ANNEX I / ANNEXE I
BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Vingt-deuxième session / Twenty-second session
Paris, Siège de l'UNESCO, Salle X (Fontenoy)
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)
22-27 juin 1998 / 22-27 June 1998
_________
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
_________
I. ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU/STATES MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU
BENIN S. Exc. M. Nouréini TIDJANI-SERPOS Ambassadeur Délégué permanent du Bénin auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO M. Jules BOCCO Directeur du patrimoine culturel Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication B.P. 120 COTONOU M. ALADJI SYLLA BONI Alioune Directeur des Forêts et Ressources naturelles Ministère du Développement rural B.P. 393 COTONOU Mr Isidore MONSI Premier Conseiller Délégation permanente du Bénin auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO EQUATEUR/ ECUADOR H. Exc. Mr Abelardo POSSO-SERRANO Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs Av. 10 Agusto y Carrion QUITO Mr Hernan GUARDERAS Director Cultural Heritage National Institute M. Mauricio MONTALVO Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente de l'Equateur auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO M. Galo GALARZA Ministre Ministère des Affaires étrangères Ambassade de l'Equateur 34, avenue de Messine 75008 Paris ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Ms Karen T. KOVACS Counselor to the Assistant Secretary Fish and Wildlife and Parks United States Department of the Interior 1849 C ST. N.W, WASHINGTON DC 20240 Mr William McILHENNY United States Observer to UNESCO United States Embassy 2, avenue Gabriel 75008 PARIS Mr John J. REYNOLDS Regional Director Pacific West Region National Park Service 600 Harrison Street Suite 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 Mr James H. CHARLETON International Cooperation Specialist (Culture) U.S. National Park Service 1849 C ST., NW WASHINGTON DC 20240 ITALIE/ ITALY Mr Francesco FRANCIONI Président du Comité du patrimoine mondial Professeur de Droit international Université de Sienne Piazza San Francisco 53100 SIENA H. Exc. Mr Gabriele SARDO Ambassadeur Délégué permanent Délégation permanente de l'Italie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Giovanni ARMENTO Attaché pour les affaires financières et adminsitratives Délégation permanente de l'Italie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Lucia FIORI Conseiller Direction générale des relations culturelles Ministère des Affaires étrangères ROME Mrs Margherita SABATINI Attachée au Secteur UNESCO Direction générale des Affaires culturelles Ministère des Affaires étrangères ROME Mr Bruno MALARA Surintendant pour les Biens architecturaux du Piémont Mme Licia BORELLI VLAD Vice-Président du Comité Culture Commission nationale italienne pour l'UNESCO Mme Marina MISITANO Délégation permanente de l'Italie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Stefano De Caro Consultant scientifique Surintendant archéologique de Naples NAPLES JAPON/ JAPAN H. Exc. Mr Koichiro MATSUURA Ambassador to France Embassy of Japan 7, avenue Hoche 75008 PARIS Mr Yasukuni ENOKI Director-General Cultural Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Mr Yuichi ISHII Director Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division Cultural Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Mr Takahiro OKAMOTO Official Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division Cultural Affairs Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Mr Tomoyuki ONO Attaché Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO UNESCO House Mr Hiroshi SOUWAKI Director Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Mr Makoto MOTONAKA Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Monuments and Sites Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Dr Nobuko INABA Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties Architecture Division Cultural Properties Protection Department Agency for Cultural Affairs 3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Mr Naohisa OKUDA Assistant Director Planning Division Nature Conservation Bureau Environment Agency 1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku TOKYO 100 Ms Kumiko YONEDA Research Staff Japan Wildlife Research Center 2-29-3 Yushima, bunkyo-Ku TOKYO 113-0034 Mrs Keiko YAMADA Troisième Secrétaire de la Mission du Japon auprès de l'Union européenne Ministère des affaires étrangères C/o Mission du Japon auprès de l'Union européenne 5-6, Square de Meeus B-1000 BRUXELLES LIBAN/ LEBANON M. Camille ASMAR Directeur général des Antiquités Direction générale des Antiquités Musée National BEYROUTH Mr Noel FATTAL Conseiller Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente du Liban auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Roger SAYAH Ingénieur Expert pour le patrimoine naturel Ministère de l'Environnement BP 70-1091 ANTELIAS Mme Agnès ROUSSEAU Consultant UNESCO Direction générale des Antiquités Musée National BEYROUTH MAROC/ MOROCCO Mr Abdelaziz TOURI Directeur Direction du patrimoine culturel 17, rue Michlifen, Agdal RABAT Mr Abdelmalk BENABID Professeur - Enseignant Chercheur Ecole Nationale Forestière d'Ingénieurs de Salé Expert pour le patrimoine naturel BP 511 Tabriquet 11000 SALE Mr Salah-Eddine EL HONSALI Conseiller Délégation permanente du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO II. ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF/ ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES/ INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN Secretary-General 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 PARIS Mme Carmen AÑON FELIU Member of the Executive Committee Puerto Santamaria 49 MADRID 28043 Mr Leo van NISPEN Acting Director 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 PARIS Dr Henry CLEERE World Heritage Co-ordinator 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 PARIS Ms Regina DURIGHELLO Assistant World Heritage Coordinator 49-51 rue de la Fédération 75015 PARIS Mr Joseph PHARES Vice-Président 119, avenue Victor Hugo 75116 PARIS UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN)/ THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN) Dr James THORSELL Head - Natural Heritage Programme Rue Mauverney, 28 CH-1196 GLAND Switzerland Mr P.H.C. LUCAS Vice-Chair World Heritage World Commission on Protected Areas 1/268 Main Road Tawa WELLINGTON 6006 New Zealand Mr David SHEPPARD Head Programme on Protected Areas Rue Mauverney, 28 CH 1196 GLAND Switzerland Mr Jeremy HARRISON World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road CAMBRIDGE CB3 ODL United Kingdom
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)/
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY
Dr Jukka JOKILEHTO Chief Assistant to the Director-General ROME, Italy Via di San Michele 13, 00153 ROME, Italy Mr Joseph KING Programme Officer Africa 2009 Programme Via di S. Michele, 13 00153 ROME, Italy III. OBSERVATEURS/OBSERVERS AFRIQUE DU SUD/ SOUTH AFRICA Dr Tanya ABAHAMSE Deputy Director General Departement of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Mr Makgolo MAKGOLO Assistant Director Cultural Ressource Management Departement of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Ms Bulelwa MBANGU Environmental Officer Cultural Ressources Management Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Ms Laura ROBINSON Regional Manager Western Cape National Monuments Council P.O. Box 4637 Cape Town Mr Devandhran MOODLEY Third Secretary South African Embassy 59, quai d'Orsay 75343 PARIS Cedex 07 ALLEMAGNE /GERMANY H. Exc. M. Christoph DERIX Ambassador Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of Germany to UNESCO UNESCO House Dr Hans CASPARY Conservator of Historic Monuments Landesamt fur Denkmalpflege Rheinland-Pfalz Gottelmannstrasse 17 D-55130 MAINZ Mr Hendrik WASSERMANN Federal Foreign Office Adenauerallee 86 Postfach 1148 51113 BONN ARGENTINE/ ARGENTINA Ms Maria Susana PATARO Ministre Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente de l'Argentine auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Ariel Walter GONZALEZ Délégation permanente de l'Argentine auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO AUSTRALIE/ AUSTRALIA Ms Sharon SULLIVAN Head Australian and World Heritage Group Environment Australia GPO Box 787 CANBERRA ACT 2601 Dr Peter BRIDGEWATER Chief Science Adviser Environment Australia Environment Australia P.O. Box E 305 Kingston Act. 2604 Mr David WALKER Deputy Permanent Delegate Australian Permanent Delegation 4, rue Jean Rey 75015 PARIS AUTRICHE/ AUSTRIA Mr Hans HORCICKA Director Federal Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs Minoritenplatz 5 A-1014 VIENNA BELGIQUE/ BELGIUM Mme Bénédicte SELFSLAGH Relations avec les organisations internationales Division du patrimoine Direction générale de l'Aménagement du territoire, du logement et du patrimoine Ministère de la Région wallonne Rue des Brigades d'Irlande, 1 B-5100 JAMBES Mme Gislaine DEVILLERS Directrice de la Protection Division du patrimoine Direction générale de l'Aménagement du territoire, du logement et du patrimoine Ministère de la Région wallonne Rue des Brigades d'Irlande, 1 B-5100 JAMBES Mr E. GOEDLEVEN Chef de Division Département de l'Environnement et des Infrastructures Administration de l'Aménagement du territoire, du logement, des monuments et sites Mme S. VAN AARSCHOT Directeur Département de l'Environnement et des Infrastructures Administration de l'Aménagement du territoire, du logement, des monuments et sites BOLIVIE/ BOLIVIA M. Eduardo LORINI TAPIA Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente de Bolivie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO M. Fernando LAREDO Membre suppléant au Conseil éxécutif BRESIL/ BRAZIL M. Ricardo Alonso BASTOS Premier Secrétaire Délégation permanente du Brésil auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO CAMEROUN/ CAMEROON M. Charles ASSAMBA ONGODO Deuxième Secrétaire Délégation permanente du Cameroun auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO CANADA Dr Christina CAMERON Director General National Historic Sites Parks Canada Department of Canadian Heritage 25 Eddy Street HULL - Quebec KIA OM5 Mme Gisèle CANTIN Affaire internationale Parcs Canada Ministère du patrimoine canadien 25 rue Eddy HULL - Quebec KIA OM5 Mr John PINKERTON Analyst, National Park Directorate Parks Canada Department of Canadian Heritage 25 Eddy St, 4th Floor Hull HULL -Quebec KIA 0M5 Mr Sean MOORE Attaché administratif Délégation permanente du Canada auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO CHINE/ CHINA Mr Liu Tong GENG Associate Research Fellow Municipal Bureau of Gardens and Parks BEIJING Mr KONG Fanzhi Deputy Director Beijing Municipal Bureau of Parks & Gardens BEIJING Ms YAO An Engineer Beijing Municipal Bureau of Parks & Gardens BEIJING Ms YU Xiaoping Program officer Chinese National Commission for UNESCO BEIJING Mr Jianping TIAN First Secretary Permanent Delegation of China to UNESCO UNESCO House COLOMBIE/ COLOMBIA Mlle Marcela ORDOÑEZ Deuxième Secrétaire Délégation permanente de la Colombie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO COSTA RICA Mme Iris LEIVA-BILLAULT Ambassadeur Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Gabriela CASTILLO GARCIA Ministre conseiller Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO CUBA Mme Marta ARJONA PEREZ Presidenta del Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural Ministerio de Cultura LA HABANA ESPAGNE/ SPAIN S. Exc. M. Jesus EZQUERRA Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire Délégué permanent Délégation permanente de l'Espagne auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Clara BARREIRO Conseiller (Education) Délégation permanente de l'Espagne auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO FEDERATION DE RUSSIE/ RUSSIAN FEDERATION Mme Olga IVANOVA Conseiller Délégation permanente de la Fédération de Russie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Ivan BLOKOV Directeur Succursale de "Greenpeace" Moscou FINLANDE/FINLAND Mr Henrik LILIUS Director-General National Board of Antiquities FRANCE Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Françoise BERCE Conservateur en chef du patrimoine Ministère de la Culture 3, rue de Valois 75001 PARIS Mme Aimée DUBOS Adjoint du Sous-Directeur des monuments historiques Ministre de la Culture 3, rue de Valois 75001 PARIS Mme DUMENIL Commission de la République française pour l'éducation, la science et la culture 36, rue La Pérouse 75775 PARIS Cedex 16 GRECE/ GREECE Mme Eleni METHODIOU Conseiller pour la culture Délégation de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Yannis TZEDAKIS Director of Antiquities Ministry of Culture 20-22 Bouboulina St Athens GUATEMALA Mr Juan MENDOZA ROSALES Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente du Guatemala auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO HONGRIE/ HUNGARY M. Zoltan SZILASSY Directeur Ministère de la Protection de l'Environnement et du Développement du Territoire H-1121 Költo u 21 1121 BUDAPEST M. Tamas FEJERDI Directeur du Comité National Hongrois pour l'ICOMOS-Hongrie BUDAPEST M. Jeno UJVARI Adjoint au Maire de la ville de Pecs M. Béla KOVACSI Conseiller Ministère de la Protection de l'Environnement et du Développement du Territoire H-1121 Költo u 21 1121 BUDAPEST INDE/ INDIA H. Exc. Mr Chiranjiv SINGH Ambassador Permanent Representative of India to UNESCO UNESCO House Mr Gauri Shankar GUPTA Councellor Deputy Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO UNESCO House Mr RAM DUTT Second Secretary Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO UNESCO House IRAN (REPUBLIQUE ISLAMIQUE D')/ IRAN (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF) H. Exc. Mr A. JALALI Ambassador Permanent Delegate Permanent Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UNESCO UNESCO House Mr Reza BAYEGAN Education specialist Permanent Delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran to UNESCO UNESCO House MEXIQUE/ MEXICO Mr Francisco LOPEZ-MORALES Subdirector INAH National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) CORDOBA # 45, Col. Roma 04700 MEXICO D.F. NIGER M. Amadore TCHEKO Délégué permanent Délégation permanente du Niger auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO NOUVELLE ZELANDE/ NEW ZEALAND Mme Mary OLIVER Deputy Permanent Delegate First Secretary New Zealand Embassy 7 ter, rue Léonard de Vinci 75016 PARIS Mme Elspeth WINSHAM 228 Sunrise Valley Road R.D.1, Upper Moutere NELSON PANAMA Mr Jorge PATIÑO Troisième secrétaire Délégation permanente du Panama auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO PAYS BAS/ NETHERLANDS Mr Robert DE JONG Coordinator World Heritage State Department for Conservation President ICOMOS - IFLA Committee P.O. Box 1001 3700 BA ZEIST PEROU/ PERU S. Exc. Maria Luisa FEDERICI SOTO Ambassadeur Délégué permanent Délégation permanente du Pérou auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO M. Carlos M. VELASCO MENDIOLA Ministre Conseiller Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente du Pérou auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Carlos VASQUEZ Premier Secrétaire Délégation permanente du Pérou auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mr Luis ALFARO LOZANO Director General de Areas naturales Protegidas y Fauna Silvestre del INRENA Mrs Elva GOMEZ ROMERO Directora General de Medio Ambiente Rural PHILIPPINES Ms Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO First Secretary Délégation permanente des Philippines auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO POLOGNE/ POLAND Prof. Andrzej TOMASZEWSKI Directeur général du patrimoine Ministère de la Culture Ksawerow 13 VASORVIE PORTUGAL S. Exc. M. Jorge RITTO Ambassadeur Délégué permanent Délégation permanente du Portugal auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Maria Manuel DURAO Délégué permanent adjoint Délégation permanente du Portugal auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Prof. J. ZILHAO Directeur Institut Portugais d'Archéologie Av. Da India,136 P-1300 LISBOA REPUBLIQUE SLOVAQUE / SLOVAK REPUBLIC Mr Jozef KLINDA Head of the Environmental Conception, Law and Organisation Division Ministry of the Environment BRATISLAVA Mr Kamil VILINOVIC Specialist Envrionmental Conceptions and Planning Department Ministry of the Environment BRATISLAVA Mrs Adriana KLINDOVA Assistant Ministry of Environment BRATISLAVA Mr Jozef HLAVAC Director Administration Slovak Show Caves Ministry of Environment BRATISLAVA Mr Peter HRONZAK Director National Park Slovak Paradise Ministry of Environment REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE/ CZECH REPUBLIC M. Michal BENES Secrétaire pour les Affaires culturelles Ministère de la Culture Hilaay Horakové 139 16041 PRAHA Mr Josef STULC Director State Institute for the Protection of Monuments Valdstejnske 3, 118 PRAGUE 1 ROYAUME UNI/ UNITED KINGDOM Mr Nigel PITTMAN Head of Buildings Monuments & Sites Division Department for culture, Media & Sport 2-4, Cockspur Street LONDON SWIY 5DH Ms Hilary IZON Deputy Observer Embassy of Great Britain 35, rue du Faubourg St Honoré 75383 PARIS Cedex 08 SAINTE LUCIE/ SAINT LUCIA Ms Vera LACOEUILHE Premier Secrétaire Délégation de Sainte Lucie auprès de l'UNESCO 21 bis, avenue d'Iéna 75116 PARIS SUEDE/ SWEDEN Ms Birgitta HOBERG Director National Heritage Board P.O. Box 5405 STOCKHOLM Mr Per-Arne ANDREASSON Deputy Governor County Administration of Blekinge KARLSKRONA Mr Leiph STENHOLM County Antiquarian County of Blekinge KARLSKRONA Mr Björn FRIES Municipal Commissioner KARLSKRONA THAILANDE/ THAILAND Dr Adul WICHIENCHAROEN Chairman National Committee on the Convention for Protection of the World Heritage Council of State, Chief of Div. II BANGKOK Mr Manit SIRIWAN Secretary National Committee on the Convention for Protection of World Heritage BANGKOK Mrs Siriporn NANTA Environmental Official Office of Environmental Policy and Planning BANGKOK TUNISIE/TUNISIA S. Exc. M. Mongi BOUSNINA Ambassadeur Délégué permanent Délégation permanente de la Tunisie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Dhouha BOUKHRIS Premier Secrétaire Délégation permanente de la Tunisie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO Mme Amissa BARRAK Attaché culturel Délégation permanente de la Tunisie auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO M. Jamel THLIBI Sous-Directeur des études et projets Agence nationale de protection de l'environnement 12, rue du Cameroun BP 52 TUNIS VENEZUELA Mme C. ENGELBRECHT Deuxième secrétaire Délégation permanente du Venezuela auprès de l'UNESCO Maison de l'UNESCO IV. AUTRES OBSERVATEURS ADMIS AU VINGT DEUXIEME SESSION DU BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL/ OTHER OBSERVERS ADMITTED TO THE TWENTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU Ms Jacqui KATONA Executive Officer Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Australia Ms Yvonne MARGARULA Senior Traditional Owner Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation Australia Mr Alec MARR National Campaign Director The Wilderness Society P.O. Box 188 Civic Square ACT 2608, Australia V. UNESCO SECRETARIAT Mr Adnan BADRAN Deputy Director-General Ms Lourdes ARIZPE Assistant Director-General for Culture WHC Mr Bernd von DROSTE Director Mr Georges ZOUAIN Deputy Director Ms Minja YANG Ms Galia SAOUMA-FORERO Ms. Elizabeth WANGARI Mr Herman VAN HOOFF Mr Natarajan ISHWARAN Ms Mechtild RÖSSLER Ms Josette ERFAN Ms Sarah TITCHEN Ms Junko TANIGUCHI Ms Vesna VUJICIC-LUGASSY Mr Masayuki MORI Ms Margareta KARLSSON Mr Peter STRASSER Ms Sabrine SAMADY Mr Peter STOTT Mr Carlos ROMERO Ms Jane DEGEORGES Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU Mr David MARTEL Ms Marianne RAABE Ms. Claire SERVOZ CLT/CH Mr H. CRESPO-TORAL Principal Director Mr M. BOUCHENAKI Director Mr Azedine BESCHAOUCH Chargé de Mission Ms Lyndel PROTT Chief of Section Mr Laurent LEVI-STRAUSS Mr Etienne CLEMENT Ms Ana DUMITRESCU Ms Anne LEMAISTRE Ms Anna PAOLINI SC/ECO Ms Jane ROBERTSON Mrs Mireille JARDIN Mr Sami MANKOTO Mr Thomas SCHAAF LA Mr Daniel DE SAN Assistant to the Director BRX/ICP Mme M. BRIGAUD-ROBERT CII/INF Mr Abdelaziz ABID Information and Informatics Division
SPEECH BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR UNESCO,
Mr ADNAN BADRAN
Mr Chairman, Prof. Francisco Francioni, Members of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, your Excellencies, Distinguished Permanent Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wish to welcome you to the Bureau meeting on behalf of Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO. I have been following and representing the Director-General in many of your meetings. As a matter fact, the first meeting of the World Heritage Committee I have attended was in Cartagena, and since Cartagena, to Phuket, to Naples, I have been following with interest your work, the growth of the World Heritage List. As a matter fact, I have been following how the World Heritage Centre was born. It was between the Sector of Culture and the Sector of Science, where natural sites were done under Science and cultural sites were done under the Sector of Culture and I have participated fully with Mr Lopes at that time in formulating a Steering Committee to co-ordinate our work when I was ADG/SC.
Ms Arizpe, the ADG/CLT followed also, co-chairing with me the Steering Committee to follow the same path for creating the World Heritage Centre. The growth of the heritage sites has been commendable: 552 sites now; I remember the figure when I came in the early 90s to UNESCO, in fact 1990, it was about 200 or less. I think the work your Committee has done is commendable. You have really steadily done a lot of work to preserve the World Heritage of the humanity - on behalf of the Director-General, I do thank everyone of you for the efforts you have done in making the World Heritage List very well-known, visible and many of them have been restored and many of them always examined by your Bureau, to watch, to be the eye of the world of the humanity if anything goes wrong, to mobilise the opinion of the international community. Obviously we don't have force to prevent, only building world opinion. The Parties, States Parties to the Convention, obviously have done a remarkable job in bringing the 552 sites already inscribed on the World Heritage List.
However, with the growth of sites and the growth of the work, more challenges are foreseen. More challenges ahead of us, with limited means, and probably the most challenging is to innovate. How to do more with less resources. Do we continue to grow? Is there a danger of losing control or is there a limit to this growth. If there is a limit, how to increase the ways and means to cope with such a growth.
Today for example, you have to review in your meetings the status of 18 of the 25 most threatened sites included in the List of World Heritage which are endangered. As usual, your recommendations will be very important to us all. This brings me to the challenge of globalisation. Globalisation brings with it market oriented policies, brings with it privatisation, brings with it also less government. It is extremely important to look into the future and to see where do we fit in this transition of change which is taking place very rapidly. How to continue our work and become more effective in a changing world.
One point which is very important is how to monitor and assess continuously the 552 World Heritage sites in place using the information network, how to up date this information network when the information becomes available to every State Party to the Convention. How to accommodate development in a world which is moving very quickly into market economy. How to safeguard those monuments where many are used increasingly for cultural tourism; and how to strike a balance between economics, cultural tourism and safeguarding the World Heritage sites, which represent the memory of the world, about its civilisation. Let us remember we are not after preserving dead cities as monuments. We are not after isolating Heritage sites away from the public, but we are after inviting the public to share and care with us as partners to develop ways and means to restore and to preserve and to disseminate. I think it is extremely important, not only to increase the government participation, but it is important to look for new partners. To look for partners who have the same objectives, and the same goals. The job is big and getting bigger, and we have to stand firm, otherwise future generations will never forgive us for the opportunities we have missed. We have now to develop and restore those World Heritage sites, the memory imprinted physically on the work of humanity and nature.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Ms Arizpe and myself will be leaving you this year. This is our last meeting with you. I have invited Ms Arizpe to say, also, a few words before her departure. Mr von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre, will join us also in leaving the Organization at a later stage. I think it is extremely important at this time, to share with you our experience. Complementarity between the World Heritage Centre and the Sectors of Science and Culture (Biosphere Reserves and cultural sites) has to be strengthened. It is extremely important to develop complimentarity, but also to encourage co-operation among sectors to serve Member States.
The World Heritage Centre is a jewel programme in the crown of the UNESCO C/5. It should grow and be safeguarded in terms of identity, and of autonomy, under the World Heritage Committee. It should continue, in terms of identity and complementarity with other sectors. We are leaving this message to you for your future work at the World Heritage Committee.
In their recognition of UNESCO's role in the protection of World Heritage I am pleased to announce also that the staffing of the World Heritage Centre has finally been completed. Eight posts have been regularised in the Centre in accordance with the agreement reached in 1996 between the Director-General and the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. All vacant posts in the Centre have now been filled. Not a single vacant post exists any more.
As a matter fact, I have requested Mr von Droste recently what else we have to do to further strengthen the World Heritage Centre. He told me that as far as staff was concerned, there is no complaint any more. But he asked for more space in the Japanese Garden building. I have already requested ADG/MA to make space available for newly appointed staff.
Finally, on behalf of the Director-General, I wish you a very successful meeting. I do thank you for your attention.
ANNEX III
DISCOURS DE Mme LOURDES ARIZPE,
SOUS-DIRECTEUR GENERAL POUR LA CULTURE
Monsieur le Président,
Monsieur le Rapporteur,
Mesdames et Messieurs les Délégués et Observateurs,
Excellences,
Chers collègues,
Cette année 1998 nous apparaît à tous comme propice à la réflexion, au bilan, et à la prospective.
Le 25e anniversaire de la Convention du patrimoine mondial vient de s'achever, marqué par diverses manifestations, tandis que la lle Assemblée générale des Etats parties à la Convention et la 29e Conférence générale de l'UNESCO se sont tenues il y a juste six mois, et ont pris des décisions importantes, en particulier en ce qui concerne le suivi de l'état de conservation des sites inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Mais aussi, et cela, je crois, aura son importance, des changements de personne, dans ceux qui ont la charge de veiller aux destinées du Centre du patrimoine mondial, vont se produire dans les six prochains mois: mon propre départ, en tant que Sous-Directeur général pour la culture, et Présidente du Comité directeur du Centre, et, à la fin de l'année, celui du Directeur du Centre lui-même.
Que peut-on souhaiter dans 1'avenir, pour améliorer le fonctionnement du Centre, et, à travers lui, de la Convention du patrimoine elle-même?
Depuis que j'ai pris mes fonctions à l'UNESCO, les questions qui se sont posées me sont apparues récurrentes, années après années, et l'examen des documents de travail préparés par le Secrétariat pour cette 22e session du Bureau me semble les reproduire, une fois encore.
1. Vous allez étudier, au cours de cette semaine, les conséquences à tirer des deux audits financiers et de gestion, qui avaient été décidés à l'unanimité par le Comité du patrimoine mondial à Mérida.
Je sais qu'en matière financière, des premières mesures ont déjà été prises. Mais toutes les conséquences n'ont pas encore été tirées, tant pour obtenir une plus grande transparence dans la gestion du Centre que pour savoir comment préciser davantage les textes qui, directement ou indirectement, régissent le fonctionnement des principales composantes de la Convention, en particulier le Fonds du patrimoine mondial et les questions liées à la promotion de la Convention. Comme M. Badran l'a très clairement dit, une meilleure articulation devra également être recherchée entre le Centre et, pour ce qui concerne le Secteur de la culture, la Division du patrimoine culturel. Ceci est nuisible pour l'efficacité que sont en droit de réclamer les Etats membres de l'UNESCO - et les Etats parties à la Convention - tout autant que préjudiciable à la bonne conservation des sites eux-mêmes. En ce sens, je ne puis que souhaiter que le Directeur général prenne, dans un avenir proche, et comme il en a, je crois, l'intention, les mesures structurelles de nature à pallier cette difficulté.
2. Le suivi de l'état de conservation des biens inscrits doit être amélioré, et l'inscription, année après année, de nouveaux biens sur la liste en péril, démontre que le travail préventif du Centre doit encore être renforcé. Au cours de cette session, vous allez étudier de nouvelles modalités pour un suivi systématique. C'est une direction souhaitable, mais qui sera très difficile à mettre en oeuvre de façon satisfaisante dans la pratique. Ce suivi ne remplira vraiment son rôle, me semble-t-il, que s'il ne se contente pas d'enregistrer "a posteriori" l'état des sites, mais fournit à l'avance des sortes de "pré-diagnostiques" des problèmes qui vont s'y poser, afin de permettre au Comité de prendre les mesures préventives nécessaires dans les délais voulus.
3 L'assistance internationale, ou plutôt la faiblesse du nombre des demandes, est également pour moi un sujet d'étonnement, alors que nous savons combien les besoins sont immenses. Je pense qu'ici aussi on ne peut plus se contenter d'attendre que ces demandes arrivent, ni considérer davantage que leur montant, modeste, peut résoudre les problèmes qui se posent sur place. Ici encore, je crois qu'il faudra de plus en plus identifier les besoins longtemps à l'avance, et accorder les fonds du patrimoine mondial d'une façon beaucoup plus préventive, ou comme élément d'un projet d'ensemble plus vaste, que comme une réponse au coup par coup, qui, dans ces conditions, aura justement souvent un coup de retard.
4. Enfin, les propositions d'inscriptions sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial qui, cette année encore, en particulier pour les biens culturels, sont extrêmement nombreuses.
J'éprouve une vive inquiétude à ce sujet. J'ai vu, années après années, la Liste du patrimoine s'accroître d'environ 30 à 40 sites nouveaux par an, sans justifications toujours clairement compréhensibles par nos partenaires, et, plus important encore, par le public. C'est qu'il manque à ce jour, je crois, une réflexion fondamentale à laquelle on ne pourra plus échapper si l'on veut assurer la crédibilité de la Liste: qu'est-ce qu'un site du patrimoine mondial? Qu'est-ce qui fait vraiment la différence entre un site qui mérite l'inscription et un autre? Et donc aussi, quels sont le contenu et l'étendue de la notion de "valeur universelle exceptionnelle", qui sont au centre de la Convention?
Ni le monde, ni la Convention, ne sont les mêmes qu'il y a 25 ans. La notion de patrimoine culturel a beaucoup changé. La nature et l'ampleur des menaces qui pèsent sur lui aussi. Un patrimoine mondial de 550 sites n'est plus le même, en quantité et en nature, qu'une liste de 50 ou 70 biens, et de toute évidence, la Convention ne peut plus fonctionner comme à ses débuts. J'aurais aimé que son 25e anniversaire soit aussi l'occasion d'une réflexion de fond, à côté des nécessaires améliorations qui devaient être apportées au fonctionnement du Centre du patrimoine mondial lui-même.
Au-delà des questions essentielles, je l'ai dit, concernant l'organisation et le fonctionnement du Secrétariat du Comité, c'est à présent sur la Convention elle-même, ses concepts, son rôle, ses finalités qu'il faut s'interroger, si nous ne voulons pas que, faute d'avoir pris la mesure des profonds changements advenus en 25 ans, tant dans le monde qui nous entoure, que dans la mise en oeuvre de la Convention elle-même, ce formidable espoir d'un patrimoine commun à toute l'humanité, et protégé par elle, ne se vide peu à peu de sa substance et de sa force mobilisatrice, mais demeure au contraire une des figures exemplaires de l'unité de l'homme et de la solidarité humaine.
Je ne puis donc qu'appeler de mes voeux cette réflexion en profondeur sur le patrimoine mondial, 25 ans après et à l'aube du IIIe millénaire.
Fostering creativity around World Heritage sites
Since this is the last time that I will address the Bureau of the World Heritage Centre as Assistant-Director General, I would like to leave with you some thoughts about culture heritage in today's context of rapid cultural change and globalization, and a few suggestions for the future work of the World Heritage Program.
The best practice for safeguarding world heritage, we know, is for all of society to appreciate and participate in its preservation. Not only as a objectified site, or monument or landscape but one which offers individuals signs and symbols with which to build a cultural or national identity, a relationship with Nature or a feeling for the past. The sites inscribed in the World Heritage List are concrete places and objects but the ways in which they are interpreted change over time and their outlook varies in different places. Thus, the cumulative meanings, that is, the connotations that cultural heritage sites, monuments and landscapes have for different people must be given greater attention in the work of the World Heritage Program.
This is why it is important to understand cultural heritage as a process, -natural heritage as well with its own parameters-.
We also know that new challenges that are arising for understanding and effective mobilization of people to safeguard World Heritage must also be analyzed and monitored. Among the major ones I would point to the following.
Culture is no longer conceptualized as a set of norms, symbols and customs that people inside its boundaries unanimously agree to.
Without going into the more complex questions of representation and translation of cultural items, at present cultures are being discussed as a site of contestation. That is to say that the vitality of a given culture comes from a constant debate with its own members and it is the contrast it creates towards other groups that makes it change.
In previous epochs such change took decades, even centuries. Today it takes only years. We see everywhere that this process has accelerated and young people around the world are contesting and wanting to create new meanings to adapt to the unprecedented situations they are living in. It seems to me that all of those youths who flock to Teotihuacan for the spring equinox or to Stonehenge to recreate ancient rites are demanding that these ancient stones and places give them a new symbolic sites around which to rally round and recreate their identities.
The language in which they are couching their search is that of a new spirituality and cosmology but this is because they are offered no other language by institutions which keep their action only within the limits of strict conservation of what is. It is not a question of accepting lunatic or acrobatic practices in world heritage sites, but the question to be raised is why haven't artists, writers, inventors, creators been invited to give new life to the powerful symbolism of world heritage sites?
This is, of course, an extremely sensitive question precisely because world heritage sites touch the core of cultural or historical values. And here another challenge is on the rise. As governance structures shift and as more nationalistic or ethnically oriented governments take power in some countries, debates over origins, symbolism and proprietary rights will be much more fierce. The World Heritage Program must then emphasize a much stronger knowledge-based debate.
We have seen how the symbolism of heritage sites has been used for political mobilization, sometimes leading to destruction,
ANNEX IV
Statement by Australia
In responding to the issues, the Australian Observer outlined the positive steps taken to protect World Heritage properties in Australia generally. In 1996, the Australian Parliament conducted a review of the management of Australia's World Heritage, indicating the high level of importance given to these matters in Australia. The Government has responded to the constructive recommendations of this report.
The Australian Government employs eighteen staff (cultural and natural specialists and administrators) full time to monitor and co-ordinate the management of World Heritage sites in Australia.
The Australian Government nominated two new sites for World Heritage last year and will do so again this year.
The Australian Government has boosted the resources available for World Heritage management. In 1997-98 the Government allocated US$22.7 million for World Heritage
management. This excludes separate external funding for Kakadu, Uluru, the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, and also contributions from the states.
The Government has established ministerial councils (consisting of responsible ministers from the Australian Government and the relevant state governments) for all World Heritage properties. The regular meetings of these councils have all been attended by the Australian Minister for the Environment. These councils constantly monitor major threats to World Heritage properties.
Australia is ensuring that World Heritage properties have official community consultative bodies and scientific advisory bodies in place. The Australian Government is reviewing the World Heritage property areas to strengthen the Government's ability to manage more effectively World Heritage properties and give it more powers of protection.
ANNEX V
INTERVENTION OF AMBASSADOR ABELARDO POSSO-SERRANO, HEAD OF THE ECUADORIAN DELEGATION TO THE MEETING OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE.
PARIS, JUNE 23 1998
Mr. Chairman:
Please allow me to make an official statement of the Government of Ecuador concerning the Special Regime Law for the Conservation and Sustainable Development of the Province of Galapagos due to the importance that my Government concedes to this Law, which was inspired in a very justified demand from the World Heritage Committee and which expedition has permitted that the Galapagos Islands will not be threatened to enter in the Danger List.
In effect, Mr. Chairman, ever since the creation of the National Park of Galapagos in 1959, the different Governments that my country has had have maintained a consistent position for protection of the maritime and terrestrial ecosystems from the Archipelago of Galapagos and all Ecuadorian Governments have always maintained present the obligation to start actions for the preservation and protection of the natural environment, this has reached the works for the infrastructure and development of the stands be performed, always have subordinated the principles for conservation and the foundation for sustainable development.
It is crucial that we recognize that this permanent attitude of the Governments has had its highs and lows, for that is that in some opportunity, the Archipelago of Galapagos, fundamentally, was in a condition to enter in the Danger List and thanks to the decision of this Committee the Government of Ecuador had the opportunity to make the adequate steps to solvent the risk situation and get out of the announced danger.
The Government of Ecuador always knew that one of the fundamental problems that affects the Galapagos Islands is based in the action of the animal and plant species introduced, in the influence of the human population and in the fragility of the natural endemic resources. The Galapagos Islands, also have been, especially during the last years, a place of tourist attraction and especial interest for the Ecuadorian population that leave in the continental area, this has signified an unexpected rise of the resident population of Galapagos, to the point that from the 4037 people that lived in Galapagos during 1974, have passed to be nowadays 14000 people, population that of course, have collaborated with the actions of preservation and protection of the natural environment, pressure that has been even greater due to the unprecedented tourism and other related activities such as transportation of food, accumulation of solid waste and the consequent growth of species introduced to the environment.
The generation of waste, only to refer to one of the problems, has been one of the issues of more incidence in the preservation of the natural environment, summed to the operations a little bit irresponsible of tourism and a violent illegal fishery activity, in charge of well know multinationals around the world.
In this matter of fishery, it is crucial to consider that there is a growing international demand for determinate natural species of Galapagos, which has obligated pirate enterprises to incur in irrational actions in areas considered and continue to be considered reserves.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, due to the current threats, Ecuador has the pride to manifest that the Terrestrial areas of the National Park and the interior sea of Galapagos, have been very little changed, due to the fact that the natural environment of the Islands continues to maintain a estate of nature very much acceptable, and it could be said that the conditions to recognize Galapagos as one of the sanctuaries of conservation of nature, and for that, Natural heritage of humanity are still present, all these thanks to the understanding, assistance and permanent support of the World Heritage Center.
The good disposition of the Committee was the factor that moved, as I said at the beginning of this statement, the Government of Ecuador to renew the legal framework to guarantee the adequate conservation of the bio-diversity and the ecological richness of the Archipelago and to put to work some important actions of vigilance and protection so that the commitments of the Special Regime become a reality.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, the Government of Ecuador has constituted a Special Commission for the new Law elaboration, the same that was widely discussed by all the institutions and natural persons that have special interests for the preservation of the natural environment of Galapagos. Du ring January of last year, the National Congress approved a special regulation relative to the Maritime reserve, which gave place that the complete text could be submitted for Presidential approval, which with very light reserves, became a reality in March of the current year, when it was accomplished to finish the substantial solemnities and to put in vigilance the Special Law under discussion.
The Special Regime Law, starts with the consideration that the right of residence, property and commerce of the Ecuadorians have to necessarily be restricted in protection areas that the Galapagos ecosystem deserves; this means, that even though ,he Political Constitution of Ecuador warranties these rights, it is thought that the right to live in an environment free of contamination, obligates the State to control, in a special manner, to delimit special actions for the preservation of nature, and with this objective, to take special actions of vigilance, that in certain way could restrict the rights and liberties mentioned earlier.
This restriction totally justify, for singular natural, scientific and educational value that has to be preserved perpetually in the Galapagos Islands, not only for the intrinsic value of the natural park but also for the intentional compromise that Ecuador acquired with this Committee and the international community.
The Special Law of Galapagos recognizes the existence of special dangers for bio-diversity and establishes that the first of these dangers is the presence of species taken form the Continent to the islands and also determines the conservation of the national heritage as a priority to maintain in the natural terrestrial areas as well as in the natural maritime areas, with a close coordination with the development of human settlements and with the measures that have to be adopted for the control of tourism and other parallel activities.
It is recognized that an interconnection exists between the terrestrial zones and the maritime zones of course, also with the human settlements in everything that has to do with the conservation of the first and the necessities to maintain a sustainable development that depends upon the adequate management of the three components, for the needed preservation of the exceptional biological diversity and to reach integrity and functionality on the particular ecological and evolution processes, in benefit of humanity, local populations, science and education.
The Law establishes, as it has been correctly reflected in the document prepared b y the Secretariat, basic norms for the establishment of planning policies , the institutional framework, with the strengthening of the National Institute of Galapagos. which was matter of special concern to this Committee, and the determination of its specific attributions, of internal organization, of the attributions of the Council and Technical Secretary.
An important chapter of the Law refers to the protected areas that constitute the National Park and the Maritime Reserve, both components of the National Heritage of Protected Areas. Regarding the maritime reserve of the province of Galapagos, which became a matter of special concern of this Committee, the Law foresees that it has to be subject to some conditions of multiple use and integrated administration, the same that comprehends a strip of 40 maritime miles, measures from the lines of base of the Archipelago and internal waters.
In the same manner, the Law foresees the conformation of an Inter-institutional authority for the management of the islands, in which all the public ministries and private institutions that have to do with the islands such as the Provincial Chamber of tourism, and the Chambers of the fishery sector and conservation, science and education of the Galapagos. It has also been established as a maritime area.
Another section of the Law establishes the residency categories of human being in the Islands, in order to differentiate permanent residents, temporary residents and tourists, this is done with the objective of clearly determining each group's responsibilities and obligations.
Finally, it deserves special mention the legal previsions concerning the productive activities in the Galapagos Islands, especially the fishery activity, which is subject to fundamental principles of conservation, adaptive management and sustainable utilization of the hydro-biological resources, besides the fishery zones, transport and commercialization, of the regulations for artesian fishing and special requirements and registers.
In the same way, inside this productive activities is adequately regulated the tourism and the conservation, taking under consideration the proper operators, the development and tourism, the construction of infrastructure for foreign ships and the allowed numbers in the islands.
Concerning the artesian activity, this is closely linked with the necessities of environmental control and for the effect some provisions are established, and specific rules for the waste management, with the corresponding imposition of incentives and sanctions to the aggressors.
Last but not lest, I would like to underline that Ecuador will honor with responsibility and effort ail the commitments adopted in Naples and will present periodic reports of the state or conservation of the site.
As can be seen. Mr. Chairman, in this extent exposition that Ecuador felt necessary so it is adequately registered, not only the appreciation of the country for the help received, for the support of this Committee, but also for the effort of the Authorities for having planned and later approved a modern Law which has been adequate to the fundamental principles that have taken this committee to declare Galapagos a Natural Heritage of Humanity and that have imposed some obligations to Ecuador, which to day ratifies that is willing to strictly abide always in the benefit of Mankind.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the Government of Ecuador is fully aware that it is only a first step and still remains a lot to do , for which we count on the international cooperation of the members of the Committee and the Convention as a whole.
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
ANNEX VI
STATEMENT BY IUCN ON ITEM 5.2 OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA: State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List: under the heading of NATURAL HERITAGE: Australian World Heritage sites and specifically relating to Kakadu National Park World Heritage Area
1. IUCN recognises that World Heritage has a very high profile in Australia and receives great public attention, often articulated through non-government organisations, many of which are members of IUCN along with lUCN's State and government agency members.
2. Agenda Item 5.2 refers to correspondence addressed to the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee on the subject of what are seen as threats to a number of properties in Australia inscribed on the World Heritage List including Kakadu National Park. IUCN also notes advice from the World Heritage Centre dated 18 June 1998 that fifteen faxes had been received in the 24 hours to 18 June 1998 "from a variety of non governmental organisations from around the World expressing concern about the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park, Australia. The faxes refer to the commencement of construction of the Jabiluka uranium mine and call for the site to be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger".
3. On issues of major significance, lUCN's approach is derived, inter alia. from the periodic World Conservation Congresses. Resolution 1.104 dealing with "Conservation of Kakadu World Heritage Site, Australia " was adopted by the Congress at its 1 st Session in Montreal, Canada, 14-23 October 1996 and a copy of this resolution is attached to this statement.
4. This resolution recognises that Kakadu has been inscribed on the World Heritage List for its natural and cultural values, that its wetland areas are listed under the Ramsar Convention and that the sites of ''the three uranium deposits, Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra, are located on land owned by Aboriginal people. Were never included in Kakadu National Park and are surrounded by the Park. " The resolution noted, inter alia that 'mining in Jabiluka or Koongarra has the potential to damage the natural and cultural values of Kakadu' and recognisad that " the Aboriginal Traditional Owners have the right to make decisions about the use of their land, including whether mining takes place…."
5. Key points in the action section of the resolution are:
i. to urge the Government of Australia ``if the Traditional Owners and the Northern Land Council should ever approve of mining of the Jabiluka or Koonagarra sites, to :
a) ensure that any proposal to mine is subject to a public process of stringent environmental assessment:
b) ensure that any mining activity is subject to a standard of monitoring, supervision and regulation sufficient to ensure the continued absence of any detectable impact on Kakadu National Park;
ii. to urge the Government of Australia to prevent the development of Jabiluka and Koongarra uranium mines should it be shown that such mining would threaten the Park`s World Heritage values;
iii. to urge the Government of Australia to facilitate inclusion of the Jabiluka and Koongarra areas in Kakadu National Park when and if requested by Traditional Owners and the Northern Land Council"
IUCN believes that these key points remain pertinent and merit consideration by the Committee/Bureau.
6. Events since the adoption of the World Conservation Congress resolution in October 1996 confirm the concerns expressed in the resolution. For example, IUCN is quoted in the Report of the Rapporteur of the Extraordinary session of the Bureau (Naples, 28-29 November 1997) as reporting on a proposal to mine on a mining lease enclave within but not part of the World Heritage area. IUCN reported then that 77 concerns had been identified over the proposal and that (Environment Australia's) Senior Supervisory Scientist had also suggested that a new Environmental Impact Assessment would be needed should the location of the mill be changed. IUCN said that IUCN ``is receiving reports from Australian groups about the potential impacts and some have proposed the site should be considered for the List of World Heritage in Danger``. The Rapporteur`s report goes on to say that ``Australia advised that the 77 ``concerns`` are in fact conditions that have been set by the Government on the mining company. Particular attention in these recommendations was paid by the Minister for the Environment to protecting World Heritage values." The record of the Australian statement goes on to say that "Mining will not proceed until these conditions are met`` and that ``The issue of Aboriginal involvement is recognized as an important one and the Australian Government and the mining company heve committed themselves to ongoing consultation with the Aboriginal people. The Australian Government has commissioned an independent social impact study, at the request of the traditional owners, and is responding to the outcome.
Referring back to the IUCN Resolution, it would be helpful to know if the Traditional Owners and the Northern Land Council have approved of mining of the Jabiluka and/or Koongarra sites,
7. Although an Environmental Assessment of the Jabiluka mine has been carried out, IUCN is aware of public concern expressed in Australia and internationally on the adequacy of it. IUCN is also aware of a statement by Professor Michael Pitman as Chief Scientist, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Australia headed ``Precautionary Principle`` which said:
"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent enviroomental degradation.
In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:
- careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment.
- an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options."
8. In its Technical Evaluation of the re-nominated Kakadu National Park, IUCN in 1992 reported to the Committee that the issue of mining 'is addressed only briefly in the nomination but the long-term aspects of waste disposal and eventual recovery give some cause for concern. In addition to the excised uranium mine at Ranger, there are also two other excised leases, one of which (Jabiluka) is located close to an important floodplain inside the park. The future potential effects on Kakadu of uranium mining outside the park and from within the enclosure deserve on-going scrutiny. In concluding that the conditions of integrity of the re-nominated Kakadu World Heritage site were met, IUCN flagged its view that the possible effects of future mining in the excised leases could cause future problems.
9. At a meeting of the Steering Committee of lUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) held on 8 -12 June 1998, a draft policy on mining and associated activities in relation to protected areas, in general, was adopted. This includes, inter alia, the statement that WCPA 'believes that exploration and extraction of mineral resources which are outside of, but impacting on, protected areas should be subject to EIA procedures which consider, inter alia, the effects of any activity on the protected area, recommend operating and after use conditions, and ensure that the values of the protected area are safeguarded.'
10. In relation to Kakadu, IUCN is not in possession of information on the 77 conditions set by the Australian Government on the mining company so is unable to make any assessment of their adequacy or otherwise.
11. IUCN's position on the issue of Kakadu and mining can be summed up as follows:
a) the resolution from the World Conservation Congress in October 1996 remains a valid source of guidance for lUCN`s advice to the Committee, including in relation to the rights of the traditional owners;
b) the precautionary principle is relevant;
c) IUCN is unable at this time to assess the adequacy of the 77 conditions set by the Australian Government on the mining company;
d) on the basis of a), b) and c) IUCN considers that mining activity should be deferred until the World Heritage Committee is satisfied that the adequacy of the 77 conditions is assessed; and
e) if invited to do so and provided with the necessary information and resources to support a multi-disciplinary team, IUCN would participate in a mission to assess the situation and recort to the Bureau/Committee.
PMR/winword/lUCN STATEMENT ON ITEM 5 2.doc
1.104 Conservation of Kakadu World
Heritage Site, Australia
RECALLING Recommendation 19.87 from the 19th Session of the IUCN General Assembly;
FROM: World Conservation Congress: Resolutions and Recomendations.
IUCN, 1997, pp89-90
RECOGNIZING that Kakadu has been described as one of the more important national parks in the World, and has been inscribed on the World Heritage List for its natural and cultural values;
NOTING that all wetland areas in Kakadu National Park are listed under the Ramsar Convention;
NOTING that the sites of the three uranium deposits, Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra, are located on land owned by Aboriginal people, were never included in Kakadu National Park and are surrounded by the Park;
AWARE that the independent scientific authority established to monitor the impact of the Ranger mine has detected no adverse impact on Kakadu National Park or its World Heritage values;
NOTING that, subject to the appropriate approvals, the Ranger site will be included in Kakadu National Park following rehabilitation;
NOTING, however, that mining in Jabiluka or Koongarra has the potential to damage the natural and cultural values of Kakadu;
RECOGNIZING that the Aboriginal Traditional Owners have the right to make decisions about the use of their land, including whether mining takes place, and that the issue is now being discussed among the Traditional Owners, some of whom support mining while others oppose it;
The World Conservation Congress at its 1st Session in Montreal, Canada, 14-23 October 1996:
1. URGES the Government of Australia if the Traditional Owners and Northern Land Council should ever approve mining of the Jabiluka or Koongarra sites, to:
a) ensure that any proposal to mine is subject to a public process of stringent environmental assessment;
b) ensure that any mining activity is subject to a standard of monitoring, supervision and regulation, sufficient to ensure the continued absence of any detectable impact on Kakadu National Park;
2. URGES the Government of Australia to prevent the development of Jabiluka and Koonagarra uranium mines should it be shown that such mining would threaten the Park's World Heritage values;
3. URGES the Government of Australia to facilitate inclusion of the Jabiluka and Koongarra areas in Kakadu National Park when and if requested by Traditional Owners and the Northern Land Council.
Note. This Recommendation was adopted by consensus. The delegations of the State members Australia stated that since the Recommendation deals with matters about which the Australian Government is forming a view, it was inapprorpriate for their delegation and that of the Northern territory Government Agency member to support or object to the Recommendation. Had there been a vote the delegations would have abstained. The delegation of the State member Germany indicated that it had nor participated in discussion of the Recommendation nor would it have participated in any voting. The delegation of the State members Norway, Sweden and United States indicated that had there been a vote they would have abstained".
ANNEX VII
Statement by the Representative of Australia
on Kakadu National Park (Australia)
Mr Chairman
When Kakadu was placed on the World Heritage List, it had an operating uranium mine in an enclave within it.
The mine has been operating for eighteen years. There has been no damage to the World Heritage Values of Kakadu as a result. The mine has been overseen by a specific agency within the Commonwealth Environment Department, headed by the Supervising Scientist.
The present proposal is to mine in the same area, and under more stringent conditions. Neither the area of the operating mine, nor of the proposed mine, is not part of the World Heritage area and the values of these areas were not taken into account in the nomination. The area of the mineral lease, which is being mined, comprises less than 0.005% of the area of Kakadu National Park, and predates it. Less than approximately 1% of the Jabiluka lease which will be used for mining.
In 1982 the Northern Land Council, a statutory organisation elected by and representing all the traditional landowners of the northern part of the Northern Territory, agreed to mining within the Jabiluka lease area. So did the traditional owners of the lease. I will like to stress, Mr Chairman, that mining on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory is illegal without the consent of the traditional owners. Careful procedures have been taken to ensure that consensus is, in this case, valid.
In 1997 the Northern Land Council and representatives of affected Aboriginal groups in the Kakadu area were represented on a Committee to consider the change of scope for the Jabiluka project, in line with the 1982 Agreement. The Committee also included representatives from the Commonwealth government, the Northern Territory and the mining company. The Committee agreed to the proposed changes. The revised project contains substantial environmental improvements by comparison to the one which was the subject of the 1982 Agreement.
One group - the traditional owners of the Jabiluka lease area itself - did not agree to the change of scope proposal, and considers that the 1982 Agreement was signed under duress. This group (the Mirrar People) is one of many groupings of traditional landowners and affected Aborigines within the Kakadu area.
Extensive work has been done on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the mine, which especially addressed the safeguarding of the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park. The Minister for the Environment has a statutory obligation to protect such values along with other natural and cultural values.
As a result 77 conditions were set, and these will have to be met, before the Commonwealth will issue an export licence for uranium ore from the mine. Some of these had to be completed before construction of the mine could commence.
A recent review by the Commonwealth's Environment Department, including the Federal Environment Protection Agency and the statutory body responsible for overseeing the mine, the Supervising Scientist Group, confirmed that these applicable conditions either have been met, or are in progress to be met.
The Australian Government however, while acknowledging this, has not approved of any mining in the area.
Recently, construction has begun on works for the proposed underground mine, and this is in accord with Commonwealth requirements. Construction of the pit head will have no significant environmental effects. Construction of the pit head is at the company's own risk - no final approval for mining has yet been given. It will be another 18 months before sufficient works have been completed to allow extraction of uranium ore to take place.
Mining will not happen until all the conditions are met, and is at least 18 months away. A requirement at that time will be that an export licence for uranium be obtained from the Australian Government.
There is no evidence that mining will effect the natural environment for which the Park was listed. The proposed milling method of the ore from the mine has been changed because of the objections of the traditional owners of the Jabiluka lease area (the Mirrar people). A Public Environment Review (PER) is now underway to assess the proposed change, which involves milling on site. The original proposal involved the trucking of the ore, through the lease, to the existing facility at the Ranger mine. Commonwealth environmental approval has not yet been given for the proposed method but approval will depend on the outcome of the PER.
In parallel with part of the EIS process a comprehensive study of the social impacts on the Aboriginal community over the last 20 years has also been undertaken. Mining, tourism, westernisation generally have contributed to changes in the local community, with some deleterious effects. The introduction to the study makes it clear that it is impossible to determine the relative impact of the different influences on the community.
Nevertheless, the outcome of the study is a series of recommendations to address negative impacts and to enhance opportunities for Aboriginal people in the Kakadu region. The list includes proposed benefits in education, housing, provision of services to the Aboriginal community and measures to ensure the maintenance of Aboriginal culture.
There are some important aboriginal cultural sites in the lease area which are listed on Australia's Register of the National Estate. These are not part of the World Heritage area, and were not assessed as part of its value. However, there is certainly a deep spiritual connection between these sites and those within the Park. For this reason, stringent conditions have been developed to protect them. None of the sites are in the area to be mined, or proposed ancillary services. The government considers that the stringent conditions are sufficient to physically protect these sites.
One other site - Boyweg, is located within the lease area. Boyweg is a natural sacred associated with natural features. The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority of the Northern Territory Government has examined the site and has concluded that there is insufficient evidence about this site to register it as a sacred site. The Company has respected the traditional owner's wishes to do no survey works at all in this area: and has undertaken to move, after consultation, any ancillary facilities which may affect this site.
I was pleased with the key points flagged by IUCN in its statement. They remain relevant, and have either been, or are in the process of, being met. I will briefly respond to each of the points:
- if approval should ever be obtained from traditional owners: traditional owners have given their approval for mining.
- any proposal to mine be subject to stringent environmental assessment: stringent conditions have been set for existing and any proposed mining operation to ensure the protection and safeguarding of the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park.
- supervision and regulation of mining: existing and any future mining in Kakadu has been overseen by a specific agency within the Commonwealth Environment Department, headed by the Supervising Scientist, established for that purpose. 77 conditions have been set by the Commonwealth, and all must be met before any further mining will be approved.
- prevent mining development if it is shown it would threaten the World Heritage values of Kakadu: as stated above, 77 conditions aimed at protecting World Heritage values must be met before mining will be approved.
- include Jabiluka and Koongara in Kakadu National Park when and if requested by traditional owners and the Northern Land Council: This issue has been discussed with traditional owners, and these areas will eventually be included in Kakadu National Park, if that is their wish.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
ANNEX VIII
Statement by the Supervising Scientist,
Department for the Environment, Australia,
on Kakadu National Park (Australia)
Mr Chairman
I can only sympathise with Bureau members who may feel they are drowning in complexity and ambiguity, given the amount of official and unofficial comment on this issue. In the spirit of trying to clarify some of these issues, I make the following observations. I make the observations in my role as Supervising Scientist, an independent statutory position established by the Australian Government to monitor the operations of any mining in the Alligator Rivers Region - a region which includes the Kakadu National Park World Heritage Area, and a number of mining leases. I might also add that prior to taking this position I held the position of Head of the Agency responsible for managing Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park World heritage Areas for Seven and a half years.
In the 20 years or so since the position of Supervising Scientist was established, in the same set of decisions which also established the first stage of Kakadu National Park, no significant environmental effects from the operations of the Ranger uranium mine have been detected. Despite frequent statements that releases of contaminated water occur regularly that is simply not the case. It is a matter of record that my agency was for some years devising a regulatory regime which would allow water release if the rainfall conditions both required it, and provide the volume flow to dilute any release. The system was never put into effect, however. Some three years ago the Kakadu National Park Board of Management requested that no release of contaminated water be allowed. The Mining company has complied with that request, and release of contaminated waters is now not on the agenda. All waters to do with the tailings operations of mining are contained within a restricted release zone.
Mr Chairman, I cannot emphasise enough the attention given to this issue by the Australian Government, and, indeed, the Mining Company. It is true to Say the Mine is the most thoroughly supervised in the world - as of course it should be. I should now like to turn to the proposal for the establishment of a mine at Jabiluka. The historical perspective has been sketched by my colleague. An Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Jabiluka mine, with ore milling at the existing infrastructure at the Ranger site, has been accepted, with 77 conditions placed on the Company by the Ministers for Environment and Resources. These conditions cover a wide range of issues, and attest to the level of concern by the Australian Government to this issue. The traditional owner of the lease area however has not agreed to this development, leaving, in a legal sense, only the original proposal, including milling at the Jabiluka minesite, able to be pursued.
There was a process of arbitration foreseen for any changes when the original agreement was made in 1982. As did my colleague, I note that the Traditional Owner has the view that this 1982 agreement was made under duress. The process of Arbitration has proceeded, including the Northern Land Council and other Aboriginal representatives, and the Committee has agreed the Mine could proceed, including modifications for milling at the Jabiluka minesite. This latter proposition was not included in the approved Environmental Impact Statement and is currently being assessed through a Public Environmental Report, part of the Australian legal Environmental Impact Assessment process.
Mr Chairman, I should like to touch briefly on some of the detail in the clear and comprehensive report from the IUCN. Australia notes the representations received by the IUCN on this issue, but wishes to indicate that these representations are often based on incorrect factual data. We understand that IUCN is a complex creature on whom we all rightly depend for independent technical advice. As a State member of the Union we are confident its' clear technical advice can be delivered without any political gloss, although we recognise that some close and further investigation may be necessary to achieve that position. We particularly draw Bureau members attention to the footnote to the resolution referred to in the IUCN information.
Mr Chairman, I have already noted that the Northern Land Council was part of legal process which agreed to a process for further assessment of the milling facilities for the Jabiluka milling option. There is no proposal before Government concerning the lease known as Koongarra. I am puzzled with respect to comments attributed to Professor Pitman, who retired as Chief Scientist two years ago, I should note the Precautionary approach is a bi-partisan approach to environmental management in Australia. Neither Professor Pitman nor his successor have made any comment with respect to the Jabiluka situation. It might also be of interest to add that the precautionary principle is to be enshrined in new environmental legislation currently being developed by the Government.
Mr Chairman, I again re-iterate that the Australian Government has not given any approval for mining, and is still pursuing the Public Environmental Review process of the Jabiluka Milling option Environmental Impact Assessment process. While it is true the Company have been allowed to start some preliminary work covered the approved EIS, it is on the assumption that this work will not prejudge the outcome of the PER. Indeed, it is worth noting that mining would not commence until approximately 18 months after final approvals, should that be given. So, Mr Chairman it is the view of the Australian Government, as well as my professional independent view, that there are no issues posing potential danger to the natural criteria for which the Kakadu National Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List. Indeed it is worth reminding delegates that the 1992 listing of Kakadu National Park with increased boundaries included a number of former gold and uranium mines which used mining methods which would not today be allowed! Part of the long term management strategy for the Park will include re-habiliation of these minesites. Rehabilitation of the existing Ranger Mine and the proposed Jabiluka mine, to a standard where they may be able to be included in the Park, if desired by the traditional owners, is part of the long term strategy for these areas.
While perhaps not of direct concern to this Bureau, it is worth noting that key areas of the Site adjacent to the Mines are also listed under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. My organisation has spent considerable research effort to ensure the ecological character of these systems is not changed, as required by that Convention. The Government clearly understands its double responsibility for these wetland ecological systems.
Mr Chairman, I hope it is now clear that there are still processes to be worked through in a careful way by all parties in the coming months on these issues. Besides the Impact assessment procedures, implementation of the outcomes of a study on social impact of mining on Aboriginal Communities in the region is a high priority for Government. As the foreword to the recent Study into Social Impact by Patrick Dodson, a prominent Aboriginal Australian states, and I quote:
What is important is that the social contract of 20 years ago, which was to have the safeguards and offsets to allow the various cultures to co-exist and to flourish has not lived up to expectations of the people of the time. However it is neither fair nor accurate to deduce that mining or miners have failed or have caused the problems. Nor the Aborigines, governments agencies or even the tourists. Indeed we see no profit in applying blame to particular groups".
The Australian Government aims to achieve fair and equitable outcomes on these issues. We also want, and operate through, transparent processes. Although we see no real need for a mission on this or other issues we will, of course, cooperate in every way possible should the Bureau so decide.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
ANNEX IX
Statement by Italy
Upon conclusion of the examination of the dossiers concerning the state conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the proposals for new inscriptions, the Delegation of Italy wishes to express, Mr Chairman, a few thoughts on certain difficulties which have arisen during this exercise.
Considering, for instance eight natural properties proposed for inscription, we noted that the evaluation reports of the advisory body were only available for three proposals. Italy fully understands the difficulties with which IUCN might have been confronted. Nevertheless, it believes that - in order to respect the timetable established by Article 65 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention - an attempt should be made to organise the work of the advisory bodies in collaboration with the Secretariat in such a way as to keep to the timetable and permit the States Parties to complete their dossiers as well as to finalise and transmit the said evaluation reports before the Bureau session.
In fact, the non-availability, in due time, of evaluation reports prevents the necessary thorough elaboration for the adoption of well-considered decisions.
Although nothing to this effect is specified, in the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention, the prior knowledge of such evaluations would satisfy the needs of the Bureau and the Committee in fully and correctly carrying out their functions, and also States Parties would have more confidence in the organs of the Convention.
To this end, it would be desirable to introduce into the Guidelines appropriate rules.
Italy undertakes to present to the next session of the Bureau appropriate proposals. Those States Parties wishing to be associated with this exercise will be welcome.
ANNEX X
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANISATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-second extraordinary session
Kyoto, Japan
27-28 November 1998
Provisional Agenda
- Opening of the session
- Adoption of the agenda and the timetable
- State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
- Nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List
- Requests for International Assistance
- Recommendations to the World Heritage Committee based on the report of the Consultative Body
- Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
- Other business
- Adoption of the report
- Closure of the session.
ANNEX XI
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-second session
Kyoto, Japan
30 November - 5 December 1998
- Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative
- Adoption of the agenda and the timetable
- Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and the Rapporteur
- Report by the Secretariat on the activities undertaken since the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee
- Report of the Rapporteur on the sessions of the World Heritage Bureau
- Methodology and procedures for periodic reporting
- State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in Danger
- Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List
- Follow-up to the work of the Consultative Body of the World Heritage Committee
- Progress report, synthesis and action plan on the Global Strategy and thematic and comparative studies for a balanced and representative World Heritage List
- Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of the budget for 1999, and presentation of a provisional budget for 2000
- Requests for international assistance
- World Heritage documentation, information and educational activitie
- Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
- Date, place and Provisional Agenda of the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
- Date and place of the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee
- Other business
- Adoption of the report of the session
- Closure of the session