PDF version (868K)

World Heritage	23BUR
Distribution limited	WHC-99/CONF.204/15 Paris, 16 September 1999 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-third session
Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room X
5 - 10 July 1999

REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR

Table of Contents

			Page
I.	Opening Session			1
II.	Adoption of the Agenda and Timetable			1
III.	Report of the Secretariat on the activities undertaken since the twenty-second session of the Committee			1
IV.	State of Conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on the World Heritage List			3
V.	Information on Tentative Lists and Examination of Nominations of Cultural and Natural Properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List			37
VI.	Follow-up to the work of the Consultative Body of the World Heritage Committee			49
VII.	International Assistance			51
VIII.	Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention			54
IX.	Approval of the Committee's Report on its activities for 1998-99 to be submitted to the 30th session of the General Conference of UNESCO			55
X.	Preparation of the Twelfth General Assembly of States Parties			56
XI.	Date, Place and Provisional Agenda of the twenty-third extrordinary session of the Bureau (Marrakesh, Morocco, 26-27 November 1999)			57
XII.	Provisional Agenda of the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee (Marrakesh, Morocco, 29 November-4 December 1999)			57
XIII.	Other Business			57

	Annexes	Page
I.	List of Participants		59
II.	Speech of the Assistant Director-General of Natural Sciences for UNESCO		75
III.	Statement by Australia on the Great Barrier Reef		77
IV.	Statement by Mexico on El Viscaino Sanctuary		79
V.	Statement by Venezuela on Canaima National Park		81
VI.1 - VI.5 Kakadu National Park, Australia
VI.1	Statement by the Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon. Robert Hill		83
VI.2	Joint ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN Statement		85
VI.3	Statement read by the Representative of ICOMOS		87
VI.4	Statement read by the Representative of ICCROM		88
VI.5	Report from the leader of the independent scientific panel established by ICSU, Professor Brian Wilkinson		89
VII	Draft Resolution adopted by the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee		91
VIII	Provisional Agenda of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Marrakesh, Morocco, 26-27 November 1999)		93
IX	Provisional Agenda of the World Heritage Committee (Marrakesh, Morocco, 29 November-4 December 1999)		94

*[1]

I. OPENING SESSION

I.1 The twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was held in Paris, France, from 5 to 10 July 1999. It was attended by the following members of the Bureau: Benin, Cuba, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Morocco, and the Republic of Korea.

I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention, who are not members of the Bureau, were represented as observers: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Republic of Tanzania, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

I.3 Representatives of the advisory bodies to the Convention: the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended. The meeting was also attended by a representative of the United Nations Environment Programme, and the following non-governmental organizations: Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, International Council for Science (ICSU), International Fund for Animal Welfare, Sierra Club, Survival International, United Nations Foundation, Wilderness Society and the World Archaeological Congress. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following institutions: Australian Parliament, Namgyal Research Institute, and the US House of Representatives. The non-governmental organization, Women's International Media Group Inc., was authorised to attend the meeting only for Agenda items I and II. The full list of participants is given in Annex I.

I.4 The Chairperson, Mr Koichiro Matsuura (Japan), opened the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee by welcoming the members of the Bureau, the advisory bodies, observers and all participants to the meeting. The Chairperson then invited the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO to deliver his opening remarks.

I.5 Mr M. Iaccarino, Assistant Director-General of the Natural Sciences Sector, in his capacity as Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, reiterated UNESCO's support of the Convention. (His speech is included as Annex II of this report)

I.6 The Chairperson thanked Mr Iaccarino on behalf of the Bureau members.

II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE

II.1 Upon conclusion of the opening session, the Chairperson requested the Bureau to adopt the Agenda and Timetable. In view of the heavy workload facing the Bureau, the Chairperson proposed to hold evening sessions on Tuesday and Thursday as required. The agenda and timetable were adopted without any further suggestions for changes.

III. REPORT OF THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTY-SECOND SESSION OF THE COMMITTEE

III.1 The Chairperson then invited Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the World Heritage Centre, to present the Secretariat's Report on activities undertaken since the last session of the World Heritage Committee.

III.2 In his capacity as Secretary of the Committee, the Director of the Centre reported on activities carried out by the Secretariat over the last six months. In giving his presentation, Mr Bouchenaki referred to Information Document
WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.3 and gave an audio-visual display of the report. He pointed to the most significant activities undertaken by the World Heritage Centre.

III.3 The Director of the World Heritage Centre began by emphasising the importance of increased co-operation between the States Parties, the advisory bodies and the Centre in view of a better implementation of the Convention. He felt that this was an essential part of the success of the Convention.

III.4 With regard to new nominations, the Director of the Centre mentioned that 70 nominations had been received for examination by the Bureau in 1999, of which 49 proposed inscriptions are for cultural properties, 16 for natural properties and five for mixed sites. He highlighted the fact that a majority of the nominations came from Western European countries thus accentuating the imbalance of the World Heritage List. However, he specified that five of the 70 nominations were being submitted for the first time by five different States Parties (Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Africa, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Suriname, Turkmenistan). He took the opportunity to mention the urgent need for space within the documentation unit of the Centre which is due in great part to the increase in the number of nominations received.

III.5 The Director of the Centre presented the activities of the Secretariat in relation to the Global Strategy by referring to some of the regional thematic meetings organised since the last Committee session. He also described various regional approaches to improving regional and natural representation on the World Heritage List.

III.6 Concerning monitoring and the state of conservation of properties, the Director of the Centre presented the new format and time frame for periodic reporting, as adopted by the twenty-second session of the Committee. He explained that a number of States Parties have already taken initiatives to facilitate the implementation of periodic reporting by organising training seminars on its application and developing periodic reporting strategies. He continued by giving a brief analysis of the number of monitoring reports examined by the Bureau since 1997 showing on the one hand, an increase in the number of reports on sites on the World Heritage List, and on the other, a stabilisation in the number of reports on sites inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger. He also demonstrated the uneven regional distribution of reports to be examined by the Bureau during this session.

III.7 The Director of the Centre highlighted several examples of sites that may be under considerable threat due to on-going public and private works. He gave the example of the site of the Old City of Sana'a (Yemen) and several cases in Asia (Taxila, Pakistan; Shish Mahal of Lahore Fort, Pakistan; Hampi, India). He also reported that a number of joint IUCN/UNESCO monitoring missions had been conducted in Latin America in 1999 and that the UN Foundation had contributed US$ 3,999,850 to finance a 4-year project on control and eradication of invasive

*[2]

species in the Galapagos Islands prepared by the World Heritage Centre, in co-operation with the Charles Darwin Research Centre (CDRS). Furthermore, the Director expressed appreciation for the US$ 2 million contribution by the French Agency for Development to the Provincial Government of Luang Prabang (Laos) for urban heritage protection. In Europe, the UNESCO Moscow Office organised a workshop on the Baikal Law after its adoption in May 1999 which was followed by an extraordinary meeting of the Government Baikal Commission to decide on the next steps to implement the Law. The Director also brought the attention of the Bureau to the situation in Doñana National Park (Spain) which continues to be of major concern due to the toxic spill in southern Spain.

III.8 The Director of the Centre informed the Bureau on the dramatic rise in the number of requests for international assistance from the World Heritage Fund. Preparatory and Promotional Assistance has been completely allocated, and limited funds are available for Emergency Assistance, Technical Co-operation and Training Assistance for natural heritage. The Director further informed the Bureau that in view of the requests from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Low Income Countries (LICs) which could not be processed due to the lack of remaining funds, the Centre had made an analysis of the international assistance granted in previous years, and provided some statistics and trends. He stated that a proposal would be made to the Bureau under Agenda Item 7 to address the issue of the allocation of funds for financing requests approved in previous years which had to be debited against the 1999 budget.

III.9 The Director then presented some of the regional efforts undertaken with preparatory assistance to enhance the representation of natural sites on the World Heritage List and highlighted the activities of IUCN and the Centre in implementing a Strategic Action Plan for training natural heritage specialists. He also presented some of the activities undertaken to support the inscription of cultural sites in underrepresented regions. He underlined the importance of the Africa 2009 Programme for capacity-building in Africa for which a number of activities have been developed by ICCROM, the Centre and the Co-ordination Committee composed of four African experts.

III.10 He also expressed appreciation to the Government of France for the secondment of experts to UNESCO to assist underrepresented States Parties in the preparation of nomination dossiers.

III.11 In reporting on the World Heritage Documentation, Information, and Education activities undertaken over the past six months, the Director of the Centre brought the attention of the Bureau to the Strategic Plan adopted by the Committee in Kyoto. He reported that the activities set out in the work plan are being executed according to schedule. He briefly explained the proposed framework for the Information Management System, and confirmed that an agreement for the development of the Information Management System is being concluded with the European Space Agency.

III. 12 The Director of the Centre also informed the Bureau concerning the status of production of basic information material, including the World Heritage Review. He also referred to the success of the Centre's Internet Web site, reporting over 950,000 hits in March 1999. Furthermore, the Director of the Centre informed the Bureau of the latest results arising from the existing partnerships with the media and publishers and referred to new projects, including those related to radio broadcasting, that are being developed by outside partners in co-operation with the Centre.

III.13 The Director of the Centre also presented the Centre's work in relation to UNESCO's Special Project: "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion" highlighting some of the activities undertaken in 1999 such as the International Workshop on World Heritage Education held in Chartres (France) and the official launch of the World Heritage Resource Kit "World Heritage in Young Hands". He also mentioned that a second African World Heritage Youth Forum will be held in Senegal in August 1999 and the first Youth Forum in the Arab States region is scheduled in Morocco for November 1999. The Director informed the Bureau that a 14-minute information video presenting the history and activities of the Special Project had been produced and distributed to Member States and relevant organisations in June 1999.

III.14 The Director of the Centre then briefly summarised the activities undertaken in co-operation with the advisory bodies, other sectors of UNESCO, other Convention Secretariats and other organisations such as The World Bank, UNDP, UNEP and other agencies. He also stressed the importance of co-operation among States Parties, notably the innovative linkage programme between the local authorities of European and Asian States Parties which is now being extended to other regions. The Director also mentioned co-operation between the Centre and World Heritage offices, such as the Nordic World Heritage Office and the new centres proposed to be established in Japan and Argentina.

III.15 Regarding the follow-up of the work of the Consultative Body, the Director of the Centre recalled the background to the Management and Financial Review and highlighted some of the tasks and functions of the Centre in this regard.

III.16 The Director of the Centre underlined the fact that 44% of contributions due to World Heritage Fund had been received from States Parties as at 31 May 1999. He strongly encouraged States Parties who had not yet settled their arrears payments to do so, in order to ensure that the status of the Fund remains healthy.

III.17 Finally, the Director of the Centre thanked his colleagues for their hard work in preparing this meeting.

III.18 The Chairperson thanked the Director for his report on the activities of the World Heritage Centre since the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee. Before opening the floor for discussions, the Chairperson brought the attention of the Bureau to the status of funds for international assistance, emphasizing that the funds for Preparatory Assistance, Technical Co-operation and Training Assistance for cultural heritage have been completely committed, and that Emergency Assistance was almost exhausted. The Chairperson informed the Bureau that he approved international assistance requests submitted by States Parties, following the recommendations of the Secretariat and the advisory bodies. Therefore, almost no operational funds are available for the latter half of 1999. The Chairperson stressed that prioritization of limited funds from the World Heritage Fund is essential. Referring to the need for prioritization, he underlined that Paragraph 113 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention was not sufficient and there is a need for other mechanisms to ensure that international assistance is made available to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Low Income Countries (LICs), and for addressing the need to establish a balanced and representative World Heritage List. The Chairperson expressed deep concern about the situation whereby approximately 10% of 1999 funds are financing requests approved in previous years. The Chairperson informed the Bureau that this question would be discussed under Agenda Item 7 concerning requests for international assistance, when the Director of the World Heritage Centre would propose a solution. The Chairperson then opened the floor to the Bureau members.

*[3]

III.19 The Delegates of Japan, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Benin and Hungary congratulated the Director and the staff of the World Heritage Centre for their outstanding work since the twenty-second session of the Committee. The Observer of the United Kingdom also thanked the Director for his report and remarked on the staggering amount of work achieved by the Secretariat since the twenty-second session of the Committee.

III.20 The Delegates of Japan and Benin expressed their agreement with the Chairperson for the need to emphasize the Global Strategy for a better representivity of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. In relation to this, the Delegate of Japan congratulated the efforts made by the Secretariat and States Parties for giving activities to promote the Global Strategy a higher profile in Asia and the Pacific. He expressed his gratitude to the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM for their assistance in the organization of the Nara Seminar for the Integrity and Development of Historic Cities (5-7 March 1999), whose conclusion addresses the complex issues involved in the safeguarding and development of heritage in urban areas. The Delegate of Benin stressed the difficulties faced by African States Parties in preparing nominations, and the need for further co-operation between international and national experts in the identification and preservation of African heritage.

III.21 The Director of the World Heritage Centre responded to the interventions of the Bureau members concerning the Global Strategy and the need for better representivity of the World Heritage List. The Director informed the Bureau that the World Heritage Centre is considering the recommendations and conclusions of the various Global Strategy meetings held in the past years, for developing concrete action plans to assist States Parties whose heritage is not adequately represented.

III.22 Referring to the Director's report on World Heritage Offices, the Delegate of Japan clarified that the World Heritage Office to be established in Nara, Japan, is a national institution for the time being, without a regional status comparable to the Nordic World Heritage Office. No formal agreement has been reached between the Government of Japan and UNESCO for establishing this office as an international or regional office. The Government of Japan considers that there has not been sufficient discussion with other Asian States Parties for the office to assume a regional status, although it wishes to leave the possibility to become regional in the future.

III.23 With regard to the establishment of offices in general, he stated that the Government of Japan believes that the Committee needs to address the issue of decentralisation in general and scrutinise the process. While welcoming decentralisation, he stressed the need for transparency in the process of establishing World Heritage offices. While appreciating the positive gesture of the Government of Argentina to host an office, the Delegate of Japan stated that a prudent and transparent process is needed before its realisation if the proposed office is of a regional office status. The Observer of Argentina considered that such a statement resulted from a misunderstanding generated by the Director's report. In fact, the office to be created in Argentina would be a national focal point for the implementation and promotion of the World Heritage Convention, subject to Argentine legislation and which would engage in regional activities at the request of the interested countries. Consequently, such an office was not to be related to any process of decentralisation of the World Heritage Centre. In any event, the establishment of such an office was to be implemented through a transparent as well as efficient process. The Delegates of Morocco and the Republic of Korea also emphasised that sufficient time should be allowed for the careful examination of the establishment of World Heritage offices, and that proper procedure should be followed. The Chairperson stated that it was appropriate to begin discussions concerning World Heritage Offices, following the UNESCO Executive Board's recommendation to the General Conference concerning decentralisation.

III.24 The Delegate of Hungary referred to a recent expert mission undertaken at the request of the Government of Hungary and financed under the World Heritage Fund's Preparatory Assistance. This mission evaluated the co-operation needs of over twenty historic towns, members of the World Heritage Cities Organization, and located in Central and Eastern Europe. The Delegate of Hungary informed the Bureau that while his Government wishes to establish a regional World Heritage Office in Hungary, it will follow the procedure as proposed.

III.25 In expressing appreciation for the interest shown by several States Parties to promote and implement the World Heritage Convention through the establishment of regional or national offices, the Director stated that the interventions made by the Delegates of Japan, Morocco, Benin and the Republic of Korea and Hungary concerning the need for clarity and transparency have been noted with great attention. He informed the Bureau that during his recent visit to Dubrovnik (Croatia), the Mayor of Dubrovnik said that a request had been submitted to the Director-General of UNESCO to establish a World Heritage Office in Dubrovnik. He also stated that the Minister of Cultural Heritage of Hungary also expressed his hope to establish a regional World Heritage Office in Budapest covering Eastern and European World Heritage. The Director underlined the important role to be played by national World Heritage offices, which can be effective in addressing the threats to sites, especially in cases where rapid development projects threaten the integrity of sites. Finally, he assured the Bureau that a comprehensive review of each proposal for the establishment of World Heritage Offices would be carried out.

III.26 The Observer of the United Kingdom requested clarification concerning the development of regional strategies for periodic reporting. The Director of the World Heritage Centre responded that the decision of the Committee, (see paragraph VI.7(d) of the report of the twenty-second session of the Committee) would be implemented as scheduled.

III.27 In relation to the 90% commitment of the Emergency Assistance budgetary allocation for 1999, the Observer of Canada requested detailed information concerning the use of this Fund, to enable the Committee, at its twenty-third session, to study the allocation of this particular budget line. The Chairperson proposed that the Bureau have a first round of discussions under Agenda Item 7 for all international assistance, and requested the Secretariat to provide a proposal to address the new requests received by States Parties belonging to Least Developed Countries and Low Income Countries.

IV. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

A. Reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

NATURAL HERITAGE

IV.1 The Bureau noted that state of conservation reports of three of the fifteen natural heritage properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, namely Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria), the Everglades National Park and Yellowstone National Park (United States of America) are due by

*[4]

 15 September 1999 and will be submitted to the twenty-third ordinary session of the Committee, to be convened from 29 November to 4 December 1999 in Marrakesh, Morocco. The Bureau examined the state of conservation reports on the following twelve natural heritage sites included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IV.2 Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris National Park (Central African Republic (CAR))

The Bureau recalled that uncontrolled poaching by armed groups had led to the death of four members of the Park staff in 1997, decimated more than 80% of the Park's wildlife populations and brought tourism to a halt. The Committee, at its twenty-first session (Naples, 1997), had welcomed the State Party's intention to assign site management responsibilities to a private Foundation and had requested the Centre and IUCN to contact the Government and the Foundation to prepare a detailed state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan for the site. The Bureau noted with concern that the State Party has not yet responded to the letters from the Centre, transmitting the above-mentioned decision of the Committee taken in 1997, and reiterated by the Committee in 1998 (Kyoto).

The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to again contact the State Party and the private Foundation responsible for site management and to field a mission to this site if invited and prepare a detailed report describing the state of conservation of the site and measures needed for its rehabilitation. The Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN submit such a report for review at its twenty-fourth session to be held in mid-2000.

IV.3 World Heritage sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC):

Garamba National Park 
Kahuzi Biega National Park
Okapi Faunal Reserve
Virunga National Park

The Committee and the Bureau have expressed serious concerns with regard to the state of conservation of these four sites at their annual sessions as the eastern parts of the country have become increasingly engulfed in war since 1994. Hopes for peace in the latter half of 1998 were short-lived as renewed fighting spread to all parts of eastern DRC.

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session (Kyoto, 1998), had requested the Centre and IUCN to consult with ICCN (Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature) and international conservation NGOs to estimate the cost of paying "motivational allowances" to staff at Virunga as an interim measure and submit a proposal for emergency assistance for the consideration of the twenty-third session of the Bureau. IUCN had informed the Committee that most of the eastern DRC is controlled by rebel forces. The Committee had suggested that the Centre and IUCN transmit its concerns on the state of conservation of the four sites to international and national NGOs and urge them to disseminate information regarding the Committee's concerns among the general public as well as specific target groups like the military.

The Bureau was informed that a representative of the International Rhino Foundation (IRF) had visited Garamba from 27 February to 5 March 1999 and found that resident guards appear to have forged a working relationship with rebel forces controlling the area. Significant poaching threats prevail in the region. Despite shortages in fuel supplies, vehicles, communications equipment and ammunition and the high-risk security situation, resident guards are patrolling the area to the extent possible.

The Bureau learned of the outcome of a seminar, held in Naivasha, Kenya, from 12 to 16 April 1999, which brought together ICCN, concerned international conservation NGOs (e.g. IRF, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP), Diane Fossey Gorilla Fund for Europe, Gilman International Conservation and WWF), GTZ (German Technical Co-operation), UNESCO and representatives of staff from all four sites to discuss future steps that could be taken for the conservation of the four sites. The seminar reached the following principal conclusions:

(i) populations of all flagship species, including the gorilla, elephant, northern white rhinoceros and okapi are endangered;
(ii) Kahuzi Biega and Virunga have suffered significant deforestation;
(iii) field equipment has been looted and available equipment is either inadequate or in poor condition;
(iv) Okapi and Kahuzi Biega are facing threats due to illegal mineral exploitation;
(v) lack of respect for conservation laws is widespread and is threatening the integrity of all four sites as well as the life of staff who have chosen to continue carrying on their duties; and
(vi) a two-pronged approach focusing on diplomatic and political actions at one level and direct support to encourage performance of conservation actions by staff resident in the sites at the other, is critical to ensure the survival of the sites until peace and security conditions become normalized in eastern parts of the DRC. The report of the Naivasha Seminar includes estimates of financial support necessary for providing salaries and allowances and equipment to resident staff in all four sites.

The Seminar resulted in the establishment of a Task Force comprising the consortium of NGOs, ICCN and GTZ. The Task Force members are in the process of approaching various donors to raise the necessary funds for paying salaries and allowances to staff and provide basic equipment for staff to carry out their day-to-day functions. A project concept is being developed by this Task Force.

The Director General of ICCN addressed the Bureau on behalf of the Task Force and called upon the assistance of the Bureau and Committee for the conservation of the four sites. He informed the Bureau that in affirming its commitment to the Convention, his Government has decided to pay its dues for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 to the World Heritage Fund despite the difficult economic and political conditions prevailing in his country.

The Bureau called upon the Centre and IUCN to:

• support the process started by the Task Force to build support for the conservation of the World Heritage sites of the DRC;
• co-operate with relevant international organizations, e.g. UN Resident Co-ordinator System, important donor countries etc., and call upon leading personalities including the Chairperson of the Committee and the Director- General of UNESCO, to intervene in the diplomatic and political arena at the international, regional, national and local levels in order to draw attention to the need to respect the World Heritage status of the four sites and create an environment in which ICCN and its staff resident in the four sites could carry out necessary conservation actions;
• co-operate with the Task Force with a view to approaching private foundations, bi- and multilateral donors and organizations in order to develop a package of international assistance targeted directly to meet livelihood, equipment and other essential needs of the resident staff to enable staff   *[5]   to carry out their duties and responsibilities in an effective manner; and
• work together with the Task Force members attending the session of the Bureau, to prepare a package of emergency and technical assistance to provide support to the staff of the four sites from the World Heritage Fund which the Bureau could consider under the agenda item on international assistance (Item 7 of the provisional agenda item of the twenty-third session of the Bureau).

The Bureau agreed with the view expressed by IUCN that special efforts are needed to ensure the conservation of the four sites located in a zone of intense armed conflict. In addition, the Bureau endorsed IUCN's position that successful interventions to protect these four sites could provide important lessons that may be applicable elsewhere in the world for the protection World Heritage sites in times of armed conflict. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain all of the four sites in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau also recalled that the two four-wheel drive vehicles purchased in 1998 for Kahuzi Biega and Garamba are still stored in Kenya since the two vehicles could not be delivered to the sites due to the on-going war in the eastern parts of the DRC. The Bureau was informed that a neighbouring State Party to the Convention (i.e. United Republic of Tanzania) has requested financial assistance for the purchase of two vehicles to strengthen protection of two of its World Heritage sites. The Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN discuss this matter with ICCN and Task Force representatives with a view to transferring the two vehicles currently stored in Kenya to the Tanzanian sites, and submit a proposal to effect this transfer for the consideration of the Bureau under the agenda item dealing with international assistance.

IV.4 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session (Kyoto, 1998) was informed that the construction of the Guamote-Macos road was the main threat to this Park and an EIA had not been conducted. Construction has been slow but very destructive of the environment. Only a small section of the road is inside the World Heritage site; the remainder of the road forms the Park's southern boundary. The Committee noted that, in the latter half of 1998, economic constraints had led to a halt in road construction activities and some positive developments with regard to the state of conservation of Sangay National Park were evident: colonization and small-scale mining activities had stopped since 1997; and a 5-year, US$ 1.6 million conservation project, financed by the Government of the Netherlands and jointly implemented by WWF and Fundacion Natura, had begun. The Delegate of Ecuador informed the Committee that his Government had submitted to the Centre several new documents, including the "Strategic Management Plan for the Sangay National Park" and it had not issued any permits for oil exploration in Sangay. The Delegate welcomed a Centre/IUCN mission to Sangay in 1999.

The Bureau was informed that in response to an invitation from the Government of Ecuador, via its letter of 4 March 1999 to the Centre, a mission led by IUCN experts and comprising paticipants from WWF, Fundacion Natura and the Ministry for the Environment of Ecuador had visited Sangay National Park from 10 to 14 June 1999. The report of the mission was tabled as Information Document INF.17. This report noted a number of positive developments at this site, but considered that it should stay on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau noted that the mission report has been made available only at the time of its session and that the State Party needed time to review the report and respond to the findings and recommendations of the report.
The Bureau invited the State Party to submit its response to the findings and recommendations of the mission report to the Centre before 15 September 1999. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to review the response from the State Party and submit a set of recommendations on the state of conservation of Sangay, including whether or not Sangay should be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger, for examination by the Committee at its twenty-third session in Marrakesh, Morocco, from 29 November to 4 Decemebr 1999.

IV.5 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)

The Bureau recalled that the regional authorities in Bahir Dar, where this site is located, disagreed with the Committee's decision to include this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996. Since then the Department of Wildlife and National Parks of Ethiopia, UNESCO Office in Addis Ababa and the Centre have continued to inform the Bahir Dar authorities on the meaning and implications of the Committee's decision to include Simen National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger. At its last session (Kyoto, 1998), the Committee noted that the responsibilities for the management of the Park had been transferred from the central authorities to the region. A stakeholders' meeting had been convened and had led to the formation of a `dialogue-group' of various national and regional offices to discuss follow-up activities for the conservation of the Park. The meeting had called for the organization of a second stakeholders' seminar, before June 1999, in collaboration with UNDP, Austria, UNESCO, UNCDF, Bahir Dar Regional Heads and donors. The second stakeholders' seminar is expected to establish a strategy to: (i) minimize the human population in the Park; (ii) rehabilitate the Park and re-establish populations of selected species including the Walia Ibex; (iii) create an alternative to a road which currently goes through the Park; and (iv) establish a framework for co-ordination, including the possible setting up of an Inter-Agency Committee with the participation of donors, for the sustainable development of the Simen Mountains ecosystem. As suggested by the Committee, the Centre has informed the Ethiopian authorities that the US$ 30,000 approved by the Committee in 1996 and which still remains unused, could be made available as a contribution for the organization of the second stakeholders' meeting.

The Bureau expressed its concern over the lack of adequate communication between the Centre and the regional authorities in Bahir Dar on the state of conservation of this site. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to consult with the UN Resident Co-ordinator for Ethiopia and the Central Government of Ethiopia to develop a strategy to improve communications with the regional authorities in Bahir Dar. IUCN informed the Bureau that it is assisting the national Government of Ethiopia on environmental conservation projects and will try to use its contacts to improve communications between the Centre and the regional authorities in Bahir Dar. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to submit a report on the outcome of their efforts in this regard and recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IV.6 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d' Ivoire)

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session (Kyoto, 1998), had observed that despite a 2-3 year effort, the establishment of a foundation or a trust fund for the conservation of Mt. Nimba appeared increasingly unlikely to succeed in the near future. The Committee had noted that the Permanent Executive Secretary of the MAB National Committee for Guinea had informed the Centre that the Nimba Mining Company (NIMCO) had been dissolved by the Government and no other enterprise had been created to replace it. Agreeing with IUCN's observation that information on the state of conservation of this site needs to be updated, the Committee accepted IUCN's offer 

*[6]

to arrange for its Regional Office for West Africa in Burkina Faso to undertake a mission, if invited by the States Parties concerned, in order to prepare a state of conservation report for submission to the twenty-third session of the Committee.

The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the relevant authorities in the two States Parties and encourage them to extend an invitation to IUCN's Regional Office for West Africa to field a site visit and provide a detailed report on the state of conservation of Mt. Nimba to the twenty-third session of the Committee. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IV.7 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)

The Committee, at its last session (Kyoto, 1998), had recalled that the State Party is in the process of implementing an eleven-point corrective action plan for this site since 1996. A management plan for the site is being elaborated as part of a project financed by GTZ-KFW (Germany) and supported by a contribution of US$ 30,000 from the Fund. The Committee learned that a proposed hydroelectric development project (Patuca II), to be implemented near the Reserve, could open new access roads to the Reserve, reduce downstream water flow and quality, and result in the loss of scenic and bio-diversity values. The Committee noted that indigenous peoples living in and around the Reserve had complained to IUCN about the Government's efforts to expedite the implementation of this project, the lack of consultation and transparency in the preparation of an EIA for the project and a plan for opening a new road. The Committee was concerned that communications with Honduran authorities had become difficult due to damage caused to the country's infrastructure by Hurricane Mitch and information on the extent of hurricane damage to this site was urgently needed. Moreover, the Committee had requested that the State Party invite a site visit by IUCN and the Centre to prepare a detailed state of conservation report on Rio Platano for submission to the twenty-third session of the Committee in 1999.

The Bureau was informed that the flooding of the Patuca River, at the time when Hurricane Mitch impacted the site, has destroyed a great deal of vegetation and wildlife as well as settlements. However, more precise information on impacts on the natural heritage values of the site is needed to plan rehabilitation measures. IUCN's Regional Office for Meso-America is promoting a project to assess the impact of Hurricane Mitch on protected areas in the region, including World Heritage sites, with a view to obtaining baseline data necessary to prepare and implement restoration plans. The Bureau noted that the Centre is in contact with the staff of the GTZ-KFW conservation project for Rio Platano and with the Permanent Delegation of Honduras to UNESCO to obtain more information on the Patuca II project and the extent of damage caused to Rio Platano by Hurricane Mitch.

The Bureau reiterated the Committee's request to the State Party to consider inviting a Centre/IUCN mission to the site in 1999. Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN continue to co-operate with the State Party to obtain detailed information concerning the Patuca II project and baseline data on the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch in order to plan rehabilitation measures. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IV.8 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session (Kyoto, 1998), had learnt that the implementation of the rehabilitation plan was progressing satisfactorily. The Committee also learned that the construction of ranger posts and staff housing using the second instalment of US$ 90,000 had been delayed due to adverse climatic conditions in the area throughout 1998. The Committee was informed that, while security conditions in and around Manas had improved, the threat of insurgency still prevailed and that militants often traversed the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, the Committee noted that conditions for site protection and the relationship with local villagers were gradually improving. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) had provided US$ 400,000 to strengthen the conservation of Manas during 1997-98, and an additional US$ 100,000 in 1998. MOEF will consider making further contributions as soon as the funds provided so far are utilized in accordance with plans agreed upon by MOEF, the State Government of Assam, site management and the Bureau in 1997. The Committee had also requested the Director-General of UNESCO to invite the Government of Bhutan to ratify the World Heritage Convention and to consider nominating the Royal Manas National Park of Bhutan for consideration by the Committee for World Heritage status. The Committee noted that this could help to strengthen the overall protection of the trans-border Manas ecosystem.

The Bureau was satisfied to receive confirmation from the Centre that all equipment purchased and delivered using the first instalment of US$ 75,000 is now operational and in use. With regard to the use of the second instalment of US$ 90,000, plans for the purchase of two additional wooden fiber boats and 400 units of patrolling gear for US$ 20,000 remain unchanged and are being implemented. The use of the balance of US$ 70,000 for the construction of ranger posts and staff housing, however is being reviewed due to the fact that not all parts of the Sanctuary are fully secure for staff to be resident. Furthermore, site management seems eager to support some activities that would benefit local villages and enhance trust-building between management and the local community. MOEF has submitted to the Centre a revised budget, comprising sixteen activities, for the use of the US$ 70,000. The Centre, after consulting with IUCN, had sought clarification from the Indian authorities on conservation benefits expected to derive from six of the sixteen activities that are intended to cater to the needs of local villagers. The Bureau was informed that MOEF has transmitted via its letter of 21 June 1999, a detailed report on the state of conservation of Manas that included clarifications requested by the Centre. The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit the report to IUCN for review.

The Bureau was informed that the WWF Office of Bhutan has offered the Centre its assistance in reviewing detailed documentation on the Convention, with a view to advising the Royal Government of Bhutan on the implications of Bhutan's ratification of the World Heritage Convention and the nomination of the Royal Manas National Park as a World Heritage site. The Bureau noted that the Centre has transmitted all relevant information to the WWF Office in Bhutan. The Bureau encouraged the Centre and IUCN to continue their co-operation with WWF and other international conservation organizations resident in Bhutan to urge the Royal Government of Bhutan to ratify the Convention and nominate the Royal Manas National Park for consideration as World Heritage as soon as possible.

The Bureau urged the Centre and IUCN to finalize the revision of the budget for the use of the US$ 70,000 and expedite the rate of implementation of the rehabilitation plan that appears to have slowed down during 1998. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IV.9 Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)

The Bureau recalled that the Committee had recommended (Naples, 1997), a mission to this site to evaluate the state of conservation and to determine whether the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. At its last session (Kyoto, 1998), the Committee had noted the findings of the

*[7] 

Centre/State Party/IUCN site mission (September-October 1998), and of previous missions of IUCN-Niger which indicated that the numbers of most wildlife species are recovering. The flora, except in some valleys where they seem to be over-used by local people, is mostly intact. Species like the ostrich however, are seriously threatened by poaching and international trade in live animals and its by-products; the ostrich population in the Reserves had dropped to less than 10% of 1990-91 estimates. The Peace Agreement between the Government and rebels appears to be effective and the impact of rebel activities on the site has been less severe than previously expected.

The Committee learned of the State Party's efforts to elaborate an emergency rehabilitation programme for the site, focused to: (i) restore sites used as bases by the rebels in the past; (ii) strengthen surveillance and protection capacity; (iii) promote ostrich breeding in partial enclosures; (iv) carry out rapid evaluation of impacts on populations of key faunal species; (v) establish a committee for development and management of the site; and (vi) conduct training workshops on threats to natural heritage for selected target groups like border police, customs officers etc.

The Bureau examined the emergency rehabilitation plan presented in Document WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.12 and noted that the Chairperson had approved a grant for supporting a training seminar for border police and customs officers. The Bureau was informed that IUCN's Country Office for Niger has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife of Niger for launching a programme entitled « Air 2000 », in co-operation with other donors like SDC, DANIDA and GEF. The signing of this MOU has resulted in some modifications to the component of the emergency rehabilitation plan activities, indicated in the Document WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.12 and which were to be submitted for financial support from the World Heritage Fund. Following the request of the Observer of Niger, the Bureau asked the Centre and IUCN to explore ways and means to finance the implementation of the rehabilitation plan, including the submission of projects for financial assistance to the consideration of the Chairperson and the twenty-third session of the Committee (29 November to 4 December 1999). The Bureau agreed with the recommendation of IUCN that the decision on whether or not the Committee should consider removing the Air and Ténéré Reserves from the List of World Heritage in Danger should be deferred until 2000, when the monitoring results of the impact of the implementation of the rehabilitation plan would be available. Hence, the Bureau recommended that the Committee retain Air and Ténéré in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IV.10 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

The Bureau recalled that, at its last session (June 1998), while being concerned about the feasibility of the effective rehabilitation of Ichkeul, it had urged the State Party to take all necessary measures to ensure rapid and effective implementation of the rehabilitation programme for Ichkeul. The Bureau had also recommended an expert mission to the site. The mission was intended to give due consideration to the possibility for developing an improved rehabilitation programme for Ichkeul to retain its status as a World Heritage site and to allow the State Party sufficient time for the implementation of the rehabilitation programme.

The Bureau examined Document WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.11 containing the report of the mission of experts from IUCN, the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and the Centre to Ichkeul, fielded in February 1999. The Bureau noted that the experts recognized the uncertainty linked to the feasibility of rehabilitating Ichkeul to conditions that existed at the time of its inscription (1980). However, the Bureau was satisfied to note that the State Party is committed and taking significant efforts to mitigate threats to the site and ensure effective and timely rehabilitation. The Bureau was in agreement with the mission that the monitoring of the effectiveness of the rehabilitation would have to be based on a reasonable time frame. Inter-linked indicators such as salinity, availability of preferred species of food plants of birds, and the number of wintering birds arriving in Ichkeul could fluctuate significantly, based on annual variations in rainfall and evapo-transpiration which affect water levels in the Lake. The Bureau concurred with the view of mission that the Committee should defer its judgement on the success or failure of the rehabilitation of Ichkeul until such time when possible improvements to the ecology of the Lake could be detectable.

The Tunisian Observer informed the Bureau that three of the six dams that would have diverted waters coming into the Lake (see page 12 of the Document WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.11) have been suspended and plans for the provision of fresh water to Lake would become operational by the year 2001. The Delegate agreed with the mission recommendation concerning the longer time frame needed for the ecological monitoring of restoration of wetland ecosystems such as the Ichkeul. He furthermore pointed out that considerable data existed to set up a monitoring programme as recommended by the expert mission, but implementation of a rigorous monitoring programme would require assistance for national capacity-building.

The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a threat mitigation status report to the twenty-third session of the Committee in accordance with the outline proposed by the expert mission report. The proposed outline invited the State Party to define current and expected values for a set of indicators, e.g. water salinity levels, counts of a selected number of endangered species of birds and the availability of preferred food plants of birds etc. This could provide the basis for a monitoring programme during a 5 year-period from 2000 to 2004. IUCN stressed the need that the selection of parameters for the monitoring programme be related to the values for which the site was originally inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1980. The Bureau recommended that the State Party undertakes necessary studies and analysis needed for developing the region's economy based on ecotourism and similar non-extractive resource uses so that local people who are dependent on grazing their livestock on the Ichkeul marshes could be provided with alternative livelihood options. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

IV.11 The Bureau examined the state of conservation of two cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger on the basis of Working Document WHC-99/CONF.204/4 and additional information provided during its session by the Secretariat, the advisory bodies and States Parties' delegations. The Bureau noted that substantive reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger will be submitted to the Committee at its twenty-third session.

IV.12 Angkor (Cambodia)

The Bureau, having examined the state of conservation report of the site and upon considering the additional information provided by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and members of the Bureau, commended the exemplary work being carried out by the Authority for the Protection of the Site and Development of the Region of Angkor (APSARA) and the International Co-ordination Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of the Historic Area of Angkor (ICC).

The Bureau noted that some one hundred on-going projects are being implemented by more than a dozen countries and agencies,

*[8]

including large scale infrastructural projects such as road and bridge constructions, airport extension and public utilities upgrading of The World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) and other bilateral and multilateral financial and development co-operation agencies, as well as privately-funded projects, notably for the construction of tourism facilities. To ensure that such works, necessary for the socio-economic welfare of the population, do not undermine the World Heritage values of the site, the Bureau requested the strengthening of international co-ordination efforts by APSARA and ICC to review all public and private works affecting the site in addition to the monumental conservation projects. Recalling paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, the Bureau invited the State Party to inform the Committee, through the Secretariat, of major restorations or new constructions which they intend to undertake or to authorize which may affect the World Heritage values of the site, before the drafting of basic documents of the specific projects and before granting authorization.

As a management tool to record and monitor the various development works, the Delegate of Hungary stressed the need to update the Geographical Information System (GIS) of Angkor developed in 1993, and to make this consolidated data available to all concerned parties.

Concerning the conservation projects, the Bureau, while expressing its appreciation for the high quality of the standards applied in the on-going projects, stressed the necessity to ensure the transfer of knowledge and skills to the national and local experts through training. In this regard, ICCROM, recognized by the Committee as the principal partner for training in cultural heritage conservation, reiterated its readiness to evaluate the training aspects of the on-going projects and to improve, as appropriate, the effectiveness of such endeavours.

The Bureau, furthermore expressed its deep concern over the alarming reports on the continued looting and illicit traffic of cultural properties in Angkor and other cultural sites on the Tentative List of Cambodia. Referring to the report presented by the Secretariat on this matter and stating that although his country is not yet a signatory to the 1970 Convention, the Observer of Thailand expressed his satisfaction with the measures taken by the Thai authorities, following the seizure by the Thai police of more than one hundred objects from a temple in Cambodia. Recalling the request of the Committee at its twenty-first session for the recording and documentation of these sites, the Bureau called upon the Secretariat to strengthen support to the State Party in this regard. The Bureau also urged the State Party to take further action to enhance the protection of the site against looting and the national frontiers against illicit export of cultural properties and requested the signatories of the 1970 Convention to take all measures possible to prevent the importation and sales of Khmer cultural objects of uncertain provenance.

The Bureau requested the State Party to prepare an updated state of conservation report with the support of the UNESCO Office in Phnom Penh and the Division of Cultural Heritage of UNESCO of the actions being undertaken in addressing the concerns expressed above. The Bureau invited the Chairperson of the Committee to write to the Co-chairpersons of the ICC requesting them to also assist the State Party in the preparation of this report. This report should include information concerning the on-going and planned major public and private works in the region of Angkor, as well as the status of measures being undertaken at the national and local levels to control looting and illicit traffic of cultural properties from Angkor and other sites on the Tentative List of Cambodia. The Bureau requested that this report be provided to the Secretariat by 15 September 1999 for examination by the Committee at its twenty-third session.

IV.13 Bahla Fort (Oman)

The Bureau took note of the progress made in the preparation of the five-year conservation plan. It will evaluate the progress after two years in order to assess if it can recommend the Committee to delete the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau recommended that the Committee at its twenty-third session, endorse this procedure. Moreover, the Bureau invited the Omani authorities to increase their financial contribution for the missions to enable the team of experts to continue assisting the national authorities at the site in implementing the five-year conservation plan.

B. REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

IV.14 The Bureau examined the state of conservation of seventy-two properties inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of Working Document WHC-99/CONF.204/5 and additional information provided during its session by the Secretariat, the advisory bodies and States Parties' delegations.

WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES IN CENTRAL AMERICA

IV.15 ICOMOS presented a report on the conditions of the cultural World Heritage properties in Central America following the passage of Hurricane Mitch in October/November 1998. The report was prepared by an ICOMOS expert following a recent mission to the sites. ICOMOS provided information on five cultural sites:

Joya de Ceren (El Salvador): The protective roofs proved to be inadequate to protect the excavated areas of this site. Prolonged soaking of the volcanic soil resulted in rapid plant and fungal growth on the excavated structures. The expert recommended preventive action and the full incorporation of risk preparedness in the management plan that is under preparation with support of the Getty Conservation Institute.

Antigua Guatemala (Guatemala): Widespread flooding occurred up to one meter high, particularly in the Alameda del Calvario. Decisive action was taken immediately by the authorities, the city was cleaned and most of the damage has already been repaired.

Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua (Guatemala): This was the most heavily damaged site visited by the expert. Canals and water management systems of the surrounding banana plantations were destroyed, causing mud and water to flood the site and impregnating the structures and sculptures with agricultural chemicals. Cleaning of the stone requires a long and expensive process. Most of the infrastructure at the site, storage facilities, fences etc. were also destroyed. There is a need for a management plan with risk preparedness provisions.

Maya Site of Copan (Honduras): The Copan River overflowed and retook its original course, destroying archaeological remains (Las Sepulturas) as well as a retention wall. Excavation tunnels in the pyramids that were not stabilised were affected. In ICOMOS's opinion these should be immediately backfilled once the research and documentation concluded. A thorough review of the excavation policy for Copan should be undertaken.

The Ruins of Leon Viejo (Nicaragua): This site was nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List some years ago and recognised as having World Heritage values. The site was very seriously affected by a hurricane in 1982. As a consequence of 

*[9]

Hurricane Mitch, the stream that was canalised at that time, overflowed and returned to its original course. The site was covered with mud and walls were destabilised. Cleaning and repair were immediately undertaken. The construction of protective walls and dredging of the stream will be required.

IV.16 IUCN referred to the discussions on Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras) that had taken place when the Bureau examined the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It confirmed that damages occurred to vegetation, wildlife and settlements in the area. It reported on its intention to further assess the damages to the natural heritage in Central America and that it was seeking funding for this action.

IV.17 The Bureau commended ICOMOS and IUCN on the thorough reporting on the state of conservation of the properties in Central America and requested the Secretariat to transmit the reports to the States Parties concerned for comments and observations. The Bureau commended the States Parties for the immediate response they had given to the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch. The Bureau noted that World Heritage emergency assistance had been approved by the Chairperson and had been delivered immediately to most of the States Parties concerned. It offered its assistance in securing additional funding and requested donors and international organizations to support States Parties in taking appropriate remedial action. The Bureau stressed the need for risk preparedness and its inclusion in the management planning for World Heritage properties.

NATURAL HERITAGE

IV.18 The Chairperson recalled that at the twenty-second session of the Bureau (June 1998) the former Chairperson, Professor Francioni, recommended the establishment of an informal contact group on mining and World Heritage sites during the annual sessions of the Committee and the Bureau. In this regard, and as requested by the Bureau and Committee at its sessions in Kyoto in December 1998, IUCN has transmitted to the Centre the Position Statement on Mining and Associated Activities in Relation to Protected Areas issued by the World Commission of Protected Areas (WCPA). The WCPA Position Statement has been made available, as requested by the Bureau sessions at Kyoto, in Information Document WHC-99/CONF.204/INF.14.

IV.19 The Chairperson noted that the Bureau may wish to reflect on the relevance of WCPA's Position Statement in the light of its deliberations on mining threats to specific sites, whose state of conservation are reported during this Bureau session. He suggested that the WCPA Position Statement be submitted as a working document to the twenty-third session of the Committee (Marrakesh, Morocco, November/December 1999).

IV.20 IUCN reported that WCPA is one of the six commissions and networks of IUCN. It has more than 1,400 members in 140 countries. The Position Statement on mining has been developed within the network. Mining is a key issue in many countries and this statement has been developed for the world's protected areas in general, rather than World Heritage sites specifically. However, the principles in the Position Statement are equally applicable. The aims of the statement are (a) to provide a clear position with regard to mining and protected areas and a global framework statement which recognizes that clear rules are easier to understand and to defend than ones which depend too much on interpretation; (b) to provide a framework for countries to consider and adapt as needed in local circumstances; (c) to set a framework based on the IUCN protected area categories system which is focused on the objectives of protected area management. Finally it has to be noted that mining is not considered to be compatible with any of the Categories I to IV, and for V to VI only under certain conditions. IUCN is prepared to continue consultations on this issue, including with the mining industry and its Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME).

IV.21 Great Barrier Reef (Australia)

At its twenty-first session (Naples, 1997), the Committee was informed by the Australian authorities of the rigorous environmental conditions set for the development activities in the Hinchinbrook region and of other measures implemented to strengthen the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. At its twenty-second session (Kyoto, 1998), the Committee noted that the Australian authorities had acted on the findings of the financial review of the GBRMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) to further strengthen the conservation of the site. In addition, the Committee requested the Centre to transmit the reports from the Australian Committee of IUCN (ACICUN) and other Australian NGOs to the State Party for review and comments and recommended that IUCN provide an up-to-date state of conservation report for the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

IUCN underlined that the ACIUCN has started a process for monitoring Australian sites. The aim is to bring IUCN members together to discuss key issues at each site and recommend actions. This process, although not perfect, has to be encouraged. In the ACIUCN report that IUCN transmitted to the Centre and has been forwarded to the State Party for review and comment, are a number of key points:
(a) the scale and complexity of this World Heritage site has to be recognized as a key issue relating to assessing management effectiveness;
(b) the range of threats, including catchment management and impacts from on-shore activities on the adjoining reef complex needs a co-ordinated approach to management between a range of different stakeholders and agencies;
(c) the need for an effective and representative system of protected areas within this very large World Heritage site; and
(d) the importance of a strong, effective and dedicated authority for management.

ACIUCN indicated strong support for the GBRMPA but noted that the organization needs to have organisational stability and long-term adequate funding. IUCN noted a number of other threats, including fishing, oil spills and oil shale mining and noted that ACIUCN recommended that no oil shale mining and prospecting should be permitted within the GBR World Heritage area and adjacent zones. IUCN recognizes that the GBRMPA has a challenging, complex and very difficult task in managing the Reef. IUCN feels that the state of the GBR World Heritage area should be looked at in conjunction with the IUCN report and the implementation of the strategic plan for the GBR. IUCN feels that the state of the GBR World Heritage area should be looked at in conjunction with the IUCN report and the implementation of the strategic plan for the GBR. IUCN supports stakeholder-Government consultation as part of the periodic reporting process.

The Bureau noted that the Australian authorities had submitted their comments on the ACIUCN Report entitled: "Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: Condition, Management and Threats". They have annexed a description of recent management initiatives addressing threats to the integrity of the GBR World Heritage Area to that letter. The letter and the annex were transmitted to IUCN for review. Furthermore, the Centre also received a copy of the letter from Mr. Victor Kuss, to the Executive Director of ACIUCN, expressing his disagreement

*[10] 

concerning the recommendation of the ACIUCN report on oil shale mining in the World Heritage area and in the adjacent inter-tidal zone (Recommendation No: 22 of the ACIUCN report).

The Bureau welcomed the two-step process adopted by IUCN to review the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef for the purpose of its reporting to the Bureau, i.e. an initial in-depth review by ACIUCN in full consultation with all stakeholders to report to IUCN Headquarters, followed by an IUCN Headquarters review of the ACIUCN report and other relevant information to provide inputs to the Centre's preparation of the working document on the state of conservation of World Heritage sites.

The Bureau requested ACIUCN and the State Party to review the 29 recommendations listed in the ACIUCN report, to elaborate a more focused set of recommendations and a detailed plan for implementation and monitoring those recommendations. Such a plan should, to the extent possible, be built on consensus view of all stakeholders concerned with the long-term conservation of the GBR World Heritage area. This plan should be provided to the Centre and IUCN before 15 September 1999 so that a report can be submitted to the twenty-third session of the Committee to be held in Marrakesh, Morocco, from 29 November to 4 December 1999.

The Australian Observer agreed with the recommendation of the Bureau and made a set of observations on the ACIUCN report's recommendations and proposed follow up actions. The full text of the statement made by the Australian Observer is included in Annex III.

IV.22 Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)

At its twenty-second session the Bureau was informed that a petroleum exploration permit had been granted by the State Government of West Australia (WA) for an area located within the World Heritage site. The Australian Observer assured the Bureau that no development that threatened the World Heritage values of the site would be allowed to take place. But IUCN was concerned about the granting of prospecting licences by State Governments for locations within World Heritage areas, and urged closer liaison between Commonwealth and State Governments on this matter. At its twenty-second extraordinary session (Kyoto, 1998) the Bureau was informed that a mining lease of the Shark Bay Salt Joint Venture (SBSJV) had attracted public comment but is outside of the property. Levee construction occurred outside the World Heritage area and approval for the levee construction was granted under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act of 1986 and construction works complied with the environmental requirements set by the Minister for the Environment. The Western Australian Department of Environment was satisfied with the compliance of SBSJV with the environmental conditions set for the construction phase. In accordance with a post-construction environmental requirement, SBSJV, with professional assistance from the Department of Conservation and Land Management, successfully transferred marine mega-fauna, trapped behind the levee, to open marine waters. IUCN had received a report on the state of conservation of this site from ACIUCN, and is in the process of reviewing that report. The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit the report of ACIUCN to the State Party for review and recommended that IUCN provide an up-to-date state of conservation report on this site for the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

IUCN informed the Centre that it has received information indicating that potential threats due to existing and proposed mining activities, such as shell mining, expansion of salt extraction, gypsum leases and mineral sands mining are key concerns for the conservation of this area. Other concerns include: inappropriate tourism development, visitor access to environmentally sensitive locations and the need to finalise an overall management plan for the site. ACIUCN has established a process involving key stakeholders to finalise its report on the conservation status for the Shark Bay World Heritage site.

The Bureau requested IUCN to submit an up-to-date state of conservation report on this site to its twenty-third extraordinary session in November 1999.

IV.23 Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)

The Bureau, at its twenty-second session learned that the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment had determined that clearing of vegetation that may have occurred within this property did not place the World Heritage values of the site at risk. At its twenty-second extraordinary session (Kyoto, 1998), the Bureau was informed that the arrangements for the management of this site were fully effective and met with the full confidence of the Commonwealth Government of Australia. The Management Plan, effective as of 1 September 1998, had been prepared with the full involvement of all stakeholders, including Aboriginal groups, and provides the Wet Tropics Management Authority with a full suite of powers to act in the interests of the World Heritage values of the property. The Bureau noted that IUCN had received a report on the state of conservation of this site from ACIUCN and was in the process of reviewing it. The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit the report from ACIUCN to the State Party for review and recommended that IUCN provide an up-to-date state of conservation report on this site for the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

IUCN informed the Centre that preliminary advice it has received indicates that the central issue is the effectiveness of implementation of the management plan, in relation to issues such as invasive species, water extraction, fire management, tourism development and the effective involvement of Aboriginal people. IUCN has informed the Centre that ACIUCN has established a collaborative process to finalise its report on the conservation status of the Wet Tropics. This report will be ready for submission to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1999.

IV.24 Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
The Committee, when it inscribed this property on the World Heritage List (Naples, 1997), had requested documentation on the marine resources surrounding this property. The Australian authorities informed the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau (Kyoto, 1998) that the Australian Antarctic Division had granted funding to collate and analyse existing data on the benthic environments surrounding this property, including the territorial sea. In accordance with Australia's plans to establish a marine protected area in the region, the project aims to assess whether the 12 nautical miles territorial sea provides a representative sample of marine biodiversity in the region. To enable such an assessment, a comprehensive research programme is to be undertaken to clearly identify the marine values of the area. The Bureau had invited the State Party to submit a report, before 15 April 1999, on the findings of the project to establish a marine protected area so as to enable it to review the report at its twenty-third session.

The Australian authorities had informed the Centre that the Heard Island and McDonald Island (HIMI) benthic project to establish a marine protected area includes a desktop study and a field survey. The desktop study commenced in January 1999 and was due to be completed in June 1999. It aims to document the distribution and abundance of different types of benthic habitats on 

*[11]

the continental shelf around Heard Island, including an evaluation of the differences between benthic habitats in the territorial waters (0-12 nautical miles) and the remainder of the Australian (200 nautical miles) EEZ surrounding the Island. The field survey will examine the effect of trawling on these types of habitats and develop management options to protect environmental values of the benthic environments. The second stage, i.e. the field survey, is intended to be a pilot study to provide indicative results on habitats. Dependent upon the availability of the necessary ship transport, the Australian authorities estimate that the earliest opportunity for beginning the second stage will be in the summer of 2000/2001. The letter of 12 April 1999 from the Australian authorities has been transmitted to IUCN for comments.

IUCN commended the process to create a marine protected area around HIMI which it saw as essential to more effectively protect marine biodiversity.

The Bureau recommended that the State Party submits a report on the desktop study, due to be completed in June 1999, to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 1999. The Australian Observer informed the Bureau that the report of the desktop study is being finalised and will be submitted to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau.

IV.25 The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)
Sundarbans National Park (India)

The Committee when it inscribed «The Sundarbans» of Bangladesh in the World Heritage List (Naples, 1997) encouraged the authorities of Bangladesh and India to discuss the possibility of creating a trans-frontier site with the adjoining Sundarbans National Park and World Heritage site (India). The Ministry of Environment and Forests of Bangladesh with support from the Asian Development Bank, is undertaking a multi-million dollar project, entitled the "Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project". The Sundarbans World Heritage site is considered to be one of the main components of this project under which a management plan will be developed and implemented. IUCN Bangladesh will be involved as an independent agency assisting with the implementation of this project. A meeting held in Bangladesh in February 1999 informally discussed amongst other items the possibility of having The Sundarbans World Heritage site of Bangladesh and the Sundarbans National Park World Heritage site of India combined into a single site inscription.

In a separate initiative, WWF-International is launching a study financed by a SFR 50,000 grant for investigating transborder ecological and conservation aspects of the tiger population inhabiting the Sundarbans ecosystem. The two World Heritage sites together support the largest and the most viable wild tiger population in the world. The WWF-project intends to promote co-operation between the Bangladesh and Indian site staff and scientists for the conservation and management of tiger populations, as a first step that could lead towards discussions to consider the joint inscription of the two sites as a single entry in the World Heritage List. The Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Government of Bangladesh, via their fax of 22 June 1999 informed the Centre that they accept the suggestion made by the Centre (with the agreement of the relevant authorities of the Ministry of Environment and Forests of India) to host a meeting in Bangladesh to discuss co-operation between the two sites. The Government of Bangladesh has indicated that they would inform the Centre of the venue, timing and financial requirements of organising such a planning meeting in due course.

IUCN supported the efforts of the Government of Bangladesh to strengthen the management at this site. IUCN Bangladesh country office is assisting with this project. IUCN reiterated its recommendation for the desirability of combining the Sundarbans World Heritage sites of Bangladesh and India into one single site, which is effectively managed in a co-ordinated way. IUCN highlighted the "Parks for Peace" initiative, which works on transboundary protected areas and may be applicable in this case.

The Bureau commended the Government of Bangladesh and the Asian Development Bank for their efforts to strengthen the management of The Sundarbans (Bangladesh) and WWF-International in launching a study on transborder aspects of tiger ecology and conservation. The Bureau thanked the Government of Bangladesh for agreeing to host a planning meeting to build co-operation between the management of these two sites. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to extend their fullest co-operation to the Governments of Bangladesh and India, and to all other international, regional and national organisations who may wish to participate in building a programme of co-operation which could result in the eventual joint inscription of the two sites as a single entry on the World Heritage List.

IV.26 Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/ Poland)

At its twenty-second extraordinary session (Kyoto, 1998) the Bureau commended the Polish authorities for submitting an extension of the Bialowieza Forest and reiterated its previous request that the two States Parties co-operate to prepare a management plan for the Belarus part and consider removing the fence separating the two parts. IUCN informed the Bureau that the IUCN evaluation of the extension of the Bialowieza Forest of Poland would be submitted to the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau. At that time IUCN, will also provide an analysis of transborder management issues in this site and associated recommendations for consideration by the Bureau.

The Bureau requested IUCN to provide an up-to-date state of conservation report on this site to its twenty-third extraordinary session in November 1999.

IV.27 Iguacu National Park (Brazil)

Since 1997, the Bureau and the Committee have repeatedly called for the permanent closure of the 18 km road traversing this Park which had been illegally opened by local people. At its twenty-second session, the Bureau requested a Centre/IUCN mission to review the situation and to assist the State Party to mitigate threats to the Park. The twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau (November 1998) was informed of a new threat to Iguacu's integrity, arising from plans to fill a hydropower reservoir in southwest Brazil that would divert a considerable volume of Iguacu's waters for seven to eight weeks per year. The Bureau reiterated its request that the State Party provides information on the two above-mentioned items and on plans for the hydropower reservoir project. The Bureau noted that a possible Centre/IUCN mission to the site in March 1999 should determine whether the site needs to be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

An IUCN/UNESCO mission visited the site in March 1999 and discussed the state of conservation with all the stakeholders including local residents and local Government officials. The mission identified the following four issues as most threatening to the integrity of this site:
(1) The Colon Road which was illegally reopened in May 1997. The Federal Public Prosecutor is presently prosecuting the local communities of the area for reopening the road and the Federal and State agencies for not enforcing the closure of the road. The majority of the local people favour the continued use of the road as it shortens the distance between communities in the northern and southern sides of the Park by about 130 km. The north-south road dissects the Park into two and has resulted in the opening of 

*[12]

the forest canopy along most of its length. The road has led to the destruction of parts of the forest, interrupted wildlife movement between the eastern and western sections of the Park and has severely impacted the site's World Heritage value. Research and academic personnel have expressed particular concerns regarding the preservation of the jaguar that may be threatened with extinction in the region, as its habitat has been dissected by this road. The road is leading to an increase in silting of the creeks and rivers and alteration of drainage patterns, further exacerbating the impact on World Heritage values. The road has also opened up the Park for illegal extraction of timber and poaching.
(2) Helicopter flights originating from Brazil and Argentina began in 1972. Following recommendations from the World Heritage Committee in 1994, flights on the Argentinean side have been stopped, but have continued on the Brazilian side. In 1996, growing concern on this matter led to a discussion between the Presidents of Brazil and Argentina. In 1997 Brazil, in agreement with Argentina, recommenced helicopter flights which are restricted to Brazilian territory, operate between 0900 and 1700 hours, and maintain a minimum altitude of 1600 feet (i.e. 500 metres). The heliport was to be relocated from a site adjacent to the Falls to outside of the National Park. But a suitable location for the heliport outside of the Park has yet to be found and up to 20-25 flights per day, each of 7 to 11 minutes, continue to originate from within the Park. A study of the Environment Institute of Paraná has found that most visitors believe that the flights are interfering with their enjoyment of the Falls. The study however did not investigate the impact of the flights on the fauna.
(3) The Salto Caixas Dam on the Iguacu River was built recently but is located upstream of the National Park and at present there is no evidence of any impact on the World Heritage values of the Park. The proposal for another dam, Capanema, has been abandoned, as it would have had a direct impact on the Park. The new Management Plan for Iguacu National Park was to be completed by May 1999.

This management plan will aim to address all of the above-mentioned problems. It is clear that the management of the two World Heritage sites, i.e. Iguacu National Park (Brazil) and the Iguazu National Park (Argentina) would benefit from closer liaison and co-ordination between their respective management authorities. IUCN stressed that sufficient time should be given to the State Parties for implementing the recommendations of the mission.

The Centre informed the Bureau that the Ministers of both the Environment and Tourism, and the Governor of the State of Parana met on 13 April 1999 and agreed that the situation of the Colon Road is not acceptable. They defined a number of measures to solve this problem, including the recuperation of degraded areas, and consultation with local authorities to ensure a peaceful solution to close the road. The Observer of Brazil informed the Bureau that the new management plan has been finalized and recommends the closure of the illegal road and evaluates damage and establishes a series of recommendations for the restoration of this area. The plan also defines a new zoning of the Park. A dialogue with the Argentinian National Park Service towards a common programme of research, monitoring and protection of the two World Heritage sites has been started.

The Bureau requested the State Party to immediately close the Colon Road and initiate a recovery plan to increase canopy closure and re-vegetation of ground cover and stabilise soils and control erosion. In the absence of satisfactory progress with regard to the permanent closure of the road and the implementation of the recovery plan by the time of its twenty-third extraordinary session, the Bureau may recommend that the Committee include Iguacu National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the State Party to: (i) immediately halt helicopter flights pending a thorough evaluation of their impact on the fauna, particularly the avifauna; and (ii) provide a copy of the new management plan to IUCN for review to enable an assessment of the effectiveness of the plan to address prevailing threats to the integrity of the site.

IV.28 Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)

At its twenty-first session, the Committee had expressed its serious concerns over the potential threats posed by the Cheviot Mine Project, designed to exploit a large, open-pit coal mine, located 2.8 km from the Jasper National Park portion of this site. The Bureau noted that Parks Canada, informed the Centre of a Federal Court of Canada hearing from 1 to 3 March 1999 on this case that had rendered its decision on 8 April 1999. The Federal Court quashed the Federal Fisheries Act authorisation of August 1998 to allow work to start on the access road and railway and concluded that the environmental assessment did not comply with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (LCEE). Furthermore, the Federal Court stated that the Project could not proceed until the Joint Review Panel's environmental assessment is conducted in compliance with the LCEE. The proponent of the Cheviot Mine Project, Lusar Coal Ltd, announced, on 10 March 1999, that it was delaying decisions on the construction of the mine for at least a year. Progress has been made with regard to preparing an Integrated Framework for the Conservation of Grizzly Bears. A document incorporating results of the consultations undertaken with regard to the preparation of the Framework is to be sent to stakeholder groups in May 1999. IUCN welcomed the decision that the proposed mine has been put on hold for at least one year.

The Bureau welcomed these developments and thanked the State Party for the actions taken and for regularly providing information on the proposed mine. The Bureau commended the members of the environmental coalition for their efforts in promoting the protection of the site.

IV.29 Los Katios National Park (Colombia)

In November 1997, IUCN was informed that conflicts between armed groups had rendered a significant portion of the Park off-limits to staff and that tourism to the area had come to a halt. The twenty-second session of the Bureau requested IUCN to review a report from the Colombian authorities to the Centre and submit its findings to its twenty-second extraordinary session. IUCN informed the Bureau in November 1998 that a major restructuring of Colombia's conservation administration was underway for devolving responsibilities for the site management to the provincial level. However, IUCN was of the view that the site was under serious threat and should be considered for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. A second report from the Colombian authorities informed the Bureau that the Park was affected by the confrontation between guerrilla and paramilitary groups and that four sectors of the Park received only limited attention from the staff. However, in 1997 and 1998 activities to strengthen protection of the Park through control units and other activities such as inter-institutional meetings, collaboration with local communities, definition of the buffer zone and the elaboration of the management plan, had been undertaken. Support for the creation and consolidation of the Darien Special Management Area (DSMA) to co-ordinate the management of the two World Heritage sites (Darien of Panama and Los Katios of Colombia) has been provided and actions to create a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve were being considered. The Bureau noted the State Party's conclusion that, although there have been impacts, the Park has not been invaded by colonists and pressure on the Park and its natural resources had reduced considerably. Preventive measures had been taken for the security of the personnel and the Park had returned to a certain normalcy and calm, allowing the staff to control the area 

*[13]

and to implement operations. The State Party did not see any need for inclusion of Los Katios in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to remain in contact with the State Party to monitor progress and to report back to the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The Bureau reiterated the Committee's recommendation made at the time of the inscription of the site, to establish a single World Heritage site linking Darien (Panama) and Los Katios (Colombia).

In its review of the November 1998 report submitted by the State Party, IUCN has acknowledged progress made in the preparation of the management plan. IUCN has also noted improvements in co-operation with the local communities, promoting transboundary co-operation with Panama and preventing illegal extraction of resources in areas of the Park controlled by the staff. IUCN recommended that the Bureau compliment the State Party for these efforts despite the difficult situation facing this site. However, IUCN has reiterated its concern about the serious threats facing Los Katios and its integrity, highlighting that:
(a) the Park is not fully under the control of the management agency;
(b) the proposal to grant collective land ownership over 100,000 ha of the Park should be assessed; and
(c) the impacts on wetlands from forest fires need to be reviewed. IUCN recommended that a joint IUCN/Centre mission be carried out to the site.

The Observer of Colombia underlined the actions taken by his Government, in particular concerning:
(1) community participation; (2) inter-institutional co-operation among local authorities, NGO's and communities; (3) progress made with the second phase of the management plan; and (4) with transfrontier co-operation with Darien National Park in Panama. He emphazised the commitment of his Government to the protection of the site and did not support the recommendation to include it on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He welcomed a technical mission to evaluate the state of conservation of the site.

The Bureau considered new information provided by the Government of Colombia and IUCN and requested the Centre and IUCN to keep in contact with the State Party to monitor progress made and to report back to the twenty-third session of the Committee, as well as concerning the organization of the proposed mission. The Bureau commended the States Party for progress made with regard to transfrontier management and reiterated the Committee's recommendation made at the time of the inscription of the site to establish a single World Heritage site linking Darien (Panama) and Los Katios (Colombia) World Heritage sites.

IV.30 Salonga National Park (Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC))

The Centre informed the Bureau that Salonga National Park is the only one of the five sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that has not been included in the List of World Heritage in Danger and that the site is located in the more central part of the country and hence is relatively less impacted by on-going armed conflicts in the eastern part of the country. However, the Centre proposed to the Bureau that Salonga National Park should be included with the other four sites of DRC in the List of World Heritage in Danger. In this way, Salonga would be part of all efforts to be undertaken by the Task Force at the Naivasha Seminar, Kenya, (see Chapter VII, page 53) to support conservation of World Heritage sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Bureau was informed that IUCN received a report (February 1999) on this site from the Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN). The status of the habitats and abundance of elephants and the Bonobo chimpanzees seem satisfactory. Human activity within the Park, however, is a concern and poaching and human settlements threaten the integrity of the site. There are too few guards and they are ill equipped to deal effectively with poachers. The dire need for boats to better control the waterways, which are the main arteries for the transport of weapons and poached wildlife products, has been stressed and crackdown on arms traffic within the Park has been called for. IUCN commended ICCN for its comprehensive report and supported the following recommendations made by ICCN:
(i) the need to encourage active participation and education of local populations;