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

Sangiran Early Man Site

Indonesia
Factors affecting the property in 2009*
  • Housing
  • Interpretative and visitation facilities
  • Management systems/ management plan
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

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2009
Requests approved: 3 (from 1998-2005)
Total amount approved : 40,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2009**

September 2006: UNESCO expert mission; January-February 2008: joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2009

At its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008), the World Heritage Committee urged the State Party to give full consideration to implementing the recommendations of the joint UNESCO/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission which had visited the property from 28 January to 3 February 2008. These were to:

  1. Put in place effective operational planning for the next stage of the Master Plan;
  2. Develop a conservation plan and establish applied conservation research prior to physical intervention;
  3. Establish the authority of the site manager to control development within the World Heritage Area;
  4. Create a full-time Director position at the appropriate level;
  5. Ongoing involvement of the residents as key stakeholders of the site;
  6. Set up archaeological and socio-cultural cultural impact procedures for development;
  7. Sustain the local cultural heritage which augments the Outstanding Universal Value;
  8. Interpretation on the site with minimal physical intervention;
  9. Involvement of the local population;
  10. Development of tourism-based rural industry.
  11. l>

    The mission was particularly concerned that effective operational planning for the next stage of the Master Plan should be completed as a matter of urgency in order to avoid further uncoordinated development and management of funds and to achieve systematic development of the conservation and interpretation strategies for the property.

    The State Party submitted a report on the above issues on 30 January 2009, outlining progress as follows:

    a) Operational Policies for the management plan

    The State Party report indicates that cooperation among the various government agencies is already taking place under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and that a follow-up Agreement was currently being drafted to define the authority and responsibility of the various institutions under the MoU, as well as the financial responsibility. The response clarified that the property conservation and interpretation are the responsibility of the Central Government and are incorporated in the Master Plan (policy) and the Detail Engineering Design (DED) (implementation) and that these two documents provide the framework in which conservation, site concept development and creation of the visitor centre are being carried out.

    b) Resources for the Conservation office

    The report states that from 2009 the Conservation Office (BPSMP) has secured independent funds to support its work of conserving the property and interpreting it to the public. The report also outlined existing strategies for conservation, community empowerment, land use regulation, interpretation and visitor management, as well as proposed coordination of research activities, including social research, within the framework of the Master Plan and DED. The State Party agrees that the values statement in the Master Plan should be augmented by the recognition of the cultural heritage value of the traditional wood and bamboo architecture, lifestyle, and folk arts and practices of the local community.

    The response also advised that, from early 2008, the Indonesian Central Government has been making concerted efforts with the Regional Government (both Provincial and Regency) to conserve and develop the property within the context of cultural tourism. This includes drawing up construction plans for a visitor centre at Krikilan and open site museums at Ngebung, Bukuran and Dayu. These open site museums, being non-permanent buildings, integrated with nature and requiring no new roads, will be in conformity with the mission’s recommendation that physical interventions be minimal. The State Party sees the local people’s economic interests being best served through the encouragement of appropriate tourism industrial activities, such as the making of souvenirs, but it advises that the local government is endeavouring to provide tax holidays on land and buildings in the sites and providing training programs to enhance the local community’s skills. It suggests that it will support the development of a strategy for tourist industry development in support of the Master Plan and community development and also a pilot project to provide clean home stay facilities.

    The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note the progress made in relation to developing operational policies for the management plan and ensuring funding for the Conservation Office, but note that several aspects of the reactive monitoring mission’s recommendations, such as ensuring the authority of the site manager to control development through appropriate land-use regulations, the setting up of archaeological and socio-cultural impact procedures for development, and the involvement of the residents as key stakeholders of the property, were not addressed.

    In the framework of the forthcoming periodic reporting exercise for the Asia Pacific region, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will provide assistance to the State Party in developing the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the property.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2009
33 COM 7B.72
Sangiran Early Man Site (Indonesia) (C 593)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 7B.71, adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),

3. Expresses its satisfaction regarding the progress made by the State Party in implementing some recommendations of the 2008 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission;

4. Urges the State Party to give full consideration to implementing the remaining recommendations of the 2008 mission, in particular:

a) Ensuring the authority of the site manager to control development through appropriate land-use regulations,

b) Setting up of archaeological and socio-cultural impact procedures for development, and

c) Involving the residents as key stakeholders of the property;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a progress report on the above issues, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

Draft Decision: 33 COM 7B.72

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B,

2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 7B.71, adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),

3. Expresses its satisfaction regarding the progress made by the State Party in implementing some recommendations of the 2008 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission;

4. Urges the State Party to give full consideration to implementing the remaining recommendations of the 2008 mission, in particular:

a) Ensuring the authority of the site manager to control development through appropriate land-use regulations,

b) Setting up of archaeological and socio-cultural impact procedures for development, and

c) Involving the residents as key stakeholders of the property;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, a progress report on the above issues, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

Report year: 2009
Indonesia
Date of Inscription: 1996
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(vi)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 33COM (2009)
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