ANNEX II

Speech by Mr. Henrik Lilius,
President of the World Heritage Committee
On the occasion of the Opening of the World Heritage Committee session
Helsinki, Finland, 11 December 2001


Madam President,
Honourable Ministers,
Your Excellencies,
Members of the World Heritage Committee,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my great pleasure to open the 25th session of the World Heritage Committee. I have the challenging task to chair this Committee session and to guide World Heritage during the next 6 months.

Let me begin by thanking our former Chairperson, Mr Peter King from Australia, for his immense personal commitment during the last year.

In 2001 we have made a lot of progress for the future of World Heritage and I would like to highlight some of the major issues.

During the meeting of the Drafting Group for the revisions to the Operational Guidelines which I was pleased to attend, we made a major step towards a user-friendly format of the main document. I hope that the revised Guidelines will guide us, and all partners in World Heritage conservation.

Concerning the reform process, following the 13th General Assembly of States Parties in October, we now have a World Heritage Committee, which is more representative of all regions and cultures of the world. I would especially like to welcome the new members of the Committee -- Argentina, India, Lebanon, Oman, Nigeria, Russia, Santa Lucia and the United Kingdom. Most of these new members of the Committee have also chosen to make a declaration to the General Assembly that they will limit their term of office to four rather than six years. This will allow a greater rotation of Committee membership and will open the way for new countries to contribute to the work of the Committee. This progressive step followed the most generous and forward-thinking example of the Italian Government in 1999, making their seat on the Committee available after only two of the six years of their mandate.

I will continue to follow your decisions with regard to the reform process. I am convinced that despite the enormous tasks in front of us, you will welcome the efforts achieved in such a short time.

In this regard I would also like to express my satisfaction with the preliminary typology of sites now under preparation. During the past years we have had some major achievements with respect to the representivity of the World Heritage List. We have moved the World Heritage List from cathedrals and other monuments to the concept of sites and landscapes, including technological heritage, vernacular architecture and the heritage of transport. On the natural side we have seen the inclusion of sites from a number of regions underrepresented and countries, such as Malaysia and Suriname. These are unique sites displaying the biological and geological diversity of our earth. However, there is much more to be developed in this regard - particularly for natural heritage, the Caribbean and the Pacific. Following the Committee's decision to only examine 30 new nominations in 2003, we will now have the time for a period of reflection about the categories and types of heritage on our national tentative lists and the World Heritage List. Our objective must be for the World Heritage List to represent a greater diversity of all cultures and environments.

The World Heritage List should represent the democratic idea of sharing our heritage with all of humankind. Every individual will find a site on the List with which it can relate and identify. The Convention is there to contribute to a better understanding of the cultural and natural diversity of the world. It helps people to be aware of social and cultural difference and to overcome conflict to find a peaceful solution to protect heritage in all parts of the world.

In closing, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Committee for your trust and confidence in me and my election as Chairperson. It is a great pleasure for me working with you in the implementation of such a prestigious instrument as the World Heritage Convention. Furthermore, I very much appreciate the continuous commitment of UNESCO, its Director-General and the Director of the World Heritage Centre and his staff.

Thank you.




ANNEX III



Speech of the Director-General of UNESCO,
Mr Koïchiro Matsuura

Madam President,
Honourable Ministers,
Your Excellencies,
Honourable Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.

First let me convey my sincere thanks to our hosts from Finland for organizing this session here in Helsinki. This is the first World Heritage Committee session to be held in the Nordic region, and our congratulations go to you for this. We are honoured, Madam President of Finland, by your presence here with us today, which we take as a further sign of your country's long-standing commitment to UNESCO and its action to protect the cultural and natural heritage of humankind.

The diversity of Finland's cultural and natural heritage provides a stunning setting for this meeting. We meet here within the walls of the modern grandeur of architect Alvar Aalto's Finlandia Hall. It is a testimony to the traditions of modern design and style for which Finland is renowned. Around us we have also admired the extraordinary innovation of Finland's wooden architecture and flown over the exceptional beauty of the wild landscapes of coast, lakes and peatlands.

Diversity - whether in education, science, culture or communication - was prominent on the agenda of UNESCO's recent session of the General Conference. One of the most important contributions to diversity was the adoption, by acclamation, of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the first major international standard-setting instrument designed to promote cultural diversity. Cultural diversity has thereby been recognized by all Member States to be as vital for humankind as is biodiversity in the natural world. The protection of cultural diversity thus becomes an ethical imperative, inseparable from human identity and dignity.

This is an important source of satisfaction for me.

Underwater heritage that was previously outside the scope of existing legal instruments - now also has its own new convention: the International Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, which was also adopted during our recent General Conference. This new Convention prohibits the pillage and destruction of ancient shipwrecks and sunken archaeological sites for commercial exploitation. It gives priority to in-situ preservation of heritage that has been under water for at least 100 years. International law on the protection of the cultural heritage is thus considerably reinforced by this Convention.

These are two major steps forward and I welcome them both wholeheartedly. At the same time, however, one cannot ignore the fact that much remains to be done in certain areas We need to strengthen the fields of application of existing instruments and broaden the principle of protection to new areas of heritage.

I am thinking in particular of the shocking acts of deliberate destruction of heritage which we witnessed as helpless bystanders this year.

The demolition of the Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan has generated an overwhelming level of concern by the international community and civil society. This tragic case has highlighted the importance of effective prevention of such unacceptable behaviour, through a strengthening of sanctions if need be. It is in this context that the General Conference has invited me to prepare a Draft Declaration against the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage. The aim of the Declaration would be to reinforce provisions contained in existing international cultural heritage conventions such as the World Heritage Convention. Our legal instruments will mean nothing unless they can give a greater guarantee of protection. Commitment and action by each of the States Parties to the Convention is required.

Another area which calls for serious and urgent investigation is that of intangible heritage. As you know, even before assuming my present position in the Organization, as Chair of the World Heritage Committee I had been concerned with the need to broaden the scope of heritage protection. During my chairmanship, the acceptance by the Committee of customary law and traditional management was broadened, paving the way for international recognition of the vital role of traditional forms of governance. Intangible cultural values associated with sites are also increasingly recognized as an integral component of their world heritage values. However, there is an intrinsic limit to the World Heritage Convention which does not deal with intangible heritage as such.

It is my pleasure, therefore, to inform you that I have been authorized by the General Conference to begin preparatory work towards an international legal framework for the protection of intangible cultural heritage. This new convention will need to be elaborated in the coming years. We shall further define what is called intangible cultural heritage and examine the best form for a new standard-setting instrument on the protection of such cultural heritage. This will have to be developed with reference to the ground-breaking work of this Committee in the area of World Heritage cultural landscapes and the recognition of traditional culture and practice through World Heritage listing.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

The international community is looking to UNESCO to rise to the challenge and add strength to all of its efforts to protect heritage. How can we meet such high expectations?

During my term as Chair of the Committee, and since then, in my capacity as Director-General of UNESCO, I stressed the importance of addressing the problem of heritage protection and conservation at its roots. To take proactive measures for preventive action, we must ensure that our conservation work is development-oriented, for conservation to be part of the development process.

I count on you, as members of the Committee to steer the future course of the Convention to make it a powerful tool for sustainable development, as it has proven to be for the protection of the environment. Official Development Assistance (ODA) funds of the OECD Member States alone, will amount to over US$50 billion this year to support developing countries, including many social and economic infrastructural development projects. The recognition of the importance of World Heritage sites must serve to promote the attribution of ODA funds for the safeguarding and development of cultural and natural heritage and for the defence of diversity.

To strengthen the legal basis for heritage protection and for heritage conservation to become a vector for socio- economic development, a spirit of cooperation and genuine partnership with all sectors of society will be required. I think that we must continue to explore new forms of partnerships with the key actors of heritage conservation: local and regional governments, development co-operation agencies, universities, private foundations, the corporate sector and the growing number of NGOs. The multiplication of our efforts in the long term and the creation of a support network for World Heritage conservation through such partnerships will be vital and necessary to respond to the growing challenges facing World Heritage sites.

The year 2002 which marks the 30th Anniversary of the Convention and recently declared as the United Nations Year for Cultural Heritage by the UN General Assembly will, I hope, provide an opportunity to broaden this partnership for World Heritage protection and management.

To this end the General Conference of UNESCO has approved a series of initiatives as part of the 30th Anniversary. The June session of the World Heritage Committee to be held in Budapest, Hungary will provide a timely opportunity to take stock of lessons learnt and chart our future course. With the generous support of the Italian Government, an international congress will be held in Venice in November 2002 to develop partnerships to support the strategic orientation of the Convention which I count on the Committee to develop.

As you know, much of the conservation responsibility and effort rests on the States Parties with key contributions from local and regional governments, public and private organizations. Many countries do not have the necessary technical and financial capacity to cope with this challenge. They rely on UNESCO, the World Heritage Fund and extrabudgetary resources made available by other States Parties and private foundations.

I wish to thank all those States Parties who have generously supported World Heritage in recent years. I also pay tribute to the United Nations Foundation which has granted a very large contribution to the World Heritage Centre to implement projects to benefit natural World Heritage sites, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

I encourage you to proceed, with the necessary caution and experimental attitude, to develop a stable and strong network of partners to support you. I encourage you to find the best way to promote and focus the positive energy of governments, local authorities, the private sector and civil society at large.

In concluding, and wishing this Committee well in its deliberations, I again give you my assurances that I will spare no effort in safeguarding the diversity of the worlds' cultural and natural heritage. I call on you all to support me in this challenge.

Thank you.




ANNEX IV



Speech by Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland

Ladies and gentlemen,

Heritage comprises of all the manifestations and messages of intellectual activity in our environment. Heritage mirrors a nation's soul and reflects personal identity in a chain from past to future generations.

In terms of heritage, be it cultural or natural, sustainable development will remain mere rhetoric without an operational content. It is essential to build sustainable development on sustainable ethics. We can ask ourselves whether our ethics is on a sound basis and do we truly cherish our intellectual, cultural and natural heritage, passing its message on to future generations?

Ten years ago the Conference on Environment and Development in Rio raised sustainable development as a central concept both in international cooperation and in national action. Every country bears the primary responsibility for sustainable development as well as for cultural and natural heritage. When the ethical norms in the management of cultural and natural heritage rest on a sound basis, sustainable development can be promoted in various ways.

In ecologically sustainable development, economic growth must be accommodated to the limits imposed by nature. This is a great challenge for political decision-making and technologies. International conventions and other common commitments increase our possibilities to foster our common heritage - fostering World Heritage is an element of sustainable development.

Socially just development means an aspiration to distribute welfare equitably. All people have the right to satisfy their basic needs. To achieve this goal, we must combat poverty and exclusion. For this work, education offers a vast range of possibilities. We have made a strong political commitment to education by adopting the Dakar Framework on "Education for All". This framework is an important step in achieving the goals of the Millennium Declaration to guarantee equal education for every boy and girl in this world. This challenge is particularly great concerning girls.

At the same time we must help also illiterate adults learn to read and write. Illiteracy hampers inter alia people's participation in common affairs and construction of the society. Thus illiteracy weakens democracy.

One fundamental characteristic of intellectual and creative heritage is that sharing does not decrease it, on the contrary. It is society's responsibility to create possibilities for such sharing. Education and culture are both essential tools for this.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let us look at heritage from the perspective of children and young people.

In children and young people, we have the key to a future society where cultural tolerance and respect for difference shall come true. Family primarily transmits traditions, but school also has a great responsibility for passing on heritage in ail its forms. School lays the foundation for an appreciation of culture and for tolerance, We must encourage networking and co-operation between schools and we have to promote dialogue between cultures at all levels. There is a need for UNESCO to support its Member States in developing values education. This is education for peace, human rights and democracy in other words, education for the prevention of intolerance, discrimination and conflict. In this respect I see great potential in the World Heritage Education Project initiated by UNESCO. This project deserves our strong support.

Minorities are often left out from power centres. The position of minorities is essential in the preservation of indigenous cultures. By working together we can remove obstacles and ensure minorities the right to their own culture. Responsibility for nature and its diversity, for the living environment and cultural heritage cannot be conceded to others, it rests with everybody. I am pleased to note that this meeting will deliberate the establishment of a World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts. There is a close link between this Council and the Indigenous Peoples Forum established by the United Nations.

One paradox in the preservation of heritage is that we must conserve in order to renew. The vitality of culture is born out of diversity - in a society that gives peace, welfare and culture a chance.

The challenge facing the world is to reach across cultures, religions and history to forge a new vision for development that rests on a shared interest in sustainability, stability and prosperity. Such a vision offers the prospect of a more human, inclusive globalisation one that embraces cultural diversity.

I welcome therefore the decision of UNESCO's General Conference to focus the Organisation's cultural programme on diversity, intercultural pluralism and dialogue. Let us hope that the Declaration on Cultural Diversity adopted by the General Conference, will mark the take-off towards greater respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and co-operation. The declaration is an important input to the observation of the International Year of Dialogue among Civilisations. Civilisations or cultures are changing, developing and adapting themselves to new times and new realities through interaction with each other. This interaction creates multiethnic and multicultural societies, rich and diverse in their heritage.

Preserving heritage obviously means preserving its diversity. The current international context prompts us to sharpen our focus on this dialogue. Preservation of cultural diversity is inseparable from action to strengthen intercultural dialogue. Both are at the heart of mutual understanding.

The UN General Assembly has declared the year 2002 as United Nations Year for Cultural Heritage, which coincides with the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention. This not only shows how highly we value our common heritage, but also underlines the need for safeguarding it for future generations. UNESCO, having a central role in this effort, faces compelling challenges in fulfilling this mission.

We have to keep in mind that the world heritage is about more than monuments and natural wonders. The intangible ideas and beliefs that constitute our collective memory must never be neglected.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me give a positive example from my own country, Finland gained her independence 84 years ago, we fought a civil war and we have had to fight three wars against foreign enemies. Still we have reached a high standard of living and in a recent OECD-study Finnish students scored highest marks in exams of reading and writing. In fact when comparing the national averages among OECD countries, Finland is above the average in reading, mathematics and natural sciences, We can thank our comprehensive education for the advancement in building a knowledge based society in Finland. By giving also girls equal possibility for education at all levels we have at least doubled our resources.

Let me conclude with a quotation from the Declaration on Cultural Diversity: "Heritage in all its forms must be preserved, enhanced and handed on to future generations as a record of human experience and aspirations, so as to foster creativity in all its diversity and to inspire genuine dialogue among cultures".

I wish the World Heritage Committee the best of success in its important work.




ANNEX V



Address by the Minister of Culture of Finland, Ms Suvi Lindén

Madam President,
Mr Chairperson of the Committee,
Mr Director-General,
Distinguished delegates and observers,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss has said that world culture is in fact global cooperation between cultures, in which each culture maintains its unique characteristics.

This is what the World Heritage Convention and the World Heritage Committee are all about. The protection of cultural heritage promotes dialogue between cultures. We must learn to understand and respect difference - to recognise its value as an intellectual and cultural wealth.

One vital objective for the World Heritage Committee is to achieve balance in the World Heritage List. The need to include new countries and new kinds of cultural heritage is a challenge to experts. Procedures and criteria must be defined in a way which enables us to protect the common heritage of humankind.

National resources are often inadequate for protecting cultural and natural heritage. Countries which have knowledge, know-how and economic resources play a key role in international cooperation. On the other hand, countries which have numerous sites on the World Heritage List need to hold back and help those countries which have no listed sites as yet. The protection of cultural heritage is a generally recognised value in all societies, but the resources available for the work vary greatly.

For a country, having sites on the list is a significant acknowledgment. A listed site gives publicity and draws positive attention to the town or region. At its best, it boosts self-respect, revitalises traditional skills and crafts, stimulates tourism and business. Having said this, I think it crucial to bear in mind that the ultimate aim is to protect the sites and not to use them for other purposes.

We must learn to see protection in a new way and develop new action models which accommodate the whole variety of global heritage. The current efforts made by the World Heritage Committee to simplify procedures and to renew the operational guidelines are an important step on this road. For instance, it would be very much easier to include the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples if the criteria of cultural and natural sites were combined into one set of guidelines.

All the manifestations of cultural heritage are fragile and subject to various hazards. Historical buildings and artefacts have always suffered in warfare. Heritage is often destroyed with a clear intent to undermine the identity of a nation. Unesco's efforts to intervene in acts constituting a crime against the common human heritage are especially valuable and necessary in our days. In this work ft is important to make use of existing instruments for safeguarding cultural property and heritage and commitment to them.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Finland greatly appreciates the work done by the World Heritage Committee and its secretariat, the World Heritage Centre, in implementing the World Heritage Convention.

Finland has actively taken part in its work since we became its member in 1997. For us hosting the 25th session of the World Heritage Committee is both an honour and a vote of confidence. Helsinki and the Finlandia Hall have been the venue of many important international meetings, which were often said to have proceeded in the "Helsinki spirit".

Side by side with this session, there is another Unesco event, the International Workshop on World Heritage Education, which is held at the near-by National Museum. I would like to refer to President Tarja Halonen's address and reiterate how important it is to encourage new generations to appreciate the value and significance of the world heritage.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in the organisation of this session. Our gratitude is also due to the World Heritage Centre staff for their valuable input. I hope that this session will deliberate decisions in a positive spirit, with a view to making both the local and the global public appreciate the value of cultural and natural heritage and the role it plays in boosting identity and promoting mutual understanding.

Thank you.




ANNEX VI



Speech of the Minister of Environment,
Minister for International Development Affairs, Finland,
Ms Satu Hassi

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have enterered a new millennium with an enormous amount of ecological knowledge and awareness. Satellite technology has vastly improved our means of monitoring environmental changes in the atmosphere, on the continents and in the oceans - and in real time, too. Yet it still is difficult to obtain a global reaction to negative environmental changes. These are mainly anthropogenic, caused by man himself. To address such issues is the same as addressing established praxes within another state or a branch of industry, or interfering with long- established prerogatives or benefits of a group of people.

We know that natural vitality and biological diversity are waning from year to year. The WWF Living Planet Index states that one-third of the biological diversity of the world has been lost during the last 25 years. An increasing number of species dependent on indigenous biotopes, habitats and cultural landscapes lose out in competition with other species. Efficient land use, agriculture and forestry shrink or change the habitats of these species. In these situations our reactions have been all too slow, or else steps have been difficult to take on account of political or other reasons. Therefore, some species will unavoidably become extinct. Some, fortunately, can still be saved with special efforts.

The Convention on Cultural Heritage is an important instrument in our fight for the preservation of species. Many states possessing globally important threatened or rare species habitats have already ratified this Convention. It is important to make it known in states which have already ratified this Convention. It is important to make it known in states which have not yet begun ratification. For instance, the participation of countries in Africa has meant that game reserves or national parks, which we know from nature films, have been included as part of the World Heritage. In the spirit of the Convention they have thus become part of humanity's joint heritage, and all parties to the Convention carry the responsibility for their preservation. These areas can now also receive economic contributions from UNESCO.

The status of World Heritage sites means increased income from tourism, which is highly important for the African states. In some areas, eco-tourism has even expanded to the extent of becoming difficult to manage. But the states that are parties to the Convention are not alone in their fight against these problems. They can draw upon UNESCO's global funds of expertise as well to identify and solve the problems arising.

There is hardly anyone among us who doubts that the inclusion in the World Heritage of the African game parks, the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador, Australia's Great Barrier Reef or the Brasilian rain forests is eminently justified. All these areas display habitats of globally unique species, or exceptional biodiversity.

The World Conservation Union, IUCN, plays a central role in the selection of new natural heritage sites to the World Heritage List. Many parties to the Convention, among them Finland, have realised that the IUCN draws a very neat line. This can be illustrated by the fact that although Finland ratified the Convention as early as 1987, so far we have not been able to provide a single natural heritage site to the List. Nevertheless, we keep on trying.

Finland appreciates the line taken by the IUCN and also adopted by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, based increasingly on conscious selection and a Global Strategy. As far as the natural heritage is concerned, the IUCN seems to stick strictly to the principle of the Seven Wonders of the World, that is, the List should only include objects of outstanding universal value, and among such, preferably only one of each, the best and most representative one of its kind. It is an excellent idea to name, as "hot spots", concentrations of biodiversity and areas defined by the WWF calling for urgent action. We support this policy, but I would like to mention that also in Finland there are some natural sites of unique value, such as the western coastline, where the landrise is the fastest in the world, and northernmost unbroken pine forest in the world close to lake Inari in Lapland.

Most of the natural heritage sites of the World Heritage List lie on land. The Global Strategy aims at more marine sites, for instance in the Pacific. I embrace this endeavour, too. So far, not nearly all ocean species have yet been found. Some researchers think the combined biological diversity of the oceans is more extensive than the land-bound diversity. On the other hand, the increasing sea traffic, unsustainable fishing practices and other kinds of over-exploitation and collection of the ocean's resources and, in places, wrongly placed and misguided tourism, constitute threats against the varied life in the oceans and their littoral areas.

Finland will continue along the lines adopted to work for the natural heritage, to promote the implementation of the Convention where the globally most valuable and also most threatened areas are to be found. In practice this means that in the Finnish development cooperation we promote democracy in the Convention states, give aid to help nominate World Heritage sites, both natural and cultural sites, and help set up proper administration and maintenance units for sites already included on the World Heritage List. Finland has also given aid to help preserving several World Heritage sites of those I would like to mention the programme to protect environment at the Machu Picchu in Peru and the protection of the surroundings of the Lalibela rock churches in Ethiopia.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

On my own behalf I would like to wish all of you a very pleasant meeting and constructive lobbying during lunch and coffee breaks. As the Minister responsible for both Environment and Development Cooperation I hope that we receive tangible proposals for how Finland could in best way contribute to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in both fields, in the side of cultural heritage and in the side of natural heritage, both in Finland and in the poorer countries, which need the financial help of richer countries. The humankind is, anyway, one; and all of us are responsible for preserving the World Hetitage for the generations coming after us.




ANNEX VII



Statement by the Observer of Israel

Mr. Chairman,

I would like to address the issue of the presence of a PLO Representative in the meetings of the implementing bodies of the Convention and the Conference of the State Parties.

On November 23, 2001, an Egyptian proposal to amend the Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure was submitted to Mr Bandarin. According to the proposal the words "permanent observer missions to UNESCO" will be inserted after the words "non- permanent organizations" so that permanent observer missions to UNESCO will also be listed among the various bodies that may be authorized by the Committee, to participate in its sessions. While the proposal was submitted in accordance to Rule 9.2, once again, it must be pointed out that the purpose of this proposal is clearly political since its implication will legitimize the presence of the PLO at the meetings of the Committee and hence contribute to its politization. Even if the proposal were to be accepted legally, the PLO will still not be able to take part in the Committee's sessions, since Rule 8.2 allows for the participation of bodies which "have activities in the fields covered by the Convention".

While such a presence was permitted at the Committee's meeting in December 2000, it was understood that it would not set a precedent or become a justification for any future PLO participation in the meetings of the Committee. There is absolutely no justification in the Convention and Rules of Procedure for such participation. Suspension of the Rules of Procedure is clearly not the appropriate way to deal with the matter. Hence the participation of a PLO Representative at the Committee's sessions has no legal basis.

Israel's legal position on this matter, which was brought to the attention of the Committee in its last meeting in Australia and in further correspondence with Mr Bandarin and Chairman King, is based on the fact that Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, requires that only States Parties to the Convention, which are not members of the Committee, may attend the sessions of the Committee as observers. Since the PLO Representative does not represent a Party to the Convention or a State for that matter, this Rule cannot be applied to the PLO Delegation.

Article 10(2) of the Convention and Rules 7, 8.2 and 8.3 deal with other appropriate participants that may take part in the meetings of the Committee and are not State Parties to the Convention: According to Rule 7 and Article 10(2) of the Convention "the Committee may at any time invite public or private organizations or individuals to participate in the meetings for consultations on particular problems". According to Rules 8.2 and 8.3, various bodies, which "have activities in the fields covered by the Convention" may be authorized by the Committee, to participate in the sessions of the Committee.

In view of the spirit of the Convention and its objectives, especially the professional character of the Committee, the aim of these articles is undoubtedly to enable the Committee to invite organizations or individuals for the sole purpose of professional consultation regarding aspects dealt with by the Convention. Clearly the PLO Representative does not fit these criteria and his presence is nothing but a politically motivated action by states intent on politicizing the work of this Committee and thus serves no substantive or functional purpose.

Giving the PLO Representative the opportunity to participate and express political views in the discussions of the Committee, a body whose deliberations are meant to be purely professional, is obviously in contraction to the letter and the spirit of the Convention and the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, in doing so, the Committee will itself contribute to the politization of a forum whose primary missions are to

  1. Encourage countries to sign the Convention and ensure the protection of natural and cultural heritage, and
  2. Encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List.

In view of the above, I would respectively urge you, Mr Chairman, to prevent the politization of this Committee and thus decide not to permit the presence of a representative of the PLO at the deliberations of this Committee.

At the same time, I want to express my wish that the day will come soon after a peace agreement is reached, when Palestinian experts will join their Israeli counterparts in the work of this Committee on behalf of a State Party.

Thank you Mr Chairman.




ANNEX VIII.A



Budget for Afghanistan Mission

Estimated Budget Breakdown for Fact-Finding & Consultative Mission:

 US$32,000

(a) Travel Costs:
  • International Airfare US$1,500 x 4 persons = US$6,000
    (Director and Secretariat/World Heritage Centre,
    ICOMOS cultural heritage expert,
    IUCN natural heritage expert)
  • Domestic Travel within Afghanistan US$4,000 (approximate)
  • Daily Subsistence Allowance 4 persons x US$100 (average) x 15 days = US$6,000
  • Insurance and other miscellaneous costs US$2,000
US$18,000
(b) Fees:
      (International expert fees: US$200 x 20 days x 2 experts = US$8,000)

US$8,000
(c) Reporting costs:
      (Photographic, cartographic, and other documentation costs)

US$2,000
(d) Organizational support: US$4,000




ANNEX VIII.B



Budget for Afghanistan Scientific Documentation

Estimated Budget Breakdown for Scientific Documentation:

US$17,000

ICOMOS/ICCROM Co-ordination Services and Documentation costs for Cultural Heritage of Afghanistan US$10,000
IUCN Co-ordination Services and Documentation costs for Natural Heritage of Afghanistan US$7,000




ANNEX IX
STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
Extract from the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session
of the Bureau, Helsinki, Finland (7-8 December 2002) (WHC-01/CONF.208/4)

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 "Sa