuane and its Necropolis; Dougga / Thugga;
  • Uganda: Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi;
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Saltaire; Dorset and East Devon Coast; Derwent Valley Mills; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Liverpool - Maritime Mercantile City; Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape.
  • United Republic of Tanzania: Selous Game Reserve; Kilimanjaro National Park;
  • Yemen: Historic Town of Zabid;

3. Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed in priority;

4. Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

  • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
  • World Heritage properties in Africa;
  • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
  • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
  • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America.
Draft Decision: 34 COM 7A.9

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7A.9, adopted at its 33rd session (Sevilla, 2009),

3. Commends the State Party for the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 30th session (Vilnus, 2006) but notes the assessment by the 2009 UNESCO/ IUCN mission that their implementation has not yet been completed;

4. Notes that the two main threats to the Outstanding Universal Value, namely the uncontrolled grazing and the agricultural encroachment in the property, have not yet been effectively addressed;

5. Acknowledges the strategies developed by the State Party to address these threats but expresses its concern that so far no funding has been identified for their implementation;

6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to organise as soon as possible the donor conference for which funding has been provided from the World Heritage Fund in order to identify potential donors, and calls upon the International Community to financially support the implementation of the grazing management and alternative livelihoods strategies;

7. Considers that the indicators that describe the desired state of conservation and measure the restoration of the values and ecological integrity of the property, as established by the 2009 monitoring mission, should be reached to enable the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger;

8. Urges the State Party to continue its efforts to implement the three remaining unmet corrective measures by prioritising the following actions, as detailed in the 2009 mission report:

a) Boundary gazetting: improve the on-the-ground demarcation of the property and finalise its gazettement into national law;

b) Livestock reduction: review the Grazing Pressure Reduction Strategy to identify priorities and partners and funding for its implementation;

c) Alternative livelihoods: identify and implement the lessons learned from the recent successful voluntary relocation of 165 households from the village of Arkwasiye, seek support from development NGO, donors and the government for the provision of alternative livelihoods;

9. Requests the State Party to implement the other recommendations of the 2009 mission on management planning, tourism planning and management, road and power supply alignments and climate change adaptation;

10. Also requests the State Party to submit the proposed extension of the property through the preparation of a new nomination, and considers that the documentation would not need to be as extensive as a nomination for a new property, and invites the State Party to apply for International Assistance to support this process;

11. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a report on the state of conservation of the property, in particular on progress accomplished in the implementation of corrective measures and the other recommendations of the 2009 mission, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011;

12. Decidesto retain Simien Mountains National Park (Ethiopia) on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

Report year: 2010
Ethiopia
Date of Inscription: 1978
Category: Natural
Criteria: (vii)(x)
Danger List (dates): 1996-2017
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 34COM (2010)
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