Click here to get the PDF file of this report PDF version (411K)

World Heritage

24 COM

Distribution limited

WHC-2000/CONF.204/4
Paris, 25 November 2000
Original: English/French




UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fourth session

Cairns, Australia

27 November - 2 December 2000

Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session
of the Bureau, Cairns, Australia (23-24 November 2000)








Table of Contents

  1. OPENING SESSION

  2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, THE ANNOTATED AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE

  3. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

  4. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

  5. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

  6. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SUB-COMMITTEES

  7. OTHER BUSINESS

  8. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION
List of Annexes

  1. List of Participants

  2. Speech of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri

  3. Speech of the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin

  4. Existing Calendar and Cycle of Statutory Meetings

  5. Proposed Revised Calendar and Cycle of Statutory Meetings

  6. Presentation on Committee Documentation by the Director of the World Heritage Centre







I OPENING SESSION

I.1 The twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairns, Australia from 23 to 24 November 2000. It was attended by the following members of the Bureau: Mr. Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco), as Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Kevin Keeffe (Australia) replacing Anne Lammila (Finland) as the Rapporteur, and Finland, Greece, Hungary, Mexico and Zimbabwe, as Vice-Chairpersons.

I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention, who are not members of the Bureau, were represented as observers: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, France, Germany, Holy See, Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Nepal, New Zealand, Peru, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Uganda, United Kingdom and Vietnam.

I.3 Representatives of the advisory bodies to the Convention: the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended. The meeting was also attended by the following non-governmental organisations: Australian Conservation Foundation (Australia), Centre Simon Wiesenthal Europe (France), Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (United States of America), The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Ltd (Australia), The Environment Centre NT Inc (Australia), Environmental Defenders Office of Northern Queensland Inc. (Australia), Fraser Island Defenders Organization (Australia), Friends of the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth Japan, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (Australia), International Council for Science (ICSU), International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA), Organisation for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa (OMMSA), United Nations Foundation, (UNF), the House of Representatives Committee on Resources (USA) and Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). The full list of participants is included as Annex I of this report.

I.4 The Chairperson opened the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee by thanking the Australian authorities for their warm hospitality. He welcomed the members of the Bureau, the advisory bodies, observers and all participants to the meeting. He then gave an overview of the proposed agenda for the meeting. The Chairperson's speech is included as Annex II of this report.

I.5 The Chairperson then invited the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to deliver his opening remarks to the Bureau. The Director's speech is included as Annex III to this report. The Chair thanked Mr Bandarin on behalf of the Bureau members.



II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, THE ANNOTATED AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE

II.1 The Bureau adopted the Provisional Agenda and Timetable (WHC-2000/CONF.203/1).


III. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING

In accordance with the Committee's request at its twenty-third session, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre planned and organised, in consultation with the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), a technical meeting which analysed case studies on World Heritage and mining. This meeting was held at the IUCN Headquarters (Gland, Switzerland) from 21 to 23 September 2000 and reviewed practical case studies from the following sites: Lorentz National Park, Indonesia; Huascaran National Park, Peru; Doñana National Park, Spain; Camp Caiman Gold Project, French Guyana (adjacent to a Ramsar site); Kakadu National Park, Australia; and Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park, South Africa. These case studies were presented by site managers and the mining companies. The report of the meeting included: (a) principles underlying the relationship between World Heritage and mining; (b) recommendations to: World Heritage Committee and States Parties; management agencies; and the mining industry; and (c) follow up actions.

IUCN informed the Bureau that mining has been a controversial issue at many World Heritage sites and that the issue has been characterized by a lack of dialogue between conservation and mining interests. Thus IUCN welcomed the Committee's invitation to host a technical workshop jointly with ICME and UNESCO. IUCN highlighted the following issues: There was agreement to disagree on a number of points, for example on mining within World Heritage sites, whereas IUCN feels it incompatible, the industry representatives called for a more flexible approach, but agreed on maintaining the integrity of World Heritage values. The workshop also noted the close co- operation that exists between some mining companies and World Heritage site managers and the importance of considering World Heritage sites in their broader context and for the effective planning for mining and conservation to be considered in land- use programmes. The critical importance of disaster mitigation plans was also emphasised. The meeting was successful and productive and should be considered as part of an on-going process.

ICOMOS agreed with the conclusions by the Secretariat and IUCN concerning the outcome of the workshop.

Some delegates spoke in support of the Mining Workshop proposal, including Australia. Several delegates (including Greece, Hungary) addressed the issue of the working group to be established and its budgetary implications. It was pointed out that the number of working groups on strategic issues should be harmonized with on-going strategic planning and periodic reporting efforts of the statutory meetings of the Convention in general, and the Committee in particular. The number of such working groups need to be determined and budgetary implications incorporated along with the best timing requirements for maximising the strategic impact of the reports produced by the working groups. The chair of every group would need to be secured by one of the Bureau members to ensure close involvement of the statutory bodies of the Convention. The reports of each working group should include a comprehensive analysis of each World Heritage site inscribed in relation to the issues examined. They should also examine tentative lists of the States Parties to give recommendations, if necessary, regarding preliminary analysis of potential impacts of the issue on the nominations of those sites that are involved.

"The Bureau took note of the report contained in the Information Document WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.7 which is based on specific case studies on mining and World Heritage and commended the States Parties, site managers, IUCN, UN agencies and the mining industry for having started a collaboration in this matter. The Bureau noted the recommendations of the report and transmitted them to the World Heritage Committee for examination.

The following recommendations are addressed to various key actors.

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND STATE PARTIES
are invited to note these findings:

WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AGENCIES should

MINING INDUSTRY

The mining industry has the potential to make significant contributions as follows:

  1. In respect of World Heritage Protection/Conservation, it can:
    • Undertake assessments of unique biodiversity, increase scientific understanding of ecosystems, and contribute to the conservation of flora and fauna affected by exploration, extraction and processing activities
    • Support research to expand scientific knowledge and develop improved technologies to protect the environment, and promote the international transfer of technologies that mitigate adverse environmental effects
    • Assist in the development of ecotourism
    • Contribute to government capacity in World Heritage management and support site management programs
    • Contribute to the promotion of the World Heritage Convention and sites through building awareness.
  2. In respect of Environmental Management and Protection, it can:
    • Encourage all those involved in the mining industry to better understand ecosystem management and adopt these principles
    • Work with governments and other relevant parties in developing sound, economic and equitable environmental standards and clear decision-making procedures, based on reliable and predictable criteria
    • Comply with all applicable environmental laws and regulations and, in jurisdictions where these are absent or inadequate, apply cost-effective technologies and management practices to ensure the protection of the environment and worker and community welfare
    • Conduct environmental assessments of exploration, infrastructure development, mining or processing activities, including secondary effects, and plan and conduct the design, development, operation, remediation and closure of any facility in a manner that optimizes the economic use of resources while reducing adverse environmental and community impacts to acceptable levels
    • Employ risk management strategies and best practices that take account of local cultures and economic and environmental circumstances in the design, construction, operation and decommissioning, including the handling and disposal of hazardous materials and waste
    • Ensure that adequate financial resources or surety instruments are in place to meet the requirements of remediation and closure plans
    • Implement effective management systems, conduct regular reviews and act on the results
    • Develop, maintain and test emergency plans and response procedures in conjunction with the provider of emergency services, relevant authorities and local authorities to deal adequately with any emergency
    • At the initial phases of mining projects, develop closure concepts and/or plans that address environmental and community related issues as well as World Heritage values, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders
    • Encourage governments to establish communication mechanisms that will promote dialogue amongst local communities and other affected organizations, facilitate the provision of expert advice and serve in a regular planning and/or oversight capacity; and establish effective processes for conflict resolution.

  3. In respect of Community Development, it can:
    • Assess the social, cultural, environmental and economic impacts of proposed activities and engage with local communities and other affected organizations in the design of community development strategies, including such a strategy for mine closure
    • Contribute to, and participate in, the social, economic and institutional development of communities, and encourage the establishment of sustainable local and regional economic activities
    • In cooperation with international agencies, public interest groups and national governments, contribute to the development of local government capacity as well as to plans to address secondary impacts created by mining activity
    • Mitigate, to the greatest practical extent, adverse effects on communities by activities related to exploration, extraction and closure of mining and processing facilities
    • Provide adequate resources and build requisite capabilities so that employees at all levels are able to fulfill their environmental and community responsibilities
    • Develop relevant sustainable development monitoring indicators on a site by site basis
    • Respect the authority of national and regional governments, take into account their development objectives, and support the sharing of the economic benefits generated by operations.
Granting of Exploration Licenses
Finally, in respect of granting of exploration licenses, the mining industry should work with stakeholders to create clarity by defining the decision-making process, roles and responsibilities. It is expected that the granting of permits would carry a reasonable assurance of the right to develop, subject to appropriate approval mechanisms based on a clear decision-making process set out in advance.

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The conclusion of the workshop was that a Working Group on World Heritage and Mining should be formed to carry forward the work in this important field.

It is important that the World Heritage Committee should give its support to such a Group. The Group's membership should be drawn from various UN Agencies, the Advisory Bodies, ICME, and other interested parties. It could be co-chaired by IUCN and ICME. The Group should work closely with other consultative mechanisms such as MMSD and other initiatives.

If established, the Group would be able assist the World Heritage Committee in this area, and in particular it could:

In addition to its collaboration with ICME on World Heritage and mining, IUCN should consider how best to establish linkages with the wider mining sector on a broad range of issues concerning sustainable development, working with appropriate established initiatives.

NATURAL HERITAGE

III.1 The Bureau examined the state of conservation reports of a total of thirty-four natural heritage properties, which were presented in Working Document 5. The relevant paragraph number is indicated below the property name. The Bureau also noted that a report will be presented on Canaima National Park (Venezuela) at its next session. The Bureau decided not to discuss the site of Thungyai Huay Kha Khaeng (Thailand) as the issue mentioned in the Working Document concerns fire prevention in general.

i) Natural properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
(see paragraph I.24)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the results of the joint expert mission by the Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Bureau undertaken from 14-22 September 2000, presented in Information Document 8. The report of the mission calls for urgent financial assistance to deal with the introduced Salvinia molesta. In view of the imminent danger facing the site, the Director of Senegal National Parks has requested that the site be inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger. An international assistance request will be presented to the World Heritage Committee.

IUCN pointed out that the key issue is the invasive species, first detected in September 1999, which has spread rapidly including the neighbouring Diawling National Park (Mauritania). The IUCN West African Regional Office has convened an international meeting to promote co-ordinated action against this species. The report underlined the seriousness of the threat to both the environment and the economy of the region. The global environmental significance of the Senegal River Delta mainly for migratory species was also noted. Positive steps have been taken by the Government of both Senegal and Mauritania but, despite these efforts, the situation is not under control. There is a need for a practical action plan at local, national and international level. The reports also called for this site to be placed on the Danger List recognizing that this list can be used as a management tool. IUCN endorses the States Party's request for Danger List and called on international donors to urgently support actions at the site.

A number of Bureau members supported the recommendation for danger listing, highlighting the fact that Salvinia molesta is an invasive species very difficult to eradicate and that the same problem has been encountered in other regions of the world. They pointed out that this has also enormous economic and social consequences. The question of dams in arid zones was also discussed.

The Bureau recommended the Committee consider whether the site should be inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the State Party. The Bureau also recommended the Committee call on international donor support.

ii) State of conservation reports of natural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action

Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico)
(see paragraph I.16)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that, following the President of Mexico's statement of 2 March 2000, the proposed salt-works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino would not proceed. Letters from the Chairperson of the Committee and the Director-General of UNESCO welcomed this decision and congratulated the President of Mexico for the actions taken to implement the World Heritage Convention. The UN Foundation approved a US$ 2.5 million project entitled "Linking conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites" for six sites, including the two natural sites in Mexico, the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and Sian Ka'an. IUCN strongly supported and commended the State Party for its decision to halt the proposed salt-works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino. This sends a clear message to the world about the importance of conserving natural values within World Heritage sites and demonstrates the value of focused UNESCO/IUCN monitoring missions. IUCN suggested that this be promoted as a World Heritage success story.

The Delegate of Mexico thanked UNESCO for the successful work carried out and expressed his appreciation to the Bureau. He highlighted the social pragmatism in linking development and ecology, and expressed his wish that all countries should collaborate on sustainable development.

The Bureau suggested that the World Heritage Committee commend the Mexican Government for its actions to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and to implement the World Heritage Convention. It encouraged the authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners in implementing on- site projects for demonstrating possibilities for generating employment and income for local communities, such as the UN Foundation project on 'Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites.

iii) State of conservation reports of natural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting

World Natural Heritage Properties of Australia
(see paragraph I.1)

The Bureau took note of the information on the commencement of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) of 1999 including the recommendation by IUCN and noted that it would be made available to delegates on request.

IUCN noted that the ACIUCN process for monitoring Australian sites has continued and that there are a number of features of this process which are of interest and potential relevance for other States Parties: (a) it brings together the government and NGOs under the umbrella of the Australian Committee for IUCN; (b) it is based on extensive consultation focusing on key issues, and (c) it emphasises the identification of a limited number of practical recommendations. It is hoped that the process will be extended to other Australian sites depending on funding available.

The Delegate of Australia commented that this process coincides with the preparations for the periodic reporting process and that it would be useful if these reports be presented in 2002.

Shark Bay, Western Australia
(see paragraph I.2)

IUCN noted that the ACIUCN report for the site was discussed at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. ACIUCN has advised some amendments of the Focused Recommendations on mining consistent with the original ACIUCN recommendation to emphasise that no mineral sands mining or exploration should be allowed if it damages the World Heritage Area and values. IUCN welcomed the State Party's response to the five Focused Recommendations and looked forward to the completion of the strategic plan for the property and offered to work with the State Party to establish time frames for actions identified.

The Bureau commended the State Party and ACIUCN for successfully repeating the process applied to the Great Barrier Reef for the Shark Bay World Heritage area. The Bureau urged them to develop a Framework for Management that could be used as a basis for annual monitoring of progress in the implementation of the five Focused Recommendations, and submit it to the consideration of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002, in the context of periodic reporting.

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
(see paragraph I.3)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the recent grounding of a freighter upon the reef. IUCN commended the first-year progress report on implementing the Focused Recommendations for this site. IUCN agreed with the State Party that a key issue is to effectively manage catchments adjacent to the reef to reduce overall environmental impact on the site and noted that 80 catchment management projects are currently underway. IUCN suggested that the effectiveness of these projects in reducing pollution impacts should be monitored. IUCN also noted and applauded efforts to establish a representative management planning system in the World Heritage areas based around an expanded core of highly protected areas. IUCN saw a clear link between such areas and sustainable fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef region. IUCN reviewed the recent refloating of the grounded container vessel with a potentially dangerous cargo from the reef. This was achieved by the use of explosives by the site management agency. It was noted that legal action is being taken against the shipping operator. This highlighted several issues: the need for pilotage of large vessels within the World Heritage area, especially those carrying hazardous materials, as well as the need for effective response strategies which aim to minimise environmental impact and which involve consultation with key stakeholders, including traditional owners.

Bureau members noted the fragile ecosystem and the need for continuous monitoring of the coral reef and the need to protect it from pollution.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau about the actions taken to remove the vessel and that other options would have been preferred, but there was a need for urgent removal. Criminal procedures are underway against the owners of the vessel. The management of shipping needs to be of highest international standards. Australia also participates actively in the International Coral Reef Initiative and in the Coral Reef Watch.

The Bureau thanked the State Party for submitting a first-year progress report on the implementation of the "Focused Recommendations" adopted by the Committee at its twenty-third session. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the State Party's efforts to involve local communities in the work of Management Committees that are beginning to address integrated land and catchment management issues. The Bureau invited the State Party to sustain the pace of progress in the implementation of the "Focused Recommendations" achieved in the first year and submit the second-year report to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002 in the context of periodic reporting.

The Bureau also requested the State Party to submit a report on the grounding of the vessel on the Great Barrier Reef and follow-up actions for the consideration of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001.

Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves
(see paragraph I.4)

IUCN noted that the State Government of Queensland has decided not to approve the Naturelink Skyrail development. IUCN had concerns about the appropriateness of this development impacting on the World Heritage area and applauded the reported decision of the Queensland Government. The Delegate of Australia confirmed the cancellation of the project and stated that further information will be provided to the Secretariat shortly.

The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the cable car construction was not proceeding and requested the State Party to keep the Centre informed on this matter.

Wet Tropics of Queensland
(see paragraph I.5)

The Bureau took note of Information Document INF.6 "ACIUCN Report on the state of conservation of the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, Australia". ACIUCN carried out a comprehensive monitoring exercise for this site, which involved a series of stakeholder consultations and extensive joint involvement of the Government and NGOs. The report identified four priority action areas: (i) the need to support site management, particularly to ensure adequate resources to effectively implement the Wet Tropics Management Plan and Strategic Plan; (ii) the need to closely monitor the management of native and introduced species, in particular the control of feral and exotic species; (iii) the need to ensure complementary management of land use and human impacts within and beyond the boundaries of the World Heritage area. ACIUCN recommended a particular focus on industrial and tourism developments, as well as the need to carefully assess electricity options in the region, which may impact the World Heritage area, and (iv) consideration of a number of strategic issues, including indigenous involvement on management, the recognition of cultural values in any review of boundaries to enhance site management.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that the State Party's response to the priority action areas as described by IUCN is under Ministerial consideration and will be transmitted to the Centre very shortly.

The Bureau noted the State Party's response would be made available in due course. The Bureau requested the State Party and IUCN to collaborate in the development of a Framework for Management that could be used as a basis for annual monitoring of progress in the implementation of the five Focused Recommendations and submit it for the consideration of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002, in the context of periodic reporting.

Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
(see paragraph I.6)

IUCN noted that the document "Principles of the Bialowieza National Park" would guide the organization of the proposed extended Park. The extension has been controversial and this document represents an important compromise as it balances conservation and sustainable development of the region. It allows for zoning, phasing out of the logging activity that is outside of the World Heritage area and increasing emphasis on tourism. IUCN supported the extension of the National Park to include the entire Polish side of the Bialowieza Forest. While this extension area was assessed by IUCN not to be of World Heritage value, it is still considered important to complement the existing World Heritage site.

The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party. The Bureau urged the State Party to expedite the enlargement of the National Park to include the entire Polish side of the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, and to apply the document "Principles of the Bialowieza National Park functioning after its extension on to the entire Polish side of the Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Proposition)" as a basis for management of the National Park when it is enlarged.

Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
(see paragraph I.8)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a letter from the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) of Bulgaria was received on 3 November 2000 concerning the project proposal of the enlargement of the existing ski zone within the World Heritage site. It pointed out that the existing ski zone was constructed in 1985/86 in compliance with the existing national nature protection. The MOEW decided to give approval for the construction of two new ski runs (13.5 ha) and a ski lift facility and to give approval for a study on a new ski run (7ha) and a lift. At the same time, no approval is given for the remaining ski runs proposed. The information has been transmitted to IUCN and will be reviewed carefully.

The Bureau requested the State Party to provide an up-date report on this development as well as on the legal status of the existing ski zone within the World Heritage site in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
(see paragraph I.7)

IUCN welcomed the State Party's report on the site that indicated proposals to enhance the management capacity. However, IUCN noted that the situation on the ground is difficult with illegal opening of roads for forestry activity and poaching continuing to be a threat. The IUCN Central African Office has been working with the State Party to secure funding since the main funding agencies pulled out of the site in 1999. In 1999 the IUCN/WWF Forest Innovations Project conducted an assessment of management effectiveness in co- operation with site managers and partners. The review highlighted problems arising from the withdrawal of funding and issues such as bushmeat. There was a recent meeting between the key Dja partners (IUCN, ECOFAC and other NGOs) to discuss the Dja Reserve Management Plan in relation to surrounding pressures. A meeting in January 2001 will discuss the bushmeat issue, a key issue relating to poaching at Dja and it is hoped that a project proposal may arise. In view of the circumstances, it is considered that a mission to this site is warranted to assess the situation.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to review the report and to co-operate with the State Party to work out methods for the implementation of the recommendations of the Sangmelima Workshop, and to report on these measures, and on the state of conservation of this site with special reference to illegal roading, poaching, and the status of mineral exploration and any proposed mining activities in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. The Bureau also encouraged international donors and partners to support conservation efforts at this site.

Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
(see paragraph I.9)

IUCN noted that logging outside the Gros Morne National Park could affect the exceptional natural beauty of the site. It is noted that Parks Canada has expressed concern regarding the cumulative impacts of logging in areas adjacent to the Park, as part of the environmental impact process of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As part of this process, the logging company has been asked for more information relating to the potential impacts on the Park. IUCN recommended the State Party, through Parks Canada, continue to work with the Province, environmental groups and the forest industry to find solutions to this issue.

The Observer of Canada informed the Bureau that the company's proposition concerning additional logging plans outside the area has been cancelled.

The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on this development and issues associated with this site as indicated by IUCN in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)

The Observer of Canada informed the Bureau that the plans for the Cheviot Coal Mine outside the Jasper National Park portion of the Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks, have been cancelled, mainly due to declining coal prices.

Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
(see paragraph I.10)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the report of the technical meeting on the two World Heritages sites of Los Katios National Park and Darien National Park (Panama) held in Bogota on 23 and 24 May 2000. Following the Bureau's request for a mission to the site to obtain detailed information on the state of conservation, the Centre received an invitation for a field mission from 10 to 12 November 2000 including visits to Medellin, Turbo and Bogota for discussions with on- site staff. Security clearance for the mission was obtained from UNDP. Due to the dates just prior to the Bureau session and the unavailability of a representative from IUCN, the mission had to be postponed.

IUCN noted the continuing instability in this area that continues to impact Los Katios and the contiguous Darien World Heritage site. IUCN recommended that further consideration of this site await the 2001 mission. This mission should review the potential for inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger as well as reviewing the potential for developing one transfrontier site. IUCN supported the efforts by the States Party to encourage on-site co-operation and capacity building between Los Katios and Darien World Heritage sites.

The Bureau welcomed the transboundary collaboration and recalled the request of the Committee at the time of the inscription to create a transboundary site between Colombia and Panama. Concerning the mission to the site, the Bureau requested UNESCO and IUCN collaborate and find suitable dates to carry out the mission in 2001.

Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
(see paragraph I.11)

IUCN, through its West African Office, noted continuing major problems at this site mainly relating to poaching and forestry and agricultural encroachments on Park boundaries. IUCN supported a mission to the site, if invited by the State Party.

The Bureau decided to give additional time to the State Party to enable it to complete the implementation of the International Assistance provided. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party with a view to undertaking the mission requested by the twenty-third session of the Committee, and requested the State Party to provide the detailed state of conservation report and corrective measures for mitigating threats to the site before 15 September 2001 to be considered by the twenty-fifth session of the Committee.

Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
(see paragraph I.12) The Secretariat informed the Bureau of positive developments at the site. However, reports had also been received concerning tensions with lobster fishermen and their recent occupation of the offices of the Charles Darwin Research Station on Isabella Island.

IUCN commended the States Party for its positive conservation measures implemented at the site, specifically the development of regulations to the Galapagos Special Law for immigration, invasive species and tourism. IUCN noted the need to ensure these regulations are effectively implemented. IUCN urged finalization of the special regulations for fisheries. This should address issues such as permissible fishing methods, boat permits and principles for setting fisheries quotas, including for lobster fisheries. The unsuitability of longline fisheries in this area rich in seabirds, sharks and turtles was also noted. IUCN commended the States Party for fundraising efforts for the site, especially the success with the GEF Grant and the Inter American Development Bank Loan. These will strengthen the quarantine system, marine reserve management and the conservation agency. IUCN looks forward to reviewing the marine extension to the World Heritage site in 2001 and suggested this evaluation be combined with a monitoring mission.

The Bureau welcomed the positive developments for conservation at this site and thanked the State Party for considering extending the World Heritage Area to include the marine zone. The Bureau commended the State Party on the excellent progress with implementing the Management Plan and recommended that a monitoring mission be linked with the IUCN evaluation of the marine extension in 2001. The Bureau, however, noted with concern recent threats arising from industrial fishing interests and invited the States Party to strictly enforce all laws and regulations, to underline its commitment to the conservation of the site. The Bureau also encouraged the State Party to expedite finalising regulations and other provisions for the effective enforcement of the Galapagos Law, particularly in the fisheries, tourism and quarantine sectors.

Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
(see paragraph I.13)

IUCN and UNESCO participated in a monitoring mission to this site in September 2000. Key issues were identified as: destructive fishing using cyanide and dynamite, mainly by fishermen outside the Park. It is a difficult challenge for the Park management to control the application of the regulation and enforcement of fishing laws. Due to inadequate staffing levels, poaching and collecting activities are impacting the natural values of the site. These problems are exacerbated by internal migration to the Park. The State Party is addressing this by trying to improve the socio-economic conditions of communities outside of the Park boundary. There are a number of management issues, including the provision of water and the need for improved waste management and sanitation. IUCN also noted that the existing 25-year Master Plan is a very useful document, but recommends development of a more detailed 5-year management plan. It is critical that there be strong emphasis on involving local communities in plan preparation. IUCN noted the positive steps being taken by the State Party to address management issues and the very constructive partnership role of the Nature Conservancy in the management of the site. The mission identified a number of recommendations, including (1) to promote and increase community awareness of the benefits of the Komodo National Park; a critical element is to ensure full involvement of local communities in the preparation of the management plan; (2) other specific recommendations include increasing public awareness, encouraging appropriate eco-tourism, improving site management and developing effective monitoring and research programmes. IUCN concluded that this positive reactive monitoring mission identified practical steps to address key issues.

The Bureau also took note of the UN Foundation project of US$ 2.5 million entitled "Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites" for six sites, including the Komodo and Ujung Kulon National Parks of Indonesia.

The Bureau noted the recommendations by the IUCN/UNESCO mission and also that the UNESCO-UNEP project already addresses several of the issues mentioned (training, funding and park management). The Bureau urged the State Party to develop an action plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the IUCN/UNESCO mission to Komodo National Park and submit it, as well as a progress report, for the consideration of the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001.

Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)
(see paragraph I.14)

The Bureau noted that the site was one of the case studies at the Mining Workshop. IUCN informed the Bureau that the study presented was an excellent case which noted the close collaboration between the company and the Park, with Freeport being a major source of funding support for biodiversity projects and studies in the Park. A number of environmental impacts associated with the disposal of mine tailings from the site and potential impacts were noted. It recommended that those be further investigated. Freeport is developing ways to contain and treat waste and is undertaking a health and ecological risk assessment study. The issue of mine tailings should be also addressed as part of the study. IUCN also pointed out the co-operation between WWF, TNC and the State Party to develop a three-year Action Plan for this site and proposals for a Lorenz Trust Fund.

The Bureau encouraged the Indonesian authorities to closely collaborate with Freeport and other partners like WWF and TNC who are keen to support the conservation of Lorentz. The Bureau welcomed the idea for the establishment of a Lorentz Trust Fund or similar arrangements to ensure long-term conservation financing for the site.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party and Freeport to obtain detailed information on the current practice of tailings disposal from the mining concession adjacent to the Park and the potential threats it may pose to its integrity. The Bureau endorsed IUCN's suggestion that Freeport be requested to address this issue as part of the ecological and health risk assessment study it is preparing.

Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
(see paragraph I.15)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a letter was received by the Centre on 17 November 2000 from the Kenyan Embassy in France, on a number of positive actions by the Government, including security operations in the newly gazetted National Reserve, a task force on the transition of management to the Kenya Wildlife Service and the extension of the boundaries to cover an area of 1632 sq. km. It stated that these positive actions would negate suggestions to include Mt. Kenya on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IUCN noted positive measures that will have long-term benefits for the management of the site. IUCN is however concerned about the critical situation of the site and suggests a monitoring mission to assess the potential for inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau welcomed the actions taken by the State Party, and requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party with a view to undertaking a monitoring mission to the site to ascertain its state of conservation. The Bureau requested the State Party to co-operate with the Centre and IUCN with a view to completing the management plan and the programme of rehabilitation, to be submitted to the Centre by 15 March 2001 for consideration by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
(see paragraph I.17)

IUCN reported that the issue arose from concerns of a New Zealand NGO at the impact on parts of the World Heritage site from the Himalayan Thar, introduced for sport hunting long before the World Heritage inscription. The Himalayan Thar Management Plan aims at sustained control of thar to maintain vegetation in an ecological acceptable condition. Thar numbers had been reduced significantly under the control plan in place but the New Zealand Conservation Authority favours a review of the policy. IUCN stated that such a review would be possible when the management agency reviews the impacts of the existing policy over the next few years.

The Observer of New Zealand reaffirmed the commitment to the sustained control of this particular introduced animal and asked the Bureau to note the legal status of the control measures being implemented and to be reviewed in 2003. The State Party believed it may be useful to report back in 2002, when the process to review the control plan will have commenced.

The Bureau noted that the State Party is in the process of implementing a Himalayan Thar Control Policy but invited the State Party to take into consideration the criticisms of NZCA concerning some aspects of the Policy. The Bureau requested that the State Party give due consideration to changes called for by the NZCA when it reviews the Policy's impacts during 2002/2003, or if possible, earlier. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Policy and its plan or efforts to undertake a review of policy implementation to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002.

Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
(see paragraph I.18)

IUCN carried out a reactive monitoring mission to the site in May 2000 and the report has been circulated. It includes the following points: The poaching of the Arabian Oryx has been stopped for the past 16 months, thus arresting the previous decline in populations. The key role of the Sultan's special force should be noted, indicating the highest level of support of this species for the conservation of this site. A new management plan has been prepared with revised boundaries and clearly identified management zones. It is important that these boundaries are marked on the ground and adequate resources allocated to ensure its implementation. The Report also identified a number of other issues, including control of vehicles, overgrazing and mining. These issues need to be addressed in the implementation of the management plan. The site should not be considered for Danger Listing.

The Delegate of Morocco welcomed the progress made and highlighted the fragile environment and the economic and petroleum exploitation interests. Such a site could be seen as a core area in a wider Biosphere Reserve context to include sustainable development.

The Bureau commended the State Party for finalising the draft management plan for the Sanctuary and proposing new, more rational boundaries. To maintain the integrity of the site, the Bureau requested the State Party, as a matter of urgency, to adopt the draft management plan, complete the boundary marking, and allocate adequate resources for the plan's implementation. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a new boundary for the World Heritage listing which excluded the buffer zone. Finally, the Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to collaborate with the State Party in order to continuously monitor the site and to report regularly to the Bureau.

Huascarán National Park (Peru)
(see paragraph I.20)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the site was one of the successful case studies of the Mining Workshop. IUCN pointed out that the mining company agreed to develop the southern route for the transport of mineral resources, rather than transporting them through the Park. IUCN highlighted the positive co-operation between the State Party, the mining company and the Mountain Institute at this site. The need for the development of a new management plan which focuses on effective management of tourism and better control of small- scale mining operators within the Park was emphasized.

The Bureau encouraged the State Party to implement the recommendations of the mission report and to regularly report on the status of the implementation of these recommendations.

Danube Delta (Romania)
(see paragraph I.21)

The Bureau took note of the report supplied by the State Party. IUCN noted reports of re-opening of mining operations upstream from this site. IUCN urged caution, bearing in mind that there have been four spills of cyanide and heavy metals from three mine sites in Romania in the first half of this year. This situation needs to be carefully reviewed. IUCN also noted that it is essential that mining companies have clear and effective disaster mitigation plans, experience borne out from this case and Doñana National Park, Spain.

The Delegate of Hungary asked that a report be provided by the State Party on measures taken in the mine region.

The Bureau thanked the State Party for having provided information on the impacts of the spill on the Danube Delta World Heritage area and urged the State Party to develop clear and effective disaster mitigation plans for any on-going or future mining activities that may affect World Heritage values. It requested the State Party to provide a report on measures taken in the mine region in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Committee.

Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)
(see paragraph I.22)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow would attend a meeting on the proposed road and gas pipeline through the Ukok Plateau, from 18 to 20 December 2000 in the Altai Republic. IUCN pointed out that it is currently only a proposal and suggested caution on this issue. There is a need to assess options for the road outside of the World Heritage area and consult with stakeholders. IUCN also noted proposals for an Altai Convention, which aims to provide a framework for balancing conservation and development needs.

The Bureau invited the State Party to inform the Centre on details concerning the proposed road construction project, including any environmental impact studies that may be underway and any future developments in time for the twenty- fifth session of the Bureau.

Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)
(see paragraph I.23)

IUCN noted the serious reports received on salmon poaching, gold mining, gas pipeline and a geothermal powerplant in the region. IUCN noted the socio-economic challenges in this region and emphasised the need to link planning of the World Heritage site with development opportunities for local populations and regional planning as set out in the Project Kamchatka Report. Additional donor support would be required and more initiatives need to be developed. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a mission of a staff member of the UNESCO Office in Moscow will take place in January 2001.

A number of Bureau members and observers expressed concerns about the magnitude of the problems encountered, and requested that these brought to the attention of the State Party.

The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to this site and that a case may exist for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a state of conservation report on this site, which addresses the points raised by IUCN, and the potential for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
(see paragraph I.24)

IUCN noted that a Workshop on Lake Baikal was held in July 2000 and that this meeting and other reports have indicated: (a) continuing concerns about the discharge of waste waters into Lake Baikal, and the main tributary of Lake Baikal, the Selenga River. One of the major waste water inputs is the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill; (b) a delay in the preparation of a detailed plan for the conversion of the Pulp and Paper Mill; (c) concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of the Federal Law on Lake Baikal were pointed out, as well as concerns about other threats to the integrity of the site (unregulated hunting, fishing). IUCN also noted that the State Committee on Environmental Protection has been abolished. The specific implications for World Heritage sites in the Russian Federation are unclear.

The Bureau expressed its concern that no updated information was received from the State Party on this property and that other recent reports indicate serious threats to this site and that a case may exist for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the State Party invite a mission to this site in 2001 to ascertain whether it should be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
(see paragraph I.26)

IUCN noted significant threats from poaching by local subsistence farmers and armed gangs. The report suggested that there may soon be no Derby Elands left, unless urgent measures are taken. The IUCN Senegal Office has expressed concern about the situation in the Park and has reported proposals to transfer animals, including the Derby Elands, from the World Heritage site. There are also recent proposals to import western giant elands from Senegal to a commercial ranch in South Africa. IUCN noted that there has not been a study to assess the impacts of the translocation of animals on the conservation status of the Park and urged caution.

The Bureau noted with concern the reports concerning this site. The Bureau requested the State Party to consider inviting a monitoring mission to this site in 2001.

Doñana National Park (Spain)
(see paragraph I.27)

IUCN recognized the efforts made by the State Party to clean up the site, particularly associated with the Doñana 2005 Restoration Project and the Green corridor project. However, there is still a long way to go. The need for decommissioning of the old tailings dam and better storage of mining waste was highlighted.

The Bureau commended the continuing efforts of the State Party to clean up the area, which indicated a gradual recovery of the Guadiamar River Basin. However, the Bureau noted that there is still a great deal of effort required and that there remains high pollution in some areas. The Bureau urged the State Party to accelerate implementation of the Doñana 2005 restoration project and implement the review meeting to be held during 2001. The authorities are invited to inform the Centre by 15 April 2001 on tentative dates and a programme for the review meeting.

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
(see paragraph I.28)

IUCN urged priority attention to resolving boundary issues and endorsed efforts to incorporate an additional 1,000 ha of natural forest into the Reserve. IUCN Sri Lanka will be working with the State Party on this issue and on implementing a proposed GEF-funded project to conserve the south-western rainforests of Sri Lanka.

The Bureau noted that the Forest Department is making efforts to reclaim the land released for organic tea farming and may encounter a legal challenge from the private enterprise concerned. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to monitor further developments on the matter and report on progress to the next extraordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. In addition, the Bureau invited the State Party to report on steps taken to incorporate 1,000 ha of natural forest to the National Reserve and its eventual inclusion in the World Heritage site.

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
(see paragraph I.30)

IUCN noted continuing problems regarding security at this site. The Observer of Uganda informed the Bureau about the difficult situation and civil unrest in the whole region. A new strategic plan was prepared in September 2000 that addresses a number of issues including a security plan. This will be translated into an Operational Plan with budgetary implications by March 2001. This will also define which areas could be financed by the World Bank and the World Heritage Fund. He confirmed that information would be provided as soon as possible to the Centre. IUCN also noted there is a $7 million trust fund for Bwindi.

The Bureau recalled its earlier request and recommended that the Centre and IUCN continue efforts to verify, with the Ugandan authorities, their needs for support for purchase of vehicles and staff training and to continue assisting the Ugandan authorities to obtain financial support from suitable sources, including the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide the information on the Operational Plan by 15 April 2001 and asked the Centre and IUCN to report on the measures taken to support the management programme at the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in mid-2001.

Gough Island (United Kingdom)
(see paragraph I.31)

IUCN noted that the invasive species Sagina has been eradicated but urged the State Party to carefully monitor the situation to ensure that future outbreaks do not occur. The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureau that his Government is addressing long-term issues through the revision of the management plan. The revision of boundaries of the Reserve had been extended from three nautical miles to 12 nautical miles, but that this did not affect the World Heritage area.

The Bureau commended the State Party and the St. Helena Government for their effective and prompt response in eradicating this invasive species. It invited the State Party to keep the future situation of the site under close review.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
(see paragraph I.32)

IUCN noted that an Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out on the proposed routes for the planned access road and a decision made that the road should avoid environmentally sensitive areas. IUCN urged the State Party to proceed slowly and with caution on this matter. IUCN also noted problems with introduced species in the crater.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to continue monitoring this site, and invited the State Party to provide reports to the Centre on a regular basis and to provide the Centre with a copy of both the management plan and the Environmental Impact Assessment Study.

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
(see paragraph I.33)

IUCN reviewed the State Party's annual report and applauded many positive actions underway, including raising community awareness and support for the area. The key concerns are the cumulative impacts of activities in the Ha Long Bay region outside the site. IUCN supported programmes such as the integrated coastal and marine management programme for the Tonkin Archipelago proposed by IUCN Vietnam and the World Bank. This tries to balance conservation and development across the region.

The Delegate of Hungary highlighted the complexity of the site and the need for a broader heritage impact assessment, as well as the need for the consolidated involvement of all partners.

The Observer of Vietnam informed the Bureau that during the last months a strategic partnership framework has been agreed upon for a consolidated integrated management approach. On 1 December 2000 the Master Plan 2000-2020 would be due for ratification by the Prime Minister. The Master Plan will take into account the World Heritage area and its buffer zone. The environmental legislation was amended to allow a thorough environmental management audit of the Bai Chay Bridge construction project. There is a high level of commitment by both the provincial and central Government. World Heritage education programmes are to be introduced into all schools in the region. A new donor strategy is being developed and training in donor advocacy is being provided to staff of the Ha Long Bay Management Department.

The Bureau commended the commitment of the State Party to continue to improve infrastructure and capacity for the protection of the site and for providing a report on the Management and Preservation of the site. The Bureau however, drew the attention of the State Party to risks linked to addressing environmental impacts of individual projects to the neglect of monitoring cumulative impacts of the overall development of Ha Long City and other areas surrounding the World Heritage area. The Bureau urged the Government of Vietnam and the Provincial Government of Quang Ninh to seek donor support, including from JICA and other Japanese Institutions that co-operated to carry out the Study on Environmental Management of Ha Long Bay, to initiate implementation of the Study's recommendations with minimum possible delay. The Bureau noted that the State Party amended the environmental legislation as appropriate to ensure the full implementation of the Environmental Management and Audit Programme recommended by the EIA of the Bai Chay Bridge Construction Project, during the construction phase as well as beyond. The Bureau also encouraged the State Party to increase its efforts to co-ordinate and consolidate inputs of all stakeholders for the conservation of the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area and the sustainable development of its surrounding region. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a progress report on the outcome of its efforts to implement the above recommendations to the next extraordinary session of the Bureau at the end of 2001.

Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
(see paragraph I.34)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that problems were encountered with the proposed bilateral meeting. A related international assistance request has been received from Zambia. IUCN saw the implementation of the joint Zambia/Zimbabwe planning workshop as a priority and looked forward to participating. The Delegate of Zimbabwe confirmed that problems existed and welcomed the Centre's letter on this matter. He informed the Bureau that a meeting would take place in Zimbabwe from 19 to 22 December 2000 prior to the bilateral meeting.

The Bureau reiterated its requests of earlier sessions and those of the Committee, that the States Parties expedite the organisation of the bilateral meeting in order to report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in mid-2001.

MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE

i) State of conservation reports of mixed properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action

Kakadu National Park (Australia)
(see paragraph I.35)

The Bureau recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinary session of the Committee examined the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park with reference to the development of a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in an enclave of the Park.

The Bureau reviewed progress on two main issues. Firstly, the resolution of a number of scientific issues and, secondly, cultural issues.

Scientific issues

The Bureau noted the conclusions of the report of the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the International Council for Science (ICSU) (see Executive Summary of WHC- 2000/CONF.203/INF.5).

The Bureau also noted that on 10 November, in a letter addressed to the Chair of the Committee, the State Party had advised that:

The leader of the ISP of ICSU informed the Bureau that the ISP report was concerned principally with issues relating to the approved proposal for the Jabiluka Milling Alternative (JMA). The ISP considers that the risks to natural values of the World Heritage Area have been quantified with a high level of scientific certainty and are small or negligible for the approved mining and milling proposal. However, the ISP considers that there is still the need for:

(a) landscape and ecosystem analyses;
(b) improvement in management arrangements as a leakage incident at the Ranger Mine showed that the response of the mining company and authorities was unsatisfactory, and that the standard of monitoring and maintenance had fallen below those expected;
(c) an independent scientific advisory group and transparent review process.

The ISP considers that the Australian Government response to the ISP recommendations dated 10 November 2000 are satisfactory in relation to some of the ISP recommendations, but unsatisfactory for others. The leader of the ISP of ICSU said that the ISP findings do not necessarily relate to milling proposals other than the JMA. Furthermore he commented that the ISP had little information on alternative milling proposals.

The ISP stated that if these alternative milling proposals can be shown to reduce any potential environmental risk, then the ISP would accept and welcome them but would still need:

IUCN referred to the joint statement made by the advisory bodies in July 1999 and to the report of the IUCN expert who had participated in the mission in July 2000 (see Annex 4 of WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.5). IUCN endorsed the process of scientific peer review and said that in accordance with the Precautionary Principle there should be no mining until there was a complete Environmental Impact Assessment on the modified mine plans.

IUCN said they were very concerned about the leak at the Ranger uranium mine reported to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in June 2000, and about other reported leaks, but noted that only minor ecological impacts have occurred. They expressed concern about the potential cultural impacts of the leak and the inconsistencies in the reports of the Northern Territory and the Federal Government on the leak.

IUCN recommended that there be further documentation of the natural values of the Lease and adjacent areas at the earliest opportunity. In noting that there were also ethical and cultural issues relating to the scientific and technical issues at Jabiluka, IUCN indicated that it was essential for the Traditional Owners not to feel excluded from future discussions and assessments.

The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU and the IUCN Representative for their constructive participation in the mission to the Jabiluka and Ranger Mineral leases in July 2000. In referring to the ISP's work as a good example of a process of scientific peer review, he welcomed the finding of the ISP report, particularly the overall finding that risks to natural values were small or neglegible. He informed the Bureau that discussions between the leader of the ISP of ICSU, the Supervising Scientist of Australia and IUCN would continue over the coming days to seek agreement on a proposed decision to be submitted to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.

Cultural issues

At its twenty-fourth session in June 2000, the Bureau also requested that all affected parties and the Australian Government, work to find a constructive solution to addressing the economic, social and cultural expectation of the people of Kakadu while protecting the full range of World Heritage values.

On 10 November the State Party informed the Chair of the current status of initiatives to improve the social and economic circumstances of Aboriginal people living in Kakadu. However, for cultural issues, particularly in relation to cultural mapping and the development of a cultural heritage management plan, all parties reported a lack of progress and some difficulties in co-operation.

ICOMOS recommended that an independent scientific group perform an objective assessment of the cultural values of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and referred to the possible development of international guidelines concerning World Heritage and indigenous people.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that the Australian Government was pleased to begin a new dialogue with the Traditional Owners and other stakeholders to together consider a process for addressing cultural issues at Jabiluka. The majority of members of the Bureau, in welcoming these developments, acknowledged that dialogue between the Traditional Owners and the State Party was crucial if progress could be made towards developing a new process to address any outstanding cultural issues relating to the development of the uranium mine and mill at Jabiluka.

The Bureau,

  1. Noted the report of the ISP of ICSU and IUCN on the science issues and the new information provided by the State Party and recommended it be examined by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.

  2. Welcomed the fact that discussions are taking place between the State Party and the Traditional Owners.

  3. Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners that serious impacts on the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka might still exist.

  4. Considered that the Committee's previous decision regarding cultural mapping and the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot be implemented at this stage and that an approach founded on partnership between all parties concerned is required to ensure the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park.

  5. Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its willingness to "participate in activities leading towards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of Kakadu National Park".

  6. The Bureau requested that the Committee note that the State Party is prepared to consider whether a new process is required to address any outstanding issues relating to cultural values. Any new process would be facilitated by the State Party, in consultation with Traditional Owners and other domestic stakeholders.

ii) State of conservation reports of mixed properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting

Mount Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China)
(see paragraph I.36)

Monitoring missions were carried out by IUCN and ICOMOS to evaluate the impact of a monorail linking two summits of Mt. Emei. The construction of the monorail was noted with concern when IUCN evaluated the site in 1996. At the time, the relevant authorities announced that construction had been suspended and the site was inscribed in December 1996. Subsequently, the Bureau learnt that the monorail was completed and has been operating since December 1998. IUCN pointed out that the outcome of the monitoring mission has been positive, as the monorail has largely followed the existing footpath. The footpath has been closed and vegetation is encroaching and there is control over the visitor numbers to Wanfo Summit. The route of the monorail is relatively unobtrusive.

ICOMOS drew the attention of the Bureau to the proposed access walkway to view the Leshan Giant Buddha. The siting and general appearance of the structures were acceptable, but ICOMOS recommended that modification be made relating to the use of materials in conformity with the proposals of the World Bank expert.

The Bureau, upon examining the findings of the IUCN and ICOMOS missions, requested the State Party to inform the site management authorities of the World Heritage properties in China that major projects of this type should not be undertaken without prior evaluation of all environmental impacts, and for the Committee to be provided with information prior to their implementation. The Bureau also requested the State Party to provide more training opportunities to the staff of the site in (1) tourism management, including measures to monitor and mitigate the impact of tourism; and (2) management tools for biodiversity protection. The Bureau recommended that the report of the IUCN/ICOMOS missions be transmitted to the relevant Chinese authorities and requested the State Party, with the support of UNESCO and the advisory bodies, to develop a programme of action to ensure follow-up to the recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS missions.

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
(see paragraph I.37)

ICOMOS noted that, of the 16 recommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of October 1999, only some are referred to in the report received from the Peruvian authorities and others still needed to be approved and/or implemented. The advisory body also observed that it was necessary to undertake the study on the carrying capacity of the Sanctuary and the Ciudadela as a basis for other programmes and projects such as access to the site, tourism use as well as protection of natural and cultural resources etc.

IUCN welcomed the progress made concerning the establishment of a national co-ordinating Committee and the management committee of the Historic Sanctuary as well as the approved fire prevention plan. IUCN recommended encouraging the Government of Japan to finance the landslide project and acknowledged the continuous support of the Government of Finland. IUCN furthermore noted that the installation of the cable car while retaining the road access would add to the problem of visitor numbers which the Peruvian Management Unit is addressing through a study on the carrying capacity. IUCN also recalled the monorail that led to the elimination of ground access at Mt. Emei in China and suggested that the Peruvian authorities include such an approach in their planning process.

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the accident that had occurred on the site during the production of a beer commercial, when a crane that formed part of the film team's equipment, fell on the Intihuatana or stone sundial, chipping off a piece of stone. A detailed report reached the World Heritage Centre in October 2000, prepared by an assessment mission to Machu Picchu, which examined the damage as well as initial actions taken in response to the accident. The Centre also informed the Bureau of the preparation of a Technical Co- operation request for an international expert in stone restoration.

Several Bureau members expressed concern and suggested that guidelines for the use of World Heritage sites should be devised, although there was no agreement concerning a site specific or general approach. ICOMOS suggested that the use of World Heritage sites in general, not only the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, should be regulated by some form of charter or guidelines to avoid damage in comparable situations. The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureau of the experience with management and use-regulations at Stonehenge. The Chairperson concluded that the issue was of general concern and that the United Kingdom was in a position to supply valuable information for other States Parties.

The Bureau commended the State Party for the actions taken to protect the property, especially the advances made in consolidating the institutional structure for the management of the site. Furthermore, the Bureau urged the Peruvian authorities to consider and implement all recommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of October 1999. It also requested the authorities to submit a further progress report on the implementation of the mission recommendations, particularly the consolidation of the institutional structure and the development of the carrying capacity study and the cable car project, by 15 April 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Upon receipt of this report the Bureau may decide whether a further field mission to review progress made would be necessary.

The Bureau furthermore expressed serious concern over the accident that damaged one of the main monuments at Machu Picchu, the Intihuatana Sundial. It recommended the Peruvian authorities to review its policy for the use of the World Heritage site for commercial purposes. It requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on the accident, the restoration efforts taken and the policy review by 15 April 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

III.2 The Bureau examined the state of conservation of a total of twenty-eight cultural heritage properties which were presented in Working Document 5. The relevant paragraph number is indicated below the property name.

i) Cultural properties which the Bureau recommended for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)
(see paragraph I.52)

The Bureau recalled the Committee and Bureau's request for a reactive monitoring mission to be organized by the Centre and ICOMOS following receipt of information concerning the demolition of the 375 year-old hydraulic works, an essential monument within the site of the Shalamar Gardens. The Bureau examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission undertaken in October 2000, which was summarized as below:

The 375 year-old hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens

The three water tanks forming part of the 375 year-old hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens had been irretrievably demolished over a period of ten days in June 1999 by the Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore (MCL) of the Provincial Government of Punjab in order to widen the Grand Trunk Road located along the southern wall of the Shalamar Gardens. Two of the three water tanks originally constructed in brick and mortar were demolished and what remains are parts of its walls at the ground level. The third tank now, considerably reduced in size, stands alone along the Grand Trunk Road (GT Road) threatened by traffic. These tanks were linked to the canal "Shah Nahar", which once irrigated the fountains of the Shalamar Gardens.

The site of the ancient hydraulic works after the demolition has been used by the MCL as a parking lot for heavy trucks (eastern part), and partially for the sale of furniture by a vendor (western part) who has illegally occupied the site.

The mission found that:

Perimeter Walls of the Shalamar Gardens

Examination of the exterior of the perimeter wall around the Shalamar Gardens, the three terraced gardens and the Naqqar Khana, the garden to the east, indicated that despite efforts made by the DoA to mobilize resources and the co-operation of the various authorities concerned, restoration and rehabilitation of the historic monuments and gardens had not progressed. Difficulties in implementing the Recommendations of the 1998 ICOMOS mission that had been adopted by the DoA during a 1999 UNESCO mission, were also noted. Although the 1998 ICOMOS mission had been informed that funds had been made available for restoration activities in the Naqqar Khana, there was no evidence that such works had been implemented.

During the past year, a modern hydraulic system was installed to supply water to the upper two terraces located at the southern part of the Shalamar Gardens. The natural stone decorating the eastern and western entrance gates within the lowest northern terrace were being replaced by hand-carved stone at the time of the October 2000 Mission.

Both sides of the perimeter wall have deteriorated (peeling plaster and flaking mud mortar, advertisements painted on the outside, vandalism, graffiti, illegal construction along the walls, damage to the original hand-painted decoration on the outside, humidity rising at the base of the wall caused by raising the ground level along the outside walls, aggravated by the construction of paved sidewalks against the wall along the northern and western sides, garbage).

Awareness of the unique character, historical significance, and World Heritage values of the Shalamar Gardens appeared to be low.

Threats facing the Shalamar Gardens

The integrity and authenticity of the 375 year-old hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens have been severely damaged by the demolition of the greater part of the hydraulic works, the Shah Nahar, located on the opposite side of the Grand Trunk Road.

The property is threatened by serious and specific danger, and to conserve this site, major operations are necessary.

All parts of the site are subject to "ascertained danger" due to serious deterioration of materials, structure, ornamental features, town-planning coherence, and significant and important loss of historic authenticity and cultural significance.

The site is subject to "potential danger" due to a lack of effective means to implement existing conservation policies for the site in the face of rapid urbanisation of the greater Lahore City and its surrounding areas.

The State Party should define and implement a "rescue programme" as soon as possible in order to safeguard the remains of the hydraulic works.

Legal, political, financial and management measures are needed to redress the situation. There is no structured co-operation between the federal and local authorities concerned. Unchecked growth (human settlements, traffic, etc) undermine the integrity and authenticity of the site.

Priority actions recommended by the UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission

The authorities are urged to undertake conservation of the perimeter wall and of the gates. This will require full co- operation of the Metropolitan Co-operation of Lahore, and may require establishment of a sound drainage system near the walls to prevent further damage caused by humidity undercutting the walls.

The authorities are urged to prioritise for the restoration (not reconstruction) of the pavilions and other historic monuments within the Shalamar Gardens.

The authorities are urged to revitalize the garden layout and water works, based upon archaeological research and scientific analysis of the original layout of the gardens.

The authorities are urged to establish a co-ordination body with representatives of all stakeholders concerned in the protection and utilisation of the Shalamar Gardens. UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS, ICCROM and other bodies will need to provide financial and technical support in developing a long-term management plan to ensure the development and conservation of this unique site.

Conclusion

The ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission recommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribe the Shalamar Gardens of Lahore on the List of World Heritage in Danger, taking into due consideration the state of conservation of the site, the ascertained and potential threats, and the positive response from the State Party concerning the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger during discussions held between the Centre and the authorities concerned since 1999.

Deliberations by the Bureau during its twenty-fourth extraordinary session

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that consultations between the Representatives of the Government of Pakistan, the Director-General of the Department of Archaeology and Museums, and the World Heritage Centre had taken place since 1999 concerning the possibility of nominating the property for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was informed that representatives of Pakistan to UNESCO and the DoA indicated that the Government is considering the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. A formal letter of request that was expected prior to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, had not been received.

The Bureau expressed serious concern over the complete loss of two of the three hydraulic works, and the partial demolition of the third hydraulic work. Taking note of the previous assistance requested by the State Party, and recognizing that the property is threatened by serious and specific danger, necessitating major operations to ensure the protection of the remains of an essential historic monument within the property, the Bureau recommended that the Committee examine the state of conservation of this site at its twenty-fourth session, with a view to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, at the request of the State Party.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee request the State Party to define and implement a "rescue programme" as soon as possible in order to safeguard the remains of the former hydraulic works, through consolidation as an archaeological relic of the remaining foundations of two tanks, by taking measures to prevent further deterioration of what still remains of the third tank with its brick arches, and by fencing off the site on which these remains are located from the immediate surroundings so that it is no longer directly accessible. Parking on the site of the first and second tanks should be prohibited as soon as possible, and the Bureau recommends the Committee underline the equally urgent need to adequately conserve the remains of the third tank, currently being used both as a toilet and a garbage disposal area. Considering the extent of destruction and loss of the original materials of the two demolished tanks, reconstruction is no longer possible. For the area around the remains of the hydraulic works, the Bureau recommends that the Committee request the State Party to provide clarification concerning ownership, land use and the legal status of the land within 200 feet of these hydraulic works, particularly in view of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, No. XXXIV of 1985 (The Punjab Gazette, Lahore, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 1985) applicable for this site.

The Bureau underlined that the state of conservation of this property illustrates a case where world heritage values of a property had been severely damaged due to insufficient attention given to conservation needs in the planning and implementation of public works.

Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)
(see paragraph I.42)

The Secretariat presented its report, including new information following the mission in October 2000. Following a question raised by the delegate from Hungary about the position of the Yemen authorities concerning the State Party's request to inscribe the Historic City of Zabib on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Secretariat informed the Bureau that an official letter of 17 October 2000 had been received requesting the Committee to consider an inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger as this would be necessary to safeguard the site.

The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:

"The Committee notes the request of the Yemeni authorities to inscribe the Historic Town of Zabib on the List of World Heritage in Danger and decides to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to send a multidisciplinary team in order to evaluate the situation and take further actions."

ii) State of conservation report of cultural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
(see paragraph I.49)

The Bureau recalled that the Committee had repeatedly expressed concern for this site and deferred inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1992. Recognizing the continuing loss of authenticity of the urban fabric of the site, the Committee at its twenty-third session decided to again defer decision on in-danger listing until the twenty- fourth session. The Committee also decided to send a High Level Mission in 2000 to ensure consultations with representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal to transmit the Committee's concern and to convince the authorities of the merit of in-danger listing. This mission took place from 24 to 29 September 2000.

The Director of the World Heritage Centre reported on the conclusive findings and final considerations of the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site, presented in WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.4. He drew the attention of the Bureau to the state of conservation of the site, much of which had not improved since 1999. The Bureau was informed of the continuing commitment of His Majesty's Government of Nepal to protect the seven Monument Zones composing the site. The Director reported that the authorities had emphasized the difficulties in imposing international standards in the conservation of privately-owned historic buildings without substantial subsidy and technical support.

The Director informed the Bureau that no new plans had been put forth by the Nepalese authorities to redress the persistent and continued deterioration of the materials, structures, ornamental features, and overall architectural coherence in most Monument Zones. The High Level Mission was received positively by the representatives of the central and local government authorities including an audience with His Majesty the King. The Director informed the Bureau, however, that the mission was unable to convince the representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal on the constructive aims of the system of in-danger listing, notably to mobilise the support of policy makers at the highest level and international donors.

Finally, the Bureau was informed that the High Level Mission concluded that should no new measures be undertaken, the deterioration of the historic urban fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the vernacular architecture surrounding the public monuments, and consequently damaging the world heritage values of this unique and universally significant site.

The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, who led the High Level Mission, thanked the Director of the World Heritage Centre for his comprehensive presentation. The Chairperson stressed that the gravity of the situation should not be underestimated and reminded the Bureau that the decision of the Committee whether or not to inscribe this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-fourth session would reflect upon the credibility and moral responsibility of the World Heritage Convention and its Committee.

The Delegate of Finland, who participated in the High Level Mission as both a Vice-President of the Committee as well as the ICOMOS Representative during the mission, underscored the complexity of the site, composed of seven Monument Zones located in different geographic areas at considerable distances from each other and in different conservation conditions. He emphasized that the principal cause of concern is the difficulty in conserving the historic urban fabric, as the public monuments are in generally good condition. The Delegate of Finland recommended that the Committee defer inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as the inscription of the entire site could be discouraging for the authorities and the people of Monument Zones. ICOMOS concurred with this view.

The Delegate of Australia, underlining the importance of the Committee's decision, stated that a decision by the Committee to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger against the wish of the State Party would set a precedent, which could impact upon the work of the Convention and the States Parties' common goals to protect world heritage. He informed the Bureau that Australia did not consider that under the Convention the Committee was empowered to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party concerned and without the request for assistance by the State Party.

Discussions ensued on the objectives of the Convention and international co-operation. The Delegate of Hungary recognized the challenges in urban heritage protection in the face of rapid urbanization, change in urban life style and economic growth. The use of the Convention as a mechanism for mobilising further political commitment and international technical co-operation was underscored.

The Delegate of Greece recalled that the Committee had deferred the inscription of the Kathmandu Valley on the List of World Heritage in Danger numerous times. She pointed out the evident difficulty faced by both the Committee and the State Party in implementing the Convention to safeguard the site for future generations. With reference to the debate on the necessity for State Party consent for in-danger listing, she stated that Article 11.4 allows the Committee to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party concerned. Recalling her intervention at the twenty-third session of the Committee, she reminded the Bureau that she had foreseen that the High Level Mission would not be able to convince the Nepali Government on the merits of the in-danger listing system. She drew the Bureau's attention to the significant loss of historic buildings within Bauddhanath Monument Zone where there were approximately 88 historic buildings surrounding the stupa in 1979, which decreased to 27 in 1993, and 15 in 1998. Recalling that the serious state of conservation of this site has been examined at 19 sessions of the Committee and Bureau since 1992, the Delegate of Greece stressed the gravity of the situation and the need to ensure the credibility of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List.

The Delegate of Mexico reminded the Bureau that the seven Monument Zones of the Kathmandu Valley were nominated and inscribed together as one site in 1979, exemplifying the heritage of Nepalese art and culture at its height. He emphasized the importance of "preventive conservation" in addressing the conservation of historic cities to prevent irreversible damages.

The Delegate of Zimbabwe reminded the Bureau that the conclusive findings of the High Level Mission underscored the fact that Kathmandu Valley was in danger. Regardless of whether or not it was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, he suggested the possibility of deleting certain parts of the Monument Zones as a means of retaining the credibility of the World Heritage Convention.

In the discussion which followed, the Bureau members agreed that the Committee would need to define procedures for examining cases such as Kathmandu Valley, where certain world heritage values or components justifying inscription have been irreversibly lost.

The Observer of the United Kingdom noted the shortcomings of Committee decisions in previous years for having inscribed properties which lacked adequate management and conservation mechanisms, and underscored the importance of the periodic reporting exercise in addressing related problems.

The Observer of Nepal expressed his Government's appreciation for responding favourably to requests for technical and financial assistance which the Committee and UNESCO have been providing for Kathmandu Valley since the 1970's. He recalled the great pride of the Nepalese citizens in 1979 when the site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but informed the Bureau that they were unaware until 1992 of the world heritage conservation standards and the errors made. The Observer of Nepal stated that Government instability up until 1998 had prevented the enforcement of measures to protect the urban heritage of the site. The Observer reiterated the Government's strong commitment to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission, the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint Mission, and requested that the Bureau provide the Government of Nepal sufficient time to redress the situation and defer decision on in-danger listing until 2004.

The Chairperson reminded the Bureau that the deliberations taking place were repeating discussions held in Marrakesh during its twenty-third extraordinary session. Noting the importance of elaborating a better process for inscribing properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Chairperson offered to host a meeting in Morocco to discuss this issue separately in a more comprehensive manner.

The Bureau adopted the following recommendation for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty- fourth session:

"The Bureau examined the findings of the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley which was undertaken between 24 to 29 September 2000, which held consultations with the Representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal and was granted an audience with His Majesty the King.

The Bureau, noting the findings of the High Level Mission, expressed its appreciation to the State Party for its continued efforts to enhance the management and conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. The Bureau reiterated its deepest concern for the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley, where urban encroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in most of the seven Monument Zones composing the site are significantly threatening its integrity and authenticity.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee request the State Party to produce a new structured framework for monitoring all corrective measures by His Majesty's Government of Nepal, to be reviewed by the Committee within the context of the Asia- Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise in 2002. The Bureau further recommended that other States Parties be engaged in the conservation and monitoring effort by providing technical and financial assistance to the concerned authorities of His Majesty's Government of Nepal. In this regard, the Bureau recommended that the Committee reserve an appropriation within the 2001 International Assistance budget, to finance specific time-bound activities related to the protection of the urban fabric within the World Heritage site in order to strengthen the State Party's capacity.

The Bureau recommended the Committee to consider the issue of the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger in a broader context, in order to develop appropriate criteria and process for the Committee to evaluate situations such as Kathmandu Valley. To this end, the Bureau welcomed the offer by the Government of Morocco to host a meeting on this issue, and recommends that the Committee decides on a general schedule for the meeting and allocate funds for the organisation of this meeting.

Taxila (Pakistan)
(see paragraph I.51)

The Secretariat presented the findings and recommendations of the UNESCO-ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to Taxila (1-5 September 2000) organised by the Centre and ICOMOS following the request of the Committee and Bureau. The purpose of the mission was to examine the state of conservation of the Bhir Mound archaeological area, where a football stadium had been constructed.

The findings and recommendations included the following points:

  1. The mission was convinced that the work on the stadium had been stopped and that the demolition of the walls would soon be commenced. It is recommended that action be taken to conserve and present Bhir Mound site as an important part of the Taxila World Heritage site.

  2. Recent excavation of Bhir Mound and removal of vegetation was observed. Although appreciative of the efforts made by the concerned authorities in undertaking excavations of Bhir Mound, the authorities of Pakistan are urged to place priority on conservation and presentation of archaeological areas already excavated and exposed, rather than engage in new excavation exercises. In this context, the authorities are urged to elaborate a comprehensive management programme for the development and conservation of Taxila as a matter of priority.

  3. Illicit excavations did not appear to constitute a major threat to the site. Nevertheless, the national programme to prevent illegal excavation and illicit trafficking of artefacts should be applied to Taxila.

  4. Demarcation of the existing boundaries and buffer zones and the preparation of management and maintenance programmes for each of the archaeological areas composing Taxila is required, not only to conserve individual monuments, but also to protect the natural setting and historical evolution of Taxila in its entirety.

  5. Impact assessment studies of the heavy industries and military compounds within the Taxila Valley, which will require substantial efforts on the part of the authorities concerned, should be carried out.

  6. Co-operation between planning, development and cultural heritage protection agencies is encouraged as a matter of priority.

  7. The authorities may wish to consider proposing the site for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger to encourage the mobilisation of financial and technical assistance.

The Secretariat also presented the information transmitted by the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO on 10 November 2000, which provided updated information concerning actions taken by the Government. According to this updated information,

  1. ownership of Bhir Mound site has been restored to the Department of Archaeology and Museums and the structures of the sports stadium are to be dismantled in November 2000;
  2. excavation on Bhir Mound is continuing, supported by additional funding from the National Fund for Cultural Heritage;

  3. heavy industries have not had any adverse effect so far on the Taxila World Heritage areas;

  4. Custom Authorities are taking strict measures to prevent illegal trafficking of artefacts from the Taxila areas.

The Bureau recommended the following decision for adoption by the Committee:

"The Committee takes note of the Reports submitted by the State Party, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre concerning the state of conservation of the Taxila World Heritage site. The Committee expresses its appreciation to the authorities of Pakistan for taking the necessary measures to mitigate the threats caused by the construction of the sports stadium on the Bhir Mound within Taxila. The Committee expresses its appreciation for the efforts made by the State Party to strictly control illicit trafficking of sculptures from Buddhist archaeological remains illegally excavated, but nevertheless reiterates its request to the State Party to continue strengthening the protection of unexcavated areas in Taxila from illegal looters. The Committee requests the Government of Pakistan to implement the Recommendations formulated by ICOMOS following the October 2000 ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission. The Committee requests the State Party to submit a report before 15 September 2000 on the progress made in implementing these recommendations, for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session in September 2001. Finally, in order to support the State Party to overcome the difficulties faced in regularly monitoring the numerous and physically dispersed archaeological remains of the Taxila World Heritage site, the Committee expresses its commitment to extend its assistance to support the State Party, and requests the State Party to consider nominating the site for the List of World Heritage in Danger at the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee."

Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
(see paragraph I.63)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the receipt of new information transmitted by the Under-Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and the Permanent Delegate of Poland to UNESCO, following the finalisation of the working document. The information reported concerned the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, a proposal to build a « visitor centre » at the entrance of the national Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and a discotheque in the vicinity of the site.

In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State specified that the Polish Government gives great importance to the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and further indicates that the Programme's first phase will end in 2001 and its second phase is planned for 2002 -2007. He expressed regret concerning the delay of the work assigned to the International Group of Experts, as so far there has been no meeting in 2000. He further reported that the Government planned to integrate this group of international experts within the structure of the International Council for Auschwitz.

In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State also informed the Secretariat about modifications to the construction plan (which initially included a shopping mall). This was revised to consist of a service centre including a restaurant, a car park, bookshops for publications on the history of the Museum, a flower shop and rest-rooms. This proposal is being studied by the Polish Government and local authorities.

Concerning the discotheque, the Under-Secretary of State stressed that, contrary to previous information submitted, the building in which the discotheque is situated, is 2 kilometres distance from the site; it is a building constructed after the Second World War, replacing a tannery used for slave labour during the War. He underlined the importance that the Polish Governement gives to this matter and further stated his Government's will to find solutions within the limits of the law. The Under-Secretary of State mentioned the possibility of establishing an inventory of monuments and locations within the World Heritage area that could be placed under special protection.

Finally, the Under-Secretary of State recalled that should the Bureau request additional information relating to the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, a summary of the annual reports prepared by the division responsible for this Programme could be submitted to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau for examination.

A representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre was given the floor as observer on this subject. He underlined the fact that the opening of the discotheque in the vicinity of the site was contrary to the spirit of the site itself, as a place of memory, and that all efforts should be undertaken to maintain the site's World Heritage values. He urged the Bureau to ask the Committee to take appropriate action by studying a list prepared by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre of twenty-one monuments and locations within a buffer zone around the site.

In light of the information provided, ICOMOS expressed its concern on this issue, and stressed the need to establish a buffer zone, which had not been foreseen at the time of the site's inscription in 1979. ICOMOS further emphasized the need to impose a system, designed to control development within the buffer zone, once identified.

The Delegate of Zimbabwe underlined the necessity to identify a new perimeter of the site, and that it would be useful to ask ICOMOS to undertake a site mission and present its conclusions to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

The Delegate of Greece supported the proposal formulated by ICOMOS to establish a buffer zone and control and use of the buildings.

The Delegate of Finland recalled that the issues at stake were strongly linked to moral values and supported the proposals made by the other delegations.

The Bureau agreed to recommend the following to the Committee:

"The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Secretariat and by the Under-Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim.

The Committee recalls that, at its twenty-third session (Kyoto, 1998), it confirmed its support for the principles laid out in the Declaration of March 1997; this process should continue in a consensual manner among all parties involved. It expressed the belief that no steps should be taken unless consensus had been reached.

The Committee expresses its concern regarding the delay in implementing the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim and the work of the international group of experts. It urges the Polish authorities to address these issues without further delay.

Concerning the construction projects within the zones related physically or symbolically to the Concentration Camp, the Committee requests the State Party to avoid any action that could compromise reaching consensus between the authorities, institutions and organizations involved and to ensure that the sacred nature of the site and its environment are preserved giving special attention to their integrity.

The Committee reiterates its request to the State Party, previously made during its twenty-fourth session to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and requests the State Party to submit this detailed report by 15 April 2001, at the latest, for examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Secretariat to maintain close contacts with the State Party and other parties involved in order to support planning actions and the process for establishing a consensus as indicated in the decision adopted by the Committee at its twenty-third session.

In conclusion, the Committee reiterates the need for the establishment of a buffer zone to be created around the site, as well as a plan for the implementation of development control mechanisms within this newly identified area. It urges the Polish authorities to pay particular attention to this matter and to submit a report on the progress made in the identification of a buffer zone and control mechanism for examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau."

iii) State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting

Brasilia (Brazil)
(see paragraph I.56.)

ICOMOS emphasized the need for a mission to investigate reports on the threats to the environment of the site. In response, the Observer of Brazil stated that even though there was increased demographic pressure, construction activity concentrated on areas outside the main urban design, did not threaten the integrity of the World Heritage site.

The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to the site. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the issues raised above by 15 April 2001 to be examined at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, and furthermore requested an ICOMOS/UNESCO mission to examine the state of conservation of Brasilia.

Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
(see paragraph I.44)

ICOMOS presented the findings of its study concerning the six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, undertaken at the request of the Committee. It noted that there was some inconsistency in the criteria applied in some cases. In 1999, a ICOMOS - ICCROM Joint Mission had recommended that cultural criterion (iv) be removed. After closely studying the criteria applied for all six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, ICOMOS did not support the proposal of the Joint Mission, recommending that the two criteria currently applied be retained.

The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that the Government of China had expressed its agreement to the final recommendation made by ICOMOS to retain the two cultural criteria currently applied for the Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian. The Bureau decided not to change the criteria currently applied to the Peking Man Site of Zhoukoudian.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS to make the comparative thematic study undertaken by ICOMOS available to States Parties to contribute to enhancing understanding of similar sites.

The Bureau, recognising the need to review the criteria justifying the inscription of a number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, underscored the importance and usefulness of the Periodic Reporting Exercise as a mechanism for re-examining the application of natural or cultural criteria applied to sites. The Bureau agreed that the 6-year cycle exercise would provide the opportunity for revising inscription criteria, removing anomalies and ensuring greater consistency.

The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
(see paragraph I.45)

The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Government of the People's Republic of China, ICOMOS and the Secretariat, and requested the State Party for clarifications regarding the buffer and construction-restricted zones of the site.

The Bureau noted with appreciation, the explanation provided by the State Party on the established procedures for the approval of international co-operation activities for cultural heritage, and the offer by the State Administration for Cultural Heritage to assist international expert groups interested in working in Lhasa.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS to undertake a mission and to report on the situation to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001.

Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
 (see paragraph I.38)

The Secretariat presented the report on Islamic Cairo, including the recommendations of the July 2000 ICOMOS mission to report on the state of conservation of the Al-Azhar Mosque.

The Bureau thanked the Egyptian Government for their ongoing financial support in the preservation of Islamic Cairo. For 2001, the Bureau recommended the Egyptian Authorities launch the next phase in the Islamic Cairo Project, being the conservation of Shareh Al Mouizz area, initiated by a seminar on the approach and actions to be taken and to be held in Cairo in the beginning of 2001.

The Bureau supported the holding of a seminar in Cairo as the start of the next phase for Islamic Cairo, together with an expert and high-level mission to Cairo, including the Director of the World Heritage Centre, in order to review the project and discuss follow-up actions for the year 2001.

ICOMOS expressed concerns in relation to the Al Azhar Mosque, in particular the impacts of traffic and the need to monitor the structural condition of the Mosque. He also raised the important issue of the appropriateness of modern intervention techniques that conflict with principles of conservation. Furthermore, ICOMOS is well aware of the sensitive and delicate issue of potential conflicts between spiritual requirements and the protection of religious monuments. Special care should be taken when evaluating the restoration of monuments that still are in religious use.

The Chairperson endorsed the ICOMOS concerns.

Roman Monuments, Cathedral St. Peter and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany)
(see paragraph I.59)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had received some comments from ICOMOS on the report transmitted by the German authorities. These comments stressed that, contrary to the opinion expressed by the State Party in its report, the safeguarding of the remains of the water system to the north of the amphitheatre, is a central issue and that every effort should be made to conserve it for further scholarly study and presentation to the general public. ICOMOS underlined the need for an adequate and comprehensive long-term planning system for Trier.

The Bureau expressed the view that the Roman City wall and the Roman water system discovered to the north of the Roman amphitheatre in Trier, represents exceptional facets of Roman town planning that are not well represented north of the Alps. The Bureau requested the German authorities to formulate and implement without delay planning regulations that will ensure the long-term preservation of the archeological remains in this area.

Palaces and Parks of Postdam and Berlin (Germany)
(see paragraph I.60)

ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the report provided by the State Party did not fully answer all the questions regarding the site. In particular, the Havel project (German Unity project 17) seriously jeopardized the World Heritage values of the site.

The Observer of the United Kingdom asked whether ICOMOS was requesting further information from the German authorities regarding this issue. ICOMOS clarified that this would enable it to present a thorough report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. To accomplish this, close contact between the ICOMOS expert and the German authorities should be maintained.

The Bureau noted the comments made by ICOMOS on the report transmitted by the State Party and that this issue will be further examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session.

Classical Weimar (Germany)
(see paragraph I. 61)

The Bureau noted that ICOMOS expressed its concerns regarding the planned road, as it may have an adverse impact on the values of the site.

The Bureau requested the German authorities to submit a report on the possible impact of the construction of a road close to the Castle of Tiefurth, which forms part of the World Heritage site Classical Weimar, before 15 April 2001 in order that it may be examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the Secretariat, in cooperation with ICOMOS, to identify an independent expert to undertake a thorough analysis of this matter.

Hortobágy National Park (Hungary)
(see paragraph I.62)

ICOMOS informed the Bureau that consultations with the State Party had taken place and reassured the Bureau that the accident had had a negative impact on the natural values, but no impact on the cultural values of the site.

The Delegate of Hungary thanked the Bureau for the recommendation proposed and reassured trhe Bureau that the Government will do its best to remove any danger to the area and expressed his hope that a similar accident never will occur. He recalled that the Bureau requested a report from the Romanian authorities on prevention mesures which was discussed in relation to the natural site of the Danube Delta.

The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party for establishing a monitoring programme and many other organisations for their actions taken in response to this environmental disaster. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to provide reports on the results from this programme and give priority to the implementation of a restoration programme. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the monitoring programme, its action plan and the state of conservation by 15 April 2001.

Khajuraho Groups of Monuments (India)
(see paragraph I.46)

The Bureau recalled that, following the information received from ICOMOS and ICCROM international experts concerning illegal encroachment within the site, the World Heritage Centre requested ICOMOS to organise a reactive monitoring mission. The Bureau was informed that the mission of the ICOMOS expert was postponed and was expected to take place in early 2001. The Bureau therefore recommended the Committee agree that the Bureau examine the findings of the ICOMOS expert reactive monitoring mission at its twenty-fifth session in June 2001.

Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
(see paragraph I.47)

The Bureau recalled that it had examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission at its twenty-fourth session. In order to mitigate potential threats caused by illegal encroachment and ad-hoc construction in areas surrounding the site, the Bureau had requested the authorities concerned to prepare urgently a Comprehensive Development Plan and requested the Secretariat to assist the State Party in mobilising international technical expertise and co-operation as required.

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Government of India had not submitted its report on the progress made in preparing this Plan. However, a report on soil investigation, geo-radar studies, sampling and testing of stones of the Sun Temple of Konarak had been received by the Secretariat in November 2000. This report had been carried out by the Central Building Research Institute in September 1999 utilizing US$ 27,000 of the US$ 39,000 allocated in 1997 as Emergency Assistance for carrying out a thorough structural survey of the Sun Temple of Konarak.

According to the investigations, the ground level profiles indicate no spread of the foundations of the Sun Temple. The lateral movement of the subsurface in the unconfined areas appears to be due to the structural load, but dating to previous years. The report found that the soil underneath the Temple has already settled and no further settlement is expected.

The Bureau expressed its appreciation to the Indian authorities for carrying out the soil and stone analysis of the Sun Temple of Konarak site. The Bureau, informed that the structures are stable, thanked the authorities for their efforts to preserve and present the Sun Temple.

Following the ICOMOS monitoring mission to the site undertaken in February 2000, the Bureau reiterated its request made at its twenty-fourth session to the State Party to urgently prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan to mitigate potential threats caused by illegal encroachment and ad-hoc construction in the areas surrounding the site, and requested the Secretariat to assist the State Party in mobilising international technical expertise and co-operation as required and appropriate. The Bureau requested the State Party to report on the progress made in developing the Plan and on the measures taken in favour of the conservation and development of this site for examination by the Bureau at the twenty-fifth extraordinary session in November 2001.

Petra (Jordan)
(see paragraph I.39)

The Secretariat presented its report on Petra, including the conclusions of the report of the ICOMOS mission in September 2000.

The Bureau, having examined the ICOMOS report, thanked the Jordanian authorities for their efforts and strongly recommended them to take a high-level decision in order to prepare and implement a management plan and to support all the actions stated in the report.

Town of Luang Prabang (Laos)
(see paragraph I.48)

The Bureau was informed that ICOMOS has identified an expert in hydro-engineering and soil mechanics to undertake a mission to evaluate the design and technical specifications of the riverbank consolidation project so that this Asian Development Bank-financed public works can resume after five months halt following the concerns expressed by the Bureau at its twenty- fourth session in June-July 2000. The Secretariat also informed the Bureau that the Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA) is considering approval of a request from the Government of Laos to finance construction of a bridge over the Mekong River within the World Heritage protected area. The Bureau was informed that the State Party has been requested to make available the technical specifications of the bridge for review by the Committee.

Having examined the report of the Secretariat, the Bureau expressed appreciation to the State Party and the Asian Development Bank for halting the planned works on the riverbank consolidation and the quay to take into consideration the outcome of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission. The Bureau noted with interest the report by the Secretariat on its cooperation with the Agence Francaise de developpement (AFD) to establish a system of subsidies and soft loans to be offered to owners of historic buildings located within the World Heritage protected area through a "Fund for Conservation Aid to the Local Population" and requested to be kept informed of developments. The Bureau requested the State Party to prepare, with support from the Secretariat, a full report for the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau on the national heritage protection laws and regulations, as well as information on all on-going national and international conservation and development projects related to Luang Prabang. The Bureau also requested the State Party to ensure protection of the urban wetlands and the traditional village form and vernacular architecture, which are as important as the historic monuments to the integrity of the site.

Byblos (Lebanon)
(see paragraph I.40)

The Bureau supported the March 2001 follow-up meeting in Byblos and the establishment of the Task Force for a Management and Master Plan for Byblos.

The Bureau reiterated its request for ICOMOS to carry out a mission to examine the state of conservation of the archaeological mound and the presentation of the Byblos World Heritage site.

The ICOMOS Representative explained that the reason why a mission had not taken place earlier, as was indicated in the Secretariat's report, was to avoid duplication with the preparation of periodic reporting and the concurrent UNESCO mission. He informed the Bureau that a mission was to take place in January 2001.

Ksar Aït Ben Haddou (Morocco)
(see paragraph I.41)

Following the presentation by the Secretariat, the Chairperson spoke on behalf of Morocco, and confirmed that the mission had taken place at the request of the Moroccan authorities. The mission included an expert with long-standing experience in Morocco, and particularly in earthen architecture.

The Chairperson presented a brief overview of the complex situation at this site, and explained the difficulty for the Government to intervene in a situation where most of the buildings are privately owned. In spite of this, the Government has made the necessary contacts and decided to implement the recommendations presented by the mission. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation of the work undertaken by the expert.

Based on new information and the presentation by the Chairperson, the Bureau congratulated the Moroccan authorities for the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the expert report, and welcomed their proposal to conduct an evaluation of the activities by mid-2001 and to report on progress at the Bureau and the Committee at its meeting in November-December 2001.

The Chairperson made it clear that, during 2001, the Moroccan authorities will do their utmost to implement the mission's recommendations. He also gave the assurance that, should the proposed actions not be achieved, the Moroccan authorities will submit a request for inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Delegate of Australia commended the Moroccan authorities for their commitment, and stated that the State Party's approach was positive and would conserve its proper role in the spirit of the Convention.

The Delegate of Greece commended the Moroccan authorities for their efforts, and for considering danger listing. She stated that danger listing is an effective tool for the protection of sites.

Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
(see paragraph I.43)

The Secretariat presented its report, including the recommendations of the ICOMOS mission in October 2000.

The Bureau recommended the authorities of Mozambique give the most urgent priority to the legal protection of the site, and to the appointment of a site manager and the preparation of a conservation plan that would involve the local population. The plan should be based on a rehabilitation and participation approach, including a comprehensive social and economic programme for the Island.

The programme should:

  1. allow the local people to be economically productive;
  2. improve the infrastructure and stimulate the economic base of the Island to combine conservation and development;
  3. determine a specific conservation policy to include the recuperation of the buildings which have potential, such as:
    • those that could characterise the Island
    • those reflecting the past with integrity
    • those belonging to the Government
    • those which could serve as adequate lodging for the inhabitants of the Island;
    • those which could serve for visitation/tourism/research/training/cultural activities

The ICOMOS Representative reaffirmed the need for action and added that none of the recommendations of an earlier report from 1995 had been implemented. Inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger might be the most appropriate course of action.

The Delegate of Zimbabwe emphasised the need for a more systematic approach to linkages between the Minister of Culture and the agencies responsible for cultural heritage management. He also requested that the ICOMOS report be viewed by the Mozambique Minister of Culture, so that appropriate action could proceed. He added that ICOMOS should be an active player in the process of raising local capacity.

The Delegate of Greece questioned the inscription of this site on the World Heritage List, as there seemed to be a lack of legal instrument for the protection of the site, and questioned ICOMOS on whether this had been taken into account in their evaluation.

The ICOMOS Representative explained that evaluation missions were not always sent to sites before 1993 and that this site had been inscribed in 1991.

The Secretariat further clarified the point, recalling the important work undertaken under a joint UNDP/UNESCO project that included the drafting of legal protection. However, the draft plans have not been implemented. Given the socio- economic situation of Mozambique, it was of critical importance to take practical measures in order to rectify the situation.

Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
(see paragraph I.50)

The Bureau was informed by the World Heritage Centre that the International Technical Meeting to discuss alternative conceptual designs to rehabilitate the Maya Devi Temple was scheduled to take place in March 2001. Noting that the Maya Devi Temple was both a fragile archaeological site and a living site of great religious importance and a major destination of Buddhist pilgrims, the Bureau requested the findings of this International Technical Meeting to be reported to its twenty-fifth session. In the meantime, the Bureau requested the authorities to continue implementing the recommendations made by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, and to report to its twenty-fifth session in June 2001 on any further measures taken to enhance the management and conservation of the site.

Fortifications on the Caribbean side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama)
(see paragraph I.57.)

ICOMOS stated that the information concerning the lack of management and the precarious state of conservation of the site had been received from two distinguished ICOMOS members. The advisory body's representative also mentioned that, upon receipt of the report that the Secretariat had requested the State Party to submit, the Bureau may decide whether a field mission to review the situation on the site would be necessary.

The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to the site. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the state of conservation by 15 April 2001 to be examined at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Archaeological Site of Chavín (Peru)
(See paragraph I.58.)

The Bureau commended the State Party for its efforts to ensure the conservation of the site but emphasised the importance of a Master Plan for well co-ordinated short and long-term actions to be taken. The Bureau furthermore encouraged the State Party authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners in the endeavour to generate the necessary funds for safeguarding of the site. The Bureau requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on the progress made by 15 April 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session.

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
(see paragraph I.53)

The Bureau examined the report on the state of conservation presented in the Working Document. The Bureau underscored the information provided by the Secretariat that the Ifugao Rice Terraces are extremely fragile, where human land-use has been in balance with this mountainous environment for centuries. The Bureau recalled that this was the most prominent justification to inscribe the Ifugao Rice Terraces as World Heritage in 1995. There is a continuous and essential shift in the relationship between human land- use and the environment, and the Bureau underlined the need to continuously monitor the socio-economic and physical changes within this cultural landscape. Although a valid GIS system is an important tool to achieve, such monitoring, as previously discussed by the Committee, the Bureau recognized that the problems are complex and a GIS database alone may not be sufficient. The Bureau noted that a comprehensive management plan for the site had not yet been elaborated, in spite of the Committee's request in 1995 at the time of the site's inscription on the World Heritage List. Recognizing the challenges in specifying and implementing a management plan for a complex cultural landscape inhabited and owned by a large population, the Bureau was convinced that such a comprehensive management plan was essential, as in other comparable cases such as Lake Baikal in the Russian Federation.

The Bureau, noting the concern expressed by the Secretariat regarding the sustainability of the on-going GIS project and consequently of the management of the site as a whole, requested the Centre to urgently organize a reactive monitoring mission to the site together with ICOMOS and IUCN, to discuss the following issues with the authorities of the Philippines:

Recalling the allocation of considerable funds for mapping the Ifugao Rice Terraces by the Committee in 1998, the Bureau expressed its commitment to extend its assistance to support the State Party to overcome the difficulties faced in sustainably managing the fragile cultural resources of this property. The Bureau encouraged the national authorities to give priority to the creation of a permanently staffed agency responsible for the implementation of the site's conservation, preservation and development programmes, including the GIS mapping of the site, as well as its heritage resources. The Bureau requested the State Party to report, through the Secretariat by 1 September 2001 on the progress made with regard to the Above and to report to the twenty-fifth extraordinary session. Finally, the Bureau reiterated the request of the Committee to the State Party to submit the tourism development plan and management plan for the site.

Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
(see paragraph I.54)

The World Heritage Centre and the Representative of ICOMOS presented to the Bureau the findings of the ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions to the San Agustin Church in Paoay and San Agustin Church in Intramuros Manila. The Bureau noted that this ICOMOS Mission to the Paoay San Agustin Church formulated an 8-point Recommendation concerning the following issues:

  1. General conservation;
  2. Monitoring of movement of the cracks in the main façade;
  3. Further surveys needed for the structural stability;
  4. Evaluation of the cause of the cracks and the deformation of the façade;
  5. Structural safety evaluation in the present conditions;
  6. Structural analyses for designing the seismic intervention;
  7. Materials for structural intervention;
  8. Recommendation for use of a flow-chart for the structural preservation of the Paoay Church;

The Bureau also examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS Mission to the San Agustin Church of Intramuros Manila, which concluded that

  1. It is essential that the community of the Augustinian Order should stay in its original home.

  2. The original layout or "footprint" of the Monastery is distinct and consists of two courtyards meeting along the diagonal axis of the site. The location of the courtyards on the diagonal axis may have been for reasons of cross- ventilation. It allows a wider visual entry to the Church. The adjacent garden may have acted as a parking place for some of the transport systems used in the past; this would have freed the narrow street and restricted the junction for other road users.

  3. Before any further interventions for developing the site are decided upon, the following studies should be undertaken:

    • formulation of a master plan for the site, addressing the uses of existing buildings in relation to future development needs, land-use studies, and proposals for the ideal development of the site;
    • a detailed engineering study of the site;
    • a detailed archaeological survey of the site.
The Bureau examined the findings and recommendations of the ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Missions to the Paoay Church of San Agustin and the Intramuros Manila Church of San Agustin. The Bureau requested the State Party to examine the possibility of adopting and implementing the ICOMOS mission recommendations, and requested the State Party to report to the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session in November 2001 on the progress made and measures taken.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS to make the comparative thematic study undertaken by ICOMOS to be made available to States Parties interested in the subject, as it would contribute in enhancing understanding of similar sites.

The Bureau, recognising the need to review the criteria justifying the inscription of a number of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, underscored the importance and usefulness of the Periodic Reporting Exercise as a mechanism for re-examining the application of natural or cultural criteria applied to sites. The Bureau agreed that the 6-year cycle Exercise would provide the opportunity for revising inscription criteria, removing anomalies and ensuring greater consistency.

Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)
(see paragraph I.64)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the joint mission IUCN/ICOMOS took place from 30 October to 3 November 2000. ICOMOS stressed that during the original evaluation mission assurances had been given by the State Party regarding the implementation of management and conservation programmes. However, little if any progress had been made in the intervening period. These points were raised in the report of the mission and will be dealt with in the coming years. The advisory bodies had made a number of proposals to the local authorities and would continue to maintain contact.

The Bureau encouraged the Portuguese authorities to undertake a restoration programme and to improve the management of the cultural landscape of Sintra during the next six years. This includes the restoration of individual monuments, gardens, parks and forests. It recommended they develop a concept of dynamic conservation, to set up a programme of education and public awareness raising and to ensure the integrity of the buffer zone and avoid undertaking new works. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the State Party to provide a management plan for the site by the end of 2001. Following the joint IUCN- ICOMOS mission, four practical steps are requested:

  1. Creation of an independent Cultural Landscape Advisory Committee
  2. Creation of an advisory body/association of residents
  3. The establishment of a public information, research and archives centre
  4. An adjustment of the high protection area of the Natural Park to coincide with the core area of the World Heritage site.

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
(see paragraph I.65)

The Secretariat indicated that it received on 22 November 2000, a report on the mission to Istanbul and Ankara by Messrs Stephane Yerasimos and Pierre Pinon undertaken from 13-18 November 2000. The terms of reference of this mission to review progress in the preparation of the conservation plan of Istanbul, was extended to gathering information and making an initial assessment on the impact on the World Heritage values of Istanbul caused by the on-going construction of the Istanbul subway. The Bureau was informed that the State Party transmitted, by letter dated 16 November 2000, a map indicating the route of the planned subway with the location of stations, as well as an assessment containing technical details on the impact on the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul.< p> The Bureau, upon examining the report of the Secretariat, expressed concern over the delay in the completion of the Conservation Plan by the Greater Istanbul Authority and the detailed conservation plan by the Fatih and Eminonu Municipalities. Regarding the Istanbul subway, the Bureau noted the information provided by the State Party by letter dated 16 November 2000, stating that:

The Bureau expressed regret that the State Party did not inform the Committee of this major public work at its planning phase, in conformity with paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines, and requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS: to study the technical information made available by the State Party; undertake a mission to assess the impact of the subway construction on the World Heritage values of the site, and report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001. For matters requiring urgent attention, the Chairperson of the Committee should be alerted for instructions.

Complex of the Hue Monuments (Vietnam)
(see paragraph I.55)

The Bureau noted with interest the work underway in establishing the Housing Improvement Loan and subsidy scheme in co-operation with the Caisse des Depots et Consignation (CDC) within the framework of the Hue-Lille Metropole Programme (France), and requested the State Party to keep the Bureau informed of developments in this regard.

The Bureau, with regard to the emergency rehabilitation needs, requested the Secretariat to support the efforts of the State Party in seeking international assistance. Concerning the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Bureau requested the State Party to consider this as a means to promote international solidarity to meet the rehabilitation needs caused by the floods of November-December 1999.

iv) Reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, which the Bureau noted:

Historic Centre of the City of Salzburg (Austria)
Colonial City of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)
Amiens Cathedral (France)
Palace and Park of Fontainebleau (France)
Historic Centre of Puebla (Mexico)
Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl (Mexico)
Historic City of Meknes (Morocco)

The Observer of Germany raised the question of reports which were requested by the Committee at previous sessions and for which no information was brought back to the Committee, such as in the case of Pompei (Italy) discussed at the twenty-first session of the Committee. The Observer of Italy confirmed that the requested reports were submitted. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation for the clarification.


IV. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

IV.1 The Bureau recalled that following the examination of Agenda item 3 on State of Conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, it recommended the Committee to inscribe the following sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)

MIXED PROPERTY WHICH THE BUREAU DEFERRED

Property

Shey Phoksundo National Park

Id. N°

992

State Party

Nepal

Criteria

  

IUCN recognised that Shey Phoksundo National Park has many significant natural values and is effectively managed. The site is an important park in the Himalayan regional context, but IUCN concluded that the case for inscription has not yet been made. This may be clearer when the results of the regional biodiversity assessment are available in 2001. IUCN suggested that the Bureau defer a decision on the nomination. ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the Shey Phoksundo National Park contains a remarkably intact cultural heritage that goes back many centuries. It retains a living pre-Buddhist religion, which is active in the everyday life of the people, along with its places of worship and pilgrimage. A pure form of transhumance, with livestock moving to upland pastures in summer, is still being practised. ICOMOS recommended deferral, noting a number of critical issues relating to siting, material and workmanship of administrative buildings, restoration of the chortens and scientific documentation. The Bureau decided to defer the nomination.


V. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

V.1 The Chairperson recalled that the budget for 2001 would be approved by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. Subsequently, a meeting of the new Bureau will take place to examine international assistance requests.


VI. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SUB- COMMITTEES

VI.1 The Bureau recalled that the Task Force for the Implementation of the Committee, chaired by Christina Cameron (Canada), had proposed that sub-committees be established to facilitate the work of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre.

VI.2 The twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (June 2000) requested that there be further examination of the possibility of a sub-committee system.

VI.3 The Special Session of the Bureau (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) discussed the proposal further with reference to a paper prepared by the United Kingdom. The Special Session of the Bureau requested the Secretariat, with the help of the States Parties nominated by the Chair (Australia, Belgium, Benin, Hungary and the United Kingdom), to prepare a paper on the feasibility and implications of a sub-committee system. The Feasibility Study was requested in order to evaluate the organizational and cost implications of the proposed reform of the Bureau and Committee system.

VI.4 On 30 October, a meeting with these five States Parties was held at the World Heritage Centre to discuss a draft of the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study was presented to the Bureau as WHC-2000/CONF.203/6.

VI.5 The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented the Feasibility Study to the Bureau. He referred to the exponential growth in the number of participants attending the Bureau sessions (267 in June 2000) as being at the same time a success of the Convention and a problem for a more efficient and careful examination of the issues to be reported to the Committee. He recalled that the four objectives for proposing changes to the existing Bureau and Committee system were to:

Objective 1Facilitate the work of the World Heritage Centre,
Objective 2 Facilitate the work of the World Heritage Committee and allow it to devote more time to general policy discussions for the implementation of the Convention,
Objective 3Improve the prior examination of various issues submitted to the Committee, and
Objective 4 Increase representation of States Parties in the work of the Committee.

VI.6 The Director referred to the following options examined in the Feasibility Study. He noted the estimated direct cost of each option.

OPTIONS FOR MEETINGS OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
OPTION LENGTH OF MEETING EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS NUMBER OF BUREAU MEMBERS TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS
OPTION A - Existing system of the Bureau 6-day ordinary session (June/July at UNESCO Headquarters) 2-day extraordinary session (November in host country)
7
 US$53,500
OPTION B - Modification of existing system of the Bureau 6-day ordinary session (April at UNESCO Headquarters) None
7
 US$43,100

OPTIONS FOR MEETINGS OF 3 SUB-COMMITTEES OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
OPTION LENGTH OF MEETING COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN EACH SUB-COMMITTEE NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN EACH SUB-COMMITTEE TOTAL ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS
OPTION C1 5 DAYS IN PARALLEL
7
6
 US$100,680
OPTION C2 5 DAYS IN PARALLEL
7
4
US$91,400
OPTION C3 5 DAYS IN PARALLEL
7
2
US$82,100
OPTION D1 8 DAYS CONSECUTIVELY AND NOT IN PARALLEL
7
6
 US$107,700
OPTION D2 8 DAYS CONSECUTIVELY AND NOT IN PARALLEL
7
4
 US$97,400
OPTION D3 8 DAYS CONSECUTIVELY AND NOT IN PARALLEL
7
2
 US$87,100

VI.7 The Director described the existing calendar and cycle of World Heritage meetings (see Annex IV) and presented a proposal to eliminate the extraordinary sessions of the Bureau and Committee and have the Bureau session (or sub- committees) in April followed by the Committee in June (see Annex V). This would result in fewer meetings and more time for implementation by the World Heritage Centre and would allow the Committee to set one deadline only for all reporting and submission of International Assistance requests.

VI.8 The Bureau did not reach a consensus on the establishment of a system of sub-committees. Some members of the Bureau considered that the introduction of three sub- committees could assist in achieving Objective 3 above - to improve the prior examination of various issues submitted to the Committee. Others considered that sub-committees might complicate decision-making and the flow of information and that improvements to the existing Bureau should be made. The Bureau could, for example, meet for eight days with its work organised into segments. No agreement was reached as to whether sub-committees would meet consecutively or in parallel or a combination of consecutive and parallel sessions. Several proposals on the duration of the sub-committees were made. It was proposed that final analysis of the proposed sub-committee system could not be made until the proposed themes of each sub-committee were better defined.

VI.9 The Bureau did not reach agreement on whether non-Committee members could be members of sub-committees should the sub-committee system be introduced by the Committee.

VI.10 Several members of the Bureau stressed that Bureau (or sub-committee) and Committee meetings must be open to observers to ensure transparency.

VI.11 It was proposed that if a revised calendar and cycle of meetings was to be introduced, a pause (6 or 18 months) in the examination of nominations could be taken to ensure synchronisation with the new deadlines. Several members of the Bureau considered that this would have the added advantage of allowing IUCN and ICOMOS to have time to examine tentative lists and work on thematic and other studies.

VI.12 ICOMOS and IUCN expressed concerns as to the cost implications of servicing a number of sub-committees possibly meeting in parallel. In principle, they supported the revised calendar and cycle, single deadline and introduction of biennial funding. They agreed that they should work closely with the Centre in planning a revised timetable for nominations and evaluations for submission to the Committee for decision.

VI.13 The Bureau reached consensus in recommending to the Committee that it,

Committee Documentation

VI.14 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, recalling one of the recommendations of the Task Force on the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, made a presentation concerning new initiatives proposed by the Centre to reform the system of statutory meeting documentation. His presentation is included as Annex VI. He cited four objectives:

VI.15 In referring to the current system of meeting documents, the Director noted the large quantity of documents produced for meetings in 2000: 111 in each language, including 48 working, information, and web documents for the twenty-fourth session of the Committee alone.

VI.16 The Director proposed that the number of documents could be reduced by combining some of them. As not all documents are produced by the Secretariat, there is a limit to the possibility of reduction. In order to facilitate the work of the Committee, the Director proposed, on an experimental basis, to produce a decision-making guide, containing all the elements needed for the work of the Committee. All other documents would be treated as Information documents, published on the Internet and/or distributed on demand in paper form. All documents would be distributed by e- mail prior to each meeting, as well as being made available on the Centre's web site.

VI.17 To improve communication with the Committee, the Director proposed to circulate regular reports (to include reference to documents currently available), and to organise two "information meetings" at UNESCO Headquarters, open to both Committee and non-Committee members.

VI.18 A second issue concerned the question of public access to documents, already raised by the Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention, mainly, "which documents should go public and when?" The Director recognized that this issue required further study before being presented to the World Heritage Committee. A draft proposal will be presented at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

VI.19 Several delegates expressed their support for the Director's proposals and encouraged the Centre to test the new proposals. IUCN also expressed support, and called attention to the increased opportunities for e-mail distribution lists, such as the list server set up for the Task Force on the Implementation of the Convention in 2000.

VI.20 The Bureau noted the presentation by the Director of the Centre and expressed appreciation for his efforts at innovation in dealing with the problems of documentation at the meetings of the Bureau and Committee and improving communication with the Committee.

VI.21 The Bureau recommended that the Committee gives favourable consideration to the strategy presented by the Director and advise the World Heritage Centre to implement as many of the proposals as is feasible before the twenty-fifth session of the Committee.

VI.22 The Bureau particularly welcomed the proposal for regular information meetings and asked that implementation ensures access to all States Parties, including those with limited electronic access.


VII. OTHER BUSINESS

VII.1 There was no discussion under this agenda item.


VIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

VIII.1 The Chairperson thanked all participants for the rich and productive debates during this Bureau meeting in an atmosphere of cordiality. This allowed the Bureau session to close on a positive and optimistic note. He expressed his gratitude to the Australian authorities and the Queensland Government for having hosted the session in Cairns, the native city of the Rapporteur.

VIII.2 The Delegate of Australia thanked the Chairperson for the efficient conduct of the deliberations of the Bureau and for the work achieved during a demanding year. Due to the professional Chairmanship, substantial progress in managing the Convention can be noted, and his term would be seen as a turning point in the history of the Convention.

VIII.3 The Assistant Director-General for Culture, Mr. Bouchenaki, thanked the Chairperson on behalf of all colleagues and the Director-General of UNESCO for having guided the work from Marrakesh to Cairns with tact and diplomacy, and for having conducted the sessions in a year of reform.

VIII.4 The Chairperson thanked the host country and Mr. Bouchenaki for the kind words. He expressed his gratitude to the interpreters for their hard work during the two-day meeting of the Bureau and the Secretariat for its support throughout the year. He emphazised the high responsibility to make decisions not only relevant for one country, but for humanity as a whole. The Bureau thanked the Chairperson by acclamation. The Chairperson then declared the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau closed.







ANNEXE I / ANNEX I

BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL /
BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-fourth extraordinary session/ Vingt-quatrième session extraordinaire

Cairns, Australia / Cairns, Australie
23 - 24 2000 November 2000 / 23 - 24 novembre 2000
___________

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS
___________

MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU

AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE

Mr. Roger BEALE AM
Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. Matthew PEEK
Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
75015 Paris

Mr. Bruce LEAVER
First Assistant Secretary, Australian and World Heritage Division
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. Peter KING
Chair, Australian Heritage Commission
Australian Heritage Commission
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Dr. Arthur JOHNSTON
Supervising Scientist
Office of the Supervising Scientist
GPO Box 461
Darwin NT 0801

Mr. Kevin KEEFFE
Assistant Secretary
World Heritage Branch,
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. David WALKER
Director
International Section, World Heritage Branch,
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. Matt BROWN
Senior Adviser
Office of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Suite MG 68, Ministerial Wing,
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Dr. Ian MCPHAIL
Executive Director,
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Queensland
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
160 Ann St Brisbane QLD 4000

Professor Tor HUNDLOE
Chair, Wet Tropics Management Authority
PO Box 2050
Cairns QLD 4870

Official Australian State Party Observers - Representatives from Australian World Heritage Area Management Bodies

Mr. Brian CLARK
District Ranger
Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Naracoorte)
South East Region
Dept of Environment & Heritage
PO Box 134
NARACOORTE SA 5271

Mr. Steven BOURNE
Guide
Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Naracoorte)
South East Region
Dept of Environment & Heritage
PO Box 134
NARACOORTE SA 5271

Mr. Clive COOK
Regional Service Director Northern
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Mr. Russell WATKINSON
Executive Director
Wet Tropics Management Agency
PO Box 2050
CAIRNS QLD 4870

Mr. Doug WILLIAMS
Executive Officer
Willandra Lakes Region WHA
c/o NSW Parks & Wildlife Service
PO Box 318
BURONGA NSW 2739

Mr. Jon DAY
Director, Conservation, Biodiversity and World Heritage
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
PO Box 1379
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

Mr. John TANZER
Executive Director
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
PO Box 1379
TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

Mr. Lachlan FULLERTON
Fraser Island
Manager
Great Sandy Region
Qld Parks & Wildlife Service
PO Box 101
MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650

Ms. Karen JACOBSON
Special Interest Tourism Products Team
Sport and Tourism Division
Department of Industry, Science and Resources
GPO Box 9839
Canberra City ACT 2601


FINLAND/FINLANDE

Ms. Taina KIEKKO
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis, Bureau M3.35
F-75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr. Henrik LILIUS
Director General
National Board of Antiquities
P.O.Box 913
FIN-00101 Helsinki

Mr. Jukka-Pekka FLANDER
Cheaf Inspector
Ministry of the Environment
P.O.Box 380
FIN-00131 Helsinki

Ms. Leena RINKINEVA
Project leader
The Kvarken Council
Kauppapuistikko 23A
FIN-65100 Vaasa


GREECE/GRECE

Mme Hélène METHODIOU
Conseiller pour la culture
Délégation permanente de la Grece auprès de l'UNESCO
MAISON de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15


HUNGARY/HONGRIE

Dr. Zsolt VISY
Deputy Secretary of State
Hungarian Ministry of the Cultural Heritage
Madach u. J/A
H-7623 PECS

H.E. Ambassador Janos Jelen
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Department of Culture, Science and Information
Nagy Imre ter 4.
Budapest H-1027

MEXICO/MEXIQUE

H.E. Ambassador Raphael STEGER
14 Perth Avenue
Canberra ACT 2600

Professor Dr. Architect Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
UAM-INAH
Calvejon Ojito No-9
GYOACAN
MEXICO D.F. 04320

Sr. Francisco Javier L&OACUTE;PEZ MORALES
Expert Dirección General del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH)
Reforam 101 San Angel
MEXICO DF CP 01000

MOROCCO/MAROC

Mr. Abdelaziz TOURI
Ministère de la culture et de la communication
1, Rue Ghandi, Rabat,

Prof. Driss FASSI
Université Mohamed V de Rabat
14 cité El Khadra, Guich Oudayas
Rabat

Ms. Meriem BENHARBIT
Chargée de Recherche
Ministère de la Culture et de la Comunication
1, Rue Ghandi
Rabat.


ZIMBABWE

Mr. Dawson MUNJERI
Executive Director
National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe
107 Rotten Row
Box CY 1485 Causeway
Harare



II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)

Mr. Herb STOVEL
Programme Director, Heritage Settlements Programme
ICCROM
Via di Michele, 13
1-00153 Rome
Italy

Ms. Nobuko INABA,
Project Manager, Heritage Settlements Programme
ICCROM
Via di Michele, 13
1-00153 Rome
Italy

Ms. Jane LENNON
Councillor, Autralia
ICCROM
11 Joynt Street
Hamilton QLD 4007
Australia

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)

Mr. Henry CLEERE
Coordinateur pour le Patrimone mondial
ICOMOS
49-51 rue de la Fédération
75015 Paris, France

Mme Regina DURIGHELLO
Coordinateur adjoint
ICOMOS
49-51 rue de la Fédération
75015 Paris, France

Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTO
Consultant
ICOMOS
49-51 rue de la Fédération
75015 Paris, France

Mr. William LOGAN
Président ICOMOS Australia
Australia ICOMOS inc
c/o Faculty of Arts
Deakin University
Burwood Victoria 3125
Australia

THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION(IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN)

Mr. David SHEPPARD
Head,
Programme on Protected Areas
IUCN-The World Conservation Union
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 Gland
Switzerland

Mr. Jim THORSELL
Senior Advisor World Heritage
IUCN Programme on Protected Areas
Box 2846
Banff, Alberta, T0L 0C0
Canada

Mr. Rolf HOGAN
Programme Associate for World Heritage
Programme on Protected Areas
IUCN-The World Conservation Union
Rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 Gland
Switzerland

Mr. Bing LUCAS
Vice-Chair World Heritage (outgoing)
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
1/268 Main Road, Tawa
Wellington 6006
New Zealand

Ms. Pam EISER
Executive Officer
Australian Committee for IUCN
GPO Box 528
725 George Street, Level 5
Sydney, NSW 2001
Australia

Mr. Marc HOCKINGS
Senior Lecturer
School of Natural Rural Systems Management
The University of Queensland, Gatton
Gatton, Queensland 4343
Australia

Mr. Rodney SHEPPARD
IUCN Volunteer
224 Iindah Road
Tinana
Maryborough, Queensland 4650
Australia


III. OBSERVERS


AUSTRIA

Mr. Hans HORCICKA
Directeur
Ministère fédéral de l'Education, des Sciences et de la Culture
Abteilung IV/3
Schreyvogelgasse 2
A - 1014 Vienna


BELGIUM

H.E. Mr. Hubert VAN HOUTTE
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Belgium to UNESCO
4 Villa de Saxe
75007 Paris, France

Ms. S. VAN AERSCHOT-VAN HAEVERBEECK, Statut Adjunct van de directeur
Ministère de la Communauté Flamande
Département de l'Environnement et de l'Infrastructure
Administration de l'Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et des Monuments et Sites
Division des Monuments et Sites
Graaf de Ferraris-gebouw
Koning Albert II-laan 20 bus 7
1000 Bruxelles

Mr. André MATTHYS
Inspecteur général
Ministère de la Région wallonne
Direction générale de l'Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine
Division du Patrimoine
Rue des Brigades d'Irlande 1
B-5100 Jambes

Mr. Philippe THIERY
Directeur
Service des Monuments et Sites
Region de Bruxelles-Capitale
Ministere de la Region de Bruxelles-Capitale
Rue du Progres, 80/1
B - 1030 Bruxelles


BRAZIL

Ms. Vera Cíntia ALVAREZ
Head of the Division of Accords and Cultural Multilateral Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
DAMC/Ministerio dos Relacoes Exteriores, Sala 407
Esplanada dos Ministerios
MRE/Brasilia - D.F. Brazil


BURKINA FASO

Mr. Oumarou NAO
Directeur du Patrimoine Culture
Ministere de la Culture et des Arts
01 BP 2727 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso


CANADA

Dr Christina CAMERON
Director General
National Historic Sites
Parks Canada
25 Eddy Street
Hull, Québec, K1A 0M5

Mr. Murray MCCOMB
Manager Special Projects
National Parks Directorate
Parks Canada
25 Eddy Street
Hull, Québec, K1A 0M5

Ms. Gisèle CANTIN
Affaires internationales
Parcs Canada
25, rue Eddy
Hull, Québec, K1A 0M5


CHINA

Mr. GUO Zhan
Director of Division, State Administration of Cultural Heritage
29 Wusi Street, Beijing 10009

Ms. ZUO Xiaoping,
Deputy Director of Division, Ministry of Construction
National Commission of the People's Republic of China for UNESCO
37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng District
Beijing 100816

Mr. XU Wentao
Director , Suzhou Municipal Bureau of Parks and Gardens
National Commission of the People's Republic of China for UNESCO
37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng District
Beijing 100816

Mr. HOU Xiongfei
Director, Dujiangyan Municipal People's Congress
National Commission of the People's Republic of China for UNESCO
37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng District
Beijing 100816

Mr. LI Wangui
Director, Management Office of Eastern Qing Tombs
National Commission of the People's Republic of China for UNESCO
37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng District
Beijing 100816

Mr. DENG Changzhu
Vice-Director
Administrative Committee of Dujiangyan and Quingchen Mt. National Park
No. 52 Ruilian Street
Dujiangyan,
611830 Sichuan

Mr. LAI Xuebo
English interpreter
Sichuan Foreign Affairs Office, P.R. China
No. 100, Section 3, 1st Ring Road
Chengdu, Sichuan

Mr. XU Jin
Deputy Director
Chengdu Planning Commission, P.R. China
No. 1, Tenmin Xilu
Chengdu, Sichuan

Niu MIN
Vice Mayor
Dujiangyan Municipal People's Government
Dujiangyan, Sichuan

FRANCE

Ms. Catherine DUMESNIL
Conseillere Technique
Commission Nationale pour l'UNESCO
57 Bd. Des Invalides
75700 Paris


GERMANY

Mr. Detlev RUNGER
First Counsellor
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Canberra
119 Empire Circuit, Yarralumla
ACT 2600 Australia

Dr. Hans CASPARY
Curator, State Authority of Rhineland-Palatinate for Preservation of Monuments
Schillerstr. 14
55116 Maintz

Prof. Dr. Harald PLACHTER
Philipps University, Marburg,/Germany
Faculty of Biology
35032 Marburg


HOLY SEE

Mons. Tullio POLI
Head of Delegation
Secretariat of State
Section for Relation with States
00120 Vatican City
Italy


ITALY

Mr. Cons. Mario PANARO
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
DGPCC, Ufficio III
piazzale della Farnesina 1
00194 Rome

Arch. Pasquale Bruno MALARA
Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali
Soprintendente ai Beni Ambientali e Architettonici
per il Piemonte
piazza San Giovanni 2
10100 Torino

Dott.ssa Roberta ALBEROTANZA
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
DGPCC, Ufficio III
piazzale della Farnesina 1
00194 Rome

Dott.ssa Lisa ZAFFI
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
DGPCC, Ufficio III
piazzale della Farnesina 1
00194 Rome

Dott.ssa Federica MUCCI
Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Servizio del Contenzioso Diplomatico
piazzale della Farnesina 1
00194 Rome


JAPAN

Ms. Naomi TAKAHASHI
Official,
Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division,
Cultural Affairs Department,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Tokyo

Mr. Atsuhiro YOSHINAKA
Senior Planning Officer,
Protected Area Planning Division,
Nature Conservation Bureau,
Environment Agency
Tokyo

Mr. Tsuyoshi HIRASAWA
Technical Official for Curltural Propterties Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
Tokyo

Mr. Kazuhiko NISHI
Technical Official for Cultural Properties
Architecture Division, Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
Tokyo

Ms. Kumiko YONEDA
Senior Research Scientist
Japan Wildlife Research Center
Tokyo

NEPAL

H.E. Mr Indra BAHADUR SINGH
Royal Nepalese Ambassador to France
and Permanent Delegation of Nepal to UNESCO
7, Place Alberic Magnard
Paris, France

Dr. Safalya AMATYA
Joint Secretary
Ministry of Culture, Tourism Civil Aviation
Museum Road, Chawani, Katmandu
NETHERLANDS

Dr Robert DE JONG
Netherlands Department of Conservation
Broederplein 41,
3703 CD Zeist
P.O. Box 1001
3700 BA Zeist


NEW ZEALAND

Mr. Murray REEDY
Technical Support Manager
West Coast Conservancy
Department of Conservation
Private Bag
Hokitika


PERU

Mr Manuel Soarez Documet
Minister Counselor
Embassy of Peru in Australia - Canberra
7, Brisbane Av. Borton Act
Australia


REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Mr. Seong-doo AHN
First Secretary
Delegation of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis, M 3.32
75015 Paris
France


SLOVAKIA

Dr. Josef KLINDA
Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic
Namestie I. Stura 1 Bratislava

Ms. Katarina NOVAKOVA
Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic
Kammerhofska' 26, 969 01 Banska' Stiavnica

Dr. Tamas DÖMENY
Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic
Na'mestie l Stura Bratislava

Mr. Jozef HLAVAC
Slovak Cave's Administrations
Liptovsky' Hikula's

Mr. Miroslav Tonci'k
Slovac Environmental Agency
Banska' Bystrica, Tajouske'ho
SPAIN

Mr. Luis LAFUENTE BADANERO
Sub. Grl. Protección Patrimonio Histórico,
Ministry of Culture


SWEDEN

Mr. Rolf L&OUML;FGREN
Principal adm.officer
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
106 48 Stockholm

Mr. Mats HENRIKSSON
County Architect
County Administration of Västernorrland
SE-871 86 Härnösand

Mr. Curt FRED&EACUTE;N
Senior state geologist
Geological survey of Sweden
Box 670
751 28 Uppsala

Mr. Mats-Rune BERGSTROEM
Principal administrative officer
Vasterbulhen
Lanstyrelsen, S-901 86 Umea


THAILAND

Professor Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman of the National Committee
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP)
60/1 Rama 6 Rd, Phayathai, Bangkok 10400

Ms. Prasertsuk CHAMORNMARN
Director for Natural and Cultural Conservation Division
Rama 6 Rd Phayathai, Bankok

Ms. Korapin Phayakprakarn
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Rama6 Rd, Phayathai, Bankok 10400

Mr. Chartree CHEUPRASIT
Director General of DEOP
Pharam6 Rd, Phayathai, Bangkok

Mr Marit Siriwan
Senior Environmental Planning Expert
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Rama6 Rd, Phayathai, Bankok 10400

Mr. Borvornvate Rungrudee
Fine Art Department

Mr. Arak SUNGHITAKUL
Deputy Director General
Fine Arts Department Ministry of Education


UGANDA

Mr. Moses Mapesa WAFULA
Deputy Director Field Operations
Uganda Wildlife Authourity
P. O. Box 3530
Kampala


UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Nigel PITTMAN
Head of Buildings, Monuments and Sites Division
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH

Dr. Christopher YOUNG
Head of World Heritage and International Policy
English Heritage
23 Savile Row
London W1X 1AB

Dr. Anthony WEIGHELL
Earth Science and Coastal Advisor
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Monkstone House
City Road
Peterborough PE1 1JY


VIETNAM

Mr. Nguyen VAN TUAN
Head of Halong Bay Management Department,
Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam
Address: 86 Le Thanh Tong Street, Halong City,
Quang Ninh Province

Dr. Amareswar GALLA
Principal Technical Adviser
Ha Long Bay Management Department, Vietnam
C/o P.O. Box 3175,
Manuka, ACT2603
Australia


NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ ORGANISATIONS NON- GOUVERNEMENTALES


Australian Rainforest Conservation Society

Mr. Gavan MCFADZEAN
Campaigner
16 Colorado Ave.
Bardon
Australia

Ms. Lyndon SCHNEIDER
Campaigner

Centre Simon Wiesenthal Europe

Dr Shimon SAMUELS
Director for International Liaison
64, avenue Marceau
75008 Paris
France

Environmental Defender's Office of Northern Queensland Inc.

Ms. Joanna CULL
Solicitor
First floor corner Grove & Sheridan Street
P.O. Box 854 N
North Cairns 4870
Australia

Mr. Henry BOER
196 Sheridan Street
Cairns 4870
Australia

Frazer Island Defenders Organization

Mr John SINCLAIR
P.O . Box 71, Gladesville, NSW, 1675
Australia

Friends of the Earth Australia

Mr. Gavin Mark MUDD
P.O. BOX 222
Fitzroy, 3065
Australia

Ms. Rebecca DUFFY

Gimy Walubara Yidinji

Mr. Keith FOURMILE
Po Box 1805, QLD 4870
Australia

Gundjehmi Arboriginal Corporation

Ms. Yvonne MARGARULA
Chairperson
P.O Box 245
Jabiru NT 0886
Australia

Mr. Justin O'BRIEN
Administration Manager

Ms. Jacqui KATONA
Executive Officer

Ms. Christine CHRISTOPHERSEN
Research Consultant

Mr. Stuart GARDELL
Field Officer

Ms. Valerie BALMOORE
Member

Mr. Scott ALDERSON
Member

Mr. Leigh Bruce TILMOUTH
Member

Waanyi Traditional Elders Corporation

Mr. Brad FOSTER
93 Roberts St.
Doomadgee, QLD 4830
Australia

International Council for Science [ICSU Independent Science Panel - Kakadu]
Prof. William Brian WILKINSON
17/18 Union St
Ramsbury, Wiltshire SN8 2PR
United Kingdom

United States House of Representatives
Committee on Resources

Mr. Kurt CHRISTENSEN
Washington, DC 20515
U.S.A.

Mr. John RISHEL
Washington, D.C. 20515
U.S.A.

Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)

Mr.Ralf PETTMAN
Chair of International Relations
P.O BOX 600, Wellington,


The Wilderness Society (Australia)

Mr. Alec MARR
7A, Hammgasley Place
Fisher, ACT 2608

Ms. Virginia YOUNG
National Forest Campaign Co-ordinator

World Archaeological Congress

Ms. Lyndon ORMOND-PARKER
Executive Member
C/o University of Newcastle
Newcastle-upon-Thyne
United Kingdom



(iii)SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO/UNESCO SECRETARIAT

Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Assistant Director-General for Culture

UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Mr. Francesco BANDARIN
Director

Mme Minja YANG
Deputy Director

Ms. Mechtild RÖSSLER
Ms. Sarah TITCHEN
Ms. Junko TANIGUCHI
Ms. Fréderique ROBERT
Ms. Johanna SULLIVAN
Mr Peter STOTT
Mr. Niklas SCHULZE
Ms. Jane DEGEORGES
Ms. Marianne RAABE
Mr. David MARTEL
Mr. Jan TURTINEN (Intern)

Ms. Sabine DE VALENCE
Translator

Ms. Anne SAUVETRE
Translator


Division of Ecological Sciences
Science Sector
 Mme Mireille JARDIN

UNESCO Regional Office, Samoa
 Ms. Elspeth WINGHAM
World Heritage Officer for Pacific
P.O. Box 5766
Matautu Post Offices
Apia, Samoa





ANNEXE II / ANNEX II




Speech of Mr Abdelaziz Touri, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
Twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau
23-24 November 2000 - Cairns, Australia

Distinguished Members of the World Heritage Bureau,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Since the last session of the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau, threats to World Heritage sites have been reported more and more frequently. This is illustrated by a total of 65 reports on the state of conservation of sites on the World Heritage List (34 natural, 3 mixed and 28 cultural) which this Bureau is going to examine. The reports include the examination of the Kathmandu Valley site in Nepal, where I presided over the High-Level Mission.

At the same time, the results of the technical meeting on World Heritage and mining, which the Committee requested at its last session, will be presented to the Bureau for examination and transmission of recommendations to the Committee. This is a new step towards a thematic review of issues which concern the States Parties, the site managers and the international community as a whole.

The other main issue of this Bureau session is the feasibility study. As requested by the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest in October, the Secretariat has prepared a feasibility study on a proposed system of sub-committees. The Secretariat consulted with representatives of Australia, Belgium, Benin, Hungary and United Kingdom in the preparation of the study. This extraordinary session of the Bureau will examine the feasibility study and transmit its recommendations to the Committee session next week where a broad reform agenda will be discussed. The key issues raised in the feasibility study relate to the calendar, number and type of World Heritage statutory meetings held each biennium. The overall objective should be for the system of World Heritage meetings and decision-making to become more efficient and streamlined for the Committee, the States Parties, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat.

In this regard, progress can be noted and a number of changes requested by the special session have been already implemented at this Bureau session. A case in point is the reduction of Information Documents to the absolute minimum. I hope you appreciate this change in your work.

Two other items appear on your agenda: nominations and international assistance. Concerning the nomination of properties I would like to recall our discussions at the June session of the Bureau not to review nominations twice. Therefore all cases will be presented directly to the World Heritage Committee session. The one exception is a site, we were not able to review at the June session as the field evaluations were carried out later. This will not take a lot of time on our agenda.

In the case of international assistance, I would like to inform you that we have decided not to present a document to you, as the budget for 2001 has not yet been approved by the Committee. As this will be approved by the Committee only next week and as a meeting of the new Bureau will take place after this decision to review the international assistance requests under the new 2001 budget.

Therefore, you can see that we will focus our discussion on the two main issues: state of conservation and the feasibility study. I am pleased that this reform process has started during my time of presidency of the World Heritage Committee and I am proud of having taken part in this process, which will be reviewed by the Committee next week.

At this Bureau session, you may wish to also look into the future ways the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau will examine the state of conservation of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I am fully aware of the complex agenda of this meeting and the challenging tasks ahead of you, I wish us a very successful session. As it is my last task as Chairperson, I would like to ensure you that the World Heritage Centre and its new director is always standing ready to assist you in the complex and demanding task of implementing the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.






ANNEXE III / ANNEX III




Statement by Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director, World Heritage Centre
Twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau
23-24 November 2000 - Cairns, Australia

Mr Chairperson,
Members of the Bureau,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

With your permission, I would like to take the floor to inform the Bureau as well as the representative of the Director-General and Assistant Director-General for Culture, Mr Bouchenaki, of my first steps in my capacity as Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Secretary of the World Heritage Committee.

I have already had the privilege of meeting the members of the Bureau in Budapest, but I wish here to express my most sincere gratitude as much for their welcome, as for their encouragement.

I would also like to thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the congratulatory letter you sent to me when I took up my functions and also for your support. It was indeed a great honour for me to start my work by participating in the High Level Mission, led by yourself, to Kathmandu. It provided me with the opportunity to appreciate both your professional and human qualities and to begin in the best way possible my new tasks.

During the short period of my direction, I have been able to appreciate the quality of the work developed by my predecessors: the Centre is a structure that is very aware of the importance and complexity of its tasks and links high professionalism with a strong motiviation. Of course, there are also problems but they are for the most part due to insufficient administrative and technical staff.

In the future, I shall attempt to remedy this situation so that the Secretariat may better serve the Committee.

Moreover, I will try to define and implement, with the assistance of States Parties, a programme of activities that will allow us to respond to the new demands that are awaiting us.

All the above, as you can imagine, will take some time. But I hope to be able to present an initial outline of this programme of activities to the Bureau, during its session next June.

This meeting of the World Heritage Bureau and Committee is of great importance for the Secretariat, not only because of the new nominations and the examination of the state of conservation of properties, but also for the decisions which will be taken on the reform of the work of the Bureau and the Committee.

The meeting of the Bureau in Budapest provided the opportunity to clarify questions that are of great concern to the Committee, such as the representivity of the List and representation in the Committee. The Secretariat has prepared a feasibility study, as was requested by the Bureau, which comprises the different options for evaluation.

It is most important that we reach a decision at least concerning the reform of the statutory meeting cycle, which could lighten our work and render our service to the Committee more effective.

I would also like to speak briefly about another problem: documentation. As you know, this problem was discussed several times in the sessions of the Bureau and the Committee. In this next session of the Committee, the Secretariat will present forty working and information documents. I realize that it is not possible to develop an efficient working system with so many documents.

Therefore, as I indicated during the Bureau session in Budapest, I wish to respond rapidly to this problem by setting up a more suitable documentation system. Already, we have ventured to improve the documentation for the coming Bureau and Committee, as well as for this session, in an initial and not entirely satisfactory manner.

To take this a step further, I would like to receive the comments of the Bureau on the following initiatives that aim at changing and reducing the documentation for Committee and Bureau decisions. I again emphasize that these proposals attempt to respond to a concern voiced on many occasions by the Committee: reduce documentation required for decisions.

I indicate here in a synthetic way, the basic proposals concerning the organization of documentation relating to the decisions of the Bureau and the Committee that it would be useful to discuss in a more thorough manner:

These preliminary proposals have to be thoroughly studied to evaluate all their implications and to verify their effectiveness in relation to the goal expressed by the Committee.

As I have already underlined, I intend, in the future, to present to the Bureau and the Committee other proposals aimed at improving the service of the Secretariat to States Parties.

However, during the past two months, I was able to identify certain measures aimed to improve our work that could be introduced by the Centre even before this date, in order to gain precious time. I will only mention two:

  1. Increased awareness of the List and the Tentative Lists

During the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, we noted, once again, the need for a better knowledge of the World Heritage List and especially the tentative lists. Of course, this question is directly linked to that of a better representivity of the List in the future, and therefore has great importance for the ongoing discussions. I think that it is crucial to progress in this matter and that an immediate effort should be made.

The reference framework for this study can only be a unitary conception of the Convention as an instrument for the safeguarding of cultural and natural heritage.

I therefore intend to commence this study in January, in close cooperation with the advisory bodies to the Convention and experts on the question.

  1. Increased visibility of World Heritage Sites

I have often observed that World Heritage sites are not efficiently signposted.

However, I am convinced that good signposting of sites is the best form of "publicity" for the Convention. Most World Heritage sites are visited by thousands, even millions, of tourists. They are therefore are most important witnesses.

To achieve this goal, I think that it is necessary to create a "User Manual" for our emblem to distribute to all World Heritage site managers.

Furthermore, it would be productive to make use of this occasion to study the best ways of adapting our emblem for display using different materials and the new technologies of video projection and computer-use.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for allowing me to express these points, and I thank the members of the Bureau for their attention.






ANNEXE IV / ANNEX IV


EXISTING CALENDAR AND CYCLE INCLUDES 1 EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND 2 EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS OF THE BUREAU EACH BIENNIUM

Advantages

Disadvantages






ANNEXE V / ANNEX V



PROPOSED REVISED CALENDAR AND CYCLE TO KEEP THE BUREAU (OR INTRODUCE SUB- COMMITTEES) BUT CHANGE TO AN APRIL/JUNE CYCLE AND ABOLISH EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AND BUREAU

Advantages






ANNEXE VI / ANNEX VI




Presentation on Documentation by the Director of the World Heritage Centre

[ PDF version of Annex VI Click here for the 2-page presentation in PDF format. ]