World Heritage	3Ext COM
Distribution limited	WHC-99/CONF.205/5Rev. Paris, 19 November 1999 Original: English/French

 

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Third extraordinary session

Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room XI

12 July 1999

 

 

REPORT OF THE RAPPORTEUR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

		Pages
I	Opening Session	3
II	Adoption of the Agenda, Annotated Agenda and the Timetable	4
III	Introduction to the Extraordinary session	4
IV	Presentation by the Australian authorities of their reports concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia - report on efforts to prevent further damage and to mitigate all the threats identified in the World Heritage mission report.	6
V	Presentation by the Advisory Bodies on the report of the Australian authorities on efforts to prevent further damage and to mitigate all the threats identified in the World Heritage mission report.	10
VI	Presentation by the Australian authorities of their reports concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia - review of scientific issues by the Australian Supervising Scientist	10
VII	Presentation of the report of the independent scientific panel on the review of scientific issues by the Australian Supervising Scientist	10
VIII	Response by the Australian Supervising Scientist to the Report of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU	11
IX	Response by the leader of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU	11
X	Summary of debate	11
XI	Decision of the third extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia	23
XII	Other business	25
XIII	Adoption of the report of the session	25
XIV	Closure of the session	25
Annex I	List of Participants	26
Annex II	Statement by the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO	38
Annex III	Letter from Mr Phillip Shirvington, Chief Executive of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd, 12 July 1999	39
Annex IV	Presentation by Mr Roger Beale, Secretary, Department of Environment and Heritage, Australia	45
Annex V	Statement by Ms Yvonne Margarula, Chairperson, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, Northern Territory, Australia	54
Annex VI	Joint ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN statement ready by Dr Patrick Dugan, IUCN	55
Annex VII	Statement read by Mr Jean-Louis Luxen, Secretary-General ICOMOS	58
Annex VIII	Statement ready by Mr Herb Stovel, ICCROM	61
Annex IX	Presentation by Dr Arthur Johnston, Australian Supervising Scientist	63
Annex X	Presentation by Professor Brian Wilkinson, leader of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU	67
Annex XI	Presentation by Dr Arthur Johnston, the Australian Supervising Scientist, to the ICSU review of scientific issues	72
Annex XII	Statement by Thailand	76
Annex XIII	Statement by Japan	78
Annex XIV	Statement by France	80
Annex XV	Statement by Canada	82
Annex XVI	Statement by the United States of America	86
Annex XVII	Statement by Zimbabwe	87
Annex XVIII	Statement by Mexico	88
Annex XIX	Statement by Cuba	89
Annex XX	Statement by Niger	90
Annex XXI	Statement by Finland	92
Annex XXII	Statement by Italy	93
Annex XXIII	Statement by Morocco	94
Annex XXIV	Statement by Ecuador following the adoption of the decision by the Committee	95
Annex XXV	Statement by Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre	96

I. OPENING SESSION

I.1 The third extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee was held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France, on 12 July 1999 at the request of the twenty-second session of the Committee (Kyoto, Japan 30 November – 5 December 1998) "to decide whether to immediately inscribe Kakadu National Park [Australia] on the List of World Heritage in Danger" (see Paragraph VII.28 WHC-98/CONF.203/18).

I.2 The Committee session was attended by all twenty-one members of the Committee: Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea, Thailand, United States of America and Zimbabwe. H.E. Ambassador J. Jelen (Hungary) attended in his capacity as Rapporteur of the Committee.

I.3 The following States Parties to the Convention, who are not members of the Committee, were represented as observers: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, United Kingdom and Venezuela.

I.4 Representatives of the three Advisory Bodies to the Committee: the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended. A representative of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the Leader of ICSU’s Independent Scientific Panel (Professor Brian Wilkinson) were also present.

I.5 The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society Australia and the World Archaeological Congress. The meeting was also attended by staff members of the Australian Parliament and the United States House of Representatives. The full list of participants is given in Annex I.

I.6 The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, H.E.Ambassador K. Matsuura (Japan) declared the third extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee open and extended his welcome to the members of the Committee, observing States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and observers. He recalled the very interesting, heated and useful discussions on the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park, Australia that took place during the twenty-second session of the Committee, held in Kyoto, Japan, from 30 November to 5 December 1998. The Chairperson then invited the representative of the Director-General of UNESCO to deliver his opening remarks.

I.7 The Assistant Director-General of Culture for UNESCO, Mr. Crespo-Toral addressed the session on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO and expressed his pleasure in welcoming the members of the Committee and observing States Parties. His speech is included as Annex II of this report.

1.8 The Chairperson thanked the Assistant Director-General of Culture for UNESCO. He then informed the Committee that he had received written requests from eight non-governmental organisations and three non-profit making institutions to attend the third extraordinary session of the Committee as observers. The Chairperson informed the Committee that he would authorise the participation of these organisations and institutions on the condition that their representatives attending the session would be allowed to speak only upon the request of the Chairperson. The eight non-governmental organisations whose participation was authorised were: Friends of the Earth, World Archaeological Congress, Australian Conservation Foundation, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), The Wilderness Society of Australia, Sierra Club and Survival International. The three non-profit making institutions authorised by the Chairperson to participate in the session were: Australian Democrats, US House of Representatives and the Women’s International Media Group. The last of the three non-profit making institutions was authorised to participate only at the opening of the third extraordinary session of the Committee.

I.9 The Chairperson informed the Committee that he had also received a written request from Energy Resources of Australia Incorporated (ERA) to attend the session as an observer. However, since ERA is a profit-making institution the Chairperson did not authorise ERA’s participation at the Committee session. Nevertheless, the Chairman called the attention of the members of the Committee to the fact that ERA (the mining company constructing the uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease) is a key stakeholder in matters concerning the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park, Australia. He informed the Committee that he had therefore decided that he would circulate to members of the Committee, a copy of a letter and statement he had just received from the Chief Executive of ERA dated 12 July 1999. The Chairperson stated that he thought it would be useful for the Committee to be aware of the points of view of ERA. The letter and statement of ERA were distributed to Committee members and are presented as Annex III of this report.

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

II.1 The Chairperson drew the attention of the members of the Committee to the following working and information documents: WHC-99/CONF.205/1Rev. (Provisional Agenda), WHC-99/CONF.205/2Rev.1 (Provisional Annotated Agenda), WHC-99/CONF.205/3Rev. (Provisional Timetable) and WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.1 Rev.1 (Provisional List of Documents). All documents were adopted without change.

III. INTRODUCTION TO THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION

III.1 The Chairperson drew the attention of the Committee to the two main documents of relevance to their deliberations. WHC-99/CONF.205/5 entitled "Report on the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park, Australia" provided a summary of information and deliberations concerning Kakadu up until the date of finalization of the document at the end of May. WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.4 included the record of the deliberations of the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (5-10 July 1999).

III.2 The Chairperson reminded Committee members that a mission was sent to Kakadu National Park in late 1998, at the request of the twenty-second session of the Bureau in June 1998. The mission was led by the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Professor Francioni of Italy. Professor Francioni reported on the mission at the twenty-second session of the Committee in Kyoto in 1998.

III.3 The mission report (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3A) focused primarily on ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park posed by the Jabiluka mining proposal, and presented a total of 16 recommendations.

III.4 The Chairperson quoted the mission conclusion that there are "severe ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka. The mission therefore recommended that the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed" (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3A).

III.5 The Chairperson noted that, on the basis of the mission report (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3A), the Committee had an interesting discussion on Kakadu at its the twenty-second session in Kyoto. The lengthy decision adopted by the Committee is included in WHC-99/CONF.205/4. The Chairperson then quoted from a key passage of the decision of the Committee. The Committee "expressed grave concern at the ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park which, as noted in the mission report, are posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka". The Committee requested a total of four reports to be examined by the twenty-third session of the Bureau in July 1999.

III.6 The Committee also decided that an extraordinary session of the Committee be convened to decide whether to immediately inscribe Kakadu National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

III.7 The twenty-second session of the Committee in Kytoto also urged the Australian authorities and Energy Resources of Australia Incorporated to immediately undertake, in the context of their examination of the mission report, the voluntary suspension of construction of the mine decline until the twenty-third session of the Bureau in July 1999. The decisions of the Committee were transmitted to the Australian Government by the Director of the World Heritage Centre in mid December 1998.

III.8 The Chairperson then drew the attention of the Committee to WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.4 containing the text of the recommendation of the twenty-third session of the Bureau (5-10 July) concerning the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park. The Bureau recommendation was initially prepared by a drafting group under the chairmanship of our Rapporteur, Mr Jelen. The recommendation was adopted by consensus by the Bureau on Friday 9 July 1999 and forms the basis for the discussion of the extraordinary session of the Committee.

III.9 The Chairperson recalled that in Kyoto the Committee requested four reports concerning the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park and informed the Committee that all four reports had been received. A detailed report was provided by the Australian Government on 15 April 1999 (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3B). A review of the scientific issues relating to the Jabiluka mine was performed by the Australian Supervising Scientist and a report was provided on 15 April 1999 (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3C). The third report was provided by the three Advisory Bodies to the Committee (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3D). The fourth report is a review by an independent scientific panel constituted by ICSU (International Council for Science) (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3E). A representative of ICSU and the leader of ICSU’s independent scientific panel, Professor Brian Wilkinson, attended the Committee session.

III.10 The Chairperson then gave the floor to the Secretariat. The Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to the receipt, by the World Heritage Centre, of a number of additional documents, primarily from the Australian Government, during the week preceding the extraordinary session of the Committee.

III.11 A further report from the Australian Supervising Scientist entitled "Response to the ICSU Review of the Supervising Scientists report to the World Heritage Committee" was received on 30 June (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3F).

III.12 Three additional reports were provided to the Centre and distributed to Committee members at the request of the Australian Delegation:

Report on Dust and the development of standards and monitoring Methods to determine potential impacts from uranium mining at Jabiluka on the rock art of the surrounding area, by Dr Alan Watchman, June 1999 (received on 8 July 1999).

Report on Potential Impacts of Vibration on Rock Art and Archaeological Sites near Jabiluka, by the Australian Geological Survey Organisation (received on 8 July 1999).

Draft report of The ERA Interim Cultural Heritage Management Plan for the Jabiluka Mining Lease (received on 9 July).

III.13 The Chairperson then drew the attention of the Committee to WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G containing the latest information submitted by the Australian Government during the twenty-third session of the Bureau (5-10 July 1999). The document contains new information and new measures taken, or to be taken, by the Australian Government and was referred to by the Bureau during the preparation of its recommendations to the Committee.

III.14 As there were no comments or questions following this introduction, the Chairperson then moved on to the next agenda item.

IV. PRESENTATION BY THE AUSTRALIAN AUTHORITIES OF THEIR REPORTS CONCERNING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA - REPORT ON EFFORTS TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE AND TO MITIGATE ALL THE THREATS IDENTIFIED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE MISSION REPORT

IV.1 The Chairperson invited Mr Beale, Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Heritage in Australia to provide a succinct presentation on Australia’s Kakadu Protecting World Heritage (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3B).

IV.2 Mr Beale’s presentation focussed on providing background, a brief response to the mission report (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3A) and a summary of the actions the Australian Government has taken since the twenty-second session of the Committee in Kyoto. Mr Beale introduced his presentation by informing the Committee that the Australian Government has provided a large volume of information and has made a major effort to respond to the concerns expressed at the Committee session in Kyoto stating that the Australian Government takes World Heritage very seriously. A complete copy of the text of Mr Beale’s Powerpoint presentation is included as Annex IV of this report.

IV.3 The Chairperson then invited Senator the Honourable Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Australia to make a brief presentation. Senator Hill expressed the concern of the Australian Government to the proposal, at this stage, to object to the uranium mine at Jabiluka. He said that on three separate occasions dating back to 1981 the Park has been inscribed and extended subject to the existence of the Jabiluka mining lease. He expressed his wish to go forward and noted his acceptance of most of the recommendations of the mission report (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3A) as set out in the Australian Government submission entitled Australia’s Kakadu (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3B), particularly as many were fully consistent with existing Australian government policy. He expressed the Australian Government’s acceptance of all of the recommendations that have been made by the independent scientific panel of ICSU (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3E).

IV.4 Senator Hill informed the Committee that in recognition of what the Committee had said in Kyoto, his Government had brought to this meeting, a positive and constructive response in the form of a package of further initiatives (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G). Senator Hill expressed his Government’s appreciation that some Committee members had commented during the last Committee session in Kyoto that, although three mining leases were always accepted, when the Park was originally listed there was only one uranium mine in operation. He acknowledged that this raised the issue as to whether there was any contemplation of more than one uranium mine being in operation at any one time. Senator Hill responded to this issue of concern by noting that his Government had not been able to find anything in the record that substantiated debate on this subject in the early 1980s. However, in response to the expressed concern and after discussions with the mining company, Senator Hill stated that the mining company has agreed to a proposal that would see the Ranger mine being succeeded by the Jabiluka mine. Senator Hill said there would be some small overlap but there would not be a situation where two uranium mines would be in full commercial operation at the one time.

IV.5 Senator Hill referred to the first of the issues contained in the package of initiatives (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G) that provides further detail of how the process of providing for sequential mines, rather than simultaneous mines, would take place. Referring in particular to the Ranger Mill Alternative, he said there wouldn’t be mining at least before 2001, and then it would only proceed at a very small level of about 1,000 tonnes. Senator Hill noted that at the moment Ranger processes about 3 million tonnes of ore. He stated that later in the decade Ranger would be phased out and Jabiluka would phase in. He referred to his Government’s hopes that Ranger could be finished by 2006. He expressed his Government’s commitment that by 2009 Ranger would be finished. He referred to a slow phasing in up until the later stage before Jabiluka would come fully on stream. He informed the Committee that because the ore body was much richer at Jabiluka the throughput in the mill would be much lower than under the existing Ranger mine. He commented on his Government’s difficulty in understanding how a small, much less intrusive mine could suddenly be said to be a threat when for 18 years a much larger open cut mine with a much larger throughput was not suggested to be a threat. Senator Hill expressed his Government’s hope that the sequential mining of Ranger then Jabiluka would be received positively by Committee members.

IV.6 Senator Hill then proceeded to confirm that the Australian Government would accept all the recommendations of the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of ICSU (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3E). He said there would be no quarrelling on scientific details or differences but that the additional suggestions of the ISP of ICSU would be met. He expressed the hope that any scientific concerns would therefore be overcome.

IV.7 Senator Hill informed the Committee that the Australian Government was working with the Northern Territory to change the law so that the environmental requirements attached to the Jabiluka mine can be better and more effectively enforced.

IV.8 Senator Hill referred to other legal changes that have taken place in Australia since the Committee meeting in Kyoto which enhance the place of indigenous peoples in the management of environmental issues such as those at Kakadu National Park. He reported that additional efforts are being made to restrain the expansion of mimosa pigra and of the cane toad. The Australian Government has agreed to restrain growth of Jabiru to a maximum of 1,700 people over the next 10 years, approximately half of what was originally intended for the town. A$3 million has been provided to upgrade infrastructure of the Park (for example to further develop roads) to better protect the World Heritage values of the Park. In summary, Senator Hill submitted that, on the environmental side, his Government had brought substantive and new initiatives to the meeting. All of these initiatives are referred to in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G.

IV.9 Senator Hill then referred to the Australian Government’s commitment to provide a package to bring social and economic advancement to the Aboriginal people who live in Kakadu National Park. WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G provides details of further investments in housing, in infrastructure (water and sewerage) and further investment in health and further opportunities in employment.

IV.10 Senator Hill then referred to the vital area of the cultural issues which were of concern. He again stated that although Traditional Owners consented to the mine (in accordance with Australian law), and that consent was reaffirmed on subsequent occasions, there is obviously concern by Traditional Owners today. He mentioned processes within Australian law and administration to address this particular issue. Senator Hill expressed his Government’s wish to work through this issue in a sensitive and responsible way.

IV.11 Senator Hill made reference to the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act of 1984 that enables Traditional Owners to have an assessment of threat made if they believe that an asset of cultural significance is being threatened. The Minister said he has the responsibility to take actions dependent upon the findings of an inquiry which would be presented in the form of a report. In the case of Jabiluka, the Traditional Owners have asked for such an assessment to take place. Senator Hill said that the inquiry will take place under the terms of the legislation and the issue of cultural significance and protection of the site under Commonwealth law in Australia was to be pursued further over the next few months.

IV.12 Senator Hill informed the Committee that in the Northern Territory, Traditional Owners have an additional protection in terms of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Act and an Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority identifying and assessing on particular sites. The Authority has a majority membership of indigenous people. The Minister said that it was open to the Traditional Owners to make a case as to the significance of a particular site to that Authority.

IV.13 Senator Hill went on to describe the development of the Cultural Management Plan pursuant to the mine proposal. He referred to the Australian Government’s wish, expressed in their package of initiatives (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G), to enhance the Traditional Owners control of that process particularly by the establishment of a Reference Group and the appointment of an indigenous facilitator to progress the Plan by negotiating between the Traditional Owners and the mining company.

IV.14 In conclusion, Senator Hill commented that these processes were comprehensive in terms of international comparisons and were at the higher level of protection for indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that whilst all of these various applications were taking place and while the pressure of mining continued, it would remain difficult for the indigenous peoples to engage. He stated that his Government had therefore managed to negotiate, in addition to the sequencing of the mines, a pause that would allow the building of a better environment in which to carry out the cultural assessments. As soon as the current testing was finished in about six weeks, he said there would be no mining, until at least the year 2001, then with the Ranger processing alternative only about 1000 tonnes per year for some years to come before the Jabiluka mine would be finally implemented. He stated that no mining before 2001 should allow for the conduct of both the report under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and the Cultural Management Plan without there being pressure of mining on the indigenous people. Senator Hill expressed the Australian Government’s commitment to progressing these matters sensitively according to the strict rules that exist under Australian law that are there to protect significant sites. He commented that the Australian Government trusts that with the package of initiatives presented to the Committee (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G) that his Delegation could return to Australia to make progress with these matters.

IV.15 In thanking the Committee for their patience, Senator Hill stated that the Australian Government remained strongly opposed to an endangered listing for Kakadu. He said that the Government does recognise, however, the complexity of uranium mining in an area such as Jabiluka, even if it is outside of the World Heritage area in strict terms. He expressed his Government’s understanding of the complexity and importance of the cultural issues and referred to their commitment to make progress with these issues sensitively and in a way in which the indigenous people could be assured that their rights would be properly protected.

IV.16 The Chairperson thanked Senator Hill for his presentation and then invited Ms Yvonne Margarula to briefly address the Committee. The Chairperson recalled that Ms Margarula was attending the Committee session as an observer from the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation from the Northern Territory of Australia. The Chairperson informed the Committee that Ms Margarula was recognized under Australian law as the Senior Traditional Owner of the Jabiluka area. Ms Margarula is from the Mirrar clan and is Chairperson of the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation. The Chairperson noted that Ms Margarula’s brief address to the Committee in her own language, Gundjehmi Aboriginal language, would be interpreted by her interpreter, Mr Murray Garde. Ms Margarula explained the fundamental importance to her clan of sacred sites situated on their traditional lands noting that others were raising doubts as to the values and precise location of these sites. She acknowledged that she had been having discussions with Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in Australia and expressed her hope that the proposed two-year pause in the development of the mine at Jabiluka would be beneficial. She concluded by commenting that she considered the designation of in-Danger listing as appropriate in the circumstances. Ms Margarula’s statement to the Committee is included as Annex V to this report.

IV.17 The Chairperson thanked Ms Margarula for her statement. The Chairperson stated that he was very happy to hear the concerns of Aboriginal people directly from Ms Margarula and thought that the whole Committee would share his view.

 

V. PRESENTATION BY THE ADVISORY BODIES ON THE REPORT OF THE AUSTRALIAN AUTHORITIES ON EFFORTS TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE AND TO MITIGATE ALL THE THREATS IDENTIFIED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE MISSION REPORT

V.1 The Chairperson then called on the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee, IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM, to make brief presentations to the Committee on the basis of their reports presented in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF INF.3D. All three Advisory Bodies called for Kakadu National Park to be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. They reiterated the final conclusion of the UNESCO mission that had visited Kakadu in 1998 noting "severe ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka". The Advisory Bodies recalled that the mission had recommended "that the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed". The statements made by the Advisory Bodies, included as Annexes VI, VII and VIII to this report, include reference to continuing scientific uncertainties relating to the water management and retention system and disposal of tailings at the Jabiluka mine, visual encroachment on the integrity of Kakadu and threats to the tangible and associative cultural values of the Park.

V.2 Before moving on to the next item on the Agenda, the Chairperson thanked all three Advisory Bodies and assured them that their statements would be included in the record of the meeting.

VI. PRESENTATION BY THE AUSTRALIAN AUTHORITIES OF THEIR REPORTS CONCERNING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA - REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ISSUES BY THE AUSTRALIAN SUPERVISING SCIENTIST

VI.1 The Chairperson invited the Supervising Scientist of Australia, Dr Arthur Johnston, to provide the Committee with a succinct presentation focussing on the main findings of the Report of the Supervising Scientist (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3C). The text of Dr Johnston’s Powerpoint presentation is included as Annex IX of this report. Before moving on to the next Agenda item, the Chairperson thanked Dr Johnston for his presentation.

VII. PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC PANEL ON THE REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC ISSUES BY THE AUSTRALIAN SUPERVISING SCIENTIST

VII.1 The Chairperson invited Professor Brian Wilkinson, the leader of the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) established by ICSU (the International Council for Science) to provide the Committee with a succinct presentation focussing on their review (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3E) of the Report of the Supervising Scientist review (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3C). The text of Professor Wilkinson’s presentation is included as Annex X of this report.

VII.2 In thanking Professor Wilkinson for his presentation, the Chairperson noted his appreciation of the concrete points that had been made and which he noted would definitely help the Committee in its deliberations. The Chairperson made reference to the specific comments made by Professor Wilkinson on the text of the recommendation of the twenty-third session of the Bureau which had erroneously referred to a dialogue with the Australian Supervising Scientist and the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU. The Chairperson apologised for the error. He stated that whilst this error could not now be corrected in the Bureau report, the error would not be repeated in the decision of the Committee.

VIII. RESPONSE BY THE AUSTRALIAN SUPERVISING SCIENTIST TO THE REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC PANEL OF ICSU

VIII.1 The Chairperson then reminded the Committee that the Australian Supervising Scientist had already prepared a response (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3F) to the report of the ISP of ICSU. The Chairperson invited the Supervising Scientist to respond to the concrete points raised by Professor Wilkinson.

VIII.2 An outline of the presentation made by the Australian Supervising Scientist, Dr Arthur Johnston, is presented as Annex XI of this report. Dr Johnston prefaced his presentation by acknowleding that the response of the Supervising Scientist to the ISP report (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3F) has only recently been sent to the ISP who would now need time to assess the response.

IX. RESPONSE BY THE LEADER OF THE INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC PANEL OF ICSU

IX.1 The Chairperson then invited the leader of the ISP of ICSU, Professor Brian Wilkinson, to respond to Dr Johnston’s presentation.

IX.2 Professor Wilkinson thanked Dr Johnston for his carefully considered response but noted that it was clearly not possible for him to reply on behalf of the ISP. He expressed his wish to find a way forward and proposed a three phased approach. In the first phase the ISP would need time to prepare a considered response to the report of the Supervising Scientist and to look at other relevant scientific information. The outcome of the first phase could be that the concerns of the ISP have not been fully addressed and therefore the ISP would report back accordingly to UNESCO. Or, if not all recommendations were addressed or more information was required, there may need to be an international meeting for a dialogue between the Supervising Scientist, the ISP of ICSU and other relevant scientists to have a transparent review of the science. There could be two outcomes of this process. If no way forward was found, the ISP would report accordingly to UNESCO. Alternatively, Professor Wilkinson concluded that if the scientific issues could be resolved this could lead into a much longer term monitoring program.

IX.3 The Chairperson thanked Professor Wilkinson and Dr Johnston for their presentations to the Committee.

X. SUMMARY OF DEBATE

X.1 The Chairperson recalled that the recommendation of the twenty-third session of the Bureau (5-10 July 1999) was included in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.4. He invited members of the Committee to ask any questions or provide comments on the presentations heard during the morning.

X.2 In summary, the delegates stressed the importance of the Convention as a tool of international co-operation for the purposes of heritage conservation, and commented that they did not want to see the prospect of in Danger listing for a World Heritage property interpreted as a threat or punishment. Several delegates concluded that they did not think it was appropriate to include Kakadu on the List of World Heritage in Danger at this time. Instead, they emphasised the need for the development of a program of corrective measures in co-operation with the State Party and referred to Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines. Delegates welcomed the new information concerning the revised timetable for development of the Jabiluka mine provided to the Committee during its session by the Australian Delegation. A number of delegates noted the need however, for more specific details concerning, for example, the amount of uranium ore extraction at the Jabiluka and Ranger mines over time. Delegates expressed their continuing concern that there remained a number of scientific uncertainties concerning the operation of the mine at Jabiluka as highlighted by the leader of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU. Delegates stressed the fundamental importance for the Australian Government to maintain a dialogue with the Aboriginal traditional owners.

X.3 The statements made by the delegates of Thailand, Japan, France, Canada, the United States of America, Zimbabwe, Mexico, Cuba, Niger, Finland, Italy and Morocco are included as Annexes XII to XXIII of this report.

X.4 Following the statements of the Committee members mentioned above, the Chairperson invited the Delegate of Australia to reply to specific questions. Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, thanked States Parties for their willingness to look for a consensus solution that would enable the Australian Government to progress with the challenge of meeting these very difficult issues in a constructive way that would enhance and give greater confidence to the Convention.

X.5 In answer to the question of the Delegate of France in relation to the timetable for mining, the Minister referred to a graph shown earlier in the day by the Secretary of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Mr Beale (see Annex IV). Whilst accepting that the proposal for the Ranger Mill Alternative was entirely up to the decision of the Mirrar people, it was proposed that there be no mining up until the year 2001 and then only a very small quantity (1000 tonnes for some years) and then a phase-in of Jabiluka with Ranger being phased out so that the two mines would not be operating at full commercial capacity at the same time. Senator Hill informed the Committee that the reason why the company wants to operate at a very small tonnage in that intervening period was partly for testing purposes and partly for commercial purposes in order that the company could demonstrate to potential long term customers their capacity to provide the resource in the future.

X.6 Senator Hill informed the Committee that the period of pause up until the year 2001 should enable both the report process under Australia’s heritage protection laws to be completed and also for the cultural plan to be completed in an atmosphere of less perceived pressure on the traditional owners. He commented that this would be a positive development.

X.7 The Chairperson then quickly summarized the debate. He referred to the large majority of members of the Committee who did not want to immediately inscribe Kakadu National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger. However, he noted that there were some members of the Committee who favoured such immediate inscription. Secondly, he proposed further work on the basis of the Bureau’s recommendations with three particular points being added – (i) the importance of maintaining the spirit of the Convention referred to by many delegates, (ii) the importance of reinforced cultural heritage protection measures as part of the corrective measures and (iii) future actions of the Committee. The Chairperson stated that the Committee should be vigilant and that the decision should set out how the Committee could maintain their vigilance.

X.8 The Chairperson decided that he and the Rapporteur with the participation of the Australian Delegation and the assistance of the Secretariat would work to draft a decision to propose to the Committee in plenary. The Chairperson recalled that, in accordance with Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines, it is necessary to develop corrective measures in consultation with the State Party concerned. The Chairperson expressed his hope that the draft decision would be adopted by consensus and adjourned the meeting.

X.9 At the resumption of the session, the Chairperson gave a brief overview of the content and structure of the proposed Committee decision. The Chairperson commented that the drafting of the decision had not been an easy task as it related to a very delicate issue and he thanked the Rapporteur and the Secretariat for all their help and co-operation. He then invited members of the Committee to examine, and make specific comments on, the proposed Committee decision, paragraph by paragraph.

X.10 The Delegates of Finland and Japan requested that the word "possible" be deleted from paragraph 1(e) of the draft decision – "Is gravely concerned about the serious possible impacts to the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park …" The Delegate of Mexicio commented that it would be preferable to use alternative words than "serious threats" and suggested that alternative words such as those used in the Operational Guidelines, would be suitable.

X.11 The Delegate of Australia, Senator Hill, again expressed his concern that the concept of living culture was one that was evolving. He recommended that there needs to be substantial debate on the issue before the Committee starts to make findings against particular States. For this reason he commented that the word "possible" was helpful in paragraph 1(e). He noted that there may well be possible serious impacts but to have found serious impacts was really a finding of guilt in circumstances where the terminology was, to date, vague. He suggested that the words "gravely concerned" gave sufficient emphasis to the message of the Committee which is that it regards the whole issue of detrimental consequences to living culture as a vitally important one and that it was gravely concerned about possible serious impacts. In conclusion, he commented that to make a finding of "serious impacts", in the circumstances of what had been put before the Committee, was unreasonable.

X.12 The Delegate of the United States of America agreed with the Delegate of Japan that it was not appropriate to have the word "possible" in paragraph 1(e). She suggested that it could be replaced with "potential" to accurately reflect the language for the criteria for in Danger listing. Alternatively the reference should be deleted because the Bureau had found that there were impacts and the Committee had been informed of these impacts. She then questioned whether impacts to living cultural value would be in the mind of those experiencing those values. She asked that if it was the traditional land owners and those that have the property rights that felt that those values have been seriously impacted, was it for the Committee to question?

X.13 The Delegate of Malta requested that the drafting of paragraph 1(e) of the proposed decision remain unchanged. The Delegate of Zimbabwe agreed that the word "potential" replace "possible" in paragraph 1(e). The Delegate of ICOMOS noted that two points were being discussed - a possiblility or a potentiality and an impact. He suggested that the word "possible" be omitted and the word "impact" be replaced by "threat". The Delegate of Finland agreed with the proposal by ICOMOS. The Delegate of the United States of America referred to her earlier comments and suggested that the language used in the Committee's decision be consistent with that of the Operational Guidelines. She referred to Paragraph 82 (ii) which uses the words "potential danger" or "deleterious effects". The Delegate of Thailand commented that he found the wording of paragraph 1(e) of the proposed decision – "possible serious impacts" - to be acceptable.

X.14 The Chairperson thanked the Delegates for their various comments. He expressed his wish to avoid the language used in the Operational Guidelines, in particular in Paragraph 82 – "ascertained danger" and "potential danger". He commented that if the Committee was to recognize the existence of a "potential danger" that would mean putting the site in question on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He recalled that this was not the consensus view of the Committee. He therefore asked that the expressions used in the Operational Guidelines be avoided, particularly the use of the words "potential danger". Based on the majority view of the Committee, he then proposed to use the words "serious impacts" and delete the word "possible" in paragraph 1(e) of the proposed decision. The Chairperson asked that the Rapporteur and the Secretariat ensure that the remarks of the Australian Delegation were included in the record of the discussion in a clearcut manner. Finally, the Chairperson asked for the agreement of the Committee to adopt the change to paragraph 1(e) he had just suggested (i.e. the deletion of the word "possible").

X.15 The Delegate of Mexico remarked that the deletion of the word "possible" clearly changed the sense of the idea expressed in paragraph 1(e) of the proposed decision. He said that this had not been the intention of the several Delegates who had proposed alternative language. He commented that the Chairperson's interpretation of the language proposed by the Delegate of the United States of America was only for those properties included in the List of World Heritage in Danger, was not the case. He referred to the fact that reference to "potential" also exists in other paragraphs of the Operational Guidelines. He concluded that the proposal made by the Delegate of the United States of America is the best solution. The Chairperson asked that the views of the Delegate of Mexico be included in the record of the discussion.

X.16 The Delegate of the United States of America stated, in the name of consensus, that her delegation was amenable to the suggestion from the Chairperson. However, on behalf of her delegation, she respectfully disagreed that a finding by the Committee of potential dangers implied or meant that the Committee would then have to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Her interpretation of Paragraphs 86 and 89, which state specifically that "the Committee shall examine the information available and take a decision concerning the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger", was that the Committee can take any decision that it likes. The decision does not simply have to be limited to inscribing or not inscribing. She commented that the Committee appeared to be willing to take a decision that was neither of those (to inscribe or not to inscribe) but that which reflects the options in Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines to develop a "programme for corrective measures" instead.

X.17 The Delegate of Niger expressed his preference for the words "potential threat". He also commented that the word "demand" included in Paragraph 1(c) should be replaced by more diplomatic language.

X.18 The Chairperson expressed his view that the majority of the Committee agreed to delete the word "possible". He stated that the differing views of delegations, including those of the Australian Delegation, would be included in the record of discussion. He then asked the Delegate of Niger to suggest another word than "demand" (exiger in French) to be used in Paragraph 1(c).

X.19 The Delegate of Niger suggested the alternative wording should be "demander avec insistance". The Delegate of France suggested that the existing use of the word "demand" be maintained. The Chairperson concluded that the verb "exiger" (demand) would not be replaced.

X.20 The Delegate of Thailand then proceeded to comment on Paragraph 1(c) and its reference to Paragraph 86 contained in Section III(C) of the Operational Guidelines concerning "Procedure for the inclusion of properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger". He reflected that the debate held earlier in the day had not been referring to the inclusion of Kakadu on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He considered that whilst the Committee may wish to keep the first part of the text of Paragraph 1(c), the text stating "in accordance with ... Paragraph 86 …", which relates to inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger, could be seem as if the Committee was holding a stick, and that at any time the Committee would punish the States Party concerned. The Chairperson responded by referring to his discussion with the Secretariat on the application of Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines. He also referred to an intervention made by a Committee members earlier in the session in which they stated that Paragraph 86 applied to properties already on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Chairperson commented that Paragraph 86 is a very flexible one that applies to properties already on the List of World Heritage in Danger as well as those being considered for inclusion. The Chairperson concluded that he would like to mention the paragraph in the decision of the Committee.

X.21 The Delegate of Morocco referred to the pertinence of the remarks by the Delegate of Thailand and suggested that, given the Chairperson’s remarks concerning the flexible interpretation of Paragraph 86, it would be appropriate to replace "in accordance with" with "with reference to". The Chairperson commented that he though the words "with reference to" would respond to the difficulties raised by the Delegate of Thailand. The Chairperson noted a slight difference in the interpretation of Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines in the French and English versions.

X.22 The Delegate of Thailand requested that the words "in accordance with Section III, in particular Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage" be deleted.

X.23 The Delegate of Morocco expressed his view that it was important to make reference to Paragraph 86 as it referred to the Committee working with the State Party to develop a programme for corrective measures at the site. The Delegate of Italy agreed with the remarks made by the Delegate of Morocco.

X.24 The Chairperson noted that the Committee had before it two suggestions for changes to Paragraph 1(c) – firstly, to replace "in accordance with" with "with reference to" as suggested by the Delegate of Morocco and secondly, to delete all the text "in accordance with Section III, in particular Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage" as suggested by the Delegate of Thailand. The Delegates of Finland, Japan, France agreed with the proposition made by the Delegate of Morocco. The words "in reference to" to in Paragraph 1(c) were replaced by "in accordance with". The Committee then proceeded to adopt Paragraph 1 of the proposed decision with two changes – the replacement of "in accordance with" with "with reference to" in Paragraph 1(c) and the deletion of the word "possible" in Paragraph 1(e).

X.25 The Chairperson then invited the Committee to comment on the wording of Paragraph 2 of the proposed decision. The Delegate of Benin suggested that given the fundamental importance of the dialogue between the Mirrar Aboriginal clan and the Government of Australia, that Paragraph 2(b) encourage the Australian Government to intensify the important dialogue that has begun. The Chairperson commented that he thought this was a good suggestion that would reflect the sentiments of the Committee. The Chairperson requested the Director of the Centre to make a suggestion for change to Paragraph 2(b) of the proposed decision. The Director of the Centre suggested that the text be amended to read "The Committee encourages the Australian Government to intensify the dialogue …". The Delegate of Benin accepted this amendment but also suggested using the word "approfondi" (to pursue with vigor).

X.26 The Delegate of France commented on paragraph 2(c) suggesting that it would be very useful to refer to the document provided by the Australian Government (WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.3G which includes precise reference to the sequence of activities at the Ranger and Jabiluka mines. He noted that this information was essential as it was at the heart of the proposals being made by the State Party. The Delegate of France further suggested that the words "that there shall be no parallel commercial scale operation of the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines …" be replaced with the exact words from the document submitted by the Australian Government – that " full scale commercial mining at Jabiluka would only be reached about 2009 following the scaling down of production at the Ranger mine so that two mines would not be in full production simultaneously". The Chairperson thanked the Delegate of France for his pertinent remarks.

X.27 The Rapporteur referred back to the important remarks of the Delegate of Benin concerning Paragraph 2(b). He noted the difficulty in finding the right place to include them in the proposed decision to ensure their importance was properly reflected. His understanding was that the Committee was first acknowledging that something had happened and then in the second sentence, evaluating and assessing it, and saying this was a good step in the right direction, and then giving the Committee's encouragement which might be linked with the word "hence" or "thus". He therefore suggested "thus / hence encourages to pursue with vigour and deepen their dialogue with the Mirrar" but questioned where this important element of paragraph 2(b) should be inserted. The Chairperson asked that the Rapporteur reflect on this point.

X.28 The Chairperson invited the Director of the World Heritage Centre to propose a new text reflecting the two remarks made by the Delegate of France. The Director of the Centre instead suggested a revised text for the second sentence of paragraph 2(b) to read "The Committee encourages the Australian Government to intensify the dialogue …"

X.29 The Delegate of Morocco suggested that the first part of the sentence remain the same with the addition of the words "first essential step" to be followed by reference to encouraging the Australian Government to intensify its dialogue with the Mirrar. The Chairperson commented on the logic of this suggestion.

X.30 The Chairperson then invited the Director of the World Heritage Centre to read the proposed revised text of the second sentence of paragraph 2(b). The Director of the Centre proposed, with reference to the proposals by the Delegate of Morocco, that the text read "Le Comité considère que c’est une étape essentielle et encourage le gouvernement australien à poursuivre et approfondi ce dialogue pour trouver une solution constructive aux questions soulevées par la mission UNESCO au Parc national du Kakadu." The Chairperson requested that the Director continue to reflect on a revised wording of this sentence.

X.31 With reference to the intervention by the Delegate of France, the Rapporteur suggested that Paragraph 2(c) be amended to read "Notes that the Australian Government has stated (in document WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G entitled "Protecting Kakadu National Park" submitted by the Australian Government) that …".

X.32 The Chairperson then requested that the Rapporteur provide new wording to Paragraph 2(c), as had been requested by the Delegate of France, to have a more direct explanation of the commencement of the Jabiluka mine only after the Ranger mine has come to an end.

X.33 The Rapporteur responded by suggesting that the exact wording from the Australian statement (WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G) could be quoted in the decision. The Director of the Centre then quoted the exact phrase from WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G to be included in paragraph 2(c) of the decision - that "full scale commercial mining at Jabiluka would only be reached about 2009 following the scaling down of production at the Ranger mine so that two mines would not be in full production simultaneously". The Delegate of Australia, Senator Hill, agreed with this insertion.

X.34 The Chairperson then asked for the Committee to adopt the changes to Paragraph 2 noted above. The Rapporteur noted the difference between the quotation from WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G ("full scale commercial … would not be in full production simultaneously") and the statement "no parallel commercial scale operation". The Rapporteur questioned whether what was meant was that there would be "no parallel full scale commercial production".

X.35 The Delegate of Australia, Senator Hill, again read the exact text from WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G - that "full scale commercial mining at Jabiluka would only be reached about 2009 following the scaling down of production at the Ranger mine so that two mines would not be in full production simultaneously".

X.36 The Chairperson again called for the revised text of paragraph 2(c) of the proposed decision to be adopted. The Delegate of Morocco questioned the concordance between the proposed revised text in English and French. The Chairperson said that he could see no difference between the English and French texts.

X.37 The Delegate of Hungary referred to the morning session where he heard from the Delegate of Australia that there would be a delay of the commencement of mining at Jabiluka until 2001 and changes to the level of production of uranium at Jabiluka and Ranger. He commented that he could not see these statements in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G.

X.38 The Delegate of United States of America expressed similar concerns to those raised by the Delegate of Hungary. She referred to uncertainties about the need for certain tests to more reliably assess the risks, particularly relating to groundwater contamination, that need to be performed prior to operation of the mine. She noted that these concerns were not included in the proposed decision and that text that would have further allowed the Australian Government to respond to unforeseen environmental degradation had also been taken out. This text referred to provisions for rehabilitation and for funding in the event of unforeseen environmental damage during operation of the mine, also agreed upon by the Australian Delegation, had been provided to the Secretariat earlier in the day. She asked whether this was still acceptable to the Australian Delegation.

X.39 The Delegate of Australia, Senator Hill, commented that there were a lot of points that were included as commitments in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G, as well as some extra points he had raised earlier in the day, that were not all detailed in the draft decision of the Committee. He stated that he had no objection for any commitment that had been made by the Government of Australia to be included in the Committee decision but cautioned against creating a very lengthy decision. In relation to rehabilitation he referred to the mining company's obligation to hold in a government trust fund some A$30 million to pay for the cost of rehabilitation. Senator Hill stated that the company is also obliged under Northern Territory law to make good any damage that might be caused by the mine. He noted that the whole purpose of the thorough Environmental Impact Statement process was to avoid any damage. Senator Hill also informed the Committee that the company holds an insurance policy of some A$100 million to cover itself in the case of that obligation having to be met. He stated that if all else failed the Australian Government would meet its commitments under the World Heritage Convention to properly protect the asset. He therefore concluded that the Australian Government is the ultimate insurer. Finally, he stated that he was happy for these points to be recorded in an extra clause of the decision of the Committee if that was their wish.

X.40 The Chairperson asked the Delegate of Australia whether all of these points were contained in WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G. Senator Hill replied that they were not all included. Some additional points had been made during the day. He said that the issue raised by the United States of America was not set out in detail. Furthermore he noted that the document provides for best practice rehabilitation but does not specifically deal with the issue of reparation of any damage that might be caused. At the request of the Delegate of the United States of America a text was developed by the Australian Delegation in the morning but he was not sure whether it had been circulated.

X.41 The Delegate of the United States of America affirmed that she had been referring to that text and noted that, in this instance, her delegation was willing to defer to the text proposed by the Australian Delegation. The Delegate of the United States provided the following text to the Secretariat to be inserted into the record of the discussion. " The United States brought up the issues of indemnification of the costs of dealing with the effects of unforeseen environmental contamination resulting from the mining operations or in the future after rehabilitation has been completed and on into the future. Senator Hill assured the Committee that either the mining company or the Government of Australia would be responsible for the costs of protection of the values of the World Heritage Site in the future."

X.42 The Chairperson referred to the dilemna of preparing a precise decision which would be very long, or a short decision that would risk being vague. He noted that the presentations made by the Australian Delegation in the morning session would appear in the record of the discussion. He cautioned against the adoption of an ambiguous decision that could be subject to eroneous interpretation.

X.43 The Delegate of Australia, Senator Hill, commented that he thought that the point made by the Delegate of Hungary, was covered by his presentation during the morning session and commitments he made on the record on that occasion. Senator Hill said that he had also just put on the record that the Australian Government is, in effect, the ultimate insurer, the guarantor that the World Heritage obligations would be met in the case, for example, of total failure of the company. He said that this would never be in dispute as otherwise the Australian Government would never have signed the Convention or nominated Kakadu National Park for inscription in the World Heritage List.

X.44 After having considered the remarks made by the Delegate of Australia, the Chairperson proposed that paragraph 2(c) be rephrased in accordance with the proposal from the Delegate of France and that the other changes to paragraph 2(c) as quoted by the Director of the Centre and the Rapporteur be adopted. He stated that when it comes to details (such as those made by the Delegates of Hungary and the United States of America) the Committee would depend on the record of discussion. On the subject of the record of discussion, the Chairperson then informed the Committee that, understandably, it was totally impossible for the Secretariat to prepare a draft record of discussion to be scrutinised by the Committee before it adjourned. He therefore proposed that the Secretariat prepare a draft report in collaboration with the Rapporteur and the Chairperson and submit it to all members of the Committee. The Chairperson did not assume that he would have the authority to approve such an important document. The Chairperson therefore asked the Centre to send the draft report to members of the Committee for comments that will be incorporated prior to finalisation of the report. The Chairperson then asked for any further comments. With no further comments being made, the Committee adopted paragraph 2 of the decision with the amendments to paragraph 2(b) and 2(c) noted above.

X.45 The Chairperson then invited comments on paragraph 3. The Delegate of Mexico proposed that the words "remain vigilant in monitoring" be replaced by "review and assess". The text would therefore read "With consideration of 1 and 2 above the Committee will review and assess the progress made by the Australian Government".

X.46 The Delegate of Morocco commented that paragraph 3(c) was not comprehensible and he suggested that it be redrafted. He also suggested that the date of 15 April 2000 indicated for Australia to provide a response should be revised to ensure a rapid response to the Committee for its next session.

X.47 The Delegate of Benin reminded the Committee that the Australian Delegation had referred in its interventions to a number of legal instruments. He suggested that paragraph 3(b) be revised to include a request that the Australian Government provide further explanation on issues relating to legal protection.

X.48 The Delegate of France agreed that the meaning of paragraph 3(c) was not sufficiently clear. He also noted that the requests made in paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) were not of the same nature as that presented in paragraph 3(c). He therefore suggested that the information requested in paragraph 3(c) should be provided by the Australian Government to the next session of the Committee.

X.49 The Delegate of Japan supported the comments made by the Delegates of Morocco and France comments on paragraph 3(c). He commented that paragraph 3(a) and 3(b) refer to a progress report to be submitted by the Australian Government. However as paragraph 3(c) requests further clarification from the Australian Government it needs to be more precise. He also referred to the suggestion made by the Delegate of Mexico to replace the words "remain vigilant in monitoring" in the first line of paragraph 3. The Delegate of Japan expressed his delegation's preference to keep the wording as it was because it properly reflected the Committee's deliberations and its serious concerns on the Kakadu issue.

X.50 The Delegate of Mexico informed the Committee that his intention in suggesting a substitution to the language in the first line of paragraph 3 had not been to soften the intention of the paragraph but rather to keep the Committee's language as close as possible to the language used in the Operational Guidelines. He commented that he could not see any reference to vigilance. Instead he noted several cases where the words "review and assess" are utilized in the Operational Guidelines.

X.51 The Delegate of Hungary wished to refer back to paragraph 2(b) and to the Committee's reference to the present state of the mining process at Jabiluka and Ranger. He commented that the situation being referred to in paragraph 3(c) was a little different because the mining process at Jabiluka will not start before 2001. He noted that this means that up until 15 April 2000 there is no question about the mining process at Jabiluka, only at the mine at Ranger. However, if the Committee wishes to remain vigilant in monitoring the progress, it will be important for the Australian Government to submit a report on the circumstances of the mining process up to 15 April 2000. Therefore the mining process at Ranger and the situation at the Jabiluka mine, was according to the Delegate of Hungary, of importance.

X.52 The Delegate of Australia, Senator Hill, asked to explain how he thought the wording contained in the draft decision would probably serve the purposes of the Committee. Following on from the remarks from the Delegate of Hungary, he expressed his concern that the Australian Government will concentrate in the next eighteen months on the reporting process under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and the development of a Cultural Management Plan. He said that he thought the Mirrar people would like these tasks to be carried out in sequence rather than simultaneously. He therefore noted that in a situation of no mining and with these cultural assessments processes taking place there will not be much further to report for some time. He stated that by 15 April 2000 the Australian Government should be able to provide a reasonable update on progress with the Cultural Management Plan, implementation of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study and might have some further information in relation to the mining intentions. He said that these intentions would not be inconsistent with the commitments made to the Committee during its extraordinary session. He suggested that a better timeframe for reporting would have been at the end of eighteen months following the eighteen months of pause and the completion of the various cultural assessment processes. However, Senator Hill expressed his understanding as to why the Committee would find eighteen months to be too far away and agreed to provide a report by 15 April 2000. He regarded this as a reasonable compromise that could be met by the Australian Government who could hopefully provide the Bureau with some further significant information upon which to continue its monitoring role. On that basis, Senator Hill commented that he understood what was required by paragraph 3(c) and regarded the wording in the proposed decision as adequate.

X.53 The Delegate of Italy returned to the words "remain vigilant in monitoring" in the first line of paragraph 3. He suggested an alternative wording to read "remain vigilant in reviewing and assessing". He commented that there was nothing wrong with the idea of staying vigilant as this was precisely what the Committee had been trying to do and this was the kind of message the Committee had been trying to convey to the Australian Government that this will, and should, go on. He stated that this is also the reason that the Italian Delegation agrees that there should be a deadline of 15 April 2000 for the Australian Government to submit a progress report. On paragraph 3(c) the Delegate of Italy commented that the text at the beginning of paragraph 3(c) was not clear and that the Committee required more precise details concerning the pause in work at Jabiluka and the phase-out of Ranger.

X.54 The Delegate of the United States of America stated that her delegation agreed with the delegates of Japan and Morocco, and proposed that for the sake of clarity, it may be useful to move paragraph 3(c) to the bottom of paragraph 2(c). She also commented that the dates proposed by the Delegate of Australia sounded entirely reasonable.

X.55 The Delegate of Morocco also suggested moving paragraph 3(c) as had been proposed by the Delegate of the United States of America.

X.56 The Chairperson provided a quick summary of the debate. Firstly, on the Mexican proposal slightly amended by the Delegate of Italy, the Chairperson expressed his wish that the word "vigilant" be retained. He suggested the following wording – "With consideration of 1 and 2 above, the Committee will remain vigilant in monitoring, reviewing and assessing the progress …". He expressed his hope that this change in wording would meet the approval of the Committee. On paragraph 3(c) he noted that the Committee wanted a separate paragraph perhaps to be added to the end of paragraph 2.

X.57 The Delegate of Australia respectfully commented that the problem was that the scheme that he had presented to the extraordinary session of the Committee was that the mine would be put on hold whilst the various social and cultural studies were conducted. He said that in the near future he would not expect to be able to provide further information in relation to mining. He stated again that this was why he had suggested the date of 15 April 2000 as by then he may have further information available on mining intentions. He said that if this information was available he would be more than happy to bring it to the attention of the Committee. He said that he could not see the benefit to the Committee of imposing an obligation on Australia when he thought it was unlikely that he could provide further information. He said that whilst he did not object to the proposed clause, he respectfully submitted that again linking it to the date of 15 April 2000 is more likely to produce something of use to the Committee.

X.58 The Delegate of Canada expressed her agreement with the proposal from the Delegate of Australia and commented that she thought that this had been the intent in the debate. The Delegate of Morocco suggested that the text proposed by the Director of the Centre be used and that the date for submission by the Australian Government be given as 15 April 2000. The Delegate of the United States of America repeated the point made by the Delegate of Australia that it would not be a worthwhile exercise for them or for the Committee to report if there is nothing to report on. She therefore suggested deferring to the Delegate of Australia on this point.

X.59 The Chairperson expressed his agreement that if the Australian Delegation considers that they are not in a position to supply new information before the next Committee meeting, the Committee should not create false expectations. He called for the Committee's agreement on the initial proposal. The Delegate of Thailand expressed his support for this proposal.

X.60 The Delegate of Mexico made two suggestions, either to agree with the proposal of Italy or to withdraw his own proposal in order to reduce confusion with the wording proposed. He expressed his own preference as being to adopt the Italian proposal. At the request of the Chairperson, the Delegate of Italy repeated his proposal that "the Committee would remain vigilant in reviewing and assessing the progress made …". The Delegate of Morocco again suggested that the text should include the date for submission by the Australian Government as 15 April 2000.

X.61 The Delegates of France and Lebanon supported the position of Morocco. The Rapporteur informed the Chairperson that if the Committee kept the same date for the Moroccan proposal, it was keeping the original text proposed as there was already a heading to paragraph 3 which clearly establishes the date for submission of the progress report as 15 April 2000. He stated that the proposed text includes reference to cultural mapping and the Cultural Heritage Management Plan with more precise details being requested. He commented that the only new point in paragraph 3(c) relates to the legal explanation originally suggested by the Delegate of Benin. He therefore concluded that the proposals to create a new paragraph would be repeating text already included in the proposed decision.

X.62 In discussing the final wording of paragraph 3(c), the Delegate of Hungary expressed his agreement but asked whether it was possible to clarify the exact wording of paragraph 3(c). He suggested deleting "output and scale of any parallel activities" and replacing it with the meaning the management of any activities at both mines.

X.63 The Delegate of France suggested keeping the original wording of the proposed decision as it was precise and complete.

X.64 The Rapporteur noted that lying behind the ambiguities in the wording of the proposed decision are serious issues. He commented that when the debate is closed, and the Committee members walk from the room, they will be faced with a lot of questions. He asked whether the Committee wished to have something in written form which clarifies what the Delegate of Australia had said orally after his written statement on 9 July 1999. The Rapporteur commented that the Committee had heard and seen a lot of important points including the chart explaining the proposed transition from mining uranium at Ranger to Jabiluka. He expressed his view that the term "by 15 April 2000" should be understood to give the Australian Government the opportunity to provide as early as they wish elements that would clarify the intentions that lie behind the details of the oral presentations made by the Delegate of Australia. Without actually changing anything, but adding (d) on legal matters as suggested by the Delegate of Benin, the Rapporteur said that the Committee was generously giving the Australian Government the opportunity to increase the positive atmosphere by giving those orally stated elements of his presentations in a written form by the time of next session of the Committee in December 1999 in Marrakesh. He said that the Committee was not insisting, threatening or punishing, it was only saying "by 15 April 2000". He concluded by saying that it was for the Australian Government to decide what elements would increase the positive atmosphere in Marrakesh by sending some elements of clarification earlier than 15 April 2000.

X.65 The Chairperson concluded the debate on the drafting of paragraph 3 by noting that the reference to the continuing vigilance of the Committee in "reviewing and assessing the progress made by the Australian Government" would remain. He affirmed that the progress report from the State Party, to include information on cultural mapping, the cultural heritage management plan and social and welfare issues should be submitted by 15 April 2000 for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. Finally he asked the Rapporteur and the Secretariat to find an appropriate final wording for paragraph 3(c) to reflect the Committee’s request that more precise details on legal provisions and the exact output and scale of any parallel activities at the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines be included in the progress report.

X.66 The Chairperson then invited comments on paragraph 4 of the proposed decision. The Observer from ICSU respectfully requested a change in the second line. She requested that "the Committee asks ICSU to continue the work of the ISP" replace "the Committee asks the ISP of ICSU to continue the work of the ISP". She said that this change would more properly reflect the way in which the World Heritage Committee works with ICSU and its scientific panels. The Chairperson agreed with this change on behalf of the Committee. The Committee then adopted paragraph 4 with the small amendment made by ICSU.

XI. DECISION OF THE THIRD EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE CONCERNING KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA

1. The Committee,

1. Emphasizes the importance of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention. In particular the Committee emphasizes Article 6 (1) which states that:

Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage (…) is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co- operate.


2. Recalls that the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee in Kyoto (1998) expressed "grave concern" over the ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka;
3. Notes that the deliberations of the twenty-third session of the Bureau and of the third extraordinary session of the Committee demand the continuous serious consideration of the conditions at Kakadu National Park by the Committee with reference to Section III, in particular Paragraph 86 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage;
4. Expresses its deep regret that the voluntary suspension of construction of the mine decline at Jabiluka until the twenty-third session of the Committee (requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee) has not taken place;
5. Is gravely concerned about the serious impacts to the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka. The Committee is of the opinion that confidence and trust building through dialogue are crucial for there to be any resolution of issues relating to the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka. In particular, a more substantial and continuous dialogue needs to be established between the Australian Government and the traditional owners of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease, the Mirrar Aboriginal people;
6. Is concerned about the lack of progress with the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka;
7. Continues to have significant reservations concerning the scientific uncertainties relating to mining and milling at Jabiluka.

2. The Committee,

1. Recognizes, with appreciation, that the Australian Government, Australian Supervising Scientist, advisory bodies (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) and independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the International Council of Science (ICSU) have provided the reports requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee (Kyoto, 1998);

2. Acknowledges that there are indications that a new dialogue between the Mirrar Aboriginal people and the Australian Government has begun in relation to issues concerning the Jabiluka uranium mine and mill. The Committee considers this to be an essential step in finding a constructive solution to the issues raised by the UNESCO mission to Kakadu National Park and encourages the Australian Government to intensify their efforts in this regard and pursue with vigor the deepening of its dialogue with the Mirrar Aboriginal people;
3. Notes that the Australian Government has stated (in document WHC-99/CONF.205/INF.3G entitled "Protecting Kakadu National Park" submitted by the Australian Government) that "full scale commercial mining at Jabiluka would only be reached about 2009 following the scaling down of production at the Ranger mine so that two mines would not be in full production simultaneously". The Committee further notes that the Minister for Environment and Heritage has stated that there shall be no parallel commercial scale operation of the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines located in enclaves surrounded by, but not included, in Kakadu National Park. The Committee considers that it is the clear responsibility of the Australian Government to regulate the activities of a private company, such as Energy Resources of Australia, Inc, in relation to the proposed mining and milling activities at Jabiluka to ensure the protection of the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park;
4. Notes that the Australian Supervising Scientist (ASS) has assessed the report of the independent scientific panel (ISP) established by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and seeks a dialogue with the ISP to resolve outstanding questions relating to scientific issues concerning mining and milling at Jabiluka.

3. With consideration of 1 and 2 above, the Committee will remain vigilant in reviewing and assessing the progress made by the Australian Government. To this end the Committee requests that the Australian Government submit a progress report on the following issues by 15 April 2000 for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee:

1. progress made with cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and the Boyweg-Almudj site and its boundaries and the completion of the cultural heritage management plan with the necessary co-operation of the Mirrar, and appropriate involvement of other stakeholders and ICOMOS and ICCROM;
2. progress in the implementation, in response to the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study (KRSIS), of a comprehensive package of social and welfare benefits, together with the Northern Territory Government, for the benefit of the Aboriginal communities of Kakadu (including the Mirrar);
3. more precise details of the output and scale of any parallel activities at the Ranger and Jabiluka uranium mines as well as on any legal provisions taken in that respect.

4. To resolve the remaining scientific issues, such as those raised in the ISP report, the Committee asks ICSU to continue the work of the ISP (with the addition of any additional members) to assess, in co-operation with the Supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising Scientist’s response to the ISP report. The report of the ISP’s assessment should be submitted to the World Heritage Centre by 15 April 2000 for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000.

XII OTHER BUSINESS

XII.1 Following the adoption of the decision by the Committee, the Delegate of Ecuador made a statement to the Committee (see Annex XXIV).

XIII. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE SESSION

XIII.1 The Chairperson recalled that the Committee would not be asked to adopt the report of the extraordinary session but would receive a copy of the draft report for comment (see section X.44 above).

XIV. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

XIV.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, made a concluding statement to the Committee (see Annex XXV).

XIV.2 The Chairperson thanked the Committee for their patient collaboration and friendly co-operation. He expressed his view that the Committee should be proud of the decision that it had made. The Chairperson gave his special and profound thanks to the Rapporteur and the Secretariat who worked constantly, not only during the Committee session, but also during the twenty-third session of the Bureau held during the previous week. In addition he thanked the interpreters for their conscientious work. He thanked the advisory bodies to the Committee (IUCN, ICOMOS and ICCROM) and ICSU for their work. Finally, the Chairperson thanked the Australian Delegation for their useful contributions to the meeting.

XIV.3 The Chairperson then declared the meeting closed.

ANNEX I

 

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

 

I. MEMBERS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE / ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

AUSTRALIA / AUSTRALIE

Senator the Honourable Robert HILL
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Mr Roger BEALE
Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage
John Gorton House,
PARKES ACT 2600

Mr Matthew PEEK
Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO
4 rue Jean Rey, 75724 Paris Cedex 15
PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Howard BAMSEY
Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage
P.O. Box 787 CANBERRA, ACT 2603

Ms Gillian BIRD
First Assistant Secretary, International Organisations Branch
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
CANBERRA, ACT 2601

Dr Arthur JOHNSTON
Supervising Scientist
Department of the Environment and Heritage
PMB 2 JABIRU, NT 0886

Mr Peter VAUGHAN
First Assistant Secretary
Office of Indigenous Affairs
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

Mr Robin BRYANT
Assistant Secretary
Department of Industry, Science and Resources
Assistant Secretary, Australian Government
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Mr Kevin KEEFFE
Assistant Secretary
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 1567
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Mr Jon DAY
Director, Conservation, Biodiversity and World Heritage
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
P.O. Box 1379 TOWNSVILLE QLD 4812

Mr Michael REED
Deputy Chief Minister, Northern Territory Government
P.O. Box 3146, DARWIN N.T.

Mr David Charles WALKER
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO
4 rue Jean Rey, 75724 PARIS Cedex 15

Ms Anne SIWICKI
Attaché
Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
4 rue Jean Rey, 75724 PARIS Cedex 15

 

BENIN

M. Alioune Sylla ALADJI BONI
Directeur des Forêts et des Ressources naturelles
B.P. 393, COTONOU

M. Eric TOTAH
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
B.P. 120, COTONOU

Mme Edith LISSAN
Deuxième Conseiller à la Délégation permanente du Bénin
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

BRAZIL / BRESIL

M. José Pedro de OLIVEIRA COSTA
Secrétaire National pour la Biodiversité et Forêts
Ministère de l'Environnement
BRASILIA, Esplanada dos Ministerios Bloco B – 70000

M. Armando Vitor BOISSON CARDOSO
Ministre Conseiller
Délégué permanent adjoint du Brésil auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

M. Carmelito DE MELO
Conseiller, Délégation permanente du Brésil auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 

CANADA

Dr. Christina CAMERON
Director General
National Historic Sites, Parks Canada
25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor
Hull, QUEBEC, K1A OM5

Mme Gisèle CANTIN
Chef, Affaires internationales
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy Street, 5^e étage
Hull, QUEBEC, K1A OM5

Mr John PINKERTON
Analyst, National Parks Directorate
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy Street, 4th Floor
Hull, QUEBEC, K1A OM5

 

CUBA

Ms Marta ARJONA PEREZ
Presidenta, Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural
Ministerio de Cultura
Calle 4 esquina a 13, Vedado
LA HABANA

Mr Antonio PERERA PUGA
Director, Centro de Areas Protegidas
Ministerio de Ciencia Tecuatogía y Medio Ambiente
Calle 18A No 4114 e/ 41 y 47
11300 Miramar, Playa, C. HABANA,

 
 

ECUADOR / EQUATEUR

H. Exc. Mr Juan CUEVA
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Ecuador to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr Mauricio MONTALVO
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Ecuador to UNESCO ,1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Teodoro PENTA
Ministro de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda
Calle Cordero y du 10 Agosto
QUITO

Mr Fernando CORDERO
Alcalde
Municipalidad de Cuenca 01-05-1940
CUENCA

 

FINLAND / FINLANDE

Ms Taina KIEKKO
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Henrik LILIUS
State Archaelogist
Director-General of the National Board of Antiquities
Nervandersnk 13, 00100 HELSINKI

Mr Jukka-Pekka FLANDER
Chief Inspector
Ministry of the Environment, Land Use Department
Kasarminkatu 25, P.B. 380,
00131 HELSINKI

Ms Anne LAMMILA
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Ms Anne HARMAALA
Assistant
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 

FRANCE

S.Exc. M. Jean MUSITELLI
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis 75732 PARIS Cedex 15
M. Alain MEGRET
Directeur adjoint de la nature et des paysages
Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement
20 Avenue de Ségur, 75302 PARIS 07 SP

Ms Catherine CARO
Administrateur civil, Adjoint au sous-Directeur des sites et paysages
Ministère de l'Environnement
20 Avenue de Ségur, 75302 PARIS 07 SP

Mlle Eva CAILLART
Chargée de Mission
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
DAPA, 8 rue Vivienne, 75002 PARIS

Mme Catherine DUMESNIL
Conseillère technique
Commission nationale française pour l'UNESCO
57 Bd des Invalides, 75700 PARIS SP

GREECE / GRECE

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

Mr Nicholas SALAMANIS
Christos
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

HUNGARY / HONGRIE

M. Zsolt VISY
Secrétaire d'Etat adjoint
Ministère du Patrimoine Culturel National de Hongrie
Président du Comité National Hongrois du Patrimoine
H-1055 BUDAPEST, Sialay u. 10-14

M. János TARDY
Secrétaire d'Etat adjoint
Ministère de l'Environnement
Office de Protection de la Nature
H-1121, BUDAPEST, Költö u. 21

M. János JELEN
Ambassador
Department of Cultural and Scientific Cooperation
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
1027 BUDAPEST Nagy Imre tér 4.

M. Peter KARIKAS
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente de Hongrie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

ITALY / ITALIE

S. Exc. M. Gabriele SARDO
Délégué permanent de l'Italie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Prof. Umberto LEANZA
Chef du Service du Contentieux Diplomatique
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, ROME

Mme Gabriella IAVICOLI
Direction Générale des Relations Culturelles
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, ROME

M. Stefano DE CARO
Surintendant archéologue des villes de Naples et Caserta
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Piazza Museo 19, Naples

M. Luciano MARCHETTI
Surintendance pour les Biens Culturels de Florence
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Piazza Pitti, FLORENCE

Ms Giuliana FASANO

 

JAPAN / JAPON

H. E. Mr Koichiro MATSUURA
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to France
7 avenue Hoche, 75008 PARIS

Mr Yasukuni ENOKI
Director-General of Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku 100-8919, TOKYO

M. Kensuke TSUZUKI
Minister, Deputy Permanent Delegate of Japan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Akira YOSHIKAWA
Minister-Councellor
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Yuichi ISHII
Director
Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division
Cultural Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku,
TOKYO 100-8919

Mr Takahiro OKAMOTO
Official, Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division
Cultural Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, TOKYO 100-8919

Mr Tomoyuki ONO
Troisième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Japon auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Akihiro TAKAZAWA
Troisième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Japon auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr Kanenori MIURA
World Natural Heritage Ecosystem Conservation Officer
Nature Conservation Bureau, Environment Agency
2-1-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, TOKYO, 100-8975

Dr Nobuko INABA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Architecture Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, TOKYO 100-0013

Ms Kumiko YONEDA
Senior Research Scientist
Japan Wildlife Research Centre
2-29-3 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, TOKYO 113-0034

LEBANON / LIBAN

Mme Carla JAZZAR
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente du Liban auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

M. Assaad SEIF
Archéologue
Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban
Musée National, rue de Damas, BEYROUTH

 

MALTA / MALTE

S. Exc. M. Joseph LICARI
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent de Malte auprès de l'UNESCO
46 rue de Longchamp, 75116 PARIS

MEXICO / MEXIQUE

Lic. Dámaso LUNA CORONA
Director General de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores
Av. Veracruz 101, MEXICO

Ministro José SANCHEZ GUTIERREZ
Representante Permanente Alterno de México ante la UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Mexico to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

M. Oscar RAMIREZ
Director General de Investigación de los Procesos de Desarrollo Sustentable
Instituto Nacional de Pesca
Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAP)
Pitagoras # 1320
Col. Sta Cruz Atoyac, MEXICO 03310 D.F.

Mr German GONZALEZ-DAVILA
Permanent Representative of the Minister of Environment
Natural Ressources and Fisheries to the OECD
SEMARNAP
4 rue Galliéra, 75116 PARIS

Mr Alejandro MONTEAGUDO CUEVAS
Deputy Director for Environmental Affairs
Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development
Alfonsoreyes 30, 1^st Floor, Hipódromo CONDESA

 

MOROCCO / MAROC

M. Abdelaziz TOURI
Directeur du Patrimoine Culturel
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
17 rue Michlifen, Agdal, RABAT

M. Salah Salomé ELHONSALI
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 
M. Ahmed SKOUNTI
Chargé de recherche
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
Direction du Patrimoine Culturel
17 rue Michlifen, Agdal, RABAT 10000

 

NIGER

M. Amadou TCHEKO
Délégué permanent adjoint du Niger auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

M. Seyni SEYDOU
Directeur, Parc national du W du Niger
Direction de la Faune, Pêche et Pisciculture
Ministère de l'Hydraulique et de l'Environnement
B.P. 721 NIAMEY

M. Mahamane SALEY
Directeur Institut de Museolie de Niamey
Ministère de la Communication et de la Culture
B.P. 10457 NIAMEY

REPUBLIC OF KOREA / REPUBLIQUE DE COREE

Mr Il CHUNG
First Secretary, Korean Representative
Embassy of Republic of Korea
125 rue de Grenelle, 75007 PARIS

 

THAILAND / THAILANDE

Prof. Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman, National Committee for Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Pibunwattana, Rama 6 Road, BANGKOK 10400

Mr Manit SIRIWAN
Secretary, National Commission on the Protection of the World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Pibunwattana, Rama 6 Road, BANGKOK 10400

Mrs Siriporn NANTA
Assistant Secretary, National Committee for Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Pibunwattana, Rama 6 Road,
BANGKOK 10400

 
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE

Mr John J. REYNOLDS
Regional Director
Pacific West Region
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
SAN FRANCISCO
Mr William W. McILHENNY
United States Observer to UNESCO
United States Embassy
2 Avenue Gabriel, PARIS

Mr James H. CHARLETON
International Cooperation Specialist
Office of the International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
1849 C. Str., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

Ms Stéphanie MULOT
Program Specialist
US Observer Mission
2 Avenue Gabriel, 75008 PARIS

ZIMBABWE

Mr D. DABENGWA
Minister of Home Affairs
Ministry of Home Affairs, HARARE

Mr Joey BIMHA
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of Zimbabwe to UNESCO
12 rue Lord Byron, 75008 PARIS

Mr Dawson MUNJERI
Executive Director
National Museums and Monuments
Box CY 1485 Causeway, HARARE

Mr Albert KUMIRAI
Director, Natural History Museum
National Museums of Monuments of Zimbabwe
P.O. Box 240, BULAWAYO

Mr E. KARODZA
Consellor
Embassy of Zimbabwe
12 rue Lord Byron, 75008 PARIS

 
 
 

ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY /

ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF

 

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

Mr Herb STOVEL
Coordinator
World Heritage Convention
Via di San Michele, 13
00153 ROME, Italy

Ms Joan DOMICELJ
Director
Domicelj Consultants Pty Ltd
49 Olympian Parade
LEURA, N.S.W. 2780, Australia

 

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

M. Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secrétaire général
49-51 rue de la Fédération
75015 PARIS
France

Prof. Henry CLEERE
Coordinateur du patrimoine mondial
49-51 rue de la Fédération
75015 PARIS
France

Mlle Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistante du Coordinateur
49-51 rue de la Fédération, 75015 PARIS

Mme Carmen AÑON FELIU
Member, Executive Committee
PUERTO SANTA MARIA 49, Spain

 
 
 

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

Dr Patrick DUGAN
Global Programme Director
IUCN
CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland

Dr David SHEPPARD
Head, Programme on Protected Areas
IUCN Headquarters
rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland
Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS
Vice-Chair World Heritage
World Commission for Protected Areas (WCPA)
1/268 Main Road, Tawa
WELLINGTON 6006, New Zealand

 
 
 
 
 

WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE

Mr Jerry Harrison
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road
CAMBRIDGE CB3 ODL

OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

1. STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION /ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL





ARGENTINA / ARGENTINE

Ing. Francisco ERIZE
Assesseur, Secrétariat des Ressources Naturelles
Rodriguez Peña 1882, 1023 BUENOS AIRES

 




AUSTRIA / AUTRICHE

M. Hans HORCICKA
Director
Federal Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs VIENNA, A-1014 Minoritenplatz 5

 




BELGIUM / BELGIQUE

Mme Bénédicte SELFSLAGH
Relations avec les Organisations Internationales
Division du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Région Wallonne de Belgique
14 rue d'Aumale, 75009 PARIS

Mme Gislaine DEVILLERS
Première attachée
Région Wallonne – Division du Patrimoine
Rue Brigade d'Irlande – 51000 JAMBES

M. Christian SPAPENS
Architecte-Directeur
Chaussée d'Alsembery 647, B-1180,BRUXELLES

S. Exc. le Baron Hubert VAN HOUTTE
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent de la Belgique auprès de l'UNESCO
4 Villa de Saxe, 75007 PARIS

 




BOLIVIA / BOLIVIE

Mr Eduardo LORINI
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Bolivie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




COSTA RICA

Mme Gabriela CASTILLO
Ministre Conseiller
Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l'UNESCO, 1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15




DENMARK / DANEMARK

Mr Emil PAVISEN
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Denmark to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




GERMANY / ALLEMAGNE

Mr Michael WORBS
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Germany to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




GUATEMALA

Mme Fanny BENOIT D'ENTREVAUX
Délégation permanente du Guatemala auprès de l'UNESCO
c/o Ambassade du Guatemala
73 rue de Courcelles, 75008 PARIS

Mlle Claire GAVELLE
Délégation permanente du Guatemala auprès de l'UNESCO
c/o Ambassade du Guatemala
73 rue de Courcelles, 75008 PARIS

 




HONDURAS

S. Exc. Mme Sonia MENDIETA DE BADAROUX
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent de Honduras auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

Mr J.C. BENDANA-PINEL
Délégué permanent adjoint de Honduras auprès de l'UNESCO,1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




INDIA / INDE

Mr Gauri Shankar GUPTA
Consellor, Deputy Permanent Delegate of India to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 
 




INDONESIA / INDONESIE

Mr Imam SANTOSO
Permanent Delegation of Indonesia to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

I.G.N. Anom
Dept. of Education and Culture
JAKARTA

 




IRAK

M. Iyad AFLAK
Conseiller
Délégation permanente de l'Irak auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




IRAN

Reza Bagegan
Permanent Delegation of Iran to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15




KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA / ROYAUME DU CAMBODGE

S. Altesse Royale le Prince NORODOM SIHAMONI
Ministre d'Etat
Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire
Délégué permanent du Royaume du Cambodge auprès de l'UNESCO
2 Place de Barcelone, 75016 PARIS

Mlle Dara MANG
Troisième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Royaume du Cambodge auprès de l'UNESCO
2 Place de Barcelone, 75016 PARIS

 




MAURITIUS / ILE MAURICE

Mr Philippe LA HAUSSE DE LALOUVIERE
Chairman, National Heritage Trust
Government of Mauritius
c/o Ministry of Arts and Culture
Seeneevassen Building, PORT LOUIS




NEPAL

Mr Indra Bahadur SINGH
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Nepal to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15




NORWAY / NORVEGE

Ms Ingunn KVISTEROY
Nordic World Heritage Office
Postbox 8196 Dep., N-0034 OSLO

 




PALESTINE

Mr Abdalrahim AL FARRA
Délégation permanente palestinienne auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




PHILIPPINES

Ms Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO
First Secretary/Senior Foreign Affairs Adviser for UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Philippines to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 PARIS Cedex 15

 




POLAND / POLOGNE

Prof. Andrzej TOMASZEWSKI
Ministère de la Culture
VARSOVIE, Krakowskie Przedmiescie, 26




PORTUGAL

Mr Paulo PEREIRA
Vice-President
IPPAR, Palacino da Ajuda




SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE ARAB SYRIENNE

Mme Nabila CHAALAN
Délégué permanent de la Syrie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis,