PDF version (645K)
World Heritage |
24BUR |
Distribution limited |
WHC-2000/CONF.202/17
|
UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fourth session
Paris, UNESCO Headquarters (Room IV)
26 June - 1 July 2000
REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR
Table of Contents
I. OPENING SESSION
I.1 The twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was held in Paris, France, from 26 June to 1 July 2000. It was attended by the following members of the Bureau: Mr. Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco), as Chairperson of the Committee, Ms Anne Lammila (Finland) as the Rapporteur, and Australia, Greece, Hungary, Mexico and Zimbabwe, as Vice-Chairpersons.
I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention, who are not members of the Bureau, were represented as observers: Argentina, Austria, Azerbaidjan, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Grenada, Honduras, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America and Venezuela. The Observer Mission of Palestine to UNESCO, non State Party to the Convention, also attended the session in the capacity of an observer.
I.3 Representatives of the advisory bodies to the Convention: the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended. The meeting was also attended by the following non-governmental organisations: Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (Australia), Environment Centre NT Inc. (Australia), Australian Conservation Foundation (Australia), Friends of the Earth (Australia), Green Earth Organisation (Ghana), Tibet Heritage Fund (Tibet Autonomous Region, China), CraTerre (France) and International Union of Technical Associations and Organizations UATI (France). The full list of participants is given in Annex I.
I.4 The Chairperson opened the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee by welcoming the members of the Bureau, the advisory bodies, observers and all participants to the meeting. The Chairperson then invited the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO to deliver his opening remarks.
I.5 Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General of the Sector for Culture a.i., in his capacity as Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, reiterated the Director-General's esteem for the work of the Bureau and his continuing support to the Convention. (His speech is included as Annex II to this report). The Chairperson thanked Mr Bouchenaki on behalf of the Bureau members.
II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, THE ANNOTATED AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE
II.1 The Chairperson, referring to documents WHC-2000/CONF.202/1, WHC-2000/CONF.202/2, WHC- 2000/CONF.202/3 and to the Provisional List of Documents, WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.1, requested the Bureau to adopt the Provisional Agenda, the Provisional Annotated Agenda and the Provisional Timetable. He invited the Bureau members to suggest any changes and pointed out that, in view of the heavy workload facing the Bureau, the speakers were requested to respect the limited time available. The agenda, the annotated agenda and the timetable were adopted without any changes.
III. REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT SINCE THE TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
III.1 The Chairperson invited Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the World Heritage Centre, to present the Secretariat's Report on activities undertaken since the last session of the World Heritage Committee.
III.2 In his capacity as the Secretary of the Committee, the Director reported on activities carried out by the Secretariat over the last six months. In giving his presentation, Mr Bouchenaki recalled the contents of the report and referred to Information Document WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.3. He then gave his presentation with audio-visual aids drawing the attention of the members of the Bureau to the most significant activities.
III.3 The Director of the Centre recalled that the Committee established a Task Force, and requested the establishment of two working groups and an expert group at its last session. He then referred to the relevant working documents reflecting the work of those bodies: A) Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention, chaired by Dr Christina Cameron (Canada) with Mr Kevin Keeffe (Australia) as Rapporteur; B) Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List, chaired by H. E. Mr Olabiyi B. J. Yai (Benin) with H. E. Mr Matthew Peek (Australia) as Rapporteur; C) Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee, chaired by H. E. Mr Jean Musitelli (France) with Mr David Masek (Czech Republic) as Rapporteur; and D) Expert Meeting for the Revision of the Operational Guidelines, chaired by Dr Christopher Young (UK) with Ms Karen Kovacs (USA) as Rapporteur.
III.4 The Director of the Centre gave a brief summary of the work accomplished by the two Working Groups, the Task Force and the Expert Meeting in Canterbury. The report will be presented to the Bureau under item 6. He then recalled the evaluation of international assistance undertaken by the French company C3E selected by the Bureau of Programming & Evaluation of UNESCO. As approved by the Committee in December 1999, the evaluation of training activities is being carried out by ICCROM.
III.5 The Director of the Centre mentioned that the total number of States Parties to the Convention reached 160 with the acceptance of Namibia and Kiribati in the first part of 2000. With regard to new nominations, the Director of the Centre mentioned that a record high of 87 nominations had been received for examination by the Bureau in 2000, including five site extensions and one renomination. He highlighted the fact that a majority (58%) of the nominations came from European and North American countries thus accentuating the imbalance of the World Heritage List. He took the opportunity to comment on the increased workload of the Bureau, the Committee, the Secretariat as well as the advisory bodies which was due in great part to the increase in the number of nominations received in the last two years.
III.6 The Director of the Centre highlighted important activities of the Secretariat in relation to the Global Strategy for a representative and balanced World Heritage List by referring to some of the regional thematic meetings organized since the last Committee session. He also described various regional approaches to improving the representation of cultural and natural properties on the World Heritage List, particularly in Central and Eastern Asia, Africa, Europe and Latin America. Examples of the meetings referred to by Mr Bouchenaki include: a meeting on "Cultural Landscapes: Concept and Implementation" held in Italy in March 2000; a "Workshop for Protected Area Management Decision-makers from Southeast and East Asia" held in Tokyo and Yakushima Island, Japan in February 2000; a "Global Strategy Expert Meeting on Central Asian Cultural Heritage" in Ashgabat and Merv in May 2000 with the support of the Government of Turkmenistan; a Workshop on "Assessing Natural Heritage of Coastal and Marine Areas of Africa" held in Maputo, Mozambique in March 2000; a Regional thematic expert meeting on the Natural Heritage of the Caribbean, Suriname, February 2000, and a Meeting on "Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context" organized at the Great Zimbabwe National Monument in May 2000.
III.7 With regard to the action for the protection of World Heritage sites, the Director of the Centre presented new sites (three natural, one cultural) inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the twenty-third session of the Committee. He explained the Centre's activities to monitor the state of conservation of sites that were under considerable threat due to on-going public and private works. However, the Director noted positive developments due to decisions taken at the highest level of the Government to improve the state of conservation of El Vizcaino (Mexico) and the Group of Monuments at Hampi (India).
III.8 The Director of the Centre continued by giving a brief summary of the periodic reporting process carried out in the Arab States for the application of Article 29 of the Convention. He highlighted several activities organized in the first half 2000 in preparing the report and in organizing regional training activities. National workshops for the preparation of the periodic report have been planned for Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Mauritania, Libya, Oman and other States Parties. A regional synthesis report is due to be presented to the Committee in December 2000. Furthermore, the Director gave examples of some activities organized for periodic reporting in Africa. Questionnaires were sent to the African States Parties and training seminars will be organized respectively for French and English-speaking African States Parties.
III.9 Concerning international co-operation activities with States Parties, international and regional bodies and other organizations, the Director highlighted the increased co-operation with the UN Foundation for natural World Heritage sites that are of significance for biodiversity conservation. The Centre and IUCN are cooperating with the Vietnamese Government for launching projects in support of the conservation and management of the World Heritage site of Ha Long Bay and a donors' meeting will be organized to strengthen the capacity of the site administration. The Centre and IUCN are also collaborating for the organization of the Fifth World Congress on Protected Areas to be held in Durban, South Africa in September 2002. The Centre, IUCN and the International Council on Mining and the Environment (CME) have been organizing meetings to address mining issues and impacts on integrity of World Heritage sites. The Centre, IUCN and ICOMOS participated in a conference on "The Cultural Landscape: planning for a sustainable partnership between people and places" held in the UK in May 2000, which reviewed the revised drafts of the European Landscape Convention.
III.10 The Director of the Centre referred to co-operative activities with the Bhaktapur Municipality (Nepal) and the Directorate of Cultural Heritage of Norway for the organization of a meeting on cultural heritage management and tourism in April 2000. The Centre and UNEP (Paris) are in the process of finalizing the publication of a guide for site managers in Asia on tourism management. The Centre also developed co-operation with the World Bank for the preparation of guidelines concerning the World Bank loans in favour of World Heritage cultural sites. Co-operation activities are under discussion with Japan Bank for International Co-operation and the French Agency for Development. These activities aim to strengthen co-operation in the effective application of paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines concerning the examination of infrastructure development plans impacting on World Heritage sites. Furthermore, the Director expressed appreciation for the European Union and national and local authorities in Europe for the conservation and development of World Heritage sites in Asia through specific projects. The Director brought to the attention of the Bureau the France/UNESCO Co-operation Agreement for the Protection of Monumental, Urban and Natural Heritage to implement activities related to capacity building, legal protection, management and conservation skills for sites on the World Heritage List or on the Tentative Lists of States Parties to the Convention.
III.11 The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau on the status of production of basic information material (including the World Heritage Map and an updated Information Kit) and publications such as The World Heritage Review, a brochure on periodic reporting (in English, Spanish and French) and a publication on the Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Africa. He also highlighted the success of the Centre's Internet pages and new web pages for the Global Strategy with links to thematic and comparative studies of the advisory bodies. Furthermore, the Director of the Centre informed the Bureau of the latest results arising from the self-financing programme on partnerships with the media and publishers and referred to new projects, including those related to TV films and publications that are being developed by outside partners in co-operation with the Centre. The Director informed the Bureau that the International Task Force on Capacity Building for World Natural Heritage (CONNECT) was held in April 2000. The Task Force developed a strategic plan and a programme of work (2001-2005) aimed at strengthening co-operation, outreach, networking, education and training for the conservation of natural World Heritage sites.
III.12 The Director of the Centre also presented the Centre's work in relation to UNESCO's Special Project: "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion" highlighting some of the activities undertaken in 2000 such as the sub-regional workshops for teachers in Belize, Ecuador, Fiji, India, Jordan, Malawi, Mexico, Oman, Palestine, Russian Federation, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Yemen. The translation and production of the World Heritage Educational Resource Kit for Teachers- "World Heritage in Young Hands" have been completed in Japanese and is underway in Armenia, Austria, China, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya and other countries. He also mentioned that additional World Heritage Youth Fora would be held in Peru (October 2000) and Australia (late November 2000). The Director informed the Bureau that a Newsletter for the Special Project had been produced and distributed to States Parties in May 2000 and the evaluation of the project is underway.
III.13 The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau on the dramatic increase in the number of requests for international assistance from the World Heritage Fund since 1998. By June 2000, the total International Assistance budget is almost exhausted. The Director encouraged States Parties to utilize the World Heritage Fund in a catalytic manner and to actively seek other outside sources for funding.
III.14 The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau of the staffing situation of the Centre in the first part of 2000. He also expressed appreciation to the Governments of Austria, Germany, Italy and Japan for providing the services of Associate Experts to UNESCO to assist the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. He also thanked the Government of Finland for its intention to put at the disposal of the Centre an associate expert for natural heritage from the beginning of September 2000.
III.15 The Director of the Centre underlined the fact that only 46% of contributions due to the World Heritage Fund for the year 2000 had been received from States Parties as of 31 May 2000. He urged States Parties who had not yet settled their arrears for previous years to do so, in order to ensure that the status of the Fund remains healthy. He then briefly explained the development of the Information Management System at the Centre, and confirmed that a master plan for information technology use and information circulation is due to be completed by September 2000.
III.16 The Director of the Centre concluded that this Bureau is especially important because the substance of discussions will guide towards a process of change that is likely to impact the Convention's implementation as well as the working methods and procedures of the Committee and the Bureau.
III.17 The Chairperson thanked the Director for his report on the activities of the World Heritage Centre since the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee.
III.18 The Delegates of Greece, Hungary and Zimbabwe congratulated the Director and the staff of the World Heritage Centre for the significant achievements registered since the twenty-third session of the Committee. The Delegate of Greece requested a clarification concerning the selection of participants for the Expert Meeting for the Revision of the Operational Guidelines in Canterbury, U.K.
III.19 The Director of the Centre stated that a balanced regional approach for both cultural and natural heritage experts was used in identifying participants for this meeting. The Observer of the United Kingdom further confirmed that his Government was pleased that such a productive and successful meeting took place in his country.
III.20 The Chairperson elaborated that experts and delegates from many countries would have liked to participate in such a meeting. On behalf of the Bureau, he thanked the UK Government for the organization of this meeting. The reason for the limited number of international participants who could be invited was related to budgetary constraints. The Chairperson thanked all the countries that had expressed their strong interests in this expert meeting.
III.21 IUCN noted that the Director of the Centre had rightly emphasized the growing demands made on the advisory bodies with the increasing number of nominations. This is aggravated by the growing number of missions, meetings and other activities that involve the advisory bodies. IUCN was happy to support the effective operation of the World Heritage Convention but drew attention that all these activities and additional responsibilities proposed by the Task Force and Working Groups occur at a cost to IUCN which significantly exceeds the resources made available from the World Heritage Fund. IUCN requested that increasing expectations of involvement need to be accompanied by a realistic allocation of resources. With regard to the Fifth World Protected Areas Congress planned to be held in Durban, South Africa in September 2002, IUCN noted that it coincided with the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention. IUCN welcomed co-operation with the Centre in ensuring that World Heritage has an appropriate profile at this major once-in-10 year Congress.
III.22 The Delegate of Hungary informed the Bureau that an Integrated Urban Conservation Training Workshop and Seminar for Central European Historic City Managers took place recently in Budapest. He proposed that the Budapest Proposal be included in the report. (The Budapest Proposal is attached as Annex III to this report.)
III.23 The Delegate of Zimbabwe requested the Bureau to take note of the next ICOMOS General Assembly that will be held in October 2002 in his country, and which also coincides with the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.
IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
A. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
IV.1 The Bureau examined document WHC-2000/CONF.202/4 that included reports on the state of conservation of eighteen natural and five cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and made the following observations and recommendations.
NATURAL HERITAGE
IV.2 Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
The Bureau noted that the Ministry of Environment of Brazil had taken all possible measures to close the Colon Road. In particular: (a) a technical report prepared by the Brazilian Environment Agency (IBAMA) on the environmental impacts caused by the illegal opening of the Colon Road and its continuing use has been submitted to the Courts; and (b) the Federal Court of Parana has ratified the Brazilian Government's decision to close the road and to impose prison sentences on those who continue to refuse to comply with the Government's decision. The Supreme Court of Brazil has ordered the road closed and will impose a fine of US$ 500 on any vehicle using the road.
IUCN informed the Bureau that it was collaborating with the WWF Offices in Brazil and Argentina and with several other national organisations to develop a long-term strategy for biodiversity conservation in the broader Atlantic Forest Eco-region. IUCN noted that a workshop was held in Iguacu National Park of Brazil from 25 to 28 April 2000, which noted that the main issues concerning the state of conservation of this site continue to be related to the closure of the road, effective and co-ordinated planning for the conservation of the area involving all countries concerned and local communities in the management of the site.
The Observer of Brazil agreed with the observations of the Centre and IUCN and said that his Government is doing its best to close the illegally opened road despite resistance from local communities against its complete closure. He expressed the hope that his Government would be able to enforce the legal decision to close the road by the time of the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns, Australia, during November-December 2000. The Bureau commended the State Party for its persistence to strictly enforce the legal decision to close the Colon Road and encouraged it to continue its efforts and to provide an up-to-date progress report to the Centre on the impacts of the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Parana on the effective closure of the Colon Road by 15 September 2000. The Bureau recommended that, if the State Party confirms the effective closure of the road before the next session of the Committee, then the Committee might consider initiating steps to remove the Iguacu National Park of Brazil from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.3 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
The Bureau noted that a workshop held from 25 to 27 September 1999 at this site had brought together twenty-eight participants from Government institutions, staff of the Reserve and NGOs. The workshop focused on linking the applications of the World Heritage Convention, Ramsar Convention, Biosphere Reserve concept and other Europe-wide initiatives, such as those of BirdLife Network, Natura 2000 and the European Habitat Directive, to the conservation of Srebarna Nature Reserve. The workshop also explored possibilities to involve the local population in the conservation of the site and to orient management to improve the living standards of the local people resident in and around the Reserve.
The Bureau was informed that investigations conducted by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences on the potential effects of a recent cyanide spill in the River Danube on the conservation of Srebarna had revealed that:
Cyanide levels in Danube water samples near Srebarna were not higher than 0.012 mg/l; such levels are considered to be dangerous only in cases of long-term, chronic pollution;
Srebarna Lake is linked to the River Danube via a channel with two locks which were closed at the time of the cyanide spill; at that time the water level in the Lake was also higher than that in the River, and hence the chances of cyanide seepage into the Lake were further curtailed; and
Pollution due to heavy metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons and other pollutants originating from lands immediately surrounding the Lake are potentially of greater concern than the impact of the cyanide spill to the long-term conservation of Srebarna.
The Bureau noted that monitoring of cyanide levels in the Lake had commenced in February 2000 and suggested that the State Party continue to monitor the impact of the cyanide spill as well as that of other major pollutants entering the Lake. On the overall impact of the cyanide spill, also refer to paragraph IV.45.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau encouraged the State Party and the relevant national authorities to continue their efforts to link the different initiatives at the national, European and international level to mitigate threats to the site. The Bureau requested the State Party to submit a state of conservation report by 15 September 2000, addressing amongst others, effectiveness of the rehabilitation programme currently being implemented by the State Party. The Bureau asked the Centre and IUCN to review that report and propose to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, a process and a time-table for an assessment of the results of the restoration of Srebarna and its possible removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2001.
IV.4 Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris National Park (Central African Republic (CAR))
The Bureau expressed its concern that the President of the State Party had not yet responded to letters from the Director-General and the Chairperson, transmitting the recommendations of the twenty-second (Kyoto, Japan, 1998) and the twenty-third (Marrakesh, Morocco, 1999) sessions of the Committee. The letters invited the President's urgent intervention for the preparation of a detailed state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan for the conservation of the site. The Bureau noted the information reported by IUCN that poachers entering CAR from other countries in the region continue to have serious impacts on this site and that the CAR Government has sent a number of armed military personnel into the area to mitigate the poaching threat.
The Bureau, once again, reiterated the Committee's decision, taken at its twenty- second and twenty-third sessions, and invited the President of the State Party to directly intervene in favour of the conservation of the site to prepare a state of conservation report and an emergency rehabilitation plan. The Bureau instructed the Centre to co-operate with the Ambassador of CAR in France and the Permanent Delegate of CAR to UNESCO, as well as with site representatives who may attend the periodic reporting workshop for West and Central Africa to obtain an official response from the President of CAR to the afore-mentioned letters. This Workshop will be convened by the Centre in Senegal during early July 2000. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.5 Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Virunga National Park
Garamba National Park
Kahuzi Biega National Park
Okapi Wildlife Reserve
Salonga National Park
The Bureau was informed that, as requested by the Committee at its last session in Morocco (November - December 1999), the Director-General of UNESCO had written to the Heads of States of the DRC and of the neighbouring states implicated in the war in Eastern DRC, namely Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda, drawing their attention to the need to respect the international law protecting the five World Heritage sites in the DRC and soliciting their support to create an environment enabling resident site staff to effectively protect the sites. The Minister for the Environment of the Government of the DRC had responded to this letter affirming his Government's commitment to the conservation of the five sites. The Bureau was informed that the Permanent Delegate of Sudan to UNESCO, via a letter dated 29 April 2000, had informed the Director- General that his country is not party to the war in Eastern DRC. The letters sent to the Rwandan and Ugandan authorities have not yet elicited a response from authorities concerned.
In his letters addressed to the Heads of States mentioned above, the Director-General had informed them of the imminent launch of the UN Foundation (UNF) financed project for the conservation of biodiversity in the five World Heritage sites in the DRC. The project will pay salaries and allowances to site staff, meet their essential equipment and training needs, undertake monitoring activities to update knowledge on the state of conservation of key species in the five sites and support local community activities benefiting World Heritage site conservation. Furthermore, the Director-General has written to the UN Secretary General, the Director General of FAO and the Paris-based Ambassadors of all States Parties to the Convention requesting their support to influence the leaders of the DRC and the nearby States implicated in the war in Eastern DRC, calling upon the need to provide a safe working environment for site staff and to strengthen conservation of the five World Heritage sites. The Director General of FAO has acknowledged the letter of the Director- General of UNESCO and informed that his organisation was studying the question of co-operation with UNESCO in the implementation of the UNF project.
The Bureau was pleased to note that the final version of the document of the UNF financed project for biodiversity conservation in the World Heritage sites in the DRC, was signed by the Government of the DRC, UNESCO and UNFIP on 5 May 2000 during a ceremony held at UNESCO, Paris, and attended by the Minister of Environment of the DRC. Subsequently, UNFIP has transferred the first year's funds of about US$ 959,000 to UNESCO on 7 June 2000. The Bureau was informed that the Centre and the Division of Ecological Sciences of UNESCO participated at a meeting of the Core-Group, that co-ordinates the execution of this project and comprises UNESCO, UNF/UNFIP, ICCN and its partners and representatives from all five sites, held in Naivasha, Kenya from 6 to 9 June 2000. The Representative of the IUCN Central African Regional Office also attended the meeting. At the Core-Group meeting, UNESCO and the executing partners, namely GTZ (Germany), IRF, GIC, WWF and WCS discussed administrative and co-ordination arrangements that will enable an early launch as well as effective execution of the first year of activities of the 4-year project. Activities financed by the UNF project will begin in July 2000.
In accordance with another recommendation made by the twenty-third session of the Committee in Morocco (November-December 1999), the Chairperson had approved, in April 2000, a sum of US$ 48,000 as emergency assistance in support of the following actions: (a) organisation of an intermediary mission to the DRC and neighbouring States (US$ 27,000); and (b) providing pension benefits to staff due to retire from services in the Central and Northern sectors of the Virunga National Park (US$21,000). The intermediary mission was fielded from 8 May to 11 June 2000 and was carried out by a two-person team comprising Drs. Jean-Pierre d'Huart (Belgium) and Terese B. Hart (USA). The Bureau reviewed a summary report of the mission based on a brief presentation made by Dr. Jean Pierre d'Huart and the document WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.14 and noted the following conclusions of the mission:
- The situation in the World Heritage sites of the DRC, though variable from site-to-site, is alarming
and the decision of the World Heritage Committee to place them in the List of World Heritage in
Danger is fully justified. The overall situation in some sites (Kahuzi Biega, Garamba) appears to be
improving slowly, while in other sites (Virunga and Okapi), it is, on the contrary, deteriorating. If
peace returns quickly (within a maximum period of 12 months), it is hoped that the UNF Project
could significantly contribute towards reversing such deteriorating trends in the sites referred to above.
On the contrary, if the conflict situation persists, the degradation caused to the biological diversity
of the sites, coupled with the anarchical trends in the country and the weakening of ICCN staff, could
constitute severe constraints on the Project's ability to attain its objectives.
- Despite the fact that the threats and responsibilities for the damage caused, to the sites are attributed
by the government authorities (formal and rebel) to a wide range of groups, it appears that the UNF
Project could count on the understanding and support of all persons met by the mission team. Each
of them, within the limits of their responsibilities and ability to act, committed to respond positively
to specific requests for action which they would have to carry out to contribute to the protection of
the sites and to the execution of the Project.
- Similarly, possibilities for certain specific types of support were offered by the United Nations
Agencies (including the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Congo (UNOMC)) or by
bilateral and multilateral development co-operation agencies. They viewed the launch of the
UNF/UNESCO Project for the whole of DRC, currently divided into regions controlled by three
different governance regimes, as an innovative pilot initiative and the organisational, administrative
and financial aspects of the execution of the UNF project might present a model that could eventually
contribute to resolving some of the problems that the implementation of other UN programmes
currently have. The interest to search for synergies between the projects of different UN agencies
enables the envisaging of a number of collaborative actions that require specific follow-up.
- Rapid follow-up on all specific actions requested and offers of support received by the intermediary
mission must be ensured in a co-ordinated manner. A concerted and urgent approach to enable close
co-ordination of this Project that concerns five different sites and a multitude of actors must be put
into place urgently.
- The responsible authorities in regions neighbouring the World Heritage sites have a poor
understanding of the problems of the sites and their present and future consequences and the national
and international legal obligations of their government. This appears to directly result from the low
importance assigned by site managers in the past for establishing regular formal and informal contacts
with such authorities in the neighbouring regions.
- With the UNF project supporting the network of five World Heritage sites about to commence, the
total lack of communication and co-ordination between authorities responsible for ICCN and the sites
is a serious concern. The operations in these sites are actually under the authority of individuals who
are part of three different governance regimes (Salonga - : Government of the DRC, Kinshasa;
Garamba, Okapi and the northern sector of Virunga - rebel authorities based in Bunia and Beni; and
the southern sector of Virunga and Kahuzi Biega - rebel authorities based in Goma and Bukavu).
Improving co-ordination between certain key persons shall benefit the protected areas of the DRC
and ICCN in general, and the UNF Project in particular. The case of the Virunga National Park is
illustrative: it is divided into two sectors by the boundary separating the zones of influence of two
different rebel groups. The two zones are also occupied by two different foreign armed forces. The
two sectors of the Park are under different management and exploitation regimes and there are no
communications between ICCN staff from the North and South, or with their Headquarters in
Kinshasa.
- GTZ (Germany) project's institutional support to the ICCN Directorate appears very efficient in the
development of new plans, programmes and procedures emanating out of Kinshasa. The Project may
have to give greater attention to a re-examination of the deployment of personnel in relation to the
functions, problems and challenges confronting ICCN.
- Despite the large number of personalities met by the mission and the volume of actions undertaken, support at the highest level needs to be re-ascertained and strengthened with a view to concretising the willingness for collaboration expressed into actions on the ground. The follow-up of the several requests addressed to the Governments of the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda by the mission justifies that a high-level, diplomatic mission of UNESCO is fielded to the three capitals as soon as possible.
The Bureau learned that the remaining US$ 21,000 of the US$ 48,000 approved by the Chairperson as emergency assistance will be used for paying 70 staff members, at the rate of US$ 300 per person, who are due to retire from services in the Central and Northern sectors of the Virunga National Park. Similar retirement benefits to staff in the Southern sector of Virunga National Park and in the other four sites will be provided by ICCN's partners, namely GTZ-Germany, WWF, IRF, WCS and GIC. These partners have been paying allowances and salaries to site staff during the last three to four years when ICCN has been unable to meet such demands due to the deteriorating economic situation of the country. The UNF grant of US$ 2,895,912 will in part be used for meeting salaries of site staff over the next four years and hence all the partners of ICCN will save considerable amounts of expenditure. These savings will be used by the partners to settle the problem of paying retirement benefits to staff whose departure from regular services has been long overdue. This step will not only open up new employment opportunities for youth in areas near all of the five sites; it will facilitate the re-integration of the retiring staff into local communities and continue to support the conservation of the five sites. Conscious efforts to re-integrate the retiring staff into local community life are considered an important management task; otherwise, the knowledge and skills of these retiring officers may easily be co-opted by other groups opposed to the conservation interests of the sites.
During the Core-Group meeting of the UNF Project held in Naivasha, Kenya, from 6 to 9 June 2000, it became clear that several other donors were willing to study the feasibility to provide support to consolidate the UNF project. The Bureau recalled the information reported at the last session of the Committee (Marrakesh, 1999) that while UNF has provided a grant of US$ 2,895,912, the total cost of the 4-year project was estimated at US$ 4,180,600. Hence, additional support, currently being discussed with the European Union, the Cabinet of Development Co-operation of Belgium and the GTZ, Germany, could assist in the raising of the additional amount of US$ 1,284,666 needed and considerably increase the chances of success of the UNF Project.
Provision of direct support to site staff is helping to build staff morale in Garamba National Park where the impact of increased patrolling and surveillance has been monitored. The US$ 30,000 approved by the twenty- third ordinary session of the Bureau in July 1999 for paying motivational allowances for staff in Garamba National Park has partly contributed to the staff spending a total number of 8,788 guard-days, or 796 patrol- days, in 1999. This resulted in 51 contacts with poachers and the recovery of 9 automatic weapons, 226 rounds of ammunition, 4 grenades and numerous other items illegally possessed by the poachers. IUCN has reported that contacts between staff on patrol and armed groups in Garamba have steadily fallen since the last quarter of 1998. An aerial census of the northern white rhinoceros, unique to this site, was carried out by the IRF (International Rhino Foundation) between 14 and 21 April 2000; results showed that there are at least 24 rhinos in the area and there may be as many as 31 individuals in the Park. This number compares well with the pre-war population of about 35 individuals. The aerial census also counted 7 new-born calves and hence the prospects for the continued survival of this unique sub-species of the African rhino appears to be encouraging at present, despite the on-going war in this region.
Although signs of improvements in staff morale are evident, ability of site staff to access all parts in many sites remain severely restricted as different warring and armed factions occupy selected sections of such sites. In Kahuzi Biega National Park, staff have access to only about 5-10% of the total area of the Park. In these accessible parts, 70 gorillas and traces of 5 elephants have been recorded. In 1996, the census data showed the presence of 258 gorillas and 350 elephants in the whole of the Kahuzi Biega National Park. There are widespread concerns that elephant populations in the Park may have been severly poached and the loss of elephants may have indirect ecological consequences for the gorillas; elephants are thought to be responsible for opening up forests and areas of secondary-growth which are preferred feeding habitats of gorillas. Elephants may also play a role in the germination of certain plant species eaten by the gorilla. The ICCN- PARCID Project in Kahuzi Biega National Park regularly issues a newsletter that heightens awareness of the leaders and the public of the need to conserve flagship species such as the gorillas and the elephant in Kahuzi Biega. The Project also maintains an electronic mailing list for disseminating accurate information on the status of such flagship species and on the overall state of conservation and needs of the Kahuzi Biega National Park. These regular communications are beginning to have impacts on raising the interests of concerned conservation groups; for example the international Ape Alliance Group is launching an appeal to protect the gorillas of Kahuzi Biega National Park. In addition, regular communications also appear to have contributed to international pressure being brought upon one of the neighbouring country governments whose forces occupy the area; the movements of these forces into the Park area have considerably reduced, although the DRC rebel factions continue to occupy the Park.
The Bureau was concerned in particular about the cases of Okapi and Virunga where the mission team felt that the conditions were deteriorating more than in other sites. The separation of Virunga into a northern and southern sector, with each sector being controlled by different rebel groups under the influence of different foreign armies, is a major concern.
Salonga National Park, in the central parts of the DRC, and the only one of the five sites in the DRC still under the direct authority of the ICCN Office in Kinshasa, has also been experiencing increased poaching, particularly on the endemic bonobo chimpanzees. A centre for protecting orphaned chimpanzees is helping to protect these species. The war in the eastern parts of the DRC appears to have disrupted the flow of essential foods across the country and local people and armed factions appear to be turning increasingly towards wildlife as the main source of their protein supply. Salonga has also recorded significant increases in elephant poaching, a trend directly resulting from increased supply of arms and ammunition caused by the war in eastern DRC.
The Bureau expressed its satisfaction to note modest improvements in the conservation of Garamba but was deeply concerned with the continuing threats to the integrity of the other four sites. The Bureau recommended that the Centre, ICCN and its partners, IUCN and site staff do everything possible to ensure an early start and effective execution of the UNF-financed project. In addition, based on the findings of the two-person mission team, the Bureau made the following recommendations:
- Requested that the Director of the Centre review the requests contained in the memorandum
submitted by the intermediary mission to the Chief of UNOMC and take decisions to ensure adequate
follow up and assign a focal person for contacts between the UNF Project and UNOMC at
Kinshasa.
- Requested the Centre to take all necessary measures to recruit a Co-ordinator for the UNF project
as soon as possible, in consultation with the United Nations Foundation and assure that the budget
foreseen for the co-ordination of operations enables the delivery of the quality of services
needed.
- Requested the Centre to convene, as soon as possible, a meeting among the three appropriate
technical authorities, representing the three different governance regimes within the territory of the
DRC to discuss the best co-ordination and communication mechanisms to adopt with a view to
optimising the work of ICCN. Such a meeting could be organised in Nairobi, financed under the
budget of the UNF Project, and facilitated by a neutral person acceptable to the three parties. The
agreements reached in such a meeting should ensure that activities in support of the conservation of
the five sites are executed in a co-ordinated manner.
- Invited the Director-General of UNESCO to field a high-level mission to the capitals of the RDC,
Uganda and Rwanda. It is suggested that the programme of the high-level mission be limited to
meetings with:
- Heads of States and the members of their Governments concerned with the implementation (or
ratification) of the World Heritage Convention and the protection of the World Heritage sites in the
DRC; particular emphasis would be placed on the possible role and the impact of armed forces on
the preservation of these sites;
- Chief of UNOMC with a view to discussing possible synergies between the operations of UNOMC
and the execution of the UNF Project; and
- Representatives of other United Nations agencies, with a view to reiterating the need to co-ordinate the strategic approaches of their respective programmes and to reinforce the impact of the UNF Project.
- Heads of States and the members of their Governments concerned with the implementation (or
ratification) of the World Heritage Convention and the protection of the World Heritage sites in the
DRC; particular emphasis would be placed on the possible role and the impact of armed forces on
the preservation of these sites;
The Bureau noted that if the high-level mission could have the participation of the Directors- General of UNESCO and UNEP then it could have a major impact on the Heads of States and other decision-makers who would be met during the visit of the high-level mission.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe underlined the importance of co-ordination among the ICCN staff from the different parts of DRC and the need to ensure that the funds made available by the UNF are spent on activities directly benefiting sites rather than for administrative activities distant from the sites. The Delegate of Australia concurred with the observations of the Zimbabwe Delegate and said that recommendations of the Bureau on the state of conservation of sites in the DRC should be realistic and have a good chance of being executed without any major difficulties. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain all five sites of the DRC in the List of World Heritage in Danger. However, as suggested by IUCN, it commended the staff at the site for their commitment to their work, and thanked the UNF for its generous financial assistance. The Bureau also invited the States Parties to undertake bilateral co-operative actions.
IV.6 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
At its last session in Morocco (November - December 1999) the Committee expressed its agreement with the State Party's proposal that the effects of the inclusion of Sangay in the List of World Heritage in Danger should be evaluated. In accordance with that recommendation, the Centre and IUCN intend to invite a paper from the Ecuadorean authorities for presentation at a workshop on the "Role of the List of World Heritage in Danger in promoting international co-operation for the conservation of World Heritage sites". This workshop is planned to be convened at the time of IUCN's World Conservation Congress, from 3 to 10 October 2000, in Amman, Jordan. Several other States Parties that have experience in using the List of World Heritage in Danger as an instrument for international co-operation will also be invited to submit presentations at the workshop.
The Bureau was informed of a meeting involving Centre staff and the Minister for the Environment of Ecuador, and which took place in UNESCO, on 22 May 2000. The Minister informed the Centre that the Guamote-Macas road is now completed and his Government will explore the actions required to minimise impacts of this road. The Bureau concurred with the view of IUCN that the mitigation of impacts of the Guamote Macas Road and the effective implementation of the new management plan for the site are the priorities for improving the state of conservation of this site. The Representative of IUCN noted that the case of the Sangay National Park illustrated the usefulness of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to describe in detail, as part of the paper it will be invited to present at the Amman Workshop, positive and negative impacts of the inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and their relevance to the long-term conservation of the site. As part of the deliberations during that Workshop, the Bureau invited the Ecuadorean authorities, the Centre and IUCN to elaborate a plan, including the description of indicators and benchmarks, for the continuous monitoring of the state of conservation of Sangay and for the eventual removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau invited the State Party to provide the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Committee with a summary of its presentation due to be submitted at the forthcoming Workshop in Amman, and a plan for further monitoring leading to possible removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.7 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
The Bureau was informed of a meeting between the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia to UNESCO and the Director and concerned staff of the Centre, convened on 16 February 2000, when the Director recalled the decisions of the Bureau and the Committee since the site's inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996. In particular, the Director of the Centre referred to the recommendation of the twenty-third session of the Committee (Morocco, 1999) that the Chairperson undertake a mission to Ethiopia to meet with relevant national and regional authorities and to re-establish a basis for regular exchange of formal communications between the State Party and the Committee. In accordance with the wish of the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia, the Director sent a letter, dated 22 February 2000, to His Excellency the Ambassador of Ethiopia to France, proposing a 4-5 day mission of the Chairperson and suggesting possible dates for the mission. In addition, the letter suggested that: (a) the Director of the Centre accompany the Chairperson on the mission to Ethiopia; (b) the Ethiopian authorities organize consultations between the mission team and national as well as regional authorities responsible for Simen National Park; (c) the mission team be given the opportunity to visit the site and learn of the conditions that may have led to Simen being included in the List of World Heritage in Danger and of rehabilitation measures that are being implemented by the Ethiopian authorities; and (d) the Chairperson and the Director prepare a report for submission to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee to be convened in Cairns, Australia from 27 November to 2 December 2000. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia via a letter of 14 April 2000 had informed the Centre that his country, including the Regional authorities where the site is located, are ready to receive the visit of the Chairperson and the Director of the Centre.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested that the Centre co-operate with the State Party to field the mission to be led by the Chairperson and assisted by the Director of the Centre as soon as possible, and submit a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site, progress achieved in the rehabilitation efforts undertaken so far and additional measures needed for the restoration of World Heritage values of the site to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.
IV.8 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
The Bureau was informed of a meeting between a representative of CEGEN (Centre for Environmental Management of Mount Nimba) and Centre staff during the Representative's visit to the Centre from 17 to 21 April 2000. The Bureau noted with satisfaction several initiatives currently underway to revive international co-operation for the protection of Mt. Nimba. The feasibility study phase of a GEF project has already commenced and is expected to be followed by a medium-sized (US$ 300,000 or more) GEF grant. There are negotiations between GEF and other potential donors for mobilising additional resources for the long-term conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Centre has had discussions with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) on possible collaboration to develop a project concept to address impacts and pressures caused by refugees resident in and around this site that straddles the border between Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire. The Representative of the CEGEN informed the Centre that under the framework of the GEF project a sub-regional meeting of Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire, as well as Liberia which also has parts of the Mt. Nimba ecosystem, and all concerned stakeholders is likely to be convened in the near future and that CEGEN will invite participation of the Centre and IUCN at that meeting. The meeting will provide an opportunity for implementing the recommendation of the Committee, made at its twenty-second (Kyoto, 1998) and twenty-third (Marrakesh, 1999) sessions, that IUCN's West Africa Office undertake a mission to the site and prepare a detailed state of conservation report. Furthermore, the Bureau noted that the Centre has established contacts with Birdlife International and Fauna and Flora International (FFI) which is developing initiatives for conservation of the Mt. Nimba ecosystem in Côte d'Ivoire and encouraged the Centre to effectively use these opportunities to develop a harmonised transborder approach to the conservation of the Mt. Nimba ecosystem.
The Bureau noted with satisfaction that new opportunities for strengthening conservation of this transborder World Heritage area are emerging under the GEF project. The Bureau requested the Centre to co-operate with CEGEN and GEF as well as the relevant authorities in Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire in order to expedite the fielding of an IUCN mission to the site and the preparation of a detailed state of conservation report. In addition, the Bureau recommended that IUCN and the Centre co-operate with the States Parties and possible donors to re-explore possibilities for establishing a long-term financial mechanism, such as the setting up of a Foundation for Mt. Nimba, as suggested by the past sessions of the Bureau and the Committee, for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.9 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
The Bureau was informed that the Centre staff, at a meeting held in early 2000, pointed out to the Permanent Delegate of Honduras to UNESCO the recommendation of the Committee that her Government consider inviting a UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site. Following that meeting and several formal and informal communications, the State Party, via a letter dated 21 June 2000 invited a Centre/IUCN mission and the Bureau was satisfied to learn that the mission is likely to be fielded in late September 2000. The Bureau was informed that a project of the German Technical Co-operation Agency, GTZ, is attempting to implement participatory resettlement programmes to minimize human impacts in the core zone of the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve. The project is supported by the GTZ and German Ministry for Economic Co-operation (BMZ) and the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KWF), at a total cost of 14 million German Marks.
The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to work with the relevant authorities of the State Party to field a site visit in September 2000 as foreseen and during the mission also obtain up-to-date information on the Patuca II project, including a copy of the EIA that has been prepared. The Bureau recommended that the report of the mission, including the recommendations for future action, be submitted to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee during November-December 2000. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.10 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
The Bureau learned that the Deputy Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests in New Delhi, India, via his letter dated 10 April 2000, had informed the Centre that the second phase of the rehabilitation plan for Manas for which the twenty-first session of the Committee (Naples, 1997) approved a sum of US$ 90,000, is currently being implemented. The Bureau recalled that the delay in utilising these funds for rehabilitation activities was caused by the unusually heavy rains experienced in 1998. Also, the need to revise the rehabilitation plan to minimise construction activities in parts of the site where security conditions were not yet optimal for maintaining permanent presence of staff and for executing some community support activities to improve collaboration between staff and villagers also caused delays.
The Bureau noted that implementation of this second phase of the rehabilitation plan is due to be completed by early 2001, and accepted the suggestion of the State Party that the Centre/IUCN mission to prepare a progress report, recommended by the twenty-third session of the Committee (Marrakesh, Morocco, 1999), be undertaken in 2001, instead in 2000 as previously foreseen. The Bureau urged that the Centre and IUCN, during the mission in 2001, take special efforts to review the status of the rhino population in Manas and the impact of rehabilitation measures implemented to counter poaching threats on the rhino. Reports received by IUCN indicate that recovery of the rhino population following the loss of more than 30 individuals during the peak of the Bodo militancy between 1989 and 1992 has been slow and continues to be a major concern for site management. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.11 Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)
The Bureau was informed that, as part of the implementation of the rehabilitation plan, adopted by the Bureau at its session in July 1999, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife of Niger had organized a training workshop on the protection of natural heritage for Reserve staff from Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Departments, and others from the National Museums, University of Niamey, border police, army, security services, tour operators, and others concerned with the control of trade in wildlife products and artefacts. The Workshop was convened from 20 - 23 March 2000 in Niamey. A detailed report on the outcome of the Workshop, and a progress report on the implementation of the rehabilitation plan are currently under preparation and the main conclusions and recommendations of the Workshop will be presented to the twenty- fourth session of the Committee in Cairns, Australia from 27 November to 2 December 2000.
IUCN informed the Bureau that its network members have reported progress in the implementation of the rehabilitation plan for the site. IUCN and the State Party, under the terms of an MOU signed in 1999, are aiming to achieve the following results during the year 2000: (a) establishment of improved management mechanisms at the site; (b) strengthened operational capacity, including the reinforcement of support to partner organisations; (c) better conservation of natural and cultural values of the site; and (d) strengthened efforts to involve local communities.
The Bureau was pleased to note that the implementation of the rehabilitation plan, which it endorsed at its twenty-third session, is progressing satisfactorily. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party and submit a progress report on the implementation of the rehabilitation plan, including the State Party's views on when the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns, Australia. The report also should address, as per a suggestion made by the Delegate of Zimbabwe, progress made with regard to attaining targets set for the year 2000 and described in items (a) - (d) above. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.12 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
The Bureau was informed that a four-person team representing IUCN, the Ramsar Convention and other international and regional organisations, visited the site from 28 February to 4 March 2000. The team reviewed the monitoring programmes currently in place and considered additional parameters and indicators that need to be included in an expanded programme to monitor the effectiveness of the rehabilitation measures currently being implemented by the State Party. The report of the mission team has been submitted to the State Party for comments.
The mission concluded that Ichkeul National Park would have to be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger for a considerable number of years before a thorough assessment of the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programme currently being put in place by the Tunisian Government is feasible. There are several positive signs that indicate that the potential for the effective rehabilitation of the lakes and the marshes still exists. For example, germination tests have been carried out on seeds of Potamogeton collected in the sediments of the zone occupied by beds of this plant before 1996 (western part of the lake). These laboratory tests, carried out under optimal salinity conditions for germination, were successful and proved that the lake still maintains its potential to reconstitute the beds of Potamogeton which have currently been replaced by beds of Ruppia sp. The same is true for the restoration of rushes over large areas of marsh several years after the disappearance of the plants as they reappear when marshes are flooded during the right period for germination and also in pools of rain water in little depressions.
In respect of establishing a programme for monitoring the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programme, the mission team recommended that the National Agency for Environmental Protection (ANPE): (a) maintain the current programme for monitoring water quality and quantity; (b) introduce a new component to monitor the development of bathymetry of the lake; (c) maintain the current programme of monitoring the submerged flora, and extend it further by strengthening the monitoring team through the recruitment of specialized multidisciplinary staff; (d) initiate a monitoring programme for the flora of the marshes; (e) improve the monitoring of bird populations by targeting key-indicator species and by setting up an institution with the ability to collect, store, analyse and check the ornithological data, and by training the necessary staff; and (f) introduce a programme to monitor the flora and fauna of the mountain, particularly with a view to detecting changes in grazing pressure due to domestic stock.
The mission team suggested that the integrated management plan for the Park and its surrounding area be updated and improved, using the Ramsar Guidelines on management planning for wetlands. Furthermore the team has recommended the establishment of an institutional structure with the means and powers necessary to implement this integrated management plan.
The mission team identified the need for implementation of three urgent measures: (a) restoration of the Joumine marsh; (b) studies on the siltation of the lake; and (c) consideration of water releases from the dams in the spring of 2000. Furthermore, the mission team encouraged that the data gathered and analysed so far for the safeguarding of the Ichkeul National Park be published in an appropriate scientific journal.
The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party to set up a systematic monitoring programme for Ichkeul and invited the State Party to consider the recommendations of the mission with regard to continuing certain aspects of the on-going programme, as well as adding new elements to it. The Bureau drew the attention of the State Party to the need to urgently restore the Joumine marsh, undertake studies on the siltation of the lake, and initiate water releases from the dams. The Bureau emphasised the need to develop adequate institutional capacity to implement the activities linked to the systematic monitoring programme that is likely to be implemented over a period of several years. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a report to the Centre, before 15 September 2000, describing its response to the recommendations of the mission and the steps it has taken to implement the three urgent measures so that the report could be reviewed by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. The Bureau agreed with the point of view expressed by the Moroccan Delegate that the State Party needs to be given all the encouragement possible to restore the site and that the results of the efforts to restore Ichkeul could set a precedent for monitoring the state of conservation of similar sites and restoration efforts elsewhere. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.13 Rwenzori Mountains (Uganda)
The Bureau learned that the Centre had been informed by the IUCN Regional Councillor for Africa that high risks linked to security conditions in and around this site continue to prevent the implementation of meaningful conservation actions. The high Mountain altitudes are occupied by the rebel group, Allied Defence Forces (ADF) and the lower elevations of the Mountain are under the control of the Ugandan Government Forces (UPDF). The UPDF is believed to be combing the habitats in the lower elevations to clear them of explosives planted by the ADF. The report further mentioned that the rebel group ADF recently descended from the Rwenzori Mountain National Park and killed one Park Ranger and other persons in the Queen Elizabeth National Park, a site adjacent to the World Heritage site that has been declared a Biosphere Reserve. The IUCN Regional Councillor observed that it will be some time before peace and stability in and around this World Heritage site can be hoped for.
The Bureau noted that the Park Headquarters continue to be located in the town of Kasese, outside of the Park, due to security considerations. Thirty rangers are in Ibanda, the Park Headquarters, where they try to co-operate with UPDF and other personnel to establish and maintain security. The Ugandan Wildlife Authority has reported to IUCN that it commenced rehabilitation work on tourist tracks in March 2000. However, there are insufficient resources and financial support for such rehabilitation work as well as for surveillance, monitoring, training, communications, personnel and other essential activities.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe made the observation that the situation in this site, related to rebel activity and security risks, was similar to the World Heritage sites in Danger in eastern DRC. Hence, the Delegate requested that the Centre, in co-operation with IUCN and others, attempt to initiate support programmes for this site similar to those developed for the sites in the DRC. He also mentioned the possibility to send a mission to the site.
A representative of IUCN, responding to the question posed by the Delegate of Zimbabwe, noted that information from some of its members in the country indicated that equipment purchased as part of a World Heritage-financed project in the past may not have reached the site. The Bureau expressed its concern regarding the possibility of inappropriate use of the resources of the World Heritage Fund and requested the Centre to contact the concerned authorities in the State Party to verify the status of the equipment purchased as part of the project under consideration and submit a report to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau suggested that the Centre and IUCN explore possibilities to raise international awareness for the conservation of this site. Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the Centre co-operate with the State Party and concerned UN units in the region to study ways and means, including the development of an international financial assistance package financed by appropriate donors, to support staff responsible for the protection of the site and minimise threats posed by militant and armed groups occupying the site.
IV.14 Everglades National Park (United States of America)
The Bureau noted the findings of the IUCN review of the report submitted by the State Party, at the time of the last session of the Committee (Marrakesh, 1999) outlining the following: (a) the current status of the key threats to the site; (b) the mitigation measures being taken; and (c) requirements for the removal of threats. The report on Everglades addresses a number of threats, and in particular those posed by: (i) exotic species; and (ii) hydrological impacts, including the experimental water delivery project and its impact on endangered species.
The Bureau commended the approach taken by the State Party in preparing the report and noted that the approach could serve as a useful model for the preparation of state of conservation reports by other States Parties, particularly to identify measures to address threats and establish timelines for threat removal. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, in accordance with the wish of the State Party, retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau however, requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party to prepare a schedule of actions that would allow for the eventual removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested that a schedule of actions and a plan to monitor the implementation of the schedule of actions be submitted to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.
The Observer of the State Party welcomed the recommendation of the Bureau and requested that the Bureau be more specific regarding the form of collaboration expected between IUCN, the Centre and relevant authorities in her country. The Bureau requested that the Centre and IUCN consult with the State Party to decide on the form of the possible collaborative effort, e.g. workshop, meeting or other such event with the participation of concerned authorities from the State Party, IUCN and the Centre, including the venue and timing of that event.
IV.15 Yellowstone National Park (United States of America)
The Bureau noted the findings of the IUCN-review of the report submitted by the State Party at the time of the last session of the Committee (Marrakesh, 1999) and outlining the following: (a) the current status of the key threats to the site; (b) the mitigation measures being taken; and (c) requirements for the removal of threats. The report of Yellowstone addresses the following threats: (i) mining activities outside the Park; (ii) brucellosis infection of the bison population; (iii) lake trout invasion; (d) impacts on water quality; (iv) road construction; and (v) regulation of visitor use of the site. The Bureau commended the approach taken by the State Party in preparing the report and believes that the approach could serve as a useful model for the preparation of state of conservation reports by other States Parties, particularly to identify measures to address threats and establish timelines for threat removal. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, in accordance with the wish of the State Party, retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau, however, requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party to prepare for the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, a schedule of actions that would allow for the eventual removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger and a plan for monitoring the implementation of the schedule of actions.
The Observer of the State Party welcomed the recommendation of the Bureau and requested that the Bureau be more specific regarding the form of collaboration expected between IUCN, the Centre and relevant authorities in her country. The Bureau requested that the Centre and IUCN consult with the State Party to decide on the form of the possible collaborative effort, e.g. workshop, meeting or other such event with the participation of concerned authorities from the State Party, IUCN and the Centre, including the venue and timing of that event.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
IV.16 Butrint (Albania)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had received on 29 May 2000 a communication from the Minister of Culture of Albania confirming that the area along the coast about which the World Heritage Committee expressed concern at its twenty-third session, would not be developed and would be included in the protected area that was subject of the request for extension of the site. A map was submitted to this effect.
The Bureau congratulated the Government of Albania for the positive response to the Committee's recommendation that a part of the area along the coast be included in the World Heritage site. The Bureau noted that with this communication, the extension of the site as decided upon by the Committee at its twenty- third session would take effect immediately.
It requested the authorities to submit by 15 Spetember 2000 a report on the implementation of the recommendations made by the UNESCO-ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation mission in 1997. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.17 Angkor (Cambodia)
After the presentation on the state of conservation of the site, the Delegate of Hungary requested that the Activity Reports and additional information relating to the infrastructural work undertaken in the vicinity of Angkor, such as the National Road 6 implemented by The World Bank, the hotel complex and the extension of the airport of Siem Reap be made available. The Delegate of Greece supported this request and expressed her concern regarding the continuing illicit traffic of Khmers cultural heritage.
The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that the plenary session of the International Co-ordinating Committee for Angkor had recently completed their work at Phnom Penh and that the 1999 Activity Report was presented to H.E. the King of Cambodia on 27 June 2000. He added that the provisional version of this document was available to the members of the Bureau.
The Bureau took note of the deep concerns expressed by its members concerning the looting and illicit traffic of Khmer cultural property and recalled the recommendations taken by the Committee at its twenty-first (1997) and twenty-second (1998) sessions for the State Party to record and document the cultural properties in Angkor and in other sites on Cambodia's tentative list, and to enhance international co-operation to address this persisting problem. The Bureau also recalled the request made by the Committee to the State Party, and to UNESCO and the International Co-ordination Committee (ICC) presided by Japan and France, to monitor from the planning phase, all large-scale infrastructural projects for tourism development (rehabilitation of the National Road 6, extension of the Siem Reap airport, creation of a hotel complex) to ensure that they do not undermine the world heritage values of this exceptional site. In this regard, the Bureau requested UNESCO and the ICC to remind the State Party of paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines, and to inform the donor governments and institutions of Article 6 of the Convention.
The Bureau requested that the 1999 Activity Report of the International Co-ordination Committee for Angkor be submitted to ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN for review. It also noted that, to facilitate the monitoring of the infrastructure, a map showing the risks and rehabilitation of the National Road 6 was under preparation by The World Bank. The Bureau also requested the State Party that in accordance with the afore-mentioned recommendations, a detailed report on the measures undertaken to combat illicit trafic and on the state of progress of major infrastructural and tourism development projects be submitted for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retains this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.18 Group of Monuments at Hampi (India)
Following the decision of the Committee to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-third session, a UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission was undertaken in February 2000. The objectives of the mission were to hold discussions with the national and regional authorities concerned to remove the threats facing the site as identified by the Committee, and to provide technical assistance for the development of a comprehensive management plan. In spite of the information provided during the World Heritage Committee session that the construction of the two bridges within Hampi had halted, the mission witnessed continued construction and advancement of the works on the large-scale vehicular bridge as well as the footbridge. In view of the alarming situation on-site, the UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission formulated a 4-Point Recommendation for Corrective Actions to remove the threats facing Hampi. These Recommended Actions were transmitted to the State Government of Karnataka and the Central Government of India, during and after the Joint Mission.
The Bureau was informed that since the site's inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger in December 1999, the Chief Minister of the State Government of Karnataka had constituted a Task Force in mid-January 2000 to examine the conditions of Hampi and to suggest long-term measures to preserve this World Heritage site. The Task Force examined closely the state of conservation of Hampi, on-going infrastructural development works within the site, and the 4-Point Recommendation for Corrective Actions of the UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Reactive Monitoring Mission. In May 2000, the Task Force recommended that the two intrusive bridges should be relocated away from the World Heritage site. This Recommendation of the Task Force was unanimously accepted by the Council of Cabinet Ministers of the State Government of Karnataka in May 2000. On 16 May 2000, the Chairperson of the Task Force informed the Director-General of UNESCO on this decision taken by the State, which had been received favourably by the general public in Karnataka as well as within India.
However, the Bureau was informed that the Centre had received information in mid-June 2000 that the construction of the two bridges had again resumed on 31 May 2000.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe requested clarification on the intention of the Indian authorities on whether or not they wished to delete the site from the World Heritage List. The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that during consultations undertaken between UNESCO and the national and regional authorities concerned, both authorities had indicated their wish to remove the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger as soon as the threats facing the site were mitigated. The Bureau was also informed that the Archaeological Survey of India, the Central Government Authority responsible for the site, had informed the Centre through the UNESCO New Delhi Office, of its intentions to organize a national World Heritage cultural site mangers' workshop in Hampi in October 2000, to discuss the state of conservation of Indian World Heritage cultural sites and enhancing management of such sites, using Hampi as a case study.
The Observer of the United Kingdom requested clarification on the degree of irreversible damage caused to the site by the construction work and what actions could be taken to mitigate further threats to the site. The Bureau was informed by the Centre that there were historic structures, such as the mandapa near Anegundi Gate, which have been dismantled and reconstructed using a combination of original and new building material in a different location, which even if returned to their original location, would have lost a degree of authenticity. The negative visual impact of the bridges, dominating the extraordinary natural setting of the site, could be reversed and removed entirely if the State Government carried out its decision to relocate the bridges outside of the World Heritage site. The Centre underlined that the greatest potential threat facing the site today was the damage expected to be caused by the dramatic increase in vehicular traffic once the large-scale bridge connects the two existing roads within Anegundi and Hampi which already pass through or adjacent to historic monuments of World Heritage value.
The Observer of Germany, recalling the request of the Committee and ICOMOS to the State Party since 1986 that a comprehensive management and development plan be elaborated for Hampi, underlined that the negative impact caused by the current development activities could have been mitigated if a comprehensive management plan had been prepared. The Observer of the United Kingdom drew the attention of the Bureau to the lessons to be learnt from the case of Hampi, and stated the need for the State Party to inform the Committee of such major public works prior to their construction, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines.
The Bureau examined the additional information presented by the Secretariat concerning the state of conservation of Hampi. The Bureau commended the Task Force for Hampi of the State Government of Karnataka for its work that led to the decision taken on 16 May 2000 by the State Government to relocate the two bridges outside the World Heritage site. However, the Bureau, deeply concerned with the new reports on the resumed construction of the two bridges within the World Heritage site since 31 May 2000, requested the Indian Authorities to implement the ICOMOS-UNESCO Recommended Corrective Measures to remove the threats facing the site, as identified by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-third session.
The Bureau, reiterating the Committee's recommendation to the State Party at the time of the site's inscription on the World Heritage List, requested the authorities concerned to develop a comprehensive management plan for the site. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to continue to assist the State Party in developing this comprehensive management plan, in close co-operation with the authorities concerned and the advisory bodies. The Bureau requested the authorities to submit by 15 September 2000, a report on the progress made in (a) relocating the two intrusive bridges outside the World Heritage site; (b) removing the threats facing the site, (c) implementing the Recommendations made by the UNESCO-ICOMOS Mission in February 2000, and in (d) preparing a comprehensive management plan for the site.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Observer of India expressed his appreciation to the Bureau and the World Heritage Committee for their interest in safeguarding this unique site of outstanding universal value, attesting to the rise and fall of the Vijayanagara Empire. He assured the Bureau that the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger is being taken seriously by the Central Government of India and the State Government of Karnataka. A high-level task force has been set up to examine the situation in Hampi. The Observer underlined that the recent decision taken by the State Government of Karnataka to relocate the two bridges outside the World Heritage site would be implemented and that the authorities concerned were committed to protecting the site, following the Recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.
IV.19 Bahla Fort (Oman)
Following the presentation of the state of conservation of the site and reports on the regular missions of specialists from CRATerre and the World Heritage Centre, a discussion took place concerning the techniques used for the restoration of the Fort. The Delegates of Greece and Finland questioned whether it was a reconstruction of the site rather than a restoration. After discussions that mainly related to the restoration of the earthen buildings, it was suggested that an international seminar, with the participation of ICCROM and ICOMOS, be convened in Oman on earth construction and restoration. This would provide an opportunity to learn about the efforts being made by the Sultanate of Oman for its heritage and provide an exchange of experiences. The Representative of ICCROM welcomed the idea of a seminar and suggested that his Organization participate with a view to initiating a training strategy. This proposal was accepted by the Observer of the Sultanate of Oman.
The Bureau commended the Omani authorities for the work undertaken and encouraged them to elaborate a management plan of the Fort and the Bahla Oasis and to provide it to the World Heritage Centre for submission to the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. The Bureau thanked the Omani authorities for having accepted to host an international seminar on the earthen constructions in 2001. The Bureau expressed its wish that at its next session it could recommend to the Committee the removal of this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.20 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
As requested by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-third session, ICOMOS and ICCROM provided their views on the recently adopted Master Plan for this site.
ICOMOS commended the Government of Peru for the preparation and adoption of the Master Plan. It noted that the plan consists of nine volumes, is comprehensive and that its preparation was based upon the appropriate methodology. It suggested that to facilitate the use by on-site staff and to ensure its implementation: (1) a single volume summary of the plan be prepared that would actually constitute the Management Plan for the site (with the nine volumes providing background and reference material), and (2) the proposed actions be prioritised so as to ensure that, in case of limited financial and human resources, the most needed actions be undertaken first.
ICCROM informed the Bureau that it had been part of the planning process from the beginning. It considered the plan to be very comprehensive and addressing adequately management and conservation issues as well as social and economic ones. It noted that the first three volumes of the plan provide the summary and that the Government of Peru is considering producing a one-volume executive summary. ICCROM emphasized that the plan had been prepared with the involvement of all stakeholders and that it counts with the full support of the President of the country. He furthermore informed the Bureau that the establishment of an implementation unit was being considered.
The Observer of Peru thanked ICOMOS and ICCROM for the observations and assured that he would transmit these to the authorities concerned.
In conclusion, the Bureau congratulated the Government of Peru for the adoption of the Master Plan and encouraged the State Party to implement it. It requested the State Party to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Master Plan by 15 September 2000 for examination by the Committee at its twenty- fourth session. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
NATURAL HERITAGE
IV.21 The Bureau noted that following the Committee's discussion on World Heritage and mining, a number of activities have taken place, including the participation of representatives of the Centre and IUCN at the session organized by the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME) on "Mining and Biodiversity", at Kew Gardens/London, UK in March 2000. It served as a preparatory event for the technical meeting to analyse case studies on World Heritage and mining as requested by the Committee. The technical meeting will take place in IUCN from 18 to 21 September 2000 to develop recommendations for review and discussion by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.
IV.22 World Natural Heritage Properties of Australia
The Bureau noted that progress reports on the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of Queensland would be reviewed by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
IV.23 Shark Bay, Western Australia
The Bureau reviewed the overall report entitled "Shark Bay World Heritage Area (Australia): Condition, Management and Threats", that provides a comprehensive assessment of issues at Shark Bay and noted that the Australian Government prepared a response dated 21 June 2000 which was transmitted to the Centre on 26 June 2000.
IUCN noted that the ACIUCN process for monitoring has continued and has produced the report on Shark Bay. It was hoped that subsequent reports could be submitted for the Wet Tropics and the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage sites. IUCN pointed out that this has been a very successful process. However, ACIUCN currently has a major budget problem which raises questions about the future of this monitoring process and discussions are taking place to resolve this issue. The ACIUCN's comprehensive monitoring exercise for this site involved a series of stakeholder consultations and extensive joint involvement of government and NGOs. The report identified five priority action areas:
- The need to complete the strategic framework for the site as quickly as possible.
- The need to ensure that, where any exploration and extraction of minerals and petroleum take place, they do not cause damage to the World Heritage values. IUCN noted that shell mining and salt extraction were existing activities at the time of the inscription of the site and the State Party agreement to the listing assumed their continuation. The Committee agreed to this at the time.
- The need to ensure that any harvesting of biological resources is ecologically sustainable, such as in relation to aquaculture.
- The need to eradicate or at least control invasive species and
- The need to develop an overall visitor management strategy.
The Delegate of Australia commended the progress made with the ACIUCN monitoring process for this site and noted that the site is a complex one, inscribed under all natural criteria. It has also significant social and economic values.
The Observer of the United States pointed out that the component of the ACIUCN report relating to mining is based on the "WCPA Position Statement on Mining and Associated Activities in Relation to Protected Areas" and that this position statement was not adopted by IUCN, or the World Heritage Committee.
The Bureau noted the report provided and welcomed the fact that the State Party had prepared a consolidated response outlining proposed actions to implement the recommendations of the report. The Bureau requested IUCN to review this report and provide information to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
IV.24 Heard and McDonald Islands
IUCN acknowledged the comprehensive report from the State Party, which focused on fisheries impact, particularly in relation to Patagonian tooth fish and mackerel icefish. IUCN furthermore commended the recommendation to establish a marine protected area and urged action on this to complement the values of the existing World Heritage site.
The Bureau commended the State Party for preparing and submitting a thorough report that provided a sound technical basis for the establishment of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) and to enhance conservation of the Heard and McDonald Islands World Heritage site. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a progress report for information to the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in 2001.
IV.25 Fraser Island
Concerning the reports received, IUCN noted that the IUCN Task Force on Management Effectiveness has outlined a programme to improve the monitoring of World Heritage sites and a proposal has been submitted for support of the UN Foundation. IUCN pointed out that this methodology is already being applied by the relevant Australian authorities in Fraser Island, and the State Party is to be commended for this approach. IUCN also proposed that the ACIUCN process be extended to include Fraser Island taking full account of the work undertaken on management effectiveness.
The Bureau invited the State Party to assist ACIUCN in the possible extension of the ACIUCN assessment and consultation process to include Fraser Island and to transmit this information for the periodic report of the State Party in 2002. The Bureau requested that a progress report be submitted for information to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 2000.
IV.26 Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves
IUCN informed the Bureau that it had received information on private sector proposals for a 22km cableway which would, if implemented, cross part of the World Heritage area and have potential negative impacts. IUCN pointed out that similarities exist with the cable car proposal at Morne Trois Pitons National Park in Dominica, which was resolved satisfactorily through working in collaboration with the State Party.
The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that no decision concerning such a development had been taken. An Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for public review and potential impacts are being evaluated.
The Bureau noted that the State Party will provide information to the Centre on the results of the Environmental Impact Statement for the potential Naturelink Cableway construction project, including any potential impacts on the World Heritage values and integrity of the site, and the legislative framework designed to protect these values. The Bureau requested that this report be submitted by 15 September 2000 for information to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
IV.27 Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
The Bureau noted the concerns expressed that a report on the implementation of the Sangmelima (1998) Workshop recommendations is yet to be received from the State Party. The IUCN Regional Office for Central Africa has been involved in assisting the efforts of the State Party to conserve this site since 1995, with financial support from the Government of the Netherlands. IUCN has informed the Centre that this support was concluded in December 1999. Since then there have been no new projects to support site management and additional resources from international donors and partners are urgently required. Illegal opening of roads for forestry activities and poaching, particularly linked to the supply of the bush-meat trade are significant threats to this site.
IUCN informed the Bureau of the urgent need to address the key conservation challenges, particularly those associated with logging; poaching and the need for alternative resource use options for local communities. IUCN's Central African Office and the State Party submitted a funding proposal for consideration by the United Nations Foundation, but this was unsuccessful, although IUCN has been advised that a broader regional proposal, focused on the bush-meat trade may be more successful.
The Bureau noted that the Secretariat has not received a response to the letter informing the State Party of the decisions of the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau. On 25 April 2000, a member of the Centre staff met and discussed the situation with the Second Secretary of the Permanent Delegation of Cameroon to UNESCO. It was agreed that the Delegation would do its best to ensure that the State Party communicates with the Centre as soon as possible on Dja.
Having considered the information provided, the Bureau reiterated its request, made at its sessions in 1998 and 1999, that the State Party submit a detailed report on the progress made to implement the recommendations of the Sangmelima Workshop. The Bureau further requested the Centre and IUCN to co- operate with the State Party to identify alternative donors to support the development of institutional and local capacities for the management of the site.
IV.28 Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
The Centre informed the Bureau that the Workshop on the transfrontier Darien Ecosystem took place in Bogota on 25 and 26 May 2000 and that a representative from IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) participated. However, no field mission to the site was possible as no security clearance could be obtained from UNDP due to the continuing conflicts in the region. IUCN noted the continuing challenges in managing this area, but applauded the efforts of the Fundacion Natura and the State Party to attempt to implement co-management arrangements. IUCN pointed out that the Workshop noted the continued instability in the area and that activities are impacting the contiguous Darien World Heritage site in Panama. When the situation improves this may be an area for IUCN's Parks for Peace initiative - a joint project being developed by IUCN and the University of Peace (Costa Rica). IUCN noted the warnings from the UN Security Office dated 29 March 2000 about travel to Colombia. The Observer of Colombia informed the Bureau that her authorities are looking into new dates for a mission.
The Bureau reiterated the Committee's request for a mission to the site to obtain detailed information on the state of conservation and requested the State Party to inform the Centre on the possibility of an on-site field mission.
IV.29 Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
The Centre highlighted a number of projects currently under way on the protection of the Galapagos Islands, including the UN Foundation project (US$ 3,9 million), a UNDP/GEF project valued at US$ 8 million and a loan project, to be financed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), for about US$ 20 million to address issues pertaining to marine resource protection, environmental management in the Islands, institutional strengthening and capacity building
IUCN noted the positive progress made, but highlighted a number of issues including (a) the need to develop regulations to the special law as soon as possible on tourism, fisheries, agriculture and Environmental Impact Assessment; and (b) such regulations need to be linked with appropriate education and community outreach activities to increase compliance. IUCN was delighted to host the Executive Council of the Charles Darwin Foundation linked with a workshop on sustainable financing for World Heritage sites - a topic relevant for many natural and cultural World Heritage sites. Guidelines will be published shortly on this issue.
The Observer of Ecuador welcomed the reports from the Centre and IUCN and underlined the commitment by his Government for all the projects. He also expressed his satisfaction to the World Heritage Centre for the progress made in the pilot project with UNFIP and hoped to see UNESCO and the Centre as partners in the implementation of the IDB loan. A renomination of the marine area is currently under preparation. His Government is also implementing all regulations, although it is sometimes difficult to accommodate the different interests involved. Thanks to the management plan for the site, the situation has improved.
The Bureau welcomed the positive developments for conservation at this site and encouraged the State Party to accelerate the development of special regulations, particularly for regulating tourism, fisheries and introduction of plant and animal species and to consider extending the World Heritage Area to include the marine zone. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to submit a progress report on the measures undertaken to enforce the Special Galapagos Law, including the zoning plan for marine areas, for consideration by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 2000.
IV.30 Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
The Centre informed the Bureau that the UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site, recommended by the twenty- third session of the Bureau, had been postponed and could now proceed in September 2000.
IUCN pointed out that it is looking forward to participating in the mission, which will focus on practical means to address destructive fishing practices for local communities and viable development such as ecotourism. IUCN also noted that the UN Foundation has approved a project with the aim of improving the global coverage of marine World Heritage sites.
The Bureau urged the Centre and the State Party to co-operate in preparing the mission to the site and to provide a report including mitigation measures against threats caused by dynamite and cyanide fishing in time for the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee.
IV.31 Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
The Bureau noted that IUCN has received a report on 'Aerial Survey of the Destruction of Mt. Kenya, Imenti and Ngare Ndare Forest Reserves, February-June 1999' prepared by the Kenya Wildlife Service and dated August 1999. The results of the survey, which have been substantiated by other sources, have established that the whole of Mt. Kenya and the Imenti Forests are heavily impacted by illegal activities leading to serious destruction below the bamboo/bamboo-podocarpus belt. Results from this survey have noted severe impacts associated with: illegal, unsustainable logging of indigenous tree species; past and on-going extensive charcoal production; expansion of human settlements and associated crop cultivation, which have restricted elephant migration from the mountains; cultivation of marijuana extending over more than 200 hectares; illegal hunting; and increased incidence of fire associated with encroachment of human settlements.
These factors are contributing towards significant negative long-term impacts, such as: disruption of wildlife habitat; loss of biodiversity; and deterioration of watershed services provided by the Mountain. All these impacts impair tourism development, retard poverty alleviation efforts and lead to increasing human/wildlife conflicts.
The Bureau further noted that discussions on improving the management of the site are in progress following the receipt by the Secretariat of a letter dated 29 May 2000 from the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, in which the State Party proposes to extend Mount Kenya World Heritage site to include the current National Park, entire natural forest and the plantation areas.
The Bureau noted with concern the reported impacts on this site, and requested the State Party to provide to the next Committee session a plan of actions to alleviate the threats identified in the August 1999 report of the Kenya Wildlife Services. The Bureau also recommended that the State Party consider inviting a UNESCO/IUCN mission to consider whether this site needs to be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.32 Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico)
The Centre informed the Bureau that following the announcement by the President of Mexico on 2 March 2000 to halt the proposed salt-works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino, letters have been written by the Director-General of UNESCO, the World Heritage Centre and the Chairperson welcoming the President's decision. The President, in his reply, commented that the decision was made to protect the integrity of the site and that solutions have to be reviewed for the sustainable development of the region. The Centre informed the Bureau that El Vizcaino is included in a UN Foundation proposal on sustainable tourism development at World Heritage sites.
IUCN strongly supported and commended the State Party for its decision that transmits a clear message to the world about the importance of conserving natural values within World Heritage sites. This also demonstrated the values of focused missions such as the 1999 UNESCO-IUCN mission to this site. The Chairperson expressed his satisfaction with the decision and thanked the Mexican authorities.
The Bureau commended the State Party for all its efforts to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino. The Bureau suggested that the Committee commend the Mexican Government for its actions to implement the World Heritage Convention and encourage the authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners to design, develop and implement on- site projects to demonstrate possibilities for generating employment and income for the local communities.
IV.33 Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
The Centre informed the Bureau that it had not received the detailed report on the management of the introduced mountain "thar" the State Party was requested to submit before 15 April 2000. The Delegate of Australia commented that according to his information the document was submitted to the Centre.
The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the State Party to obtain the detailed report on the management of the introduced mountain thar by 15 September 2000.
IV.34 Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
The Bureau was informed that in May 2000, IUCN undertook a mission to the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, with the participation of the Centre. Issues covered in the mission report include: the status of the Arabian Oryx population where the report noted that poaching was severe from 1996 to 1999, but has been stopped over the past sixteen months, particularly with the input from 'The Sultan's Special Forces'; and that, as regards the adequacy of the management plan, sharper boundaries are being developed, and questions of oil and gas exploration, off road vehicles and overgrazing should be taken into consideration. IUCN further informed the Bureau that the above issues are covered in more detail in the mission report. Overall, IUCN observed that the efforts being made represent good progress but significant challenges remain.
The Bureau noted that a Co-ordination Committee for the Conservation of the Arabian Oryx has been recently formed and that the first meeting of this Committee was held in Muscat in January 2000, during which a working secretariat to be hosted by Abu Dhabi (UAE) was formed to address the subject of illegal trade of the Arabian Oryx.
IUCN further informed the Bureau that it has provided input to the planning of a World Heritage Regional Capacity Building Workshop to be held from 24 to 27 September 2000 for which the twenty-second session of the Committee approved a sum of US$40,000 and recommended that this be a small workshop, focused on key issues raised in the mission report. IUCN observed that this Workshop could provide an opportunity for Oman to adopt and launch the Management Plan for this site. IUCN proposed the circulation of the mission report and further discussion on this site at the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee, in Cairns, Australia.
The Bureau requested that the report of the mission be submitted to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the World Heritage Bureau as Information Document.
IV.35 Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Centre informed the Bureau that a mission to the site took place from 8 to 12 May 2000 and that the mission report is currently being finalized by IUCN.
IUCN commented that it had carried out the mission and that an initial draft report had been submitted to the Centre. IUCN highlighted the following preliminary points: (a) the site is assessed as not being in danger; (b) there is a positive co-operation with the mining industry and the site will be one of the case studies at the forthcoming World Heritage and Mining Workshop; and (c) there are a range of other site specific issues that should be discussed at the November session of the Bureau.
The Observer of Peru indicated that the draft report had been forwarded to his authorities for comments. He informed the Bureau that the Directorate of Cultural Heritage of Peru is currently examining the protection of the cultural values of the site.
The Bureau took note of the preliminary report of the mission to the site presented by IUCN and noted that this report had been provided to the authorities for comments. The Bureau requested the State Party, the Centre and IUCN to collaborate so that any responses and comments be transmitted to the forthcoming meeting on World Heritage and Mining to be held in September 2000. The Bureau requested that the outcome be reported to the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee.
IV.36 Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)
The Bureau invited the State Party to inform the Centre on the proposed road construction project, including any environmental impact studies that may be underway, before 15 September 2000.
IV.37 Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
The Centre informed the Bureau that no information had been received from the State Party despite a number of letters written concerning the site. The Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow attended the last session of the Baikal Commission and had noted that progress is very slow.
IUCN fully supported the Baikal Law but highlighted concerns about the adequacy of its implementation, particularly in relation to discharge of waste into the Lake from the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill. IUCN considered that there is a need to look for innovative mechanisms for dealing with this matter which must involve substantial investment in re-profiling the existing pulp and paper mill. IUCN also noted that a Greenpeace meeting would take place in July 2000 on the Baikal Law which may result in useful recommendations and actions.
The Bureau expressed its concern that Federal Regulations related to the Baikal Law are not being effectively enforced and invited the State Party to take immediate steps to remedy this situation. The Bureau reiterated its request that the State Party provide an up-to-date report, by 15 September 2000 in particular focusing on issues raised by IUCN on the state of conservation of the site and that the report be submitted to the twenty- fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
IV.38 Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
The Bureau recalled that Djoudj Sanctuary was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1984 due to problems caused by the construction of downstream dams that interfered with the water regime of this wetland. Several interventions had been made to maintain the water balance in the wetland, some supported by financial contributions from the World Heritage Fund. Due to improvements in the state of conservation of the site, it was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1988.
The Bureau noted that the UNESCO Office in Dakar, Senegal, had informed the Centre of the invasion of a species of Hyacinth in the waters of Djoudj Sanctuary, and that an urgent meeting of the «Comite national de crise» was held on 19 April 2000 at the Ministry of Environment. Discussions at this meeting focused on the advantages of the mechanical and biological options (introduction of insects) for controlling the spread of the invasive species. The meeting decided to set up two separate commissions to study the pros and the cons of the two options. The two commissions were due to meet during 26 - 27 April 2000. UNESCO and IUCN Offices in Dakar are co-operating with the representatives of the Government of the Netherlands in Senegal who expressed interest in mitigating the threat posed by the invasion by the water hyacinth once the Government of Senegal has made its choice between the two options. The Bureau further noted that the Centre is in communication with the Ramsar Secretariat on this matter since Djoudj is also a Ramsar site. The Director of the Senegalese National Parks, via his letter of 25 April 2000, has requested that Djoudj be again included in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in view of the imminent danger of the invasion of the water hyacinth facing the site. IUCN informed the Bureau that it is willing to support the action, drawing on its Invasive Species Specialist Group.
The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to submit a detailed report on the threat posed by the water hyacinth invasion of the Djoudj Lake. The report should include an analysis of the severity of the threat posed, remedial measures planned to mitigate impacts, a financing plan for implementing the remedial measures and the donor countries providing assistance to the Senegalese Government to protect the site. The report, to be submitted by the 15 September 2000, should also recommend whether or not the Committee needs to consider including this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IV.39 Doñana National Park (Spain)
IUCN noted some improvements to the situation at the site, but had concerns about: (a) measures to ensure that toxic wastes, to be dumped into the old mine pit will not percolate into the surrounding aquifer; (b) the need for co-ordinating measures between various stakeholders including state and regional authorities. Such co-ordination is essential to address broader regional land issues and their impact on the site.
The Bureau noted the continuing efforts of the State Party to clean up the area, which indicate a gradual recovery of the Guadiamar River Basin. The Bureau urged the State Party to accelerate implementation of the Doñana 2005 restoration project and implement the review meeting as requested by the last session of the World Heritage Committee and to inform the Centre by 15 September 2000 on tentative dates and a programme for the review meeting.
IV.40 Gough Island (United Kingdom)
IUCN noted that it had received reports indicating that the Reserve boundaries have been extended to 12 nautical miles of territorial waters thus now matching the area of the World Heritage site. IUCN commented that the threat to the site posed by the invasive species Sagina, is being addressed through an eradication programme.
The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureau that, to the best of his knowledge, the boundaries have not been officially confirmed as a formal legal process must be followed for this purpose. Concerning the invasive species, the eradication programme has been successfully completed.
The Bureau requested that the State Party and the St. Helena Government confirm the information reported by IUCN. Furthermore, the Bureau invited the State Party to now consider extension of the World Heritage boundary and to report on what it can do to protect the wider marine environment.
IV.41 Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
The Bureau was read a letter of appreciation received from the Director General of Tanzania National Parks dated 20 June 2000 in which the State Party informed the Centre that the Tanzania National Parks received safely the two vehicles provided by the twenty-third session of the Bureau (July, 1999) for Kilimanjaro and Serengeti National Parks. The letter said that the vehicles are being used for the management of the Kilimanjaro and Serengeti National Parks to improve the fire monitoring patrols, and resources such as the veterinary services, studies in quantity and quality of water for animals and ecological monitoring in general. This support for Serengeti as a vast park, has been a morale booster for the Park staff. The Director General of the Tanzanian Park Agency thanked the World Heritage Centre, and the Bureau for this assistance.
As regards the road to Ngorongoro, the Bureau noted that the Centre is in contact with the State Party to monitor progress in the process for investigating options available for the construction of an access road to Ngorongoro and that no new information has been received.
The Observer of Tanzania thanked the World Heritage Centre for the support provided to his country, and assured the Bureau that Tanzania will communicate with the Centre concerning the construction of the road.
Having been informed that IUCN understood that a feasibility study is underway in relation to the route of the road, the Bureau recommended that more information be sought from the State Party on this issue for the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
IV.42 Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Centre informed the Bureau that the donor roundtable for developing projects to strengthen the capacity of the Ha Long Bay Management Department will take place on 19 and 20 July 2000 and that a feasibility study for a project to develop the Ha Long Bay Ecomuseum for US$ 130.000 is being carried out by UNDP Hanoi.
IUCN informed the Bureau that it had carried out a detailed state of conservation report for this site following a field mission. A number of improvements in the management were noted. However, significant challenges remain which include over-fishing and solid and organic waste in Ha Long Bay. Key recommendations include the need for effective regional planning which considers the impact of activities within the region, as well as the need to strengthen the Ha Long Bay Management Department. IUCN suggested that this be reported to the next session of the Bureau.
The Bureau commended the State Party's efforts to continuously improve this World Heritage area located in an area of intense economic development activities. The Bureau invited the State Party to consider implementing the recommendations of the state of conservation report of IUCN. The State Party should also co-operate with the Centre and IUCN to negotiate with donors to launch programmes and projects to strengthen the long-term conservation of the World Heritage area with progress being reported back to the Bureau at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session.
IV.43 Mosi-oa-Tunya/ Victoria Falls (Zambia/ Zimbabwe)
The Bureau was informed that the Secretariat undertook a mission to Victoria Falls on 1 June 2000 and held discussions concerning recommendations of the last session of the Committee with both the Zambian and the Zimbabwean authorities on both sides of the site. The mission was informed that national and bilateral meetings would be held in August 2000.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe, speaking on behalf of both States Parties, confirmed to the Bureau the organization of the meeting in August 2000 to finalize a number of issues concerning the management of the site.
The Bureau reiterated its earlier request that the States Parties organise the national as well as bilateral meetings as soon as possible, and submit a joint request for financial assistance for the organisation of the bilateral meeting.
IV.44 World Heritage affected by a spill from Romania
The Centre informed the Bureau that there have been four spills of cyanide and heavy metals from three mine sites in Romania since 30 January 2000. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) sent an expert assessment mission to evaluate the cyanide spill at Baia Mare (Romania) and the final report has been made available on the UNEP web site at http://www.natural-resources.org/environment/BaiaMare/mission.htm.
The Representative of UNEP informed the Bureau of the results of a mission undertaken by UNEP to the site. The statement of the representative from UNEP is attached as Annex IV to this report.
IV.45 Hortobagy National Park, Hungary
The Centre informed the Bureau that, although at present it is difficult to estimate the exact damage, there is evidence of damage to the site as a result of the cyanide and heavy metals spills in Romania. Emergency assistance for the site is under implementation.
ICOMOS highlighted that there is currently no impact on the cultural values, however they may occur in the long-term, and that ICOMOS supported the emergency request.
IUCN also supported assistance for this cultural landscape and shared concerns about the environmental impacts of the cyanide spill. IUCN pointed out that clear priorities for establishing a comprehensive monitoring and effective restoration programme need to be established.
The Delegate of Hungary thanked the Centre for processing the emergency assistance and expressed his gratitude for the Australian contribution of Australian $ 300,000 for a comprehensive monitoring programme. He informed the Bureau that press reports that Ukraine would be involved in the cyanide spill are incorrect, which is clearly shown in the information provided by UNEP. The Delegate of Morocco drew the attention of the Bureau to the potential impact of toxic spills from the tributaries of the Danube into the Black Sea and the Mediterranean region in general.
The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party and many other organisations for their quick response to this environmental disaster. The Bureau urged the State Party to set up a comprehensive monitoring programme for all areas and ecosystems likely to be affected by the spills and give priority to the implementation of a monitoring and restoration programme. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the state of conservation of the site and relevant mitigating measures by 15 September 2000.
MIXED HERITAGE (CULTURAL AND NATURAL)
IV.46 Kakadu National Park (Australia)
The Bureau took note of the following documents which were requested by the third extraordinary session of the Committee in July 1999: WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.6 entitled «Australia's Commitments: Protecting Kakadu National Park» and WHC-2000/CONF.202/INF.7, a report from the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of ICSU concerning remaining scientific issues relating to the mining of uranium at Jabiluka. In addition, the Bureau noted the correspondence that the Centre had received, from the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC), expressing concerns over