Limited distribution                        WHC-97/CONF.204/11
                                       Paris, 3 September 1997
                                      Original: English/French


                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-first session
        UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, Room X (Fontenoy)

                    23 - 28 June 1997


                 REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR



TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page I. OPENING SESSION 1 II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 2 III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE 3 IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST 7 V. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER 38 VI. REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 56 VII. PROGRESS REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE'S CONSULTATIVE BODY ON THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 60 VIII. EXAMINATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON ITS ACTIVITIES FOR 1996-1997 TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE 29TH SESSION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO 71 IX. INFORMATION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES (October 1997) 72 X. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU (28-29 NOVEMBER 1997) 72 XI. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (1-6 DECEMBER 1997) 72 XII. OTHER BUSINESS 73 XIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND CLOSING OF THE SESSION 73 (i) LIST OF ANNEXES (Statements are reproduced in the original language) ANNEX I List of Participants ANNEX II Opening Speech by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee ANNEX III Opening Speech by the Representative of the Director-General ANNEX IV Statement by the Representative of Pakistan ANNEX V 1. Statement by the Delegate of Germany 2. Statement by the Observer of Poland ANNEX VI Statement by the Delegate of Italy ANNEX VII Proposal of Agreement presented by the Consultative Body - Management Review ANNEX VIII ANNEX VIII.1 Report of the External Auditors ANNEX VIII.2 Director-General's comments ANNEX VIII.3 Report of the Consultative Body of the World Heritage Committee (1 and 2 April 1997) ANNEX VIII.4 Report of the Consultative Body of the World Heritage Committee (20 June 1997) ANNEX IX Provisional Agenda of the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee ANNEX X Provisional Agenda of the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee ANNEX XI Report on the Nature-Culture Meeting (Paris, HQ)(28 June 1997) (ii) *[1] I. OPENING SESSION I.1 The twenty-first session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 23 to 28 June 1997. The following members of the Bureau attended: Ms. Maria-Teresa Franco (Mexico), Chairperson, Representatives of Australia, Germany, Italy, Japan and Morocco as Vice-Presidents and H.E. Ambassador Lambert Messan (Niger) as Rapporteur. I.2 Representatives of the following States Parties attended as observers: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, India, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Malta, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Slovak Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. A representative of South Africa also attended the Bureau session. I.3 Representatives of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. I.4 The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) was represented. The full list of participants is given in Annex I. I.5 The Chairperson warmly welcomed the members of the Bureau, representatives of States Parties who were observing the meeting, and the advisory bodies (Annex II). She stressed that the best expertise, organization and management were necessary to strengthen the implementation of the Convention. She emphasized that loyalty to the principles of the Convention and innovative approaches to ensure the protection of cultural and natural World Heritage sites in all regions were both needed. The Chairperson commented that recognition should be given to the Director-General's and UNESCO's contribution to peace and to the expansion of UNESCO's activities. However, she called for a strengthening of World Heritage conservation through a multicultural approach and the recognition of biodiversity to be supported by sufficient financial resources and new, well administered, strategies. The Chairperson then invited the Representative of the Director-General to address the meeting. I.6 Mr Bernd von Droste, Director of the World Heritage Centre, speaking on behalf of the Director-General, welcomed the members of the Bureau, the observers, and the representatives of the advisory bodies (see Annex III). He noted that 1997 marks the 25th anniversary of the adoption of *[2] the Convention by the UNESCO General Conference on 16 November 1972 and the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the World Heritage Centre by the Director-General on 30 April 1992. He noted that the Convention at present has 149 States Parties and that the World Heritage List includes 506 cultural, natural and mixed World Heritage properties throughout the world. The Centre, since its establishment in 1992, has aimed to promote all aspects of the implementation of the Convention and has given particular focus to work on the interface between nature and culture, developing a rapid reaction capability to address emergencies in the conservation of cultural and natural heritage, training and capacity building and educating young people on the importance of heritage preservation. I.7 Mr von Droste conveyed the Director-General's satisfaction that the External Auditor's report on the financial statements of the World Heritage Fund for 1996 had been completed. Referring to the report of the External Auditors, he quoted the following conclusion of the External Auditor: "...the transactions of the [World Heritage] Fund that have come to my notice during my audit of the financial statements have, in all significant respects, been in accordance with the Fund's and UNESCO's Financial Regulations and legislative authorities." He assured the Bureau that all necessary follow-up actions to implement the recommendations of the Auditors would be carried out. I.8 He informed the Bureau that several proposals to improve the regional representation of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, build national and local capacity, expedite the implementation of the Training Strategies for natural and cultural heritage as adopted by the Committee, launch special projects for young people and strengthen protection of cultural and natural heritage sites would be submitted, in the Draft 29 C/5 (Draft Programme and Budget for 1998-1999), to the UNESCO General Conference to be convened during October-November 1997. He concluded his remarks by wishing, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, all those present a successful Bureau session. II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II.1 The Chairperson suggested that the Bureau consider amending the Draft Agenda so as to enable the consideration of Item 7 (Progress report by the Committee's Consultative Body on the Management and Financial Review of the Administration of the World Heritage Convention) after Agenda Item 3 (Report of the Secretariat on Activities undertaken since the twentieth session of the Committee). The Chairperson explained that she suggested this change to provide the Bureau members with the opportunity to hear the report of the financial audit to be presented by the Auditors attending the Bureau meeting on 23 and 24 June 1997. The Delegate of Germany *[3] pointed out that Working and Information Documents on Agenda Item 7 had been circulated only shortly before the beginning of the Bureau meeting and he required time to read those documents before entering into discussions on this Agenda Item. Hence, the Chairperson decided to request the Auditors to present their report immediately after the conclusion of Agenda Item 3 and answer questions from the floor. The Bureau would then take up discussion on Agenda Item 7 on the morning of 24 June 1997. With this change, the Bureau adopted the revised Timetable for the meeting, (Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.2Rev.1). III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE III.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, reported in his capacity as Secretary of the World Heritage Committee on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the twentieth session, in an audio-visual presentation (see Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.4). III.2 The Director began by welcoming two new signatories to the World Heritage Convention, namely Papua New Guinea and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, bringing the total number of States Parties to 149. He noted, furthermore, that the Centre has been informed that South Africa has decided to accede to the Convention and is expected to deposit an instrument of accession to UNESCO in the very near future. In referring to the universal importance and application of the Convention, the Director noted the constant increase in States Parties to the Convention and presented information on the accession rate of UNESCO Member States to the World Heritage Convention. III.3 The Director stated that only half of the 149 States Parties to the Convention had submitted tentative lists despite the fact that this is a compulsory requirement if nominations of cultural properties are to be considered by the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau. The Director reported that a computerised database on tentative lists had been prepared and further analysis of the content of the tentative lists was now required. III.4 The Director noted the constant increase in the number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. He presented an analysis of the World Heritage List by region. III.5 The Director reported that the current session of the Bureau will review a total of fifty-eight new nominations. A regional analysis of these new nominations indicates that, more than ever, new cultural nominations have been received from States Parties in Europe. The Director noted, with concern, that there is still an absence of new *[4] cultural nominations from Africa and new natural nominations from the Arab States. For the first time, natural property nominations from Cuba, Dominica and Italy, cultural property nominations from Estonia and Myanmar, and a mixed property from Kenya will be reviewed by the Bureau. The Director of the World Heritage Centre reported on several forthcoming initiatives to promote the Global Strategy for a balanced and representative World Heritage List. III.6 The Director recalled that the question of monitoring and reporting procedures had been discussed at the tenth General Assembly of States Parties in November 1995 and the nineteenth and twentieth sessions of the Committee in 1995 and 1996 respectively. The question will again be examined by the forthcoming General Assembly of States Parties at its eleventh session in October 1997. A Draft Resolution to be examined by the General Conference in October and November entrusts the definition, periodicity, form, nature and extent of reporting to the World Heritage Committee. Working Document WHC-97/CONF.204/6 presents the Draft Resolution as adopted by the Committee at its twentieth session. III.7 In noting that more than fifty state of conservation reports from World Heritage properties in all regions of the world would be presented to this session of the Bureau, the Director presented an overview of some particular issues of concern relating to some of these properties. In the first instance, he reported on the serious situation that exists concerning the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. III.8 In referring to the Galapagos National Park, Ecuador, he recalled that the Committee had, for the first time in the history of the Convention, delegated its responsibility to the Bureau to decide on whether the site should be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He noted that a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site has been submitted to the Bureau as Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.9. III.9 The Director then reported briefly on the state of conservation of the following World Heritage properties - Manas National Park, India; Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia; the Elephanta Caves, India; Butrinti, Albania; Teotihuacan, Mexico; the Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin, Germany; and, Tyre, Lebanon. He also mentioned the state of conservation of the Buddhas of the Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan. The Director reported on a project concerning the decentralised co-operation between local authorities in World Heritage cities in Asia and cities in Europe and the United Kingdom. III.10 The Director reported that a number of natural and cultural heritage training seminars approved by the Committee *[5] at its twentieth session have taken place. Furthermore, he noted that, Mr Laenen, the Director-General of ICCROM had recently addressed the Executive Board of UNESCO. Mr Laenen had commended the substantial support provided by the World Heritage Committee, in the form of financial support from the World Heritage Fund for training activities. III.11 With the help of UNESCO National Commissions and Associations, the World Heritage Centre has identified and expanded its co-operation with film and publishing companies to ensure that the importance of World Heritage properties and their conservation is communicated to the public at large. The World Heritage Review launched one year ago now has about 5,000 subscribers. The Director called on the help of members of the Bureau to increase subscriptions to the Review. The World Heritage Newsletter and folding World Heritage Map have been recently updated, an improved World Heritage Kit for the press is in preparation, as is the 1998 World Heritage Diary. The World Heritage Internet site is now available in English and French and is receiving more than 10,000 requests per week. The World Heritage Web usage statistics have shown a sharp increase since December, and is the most popular of UNESCO's web sites. III.12 A World Heritage Education Kit is being prepared as part of the six-year UNESCO Special Project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion" conducted by the World Heritage Centre and the Education Sector. The Kit will be made available to schools that are part of the Associated Schools Project Network (ASPNet) in early 1998. World Heritage Youth Fora will be held in China in September 1997, and Japan in 1998. III.13 The Director noted that the staffing table of the Centre, as had previously been requested by the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee, will be distributed as Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.10. He noted that of the eleven professional posts foreseen in the Regular Programme eight have been provided, including that of the Director and Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre. However, in the last 12 months three senior professional staff at the level of P5 have left the Centre. A professional administrator at the P3 level is under recruitment. The Director recorded his deep thanks to the Governments of Austria, Denmark, Japan and Sweden for having provided Associate Experts to the Centre. In addition, he gratefully acknowledged the secondment of a press specialist by the Government of France. Furthermore, a Young Professional of Afghan nationality has recently been assigned to the Centre. The Director also noted that a consultant Media Adviser in the Centre backstops media contracts and is paid from servicing income generated from media and publishing contracts. Another consultant is working on World Heritage Education. The Director gratefully acknowledged the financial support of *[6] NORAD, Rhône-Poulenc and the Osaka Junior Chamber of Commerce in Japan for the World Heritage Education Project. Another consultant in the Centre is working on developing a strong World Heritage web site. The Director warmly thanked the Republic of Korea for their generous contribution to the development of the World Heritage presence on the Internet. III.14 Finally, the Director noted the challenges for the year to come - the eleventh session of the General Assembly in October; an agenda item on monitoring and reporting of World Heritage sites to be debated at the twenty-ninth UNESCO General Conference; the World Heritage Bureau at the end of November; another meeting of the Consultative Body; and the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Bureau in Naples, Italy (as decided by the Committee at its last session). The Director concluded his presentation by noting that he would be pleased to reply to any questions on his presentation. III.15 The Chairperson thanked the Director and staff of the World Heritage Centre for their work in favour of World Heritage conservation. III.16 The Delegate of Germany noted his great surprise that three P5 posts in the Centre were vacant and asked the Director, World Heritage Centre for clarification. The Director noted that one former Centre staff member has been appointed as the Director of the Unit for the Status of Women and Gender Equality. Another former staff member of the Centre has been appointed as the representative of UNESCO in Gabon and the third former staff member of the Centre has been appointed as Secretary of the Dayton Commission. The Delegate of Germany asked whether these three professionals would be replaced by other persons. The Director expressed his hope that the three professional posts would be filled in the future. The Delegate of Germany asked whether the three professional posts in question were still included in the Regular Programme budget of the Centre. The Director of the World Heritage Centre commented that it was not yet certain whether these posts would be filled through recruitment or transfer. He again noted that the staffing situation within the Centre is critical with three P-5 posts vacant whereas a year ago five P-5 posts were occupied. III.17 The Delegate of Germany questioned whether the Bureau should make a recommendation to the Director-General of UNESCO drawing this issue to his attention. The Chairperson noted that the forthcoming management review of the World Heritage Centre will reveal the situation. *[7] IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST IV.1 The Bureau examined Working Documents WHC- 97/CONF.204/2A and WHC-97/CONF.204/2B, Information Documents WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.8 (Potsdam, Germany) and WHC- 97/CONF.204/INF.9 (Galapagos Islands, Ecuador), as well as additional information provided by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies during the session. A. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER NATURAL HERITAGE IV.2 The Bureau examined reports on the state of conservation of eleven of the thirteen natural properties included in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau noted that in the case of Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) and Everglades National Park (United States of America) no new information had been received, since the conclusions of the twentieth session of the Committee. IV.3 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia) The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its twentieth session, had determined that the World Heritage values of Plitvice Lakes National Park had not been adversely impacted by the armed conflict of the early 1990s, and concluded that the natural systems of the site were recovering from pre-war over- development and over-use. The Committee decided to retain Plitvice Lakes National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, because it recognized potential post-war threats due to rising visitor impacts, and the damaged condition of the Park's infrastructure. The Bureau was informed that the Croatian authorities had revised the boundaries of the Park to increase its total area to include the entire underground basin which supplies water to lakes and streams of Plitvice and had trained Park employees. A road outside the northeast boundary of the Park to re-direct traffic currently passing through the Park is under construction and, a state of conservation report on the Park, including the experience gained from the management of visitors during the summer of 1997, is expected to be submitted to the Centre by 15 September 1997. The Bureau commended the Croatian authorities for increasing the total area of the Park to include the entire underground basin supplying Plitvice's lakes and streams and constructing a road outside of the Park's northeast boundary in order to redirect truck-traffic currently flowing through the Park. The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the Croatian authorities to obtain a map of the new boundaries of the Park and to find out *[8] whether they intend to enlarge the World Heritage area to conform with the Park's new boundaries. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, after reviewing the state of conservation report due by 15 September 1997, decide whether or not to remove Plitvice Lakes National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.4 Virunga National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo) Garamba National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo) Since the twentieth session of the Committee, the eastern part Democratic Republic of the Congo has become further destabilized and military action has spread to other parts of the country. Reports received indicate that in both these sites, infrastructure had been destroyed and wildlife populations decimated. The Bureau noted that IUCN and the Centre will continue to maintain contacts with UNHCR and conservation NGOs and provide up-to-date reports on both Virunga and Garamba, at the time of the twenty-first session of the Committee. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to contact relevant authorities of the new Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in order to arrange for a high-level mission to meet with senior officials to remind them of their responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention and to discuss restoration and rehabilitation of the country's five World Heritage sites. This mission should initiate project proposals in consultation with the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Implementation of some of the projects may be financed by emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund. A long-term policy and strategic vision for World Heritage conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the main need at the moment. The Centre should co-ordinate its activities with those of other UN agencies and conservation NGOs active in the country. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to provide detailed reports on both sites, at the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau to be held on 28 and 29 November 1997, in Naples, Italy. IV.5 Sangay National Park (Ecuador) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth session, commended the Park administration's (Instituto Ecuadoriano Forestal y de Areas Naturales y Vida Silvestre, (INEFAN)) actions and reports, but reiterated its serious concerns about road construction activities, poaching and colonization, and recalled its request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Bureau noted that INEFAN has submitted a report to the Centre that identifies the Guamote Macas road construction to be the main problem and that colonisation in the Guamboya valley and along the River *[9] Palora, and small-scale mining activities have been stopped. The new management plan is close to finalization and government institutions and NGOs have expressed interest in participating in its implementation. IUCN informed the Bureau that the implementation of a number of conservation projects at Sangay, including several funded by WWF and the European Union have begun. The Bureau commended INEFAN for its report and action, but reiterated it's calls for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Guamote Macas road construction project. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.6 Simen National Park (Ethiopia) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session noted the report of the technical mission to the site, (2-9 November 1996), which identified the deterioration of the Walia ibex population, loss of biodiversity, encroachment at the borders of the site and impacts of the construction of a road through the Park, and, as stipulated in Paragraph 79 of the Operational Guidelines, included Simen National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was informed that the Head of the Bureau of Agriculture of the Bahir Dar Region, where Simen National Park is located, informed the Centre of his Regional Government's disagreement with the Committee's decision to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. He drew the Centre's attention to the fact that although Simen was neglected in the past, currently Simen receives high attention and effective protection. The number of Walia Ibex has increased as a result of proper protection of the Park and the Central and the Regional Governments are implementing a rehabilitation programme to restore the Park's infrastructure to its previous state. Furthermore, he indicated that the Regional Authorities do not accept the statement in the report of the technical mission to Simen, undertaken in November, 1996: i.e. "A majority of participants endorsed the recommendation that Simen Mountain National Park should be listed as World Heritage site in Danger". Following the Committee's decision to include Simen National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Regional Authorities in Bahir Dar have decided not to convene the technical workshop, originally scheduled for 10-18 April, 1997, and for which the Committee approved a sum of US$ 30,000 at its last session. They have called upon the Central Government of Ethiopia to co-operate with concerned national and regional institutions to organize a discussion forum with UNESCO in order to reverse the decision taken by the Committee. *[10] The Bureau noted that a mission to Simen National Park had been undertaken by the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) from 10 to 25 April 1997 and that a buffer zone development project for the site is under consideration. The Bureau acknowledged the possibility that the views of the Regional Government in Bahir Dar may not have been accurately reflected when the Committee decided to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Nevertheless, the Bureau called upon the Ethiopian authorities in Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar to view the Committee's decision in a positive light and to proceed with convening the stakeholders meeting. The Bureau in particular requested the Director of the Centre to meet with the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia to UNESCO to resolve the problem and to explain the Committee's decision. Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN take actions to assist the Ethiopian authorities to convene the stakeholder's meeting and to submit a report to the twenty-first session of the Committee in December 1997 so as to enable the Committee to review Simen National Park's status as a World Heritage site in Danger. IV.7 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire) The Bureau recalled that at its twentieth session, the Committee noted the fact that UNESCO's Legal Affairs Office was considering the proposals made by a working group for setting up an "International Foundation for Mt. Nimba". The Bureau was informed that the Legal Affairs Office of UNESCO has advised the Centre that UNESCO cannot create an International Foundation but that such a Foundation may be established under the national legislation of a suitable State Party. The Swiss Foundation established for the conservation of Banc d'Arguin National Park, a World Heritage site in Mauritania, was considered a good example. Contributions earmarked for Mt. Nimba may also be set aside under a special account of the World Heritage Fund (as per paragraph 118 of the Operational Guidelines), or set up as a separate 'Funds- in-Trust', similar to the World Heritage Fund, within UNESCO. The Bureau, while recognizing these options for setting up a Foundation or a Special Fund for Mt. Nimba, noted that the mining companies are not yet ready to contribute funds to launch the initiative. Furthermore, the Bureau took note of the fact that the Minister of Environment of Guinea acknowledged the threats to Mount Nimba, reiterated the commitment of his Government to the protection of the site and requested that the site be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit information concerning the options for setting up a Foundation or a Special Fund for Mt. Nimba to the authorities of Guinea and *[11] recommended that the Committee retain Mt. Nimba on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.8 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth session included Rio Platano in the List of World Heritage in Danger and urged the Honduran authorities to implement the eleven-point corrective action plan, endorsed by the Honduran Minister for the Environment, and keep it informed, on a regular basis, of measures taken to safeguard this property. The Bureau noted that a revised budget breakdown requested from the Honduran authorities for a US$ 30,000 project, approved by the Bureau at its twentieth session for preparing a management plan for Rio Platano, has not yet been received. The Bureau was informed that major changes in the staff of the Ministry of Environment of Honduras had occurred and that a number of projects have been initiated in cooperation with Nature Conservancy, WWF and KFW (Germany). The Bureau noted that IUCN will provide a report on Rio Platano at the forthcoming session of the Committee. The Bureau requested that the Centre contact the Honduran authorities to obtain the necessary information for the implementation of the management planning project and recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.9 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) The Bureau noted that the Ministry for Environment and Forests (MOEF) of India, hosted a World Natural Heritage Site Managers' Meeting for South Asia, from 16 to 19 January 1997. The Director of Manas Wildlife Sanctuary presented a report on the state of conservation of Manas at that meeting. A staff member of the World Heritage Centre accompanied the Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife in India on a mission to Manas Wildlife Sanctuary from 20 to 23 January 1997. The mission concluded that: (i) Militancy of the Bodo people in the early 1990s had damaged the infrastructure for the protection of Manas and demoralized staff, resulting in poachers taking a heavy toll of wildlife populations within Manas Wildlife Santuary. (ii) Since 1993, militant activity has diminished and Manas authorities have been able to improve relationships with surrounding villagers and seek their support for conservation. Peace and order in and around Manas have been re-established and an estimated 8,000 tourists visited Manas in 1996. (iii) Damaged ranger and guard units are in urgent need of repair and/or reconstruction. The poaching threat continues to prevail as the mobility and the communications capability of Manas staff remain limited. *[12] The Bureau was informed of a report on Manas Wildlife Sanctuary from the MOEF transmitted via the Permanent Delegation of India, which notes that "Manas deserves to continue to be in the World Heritage in Danger List", as it helps to draw international attention to the site. The MOEF has also submitted an emergency assistance request for a contribution from the Fund for US$ 235,000 to implement a three-year rehabilitation plan estimated to cost a total sum of US$ 2,135,000. The Bureau commended the Indian authorities for the report provided and their support for organizing the mission to the site. The Bureau noted that the emergency assistance request in support of the rehabilitation of the site will be discussed under Agenda Item 6 "Requests for international assistance" and recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.10 Air-and-Ténéré Reserve (Niger) The Bureau recalled that a peace agreement, signed on 20 April 1995, had started a dialogue between the conflicting parties and set in motion the process for a return to a normal management regime and that the Committee at its twentieth session had noted that a detailed site evaluation and the development of an action programme for site recovery may become feasible in the near future. The IUCN/WWF project, with funding from DANIDA, for re-establishing a normal management regime for the site is soon to be resumed. By letter of 20 March 1997, the Permanent Delegation of Niger has provided the terms of reference for a monitoring mission to the site, expected to be carried out in the autumn of 1997. The Bureau heard a presentation by Mr. André Bourgeot (CNRS/EHESS, France) who had carried out a mission to the site in April 1997 together with local IUCN staff. He indicated that: (a) there were no security problems in the area; (b) the vegetation is less impacted than the wildlife populations, whose decline was noticeable; and (c) an analysis of the Reserve's situation should be undertaken by a team including a competent specialist in ecology. The Bureau noted that the proposal to establish an Air-and-Ténéré Biosphere Reserve covering 24 million hectares was favourably recommended to the MAB Bureau for inscription on the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Delegate of Niger informed the Bureau that this Biosphere Reserve would reach as far as the Algerian border and constitute a huge wildlife reserve with the World Heritage site as core area and buffer zone. The Delegate of Niger thanked Mr. Bourgeot for his report and commended IUCN for their efforts to support the conservation of the site. Furthermore, he was of the view that the state of conservation of the site has improved considerably and the site might be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. *[13] The Bureau recommended that the Committee at its forthcoming session review the status of Air-and-Ténéré, future plans for its continuing recovery and decide whether or not it should be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.11 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth session noted that the construction of two dams had limited freshwater flow and devastated the wetland values of Ichkeul National Park, leading to dramatic increases in the salinity of the lake and marshes and sharp reductions in migratory bird populations. Hence, the Committee included Ichkeul in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Tunisian authorities to provide a programme of corrective measures to reverse the degradation of the site, and alerted them to the possibility of the deletion of Ichkeul from the World Heritage List if rehabilitation of the site is not possible. IUCN informed the Bureau that the report of an official mission to the site by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat had suggested that the Tunisian authorities give a clear indication of the measures they plan to take based on a number of studies already carried out and which have identified conservation actions. Furthermore, an agreement on the release of water from the dams should be reached and a central management authority addressing all management issues in the site, including the long-term management of the Tindja sluice needs to be established. The Ramsar mission recommended the repair of the sluices, the filling of the Joumine Canal to restore the Joumine Marsh, and continuous scientific monitoring of the Park's ecology. In its discussions on the potential delisting of Ichkeul, the Bureau recalled the Committee's discussions with regard to another wetland, i.e. Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) and that the Committee had given the Bulgarian authorities a three-year time frame to restore the site. The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit the recommendations made by the mission of the Ramsar Secretariat to the Tunisian authorities and invite them to provide their views with regard to the implementation of the recommendations, by 15 October 1997. The Bureau also recommended that the Committee set up a three-year time table to review the outcome of efforts to restore Ichkeul National Park and in the meantime retain the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.12 Yellowstone National Park (United States of America) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its twentieth session noted several remedial actions taken by the State Party to minimize potential and ascertained threats to this *[14] site, and commended the President of the country for his efforts to fully remove the potential mining threat to the integrity of the site with a mutually, to-be-agreed upon trade of land, valued at US$ 65 million. Since then, the Montana State Office of the Bureau of Land Management of the United States Department of the Interior, and the Northern Region Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture have published a summary, and the full Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Cooke City Area Mineral Withdrawal and have circulated it inviting any person or group to comment on the Draft EIS. The Bureau recommended that the Committee in consultation with IUCN and the State Party and based on its review of the state of conservation report due from the State Party by 15 September 1997, determine whether actions taken to mitigate potential and ascertained threats to Yellowstone are adequate and whether or not Yellowstone should be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. CULTURAL HERITAGE IV.13 The Bureau examined reports on the state of conservation of two of the nine cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.14 Angkor (Cambodia) The Bureau, while commending the efforts of the Royal Government of Cambodia and UNESCO, expressed deep concern over the looting and illegal excavation of cultural properties from Angkor, notably over the organized trade in antiquities, including the dismantling of monuments. The Bureau invited the Royal Government of Cambodia to submit a report to the twenty- first session of the Committee on administrative mechanisms and regulations put into place for the enforcement of the law on cultural heritage including measures adopted for the prevention of illicit traffic in cultural property. Finally, the Bureau took note with satisfaction of the decision taken by the Royal Government of Cambodia to forbid any hotel construction within the Zones 1 and 2 of the site of Angkor. Furthermore, the Bureau ardently wished that in conformity with the studies carried out for the enforcement of the zoning plans, hotels be built within the hotel zone. IV.15 Fort Bahla (Oman) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat concerning the situation at Fort Bahla, the Bureau thanked the Omani authorities for their communications of 12 and 24 March 1997 by which they confirmed their intent to carry out the recommendations of the UNESCO experts. However, it expressed its serious concern following the collapse of the Fort's *[15] north-west Tower and requested them to make every effort to consolidate the monument. It approved the dispatch of a new expert mission next October, on a cost-sharing basis, as previously. B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST NATURAL HERITAGE IV.16 The Bureau examined document WHC-97/CONF.204/2B, and a selected number of state of conservation reports of other natural properties, submitted by the Centre and the representatives of IUCN, and made specific recommendations for the consideration of the Committee. IV.17 Australian World Heritage Sites: Introducing its written report on the state of conservation of natural World Heritage properties, IUCN supplemented this with a verbal report on more recent developments in Australia. IUCN recalled previous discussions of the Bureau and the Committee on the future of forested public lands adjoining the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area and the response at that time by the State Party that World Heritage issues would be taken into account in the negotiation of a Regional Forest Agreement between the Governments of Australia and the State of Tasmania. The IUCN Representative said that a World Heritage Expert Panel had reported in June 1997 to the two Governments to facilitate consideration of World Heritage issues. This report and extensive data bases should ensure that information on World Heritage potential would be available when decisions are made in finalizing the Regional Forest Agreement due to be completed by 30 June 1997. The Bureau decided to commend the State Party on the comprehensive approach adopted and to invite the State Party to report to the Centre on the outcome relevant to World Heritage by 15 October 1997. IUCN also commented favourably on the manner in which World Heritage cultural and natural values are being taken into account in the preparation of a new management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, including a workshop held on 16 June 1997 with the Anangu people (traditional and legal owners of the Park) and Park staff on the implications of World Heritage status on visitor management. Issues raised in the IUCN report on other sites, i.e. Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and Shark Bay, noted a number of positive decisions taken, particularly those aimed at conserving dugong habitats in the Great Barrier Reef. *[16] The Delegate of Australia commented in detail on all the issues raised in the IUCN report about Australia and suggested that IUCN seek official comment from the Australian government as the next step. She also expressed concern at the lack of time to consider and respond to the report and requested more advanced consultations with the State Party to permit dialogue on the issues raised. Concern at the late tabling of the report was also expressed by the Delegate of Germany. The Delegate of Australia assured the Bureau that the State Party would continue to maintain its commitment to respect the integrity of its World Heritage sites. The Chairperson ruled that the issues raised in the IUCN report should not be further considered at this meeting, because in many cases the States Parties had not been given the opportunity to examine the issues raised, to verify their accuracy and to respond. IV.18 Iguacu National Park (Brazil) The Bureau noted that an alarming situation has recently developed in this Park which required urgent attention. A local organization is campaigning for the reopening of an 18 km road which was closed in 1986 to strengthen protection of the site. In early May, 800 people invaded the Park and set up camp to begin unauthorized work to re-open the road. The responsible conservation authorities have been unable to resist political pressures associated with this development and have not acted to contain the damage. The Bureau requested the Centre to urgently contact Brazilian authorities to encourage them to re-establish control over the section of the Park to close the road and to rehabilitate the damaged areas within the Park. The Bureau observed the fact that Iguacu (Brazil) and Iguazu (Argentina) National Parks continue to remain as two separate World Heritage sites, despite the prevailing opportunity to link them into a single transborder World Heritage area for purposes of the World Heritage List. IV.19 Democratic Republic of the Congo a) Okapi Faunal Reserve The Bureau was deeply concerned to learn that the armed conflict which spread, during early 1997, to the whole of the region has led to the looting of all facilities and killing of several elephants in this site, inscribed on the World Heritage List in Mexico (December, 1996). Most of the expatriate and research staff have fled the Park and those remaining in the site receive only minimum salaries. There are reports of gold mining within the Park and the new Government's policy with regard to respecting the boundaries of the World Heritage area remain unclear. *[17] b) Kahuzi Biega National Park The Bureau noted with grave concern that portions of this Park had been deforested and considerable hunting of wildlife had been reported. Park facilities have been looted and destroyed and most of the Park staff have left the area. The Park may also be serving as a hide-out for militant groups and conflicts between tribal populations in the area have also been reported. Although UNHCR and GTZ (Germany) are considering to provide support for the Park projects cannot be started until the security situation in the area returns to normal. The Bureau expressed its serious concerns regarding the integrity of Okapi Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park and recommended that the Committee, at its next session, include these two sites in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau recalled its recommendation of a high level mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, made with regard to the two sites in this State Party already recognized as World Heritage Sites in Danger (i.e. Garamba and Virunga National Parks) and suggested that such a mission include discussions on the state of conservation of Okapi Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park as well with a view to initiating projects for their rehabilitation. IV.20 Galapagos National Park (Ecuador) The Bureau thanked IUCN, and the Observer of Ecuador for their reports. It noted that there was a major effort in Ecuador to take steps to conserve the World Heritage values of the islands. The Bureau recalled that, at its twentieth session in Merida, the World Heritage Committee decided "to include the Galapagos National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger, effective 15 November 1997, unless a substantive written reply by Ecuador is received by 1st of May 1997, and the Bureau, at its twenty first session determine that effective actions have been taken". Having studied both the report of the State Party and the report of IUCN, the Bureau came to the conviction that such effective actions have been taken that the efforts of the Ecuadorean authorities should be honoured. The Bureau therefore decided that it would not be appropriate to include the Galapagos National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger at this time. In order to enable the World Heritage Committee, at its twenty first session, to have a full picture of the up-to-date situation of the World Heritage Site, the Bureau asked the State Party to deliver a progress report by, 15 November 1997, *[18] on the nine issues outlined in the IUCN report of 3rd June 1997, as follows: Decree Law Control of Residency Quarantine Environmental management of populated areas Introduced species Marine reserve Tourism Financing The Bureau recommended the World Heritage Committee to ask the State Party for an annual progress report on the above mentioned issues from the end of 1998 until the end of 2002. The Bureau further recommended that if the decrees of the Government of Ecuador are not reflected in law by the time of the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee, scheduled in December 1997, in Naples, Italy, the Committee could once again consider adding the Galapagos to the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.21 Kaziranga National Park (India) The Bureau noted that a member of the Centre joined the Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife for India, during 24-25 January 1997, on a mission to Kaziranga National Park, in the State of Assam, India. The Bureau learnt with satisfaction Kaziranga's success in conserving the great one-horned rhinoceros, whose population within the Park has grown from 366 in 1966 to about 1,200 at present. However, every year about 26 rhinos are poached and an additional 52 die due to natural causes, most of them drowning in the annual floods of the Brahmaputra River. The Bureau encouraged the management of Kaziranga to proceed with their plans to add six adjacent patches totalling more than 400 sq.km. to the Park, increase the number of anti- poaching camps along the periphery of the Park, build upland refuges for animals to retreat during the annual flooding of the Brahmaputra River and launch conservation awareness and environmental education programmes for local villagers. Furthermore, the Bureau noted that the Indian authorities have submitted a request for financial assistance to support the implementation of parts of the above-mentioned activities and that the Bureau will consider the request under Agenda Item 6 (Requests for international assistance). *[19] IV.22 Keoladeo National Park (India) The Bureau recalled the fact that the Committee had previously expressed concerns regarding the decrease in the population of wintering Siberian cranes returning to this site and management problems, such as the over-growth of grasses, forming a thick mat in some areas were adversely affecting the breeding habitat of the Siberian cranes. Records maintained by Park management indicated that the wintering population of Siberian cranes, estimated at about 38 in 1985-86 when the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, had dropped to 5 in 1992-93; no Siberian cranes were seen in Keoladeo during 1993-95. In 1996-97 three Siberian cranes have returned to Keoladeo National Park. The Bureau noted that the State Party, recognizing that the decrease in the number of Siberian cranes arriving to winter at Keoladeo may be attributable to the intensity of hunting and other threats prevailing along the migratory route of the species, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the eight countries (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) with whom it shares the range of the central and western Asian populations of the Siberian crane. UNEP, which hosts the Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), International Crane Foundation (ICF) and the Wild Birds Society of Japan are also signatories to the MOU, under which an action plan foresees: (i) the release of captive-bred Siberian cranes to augment wild populations; and (ii) capturing of Siberian cranes and the deployment of satellite transmitters on the cranes for tracking their migratory route from their wintering areas in Keoladeo to spring breeding grounds in other countries. At the site level, the management has introduced a controlled burning and cutting regime for grasses in order to limit their growth from negatively impacting the breeding habitats of the cranes and closed the Park for grazing by cattle belonging to local villagers. The Bureau urged the Centre to cooperate with the CMS Secretariat and support the implementation of the action plan. IV.23 Sundarbans National Park (India) The Bureau was informed that the Sundarbans National Park and World Heritage Area, comprising 1,330 sq.km., forms the core area of the larger Sundarbans Project Tiger Reserve (2,585 sq.km) and the even larger "Sundarbans Biosphere Reserve" which extends over more than 9,000 sq.km of the inter-tidal area of the Sundarbans delta. Although India has not yet formally nominated the Sundarbans Biosphere Reserve for inclusion in UNESCO's international network of biosphere reserves, the case illustrated an interesting application of the World Heritage and the Biosphere Reserve concepts of UNESCO within the same ecosystem. Several eco-development *[20] activities undertaken in the larger Biosphere Reserve, e.g. fishing, collection of honey, timber harvest etc., have enabled the management to establish a working relationship with the local people and solicit their cooperation for the protection of the "Biosphere Reserve's" core area, i.e. Sundarbans National Park and World Heritage Area. This working relationship between the management and the local people has been particularly useful in minimizing the poaching threat to the world's largest population of the Bengal tiger inhabiting this World Heritage Site. The Bureau noted with interest the harmonious application of UNESCO's World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve concepts in Sundarbans and urged the Secretariat and IUCN to identify similar cases and bring them to the attention of States Parties to the Convention. IV.24 Nanda Devi National Park (India) The Bureau was informed that this Park is located in a very remote area, and due to difficulty of access, remains well protected. There are no major threats to the Park; a certain amount of illegal collection of medicinal plants and herbs has been recorded. No visitors are allowed to the Park; some mountaineering groups have in recent times expressed an interest in organizing expeditions to the area. Allowing a certain amount of visitation may facilitate the presentation of this World Heritage Area to the general public and may generate income for the benefit of local people as well. Hence, the Bureau, while taking note of the high level of protection afforded to Nanda Devi National Park, invited Indian authorities to consider undertaking a feasibility study for specialized (mountaineering) tourism development in the Park. IV.25 Komodo National Park (Indonesia) The Bureau recalled the fact that the boat provided to this World Heritage area with financial assistance from the Fund in 1994, was destroyed in an accident during a systematic monitoring mission to the site in July 1995, in which four Indonesian officials lost their lives. With a view to equipping the Park with a boat capable of undertaking open-sea travel, the Committee at its nineteenth session (Berlin, 1995) approved a sum of US$ 30,000 and requested that the State Party provide the additional US$ 30,000 needed to purchase a large fiberglass catamaran. Learning the fact that the Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia has made available the US$ 30,000 as recommended by the Committee, the Bureau requested the Centre to transmit its appreciation of the Indonesian Government's contribution of US$ 30,000 to match an equal amount provided by the Committee. The Bureau also requested the management of the Komodo National Park to fully insure the boat against accidents and other potential liabilities. *[21] IV.26 Banc d’Arguin National Park (Mauritania) The Bureau was informed that the Centre's attention had been drawn by the International Foundation for Banc d’Arguin (FIBA) and WWF, to a Rally, “Trophée des Gazelles - Rallye des Sables”, that had traversed the area of the Park and to potential impacts which the Rally could have had on the fragile ecosystem within the Park. However, the Bureau noted that subsequently the Rally Organizers and FIBA have informed the Centre that the Rally did not traverse the World Heritage site and that there were no threats to the integrity of the site. IV.27 Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico) The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its twentieth session (Merida, 1996) reviewed a report on a project for industrial salt production at the site and its potential threats to the site's whale population and noted that the project had not yet been authorized and that a Scientific Committee to review the proposed project had been established by the Ministry of Environment. The Bureau was informed that the seven member Scientific Committee has elaborated, through consultations with the public, rigorous and comprehensive terms of reference for its work and for the environmental impact study of the proposed San Ignacio industrial salt production project. The Scientific Committee is expected to document the actual situation of the World Heritage area prior to the commencement of the industrial salt production project, assess the impact of the project's proposed construction and operational activities on the ecological, biological and protected area management aspects of the World Heritage area and undertake a 26-issues driven socio-economic evaluation of the project. The Bureau was satisfied to note that the Scientific Committee, in its preliminary report, had indicated that the proposed industrial salt production project will only be authorized if the Committee finds that the project will not compromise the conservation of natural resources in the region and does not pose a risk to the protection of the biological heritage of the Mexican people. The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit its appreciation for the State Party's efforts to ensure a rigorous evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed industrial salt production project and requested the State Party to provide a progress report on the work and findings of the Scientific Committee for the consideration of the World Heritage Committee, at its twenty-first session, in December 1997. *[22] IV.28 Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal) The Bureau noted with satisfaction that this site has a population of more than 400 great one-horned rhinoceros and its success is partly attributable to the cooperation between the Nepalese Army and the staff of the Royal Chitwan National Park in anti-poaching activities. The Bureau was informed that 80% of the total population (i.e. about 2,000) of the great one-horned rhinoceros, a species restricted in its range to South Asia, are found in the World Heritage sites of Kaziranga (India; 1,200) and Royal Chitwan (Nepal; 400). The Bureau, however, noted that intensive poaching can quickly lead to sharp declines in rhino populations, as observed in the World Heritage area of Manas (India), a site included in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau encouraged the Centre to facilitate cooperation between the staff of Royal Chitwan (Nepal) and Kaziranga and Manas (India) World Heritage sites, and the CITES Convention for sharing of intelligence information on trading routes of rhino horns and the activities of commercially motivated poaching gangs in order to sustain the contributions which World Heritage sites have made to rhino conservation in South Asia. IV.29 Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal) The Bureau was informed that about 3500 people belonging to the Sherpa community live in and around the Park and play a significant role as guides for the visitors to the Park. Tourism however, is placing an ever increasing energy demand on the sparse woody vegetation left remaining in the area and also introduces considerable problems of waste disposal. The Director of the Park had proposed that staff, army personnel and the Sherpa community resident in the vicinity of the Park shift to using kerosene as a primary source of energy but has been unable to raise the necessary capital, estimated to be about US$ 50,000, for making this shift. The Director has called for more involvement of scientific expertise in advising the management on resolving practical problems such as energy needs of the staff, army personnel, the Sherpa community and the tourists and the management of waste disposal. The Bureau requested IUCN to utilize expertise available in its Nepal Office in Katmandu to undertake a field visit to Sagarmatha National Park and discuss with the Director of the Park, ways and means by which they can provide advise on alternative energy sources and other management issues. The IUCN Representative pointed out that funding would be required to support IUCN involvement. *[23] IV.30 Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman) The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its twentieth session (Merida, 1996) expressed its concerns regarding the poaching of thirteen Oryx, the damage to the desert habitat caused by construction of a reverse osmosis plant and delays in the completion of the management planning and boundary definition project. The Bureau was informed that the authorities in Oman have provided the Centre an outline of an interim plan which foresees the following: (a) a new outer boundary which will be fixed and boundaries of the five management zones which will be provisionally accepted for 5 years to allow the Ministry of Resource Management and the Environment (MRME) to map individual zones more accurately; (b) construction of an MRME Headquarters at or near Al Ajaiz with management, research and monitoring facilities and a visitor centre, a local service centre and a desalination plant for supplying water to Al Ajaiz and its integrated development and access roads to the desalination plant at Al Khumkham, specifically to Haylat at Kharasheef and the Habbab Road; (c) pilot projects on environmental tourism, environmental tourism plan for the coastal region from Ras Madrakab to Al Khaluf, establishment of a local coordinating committee, range land and livestock management, archaeological studies, particularly in the northern extension to the Sanctuary, and environmental awareness programmes; and (d) possible MRME financial and human resources to develop the Sanctuary as Oman's first national park. The Bureau thanked the Omani authorities for providing an outline of the interim plan and encouraged them to develop the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary as Oman's first national park. The Bureau requested the Omani authorities to provide a map indicating the outer boundary and the boundaries of the five management zones and to report to the Centre on the status of the Arabian Oryx population in the Sanctuary and the impacts of the reverse osmosis plant on the desert ecosystem. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to study the map(s) and the report(s) to be provided by authorities in Oman and assess whether a site visit to the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary is necessary. The Delegate of Germany stated that this case clearly demonstrates the danger connected with the inscription of a site without exact boundaries. IV.31 Tubbataha Reef Marine Park (Philippines) The Bureau noted that the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee approved, in 1996, a sum of US$ 20,000, for the *[24] implementation of a project entitled "Protection and Information and Education Campaign for the Conservation of Tubbataha Reef Marine Park". The Bureau was happy to note that the Project Management Team (PMT) has regular consultations with Government agencies, research institutions and local communities concerned with the project's implementation and that a Presidential Task Force has brought together all groups interested in the conservation of this World Heritage site. In addition the Bureau noted that a symposium had been convened on 31 March 1997 for raising public awareness of the Management Plan for Tubbataha Reef. The Bureau encouraged the PMT to provide the Centre with a copy of the Management Plan for Tubbataha Reef and submit periodical reports on the progress made by the Project and the status of conservation of Tubbataha Reef Marine Park. The Bureau also commended the Marine Parks Centre and the Environment Agency of Japan for financing several projects in support of the conservation of this World Heritage site. IV.32 Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka) The Bureau was informed that the Sri Lankan authorities have increased the total area of the Sinharaja National Heritage Wilderness Area from 8,860 ha to 11,187 ha to incorporate some habitat fragments northeast of the World Heritage Area. Since the current size of the Sinharaja World Heritage area is 8,860 ha, the Bureau requested IUCN and the Centre to contact Sri Lankan authorities to obtain information on areas included in the extension in order to determine whether or not the State Party should be invited to consider increasing the total area of the World Heritage Site. IV.33 Canaima National Park (Venezuela) The Bureau noted with concern that this site faced considerable threats from a proposal of the national electricity company (EDELCA) to erect a series of power transmission lines, expected to extend 160 km across the Park, to supply power from the Guri dam to Brazil and to a mining site north of the Park. The traditional Pemon community who inhabit a portion of the Park are concerned that the power generation project will lead to increased mining and logging and hence are opposing the scheme. During recent years large scale mining operations have been started in areas outside of the Park and is resulting in significant loss of forests and pollution of rivers. INPARQUES, the national agency responsible for Canaima National Park have limited resources and have not yet intervened against the project proposed by EDELCA. An adequate environmental impact study had not been carried out and construction is expected to begin soon. It is not known whether funds for the completion of the power lines project have been guaranteed by either the Venezuelan Government or international donors. *[25] The Bureau noted that the Committee, at the time of inscription of this World Heritage Site in 1994, had made several recommendations, including the finalization of the boundaries of the World Heritage area, which have not yet been implemented. Hence, the Bureau suggested the Centre to transmit its concerns regarding the integrity of Canaima National Park to the Venezuelan authorities and discuss with them the feasibility of fielding a high level mission to Venezuela in order to gather information and discuss and resolve problems facing the conservation of Canaima National Park. IV.34 Ha Long Bay (Vietnam) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its nineteenth and the twentieth sessions expressed concerns over the impacts which a proposed port development project could have on this site and plans of the Vietnam Government to issue a license for the establishment of a large floating hotel in the vicinity of the World Heritage site. The Bureau noted that a member of the Centre staff participated in the management planning training seminar organized by the Vietnamese authorities in Ha Long City, during 10-23 June 1997, with financial support (US$ 24,250) approved by the Committee at its last session in Merida and was informed of the following: (i) As recommended by the Committee at the time of inscription of Ha Long Bay in the World Heritage List in 1994, a Ha Long Management Department had been set up and currently has a total staff of 102. The Department is legally authorized by the Provincial Government of Quang Ninh to protect the Ha Long Bay World Heritage Area and regulate development activities along the entire coast of the Bay. (ii) The Vietnamese authorities have submitted a request for US$ 20,000 to the consideration of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee for the purchase of selected equipment for the Management Department of Ha Long Bay. (iii) While the Ha Long Bay World Heritage Area is protected adequately, enforcement of environmental regulation along the coastal zone of the Quang Ninh Province needed considerable improvement. (iv) Plans to issue a license for the establishment of a floating hotel near Ha Long Bay World Heritage area had been withdrawn. (v) JICA (Japanese International Cooperation Agency) will conduct an environmental study of the Ha Long Bay area. (vi) When phase 1 of the construction of the port (i.e. Cailan port) is completed in the year 2000 about 2-4 large ships *[26] could pass through the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area each day. The Bureau commended the Vietnamese authorities for establishing and strengthening the Ha Long Management Department and welcomed JICA's environmental study of the Ha Long Bay area. The Bureau requested the Vietnamese authorities to strictly enforce environmental regulations in the development of the coastal zone throughout the Quang Ninh Province with a view to minimizing the pollution impacts on the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area. The Bureau encouraged the Vietnamese and the Japanese authorities to cooperate in carrying out the JICA's environmental study of the coastal and marine environment of Ha Long Bay mentioned above. The Bureau encouraged the Vietnamese authorities to search for ways and means to direct large ships that are expected to pass through the World Heritage area along alternative routes. IV.35 Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)) The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session had been concerned about the unplanned and uncontrolled expansion of the village of Zabljak and its environs and requested clarification regarding the boundary adjustments under consideration. Furthermore the Committee had considered an engineering evaluation of the earthen containment structures built within the earthquake prone flood plains of the Tara River. The Bureau was informed that the Management of the Durmitor National Park have informed the Centre that their proposal to excise the 40 ha area around the village of Zabljak from the Park area had been approved by the Government of the Republic of Montenegro and that the Management wished to know whether the World Heritage Committee would agree with the proposed modification of the Park boundary. The Park Management, while ensuring high protection of the Tara River Canyon, and supporting spelaeological, hydrological, biological and archeological studies there, had not reacted to the Committee's suggestion for an engineering evaluation of the earthen containment structures built in the earthquake prone flood plains of the River. Finally the Management has brought to the attention of the Centre its concerns regarding the revival of plans for exploiting the hydropower potential of the River to resolve the problem of the negative balance of power faced by the Republic of Montenegro. The Bureau requested the Park Management to submit to the Centre, before 15 September 1997, a map showing the proposed modification of the Park's boundaries to excise the 40 ha area around the village of Zabljak and recommended that the Committee at its next session in December 1997 decide whether or not the proposed boundary modification is acceptable. *[27] Furthermore, the Bureau requested the Centre to request clarification from the Durmitor authorities whether they feel that an engineering evaluation of the earthen containment structures in the flood plains of the River is necessary. Finally, the Bureau requested the Centre to transmit its concerns to the relevant authorities regarding their plans for tapping the hydropower potential of the Tara River and obtain more information on this subject for submission to the Committee session in December 1997. MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE IV.36 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) The Bureau thanked the Government of Peru for the report on Machu Picchu prepared by the National Institute for Culture. It expressed its concern, however, about the apparent lack of integral management mechanisms for the property and the implementation and/or consideration of several projects that might have a negative impact either on its natural or cultural values. The Bureau, therefore, requested IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake a joint mission to Machu Picchu in order to examine the management and conservation of the site and to draw up recommendations for future actions. The Bureau requested IUCN and ICOMOS to submit a report on the mission to the twenty- first session of the World Heritage Committee. The Bureau suggested that the mission also examines the measures taken for the protection and conservation of the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone, on which the Committee at its twentieth session requested the Government of Peru to submit a full state of conservation report by 15 September 1997. CULTURAL HERITAGE IV.37 Butrinti (Albania) The Secretariat informed the Bureau of press reports according to which the site of Butrinti and its museum were looted during the civil disturbances in Albania. This information was confirmed by the Butrint Foundation and in a meeting with the Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Albania to UNESCO on 16 April 1997 at which it was agreed that a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS- Butrint Foundation mission would be undertaken to the site. Due to the security situation in the country, this mission could not be undertaken before this session of the Bureau. The Bureau expressed its great concern about the damages caused to the World Heritage site of Butrinti and the actual conditions of the site in terms of protection, management and conservation. The Bureau requested the Secretariat to undertake a mission to the site as soon as the security situation in Albania permits *[28] and to submit a report to the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-first session. This report should include an assessment of the damages to the site and the actual state of conservation, a recommendation whether the Committee should consider the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as well as proposals for future actions in the framework of the World Heritage Convention and the resolution adopted by the Executive Board of UNESCO at its hundred and fifty-first session which "urges the Director- General, in close co-operation with the competent authorities of the Republic of Albania and in close co-ordination with the other international organizations concerned, to draw up a plan of action for the rehabilitation of educational, cultural and scientific institutions and the restoration of the cultural and architectural heritage in Albania". IV.38 Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid fields from Giza to Dahshur; Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae; Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis (Arab Republic of Egypt) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat regarding the studies carried out in several tombs at Saqqara in the Necropolis of Thebes and at Abu Simbel, by INERIS, the Supreme Council of Antiquities and the University of Cairo, the Bureau thanked the Egyptian authorities for their cooperation and invited them to implement the recommendations of the experts concerning the ventilation of these monuments, which would ensure the long-term conservation of their mural paintings. IV.39 Islamic Cairo (Arab Republic of Egypt) a) Al-Azhar Mosque After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat concerning the ongoing works at the Al-Azhar Mosque at the site of Islamic Cairo, the Bureau requested the Egyptian authorities to ensure that the authenticity of the monument is respected, which unfortunately was not the case for the three Fatimid Mosques, and recalled that the World Heritage Centre is available to provide expert advice to this end. b) Al-Sinnari House After having taken note of the Secretariat's report concerning the ongoing work at the Al-Sinnari House in Islamic Cairo, the Bureau thanked the Egyptian authorities for their efforts in the restoration of this exceptional monument and requested them to ensure that highly qualified artisans be made available for this project. *[29] IV.40 Roman Monuments, Cathedral and Liebfrauen Church in Trier (Germany) The Bureau took note of a report submitted by the Minister for Culture, Youth, Family and Women of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz regarding the Roman amphitheatre in Trier. The Bureau noted the results of the urban competition for the zone north of the Roman amphitheatre and the selection of a project which would permit the reopening of the northern access to the arena, which had until now, been blocked by brewery constructions. The Bureau requested the City of Trier to adopt this project and to establish a legal planning instrument for its implementation. With regard to archaeological excavations of which the report makes no mention, the Bureau learned that they were important for a better knowledge of the site which includes, other than the amphitheatre, barracks, depots and a cementery. The Bureau requested the local and Land authorities to do their utmost to allow the archaeologists to continue their work and to provide them with the means and the time necessary to accomplish their task. As to the height of the urban villas east of the Bergstrasse, the Bureau regretted that the advice of the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission of May 1996 to reduce the height of the buildings closest to the amphitheatre had not been followed up. It considered that this will have a negative impact on the historical aspect of the amphitheatre. In this context, the Bureau noted the need for clearly established and adequately managed buffer zones. It requested the Secretariat to transmit these considerations to the German authorities with the request for a full report on the protection and management mechanisms for the monuments and their surroundings for examination by the next session of the Committee. In conclusion, the Bureau requested ICOMOS to send another expert mission to Trier to assess the actual impact caused to the World heritage site, as well as the possible impact of the proposed urbanization of the Petrisberg east of the amphitheatre. It requested ICOMOS to report its findings to the next Committee session. IV.41 Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town of Quedlinburg (Germany) In response to a request for information made by the Observer of Lebanon, the Bureau requested the German authorities to present, by 15 September 1997, a report on the state of conservation and development plans for the City of Quedlinburg. The Bureau also requested ICOMOS to undertake a mission to Quedlinburg to assess the situation, and to report to the extraordinary session of the Bureau. *[30] IV.42 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany) The Bureau commended the Minister for Science, Research and Culture of the Land Brandenburg for the detailed report on the state of conservation of the site and the actions that have been taken to preserve the Potsdam cultural landscape. The Bureau particularly welcomed the openness of the German authorities for dialogue and their commitment to seek compromise solutions. In particular, the Bureau took note of the commitments of the German authorities to: - proceed with the extension of the World Heritage site as recommended by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth session; - initiate the preparation of a comprehensive 'Urban Development Master Plan for the Development of the Potsdam Cultural Landscape'; - launch three architectural/urban competitions for the Quartier am Bahnhof, Alter Markt/Lustgarten and the Alter Markt/Palais Barberini. - cancel previous plans for the hotel in the Quartier am Bahnhof building area number 2, so as to include this area in the architectural/urban competition; - not to implement the results of the earlier competition for building areas 9-12 for any construction above the zero ground level until the competition for the entire Quartier am Bahnhof will be completed and thus to allow for the competitors to develop their proposals for the entire site and for the German authorities to review the plans for building areas 9-12 in the light of their compatibility with the results of the competition and the feasibility of the project. Furthermore, the Bureau noted with satisfaction that the 'German Unity Transport Project No 17' will not have any negative impact on the World Heritage site and that no dredging along the river sides of the castle park of Babelsberg, Neuen Garten and castle parks of Glienicke and Sacrow will be undertaken and that the Glienicke Bridge will not be changed. Having examined in detail the report provided by the Minister for Science, Research and Culture of Land Brandenburg, the Bureau requested the German authorities to provide by 15 October 1997 a report for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-first session which should address in particular: *[31] - the progress made in the preparation of the proposal for the extension of the World Heritage site; - the progress made in the preparation of a comprehensive 'Urban Development Master Plan for the Development of the Potsdam Cultural Landscape'; - the results of the architectural/urban competitions for the Quartier am Bahnhof, Alter Markt/Lustgarten and the Alter Markt/Palais Barberini; - an assessment of the impact of individual building projects, as mentioned in the report submitted by the German authorities as well as other projects, on the values of the Potsdam cultural landscape; - the results of the impact assessment of the 'German Unity Transport Project No 17'. The Bureau recommended that, on the basis of this new report, the Committee during its twenty-first session, examines if the threats to the World Heritage site still persist and if it still considers it necessary to inscribe the World Heritage site of Potsdam on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IV.43 Ajanta, Ellora and Elephanta Caves (India) In view of the information provided by the Secretariat regarding the state of conservation of the Ajanta, Elephanta and Ellora Caves, and taking note with appreciation of the additional information provided by the Observer of India concerning the national and local efforts being made to safeguard these sites, the Bureau expressed its serious concern over the state of conservation of these sites, especially that of the advanced deterioriation of the wall paintings and insufficient visitor control at the site of Ajanta. In addressing the problem of water seepage, the Bureau recommended that a study be made on the means of vegetation control and selection of species to be planted to prevent soil erosion. While the Bureau commended the plan for establishing a visitors' museum displaying replicas of the wall paintings to decrease the number of visitors entering the Ajanta Caves, it requested the concerned authorities to keep the Committee informed of the developments of the OECF Ajanta-Ellora Development Plan and conservation plans at Elephanta and Ajanta, especialy in relation to the conservation of the fragile wall paintings in Ajanta. IV.44 Petra (Jordan) After having noted the report of the Secretariat on Petra and the report of the Director of the Department of Antiquities dated December 1996, the Bureau thanked the Jordanian authorities for their efforts to protect the site, but again insisted that preservation measures be urgently undertaken and *[32] that the coordination of on-site activities be reinforced with the support of UNESCO. Amongst these measures, it would be appropriate to provide the Petra Regional Council and the Coordination Group of the Ministry of Antiquities and Tourism with the means to function; to urgently regulate and limit the construction of hotels too near to the site, buildings and the extensions to houses in the vicinity of the site and on the Taybeh road; to closely study the negative impacts of measures encouraging uncontrolled influx of tourists, such as the widening of roads; and to preserve the natural environment through the conservation of all green and wooded areas (Hishe oak forest, the pine forest and agricultural terraces close to the entrance of the site). They also requested the authorities to refrain from undertaking restoration work within the site until the condition of the monuments has been carefully recorded. IV.45 Quseir Amra (Jordan) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the site of Quseir Amra, the Bureau thanked the Jordanian authorities for their efforts, jointly with UNESCO and the Cultural Service of the French Embassy, to protect the site from flooding and to restore the manège and the cistern of the Omayyades Baths. The Bureau recommended that the Jordanian authorities improve visitor control mechanisms to ensure a better protection of the wall paintings. IV.46 Tyre (Lebanon) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the site of Tyr and the remarks of the Observer of Lebanon, the Bureau decided to defer the examination of the state of conservation of the site until its twenty-first extraordinary session in November, so as to take into consideration the mission reports of the experts sent to the site by UNESCO in the framework of the International Safeguarding Campaign and the observations of the Lebanese authorities. IV.47 Historic City of Vilnius (Lithuania) After having taken note of the report made by World Heritage Centre consultant, the Bureau commended the State Party and the cooperating governments, institutions and agencies for their joint effort to conserve and rehabilitate the Vilnius Historic Centre, and requested to be kept informed on the progress made. The Bureau also recommended to the State Party to accelerate the operationalization of the Agency for the Revitalization of Old Vilnius (OTRA) as a key element for the revitalization of the Historic Centre. It called upon international and bilateral donors to further discussions with the Lithuanian authorities with a view to initiating cooperative agreements along the lines endorsed at the donors' meeting which was held in February 1997 in Vilnius. *[33] IV.48 Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico) The Bureau took note of the results of an expert mission to the Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan and commended the National Institute for Anthropology and History (INAH) for the exemplary management and conservation of the site. The Bureau requested the national authorities to examine the consultant's report with great attention and to transmit its views on, and follow-up actions foreseen in response to the conclusions and recommendations contained in it to the Secretariat by 15 September 1997 for examination by the Bureau at its next session. IV.49 Medina of Fez (Morocco) The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Moroccan authorities according to which the road construction projects through the Medina had been abandoned and congratulated them for the measures undertaken to preserve the site. IV.50 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) The Bureau took note of the state of conservation report provided by His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and expressed its appreciation for the progress made towards fulfilling the sixteen-point recommendation of the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission of 1993. In expressing its regret over the further delay in the integration of the Development Control Unit (DCU) as a permanent unit of the Department of Archaeology (DOA), the Bureau recalled that international assistance under the World Heritage Fund for the establishment of the DCU was not to provide salary support but for the training of the DCU staff. It therefore reiterated its hope that His Majesty’s Government will honour its commitment to make available the necessary resources to enable the DOA to maintain the DCU in function. While having noted improvements in the enforcement of building regulations in the Monument Zones of Bhaktapur, and Patan, the Bureau expressed deep concern over the continued demolition of historic buildings located along the circular street surrounding the Bauddha Stupa and the construction of new structures, including the new Buddhist temple, which do not conform to the building codes. In view of the alarming situation in the Monument Zone of Bauddhanath, and the persisting problems in the Monument Zone of Kathmandu, the Bureau wished to consider at its twenty-first extraordinary session to be held in November 1997, the placement of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. To enable it to make a sound recommendation to the Committee in this regard, the Bureau requested His Majesty’s Government of Nepal to provide a full report on the progress made in each of the sixteen points of the 1993 UNESCO-ICOMOS recommendation. *[34] IV.51 City of Cusco (Peru) The Bureau took note of the report presented by the Peruvian National Institute for Culture on Cusco and reiterated the need for appropriate planning mechanisms for the historical City of Cusco. The Bureau welcomed the proposal to establish a Master Plan but emphasized that in the process of its preparation and application arrangements should be made for the adequate coordination and collaboration between all institutions and authorities involved, particularly the National Institute for Culture and the municipality of the City. IV.52 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland) The Bureau commended the Polish authorities for the adoption of the 'Strategic Government Programme (Oswiecim Program)' which foresees activities for the years 1997-2001 aiming at a long- term and comprehensive development and management of the site while fully recognizing the need to protect and preserve the physical integrity and dignity of the site and abstaining from any commercial development which could compromise the site's symbolic values. The Bureau fully supported the 'Declaration Concerning Principles for Implementation of Program Oswiecimski' and commended the signatories of the Declaration (the Government of Poland, the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the International Council of the State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the City of Oswiecim) for their will to fully cooperate in the preparation and implementation of the 'Urban Master Plan for the State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau'. The Bureau requested the Polish authorities to inform the Committee on a regular basis on the progress made in this matter. The Observer of Poland underlined the importance of the Declaration and informed the Bureau that the Government of Poland has asked ICOMOS-Poland to coordinate its implementation. The Representative of ICOMOS-Poland assured the Bureau that the Committee will be kept informed about the progress made in this respect. IV.53 Churches of Moldavia (Romania) The Bureau took note of the initiation of the UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust project 'International Support for the Restoration and Preservation of the Probota Monastery' which is the first large-scale UNESCO cultural heritage project funded by the Japanese authorities outside Asia. It commended the authorities of Romania and Japan as well as UNESCO for their joint collaboration in this respect. *[35] IV.54 Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzin, Grenada (Spain) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat regarding the situation of the Albayzin and the construction of a festivities hall at the Place del Rey Chico, the Bureau: 1) expressed satisfaction that the global revitalization programme of the Albayzin quarter was being elaborated in association with all sectors concerned; 2) strongly requested the competent authorities to undertake all efforts to ensure that the revitalization of the Albayzin quarter is implemented in accordance with the World Heritage Convention and other international conventions and recommendations in force; 3) insisted strongly that the competent authorities undertake all efforts to avoid the degradation of the site through construction works which should be interrupted until the results of impact studies are known, and requested them to provide the Secretariat with a report relating the measures undertaken to remedy this situation so that the World Heritage Committee may be informed at its twenty-first session in December 1997; 4) requested that the application of the Convention should be strengthened in this World Heritage sites and a management plan for the entire site be prepared within the framework of a joint Spain-UNESCO Committee to be set up urgently to follow-up the implementation of the above measures. IV.55 Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct (Spain) Having taken note of the information provided by the Secretariat on the state of conservation of the site and inappropriate management of traffic in its vicinity, the Bureau requested the national authorities to provide a report on the measures taken and the plans adopted for the protection of the Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct. The Bureau requested ICOMOS to examine the state of conservation of the World Heritage Site of Segovia and to present a report to the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau. IV.56 Old City of Berne (Switzerland) The Bureau expressed its concerns regarding the damages caused by a fire to five of the historic buildings in the Old City of Berne. It commended the Swiss authorities for the immediate actions taken for their safeguarding and restoration. *[36] IV.57 Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic) a) Mosque of the Omayyades After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the Mosque of the Omayyades in the Ancient City of Damascus, the Bureau thanked the Syrian authorities for having halted the work which was threatening the authenticity of the monument and renewed the invitation which had been made by the Committee at its twentieth session to provide all possible advice of national and international experts to decide upon future action to be undertaken b) Tekiya Souleymaniah After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the situation at the Tekiya Souleymaniah in the Ancient City of Damascus, and the letter dated 21 June from the Direction of Antiquities and Museums, the Bureau thanked the authorities of the Arab Republic of Syria to have halted the calls for tender for foundation work at the monument and asked them to keep the Committee informed of the results of the additional scientific and technical studies. IV.58 Ancient City of Bosra (Syrian Arab Republic) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on the Ancient City of Bosra, the Bureau thanked the Syrian authorities for their efforts in the conservation of the restoration of the southern Baths, and invited them to continue collaboration with the French Mission to continue the restoration of these monuments with all necessary precautions and with the most competent enterprises. IV.59 Site of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic) After having taken note of the report of the Secretariat on Palmyra, the Bureau warmly encouraged the Syrian authorities to proceed with the deviation of the busy road which crossed the World Heritage site and to initiate, without delay, the study on a global plan for its conservation. It recalled that the Centre was always available to provide expert assistance for such projects. IV.60 Hadrian's Wall (United Kingdom) At the time of inscription the site was not defined by mapped boundaries. In response to increasing threats through tourism, development etc., English Heritage together with the authorities and landowners devised a management plan for the site. The Representative of ICOMOS underlined the exemplary nature of the management plan which ensures cooperation between all partners, a strategy for tourism management and provides a clear *[37] definition of the boundaries of the site. An extensive buffer zone has been identified along Hadrian's Wall and its associated sites. The plan further foresees the establishment of a database and periodic monitoring. The Bureau commended the authorities of the United Kingdom for the preparation of the management plan for Hadrian's Wall and for the clear delimitation of the site. IV.61 In connection with discussions on the state of conservation of several World Heritage sites, the Bureau emphasized the need for the recognition of the World Heritage values in the integral planning at World Heritage sites, as well as the need for the establishment of adequate buffer zones. It also concluded that communications between all levels of government and the World Heritage Committee and its Secretariat should be improved so as to avoid that the World Heritage Committee be alerted too late in the process about inappropriate interventions and constructions in or close to World Heritage sites. The Representative of IUCN also commended the importance given in the Hadrian's Wall Management Plan to the site's World Heritage status and drew the Bureau's attention to the excellent emphasis on World Heritage in the planning ordinances for the City of Bath. IV.62 In this context it was recalled that paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines invites the States Parties to inform the Committee, through the UNESCO Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize in the area protected under the Convention major restorations or new constructions which may affect the World Heritage value of the property, and that notice should be given as soon as possible and before making any decision that would be difficult to reverse, so that the Committee may assist in seeking appropriate solutions to ensure that the world heritage value of the site is fully preserved. In discussing the management plan for Hadrian's Wall, the Representative of ICOMOS noted that the matters of the boundaries, buffer zones and management mechanisms should receive particular attention in the context of the monitoring and reporting procedures that might be introduced following the decision-making at the General Assembly of States Parties later in the year. IV.63 Following discussions of the looting of the site museum at Butrinti, Albania, the Secretariat recalled that illicit traffic was a severe problem at a number of World Heritage sites (Angkor, Baalbek, Petra, Kathmandu Valley, Saqqara, etc.) and that support could be provided by UNESCO in training, contact with other international networks such as INTERPOL and ICOM, and recovery (UNESCO press releases and Notices of Stolen Cultural Property). It also could support states to implement the UNESCO Convention on Illicit Traffic (1970) and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Property (1995). There are 150 States *[38] Parties to the World Heritage Convention but only 86 to the 1970 Convention. Further information about participation of States in these conventions was requested and a table with information was circulated. IV.64 The need for an integrated application of UNESCO's three Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage was stressed by several of the Bureau members. The Representative of ICOMOS emphasized the need for better collaboration by all actors for protection of heritage and described new working arrangements of ICOMOS, ICOM, ICA and IFLA in the International Committee of the Blue Shield. He also stressed the importance of the 1954 and 1970 Conventions to complete protection of heritage. IV.65 The Bureau concluded that the item of prevention of illicit traffic at World Heritage sites should be included in the agenda of the next Committee session and that the Committee should consider recommending to all States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to also adopt the other two Conventions. V. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST AND THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER V.1 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that all the cultural properties proposed for inscription are listed on the tentative lists of the respective States Parties. Furthermore, the Bureau noted that of 149 States Parties, 75 had submitted, by June 1997, tentative lists in accordance with criteria specified in the Guidelines. The complete list of States Parties having submitted tentative lists and having presented nominations for inscription by 1 July 1996, as well as the individual lists of each State, have been communicated to members of the Bureau (WHC-97/CONF.204/3ARev.). V.2 The Bureau decided not to examine tentative list of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). It was remarked that this tentative list should not have been processed and presented to this session of the Bureau. V.3 The Delegate of Germany, supported by the Delegate of Mexico and the Observers of Thailand and Lebanon, noted that this year's nominations increase the imbalance between cultural and natural properties as well as between regions. He made a particular reference to paragraph 6 (viii) of the Operational Guidelines in which it is stated that the Convention provides for the protection of a select list of the most outstanding cultural and natural properties and in which the Committee invites States Parties to consider whether their cultural heritage is already well represented on the List and *[39] if so to slow down voluntarily their rate of submission of further nominations. V.4 The Bureau concluded that this matter should be examined in great depth in the context of the global strategy for a representative World Heritage List. The Observer of Canada referred to the report of the 1994 global strategy meeting in which this matter is analysed and suggested that this report be made available, as a working document, to the forthcoming Committee session. V.5 55 nominations for inscription were examined by the Bureau (13 concerning natural properties, 41 cultural and one mixed). NATURAL HERITAGE V.6 The Bureau examined 13 new natural nominations and one mixed site received for review by IUCN. IUCN informed the Bureau that, due to climatic conditions, two field missions could not be carried out in time for the June meeting of the Bureau and are scheduled for August (Central Karakorum National Park) and October (Natural Reserve "Le Triunfo", Mexico) 1997, respectively. The Bureau also examined two previously deferred nominations. The Centre furthermore informed the Bureau that two sites were withdrawn by States Parties: Fossil Forest of Dunarobba (Italy) and Vodlozero National Park (Russian Federation). V.7 The Bureau decided not to examine the nomination of Biogradska Gora National Park (No. 838) submitted by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). V.8 Concerning the nomination of Central Karakorum National Park (No. 802) submitted by Pakistan, the Observer of India made the following statement: "The proposed site in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir is located in an area which is under illegal control of Pakistan. Therefore, the question of territorial jusrisdiction cannot be overlooked in this case. I request the Bureau to take note of the Indian position on this issue and not to proceed further with the consideration of the matter". V.9 The Bureau recalled that the World Heritage Convention fully respects sovereignity of its States Parties (Articles 4 and 6) and decided to defer the examination of the Central Karakorum National Park. Hence, the Bureau requested IUCN not to proceed with the evaluation of the nomination. V.10 Several members of the Bureau expressed the wish that the Rapporteur contact the Representative of Pakistan to UNESCO and obtain a statement regarding Pakistan's position on the Central Karakorum National Park nomination for inclusion *[40] in the Rapporteur's report. After consultation with the Permanent Delegate of Pakistan to UNESCO, the Rapporteur was provided with a statement (see Annex IV). A. Property which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria fication having submitted number the nomination in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention Heard and McDonald 577Rev. Australia N(i)(ii) Islands The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property under criteria (i) and (ii). It noted that this site is the only volcanically active sub-Antarctic island and illustrates ongoing geomorphic processes and glacial dynamics in the coastal and submarine environment and sub-Antarctic flora and fauna, with no record of alien species. Cocos Island 820 Costa Rica N(ii)(iv) National Park The Bureau noted that the name of the site, originally nominated as "Cocos Island Marine and Terrestrial Conservation Area", had been changed to "Cocos Island National Park". The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe Cocos Island National Park under natural criteria (ii) and (iv) because of the critical habitats the site provides for marine wildlife including large pelagic species, especially sharks. The Bureau commended the Government of Costa Rica for its initiative to incorporate the marine environment into the Park and encouraged it to extend the limit of this protection from 8km to 15 km around the island. Morne Trois 814 Dominica N(i)(iv) Pitons National Park The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Morne Trois Pitons National Park on the basis of natural criteria (i) and (iv) for its diverse flora with endemic species of vascular plants, rich fauna including a large number of bird species, its volcanoes, rivers and waterfalls, illustrating ongoing geomorphological processes with high scenic value. *[41] The Bureau asked the Centre to write a letter to the authorities of Dominica requesting them to provide a time frame for the revision of the management plan and encouraging them to submit a technical assistance request for this revision. In addition, the Bureau requested the Dominica authorities to control further hydroelectric power development in the Park and act to eliminate private holdings in the Park. The Bureau urged the authorities of Dominica to provide, by 15 September 1997, their response to the above suggestions in order for it to be considered by the Bureau at its twenty- first extraordinary session on 28 and 29 November 1997. Pyrénées - 773 France/Spain N(i)(iii) Mount Perdu The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the site under natural criteria (i) and (iii). The calcareous massif of the Mount Perdu displays in a classic way a number of geological landforms including deep canyons and spectacular cirque walls. It is also an outstanding scenic landscape with meadows, lakes, caves and forests on mountain slopes. In addition, the area is of high interest to science and conservation. The Bureau took note of the change of the name of the site, from "Mont "Perdu/Tres Seroles" to "Pyrénées - Mount Perdu", as proposed by the two States Parties, and was informed that the site was originally submitted in 1995 under natural criteria. In April 1997 the authorities of France and Spain informed the Centre that they wish also to nominate the area as a cultural landscape under cultural criteria. The Bureau noted that this site is not included in the tentative lists of France or Spain. If the States Parties take action to include the site in their respective tentative lists by 1 September 1997, ICOMOS would be able to carry out an evaluation mission for the cultural landscape aspects in time to report back to the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau. The Bureau also noted that "cultural landscape" is a relatively new concept, adopted by the Committee in 1992, and that the Expert Meeting on "Evaluation of general principles and criteria for nominations of natural World Heritage sites" held at the Parc national de la Vanoise, France, in March 1996, had addressed the links between cultural and natural heritage. *[42] B. Property which the Bureau did not recommend for inscription The Valley of 840 Cuba Viñales Pinar del Río The Bureau noted that the site does not meet the natural criteria, lacked clearly defined boundaries and does not have sufficient legal protection. Hence the Bureau did not recommend inscription of this site on the List. The Bureau noted that the Cuban authorities may wish to consider nominating the area as a cultural landscape. C. Properties for which the nominations were referred back to the State Party Macquarie Island 629 Rev. Australia N(i)(iv) The Bureau noted that the nomination was submitted for its geological features resulting from its location at the edge of two tectonic plates. The Bureau noted that IUCN has received further information from the Australian authorities and external reviewers of the nomination dossier. These concern both the significance of Macquarie's geological and biological values and further comparative data on islands of the southern ocean. The Bureau referred this nomination back to Australia in order that this new material can be assessed in light of additional natural heritage criteria. If this information is received by 15 September 1997, IUCN is asked to provide its evaluation to the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997. The Sunderbans 798 Bangladesh N(ii)(iv) The Bureau decided to refer the property back to the State Party, as it does not meet the conditions of integrity on its own. The Bureau suggested that the authorities of Bangladesh consider enlarging the nomination to include the Sundarbans East and South Wildlife Sanctuaries. The Bureau furthermore encouraged the authorities of Bangladesh and of India to discuss the possibility for creating a transfrontier site with the adjoining Sundarbans National Park and World Heritage site (India). *[43] National Reserve of 799 Kenya Maasai Mara The Bureau noted that the site, on its own, does not meet natural criteria. However, the Bureau noted that this site is an integral component of the Serengeti ecosystem and hence could be considered as an extension to the World Heritage site of Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. The Bureau encouraged the Kenyan authorities to work together with the Government of Tanzania for a transfrontier agreement to extend the Serengeti World Heritage site to include the National Reserve of Masai Mara. The Bureau expressed concerns over the integrity of the National Reserve of Maasai Mara and asked the Centre to transmit these comments to the authorities of both Tanzania and Kenya and to request their replies by 15 September 1997. Mount Kenya National 800 Kenya N(ii)(iii) Park/Natural Forest The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property under natural criteria (ii) and (iii) as one of the most impressive landscapes of Eastern Africa with its rugged glacier-clad summits and forested slopes illustrating outstanding ecological processes. The Bureau noted that Mt. Kenya is also a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and will be the subject of a periodic review to strengthen its Biosphere Reserve functions. Under the statutory framework for Biosphere Reserves, such periodic reviews are required every ten years. The Bureau however expressed concern about illegal deforestation and encroachment on the slopes of Mt. Kenya and recommended that the Kenyan authorities reduce the size of the nominated area by excluding heavily impacted forests. The Bureau asked the Centre to contact the Kenyan authorities and request them to provide details of actions they intend to take to improve management of the forested zone, and a detailed map of the revised boundaries of the property before 15 September 1997. D. Deferred property Natural Reserve 839 Cuba of the Terrestrial Molluscs, genus Polymita The Bureau noted that the present nomination did not meet the natural criteria. It decided to defer this property to allow the Cuban authorities to consider preparing a revised nomination to include one or more national parks in eastern *[44] Cuba, which would also incorporate Polymita species as well as other natural features. E. Properties recommended for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger Okapi Faunal Reserve (Democratic Republic of the Congo) Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo) The Bureau discussed the state of conservation of these two sites under Agenda Item 4 (see Chapter IV) and serious threats to their integrity. The Bureau recommended that a high-level mission be undertaken to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to remind authorities of their obligations under the World Heritage Convention and initiate actions to plan rehabilitation of the two sites. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to report back on the steps taken in this regard to the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997. MIXED PROPERTY Property which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List Sibiloi/Central Island 801 Kenya N(i)(iv) National Parks The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property on the basis of natural criteria (i) and (iv) for the discoveries of mammal fossil remains in the site which led to the scientific reconstruction of the palaeo-environment of the entire Turkana lake basin of the Quarternary period. The Lake Turkana ecosystem with its diverse bird life and desert environment offers an exceptional laboratory for studies of plant and animal communities. The Bureau expressed its concern and drew the attention of the Kenyan authorities to grazing by large herds of domestic livestock in the Parks. Concerning cultural criteria the Bureau noted ICOMOS' request for further information on the Koobi Fora portion of the site and that a comparative study of fossil homeoide sites is expected to be completed in late summer 1997; the results of that study will be presented to the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997. *[45] CULTURAL HERITAGE A. Properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the World Heritage List Name of Property Identi- State Party Criteria fication having submitted number the nomination in accordance with Article 11 of the Convention Hallstatt-Dachstein/ 806 Austria C(iii)(iv) Salzkammergut Cultural Landscape The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv). The Hallstatt- Dachstein/Salzkammergut alpine region is an outstanding example of a cultural landscape of great scientific interest because it contains evidence of a fundamental human economic activity. The Historic Centre 821 Brazil C(iii)(iv)(v) of Sao Luis The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv) and (v). The Historic Centre of Sao Luis do Maranhao is an outstanding example of a Portuguese colonial town that adapted successfully to the climatic conditions in equatorial South America and which has preserved its urban fabric, harmoniously integrated with its natural setting, to an exceptional degree. The Ancient City 812 China C(ii)(iii)(iv) of Ping Yao The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv). The Ancient City of Ping Yao is an outstanding example of a Han Chinese city of the Ming and Qing Dynasties (14th-20th centuries) that has retained all its features to an exceptional degree and in doing so provides a remarkably complete picture of cultural, social, economic and religious development during one of the most seminal periods of Chinese history. *[46] The Classical Gardens 813 China (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) of Suzhou (v) The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). The four classical gardens of Suzhou are masterpieces of Chinese landscape garden design in which art, nature, and ideas are integrated perfectly to create ensembles of great beauty and peaceful harmony, and the four gardens are integral to the entire historic urban plan. The Bureau, however, requested the Secretariat to inform the State Party of its recommendation to submit a nomination to extend the World Heritage protection to the entire historic town of Suzhou whose cultural value, marked by the linkage between its canal system and hundreds of gardens, extends beyond the four nominated gardens. The Bureau also requested the Secretariat to inform the State Party of its concern over the proposed construction of the ring road inside the historic town, which would entail irreversible damage to the historic urban morphology of this once fortified town. The Episcopal Complex 809 Croatia C(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Euphrasian Basilica in the Historic Centre of Porec The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv). The Episcopal Complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the Historic Centre of Porec is an outstanding example of an early Christian Episcopal complex which is exceptional by virtue of its completeness and its unique Basilica Cathedral. The Historic City of 810 Croatia C(ii)(iv) Trogir The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv). Trogir is an exceptional example of a medieval town built on and conforming with the layout of a Hellenistic and Roman city that has conserved its urban fabric to an exceptional degree and with a minimum of modern interventions in which the trajectory of social and cultural development is clearly visible in every aspect of the townscape. The Historic Centre 822 Estonia C(ii)(iv) (Old Town) of Tallinn The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv). Tallinn is an outstanding and exceptionally complete and *[47] well preserved example of a medieval northern European trading city that retains the salient features of this unique form of economic and social community to a remarkable degree. The Historic 345rev France C(ii)(iv) Fortified City of Carcassonne The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv). The historic town of Carcassonne is an excellent example of a medieval fortified town whose massive defences were constructed on walls dating from Latin Antiquity. It is also of exceptional importance by virtue of the restoration work carried out in the second half of the 19th century by Viollet-le-Duc, which had a profound influence on subsequent developments in conservation principles and practices. The 18th Century 549Rev Italy C(i)(ii)(iii) Royal Palace at (iv) Caserta, with the Park, the Aqueduct of Vanvitelli, and the San Leucio Complex The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The monumental complex at Caserta, whilst cast in the same mould as other 18th century royal establishments, is exceptional for the broad sweep of its design, incorporating not only an imposing palace and park, but also much of the surrounding natural landscape and an ambitious new town laid out according to the urban planning precepts of its time. The industrial complex of the Belvedere, designed to produce silk, is also of outstanding interest because of the idealistic principles that underlay its original conception and management. Residences of the 823 Italy C(i)(ii)(iv)(v) Royal House of Savoy The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii), iv) and (v). The Residences of the Royal House of Savoy in and around Turin represent a comprehensive overview of European monumental architecture in the 17th and 18th centuries, using style, dimensions, and space to illustrate in an exceptional way the prevailing doctrine of absolute monarchy in material terms. *[48] The Botanical Garden 824 Italy C(ii)(iii) (Orto Botanico), Padua The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and (iii). The Botanical Garden of Padua is the original of all botanical gardens throughout the world, and represents the birth of science, of scientific exchanges, and understanding of the relationship between nature and culture. It has made a profound contribution to the development of many modern scientific disciplines, notably botany, medicine, chemistry, ecology, and pharmacy. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide complementary information on financing and management of the site. The Cathedral, Torre 827 Italy (i)(ii)(iii)(iv) Civica and Piazza Grande, Modena The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The joint creation of Lanfranco and Wiligelmo is a masterpiece of human creative genius in which a new dialectical relationship between architecture and sculpture was created in Romanesque art. The Modena complex bears exceptional witness to the cultural traditions of the 12th century and is one of the best examples of an architectural complex where religious and civic values are combined in a medieval Christian town. The Archaeological 829 Italy C(iii)(iv)(v) Areas of Pompei, Herculanum and Torre Annunziate The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (iii), (iv) and (v). The impressive remains of the towns of Pompei and Herculaneum and their associated villas, buried by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79, provide a complete and vivid picture of society and daily life at a specific moment in the past that is without parallel anywhere in the world. Villa Romana 832 Italy C(i)(ii)(iii) del Casale The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii) and (iii). The Villa del Casale at Piazza Armerina is the supreme example of a luxury Roman villa, which graphically *[49] illustrates the predominant social and economic structure of its age. The mosaics that decorate it are exceptional for their artistic quality and invention as well as their extent. The Bureau urged the State Party to address concerns expressed in the evaluation of ICOMOS regarding the drainage of the site and the climatic conditions within the cover buildings. Su Nuraxi di Barumini 833 Italy C(iii)(iv) The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (iii) and (iv). The nuraghe of Sardinia, of which Su Nuraxi is the pre-eminent example, represent an exceptional response to political and social conditions, making an imaginative and innovative use of the materials and techniques available to a prehistoric island community. The Ch'angdokkung 816 Korea C(ii)(iii)(iv) Palace Complex (Republic of) The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), and (iv). The Ch'angdokkung Palace Compound is an outstanding example of Far Eastern palace architecture and garden design, exceptional for the way in which the buildings are integrated into and harmonized with the natural setting, adapting to the topography and retaining indigenous tree cover. Hwasong Fortress 817 Korea C(ii)(iii) (Republic of) The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii). The Hwasong Fortress is an outstanding example of early modern military architecture, incorporating the most highly developed features of that science from both east and west. The Historic Centre of 852 Latvia C(i)(ii) Riga The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i) and (ii). The Historic Centre of Riga, while retaining its medieval and later urban fabric relatively intact, is of outstanding universal value by virtue of the quality and the quantity of its Art Nouveau/Jugendstil architecture, which is unparalleled anywhere in the world, and its 19th Century architecture in wood. *[50] The Archaeological 836 Morocco C(ii)(iii)(iv) Site of Volubilis (vi) After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Archaeological site of Volubilis on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi), considering that this site constituted an exceptionally well preserved example of a large Roman colonial town on the very fringes of the Empire. The Delegate of Morocco informed the Bureau of his country's intention, to propose an extension to the site to include the City of Moulay Idriss. This proposal would be made once effective measures for the long-term protection of the city's cultural and architectural values had been taken, in view of its rapid growth. The Medina of 837 Morocco C(ii)(iv)(v) Tétouan (formerly known as Titawin) After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe the Medina of Tétouan (formerly Titawin) on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v), considering that it is an exceptionally well preserved and complete example of this type of historic town, displaying all the features of the high Andalusian culture. Hospicio Cabanas, 815 Mexico C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) Guadalajara The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The Hospicio Cabanas is a unique architectural complex, designed to respond to social and economic requirements for housing the sick, the aged, the young, and the needy, which provides an outstanding solution of great subtlety and humanity. It also houses one of the acknowledged masterpieces of mural art. Lumbini, the 666Rev. Nepal C(iii)(vi) Birthplace of the Lord Buddha The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (vi). As the birthplace of the Lord Buddha, the sacred area of Lumbini is one of the holiest places of one of the world's great religions, and its remains contain important evidence about the nature of Buddhist pilgrimage centres from a very early period. *[51] The Mill Network 818 Netherlands C(i)(ii)(iv) at Kinderdijk-Elshout The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). The Kinderdijk-Elshout Mill network is an outstanding man-made landscape that bears powerful testimony to human ingenuity and fortitude over nearly a millennium in draining and protecting an area by the development and application of hydraulic technology. The Historic Area of 819 Netherlands C(ii)(iv)(v) of Willemstad, Inner City and Harbour The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii), (iv) and (v). The Historic Area of Willemstad is a European colonial ensemble in the Caribbean of outstanding value and integrity, which illustrates the organic growth of a multicultural community over three centuries and preserves to a high degree significant elements of the many strands that came together to create it. Historic District 790 Panama C(ii)(iv)(vi) of Panama with the Salon Bolivar The Bureau noted that the Government of Panama had withdrawn the nomination of the site of Panama Viejo and that it maintained the nomination of the Historic District with the Salon Bolivar for inscription on the World heritage List. The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi). Panama was the first European settlement on the Pacific coast of the Americas, in 1519, and the Historic District preserves intact a street pattern, together with a substantial number of early domestic buildings, which are exceptional testimony to the nature of this early settlement. The Salon Bolivar is of outstanding historical importance, as the venue for Simon Bolivar's visionary attempt in 1826 to create a Pan-American congress, more than a century before such institutions became a reality. The Medieval Town 835 Poland C(ii)(iv) Torun The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii) and (iv). Torun is a small historic trading city that *[52] preserves to a remarkable extent its original street pattern and outstanding early buildings, and which provides an exceptionally complete picture of the medieval way of life. The Castle of the 847 Poland C(ii)(iii)(iv) Teutonic Order in Malbork The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv). Malbork Castle is the supreme example of the medieval brick castle that characterizes the unique architecture of the Teutonic Order in eastern Europe. It is also of historical significance for the evidence that it provides of the evolution of the modern philosophy and practice of restoration and conservation. Upon the decision of the Bureau to recommend inscription, the Delegate of Germany and the Observer of Poland made statements (see Annex V). Las Médulas 803 Spain C(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) The Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) considering that the gold-mining area is an outstanding example of innovative Roman technology, in which all the elements of the ancient landscape, both industrial and domestic, have survived to an exceptional degree. After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the Delegate of Germany requested that his disagreement to this recommendation for inscription be noted in the report of the Bureau. The Palau de la 804 Spain C(i)(ii)(iv) Musica Catalana and the Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe these two properties on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv), considering that the Palau de la Musica Catalana and the Hospital de Sant Pau in Barcelona are outstanding examples of the Art Nouveau style that played so important a role in the evolution of 20th century architecture. *[53] San Millan Yuso 805 Spain C(ii)(iv)(vi) and Suso Monasteries After having taken note of the evaluation of ICOMOS, the bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi), considering that the Monasteries of Suso and Yuso at San Millan de la Cogolla are an exceptional testimony to the introduction and continuous survival of Christian monasticism, from the 6th century to the present day. The property is also of outstanding associative significance as the birthplace of the modern written and spoken Spanish language. Dougga/Thugga 794 Tunisia C(ii)(iii) After having noted the evaluation of ICOMOS, the Bureau recommended that the Committee inscribe this property on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii) considering Dougga/Thugga is the best preserved Roman small town in North Africa and as such provides an exceptional picture of everyday life in antiquity. Maritime Greenwich 795 United C(i)(ii)(iv)(vi) Kingdom The Bureau recommended the Committee to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of cultural criteria (i), (ii), (iv) and (vi). The public and private buildings and the Royal Park at Greenwich form an exceptional ensemble that bears witness to human artistic and scientific endeavour of the highest quality, to European architecture at an important stage of its evolution, and to the creation of a landscape that integrates nature and culture in a harmonious whole. B. Properties for which the nominations were referred back to the State Party The Old Town of 811 China C(ii)(iv) Lijiang The Bureau decided on the referral of this nomination to the extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997 in view of the lack of time to fully analyse the additional documents on the management and protective mechanisms provided by the State Party. ICOMOS however stated the site's outstanding universal value as a unique historic town which merges the indigenous Naxi people's building tradition and external forms of architecture and design. The traditional engineering skills witnessed in the remarkable water system supplying water from the surrounding mountains to every house demonstrates the town's harmonious relationship with its natural environment. *[54] ICOMOS paid tribute to the excellent quality of the reconstruction of the town without loss of authenticity after the February 1996 earthquake which demonstrates the living tradition of the indigenous building skills. In relation to this nomination, the Bureau requested the State Party to provide comparative analyses of the historic towns on China's tentative list. San Pedro de la 841 Cuba C(iv)(v) Roca Castle, Santiago de Cuba The Bureau welcomed the revised and extended boundaries for the site that were submitted by the State Party in response to ICOMOS' recommendations. The Bureau decided to refer this nomination back to the State Party in order to enable the State Party to submit, by 1 October 1997, a management plan for the site for evaluation by ICOMOS in time for the twenty- first extraordinary session of the Bureau. Portovenere, Cinque 826 Italy C(ii)(iv)(v) Terre, and the Isands (Palmaria), Tino and Tinetto) The Bureau referred the examination of this property back to the State Party requesting detailed information on tourism management, and legal instruments and mechanisms and community involvement to preserve the characteristics of this cultural landscape. There was a discussion on the role of IUCN in evaluating cultural landscapes. The Representative of IUCN pointed out that, while the Operational Guidelines call for IUCN to be associated with ICOMOS in evaluating appropriate cultural landscape nominations, no additional finance had yet been allocated to ICOMOS to facilitate this. If this information is provided and judged satisfactory by the next extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Bureau recommends inscription of this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v). The Costiera 830 Italy Amalfitana The Bureau referred the examination of this property and requested the State Party to provide information on the management of the site. In case this information be provided and judged satisfactory by the next extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Bureau *[55] recommended the inscription of the property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v). The Archaeological 831 Italy C(i)(ii)(iii) Area of Agrigento (iv) The Bureau referred the examination of this property and requested the State Party to provide assurance for adequate funding for the management and maintenance of the property. In case this information be provided and judged satisfactory by the next extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Bureau recommends the inscription of the property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Bagan (Pagan) 796 Myanmar (i)(ii)(iii) Archaeological (iv)(v) Area and Monuments The Bureau decided on the referral of this nomination to the extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1997. In view of the unquestionable universal significance of this site, the Bureau recognized the merit for the inscription of this site on the World Heritage List. The Bureau, however, stressed the need for the State Party to define the core protected area and a meaningful buffer zone and adopt legal measures to ensure their effective enforcement. The Bureau expressed concern over the impact of the golf course located in the vicinity of the archaeological site and of the recently upgraded road which cuts across the site. The Bureau therefore urged the State Party to urgently submit a preparatory assistance request to enable an international expert team to carry out a mission to assist the authorities in defining the boundaries of the protection area and buffer zone, as well as to review the master plan and the national legal and management framework to ensure the site's protection, authenticity and integrity. C. Deferred nominations The Roman Amphitheatre 808 Croatia of Pula The Bureau deferred the examination of this property to await the completion of a comparative study of Roman amphitheatres. The Roman Theatre and 797 Italy Amphitheatre of Verona The Bureau deferred the examination of this property and invited the State Party to combine it with an eventual nomination of the Historic Centre of Verona. If the State *[56] Party prefers to retain this as a separate nomination, further consideration should await the completion of appropriate comparative studies. Essaouira 753 Morocco The Bureau decided to defer the examination of this property to allow the State Party to formulate and implement a management plan incorporating monitoring and maintenance programmes supported by professionally accepted conservation standards and guidelines and implemented by a formal administrative structure responsible solely for this work. The Delegate of Morocco thanked UNESCO and ICOMOS for having sent a highly qualified expert to complete the evaluation of this site. He assured the Bureau that the recommendations made by this expert mission would be taken into account in the elaboration of a management plan of the city, which would serve for the future resubmission of the nomination. V.10 Upon the conclusion of the examination of the nominations, the Delegate of Italy made a statement on the meaning and implications of the establishment of the World Heritage List and the position of the Government of Italy in this respect. His statement is attached to this report as Annex VI. VI REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE VI.1 The Bureau examined Documents WHC-97/CONF. 204/4 and WHC-97/CONF.204/4.Add and made the following decisions: NATURAL HERITAGE Technical Co-operation: Request approved by the Bureau:. International expert meeting on "World Heritage Convention as an International Instrument for Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Forests", Brastagi, North Sumatra, Indonesia (March, 1998) The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 30,000 for the above meeting and requested IUCN and the Centre to ensure that scientific information used in the preparation of, and discussions during the meeting, is used to deliver products that are directly beneficial to the operations of the World Heritage Convention. *[57] Request recommended by the Bureau for approval by the Committee: Support to Strengthening Protection of Kaziranga National Park (India) The Bureau recommended that the Committee at its twenty-first session scheduled to convene from 1 to 6 December 1997 in Naples, Italy, approve a sum of US$ 50,000 as a contribution for 1997-98, to enable the construction of 10 guard posts (US$ 25,000) and 5 highland shelters (US$ 21,000) and the purchase of audio-visual equipment for the Interpretation Centre at Kohora (US$ 4,000). Emergency Assistance: Request approved by the Bureau: Contribution to the implementation of an Emergency Rehabilitation Plan for Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India) The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 75,000 for enabling the purchase of 3 vehicles (US$ 30,000), 55 wireless communication sets (US$ 40,000) and 2 boats (US$ 5,000) for Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, a site included in the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1992. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at its twenty-first session scheduled to be convened in Naples, Italy, during 1-6 December 1997, review progress on the use of the US$ 75,000 approved by the Bureau and consider approving additional amounts of the total sum of US$ 235,000 requested by the Indian authorities as emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau requested that the Centre ensure that the counterpart contribution of US$ 1,185,000 expected to be provided, over a 2-3 year period, jointly by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) of the Government of India (GOI) and the State of Government of Assam (SGA) are provided and used as described in the international assistance request for emergency assistance submitted by India. The Observer of India assured the Bureau that the amounts indicated as contributions from MOEF/GOI and SGA will be made available as planned for the rehabilitation of Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. Training: Request not approved by the Bureau Request for financial assistance (US$ 30,000) for training of an individual specialist from Ecuador in Masters in Natural Resources Administration at the Business Administration Central American Institute (INCAE), Costa Rica The Bureau concluded that the training of a specialist over a 10-month period for a Masters programme did not conform with *[58] the "short-term refresher programmes and exchanges of experience" permitted for training individuals under paragraph 95 of the Operational Guidelines. Hence, the Bureau decided not to approve this request. CULTURAL HERITAGE Prior to the presentation of the international assistance requests for cultural heritage, the Secretariat stated that the amount of US$ 236,800 is still available under the 1997 budgetary allocation for technical assistance for cultural heritage. The Bureau examined and decided upon the following four requests: Requests approved by the Bureau Visitors’ Centre at Paphos, Cyprus (US$ 23,267) The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 12,187, recommended by the World heritage Centre, of the US$ 23,267 requested by the State Party for a mission of two international experts to design the exhibition display of the Visitors’ Centre of the site. The Bureau, however, noted that the amount of $ 12,187 for the experts’ mission was deemed too high and requested the Secretariat to apply the consultant rates conforming to those of UNESCO. The Bureau, furthermore, agreed to the recommendation of ICOMOS that the State Party submit a separate request for the procurement of exhibition materials upon the identification of the needs and costs for the exhibition cases and the interior design by the expert mission. Symposium on the Preservation of Contemporary Heritage: Case of Brasilia (Brazil)(US$ 30,000) The Bureau approved the amount of US$ 30,000 requested by Brazil, on the condition that the State Party submits for the Chairperson’s approval, a more detailed description and budget breakdown of the activities to be financed by a contribution from the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau supported the goals of this symposium, aimed at reviewing the experience acquired by the institutions involved in the preservation and management of Brasilia and to discuss and establish new general urban directives for the efficient preservation of Brasilia's heritage. *[59] Preparation of a Replica of the Hieroglyphic Stairway of the Maya Site of Copan (Honduras) (US$ 29,613) The Bureau approved US$ 29,613 requested by the State Party for the preparation of the replica before further deterioration of the Hieroglyphic Stairway. Request recommended by the Bureau for approval by the Committee Special Course on the World Heritage Convention (Mexico) (US$ 30,000) In view of the recommendations of ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, and upon considering paragraph 106(b) of the Operational Guidelines which states that requests from members of the Bureau can only be decided by the Committee, the Bureau recommended approval by the Committee of the requested amount of US$ 30,000. The Bureau, however, agreed to the suggestions of ICCROM to place this special course within the context of the regional training strategy adopted by the Committee, and to IUCN’s recommendation to ensure a balanced participation of natural and cultural heritage experts, and better define the target audience of the course. Requests for carry-over in 1997 from the Reserve Fund for prior-year Approvals The Deputy-Director of the Centre explained that in accordance with the recommendations of the external auditors, all unobligated balance of funds for international assistance activities had been returned to the Reserve Fund for the closure of the 1996 accounts. He therefore requested the approval of the Bureau to charge the outstanding sums for two of these approved activities described below against the Reserve Fund. Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador) The Bureau agreed that the balance of US$ 14,750 of a technical cooperation activity for Joya de Ceren (US$ 25,000) approved by the Committee in 1994 be charged against the Reserve Fund in order to enable the implementation of the international seminar at the site from 7 to 11 July 1997. Exhibition on "From Abu-Simbel to Angkor" The UNESCO Cultural Heritage Division (CLT/CH), entrusted to implement this activity for which US$ 45,000 was approved by the Committee in 1994, reported that the delay was due to the time-consuming negotiations with the major museums which are partners in the organization of this exhibition. The CLT/CH Representative stated that the amount granted from the World Heritage Fund represents only a small share of the overall *[60] cost of the exhibition and therefore additional time is required. Negotiations are, however, progressing smoothly. The Bureau agreed to charging the unobligated balance of US$ 39,741 against the Reserve Fund. VII. PROGRESS REPORT BY THE COMMITTEE'S CONSULTATIVE BODY ON THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT AND FINANCIAL REVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION VII.1 The Chairperson began by recalling the decision taken by the World Heritage Committee at its twentieth session in Merida (Mexico) in December 1996 to carry out, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Convention, an external audit of the World Heritage Fund and management review of the World Heritage Centre. The Chairperson also recalled the work of the Consultative Body which has met twice (1 and 2 April, and 20 June 1997) in Paris to define the terms of reference for the evaluation, and study the results of the financial audit, undertaken by the external auditors of UNESCO, the Office of Office of the Auditor General of Canada. The Chairperson informed Bureau members that the documents pertaining to this point are WHC-97/CONF.204/5 and WHC- 97/CONF.204/5Add., and WHC-97/CONF.204/10 and WHC- 97/CONF.204/10Add. VII.2 The Chairperson recalled that the Director-General had been informed of this decision and had approved its implementation, requesting the External Auditors of UNESCO to carry out this task. The Chairperson then gave the floor to the Deputy External Auditor of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to present their report. VII.3 Ms B. Miller, Deputy External Auditor, presented the report on the audited Financial Statements of the World Heritage Fund and informed the Bureau that the financial statements of the World Heritage Fund, controlled by their Office, were considered correct, but a series of recommendations, that she presented to the Bureau, are contained in the report. These recommendations have been detailed in the Auditor's Report under the following headings: Coordination, Filing, Expenditures and revenues, Internal controls, Cash monitoring, Unliquidated obligations, Costs for fund raising, Financial information, Training and Internal Audit. VII.4 The Chairperson then intervened on the result on the audit as follows: "Without minimizing the fact that current procedures and controls regarding financial and accounting operations do not guarantee clarity and effectiveness in the presentation of financial information, it is important to consider that the opinion of the external auditors is that: *[61] "it presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Fund as at 31st December 1996 and income over expenditures for the year then ended, in accordance with the Fund's stated accounting policies". Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the observed mismanagement has clearly affected the efficiency in which programmes and projects have been implemented. Summarizing, the following three are the most clear and serious consequencies: "the first has to do with the fact that in 1996, budget expenditures were about 25% less if compared to the total allocation approved by the Committee. the second with the lack of clear and on-time financial information, necessary to the Committee in decision-making in terms of budget allocation. and the third relates to the increase in 100% on the expenditures of the external financial audit due to the difficulties associated with the gathering of the documentation required to be the job." Furthermore, it is also considered important to fully support the external auditor's opinion regarding the need of precise guidelines in the World Heritage Centre's effort to increase fund-raising activities. The Committee, at its next meeting in December should fully address this matter. The second stage of this review which has to do with management procedures is scheduled to begin in September. The external auditor is expecting to have this work done by November, so that results can be presented and discussed at the December Committee meeting. All this being said, the Bureau asked the World Heritage Centre for an effort in implementing such controls and procedures regarding financial activities as recommended by the external auditor. This will assure an effective and efficient budget approval process at the next Committee meeting in December." VII.5 The Observer of France, took note that the debate would be held the next day and recalled that the members of this Body were awaiting two additional documents from the Secretariat: one concerning the list of accounts which was requested on Friday, 20 June from the Director of the World Heritage Centre, and the other being the advice of the UNESCO Legal Advisor concerning the consultant contract for promotional activities (Mr A. Goldman). *[62] VII.6 The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that the Centre had already prepared several documents, in particular one on international assistance projects approved in 1996 and still ongoing (WHC- 97/CONF.204/INF.6Rev), one on 1996 contracts, income and expenditure from media activities (WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.7), and another providing the Director-General's response to the Auditor's report WHC-97/CONF.204/10Add). He also mentioned that the Legal Advisor would respond orally to the question raised by France. Furthermore, he pointed out that the rate of implementation for the budget set aside out of the World Heritage Fund for 1996 amounted to 82% and that a higher rate could not be attained since there was a lack of suitable requests from States Parties. VII.7 The Delegate of Mexico then recalled that the Consultative Body was still awaiting the reply of the Auditors concerning the questions raised during the first meeting of this Body on 1 and 2 April. The Representative of the Auditors replied that they had only received a copy of this report after the completion of the audit. However, they indicated that the financial aspect requested by the Consultative Body had already been addressed in the audit. In this regard Italy recalled that, following information transmitted by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, the report of the Consultative Body meeting of April had been transmitted to the Director of the Centre and to the Director-General, and that, in spite of this, the auditors had not received it. The Delegate of Italy requested that this point be noted in the report of the Bureau session. VII.8 With regard to the study and use of the World Heritage emblem, requested from the UNESCO Legal Advisor or other competent advisor, the Director of the Centre said that this had not been undertaken as no funds were available. He also recalled that this matter had been delegated to the Consultative Body. The Delegate of Italy expressed surprise; he recalled that the advice of the Legal Advisor had already been requested regarding this matter and noted that the Secretariat, in spite of the importance of the problem, had not responded to the demands of the Committee. VII.9 The Observer of Lebanon noted that the question concerning the study of the emblem had been discussed at the Consultative Body meeting in April 1997 but the recommendations of that meeting had not been followed up. VII.10 The Observer of Malta thanked the Auditors for their report and said that she shared Italy's concerns regarding the fact that a study on the use of the emblem had not been carried out. She expressed the view that the Centre and the Legal Advisor of UNESCO could have studied the matter and that there was no need to hire the services of a consultant. *[63] VII.11 The Delegate of Germany requested the view of the Legal Advisor on the question of the use of the emblem. VII.12 The Legal Advisor pointed out that the emblem was designed and developed by an artist under contract with UNESCO and the legal rights of the emblem belongs to UNESCO. Hence, from a legal point of view UNESCO is responsible for managing the use of the emblem. However, he said that the World Heritage Committee may make policy prescriptions to the UNESCO Secretariat (i.e. the Centre) regarding how the emblem should be used. He continued by saying that the Legal Affairs Office does not hold any views concerning such policy questions. VII.13 Regarding the consultant contract on promotional activities the Director of the Centre recalled that the contract had been prepared with the assistance of the UNESCO Legal Advisor, and in accordance with UNESCO procedures. VII.14 Discussions on Item 7 of the Agenda continued on Tuesday, 24 June, during the morning session. The Delegate of Italy made a point of order based on the fact that there had not been time to read all the new documents provided by the Secretariat. He requested that the discussions be postponed until later. After an exchange of views, the Chairperson considered that this would not be necessary as the only new document was the one containing information on "Funds-in-trust and other sources administrated by the World Heritage Centre : 1996 Allotment and Expenditure" (WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.11). VII.15 The Delegate of Mexico opened discussions by addressing several questions and remarks to the auditors and the Secretariat: (a) Are there clear instructions concerning the use of income accumulated by the World Heritage Fund? If this is not the case, the Committee should establish them. (b) Why are expenditures of the 1996 budget less than the amount of US$ 1,168,197 approved by the Committee for the same year? The unused funds should be resubmitted to the Committee if it is intended that they be used during the following year. (c) "Additional income" is a term which is used in the Information Document in Merida. It is no longer used today. Will it be used in the future? Of the total amounts obligated (US$ 552,944), an amount of US$ 283,973 has been spent. As these funds are part of the World Heritage Fund, have these expenditures been approved by the Committee in conformity with Paragraphs 3.1 and 4.1 of Article 15 of the Convention? It was suggested that precise information be presented by the World Heritage Centre concerning "other income", in conformity with paragraph 3.1(e) of the Financial Rules. Finally, he suggested that the unobligated amounts of "other income", including earmarked and non-earmarked income, for 1996 and *[64] 1997, be clearly included in the budgetary proposals to be submitted to the twenty-first session of the Committee. (d) Further, with regard to "other income", it was recommended that it be recorded in specific accounts in the World Heritage Fund. This would allow the Committee and the Centre to better identify and control the total budget to the benefit of the protection of World Heritage. At the same time, this will improve trust and clarity for donors. (e) What are the level of payments to consultants and are these payments based on income received? (f) Are the promotional and fund-raising contracts established and signed in conformity with the World Heritage Convention and the rules of the Organization? VII.16 The Auditors first responded concerning interest received on the funds, which are recorded separately and can be used in accordance with the instructions of the Committee. With regard to the fact that the expenditures are less then the budget approved by the Committee, the auditors recalled that this was due to the fact that all the activities had not been implemented during the year and that a part would be carried over to the following year. VII.17 With regard to earmarked and non-earmarked income and in conformity with Article 15 of the World Heritage Convention, the Delegate of Mexico remarked that this income should be submitted to the Committee. He asked whether this had been the case. The Auditors said that they have found no stipulation that requires that additional income other than the budget approved by the Committee should comply with the Financial Rules of the Fund. The Delegate of Mexico emphasized the fact that all funds should be submitted for approval by the Committee. The Representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller intervened, and referred to the Financial Rules of the World Heritage Fund (Article 4, paragraph 4.1). He said that according to his interpretation of this Article, the resources of the Fund could only be used as defined by the Committee and that expenditures could only be made to the limit of funds available. He continued by saying that consequently, the Committee could define the use of "other income". The Auditors confirmed this, recalling that, in their report, they recommended that the Committee be consulted. VII.18 The Delegate of Mexico again requested an answer be given to the question concerning the contracts established regarding "other income", e.g. had they been established in conformity with the procedures of the World Heritage Convention and UNESCO. The auditors said that the consultant contract had been established in the name of the World Heritage Centre and not UNESCO, and that it had been charged to the Regular Programme of UNESCO and not to the World *[65] Heritage Fund because the amount was above US$ 30,000 and not submitted to the Chairperson of the Committee. It was recalled that in accordance with the Financial Rules, all amounts should be submitted to the Committee and consequently, the Committee should approve the nature of the contracts, and the origin and the use of their funds. With regard to income, it should be shown in the World Heritage Fund. The auditors then recalled that this was in line with their recommendations. VII.19 The Director of the Centre drew the attention of the participants to the fact that donors were free to contribute to the World Heritage Fund or other Funds-in-Trust of UNESCO. The promotional contracts, as in the case of those with publishing houses, cannot wait until the Committee session to be approved; they are often concluded during book fairs. With regard to contracts involving income, it is evident that the remaining amounts of these contracts would be transferred to the World Heritage Fund and its use be decided by the Committee. In response to a question put by the Delegate of Germany concerning the legal aspects of this particular case, the Representative of the Bureau of the Comptroller replied that the Financial Rules indicated that it was for the Committee to define the use of the funds, within the limit of the approved budget. Therefore, the Centre should provide the Committee with proposals for the use of the funds and estimates for the future income to the World Heritage Fund, including for "other income". The Bureau stated that the use of "other income" should be approved by the Committee. VII.20 The Auditors considered that, as the income for promotion would be increasing, they thought it necessary to review the Rules and define the role of the Committee in this domain, whilst allowing a certain flexibility to the World Heritage Centre in the implementation of its daily work. VII.21 The Delegate of Germany and the Chairperson were in agreement with the opinion of the auditors, whilst at the same time recalling the importance of reviewing the Rules so as to have a complete and clear picture of all the resources and of their use, all the more so because clear rules and transparency would be more attractive to donors. The Chairperson confirmed, therefore, that this exercise was aimed at improving information exchange between the Centre and the Committee and adapting the role of the Committee. VII.22 The Delegate of Australia voiced her agreement with the general trend of the discussions, which should result in a balance between the daily role of the Centre and the role of the Committee. More frequent and regular consultations between the two would be useful and would maintain the spirit of cooperation and good relations. *[66] VII.23 The Observer of France thanked the Chairperson for having recalled that the World Heritage Centre was part of UNESCO and stated that there existed concise procedures concerning fund-raising, which was debated during the Executive Board. The Observer asked whether these procedures had been followed by the World Heritage Centre and if the responsible UNESCO Unit for fund-raising had been consulted. With regard to the consultant contract in question, the Observer asked whether the remuneration was at a fixed rate, or in function of income, or both. VII.24 At the request of the Director of the World Heritage Centre, the UNESCO Legal Advisor replied that his service had been consulted regarding this contract which is not a new type for UNESCO. In this particular case, the contract covered two activities: servicing of on-going promotional contracts, and fund-raising. At the request of the consultant, the two activities were covered in the same contract. This contract did not raise any legal problems, and therefore it was approved by the Legal Advisor. However, the Auditors recalled that they considered that this contract should be reviewed and clarified and it was up to the Bureau to decide. As to income, the Auditors considered that it should be paid into the World Heritage Fund. VII.25 The Observer of Thailand remarked that, with regard to the World Heritage Fund, it is necessary to refer to Article 15 of the Convention, paragraph 3 (a, b, c, d, e) which stipulate that all receipts and payments are paid into the World Heritage Fund, and that in paragraph 4 of the same Article which states that "Contributions to the Fund and other forms of assistance made available to the Committee may be used only for such purposes as the Committee shall define. The Committee may accept contributions to be used only for a certain programme or project, provided that the Committee shall have decided on the implementation of such programme or project. No political conditions may be attached to contributions made to the Fund." VII.26 He furthermore recalled that, as the Observer of France had mentioned, the Centre is part of the Secretariat of UNESCO, and consequently UNESCO procedures apply. Therefore, if a donor contributes to a project, either this project is not administrated under the World Heritage Fund and therefore the UNESCO procedures are applied, or the contribution is included in the World Heritage Fund and it is submitted to the Committee for approval. A distinction must therefore be made between contributions paid into the Fund and those paid elsewhere. VII.27 The Observer of Canada, submitted questions to the Legal Advisor and the Centre concerning fund-raising: in the past, contributions to the Fund were of a philanthropic nature and no return was expected. However, this has changed into a *[67] more commercial approach. What does the Centre give to the donor in exchange for the financial contribution? Are there standard instructions? What is mentioned in the contracts? What about the use of the World Heritage emblem? VII.28 In response, the Legal Advisor recalled that in the past, the Organization gave photos, maps, texts, free of charge. Since then, the Director-General has established a unit responsible for private fund-raising and standards and instructions have been elaborated. UNESCO does not give its name to any donor or sponsor, just as it does not accept funds from any source. VII.29 The Chairperson drew the attention of the Bureau on the use of the World Heritage emblem and that of UNESCO: it concerns a legal problem and we need clear and precise instructions : how to reconcile the interests of the Convention, the States Parties and the need to protect the sites? The Legal Advisor replied that this concerned legal aspects and policy decisions. Policy issues are the domain of the Committee while UNESCO remains the legal owner of the emblem. VII.30 Referring to the consultant contract, the Delegate of Mexico recalled that it was first of all obligated to the World Heritage Fund and then transferred to the Regular Programme of the Centre, as presented in Document WHC- 97/204/INF.7. These operations were not approved by the Committee. VII.31 The Auditors explained that funds for the consultant contract, e.g. US$ 45,000, were taken from the Regular Programme of the Centre, whilst the income perceived from the contract, US$ 290,000, was paid in total into the Fund; there was a confusion and it was decided to use funds from the Regular Programme of the Centre. The Delegate of France stated that she did not understand this manoeuvre; she recalled that first of all the funds were taken from the Regular Programme of the Centre, funds which should have been voted in the 28C/5, but that this does not appear in the C5. Then, she requested whether the US$45,000 in question was a fixed amount or a percentage, and if so of what funds? This contract was established without the approval of the Committee. VII.32 The Auditors responded that the consultant contract did not figure in the workplans approved by the Committee and consequently the amount was taken from the Regular Programme of the Centre; this amount represented the fixed salary of the consultant (e.g. US$4,000 per month) and covered travel costs. No commission was paid in 1996. VII.33 The Delegate of Italy requested the recommendation of the Auditors concerning Document WHC-97/CONF.204/10, paragraph 7 on "Other Funds-in-Trust"; he stated that Article *[68] 15 of the Convention does not mention "Other Funds-in-Trust". The Delegate then asked the Auditors several more technical questions concerning the status of "other funds-in-trust"; who approved them and what methods of control exist? Italy is in favour of flexible management vis-à-vis donors on the condition that the status of the funds is transparent and follows defined directives. The Delegate also asked why these funds are not part of the World Heritage Fund under a "Special Account"; finally, he concluded by stating the necessity that these types of funds be approved by the Committee. VII.34 The Legal Advisor explained the different types of funds: Regular Programme, funds-in-trust, donations by Member States for specific activities. The Advisor indicated that apart from the Regular Programme, UNESCO may also accept other funds (extrabudgetary). VII.35 The Delegate of Lebanon requested that a typology of contracts be established to facilitate the debate: from a technical point of view, distinction must be made amongst others between contracts established to carry out the Centre's activities following the decisions of the Committee, publication contracts and promotional contracts which may not have the same legal regimes. With regard to the policy regarding the establishment of contracts to date, as presented in the Bureau documents, there is unequal geographical distribution favouring contractors from large industrialized countries, whereas the objectives of the Convention are, amongst others, international cooperation and exchange of experiences. Concerning the recommendation of paragraph 53 of the Auditor's Report, (Working Document WHC-97/CONF.204/10) the Delegate of Lebanon enquired as to how long the post of Administrator for the Centre had been vacant and expressed his surprise at the comments of the Direction with regard to the paragraph; he emphasized the fact that a candidate should be chosen in relation to the tasks to be carried out and not to adjust the functions of the post to suit the candidate chosen. VII.36 The Observer of Malta took the floor and referred to the Financial Regulations of the Fund; she supported the statement of the Observer of Thailand in paragraphs 23 and 24. She then recalled that the question put by the Observer of Canada concerning what UNESCO provided in exchange for funds on promotional contracts remained unanswered; she underlined the importance of a quality control mechanism to ensure a proper exchange and use of the emblem in line with the spirit of the Convention. VII.37 In replying, the Legal Advisor explained that the many different types of contracts existed; the third party sometimes required documentation, films or photos as well as permission to use the UNESCO emblem; other times UNESCO takes a more active role. However, it remains that UNESCO decides *[69] and determines the use of the emblem in the terms of the contract. VII.38 The Director of the Centre took the floor to provide explanations. He began by mentioning dates concerning the implementation of the audit: the Consultative Body met on 1 and 2 April and their report reached the Centre end-April, beginning May; this report among other subjects, dealt with the use of the emblem from the legal aspect and recommendations for its correct use; the Director concurred that an in-depth study of the use of the emblem was necessary, as mentioned in the Document WHC-96/CONF.201/17 submitted to the twentieth session of the Committee (December 1996). With regard to promotional activities carried out in 1996, he explained that this was done on an experimental basis which he considered as successful as it had permitted, in cooperation with partners selected with the National Commissions concerned, the production of a large number of quality films on World Heritage sites. He informed that these films were available free of charge - or at a nominal price - to States Parties unable to produce such films. The Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.7 provides details on this experimental year. VII.39 With regard to financial management, the Director recalled that the Director-General of UNESCO had responded on 20 June 1997 (Document WHC97/CONF.204/l0Add) to the Auditor's comments received on 3 June 1997; concerning the documents which were not submitted to the Auditors, he explained that a large part of the activities of the Centre are decentralized to Field Offices which explained the delay in the transmission of information. He informed the Bureau that very shortly the Centre would be provided with a professional administrator. Since 1996, the Centre has been without a professional administrator and the daily work has been carried out efficiently by a general service staff member (GS-5) whom he warmly praised for the high quality of his work. VII.40 The Chairperson considered that the use of the emblem and the promotion contracts were not completely clear. She mentioned that the consultant contract gave rise to different opinions in UNESCO and the Bureau should work upon the elaboration of clear directives for the preparation of such contracts and the use of the emblem. Finally, she requested explanations regarding the contract established with Korea. The Director of the Centre provided the requested information: the agreement with Korea was for the development of the Centre's computing capacity and the World Heritage Web page (Internet), which now enjoys great success on the network. VII.41 In agreement with the Delegates of Australia, Germany and Italy, and the Observer of Canada, the Chairperson *[70] underlined the necessity to elaborate clear directives for promotion, fund-raising and use of the emblem. VII.42 The Chairperson emphasized the general problems of communication between the Centre and the Bureau and the Committee, and called for improvements in this regard. The second phase of the audit would concentrate on the management aspects and would begin in September (see Annex VII), so that the report could be ready in November for submission to the twenty-first session of the Committee. In this audit work, clarification of legal aspects in line with the spirit of the Convention would also be covered. A concise agenda should be prepared. The Chairperson also proposed to hold a one or two-day workshop between the members of the Consultative Body, the Auditors and the Centre staff to study together new approaches: flexibility for improved functioning of the Centre; implementation directives; improved interpretation and application of the Convention. VII.43 The Delegate of Germany endorsed the proposals of the Chairperson and added that he wished that the second phase of the audit begin without delay, that the seminar could be held before the General Assembly of States Parties and insisted upon the importance of a serious study of the comments put forward by Canada. With regard to the Convention and the use of the emblem, he recalled that the notion of World Heritage had to be taken into consideration. VII.44 The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau of his preoccupation with regard to the coming months: the staff was already overloaded with the forthcoming General Assembly, the meetings of the Committee and the Bureau as well as the General Conference of UNESCO, and all these activities to be held before the end of the year. Furthermore, the Centre has to follow up on the decisions taken by the Committee in Merida to assist the audit. It appeared to him impossible to keep to such a full timetable. The Chairperson insisted and said that the decisions of the Committee must be implemented at all costs. VII.45 The Delegate of Australia supported the opinion of the Chairperson whilst at the same time recognizing the difficulties raised by the Director of the Centre. She suggested that the Consultative Body and the Auditors study together ways and means to facilitate the role of the Centre and that the Bureau studies the possibility of lightening the work load for the preparation of the twenty-first session of the Committee. She insisted however, that the audit be undertaken as foreseen. VII.46 In concluding discussions on this Item agenda, the Chairperson distributed the text of a proposed agreement prepared by the Consultative Body concerning the financial management procedures, presentation of the financial *[71] statements and budget of the World heritage Fund and promotional aspects. She submitted this text to the members of the Bureau for approval. VII.47 The Director of the Centre explained how the promotion contracts had been prepared, with full compliance of UNESCO's procedures and regulations, on a total auto-financing basis and asked the Bureau to postpone all decisions regarding these contracts until the next session. The Chairperson requested the Director to provide the Bureau with a complete list of all the films produced and foreseen. This list is provided in Information Document WHC-97/CONF.204/INF.12 VII.48 A discussion on the document of the Consultative Body submitted to the Bureau by the Chairperson followed during which all Bureau members and observers concurred to approve its content and requested its immediate implementation. In particular, the Delegates of Australia, Germany and Italy and the Observers of Lebanon, Malta and the United States of America underlined the importance of better management for an improved application of the Convention and use of the World Heritage emblem. VII.49 Delegates also requested that UNESCO's instructions concerning private funds be distributed to the members of the Bureau, that the use of the emblem be in conformity with the wishes of the States Parties, and finally increased communication be established between the World Heritage Centre and the Chairperson of the Committee who should be consulted regularly. VII.50 It was finally decided that the results of the financial audit, with the comments of the Director-General, as well as the documents of the Consultative Body constitute an official Bureau document (Annex VIII) to be presented to the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee. VIII. EXAMINATION OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON ITS ACTIVITIES FOR 1996-1997 TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE 29th SESSION OF THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF UNESCO VIII.1. The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre presented document WHC-97/CONF.204/6 which will be submitted to the 29th session of the General Conference of UNESCO in October 1997. He indicated to the Bureau that the missing figures in paragraph 24 will be included prior to the document being submitted to the 11th General Assembly of States Parties. In response to comments from the Delegates of Japan and Germany, and at the request of the Chairperson, it was agreed that the Document WHC-97/CONF.204/6 be revised and in accordance with their comments for their approval on 27 June. *[72] IX. INFORMATION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE ELEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES (October 1997) IX.1 The Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre presented Document WHC-97/CONF.204/7 to the Bureau. This document indicates that the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties will take place on 27 and 28 October 1997, during the 29th ordinary session of the General Conference of UNESCO which is scheduled from 21 October to 12 November 1997. An extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee will be held on the 29 October 1997. As decided by the twentieth session of the Committee in Merida, this extraordinary session will be held to elect its new Bureau, hence permitting the latter to meet in all legality the following month prior to the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee. IX.2 The provisional agenda of the Eleventh General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention was adopted without changes. X. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU (28 - 29 November 1997) The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented Document WHC-97/CONF.204/8Rev., the Provisional Agenda of the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau to be held in Naples, Italy on 28-29 November 1997. The Provisional Agenda was adopted without modification and is attached as Annex IX. XI. PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (1-6 December 1997) XI.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented Document WHC-97/CONF.204/9Rev., the Provisional Agenda of the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee to be held in Naples, Italy on 1-6 December 1997. The Director noted that Item 5 "Management Review of the World Heritage Centre" which had been included in error in the Provisional Agenda should be removed as it was encompassed by Item 6 "Report on the work of the Committee's Consultative Body on the overall management and financial review of the administration of the World Heritage Convention". Further to earlier discussions by the Bureau at this session a new Agenda Item was added, "World Heritage and the Prevention of the Illicit Traffic of cultural property". The Provisional Agenda was adopted with the modifications noted above and is attached as Annex X. *[73] XII. OTHER BUSINESS The Observer of Thailand expressed his great pleasure in announcing an untied voluntary contribution to the World Heritage Fund of 350,000 Baht (approximately US$ 14,000). A cheque was handed to the Chairperson who then thanked the Royal Thai Government for their generous contribution on behalf of the entire Bureau. The Director of the World Heritage Centre expressed his thanks, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, and noted that this was the second time that the Royal Thai Government had made a contribution to the Fund in addition to their regular obligatory contributions. XIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT AND CLOSING OF THE SESSION XIII.1 Following a detailed examination of the draft report, the Bureau adopted it with the amendments and clarifications noted during the debate. The Rapporteur thanked the Bureau members for the trust they placed in him, and facilitating his work in finalizing the Report. The Director of the Centre, after having thanked all concerned for their hard work, drew attention to some changes and additions to the List of Annexes: the title of Annex VII is now entitled "Reports of the Consultative Body to the twenty-first session of the Bureau", and one of the additional annexes would be the Report of the Nature-Culture meeting held on the morning of 28 June (Annex XI). XIII.2 Several delegates thanked the Rapporteur and the Secretariat for their efforts during the meeting. The Chairperson, Ms Maria-Teresa Franco, took the floor and thanked Bureau members, observers, representatives of the advisory bodies, and the Secretariat staff and interpreters and all others concerned for their support in her work to conduct a successful meeting. She expressed her appreciation of the work carried out in the framework of the Convention and said that she considered it an honour to serve as the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. She then declared the twenty-first session of the Bureau closed.