<
 
 
 
 
×
>
You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) using Archive-It. This page was captured on 07:48:13 Apr 04, 2023, and is part of the UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page.
Loading media information hide

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

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

Ichkeul National Park

Tunisia
Factors affecting the property in 1985*
  • Air pollution
  • Livestock farming / grazing of domesticated animals
  • Subsistence hunting
  • Water (rain/water table)
  • Water infrastructure
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1985
Requests approved: 1 (from 1981-1981)
Total amount approved : 30,000 USD
1981 Study on Ichkeul National Park (Approved)   30,000 USD
Missions to the property until 1985**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1985

[Oral report]

The critical situation of this park, as reported to the Bureau at its 9th session (see text below) had not altered and IUCN noted that if compensatory measures to re-establish the water regime of this Park were not taken very soon, the property would lose its international importance for migratory wildfowl.

 

---------------------------------------

9BUR: The Bureau was informed that this internationally important wetland site is subject to a number of threats, including air and water pollution, grazing by domestic stock and hunting, but a large water resource development project may result in very significant impacts on the integrity of the area. The scheme calls for the construction of dams on all six rivers that feed the Ichkeul wetland. The plan is now underway with one dam completed and another in the process of filling. This diversion of freshwater will take about 75% of the inflow to the park which will lose its ability to support the vast numbers of wintering waterfowl for which it is now famous. Compensatory management schemes include a sluice but costs are very high and no formal decisions have been made. To exacerbate the problem, it has been reported that the budget for the park has been reduced from $18,000 in 1984 to $ 7, 000 in 1985. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to contact the Tunisian authorities to initiate the process for inscription on the list of World Heritage in Danger.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1985

IUCN therefore strongly recommended the inclusion of this Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Tunisian authorities had not responded to the Secretariat's request for further information, however, the representative of Tunisia informed the Committee that he would take up this matter at the highest level and he would inform the Secretariat and IUCN of the results of this enquiry.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1985
9 COM XIII.B
SOC: Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia: The critical situation of this park, as reported to the Bureau at its 9th session had not altered and IUCN noted that if compensatory measures to re-establish the water regime of this Park were not taken very soon, the property would lose its international importance for migratory wildfowl. IUCN therefore strongly recommended the inclusion of this Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Tunisian authorities had not responded to the Secretariat's request for further information, however, the representative of Tunisia informed the Committee that he would take up this matter at the highest level and he would inform the Secretariat and IUCN of the results of this enquiry.

No draft decision proposed

Report year: 1985
Tunisia
Date of Inscription: 1980
Category: Natural
Criteria: (x)
Danger List (dates): 1996-2006
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 09COM (1985)
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