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 progress in improving the state of conservation of Simen and invited the State Party to formally respond to the letter from the Centre transmitting the above-mentioned recommendations. The Committee urged the State Party and its site-level partners in project execution to be cognizant of the need to implement the project in close consultation with all stakeholders, and particularly local communities under consideration. The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN collaborate with the State Party to raise international awareness for the conservation of this site and mobilize necessary financial resources to implement rehabilitation measures and to ensure the eventual removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger as soon as possible. The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)

VIII.32           The Committee noted that two tri-national (Côte d' Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia) meetings were held in Abidjan and Man, Côte d'Ivoire, on 11 September, and from 12 - 14 September 2001, respectively. The World Heritage site is shared by Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire; Liberia is yet to ratify the Convention. The meetings were jointly financed by the World Heritage Fund, the Rio Tinto Plc. and the Governments of Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia, in cooperation with several conservation NGOs, notably Fauna and Flora International (FFI), Conservation International (CI), Bird Life International (BLI), and the Netherlands Committee for IUCN. These meetings were intended to contribute to the long-term conservation of the Mount Nimba Massif by: (i) establishing and encouraging contacts between technical staff, site managers, local decision-makers and local community representatives to share information and experience; and (ii) increasing harmonization of management planning and practice among the three countries that share the Mount Nimba ecosystem.

VIII.33           The one-day seminar on the 11 September 2001 was designed to sensitise Government authorities on the importance of regional co-operation for the protection of Mount Nimba. The second, technical meeting from 12 to 14 September discussed in detail basic issues of cross-border co-operation, national and regional problems facing Mount Nimba, the value of a regional approach and biodiversity conservation at the regional level. The meeting put in place a strategy for continued dialogue for future cooperation for the conservation of the Mount Nimba ecosystem for the benefit of the three countries. The meeting in Man decided to hold a second meeting before the end of 2001 in Conakry, in the Republic of Guinea. Exact dates for the second meeting has not yet been communicated to the Centre.

VIII.34           The goal of the second meeting is to "initiate a trinational dialogue for the conservation of Mount Nimba", and the objectives are to: validate the issues and problems identified by the Man meeting; identify the strategy and tools for the conservation of Mount Nimba; propose a protocol for long-term collaboration between the three countries for joint planning and conservation of Mount Nimba; and prioritise national and regional actions. The two meetings were the first trinational event on Mount Nimba. Participants at the Man meeting included representatives from local Governments, local development interest groups, village leaders, protected area managers, UNESCO and the MAB Programme, mining industry, water and forest management authorities and groups concerned with refugees and settlements. The meetings also invited the participation, for the first time, of Rio Tinto, a mining company, to dialogue with conservation stakeholders interested in the long-term protection of Mount Nimba.

VIII.35           The GEF Focal point at UNDP in Guinea and Mr Salamady Toure, the Director of CEGEN, have informed the Centre that the first three components of the GEF/PDF-B grants for the Mount Nimba (UNDP- GEF Project Gui/2000/31 financed by the World Heritage Fund and GEF) have been completed. The activities of this project comprise the following: (a) identification of the elements for the preparation of guidelines for integrated management of Mount Nimba and its surroundings; (b) building local and national technical and institutional capacity with a view to improving management; (c) establishing support services, such as communication, monitoring, promotion and alternative livelihood options for communities to ensure Mount Nimba conservation; and (d) preparation of a detailed long-term, Integrated Development Project for the Mount Nimba region. UNDP and the Centre are currently discussing the elaboration of the Integrated Development Project for Mt. Nimba as part of a UNDP-GEF Project that may last over a period of 7 to 10 years with a total budget of US$8m. GEF has agreed in principle to provide US$6m; additional resources will be sought from other donors. The Centre, UNDP/Conakry and other partners concerned are currently discussing the best way forward for elaborating the project document early and the roles of the different institutions concerned in the project execution, co-ordination and management. It is hoped the design of that project will include benchmarks and success indicators that could facilitate the Committee's efforts to track the state of conservation of the site and its eventual considerations concerning the removal of Mount Nimba from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.36           In Man, discussions were also held concerning the setting up of a Mount Nimba Foundation. Guinea is still keen to establish the Foundation to enable it to put in place sustained support mechanisms for Mount Nimba. At Man the participants were informed that Côte d'Ivoire is setting up an agency for the management of protected areas with financial assistance from the World Bank and the European Union. This agency will have responsibility for the management of Mount Nimba and other World Heritage sites in Côte d'Ivoire and the mandate to mobilize funds from international sources for Côte d' Ivoire. It would therefore be difficult to set up a common Foundation for all three countries sharing Mount Nimba. The Man meeting requested the Centre and FFI to assist Guinea with a consultant to study the feasibility of setting up a Foundation, and look into the possibility of utilising some of the funds that will become available under the GEF project as initial seed money for establishing the Foundation.

VIII.37           The Committee may recall that a donor's Round Table meeting was held at the Centre for Scientific and Technical Documentation (CEDUST) in Conakry in April 1996 and that the conclusions of that Round Table were reported to the twentieth session of the Bureau in June 1996. The Guinean mining company NIMCO, reported at that time that it would donate US$500,000 each year for the conservation of Mount Nimba as soon as the mine became operational. The company has since then left Guinea and the promised funds were never made available. The Guinean Government is currently negotiating with other mining companies mainly Billiton (from South Africa) and EURONIMBA (a concession of European Union). These two companies are currently studying various environment-friendly options on how to control polluted waste waters and avoid sedimentation and erosion into rivers which supply drinking water to people downstream. The companies estimate that around 80 million tons of tailing will be produced each year, and hope to construct a dam where the tailings can be contained and allowed to percolate down into the soil without runoff. The companies also plan to forgo the mining of about 50 million tons of rich iron-ore in some targeted areas of the mountain for environmental and ecological reasons. The companies are studying ways to avoid bringing a large work force and their families near the mining areas by relocating living quarters away from the mining zone.

VIII.38           To guarantee the application of rigorous environmental management standards, an "International Memorandum of Understanding" or Accord is to be established between the mining companies and the Government of Guinea and will be overseen by UN Agencies (UNESCO-World Heritage Centre, UNEP, UNDP, FAO etc.) and international non-governmental organizations (IUCN, FFI, WWF, BLI etc). The Memorandum will bind the companies to "good behaviour" in biodiversity conservation vis-à-vis their mining activities near Mount Nimba Nature Reserve of Guinea. The companies have expressed interest to put aside US$18 per ton of iron ore produced for the conservation of the environment in Guinea and particularly of the Mount Nimba area; annually, an estimated 800 million tons will be produced by the companies.

VIII.39           The mining activities in the Mount Nimba massif have to be carefully controlled for their environmental impacts. The parts of the Mount Nimba ecosystem in Liberia, the only part that is not World Heritage, has undergone significant transformation since the 1950s due to mining activities, shifting cultivation and human settlements. The area includes the East Nimba and West Nimba National Forests, gazetted in the 1960s. In the late 1970s IUCN recommended that these two forests be connected, other important adjacent areas added, and the entire area set aside as a strict nature reserve. The Liberian Mining Corporation continues to have a caretaker role in the administration of the affairs of Mount Nimba, while the Forestry Development Authority is the other major governmental authority involved in the area. There has been no organized conservation programme for Mount Nimba on the Liberian side as there has been in Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire.

VIII.40           The Committee congratulated the two States Parties, UNDP and the conservation NGOs for starting the tri-partite dialogue for the conservation of the overall Mount Nimba ecosystem and invited the Government of Liberia to consider becoming a signatory to the World Heritage Convention as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Committee invited the Government of Liberia to consider implementing the 1970 IUCN recommendation to gazette East and West Mount Nimba Forests as strict nature reserves, develop a project based on the two strict nature reserves to participate in the tri-national initiative and in due course and following ratification of the Convention, consider nominating the two strict nature reserves for inclusion in the World Heritage site currently shared by Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea. The Committee urged the Government of Liberia to co-operate with UNDP and the conservation NGOs to undertake a rapid biodiversity assessment of the two reserves to determine their potential for incorporation within the World Heritage site shared by Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire.

VIII.41           The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN assist the three countries in organizing the second tri-national meeting in order to continue the dialogue and assist in the prepartion of a detailed long-term, Integrated Development Project for Mount Nimba. The Committee asked the Centre to collaborate with all conservation NGOs to study the modalities for establishing the Foundation for Mount Nimba in Guinea, and the feasibility to utilize parts of the GEF funds that are likely to be made available for the Integrated Development Project for Mount Nimba for launching the Foundation. The Committee requested that the States Parties, CEGEN and others co-operate to elaborate the International Memorandum of Understanding for thorough review by the collaborating UN agencies and conservation NGOs prior to its adoption by the Governments. The Committee decided that the site be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)

VIII.42           The Committee was informed that the State Forest Administration of Honduras had informed the Centre in August 2001 of the actions taken to follow up on the recommendations of the IUCN mission to this site in October 2000. Principal elements of the report submitted by the Honduran authorities are:

• Compensation for people living inside the core zone of Rio Platano has started and the first 52 families out of 152 have voluntarily moved to areas outside after receiving 3.7 million lempiras from the Honduran Government. The Ministry of Finance has made available additional funds for the second phase of compensatory payments;
• Demarcation of boundaries of the core zone has begun and 26 km of the most critical stretches of the boundary have been marked in co-operation with local communities. Demarcation of the boundaries in the southern and western parts of the buffer zone has been initiated;
• A field office has been set up in response to the administrative and infrastructure needs of the World Heritage site protection in the region. Two more field offices will be set up in the near future;
• A multitemporal analysis on vegetation cover and expansion of the agricultural area within the reserve has been undertaken. This analysis allows systematic monitoring of the state of the ecosystem. Initial findings of the analysis points to a decrease in the rate of loss of the vegetation compared to the findings of a similar study undertaken during 1997-1999;
• A study of the threats on Rio Platano BR is being elaborated by the Regional Biosphere Reserve Programme (RBRP), Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Honduras and NGO's. The national workshop under the UN Foundation financed project," Enhancing our heritage: monitoring and managing for success in World Natural Heritage sites" is expected to be convened soon and will look at threats and state of conservation related issues. These initiatives will contribute towards improved monitoring of the site's conservation status;
• The first forest management plan was elaborated by the RBRP staff following the Transforma approach developed by CATIE (A regional Research and Training Institute in Costa Rica). Another plan for organisational and productive aspects for eight agroforestry cooperatives in specific locations in the southern part of the Reserve and locally co-ordinated, nine community-development plans are under preparation. These plans will identify priority actions for social and community infrastructure and for facilitating co- management and protection of the Reserve. Establishment of a technical commission to prepare a legal instrument for defining the recognition of land use rights within the Reserve has been proposed;
• Action has been taken to reinforce the staff in charge of the management of the site. A forest technician and three guards have been hired. Coordination with other partners like TNC (The Nature Conservancy) and WWF, Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project, German Technical Co-operation and local NGOs has been strengthened;
• A three-year workplan of specific actions linking biodiversity conservation to sustainable tourism development in and around Rio Platano is to be finalized before the end of 2001; this work plan has been elaborated as part of the execution of another UN Foundation-financed global initiative attempting to link biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism development at World Heritage sites.

VIII.43           The Committee welcomed the range of initiatives undertaken by the State Party, and other partners including those undertaken as part of two UN Foundation financed projects that are contributing towards the implementation of the recommendations of the IUCN mission to the site undertaken in October 2000. These were endorsed by the Committee at its last session in Cairns, Australia. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to continue to collaborate with the State Party and partners to sustain the current momentum gained in improvements in the state of conservation of the site. The Committee recommended that a detailed assessment of the state of conservation of the site, including considerations of the possible removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, be prepared for submission to the twenty-seventh session of the Committee in June 2003. The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

VIII.44           The Committee was informed that at its twenty-fifth session in June 2001, the Bureau had noted that the mission to this site had been postponed from May to October 2001 due to climatic reasons. Despite regular contacts with the State Party and agreements of all parties concerned the proposed mission has been delayed again and is now scheduled for February 2002. Security risks in the area continue to prevail. Uncertainties linked to the organisation of regular field visits to this site has led the management of the UNESCO/IUCN/UNF-UNFIP Project "Enhancing our heritage: monitoring and managing for success in World Natural Heritage Sites" to substitute Manas with the Keoladeo National Park as one of the three pilot sites for the project in South Asia (the other two sites being Kaziranga National Park of India and the Royal Chitwan National Park of Nepal).

VIII.45           The Committee was pleased to note that the Government of Bhutan has ratified the World Heritage Convention in October 2001. It urged the joint Centre/IUCN mission to Manas in February 2002 to explore possibilities for initiating a dialogue between India and Bhutan for promoting trans-border collaboration in the management of the World Heritage site of Manas Wildlife Sanctuary of India and the possible nomination of the Royal Manas National Park of Bhutan as World Heritage. The Committee stressed the necessity to carry the mission to Manas without any further delays and recommended that a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site and the implementation of rehabilitation measures accepted by the Bureau in 1997 be submitted to its twenty-sixth session in June 2002.

Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)

VIII.46           The Committee was informed that a workshop for members of the local Committee for the development and the management of the site was held in in Iferouan, Niger from 19 to 24 September 2001 in which the Centre was represented. A "Feasibility and modality study on the project for the reintroduction of Red necked Ostriches for Aïr and Ténéré", undertaken with the assistance of National Wildlife Research Centre in Saudi Arabia, has been completed.

VIII.47           A mission for rapid evaluation of fauna in Aïr and Ténéré, financed by the World Heritage Fund contributions for the implementation of the emergency rehabilitation plan approved by the Committee at its twenty-third session in 1999, was undertaken from 5 to 27 March 2001. The Committee noted that IUCN had reviewed a copy of the Rapid Wildlife Assessment Report for Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves and observed that the principle species of large mammals had recovered to viable levels similar to those seen before the war. But the ostrich has totally disappeared, and the gazelle was rarely seen during the assessment mission in March 2001. IUCN had also noted that despite the recovery of many species, the overall state of conservation of the site remains threatened. IUCN has highlighted the following recommendations of the Report: (a) restart and strengthen surveillance activities; (b) establish regulations on tourist activities; (c) create a breeding centre for large Sahel-Saharan mammals and ostrich, with a view to reintroduce individuals and strengthen conservation of wild populations; (d) develop a wildlife census system to include the participation of stakeholders; and (e) develop reliable survey techniques for estimating the addax population.

VIII.48           The Committee was informed that the ostrich in Aïr and Ténéré is a North African sub species and is now found as a viable population only in Chad. IUCN is of the view that the re-introduction of ostrich by selecting individuals from the population in Chad is quite important because individuals from other sub-species in other countries of the region may not adapt to the specific conditions in Niger. Re-introduction is vital for generating benefits for the local community in the long-term as they will be able to undertake breeding programmes and make a living from the utilisation of the ostrich population and its products. The Committee strongly supported the report's recommendations and invited the State Party to implement the recommendations of the Rapid Wildlife Assessment Report. The Committee noted that valuable advice on ostrich re-introduction programmes may be obtained from the ostrich specialist group of IUCN's Species Survival Commission (SSC). The re- establishment of the ostrich and addax (gazelle) populations of Aïr and Ténéré is likely to take several years and the site may have to be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger until such time when conditions for the recovery of these populations could be ensured.

VIII.49           The Committee was informed that the Fonds Francais de l'Environment Mondiale (FFEM) has initiated a 5-year programme of support for equipment and the reintroduction of species. This programme is being implemented in co-operation with the "Direction Nationale de la Faune" and the IUCN Office in Niamey. Within the framework of a GEF programme concerned with the "Biodiversity of Sahara", UNDP and IUCN, Niamey, are also assisting with the implementation of selected aspects of rehabilitation and species reintroduction programmes as well as the establishment of a database for monitoring. IUCN Niamey is playing a wide-ranging support role in the development of several co-operative initiatives with other donors and assisting the Government of Niger to effectively conserve this important site. The Committee noted that the Centre has transmitted letters of appreciation to FFEM, Swiss Department of Technical Co- operation and DANIDA for their support to develop conservation projects for this site. The Committee expressed its satisfaction with the efforts of the State Party to implement the rehabilitation plan and generate wide-ranging donor support for the conservation of the site. The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)

VIII.50           The Committee noted that in June 2001, the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau noted detailed findings of the results of the two-person mission undertaken to the site from 31 March to 10 April 2001, including mechanical and biological control measures being initiated to prevent the spread of the invasive species Salvinia molesta. The Committee noted the awareness, donor co-ordination and other co-operative activities needed for the effective eradication of this invasive species.

VIII.51           UNESCO's Division of Equipment Procurement is in the process of purchasing and delivering essential equipment foreseen as part of the project, for which the Committee approved a sum of US$ 130,000 at its last session in Cairns, Australia. A regional workshop on invasive species was organized from 15 to 17 October 2001, in Djoudj, Senegal, with joint financial support from Ramsar, IUCN and the World Heritage Fund. The Chairperson approved an amount of US$20,000 to enable the participation of World Heritage site managers at this workshop. The aim of the workshop was to work out modalities for a co-operative project on "Wetlands and Harmful Invasive Species in Africa - Awareness and Information" involving IUCN, the Ramsar Convention Bureau, the MacArthur Foundation, Wetlands International, WWF International and others. Focusing on fresh water ecosystems, the programme aimed to define the best strategic tools and the most appropriate operational instruments that can help to achieve the prevention, control or the eradication of invasive species wherever they could have adverse impacts on ecological, economic and social functions and values of wetlands. The project led to the establishment of a network of expertise who could provide "rapid response services" and be accessed quickly by wetland managers in need of further information and assistance in the prevention and control of invasive species.

VIII.52           Preliminary information from the State Party indicate that biological control methods being tested out in the site may already be leading to considerable control of invasive species. The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN obtain more detailed and quantitative information to validate such claims. The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN collaborate with the State Party, the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, FAO and other partners to further efforts to control and eradicate Salvinia molesta from the Djoudj wetlands. The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

VIII.53           The Committee was informed of the concerns of the tweny-fifth session of the Bureau (June 2001) regarding the deterioration in the ecology of the Lake from 1999 to 2000 as lower than average amounts of rain fell in the area. The Sidi Barak Dam construction and its link to the Tunisian Water Grid have been completed; but water releases from the Dam to the Lake had not yet commenced. The Lake needs 280 million of cubic meters of water annually and the Sidi Barak Dam is expected to serve as the stabilizer compensating for any annual shortfalls caused by low rainfall and/or high rates of evapotranspiration. The Committee noted that the Observer of Tunisia had expressed the hope to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau that the Bureau and the Committee would provide adequate time for determining the efforts of the State Party to rehabilitate Ichkeul and support the extension and strengthening of the scientific monitoring programme that has been set up by the State Party.

VIII.54           The Committee noted that IUCN had reviewed the report from the State Party, dated September 2001, on "Ecosystem status and safeguarding measures for Ickeul National Park". The report contains detailed information on actions taken to implement several earlier recommendations of the Bureau and the Committee made over the years and quantitative, time-series data on a number of parameters that may be useful in tracking changes in Lake ecology. IUCN has started negotiations with the State Party to select parameters and indicators for monitoring the state of conservation of this site and establishing benchmarks, time-frames and conditions for the Committee's annual assessments of progress made by the State Party to rehabilitate the Ichkeul National Park. The Committee took note of the fact that the State Party has submitted an emergency assistance request from the World Heritage Fund for a sum of US$50,000 that would be used for international expertise and national level activities to assist the State Party to refine the scientific monitoring programme it has developed and meet the needs of conservation monitoring and reporting to be agreed upon by the State Party and IUCN.

VIII.55           The Committee urged the State Party and IUCN to continue and finalize their negotiations soon and agree on benchmarks, time frames and conditions that could form the basis of the Committee's annual monitoring of the state of conservation of the site and for determining progress in State Party efforts to restore the Lake Ichkeul ecosystem. The Committee invited its Chairperson to consider the emergency assistance request submitted by the State Party and assist the State Party to take all necessary measures to rehabilitate the integrity of the World Heritage site. The Committee requested that a detailed report on the outcome of the negotiations between IUCN and the State Party be submitted to the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June 2002. The Committee decided to retain the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Rwenzori Mountains National Park (Uganda)          

VIII.56           The Committee noted with satisfaction that security conditions in the Park have improved and that the Park was re-opened to visitors in July 2001 and that the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, based on an identification of the Park's needs with regard to purchase of equipment and materials had approved a sum of US$64,000 as emergency assistance to the site. The UNESCO Division for Equipment Procurement is assisting the Centre and the State Party to purchase essential communication and other equipment requested urgently by the site management. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to assess other needs that the site may require in order to fully recover its integrity and regain its role as an important visitor destination within the Ugandan network of protected areas. The Committee proposed that the Centre and IUCN discuss with the State Party to field a mission to the site in 2002 with a view to providing a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site, including an assessment of the feasibility of its early removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger to the twenty-seventh session of the World Heritage Committee in 2003.

World Heritage sites of the United States of America:

Everglades National Park

VIII.57           The State Party has updated the comprehensive report it submitted at the time of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau on this site. The Committee noted the following specific improvements achieved between June and December 2001: The appropriation increases of the fiscal year 2002 over the previous year for Everglades restoration amounts to a sum of US$31.4 million or a 37.4%; As of May 2001 104,340 acres or 95% of the authorized addition of lands are either in public ownership condemnation or referred for Declaration of Taking; only about 5,260 acres of the habitat earmarked for Park expansion remains to acquired. Sufficient funds for the acquisition of this remaining tract of land have been earmarked; and The Everglades Strategic Plan is now available at the web site: http://www.nps.gov/ever/current/strategicplan/.

VIII.58           In response to a query from the Committee regarding the potential for an early removal of this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Observer from the State Party committed to discuss the matter with relevant authorities in Washington D.C. and report to the Centre as soon as possible.

Yellowstone National Park

VIII.59           The State Party has updated the comprehensive report it submitted at the time of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau on this site. The Committee noted the following specific improvements, achieved between June and December 2001:

• The number of predatory lake trout fish removed through intensive gill netting and liberal angling regulations have increased from 28,000 (in the June 2001 report) to more that 43,000 in December 2001;
• Wooden water tanks at Indian Creek Campground were replaced in fall 2001; work in the contract awarded, in 2000, to line sewer lines at Lake and Mammoth Lewis Lake has started. But a backlog of work with regard to replacement or updating of smaller wastewater facilities remains to be attended to;
• The decision to ban the use of snowmobiles in place of multi-passenger snowcoaches, reported at the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001, has been challenged by the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association and the Department of Interior has entered into a settlement agreement with the Association. As part of the settlement the National Park Service will prepare a supplemental EIS to analyze the ban on snowmobile use in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the John D. Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway and the alternatives to the ban. The process to prepare the supplemental EIS, invite public comment, carry out new research that may be needed, finalize, publish and begin execution of decisions would have await until the end of 2002. The outcome of the analysis will result either in the continuation of the ban or some form of continued snowmobile use.

VIII.60           The Committee recommended that the State Party, IUCN and the Centre discuss and develop action plans for the two sites including benchmarks and conditions for monitoring progress in the restoration of the integrity of the two sites and for guiding the Committee's decisions concerning the eventual removal of the two sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested that the outcome of the discussions between State Party, IUCN and the Centre be reported to the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June 2002. The Committee decide that both Everglades and Yellowstone be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

State of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Butrint (Albania)

VIII.61           The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site and urged the State Party to submit a report on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations made by the joint UNESCO- ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation mission by 1 February 2002, for examination at its twenty-sixth session (June 2002).

Angkor (Cambodia)

VIII.62           The Committee examined the report on the state of conservation of Angkor and additional information presented concerning the progress being made by the national authorities together with support from UNESCO and relevant donors to implement the conservation and management plans of the ASPARA Authorities.

VIII.63           The Committee, after having examined the report on the state of conservation of the site, commended the Royal Government of Cambodia for the significant efforts undertaken in the reorganization of the APSARA Authority. In the perspective of implementation in the near future of the Master Plan for Development of Cultural Tourism at Angkor, it invited APSARA to strengthen its capacities in the management of private investment requests, notably with regard to the archaeological park, and to call upon all national and international expertise necessary. Taking note of the continued progress being made by the International Co-ordination Committee for the Safeguarding and Development of the Historic Site of Angkor (CIC) and to mark the tenth anniversary of the inscription of the site, the Committee requested that a report with technical details on all activities carried out over the past ten years be made available to the Committee for information. Finally, the Committee decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Group of Monuments at Hampi (India)

VIII.64           The Committee examined the report on the state of conservation of the Group of Monuments at Hampi. The Committee was informed that the Centre organized a mission by an international rural planner in close co-operation with the national and state government authorities responsible for the conservation and management of this large site. The expert mission assisted the authorities concerned to elaborate and carry out an impact assessment study related to the two bridges partially constructed within the site and to examine the feasibility and alternative sites for relocating these bridges. The Committee was informed that the Centre had received information concerning the progress being made in establishing a Hampi Management and Development Authority to co-ordinate, in a comprehensive manner, all conservation and development activities within the core World Heritage protected areas of Hampi.

VIII.65           The Delegate of India confirmed that necessary steps were being taken by the concerned authorities to establish the Hampi Management and Development Authority and to implement the recommendations of the UNESCO international expert. He informed the Committee that the report on the progress made would be submitted in time for examination by the Committee at its twenty-sixth session.

VIII.66           The Committee welcomed the positive actions taken and being planned by the State Party and the World Heritage Centre to elaborate a comprehensive management plan for the site. The Committee congratulated the State Government of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner of Bellary for taking the necessary actions in removing a large number of illegal encroachments from within the World Heritage protected areas. The Committee requested the State Party and the Centre to continue its close co-operation in order to complete the needs assessment and feasibility studies as a matter of urgency, in order to ensure that an integrated conservation and development management plan be elaborated, adopted and implemented as soon as possible. The Committee requested the State Party and the Centre to report on the progress made in removing the threats to the site for examination by the Committee at its twenty-sixth session.

Bahla Fort (Oman)

VIII.67           The Committee examined the report on the state of conservation of Bahla Fort and noted the significant progress made since the last Bureau session, especially concerning the conservation works being carried out within the Fort and on the two nearby Mosques. The Committee also noted that the preparation of a Management Plan has been finally undertaken, and the strong commitment, stressed by the Delegate of Oman, of the State Party towards the protection and presentation of this site.

VIII.68           The Committee commended the State Party for having started the preparation of the Management Plan, in close collaboration with the Centre, and for having submitted a request of international assistance for the organization of a Regional Seminar on the Conservation of Earthen Structures. The Committee invited the State Party to pursue its efforts towards the completion and full implementation of the Management Plan, and requested the Centre to submit a report on its progress at the next session of the Bureau, in April 2002.

Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)

VIII.69           The Committee examined the report on the state of conservation of the Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore. The Committee was informed that the Director-General of the Department of Archaeology had informed the Centre on 3 December 2001 that all efforts were being made to implement the recommendations of the Committee, Bureau and UNESCO international expert missions to address the conservation and management issues facing the property. In particular, the Department of Archaeology was continuing its discussion with the Lahore Development Co-operation and the Lahore Commissioner to clarify the land-ownership of the area where the demolished 375-year old hydraulic works were located.

VIII.70           The Observer of Pakistan, assuring the Committee of her Government's continued commitment to the World Heritage Convention, expressed her Government's appreciation for the support of the World Heritage Committee and the Centre in enhancing the management of the site. She stated that the annual plan for 2002 had been recently adopted by the authorities which specifically addresses the recommendations of the Committee, Bureau and UNESCO expert missions organized to respond to the conservation and management needs of this site. Concerning the 375-year old hydraulic works that were partially demolished in 1999, the Observer informed the Committee that conservation and restoration work was being planned.

VIII.71           With reference to Article 5a of the Convention which calls for heritage conservation activities to be integrated within the overall comprehensive planning process for heritage areas, the Observer of Pakistan underscored the importance for the Committee to take into due consideration the conservation needs within the context of sustainable development, especially in highly populated urban areas such as Lahore.

VIII.72           The Committee welcomed the positive actions taken and being planned by the State Party and the World Heritage Centre for the rehabilitation of the Shalamar Gardens and in elaborating a comprehensive management plan for the site. The Committee requested the State Party and the Centre to continue its close co-operation to ensure that an integrated conservation, management and development plan be elaborated, adopted and implemented as soon as possible. The Committee requested the State Party and the Centre to report on the progress made in removing the threats facing the site for examination by the Committee at its twenty-sixth session.

Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)          

VIII.73           The World Heritage Committee took note of the second periodic report prepared by the the National Institute for Culture of Peru, on the implementation of the Master Plan of the site. It also noted that priority was given to international fund-raising. Furthermore, as indicated in the first report, the dwellings, illegally constructed in situ, have been demolished. However, illegal cultivation continues at the site.

VIII.74           To remedy this situation, the high-level Chan Chan Commission was created, comprising representatives from the Ministries of Education and Agriculture. However, it has not yet identified a satisfactory solution. To contend with looting of tombs and other protection problems at the site, the surveillance staff has been reinforced. The question of introducing mounted police has also been considered, but due to lack of funds, the construction of the stables has not been undertaken. Furthermore, a multisectoral Committee including local authorities and a consultative experts' commission have been established.

VIII.75           The book collection of the documentation centre on earthen architecture has incresed slightly and the workshop on the conservation of materials works in cooperation with the Universities of Carolina and Utah State. According to the report, the stockage of archaeological objects is carried out under optimal conditions.

VIII.76           The excavation works have continued in the north part of the Tschudi Palace, as well as conservation work on the structures and reliefs of the Huaca La Esmeralda and the Huaca Arco Iris, and in the sector of the Audiences. A new signposting and new access have improved the presentation of the site.

VIII.77           However, the Committee noted that a great part of the activities foreseen in the Master Plan for 2000 and 2001 have slowed down or been postponed due to lack of funds, including the indispensable drainage project which was postponed until 2002 and which should be carried out in cooperation with the National Research Council of Italy. Also, following the El Niño phenomenon and the ensuing rise in the underground water level, the waterproofing of the bases of the structure is becoming a matter of urgency. In fact, if it is true that climatic changes have encouraged the return of fauna and flora to their original state, these changes have negative and unexpected repercussions on the adobe structures.

VIII.78           The Committee took note of this information as well as that provided by the State Party concerning the Panamerican training courses carried out with the TERRA Group. It commended the important effort made by the State Party to submit a report on the site. However, it considered that the State Party should recognize the need to provide reports in a timely fashion and with sufficient information.

VIII.79           The Committee also noted the measures undertaken by the national authorities and urged the State Party to submit a more detailed report by 1 February 2002, on the implementation of the master plan, the legal response to questions concerning the encroachment of the site and the measures undertaken concerning the presence of police for the protection of the site, to be examined at its twenty-sixth session. Furthermore, the Committee decided to retain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen)

VIII.80           The Committee examined the report on the state of conservation of Zabid. It noted the positive development of the situation on the ground, especially with regard to the large mobilization of resources, both at the national and international level, resulting from the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2000.

VIII.81           The Committee also noted the results of the first missions carried out by the Centre in the framework of the emergency assistance approved by the Bureau at its last session in June 2001. The very significant steps taken by the State Party in order to halt new constructions within the World Heritage site, and the recommendations of the Centre concerning the necessary steps for the future were recognized. These recommendations include:

• Urgent launching of a campaign for awareness raising and systematic information targeted at the local population.
• Creation of a 1 km wide buffer zone from Madrassa Al-Baysha, situated east of the town, including an arc of 225° in a clockwise direction up to the North entrance of the town.
• Creation of protection zones of a minimum width of 50m around the mosques and medersas (numbering 83) in the town.
• Strengthen and physically protect the historic residential ensembles of the town which are in danger of falling into ruin or collapsing (about 200 houses).
• Revitalisation of the Souk by undertaking effective measures to stimulate the economy.
• Include in the urban extension of the town, the area situated north/north-east of the historic town, in the framework of the new urban plan under preparation.
• Start immediate production by the brick oven and build others to be able to respond to the new demands.

VIII.82           The Committee commended the Yemeni authorities for their efforts and continued co-operation with the World Heritage Centre, and thanked the GTZ, the KFW and the Dutch authorities for their precious contributions and their interest in the Historic Town of Zabid. The Committee, furthermore, encouraged the Yemeni authorities to continue their efforts and immediately implement the seven urgent measures recommended by the World Heritage Centre mission of September/October 2001.

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

VIII.83           The Committee considered the decisions of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau (WHC-01/CONF.208/4) and the Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/10). The relevant section of the report of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau is attached as Annex IX to this report.

NATURAL HERITAGE

MINING AND WORLD HERITAGE

VIII.84           The Committee noted that the proceedings of the workshop on "Mining and World Heritage" were published by the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), IUCN and the World Heritage Centre and were distributed to all Committee members. The Committee furthermore noted that the proposal for the establishment of a Working Group on World Heritage and Mining, as proposed by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session, and will be presented to its twenty-sixth session.

Reports on the state of conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List examined by the Committee

Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)          

VIII.85           The Committee noted the concerns over the Territorial Development Plan (TDP), which it anticipates will lead to further incremental development within the remaining larger area. It requested the State Party to ensure that tourism development does not take place in the remaining TDP area in the future. The Committee urged that the mission invited by the State Party be carried out as soon as possible.

Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)          

VIII.86           The Committee welcomed the recommendations of IUCN, and called upon the State Party to take urgent action to halt illegal poaching in the Reserve, and requested a full report from the State Party on this situation by 1 February 2002. This report shall be submitted for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee (June 2002), at which time it will decide on the need for a mission to the site. Furthermore, the Committee commended the chief executives of major European logging firms active in Central Africa, representatives from various conservation NGOs (WCS, IUCN, WWF) and officials from the World Bank and the European Union for their initial efforts in bringing stakeholders together to tackle the environmental problems associated with logging operations. The code of conduct should be supported, and the Committee urged the CEO-AWG to strengthen its efforts to involve Asian companies in the work of the group and to undertake every effort to include all logging companies working in Cameroon.

Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)          

VIII.87           The Committee, recognising the continued and increasing threats posed to the marine and terrestrial flora and fauna of the Islands, urged the State Party to make all efforts to finalise the specific regulations under the Special Law and enforce them as soon as possible. The Committee commended the ruling by the State Party's Constitutional Court to uphold the Galapagos Special Law. It also commended the Ecuadorian Government for supporting the "Sea Shepherd" patrols in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, as well as efforts to protect the marine ecosystem in the Reserve. The Committee also commended the Smart Voyager initiative, given the nature of tourism visitation to the Galapagos and the impacts of tourism on the fragile environment and in light of the proposed Marine Reserve. It believed that consideration should be given to promoting similar schemes in other World Heritage sites. The Committee furthermore noted that the sea lion incident demonstrates the need to enhance the capacity of the Park to reinforce patrolling and control of the Islands.

Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)

VIII.88           The Committee requested the State Party to invite a mission to the site as soon as possible to enable an independent assessment of the state of conservation of the World Heritage site.

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)          

VIII.89           The Committee noted that the State Party had invited a UNESCO-IUCN mission to this site following the recommendation of the twenty-fourth session of the Committee. The mission took place from 25 August to 3 September 2001. IUCN and the Director of the UNESCO- Moscow Office, representing the World Heritage Centre, conducted the mission. The Committee was informed that the full report of this mission was presented to the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau and that it noted in particular the series of recurrent problems and new potential threats that, according to IUCN, would seriously threaten the integrity of this site.

VIII.90           The Committee noted the Bureau's concern about a number of new potential threats to the integrity of this site including a project to develop a gas and oil pipeline to China, which was confirmed, and that the Government of the Republic of Buryatia had granted a license to Buryat Gas Company. The Committee was also informed that a number of Bureau members noted that no indication was received from the State Party concerning the inclusion of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that a number of consultation meetings on this matter were held between the Delegation of the Russian Federation, IUCN, the Director of the UNESCO Moscow office and staff members of the Centre. In conclusion, the need was recognized to consult and comment on the results of the mission to Lake Baikal.

VIII.91           The Delegate of the Russian Federation informed the Committee that his Government would like to review the full report of the mission in detail and that the authorities would be prepared to present a reply by 1 February 2002. He thanked the members of the mission and in particular the Director of the UNESCO Moscow Office for his support and co-operation to find a solution.

VIII.92           The Committee noted that little substantial progress has been achieved towards enhancing the protection of Lake Baikal, and addressing issues repeatedly raised by the Committee, and that there are new emerging threats that pose unprecedented risks to the integrity of this site. The Committee furthermore noted that international support is needed to enhance the capacity of the State Party to deal with the complex issues related to the conservation of this site.

VIII.93           The Committee furthermore noted the following as key milestones in assessing future progress:

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

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

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

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

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

VIII.94           Finally, the Committee requested that the State Party provides an urgent response by 1 February 2002 in relation to these issues, particularly on the development of a gas and oil pipeline to China, and the potential impacts of this project on the integrity of this site, as well as the proposed oil and gas exploration in the Selenga Delta. The Committee furthermore requested the World Heritage Centre to undertake all possible efforts to encourage the World Bank, GEF, UNF, and other relevant international donors to provide urgent support, in the form of soft loans, grants and projects, to enhance the State Party efforts to address the complex conservation and development issues facing Lake Baikal.

Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)          

VIII.95           The Committee noted with concern threats to the Bystrinsky Nature Park and noted conflicting reports relating to the gold mine operation and its relationship to the World Heritage boundary. The Committee requested the Centre to work in consultation with the State Party to prepare a mission to the site to review the state of conservation and to ascertain whether a case exists for inscribing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)          

VIII.96           The Committee endorsed the recommendations of the IUCN/Centre mission, and requested the State Party to review the document and report back with an action plan for implementation of the recommendations by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Committee (June 2002).

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of Tanzania)          

VIII.97           The Committee requested the State Party to provide a report on the encroachment situation in the northern section of the World Heritage site and on the impacts of commercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers on the integrity and values of this World Heritage site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Committee.

Reports on the state of conservation of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List noted by the Committee

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
Fraser Island (Australia)
The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/ Poland)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Nahanni National Park (Canada)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)

Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst, (Hungary/Slovakia)
The Committee noted that the issues raised concern only the Slovak part of this transboundary site.

Sundarbans National Park (India)
The Delegate of India informed the Committee that there is no National Waterways Project that is planned or likely to impact this site.

Kaziranga National Park (India)

Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)
The Observer of Indonesia thanked the Australian authorities for their financial assistance. He informed the Committee that it would be difficult to comply with the deadline of 1 February and that a report could be provided by the end of March 2002.

Aeolian Islands (Italy)
The Observer of Italy confirmed that there was a court decision on 4 December 2001, which is not yet public, but that it is hoped to be available soon. She informed the Committee that the collaboration between the autonomous regional Government and the central Government has commenced and that a meeting will take place to find a solution.

Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)

Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Delegate of Egypt brought to the attention of the Committee the importance of protecting the wetlands, which are known to be important rest places for the migratory birds along their routes. He suggested that the World Heritage Centre should have a plan defining the wetlands, which are important for the birds and to use this information for establishing "satellite" World Heritage sites. IUCN informed of the co-operation between the World Heritage Centre and the Ramsar Convention as well as with Bird Life International for the protection of the wetlands. He also highlighted the importance of the surrounding areas to the World Heritage sites and the links with the Man and Biosphere programme for the protection of the sites. The Secretariat informed of the on-going discussions with the Secretariat of the Convention of Migratory Species to establish a Memorandum of Understanding between these two Conventions.

Sian Ka'an (Mexico)
The Delegate of Mexico informed that the confirmation of the Ecological Land-Use Plan is in its final phase and consequently she asked that the deadline for the report requested by the Bureau be set for 15 May 2002 for examination at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in June.

Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
Western Caucasus (Russian Federation)
Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)
Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (United Kingdom)
St Kilda (United Kingdom)
Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United States of America)
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)

MIXED (CULTURAL AND NATURAL) PROPERTIES

State of conservation reported of mixed properties examined by the Committee

Kakadu National Park (Australia)

VIII.98           The Committee noted the report of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau and new information provided by the State Party. The State Party considered that issues raised by Australian non-governmental organisations concerning the status of the Jabiluka mine site, located within an enclave, surrounded by Kakadu National Park, could have been more effectively addressed if they had first been raised with the relevant responsible authorities in Australia. The State Party provided information on Best Practice Technology, irrigation at Jabiluka and the reverse osmosis unit, the mineralised stockpile, and water inflow to the mine decline.

VIII.99           IUCN reported that there was continuing concern from some environmental NGOs and some representatives of Aboriginal Peoples, on water management and treatment issues, the possible extension of the Jabiluka stand-by period, the frequency of environmental performance reviews and rehabilitation options. Such matters should be examined by the independent scientific advisory committee agreed to in Cairns and there should be formal NGO representation on that committee.

VIII.100           ICOMOS commented on the importance of the intangible values of Kakadu National Park. ICOMOS was very pleased with the pause in development at Jabiluka as it provided the opportunity to discuss the difficult process of cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease. The ICOMOS Representative referred to the positive role to be played by Australia ICOMOS in this process.

VIII.101           The Committee noted that, as discussed in the June 2001 Bureau session, the Jabiluka project would remain on environmental management and standby mode until at least 2008-09. To ensure that the natural and cultural values of Kakadu National Park remain protected during this period, the Committee urged all parties and stakeholders to work together and share information in the development of agreed long-term strategies for protection.

VIII.102           The Committee welcomed the information that the Mirrar traditional owners were giving active consideration to a process proposed by the State Party, involving Australia ICOMOS, to use the Australian Heritage Commission `Protecting Heritage Places` process as a means to analyse, define and manage the cultural values of areas on Mirrar land, including the Jabiluka mineral lease. In order to ensure adequate time for engagement on these complex and sensitive issues, reporting on progress with this process and other ongoing measures to protect the cultural values of Kakadu National Park should be provided to the June 2003 session of the Committee.

VIII.103           The Committee noted a statement of the IUCN Council seeking the removal of the stockpile of the ore at Jabiluka, and rehabilitation of the mine site to a condition appropriate for inclusion within the Kakadu World Heritage area. The Committee noted the response of the State Party which advised that the Traditional Owners had refused permission for the removal of the stockpile and transport of ore to the Ranger mine for storage and that rehabilitation plans for the site continue to be formally reviewed annually.

VIII.104           The Committee welcomed the advice that the State Party would raise the IUCN suggestion of an NGO representative on the independent scientific advisory committee, the Alligator Rivers Region Technical Committee (ARRTC), with the Chair of ARRTC. The Committee noted further claims, received on the eve of its meeting, on water management, review of environmental performance, assessment of rehabilitation, further involvement of the Mirrar people and the possible extension of the standby period at Jabiluka. The Committee noted the preliminary response of the State Party to these matters, and that the State Party, despite its concern to maintain the independence of the ARRTC and the statutory role of the Supervising Scientist, would refer these issues for the consideration, as appropriate, of the ARRTC and requested a report from the State Party for consideration of the Committee in June 2002.

Tongariro National Park (New Zealand)          

VIII.105           The Committee noted that an eruption of Mt. Ruapehu in 1995/1996 caused a large build-up of ash that blocked the outlet of Crater Lake. There is concern that when the Lake refills, a rapid collapse of the ash dam could occur followed by a major lahar (ash flow). Options to manage this risk need to take account of the protection of both the natural and the cultural values, as interference with the summit area and Crater Lake has implications for the protection of spiritual, traditional and cultural values to the Maori people.

VIII.106           The Committee noted IUCN's comments that subaquatic eruptions within the Crater Lake are a regular and ongoing natural feature. IUCN considers that proposed engineering works to manage the ash build-up at Crater Lake might establish a precedent within Tongariro and other national parks. IUCN recommends that natural processes be allowed to function and measures be implemented to protect both public safety and infrastructure.

VIII.107           The Committee also noted that ICOMOS had recalled that the mountains of Tongariro National Park are sacred to the Maori and that a culturally appropriate solution needs to be found to the management of the ash build-up.

VIII.108           The Observer of New Zealand greeted the Committee and acknowledged the presence of the Paramount Chief of Tongariro, Tumu Te Heu Heu whose ancestors had gifted the sacred peaks of Tongariro to the Crown in 1887 making it the second oldest National Park in the world. He referred to the dilemma of needing to conserve the values of the Crater Lake whilst also taking into consideration public safety. He referred to the devastating lahar (ash flow) that had taken place in 1951 and had resulted in the death of 151 people. Finally he informed the Committee that the Minister for the Environment of New Zealand would be making a public announcement concerning the management of the ash build-up in the very near future. He informed the Committee that New Zealand would provide a report to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2001 for consideration by the Bureau at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

VIII.109           The Committee requested the State Party to report on the state of conservation of Tongariro National Park and to specifically outline alternative options to the proposed engineering works so as to maintain the outstanding natural and cultural values of the site. The Committee requested the State Party to provide a report by 1 February 2002 for review by the Bureau at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

State of conservation reports of mixed properties noted by the Committee

Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)

Hierapolis-Pamukkale (Turkey)
Further to the recommendation of the Bureau and following an update of information from ICOMOS, the Committee noted that a Management Plan for this property had recently been completed.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

Cultural Properties that the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger

Abu Mena (Egypt)

VIII.110           The Committee decided the inscription of Abu Mena on the List of World Heritage in Danger, and requested the Egyptian authorities to co-ordinate with all the competent national institutions, and the World Heritage Centre, with a view to identifying rapidly the necessary corrective measures to ensure the safeguarding of the site.

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)

VIII.111           The Committee, recalling previous discussions concerning the state of conservation of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, examined the information presented in WHC-01/CONF.208/4, the findings and recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission (September 2001) and decided to inscribed the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.112           The Committee expressed its appreciation to the Philippine authorities for facilitating the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to the World Heritage site of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, as requested by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in December 2000. The Committee examined the findings and recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS mission and noted with deep concern that:

• Despite efforts to safeguard the property by the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF) and Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC), the BRTTF lacks full Government support and needs more resources, greater independence and an assurance of permanence;
• About 25-30% of the terraces are now abandoned, which has led to damage to some of the walls. This has arisen because parts of the irrigation system have been neglected, which in turn is due to people leaving the area. The situation is also aggravated by the effects of pest species of worms and snails;
• Despite good planning, irregular development is taking place, which threatens to erode the heritage landscape;
• International assistance has so far not been mobilized to help the area;
• Little progress has been made in addressing the needs of tourism. For example, access from Manila and within the property remains poor;
• As a result, the World Heritage values may be lost unless current trends are reversed within 10 years (maximum).

VIII.113           The Committee therefore endorsed the following recommendations made by the IUCN/ICOMOS mission:

• Establish a permanent and effective body to co-ordinate and lead efforts to restore and protect the Ifugao Rice Terraces;
• Review existing management plans for further improvement;
• Develop a short and long-term strategy to finance the conservation of the Rice Terraces, drawn from national and international sources and from tourism;
• Develop a long term sustainable conservation policy to redress the problem and enhance management capacity.
• Develop a sustainable tourism industry that supports the future conservation of the rice terraces, placing priority on improving access to and within the site.
• Establish an exchange programme with other World Heritage sites which share similar conservation challenges.

VIII.114           The Observer of the Philippines informed the Bureau that his Government considered the inscription of the Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras on the List of World Heritage in Danger, not as a dishonour but on the contrary, as an essential tool for mobilizing effective, decisive and rapid intervention to address the threats facing an endangered World Heritage property. Referring to the letter dated 26 November 2001 from the Minister of Tourism and Culture and the Chairperson of the Banaue Rice Terrace Task Force addressed to the Director of the World Heritage Centre, the Observer confirmed his Government's nomination of this property for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the Government's request for urgent international assistance to address the alarming state of conservation of this property.

VIII.115           The Committee was informed that the Government of the Philippines concurred with the findings and recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission. The Observer stated that the following steps are being taken in order to address the recommendations of this mission:

• Establish by legislation, a permanent and effective authority to co-ordinate and lead efforts to restore and protect the property;
• Involve all stakeholders including national government agencies, congressmen, provincial governors, representatives of municipalities, and private individuals in the re-evaluation and updating of the existing management plan for the protection of the site;
• Develop sustainable tourism industries which will support the future conservation of the Rice Terraces.

VIII.116           The Observer of the Philippines drew the Committee's attention to the fact that this property was the first organic evolving cultural landscape to be inscribed on the World Heritage List and a living monument manually built 1,000 years ago by the genius of the indigenous Ifugao people.

VIII.117           Underlining the vulnerability of properties such as the Rice Terraces where the relationship between human land-use and the environment is continuously evolving, the Observer hoped that the country and site-specific methodological framework elaborated for sustainable utilization of the Rice Terraces could later be adapted for the conservation of similar agricultural landscapes in other regions.

VIII.118           Drawing the attention of the Committee to the recently adopted UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity which encompasses the promotion and protection of indigenous cultures, the Observer of the Philippines expressed his Government's hope that the UNESCO World Heritage Committee would favourably endorse the request for international assistance to address the conservation and management issues of this traditionally owned and utilized property.

VIII.119           Taking into due consideration the conservation challenges and threats facing the property, the Committee decided to inscribe the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee commended the Philippine authorities for nominating this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, demonstrating positive use of this important mechanism.

VIII.120           Finally, the Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and the UNESCO Bangkok Office to continue assisting the authorities in the elaboration of a long-term comprehensive management plan for the site. The Committee requested that a progress report on measures taken to elaborate the management plan and to enhance the conservation and development of the property be submitted for examination by the Committee at its twenty-sixth session.

State of conservation reports of cultural properties examined by the Committee

City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications (Luxembourg)

VIII.121           Following a meeting between the Delegation of Luxembourg, the Chairperson, the Secretariat and ICOMOS, the Bureau decided that the project concerning the building of a Judiciary Centre on the Saint Esprit Plateau of the City of Luxembourg should be examined by the Committee in the presence of the Secretary General of ICOMOS. The Committee noted that a revised project proposing substantial changes to the original plan was submitted by the State Party to the World Heritage Centre on 1 November 2001. This information was transmitted to ICOMOS which stressed that the State Party should be encouraged to study the alternative solution proposed by the Municipality of the City of Luxembourg to move some of the proposed buildings to another location. This solution would reduce the number of buildings on the site of the Saint Esprit Plateau and preserve the archaeological remains which were found there and which should be conserved in an open area.

VIII.122           The Secretary General of ICOMOS informed the Committee that based on the results of an expert mission, ICOMOS had expressed its concern as to the excessive size of the project and its potential impact both visual and on the integrity of the site. He also emphasized that recent important archaeological discoveries had been made at the site that called for safeguarding and presentation measures. However, he recalled that it was the Luxembourg authorities who had taken the initiative to call upon UNESCO for advice with regard to this project and he informed the Committee that, in a spirit of open and constructive dialogue, consultations were ongoing betwen ICOMOS, the State Party and the Centre concerning the development of this project, with positive results so far. He also informed that further improvements to the revised project were still necessary and that the ICOMOS experts were at the disposal of the authorities for consultation.

VIII.123           The Observer of Luxembourg stressed that his country strived to maintain, as always, a policy of dialogue with UNESCO. He also informed that this project had been foreseen since 1991 and had recently been modified to take into account the recommendations made by ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre. He indicated that given the need to treat the recently discovered remains, the authorities proposed to remove a part of the buildings foreseen, notably a parking lot, so as to create an archaeological crypte providing a detailed visit of the site. The Observer of Luxembourg finally stated that regular consultations would be held with the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS regarding this project.

VIII.124           The exemplary conduct of this dossier by the Luxembourg authorities was commended with the wish that this could be the case with each construction project within a World Heritage site or its proximity.

VIII.125           In response to the Delegate of Greece, who questioned the future treatment and protection of the excavation area, ICOMOS underlined that the proposed solution - the construction of a crypte - is very innovative and permitted visitors to discover the remains. The Delegate of Greece noted that post excavation research was not completed and requested that the decision adopted by the Committee take this query into consideration.

VIII.126           The Chairperson remarked that this project would be implemented and that the Luxembourg authorities had assured the Committee of the close collaboration they would maintain with ICOMOS and the Centre in this regard.

VIII.127           The Committee took note of the information transmitted by the State Party and thanked the authorities for the efforts made in the frame of the revision of the proposed project. It noted that the consultations were underway between ICOMOS, the State Party and the Centre, and requested the State Party to inform of the status of this project, as well as the projects regarding the archaeological excavations, to its next session in June 2002.

Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco)

VIII.128           The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site, as presented in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/4, and took note of the recommendation made by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session, contained in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/10, suggesting that the site might be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, pending consultation with the State Party.

VIII.129           The Secretariat informed the Committee of a letter, received on 10 December 2001, and addressed to the Chairperson of the Committee, in which the Moroccan authorities listed a series of measures recently taken in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee at its last session in Cairns (2000), and reiterated the State Party's full commitment towards the preservation and presentation of the site.

VIII.130           The Observer of Morocco provided further details on the specific steps taken by the national authorities, mentioning in particular:

• The near completion of the administrative procedures for the listing of the entire site as a protected cultural site under the Law N. 22-80;
• The establishment of a Follow-up Inter-Ministerial Commission for the management and conservation of the site;
• The start of a consultation process with local communities to identify their needs and priorities with a view to the revitalization of the Ksar;
• The launching of selected infrastructure projects and the preparation of feasibility studies for initiatives related to the conservation and development of the site;
• The sensitization of representatives from local authorities on the importance of implementing urgent safeguarding and presentation measures.

VIII.131           The Observer of Morocco informed the Committee that a meeting had taken place in Rabat, on 13 November 2001, of a Commission including all the various institutions concerned, which has confirmed the above-mentioned decisions. Stressing once again the great importance that Morocco attaches to the preservation of this unique site, she expressed her Government's readiness to implement whatever decision the Committee would take and thanked the Committee for its interest in the Moroccan cultural heritage.

VIII.132           In view of these recent developments, the Committee, commending the State Party on the important preliminary measures taken in view of the safeguarding of the site, urged nevertheless the Moroccan authorities to proceed, in close co-operation with the World Heritage Centre, in the strengthening of the CERKAS, responsible for the site, and in the preparation and effective implementation of a Management and Safeguarding Plan for Ksar Ait Ben Haddou.

VIII.133           To this end, the Committee invited the State Party to submit as soon as possible a request of international assistance under the World Heritage Fund. The Committee, furthermore, requested the State Party to submit a detailed report on the progress achieved in the implementation of the recommendations made at the twenty-fourth session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000), by 1 February 2002.

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)

VIII.134           The Committee recalled that it had:

• examined the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley at twenty-one sessions of the Committee and its Bureau since 1992;

• debated on the inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at each session upon examining the 1993 Joint UNESCO- ICOMOS Mission, the 1998 Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-Nepal Mission, and the reports submitted by the State Party on progress made in the implementation of the 16-point recommendation adopted by the Committee in 1993 and the 55 Recommendations for Enhanced Management and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures adopted by the State Party in 1998;

• dispatched a High Level Mission in September 2000 headed by the former Chairperson of the Committee, and comprising the current Chairperson of the Committee, the Director of the World Heritage Centre among others, for consultations with His Majesty's Government of Nepal at the highest level on the merits of the in-danger listing as a tool for conservation;

• noted the conclusion of the High Level Mission which stated that whilst the major monuments were in good state of conservation, should no new measures be undertaken, the deterioration of the historic urban fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the traditional architecture surrounding the public monuments, and consequently undermine the World Heritage values of this unique and universally significant site;

• expressed its disappointment at the twenty-fourth session, that the State Party was not convinced of the constructive objectives of the List of World Heritage in Danger, as a mechanism for strengthening further political commitment and mobilizing international technical co-operation and greater awareness at both national and international levels, and underlined the need to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List, while effectively implementing the mechanisms provided under the Convention in safeguarding the World Heritage properties, especially when the threats are ascertained and the process in the loss of the World Heritage values have already occurred; but,

• decided to defer consideration of the inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger until 2002 in view of the State Partyþs strong desire to avoid inscription on this List.

VIII.135           The Committee examined new information concerning:

• the demolition of the Saraswati Nani Temple within the World Heritage protected area of Patan Darban Square Monument Zone by the Guthi Samthan, the local guardians and owners of this public building; total reconstruction of the Temple reportedly using inappropriate new building material; removal and disappearance of the unique and exquisitely carved struts originally adorning this Temple. This Temple was included in the Kathmandu Valley Protective Inventory and figure in the 1979 nomination dossier submitted by HMG of Nepal;

• demolition of several historic buildings or illegal additions within the Seven Monuments Zones of Kathmandu Valley. A photo of an example of a typical illegal addition of a new floor with cantilevers to a historic building was shown.

VIII.136           The Centre informed the Committee that a progress report prepared by the Government of Nepal requested by the Committee was received on 8 December 2001. Neither the Centre nor the Bureau had sufficient time to examine the content of the report.

VIII.137           The Observer of Nepal, headed by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation, reiterated her Government's strong commitment to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission, and the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint Mission. She expressed her appreciation for the favourable response to requests for technical and financial assistance which the Committee and UNESCO had been providing for Kathmandu Valley since the 1970s. With regard to the demolition of Saraswati Nani Temple, the Observer stated that the poor condition of the building necessitated demolition and reconstruction and assured the Committee that traditional building material and techniques were being used.

VIII.138           During the ensuing debate, the Committee expressed with deep concern, the loss of the authenticity and integrity of the historic urban fabric of Kathmandu Valley caused by the difficulties the authorities continued to face to control development. It was noted that should the Committee continue to defer inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger any further, the World Heritage values may be irretrievably lost. Concern was expressed about sending another High Level Mission, which may perhaps face difficulty in convincing the Government on the constructive objectives of the List of World Heritage in Danger and the need to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List.

VIII.139           The Committee took note of the deliberations of the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session presented in WHC-01/CONF.208/4. Recalling that it had decided to allow two more years for the Nepalese authorities to further implement the corrective measures against urban encroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in the seven Monument Zones to safeguard its integrity and authenticity during its twenty-fourth session, and taking into consideration the change in schedule of its annual meetings, the Committee:

• requested the State Party to submit the state of conservation report within the context of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise by December 2002;

• dispatch another High Level Mission to be undertaken between December 2002 and June 2003, so that the findings and recommendations of this second High Level Mission could be examined by the Committee at its twenty-seventh session, where the inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger would be reconsidered.

Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)

VIII.140           The Observer of Israel noted with satisfaction the substantive progress that has been made with regard to this site. He informed of the positive dialogue between the mission members and the Polish authorities as well as the constructive discussions held between the Observer delegations of Poland and Israel during the Committee session in Helsinki, and reiterated the proposal of his Government to provide both technical and financial support to the Polish authorities.

VIII.141           In welcoming this good co-operation, the Observer of Poland reconfirmed that priorities are being defined and informed the Committee that progress in the bi-lateral talks with the Delegation of Israel have been made. Furthermore, he informed the Committee that the Polish authorities will soon submit a number of suggestions for the future work of the International Group of Experts, and expressed his hope that some of the major recommendations contained in the mission report could be followed and accomplished in the next two months.

VIII.142           The Committee took note of the report of the site visit to Auschwitz Concentration Camp and its surroundings and thanked the former Chairperson for his great commitment concerning this site. The Committee urged the State Party to implement the recommendations of the mission as soon as possible and requested the authorities to provide a report by 1 February 2002 with details on the status and structure of the implementation of the recommendations and a timeframe.

Historic Centre of Sighisoara (Romania)

VIII.143           The Committee examined the state of conservation of this site and was informed of the construction project of a theme park, "Dracula Land", in the vicinity of Sighisoara, which is part of a Special Programme for tourism development for the region. The Committee noted that the Special Programme and the creation of an Interministerial Committee for its monitoring had been approved by the authorities in July 2001, launched in November 2001 and that its implementation was foreseen for May 2002.

VIII.144           The Committee was informed that since the examination of the project by the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau, new information had been received concerning notably the location and the size of this project.

VIII.145           ICOMOS recalled that it remained concerned about the proximity of the theme park to the town centre of Sighisoara. He indicated that the documents provided by the State Party mention a distance of 6 km, whereas in reality it was only 1.5 km distance and that the potential visual impact on the town was a cause for concern. Whilst remarking that ICOMOS was not adverse to tourism development in this economically weak region, he added that the tourism generated by this park would constitute a mass tourism of a very different kind than that generated by cultural tourism experienced by the town itself. Finally, he again indicated that it was essential that a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS mission be undertaken to the site without delay to evaluate the impact of the project.

VIII.146           The Observer of Romania thanked the Committee for its attention to the project. He indicated that a few years ago, the Romanian authorities had begun the restoration of a large part of the town of Sighisoara and an amount of US$120,000 had already been invested in this activity. He also indicated that the safeguarding of this town is an important element of the Special Programme. The coordinator of the project, present during the examination of this issue, informed that the location of the park was foreseen to be 6 km from the town centre and that a dense forest of about 20-metre high trees separates the plateau upon which the construction of the park is foreseen. He drew the Committee's attention to the fact that access to this park could not be made directly from the town of Sighisoara. He also informed the Committee that the height of the buildings foreseen in the park is limited. In the name of the Ministry of Tourism, he invited a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS mission at an early date to the site to study the detailed plans of the project. He finally indicated that the environmental impact study of the project was being carried out and that the Romanian experts were at the disposal of the Centre and ICOMOS for all future information and collaboration.

VIII.147           The Committee noted with concern the building project of a theme park in the vicinity of the site, and its possible negative impact on the integrity and the environment of the World Heritage site. The Committee took note with disquiet of the information provided by the State Party and in particular the fact that the Romanian authorities had already approved the project as well as the implementation of the Special Programme foreseen for May 2002. The Committee requested the State Party to immediately undertake the environmental impact study foreseen and informed the State Party that assistance could be granted in this context. Furthermore, the Committee strongly encouraged the State Party to explore all possible solutions for an alternative location for the construction of this theme park. The Committee requested that a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS mission be undertaken to the site as soon as possible and that a report on the mission be made to the Committee at its twenty-sixth session (June 2002).

Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)

VIII.148           The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site and took note that an emergency assistance request for an international technical workshop had been approved by the former Chairperson of the Committee. This workshop would also include the elaboration of a workplan for the safeguarding of the site.

VIII.149           The Delegate of the Russian Federation informed the Committee that the workshop will be held from 31 July to 5 August 2002. During this workshop the participants will be given the opportunity to study the project that has been developed and approved by experts. He thanked the Committee and the Director of the UNESCO Moscow Office for their support.

VIII.150           Speaking on behalf of ICCROM and ICOMOS, ICCROM congratulated the Russian authorities for their initiative to organise a workshop to develop a workplan for the safeguarding of the site. He stressed that the international workshop should, apart from looking at the severe structural problems of the Church of the Transfiguration, focus on the ensemble of buildings as well as on a wide set of issues: the biological deterioration of the wood, structural stability, conservation of icons and management of visitors. The initial multidisciplinary conservation plan, adopted for the site in 1995, although never implemented, remains an excellent starting point to address the "old" as well as the new issues such as the potential development of mineral deposits in the landscape around Kizhi Pogost. In conclusion, in addressing the structural problems, ICOMOS and ICCROM stressed the importance of providing a scientific review of all options available for the stabilisation of the Church in order to assure that an appropriate solution respecting the authenticity of the structure can be found.

VIII.151           The Committee took note of the information provided by ICCROM and thanked the authorities of the Russian Federation for having initiated the process to ensure the protection of the site. In view of the alarming state of conservation of the site, the Committee requested the Secretariat to work in close collaboration with the authorities of the Russian Federation and the Advisory Bodies with regard to the international workshop on conservation measures for Kizhi Pogost. Furthermore, the Committee requested the State Party to provide a detailed update of the situation, by 1 February 2003, and requested the Centre to provide a full report on the results of the workshop, in collaboration with the authorities of the Russian Federation and the Advisory Bodies, for its twenty-seventh session in June 2003.

State of conservation reports of cultural properties noted by the Committee

M'Zab Valley (Algeria)
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
Tipasa (Algeria)

Brasilia (Brazil)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States Parties for the submission of the requested reports have been considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau and not directly to the Committee. However, in view of the different degrees of urgency for each site, and after consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1 February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventh session of the Bureau.

Historic District of Québec (Canada)
The Potala Palace and the Jokhang Temple Monastery, Lhasa (China)
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)

Colonial City of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)
The Observer of the Dominican Republic recalled the efforts of her Government, particularly in the legal and the standard setting field, to protect cultural heritage and more especially the Colonial City of Santo Domingo. These new measures will be submitted to the national Congress in January 2002. Furthermore, she provided additional information on the situation of the six houses designed by Nicolás de Ovando and emphasized the need to take into account the recommendations of the ICOMOS mission to revert to the original use of these constructions which are the first colonial homes in Latin America and the Caribbean. After having noted the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee also requested the State Party to seek a more compatible use for the site.

Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States Parties for the submission of the requested reports have been considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau and not directly to the Committee. However, in view of the different degrees of urgency for each site, and after consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1 February 2002 for examination by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
City-Museum Reserve of Mtskheta (Georgia)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hanseatic City of Lübeck (Germany)
Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter, and Church of Our Lady, Trier (Germany)
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Acropolis, Athens (Greece)

Antigua Guatemala (Guatemala)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States Parties for the submission of the requested reports have been considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau and not directly to the Committee. However, in view of the different degrees of urgency for each site, and after consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1 February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventh session of the Bureau.

Ellora Caves (India)
Ajanta Caves (India)
Historic Centre of Naples (Italy)

Tyre (Lebanon)
The Delegate of Lebanon informed the Committee of a World Bank Project on Protection and Rehabilitation of Cultural Heritage, which may significantly contribute to the conservation of three of the five Lebanese World Heritage sites, including Tyre. More detailed information on the scope of activities of this project will hopefully be available for the next session of the Committee, in Budapest. The Delegate of Lebanon also mentioned that a meeting is being organized in Beirut, upon the initiative of the Minister of Culture, to raise awareness among representatives from local communities of the importance of World Heritage status and relative implications, and requested the Centre to participate.

The Curonian Spit (Lithuania/Russian Federation)
The Delegate of the Russian Federation informed the Committee that the D-6 Krakovskaya oil platform in the Baltic Sea shelf, 22km off the coast of the Curonian Spit, was built in 1986 and that there was no oil extraction at the site. He notified the Committee that an official response would be sent by 1 February 2002.

The Observer of Lithuania informed the Committee that the Lithuanian Government had to date not received an official reply to their inquiries regarding the oil platform and that following the EIA the oil company had already obtained permission for oil extraction to commence in 2003. She further explained that the Lithuanian experts had never been given the opportunity to visit the platform, although there is an excellent transboundary co-operation at the World Heritage site.

ICOMOS pointed out that no information regarding this oil platform had been available at the time of the joint ICOMOS and IUCN evaluation mission of the nomination and that this would certainly have been taken into account in the evaluation of the site.

Megalithic Temples of Malta (Malta)
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)

Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo, San Lorenzo (Panama)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States Parties for the submission of the requested reports have been considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau and not directly to the Committee. However, in view of the different degrees of urgency for each site, and after consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1 February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventh session of the Bureau.

Chavin (Archaeological Site) (Peru)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States Parties for the submission of the requested reports have been considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau and not directly to the Committee. However, in view of the different degrees of urgency for each site, and after consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1 February 2002 for examination by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.

Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa (Peru)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States Parties for the submission of the requested reports have been considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau and not directly to the Committee. However, in view of the different degrees of urgency for each site, and after consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1 February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventh session of the Bureau.

Spišský Hrad and its Associated Cultural Monuments (Slovakia)
Route of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
Ancient City of Sigiriya (Sri Lanka)
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites (United Kingdom)
Old City of Sana'a (Yemen)

IX.	PROGRESS REPORT ON REGIONAL ACTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE AND BALANCED WORLD HERITAGE LIST

IX.1           The Secretariat highlighted the essential points contained in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/11 by recalling that the Global Strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List was adopted by the Committee in 1994. At the request of the Committee, Regional Action Plans were developed by the Secretariat to meet the particular needs of each region which were approved by the Committee in 1999. The Secretariat reported that in Africa and the Pacific, global strategy actions have focused more on awareness raising and promotion for ratification in view of the important number of UNESCO Member States that have not yet ratified the Convention. In both these regions and also in the Caribbean and the Arab States, considerable work was being done to encourage States Parties to establish their national Tentative List and to identify potential sites from under- represented categories. Thematic studies and expert thematic meetings have been carried out in all regions. Important achievements have been made in elaborating the concepts of various types of cultural landscapes. In Asia, thematic studies and meetings with States Parties have focused on the categories of cultural properties most at risk due to the absence or weakness of legal protection (modern heritage, vernacular architecture of minority groups in SE Asia), as well as in the harmonization of the Tentative Lists of the five Central Asian States Parties.

IX.2           Particular mention was made of the following Global Strategy thematic studies and meetings: Meeting of States Parties and Experts on Global Strategy in Southeast Asia (Tana Toraja, Indonesia in April 2001); Meeting of States Parties on the Alpine Arc (Turin, Italy, July 2001); Thematic Meeting on Vineyard Cultural Landscapes (Tokai, Hungary, July 2001); Expert Meeting on Plantation Systems in the Caribbean (Paramaribo, Suriname, July 2001); Expert Meeting on Sacred Mountains in Asia-Pacific (Japan, September 2001); Expert Meeting on Desert Landscapes and Oasis Systems (Oasis Kharga, Egypt, September 2001); Regional Training Course on the Application of the Convention and its Role in Sustainable Development and Tourism in the Caribbean (September-October 2001); Capacity-building Workshop for Southwestern Indian Ocean Island Countries (Madagascar, October 2001); Sub-regional Workshop on Capacity-building and Institutional Development for Southern African Countries (Windhoek, Namibia, September 2001), ICCROM/UNESCO/ CRATerre-supported Africa 2009 regional training course to promote representivity (July-September 2001), Sixth Meeting of the Pacific Islands Round Table (Suva, Fiji, October-November 2001); Workshop on Cultural Interpretation of Heritage Sites for Preservation and Tourism (Palau, July 2001).

IX.3           In determining Global Strategy activities for the 2002- 2003 period, the Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to its five-part decision adopted at its twenty-fourth session concerning the Representivity of the List: 1. Respecting the Convention; 2. Use of the Tentative List as a planning tool to reduce imbalances; 3. Establishment of a priority system for nominations; 4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly regarding representivity and 5. Capacity- building for under-represented regions.

IX.4           Several Committee members stressed the importance of the Resolution of the General Assembly concerning the Representivity of the World Heritage List and that the substantive work on the analysis of the current World Heritage List and the tentative lists must be given top priority. New thematic studies and meetings should be carried out only upon the completion of this global analysis, and on the basis of the priorities identified for each region. A number of delegates stated that since 1994, many regional and thematic meetings have been convened, and the results of these meetings need to be reviewed before others are launched.

IX.5           ICOMOS informed the Committee that a number of thematic studies have been carried out or are in progress, including textile industries, rock art in Southern Africa and early agricultural landscapes in the Pacific.

IX.6           IUCN commended the Centre and stated that clear criteria are needed for future thematic workshops. The priority for IUCN lies in the coastal and marine ecosystems, boreal forests and geological sites. The World Parks Congress (South Africa, 2003) provides an excellent opportunity, as World Heritage and African Heritage would enjoy a high profile at this event.

IX.7           The Committee thanked the Secretariat for the document prepared but stated that the numerous activities proposed need to be prioritised. Members of the Committee noted the following points:

IX.8           For the Caribbean, the work proposed for coastal and marine sites has a high priority and needs to be linked to existing GEF/World Bank projects and other regional and sub-regional programmes and projects; that the Slave Route project also be given high priority for the Caribbean under the cultural heritage category; and that the proposed study and expert meeting on rock art are not priorities in view of extensive studies already existing on this subject. The Committee stressed the need to ensure complementarity of activities under the Global Strategy for a representative World Heritage List and the Periodic Reports.

IX.9           A number of delegates from Latin America underlined the importance of using the tentative lists as a planning tool and that the inclusion of sites on these lists indicated that they already meet minimum standards. Although agreement on the limitation of nominations is a major step forward, this should not negatively affect States Parties that are under-represented in the World Heritage List or having sites belonging to under-represented categories. States Parties that are already well represented on the List should voluntarily refrain from submitting nominations. It was mentioned that the Ibero- American network (Ushuaia, Argentina, 2002), would be an important forum to discuss potential natural heritage from the region.

IX.10           For the African region, priority should be given to the preparation of tentative lists and nominations from States Parties, and in the identification of under-represented categories. Given the capacity-building requirements in the majority of States Parties of this region, the need to mobilize international co-operation was stressed. A number of African State Party representatives expressed concern over the demand for high quality documentation for the nomination files, often beyond the capacity of the African States Parties to provide.

IX.11           Concerning Asia, the Committee commended the Centre for the well-structured analysis by sub-region of the World Heritage List that provides a useful overview of the represented and under- represented categories in the region. The Delegate of India underscored the importance of identifying ancient routes and trade links within the south-east Asian sub-region. A standard presentation for all regions could be used as a strategic tool to assess the overall situation, and budget allocations should be made accordingly. The Committee noted the results of the regional thematic meeting on Sacred Mountains in Asia-Pacific and of the proceedings already published by the Government of Japan. The results should be also taken into account for discussions on criterion (vi), as many sites may only qualify for their relationship between the intangible values and the natural environment. It was stressed that the conditions of integrity need to be applied for cultural heritage in this region.

IX.12           The Observer of Australia referred to a number of partnerships in support of the World Heritage Global Strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, including the ACCU (Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO). He proposed that IUCN and the World Heritage Centre look at the impact of climate change in the region with reference to World Heritage sites, especially in marine and coastal ecosystems. He also referred to the support of New Zealand in funding a World Heritage Officer in the UNESCO Office in Apia, Samoa and called for the position to be continued by UNESCO in the future. He referred to the legal and technical assistance being provided in the region through the Asia-Pacific Focal Point for World Heritage Managers hosted by Australia and suggested a Memorandum of Understanding with the World Heritage Centre.

IX.13           Several observers of European States Parties congratulated the Centre for a number of thematic meetings carried out and the recommendations stemming from these, such as the vineyard thematic meeting. The recommendation for a global vineyard study was emphasized by a number of Committee members and observers to ensure the credibility of future nominations under this category. An appropriate delimitation of the wine growing area should be chosen for these sites. The Delegate of Hungary expressed his country's commitment to promote the co-ordination of the tentative lists within their sub-region.

IX.14           The Committee was informed that a number of States Parties are currently preparing transboundary nominations. Co- operation between countries should be encouraged to ensure a better representivity of the World Heritage List and solidarity between countries from different regions. The fact that forty-nine countries still have no tentative lists indicated the urgent need to extend assistance in this field. The Committee agreed that transfrontier, serial and other nominations should be encouraged as well as links to the MAB programme.

IX.15           With regard to the Alpine Arc, the Committee noted that a new, co-ordinated and regional approach for international collaboration was promoted by the six countries of the Alpine region (Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland), and that following the expert meeting at Hallstatt (Austria, June 2000), two States Party meetings were convened (Turin, Italy, July 2001 and UNESCO Headquarters, October 2001) to discuss the diversity, values and composition of the Alpine Arc. Taking into account the complexity of such a regional approach, the countries agreed to schedule a follow-up meeting for the beginning of 2002. This process accompanied by international experts and the World Heritage Centre should encourage the States Parties to continue with this innovative and regional approach in World Heritage nomination.

IX.16           Commenting on the Secretariat's report on the Desert Landscape Meeting, organized in Egypt (September 2001), the Committee recalled the importance of this category of properties. It recommended that resources be allocated to further the process of identification of potential desert landscapes for possible inclusion on the World Heritage List, starting with those located across two or more countries. Committee members from the Arab region stated that this should be the focus rather than dispersing resources on less urgent initiatives, such as the proposed Thematic Study on Modern Heritage in the Arab States. In this respect, and taking into account that deserts are a common feature across several regions of the world, the Committee stressed the desirability of a more intense inter- regional co-operation in this field, such as in the Mediterranean Action Plan. The Delegate of Egypt suggested that the year 2003 be declared an International Year of the Desert.

IX.17           Concerning priorities, particularly in the Arab region, the Committee insisted also on the importance of addressing heritage legislation and institutional building, as these are an essential precondition for the establishment of appropriate conservation practices.

IX.18           The Observer of ALECSO recalled the publication by his Organization (in 2001) of an Arab Biodiversity Strategy. He recommended that this document be translated into English and taken into account in future World Heritage programmes and activities in the region. IUCN recognized the gap in the representivity of natural heritage in the Arab Region and stated its intention to address it in the future.

IX.19           The Committee concluded its examination of Global Strategy activities by reiterating the need for the Secretariat to focus on the analysis of the World Heritage List and the national tentative lists as a priority, as well as on assistance to States Parties for the establishment and revision of these tentative lists as required. The Committee however noted that a conceptual discussion is needed to provide a framework for such analyses and also recognized the need to identify methodologies to define under-represented categories of heritage.

X.	INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CUTLURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF THE WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

Tentative Lists

X.1           The Director of the World Heritage Centre indicated that all nominations were included in the Tentative Lists of the country concerned.

Changes to names of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

X.2           At the request of the Republic of Korea, because of the recent changes to the Romanisation system of Korean characters, the Committee approved the following changes to the names of properties included on the World Heritage List:

Existing Name (English/French)	Name change requested (English/French)
Sokkuram Grotto and Pulguksa Temple / Grotte de Sokkuram et temple Pulguksa	Seokguram Grotto and Bulguksa Temple / Grotte de Seokguram et temple Bulguksa
Haeinsa Temple Changgyong P'ango, the Depositories for the Tripitaka Koreana Woodblocks / Temple d'Haeinsa Changgyong P'ango, les dépôts des tablettes du Tripitaka Koreana	Haeinsa Temple Janggyeong Panjeon, the Depositories for the Tripitaka Koreana Woodblocks / Temple d'Haeinsa Janggyeong Panjeon, les dépôts des tablettes du Tripitaka Koreana
Chongmyo Shrine / Sanctuaire de Chongmyo	Jongmyo Shrine / Sanctuaire de Jongmyo
Ch'angdokkung Palace Complex / Ensemble du palais de Ch'angdokkung	Changdeokgung Palace Complex / Ensemble du palais de Changdeokgung
Hwasong Fortress / Forteresse de Hwasong	Hwaseong Fortress / Forteresse de Hwaseong
Kyongju Historic Areas / Zones historiques de Kyongju	Gyeongju Historic Areas / Zones historiques de Gyeongju
Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kanghwa Dolmen Sites / Sites de dolmens de Koch'ang, Hwasun et Kanghwa	Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites / Sites de dolmens de Gochang, Hwasun et Ganghwa

Examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger

X.3           Following the review of the state of conservation reports and the recommendations of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Committee decided to inscribe the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

• Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
• Abu Mena (Egypt)

X.4           Furthermore, the Committee decided to remove Iguaçu National Park (Brazil) from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Examination of nominations of cultural, natural, and mixed properties to the World Heritage List

X.5           The Committee noted that the following two natural properties will be examined in 2002:

• Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park (Viet Nam)
• Natural System of "Wrangel Island" Sanctuary (Russian Federation)

X.6           The Committee was informed that the Guyanese authorities have withdrawn the nomination of Kaieteur National Park and that the Italian authorities requested that the proposed extension of Crespi d'Adda not be examined by the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.

I	CULTURAL PROPERTIES
A.	Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	Historic Centre of Vienna
Id. N°	1033
State Party	Austria
Criteria	C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Historic Centre of Vienna on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The urban and architectural qualities of the Historic Centre of Vienna bear outstanding witness to a continuing interchange of values throughout the second millennium.
Criterion (iv): Three key periods of European cultural and political development - the Middle Ages, the Baroque period, and the Gründerzeit - are exceptionally well illustrated by the urban and architectural heritage of the Historic Centre of Vienna.
Criterion (vi): Since the 16th century Vienna has been universally acknowledged to be the musical capital of Europe.

While taking note of the efforts already made for the protection of the historic town of Vienna, the Committee recommended that the State Party undertake the necessary measures to review the height and volume of the proposed new development near the Stadtpark, east of the Ringstrasse, so as not to impair the visual integrity of the historic town. Furthermore, the Committee recommended that special attention be given to continuous monitoring and control of any changes to the morphology of the historic building stock.

Property	Cultural Landscape of Fertö/Neusiedlersee
Id. N°	772 Rev
State Party	Austria/Hungary
Criteria	C (v)

The Committee inscribed the Cultural Landscape of Fertö/Neusiedlersee on the World Heritage List under criterion (v):

Criterion (v): The Fertö/Neusiedlersee has been the meeting place of different cultures for eight millennia, and this is graphically demonstrated by its varied landscape, the result of an evolutionary and symbiotic process of human interaction with the physical environment.

The Committee encouraged the States Parties to provide within two years of inscription a revised management plan for the enlarged area resulting from the revised boundaries of the cultural landscape.

Although the site was originally nominated as a mixed site, the Committee did not inscribe Fertö/Neusiedlersee on the World Heritage List under natural criteria.

Property	Tsodilo
Id. N°	1021
State Party	Botswana
Criteria	C (i) (iii) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Tsodilo on the World Heritage List under criteria criteria (i), (iii), and (vi):

Criterion (i): For many thousands of years the rocky outcrops of Tsodilo in the harsh landscape of the Kalahari Desert have been visited and settled by humans, who have left rich traces of their presence in the form of outstanding rock art.
Criterion (iii): Tsodilo is a site that has witnessed visits and settlement by successive human communities for many millennia.
Criterion (vi): The Tsodilo outcrops have immense symbolic and religious significance for the human communities who continue to survive in this hostile environment.

The Delegate of Thailand, while supporting the inscription of the site, questioned the application of criterion (i), asking whether the rock art itself or the entire property was a "masterpiece of human creative genius". The representative of ICOMOS explained that criterion (i) was applicable to the rock art.

The Chairperson congratulated Botswana on the inscription of its first site on the World Heritage List. The Observer of Botswana emphasized that this is a milestone, illustrating the commitment of her county to fulfil the obligations of the Convention and to adhere to the Global Strategy.

Property	Historic Centre of the Town of Goiás
Id. N°	993 Rev
State Party	Brazil
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Historic Centre of the Town of Goiás on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): In its layout and architecture the Historic Town of Goiás is an outstanding example of a European town admirably adapted to the climatic, geographical and cultural constraints of central South America.
Criterion (iv): Goiás represents the evolution of a form of urban structure and architecture characteristic of the colonial settlement of South America, making full use of local materials and techniques and conserving its exceptional setting.

Following comments from the Committee concerning the state of conservation of the site, the Observer of Brazil informed the Committee that major investments are under way to improve the conditions of the site.

Property	Yungang Grottoes
Id. N°	1039
State Party	China
Criteria	C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Yungang Grottoes on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The assemblage of statuary of the Yungang Grottoes is a masterpiece of early Chinese Buddhist cave art.
Criterion (ii): The Yungang cave art represent the successful fusion of Buddhist religious symbolic art from south and central Asia with Chinese cultural traditions, starting in the 5th century CE under Imperial auspices.
Criterion (iii): The power and endurance of Buddhist belief in China are vividly illustrated by the Yungang grottoes.
Criterion (iv): The Buddhist tradition of religious cave art achieved its first major impact at Yungang, where it developed its own distinct character and artistic power.

The Committee encouraged the State Party to continue the maintenance efforts and management planning for the site.

Property	Tugendhat Villa in Brno
Id. N°	1052
State Party	Czech Republic
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Tugendhat Villa in Brno on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The German architect Mies van der Rohe applied the radical new concepts of the Modern Movement triumphantly to the Tugendhat Villa in the design of residential buildings.
Criterion (iv): Architecture was revolutionized by the Modern Movement in the 1920s and the work of Mies van der Rohe, epitomized by the Tugendhat Villa, played a major role in its worldwide diffusion and acceptance.

The Chairperson stressed the need for an in-depth discussion on the Modern Movement.

Property	Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs
Id. N°	873 Rev
State Party	France
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): At the beginning of the 2nd millennium Provins was one of several towns in the territory of the Counts of Champagne that became the venues for great annual trading fairs linking northern Europe with the Mediterranean world.
Criterion (iv): Provins preserves to a high degree the architecture and urban layout that characterize these great medieval fair towns.

The Delegate of Greece recalled her intervention made at the twenty- fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001, underlining that nothing remained of the installations relating to the Trade Fair in the Medieval Town of Provins, while other cities preserved better examples.

Several delegates questioned the research carried out on medieval fair towns, and asked whether archaeological excavations had taken place at Provins. The Delegate of St Lucia requested the reasons for the change in the recommendation by ICOMOS from negative in 1996 to positive in 2001.

Property	The Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen
Id. N°	975
State Party	Germany
Criteria	C (ii) (iii)

The Committee inscribed the The Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex in Essen on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii): The Zollverein XII Coal Mine Industrial Complex is an exceptional industrial monument by virtue of the fact that its buildings are outstanding examples of the application of the design concepts of the Modern Movement in architecture in a wholly industrial context.
Criterion (iii): The technological and other structures of Zollverein XII are representative of a crucial period in the development of traditional heavy industries in Europe, when sympathetic and positive use was made of architectural designs of outstanding quality.

The Observer of Germany informed the Committee that people from all over Europe had worked in the mine and that the recognition of this heritage is important for its future protection.

Property	Masada
Id. N°	1040
State Party	Israel
Criteria	C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Masada National Park on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (iii): Masada is a symbol of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel, of its violent destruction in the later 1st century CE, and of the subsequent Diaspora.
Criterion (iv): The Palace of Herod the Great at Masada is an outstanding example of a luxurious villa of the Early Roman Empire, whilst the camps and other fortifications that encircle the monument constitute the finest and most complete Roman siege works to have survived to the present day.
Criterion (vi): The tragic events during the last days of the Jewish refugees who occupied the fortress and palace of Masada make it a symbol both of Jewish cultural identity and, more universally, of the continuing human struggle between oppression and liberty.

Although the site was originally nominated as a mixed property, the Committee did not inscribe Masada National Park under natural criteria.

The Chairperson congratulated Israel on the inscription of its first site on the World Heritage List. In agreement with the State Party, the name of the property was changed to Masada.

Property	The Old City of Acre
Id. N°	1042
State Party	Israel
Criteria	C (ii) (iii) (v)

The Committee inscribed The Old City of Acre on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iii), and (v):

Criterion (ii): Acre is an exceptional historic town in that it preserves the substantial remains of its medieval Crusader buildings beneath the existing Moslem fortified town dating from the 18th and 19th centuries.
Criterion (iii): The remains of the Crusader town of Acre, both above and below the present-day street level, provide an exceptional picture of the layout and structures of the capital of the medieval Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Criterion (v): Present-day Acre is an important example of an Ottoman walled town, with typical urban components such as the citadel, mosques, khans, and baths well preserved, partly built on top of the underlying Crusader structures.

A number of delegates commented that the texts contained in the ICOMOS evaluation report needed revision to accurately reflect the history of the site. ICOMOS agreed to discuss appropriate amendments with the delegations concerned to reflect the history of the social and economic situation of the site and the inhabitants of the Old City.

The Committee recommended that the State Party incorporate into its management plan a coherent policy for the improvement of the economic and social condition of local residents of the Old City of Acre and to ensure that it remains a living city.

The Observer of Israel stated that the inscription of the site recognizes the heritage of the people of this multicultural centre, representing the entire region.

Property	Villa d'Este, Tivoli
Id. N°	1025
State Party	Italy
Criteria	C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)(vi)

The Committee inscribed the Villa d'Este, Tivoli on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), (iii),(iv) and (vi):

Criterion (i): The Villa d'Este is one of the most outstanding examples of Renaissance culture at its apogee.
Criterion (ii): The gardens of the Villa d'Este had a profound influence on the development of garden design throughout Europe.
Criterion (iii): The principles of Renaissance design and aesthetics are illustrated in an exceptional manner by the gardens of the Villa d'Este.
Criterion (iv): The gardens of the Villa d'Este are among the earliest and finest of the giardini delle meraviglie and symbolize the flowering of Renaissance culture.
Criterion (vi): The Villa d'Este, with its palace and garden, bears exceptional testimony to the Italian Renaissance and has been a source of artistic inspiration ever since its creation.

Property	Lamu Old Town
Id. N°	1055
State Party	Kenya
Criteria	C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Lamu Old Town on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The architecture and urban structure of Lamu graphically demonstrate the cultural influences that have come together there over several hundred years from Europe, Arabia, and India, utilizing traditional Swahili techniques to produce a distinct culture.
Criterion (iv): The growth and decline of the seaports on the East African coast and interaction between the Bantu, Arabs, Persians, Indians, and Europeans represents a significant cultural and economic phase in the history of the region which finds its most outstanding expression in Lamu Old Town.
Criterion (vi): Its paramount trading role and its attraction for scholars and teachers gave Lamu an important religious function in the region. It continues to be a significant centre for education in Islamic and Swahili culture.

Property	Vat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements within the Champasak Cultural Landscape
Id. N°	481
State Party	Lao People's Democratic Republic
Criteria	C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Vat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements within the Champasak Cultural Landscape on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (iii): The Temple Complex of Vat Phou bears exceptional testimony to the cultures of south-east Asia, and in particular to the Khmer Empire which dominated the region in the 10th-14th centuries.
Criterion (iv): The Vat Phou complex is an outstanding example of the integration of a symbolic landscape of great spiritual significance to its natural surroundings.
Criterion (vi): Contrived to express the Hindu version of the relationship between nature and humanity, Vat Phou exhibits a remarkable complex of monuments and other structures over an extensive area between river and mountain, some of outstanding architecture, many containing great works of art, and all expressing intense religious conviction and commitment.

Property	Royal Hill of Ambohimanga
Id. N°	950
State Party	Madagascar
Criteria	C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Royal Hill of Ambohimanga on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (iii): The Royal Hill of Ambohimanga is the most significant symbol of the cultural identity of the people of Madagascar.
Criterion (iv): The traditional design, materials, and layout of the Royal Hill of Ambohimanga are representative of the social and political structure of Malagassy society from at least the 16th century.
Criterion (vi): The Royal Hill of Ambohimanga is an exceptional example of a place where, over centuries, common human experience has been focused in memory, ritual, and prayer.

The Committee emphasized that the site is a classic example of an associative cultural landscape, which fully justifies the application of criterion (vi), linking the tangible and intangible values. The Observer of Madagascar informed the Committee that the inscription of the first cultural site on the World Heritage List would inspire the people of her country to protect their heritage.

Property	Medina of Essaouira (Formerly Mogador)
Id. N°	753 Rev
State Party	sMorocco
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Medina of Essaouira (Formerly Mogador) on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): Essaouira is an outstanding and well preserved example of a late 18th century European fortified seaport town translated to a North African context.
Criterion (iv): With the opening up of Morocco to the rest of the world in the later 17th century Essaouira was laid out by a French architect who had been profoundly influenced by the work of Vauban at Saint-Malo. It has retained its European appearance to a substantial extent.

A number of delegates expressed their reservations as to the outstanding universal value of the site, as well as some concerns on the reported alterations that had taken place in the city, where inappropriate materials had been used for modern additions. ICOMOS informed the Committee that although some degree of integrity had been lost in the past, the degree of loss did not compromise the overall significance of the site. Adequate safeguarding measures and a comprehensive Management Plan were now in place, which would prevent further damage to the historic structures of the city.

Property	Churches of Peace in Jawor and Swidnica
Id. N°	1054
State Party	Poland
Criteria	C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Churches of Peace in Jawor and Swidnica on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (iii): The Churches of Peace are outstanding testimony to an exceptional act of tolerance on the part of the Catholic Habsburg Emperor towards Protestant communities in Silesia in the period following the Thirty Years' War in Europe.
Criterion (iv): As a result of conditions imposed by the Emperor the Churches of Peace required the builders, to implement pioneering constructional and architectural solutions of a scale and complexity unknown ever before or since in wooden architecture. The success may be judged by their survival to the present day.
Criterion (vi): The Churches of Peace bear exceptional witness to a particular political development in Europe in the 17th century of great spiritual power and commitment.

The Observer of Germany noted that the symbolic importance of these two monuments was due to two factors, one historic and the other contemporary: the two churches bear witness to an act of Tolerance that, at the time of their construction, was extremely rare. Furthermore, with regard to their state of conservation, they demonstrate close and fruitful co-operation between the two neighbouring countries, Poland and Germany. The cultural heritage of Silesia, formerly disputed by both countries, is today considered as common heritage for which Poland and Germany are responsible.

Property	Historic Centre of Guimarães
Id. N°	1031
State Party	Portugal
Criteria	C (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Historic Centre of Guimarães on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iii), and (iv):

Criterion (ii): Guimarães is of considerable universal significance by virtue of the fact that specialized building techniques developed there in the Middle Ages were transmitted to Portuguese colonies in Africa and the New World, becoming their characteristic feature.
Criterion (iii): The early history of Guimarães is closely associated with the establishment of Portuguese national identity and the Portuguese language in the 12th century.
Criterion (iv): An exceptionally well preserved town, Guimarães illustrates the evolution of particular building types from the medieval settlement to the present-day city, and particularly in the 15th-19th centuries.

Several delegates noted apparent inconsistencies in the ICOMOS evaluation report that were clarified.

Property	Alto Douro Wine Region
Id. N°	1046
State Party	Portugal
Criteria	C (iii) (iv) (v)

The Committee inscribed the Alto Douro Wine Region on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (v):

Criterion (iii): The Alto Douro Region has been producing wine for nearly two thousand years and its landscape has been molded by human activities.
Criterion (iv): The components of the Alto Douro landscape are representative of the full range of activities associated with winemaking - terraces, quintas (wine-producing farm complexes), villages, chapels, and roads.
Criterion (v): The cultural landscape of the Alto Douro is an outstanding example of a traditional European wine- producing region, reflecting the evolution of this human activity over time.

The Committee requested the State Party to provide a report for its meeting in 2003, commenting on the implementation of the recent management plan and its effectiveness, setting out details of the measures applied in the buffer zone.

Property	Aranjuez Cultural Landscape
Id. N°	1044
State Party	Spain
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Aranjuez Cultural Landscape on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): Aranjuez represents the coming together of diverse cultural influences to create a cultural landscape that had a formative influence on further developments in this field.
Criterion (iv): The complex designed cultural landscape of Aranjuez, derived from a variety of sources, marks a seminal stage in the development of landscape design.

Property	The Mining Area of the Great Copper Mountain in Falun
Id. N°	1027
State Party	Sweden
Criteria	C (ii) (iii) (v)

The Committee inscribed The Mining Area of the Great Copper Mountain in Falun on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iii), and (v):

Criterion (ii): Copper mining at Falun was influenced by German technology, but this was to become the major producer of copper in the 17th century and exercised a profound influence on mining technology in all parts of the world for two centuries.
Criterion (iii): The entire Falun landscape is dominated by the remains of copper mining and production, which began as early as the 9th century and came to an end in the closing years of the 20th century.
Criterion (v): The successive stages in the economic and social evolution of the copper industry in the Falun region, from a form of "cottage industry" to full industrial production, can be seen in the abundant industrial, urban, and domestic remains characteristic of this industry that still survive.

Property	Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi
Id. N°	1022
State Party	Uganda
Criteria	C (i) (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (iii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (i): The Kasubi Tombs site is a masterpiece of human creativity both in its conception and in its execution.
Criterion (iii): The Kasubi Tombs site bears eloquent witness to the living cultural traditions of the Baganda.
Criterion (iv): The spatial organization of the Kasubi Tombs site represents the best extant example of a Baganda palace/architectural ensemble. Built in the finest traditions of Ganda architecture and palace design, it reflects technical achievements developed over many centuries.
Criterion (vi): The built and natural elements of the Kasubi Tombs site are charged with historical, traditional, and spiritual values. It is a major spiritual centre for the Baganda and is the most active religious place in the kingdom.

The Committee noted that the site combines the historical and spiritual values of a nation.

Property	Derwent Valley Mills
Id. N°	1030
State Party	United Kingdom
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Derwent Valley Mills on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Derwent Valley saw the birth of the factory system, when new types of building were erected to house the new technology for spinning cotton developed by Richard Arkwright in the early 19th century.
Criterion (iv): In the Derwent Valley for the first time there was large-scale industrial production in a hitherto rural landscape. The need to provide housing and other facilities for workers and managers resulted in the creation of the first modern industrial towns.

Property	New Lanark
Id. N°	429 Rev
State Party	United Kingdom
Criteria	C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the New Lanark on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): When Richard Arkwright's new factory system for textile production was brought to New Lanark the need to provide housing and other facilities to the workers and managers was recognized. It was there that Robert Owen created a model for industrial communities that was to spread across the world in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Criterion (iv): New Lanark saw the construction not only of well designed and equipped workers' housing but also public buildings designed to improve their spiritual as well as their physical needs.
Criterion (vi): The name of New Lanark is synonymous with that of Robert Owen and his social philosophy in matters such as progressive education, factory reform, humane working practices, international cooperation, and garden cities, which was to have a profound influence on social developments throughout the 19th century and beyond.

Property	Saltaire
Id. N°	1028
State Party	sUnited Kingdom
Criteria	C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Saltaire on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): Saltaire is an outstanding and well preserved example of a mid 19th century industrial town, the layout of which was to exert a major influence on the development of the "garden city" movement.
Criterion (iv): The layout and architecture of Saltaire admirably reflect mid 19th century philanthropic paternalism, as well as the important role played by the textile industry in economic and social development.

Property	Samarkand - Crossroads of Cultures
Id. N°	603 Rev
State Party	Uzbekistan
Criteria	C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Samarkand - Crossroads of Cultures on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), and (iv).

Criterion (i): The architecture and townscape of Samarkand, situated at the crossroads of ancient cultures, are masterpieces of Islamic cultural creativity.
Criterion (ii): Ensembles in Samarkand such as the Bibi Khanum Mosque and Registan Square played a seminal role in the development of Islamic architecture over the entire region, from the Mediterranean to the Indian subcontinent.
Criterion (iv): The historic town of Samarkand illustrates in its art, architecture, and urban structure the most important stages of Central Asian cultural and political history from the 13th century to the present day.

The Committee noted with satisfaction the extension of the buffer zone to include the whole Timurid town, the archaeological area, Ulugh-Bek's Observatory, and the 19th century development. It encouraged the city to continue with the preparation of an integrated management plan for the historic town as a whole and to report back to the Committee at its twenty-eighth session in 2004.

B.	Extensions of Cultural Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa [Extension to include the Norbulingka area]
Id. N°	707 Ter
State Party	China
Criteria	C (i) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property, Potala Palace and the Jokhang Temple Monastery, Lhasa, to include the Norbulingka area, maintaining the existing criteria (i), (iv), and (vi).

The Committee noted that, because of development pressures in the city of Lhasa, particular attention be given to the mitigation of the changes in the areas surrounding the World Heritage properties.

Property	Painted Churches in the Troodos Region [Extension to include the Church of Ayia Sotira, Palaichori ]
Id. N°	351 Bis
State Party	Cyprus
Criteria	C (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the Painted Churches in the Troodos Region, maintaining the existing criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv).

This serial inscription will henceforth include 10 structures:

DATE INSCRIBED	NAME	LOCATION
1985	Church of Ayios Nikolaos (St. Nicholas) tis Steyis	Kakopetria
1985	Ayios Ionannis (St. John) Lambadhistis Monastery	Kalopanayiotis
1985	Church of Panayia (The Virgin) Phorviotissa (Asinou)	Nikitart
1985	Church of Panayia (The Virgin) tou Arakou	Lagoudhera
1985	Church of Panayia (The Virgin)	Moutoullas
1985	Church of Archangelos Michael (Archangel Michael)	Pedhoulas
1985	Church of Timios Stavros (Holy Cross)	Pelendria
1985	Church of Panayia (The Virgin) Podhithou	Galata
1985	Church of Stavros (Holy Cross) Ayiasmati	Platanistasa
2001	Church of Ayia Sotira (Transfiguration of the Savior)	Palaichori

Property	Mudejar Architecture of Aragon [Extension of the Mudejar Architecture of Teruel]
Id. N°	378 Bis
State Party	Spain
Criteria	C (iv)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the Mudejar Architecture of Teruel, maintaining the existing criterion (iv). The State Party was urged to complete and implement the required management plan as soon as possible, and to take the necessary measures to guarantee that the relationship of the monuments with their historic setting be maintained. The State Party agreed to the change of the name to "Mudejar Architecture of Aragon."

This serial inscription will henceforth include 10 structures:

DATE INSCRIBED	TOWN	NAME	DATE OF STRUCTURE
1986	Teruel	Torre, techumbre y cimborrio de la catedral de Santa María de Mediavilla	13th cent.
1986	Teruel	Torre e iglesia de San Pedro	13th cent.
1986	Teruel	Torre de la iglesia de San Martín	14th cent.
1986	Teruel	Torre de la iglesia del Salvador	13th cent.
2001	Calatayud	Abside, claustro y torre de colegiata de Santa María	14th-16th cent.
2001	Cervera de la Cañada	Iglesia parroquial de Santa Tecla	14th cent.
2001	Tobed	Iglesia de Santa María	14th cent.
2001	Zaragoza	Restos mudéjares de palacio de la Aljafería	14th-15th cent.
2001	Zaragoza	Torre e iglesia parroquial de San Pablo	13th-14th cent.
2001	Zaragoza	Abside, parroquieta y cimborrio de La Seo	14th-16th cent.

C.	Property which the Committee deferred

Property	The Bolgar Historical and Architectural Complex
Id. N°	981
State Party	Russian Federation

The Committee discussed extensively the authenticity and materials used for reconstruction at the site. Several delegates questioned whether the type of early documentary evidence supplied from the 19th century would be sufficient to guarantee authenticity for the reconstruction of the Great Minaret.

A number of interventions focused on the importance of the site as historical evidence for a nomadic empire. The Committee encouraged the State Party to submit a revised nomination dossier, which further elaborated the history of movements of people.

Furthermore, the Committee suggested that a workshop could be organized on the question of authenticity and reconstruction to provide clear guidance in this matter.

D.	Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List

Property	Jurmala Wooden Construction (Dzintari District of Summer Cottages)
Id. N°	1036
State Party	Latvia

II.	MIXED PROPERTY

Property	Karain Caves and Surroundings
Id. N°	1059
State Party	Turkey

The Committee decided not to inscribe the Karain Caves and Surroundings on the World Heritage List under natural criteria.

Concerning cultural values, the Committee noted that the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session decided that further consideration of this nomination be deferred, so that the State Party may prepare and present both a more comprehensive and scientifically well documented justification for inscription and an adequate management plan for the site.

III.	NATURAL PROPERTIES
A.	Properties which the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	Brazilian Atlantic Islands: Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas Reserves
Id. N°	1000 Rev
State Party	Brazil
Criteria	N (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Brazilian Atlantic Islands: Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas Reserves on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii), (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): Fernando de Noronha / Rocas Atoll represents over half the insular coastal waters of the Southern Atlantic Ocean. These highly productive waters provide feeding ground for species such as tuna, billfish, cetaceans, sharks, and marine turtles as they migrate to the Eastern Atlantic coast of Africa. An oasis of marine life in relatively barren, open ocean, the islands play a key role in the process of reproduction, dispersal and colonisation by marine organisms in the entire Tropical South Atlantic.
Criterion (iii): Baía dos Golfinhos is the only known place in the world with such a high population of resident dolphins and Rocas Atoll demonstrates a spectacular seascape at low tide when the exposed reef surrounding shallow lagoons and tidal pools forms a natural aquarium. Both sites have also exceptional submarine landscapes that have been recognised worldwide by a number of specialised diving literatures.
Criterion (iv): Fernando de Noronha / Rocas Atoll is a key site for the protection of biodiversity and endangered species in the Southern Atlantic. Providing a large proportion of the insular habitat of the South Atlantic, the site is a repository for the maintenance of marine biodiversity at the ocean basin level. It is important for the conservation of endangered and threatened species of marine turtles, particularly the hawksbill turtle. The site accommodates the largest concentration of tropical seabirds to be found in the Western Atlantic Ocean, and is a Global Centre of Bird Endemism. The site also contains the only remaining sample of the Insular Atlantic Forest and the only oceanic mangrove in the South Atlantic region.

The site consists of the Archipelago of Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas, a reef approximately 150 km to the west of the Archipelago.

AREA	LOCATION	SIZE
National Marine Park of Fernando de Noronha	State of Pernambuco	11,270 ha
Biological Marine Reserve of Rocas Atoll	State of Rio Grande do Norte	32, 000ha

Property	Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos Veadeiros and Emas National Parks
Id. N°	1035
State Party	Brazil
Criteria	N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos Veadeiros and Emas National Parks on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The site has played a key role for millenia in maintaining the biodiversity of the Cerrado Ecoregion. Due it its central location and altidudinal variation, it has acted as a relatively stable species refuge when climate change has caused the Cerrado to move north-south or east-west. This role as a species refuge is ongoing as Earth enters another period of climate change.
Criterion (iv): The site contains samples of all key habitats that characterise the Cerrado ecoregion - one of Earth's oldest tropical ecosystems. It contains over 60% of all floral species and almost 80% of all vertebrate species described for the Cerrado. With the exception of the Giant Otter, all of the Cerrado's endangered large mammals occur in the site. In addition, the site supports many rare small mammals and bird species that do not occur elsewhere in the Cerrado and a number of species new to science have been discovered in the Cerrado Protected Areas.

The site comprises two parts:

PARK	LOCATION	SIZE
Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park	Central Brazil Plateau, NE State of Goiás	235,970 ha
Emas National Park	Central Brazil Plateau, SW State of Goiás	131,386 ha

Property	Alejandro de Humboldt National Park
Id. N°	839 Rev
State Party	Cuba
Criteria	N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Alejandro de Humboldt National Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The size, altitudinal diversity, complex lithologies, and landform diversity of Alejandro de Humboldt National Park have resulted in a range of ecosystems and species unmatched in the Insular Caribbean. It was a Miocene-Pleistocene refuge site, particularly in the glacial eras, for the Caribbean biota. The fresh water rivers that flow off the peaks of the park are some of the largest in the insular Caribbean and because of this have high freshwater biological diversity. Because of the serpentine, peridotite, karst and pseudokarst geology of the region, the park is an excellent example of ongoing processes in the evolution of species and communities on underlying rocks that pose special challenges to plant survival.
Criterion (iv): Alejandro de Humboldt National Park contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in- situ conservation of terrestrial biological diversity in the entire insular Caribbean. It contains 16 of 28 plant formations defined for Cuba, the largest island in the Caribbean, which is a unique biogeographic province. It is one of the most important sites for conservation of endemic flora in the entire Western Hemisphere - nearly 70% of the 1,302 spermatophytes already described, of an estimated total of 1,800-2,000, are endemic to the park. The park is one of the most biologically diverse terrestrial tropical ecosystems in an island setting anywhere on earth. Endemism rates for vertebrates and invertebrates found in the park are also very high. Many of these are threatened because of their small range. Because of their uniqueness and the fact that they represent unique evolutionary processes, they are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science and conservation.

The Committee requested that the management plan be finalized within a timeframe of 12 months and be sent to the World Heritage Centre in three copies.

Property	Central Sikhote-Alin
Id. N°	766 Rev
State Party	Russian Federation
Criteria	N (iv)

The Committee inscribed Central Sikhote-Alin on the World Heritage List under criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The nominated area is representative of one of the world's most distinctive natural regions. The combination of glacial history, climate and relief has allowed the development of the richest and most unusual temperate forests in the world. Compared to other temperate ecosystems, the level of endemic plants and invertebrates present in the region is extraordinarily high which has resulted in unusual assemblages of plants and animals. For example, subtropical species such as tiger and Himalayan bear share the same habitat with species typical of northern taiga such as brown bear and reindeer. The site is also important for the survival of endangered species such as the scaly-sided (Chinese) merganser, Blakiston's fish-owl and the Amur tiger.

This serial nomination consists of two protected areas in the Sikhote- Alin mountain range in the extreme southeast of the Russian Federation:

NAME	LOCATION	AREA
Sikhote-Alin Nature Preserve	Terney District	401,428 ha
Goralij Zoological Preserve	Coastal zone on the Sea of Japan, N of Terney	4,749 ha

The Committee encouraged the State Party to improve management of the Bikin River protected areas (Bikin Territory of Traditional Nature Use and Verkhnebikinski zakaznik) before nominating it as an extension.

Property	Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn
Id. N°	1037
State Party	Switzerland
Criteria	N (i)(ii)(iii)

The Committee inscribed the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), and (iii):

Criterion (i): The Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region is the most glaciated area in the Alps and incorporates the Great Aletsch glacier, the largest and longest in western Eurasia. It is thus of significant scientific interest in the context of glacial history and ongoing processes, particularly related to climate change.
Criterion (ii): The Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region provides a wide range of alpine and sub-alpine habitats. Superb examples of ecological succession exist, including the distinctive upper and lower tree-line of the Aletsch forest. The global phenomenon of climatic change is particularly well illustrated in the region, as reflected in the varying rates of retreat of the different glaciers, in turn providing new substrates for ongoing ecological succession.
Criterion (iii): The impressive landscape of the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region has played an important role in European literature, art, mountaineering and alpine tourism. The aesthetics of the area have attracted an international clientele and it is globally recognised as one of the most spectacular mountain regions to visit.

Property	Dorset and East Devon Coast
Id. N°	1029
State Party	United Kingdom
Criteria	N (i)

The Committee inscribed the Dorset and East Devon Coast on the World Heritage List under criterion (i):

Criterion (i) : The Dorset and East Devon Coast provides an almost continuous sequence of Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous rock formations spanning the Mesozoic Era, documenting approximately 185 million years of Earth history. It also includes a range of internationally important fossil localities - vertebrate and invertebrate, marine and terrestrial - which have produced well-preserved and diverse evidence of life during Mesozoic times.

B.	Extensions of Natural Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	Galápagos Islands [Extension to include the Galápagos Marine Reserve]
Id. N°	1 Bis
State Party	Ecuador
Criteria	N (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee approved the extension of the Galápagos Islands by the addition of the Galápagos Marine Reserve, maintaining the existing natural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The Marine Reserve adds substantially to the justification of the existing World Heritage site as one of the premier nature reserves on the planet. The Committee requested the Government of Ecuador to finalize as soon as possible the adoption of the regulations deriving from the Special Law for Galápagos.

The Committee stressed the importance of long-term protection and management of the site and noted that the extension will further enhance the protection of the site. The Committee commended the State Party on progress made and requested it to invite a mission to review the implementation of the regulations in late 2002.

Property	Lake Turkana National Parks [Extension of Sibiloi/Central Island National Parks]
Id. N°	801 Bis
State Party	Kenya
Criteria	N (i) (iv)

The Committee approved the extension of the extension of Sibiloi/Central Island by the addition of South Island National Park, maintaining the existing criteria (i) and (iv). As requested by the State Party, the new name of the site would be "Lake Turkana National Parks".

This serial inscription includes three protected areas:

DATE INSCRIBED	PARK	AREA
1997	Sibiloi National Park	157,085 ha
1997	Central Island	500 ha
2001	South Island	3,900 ha

The Committee strongly encouraged the Kenyan authorities to complete the management plan for the three parks as an integrated unit.

Property	Volcanoes of Kamchatka [Extension to include Kluchevskoy Nature Park]
Id. N°	765 Bis
State Party	Russian Federation
Criteria	N (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee approved the extension of the Volcanoes of Kamchatka by the inclusion of the Kluchevskoy Nature Park as the sixth component. In addition to the 1996 inscription under criteria (i), (ii), and (iii), the Committee decided to inscribe the site also under criterion (iv).

Criterion (iv) The site contains an especially diverse range of palearctic flora, including a number of nationally threatened species and at least 16 endemics, and 33 mammal species, including internationally significant populations of sea lions and sea otter and a thriving population of brown bear, as well as 145 bird species. The rivers inside and adjacent contain the world's greatest known diversity of salmonid fish.

This serial inscription includes six protected areas:

DATE INSCRIBED	PARK	AREA
1996	Kronotsky State Biosphere Nature Preserve	1,007 ha
1996	Bystrinsky Nature Park	1,500 ha
1996	Nalychevo Nature Park	265 ha
1996	Southwestern Tundra Nature Reserve	123 ha
1996	Southern Kamchatka Nature Park and the Southern Kamchatka State Nature Reserve	1,025 ha
2001	Kluchevskoy Nature Park	376 ha

C.	Properties which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List

Property	Holy Tops (Svyati Gory)
Id. N°	1047
State Party	Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

Property	Polissian Swamps and Slovechno-Ovruch Ridge
Id. N°	1048
State Party	Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

Property	Kaniv's Hills (Kanivski Gory)
Id. N°	1049
State Party	Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

Property	Karadag
Id. N°	1050
State Party	Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

Property	Podillian Ridge
Id. N°	1051
State Party	Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

Following the review of the five nominations from Ukraine, the Committee noted that potential sites for nomination could be identified by means of a World Heritage expert workshop, organised by the World Heritage Centre and the Ukrainian authorities. Such a workshop could develop an understanding of World Heritage requirements, help in the selection of appropriate sites and set the required standards for their management. Ideally, the workshop would involve natural heritage specialists from neighbouring countries as well as Ukrainian specialists. Cultural interests should also be involved, because several sites reviewed by IUCN have important cultural components.

The Identification of un-represented or less represented categories of natural and cultural properties

X.7           The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced the topic by recalling the decision of the Committee at its twenty- fourth session in Cairns, Australia, in 2000 to limit, for a two-year trial period, the number of new nominations to be examined by the Committee in June 2003 to thirty. The Committee agreed to implement the decision according to a priority system:

1. States Parties with no sites on the List may submit up to three new nominations;

2. All other States Parties may submit only one new nomination;

3. If the number of new nominations is greater than thirty, then a selection process will be applied, based on whether the nomination falls into one or more un-represented or less-represented categories.

X.8           He noted that the Committee had also decided to consider nominations which had been deferred or referred from previous meetings, as well as extensions to sites already inscribed in addition to the thirty new nominations. He invited the Committee to consider the case of transboundary nominations, which he proposed as another category of nomination which could be excluded from the 30-nomination limit, as a means to encourage more nominations of this type.

X.9           The Director indicated that an examination of the number of States Parties which had actually submitted new nominations each year revealed that in only two cases over the life of the Convention had more than thirty States Parties submitted new nominations in any one year. The implication of this, he stressed, was that if each State Party submitted only one nomination, it was quite possible that the Secretariat would receive less than 30 nominations. In that case, no selection of nominations to be examined based on un- or less-represented categories would need to be made.

X.10           Finally, in the event that more than thirty nominations were received, the Director described several proposed selection processes that had been examined. In particular, he suggested that, to address the smaller number of natural sites on the World Heritage List, the Committee accept all natural nominations up to a certain specified limit.

X.11           A long discussion followed the Director's presentation. While some delegates questioned the decision of the previous Committee to limit the total number of nominations to be examined, and to limit the number of new nominations which a State Party could submit to one per year, other delegates recalled that these decisions had been taken as a result of long deliberation in the Twelfth and Thirteenth General Assemblies, in the Working Group on Representivity, and in the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns. These meetings had consistently argued for a limit on the number of nominations examined by the Committee. This limit would give the Committee more time to take on its important role of reviewing the state of conservation of sites already inscribed and to develop a proactive approach to Periodic Reporting, and to have time for strategic discussions. It would also relieve the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies of a workload that had been growing larger each year.

X.12           Several delegates mentioned that the application of these rules would disadvantage large States Parties with multi-ethnic populations whose diverse heritage should be reflected in nominations to the World Heritage List.

X.13           Several observers reminded the Committee of the voluntary restraints requested of States Parties well-represented on the List by the resolutions of the General Assembly. It was noted that while some well-represented States Parties had refrained from nominating new sites, seven of the ten States Parties with the greatest number of sites had had new sites inscribed on the World Heritage List this year. Several delegates reminded the Committee that the decision once taken by the Cairns Committee should not be reopened at this stage, before the two-year trial proposed by the Committee had actually taken place. The Committee also noted that the initial first phase of this experiment would only be for one year and was to be evaluated in 2003.

X.14           Concerning the selection process recommended in Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/12ADD, most delegates cautioned against using the preliminary cultural categories presented therein. In addition, while the proposed priority for natural nominations might be appropriate to some regions, there are more natural than cultural properties in Africa for example. The Committee regretted that the full analysis of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists and the World Heritage List requested by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns had not yet been undertaken. Delegates urged that in the budget discussions this activity be fully funded so that it could take place as soon as possible.

X.15           ICOMOS undertook to carry out a summary analysis of the existing List, to serve as the basis for a working group on a proposed methodology for selection of nominations, based on perceived under-represented regions and categories of property.

X.16           Several delegates took up the proposal that, for the nominations to be reviewed by the Committee in 2003 (to be received in the Centre by 1 February 2002), the April 2002 session of the Bureau should be asked for its guidance if the number of nominations exceeded the 30-nomination threshold.

The Committee came to the following consensus agreement:

X.17           The Committee confirmed that at its session in 2003 the number of new nominations examined would be limited to a maximum of thirty, as decided at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns. In addition to the approved maximum number of nominations, the Committee would also consider nominations deferred or referred from previous meetings and extensions to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines.

X.18           The Committee also confirmed that only one nomination per State Party would be accepted, except for those States with no sites on the World Heritage List, which might present up to three nominations.

X.19           Transboundary nominations would not be counted within the limit of thirty nominations.

X.20           If more than thirty nominations are received, the date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre would be considered as a secondary determining factor for the selection, as decided by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns.

X.21           If for reasons of co-incidence in the dates of presentation, more than thirty nominations are still received and acceptable, the issue would be referred to the April 2002 Bureau for a decision.

XI.	PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GLOBAL TRAINING STRATEGY

XI.1           ICCROM presented the Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/14, on a Global Training Strategy and Priority Action Plan (see Annex X), for the consideration of the Committee.

XI.2           The Committee took note that the proposed Strategy originated from a request that the Bureau had made in 1994, and was intended to improve the effectiveness of the Committee's use of the Fund in responding to training requests, but also to begin to move towards a more proactive approach in addressing training needs.

XI.3           ICCROM recalled that, at its last session in Cairns, the Committee had requested it to take the lead, in close co-operation with ICOMOS, IUCN and the Centre, to produce a synthesis of all previous efforts in order to prepare a comprehensive document integrating concern for both cultural and natural heritage.

XI.4           The Committee took further note of the structure of this proposed Strategy, composed of a general purpose and three main principles, with some suggested operational implications. The latter were included upon the specific request of the Chairperson of the Committee in March 2001.

XI.5           ICCROM explained that the general purpose of the Strategy was the strengthening of conservation of cultural and natural heritage worldwide, by increasing the capacity of those responsible for, and involved with the management and conservation of World Heritage sites.

XI.6           On the three principles, it was clarified that they referred, respectively, to recognizing the cost-effectiveness of training for the achievement of the Committee's overall objectives, to the need to integrate training into the general World Heritage planning framework, and to ensuring the highest possible quality of the training activities carried out within the framework of the Convention. For each of these principles, the relative implications for the work of the Committee, the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies was described.

XI.7           ICCROM then introduced the Priority Action Plan, noting that this moved from needs analysis and identification of priorities (necessarily linked with the Periodic Reporting and Global Strategy exercises), to the articulation of possible training modules and programmes at global and regional levels. The need for the Committee to regularly review the general planning framework of the proposed training programmes for impact and effectiveness, and the importance of integrating into training modules existing regional resources and materials was emphasized.

XI.8           Among the possible priority areas for action, ICCROM mentioned a more effective implementation of the Convention, the improvement of site management and the strengthening of technical, scientific and traditional conservation skills. For each of these areas, a list of possible preliminary themes was provided, recalling that these had resulted from close consultations with all Advisory Bodies.

XI.9           In concluding its presentation, ICCROM stressed the importance of establishing an appropriate implementation process, with continued updating of priorities and related adjustment of programmes and modules, and reviewing of results. The Committee strongly commended ICCROM for the excellent work accomplished, in collaboration with the other Advisory Bodies and the Centre, and found the Global Training Strategy a very useful document, both comprehensive and well articulated. It also noted with satisfaction that the Hungarian proposal for the establishment of a Fellowship scheme had been integrated into the Global Training Strategy.

XI.10           After some remarks on the need to improve the French translation of the text, the Committee stressed that training activities carried out in the framework of the World Heritage Convention should contribute to improving conservation of cultural and natural heritage in general. The Committee also expressed its appreciation for the list of possible actions related to the Global Training Strategy, although it cautioned against undertaking too many initiatives, especially when these have already been developed by other bodies or States Parties.

XI.11           On the proposed areas of action and themes, IUCN suggested that these be defined taking into account the priority programmes agreed upon by the Committee during the present session, such as the one on Forests. Among the technical skills, which could be the subject of training modules, some members of the Committee mentioned the conservation of wooden structures in view of their importance in all regions of the world.

XI.12           With regard to the introduction of a more proactive approach, the Committee recognized that this was a necessity, but warned the Secretariat against an exclusive top-down needs identification process, and stated that States Parties' requests should not be discouraged but better organized.

XI.13           The Committee approved the Global Training Strategy and the Priority Action Plan, and expressed the wish that the progress achieved on its implementation be reviewed regularly at Statutory Meetings.

XII.	PROGRESS REPORT ON THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

XII.1           The Secretariat introduced Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/16 on the proposed World Heritage Information Management Programme. It recalled that the strategy of this programme had previously been developed in consultation with interested States Parties and Advisory Bodies. The World Heritage Information Programme must have wide participation and close co-ordination. If the necessary funds are secured, it will create significant savings in efficiency as well as improvement of the effectiveness of the Convention.

XII.2           The Programme is based on the following principles: (1) an incremental approach; (2) partnerships; (3) strengthening the capacity of the less developed States Parties to handle their own data and information; (4) coordinating and including in the proposed five- year Programme, the Periodic Reporting Exercise and the inclusion of geo-referenced data; (5) avoidance of duplication by working jointly with organizations/institutions already involved in conservation, presentation and preservation activities.

XII.3           Within the proposed partnership approach the Secretariat informed the Committee that joint co-operation with institutions had already been established. The following partnerships have been established with:

• Council of Europe, in order for the World Heritage Convention to take advantage of the HEREIN system. This co-operation will provide significant assistance to the work of gathering and disseminating World Heritage associated information.
• Nordic World Heritage Office, to take advantage of the Information Technology (IT) tool developed for the Nordic countries as an assistance tool to obtain country and site-related data.
• United Nations Environment Programme GRID Office in Geneva, in order to set up the basis for long-term cooperation to produce basic maps for World Heritage sites.
• International space agencies: This partnership will benefit the work of the Convention with free access to satellite data for the monitoring of World Heritage sites. In addition, the space agencies are willing to assist the Secretariat with the provision of experts and know-how so that this partnership benefits States Parties requesting such assistance.

XII.4           The Secretariat emphasized the need to support States Parties with the development and implementation of national World Heritage information systems.

XII.5           The Committee congratulated the Secretariat for the presentation and expressed its support and endorsement of the World Heritage Information Management Programme. The Committee underlined its particular appreciation for the Capacity Building aspects included in such a Programme, oriented to strengthen national and regional capacity to manage heritage data and information.

XII.6           The Committee underlined the need to have all the information of the system presented in languages other than the official ones. These additional languages are required to enable local end-users to have optimum understanding of the information stored and disseminated. Should this information be translated, the Committee expressed the need for high quality translations and for this to be done preferably, by people from the region.

XII.7           The Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to the costs associated with translating and maintaining the information in additional languages. It proposed that funds could be sought to entrust this task to existing, recognized regional organizations. This will enable the establishment of partnerships at regional level not only to support regional language versions of World Heritage information but, what is more important, to strengthen regional capacity.

XII.8           The Committee encouraged and requested the Secretariat to make use of the existing Information Technology (IT) infrastructure of UNESCO. It also instructed the Secretariat to continue working jointly with other UNESCO sectors that have already developed similar information systems. The example of the "Man and the Biosphere Programme" was mentioned. The fact of working jointly with the overall communication and information strategy of UNESCO could bring some savings in the total amount of funding required to support the World Heritage Information Management Programme. The Committee requested the Secretariat to describe the links of the proposed Programme with the new IT system being developed by UNESCO.

XII.9           The Secretariat explained that use is already being made of the existing IT infrastructure of UNESCO (the servers of the World Heritage Centre are managed and maintained by the UNESCO Division of Information Technology), and it is in close contact with the Culture and Science Sectors. These sectors do not manage all information required by the World Heritage Convention. The need for a separate World Heritage Information system remains valid. The new system being developed in UNESCO (FABS) is a financial system and will assist the Secretariat in its administrative tasks. Such a system is not designed to assist the Secretariat in managing data and information associated with the Convention.

XII.10           The Delegate of Hungary expressed his appreciation for the clarity of the presentation and supported the proposed Programme in the form of an open initiative. He indicated that funds have already been allocated at the national level in order to harmonize the information for the national World Heritage sites. He recalled that Hungary was one of the countries that initiated the HEREIN initiative. The Secretariat informed the Committee of current discussions towards a partnership with Hungary in the area of national heritage information management.

XII.11           An observer expressed support of the Programme, but indicated concerns of the use of such a technology by the less developed States Parties. The Secretariat recognized the difficulties for certain countries to have access to high-tech (expensive telecommunications services and non-availability of computers at office level). However, it was explained that the proposed integrated system would make the work of the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies more efficient, thereby servicing these States Parties by dispatching rapidly requested information in paper format.

XII.12           The Chairperson concluded discussions on the subject. The Committee adopted the proposed World Heritage Information Management Programme under the co-ordination of the World Heritage Centre.

XIII.

30TH ANNIVERSARY EVENTS

XIII.1           As requested by the Committee, a specific item was devoted to the examination of events scheduled to take place during 2002 in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.

XIII.2           The Director of the Centre introduced this item giving some background concerning initiatives conducted in the past in celebration of anniversaries. He further noted that it was important to commemorate the adoption of the Convention as this would certainly give greater visibility to the Convention and promote its objectives. He further stressed that most of the events proposed to take place in 2002 would be participatory. Such occasions would provide experts and other actors with opportunities to assess the effectiveness of existing conservation tools and identify issues to be addressed in the future.

XIII.3           He recalled that the General Assembly of States Parties of the United Nations had just recently decided to proclaim 2002 as the UN Year of Cultural Heritage, in the aftermath of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, and underlined the need to establish linkages between the anniversary of the Convention and this decision.

XIII.4           The Director of the Centre drew the attention to a number of events scheduled in 2002 in addition to the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, Hungary), that include the World Summit on Sustainable Development and the World Heritage Virtual Congress. He then provided extensive information to the Committee about the World Heritage International Congress of Experts, scheduled to take place in Venice, Italy from 14 to 16 November 2002, following a series of technical workshops taking place on 11 and 12 November 2002 in various cities that have accepted to host these workshops. He informed the Committee that this Congress was to be jointly organized by the Italian Government and UNESCO, following a mission of the Director-General of UNESCO to Italy in March 2001 and the subsequent decision of the Italian Government to contribute extra funding through a Funds-in-Trust framework for World Heritage activities.

XIII.5           In addition, he informed the Committee that the meeting would also receive funds from other donors and that a contribution would be made by UNESCOþs Regional Office for Science and Technology in Europe (ROSTE), based in Venice, from extrabudgetary funding it receives for cultural activities.

XIII.6           The Director stressed the need for this Congress to be one of high level, involving public personalities and leading experts. In addition, he indicated that the Congress would be open to the media in order to ensure the visibility of the event for it to contribute to building the awareness of the public at large.

XIII.7           Lastly, the Director informed the Committee that the initiative had been included in the 2002-2003 UNESCO Programme and Budget that has been approved by the Executive Board and the General Conference.

XIII.8           While expressing support to activities aimed at celebrating the 30th anniversary and, more generally those promoting the work accomplished in implementing the Convention, and in particular to the organization of an International Congress of Experts, several delegates took the floor to stress the need to consult closely with the Committee and keep it involved in preparatory stages of all World Heritage activities in accordance with appropriate decision-making processes. Certain delegates asked for clarification concerning the agenda of the Congress, how it might directly contribute to the implementation of the Convention and its relation to the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee. Certain delegates informed the Committee that at the Executive Board they had raised legal questions concerning the distinction between UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee during the examination of the proposed programme and budget for 2002-2003.

XIII.9           Other delegates stressed the need to use the 30th anniversary and the events linked to it in a forward-looking manner, as an additional opportunity to assess the work already undertaken, examine achievements, and make new contributions.

XIII.10           A suggestion was made to invite the Bureau members, represented through their permanent delegations in Paris, to attend future meetings of the Steering Committee of the Congress, as it finalises the programme of the International Congress and other events linked to the 30th anniversary, as have been the Advisory Bodies.

XIII.11           Another suggestion was made regarding the need to encourage the inclusion of a theme relating to the recent resolution adopted by the General Assembly of States Parties concerning acts constituting "a crime against the common heritage of humanity" and the need to prevent the destruction of heritage.

XIII.12           The Secretariat was asked to report back to the Committee after the International Congress to enable the Committee to examine and evaluate the results of the Congress. ICOMOS suggested studying the possibility of establishing an International Day for World Heritage, based on existing examples.

XIII.13           In his response, the Director of the Centre made a clear distinction between the associated events of the session of the Committee in Budapest organised in celebration of the 30th anniversary of the Convention and the International Congress of Experts of Venice and made reference to the different scopes of the meetings and the difference in the type of participants that would attend.

XIII.14           He indicated that the objectives of the International Congress were designed within the overall context of the strategic reform process and were specifically linked to the development of the partnership initiatives for World Heritage conservation. He also underlined that the Congress would not be a policy-making meeting and had no decision-making power.

XIII.15           He welcomed the proposals made to involve the Bureau members in the Steering Committee of the Congress while recalling the need for this Steering Committee to be informal in its nature. He also invited States Parties to develop other initiatives at the national level. Finally, he thanked the Committee for the constructive discussion.

XIV.           AWARENESS - BUILDING AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

XIV.1           The Chairperson then introduced Agenda item XIV concerning Awareness Building and Education Activities and, due to lack of time, asked the Committee to accept reviewing the work plan of activities proposed in document WHC-01/CONF.208/17 without hearing the Secretariat's presentation on this item.

XIV.2           The delegates demonstrated their support for the communication strategy in developing awareness activities and reiterated their unyielding support to activities such as the World Heritage Education project for Young People. It was suggested that activities in this programme also include awareness-raising with regard to wilful destruction of heritage. The importance of involving universities in research and training was also stressed.

XIV.3           Questions were raised concerning specific activities proposed in the work plan, notably on the World Heritage Review and the new series of World Heritage Papers being proposed and underlined the need to ensure better co-ordination of these activities with other partners, including the Advisory Bodies, in order to strengthen the impact of these projects and avoid any duplication of efforts. The issue of quality control was also raised and the Centre was invited to consult with States Parties concerned before information materials are produced and used in promotional contexts, particularly with regard to the public service announcements under preparation.

XIV.4           The Committee debated on the proposed World Heritage Visual Identity and the need to examine this document more closely as similar initiatives may have already been undertaken at local and national levels and new information may be derived from existing experiences. The need to keep this new tool as flexible as possible and to take other visual identities designed by local management authorities into consideration was also emphasized. The design of the new World Heritage signature, illustrated in the draft Visual Identity manual, was considered positively, provided that a certain measure of flexibility be given to management and national authorities for the choice of language versions attached to this Signature as stipulated in the Guidelines and Principles for the use of the World Heritage Emblem contained in the Operational Guidelines. It was suggested that the current draft manual on the proposed World Heritage Visual Identity could be circulated to the members of the Committee for comments and that a new draft should be prepared for examination at the next session of the Bureau in April 2002. This proposal was approved by the Committee.

XIV.5           Following the comments made by delegates on this item, the Committee decided to approve the proposed work plan of Awareness-Building and Education activities. In addition, the Committee requested the Centre to study the process for ensuring the legal protection of the World Heritage Emblem and report on its findings during the next session of the Bureau.

International World Heritage Education Workshop          

XIV.6           An International World Heritage Education Workshop, was held concurrently with the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee and hosted by the Finnish National Commission for UNESCO and the National Board of Education of Finland. The Workshop brought together sixteen participants (students, teachers and advisors) who were involved in major World Heritage Education events in 2001 as well as those preparing upcoming events in early 2002. The main objectives were to:

• Present recent World Heritage Education achievements and the results of the external World Heritage Education evaluation;
• Develop proposals for the integration of the World Heritage Education Kit in school curricula;
• Propose the future orientation for the World Heritage Education Project;
• Formulate recommendations for the 30th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.

XIV.7           On the occasion of the Workshop, the Finnish version of the World Heritage Educational Resource Kit for Teachers "World Heritage in Young Hands", was launched.

XIV.8           One of the main results of the Workshop was the presentation made by four young people to the Committee on 15 December 2001 on:

1. The First World Heritage Youth Forum for Latin America and the Caribbean, Lima, Peru, whose main output was the Lima Declaration;
2. The World Heritage Marine Environmental Education Programme for Disadvantaged Youth, Belize;
3. The Third European Course in Restoration for Youth, Rþros, Norway; and
4. The 10th International Youth Forum on World Heritage Education, Karlskrona, Sweden, where the participants developed the Karlskrona Recommendations.

XIV.9           During the presentation, the young people highlighted proposed activities for the 30th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention and for the enhancement and strengthening of the World Heritage Education Project. The presentations are attached to this report as Annex XI.

XV.	REPORT ON THE PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES COUNCIL OF EXPERTS (WHIPCOE)

XV.1           The Chairperson sincerely thanked Parks Canada for having hosted the WHIPCOE workshop in Winnipeg, Canada in early November 2001 and welcomed the following indigenous delegates to the session: Mr Tumu Te Heu Heu (Paramount Chief, Tongariro National Park, New Zealand), Mr Eru Manuera (General Manager, Maori Issues, Department of Conservation, New Zealand) and Mrs Josie Weninger (Field Unit Superintendent, Parks Canada). The Chairperson conveyed the Committee's respects to the Paramount Chief and thanked him for having traveled from New Zealand to attend the Committee session.

XV.2           Mrs Josie Weninger presented a report on the proposed WHIPCOE making reference to WHC-01/CONF.208/13. Her presentation summarized progress since the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001. She informed the Committee that the proposed purposes of WHIPCOE are, in co-operation with States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and indigenous peoples:

1. to serve as a network,
2. to allow indigenous voices to be heard in protecting and promoting the world's natural and cultural heritage,
3. to bring complementary indigenous competencies and expertise, and
4. to support best practice management and, upon request, make recommendations for improvements.

XV.3           She also made reference to other aspects of the proposal, such as suggested functions, membership, the reporting process and the funding mechanisms of WHIPCOE.

XV.4           The Committee thanked Mrs Weninger for her excellent presentation and commended the WHIPCOE working group for their work. A number of Committee members, observers and the representatives of the Advisory Bodies commented that indigenous peoples have a special role with respect to certain World Heritage properties and that a network could provide a positive forum for an exchange of information and experience concerning their protection. It was proposed that indigenous peoples could meet on their own initiative, be included as part of State Party delegations to the Committee and were encouraged to be involved in UNESCO's work relating to the intangible heritage.

XV.5           The Committee raised a number of legal concerns and issues relating to the funding, legal status, role and relationships (with the States Parties, Advisory Bodies, World Heritage Committee and World Heritage Centre). Some members of the Committee questioned the definition of indigenous peoples and the relevance of such a distinction in different regions of the world. As a result, the Committee did not approve the establishment of WHIPCOE as a consultative body of the Committee or as a network to report to the Committee. The Committee did not provide funding for a second meeting to discuss WHIPCOE as proposed in WHC-01/CONF.208/13. However, the Committee encouraged professional research and exchange of views on the subject.

XVI.	EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 2002-2003

XVI.1           The Director of the Centre presented the Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/18 concerning agenda item 15 on the World Heritage Fund, the income and forecasts, the work plan and the budget for 2002-2003. This document also presents in annex the budgets proposed by the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM), the accounts of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 December 2000 and the provisional accounts and income of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 2001.

XVI.2           He called the attention of the Committee to the decisions to be taken during this session:

• Take note of the approved financial statements of the World Heritage Fund for 2000 and the provisional accounts for 2001, as at 31 October 2001;
• Examine the budget of the World Heritage Fund proposed for 2002-2003 and approve its ceiling and different allocations by chapter and component;
• Take a decision on the ceilings for international assistance, as proposed by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001;
• Study the situation of the World Heritage Fund and the mandatory and voluntary contributions, and the way to implement the Convention by improving the financial resources of the Fund taking into consideration the draft resolution of the thirteenth General Assembly for an additional contribution to the Fund.

XVI.3           The Director of the Centre stressed that for the first time he submitted for the approval of the Committee a biennial budget (2002-2003), according to the decision taken by the Committee in Cairns in 2000 to adjust the budget of the Fund to the biennial budget cycle of the Regular Programme of UNESCO. He indicated that the presentation of the biennial budget would be improved for 2004-2005 based on discussions of a new format and a new organization of the chapters, reflecting the present reforms and the new strategic orientations. This revised structure and the adjustments to the current budget will be presented to the next Committee session in Budapest for approval (Agenda items 13 and 14).

XVI.4           The Director then presented the following points:

• The situation of current reserves from States Parties contributions, notably increased by the payment by the Russian Federation of all its outstanding dues ($US1,500,000);
• Other available resources for the implementation of the Convention (Regular Programme Budget, extrabudgetary funds and income from promotional activities);
• The budget proposed for 2002-2003, for a total amount of 8.1 million US dollars ($4,105,000 for 2002 and $3,995,000 for 2003).

XVI.5           The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that despite the current improved state of the reserves, the proposed budget was reduced by 20% in comparison to 1999, and that the income-expenditure ratio of the Fund could not be maintained at the same level beyond the period 2002-2003. He then indicated that the budget ceiling for 2002-2003 had been established based on the recommendations of the Comptroller who suggested setting it at about 8 million dollars for the biennium, so as to maintain a certain liquidity of the Fund's reserves. The gradual reduction of the reserves of the Fund is due to:

• Stagnation of contributions to the Fund and their minimum ceiling ($27);
• The outstanding dues of mandatory contributions which concerns 51 States Parties;
• ($474,780) and some voluntary contributions ($915,313);
• A relatively high implementation rate of activities, which does not permit a substantial replenishment of the operational reserve.

XVI.6           The Director then evoked the pending questions concerning the current budget.

• The establishment of a separate bank account for the World Heritage Fund, to avoid tedious enquiries concerning contributions made to the Fund, paid into the UNESCO bank account at the Chase Manhattan Bank, New York;
• The ten-month time period between the Committee in June and the Bureau in April and the eventual modifications to be made to the current system for authorization of expenditure;
• The level of budget ceilings authorized by the Chairperson of the Committee.

XVI.7           Before the chapter-by-chapter examination of the budget, the Chairperson invited comments from the Committee members. A delegate expressed the wish of the informal working group on the budget which met prior to the debate, that the budget of the Fund be presented in a new simplified format providing an overall view of all the sources of income, real and projected expenditures, and taking into account the current reforms and strategic orientations. Several delegates endorsed the establishment of a separate bank account for contributions to the Fund and asked that a proposal be made along these lines. The Committee requested that coherence between the budget of the Fund and the activities under extrabudgetary resources, be highlighted, and an appropriate work plan be elaborated. Concern was expressed with regard to the outstanding dues, which amounted to the additional allocation that the Director-General requested the General Conference of UNESCO to grant to the Centre to reinforce its activities, but which was not approved. The Committee expressed appreciation for the commitment and dynamism of the Centre in the preparation and the implementation of the programme and budget despite the limited resources available. A delegate indicated that the item dealing with the budget was placed too late in the Committee agenda and that the time remaining for discussion was too limited for in-depth discussion. It was suggested that the Centre take necessary measures to restructure the budget in line with the current reform process.

XVI.8           The Director of the Centre responded to the observations of the delegates and reaffirmed that the budget of the Fund required a better presentation, and more clarity to enable rapid decision-making by the Committee. He stressed that the Centre would be pleased to receive any suggestions from the Committee concerning the budget presentation and whether or not to discuss this agenda item at the outset of its session.

XVI.9           He confirmed that the extrabudgetary resources allocated to the World Heritage Centre were integrated into the extrabudgetary fund system received by UNESCO and that the amount of 13% generally received for overhead costs (5% for the UNFIP projects) were redistributed to the Centre up to amount of 6.5% (the balance being paid to UNESCO's central services), based on the actual outstanding expenditures and not the allocated budget.

XVI.10           Several delegates regretted that the total overhead costs paid by donors were not paid back to the Centre. They were concerned as to who made the choice of the activities financed by these projects, the donor or UNESCO and if their objectives were taken into account in the framework of the priorities of the Centre.

XVI.11           The Director indicated that before accepting any contribution, the Centre always entered into a dialogue with the donors and ensured that there was leeway to adjust the projects to take account of priority activities. For example, Belgium is supplementing the funds received from the UNF through extrabudgetary funding.

XVI.12           The Director then presented the draft budget chapter-by-chapter:

Chapter I  -

Implementation of the Convention ($320,000 for 2002; $ 330,000 for 2003)

XVI.13           The Director noted that this Chapter should in the future comprise other budget lines concerning the services of the Advisory Bodies.

XVI.14           Some delegates intervened with regard to the revision of the Operational Guidelines and requested that sufficient budget be allocated to cover the follow up activities of the working group in 2002 and the publication of the Guidelines and their dissemination.

Chapter II  -

Establishment of the World Heritage List ($935,000 for 2002; $820,000 for 2003)

XVI.15           Several delegates requested that the amounts allocated to the new budget line "Global Framework Studies" which should regroup the analysis of the World Heritage List and the studies of the Tentative Lists be increased. Certain delegates proposed using the funds foreseen for the "Thematic Studies" by the Advisory Bodies for these analyses. These studies should be undertaken by the Advisory Bodies concerned and the amounts allocated directly to them. Other delegates expressed their concern in the reduction of the amounts allocated to ICOMOS whilst the number of evaluations would remain unchanged. ICOMOS intervened to confirm that it had no financial resources other than those of the Fund, and that it adjusted its activities in function to the budget allocated: a reduction would entail de facto a decrease in their activities. IUCN added that it noted the reductions in the budget, was seriously concerned about 2003, and informed the Committee that many experts provided services free of charge.

XVI.16           The Director of the Centre commended the Advisory Bodies on their valuable services unmatched with the amounts actually allocated. He then indicated that the Centre will propose to the Committee an increase of allocations for 2003 to the Advisory Bodies to ensure that the evaluation continues under optimal conditions.

Chapter III  -

Technical implementation of the Convention ($2,120,000 in 2002; $2,150,000 in 2003)

XVI.17           The Director of the Centre then presented the proposed budget for the different types of international assistance (Preparatory Assistance, Technical Co-operation, Training, Promotion), the budget proposals for the ICCROM and IUCN projects and the annex activities. He proposed to include a new budget line devoted to the evaluation of international assistance devoted to the analysis on the use of the funds spent on assistance granted.

XVI.18           Some delegates expressed satisfaction with this initiative, requesting a systematic annual evaluation of international assistance, its cost/efficiency ratio for the operation and the modalities to be implemented. A delegate insisted on the implication of the Advisory Bodies in this process. In view of the involvement of some of the Advisory Bodies in the actual execution of international assistance activities, the Committee agreed to entrust the Director of the Centre to find the best modalities to carry out this evaluation. Other delegates requested that this chapter reflect the Committee's priorities and that certain categories of countries or regions should be excluded for the benefit of other priorities.

XVI.19           The Director of the Centre informed that the budget document indicated, for each type of assistance, the regional division of requests, their number, their type and their amount. He added that this assistance was based on requests presented by the countries and the allocation of funds made according to the priorities and after approval by the Committee, the Bureau or the Chairperson. He indicated that the proposed budget for Technical Co-operation had been reduced in comparison to previous years. However, this area of activities had benefited from considerable extrabudgetary resources.

XVI.20           Some delegates then asked information on the new programmes proposed by the Centre at the end of this chapter and expressed the wish that the Advisory Bodies be consulted on such initiatives.

Chapter IV  -

Monitoring the state of conservation of the sites ($ 540,000 for 2002; $505,000 for 2003)

XVI.21           For reactive monitoring, the amounts foreseen for ICOMOS and IUCN were increased by approximately 25% for 2002, thus covering the proposals of the Advisory Bodies for that year.

XVI.22           For periodic reports: Asia and the Pacific will submit periodic reports in 2002 and Latin America and the Caribbean in 2003. Financial allocations are foreseen in 2002 and 2003 to ensure monitoring activities for each region having already submitted their periodic reports.

XVI.23           Several delegates stated that the amounts foreseen for follow-up activities to periodic reporting were too low and barely credible and that the work would not be productive.

XVI.24           The Director of the Centre responded that although the amount is modest, the intention is to assist States Parties to obtain international assistance funds for these follow-up activities.

Chapter V  -

Awareness raising and Education ($190,000 per year)

XVI.25           The Director presented this Chapter, which no longer includes statutory documentation and the WEB (Chapter I), and currently only includes awareness raising activities, partnerships with the tourism industry (the principal objective of which is to seek extrabudgetary resources) and Education activities, comprising in particular the youth programme for the preservation of the World Heritage and some activities with universities. Following the request of a delegate, the Director indicated that no part of the World Heritage Fund budget would be used for activities linked to the 30th Anniversary of the Convention in 2002 which will be entirely funded by extrabudgetary resources.

XVI.26           Several delegates expressed satisfaction with the awareness raising programme for young people for the preservation of World Heritage.

XVI.27           Following this presentation, members of the Committee made observations on different aspects of the budget before the adoption of the report. They once again insisted that funds be allocated for the analysis of the World Heritage List and the tentative lists (Chapter II) to define the priorities and different categories for nomination. They were concerned about the low level of the 2003 budget, not sufficiently high to ensure these analyses and requested the Centre to make a new budget proposal for submission at the next Committee session in Budapest. The Advisory Bodies renewed their wish to provide assistance in the reorganization of the work in the framework of the programmes. ICOMOS proposed to use the funds allocated under the line "Other" to increase the amounts foreseen for the analyses of the Lists. A delegate finally insisted that the Centre prepare a long-term action programme to define targeted objectives and expected results.

XVI.28           The Director of the Centre undertook to revise the allocation of the funds proposed under Chapter II to reflect the wishes of the Committee members. In particular, the Director indicated that priority would be given to the increase in 2003 of the funds allocated for the Advisory Bodies' activities, to guarantee at least the same level of funding for 2002. Moreover, the Director informed that the budget line "Other advisory services" of Chapter II would be suppressed and its amount ($20,000) transferred to the activities for the analyses of the Lists to be shared equally between IUCN and ICOMOS. Each chapter was then approved with the budget ceiling proposed.

XVI.29           The Chairperson closed the debate on the Document WHC-01/CONF.208/18 and declared that the budget of the World Heritage Fund for 2002-2003 was approved for an amount of four million one hundred and five thousand dollars ($4,105,000) for 2002 and three million nine hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars ($3,995,000) for 2003.

XVI.30           The following table provides the details of the approved budget by Chapter and by component.

Approved Budget for 2002 and 2003

Chapters and components	Approved Budget 2002 (US$)	Approved Budget 2003 (US$)
Chapter I – Implementation of the Convention
Participation in statutory meetings	50 000	60 000
Operational Guidelines: follow up, publication and dissemination	50 000	50 000
Information Management	100 000	100 000
Documentation, Registration & Statutory Web	100 000	100 000
Coordination with other conventions, programmes etc.	20 000	20 000
Sub-total Chapter I	320 000	330 000
Chapter II – Establishment of the World Heritage List
Global Strategy:	325 000	280 000
Analyses of the List & Tentative Lists	65 000	60 000
Africa	30 000	25 000
Arab States	30 000	25 000
Asia, including Central Asia	30 000	25 000
Pacific	30 000	25 000
Europe & North America	15 000	10 000
Central & Eastern Europe	20 000	15 000
Latin America	25 000	20 000
Caribbean	25 000	20 000
Thematic studies:
ICOMOS	30 000	30 000
IUCN	25 000	25 000
Advisory services:
ICOMOS	310 000	280 000
IUCN	300 000	260 000
Sub-total Advisory Services	610 000	540 000
Sub-total Chapter II	935 000	820 000
Chapter III – Technical Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
Preparatory Assistance	370 000	400 000
Technical cooperation	650 000	600 000
Including Africa 2003 Nature (IUCN/WHC):
(i) contribution to IUCN for projects/activities preparation	15 000	15 000
(ii) earmarked for regional/national activities benefiting States Parties	40 000	40 000
Including other technical cooperation activities	595 000	545 000
Training	800 000	800 000
Including ICCROM support costs	37 900	46 050
Earmarked for ICCROM training activities	69 400	60 000
« Africa 2009 » (WHC/ICCROM)	100 000	80 000
Including IUCN	30 000	30 000
Including Africa 2003 Nature (IUCN/WHC):
(i) earmarked for regional/national activities benefiting States Parties	45 000	45 000
- Including other training activities	517 700	538 950
Evaluation of International Assistance	30 000	30 000
Programme initiatives	200 000	250 000
Support to promotional activities	70 000	70 000
Sub-total Chapter III	2 120 000	2 150 000
Chapter IV – Monitoring of the State of Conservation of sites
Reactive monitoring	220 000	200 000
Including ICOMOS	80 000	80 000
Including IUCN	80 000	60 000
Support to State Parties for submission of periodic reports (Article 29):
Africa	0	0
Arab States	0	0
Asia & Pacific	130 000	0
Europe & North America Pacific	20 000	20 000
Eastern & Central Europe	30 000	40 000
Latin America & Caribbean	70 000	145 000
	250 000	205 000
Follow-up to periodic reporting:
Arab States	30 000	25 000
Africa	40 000	30 000
Asia & Pacific	0	45 000
Sub-total Chapter IV	540 000	505 000
Chapter V – Awareness & Education
Awareness-building	100 000	100 000
Partnerships with tourism industries	10 000	10 000
Education & cooperation with the Universities	80 000	80 000
Sub-total Chapter V	190 000	190 000
TOTAL WHF BUDGET	4 105 000	3 995 000
Emergency Reserve Fund	600 000	600 000
Promotional activities and services	283 000	273 000
GRAND TOTAL	4 988 000	4 868 000

XVII.

INFORMATION ON INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Information on International Assistance - Towards a Programme Approach

XVII.1           The Secretariat informed the Committee that document WHC-01/CONF.208/19 provides an analysis of international assistance under the World Heritage Fund based on the review of more than 1200 requests approved from 1978 to the end-of September 2001, and proposals of four thematic programmes aimed to address some of the major conservation problems of World Heritage sites. The Secretariat recalled that these programme proposals were developed for consideration by the Committee at the request of the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session which endorsed the strategic orientations in the use of the World Heritage Fund's international assistance. The overall aim, the Secretariat stated, was to use limited funds in a proactive way and to support conservation activities with a multiplier effect with demonstration value.

XVII.2           The Committee was informed that a total of about US$27 million had been allocated since 1978 to support activities requested by the States Parties. Although the amount available annually for international assistance had increased significantly since 1992, the growing demand from States Parties of the developing world made it impossible to respond adequately to all the requests. In terms of distribution of the cumulative amount, support to African States Parties represents some 27% (36 States Parties and 53 properties), Arab States 13% (18 States Parties and 52 properties), Asia-Pacific 21% (35 States Parties and 135 properties), Latin America and the Caribbean 24% (29 States Parties, 98 properties), Europe and North America 15% (49 States Parties and 352 properties).

XVII.3           The proposed 2002-2003 budget for international assistance (Chapter III of the budget) is composed of three sections: (1) States Parties request in accordance with the Operational Guidelines, for preparatory assistance, training, technical cooperation and on-site promotion, and emergency assistance for the amount of US$4 million (for budget details see Chapter XV of this report), (2) World Heritage Programme Initiatives for the amount of US$450,000 to launch four thematic programmes and (3) evaluation of international assistance for US$60,000.

XVII.4           Stressing the need for multi-year programmes to ensure the sustainability of conservation policies and actions, the Secretariat referred to the mutually reinforcing relationship between Principles, Programmes, and Partners which would be the means to achieve "the credibility, conservation and capacity-building areas" advanced by the Delegate of Belgium.

XVII.5           The programmes would be guided by the principles laid out in the World Heritage Convention and other international conventions on the protection of heritage and the environment, as well as recommendations and charters of UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN. These principles would also serve to ensure that the partners to be solicited to support the programme activities would do so upon adhering to the conservation objectives of these international norms and standards.

XVII.6           The Committee was informed that the selection of the themes of the four programmes proposed for their consideration was based on the identification of the types of conservation problems that have resulted in the greater amount of international assistance in the past, cross-referenced with issues emerging from a review of the reactive monitoring reports and the findings from the periodic reports (Arab States, Africa and initial findings from the on-going exercise in Asia-Pacific). The rationale for the thematic programme, composed of sub-regional and site-specific activities is to address conservation issues prevalent in all regions through site-specific activities so that concrete lessons can serve to improve methodology .

XVII.7           Tourism management; conservation of forest sites; conservation management of cities and conservation of earthen structures were proposed.

XVII.8           The Secretariat provided the following justifications for the selection:

• Tourism - growing threats on World Heritage sites from tourism which, if sustainably managed could offer socio-economic development opportunities;
• Forests - since close to 60 of the natural sites on the World Heritage List are forests and that the lessons being learned from the large-scale UNESCO-UN Foundation projects in the tropical forest sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo can serve as case studies to enrich the programme;
• Cities - since close to 200 of the cultural sites on the List are historic centres or entire cities, and because 20% of the Fund's international assistance have served to address the challenge of urban heritage conservation;
• Earthen structures - since some 30 of the cultural sites on the List are included in this category, and due to the particularity of conservation of earthen heritage, and threats.

XVII.9           The Secretariat concluded its presentation by stating that in view of the many other categories of heritage and the wide range of conservation issues which need to be addressed in a systematic manner, it would be prepared to develop alternative programmes should the Committee wish to give priority to others. The Secretariat also drew the attention of the Committee to other programmes which can be developed for consideration by the Committee at Budapest, namely: risk preparedness; coastal and marine ecosystems; cultural landscapes; wooden heritage, and mural paintings.

XVII.10           The Committee expressed its appreciation for the clarity of the presentation and the justifications provided. Indicating strong support for the overall programming approach, the Committee however indicated the need for the programme to respond to the priorities established by the Committee and to create strong links with the results of the Global Strategy actions and Periodic Reporting. The Committee approved the four proposed themes of the programmes in this first series of initiatives and authorized the Centre to proceed in their development.

XVII.11           One Committee member requested the development of a programme for coastal marine and small island ecosystems, stressing the need to take advantage of the attention being given to this by GEF and environmental protection agencies. The Secretariat agreed to its importance and on-going activities in this area but indicated the need to avoid the dispersion of human and financial resources, especially in view of the attention needed to develop the forest programme.

XVII.12           ICCROM and ICOMOS expressed regret that they had not been adequately associated in the development of the thematic programmes and pilot case studies, although they had been consulted on the programme approach. ICCROM stressed that the programmes proposed by the Centre all have capacity-building focus where ICCROM has long years of experience. The Secretariat assured the Advisory Bodies that their involvement is foreseen and would be essential to the success of these initiatives.

XVIII.

REQUESTS FOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

XVIII.1           During the Committee's twenty-fifth session, the Bureau met to examine all requests for decision by the Bureau and the Committee presented in Working Documents WHC-01/CONF.208/20 and WHC-01/CONF.208/20Add. The Bureau approved the following requests:

XVIII.2           Preparatory Assistance approved by the Bureau

XVIII.2.1           NATURAL           Bahrain
Preparation of the nomination file of Hawar Islands: The Bureau approved US$30,000 for this activity, subject to the receipt of a detailed budget breakdown to be approved by the Chairperson. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the State Party to include within the activity a comparative study of the site with other coastal island protected areas in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea. IUCN suggested that the professionals implementing this activity be encouraged to participate at the February 2002 expert workshop being organized in Vietnam within the framework of the UN Foundation project "Filling critical gaps and promoting multi-sites approach to new nominations in tropical coastal, marine and small islands ecosystems".

XVIII.3           Technical Co-operation approved by the Bureau

XVIII.3.1           CULTURAL           United Republic of Tanzania
Preparation of a Management Plan for the Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani Songo Mnara and the extension to Kilwa Masoko: ICOMOS, while supporting this request, noted the need to examine further details on the budget breakdown. ICCROM expressed its support for this activity. Simultaneously, it recommended that the Bureau request the Centre to organize a reactive monitoring mission to the State Party to undertake consultations for the future nomination of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau approved US$24,320 for this activity, subject to the approval by the Chairperson of a detailed budget breakdown.

XVIII.3.2           CULTURAL           Algeria
Rehabilitation of the traditional hydraulic system in M'Zab Valley and the organization of a training workshop: ICOMOS supported the request. The Bureau approved US$25,000 for this activity, subject to the State Party paying its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.

XVIII.3.3           CULTURAL           Morocco
Rehabilitation and restoration of Bab Agnaou in the Medina of Marrakesh: ICOMOS, although supporting this request, recommended that the US$4,400 requested for computer equipment be financed by the State Party. The Bureau approved this request for US$22,984 requesting the computer equipment to be financed by the State Party.

XVIII.3.4           CULTURAL           Estonia
Regional Conference on "Alternatives to Historical Reconstruction in UNESCO World Heritage Cities" (16-18 May 2002): The Bureau approved US$28,000 for this activity, requesting the State Party to make all efforts in publishing the results of the Conference to complement the UNESCO World Heritage Cities Programme.

XVIII.4           Training Assistance approved by the Bureau

XVIII.4.1           NATURAL           Senegal
Regional workshop for training in wetlands inventory methodologies: The Bureau was informed that IUCN, although endorsing the Workshop, had requested further information on the profile of participants, and had also noted the usefulness of involving the IUCN Senegal Office in projects in Djoudj or Diawling National Parks as trainers in addition to Ramsar Convention staff. The Bureau approved US$21,690 for this activity, subject to the State Party submitting the list of participants to be approved by the Chairperson and requesting that the IUCN Senegal Office be invited to participate in this Workshop.

XVIII.4.2           CULTURAL           Pakistan
Regional seminar for systematic monitoring for enhanced management of World Cultural Heritage sites in South Asia: The Bureau approved US$26,596 for this activity, requesting the State Party to pay its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.

XVIII.4.3           CULTURAL           Sri Lanka
National seminar for preparing Periodic Reports for Sri Lankan World Cultural Heritage properties to be reviewed by the World Heritage Committee in 2003: ICCROM supported the request. The Bureau approved US$25,000 for this activity.

XVIII.5           The Committee examined the recommendations of the Bureau and took the following decisions for international assistance requests:

XVIII.6           Technical Co-operation approved by the Committee

XVIII.6.1           NATURAL           Seychelles
Enhancing the capacity of Aldabra Atoll management: The Secretariat informed the Committee that IUCN, while supporting the request had underlined the importance of ensuring that the boats and the engines purchased have minimal pollution and are easily maintained. The Committee approved US$44,150 for this activity, requesting the Centre to ensure through the UNESCO equipment purchasing unit that the engines purchased have minimum pollution emission and can be maintained.

XVIII.6.2           NATURAL           Zimbabwe
Increasing the management capacity of Mosi-oa-tunya/Victoria Falls and Mana Pools National Parks: The Centre informed the Committee that the State Party had paid its dues to the World Heritage Fund, and that additional information concerning the assessment of the current situation, particularly concerning existing equipment, had not yet reached the Centre. However, the Committee was informed that the State Party had assured the Centre that this additional information had been transmitted. Therefore, the Committee approved this request for an amount of US$63,708 on the condition that the Centre and IUCN receive the additional information, and the allocation of funds be made upon authorization by the Chairperson.

XVIII.6.3           CULTURAL           The Philippines
Emergency Technical Co-operation for the enhancement of the conservation and management of the Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras: The Centre informed the Committee that the Advisory Bodies supported the request. The Committee approved US$75,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the World Heritage Fund, and requested that the national authorities implement the activity in close co-operation with the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region (UNESCO Bangkok Office).

XVIII.7           Training Assistance approved by the Committee

XVIII.7.1           NATURAL           Côte d'Ivoire
National workshop on "Research contribution for the development and sustainable management of Taï National Park: The Committee approved US$30,514, requesting the State Party to integrate the recommendations of IUCN in fine-tuning the objectives of the proposed activity, and urging the State Party to pay its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.

XVIII.7.2           CULTURAL           WHC, ICCROM, CRATerre-EAG
AFRICA 2009: Conservation of Immovable Cultural Heritage in Sub- Saharan Africa: The Committee approved this request for the sub- Saharan African Region for an amount of US$100,000, noting that the activity be implemented by the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM and CRATerre-EAG, in accordance with established procedures governing the Africa 2009 training programme.

XVIII.7.3           CULTURAL           Algeria
Workshop on mosaic conservation: The Centre informed the Committee that clarification on the points raised by ICCROM had been provided and that ICCROM supported the activity. The Committee approved this request for US$50,000.

XVIII.7.4           CULTURAL           Oman
Regional Seminar on the Conservation of Earthen Architecture: ICOMOS and ICCROM noted that the amount requested could be considered high, as the training workshop was only for three days. The Centre informed the Committee that the cost included travel support for participants from the region and that this seminar was an activity that could lead to a general capacity building for earthen architectural conservation in the Arab Region. The Committee approved US$43,340, requesting the World Heritage Centre to co-ordinate the organization of this training activity in close collaboration with CRATerre and the Ministry of National Heritage and Culture of Oman, ensuring that:

1. the detailed technical guidelines concerning base-line conservation, monitoring, and maintenance practices for earthen architecture in the region be included within the final publication;
2. the proceedings and material resulting from the Workshop be widely distributed;
3. a follow up strategy be discussed and adopted at the Seminar.

XVIII.7.5           CULTURAL           Brazil
1st Territorial and Urban Conservation Specialization Distance Training Programme (ITUC/ALTD 2002) and 5th Territorial and Urban Conservation Specialization Course (ITUC/BR 2003) (Brazil): The Committee approved this request for US$43,300, requesting the State Party:

1. to follow ICCROM's recommendation to raise the percentage of places for participants from outside Brazil to 25 %;
2. to submit the results of the group work to the World Heritage Centre after the activity is completed;
3. to pay its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.

XVIII.7.6           CULTURAL           Brazil
XII CECRE specialization course on the conservation of monuments and rehabilitation of historical cities: The Committee approved this request for US$50,000, requesting the State Party:

1. to include a substantial number of international trainees;
2. to strengthen presentation of World Heritage themes in the CECRE programme;
3. to publish the course proceedings at their own expense as assured in previous years;
4. to pay its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.

XVIII.8           Emergency Assistance

XVIII.8.1           NATURAL           Central African Republic
Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park Emergency Rehabilitation Plan: The Committee was informed that the requested clarifications had been received. IUCN expressed its support for the request. The Committee approved US$150,000 for this activity.

XVIII.9           The Committee reiterated that States Parties requesting international assistance should be requested to provide budget breakdown for the utilization of funds to be provided from the World Heritage Fund and for requests over US$100,000 to be more detailed.

XIX.	DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (APRIL 2002)

XIX.1           The Committee decided that the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 8 to 13 April 2002.

XIX.2           The Committee decided that agenda items on reforms and strategic reflection should be considered by the Bureau early in the meeting to ensure enough time for debate, decision and report preparation.

XIX.3           The Committee requested that presentations to the Bureau and Committee be brief to allow time for discussion.

XIX.4           The Delegate of Hungary informed the Committee that a draft "Budapest Declaration on World Heritage" prepared by Hungary would be circulated to all States Parties for comment and then presented to the Bureau for discussion before being presented to the Committee for adoption.

XIX.5           The Reports on the 30 years of the World Heritage Convention (Item 2) will be presented to the Budapest session by experts and representatives of the Advisory Bodies. Proceedings of this item could be prepared for publication following the session.

XIX.6           The Provisional Agenda and Timetable is attached in Annex XII.

XX.	DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (JUNE 2002)

XX.1           The Committee gratefully accepted the offer from Hungary to host the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee in Budapest from 24 to 29 June 2002.

XX.2           In addressing the Committee, the Delegate of Hungary said that it was an honour for his Government to host the Committee session. An Internet site has been established to provide information on the organization of the Committee: http://www.whc.bme.hu/

XX.3           The Delegate of Lebanon requested inclusion of an item on the agenda on changes to the Rules of Procedures to not allow Observers to make interventions during examination of a nomination. The Delegate of the United Kingdom commented that in the case of Observers who were experts, they were often in a position to provide information to help the Committee make an informed decision.

XX.4           The Delegate of Belgium requested that the Report of the Secretariat (Item 5) be provided only as a written report for noting.

XX.5           The Provisional Agenda and Timetable is attached in Annex XIII.

XXI.           OTHER BUSINESS

XXI.1           There was no other business.

XXII.           ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

XXII.1           The Committee adopted the Report with a number of amendments, which have been taken into consideration in the preparation of the final version of the Report.

XXII.1           During the adoption of section X of the report a debate took place concerning the implementation of the Committee's decision on the selection of 30 nominations to be reviewed by the Committee in 2003. A number of Committee members sought clarification on the wording of paragraphs X.16 and X.21. It was agreed that if more than 30 complete and acceptable nominations are received by the Centre by 1 February 2002, the matter would be referred to the April 2002 Bureau for guidance.

XXII.2           With reference to the debate reflected in paragraph X.12, the Delegate of India recalled that while the Committee welcomed the decisions on reforms made in Cairns as a positive development, there are a number of inherent contradictions. In particular whilst aiming towards representativity and equity, the Committee should ensure that further imbalances are not accentuated between the un- and underrepresented and over-represented regions and categories. Countries with un- or underrepresented categories of heritage should not be debarred just because they are already overrepresented. India views the process as an inclusive one.

XXII.4           The Delegate of St. Lucia noted that there was a request for legal advice, as to whether it was possible for the Committee to amend a resolution of the General Assembly.

XXIII.           CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

XXIII.1           The Rapporteur thanked the Chairperson for the harmonious work in chairing the session and expressed his gratitude to the Finnish authorities, the delegates and observers for their contributions to the session and the report. He underlined that in the spirit of solidarity, progress had been made at this Committee meeting with regard to a number of items under discussion for a long time.

XXIII.2           On behalf of the Committee members and participants, the Delegate of Egypt thanked the Chairperson for his effective and wise chairmanship. He expressed his gratitude to the Director of the Centre and his team for serving the Committee in an admirable way and stated that he will be looking forward to the next Committee session in Budapest, Hungary.

XXIII.3           In supporting this intervention, the Delegate of India commended the Chairperson on his excellent and fair management of the Committee session. She highlighted the fact that the next session will be an anniversary event and that the way has been paved for the revised Operational Guidelines, the review of the categories and a number of other issues defining the way ahead. She also thanked the Centre and its Director for their excellent work.

XXIII.4           The Delegates of Santa Lucia and Argentina also expressed their gratitude to the Chairperson, the Rapporteur, the Centre, the interpreters and translators and the Finnish Secretariat for the work achieved.

XXIII.5           The Delegate of Nigeria, attending his first Committee session and speaking on behalf of the African region, also expressed his gratitude to the Chairperson and all participants.

XXIII.6           The Delegate of the United Kingdom thanked the Chairperson on behalf of the European region for managing the session in a timely fashion as well as all those involved in its smooth running.

XXIII.7           The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, expressed his gratitude to the Finnish authorities. With reference to the conclusions reached by the Committee on the establishment of an Indigenous Council of Experts, he stated that UNESCO will continue to support the initiatives relating to the promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples in the framework of the United Nations International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (1995-2004). He sincerely thanked the Committee for its work and engagement and expressed the firm commitment of the Secretariat to serve the Committee in the best way possible to improve communication among all World Heritage partners, including the Advisory Bodies.

XXIII.8           The Chairperson thanked the Committee for the encouraging words and articulated his wish to continue the new working methods, which have been developed since the sessions in Marrakesh (1999) and Cairns (2000). He thanked all delegates, observers, the Advisory Bodies and the Secretariat for their constructive and active participation in the Committee's work and the Finnish authorities for having organized and provided the facilities for this session.

XXIII.9           The Chairperson then declared the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee closed.

---

Annex I - List of Participants
Annexes II- XIX