PDF version (1130K)

FRENCH VERSION

World Heritage	25 COM
Distribution limited	WHC-01/CONF.208/24 Paris, 8 February 2002 Original: English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fifth session

Helsinki, Finland

11 - 16 December 2001

REPORT

---

Table of Contents

I. Opening Session IIa. Adoption of the Agenda and Timetable IIb. Proposal for a Revision of the Rules of Procedure III. Report by the Secretariat on the Activities undertaken since the Twenty-Fourth session of the Committee IVa. Reports of the Rapporteurs on the Bureau sessions of the World Heritage Committee IVb. Follow-Up to the Resolution of the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties (30-31 October 2001): Acts Constituting "Crimes Against the Common Heritage of Humanity" V. Progress Report on the Implementation of Reform Measures VI. Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention VII. Periodic Reporting VIII. State of Conservation of Properties Inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on the World Heritage List IX. Progress Report on Regional Actions for the Implementation of the Global Strategy for a Representative and Balanced World Heritage List X. Information on Tentative Lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and World Heritage List XI. Progress Report on the Global Training Strategy XII. Progress Report on the Information Management Strategy XIII. 30th Anniversary Events XIV. Awareness Building and Education Activities XV. Report on the Proposed World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) XVI. Examination of the World Heritage Fund and Approval of the Budget for 2002-2003 XVII. Information on International assistance XVIII. Requests for International Assistance XIX. Date, Place and Provisional Agenda of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (April 2002) XX. Date, Place and Provisional Agenda of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the World Heritage Committee (June 2002) XXI. Other business XXII. Adoption of the Report XXIII. Closure of the session

List of Annexes List of Participants Opening Speech of the Chairperson, Mr Henrik Lilius Speech of the Director General of UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura Speech of the President of Finland, Ms Tarja Halonen Speech of the Minister of Culture of Finland, Ms Suvi Lindén Speech of the Minister of Environment, Minister for International Development Affairs, Finland, Ms Satu Hassi Statement by the Observer of Israel Budgets for the Afghanistan Mission and Scientific Documentation State of Conservation of Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List (Extracts From the Report of the Rapporteur of the Twenty-Fifth Extra-Ordinary Session of the Bureau) World Heritage Global Training Strategy Speeches of the Young People's Presentation "World Heritage In Young Hands" Provisional Agenda and Timetable of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the Bureau (Paris) Provisional Agenda of the Twenty-Sixth Session of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest)

I.   OPENING SESSION

I.1           The twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Helsinki, Finland, from 11 to 16 December 2001. It was attended by the twenty-one memebers of the World Heritage Committee: Argentina, Belgium, China, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Hungary, India, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe.

I.2           The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of the Committee were represented as observers: Angola, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France, Gambia, Germany, Holy See, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, Tunisia, United States of America, Uzbekistan. Barbados and the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to UNESCO, non States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, also participated at this session as observers.

I.3           Representatives of the Advisory Bodies to the Committee, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following international governmental organizations (IGOs), international non- governmental organizations (INGOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs): The Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), Common Wadden Sea Secretariat (Germany), Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC), Nordic World Heritage Office (NWHO), The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Getty Conservation Institute, Global Heritage Fund (USA), International Centre for Mediterranean Cultural Landscapes (Italy), International Council of Museums (ICOM),International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA), International Union of Architects (IUA), Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO), The Gibraltar Museum (Gibraltar) and University of Edinburgh (U.K). (The full List of Participants is included as Annex I to this report).

I.4           The twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee was opened in the presence of the President of Finland, Ms Tarja Halonen, by Mr Henrik Lilius, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. During his address, Mr Lilius welcomed the newly-elected members of the Committee: Argentina, India, Lebanon, Oman, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia and the United Kingdom. He recalled that several among these new members had announced that they would limit their mandate to four years instead of six. He also recalled that great progress had been made in the Revision of the Guidelines and remarked that the Convention helped in the recognition of the cultural and social differences and in overcoming conflicts and finding pacific solutions for the protection of World Heritage throughout the world. (The speech of Mr Lilius included as Annex II to this report.)

I.5           The Chairperson welcomed the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, and invited him to deliver his speech. In his allocution, the Director-General thanked the Finnish authorities for their warm welcome. He acknowledged the presence of Ms Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland, which was an additional testimony of the strong commitment of her country to UNESCO and notably for the protection and conservation of World Heritage. He recalled that diversity lies at the core of UNESCO's agenda and one of the principal contributions for diversity had been the Universal Declaration for Cultural Diversity, recently adopted by unanimity. He also mentioned that, in the framework of heritage, a new Convention had just been adopted by the Organization's General Conference, the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. He emphasized that this represented two major steps forward in the domain of heritage protection. He stressed the importance of addressing conservation issues within the overall framework of sustainable development. He stated that the World Heritage Convention can become a powerful tool for sustainable development as it has proved to be for environmental conservation. He finally indicated that UNESCO would spare no effort in safeguarding the diversity of the world's cultural and natural heritage. (The Director-General's speech is included as Annex III to this report.)

I.6           The Chairperson welcomed Ms Tarja Halonen, President of Finland, and invited her to deliver her address. Ms Halonen stressed the importance of including heritage preservation in the framework of sustainable development, and mentioned that it was essential to build sustainable development on sustainable ethics. She also recalled that education, especially for young children was of crucial importance with regard to heritage. She thus emphasized the need for UNESCO to assist Member States in the development of education values. Ms Halonen also commended the adoption by the UNESCO General Conference of the Declaration on Cultural Diversity which will encourage greater respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and co- operation. (The speech of Ms Halonen is included as Annex IV to this report.)

I.7           In her address, Ms Suvi Lindén, Minister of Culture of Finland, stressed that one of the principal objectives of the World Heritage Committee was to achieve balance in the World Heritage List. She stated that Finland had been active in the implementation of the Convention, since its adhesion in 1987. She continued by underlining the great importance of encouraging the younger generations to cherish World Heritage values. (The speech of Ms Lindén is included as Annex V to this report.)

I.8           Ms Satu Hassi, Minister of the Environment of Finland, indicated that in view of the increasing threats weighing upon our natural hertiage, the World Heritage Convention is an important instrument in the combat for species preservation. In this regard, she commented on the strict application of the World Heritage criteria by IUCN in its evaluations. She also indicated that Finland would continue to protect natural heritage in the framework of the Convention and that assistance could be granted to other States in the administration and management of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. (The speech of Ms Hassi is included as Annex VI to this report.)

I.9           Following these interventions, the Chairperson announced the opening of the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.

II.a           ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE TIMETABLE

II.1           The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda and the Timetable (WHC-01/CONF.208/1Rev.1) after the Delegate of Belgium requested that an additional item be added to the Agenda concerning the organization of the 30th anniversary of the Convention foreseen in Venice in 2002.

II.b           PROPOSAL FOR A REVISION OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE          

II.2           The Chairperson reminded the Committee that a written request for a revision of the Rules of Procedure had been submitted by the Ambassador of Egypt. He requested the Delegate of Egypt to present this proposal.

II.3           The Delegate of Egypt presented the following proposal for an amendment to Article 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure (the proposed amendment is in bold): "The United Nations and organizations of the United Nations system, as well as, upon written request, other international governmental and non-governmental organizations, permanent observer missions to UNESCO and non profit-making institutions having activities in the fields covered by the Convention, may be authorized by the Committee to participate in the sessions of the Committee."

II.4           The Delegates of Lebanon, Oman, South Africa and Finland supported this proposal. The Observer of Israel disassociated himself from this decision. (The intervention by the Observer of Israel is included as Annex VII of this report.) The Committee adopted this decision.

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

III.1           Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage Committee, presented the report on activities undertaken since the last session of the World Heritage Committee in 2000. He referred to Information Document WHC-01/CONF/208/INF.3. In an audio-visual presentation, he highlighted the important points of the past year's activities.

III.2           The Director of the Centre indicated that in 2001, six countries had ratified the World Heritage Convention: Bhutan, Eritrea, Niue, Rwanda, Samoa and the United Arab Emirates, bringing the number of States Parties to the Convention to 167.

III.3           The Director pointed out that the Centre had organized five statutory meetings in 2001, including the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties. As requested at the last Committee session, the Centre organized the meeting of the Drafting Group to revise the Operational Guidelines, held at UNESCO Headquarters in October 2001. Furthermore, the Centre has promoted and organized several workshops on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in all the regions in particular concerning Periodic Reporting and Global Strategy. Additionally, the Centre participated in the workshop on the proposed World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE) held in Winnipeg, Canada in November 2001.

III.4           The Director referred to the reform issues that had been the focus of the Centre's attention throughout this year, namely those expressed in the Resolutions of the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties: Representivity of the World Heritage List (the decision to examine only 30 new nominations in 2003) and Equitable Representation of the Committee (new electoral rules were adopted, with a seat in the Committee reserved for a State Party with no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List); changes in the cycle of the statutory meetings have been adopted for implementation as of 2002: an April/June cycle will replace the June/November Bureau and Committee meetings and extraordinary sessions of the Bureau will be abolished. The Director further indicated that, following the submission of the Draft Revision of the Operational Guidelines to this Committee, the next meeting of the Drafting Group is proposed for March 2002, with the final approval of the document being scheduled for the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June 2002.

III.5           The Director informed the Committee about steps taken to clarify issues concerning inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the possibility for deletion of a property from the World Heritage List, as requested at the last Committee session. He noted that during the course of the year new issues had been raised. These included the implications for a State Party and consequences for the international community when a site's values are considered endangered, the means available to the Committee and actions available to a State Party that does not agree with the determination of the Committee. He referred to progress in the analysis of the issues noting that a preliminary internal analysis had been prepared in April 2001. The Director-General had requested further internal analysis to involve both the Culture and Science Sectors. The Director reported that the analysis was proceeding and should be ready by March 2002 to guide the work of the March 2002 Operational Guidelines Drafting Group. The analysis will also be presented to the next session of the Committee in Budapest in June 2002 in the context of approving revised Operational Guidelines.

III.6           Within the framework of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, in particular concerning Periodic Reporting, the Director indicated that the final synthesis report for periodic reporting for Africa will be presented to this Committee, as well as an overview of the activities in progress in Asia and the Pacific (2003), Latin America and the Caribbean (2004) and Europe and North America (2005/2006).

III.7           The Director highlighted the rapid growth of the World Heritage List during the past ten years, and showed a table analysing the sites inscribed by region and by type. The analysis of the types of sites to be examined at this session indicates that the results of the Global Strategy are starting to show, but that efforts still need to be made, among others, in the domain of Tentative Lists, where States Parties are invited to submit their lists or renew the existing ones.

III.8           In the framework of the Global Strategy, the Director brought to the attention of the Committee the various meetings the Centre had organized in 2001. He stressed in particular the progress made in the establishment of the proposed World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE).

III.9           The Director then outlined the objectives of the Global Training Strategy, drafted by ICCROM in consultation with the Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN.

III.10           Referring to the main activities and results in the field of awareness-raising and education, the Director informed the Committee about steps taken in creating a clearer international identity for World Heritage and assisting States Parties in developing their own communication strategy. He stressed that progress had been made in management of World Heritage data through the World Heritage Information Management Programme, thanks to partnerships with, among others, the Council of Europe, the Nordic World Heritage Office and national space agencies. He referred to the success of the World Heritage Education project, in particular of the kit "World Heritage in Young Hands" as one of the flagship projects of UNESCO.

III.11           The Director gave an overview of the budget utilised for international assistance in 2001 and stressed that its implementation rate of 89% was satisfactory, given that the emergency assistance had not been fully used. Bilateral and multilateral co-operation and partnerships, both with the public and the private sector were mentioned in relation to support of World Heritage activities and preservation of sites.

III.12           In referring to the position of the World Heritage Centre within UNESCO, the Director stressed that within UNESCO's Medium Term Strategy 2002-2007, World Heritage has been established as a UNESCO flagship programme, and as a sub-programme within UNESCO's Programme and Budget for 2002-2003. He emphasized that the Centre had undergone restructuring and showed the new distribution of sections and units. He stressed however that office space was lacking, in particular for archiving of statutory documentation and solutions were being sought for obtaining more working and storage space.

III.13           Pointing out that, for the first time, the World Heritage Fund budget was to be presented to the Committee for a biennial period, the Director showed a table of the evolution of the World Heritage Fund and the Extrabudgetary funds since 1997, which clearly indicated that, after the highest point had been reached in 2000, both sources were diminishing and this trend would continue for the next two years. He also stressed the need to establish a separate bank account for the World Heritage Fund within the UNESCO system.

III.14           The Director highlighted some of the achievements in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the recent years, such as: greater efforts on Representivity of the List, more reactive monitoring, the launch of the Periodic Reporting Exercise, better information management and increasing public interest. He also stressed a number of issues remaining to be solved: stronger focus on management and capacity building, the growing gap in meeting international assistance needs, the lack of an international co- operation strategy and limited public outreach. He brought forward a proposal for the improvement of the long-term conservation strategies for World Heritage consisting of: 1. Principles (Guidelines for the conservation of World Heritage properties), 2. Programmes (Reorganization of international assistance) and 3. Partnerships (Partners initiative).

III.15           Finally, the Director referred to the 30th anniversary of the Convention in 2002, highlighting that this was the opportunity to discuss new strategies, strengthen existing networks and increase visibility and effective site management. The twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee to be held in Budapest in June 2002 and the International Congress planned in Venice, November 2002, as well as the virtual, web-based Congress in October 2002, were presented as occasions to evaluate the impact of the World Heritage Convention, improve international co-operation and raise awareness on the need to preserve World Heritage.

III.16           The Chairperson and members of the World Heritage Committee thanked the Director for his very complete presentation. Several questions were raised concerning the involvement of World Heritage in forthcoming events, such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio + 10 Conference) to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002, as well as participation of the Centre in activities marking the 2002 United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage. Delegates pointed out that greater focus should be placed on the issues such as sustainable development and dialogue for conservation. Clarification was sought on the relative roles of UNESCO's governing bodies and the World Heritage Committee and the funding sources for the 30th-Anniversary events and the role of the States Parties in these events. Some members of the Committee expressed concern with the situation of the World Heritage Centre within UNESCO, in particular with regard to working conditions and space for staff and documentation.

III.17           Several Committee members stressed that the World Heritage Centre should place greater focus on its Secretariat and statutory functions, as the delayed distribution of some of the working documents for the session had made it difficult for them to properly prepare for the work of the session.

III.18           In responding to the questions raised, the Director stressed that sustainable development was indeed one of the main issues of relevance to the preservation of World Heritage, and fully supported the linking of World Heritage with the Rio + 10 Conference. He pointed out that the 2002 International Congress initiative had been approved by the General Conference within the UNESCO 31C/5 Programme and Budget and specified that its costs would be completely covered through extrabudgetary sources, but that additional partners were still being sought. He further stated that the 2002 International Congress was mainly an event for experts and all States Parties, Advisory Bodies and other partners would be invited to participate. He stressed that in this, as in all other aspects, the Centre was working in full co-operation with other UNESCO sectors and the Advisory Bodies. The Director also clarified the functioning of the assistance provided by States Parties through the system of secondment of staff and associate experts to the Centre.

III.19           Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for the Culture Sector, reassured the Committee that the Deputy Director- General of UNESCO had taken close interest in finding solutions for the Centre's space problems, which he expected to be solved in the course of the next few months.

IVa.	REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE BUREAU SESSIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE, 2001

IV.1           Mr Dawson Munjeri, Zimbabwe, Rapporteur of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, presented the report of this session held at UNESCO Headquarters from 25 to 30 June 2001 and outlined the main issues which were discussed. The Committee took note of the report of the Rapporteur.

IV.2           Mr Francisco Lopez Morales, Mexico, Rapporteur of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Helsinki, 7-8 December 2001), thereafter presented the report of this session (Document WHC-01/CONF.208/4). He recalled that this was a working document for the twenty-fifth session of the Committee and drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that any comments on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List could be made during discussions under Agenda item 8.2. The Committee took note of the report.

IV.3           The Chairperson thanked Messrs Munjeri and Morales for their reports, as well as Mr Gaballa Ali Gaballa, Egypt, for having acted as Rapporteur until the arrival of Mr Morales in Helsinki on the first day of the Bureau session.

IV.b	FOLLOW-UP TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE THIRTEENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES (30-31 OCTOBER 2001): ACTS CONSTITUTING "CRIMES AGAINST THE COMMON HERITAGE OF HUMANITY"

IV.4           The Secretariat presented Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/23 concerning the chronology of events related to the nomination for inclusion on the World Heritage List of the statues of Bamiyan and other Afghan cultural heritage properties submitted by the Afghan authorities. The Committee was informed that in 1982, nine nominations of cultural heritage properties submitted by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan had been received by UNESCO for inscription on the World Heritage List. However, as five were incomplete nominations, only four were evaluated by ICOMOS and were subsequently deferred by the Committee at its seventh session in 1983.

IV.5           The Assistant Director-General for Culture, in his capacity as the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO informed the Committee that the Opening Session of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee held in June was dedicated to Afghan heritage. He informed the Committee of UNESCO's recent actions relating to the protection of Afghan heritage and the wider scope of activities within the competence of the Organization. A special Task Force had been established by the Director-General, headed by the Assistant Director-General for Education, Sir John Daniels, to prepare UNESCO's programme which will form part of the United Nations Inter-agency Programme for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan. Education will be the main priority of UNESCO, although activities for the protection of cultural and natural heritage will also be presented.

IV.6           A representative of the Culture Sector is a member of this UNESCO Task Force and the Centre will be working closely with him. The urgent need for an assessment of the present state of conservation of the cultural heritage properties of Afghanistan was recognized as a priority within the range of cultural activities in post-conflict Afghanistan. Among the priority actions identified are: assessment of the current state of (1) the Kabul National Museum, where many artifacts from archaeological properties, monuments and sites within Afghanistan were kept; (2) Bamiyan, (3) the Minaret of Jam, (4) the Mosque of Haji Piyada in Balkh Province, (5) the site of Surkh Kotal, and (6) the Old Town of Herat (including the Friday Mosque, ceramic tile workshop, Musallah complex, fifth minaret, Gawhar Shad mausoleum, mausoleum of Ali Sher Navaï and the Shah Zadehah mausoleum complex). To this end, the Assistant Director-General for Culture informed the Committee that a mission as early as January 2002 was being planned.

IV.7           He stated that the Governments of Belgium and Switzerland had offered to organize expert meetings in 2002 to reflect upon ways and means to enhance the implementation of the UNESCO legal instruments for the protection of the common heritage of humanity. Moreover, the Director-General of UNESCO will organize a meeting concerning the interpretation of Islamic law and cultural heritage, in co-operation with the Faculty of Law of Qatar, ISESCO, and ALECSO. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of France organized, on 6 December 2001, a meeting to discuss the reconstruction of Afghanistan. During this meeting, UNESCO participated in a roundtable discussion concerning the cultural heritage of Afghanistan with former Ambassador Pierre Lafrance of France, who undertook a mission to Afghanistan in March 2001 as Special Envoy of the Director-General in an attempt to convince the Taliban not to destroy the Bamiyan Buddhas.

IV.8           The Committee was informed that UNESCO continued to work in close collaboration with the Committee's Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS and ICCROM), institutions and NGOs such as the Society for the Protection of Afghanistan's Cultural Heritage (SPACH), the Pakistan-based international NGO, Hirayama Foundation (Japan), Fondation Bibliotheca Afghanica (Switzerland), and the Musée Guimet (France).

IV.9           The Committee and observers, noting the deliberations during the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session and the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention at its thirteenth session, reiterated the importance of education, awareness building activities, and capacity building to prevent deliberate and wilful destructions of the cultural and natural heritage of humankind. The Delegate of Egypt informed the Committee that his Government had immediately sent the highest ranking Islamic religious leader of Egypt to attempt to dissuade the Taliban forces from destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas. The Committee noted with appreciation all the efforts made by the States Parties aimed to dissuade the Taliban forces from destroying the monuments and sites of Bamiyan. Taking into consideration the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan, the Committee underscored the necessity for taking concrete actions to support the protection of the country's cultural and natural heritage.

IV.10           A number of delegates stated that a situation such as the Bamiyan case merited the convening of an extraordinary session of the Committee to activate paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines which could have been applicable for Bamiyan and other nominated sites whose outstanding universal value had been recognized by ICOMOS and the Bureau. In response to the point raised by the Delegate of Greece on why UNESCO did not convene an extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee soon after the threat proclaimed by the Taliban forces, the Committee was informed that all possibilities were examined, as if the Bamiyan Buddhas were actually inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Director-General considered that the urgent inscription of Bamiyan and other Afghan cultural heritage properties on an exceptional basis may not serve the intended purpose of protection and conservation because of the unpredictability of the Taliban's reaction. Unfortunately, the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas occurred within days of the proclamation.

IV.11           Several delegates suggested that the events related to the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention be devoted to drawing international attention to the natural and cultural heritage of Afghanistan, with appropriate budgetary provisions.

IV.12           Regarding the debate over the reconstruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Committee underlined the importance of respecting the wishes of the Afghan authorities and international conservation norms such as the Venice Charter and Nara Statement on Authenticity. The Assistant Director-General informed the Committee that the Bamiyan Buddhas had been carved out of a soft stone cliff, and any reconstruction project would require careful consideration with international technical expertise. The Observer of Austria extended the technical expertise of Graz Technical University for the elaboration of the technical details for the reconstruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.

IV.13           IUCN, recalling that plundering and illicit trafficking of the irreplaceable resources was not only restricted to cultural heritage but also affecting natural heritage resources, drew the attention of the Committee to the importance of the countryþs natural heritage. ICOMOS underscored the serious degree of looting and illegal transfer of cultural heritage properties from sites of potential World Heritage value and stressed the importance and need for effective co- operation of non-governmental organizations such as the International Committee of the Blue Cross (ICBC), the International Council on Archives (ICA), the International Council of Museums (ICOM) amongst others, which complement inter-governmental activities for the protection of movable and immovable properties in times of armed conflict, including in Afghanistan. The Observer of ALECSO appealed to the Committee to take concrete action to promote the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of Afghanistan. The Committee and observers emphasized the importance for the World Heritage Convention to be implemented in a pro-active manner, instead of in a reactive manner.

IV.14           Following the deliberations, the Chairperson requested a Working Group to:

1. elaborate a plan of action to provide assistance to Afghanistan to implement the World Heritage Convention in the wake of the destruction of the monuments of Bamiyan Valley;

2. consider:
   1. ways and means by which the implementation of the World Heritage Convention can be reinforced, especially in relation to the other relevant UNESCO Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage;

   2. measures for enhancing the promotion of education, awareness raising activities and communication concerning the irreplaceable values of the cultural heritage of humanity;

   3. improved mechanisms for promoting the scientific documentation of potential and existing world cultural heritage properties.

IV.15           The Group was composed of the Delegates of Argentina, Egypt, Greece, India, South Africa, Observers of Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Pakistan, the three Advisory Bodies, the UNESCO Assistant Director-General for Culture, the Director and Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre. The Delegate of India, Ms Neemal Sabhrawal, chaired the Working Group, which met twice and also held consultations.

IV.16           Upon examination of the work of the Working Group the following decision, composed of three parts, was adopted:

Part 1

1.1       The Committee examined the chronology of events related to the nomination for inclusion on the World Heritage List of the statues of Bamiyan and other cultural heritage properties of Afghanistan by the Afghan authorities presented in WHC-01/CONF.208/23 at the request of the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention.

1.2       It expressed appreciation for the additional information presented by the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO concerning the continued efforts being made by UNESCO to protect the heritage of Afghanistan.

1.3       The Committee reiterated the condemnation of the wilful destruction of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan by the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, and took note of the Resolution adopted by the thirty- first UNESCO General Conference concerning the Acts constituting "crimes against the common heritage of humanity".

1.4       The Committee underscored its conviction that all steps taken to implement the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in Afghanistan should be planned and executed within the overall framework of the UN Inter-agency programme being elaborated for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan.

1.5       It recognized the need to examine possible actions that the World Heritage Committee can take in similar future cases where there are threats of deliberate and wilful destruction of the World Heritage and potential World Heritage.

1.6       The Committee underlined the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954) and its Protocols, the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), the World Heritage Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), the UNIDROIT Convention and other relevant international legal instruments.

1.7       It further noted with regret that of the 167 States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, only 100 countries are States Parties to the 1954 Convention, 83 States Parties to the First Protocol, and 91 States Parties to the 1970 Convention.

1.8       The Committee expressed its appreciation to UNESCO for commissioning a legal analysis on the ways and means by which the implementation of the relevant UNESCO Conventions concerning the protection of cultural heritage can be reinforced.

1.9           The Committee reaffirmed the duty of the international community as a whole to protect the heritage of humanity, in accordance with Article 6 of the World Heritage Convention.

Part 2

2.1           The Committee encouraged States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre to mobilize and support to the extent possible and as appropriate, activities by non-governmental organizations active in the field of heritage protection for safeguarding the heritage of Afghanistan.

2.2       It requested the World Heritage Centre to organize a technical fact-finding and consultative mission to Afghanistan, within the framework of the UN Inter-Agency programme for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, as soon as possible and when the security situation permits,

1. to assist the Afghan authorities in elaborating a national action plan for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention;

2. to provide assistance to the Afghan authorities for collating scientific documentation to elaborate a national inventory on natural and cultural heritage properties of Afghanistan in close co- operation with the relevant Advisory Bodies;

3. to assess the state of conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of Afghanistan;

4. to encourage the authorities, supported by the World Heritage Centre, in reactivating the nomination process initiated by the former Afghan authorities in 1981;

5. to provide assistance to the authorities as appropriate to reformulate and/or complete the nomination dossiers of those properties deferred in 1983 by the World Heritage Committee, in spite of the recognition of the universal significance of such properties;

2.3       Based upon the results of this fact-finding mission, the Committee encouraged the Afghan authorities in elaborating a Tentative List of properties that they may wish to nominate for inscription on the World Heritage List.

2.4       The Committee decided to allocate US$49,000 from the World Heritage Fund Emergency Assistance Budget on an exceptional basis for (a) the organization of the fact-finding and consultative mission (see Annex VIII.A) and for (b) the compilation of the scientific documentation to assist the Afghan authorities in preparing national inventories of natural and cultural heritage properties and to reformulate the nominations submitted by the former Afghan authorities in 1981 (see Annex VIII.B).

2.5       The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to keep it informed of the results of the fact-finding and consultative mission to Afghanistan soon after its completion. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to inform the Committee at its twenty-sixth session in June 2002 on the progress made in assisting the Afghan authorities in implementing the World Heritage Convention.

Part 3

3.1       The Committee reiterated the appeal made by the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to all States Parties to become signatories to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its two Protocols, the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, the UNIDROIT Convention and other international legal instruments protecting cultural heritage, if they have not yet done so, in order to maximize the protection of the cultural heritage of humanity, and in particular, against destructive acts, especially taking into consideration the designation of year 2002 as the United Nations Year for Cultural Heritage.

3.2       The Committee noted the fundamental principles and guidelines included in these instruments to prevent the destruction of the heritage including looting and illicit excavations and transfer.

3.3       The Committee requested UNESCO through the World Heritage Centre to prepare, in the meantime, explanatory notes outlining the obligations of States Parties of the World Heritage Convention in relation to the other relevant UNESCO Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage.

3.4       It requested the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to make available for the information and consideration by the Committee at its twenty-sixth session in June 2002, the legal analysis on the ways and means to reinforce the implementation of the relevant UNESCO Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage being completed by the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Dr F. Francioni, for the UNESCO Director-General.

3.5       The Committee decided to reconsider at its twenty-sixth session when further information is made available, ways and means by which the implementation of the World Heritage Convention can be reinforced, especially in relation to other relevant UNESCO Conventions for the protection of cultural and natural heritage, including possible modalities for activating paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, in future cases like the destruction of the statues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.

3.6       The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to elaborate all possible initiatives the World Heritage Committee and the Director-General of UNESCO can take in future cases of wilful and deliberate destruction of heritage.

V.	PROGRESS REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORM MEASURES

Introduction

V.1           The Secretariat summarized the current situation of the reform process ("Putting Reform into Action") and the emerging issues for the future ("The Way Forward") (see Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/5).

V.2           The discussion by the Committee brought to the forefront a number of orientations and recommendations that could constitute a significant contribution to the future preparation of new strategic orientations for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. The substance of the proposal and ensuing discussion could be developed for further review at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee to be held in Budapest in June 2002. This could be one of the key tasks for the Committee in Budapest.

Putting Reform into Action          

V.3           The Secretariat presented a report on the implementation of reform decisions of the twenty-fourth session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000). The key components of the report included reference to changes and improvements to the World Heritage statutory meetings, documentation and communication and follow-up actions concerning Representativity of the World Heritage List and Equitable Representation of the Committee.

V.4           The Committee noted the report and commented that it was vital to implement the reform decisions of the Committee. The Committee requested that further efforts be made by the Centre to implement the Item A and B decision-making system. Discussion on the implementation of the new priority system for the selection of the 30 new nominations to be examined in June 2003 by the twenty-seventh session of the Committee is reported in section X of this report.

The Way Forward          

(i) Background          

V.5           The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that an important cycle of implementation of strategic orientations adopted at the sixteenth session of the Committee in Santa Fe in 1992 is coming to an end. In summary the goals of the strategic orientations were to:

1. Promote completion of the identification of the World Heritage;
2. Ensure the continued representativity and credibility of the World Heritage List;
3. Promote the adequate protection and management of the World Heritage sites;
4. Pursue more systematic monitoring of World Heritage sites;
5. Increase public awareness, involvement and support;

V.6           The 1992 Strategic Orientations have been implemented through the adoption and implementation of the Global Strategy, Periodic Reporting, and the more recent recommendations of the Working Groups on Representivity of the World Heritage List and on the Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee endorsed by the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee (2000) and the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties (30-31 October 2001).

V.7           Although some reform activities have yet to be completed (revision of the Operational Guidelines) there is now a recognized need to give a new strategic orientation to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. For example, there is a limitation in the amount of technical assistance available for the adequate and effective conservation of World Heritage properties. This is becoming more critical as more sites are added to the World Heritage List. While it is recognized that the primary responsibility for World Heritage conservation belongs to each State Party, the Director of the Centre underlined the responsibilities of the international community in providing help to States Parties for the conservation of World Heritage properties, especially in regions of the world with less technical and financial capacities. He asked the Committee to evaluate whether the current international assistance system is adequate for the long-term conservation of World Heritage sites.

V.8           The Director of the Centre recalled that a preliminary "Agenda" for future reform and strategic orientations had been outlined in four points by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Ms Cameron (Canada), during her speech at the opening of the fifth extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee (1 November 2001):

1. the necessity to focus more on the conservation needs of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
2. strengthening efforts in support of the Global Strategy;
3. the need to align the World Heritage Fund with strategic priorities, in part by exploring new avenues for securing significant new funds through partnerships, foundations, extra- budgetary initiatives and other;
4. the need for a statement of principles for World Heritage conservation or a World Heritage Charter for World Heritage conservation, to be prepared.

V.9           The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that following discussions at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau of the Committee (June 2001) and as a follow up to the Thirteenth General Assembly (30-31 October 2001), the Centre had formulated elements of new proposed strategic orientations to be discussed by the Committee in 2001 and 2002.

(ii) Overview of the proposal for Principles, Programmes and Partnerships          

V.10           The proposal presented in Section III of Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/5 is based on the development of the following tools (to be called, for the sake of synthesis, the "3 P's"):

1. a new document of "Principles" - Guidelines for World Heritage Conservation;
2. the reorientation of international assistance based on a "Programmes" approach; and
3. a new "Partnerships" initiative in support of World Heritage conservation.

(iii) General overview of the discussion          

V.11           Following the presentation of the Director, the Committee provided a number of significant comments and inputs to the proposal. The Delegate of Belgium asked for closer links between the proposal and the objectives of the Global Strategy and the results of Periodic Reporting. Furthermore, several delegates asked that the objectives underlying the proposal be more clearly defined. The Delegate of Belgium suggested that the objectives could usefully be summarized as follows (and called the proposal, the "3 C's"):

1. Strengthening the "Credibility" of the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
2. Supporting "Conservation" of the World Heritage properties.
3. Fostering "Capacity-building" for conservation.

V.12           In order to meet these objectives, analyses of the World Heritage List, tentative lists and a complete evaluation of the state of conservation of sites through the periodic reporting exercise needed to be completed as soon as possible. The analytical work could lead to a revision to the way the budget is presented to better reflect regional needs. Several members of the Committee, observers, IUCN and ICOMOS agreed with the Belgian proposal, stressing the need to focus on long-term conservation, and the development of more effective tools for supporting the conservation efforts of States Parties. The need to link conservation and development was also stressed. Furthermore, the Committee recognized the need for an overall strategic reflection on the implementation of the Convention to be discussed in Budapest at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June 2002.

(iv) Specific comments on "Principles" - tools for better guidance concerning the implementation of the World Heritage Convention          

V.13           The Director of the Centre explained the meaning of the proposed "Principles" tool. As the World Heritage List increases in size, and conservation needs become more and more important, the need to establish clear guidelines for World Heritage conservation becomes urgent.

V.14           The Director indicated that these guidelines would not replace existing "charters" developed by technical organizations such as IUCN and ICOMOS. The Guidelines would clarify to governments, site managers and potential partners directly involved in conservation of World Heritage, the accepted principles, methods and orientations on conservation of cultural and natural heritage recognized by the World Heritage Committee. The conservation guidelines could complement the Operational Guidelines.

V.15           The Committee offered comments on the proposal. It was questioned whether there should be separate guidelines for World Heritage as compared to other heritage. Others pointed out the difficulty of establishing procedures that would be applicable for the diversity of all regions.

V.16           Some members of the Committee supported the idea of a World Heritage Charter and recommended that it be annexed to the revised Operational Guidelines. Others recommended giving emphasis to the development of practical guidelines for site managers. The Committee noted that the only cultural heritage protection charter addressed to governments in the form of a "political document" is the 1931 Athens Charter developed by the League of Nations International Committee for Intellectual Co-operation.

V.17           ICOMOS supported the second proposal but cautioned that the exercise could be complex, based on their extensive experience. IUCN stated that it is very important to clarify the objectives and target audience, particularly to ensure that it does not duplicate other exercises such as the process for revising the Operational Guidelines. IUCN considered that it would help to have a clear hierarchy in mind when considering Principles:

First:	A brief statement of heritage principles
Second:	The Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention
Third:	Detailed technical guidance.

V.18           IUCN informed the Committee that it has produced a great deal of technical guidance in the form of Best Practice manuals etc., however, there are gaps.

(v) Specific comments on "Programmes" - a tool for more efficient use of resources for World Heritage conservation

V.19           The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that, following the orientation provided by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001, the Centre has proposed a preliminary set of Programmes for consideration by the Committee (see Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/19). The proposal is, in the first instance, limited to four programmes and to a maximum of 10% of the total International Assistance budget (US$200,000 for 2002).

V.20           The basic principle underlining the proposal is that International Assistance under the World Heritage Fund can be used strategically, as recommended by the Committee, to provide seed money to programmes that can then be supported financially and technically by other partners. The programmes proposed have been identified on the basis of International Assistance priorities adopted by the Committee in accordance with Section V of the Convention. These programmes represent an initial stage of a process of the redefinition of the use of International Assistance. Further strategic direction from the Committee on the application of International Assistance is required. A discussion on this item could be foreseen to take place at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in Budapest in June 2002.

V.21           The Committee expressed its support for the proposal to develop long-term programmes and stressed the need to link this activity more closely to Global Strategy and Periodic Reporting, in order to reflect more accurately the programme needs. This would require analyses of the World Heritage List, the tentative lists and of the Periodic Reports and could, for example, result in a budget presented in regional groupings. The Centre's capacity to implement the proposals was questioned given staff and other constraints.

V.22           IUCN and ICOMOS welcomed the Programme approach proposed and stressed the need for the Centre to develop it in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies. IUCN stated that they considered that it is important to focus efforts and welcomed the approach. However, IUCN commented that it is important to clearly and openly explain the rationale for the selection of programmes, and also provide clear estimates of costs. It is also important to have an appropriate balance between natural and cultural topics. IUCN welcomes a focus on forests but also suggested adding other biomes such as the marine environment. Further discussion on the Programme proposal is reported in Chapter XVI of the report.

(vi) Partnerships - a tool to strengthen long-term World Heritage conservation efforts

V.23         The Director of the Centre presented the proposal to develop an initiative aimed at strengthening and structuring partnerships for World Heritage conservation. UNESCO and the Centre, in line with the orientation provided by the Director-General and the increasing involvement of the United Nations in this area, have already begun to develop several partnerships involving Governments, local authorities, universities, private foundations and the corporate sector. Some of the most significant technical assistance programmes for World Heritage currently being implemented depend on partnership agreements (eg. the UNF-UNESCO partnership for the conservation of the World Heritage sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo).

V.24           The proposed scheme intends to give coherence and to expand activities based on co-operation with partners in a significant manner according to the priorities established by the Committee.

V.25           The Committee asked for clarifications on the modalities of the proposal, noting the need to proceed with caution in an innovative area. ICOMOS stressed the need to establish clear selection criteria for partners and to clarify existing partnerships such as those established through Forum UNESCO. A clear distinction should be made between those seeking to become genuinely involved in conservation and those using World Heritage for marketing purposes only. IUCN noted that key partners are often local communities and it is important to consider bottom-up approaches to partnerships. IUCN commented that there is scope (to be explored) for linking partnerships with key events, such as the 2003 World Parks Congress. IUCN said they will work with the World Heritage Centre to encourage more effective partnerships.

V.26           The Committee noted that Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention encourage States Parties to consider or encourage the establishment of national public and private foundations or associations whose purpose is to invite donations for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage and to give their assistance to international fund-raising campaigns organized for the World Heritage Fund under the auspices of UNESCO.

V.27           The Representative of UNEP fully supported the proposal and its focus on long-term conservation. She mentioned the existence of mutually beneficial partnership and projects of UNESCO and UNEP.

V.28           A summary of the discussion concerning events in 2002 is presented in Section XIII of the report (see also WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.3).

(vii) Conclusions

V.29           The Committee adopted the following decision:

The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to further develop a concept paper on Principles, Programmes and Partnerships taking into consideration the opinions expressed by the Committee, with specific reference to the need to define terms within a framework of strategic objectives. In particular, the paper should consider the need to define and strengthen the "credibility", the "conservation" and the capacity building" objectives of the World Heritage Convention.

Taking this into consideration, the Committee requested the Centre to:

1. indicate the nature of the "Principles" document, its target and the time frame needed to develop and finalize it;

2. provide an overall framework on the proposed "Programmes" system, and to present its connections with the Global Strategy and Periodic Reporting; and

3. illustrate the proposal on the "Partnerships" scheme, its regulations, the types of partnerships being sought, the selection criteria and the plan for its development and implementation.

The paper should be prepared in time for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in April 2002 and decision by the Committee in June 2002. The paper should be provided to Committee members as soon as possible to allow time for it to be studied.

VI.	REVISION OF THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

VI.1           The Secretariat presented a brief progress report on the revision of the Operational Guidelines making reference to working document WHC-01/CONF.208/6 (Revision of the Operational Guidelines) and WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.13 (Application of cultural criterion (vi)). The Committee noted that:

• The current revisions to the Operational Guidelines are being prepared on the basis of recommendations of an Expert Meeting held in Canterbury (United Kingdom) in April 2000, that were adopted by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns (2000).

• The overall objective of the current process of revision of the Guidelines is to create a user-friendly document that is streamlined and simplified and includes a consolidated section on the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties.

• The 1st Draft Annotated Revisions of the Operational Guidelines were sent to all States Parties under cover of a Circular Letter (CL/WHC.8/01) in July 2001. Seventeen submissions were received in response. The 1st Draft and comments received are included on the web site www.unesco.org/whc/opgu/ (English) and www.unesco.org/fr/orient/ (French).

• From 8 to 12 October 2001, a Drafting Group met at UNESCO Headquarters to review the 1st Draft and the submissions and to elaborate a 2nd Draft. The Drafting Group included experts from the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Finland, Morocco and Zimbabwe). Due to other commitments, the expert from Thailand was unable to attend. An expert from the United Kingdom (Dr Christopher Young, English Heritage who had chaired the Canterbury meeting) and representatives of the three Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage Centre and the Culture Sector of UNESCO, attended the meeting. The report of the Drafting Group was made available to the Committee as WHC-01/CONF.208/6 and is also included on the web site.

• The 2nd Draft Annotated Revisions of the Operational Guidelines was presented to the Committee as Annex IV of WHC-01/CONF.208/6.

• It is proposed that the revised Operational Guidelines include five main sections:
  1. Introduction
  2. Establishment of the World Heritage List
  3. Protection and conservation of World Heritage Properties
  4. International Assistance
  5. Mobilisation of national and international support in favour of the World Heritage Convention

• The Drafting Group considered that three issues require policy and legal consideration by the Committee before drafting can be finalised for consideration by the Committee. These are:
  1. The role of State Party consent in reactive monitoring;
  2. The role of State Party consent for inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger; and
  3. The capacity of the World Heritage Committee to decide and the role of the State Party to consent to deletion of properties from the World Heritage List.

The Committee:

1. congratulated the Drafting Group for the substantial progress made in revising the Operational Guidelines;
2. approved the organization of the next meeting of the Drafting Group at UNESCO Headquarters from 18 to 22 March 2002 to review the Annexes and sections of the Operational Guidelines still requiring finalization. The composition of the next Drafting Group will include an expert nominated by each State Party that is a Bureau member in 2002, an expert nominated by each State Party that were Bureau members in 2001 (Australia, Canada, Morocco, Ecuador and Zimbabwe) in order to use their experience to finalise the text, representatives from the Advisory Bodies, other experts as required (to be selected by the Director of the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee) and the World Heritage Centre.
3. invited States Parties to provide written comments on the 2nd Draft Annotated revisions of the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2001 for consideration by the Drafting Group in March 2002;
4. recalled that the Director of the Centre had indicated that the UNESCO analysis of legal/policy issues identified in the report of the Drafting Group would be available in time for the March 2002 Operational Guidelines Drafting Group;
5. considered that the Drafting Group should only examine technical questions and should leave discussions on legal and policy issues to the Committee.

VI.2           The Delegate of Belgium noted that there was a need to further discuss the application of the criteria, and in particular cultural heritage criterion (vi). The Committee did not make a decision on this specific point. However, the Chairperson noted that criterion (vi) will be discussed by the Operational Guidelines Drafting Group.

VII.	PERIODIC REPORTING
1.	Report on the state of the World Heritage in the Africa Region

VII.1           The Secretariat presented the report on Periodic Reporting in the Africa Region (WHC-01/CONF.208/7) to the Committee. As at November 2001, fifty-three sites were inscribed on the World Heritage List. Forty of these sites were inscribed prior to 1993 and located in eighteen countries, comprising twenty-three natural, sixteen cultural and one mixed site, and were the subject of this monitoring report. The strategic approach for the compilation of the report and the co-operation of the African States Parties in the Periodic Reporting Exercise was explained. Of the possible eighteen reports on the state of implementation of the Convention by the States Parties, sixteen had been received, and of a possible forty state of conservation reports, thirty-two had been received, representing a rate of 80%.

VII.2           As regards the state of the regional overview on the implementation of the Convention, the Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to the following issues:

• Periodic Reporting on the implementation of the Convention should not only be limited to countries with sites inscribed on the List;
• Lack of policy and legislative measures for heritage conservation: where policy measures exist, the lack of solid policies and programmes to put these measures into effect is insufficient to implement them;
• High central government-driven initiatives concerning sites with little involvement of the local population or non-governmental organizations;
• Inadequate professional personnel, skills and equipment;
• Lack of scientific information to enhance and update the management knowledge and methods;
• Lack of financial resources to manage sites and techniques for mobilizing international support;
• Lack of education and public awareness concerning World Heritage values;
• Poorly defined and poorly understood World Heritage values;
• Lack of mechanisms for addressing natural and anthropic threats to World Heritage;
• Non-existence of frameworks for bi- and multilateral cooperation for designing transborder sites; and
• Lack of nominations from countries that ratified the Convention in earlier years.

VII.3           In the light of these observations, and the achievements of the Global Strategy, the Secretariat emphasized the following challenges facing World Heritage conservation in Africa:

• Mainstreaming World Heritage protection within the public and private sectors of the African countries;
• Convincing the private sector to incorporate heritage protection in their activities;
• Establish long-term conservation financing programmess for African sites (e.g. the setting up of the African Heritage Fund);
• Promoting urban and regional planning for both urban and rural heritage;
• Promoting transparency in heritage resource management;
• Promoting more proactive use of environmental assessment tools for the decision making process; and
• Effective management through regional and sub-regional training, accountability, cooperation, coordination and agreements.

VII.4           The Secretariat presented an Action Plan focused on:

• Co-operation and Networks for better sharing of resources;
• Training for more skilled and efficient manpower;
• Wider participation to ensure long and sustained conservation of World Heritage in Africa;
• Management to address deficiencies at the national level and on the sites;
• Scientific research and reporting to enhance knowledge at sites, and update methods for site protection and information sharing.

VII.5           The Secretariat recommended the convening of the second round of regional meetings with site managers. Meetings with the Permanent Delegations to UNESCO and with the National Commissions for UNESCO should also be held. The Secretariat also recommended the adoption by the Committee of the Action Plan, to be funded by the World Heritage Fund, extrabudgetary sources and the African Heritage Fund.

VII.6           Following the presentation, several interventions were made by Committee members and observers. After debate, the Committee deferred the adoption of the African Periodic Report, on the basis of the following comments:

• the complete Report should have been provided to enable the Committee to have the information which led to the conclusion and recommendations of the Report, provided as a Working Document;

• in view of the importance of the Report and the issues involved in the Periodic Reporting Exercise, the Committee requested that a copy of the report be provided to all members to provide an opportunity to thoroughly study the Report (CD-Rom version), and certain recommendations contained in the Report submitted to the Committee which may be difficult to implement.

VII.7           The Committee noted that the proposed Action Plan should be completed with a quantitative plan, highlighting actions to be undertaken in the short and in the long term, and associating the follow up activities to periodic reporting with the activities undertaken under the Africa 2009 Programme.

VII.8           As regards the proposed African Heritage Fund, while expressing the urgent need to support African countries, the Committee requested a detailed description of the Fund and suggested that it should have a structure whereby the Committee could have a say in its utilisation.

VII.9           In considering the level of awareness raising, the Committee noted that each regional action plan differed, and that more awareness raising activities are foreseen in the follow up to the Periodic Reporting Exercise. The Committee noted that the countries concerned will gain six more months following approval of the proposed cycle for periodic reporting.

VII.10           To simplify the work of the Committee, it was decided to provide the Committee with the summary report. However, the Committee was informed that the full report would be made available to its members.

VII.11           IUCN welcomed the report on Africa. Africa is the only region where the number of natural sites exceeds the number of cultural sites. In addition, 22% of all natural World Heritage sites are from Africa. Alarmingly, 42% of natural sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger are from Africa, in some cases the result of armed conflict related issues as in the Democratic Republic of Congo. IUCN considered that this required increasing emphasis by the Committee on African heritage conservation, particularly through activities which build local support, linking conservation to sustainable development and support capacity building efforts. However, it is important to understand that root causes such as poverty, debt, lack of development and ethnic conflict afflict too many African countries. These underlying causes will be addressed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002.

VII.12           IUCN felt the report has many positive points but that the recommendations would have more impact if the set of priority items were presented in a clearer and shorter fashion. IUCN also informed the Committee that the World Parks Congress (WPC) will be held in Durban in September 2003. This 10-yearly event is key in shaping the world's protected areas now covering the equivalent of 10% of the earth's terrestrial surface. The WPC will include a major focus on World Heritage and on African conservation. The meeting will provide an important opportunity to address the issues identified in the Periodic Reporting Exercise.

VII.13           The ICCROM Representative reported that several activities proposed in the Action Plan are already being implemented by ICCROM under Africa 2009, and more links will be established with the periodic reporting.

VII.14           The Committee noted that the Action Plan as well as the recommendations were derived from consultations with the States Parties during regional meetings, responses to the questionnaires and through various consultant missions undertaken to assist the participating countries.

VII.15           As regards follow up consultations with the concerned African States Parties, the Committee noted that the Chairperson had approved two international assistance requests amounting to US$40,000 to enable the organization in Africa of two follow up meetings for Francophone and Anglophone African countries respectively.

VII.16           Taking into consideration the above observations, the Committee deferred the adoption of the African Periodic Report and the proposed Action Plan. It recommended that the Centre re-examine the African Periodic Report in consultation with the States Parties, taking into consideration the comments, and re-submit the Report to the next session of the World Heritage Committee. The Report should include more details on the proposed Action Plan and the proposed African Heritage Fund, and be circulated to the States Parties. A Progress Report on the African Periodic Reporting Exercise should be submitted to the next Bureau of the World Heritage Committee.

2.	Progress Reports on Regional Periodic Reporting Strategies

Asia and the Pacific Region

VII.17           The Committee examined Section 2 of Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8 concerning the progress report on the preparation of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting Exercise. The Committee took note that the Asia-Pacific Region with thirty-five States Parties (twenty-seven Asian and eight Pacific States Parties) will be undertaking the Exercise for preparing Part I (State Party information) of the Periodic Report to report to the Committee in June 2003. It was noted that in the Asia-Pacific Region, there are 135 World Heritage properties, including ninety-one cultural, thirty-five natural and nine mixed sites, of which fifty-five cultural and thirty- three natural or mixed properties were inscribed before or in 1994, located in sixteen countries, to be reported within Part II (site information) of this first round of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Report.

VII.18           The Centre informed the Committee that following the Action Plan it had approved at its twenty-fourth session, the Asia- Pacific States Parties have started the preparation of their national Periodic Reports in close co-operation with the Centre and the Advisory Bodies. It was underscored that the entire process involved consultation between States Parties, UNESCO, the Advisory Bodies and other relevant authorities; twenty-one out of thirty-five Asia-Pacific States Parties had appointed national coordinators for the Exercise. The main activities undertaken in 2001 for the Periodic Reporting Exercise were highlighted.

VII.19           The Centre expressed appreciation to the States Parties who are making special efforts to support this important Exercise within the work of the Convention, notably, the Republic of Korea and Australia, who have or are planning to host UNESCO Regional or Sub- Regional Workshops for the preparation of the periodic reports for the Asia-Pacific Cultural, Mixed and Natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994. Moreover, the Centre drew the attention of the Committee to the generous contribution by the Government of Japan, which had committed US$334,800 to support the Periodic Reporting Exercise for this region to be reviewed in June 2003.

VII.20           For Natural and Mixed Heritage, the Committee was informed that close links have been developed between the Periodic Reporting Exercise and the Centre/IUCN Global Project entitled "Enhancing our Heritage: Monitoring and Managing Success in World Natural Heritage sites", financed by the UN Foundation. The first meeting to co-ordinate the preparation of the periodic report on natural and mixed World Heritage properties (33 from 11 States Parties) will be hosted by Australia, in March 2002.

VII.21           The Delegates of India and the Republic of Korea, and the Observer of Iran underscored the importance of consultation and usefulness of the close co-operation between UNESCO, the concerned States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and other relevant organizations to ensure a positive outcome of this exercise.

VII.22           The Committee was assured by the Secretariat, that the Periodic Reporting Exercise was being conducted by the States Parties themselves, and that the Report, to be examined by the Committee at its twenty-seventh session in June 2003, would be presented by representative(s) of the Asia-Pacific States Parties, and not by the Secretariat.

VII.23           The Committee approved the Action Plan proposed in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8 Section 2 as well as the regional strategic action plan to complete the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting Exercise.

Latin America and the Caribbean Region

VII.24           The Committee took note of the presentation of Section 3 of the Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8 concerning the Periodic Report on the Latin American and Caribbean Region. The Delegate of Argentina informed the Committee that his country had designated two focal points, one for natural sites and one for cultural sites. The Periodic Report of Argentina will be discussed during the second seminar on the 1972 Convention, foreseen in Cordoba, in March 2002, after the sub- regional meeting of Montévideo and with the technical assistance of the Centre. Argentina is studying, among others, the means to ensure its own permanent evaluation mechanism. Whilst approving the strategy proposed for Latin America and the Caribbean, the Delegate of Argentina requested that the budget of this part of the programme be discussed at the same time as the budget for international assistance and the World Heritage Fund. Following a question raised by the Delegate of Mexico, the Secretariat informed that each State Party designated one or more focal points. The Committee took note of Section 3 of the Periodic Report for the Latin American and Caribbean Region and approved the proposed timetable.

Europe and North America Region

VII.25           Concerning the proposals for the Periodic Reporting Exercise for Europe (Section 4 of Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8), the Committee agreed both with the timing and the proposal to collaborate with the Council of Europe and its HEREIN project, a comparative databank on European cultural heritage policies. It furthermore noted the co-operation with the Nordic World Heritage Office/Foundation in the development of technical tools.

VII.26           The Committee also requested that all States Parties be included in this effort and to fully co-operate with the Advisory Bodies. A number of European States Parties took the floor to support the arrangements proposed, namely to cover Section I of the reports for all countries in 2005 and Section II in 2006. A question was raised as to whether the capacity in the Centre would be sufficient for the work to be carried out and the Director responded that assistance be provided by States Parties through the Associate Expert Scheme.

VII.27           The Delegate of Hungary pointed out that the year 2007 should be devoted to a stocktaking exercise and the development of conceptual guidelines for the second cycle. The Delegate of Greece informed the Committee that a Conference on the Safeguarding of Byzantine Heritage had been organized in May 2001 and that a database on the state of conservation of this type of heritage for the Mediterranean countries is being established. ICOMOS fully supported the link to the Council of Europe and the HEREIN project, as this is an open project which could be very beneficial to other regions. The thesaurus already exists in English, French and Spanish and the thematic and methodological approach could be expanded to cover the other reporting exercises as it includes heritage protection in general.

Arab States Region

VII.28           The Committee noted the summary on the follow-up to the Arab Region Periodic Reporting (Section 1 of Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8). Background information was provided on the activities of the Secretariat since the adoption of the regional summary report in Cairns in 2000, such as on the meeting organized in April 2001, to inform States Parties of the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The Delegate of Lebanon commented that the identification of Modern Heritage is not a priority within the Arab region.

VII.29           The Secretariat outlined its proposed strategy to implement the above-mentioned recommendations, insisting on the need to establish and reinforce national World Heritage "focal points", fine-tune regional strategies and national work plans, develop model international assistance packages and encourage States Parties to apply for those packages under the World Heritage Fund.

VII.30           The Committee noted the various actions aimed at implementing the above-mentioned strategy, that the Secretariat is carrying out. These include: national seminars to assist States Parties in reviewing periodic reports and generating requests for international assistance activities; regional and sub-regional meetings to strengthen the capacity of States Parties in implementing the Convention and improve the representivity of the Arab Region on the List; and Regional Technical Assistance Programmes, mainly funded through extrabudgetary sources, to provide best-practice examples in addressing common management and conservation problems of the region.

VII.31           The Committee noted that a special effort is made by the Secretariat to ensure that all international assistance activities, under the World Heritage Fund, are conceived in such a way to contribute to the general objectives of the regional strategy.

VII.32           The Committee, recalling that heritage conservation is an absolute priority for all States Parties from the region, supported the idea of establishing World Heritage "focal points" in each State Party, suggesting that there might be an overall World Heritage Co- ordinator for each country, and two "executives", one for cultural and one for natural heritage. In this respect, the Delegate of Egypt underlined that National MAB, where they exist, Committees are best placed to become the counterparts of the Centre for natural heritage. The need to involve renowned universities from the region as well as encouraging interregional Mediterranean co-operation was also stressed. The Delegate of Egypt drew the Committee's attention to the Training Center at Sharm El-Sheikh, located near the Ras Mohamed Marine Park, St Catherine Monastery and other noteworthy natural and cultural sites. This Center is equipped with the most modern material for cultural and natural training courses and is able to accommodate up to 52 trainees.

VII.33           The Committee furthermore agreed on the necessary link between international assistance activities and the "programme" approach, and requested that the experience of the Periodic Reporting in the Arab region be used to develop indicators and benchmarks, which would enable an assessment of the progress accomplished in a given region once the cycle was completed.

VII.34           The ALECSO Observer took the floor proposing that a strategic partnership be established between the Centre and his Organization, to co-operate in the Arab region on the basis of the recommendations and Action Plan deriving from the Periodic Reporting. He recalled that ALECSO is in the process of setting up its own global strategy, which will take into account the directives of the Committee, and he underlined the need to integrate efforts with a view to optimising the resources.

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

VIII.1           The Committee examined document WHC-01/CONF.208/9 describing reports on the state of conservation of nineteen natural and seven cultural heritage properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

NATURAL HERITAGE

Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)

VIII.2           The Committee learned that the Colon road was effectively closed in June 2001 through the intervention of the Brazilian Federal Police. The Committee was informed that the State Party provided information by a letter dated 5 December 2001 to the Centre on several steps taken: on the one hand to ensure permanent closure of the road and rehabilitate areas damaged by the illegal use of the road; and on the other, to assist local communities affected by the closure of the road.

VIII.3           To ensure permanent closure of the road, the Brazilian authorities sunk a ferry boat, scarified the whole of the 18 km of the road to render it unuseable, destroyed three bridges along the road and established a guard-post at the entrance to the road manned by 12 Federal Police personnel to prevent any attempt by dissidents to begin illegal use of the road again. Soon after the closure of the road on 13 June 2001, 5000 seedlings of native tree species were planted to rehabilitate areas damaged by the road; an additional 20,000 saplings are being planted during December 2001.

VIII.4           An interministerial Working Group has been created with the participation of the State Government of Paraná, and under the leadership of the Ministry for National Integration, to promote sustainable development initiatives among local populations inhabiting the vicinity of the Iguaçu National Park. FUNPAR (Fundação da Universidade do Paraná) has been hired to carry out appraisal studies on how municipalities around the Park could benefit from projects and activities that will soon be launched. The Government of the State of Paraná has developed a joint project with the surrounding populations focusing on organic agriculture and sustainable use activities, including development of craftmanship and ecotourism. Private enterprises and public agencies have set up infrastructure projects with the aim of fostering ecotourism and organic agriculture. These projects will employ approximately 450 persons.

VIII.5           The twenty-fifth session of the Bureau that met in Paris from 25 to 30 June 2001 had recommended that if the positive developments are sustained, the Committee could remove this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee concluded that the State Party had met the conditions it had set at its twenty-third session (1999), i.e. ensuring the permanent closure of the Colon road, to remove the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee invited the State Party to continue forest rehabilitation efforts and monitor their outcome and build co-operative programmes to enhance income generation and employment opportunities for local communities in municipalities bordering the Park. The Committee decided to remove the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested that IUCN and the Centre undertake a site visit during 2002/2003 to prepare a status report for submission to the twenty- seventh session of the Committee in June 2003. Based on the suggestions made by the Delegate of Argentina and the Observer of Brazil, the Committee welcomed the idea to study a permanent mechanism for transborder co-operation between the World Heritage sites of Iguaçu (Brazil) and Iguazu (Argentina) National Parks, in particular for sustainable tourism.

Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)          

VIII.6           The Committee noted with satisfaction that in accordance with the recommendation made at its last session the State Party had invited a Centre/IUCN/Ramsar mission to the site which took place from 1 to 4 October 2001. The Committee reviewed the findings of the mission, included in document WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.5.

VIII.7           The Committee was pleased to note that improvements observed by a 1998 mission to the integrity of the site have all been sustained and that the chances of continuing improvements to the state of conservation of the site are quite high. Population of the dalmatian pelicans, control of water flow in and out of the Lake, water quality indicators and institutional aspects such as continuity in data collection and maintenance for systematic monitoring of the state of conservation of the site, were all showing positive or stable trends. The mission team had commended the staff for its dedication to preserve the site's World Heritage values despite cash-flow and financial constraints. The Committee invited the State Party to consider, if necessary, to submit a request for international assistance from the World Heritage Fund for purchasing equipment and materials essential to ensure effective regulation of water flow in and out of the Lake. The Committee took note of the fact that the management plan, being prepared with a small grant from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, will be finalized and adopted by the Government in due course and that discussions with other countries sharing the Danube Delta to develop transborder co-operation for World Heritage are underway.

VIII.8           The Committee congratulated the State Party for sustaining all the positive and stable trends in the rehabilitation of the site reported by the 1998 mission and welcomed the management's co-operation with the scientific community to ensure continuous data collection for systematic monitoring of changes in key parameters reflective of trends in the state of conservation of the site. The Committee invited the State Party to finalize the management plan and confirm its adoption by the Government and to submit a calendar of activities for preparing a proposal for a transborder World Heritage area in the Danube Delta in co-operation with other concerned States Parties to the Convention. The Committee decided to remove Srebarna from the List of World Heritage Danger, effective from the date at which the State Party submits to the Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, a copy of the approved management plan for the site and a letter commiting core resources for the timely and effective implementation of the plan.

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

VIII.9           The Committee noted with satisfaction that in accordance with the recommendations made at its last session, a mission to the site was fielded from 5-13 May 2001. The Committee took note of the conclusions and recommendations deriving from the examination of that report by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau held in June 2001.

VIII.10           The Committee noted that the Centre and IUCN were in the process of co-operating with the State Party to prepare a fundraising plan for the implementation of urgent rehabilitation measures and a realistic workplan including institutional responsibilities for the implementation of those measures. These plans will include benchmarks that could signal improvements in the state of conservation of the site and assist the Committee's decision concerning the eventual removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. As part of this co-operative process, a two-phase, 24-month programme of actions for addressing the critical and most urgent needs for the conservation of the site have been developed. The list of actions includes those needed to provide urgent protection for the site and others to encourage dialogue among stakeholders to link site protection to socio-economic development of the broader region. The Committee took note of those actions included in pages 38 and 39 of the Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/20 as part of the description of an emergency assistance request from the World Heritage Fund submitted by the State Party.

VIII.11           The Committee was informed that, in accordance with the recommendation of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, the Director-General had written to the Permanent Delegations of all countries neighbouring the Republic of Central Africa inviting their co-operation in mitigating across-the-border poaching. The Committee invited the State Party to actively seek the co-operation of all its neighbours to combat poachers entering from neighbouring countries. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to identify potential financial sources, over and above that which the Committee may consider providing from the World Heritage Fund, to implement the urgent rehabilitation measures and long-term conservation actions for the benefit of this site. The Committee decided that the site be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

World Heritage sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)          

Virunga National Park
Garamba National Park
Kahuzi-Biega National Park
Okapi Wildlife Reserve
Salonga National Park

VIII.12           The Committee was updated on the state of conservation of each of the five sites and the outcome of a mission led by the Director of the Centre to DRC from 24 November to 3 December 2001.

VIII.13           Virunga National Park has been considerably affected by the war in eastern DRC and its impacts. More than 20,000 families are resident in the central and northern sectors of the Park, most of them undertaking fishing and livestock herding activities. Renegade militia groups are hiding in the forests in the northern and central sectors of the Park and subsist by poaching on wild animals. It is believed that several keystone species in the area, including elephants and hippos, are being hunted regularly and fishing intensity in the Lakes of the Virunga National Park is on the increase. Forests are being cleared for agriculture and settlements. In the northern sector, ICCN staff from Beni are beginning to increase patrolling operations as guards have started receiving payments that are being made available under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. State of conservation in the central sector is of serious concern as staff are unable to enter the area for regular patrols and surveillance. The southern sector of Virunga is relatively stable and regularly patrolled; mountain gorilla population in the latter sector is stable and has increased from 325 to 355 over the last decade. Staff belonging to protected areas in southern Virunga co-operate with their counterparts in Uganda and Rwanda under the aegis of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP). The northern and central sectors, and the southern sectors are under the authority of two separate rebel Governments. ICCN staff in the two territories are gradually increasing contacts and collaboration with one another to implement activities under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project.

VIII.14           Guards in Garamba National Park have been prevented from receiving their monthly payments provided under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project because of misunderstandings between the Conservator of Garamba and the co-operating NGO, i.e. the International Rhino Foundation (IRF). These differences were discussed by the two parties in the presence of other ICCN personnel from Kinshasa and the rebel-held region of Beni/Bunia during a meeting in Nairobi immediately preceding the mission led by the Director of the Centre. It is expected that the payments to Garamba staff can now be delivered without any hindrance. Despite these difficulties in the execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project, guards continue to carry out their patrol and surveillance duties regularly. The population of the northern white rhinos in this site continues to be stable around 30 individuals.

VIII.15           Kahuzi-Biega National Park is perhaps the most threatened of the five sites despite the continuing presence of the the GTZ (Germany) financed project staff who pay the conservators and other senior staff. The guards and labourers are receiving payments under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. Only 10% of the area is accessible to staff; most of the lowland sector (90% of the total area of the Park) is inaccessible due to the presence of armed groups and renegade militias. Coltan mining was rampant in this site at the time of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001 but has been reduced since then due to the sharp decline in the price of coltan. But miners who were camped in the Park have remained, resorting to poaching and gold mining. Park staff and GTZ Project personnel have made some contacts with armed groups along the borders of the inaccessible sector and have been able to enter into informal negotiations with them to seek support for protecting wildlife. Their task has been made difficult because site staff are not armed. The leaders of the rebel Government in Goma have agreed to address the possibility of providing arms and ammunition to the staff and progress in this regard will be monitored over the next few months.

VIII.16           In the Okapi Wildlife Reserve the guards and labourers have received payments under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF project dating back to October 2000 and the NGO partner assisting the Project to deliver payments to the site, i.e. Gilman International Conservation (GIC), has continued paying other supervisory staff, such as the conservators. Hence, the staff morale is rather high. A third of the area still remains inaccessible to staff, an improvement compared to last year when more than half the surface area of the Reserve was not accessible to the staff. Co-operation between staff and military authorities is improving and the mission team met with the Governor responsible for the area who committed to visit the area and dialogue with military groups and local communities to bring about further improvements to the conservation of the site. The Conservator of the Reserve informed the mission that after a long period of time, no known cases of elephant poaching have been reported in the month of October 2001. In the short-to-medium term this site has the best potential among the five sites of DRC for recovery subject to the continuation of the current trend recovery.

VIII.17           The 36,000-square kilometer Salonga National Park is the only site under the direct responsibility of ICCN, Kinshasa; although about 20% of the area in the southeastern sector is controlled by the rebel authorities in Goma. The partner NGO, namely Zoological Society of Milwaukee (ZSM), has hired local staff who brave long distances and insecure access conditions to pay guards, labourers and other staff from support made available under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. Poaching in the site continues; the number of staff working in the Park is totally inadequate for the huge area where access is extremely difficult. The ability of ICCN, Kinshasa, to better manage this and other protected areas under its authority may improve when a GTZ project, that was temporarily suspended in June 2001, re-starts operations in January 2002. This GTZ project may recommence payments to several ICCN-Kinshasa staff and provide other basic needs such as vehicles and travel allowances that would enable ICCN to better protect Salonga and other protected areas under its direct supervision.

VIII.18           The mission led by the Director of the Centre visited Kinshasa, as well as Goma, Beni and Bunia, which now serve as seats of rebel Government authorities in the eastern parts of DRC. The mission met with ICCN staff in all destinations as well as senior decision- makers, including Heads of the rebel administration in Goma, Beni and Bunia. The Director and his team met with representatives of staff from all five World Heritage sites and visited a guard post at the southwestern border of Virunga. The mission's flight in the eastern parts of DRC traced a south-north route along the western boundary of the Virunga National Park providing an overview of the site's state of conservation.

VIII.19           The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) of the United States of America has applauded the dedication of the guards of protected areas of the DRC. The Director General of ICCN (Kinshasa) accepted an award on behalf of the guards of the protected areas of DRC at a ceremony in Hawaii in June 2001. The financial contribution of approximately US$5,000 provided by members of SCB were used to provide medals to all the guards and labourers (approximately 1,000 individuals) of the five World Heritage sites; the Director of the Centre handed over medals to individual representatives of each site in simple ceremonies held during the mission. A part of the US$5,000 collected will be used to provide small sums of cash compensation to widows of guards who lost their lives in the line of duty.

VIII.20           In accordance with the request of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, a detailed report (English and French) on the progress of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project is included as document WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.4. The Minister of Environment of DRC in Kinshasa described the project to the Director of the Centre as a "project of hope" since it arrived at a time when no other donor was willing to provide support to staff of the five World Heritage sites. In the absence of monthly support payments to guards, training and monitoring and equipment and other amenities provided under the project, many of the staff might have deserted the Park.

VIII.21           The ICCN authorities in Kinshasa and in the rebel regions of Goma, Beni and Bunia also welcomed the Belgium Government- financed project to support local communities to work with staff to conserve the World Heritage sites. This aspect of the conservation agenda was not adequately financed under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. Hence, the Belgium contribution of 300,000 Euros over the 4-year period overlapping with that of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project is seen as a critically important contribution for the success of the overall effort to sustain the conservation status of the five sites. The first planning workshop to identify site specific community support activities to be implemented under the UNESCO/Belgium Government Project has been scheduled for mid-February 2002 and will be held in Beni, at the boundary of the northern sector of the Virunga National Park. The workshop will be organized by a local NGO working in and around Virunga that has been established and supported by the WWF Regional Programme for Eastern Africa.

VIII.22           The Committee was informed of the important logistical and other support provided by the UN Organization Mission in the Congo (MONUC) both for travel of the mission team and in assisting partners such as ZSM to deliver UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project payments to staff in Salonga National Park. MONUC has staff in Kinshasa, Goma, Beni and Bunia and in several other parts of DRC and operates regular flights between these destinations that are open (at no cost) to other UN staff and their collaborating NGOs and DRC counterparts. MONUC, other UN agencies, bi and multilateral donors and a growing number of conservation NGOs who are entering the country as the peace process under the Lusaka Agreement slowly takes root, are likely to play a major role in reviving the conservation status of World Heritage sites in the DRC.

VIII.23           In the long-term, the return of peace and stability are essential to conservation of World Heritage sites and other protected areas and habitats in the DRC. The Centre will attempt to match resources provided by the UNF, the Government of Belgium and with other donors to expand sustainable development options in areas surrounding the five sites with a view to minimising pressure on resources within the sites. While demilitarzing the Parks and unarming renegade militias hiding in protected areas, including the World Heritage sites, is likely to be a difficult task, representatives of several aid organziations and the DRC and rebel military forces believe many such armed groups comprise deserters and youth who would accept a return to civilan life if alternative livelihood options are offered to them.

VIII.24           The Committee was pleased to note that the Director- General of UNESCO, in accordance with the wish of the Committee expressed at several of its previous sessions, has agreed to lead a mission to Kinshasa (DRC), Kampala (Uganda) and Kigali (Rwanda) in late March 2002. The mission led by the Director of the Centre informed all important personalities met, including authorities of MONUC and other UN bodies in the DRC, of the Director-General's mission. Several persons met expressed the hope that the visit of the Director-General to the three capitals could establish a basis for co- operation amongst the three countries for biodiversity conservation, including important endangered species such as the mountain and the eastern lowland gorillas. As the Lusaka Peace Agreement's execution progresses, opportunities for formal collaboration between the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda for the conservation of mountain and lowland gorillas in the ecosystems shared by the three countries are likely to become available.

VIII.25           The Committee learned that the Centre, encouraged by the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO, has initiated a study of gorilla habitats as a pilot activity for the UNESCO-ESA (European Space Agency) Co-operative Initiative to demonstrate the use of satellite images and other space-borne technologies in monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage sites. This initiative will generate state-of-the-art information on land-use changes in and around the two sites of significance as gorilla habitats; i.e. Virunga for the mountain gorilla and Kahuzi Biega for the eastern lowland gorilla. Similar studies on habitats of other apes such as the chimpanzees and the bonobos that inhabit Salonga are also foreseen as part of UNESCO collaboration with UNEP under the Great Apes Survival Project (GRASP) recently launched by UNEP.

VIII.26           The Committee noted with satisfaction the outcome of the mission led by the Director of the Centre but expressed its serious concerns over the range of threats to the integrity of the five World Heritage sites in the DRC. Several delegates expressed their appreciation of the mission team's efforts to visit a region of uncertainty and security risks to further the cause of World Heritage conservation. The Committee appealed to the international community to live up to the spirit and ideal of international co-operation promoted by the World Heritage Convention and intervene in all possible ways to assist ICCN, site staff, partner NGOs and others to protect and preserve the World Heritage sites of the DRC. The Committee applauded the Governments of Belgium and Germany and other donors like the UNF and NGO partners of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project for the crucial support they are already providing for the conservation of the five sites. The Committee welcomed the opportunity for close collaboration with MONUC and other UN bodies in the execution of conservation-support activities and missions.

VIII.27           The Committee urged the Centre to liaise with all concerned units in UNESCO to ensure effective execution of UNF and Belgium-financed projects by minimizing administrative and other delays. The Committee requested the Centre, IUCN and other partners to expand the search for projects and programmes that provide alternative livelihoods for communities inhabiting areas around the World Heritage sites. Such alternative livelihood options may also have a role in attracting individuals belonging to armed groups hiding inside the World Heritage sites and to re-integrate them into civilan life. The Committee emphasized the need to explore the feasibility for building long-term conservation financing mechanisms for the DRC, one of the principal objectives of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. The Committee thanked the Director-General of UNESCO for agreeing to lead a mission to the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda and invited him to consider discussing an agenda of co-operation amongst the three countries for World Heritage conservation as an important component of the implementation of activities under the Lusaka Peace Agreement.

VIII.28           The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN work together with all concerned partners to prepare a long-term integrated strategy for the conservation of World Heritage in the DRC incorporating economic, social, peace and capacity building and other relevant aspects. The Committee recognized the need to educate youth and other target groups on the importance of World Heritage conservation and use the culture of the people of the DRC, particularly their music and songs, to inculcate and transmit conservation values. The Committee decided to retain all the five sites in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee thanked the Secretariat for their strong commitment in undertaking this mission in difficult conditions.

Sangay National Park (Ecuador)

VIII.29           The Committee noted with interest the inclusion of Sangay as one of the Latin American pilot sites in the UN Foundation financed pilot project entitled: "Enhancing our heritage: monitoring and managing for success in World Natural Heritage sites". The project will test out monitoring and management effectiveness evaluation tools developed by an IUCN/WCPA Task Force. The project management in co- operation with IUCN, both in Gland and in Latin America, is discussing the details for the organization of a national workshop where the development of indicators and benchmarks to monitor changes in the state of conservation of the site and linking their monitoring to the timing of the possible removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger will be discussed. IUCN noted that there may be potential for removing this site from the Danger List. The Committee invited the Centre and IUCN to submit a report on the outcome of that workshop to its twenty-sixth session in Hungary in June 2002 and submit regular progress reports on the execution of project activities to the subsequent annual sessions of the Committee. The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Simen National Park (Ethiopia)

VIII.30           The Committee noted that the Bureau, at its twenty- fifth session held in June 2001, had reviewed a report of an IUCN/Centre mission that visited the site from 8 to 13 April 2001 and recommended the adoption of the following specific benchmarks for the future monitoring of the state of conservation of Simen and its eventual removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger: (a) the re-alignment of the boundary of the Park to exclude the villages along the boundary of the Park; (b) the extension of the Park to include at least Mesarerya and Lemalino Wildlife Reserves; (c) significant and sustainable reduction in the human population density within the Park, especially within the core area; and (d) effective conservation within the extended National Park of a larger population of Walia Ibex and Simien Fox. The Centre had transmitted the Bureau's recommendations to the Committee by a letter dated 11 July 2001, but has not yet received a response.

VIII.31           The Committee adopted the benchmarks proposed by the Bureau and referred to above as a basis for the future monitoring of p