Byblos
Factors affecting the property in 2001*
- Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Projet to expand the port (issue resolved)
- Need for a Management Plan and a Master Plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2001
Total amount approved : 10,000 USD
| 1999 | Seminar on Byblos at Delft University of Technology ... (Approved) | 10,000 USD |
Missions to the property until 2001**
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2001
Previous deliberations:
Twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau (paragraph number I.40)
Main issues: Need for coordination; boundaries need reconsideration
New information:
The proceedings of the November 1999 Seminar held in Byblos (Delft University of Technology, Lebanese American University, WHC), organized further to the first Seminar held at the Delft University in April 1999, have been made public in April 2001.
The document contains specific and detailed recommendations for actions in favour of the conservation and management of Byblos. More in general, the 1999 Seminars recommend that 1) a Master Plan for Byblos at city and regional scale be urgently prepared, with specific legal and administrative provisions for its implementation, and that 2) the boundaries of the World heritage site and buffer zone be reconsidered, taking into account the results of the on-going investigations of the marine and coastal areas.
At the same time, the large on-going World Bank Cultural Heritage Project, involving Byblos, has started its operations, and terms of reference for the first contracts have been already elaborated. The project foresees site conservation, urban infrastructure improvements, and capacity building components in favour of the Directorate General of Antiquities (DGA), Ministry of Tourism (MOT) and the Municipalities.
Action Required
The Bureau recommends that the results of both Seminars organized in 1999 by the WHC and the Delft University be disseminated and discussed among the concerned parties (DGA, MOT, Municipality of Byblos, World Bank Project). The Bureau stresses the need to take into account the findings of the above-mentioned seminars in defining the scope of the World Bank project’s activities, which should be considered as an extraordinary opportunity to implement a coherent and sustainable management policy at the site.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2001
25 BUR V.216-219
Byblos (Lebanon)
V.216 The Secretariat informed the Bureau on the recommendations made during the Workshop organized in November 1999 by the Centre, the Delft University and the Lebanese American University. This Workshop was held further to another workshop organized by the same bodies and held in April 1999, and its proceedings were made public only recently (April 2001).
V.217 The attention of the Bureau was drawn to the need that these recommendations be carefully evaluated and taken into account by the concerned Lebanese authorities in view of the safeguarding of the site, with special regard to the possibility of expanding the buffer zone of the World Heritage site, including the two beaches to the North and South of the historic city, thus preventing any unwanted urban developments.
V.218 The Bureau noted that a large cultural heritage project is being implemented by the World Bank, which should be considered as an extraordinary opportunity to implement a coherent and sustainable management policy at the site.
V.219 ICOMOS supported the recommendations made by the two workshops and informed the Bureau that a technical mission is due to visit Byblos in August 2001. The Bureau recommended that the results of both workshops organized in 1999 be disseminated and discussed among the concerned parties (DGA, MOT, the Municipality of Byblos, World Bank Project). The Bureau stressed the importance of considering the findings of the above-mentioned workshops when defining the scope of the World Bank project’s activities.
LebanonExports
* :
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.
