PDF version (495K)

FRENCH VERSION

World Heritage	25 COM
Distribution limited	WHC-01/CONF.208/4 Helsinki, 10 December 2001 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-fifth session

Helsinki, Finland
11 -16 December 2001

Report of the Rapporteur
of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau,
Helsinki, Finland (7-8 December 2001)

---

Table of Contents

         

Opening of the Session Adoption of the Agenda and the Timetable State of Conservation of Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List Examination of Nominations of Cultural and Natural Properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List Other Business Closure of the Session

Annexes          List of Participants Speech of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Henrik Lilius Tribute to the Memory of Mr. Ferenc Németh, Director of the Secretariat of the Hungarian World Heritage Committee by the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin

         

I.          OPENING OF THE SESSION

I.1          The twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was held in Helsinki, Finland, on 7 and 8 December 2001. It was attended by the following members of the Bureau : Mr Henrik Lilius (Finland), Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Francisco Javier Lopez Morales (Mexico) as Rapporteur, and Egypt, Greece, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand as Vice- Presidents.

I.2          The Chairperson informed the members of the Bureau that due to air transport problems, Mr Francisco Javier Lopez Morales (Mexico) was unable to assume his role of Rapporteur for the opening session of the Bureau. The Chairperson informed that in accordance with Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure, the Representative of Egypt, Dr Gaballa Ali Gaballa, would assume the role of Rapporteur until the arrival of Mr Francisco Javier Lopez Morales, who took up his role as Rapporteur on 8 December 2001.

I.3          The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of the Bureau were represented as observers: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Malta, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom.

I.4          Representatives of the Advisory Bodies to the Committee : the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended in an advisory capacity. The full List of Participants is attached as Annex I to this report.

I.5          The Chairperson opened the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee by welcoming the newly-elected Bureau members, the representatives of the Advisory Bodies, and the observers. He then reviewed the provisional agenda of the meeting. The Chairperson's speech is attached at Annex II to this report.

I.6          At the end of his speech, the Chairperson paid tribute to the memory of Mr Ferenc Németh, Director of the Secretariat of the Hungarian World Heritage Committee, tragically killed in an accident the previous day.

I.7          The Chairperson then invited the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin, to make his preliminary remarks to the Bureau. The Director of the Centre, then paid a warm tribute to the memory of Mr Németh. The Director's speech is provided as Annex III to this report. On behalf of the Bureau members and all the participants to the meeting, the Chairperson thanked Mr Bandarin.

I.8          The Head of the Hungarian Delegation thanked the Chairperson and the Bureau members for their condolences and tributes for their colleague.

II.          ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE         

II.1           The Bureau adopted the Provisional Agenda and the Timetable (Document WHC-01/CONF.207/1) without any modifications.

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

PART I: Reports on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List for examination         

NATURAL HERITAGE         

MINING AND WORLD HERITAGE         

III.1           The Bureau recalled that the results of the technical workshop on World Heritage and Mining were reviewed by the last session of the Committee. It was informed that the proceedings of the workshop were published by the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), IUCN and the World Heritage Centre. In July 2000 a copy was sent to all Committee members and in November 2001 to all new Committee members for information.

III.2           The Bureau also noted the change in the organization of the mining industry relating to the Global Mining Initiative's (GMI) decision to put in place a new organization. On 21 May 2001, the Board of Directors of the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME) agreed to transform the organization into the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), to be based in London. ICMM has been given a broader mandate by the membership to focus principally on providing sustainable development leadership for the industry. An environmental scientist has been appointed the Secretary-General of ICMM in October 2001 and the inaugural meeting of the Governing Council of ICMM has been held on 24 October 2001 in London. Issues related to mining and biodiversity will continue to be a priority for this new organization The membership comprises leading companies from the mining, metals and minerals industry (represented by their Chairmen/CEOs), as well as office bearers of regional, national and commodity associations.

III.3           The objectives of ICMM are as follows:

• to initiate, conduct, promote and communicate research and analysis into the interaction of the world's mining, mineral and metal industries with the economy, the environment and communities;
• to seek to lead change within these industries by stimulating discussion and coordinating activities between and among member companies, others involved with the industry and the industry's regional, national, commodity and international associations;
• to develop and communicate a clear and authoritative position on global issues affecting the future of the mining, mineral and metal industries;
• to determine and promote global best practice performance standards within these industries;
• to maintain a high-level dialogue with government and inter- governmental bodies, non-governmental and community organisations, academic and professional institutions and other stakeholders.

III.4           IUCN noted there are a number of initiatives underway at present relating to mining and the environment and reaffirmed its view that mining should not be permitted within World Heritage sites.

III.5           The Bureau noted that following the creation of ICMM, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN will review the proposal for the establishment of a Working Group on World Heritage and Mining, as proposed by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session and will report back to the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee.

Africa

Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)         

III.6           The Bureau noted that two articles were published on illegal poaching in Cameroon, with particular mention of Dja Faunal Reserve.

III.7           IUCN noted that such a situation can negatively impact protected area relations with local people. IUCN reported that, in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and TRAFFIC, the wildlife monitoring programme of IUCN and WWF, convened a technical workshop in Yaounde, Cameroon from 17-20 September 2001. The workshop, entitled "Links Between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods and Food Security and the Use of Wild Meat", aimed to: forge functional links among the species conservation, food security/community development and commercial sectors in order to identify means to address conservation and development concerns linked to the unsustainable use of wild fauna for food; contribute to the process of identifying, prioritising and planning practical responses to address priority conservation and development concerns related to the use of wild fauna for food; and provide input to a GEF proposal related to the use of wild fauna to contribute to sustainable livelihoods in Central Africa.

III.8           IUCN and the Centre noted that the UNESCO/FAO African World Heritage Forest Initiative (AWHFI) concept document, currently being developed for submission to the UNF Board for the July 2002 round of biodiversity grants, includes Dja Faunal Reserve. The Centre and IUCN observed with concern that the reports on poaching and logging, if accurately reported, suggest that it may be necessary to consider whether the site should be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. They acknowledged that the problem is due to a combination of factors including law enforcement, political commitment, cultural differences, resources, and food availability. In light of the recent Wild Meat workshop it is hoped that prompt and effective action will be taken by the State Party to address these damaging trends.

III.9           The Bureau adopted the following decision for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty-fifth session:

"The Committee welcomes the recommendations of IUCN, and calls upon the State Party to take urgent action to halt illegal poaching in the Reserve, and requests a full report from the State Party on this situation by 1 February 2002. This report shall be submitted for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee (June 2002), at which time it will decide on the need for a mission to the site. Furthermore, the Committee commends the chief executives of major European logging firms active in Central Africa, representatives from various conservation NGOs (WCS, IUCN, WWF) and officials from the World Bank and the European Union) for their initial efforts in bringing stakeholders together to tackle the environmental problems associated with logging operations. The code of conduct should be supported, and the Committee urges the CEO-AWG to strengthen its efforts to involve Asian companies in the work of the group and to undertake every effort to include all logging companies working in Cameroon."

Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)         

III.10           The Centre and IUCN had received a letter from the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) noting that IUCN had requested KWS to nominate Mt Kenya World Heritage site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger, and expressing opposition to the 'proposed de- listing of Mt Kenya World Heritage site'. The letter noted that the management of the site had recently been transferred from the Forest Department to the KWS with the aim of enhancing management and enforcement. The KWS reported that it had extended the boundaries of the site to include the natural forest, and was in the process of preparing an integrated management plan. IUCN had responded to the State Party by: clarifying its role as an Advisory Body; outlining the process involved in listing sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger; explaining the implications of inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and outlining the purpose of monitoring missions and the need for such missions to be approved by the State Party. The Centre and IUCN noted that the delay in receiving an invitation from the Kenyan State Party for a monitoring mission appears to be related to a misunderstanding on what was requested by the Bureau in June 2001. The KWS was of the understanding that the request for a mission with the view to considering whether the site should be included on the List of World Heritage in Danger constituted automatic inclusion in this List, as well as subsequent removal from the World Heritage List.

III.11           The Bureau adopted the following recommendation for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty-fifth session:

"The Committee requests the State Party to invite a mission to the site as soon as possible to enable an independent assessment of the state of conservation of the World Heritage site."

Banc d'Arguin National Park, Mauritania

III.12           The Bureau was informed that the issue of 23 June 2001 of the New Scientist included an article on Banc d'Arguin National Park. Entitled "Breaking the Banc: Africa's largest marine sanctuary is failing", the article describes the threat to the Park's fish stocks posed by 'tens of thousands of traditional fishermen' and 'hundreds of giant foreign trawlers' that fish at the edge of the Park boundary. The article puts most blame on the large international trawler consortiums, many of them European (the largest European vessel can hold 7,000 tonnes of fish and is dedicated full time to Mauritanian waters), who have the financial power to buy fishing rights from the Mauritanian Government. It notes that the trawlers have displaced traditional fishermen who are increasing pressure to be allowed inside the Park and the World Heritage site.

III.13           The Centre and IUCN noted the importance of working with traditional fishermen to help address their concerns. A vital element of effective management of the coastal zone is the protection of key ecosystems such as those within the World Heritage site. The increasing involvement of international trawlers is a cause for grave concern as it can potentially negate such initiatives.

III.14           In September 2001 the Park reported to IUCN that two pre-exploration permits for petroleum exploration within the Park had been signed by the Government of Mauritania. The Park is currently seeking to undertake an urgent assessment of the legal situation in Mauritania and its obligations under international conventions, including the World Heritage Convention, in order to halt the exploration and production permits. It is seeking assistance to undertake this assessment. The Park reports that the situation with the proposed road between Nouadhibou and Nouackchott, which will pass close to the boundary of the Park, remains inconclusive.

III.15           The Bureau welcomed the recommendations of IUCN and requested a report from the State Party by 1 February 2002 for examination by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau. This report should address the following issues: the status of petroleum permits relating to oil exploration within the Park; threats to marine resources of the Park, and the status of the road between Nouadhibou and Nouackchott.

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)         

III.16           The Bureau learned that an IUCN/Centre monitoring mission to the site was undertaken from 5 to 15 July 2001. The full mission report was provided as an information document WHC- 2001/CONF.207/INF.7. As suggested in the report, IUCN and the Centre proposed that an aerial survey should be conducted as a matter of urgency. This survey should determine the number and distribution of giant eland in Niokolo-Koba NP's eastern part and the adjacent Faleme Hunting Zone. Because of the present low density of giant eland, a total coverage of the primary giant eland area in Niokolo-Koba NP is recommended. A sample count following standardised methodology could be undertaken in the remaining areas of Niokolo-Koba NP and the Faleme Hunting Zone.

III.17           All National Park staff working in Niokolo-Koba or visiting the Park should be encouraged to record detailed giant eland information on standardised data sheets whenever possible. Observations should include standardised information such as date, habitat type, locality, group sizes and number of calves. Other regular visitors to Niokolo-Koba NP, such as tour operators, could also be encouraged to collect specific information on giant eland. It is desirable to protect a small number of giant eland outside Niokolo-Koba NP. The present six giant eland in Bandia Reserve could serve this purpose. No further captures and relocations of giant eland from Niokolo-Koba NP to areas outside the Park should be considered for the time being. A short field research project on giant eland should be considered for submission requesting support from the World Heritage Fund. This project should collect detailed population data, movements and habitat use. A one-year field project should be able to achieve the initial goals. Radio collaring of a few selected individuals would be essential to ensure that study animals could be reliably located.

III.18           Effective law enforcement (anti-poaching operations) will remain of critical importance, not only as far as the survival of giant eland is concerned but also other species in the Park. It was proposed that the services of a specialist consultant be sought to consider various alternative law-enforcement strategies. This must be done in close co-operation with National Parks' authorities as well as community representatives in the Niokolo-Koba region. The project "The protection, reproduction and veterinary control of large antelopes, such as the Derby eland" proposed by the Tropical and Sub-tropical Agronomy at the ITSZ CZU in Prague, should be reviewed by all key stakeholder groups. The project could play a major role in ensuring the survival of the giant eland.

III.19           The Bureau adopted the following recommendation for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty-fifth session:

"The Committee endorses the recommendations of the IUCN/Centre mission, and requests the State Party to review the document and report back with an action plan for implementation of the recommendations by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Committee (June 2002)."

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania)

III.20           The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Centre and IUCN had received a report of extensive and increasing domestic crop cultivation in the Ngorongoro Crater and wider Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA), 97% of which constitutes the World Heritage site. A letter from the Centre was addressed to the Permanent Delegation of the United Republic of Tanzania to UNESCO requesting verification of the situation with the Ngorongoro Conservation Area authorities. The same letter was copied to the Frankfurt Zoological Society that has undertaken projects in NCA. Concerns have been raised over the expansion and the negative impacts on wildlife and the Masaai traditional pastoralism. Specifically the concerns raised relate to:

• Cultivation on very steep slopes;
• Growing pressure for alternative land use which has reduced most of the Maasai's grazing lands, making Ngorongoro the last sanctuary with intact grazing land;
• Steady increase in residents in Ngorongoro, mainly through immigration from other areas;
• Changes in the agricultural practices of the Masaai pastoralists.

III.21           In response to the above report, the Conservator of Ngorongoro in his letter to the Centre dated 7 August 2001, noted that in 1995 the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority commissioned a team of experts to consider the issue of domestic cultivation. The study concluded that the cultivation practised by the Masaai pastoralists was not a threat to conservation and pastoralism interests. It recommended cultivation carried out by non-Masaai pastoralists should be halted as it posed a threat to the integrity of the Conservation Area. It also noted that increasing numbers of immigrants who might not abide by Masaai relations and customs, could threaten the functioning of the Masaai's social institutions which regulate land use.

III.22           Further, the Conservator of Ngorongoro noted that the following actions have been enforced:

• Identification of immigrants and human and livestock census;
• Acquiring alternative land for cultivation outside the Conservation Area for resettling of immigrants and where domestic cultivation could be carried out;
• Follow up study to the 1995 study;
• Implementation of a DANIDA-funded project aimed at revitalising the livestock- based economy in order to ensure that cultivation remains secondary to livestock;
• Continuing the grain importation scheme to help the resident population gain access to grain at cost price, and therefore discourage crop cultivation.

III.23           The Frankfurt Zoological Society expressed concern that "without a decision from the government, cultivation will continue and threaten not only one of the world's most famous wildlife areas but also one of the last grazing lands for the Maasai cattle".

III.24           IUCN noted that the serious encroachment and destruction of the highland forests at the northern edge of the site continues. IUCN noted further that cultivation, even at a very low level, excludes use of the area by larger wildlife species in the long term, and that only a very small percentage of the NCA is suitable for cultivation because of rainfall, soil and slope conditions. IUCN also noted that:

• the Ngorongoro Conservation Area was separated from the Serengeti and gazetted as a multi-use conservation area, hence sustainable use such as grazing is allowed;
• Limited subsistence cultivation was allowed in the early nineties due to food shortages, declining livestock and population growth. This alone was not a serious threat. What has become a serious threat is the commercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers, and this is what needs to be addressed urgently;
• There is some disagreement about the impact of the Masaai practising agriculture within the NCA. There is the possibility that Masaai agriculture (distinct from traditional pastoralism or livestock rearing), is also negatively impacting on the site;
• The management of the NCA requires more effective scientific guidance.

III.25           The Bureau adopted the following recommendation for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty-fifth session:

"The Committee requests the State Party to provide a report on the encroachment situation in the northern section of the World Heritage site and on the impacts of commercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers on the integrity and values of this World Heritage site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Committee."

Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)         

III.26           The Bureau was informed that the Centre and IUCN had received several reports concerning the proposed Ewaso Ng'iro Hydroelectric Project (ENP) in Kenya, and its potential impacts on the Serengeti and Mara ecosystems. The State-owned Kenya Electricity Generating Company is proposing to build three dams along the Ewaso Ng'iro River that would generate 180 MW of electricity and which would cost 350 million dollars by the time of completion in 2007. This scheme, if implemented, would link the Mara River system through a 3.5 km tunnel with the upper drainage of the Ewaso Ng'iro (south) River, thus reversing the Mara's flow into the Ewaso Ng'iro River, finally draining into Lake Natron in the east instead of Lake Victoria in the west.

III.27           There have been a series of Environmental Impact Assessments and discussions on the ENP which have held its implementation up. Potential impacts, if implemented, include downstream effects on Lake Natron in Tanzania (possible extension to the proposed Rift Valley Lake Reserves World Heritage site) and potential ecological impact on the Serengeti National Park. IUCN has received a report by the Frankfurt Zoological Society, which noted potential impacts of the project, if implemented, on the conservation of the Serengeti National Park:

• The main feature of the Serengeti Ecosystem, which extends across several protected areas, including the World Heritage site, is the wildebeest migration. Wildlife numbers in this system are controlled by the dry season rainfall (and consequent grass availability) in the Mara River system. Presently, the Serengeti Migration consists of approximately 1.2 million wildebeest and 200,000 zebras. This was an important feature at the time of the inscription of this site.

• If the Mara River were to dry up, most of the wildlife migrants would perish and the Serengeti Migration would collapse irreversibly. There is concern that though the ENP makes allowances for maintaining some water flow in the Mara River, even during severe droughts, these drought times would also produce the worst power shortages in Kenya. Consequently, there would be unpredictable pressure on the demand for channelling all available Mara water into the Ewaso Ng'iro Hydroelectric project.

• Even under normal climatic conditions the project might endanger the Serengeti World Heritage Site and impact tourist revenues in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2001, Tanzania National Parks, together with the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the Australian Institute for Marine Science developed an ecological model to test the possible impact of the Amala weir water diversion project on the Serengeti Migration (Modeling the Impact on the Serengeti Ecosystem of the Proposed Amala Weir Water Diversion Project in Kenya, Gereta, E., Wolanski, E., and Borner, M., 2001.).

It is understood that the East Africa Community has discussed this issue and the proposal has effectively been dropped for the time being.

III.28           IUCN has been notified that WWF East Africa Regional Office is commencing design of a Mara River Catchment Basin Initiative. This will focus on conserving the Mara River Catchment's unique biodiversity; ensuring the maintenance of natural functions by balancing the supply and demand of biodiversity products, and developing alternative livelihoods for communities. As part of the Initiative's preliminary phase, WWF has recently commissioned a report on the hydrology of the Kenyan side of the Mara River, in order to consider the land use changes and impacts of these on the flow and quality of the River. IUCN noted that the Serengeti National Park is one of the field sites for the Enhancing our Heritage Project funded by the UNF. IUCN considered that there is merit in the State Parties of Kenya and Tanzania establishing a joint committee through the Commission on East Africa Cooperation arrangement to undertake further in-depth studies on the entire catchments of the Ewaso Ng'iro, Lake Natron, Mara River systems.

III.29           IUCN noted that the Serengeti is not only a World Heritage site and Biosphere Reserve, it is also the main tourist attraction in Tanzania, a country where tourism revenue is the largest foreign exchange earner. It also noted that the very reason that the Serengeti is a World Heritage site - the wildebeest migration, could be potentially threatened by any future implementation of the ENP. IUCN recognised that any negative impact on the dry season range of the wildebeest has potentially major ramifications for the very criteria on which the Serengeti listing is based. IUCN also noted that the Mara River is habitat for riverine forest containing many rare forest birds and other fauna, and upon which large populations of crocodiles and hippopotamus depend. It is clear that there is a high element of risk in the diversion of water from the Mara. The Mara diversion cannot be considered in isolation, it must be considered in the context of other ecological problems such as rapidly changing land use and deforestation in the catchments, as well as the impacts of climate change. Most serious ecological/environmental problems arise because of a complex combination of factors. In such cases, IUCN believes that the precautionary principle must be applied to avoid any actions that increase the risk of the Mara drying up.

III.30           The Bureau noted that the ENP project has been discussed by the East African Community and has been abandoned for the time being. The Bureau noted the potential impacts of any implementation of the ENP scheme on the Serengeti World Heritage site and requested that it be kept informed of developments by the State Parties of Tanzania and Kenya.

Asia and the Pacific

World Heritage Properties of Australia

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)         

III.31           The Bureau was informed that on 10 September 2001 the Australian Government released a scientific report addressing the effect of land use activities on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The report - Great Barrier Reef Catchment Water Quality Action Plan - recommends specific end-of-river pollution targets for 2011 for all 26 catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. The Plan was prepared by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) at the request of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council and the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage. A scientific working group reviewed available data and existing national water quality guidelines, prioritised catchments according to the ecological risk presented to the Reef, and recommended minimum targets for pollutant loads that would halt the decline in water quality entering the reef. The Plan is available on the GBRMPA web site at: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/. The Plan notes that over the last 150 years, the sediment load has increased by 300-900%, phosphate by 300 -1500%, total nitrogen by 200-400%, respectively and that pesticide residues are now detectable in sub- tidal sediments. For the 2001-2011 decade, the plan proposes the reduction of sediment by 38%, nitrogen by 39%, phosphorous by 47%, and chlorophyll by 30-60%, respectively. It is also proposed to reduce the detectable levels of heavy metals and pesticides.

III.32           The Plan recommends that the targets be incorporated into relevant plans under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust. For catchments not covered under the NAP, the report recommends that the State Government prepare, and submit to the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council, integrated catchment management plans that set out the action required to meet the water quality targets. The Plan suggests specific actions, notably a mix of regulatory and non-regulatory measures that need to be taken to improve the quality of water entering the World Heritage site including:

• Reforms to ensure that all environmentally significant activities in the catchments are subject to proper environmental impact assessment and approval processes and that conditions are attached to ensure activities are carried out in a manner that protects and improves water quality
• Promotion of 'constraint mapping' for current and future agricultural development
• Protection and rehabilitation of catchment areas at risk such as freshwater wetlands and riparian vegetation
• Establishment and enforcement of standards for sewage, wastewater and storm- water discharge from coastal developments to watercourses
• Promotion of environmental management plans for agricultural activities, which promote farming practices that minimise downstream impacts
• Promotion of full compliance to Industry Codes of Practice, and
• Initiation of public and catchment specific education programmes about the connectivity between land use and the impacts on the Reef.

III.33           WWF-Australia has estimated that the cost of a significant restoration programme to mitigate pollution and to clean up the waters flowing into the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) would be in excess of AU$300 million. It has identified the following actions as key to success: (i) an immediate and permanent moratorium of land clearing in the GBR catchment; (ii) urgent legislative protection for coastal freshwater wetlands; (iii) all agricultural activities to be regulated under the Queensland Environment Protection Act 1994; (iv) fertiliser and pesticide use to be licensed; (v) legislative discharge limits for acid sulphate soil to be set; and (vi) a major GBR catchment riparian re-vegetation and wetland restoration programme to be designed and financed.

III.34           IUCN had noted that the Great Barrier Reef Catchment Water Quality Action Plan initiative directly addresses one of the major issues raised in the ACIUCN report on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, relating to the need for more effective catchment management in lands adjacent to the Park.

III.35           The Observer of Australia noted that since the report has come out only recently, the Bureau should not yet urge specific actions to implement the Action Plan. Time should be given for the Australian authorities to consider relevant measures for implementation of the Plan. A meeting concerning the measures to be taken will take place shortly. Australia agreed to report back soon after the meeting.

III.36           The Bureau commended the State Party on the release of the Water Quality Action Plan, setting targets for improvements and the recommended actions to achieve the targets. The Bureau invited the State Party to provide regular reports to the Committee on the implementation of the Water Quality Action Plan as well as on the implementation of the Focused Recommendations and Framework for Management adopted for the site by the State Party and ACIUCN in 1999.

Fraser Island (Australia)         

III.37           The Bureau noted that on 30 April 2001, a 9-year boy was killed by dingoes on Fraser Island. This was the first recorded death in Australia by dingoes of a human over 1 year of age. This death prompted a re-evaluation of the risk posed to humans by dingoes and a re-assessment of the management strategies outlined in the draft Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy (March 2001). The revised Strategy is now with the Queensland Government awaiting approval.

III.38           Immediately following the incident, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) undertook a cull of 31 dingoes to reduce the immediate risk to people from habituated dingoes that were frequenting areas heavily used by people. This cull was a one-time operation. A Risk Assessment Report (Risk Assessment: Risk to humans posed by the dingo population on Fraser Island, EPA, May 2001) was commissioned by the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Risk Assessment provides direction for the immediate management of dingoes on Fraser Island and provides site-specific management recommendations. As such, it is complementary to the draft Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy. The Risk Assessment outlined some previously unused management options at particular sites, including: (a) fencing of campgrounds and recreational areas; (b) active deterrence of animals in the vicinity of popular visitor areas; (c) restriction on taking of food to certain locations; and (d) time restrictions for visitors at some sites. Additional island wide management approaches recommended include: (i) limiting visitor numbers using a variety of approaches; (ii) significantly increasing fines and penalties for feeding dingoes; (iii) enhancing public education and awareness programmes; (iv) increasing enforcement through additional ranger presence; (v) increasing monitoring and research on the dingo.

III.39           The need for consultation with the Island's residents, tour operators, the Fraser Island Community Advisory Committee, native title claimants and the Island's World Heritage Area Management Committee on appropriate limits and mechanisms is emphasised in the Risk Assessment Report. IUCN has received expert advice that the impact of the cull is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on the long-term viability or survival of the dingo population. The Fraser Island dingo population is of great relevance and high importance to the status of Fraser Island as a World Heritage site. Although the Fraser Island dingo population is not 100% pure, Fraser Island represents the best opportunity to establish and maintain a self- sustaining population of wild genetically pure dingoes.

III.40           Elsewhere in Australia, and other range countries in Asia and Africa, most populations are, or will soon be, predominantly hybrid. The IUCN Canid Action Plan lists the dingo as a threatened species. With the 2nd edition of the Plan currently in preparation, the conservation status of the dingo is under review and may be upgraded to endangered.

III.41           Fraser Island does not have an exclusive Plan of Management, rather, it is catered for in the Great Sandy Region Management Plan (GSRMP). The GSRMP covers the Great Sandy Region National Park, of which Fraser Island is a part, and also adjacent marine areas and some lands outside the protected area. Released in 1994, it was prepared as a regional conservation plan with input from numerous government departments. It does not have statutory status. The GSRMP is about to undergo a detailed review. The process will involve substantial stakeholder and community input and is scheduled for completion in March 2003. The review is explicitly considering a specific management plan for the Fraser Island World Heritage property, as well as a commitment to new legislative requirements for the World Heritage site.

III.42           On the 27 July 2001 the Queensland Government announced the allocation of an extra AU$1.75 million towards the management of Fraser Island. AU$1 million has been earmarked this financial year for dingo management on the Island; the other AU$750,000 is to be spent employing eight permanent rangers for the Island. The Observer of Australia informed the Bureau that the Development Strategy has been recently released and that a copy of it will be provided for the Secretariat.

III.43           The Bureau commended the State Party/QPWS on the Risk Assessment and the draft Dingo Management Strategy and welcomed the State Party's consideration of a variety of options including the imposition of visitor limits. The Bureau invited the State Party to provide further information on the visitor management strategy as it is developed. The Bureau welcomed the review of the GSRMP and its explicit recognition of Fraser Island as a World Heritage area requiring special management plans and legislative frameworks to protect the World Heritage site for perpetuity.

The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)         

III.44           The Bureau was informed of details of the Government of Bangladesh plans to explore "Block 5" of the Sundarbans Reserve Forest for oil and gas. Shell has publicly declared that it has no plans for exploration activities in the Special Reserved Forest (SRF). The World Heritage site comprises three sections of the SRF at the coastal edge. Shell has furthermore acknowledged the following:

• The Sundarbans is also a Ramsar site. The Ramsar Convention has confirmed that the Ramsar site is synonymous with the SRF and does not extend beyond the SRF;
• Shell will carry out extensive environmental and social studies and stakeholder engagement before conducting any activities elsewhere in Block 5;
• As regards the socio-economic impact zone outside the northern peripheries of the SRF, Shell will be discussing the implications of oil and gas exploration with the Ministry of Environment and Forest;
• Shell recognizes that one of the main objectives of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) -Government of Bangladesh Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project (SBCP) is to reduce the poverty level of the 3.5 million people living in the impact zone and provide them with alternative livelihood options in order to encourage them to leave the forest;
• By providing economic activities, and in the case of successful exploration of clean gas, Shell can add value to the objectives of the SBCP and be a party to providing sustainable development opportunities in the region;
• Shell-Bangladesh is aware of the need to consider the potential indirect impacts on the SRF of any of its future activities. Such activities, whether inside the socio-economic impact zone, or elsewhere in Block 5, will be continued only after full environmental and social impact assessments and in consultations with all stakeholders;
• The current phase of the project consists of exploration only. If hydrocarbons are discovered and it is decided subsequently to develop them, further EIA and SIA studies will be undertaken, together with continuing stakeholder consultations.

III.45           On 20 September 2001, Shell convened its first workshop in Dhaka to share information about the ensuing work programme, oil and gas exploration and emergent issues and questions. It distributed briefing papers to stakeholders and invited responses and discussion. A web site has been launched with updated information on Shell's activities in Bangladesh: http://www.shell.com/bd/. The Bureau noted that IUCN Bangladesh is in discussion with Shell about their activities and will continue to advise them as and when requested.

III.46           The Bureau learnt that the Steering Committee, established by the Government of Bangladesh for smooth implementation of the Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project (SBCP), has invited IUCN Bangladesh to be a member. As part of the SBCP, IUCN Bangladesh will conduct independent monitoring of biodiversity of the Sundarbans, drawing on wetland, marine and protected area specialists from its international network. The UN Foundation has provided a planning grant for another project to be executed jointly by UNDP Offices in Bangladesh and India for promoting trans-border co- operation between the two countries for improving the World Heritage site's biodiversity conservation. The planning grant project activities are underway and a larger proposal for possible financing by the UNF and UNDP will be the principal outcome of the planning phase. UNDP has appointed consultants for preparation of the project proposal.

III.47           A media report claims that "due to the high level of salinity, 30 Bengal Tigers have died within the past 10 years. Autopsy reports revealed that liver damage has caused the death of these Tigers". The article mentions a proposal by the Bangladesh Forest Department for a five-year, US$2 million project called "Tiger Project: Sundarbans" which, though proposed in 1991, has not been implemented. IUCN has received advice that salinity levels are not a special threat to the tigers in the Sundarbans as they have adapted to water with salinity levels higher than in other parts of its range in South Asia. There may well be indirect threats to the tigers if salinity-induced changes impact other components of its habitat; i.e. its principal prey species, and habitat structures and distribution.

III.48           The 'crown death' of Sundri trees, the dominant mangrove species in the Sundarbans, could be attributable to salinity, sedimentation, pest attack and natural successional processes, although salinity is frequently cited as the primary reason. The SBCP has initiated a study on the death of the Sundri trees. IUCN has received preliminary media reports of a planned 'Biodiversity Project' - comprised of an 'Ecopark' and mangrove arboretum - for Karamjal, situated in the Sundarbans East Zone under the Chandpai range. Karamjal is a captive breeding centre for many critically endangered species of the Sundarbans. The Ecopark will cover an area of 30 hectares and play a vital role in conserving forest resources while also being a tourist attraction for international visitors.

III.49           The Bureau commended the State Party for its efforts, in particular via the SBCP and other projects, to strengthen conservation of the site, and to provide alternative livelihood options to forest exploitation so that local communities acknowledge the positive influence World Heritage site protection has for the whole region. The Bureau welcomed Shell's careful and transparent planning of its hydro- carbon exploration activities in Block 5 and its commitment to undertake full social, economic and environmental impact studies before any production occurs, and to continuing open dialogue with stakeholders. The Bureau noted that proposals for oil and gas exploration are outside the boundaries of the World Heritage site and expressed its opposition to any mining or exploration activities within the site. All oil and gas exploration as well as other development activities in the vicinity of the World Heritage site must be carefully planned to minimise environmental and social impacts.

Sundarbans National Park (India)         

III.50           The Bureau learned that the "Project Tiger status report" for 2001, prepared by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) of India, refers to a system of National Waterways through the mangrove forests of Sundarbans including the Tiger Reserve. If implemented, the project will affect the ecosystem adversely by large- scale human activities, dredging of streams and oil spills of numerous vessels carrying cargo.

III.51           The Bureau expressed its concern over the potential threats posed by the proposed National Waterways project to this site and requested that the State Party submit, before 1 February 2002, a detailed report on the project and its potential impacts on the site for review at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

Kaziranga National Park (India)         

III.52           The Bureau noted that the State Party had not yet provided the report requested before 15 September 2001 as requested by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session in June 2001. The Centre intends to organize an IUCN/Centre mission to Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam, India, in February 2002, and that mission could visit Kaziranga National Park as well.

III.53           The Bureau reiterated its request, that the State Party submit a report on major management issues and welcomed the possibility of the IUCN/Centre mission visiting this site during its visit to Assam, India in February 2002. The Bureau recommended that an up-to-date state of conservation report on the site be submitted to its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

Komodo National Park (Indonesia)         

III.54           The Bureau was informed that the State Party had submitted a report on the state of conservation of the site using the format prescribed in the periodic reporting brochure and this report has been reviewed by IUCN. The Bureau learned that:

• The 25-year Management Plan for the site was completed in June 2000. The Plan comprises the expansion of the Park, to include an extension at Gili Banta and a connection to Gili Mota. The proposed extensions will add 504 square kilometres to the area of the Park, 479 sq.km. of which will be marine habitat. The new Park would therefore comprise 27% terrestrial and 73% marine areas. The proposed extension is based on the high level of coral and fish diversity and associated aesthetic value and the importance of areas providing migratory corridors for cetaceans.
• The plan also includes a new zoning system for the Park, dividing the Park into 7 zones covering both marine and terrestrial environments as follows: core zone; wilderness zone with limited tourism; tourism zone; traditional use zone; pelagic use zone; special research and training zone; and traditional settlement zone. Regulations have been formulated for each zone. A map of the Park is being completed and will be disseminated widely.
• According to the ongoing coral reef and fish monitoring programme conducted by The Nature Conservancy of USA (TNC) and Park personnel, a slow recovery, i.e. 2% increase in hard coral per year, has been occurring around Komodo since 1996. Eight demersal fish spawning grounds have been identified within the Park waters. As a consequence, the Park has applied regulations to prohibit demersal fish exploitation during the spawning season.
• In the terrestrial sector, forest fires occur frequently, largely due to human activities during the dry season. Deer poaching has been a significant threat to the integrity of the Park, with poachers using fire to herd deer. Park patrols involve local police, navy and army personnel, as Park rangers are not equipped with firearms.
• A floating boat patrol, equipped with communication systems to allow contact with Park headquarters, has been added to the law enforcement programme. Overall, the incidences of dynamite and cyanide fishing and deer poaching have declined significantly with improved and intensified patrolling.
• Park regulations prohibit anyone from entering the Park without a permit, except local people practicing traditional fishing. Despite this prohibition, illegal entry by fishermen originating from other islands continues to be a major issue.

III.55           TNC has been working on an innovative management scheme for the Park, involving the private tourism sector and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) in a partnership to establish sustainable financing for the Park. IUCN has been playing a supportive role and providing some technical input, in co-operation with the International Finance Corporation (IFC) which is helping to support the project. The Indonesian Government formally wrote to the UNESCO Office in Jakarta, Indonesia, requesting UNESCO's views on the joint TNC/GOI/tourism sector initiative. The establishment of a tourism concession is seen as a sustainable financing mechanism to be tested within the framework of the implementation of the 25-year Management Plan and has been supported by IUCN and UNESCO. The need to closely monitor the work of the concession and all other projects designed to support the implementation of the 25-year Management Plan has however been stressed by all stakeholders.

III.56           The Bureau welcomed the several initiatives to strengthen protection of the site and acknowledged the important contributions that TNC, IFC, GEF, the tourism sector and other partners are making towards the long-term conservation and sustainable financing of Komodo National Park. The Bureau noted with concern that the illegal entry of outsiders from other islands continues and invited the GOI to consider providing increased resources for patrolling the marine environment of the Park, especially in the light of the recent extension to the marine component of the Park. The Bureau recommended that the State Party provide, by 1 February 2002, a status report on the establishment of the tourism management concession and a timeframe for nominating the extensions to the Park for inclusion in the World Heritage site, to enable the Bureau to review the information at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)         

III.57           The Bureau was informed of the following steps taken by the WWF Office in Irian Jaya: (i) institutional strengthening of three local NGOs to develop skills in Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA), project planning and monitoring, identification and development of alternative income sources, community organisation, advocacy and communications; (ii) promoting community-based approaches to natural resources management by documenting traditional practices of the three main ethnic groups using the Park's resources; (iii) identifying alternative sources of income in order to minimise community dependence on forest resources; (iv) encouraging the recognition of community rights and knowledge and enhancing community participation in site management; and (v) co-operating with Park management to develop an overall management plan as well as plans for the utilisation of various management zones.

III.58           WWF-Indonesia has financed a range of activities up to the year 2001 and is in the process of submitting proposals for financing a number of new initiatives for the period 2001/2002 and beyond. The Bureau noted the following issues identified by WWF as requiring immediate attention:

• Organisation of an integrated planning workshop bringing together all concerned parties;
• Building transparent relationships amongst NGOs, ethnic communities, private sector and the Government;
• Establishment of an institution with multi-stakeholder representation for management of the area; and
• Financing programmes targeted to research, communities and institutional development and the overall long-term planning and development of the site.

III.59           The US$ 30,000 grant approved by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau will be used for the organisation of a series of strategic planning workshops involving the participation of all stakeholders. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Australian Government has approved AU$ 250,000 for capacity building for the management of the site. The Delegate of Australia expressed the interest of his Government to work together with the Indonesian authorities, IUCN and the Centre to implement the capacity building project.

III.60           The Bureau noted the variety of support that is becoming available to the site for strategic planning, capacity building and NGO and community support initiatives. However, recommendations from these activities need to be implemented to ensure a positive impact on the conservation of this site. Hence, the Bureau encouraged relevant donors to support the implementation of recommended priority actions and to co-ordinate their activities. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to work through its partners, particularly the UNESCO Office, Jakarta and the IUCN Asia Regional Programme and IUCN/WCPA Vice-Chair for Southeast Asia to promote co-ordinated development and execution of projects and activities in support of Lorentz. The Bureau recalled that in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee made at the time of the site's inscription in the World Heritage List in 1999, a IUCN/Centre mission to the site is due in late 2002. The Bureau recommended that a full status report on the conservation of the site and the planning of its future management be submitted to the twenty- seventh session of the Bureau in April 2003.

Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)         

III.61           The Bureau learnt that the State Party is considering a proposal to enlarge Mulu World Heritage site to include Gunung Buda. The proposal however, is raising concern amongst indigenous groups and the wider conservation community because of the reported lack of inclusion of indigenous peoples and their claims in the decision to extend the Gunung Mulu World Heritage site. The recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in Sarawak has been upheld by the historical legal decision on Rumah Nor. On the 12 May 2001, the High Court of Sarawak upheld the customary rights of the Iban village Rumah Nor when it found that the Borneo Paper and Pulp company, which had begun logging the forest claimed by the villagers, did not have the right to destroy Rumah Nor's rainforest.

III.62           Following this decision, the people of Gunung Buda lodged a claim with a land tribunal seeking an injunction to the rule that they should have a share in the management of the Gunung Buda area. The Government argued against this on the grounds that there was no properly surveyed boundary of their claimed lands, and so the claim was denied. Thus the indigenous peoples are opposing the inclusion of Gunung Buda in the Gunung Mulu World Heritage site.

III.63           The Bureau recalled that when it referred the nomination of Gunung Mulu to the State Party at its twenty-fourth session it had sought, amongst others, "þassurance that the new management plan addresses issues relating to local peoples' use of and benefits from the Park as well as the new contractual arrangements for management of the Parkþ". The Committee, when it inscribed the site on the World Heritage List at its last session in Cairns, Australia, had suggested that the "þauthorities be encouraged to review additions to the site for their World Heritage potential when the gazetting process is completed".

III.64           The Bureau was also informed of three on-going initiatives aimed at enhancing management of Gunung Mulu National Park:

• Implementation of the Plan for Management of the Park - This plan was reviewed as part of the evaluation of the nomination of the site. Current status includes examination of options for contracting out management of the Park to the private sector, while overall regulatory responsibility remains with the Ministry of Forestry, Department of National Parks of Sarawak. The Plan of Management for the Park has been drafted in a manner that supports this possibility;
• Community development for areas outside the Park; this initiative aims to develop options for better planning and development around the Park boundaries, particularly in the Mulu area, including issues of land title, planning processes etc. This initiative could enable locals to manage better, and benefit from, the opportunities that come with World Heritage listing;
• Preliminary drafting of a project concept to secure international assistance with capacity building for management of the Park - to focus on staff capacity and skills development.

III.65           The Bureau welcomed the possibility of the extension of the Park and noted with satisfaction the initiatives to improve site-management and staff capacity building. The Bureau however, invited the State Party to give due consideration to the involvement of indigenous peoples and other local communities in planning and implementing decisions regarding the extension of the site, and to seek their full co-operation in its management and in extending the site to include Gunung Buda. The Bureau recommended that the State Party provide a report, before 1 February 2002, on the results of its negotiations with indigenous communities for review by its twenty- sixth session in April 2002.

Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)         

III.66           The Bureau was informed that in response to its request at its twenty-fifth session in June 2001, the State Party has submitted a report, dated June 2000, entitled: "Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) for the Jagatpur Madi 33 kV Subtransmission Line Project". The report states that the transmission line will pass through approximately 6km of the Park and World Heritage site between Dhrubaghat and Bankatta, and through 500 metres and 1,000 metres of buffer zone forests at the same two locations. The project foresees the erection of eleven-metre high concrete poles and the stringing of lines. It will be aligned along the existing Hulaki road and hence require the clearing of a two-metre wide corridor. In total, 331 trees of endangered species - Shorea robusta; Acacia catechu, Bombax ceiba and Cedrella toona will be removed. The EIA has not yet been approved by the Government of Nepal.

III.67           According to the report, loss or alteration of habitat, construction disturbances to wild fauna, likely hunting and poaching by project workers, decline in water quality associated with erosion and silting, pollution from temporary workers' camps, and bird deaths from collision with the transmission lines are foreseen as negative impacts. Mitigation measures proposed include: reforestation of two hectares of community land near the Park with the guidance of the Park authorities; a Community Forest Support Programme in three locations to be implemented in conjunction with Park authorities; an Environmental Awareness for Conservation Programme (EAC) to be implemented by NGOs, and a Habitat Management Programme to be implemented by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife.

III.68           The Kasara Bridge is under construction over the Rapti River that constitutes the northern boundary of the Park and World Heritage site. No EIA was conducted for the project. Due to budget uncertainties and restrictions, the road will require a few years for completion. The road will pass through the Park and World Heritage site, but will partly follow the current designated Public Right of Way to Madi Village. The alignment from Kasara Bridge to the public right of way has not been decided. One option is to follow the Park/World Heritage site periphery along the Rapti River for 3-4 km.

III.69           The Bureau learnt that the provision of electricity will help reduce the need for kerosene for lighting and firewood for cooking, the two major sources of the local population, and also provide a source of fuel for lodges and hotels in the area. This should have a positive impact by reducing the amount of wood collected from the Park. Nevertheless, the Bureau was concerned about the impacts associated with the construction of the transmission line and road within the World Heritage site and noted the IUCN position that similar threats have prompted Danger Listing in other cases.

III.70           The Bureau noted that the State Party has not yet approved the plan to construct the transmission line through the Park and urged the State Party not to proceed with the plan to construct this line and seek alternatives that would have minimal impacts on the integrity of the Park. The Bureau noted that the Kasara Bridge and the associated road along the northern periphery of the Park might be a less impacting option to improve transport in the region. The Bureau recommended that the State Party take into due consideration these suggestions and inform the Centre of its decision on the proposed transmission line and the routing of the road and provide a detailed report on the status of the projects by 1 February 2002, for consideration at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)

III.71           The Bureau recalled that at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session in November 2000 it had requested the Centre and IUCN to monitor developments with regard to the resolution of the dispute over land reclaimed by the Forest Department that had previously been leased to a private company. The private enterprise concerned, Sinharaja Plantations Organic (PVT) Ltd., has written to the Director of the Centre raising preliminary objections against the reacquisition of land released earlier by the Government for organic tea farming. In October 2001 the enterprise informed the Centre that it has placed the action of the Conservator of Forests to reclaim the land before the judiciary of Sri Lanka in order to claim compensation. The enterprise has requested the Bureau to refrain from arriving at any decisions concerning the parcel of land that it claims until the question has been settled legally.

III.72           The Bureau took note of the fact that the Forest Department of Sri Lanka and the Sinharaja Plantations Organic (PVT) Ltd., have entered a legal process regarding the 62 hectares parcel of land advised by IUCN to be outside of the World Heritage area. The Bureau requested IUCN to monitor the outcome of the legal process and report on their implications for the conservation of the site to the twenty-seventh session of the Committee in 2003.

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)         

III.73           In accordance with the request of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in November 2000, the Ha Long Bay Management Department (HLBMD) submitted the sixth annual progress report on the conservation, management and promotion of the Ha Long Bay World Heritage Area. The Bureau learnt that IUCN reviewed the report and has expressed broad support for the efforts of the HLBMD to manage this extremely complex World Heritage site located in an intensive economic development zone.

III.74           The Bureau noted that the project proposal for the Institutional Capacity Building of the Halong Bay Management Department, prepared by IUCN-Vietnam, HLBMD and the Quang Ninh Provincial Authorities, has been widely circulated and finalised in close collaboration with relevant institutions and the Province. The proposal is currently being shared with potential donors. The UNESCO Ha Long Bay Eco-Museum Feasibility Project, financed by UNDP, has been completed and a final 135-page report on the feasibility study and a video have been transmitted to the Centre by the UNESCO Office in Vietnam on 17 October 2001. IUCN served as a member of the Steering Committee of this Project. Discussions have been held in collaboration with the Eco-Museum project and the Institutional Capacity Building project. The final proposal of the Ha Long Bay Eco-Museum Feasibility Project, envisages the development of an "Ecomuseum Hub" in the vicinity of Ha Long Bay and the design and elaboration of a variety of interpretation packages based on themes identified in the study.

III.75           The feasibility study follow-up places strong emphasis on the establishment of a project team of Vietnamese staff of the HLBMD supported by two international facilitators. Intensive capacity building and skills transfer, particularly in the fields of planning, data collection and integrated interpretative management of the area are proposed. A comprehensive analysis to develop strategic partnerships between the Ecomuseum and key stakeholders has been undertaken and a number of thematic areas for collaboration have been identified. For example, a theme on the fishing traditions of Ha Long will directly involve floating fishing villages, terrestrial fishing communities, boat builders and major institutions such as the Viet Nam Institute of Oceanography, the Institute of Marine Products and local authority agencies such as the provincial Fisheries Department.

III.76           The Bureau learnt that tourism has increased by 135% between 1997 and 2000 and is a critical management issue at this site. The Bureau noted IUCN's satisfaction with the fact that the direct management and control of the caves has been brought under the authority of HLBMD, and the expectation that this would ensure appropriate measures to present the caves, control tourism and minimise impacts. The Feasibility Study's effort to propose a "Ecomuseum Hub" and an Interpretative Management Plan aim to spread the visitor resources in and outside of Ha Long Bay and thereby support the intensity of visitation to the World Heritage site without reducing the number of tourists visiting the broader region. The feasibility study estimates that total cost of the development of the "Ecomuseum Hub" and other interpretation theme products is likely to cost US$ 17 million over a 4-year period. The Quang Ninh Province has committed US$ 3 million and intends to seek other funds from external sources.

III.77           During a visit to Japan in early October 2001, a representative from the Centre met with officials of the Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA). These officials confirmed that the Environmental Management of Ha Long Bay continues to be one of the priority projects of JICA and that discussions with the Government of Vietnam are underway in order to implement the Environmental Management Plan as soon as possible. The Delegate of Japan informed that more information regarding the JICA assistance will be provided at the Committee session.

III.78           The Bureau commended HLBMD efforts to conserve the site and acknowledged efforts of the State Party to support the development of a range of projects to address management issues at the site. Given the considerable international interest in the site, the Bureau urged the HLBMD to continue and strengthen its efforts to co-ordinate projects in order to ensure optimal use of resources and skills available via HLBMD's association with IUCN and UNESCO Offices in Vietnam and other partners. The Bureau reiterated the recommendation made at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session regarding the early implementation of the recommendations of the JICA/Government of Vietnam Environmental Management Plan for Ha Long Bay and invited the State Party to submit by 1 February 2002 a progress report on what has been achieved in this regard for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in April 2002.

Latin America and the Caribbean         

Los Katios National Park (Colombia)

III.79           The Secretariat informed the Bureau that no invitation was received to carry out a mission to Los Katios following the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. The Bureau learnt that an IUCN representative had visited Bogota, Colombia, in November 2001. IUCN noted that the Special Administrative Unit for National Parks of Colombia is increasingly implementing management activities in the area, and that it works with local communities to enhance their support of management activities.

III.80           The Bureau acknowledged the efforts made by the State Party towards the conservation of this site and recommended that it invites a field mission to the site when appropriate.

Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)

III.81           The Bureau was informed that a progress report was received on 10 October 2001 from the Director of the Charles Darwin Research Station noting the implementation of a number of programmes aiming to enhance the institutional capacity of the Park Administration. The report also noted the status of regulations concerning tourism, fisheries and quarantine, as well as progress achieved in the preparation of the Strategy 2010 for the Sustainable Development of the Islands.

III.82           Galapagos Special Law: On 18 September, 2001, Ecuador's Constitutional Court voted in favour of the Galapagos Special Law, following a day of public inquiry held in response to a lawsuit brought forward by the Association of Industrial Tuna Fishermen (ATUNEC), which challenged the Special Law's constitutionality. The final decision of the Constitutional Court of Judges - eight votes in favour and one abstention - represents an important achievement in the continued efforts to protect the Galapagos Islands under the regulations of the Special Law. Since its approval in March 1998, the Galapagos Special Law has faced continued attacks, primarily from the industrial fishing sector based in continental Ecuador, which seeks fishing rights inside the Galapagos Marine Reserve (proposed in entirety as an extension to the World Heritage site). The Special Law granted exclusive fishing rights in the Marine Reserve to artisanal fishermen and calls for a system of quotes and zoning to control fisheries. However, the Special Law can only be fully enforced after all the regulations and by-laws on key management issues such as fisheries have been approved. According to information received, dated 19 September 2001, two of the key regulations (on tourism and fisheries) are likely to be approved by the President's Office by the end of November. The third regulation on quarantine, introduced species and agriculture is in the process of local consultation. The fourth regulation, which covers Environmental Management and pollution issues, is the least advanced. The President of Ecuador visited the site in November 2001 and reiterated the Government's support for the declaration of the Marine Reserve as a World Heritage site.

III.83           Enforcement and Control of the Marine Reserve: Earlier in 2001, the vessel Sirenian, owned and operated by the environmental NGO Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, commenced a five-year tour of duty to help the Galapagos National Park Service clamp down on illegal commercial fishing operations within 40 miles of the Islands. This collaborative operation, given a favourable ruling by the Ecuadorian Court, is the first conservation patrol of the Galapagos by a foreign vessel officially supported by the Ecuadorian Government. A loan by the Inter-American Development Bank for US$ 10 million has been approved for enforcing controls in the Marine Reserve. Logistical assistance and institutional strengthening are the two most important elements of this project. Galapagos National Park hopes to purchase four more boats and a helicopter to cover the whole area. At the moment, the Park possesses two vessels, ten speedboats, twelve wooden boats and personnel of 50 to patrol the 133,000 km2 marine area. Despite the assistance of the Ecuadorian Navy, this is clearly not sufficient. Only 5% of entrance fees to the GNP are directed towards controlling the Reserve.

III.84           Illegal shark fishing: Destructive shark fishing, where the shark fin is cut from the live shark and the mutilated animal is dumped back into the sea, continues in the Galapagos Marine Reserve due to the high demand for shark fins for the Asian market. The fishing techniques used also negatively affect other species, including marine birds. During 2001, 22 fishing boats were caught, 5,600 shark fins confiscated and 3,000 pounds of meat seized. According to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, half the boats caught fishing illegally in the Galapagos were not punished. But progress on this matter has been made: Canela II, a Costa Rican long liner caught fishing out of the port of Puntarenas, was confiscated by the Local Court of Galapagos and the order was upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is a legal precedent, as never before in Ecuadorian legal history has a fishing boat been confiscated for illegal fishing.

III.85           Sea Lion Poaching: On the 16 July 2001, fifteen (11 male and 4 female) mutilated sea lion - Zalophus wollebaeki - corpses were discovered on La Loberia Beach on San Cristobal Island. This is the first time such action has been reported in the Galapagos Islands. The Charles Darwin Research Station, the Galapagos National Park Service and a veterinarian of the Araucaria Foundation undertook autopsies of nine of the animals. The autopsy report makes the link between the incident and the increasing demand from Asian markets for the male genitals of sea lions and seals for use in traditional medicine, as aphrodisiacs and amulets.

III.86           Invasive Species Eradication Programme: In early 2002, the Charles Darwin Research Station and the Galapagos National Park Service will commence a five-year programme to combat invasive species. Funding of US$18 million is being provided over six years from the United Nations Foundations and GEF, while other sources are estimated to amount to US$19 million. Biologists and Park staff will use a combination of measures to remove some alien species, make a dent in other populations, and bolster controls to keep other exotics out of the Islands.

III.87           Tourism: Progress has also been reported on the SmartVoyager certification programme, a joint initiative of the Rainforest Alliance and Conservacion y Desarrollo (C&D) of Ecuador. The programme aims to give a "green seal" of approval to tour boats operating in the Galapagos Archipelago that meet certain environmental and social criteria. Full details of the certification programme can be found at: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/sv/ objectives.html

III.88           The Bureau adopted the following decision for transmission to the Committee for examination at its twenty-fifth session:

"The Committee, recognising the continued and increasing threats posed to the marine and terrestrial flora and fauna of the Islands, urges the State Party to make all efforts to finalise the specific regulations under the Special Law and enforce them as soon as possible. The Committee commends the ruling by the State Party's Constitutional Court to uphold the Galapagos Special Law. It also commends the Ecuadorian Government for supporting the "Sea Shepherd" patrols in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, as well as efforts to protect the marine ecosystem in the Reserve. The Committee also commends the Smart Voyager initiative, given the nature of tourism visitation to the Galapagos and the impacts of tourism on the fragile environment and in light of the proposed Marine Reserve. It believes that consideration should be given to promoting similar schemes in other World Heritage sites. The Committee furthermore notes that the sea lion incident demonstrates the need to enhance the capacity of the Park to reinforce patrolling and control of the Islands."

Sian Ka'an (Mexico)         

III.89           The Bureau was informed that IUCN received a report informing that land on the strip of dunes between the ocean and the coastal lagoon of Sian Ka'an was being advertised for sale by a real estate agent in the town of Akumal. While this is consistent with State Party law and regulations on protected areas that maintain ownership of private lands, including the right to sell those lands, the rapid escalation of tourism development in the area since the mid 1980's is of considerable concern.

III.90           However, in the framework of the UNF "Linking biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism at World Heritage sites" project, it is noted that most of the beachfront is in private hands. This has been the case since the Reserve's conception. The management plan has set a policy that private lots can be sold, but not divided, limiting tourism development within the Reserve. The management plan for the site also sets a moratorium on further construction on the private land until the preparation of the Ecological Land Use Plan has been finalised for the site. Authorities wish to fix tourism regulations in the near future to try to raise the quality of tourism and to control its growth. These initiatives will be complemented by a new one from the Sian Ka'an authorities on a transferable development rights strategy to deal with all the beachfront holdings. The authorities hope to identify receiving areas and remove the density (development potential) from critical portions of the World Heritage site, while compensating property owners in those areas.

III.91           IUCN has received notification from the Municipality of Solidaridad, Playa del Carmen, State of Quintana Roo, Yucatan Peninsula, of a scientific gathering planned for 5-10 November 2001. The event - "RIVIERA MAYA ECO'01: Safeguarding the Fragile Ecosystems of Solidaridad" is being convened with the aim of developing integrated programmes that consider protection, conservation, recovery and management of the areas unique biodiversity on a sustainable basis. The Municipality of Solidaridad, which includes part of the World Heritage site and the Biosphere Reserve, expects the construction of approximately 80,000 hotel rooms in the Municipality in the next 10-15 years, associated with a 24% annual population growth. Currently, the area receives 5,500 tourists a day. IUCN believes the transferable property rights strategy holds some promise for reducing development pressures, and if successful, may have the potential to be applied in other World Heritage sites. IUCN therefore acknowledged the innovative attempt by the Park authorities to find a solution to the development problems facing the site, and requested the State Party to provide more information on the strategy.

III.92           The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the impact of increased tourism development on the World Heritage site and strategies to address negative impacts. It also requested a report on progress achieved with the revision of the management plan for the World Heritage site by 1 February 2002.

Canaima National Park (Venezuela)         

III.93           The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Ministry for the Environment had sent a letter to the Centre dated 19 September 2001 that was transmitted to IUCN for review. This letter noted that, following one of the recommendations from the UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site in 1999, a "Participatory Long-Term Action Plan" for the site has been developed. The letter also noted the interest and commitment of the State Party to participate in the UNF-financed project "Enhancing our Heritage: monitoring and managing for success in World Natural Heritage sites". Information was received at IUCN that INPARQUES, in charge of administration for Canaima National Park, is facing serious financial difficulties, that are negatively affecting the protection of the site. Deforestation and rubbish dumping around tourist camps within the Park has also been reported. According to information received, tension between indigenous communities, the Federation of Indigenous People of the Bolivar State (FIEB) and national authorities remains high with regard to the issue of the power line project. IUCN stated that the 1999 mission provides for the framework of action. The assessment of the Action Plan is needed and the capacity of the management agency should be reviewed.

III.94           The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a comprehensive report on the conservation of Canaima National Park, including measures taken to enhance the capacity of INPARQUES to effectively protect and manage this site. The Bureau urged the Venezuelan Government to provide a report on the implementation of all recommendations of the UNESCO/IUCN 1999 mission by 1 February 2002.         

Europe and North America

Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/ Poland)         

III.95           The Bureau noted that IUCN reviewed the "Background to Management Guidelines for Bialowieza Forest", an outcome of the Technical Working Group (TWG) created within the framework of the Bialowieza Forest Project. IUCN noted that the Guidelines document is the result of a trial process for establishing a decision-making procedure concerning the future of the Forest, its social functions, and the protection of natural values of primeval forests. The TWG is the only forum assembled to date that has included representatives of a wide range of stakeholders and has involved intensive consultations within the communities affected by management of the Forest. The Bialowieza Forest Project is supervised by the Ministry of Environment and supported by Danish Co-operation for the Environment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE). The objective of the Project is to achieve a sustainable approach to the management of the Forest, ensuring the protection of natural values and supporting development of local communities.

III.96           The Bureau commended the efforts of the TWG and the Bialowieza Forest Project to bring all stakeholders together to create a common vision for the World Heritage site. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide regular progress reports in relation to the implementation of this project.

Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)         

III.97           The Bureau noted that the Ministry for Environment and Water submitted a report on the conservation status of Pirin National Park, which was reviewed by IUCN. The report included the following information on the Territorial Development Plan (TDP) developed for the Bansko ski zone within the site: The TDP passed all the Environment Impact Assessment procedures under Bulgarian Law. It was later submitted to the High Expert Ecological Council (HEEC) of the Ministry for Environment and Water that requested changes and protection measures. The final version of the TDP is 818.46 ha, with ski runs and facilities occupying 99.55 ha of this area. The TDP aims to upgrade an existing ski zone, the most significant element of which is a cable car. It is considered to greatly reduce the negative impacts associated with crowding, traffic congestion, and rundown facilities. The development aims to ensure the achievement of one of the major goals of the National Park, namely encouraging ecotourism and generating income for the local people. The Management Plan for the Park is to be developed with financial assistance from the ongoing Bulgarian-Swiss Biodiversity Conservation Programme. This is expected to be completed in 2001. On 12 July 2001, the sitting of the three- member High Administrative Court of Bulgaria ended with a rejection of the BALKANI Wildlife Society appeal against the decision of the Ministry of Environment and Water to grant permission for the TDP.

III.98           Furthermore, the Bureau noted that the State Party invited a UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site. IUCN also received a Brief from the "Save the Pirin Campaign", a coalition of over 30 Bulgarian NGOs opposed to the development. IUCN noted the State Party's belief that "the only solution to the problem of the sustainable development of the Pirin NP is to bind the goals of the Park to the interests of the local people", and that the TDP offers this opportunity. IUCN acknowledged that it is important that local populations benefit, where possible, from World Heritage designation. IUCN noted that any development in the World Heritage site must be carefully planned to minimise environmental impacts. IUCN questioned whether the TDP project in Pirin National Park could be considered to promote ecotourism and whether it is compatible with World Heritage status. It also noted that the total area covered by the TDP is 818.46 ha, whereas the current proposed ski runs and facilities cover less than 100 ha. This is a substantial increase.

III.99           The Bureau adopted the following decision for transmission to the Committee:

"The Committee notes the concerns over the Territorial Development Plan (TDP) which it anticipates will lead to further incremental development within the remaining larger area. It requests the State Party to ensure that tourism development does not take place in the remaining TDP area in the future. The Committee urges that the mission invited by the State Party be carried out as soon as possible."

Gros Morne National Park (Canada)         

III.100           The Bureau noted that following its request, the Canadian authorities provided a report concerning the site, which was reviewed by IUCN. The report noted that logging in the Main River watershed near Gros Morne National Park has not commenced. Parks Canada is working with the forestry company and provincial government to ensure that the proposed harvesting regime takes into account potential impacts on the World Heritage values and the ecological integrity of the site. The Bureau thanked Parks Canada for the report provided and requested the State Party to inform the Centre as soon as new developments occur.

Nahanni National Park (Canada)         

III.101           The Bureau noted that following it's request, the Canadian authorities provided a report concerning potential impacts of increased mining activity in the region surrounding Nahanni National Park World Heritage site. IUCN noted that a study is currently underway to determine preferred boundaries for three adjacent areas which are proposed as additions to the Park; that the Deh Cho First Nations have proposed that the Park Reserve be expanded to include part or all of the South Nahanni River watershed and that the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA) governs land and resource use in the Nahanni area and that the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has authority. The areas potentially affected by this activity are within the watershed of the South Nahanni River. In two cases, the areas potentially affected are in one of the three candidate areas that are identified as proposed additions to the Park Reserve.

III.102           The Bureau noted that Parks Canada is concerned that the number and location of the proposed developments could result in cumulative impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including changes to water quality, habitat fragmentation, changes to wildlife movement and resulting impacts on biodiversity. Parks Canada is continuing to work in the processes established under the MVRMA and De Cho Process to address its concerns. It is continuing efforts to expand the Park Reserve into the three candidate areas identified and to work with other jurisdictions towards a comprehensive conservation regime for the balance of the watershed.

III.103           The Bureau noted the importance placed by Parks Canada on the issue of cumulative impacts from proposed mining near this World Heritage site and the measures underway to solve or minimise this problem. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a progress report on the implementation of the MVRMA and De Cho Process by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst, (Hungary/Slovakia)         

III.104           The Bureau was informed that IUCN reviewed reports concerning the preparation of a new version of the mining law by the Slovak Ministry of Economy. The new law is believed to remove or weaken the present restrictions on mining operations in protected areas. The reports also claimed that mining companies are seeking to open new limestone mines in the Slovak Karst, and claims the granting of limestone exploitation licenses by the Slovak Government is imminent. SOSNA, a Slovak environmental NGO, has proposed to the Slovak Minister of Environment the re-categorisation of the Slovak Karst from a Protected Landscape Area to a National Park and the development of local sustainable tourism and biological farming.

III.105           The Delegate of Hungary informed the Bureau that the issues raised concern only the Slovak part of this transboundary site.

III.106           The Bureau commended the State Party on the process of changing the status of the Protected Landscape Area of Slovensky Karst to that of a National Park. This will complement the adjacent Aggtelek National Park in Hungary and, in doing so, facilitate more cohesive and equivalent management of the two sections of the World Heritage site. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide an update on the proposed revisions to the mining law and specific implications for the World Heritage site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

Aeolian Islands (Italy)         

III.107           The Bureau was informed that IUCN received reports of legal proceedings taken to oppose the implementation of the Landscape Territorial Plan for the Aeolian Islands. The Plan (Piano Paesistico delle Isole Eolie), which was prepared by the Superintendent of Culture and Environment on behalf of the Sicily Region, which is fully responsible for the management of the World Heritage site. It covers the seven Islands in their entirety. The main goals of the Plan are to preserve the natural condition of volcanic bodies, structures and coastal areas and to establish clear rules and criteria to guide human interventions in relation to the landscape of the Islands. The Bureau also noted that it is understood that the Mayors of two of the four townships on the Islands - Lipari and Leni - have opposed the Plan and have requested the Court to deliver a judgement in order to cancel the Plan. A group of non-governmental organisations is supporting the Sicily Region's Plan in Court. If the Plan is not implemented, it is understood that the rules regarding conservation, new constructions and general human activities on the Islands will be decided on a case- by-case basis by the different City Councils. The NGO Italia Nostra, has reported that these Councils have stated their intention to increase by at least 4 times the present level of tourist accommodation. IUCN noted the actions of Italia Nostra in support of the Landscape Territorial Plan, which is particularly important given its significance as the only (potential) plan governing the World Heritage site. IUCN also noted that at the time of nomination, the State Party mentioned its commitment to the preparation of a separate management plan for the World Heritage site, to be placed within the Landscape Territorial Plan.

III.108           The Observer of Italy confirmed that there was a court decision on 4 December 2001 which is not yet public, but that it is hoped to be available soon. Collaboration with the Region is already underway and new information may be provided at the time of the Committee session.

III.109           The Bureau expressed its concern to the State Party on the local government opposition to the Landscape Territorial Plan, noting that the inscription of the site was partly based on the existence of this Plan. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide information on the implications the court action has on the preparation of a Management Plan for the World Heritage site. It also requested that information be provided to update on: progress in development of the Management Plan; the protective and educational/interpretative actions undertaken for the site, and proposed development plans, particularly with respect to tourism on the Islands, how such tourism development may affect the World Heritage site and how it will be dealt with within the Landscape Territorial Plan and Management Plan. The Bureau requested that this information be provided by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)         

III.110           The Bureau noted that the State Party invited a UNESCO-IUCN mission to this site following the recommendation from the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. The mission took place from 25 August to 3 September 2001. A Representative of IUCN and the Director of UNESCO-Moscow Office, representing the World Heritage Centre, conducted the mission. The Bureau furthermore noted the full report of this mission contained in information document WHC- 01/CONF.207/INF.8, and reviewed all information as stated in the working document WHC-01/CONF.207/3. It noted in particular the series of recurrent problems and new potential threats that IUCN believed are seriously threatening the integrity of this site, including:

• inadequate implementation of the Federal Baikal Law,
• the frequent violations of the Federal Law on the Protection of the Environment and of the Federal Law on Environmental Impact Assessments in relation to logging activities, illegal hunting, over fishing and development/infrastructure,
• that there is still no overall management plan for this site, as requested by the Committee at the time of inscription, and
• the abolishment of the Baikal Commission, an intergovernmental body comprising federal and regional authorities as well as scientific institutions, in 2000;
• an increase in illegal poaching and logging
• decline of the Baikal Seal population
• that the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill (BPPM) continues to be a serious threat to the integrity of this site
• pressure on the forests of the Lake Baikal region.

III.111           In addition to these recurrent problems, the Bureau expressed concern about a number of new potential threats to the integrity of this site including a project to develop a gas and oil pipeline to China which was confirmed and that the Government of the Republic of Buryatia has granted a license to Buryat Gas Company. A number of Bureau members noted that no indication was received from the State Party concerning the inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. As the Russian Federation is now a member of the World Heritage Committee, this question will be raised at the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.

III.112           The Bureau adopted the following decision for transmission to the Committee:

"The Committee notes that little substantial progress has been achieved towards enhancing the protection of Lake Baikal, and addressing issues repeatedly raised by the Committee, and that there are new emerging threats that pose unprecedented risks to the integrity of this site. The Committee therefore decides to inscribe Lake Baikal in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee notes that this should be viewed as a positive measure to attract international support to enhance the capacity of the State Party to deal with the complex issues related to the conservation of this site.

The Committee furthermore notes the following as key milestones in assessing future progress:

1. Development and enforcement of all related regulations and by- laws required for the Federal Baikal Law to become fully operational. These regulations and by-laws should be developed through a participatory and transparent process involving local people and all key stakeholders dealing with the protection and management of this site.

2. Development and implementation of an integrated management plan for the whole Baikal region, with emphasis on the protection of the World Heritage site. Priority should be given to develop an adequate ecological zoning of this site to enforce the Federal Baikal Law. This plan needs to include a comprehensive monitoring system on the state of Lake Baikal. Adequate human and financial resources are required to ensure its long-term implementation.

3. Development and implementation of adequate institutional and co-ordination mechanisms for implementing the Federal Baikal Law, its regulations and by-laws. This could take the form of a renewed Baikal Commission or a similar institutional arrangement that would enhance co-ordination between federal and regional authorities while involving also NGOs, scientific institutions and other stakeholders.

4. Development and implementation of a comprehensive programme to adequately address the pollution problems affecting this site, giving particular priority to the case of BPPM, but also including other sources of pollution that are affecting the integrity of this site.

5. Detailed consideration of various scenarios for the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, including total phasing out of the Mill. This requires a long-term strategy and must be associated with the development of alternative livelihoods for local people as the BPPM is the main source of employment in the region.

In addition, the Committee requests that the State Party provides an urgent response by 1 February 2002 in relation to these issues, particularly on the development of a gas and oil pipeline to China, and the potential impacts of this project on the integrity of this site, as well as the proposed oil and gas exploration in the Selenga Delta. The Committee furthermore requests the World Heritage Centre to undertake all possible efforts to encourage the World Bank, GEF, UNF, and other relevant international donors to provide urgent support, in the form of soft loans, grants and projects, to enhance the State Party efforts to address the complex conservation and development issues facing Lake Baikal."

Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)         

III.113           The Bureau noted that the situation in and around the Bystrinski Nature Park (BNP) remains uncertain: The Kamchatka Park Service has appointed a new Park Director, however there has been little progress in dealing with threats to the BNP as the Park is receiving no financial support from the Government. Legal uncertainties continue: the boundaries of the BNP are not officially defined, and zoning of the BNP remains incomplete. This situation constrains the Park Director in monitoring hunting, preventing poaching and forest fires, and controlling tour operator activities within the BNP without authorization. Indigenous populations have expressed concern.

III.114           The Bureau noted that gold mining operations have started at Manuch, following an unannounced change to the boundary of the BNP. The mine is 5km from the 'new boundary' of the Park in the south-eastern section, or approximately 12km inside the boundary of the BNP as inscribed by the World Heritage Committee. Neither the Forest Service, the Park authorities, nor leaders of local indigenous communities were informed of the mine development. IUCN also informed the Bureau of a report that a road is planned connecting Esso, in the centre of the BNP, with Palana, the capital of Koriak Autonomous Region. The road will bisect the Park, and no monitoring or control programmes have been outlined. IUCN noted that this road will open up large areas to poaching and hunting and in the light of the extremely limited capacities of Park authorities and the Forest Service, the potential for major impacts on the Park are high.

III.115           The Bureau noted that IUCN has been working with local and indigenous communities in Esso and Anavgai in the Bystrinksi Nature Park within the framework of the CIDA-funded project "Building partnerships for forest conservation and management in Russia". The project aims to build partnerships with local communities for the development and marketing of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as mushrooms, berries, herbal teas and medicinal plants, thereby improving livelihoods and conserving the forest.

III.116           The Bureau adopted the following decision for transmission to the Committee:

"The Committee notes with concern threats to the Bystrinsky Nature Park and notes conflicting reports relating to the gold mine operation and its relationship to the World Heritage boundary. The Committee requests the Centre to work in consultation with the State Party to prepare a mission to the site to review the state of conservation including the issues noted above and to ascertain whether a case exists for inscribing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger."

Western Caucasus (Russian Federation)         

III.117           The Bureau was informed that IUCN reviewed a copy of the State Party periodic report for the Western Caucasus prepared following the June 2001 Bureau meeting. The report mentions that illegal trespassing continues to be significant, largely related to the proximity of tourist centres and hostels to the preserve's boundaries. Furthermore, there has been a weakening of conservation controls over the last 5-10 years, with an absence of such controls in the Lagonaki Plateau and Fisht-Oshtensky Massif, which are popular areas for trekking and mountaineering. In September, IUCN received reports that the Court of Adygea intended to exclude part of the Western Caucasus Zapovednik (the World Heritage site) to allow for tourist development and the construction of a road.

III.118           IUCN noted a number of issues of concern, including the tourism and ski facilities development, as well as illegal hunting. Concerning the proposed road, IUCN noted that in an official letter at the time of the inscription it was stated that: "The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of the Republic of Adygea informs you that at the present time the authorities of the Republic of Adygea are considering a new route for the Maikop-Black Sea Coast highway, avoiding the Caucasus Natural Reserve and other specially protected territories, including the Caucasus nomination. The above-mentioned activities are being carried out for the purpose of execution of the order by President of the Republic of Adygea Dzharimov. So the insinuations that the Adygean authorities have tried to build the highway right through the Caucasus State Natural Biospheric Reserve have no grounds."

III.119           The Bureau furthermore noted that the issue of the road through the Lagonaki Plateau was discussed at the time of inscription of this site and that assurances of the State Party to abandon this route was key to the site being inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide information on the developments mentioned-above, and specifically the status of the removal of areas from the site and the status of the road by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)         

III.120           The Bureau noted that following the UNESCO-UNDP mission to the site information was received in August 2001 from the UNESCO Moscow Office of support for an international consultant to provide expertise to the Republic of Altai with regard to the road project. The Russian authorities, through the Vice Head of the Section of Especially Protected Natural Territories, informed the Centre that the Federal Road Fund agreed to finance the preparation of technical and economical grounds (TEG) for the road project, carried out by the Omsk Academy of Architecture and Construction, which will review the three variants of the proposed highway. At present, this has not been considered by the Government of the Republic of Altai.

III.121           The Bureau noted the need for an international consultant to assist the Government of the Republic of Altai in the issue of the revision of the road project and encouraged the authorities to submit a well-defined international assistance proposal. Such a project should be reviewed and carried out in close consultation between the State Party, IUCN, the Centre and the UNESCO Moscow Office.

Doñana National Park (Spain)         

III.122           IUCN informed the Bureau about a number of issues concerning the site: the Expansion of the Port of Seville up the Guadalquivir River and outside the World Heritage site, a project funded by sea shipping subventions of the EU, the National Park Management Plan still under discussion, the decline of the Iberian lynx and the imperial eagle population, the Rocío Pilgrimage, twice a year, involving large numbers of pilgrims walking through the Park to El Rocío village at the northern boundary of the Park, grazing at the site, and the impact of road building outside the Park. Furthermore, there are issues of illegal water extraction and the Restoration Plan for Aznalcollar Mine. Another concern lies with the funding for the required restoration works, as Apirsa has declared bankruptcy, and Boliden Ltd has denied responsibility.

III.123           Concerning the Project Doñana 2005, IUCN noted that progress continues to be slow despite the importance of this project. In May 2001 the Project established its Scientific Board, however there has been little scientific input into the Project's activities. A new co-ordinator for the project has been appointed and it is expected that this will help to speed up project implementation. The report from the State Party notes that some of the recommendations from the October 1999 Seminar are still to be acted upon, for example, in relation to: coordination; definition of public riverine domain; watershed restoration; promotion of sustainable agriculture; development of pilot projects; and prospective studies.

III.124           The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the results of the 2nd International Meeting on the Hydric Regeneration of Doñana (Huelva, 26 - 28 November 2001). The Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention, representatives of UNESCO, and IUCN participated. Both the representatives of the Ramsar Bureau and the World Heritage Centre also participated in the meeting of the Patronate of the Park chaired by the Minister for the Environment. It noted the Doñana 2005 project is probably the most ambitious wetland environmental regeneration project currently underway in Europe. The participants of the Conference reviewed progress and made a number of specific recommendations for the improvement of the implementation of the project. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Ramsar Convention meeting scheduled to be held in Valencia, Spain in November 2002 should be an occasion for a review of the regeneration of Doñana. The Bureau was furthermore informed of an information note on the situation of Doñana National Park prepared by the Spanish authorities and received by the World Heritage Centre, that reviews a number of issues indicated by IUCN and stating that the site has a management plan since 1984, currently in its 2nd revision, and that grazing remains a concern. At the same time the efforts to alleviate the consequences of the mining accident have to be acknowledged. The information was provided to IUCN for review.

III.125           The Observer of Spain informed the Bureau that both IUCN and the Centre were involved in the Doñana 2005 review and that new information was just provided by the States Party to the Centre. He stated that there was no need for Danger Listing of this site.

III.126           The Bureau commended the State Party on the Doñana 2005 initiative, which provides an excellent framework for integrated land management. The Bureau noted that a number of concerns have been raised in relation to the integrity of this site. Accordingly, the Bureau requested the State Party to provide a full report on the threats to the site, and on how they will be addressed, by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

St Kilda (United Kingdom)          

III.127           The Bureau noted that the report provided by the Scottish Executive was transmitted to IUCN on 18 September 2001 for review. It recalled that the Committee proposed that the boundaries of the site be expanded to include the marine area and the management plan be revised. The authorities informed the Centre that they would be targeting a submission date in time for the twenty-sixth session of the Committee. IUCN commended the State Party on the research and surveys, and for maintaining the moratorium on the issuance of new oil licenses nearer to the site than those already in existence. IUCN requested that details of the risk assessment process to be put in place be provided along with the draft management plan as soon as possible and noted the collaboration of a number of organisations in the process of delineating the proposed new boundaries of the site. It encouraged the State Party to include in the revised management plan strict prohibition of all oil, gas and other exploration, in both the site and the buffer zone.

III.128           The Bureau commended the State Party for the progress report provided and requested the authorities to submit a report by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau. The Bureau encouraged the State Party to complete the new boundary identification as soon as possible so that work can commence in earnest on the management plan. It requested the State Party to clarify the role and involvement of the site authorities in the decision-making process for issuance of licenses in the site, in the buffer zone and outside the buffer zone. The Bureau also welcomed the outcome of the consultation meetings held as part of the preparation of the management plan. The Bureau reminded the State Party that any revised nomination dossier for cultural values and revised boundaries should be submitted by the deadlines established by the Committee.

Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (United Kingdom)          

III.129           The Bureau noted that the Centre received a number of letters, notably from the National Trust, raising concerns with regard to commercial development in the area surrounding the site, and the private sale and redevelopment of a complex for visitor facilities. These letters were transmitted to the State Party for comments and to IUCN for review. IUCN noted that the Department of Environment announced that it would bring forward proposals for the production of a management plan for the entire Causeway Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which includes the World Heritage site, later this year. IUCN noted that major development, including the re-development of the visitor centre, should be considered in the context of such an integrated management plan and must be compatible with its status as a World Heritage site.

III.130           The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureau that concerning the visitor centre and related development proposals, a decision was taken on 4 December 2001 not to sell any land. Furthermore he stated that the management plan for the World Heritage site is under preparation.

III.131           The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a report on the situation of the site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau, to include progress with the production of the management plan for the Causeway. The Bureau expressed its concern with piecemeal development in and around the site, in the absence of such a plan.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America)          

III.132           The Bureau noted that a report on this site would be presented to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

General debate         

III.133           The Delegate of Greece noted that a number of issues come up regularly, such as mining, tourism and infrastructure development, and the authority of different administrative levels. Rather than treating these issues only on a case-by-case basis, general policy frameworks should be developed with regard to these issues. The Chairperson noted that this is a very good suggestion that would enable the revision of problems common to many World Heritage sites in a more systematic manner.

III.134           The Representative of IUCN stated that a general policy framework is a good starting point to review site-specific cases. For a number of themes this process has commenced, as in the case of mining and World Heritage. The World Parks Congress, scheduled in September 2003, would be another occasion and an opportunity to discuss these issues in a broader context.

III.135           The Delegate of Thailand underlined that such a general debate would not prevent the discussion of specific problems of the state of conservation of World Heritage sites.

MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE

Kakadu National Park (Australia)         

III.136           The Bureau noted that reports concerning the proposal to develop the Jabiluka uranium mine relevant to the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park have been received since the twenty-fourth session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000). Complete details of information presented to the Bureau are contained in Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/10 (see pages 29 - 32).

III.137           The Bureau noted that new information on the status of the Jabiluka mine site had been received from the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC) on 4 December 2001 following a site inspection on 16 November 2001. The report refers to significant environmental concerns regarding the "Standby, Environmental Management and Planning phase" and calls for prompt and appropriate rehabilitation at Jabiluka. More specifically, the report raises concerns that social, cultural and environmental issues are apparently regarded as secondary to cost considerations in the development of the Jabiluka mine. The GAC consider the current regulation and indefinite use of contaminated water to irrigate the Jabiluka mine site as unacceptable. Other reported concerns include reference to the management of the mineralised stockpile and contamination of groundwater. The GAC report has been provided to the State Party, IUCN and ICOMOS for review and comment.

III.138           The Bureau was informed that the State Party had written to the Centre on 26 November 2001 advising of continuing progress in reestablishing dialogue between the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners. As a part of that dialogue, the State Party has proposed that the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC) consider a process for cultural mapping at Jabiluka based on the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter. The GAC have agreed to give their consideration to this process.

III.139           The Delegate of Thailand referred to the fact that members of the Bureau and the Centre had received reports and information directly from non-governmental organizations in Australia. He suggested that the proper procedure would be, in the first instance, for discussions to take place between the NGOs and the State Party. The representative of the Centre assured the Bureau that all reports on the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park had been transmitted to the State Party to verify the source and content of the reports. In responding to t