X hits on this document

663 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

104 / 206

Previous monitoring missions 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

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

  • a)

    Major, and often illegal, urban development;

  • b)

    Major highway development near the property and the redevelopment of the port

  • c)

    Unplanned tourism development;

  • d)

    Lack of management and conservation plans;

  • e)

    Insufficient maintenance.

Illustrative material http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/299

Current conservation issues

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.

State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add, p. 104

Document info
Document views663
Page views663
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 12:27:03 UTC 2016
Pages206
Paragraphs4734
Words99190

Comments