Tyre
Factors affecting the property in 2010*
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Housing
- Illegal activities
- Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure
- Management activities
- 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 2010
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 2010
Total amount approved : 29,000 USD
2001 | Installation of Plaques and Publication of Leaflets to ... (Approved) | 2,500 USD |
2001 | Geoarchaeological study for the ancient ports of Tyre (Approved) | 20,000 USD |
1999 | Photo Exhibition on Lebanese (Baalbeck and Tyre) and ... (Approved) | 2,500 USD |
1986 | Consultancy to evaluate damage to Tyre (Approved) | 4,000 USD |
Missions to the property until 2010**
2004: Evaluation mission by the UNESCO Beirut Office; September 2006: UNESCO mission following the 2006 summer conflict; February 2009: World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2010
The State Party submitted a report to the World Heritage Centre on 30 March 2010 for the first time since 2007. This report consists of a chart which documents the requests made by the World Heritage Committee during the three previous sessions and notes actions taken by the State Party in response.
In response to the World Heritage Committee’s request that the State Party invite a joint mission during 2009-2010, the State Party notes that it has not done so due to the delay in receving the final version of the 2009 reactive monitoring mission report, and because it did not see any new developments which would justify a mission. The State Party suggests that once the Directorate General of Antiquities (DGA) has established its action plan, it would welcome a joint mission.
The State Party report notes the submission of a Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (see Document WHC-10/34COM/8D). In addition, within the framework of the Retrospective Inventory, the State Party also submitted a map for clarification of boundaries at the the time of incription (see Document WHC-10/34COM/8E).
The State Party report does not comment on any of the substantial issues or recommendations made by the 2009 mission. The chart submitted only refers to earlier requests by the World Heritage Committee. For example, the World Heritage Committee had, at its 31st session, encouraged the State Party to prolong the three year moratorium on construction in areas presenting an archaeological potential. The report indicates only that at present the DGA (that is, three years after the Committee’s request) is planning to send such a request to the relevant authorities.
The report also states that the DGA is preparing the archaeological interventions needed for the construction of the highway, deviated in 2002 following the establishment of an archaeological map prepared after a geophysical survey. This archaeological map has not been forwarded to the World Heritage Centre for examination.
The State Party report is however accompanied with a number of appendixes which include the CHUD (Cultural Heritage and Urban Development- World Bank) project report (Nov. 2008) prepared by Italian experts A.R.S. Progetti for the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a colour coded aerial photograph without date on legend, a geophysical survey prepared by Mr Ghassan Ghattas (undated but presumably 2002 as the report mentions such survey ), and a decree in Arabic related to the Master Plan of the Old City of Tyre and containing a site map. These do not add materially to the State Party’s efforts to respond to the requests of the World Heritage Committee, except for the geophysical survey which provides relevant analysis of the archaeological sites adjacent to the proposed highway, and within the adjacent urban context. However this latter document does not draw definitive conclusions, calls for review by an archaeologist and does not map areas of high potential in a clear way.
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies remain concerned that, in the absence of new information in the State Party report, the property is still under continuing high levels of threat to its Outstanding Universal Value arising from highway construction plans, the continuing urbanization, and the lack of an effective management system, all identified in the 2009 mission. They believe that the need for a defined recovery programme is still crucial and that the State Party should be encouraged to invite the joint mission proposed by the world heritage comette center at its 33rd session as a matter of urgency.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2010
34 COM 7B.57
Tyre (Lebanon) (C 299)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.63 adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),
3. Remains concerned by the threats from the highway construction plans, continuing urbanization and the lack of an effective management system;
4. Regrets that the recommendations of the 2009 joint reactive monitoring mission have not been reviewed, commented or responded to in the State Party report;
5. Urges the State Party to implement the recommendations of the 2009 mission report, and in particular the development of a comprehensive management plan with adequate financial and human resources, the extension of the building ban, the formal establishment of the maritime protection zone, and the adequate archaeological impact assessment of the planned highway;
6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS monitoring mission to the property to help the State Party develop a recovery programme to address the key issues identified by the 2009 report and the previous requests of the World Heritage Committee;
7. 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 and progress made in preparing a recovery programme, as set out above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.
34 COM 8D
Clarifications of property boundaries and areas by States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/8D,
2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 8D, adopted at its 33th session (Seville, 2009);
3. Congratulates States Parties in the Europe Region and the States Parties of Algeria, Lebanon and Tunisia on the excellent work accomplished in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;
5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in the European and Arab Regions in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-10/34.COM/8D:
- Algeria: Al Qal'a of Beni Hammad; Djémila;
- Georgia: Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery;
- Greece: Paleochristian and Byzantine Monuments of Thessaloniki; Pythagoreion and Heraion of Samos; Archaeological Site of Aigai (modern name Vergina);
- Holy See/Italy: Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See in that City enjoying Extraterritorial Rights and San Paolo Fuori le Mura;
- Lebanon: Tyre;
- Malta: City of Valletta;
- Netherlands: Historic Area of Willemstad, Inner City and Harbour, Netherlands Antilles; Ir. D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station);
- Romania: Villages with Fortified Churches in Transylvania; Monastery of Horezu; Churches of Moldavia;
- Serbia: Stari Ras and Sopoćani; Studenica Monastery;
- Tunisia: Medina of Tunis; Amphitheatre of El Jem; Punic Town of Kerkuane and its Necropolis; Medina of Sousse; Kairouan;
- Turkey: Historic Areas of Istanbul; Hierapolis-Pamukkale; City of Safranbolu.
6. Requests the European and Arab States Parties, which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory, to provide all requested clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 April 2011 at the latest.
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 7B.57
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7B.63 adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),
3. Remains concerned by the threats from the highway construction plans, continuing urbanization and the lack of an effective management system;
4. Regrets that the recommendations of the 2009 joint reactive monitoring mission have not been reviewed, commented or responded to in the State Party report;
5. Urges the State Party to implement the recommendations of the 2009 mission report, and in particular the development of a comprehensive management plan with adequate financial and human resources, the extension of the building ban, the formal establishment of the maritime protection zone, and the adequate archaeological impact assessment of the planned highway;
6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS monitoring mission to the property to help the State Party develop a recovery programme to address the key issues identified by the 2009 report and the previous requests of the World Heritage Committee;
7. 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 and progress made in preparing a recovery programme, as set out above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.
* :
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.