Annex I
Royal Letter of His Majesty King Mohammed VI of Morocco
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
May the Blessings and the Prayers be upon the noblest of Messengers
Ladies and Gentlemen
The Kingdom of Morocco is delighted to welcome you in one of its prestigious historical capitals, Marrakech, the hospitable city where abound so many splendors of the past, all telling of the notorious status of this city among the most celebrated antique cities of the world.
It is indeed a happy occasion for Us of which We avail Ourself at the dawn of Our reign to share your ambitious and preoccupations regarding the civilizational heritage humanity has assembled as an expression of ifs genius, its values and its being worthy of the divine favor which makes of man the noblest of the creatures.
Twenty-seven years have elapsed already since the approval by UNESCO General Assembly in 1972 of the World Heritage Agreement. Much progress in dealing with cultural and natural heritage has been scored since then, due to the fact that the countries involved all agree on the same signifying reference, namely that the preservation of local and national heritage means, by common consensus, the preservation of a patrimony belonging to mankind.
This increasing international awareness shows in the yet-open world legacy list where are recorded the main natural and historical sites, whether they be full cities or unique buildings. This, indeed, is a token for the bright future of world civilization in its various aspects and manifestations. Future generations will find in this momentum enough material and inspiration for further improvements, as science and technology are ever in progress.
This meeting, the last of its kind in this Century, will certainly dwell on the new conditions brought about by the ongoing media revolution affecting human communication and sources of information. These conditions allow us to better conceive of our globe as the property of all, considering the means available to us to investigate its current state and the perils lying ahead. They likewise bring about a better apprehension of the Other, hence giving greater depth to the notion of world cultural and historical heritage of which co-habitation and tolerance are major components. In this new context, our duties are greater than ever before, in protecting this legacy in its various forms for the sake of future generations. We can certainly not claim ignorance regarding the multiple aspects of human civilization and the many existing dangers as a result of wars, poverty and illiteracy.
Before this awesome responsibility, if has become mandatory for us to coordinate international action to come to the rescue of our cultural heritage wherever if may be, our conviction being that a loss incurred anywhere is a loss to mankind. We also know that the limited means available to many of the countries of the south may make us lose many treasures and essential aspects of the wealth of our multiplicity.
In this respect, UNESCO is to be praised for the efforts exerted in working for a greater appreciation of this issue and for remarkable action undertaken for the protection of world heritage.
Ours, however, is to be a dynamic strategy to be integrated within our development plans; not an embalming of our heritage within a sacralized vision of the past. This calls for the establishing of strong links between the legacy of the past and the present creativity of modern man, for tomorrow's heritage is what we invent today. If is mandatory, then, to make of man's heritage a common ground for an exchange between civilizations, generations and historical eras.
Ladies and Gentlemen
As eminent specialists, experts, scholars and technical officials in charge of cultural affairs in your countries, you are aware of the fact that the historical importance of a nation is due to its ancestral urban vestiges, intellectual products, scientific inventions and civilizational achievements. Just as we believe that men, wherever they may be, made some contribution or other in the edification and consolidation of universal culture, We also believe that the maturity of a nation is judged by its awareness of the importance of its heritage and the interest it shows in protecting and renovating it.
With this kind of awareness in mind, the Kingdom of Morocco has taken, since independence, an answerving path in the preservation of its legacy, not in the like of some countries which found it easier to call upon foreign experts, but by inviting Moroccan specialists, whenever available, to take charge of this task and to train, in the process and on the working sites, talented younger people. This, indeed, shows in the first initiative taken by Our Late Father, His Majesty King Hassan II -may God bless His soul - when He decided to restore the Fes Royal Palace, so damaged during the time of the French protectorate. He, therefore, brought together the then-available master craftsmen for the task as well as two thousand youngsters to be trained by them in the crafts of traditional building and decoration. In so doing, he not only rescued an important historical building, but he also ensured the training of many artisans, the very same artisans who contributed to the edification of the two celebrated monuments: Mohammed V Mausoleum and Hassan II Mosque, both representing the synthesis of Moroccan traditional architecture and decoration.
Furthermore, Morocco sought to acquire knowledge of new modern techniques and indispensable scientific methodologies, in dealing with the study and restoration of monuments. Likewise, it established many ties of cooperation and exchange with many friendly and brotherly countries. Hence, many young Moroccans were encouraged to undertake studies in the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, zoology, art history, applied physics and chemistry, and other disciplines. Today, their number is sufficient to meet the needs of research, excavation, preservation and restoration.
Whenever necessary, Morocco did not hesitate to call upon distinguished foreign experts just as it did not hesitate to respond favourably to the requests received from abroad. Hence, many foreign scholars and technicians collaborated here with our experts.
In like manner, many of our best specialists were sent abroad at the request of friendly and brotherly nations and participated in the safeguard of various vestiges with the same enthusiasm and abnegation shown in their homeland.
Ladies and Gentlemen
We are delighted to note your increasing interest where regards natural heritage and the issues involving oral tradition, when this interest concerned mainly historical sites and buildings. In so doing, you are only striking a necessary balance; man is in constant interaction with his environment and is intimately part of his society. Just as in the past, influencing and being influenced is still a very powerful fact we cannot afford to ignore on the eve of the new century.
More than a source for the understanding of our geological and environmental globe, and more than a research field for many natural scientific disciplines, our natural heritage is an element of balance between man and his environment and a major factor for the preservation of bio-diversity which, if impoverished in any way, would affect that balance and may, therefore, decrease the chances for the continuation of life on our planet.
Likewise, you are very much aware of the great importance of verbally transmitted heritage in some countries, particularly in Africa where oral tradition was the source of education, training and initiation. Many societies edified their civilization upon this foundation, relying in so doing on the power of the transmitted word as it carried forth significant stories of good behaviour, and wise parables and accounts of significant events, hence enriching substantially the legacy of universal civilization. Our responsibility towards this very endangered and irreplaceable heritage lies in the concern we are to show for it as a priority.
In this respect, the decision by UNESCO to make of Jamaa Lafna Square in Marrakech a listed site constitutes not only a world premiere which honors Morocco, but it also serves as a praiseworthy and bold initiative which opens the way for this sort of patrimony. It will be followed, no doubt, by similar initiatives for the preservation of this kind of inherited sites.
Ladies and Gentlemen
We wish to commend your endeavour in drawing up a balanced list seeking to be representative of nations and regions and recording both cultural and natural sites. We fully appreciate the depth of its significance and the impact of its effect. In the next few years, we can expect to witness a major evolution in this respect thanks to the strengthening of relations, the dissemination of interest and the sincerity of intentions.
Ladies and Gentlemen
We are delighted to note, at the opening session of your Conference, the presence of Mr. Koichiro MATSUURA, UNESCO Director General who, for all of last year, chaired this commission. All along, Mr. MATSUURA has evidenced a wide scholarship, a great competence and a deep understanding of the issues of world civilization. These virtues, along with an impressive diplomatic training and experience, account certainly for the wise firmness and tactful intelligence shown in the task on hand.
As We greet and recongratulate him on the trust of the member states which have elected him to lead UNESCO, We wish him to know that We believe in his being able, like his predecessor, to make our organization take decisive steps ahead, with the understanding and the assistance of us all.
As We reiterate to you Our expressions of welcome to Morocco and among the people of this city whom we greet warmly, We implore God to grant success to your proceedings and blessings to each one of you.
MOHAMMED VI
KING OF MOROCCO
The Royal Palace,
Ifrane, November 26th, 1999
ANNEXE II / ANNEX II
COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Vingt-troisième session / Twenty-Third session
Marrakech, Maroc / Marrakesh, Morocco
29 novembre - 4 décembre 1999 / 29 November - 4 December 1999
__________
LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS / LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
________
- ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE/ STATES MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
AFRIQUE DU SUD/ SOUTH AFRICA
H.E. Ms Thuthukile SKWEYIYA
Ambassador of South Africa to France
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of South Africa to UNESCO
Embassy of South Africa
59, Quai d’Orsay
75343 PARIS Cedex 07
Dr Tanya ABRAHAMSE
Deputy Director General
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X 447
PRETORIA 0001
Mr Makgolo Ansley MAKGOLO
Assistant Director
Cultural Resources Management
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X 447
PRETORIA 0001
Ms Melinda SWIFT
P.O. Box 8769
JOHANNESBURG 2000
Mr Martins BEN DIKOBE
Member of Parliament
Robben Island Museum
P.O. Box
CAP TOWN 8000
AUSTRALIE/AUSTRALIA
Mr Bruce LEAVER
Head, Australian and World Heritage Group
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Mr Matthew PEEK
Permanent Delegate to UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Australia to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr Kevin KEEFFE
Assistant Secretary
World Heritage Branch
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Mr David WALKER
Director, International Section
World Heritage Branch
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Mr Jon DAY
Director Conservation, Biodiversity and World Heritage
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
PO BOX 1379
TOWNSVILLE, Queensland
BELGIQUE/BELGIUM
S. Exc. M. Hubert VAN HOUTTE
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de la Belgique auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
M. André MATTHYS
Inspecteur général
Direction générale de l’Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine
Division du patrimoine
Ministère de la Région Wallone
1, rue des Brigades d’Irlande
5100 NAMUR/JAMBES
M. Philippe THIERY
Directeur du Service du patrimoine
Région de Bruxelles Capitale
Rue du Progrès, 80/1B
B-1030 BRUXELLES
Mme Bénédicte SELFSLAGH
Conseiller, Relations internationales
Direction générale de l’Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine
Division du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Région Wallone
c/o 12-14 rue d'Aumale,
F-75009 PARIS
M. Edgard GOEDLEVEN
Directeur de la Division des Monuments et des Sites
Administration de l’Aménagement du Territoire, du Logement et des Monuments et Sites
Ministère de la Communauté Flamande
Bâtiment Graaf de Ferraris,
Koning Albert II Laan 20
Boîte 7
1000 BRUXELLES
Mme Suzanne VAN AERSCHOT-VAN HAEVERBEECK
Adjoint du Directeur
Coordination Inventaire du patrimoine architectural
Waaistraat 1
3000 B LOUVAIN
BENIN
M. Isidore MONSI
Premier Conseiller
Délégation permanente du Bénin auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
CANADA
Dr Christina CAMERON
Director General
National Historic Sites
Parks Canada
25 Eddy Str.
HULL Québec, KIA OM 5
Mr Murray McCOMB
Manager, Special projects
National Parks Directorate
Parks Canada
25 Eddy Str.
HULL Québec, KIA OM 5
Mme Gisèle CANTIN
Affaires internationales
Parcs Canada
25 rue Eddy
HULL Québec, KIA OM 5
M. Marius ARSENAULT
Directeur du Parc de Miguasha
Parcs Québec
CPI 183, NOUVELLE, QUEBEC GOC 2E0
CHINE/CHINA
Mr Xuezhong ZHANGSecretary-General
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
37, Damucanghutong, Xidan
BEIJING 1008 16
Mr Zhan GUO
Director of Division
National Administration of Cultural Heritage
BEIJING
Mr Zhe LI
Deputy Director of Division
Department of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Construction
7, Sanlihelu
BEIJING
Mr Jianhua YANG
Director
Overseas Liaison Department
Wuyishan Scenic Area
1 Yingbin Rd. Wuyishan
FUJIAN
Mr Qishan ZOU
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation of China to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr Enhua XU
Deputy Mayor
Wuyishan
18, Zhongshan Lu
Wuyishan City
FUJIAN 354300
Mr Xiangying GUO
Curator
Dazu Art Museum of Rock Carvings
7, Beishanlu, Longgan Town
CHONGGING Municipality 402360
Ms Xiaoping YU
Program Officer
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
37, Damucanghutong, Xidan
BEIJING 1008 16
COLOMBIE/COLOMBIA
M. Augusto GALAN SARMIENTO
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de la Colombie auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mme Katya GONZALES
Directrice du patrimoine national
Ministère de la Culture
Calle 9 N° 8-31
BOGOTA
M. Joaquin NAVIA RAMIREZ
Operations Director
National Parks Unit
CRA. 10 # 20-30
BOGOTA
CUBA
Mme Marta ARJONA
Présidente
Conseil national du patrimoine culturel
Ministère de la Culture
Calle 4 y 13, Vedado
LA HAVANE
M. Antonio PERERA
Directeur
Centre national des zones protégées
Ministère des Sciences, Technologie et Milieu ambiant
Calle 18A N° 4114 e 41 y 47 Playa.C.
LA HAVANE
EGYPTE/EGYPT
Mrs Manal Gad Allah
Cultural Attaché
Egyptian Cultural Center
RABAT
Royaume du Maroc
EQUATEUR/ECUADOR
Mme Magdalena GALLEGOS DE DONOSO
Directeur national
Institut national du patrimoine culturel de l’Equateur (INPC)
La Circaciana - Colón Oe 1-93 y 10 de Agosto
QUITO
M. Fernando CORDERO CUEVA
Alcade de Cuenca
Municipalidad de Cuenca
Isabel La Catolica 182
CUENCA
M. Alfonso NEIRA
Monay, n° 89
CUENCA
FINLANDE/FINLAND
Ms Taina KIEKKOAmbassador
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Ms Anne LAMMILA
Rapporteur of the World Heritage Committee
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr Henrik LILIUS
Director General
National Board of Antiquities
BOX 13
HELSINKI 00100
Mr Jukka-Pekka FLANDER
Chief Inspector
Ministry of Environment, Land Use Department
Ms Päivi SALONEN
Secretary for Cultural Affairs
Ministry of Education, Department for Cultural Policy
Ms Satu HEIKKINEN
Planning Officer
Finnish National Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Education
P.O. Box 293
FIN-00171 HELSINKI
GRECE/GREECE
S. Exc. Mr Vassilis VASSILIKOSAmbassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mme Hélène METHODIOU
Conseiller pour la Culture
Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
M. Charalampos KRITZAS
Archéologue
Ministère de la Culture
Musée épigraphique
1, rue Tositsa
10682 ATHENES
M. Dimitrios CONSTANTIOS
Archéologue
Ministère de la Culture
23, Bouboulinas Str.
10186 ATHENES
HONGRIE/HUNGARY
M. Zsolt VISY
Secrétaire d’Etat adjoint
Ministère du patrimoine culturel national
Wesselenyi SSr 20-22
H-1077 BUDAPEST
M. János TARDY
Secrétaire d’Etat adjoint
Ministère de l’environnement
Autorité pour la conservation de la nature
Költö n°21
H-1121 BUDAPEST
M. János JELEN
Ambassador
Department of Culture, Science and Information
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
Nagy Imre ter 4
H - 1027 BUDAPEST
M. Gábor SZILAGYI
Directeur général adjoint,
Parc national de Hortobágy
H-4024 Sumen V.2.
DEBRECEN
ITALIE/ITALY
H. E. Mr Gabriele SARDO
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate of Italy to UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Italy to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex l5
Mr Pasquale Bruno MALARA
Expert, Surintendant au Patrimoine architectural de la Région de Turin
Ministère des Biens et des Activités culturelles
Piazza S. Giovanni, 2
10122 TURIN
Mme Roberta ALBEROTANZA
Responsable UNESCO au Cabinet du Ministre
des Biens et Activités culturelles
Via del Collegio Romano, 27
00186 ROME
M. Luciano MARCHETTI
Expert
Surintendance pour les Biens culturels de Florence
Ministère des Biens et Activités culturelles
Piazza Pitti 1
FLORENCE
Mme Silvia LIMONCINI
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
P.le della Farnesina 1
ROME
Mme Federica MUCCI
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
Service du Contentieux diplomatique
P.le della Farnesina 1
ROME
MALTE/MALTA
H.E. Dr Joseph LICARI
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Malta to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex l5
M. Reuben GRIMA
Curator, Site Management Unit
National Museum of Archaeology
Republic Street
VALLETTA CMR 02
MAROC/MOROCCO
M. Abdelaziz TOURI
Président du Comité du patrimoine mondial
Directeur,
Direction du Patrimoine culturel
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
17, rue Michlifen, Agdal
RABAT
M. Faissal CHERRADI
Inspecteur des monuments historiques et sites de Marrakech
Direction du patrimoine culturel
Inspection des monuments historiques
MARRAKECH
M. Abdallah SALIH
Directeur du Parc national du patrimoine rupestre
Direction du patrimoine culturel
Rue Fatima-Zohra, Rmila
MARRAKECH
M. Ahmed SKOUNTI
Chargé de recherches
Parc national du patrimoine rupestre
Direction du patrimoine culturel
Rue Fatima-Zohra, Rmila
MARRAKECH
Mme Jalila KADIRI
Architecte paysagiste
Chef de la Division des études
Direction du Patrimoine culturel
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
17, rue Michlifen, Agdal
RABAT
M. Driss FASSI
MAB-Maroc
Institut agronomique et vétérinaire Hassan II
BP 6202 - RABAT
M. BENMOKHTAR
Président de l’Université
MEXIQUE/MEXICO
Mr Damaso LUNA CORONA
Director General, Environment and Natural Resources
Secretariat of Foreign Affairs
MEXICO DF
Mr Oscar RAMIREZ FLORES
Director-General,
SEMARNAP-INP Mexico
Pitagoras # 1320
Col. Sta. Cruz Atoyac
03310 MEXICO DF
M. Javier MEDINA
Directeur général, Liaison avec le Congrès
SECOFI
MEXICO DF
Mr Francisco J. LOPEZ MORALES
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)
Correo Mayor 11, Centro Historico
MEXICO DF
M. Victor SANCHEZ SOTOMAYOR
Secrétariat, SEMARNAP
San Roque 87
Guerrero Negro
BAJA CALIFORNIA SUR
M. Victor M. MENDEZ LANZ
Président municipal de Campeche
Ayuntamiento
Niebla n° 3
CAMPECHE
M. Salvador DIAZ-BERRIO
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco (UAM-X)
National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)
MEXICO DF
PORTUGAL
S. Exc. M. Jorge RITTO
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente du Portugal auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
M. Claudio TORRES
Campus archéologique de Mertola
MERTOLA
Observateurs du Gouvernement régional de Madère/Observers from the Regional Government of Madera
M. Alberto JOAO JARDIM
Président
Gouvernement régional de Madère-Portugal
M. Manuel Jorge BAZENGA MARQUES
Secrétaire régional de l’Agriculture, des Forêts et de la Pêche de Madère
Gouvernement régional Madère-Portugal
Palais du Gouvernement
FUNCHAL - MADERE
M. Henrique COSTA NEVES
Directeur du Parc naturel de Madère
Gouvernement régional Madère-Portugal
Jardin botanique
MADERE
M. Rui MARTINS
Gouvernement régional Madère-Portugal
REPUBLIQUE DE COREE/REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Mr YOO Jung-Hee
Deputy Director-General for Cultural Affairs
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Sejong-ro 77, Jongro-gu
SEOUL
Mr CHUNG Il
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr KIM Bong-gon
Director
Art and Architecture Division
National Research Institute of Cultural Properties
Cultural Properties Administration
Sejong-ro 1, Jongro-gu
SEOUL 110-050
Mr KANG Kyung-Hwan
Assistant Director
The Cultural Properties Planning Division
Cultural Properties Administration
920 Dunsan-dong, Seo-gu,
TAEJON
THAILANDE/THAILAND
Prof. Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman
National Committee on the Protection of the World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Rama 6 Road
10400 BANGKOK
Mr Manit SIRIWAM
Secretary
National Committee on the Protection of the World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Rama 6 Road
10400 BANGKOK
Mrs SIRIPORN NANTA
National Committee on the Protection of the World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Rama 6 Road
10400 BANGKOK
Mr CHUMPHON SUCKASEAM
National Park
Royal Forest Department
National Park Division
10900 BANGKOK
Mrs Janya MANAVID
Government Service
Fine Arts Department
Office of Archaeology and National Museums
Sri-Ayuthaya Road
10300 BANGKOK
ZIMBABWE
Mr Dawson MUNJERI
Executive Director
The National Museums and Monuments
P.O.Box CY 1485, Causeway
HARARE
Mr Albert KUMIRAI
Director
Natural History Museum
The National Museums and Monuments
P.O. Box CY 1485, Causeway
HARARE
II. 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 Marc LAENEN
Director-General
via di San Michele, 13
00153 Rome
Italy
Mr Joseph KING
Coordination, AFRICA 2009
via di San Michele, 13
00153 ROME
Italy
Mr Herb STOVEL
World Heritage Convention Co-ordinator
via di San Michele, 13
00153 ROME
Italy
CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS) /
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)
Mr Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secrétaire général
49-51, rue de la Fédération
75015 PARIS
Mme Carmen AÑON
Membre du Comité Exécutif
Puerto Santa Maria 49
MADRID 28043
Dr Henry CLEERE
Coordinateur du Patrimoine mondial
49-51, rue de la Fédération
75015 PARIS
M. Michel JANTZEN
Consultant, Architecte en chef des Monuments historiques
Mme Regina DURIGHELLO
Coordinateur adjoint
49-51, rue de la Fédération
75015 PARIS
UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN) /
THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)
Mr David SHEPPARD
Head,
Programme on Protected Areas
IUCN Headquarters
rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland
Dr Jim THORSELL
Senior Advisor
c/o IUCN Headquarters
rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 GLAND, Switzerland
Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS
Vice-Chair World Heritage
World Commission for Protected Areas
1/268 Main Road, Tawa
WELLINGTON 6006, New Zealand
Ms Pam EISER
Executive Officer
Australian Committee for IUCN
Level 1, York Street
P.O. Box 528
SYDNEY, NSW 2001, Australia
III. OBSERVATEURS / OBSERVERS
- ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL /
ALGERIE/ALGERIA
Mme Houria BOUHIRED
Présidente
Association pour la Sauvegarde de la Casbah d’Alger (ASCA)
3, rue Malaîka Ben Aîssa
ALGER
ALLEMAGNE/GERMANY
Mr Friedrich CATOIR
Ministre conseiller
Chargé d’Affaires
Ambassade d’Allemagne au Maroc
B.P. 235
10000 RABAT
Royaume du Maroc
M. Hans CASPARY
Conservateur du Service des Monuments Historiques
Schillerstr. 44
55116 MAINZ
Mr Harald PLACHTER
University of Marburg
Faculty of Biology
D-35032 MARBURG
Mrs Irmela SPELSBERG
Membre du Comité allemand de l’ICOMOS
Friedrichstr. 38
BERLIN
ARABIE SAOUDITE/SAUDI ARABIA
Mr Ibrahim ALBERAIHY
Director General of Archaeology
RIYAD
ARGENTINE/ARGENTINA
Mrs Diana ROLANDI
Director
National Institute of Anthropology and Latin-American Thought
Secretary of Culture
Presidency of the Nation
3 de Febrero 1378
(1426) BUENOS AIRES
Mme Daniela Veronica RAMOS
Représentante de la Province de Santa-Cruz
Suipacha 1120
C.P. (1008)
AUTRICHE/AUSTRIA
S. Exc. M. Tassilo F. OGRINZ
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de l’Autriche auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
M. Hans HORCICKA
Directeur
Ministère Fédéral de l'Education et des Affaires Culturelles
Abt. IV/3
Schreyvogelgasse 2/304
A-1014 WIEN
M. Ernst BACHER
Office fédéral du patrimoine
Bundesdenkmalamt
Hofburg, Schweizerhof
A-1010 WIEN
BRESIL/BRAZIL
M. Otavio MAIA CHELOTTITroisième Secrétaire
Assesseur, Division des Affaires culturelles multilatérales
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
Esplanade des ministères
Annexe I, S.407
BRASILIA M. José Pedro DE OLIVEIRA COSTA
Secrétaire d’Etat pour la biodiversité et les forêts
Ministère de l’Environnement
Rue Flavio Queiros Moraes 82
SAO PAULO, 01249-030
M. Joao ANTUNES DE OLIVEIRA
Maire de la Ville de Diamantine
Praça Conselheiro Mata n° 13
DIAMANTINA, Minas Gerais
CHYPRE/CYPRUS
Dr Sopholes HADJISAVVAS
Director
Department of Antiquities
c/o Cyprus Museums
Museum Street 1
NICOSIA
COSTA RICA
Mme Iris LEIVA DE BILLAULT
Ambassadeur
Déléguée permanente adjointe
Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mme Arlene TAYLOR DE MONTEALEGRE
Déléguée permanente
Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
ESPAGNE/SPAIN
S. Exc. M. Jésus EZQUERRA
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation pemanente de l’Espagne auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
M. Antonio NUÑEZ
Directeur général des Relations culturelles
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
M. Luis LAFUENTE
Sous-Directeur général
Protection du patrimoine historique
Ministère de l’Education et de la Culture
ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mr Raymond E. WARNER
Deputy Director
Office of Technical and Specialized Agencies
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Ms Shirley M. HART
Permanent Observer of the United States to UNESCO
American Embassy
2, avenue Gabriel
75008 PARIS
FEDERATION DE RUSSIE/RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Mr Vladimir PISHCHELEV
Deputy Head
Department for management of nature protected areas
State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environment Protection
Kedrova str., 8-1
MOSCOW
Mr Alexei BOUTORINE
Greenpeace Russia
Russian Committee for World Heritage Affairs
World Heritage Project Co-ordinator
Viborgskaya 8-3
125212 MOSCOU
FRANCE
S. Exc. M. Jean MUSITELLI
Ambassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex l5
M. Olivier POISSON
Inspecteur général des Monuments historiques
Ministère de la Culture
8, rue Vivienne
75002 PARIS
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 Cedex 07
Mme Catherine CARO
Administrateur civil
Adjointe au Sous-Directeur des sites et paysages
Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement
20, avenue de Ségur
75302 PARIS Cedex 07
Mme Eva CAILLART
Chargée de mission
Direction de l’architecture et du patrimoine
Ministère de la Culture
8, rue Vivienne
75002 PARIS
Mme Catherine DUMESNIL
Conseillère technique
Commission nationale française pour l’UNESCO
57, boulevard des Invalides
75700 PARIS SP
INDE/INDIA
H.E. Mr Chiranjiv SINGH
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex l5
INDONESIE/INDONESIA
Mr DJASPONI
Head, Division of Administration
Directorate-General of Culture
Ministry of Education and Culture
Jalan Jenderal Sudirman
Senayan
JAKARTA 10270
ISRAEL
S. Exc. M. Aryé GABAY
Ambasadeur
Délégué permanent auprès de l’UNESCo
Ministère des Affaires étrangères
3, rue Rabelais
75008 PARIS
Mr Gideon AVNI
Archaeologist
Israel Antiquities Authority
POB 586
JERUSALEM 91004
JAPON/JAPAN
Mr Tomiji SUGAWA
Director-General
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs(Bunkacho)
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO, 100-0013
Ms Akiko YAMADA
Official, Multilateral Cultural Co-operation Division
Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-1-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100-0013
Mr Akihiro TAKAZAWA
Third Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr Atsuhiro YOSHINAKA
Assistant Director
Planning Division
Nature Conservation Bureau
Environment Agency
1-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO 100-8975
Mr Nobuo KAMEI
Director, Architecture Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs(Bunkacho)
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO, 100-0013
Dr Makoto MOTONAKA
Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department,
Agency for Cultural Affairs (Bunkacho)
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO, 100-0013
Mr Yosuke HASHIMOTO
Senior Specialist
Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs(Bunkacho)
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO, 100-0013
Dr Nobuko INABA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Architecture Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department,
Agency for Cultural Affairs (Bunkacho)
3-2-2, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
TOKYO, 100-0013
Ms Kumiko YONEDA
Senior Research Scientist
Japan Wildlife Research Center
2-29-3 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku
TOKYO, 113-0034
LITUANIE/LITHUANIA
S. Exc. Mme Ugné KARVELISAmbassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente de la Lituanie auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
MONGOLIE/MONGOLIA
M. Norov URTNASAN
Head of the Department of External Relations
Ministry of Education
Mongolian National Commission for UNESCO
Government of House
ULAANBAATAR
NEPAL
H.E. Mr Indra Bahadur SINGH
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Nepal to France
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Nepal to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Ms R iddhi PRADHAN
Director General
Department of Archaeology
Ram Shah Path
KATHMANDU
NIGERIA
Mr Ojo MADUEKWE
Minister of Culture and Tourism
ABUJA
Mr Bonnie HARUNA
Governor of Adamawa State
YOLA
H.E. Mr M.S. ABDULWAHAB
Ambassador of the Nigeria in Morocco
RABAT
Maroc
Dr Yaro GELLA
Director-General
National Commission for Museums and Monuments
PMB 1115
BENIN-CITY
Mr F. EBOREINWE
Directeur du patrimoine national
Ministère de la Culture et du Tourisme
ABUJA
Mr A.R. ABUBAKAR
Senior Counsellor
Embassy of Nigeria in Morocco
70, avenue Omar Al Khatab - Agdal
RABAT
Mr Y. Aliyu BABANDO
Senior specialist assistant
Adamawa State Government
P.M.B. 2066
YOLA
Ms Grace ISU GEKPE
Federal Ministry of Culture and Tourism
ABUJA
NORVEGE/NORWAY
Mrs Anne-Kristin ENDRESEN
Director
Nordic World Heritage Office
Dronningsgt. 13
Postboks 8013
OSLO Department
Mr Einar HOLTANE
Deputy Director General
Ministry of Environment
Section for Cultural Heritage
Department for Nature Conservation and Cultural Heritage
Myntgata 2
P.O. Box 8013 Dep.
N-0030 OSLO
Mr Rolf LOFGREN
National Environment Protection Agency
106 48 STOCKHOLM
Mr Jan TURTINEN
Researcher,
Score Research-centre
Score Stockholm University
SCORE SE-109-691 STOCKHOLM
Mrs Synnöve VINSRYGG
Senior International Researcher
Nordic World Heritage Office
P.O. Box 8196 Dep.
N-0034 OSLO
OMAN
Mr Salim ALMAHRUQI
Chief of Minister of Information’s Office
P.O. Box 194 PC 115 MSQ
MASCATE
OUGANDA/UGANDA
Dr Ephrane KAMUHANGIRE
Director
Antiquities and Museums
P.O. Box 5718
KAMPALA
OUZBEKISTAN/UZBEKISTAN
Mr Bakhodir ABDURAKHIMOV
Deputy-Minister
Ministry of Cultural Affairs
Navoi Str. 30
TASHKENT
Mr Sagdullayev DJAKHANGIR
Deputy Chief of International Relations
Ministry for Cultural Affairs
Navoi Str. 30
TASHKENT
PAYS-BAS/NETHERLANDS
Mr Robert DE JONG
Senior Staff Member/Coordinator for World Heritage
Netherlands State Department for Conservation
P.O. Box 1001
Broederplein 41
3700 BA ZEIST
Mr Fred F.J. SCHOORL
Head of Immovable Heritage
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
P.B. 25000
2700 LZ ZOETERMEER
Mr Harry ROENHORST
Ambtenaa
Munc. de Beemster
P67
BEEMSTER
Mrs Johanna B.P. HARLAAR
Adjoint com. Beemster
R. Middelburgstraat 1
MIDDENBEEMSTER
PEROU/PERU
S. Exc. Mme Marìa Luisa FEDERICIAmbassadeur
Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente du Pérou auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
PHILIPPINES
H.E. Mr Hector K. VILLARROEL
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Philippines to France
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of the Philippines to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
Mr Augusto VILLALON
Architect
UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines
107 Wilson Circle, San Juan
1500 M. MANILLE
POLOGNE/POLAND
Prof. Andrzej TOMASZEWSKI
Expert, Professeur d’Université
Ministère de la culture et du patrimoine national
Ksamerov 13
00656 VARSOVIE
M. Waclaw DLUGOBORSKI
Président du Conseil scientifique auprès du Musée Auschwitz-Birkenau
Ul. PCK 6/11
KATONIE
REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE/CZECH REPUBLIC
Dr Josef STULC
Director of the National Institute for Heritage Preservation
Statni ustav pamatkové péce / State Institute for Heritage Preservation
Valdstejnske 3
PRAGUE 1, 11800
Mr Michal BENES
International Department
Ministry of Culture
139 Milady Horàkové
PRAGUE 6, 16000
ROYAUME-UNI/UNITED KINGDOM
Mr Nigel PITTMAN
Head of Buildings, Monuments and Sites Division
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
2 - 4 Cockspur Street
LONDON SW1Y 5DH
Dr Christopher YOUNG
Head of World Heritage and International Policy
English Heritage
23, Savile Row
LONDON WIX 1AB
Dr Tony A.J. WEIGHELL
Earth Science & Coastal Advisor
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
Monkstone House
PETERBOROUGH
SAINT-SIEGE/HOLY SEE
Mgr Tullio POLI
Secrétariat d’Etat
Section pour les relations avec les Etats
Casa S. Marta
I-00120 Cité du VATICAN
M. René DENEUX
Architecte
2, rue Abou Hanifa
RABAT
SLOVAQUIE/SLOVAKIA
Mr Jozef KLINDA
Director General
Ministry of the Environment
Namestie L. Stura 1
812 35 BRATISLAVA
Ms Katarina KOSOVA
Director General
Institute of Monuments Preservation
Kammerhofska 26
81406 BRATISLAVA
Mrs Katarina NOVAKOVA
Director
Centre of Management of World Heritage Slovakia
Kammerhofska 26
BANSKA STIAVNICA
Mr Jozef HLAVAC
Director
Slovak Show Caves Administration
Hodjova 11
03101 LIPTOVKY-MIKULAS
SUEDE/SWEDEN
Mrs Birgitta HOBERG
Senior International Officer
National Heritage Board of Sweden
P.O. Box 5405
SE-11484 STOCKHOLM
Mr Rolf LOFGREN
Conservation Officer
National Environment Protection Agency
SE-10698 STOCKHOLM
Mr Jan TURTINEN
Researcher,
SCORE Research-centre
Stockholm University
SE-10691 STOCKHOLM
Mr Mats HENRIKSSON
County Architect
County Administration of Vasternorrland
Törnrosv. 2L
SE-85740 SUNHSVALL
SUISSE/SWITZERLAND
Madame Madeleine VIVIANI
Responsable des Affaires de patrimoine
Division politique V
Département fédéral des Affaires étrangères
TUNISIE/TUNISIA
M. Jamel THLIBI
Sous-Directeur
Agence Nationale de Protection de l’Environnement (ANPE)
12, rue du Cameroun
BP 52
TUNIS-Belvédère
TURQUIE/TURKEY
Mr Günel GOKGE
Director Regional Council
Ministry of Culture
General Directorate for Preservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage
Ulus - 06100
ANKARA
Mrs Mine KANGAL
Specialist, City Planner
Ministry of Culture
General Directorate for Preservation of Cultural and Natural Heritage
Ulus - 06100
ANKARA
VIETNAM
Dr Truong Quoc Binh
Vice General Director of Preservation and Museology Department
Ministry of Culture and Information
Ngo Quyen Str.,
HANOI
Mr Pham Quang Tho
Deputy Secretary-General
Vietnam National Commission for UNESCO
8, Khuc Hao Str.
HANOI
Mrs Ho Thi Thanh Lam
Vice President
People’s Committee of Quang Nam Province
Tamky
QUANG NAM
Mr Nguyen Van Tuan
Director
Halong Bay Management Department
HALONG CITY - Quangninh Province
(iii) ORGANISATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES INTERNATIONALES /
INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
ALECSO
M. Abbes ASSORI
Directeur du BCA
82, rue Oued Ziz - Agdal
RABAT
LA BANQUE MONDIALE / THE WORLD BANK
Ms Arlene FLEMINGCultural Resource Specialist
Room MC 5 - 227
1818 H Street, NW
WASHINGTON D.C. 20433
United States of America
ORGANISATION DE LA CONFERENCE ISLAMIQUE (OCI)
M. Papa Toumané NDIAYESpécialiste de programmes, ISESCO
Direction de la culture et de la communication
Avenue Attine
RABAT
Royaume du Maroc
ORGANISATION ISLAMIQUE POUR L’EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE (ISESCO)
M. Papa Toumané NDIAYE
Spécialiste de programmes, ISESCO
Direction de la culture et de la communication
Avenue Attine
RABAT
Royaume du Maroc
PROJET PAM/PNUE (Programme Alimentaire Mondial et Programme des Nations Unies pour l’Environnement)
M. Daniel DROCOURT
Coordonnateur Programme 100 sites historiques
Atelier de la ville de Marseille
10 ter, square Belsunce
13001 MARSEILLE
- ORGANISATIONS INTERNATIONALES NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES/
INTERNATIONALNON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
ARCH FOUNDATION
Mr Mahasti AFSHAR
Director
11947 Dorothy St. 202
LOS ANGELES, California 90049
United States of America
Ms Lori ANGLIN
Conservation architect, consultant
588/3 Petchburi Rd
BANGKOK
Thaïlande
HIGH-TECH VISUAL PROMOTION CENTRE
Mr Hiroshi TSUKAMOTO
President
3F Place Canada
7-3-38 Akasaka
Minato-ku
TOKYO
Japan
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DES ARCHITECTS PAYSAGISTES (IFLA) / INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS (IFLA)
Mr Hans DORN
Past Vice-President Central Region
Chairman of the International IFLA Committee on Historical Landscapes and Gardens
Holbeinstrasse, 17
D-60596 FRANKFURT/Main
Germany
FONDATION PATRIMOINE HISTORIQUE INTERNATIONAL (Canada)
Mme Céline SAUCIER
Présidente-Directrice générale
4607 Catherine-Nau
CAP ROUGE,
G1Y 3B8 Canada
M. Marcel JUNIUS
Vice-Président
4607 Catherine-Nau
CAP ROUGE,
G1Y 3B8 Canada
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON METALS AND THE ENVIRONMENT (ICME) / CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL SUR LES METAUX ET L’ENVIRONNEMENT (CIME)
Mr Scott HOUSTON
U.P. Public Policy
294 Albert Street, Suite 506
OTTAWA, KIP 6E6
Canada
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF SHINGON BUDDHISM
Mr Taiei GOTO
Secretary General
132 Koyasan Ito-gun
Wakayama
648-0294 Japan
Mr Kansho MORI
Director
Japan
INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE (IFAW)
Mr Jared BLUMENFELD
Director
Habitat for Animals Program
411 Main Street
YARMOUTHPORT, MA 02675
United Sates of America
Mr Mark J. SPALDING
Baja Campaign Advisor
Habitat for Animals Program
University of California
140, 12th St. Del Mar
CA 92014-2315
SAN DIEGO
United Sates of America
NATURE RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC) INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME
Mr Joel REYNOLDS
1200 New York Avenue
N.W. Suite 400
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
United Sates of America
ORGANISATION DES VILLES DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL (OVPM) / ORGANIZATION OF WORLD HERITAGE CITIES (OWHC)
Mr Denis RICARD
Secretary General
15 St-Nicolas
QUEBEC
Canada GIK IM8
- ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES / NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
LES AMIS DU PATRIMOINE DU MAROC (APM)
M. Hakim LOURIKI
Président
12, rue de Brément
93130 NOISY LE SEC
France
ASSOCIATION POUR LA SAUVEGARDE DE LA CASBAH D’ALGER (ASCA)
M. Ahmed LAKSARI
Vice-Président
3, rue Malaîka Ben Aîssa
ALGER
Algérie
M. Ameur P. BEHLOUL
Journaliste
3, rue Malaîka Ben Aîssa
ALGER
Algérie
M. Mohamed BENGHERABI
Architecte
Rue Ahmed Ben Aissa
16000 ALGER
Algérie
PRO ESTEROS MEXICO
Ms Laura MARTINEZ RIOS DEL RIO
Director
PMB-122, PO Box 189003 Coronado
CA- 92178-9003
United States of America
Ms Patricia MARTINEZ RIOS
Vice-President
PMB-122, PO Box 189003 Coronado
CA- 92178-9003
United States of America
UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION/
FONDATION DES NATIONS UNIES
Mr Nicholas LAPHAM
Programme Officer
1301 Connecticut Ave.
NW WASHINGTON DC 20036
United States of America
Mr Gardner OHUH
1301 Connecticut Ave.
NW WASHINGTON DC 20036
United States of America
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr Kurt CHRISTENSEN
Professional staff
1324 LHOB
WASHINGTON DC
United States of America
Mr John RISHEL
Legislative staff
1413 A, LHOB
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
United States of America
IV. SECRETARIAT DE L’UNESCO/UNESCO SECRETARIAT
M. Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Directeur
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Georges ZOUAIN
Directeur adjoint
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Minja YANG
Directeur pour la Région Asie-Pacifique
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Galia SAOUMA-FORERO
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Elizabeth WANGARI
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Mireille JARDIN
Division des Sciences écologiques
M. Natarajan ISHWARAN
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Herman van HOOFF
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Mechtild RÖSSLER
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. V. DEFOURNY
Unité centrale d’évaluation du programme
Mme Josette ERFAN
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Sarah TITCHEN
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mlle Junko TANIGUCHI
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Peter STRASSER
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Feng JING
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mlle Johanna SULLIVAN
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mlle Julie HAGE
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Jane DEGEORGES
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mme Jocelyne POUTEAU
Centre du patrimoine mondial
Mlle Marianne RAABE
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. David MARTEL
Centre du patrimoine mondial
M. Mourad BOULARES
Division de l’interprétation
M. Bernd von DROSTE
Special Advisor of the Director-General for World Heritage
Traductrices :
Mme Sabine DE VALENCE
Mme Anne SAUVETRE
Annex III
Address of the of the Director-General of UNESCO
on the occasion of the
Twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee
Marrakesh, Morocco
10.00 -10.50, Monday 29 November 1999
Messieurs le Ministre des Affaires culturelles,
Monsieur le Ministre de l'Enseignement Supérieur et Président de la Commission nationale marocaine pour l'UNESCO,
Monsieur le Ministre de l'Aménagement du territoire Monsieur le Secrétaire d'Etat à l'Habitat,
Monsieur le Gouverneur,
Madame l'Ambassadeur de Sa Majesté auprès de l'UNESCO, Monsieur le Président du Comité du patrimoine mondial,
Excellences,
Mesdames et Messieurs,
Permettez-moi de vous souhaiter la bienvenue à la vingt-troisième session du Comité du patrimoine mondial. Je tiens à remercier très sincèrement le Royaume du Maroc de sa générosité et de son hospitalité.
Cela faisait de nombreuses années qu'une réunion du Comité du patrimoine mondial ne s'était pas tenue dans un pays de la Région arabe, et c'est un réel plaisir de renouer avec la beauté et l'impressionnante histoire de cette ville de Marrakech.
J'aimerais, en cette occasion privilégiée, rendre hommage a Sa Majesté le défunt roi Hassan II, et à la politique visionnaire qu'il a menée en matière de protection du patrimoine culturel du Maroc. C'est en effet dès 1980 que, sollicitant l'assistance de l'UNESCO il a conduit l'Organisation à lancer une campagne internationale pour la sauvegarde de la Médina de Fez, puis à inscrire Fez sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Sa Majesté Hassan II a ainsi permis à un ensemble architectural parmi les plus important au monde, ainsi qu'à une importante tradition artisanale vivante d'être préservés. Je suis certain que Sa Majesté Mohamed VI poursuivra avec la même conviction l'œuvre de son père.
La Lettre Royale dont Il nous a honoré nous permet de mesurer la profondeur et la richesse de Sa vision de Patrimoine culturel, considéré dans ses dimensions urbanistique, architecturale, archéologique, naturelle, immatérielle et orale.
En votre nom à tous, je Le remercie pour ce message éclairé et stimulant qu'Il nous a adressé.
Pour ma part, j'ai été particulièrement sensible à Son appel à la sauvegarde de la diversité du patrimoine mondial et à son souci de mettre le patrimoine au service du développement et, surtout, au service de la connaissance de l'autre et de la défense des valeurs de convivialité et de tolérance, sans lesquelles l'humanité ne peut accéder à une culture de la paix.
Je suis également touché par les mots amicaux qu'Il a eu à mon égard et Lui en suis reconnaissant.
En vous souhaitant à tous la bienvenue, j'aimerais également vous exprimer ma très haute estime pour le travail du Comité et pour la Convention de 1972 pour la protection du patrimoine mondial culturel et naturel. Le travail du Comité est avant tout l'expression tangible de la solidarité et de la coopération internationales invoquées par la Convention du patrimoine mondial.
158 Etats parties y ont à ce jour adhéré, ce qui représente une large majorité des 188 Etats membres de l'UNESCO. J'aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue aux représentants des Etats parties qui participent pour la première fois à une session du Comité, et je tiens également à féliciter les Etats parties qui ont récemment été élus membres du Comité par la douxième Assemblée générale des Etats parties qui s'est tenue à l'UNESCO les 28 et 29 octobre derniers.
Je félicite en outre ceux des Etats parties qui ont été élus membres du Bureau, lors de la quatrième session extraordinaire du Comité le 30 octobre.
Je souhaite adresser des félicitations particulières au nouveau Président du Comité, Monsieur Abdelaziz Touri, le Directeur du patrimoine culturel au Maroc. Le choix de Monsieur Touri est largement justifié pour ce poste de Président, car il est, outre un expert respecté et un praticien de la conservation du patrimoine culturel, un homme d'expérience au sein du Comité, dans lequel il a travaillé pendant de nombreuses années.
Vos délibérations et décisions seront sur les critères que vous établirez pour le patrimoine mondial seront d'une importance capitale, non seulement pour la sauvegarde future de l'exceptionnel patrimoine mondial culturel et naturel - notre patrimoine mondial -, mais également pour les sites d'importance nationale ou locale.
Etre Etat partie à la Convention et être membre du Comité implique de nombreuses responsabilités, dont l'une et non la moindre est de développer une éthique de la conservation du patrimoine. Promouvoir équitablement une telle éthique est sans nul doute un défi majeur, particulierement à une époque où la globalisation économique conduit toutes les nations à la poursuite d'un développement rapide parfois peu soucieux de ses conséquences pour l'avenir.
Mais la conservation n'est certainement pas une fin en soi. Le patrimoine que nous cherchons à protéger doit prendre sens pour la société contemporaine et lui donner sens. Ce n'est qu'à cette condition qu'il pourra être préservé pour les générations futures.
Si nous sommes réunis aujourd'hui, c'est pour relever collectivement ce défi, afin que chacun des trésors légués à l'humanité soit protégé par tous grâce à la Convention, avec la sagesse, le savoir et la force de persuasion que nous pouvons créer ensemble.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My first encounter with you was two years ago when I attended a Bureau session as a representative of a State Party.
For one year afterwards, I dealt intensively with World Heritage in my capacity as Chairman of the World Heritage Committee.
Today, I stand before you as the Director-General of UNESCO.
And tomorrow, perhaps as a member of one of the Advisory Bodies!
But despite the distinct function of each of these roles, they make up an undivisible whole that must work in unison and in harmony, supporting each other, if the aims of the World Heritage Convention are to be attained.
From normative work to policy formulation, from programme development to project execution, from education and public information, UNESCO implements in every possible way your decisions and attempts to make the voice of the Committee heard across all borders.
As Director-General of UNESCO, I will endeavor to strengthen the World Heritage Centre...
Enhancing its capacity to respond to the increasing demands of national and local authorities, of site managers, research institutes, development agencies, the media and the public.
In this way it will, I hope, come to be seen more clearly than ever as the focal point for the defense of world heritage.
When I last addressed you, as Chair of the World Heritage Committee, at the Twelfth General Assembly of States Parties, I reported on the progress made towards resolving some critical issues, and pointed to others that required urgent follow-up.
Since 1992, the debate on Global Strategy has sought to make the World Heritage List more representative of the ethno-cultural and bio-geographical diversities of the world.
That reflection led to a resolution adopted by consensus by the General Assembly on measures to redress this imbalance.
Regional action plans are already in operation and will certainly be complemented by sub-regional and national activities.
The representation issue also gave rise to a new debate - on the demand for equitable representation on the 21-member Committee of the now 158 States Parties.
Ways and means to enable greater participation of States Parties in steering the course of the Convention have been explored.
I note that the General Assembly has asked the Committee to set up a working group to prepare a proposal on this that will be submitted to the Thirteenth General Assembly.
As I said in my report to the Twelfth General Assembly, the aims of the Global Strategy, however, cannot be attained without the commitment of all States Parties, nor independently from the World Heritage conservation process as a whole.
For without adequate legal protection, management capacities and conservation skills, inscription cannot safeguard even the most outstanding site from the underrepresented category.
In this connection, I was deeply touched by initiatives taken by some States Parties in supporting others in meeting the inscription requirements.
Not only have generous financial contributions been made, but secondment of experts is helping to redress the imbalance of the List through training and transfer of knowledge and skills.
I stressed during my chairmanship, the need to review the working method of the Committee to maintain the credibility of the Convention.
With the large number of new nominations which continue to be submitted by States Parties, and the increasing number of state of conservation reports to examine each year, a serious evaluation on how best to use the limited time of the Committee must be made.
In other words, it is becoming a victim of its own success!
But the growing reach of the Convention and the authority of the Committee can only be maintained if the Committee is able to execute its work with all the necessary rigour. This is particularly true for decisions on the inscription of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
But this authority cannot be maintained, I fear, unless the Committee can execute its work with the rigour that the work demands. This is particularly the case for its task regarding the inscription of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
I propose that these matters be addressed in priority by the strategic taskforce, the creation of which was suggested by the Bureau at its 23rd session earlier this year.
The credibility of the Committee also depends on its ability to provide tangible support to States Parties, especially to those who do not have the technical and financial means to take corrective measures on their own.
In this regard, I draw the attention of the Committee to the evaluation on international assistance which has just started.
I call upon all of you to contribute actively in this important exercise.
How best can the limited resources of the World Heritage Fund be used to assist States Parties in protecting their properties?
The Committee has increased the annual budgetary allocation from the Fund each year, and a further increase is proposed for the year 2000.
But with more requests and for higher amounts, there are clear limits to the Fund's ability to respond.
I therefore hope that the evaluation currently underway will provide the basis for the Committee to establish clearer guidelines to enable the prioritisation of requests.
I have suggested the linkage of preparatory assistance and training grants to Global Strategy and priority approval for requests from Least Developed Countries and Low Income Countries, particularly for technical co-operation. This has been endorsed by the Bureau and now requires debate by the Committee for sound and fair application.
I also stressed the need for the Committee to reflect on a strategy for preventive action, to address the root cause of the diverse threats to World Heritage. Such a strategy must take development requirements into account, so that our conservation actions become an undeniable force for sustainable development.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would also like to mention the other supremely important task of the Committee: public awareness-building and education for World Heritage conservation. This calls for us all to invest in intelligence and knowledge. For without the understanding and support of the public at large, without the respect and daily care by the local communities, which are the true custodians of the World Heritage sites, no amount of funds or army of experts will suffice to protect these sites. It also calls for citizenry, for the public at large and the individuals comprising that public, to assume the responsibilities and duties for heritage conservation by participating in the democratic process to protect and develop it for the benefit of all.
I think you know that you can count on me to support you in all these tasks.
I shall seek during my term as Director-General, to work with the General Conference and the Executive Board to further strengthen the World Heritage Centre and to identify ways and means of strengthening co-operation between the Centre and other UNESCO units responsible for natural and cultural heritage conservation, both at headquarters and in the field offices.
Let me say, in conclusion, that I look forward to the same constructive and co-operative ties with you in my new capacity that I enjoyed so much in my former role.
Annex IV
Declaration of the Youth from the Arab Region on World Heritage
The Pledge
We, the young people of the Arab World, convened at the First Arab States World HeritageYouth Forum, held at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco, from 22 to 28 November 1999, believe that:
The present is the product of the past, therefore, we can live the present and dream of the future only through the past. This is the past which our ancestors built and bequeathed to us and which became known as heritage. Thus, by preserving heritage, we preserve our identity, our authenticity and the continuity of our civilization. It is young people who are primarily concerned with the identity of society.
Heritage is not only cultural, but also natural, given that the natural environment plays a major role in shaping civilizations. Cultural heritage is not restricted only to what is tangible. The latter serves as a framework for the spiritual heritage that refers to Man’s identity, personality and history.
After having attended lectures, witnessed the international efforts to preserve heritage, visited the World Heritage sites in Morocco, and having participated in the various workshops, we, the Arab youth, would like to make the following points:
First, we, as young people from the Arab region, need to be aware of our essential role in the conservation of heritage. As participants, we shall make every effort to pass on to our peers in our home countries the knowledge we have acquired concerning respect for and conservation of heritage. We request the assistance of UNESCO in organizing further youth forums.
Second, we consider that the media (radio, television, etc.) and modern technology (computers, the Internet etc.) play a major role in raising awareness of the necessity for the preservation of world’s heritage. Handicrafts are part of our heritage and identity; it is therefore imperative to revitalize these traditional crafts.
Third, we request that World Heritage issues be included in the educational curricula of UNESCO Associated Schools in a pilot phase, to be followed by all other schools.
Fourth, we underline the fact that we share a common language, identity and history. It is our responsibility to ensure that this common heritage is a determining factor in bringing together our countries in peace and brotherhood.
Finally, we assert that heritage is a question of behaviour and practical application rather than a theory and an idea, and we call upon the youth of the world to understand this and cooperate with the youth of the Arab region under the motto:
"Let’s preserve the heritage of the past and the present to build the heritage of the future".
This pledge was adopted by 38 Patrimonitos from twelve Arab States in Ifrane on 27 November 1999.
Annex V
Map of Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)
Annex VI
Acceptance speech of OJO MADUEKWE Minister of Culture and Tourism
- Your Excellency the President of UNESCO World Heritage Committee
- Ladies and gentlemen
Our delegation brings fraternal greetings from President OLUSEGUN OBASANJO and the Government and people of Nigeria. We are most delighted with the excellent arrangements which the Government of the Kingdom of Morocco has made for the conference. And may I use this opportunity to wish his Royal Majesty, King Mohammed VI, a long and prosperous reign.
I hasten to mention that with us from Nigeria is the ADAMAWA STATE Governor, His Excellency BONI HARUNA. ADAMAWA is one of the 36 states of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and home to Sukur Cultural Landscape, which has just been honoured by this committee as a World Heritage Site. I also wish to acknowledge the presence in our delegation of His Excellency, Ambassador Abdoul-Wahab Nigerian Ambassador to Morocco; Dr Gella Director-General National Museums, and Monuments of Nigeria; and Dr Eborieme Co-ordinator of UNESCO World Heritage project in Nigeria.
The historic inscription of the first World Heritage Site in Nigeria has implications for the cultural rediscovery of Nigeria by Nigerians and the rest of the world far beyond the most optimistic expectations of those friends who gave early support to the project. It is to all such friends that we dedicate this honour.
With over 120 Million people and 450 ethno-linguistic communities, and every fourth African a Nigerian, recognition of one site out of a possible 31 no less deserving sites might appear to be a drop in the ocean. But it was a drop that came quite timely at a critical point of intolerable thirst in the midst of so much water. For us in Nigeria what is happening here in this ancient and fascinating city of Marrakech is a great beginning and worthy preface to the future. We cannot thank the UNESCO Heritage Committee enough for making this possible.
Coming on the heels of Nigeria's recent re-entry into all those international fora where its past contributions earned it respect before the years of isolation, the inscription of Sukur is a tonic for the democratic renewal and the national reconciliation that has been in place since the election of President OLUSEGUN OBASANJO. SUKUR has the distinction of being a cultural property admitted into the World Heritage list on the basis of the continuity of customary laws, community ethos, and spiritual values. It is symbolic of the enduring heritage of a very diverse wider African society. It gives hints of the glue that binds together a complex polity whose leadership, even as at now, remains challenged by the intricacies of nation- building. SUKUR will therefore be for us an enduring metaphor for a re-invigorated Nigeria that is set to bless all humanity with an experience of its rich cultural heritage in the defining years of the next millenium.
It is indeed on the wings of that pledge that I wish to draw your generous attention to the over 31 cultural heritage sites which have already been submitted to UNESCO World Heritage Committee as at 1999. Your expeditious consideration of the list will represent a long over-due acknowledgement of the significant contribution of Africa to the collective heritage of the world. For now, welcome to Nigeria, on your way to SUKUR, Africa's first cultural landscape.
Annex VII
Statement by H.E. the Ambassador of the Republic of South Africa to France,
Thithu Skweyiya, on Robben Island, Greater St. Lucia Wetland National Park and the Fossil Hominid Sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai, and Environs, South Africa
Mr Chairman, on behalf of my delegation, I wish to express my government's sincere gratitude, especially for President Thabo Mbeki and former President Nelson Mandela, to the World Heritage Committee for inscribing South Africa's cultural and natural jewels to the prestigious World Heritage List. I also wish to extend my appreciation to the work done by ICOMOS, IUCN and the World Heritage Center, as well as the Nordic World Heritage Office and Mr Munjeri for their technical assistance.
The inscription of our sites today is an ongoing welcome of our country to the structures and activities of the community of nations. This is not just a Christmas present as I mentioned yesterday, but a big millennium present from the international community. We appreciate it, Mr Chairman.
To demonstrate its commitment to the Convention and conservation of heritage for the benefit of present and future generations, my government has recently passed legislation focusing specifically on the implementation of the Convention in South Africa.
Mr Chairman I also wish to congratulate all states parties whose sites have been inscribed on the list, especially our colleagues from Nigeria, whom we are looking forward to working with in the region.
My government supports the global strategy initiative and hopes to participate in all regional programs which will ensure a balanced World Heritage List as envisaged by this Committee.
As already mentioned, Robben Island represents the triumph of the human spirit over the forces of evil, it is therefore a shrine for all the people of the world. The second of our cultural sites, popularly known as the "Cradle of Humankind", reminds us of the profound links that bind all of humankind across space and time. This is truly a historical occasion to celebrate and we invite all of you to visit your roots.
Annex VIII
REPORT OF THE TWENTY-THIRD EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU (WHC-99/ CONF.209/6) RELATING TO THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
State of conservation reports of natural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action
Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
The Bureau noted that at its twenty-third session (July 1999) it requested the Australian Committee for IUCN (ACIUCN) and the State Party to review the 29 recommendations listed in the March 1999 ACIUCN report "Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: Condition, Management and Threats". The Bureau also had requested the ACIUCN and the State Party to elaborate a more focused set of recommendations and a detailed plan for their implementation and monitoring. The Commonwealth Government of Australia, in a letter dated 7 October 1999, transmitted to the Centre and IUCN a detailed plan for the implementation and monitoring of a more focused set of recommendations prepared by ACIUCN. These "Focused Recommendations" and the "Framework for management" of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) were presented in the Information Document WHC-99/CONF.208/INF.5.
IUCN reviewed both the "Focused Recommendations" and the "Framework for management" of the GBRWHA and noted the five priority action areas of the "Focused Recommendations": Management of Land and Coastal Catchments; Management of Fisheries; Management of Shipping and Ship-Sourced Pollution; Representative Marine Protected Areas, and Resources for Research and Management. IUCN considered the "Framework for Management" as proposed by the State Party to be comprehensive and that it establishes a basis for monitoring the implementation of the "Focused Recommendations". IUCN commended the work undertaken by the State Party and the State Government of Queensland. IUCN reiterated its view that catchment issues pose the most serious threat to the GBRWHA and noted the urgency of the need for effective integrated catchment management to reduce environmental impact on the World Heritage site. IUCN however, noted and agreed with the State Party that many of these issues will require social and economic changes of a scale which will take years to achieve, such as in relation to modification of land use related impacts and the management of fisheries. This underlines the importance of developing strategic objectives and actions to ensure the long term protection of the GBRWHA and the establishment of a plan to monitor their implementation, as has been established in the "Framework for management".
The Delegate of Australia thanked IUCN and the Bureau for the consultative approach and highlighted the importance of the State Government of Queensland in the process to achieve a model for the management of a World Heritage area.
The Bureau transmitted the above report and the "Focused Recommendations" and "Framework for management" contained in WHC-99/CONF.208/INF.5 to the Committee for examination and recommended the following for adoption:
"The Committee accepts the "Focused Recommendations", and the "Framework for management" of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) as a basis for monitoring the implementation of those recommendations. The Committee commends the process and the product arising from the consultative approach used in developing a basis for monitoring the state of conservation of the GBRWHA and recommends its adoption for the management of other World Heritage natural properties in Australia. The Committee invites the State Party to submit progress reports on the implementation of the "Focused Recommendations" to the annual sessions of the Committee for review."
Comoe National Park (Côte d’Ivoire)
The Bureau was informed that IUCN received a copy of the report provided to the World Heritage Centre, prepared by a scientist from the Centre de Recherche en Ecologie from Côte d'Ivoire entitled "Evaluation de l’état actuel du parc national de la Comoe". The report outlines the serious threat of poaching to the wildlife of this site and sets out a series of recommendations for improved management. IUCN has received several other reports from NGOs and individuals highlighting illegal logging activities that are threatening the integrity of the site. IUCN noted and supported the recommendations of the study that this site is in urgent need of technical and financial support. A request for financial assistance from the State Party is expected to be submitted to the twenty-third session of the Committee. In view of the high level of poaching reported at this site, IUCN recommended that it be considered for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that an expert mission be fielded to verify the information reported by the study quoted above and have discussions with the State Party regarding the possible inclusion of this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
IUCN informed the Bureau that it has received many reports on this site indicating major poaching impacts on wildlife of the site, and that additional threats have been noted as forestry and agricultural incursion, especially cotton. IUCN remarked that these reports, if verified, would indicate this site has potential for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger. IUCN observed that before any action is taken, there should be a response from the State Party and an appropriate monitoring mission to review the situation and recommend appropriate action
The Bureau adopted the following text and transmitted it to the Committee for examination and further adoption:
"The Committee requests the State Party to consider inviting a Centre/IUCN mission to the site during the year 2000 in order to review threats to the integrity of the site and plan emergency rehabilitation measures as appropriate. The Committee may wish to invite the State Party to co-operate with the Centre and IUCN in order to submit to the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, in accordance with paragraphs 86 - 90 of the Operational Guidelines, a detailed state of conservation report and corrective measures for mitigating threats to the site, so as to enable the Committee to consider including this property in the List of World Heritage in Danger"
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
Following the request of the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau and at the invitation of the Mexican authorities, a mission was carried out to the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino from 23 to 28 August 1999. The full report and the recommendations of the mission were presented in Information Document WHC-99/CONF.208/INF.6.
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that following the assessment of the information made available to the mission team in background documentation, meetings with Government officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, local communities and other stakeholders and through observations during a field visit of the site, the mission came to a number of conclusions and recommendations. These were presented to the Mexican authorities by the mission team. The Secretariat then introduced the report and the main findings of the mission.
The issues were found to be extremely complex and could certainly not be reduced to a concern about one species or event. In fact, the team specifically considered a variety of issues including the management structure, the integrity of the site, status of the whale population, salt production, sustainable use and tourism. The World Heritage area, composed of the two lagoons Ojo de Liebre and San Ignacio, retains its quality and significance as a largely natural habitat and fulfils the criteria and conditions of integrity for which it was inscribed in 1993. The Bureau was informed that the mission invited the Mexican Government to take fully into account the World Heritage values of the site when evaluating the proposed salt facility at San Ignacio, which would include not only the population of grey whales and other wildlife but also the integrity of the landscape and the ecosystem.
The mission team concluded that the World Heritage site under present circumstances is not in danger, and scientific data show that the whale population is not endangered and continues to increase. However, if any significant change to the present situation should occur, documented by appropriate evidence, the conclusion concerning the site’s status under the World Heritage Convention should be promptly re-evaluated in co-operation and co-ordination with the State Party, and appropriate consideration should be given to all relevant Parties and the World Heritage Committee.
IUCN noted that it participated in the UNESCO mission and that the technical report is both credible and objective. IUCN supports the efforts of the Mexican Government in protecting the site, and in particular in relation to capacity building efforts and the involvement of local people. The mission focused on the existing salt works and the research indicated that these had no significant impact on the grey whale population. IUCN noted that in case of changes to the existing situation the position should be re-evaluated. Any re-evaluation should consider the population of grey whales and the integrity of the landscape and its ecosystem.
The Delegate of Mexico thanked the Committee and UNESCO making the mission possible highlighting the professionalism of the mission team working in an independent process. The Mexican Government fully endorsed the recommendations as far as they are consistent with previous reports and information it has submitted and enphasized: that the World Heritage site is not in Danger, that the Grey Whale population has increased and the National Ecology Institute has not received a proposal by the ESSA company for salt production at San Ignacio. Finally, the Government of Mexico reaffirmed its political will to maintain and enhance its cooperation with the World Heritage Committee, in order to preserve the exceptional values of El Vizcaino.
The Observer of Germany noted that the industrial development might have side effects to the integrity of the site, through population increase and infrastructual measures. The Delegate of Mexico in responding, underlined that the National Ecology Institute is not evaluating such a proposal and therefore any judgement would be premature at this time.
The Chairperson thanked the mission team for its excellent work and the State Party for its collaboration.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee takes note of the report of the mission and the full set of recommendations as indicated in WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.20. The Committee notes that the World Heritage site under present circumstances is not in danger, and scientific data show that the whale population is not endangered and continues to increase. However, if any significant change to the present situation should occur, documented by appropriate evidence, the conclusion concerning the site’s status under the World Heritage Convention should be promptly re-evaluated in co-operation and co-ordination with the State Party, and appropriate consideration should be given to all relevant Parties and the World Heritage Committee."
Following the decision, the Chairperson the gave the floor to the Observers from two NGOs, Pro Esteros and the International Fund for Animal Welfare who expressed their concerns about the conservation of El Vizcaino, its natural resources and conditions of integrity according to the World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines.
Doñana National Park (Spain)
The Bureau noted that during 1998 and 1999 a number of actions were undertaken to mitigate the impacts of the ecological disaster following the spill in April 1998.
An International Expert Meeting on the Regeneration of the Doñana Watershed (Doñana 2005 Conference) took place from 4 to 8 October 1999 with the participation of the World Heritage Centre, IUCN, the Secretary-General of the Ramsar Convention, WWF and other organizations. The meeting produced a number of recommendations concerning steps that could be taken for improving the situation of the decrease in the water table, diversion of surface water flows from entering Doñana and ensuring that water entering the area is free of pollutants. In addition, discussions took place concerning the necessity for strong co-operation between various activities being initiated in the region such as the Doñana 2005 project and the Green Corridor project. Some suggestions included the construction of large artificial lagoons for the control of water flows and reducing pollution and sediment loads. These would be placed in areas outside the World Heritage site in land to be purchased or acquired from agricultural companies or farmers. This recommendation could be of concern because the lagoon construction and operation afterwards could have serious impacts on the hydrology of the region.
IUCN welcomed the continued clean up effort of the Guadiamar Basin and affected areas, the Expert Meeting on the Regeneration of Doñana and the initiation of the Green Corridor project, but noted some concerns relating to the re-opening of the Aznalcollar mine and the impact study, which was undertaken to ensure that the toxic wastes in the old mine pit remain there and not percolate into the surrounding aquifer. IUCN noted that the mine spill has raised awareness of the fragility of the Donana ecosystem. However, issues associated with the mine need to be considered in conjunction with the issues associated with integrated water management, particularly with the decrease in the water table. This was highlighted at the Expert Meeting, as well as the need for mechanisms for an integrated management approach.
The Centre informed the Bureau that UNESCO and IUCN had not been informed of the re-opening of the mine prior to the last session of the Bureau. Following the Doñana 2005 Conference, the Centre contacted the authorities to obtain information concerning the exact dates of authorization and production of the Azlacollar mine and clarification with regard to the points raised by the World Heritage Bureau.
On 24 October and on 9 November 1999 a number of documents were submitted by the State Party, which were transmitted to IUCN for review including the Annexes concerning the results of the Doñana 2005 Conference. Furthermore, on 26 November 1999 a "Note concerning the situation of the Doñana National Park in relation to the terms of the IUCN report tabled in November 1999" was provided by the Ministry for Environment. This statement notes that most issues were discussed at the Doñana Conference. In particular, the former mine pond was made completely watertight, its utilization forbidden and it will be completely sealed when the competent legal authority grants its authorization. The mining company has not been authorized to dump any waste into the Guadiamar River and a Joint Commission by the State and Regional Administration has been established in March 1999. The Doñana 2005 project has received broad support, as can be seen by the conclusion of the Expert Meeting. The Observer of Spain thanked IUCN and UNESCO for the participation in the Conference and for the international collaboration in the follow-up. He suggested that a follow-up meeting could be convened in late 2000 or early 2001. He reiterated his Government’s commitment to the safeguarding of the Doñana National Park.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe noted the impacts of the mining disaster and that a strict application of the Convention would be needed, as well as a close follow-up by IUCN and UNESCO.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee commends the Spanish authorities for the continued clean up effort of the Guadiamar Basin and affected areas. However, the Committee expresses its concerns for the re-opening of the mine without taking into account the points raised by the twenty-second session of the Committee and the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The Committee suggests that a review meeting be held during the year 2000/2001 to review progress of the implementation of the Doñana 2005 project, taking into account the points raised by IUCN and that should involve all concerned parties and institutions including the international collaborators involved in the meeting on Doñana 2005 held in October 1999. The State Party should also be encouraged to take into account the WCPA Position Statement on mining activities and protected areas to be reviewed by the twenty-third session of the Committee."
St. Kilda (United Kingdom)
The Bureau recalled that at its twenty-second session it had noted conflicting information in relation to the state of conservation of St. Kilda. Accordingly, it suggested that the State Party, in co-operation with the Centre and IUCN, initiate a round table process involving interested parties. This round table meeting was held in Edinburgh on 24 September 1999 with the participation of a representative from IUCN/WCPA and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
IUCN noted that the focus at the roundtable was whether risks to the existing World Heritage property were such that it should be included on the List of the World Heritage in Danger. The boundary of the property is at the high tide mark and, therefore, any matters of marine pollution were considered in the context of impact on the nesting sea birds of St. Kilda while at sea, feeding or roosting, or the food upon which they depended.
The strategy for exploration and possible exploitation of the Atlantic Frontier was explained in detail at the roundtable meeting, together with the procedures for the input of scientific advice by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) on environmental impacts. Information was also provided about the data on which this scientific advice was based. The evidence provided at the round table meeting covered: existing proposals to drill exploration wells; general environmental measures within licensing; preparedness and response to oil spills; environmental impact assessments for each exploration well and for development; assessment of risk of oil spills; details about the likely scale of tanker traffic; data on the probability of spills during the transfer of oil; as well as an analysis of the procedures followed in Oil Spill Risk Assessment; a breakdown of the factors influencing potential oil spill impact - taking into account the nature of the oil, wind and current direction, rate of dispersion and weathering of spilled oil, the distribution and populations of birds (species by species), shore life and sub-tidal life;
The Round Table also discussed the possibility of damage to the inter-tidal and underwater communities round the coast of St. Kilda, even though these are not included in the present property. The Round Table considered the inter-tidal communities are not considered to be at major risk from any pollutants that might reach them for a number of reasons: the dispersed nature of any pollutants by the time they reached the coast; the fact that species which are adapted to the extreme conditions of the inter-tidal zone in St. Kilda also tend to seal themselves effectively against foreign bodies; and the very rapid turn over of individuals and the large reservoir of free-swimming larval and juvenile stages. In view of the information arising from the Round Table Process, IUCN underlined that it does not recommend that this site be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Observer of France noted the issue of economic development at maritime sites and that a dialogue with the petroleum industry could be envisaged. The Commission on Sustainable Development started to discuss the use of the sea and its management.
The Bureau adopted the following text and transmitted the above report to the Committee for examination and further adoption:
"The Committee notes the results of the St. Kilda Round Table of September 1999. The Committee recommends (1) that the boundaries of the World Heritage area should be expanded to include the surrounding marine area and consideration be given to a buffer zone as was recommended in the IUCN’s original evaluation in 1986; (2) that a revised management plan should be prepared. The Committee also recommends that until the management plan and the risk assessment of any proposed development that might affect the integrity of the site had been prepared, consideration be given to placing a moratorium on oil licensing nearer to St Kilda other than that already licensed. The Committee decides not to include the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger."
ii) State of conservation reports of natural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Centre, the Australian Government and IUCN on the consultative process involving the ACIUCN, the State Government of Western Australia and other stakeholders to prepare an up-to-date state of conservation report for this property which is under preparation. IUCN noted that the issues addressed would include potential threats of mining, tourism development and the need to finalize an overall management plan.
The Bureau urged the State Party and IUCN to finalise the consultation process as soon as possible with a view to providing a detailed and up-to-date state of conservation report for Shark Bay, including a focused set of recommendations and a plan for their implementation as have been developed for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and submit them to the consideration of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in 2000.
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Centre, the Australian Government and IUCN that the consultative process involving the ACIUCN, the State Government of Queensland and other stakeholders to prepare an up-to-date state of conservation report for the Wet Tropics of Queensland has yet to be finalised. IUCN informed the Bureau that issues to be considered in the report would include invasive species, fire management and tourism.
The Bureau urged the State Party and IUCN to finalise the consultation process as soon as possible with a view to providing a detailed and up-to-date state of conservation report on the Wet Tropics of Queensland, including a focused set of recommendations and a plan for their implementation as has been developed for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and submit them by 15 September 2000 for consideration by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in 2000.
Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the Centre, the Australian Government and IUCN that the major component of the desktop study concerning the establishment of a marine protected area has been completed and that the report is in the process of being finalised. IUCN welcomed this study and noted that it will protect marine biodiversity and facilitate better management of fisheries impacts. The Delegate of Australia informed the Centre that the first stage of the study will be completed before the end of 1999 and that the habitat survey will be submitted to the Centre in mid-2000.
The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to review the desktop study report concerning the establishment of a marine protected area surrounding the Heard and McDonald Islands, due to be completed and submitted to the Centre before the end of 1999, and report their findings by 15 April 1999 for consideration by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in 2000.
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
The Bureau noted that the IUCN evaluation of the extension of the Bialowieza Forest of Poland is to be reviewed under the agenda item " Nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List". IUCN informed the Bureau that the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources, and Forestry has launched "The Contract for Bialowieza Forest" with its major goal of enlarging national park boundaries to the whole forest complex in 2000 and to strengthen the integrity of the site. However, a final decision has not been taken yet and discussions have reached a crucial point at present with a range of opinions in relation to the desirability of extending the National Park boundaries. IUCN also notes that a management plan for Bialowieza National Park is under preparation.
The Observer of Poland informed the Bureau that the idea of the "Contract for Bialowieza Forest" was initiated by the Polish Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. It is aimed at enlarging the National Park to the whole area of the Bialowieza Forest (63 000 ha) and providing support for sustainable development. To this end, a multilateral commission was established, including representatives of the Park, communities, NGOs, State Forests and the Ministry. Pro-ecological investments in forest communes are foreseen and the project on the decree by the Polish Cabinet is underway.
The Bureau commended the Polish authorities for their efforts to extend the Bialowieza National Park and to complete the management plan.
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
The Bureau recalled that its twenty-second extraordinary session, held on 28 and 29 November 1998, it requested the State Party to submit a report on the implementation of the Sangmelima Workshop recommendations before 15 September 1999. Such a report has not yet been received. A proposal prepared by the Centre to undertake a rapid biodiversity assessment to evaluate the impacts of on-going forestry activities on the contiguity of habitats and gene-pools in and around Dja was under consideration at the time the state of conservation of this site was reported to the twenty-second extraordinary session. Since then, however, the prospective donor, i.e. the Government of Netherlands, has changed its priorities for providing bilateral assistance to Cameroon and the project proposal elaborated by the Centre is no longer under consideration for financing. The Centre is currently in consultation with the NASA’s (USA) Earth Studies Unit to explore possibilities for using satellite and remote-sensing images, dating from the present back to the 1970s. This will facilitate the understanding and interpreting of the land-cover changes that have occurred in and around Dja and using the insights gained from such an analysis, in combination with field studies and ground-truthing, to assess the extent of the threat of biological isolation facing this site.
The Centre informed the Bureau that the negotiations with NASA authorities to use satellite images for monitoring land cover changes in and around Dja is progressing well but no specific agreements have been concluded so far. NASA’s Earth Studies Unit is investigating the availability of satellite images for dates covering times before and after the site’s inscription on the World Heritage List in 1987 as well as a series of images available for more recent years. These could be useful in detecting forest cover changes in areas immediately adjacent to the Reserve. The Bureau was further informed that at present Centre contacts with the NASA Unit for Earth Studies are exploratory, in order to get satellite images and interpretation and analytical expertise at NASA’s expense. The results of these negotiations would be known during early 2000 and the Centre will report on the outcome to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in mid-2000.
IUCN informed the Bureau that there is still incomplete information about the extent of forestry activities in and around Dja, and that the IUCN Office in Cameroon notes that threats associated with forestry and roads still exist. The Bureau was further informed that IUCN supports efforts by the Centre to use remote sensing images to ascertain the extent of the problem and, like Iguacu National Park, there is a need to work with the local communities to demonstrate the benefits of World Heritage listing at the practical local level.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe expressed concern that the State Party has not so far produced the report expected by the Bureau that was long overdue. The Delegate further wondered whether there were expenses foreseen for the implementation of the Sangmelima Workshop recommendations that may be causing the delay in their implementation. The Centre informed the Bureau that some of the recommendations of the Workshop do not call for additional expenses on the part of the State Party.
The Bureau urged the Centre and IUCN, in co-operation with the State Party and other potential partners, to continue their efforts to undertake a scientific evaluation of the extent of the threat of biological isolation facing Dja and requested that a report on progress made in this regard be submitted to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in 2000. At the same time, the Bureau reiterated its request made at its last extraordianry session to fully implement the recommendations of the Sangmelima Workshop, held in 1998, and submit a progress report to the twenty-fourth session on the Bureau in 2000.
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
IUCN informed the Bureau that that the Ministry of the Environment is in the process of preparing a Management Plan for the area. This new Management Plan will include participatory management arrangements for involving local communities as well as a programme to promote transboundary co-operation with the Darien National Park World Heritage site in Panama. A number of workshops involving local communities and the Special Unit for National Parks of the Ministry of the Environment have been held to discuss how to implement community management arrangements that would enhance the protection of this site. Despite the on-going armed conflict, Park authorities continue to provide some level of management and control in several sectors of the Park. In those areas controlled by Park authorities there has been a reduction in the illegal extraction of natural resources by local communities. However, there is little information provided in the report on what is happening in those sectors of the Park controlled by armed groups. IUCN acknowledged the progress made towards the preparation of the management plan for this site and commended the State Party for these efforts despite the difficult situation facing this site. However, IUCN noted uncertainty in relation to impacts of a number of threats, including that the Park is not fully under the control of the management agency, that the impacts of the proposal to grant collective land ownership over 100,000ha outside of the World Heritage area in the buffer zone are unclear and should be assessed, and the impacts on wetlands from forest fires need to be reviewed.
The Centre informed the Bureau that a fax was received from the Permanent Delegation of Colombia on 22 November 1999. The authorities sent an official invitation for a mission to the site to the Centre and IUCN, and stated that the Bi-national Commission of Colombia and Panama during its last meeting agreed to hold a workshop to discuss the criteria, concepts, methods and strategies for the management of a bi-national park in the Darien Region.
The Bureau recommended that a monitoring mission to this site be carried out in 2000, which could address the issues noted by IUCN and welcomed the invitation by the Colombian authorities. The Bureau commended the State Party for its efforts to strengthen transfrontier co-operation and urged it to accelerate efforts towards the establishment of a single transfrontier World Heritage site linking Darien (Panama) and Los Katios (Colombia) as recommended at the time of inscription in 1994.
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
IUCN has noted recent correspondence of 16 September 1999 from the State Party, which covered various aspects associated with the proposed cable car. IUCN informed the Bureau that the key elements from the material submitted are the indication that the aerial tramway will terminate approximately 500 metres from the boundary of the National Park, that adjoining state lands will be maintained as a buffer zone; and that the State Party considers that the visual impact on visitors is expected to be minimal.
IUCN commended the efforts of the State Party to construct the aerial tramway outside of the Park, but notes the potential impacts to the Park associated with increased visitation related to the development of the tramway. It notes specifically that the planned linking of the top/return station to the existing nature trail to the Valley of Desolation and Boiling Lake may lead to an increased level of visitation.
The Bureau commended the State Party for actions undertaken to construct the aerial tramway outside the World Heritage area. The Bureau encouraged the authorities to closely monitor visitor use impacts associated with the development of the tramway, and that an overall tourism development planning strategy for the site be developed. The Bureau invited the State Party to provide periodic reports on the state of conservation of this site.
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
Information received by the Centre and IUCN from the State Party (15 September 1999) reinforced the fact that positive actions have been taken to enhance the integrity of this site. Following the approval of the Special Law for Galapagos in March 1999, the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador and the Permanent Commission for the Galapagos Islands have been preparing the general regulations by sectors, including tourism, traditional fisheries, agriculture and environmental control. This has been done using a participatory approach to gain support and consent from local communities. The document on the general regulations has been completed and submitted to the President of the Republic where it was recently discussed and approved. It is expected to be in force in the near future. Progress is reported on the application of migratory controls considered under the Special Law for Galapagos. In relation to tourism development, there are national and international pressures to increase the number of visitors to the islands. The application of the Special Law for Galapagos is helping to control these pressures. There has been no further increase in the capacity of hotels, tourist boats and other services. The Ministry of Environment of Ecuador is implementing an Environmental Management Programme that is supporting infrastructure development for sanitation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste management in order to solve existing problems of pollution in the islands. The re-opening of the sea cucumber fisheries from April to July 1999 was carefully monitored by the personnel of the Galapagos National Park and the Charles Darwin Foundation. A joint monitoring and patrolling programme funded by the Frankfurt Zoological Society was implemented using six patrol boats and aerial techniques.
The Bureau recalled that, at its twenty-third session, it had complimented the State Party for its efforts to improve the conservation of the Galapagos Islands World Heritage site, particularly during difficult economic times. The Centre informed the Bureau about the approval of US$3,999,850 for the UNESCO Project on the Control and Eradication of Invasive Species. The UNF Project document has now been signed by the Government of Ecuador, UNFIP (United Nations Fund for International Partnerships agencies) and UNESCO. The project aims to ensure that the Galapagos retains their unique biodiversity for the benefit of future generations. Its objectives include testing of the application of the state-of-the-art scientific principles and techniques, as well as of participatory approaches in the development of a quarantine regime, capacity and other essential infrastructure for the control of the introduction and spread of invasive species in the Galapagos.
IUCN welcomed the report from the State Party on the state of conservation of the Galapagos Islands and fully acknowledged the positive steps taken by the State Party to conserve this site. The Special Law on the Galapagos provides a useful model for the management of other World Heritage sites, in particular in relation to tourism management. As for all laws and regulations, it is critical to ensure that there are adequate resources to ensure effective implementation. The results from the re-opening of the sea-cucumber fisheries indicate a low level of catch since 1994, thus raising questions about sustainability. This is the key issue for the future management of this site. The management plan has been reviewed by IUCN. It proposes an expansion of the marine reserve as an integrated management unit. It is recommended that a zoning plan be developed for this area with provisions for no-take zones. IUCN also noted that a high level management authority has been proposed, which reflects the importance given to this area within Ecuador. The management plan may provide a good basis for re-nomination of the marine reserve as an extension to the existing World Heritage site. However, IUCN noted that it is too general and more information would be needed, specifically maps indicating the zoning of the area before any recommendation could be formulated.
The Bureau commended the State Party for actions taken to conserve the site. The Bureau noted that the Management Plan for the marine reserve might provide a basis for the re-nomination of the marine reserve as an extension to the existing World Heritage site. It requested the State Party to provide the information concerning the zoning as noted by IUCN in time for the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau.
Kaziranga National Park (India)
The Centre informed the Bureau that no information was provided by the State Party concerning a detailed report on wildlife censuses that may have been undertaken after the 1998 floods and on long-term measures which are currently being implemented to mitigate future flood damage to Kaziranga, as well as whether or not the State Party intended to propose the inclusion of the recent extension (44 sq. km) of the Park into the World Heritage site.
The Bureau reiterated its invitation to the State Party to provide a report on the results of the studies that may have been undertaken to evaluate impacts of the 1998 floods on wildlife populations in the Park and long term measures currently being implemented to mitigate future flood damage, to its twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in the year 2000. The Bureau also requested the State Party to inform the Centre whether or not it intends to nominate for inclusion the recent 44 sq.km. extension to the Park into the World Heritage area.
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
The Bureau noted that the Permanent Delegate of Indonesia, via his letter of 4 October 1999, had responded to observations and recommendations made by the Bureau, and had informed the Centre that his Government, i.e. the Directorate General for Natural Protection and Conservation, was also greatly concerned about indications of an increase in illegal dynamite and cyanide fishing in the coastal waters of Komodo National Park. He has pointed out that a Government team is expected to visit the site soon and assess the damage.
The Bureau took note of the letter sent by the State Party on 4 October 1999 and requested the State Party to submit to the Centre, before 15 April 2000, a report on the findings of the Government mission to the Komodo National Park and an assessment of the threats posed by an increase in illegal fishing in coastal waters and possible mitigation measures that need to be undertaken. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to review that report and submit their findings and recommendations, including the need for any additional Centre/IUCN mission that may still prevail, for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in mid-2000.
Mount Kenya National Park (Kenya)
The Delegate from the United Kingdom drew the attention of the Bureau to an article recently published in The Times which reported on extensive deforestation around Mount Kenya National Park World Heritage site. The Bureau requested the Centre to investigate this matter and report thereon at the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau.
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
Following the recommendation made by the Bureau in November 1998, the Centre and IUCN facilitated a meeting of the International Centre for Protected Landscapes (ICPL), the Department for International Development (DFlD, UK) and relevant authorities from His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN), the Ministries of Soils and Forests, and of Tourism and Civil Aviation and the Chief Warden of Sagarmatha National Parks, in London, UK, in March 1999.
The Centre and IUCN informed the Bureau that the DFID Office in Kathmandu, Nepal approved a sum of about UK£ 157,000 for the 18-month project entitled "Ecotourism, Conservation and Sustainable Development in the Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park and the Solu-Khumbu District of Nepal". The project is foreseen as a first phase of a long-term project for implementing the revised management plan expected to be prepared during the 18-month period and DFID may consider financing the later phases of the project.
The Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) of Nepal has organized consultation among various stakeholders in and around the Park, under a separate GEF Funded project, to facilitate the revision of the management plan for Sagarmatha in conjunction with its 25th anniversary celebrations in 2001. IUCN informed the Bureau that the Department of Soils and Forest Conservation of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the IUCN Office in Nepal are jointly hosting the South Asia session of IUCN/WCPA in Sagarmatha National Park in May 2000. The participation of the Centre and IUCN staff at the May 2000 IUCN/WCPA South Asia session is foreseen and an up-to-date state of conservation report is due to be prepared as an outcome.
One of the issues in the DFID-funded project will be to strengthen rural livelihoods through promotion of tourism and conservation at Sagarmatha. It should provide a model for how tourism at World Heritage sites can be managed to improve conservation and community development. The Observer of Germany noted the importance of the Sherpa culture and the expressed concern at tourism impact on wood supply, which leads to the devastation of forests. Support should be provided to local communities. The Observer of Nepal informed the Bureau that tourism improves the economic conditions of local people and that special forest programmes have been developed. IUCN reinforced the comments made and noted that collaboration between New Zealand and Nepal had supported the establishment of this National Park. Work continued towards reforestation with indigenous plants. The significant culture of the Sherpas is an integral part of the nature-culture continuum.
The Bureau commended His Majesty’s Government of Nepal and the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom for their co-operation in successfully developing a project which would address the energy planning and tourism development components of the management of this site. The Bureau recognized the support provided by the International Centre for Protected Landscape of Wales, UK, to the Government of Nepal in project development and urged the continuation of that co-operation to further strengthen international support to the conservation and effective management of Sagarmatha National Park.
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
The Bureau was informed that a report was awaited from the State Party responding to concerns expressed by the Forest and Bird Society of New Zealand with regard to the Department of Conservation’s management of the introduced thar, a mountain goat. It has been claimed that a high level of thar are maintained for recreational hunting and as a result concerns have been expressed about the effect this is having on the indigenous flora and on the integrity of this alpine ecosystem. This claim has been contested by the Department of Conservation, which has promised a detailed report. IUCN recommended that follow up action on this await the report from the Department of Conservation.
The Bureau noted the intention of the New Zealand Department of Conservation to provide a detailed report by 15 April 2000 on the management of the introduced thar at Te Wahipounamu for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau.
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
In response to the request of the twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau, a letter of 11 September 1999 from the Director General of the Nature Conservation Department in the Ministry of Regional Municipalities and Environment was received acknowledging that the size of the wild Arabian Oryx population had dropped from 450 to about 100. Of the 100 remaining, only 13 are females, hence the risks of the local extinction of the species are significant. Past re-introduction projects had succeeded but, with the increase in Oryx numbers, the poachers returned once again to reduce the population size sharply. An additional 45 Oryx, rescued from the wild are in captivity and are awaiting release once security in the wild is guaranteed. Recommendations from a recent International Arabian Oryx Conference (March, 1999) held in Abu Dhabi, addressed the issue of illegal trade of oryx and suggested the creation of a co-ordinating body with a permanent secretariat in one of the range states to enhance co-operation and exchange of experience across the Arabian Peninsula. The tightening of regulations and improved regional co-operation to prevent illegal transboundary movement of and trade in Arabian Oryx were also recommended. The oryx breeds well in captivity and with careful management a healthy source of animals can be guaranteed for further re-introduction programmes. Oman intends to host a follow up conference next year and improve local community participation and environmental tourism to improve local support for site protection. The Oryx Project Management team has been strengthened by the appointment of new staff.
The Bureau was informed that, the Director-General’s letter informed the Centre of the explorations undertaken by an oil company already holding a concession within a part of the Sanctuary. The letter furthermore stated that a full EIA was undertaken by internationally well-known consultants and that the scope, consultations and assessment were fully in accordance with the planning policies recommended in the management planning study (Final Report) which has been incorporated within the draft management plan. However, none of the above-mentioned documents, i.e. EIA, management planning study or draft management plan have been submitted to the Centre.
IUCN has raised serious concerns regarding the management of this site, given the fact that the boundary marking and management planning project financed in part by the World Heritage Fund is long overdue for completion. Other issues of concern include impacts of off-road vehicle use and overgrazing by domestic wildlife. A «Regional Capacity Building Training Workshop for the Promotion of Awareness in Natural Heritage Conservation in the Arab Region», for which the Committee approved a sum of US$ 40,000 at its last session in Kyoto, Japan, is due to be held in Oman in February 2000. Participants of this Regional Capacity Building activity are expected to visit the site and assess the status of conservation of the site, including progress made in the implementation of the boundary marking and management planning project.
The Centre informed the Bureau that following the approval by the last Committee of US$40,000 for the organization of a regional capacity building training workshop for the promotion of awareness in Natural Heritage conservation in the Arab Region, a letter addressed to the Centre dated 26 March 1999 from the Permanent Delegate of Oman to UNESCO, stated that it appeared to the Oman Authorities that the approved amount of US$40,000 would not cover all the expenses since the programme of the workshop will include a visit to the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary, 750 km from the venue (Muscat), and the State Party had hoped that the funds would be increased to US$60,000. A meeting to discuss this matter was held with the Ambassador and the Permanent Delegate of Oman to UNESCO on 19 October 1999 during which it was agreed to reduce the number of participants to the workshop to fifteen and for the State Party to make efforts to minimize other workshop expenses. It was agreed that the Oman would not require additional funds for the organization of this meeting. The Permanent Delegate informed the Centre that the Workshop would be held early in 2000.
In its intervention IUCN highlighted three issues: (1) the reports of the decline of the Arabian Oryx indicate serious grounds for concern, that the main impact is heavy poaching, other issues including impacts of off-road vehicle use and overgrazing by domestic wildlife; (2) IUCN noted that effective control of poaching in this area is a difficult issue and that there needs to be effective co-ordination between relevant bodies, and the allocation of adequate resources; (3) IUCN endorsed the need for a joint approach to this issue with the State Party and looked forward to co-operating in the proposed meeting in Oman in February 2000. IUCN therefore supported the recommendation as stated.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe supported the remarks of IUCN and observed as noted in the "Action required", the inadequate focus on the core problem - the real threat to the Oryx which are faced with extinction. He informed the Bureau that the issues of poaching and security are immediate and therefore needed to be addressed urgently.
The Delegate of United Kingdom while endorsing the remark made by IUCN and the Zimbabwe Delegate, stated that time is running out on the site.
The Chairperson, speaking as a citizen of Morocco, stated that the Kingdom of Morocco has close ties with the Sultanate of Oman and he will take action to draw the attention at the highest level of authorities in Oman to the international concern about the site and the Arabian Oryx. The Chairperson mentioned that the Arabian Oryx is the symbol of the Arab culture, and that the Bureau and the Committee and other consultations should lead to tangible results on this issue.
The Bureau expresses its serious concerns regarding the continuing delays in the implementation of the boundary marking and management planning project, impacts of oil exploration and of off-road vehicles use and overgrazing by domestic stock. The Bureau requests the Centre and IUCN to raise these issues with the relevant State Party officials during their participation at the Regional Capacity Building Workshop in February 2000. The Bureau suggests that the Centre and IUCN co-operate with the State Party to provide a report to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in mid-2000. The report should address all unresolved issues and problems threatening the integrity of this site and advise the Bureau on whether or not this site should be considered for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Bureau recalled that at its twenty-third session it encouraged the State Party to give high priority to the preparation and implementation of a restoration programme and to submit a request for technical assistance. The Bureau further encouraged the State Party to give priority attention to implement key actions as proposed by IUCN and to provide regular progress reports on its implementation, including progress achieved in the implementation of key priorities identified by the working group established on the use of the Pachacoto-Yanashallay road. The Bureau requested the State Party to submit the first of these reports by 15 September 1999 and IUCN and the Centre to prepare a mission to be carried out in 2000. IUCN commends the State Party for seeking solutions to minimize the impacts on the Park from the temporary use of the central road, but considers that further review of this issue should await the provision of information from the State Party.
The Centre informed the Bureau that two reports were received on 20 October 1999, the report on the temporary use of the central road (INRENA) and the Report of the Mountain Institute on the temporary use of the Pachacoto-Yanashallay road. IUCN commended the State Party for seeking solutions to minimize the impact on the park from the temporary use of the central road. Concerns have been raised in a recent document from the State Party (Technical Report on Monitoring Activities in Huascaran National Park) relating to opening up of new areas along the road and associated resources extraction; and also in relation to increased traffic on this road, as well as mitigation measures by the mining company. This should be taken into account by the proposed mission.
The Observer of Peru informed the Bureau that the reduction of the impacts of the mining activities is important and that mining activities, protection and development have to be seen together, as the area is one of the poorest in Peru. She stated that her Government would be pleased to invite a mission to the site.
The Bureau took note of the reports submitted by the States Party for the actions taken to monitor the temporary use of the central road at Huascaran National Park. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to continue to monitor the impacts of the mining activities on the World Heritage site and its buffer zone. The Bureau welcomed the invitation by the State Party for a mission to the site in 2000 to prepare a report for the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee.
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
The Bureau was informed that in April 1999, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted the law on the Lake Baikal. It is a framework law and it requires several other legal acts to be adopted.
IUCN fully supported the Baikal law and underlined the importance of its implementation and adequate resources are made available to ensure its effective implementation. IUCN noted the on-going concerns associated with pollution of Lake Baikal from pulp mills operating in close proximity to the site. Recent reports from Greenpeace are also noted, in relation to the lawsuit by the State Bodies for Environmental Protection in relation to the "suspension of ecologically harmful activities of the Baikalsky Pulp and Paper Plant (BP&PP)". IUCN noted there has been a large number of World Heritage monitoring and training missions to Lake Baikal (1993, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999) and before recommending another mission there is a need to carefully assess findings and recommendations from past missions.
The economic difficulties in this region are noted and it is considered that there is a need to identify and examine innovative options and solutions to this issue, specifically in relation to the legal, financial and other requirements associated with re-profiling of the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill. Discussion of such options and solutions should address environmental, social and economic concerns and should involve donors and should ideally be addressed under the umbrella of the Baikal Commission.
The Observer of the Russian Federation informed the Bureau that the Federal "Baikal Law" was entered into force in May 1999. Some measures under this law are already under implementation. For example, the Government of the Russian Federation issued the Decree No. 1203-p, dated 2 August 1999, that confirmed the plan to prepare seven legislative documents, which will be carried out by 10 Federal State bodies in co-operation with the governments of the Baikal region. At present the administration of the Irkutsk region elaborates a proposal for the social-economical development of the city of Baikalsk, including the problem of the transformation of the Baikal Pulp and Paper Mill. After achieving an agreement with the stakeholders in the region including NGOs, it will be submitted to the Governmental Baikal Commission. In the case of adoption of this proposal, an appropriate programme will be elaborated, including fundraising and investment proposals.
The Observer of Germany insisted on the necessity to have specific regulations and stated that the framework law should be developed. To this end, international assistance should be provided to the State Party to the extent possible.
The Bureau commended the State Party for the adoption of the Baikal Law but urged that the State Party ensure its effective implementation as well as addressing pollution issues associated with the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill. The Bureau noted the need to provide international assistance for more effective implementation of the Federal Baikal Law. The Bureau asks the State Party to prepare an application for the World Heritage Fund for a training request for a workshop on this subject. It was however noted that the State Party was not up-to-date with its contributions to the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau requests the State Party to present a state of conservation report by 15 April 2000.
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
The Bureau recalled that, at its twenty-third session it recommended that the State Party submit to the Centre, before 15 September 1999, a report on measures taken to enhance security conditions in this site and to ensure the recovery of visitor numbers to pre-March 1999 levels. An email report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Uganda Wildlife Authority notes the following:
A number of measures have been taken by the site-management to improve security, including: (a) the deployment of additional security personnel in and around the site; (b) joint guarding of tourist facilities by the rangers and the defence force (UPDF); (c) establishment of a mobile strike force that cordons off and searches any place suspected to be insecure; (d) regular contact with security officers on the Uganda/DRC border to share security information and co-ordinate patrol operations; (e) opening an additional trail to improve accessibility of the joint forces near the border with the DRC; (f) improving radio communication links between security units and Bwindi site management; (g) regular briefing between the Uganda Park Authority Headquarters and the site; (h) training of relevant rangers for one month in anti-terrorism in Egypt; (i) increased publicity, nationally and internationally, of security conditions in the site by the Government; and (j) enlisting of local community support who share tourism benefits. The report also mentions that some limited donations were received to purchase walkie-talkies, sleeping bags and a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Already, as a result of the measures taken, the number of visitors has increased from 83 in April to 256 in August 1999.
There is an urgent need to train park staff to appropriately handle any security threats that may arise, given that the site borders an area of instability. Training is needed in anti-terrorism preparedness, monitoring intelligence information and community relations. Support is required to implement this training as well as to assist with the purchase of four-wheel drive vehicles.
The Bureau was informed that the Centre has received two official letters, the first dated 14 May 1999 from the Executive Director of Wildlife Authority, and a second dated 3 November 1999 from the Permanent Delegation of Uganda to UNESCO. Both letters confirm the above information provided to the Bureau concerning the site.
The IUCN informed the Bureau that a number of measures are underway by the Ugandan authorities especially regarding deployment of staff in and around the site, and capacity building for staff to enable them to deal with this site. The IUCN stated there is need for further discussions about what needs to be done, for example, what are the priorities and what role the World Heritage Centre can play. He mentioned that IUCN will continue this dialogue with the Centre and the State Party, particularly working with and through the IUCN country office in Uganda.
The Bureau requests the Centre and IUCN to verify, with the Ugandan authorities, their needs for support for purchase of vehicles and staff training and, if confirmed as reported above, facilitate efforts of the Ugandan authorities to obtain financial support from suitable sources including the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau requests that the Centre and IUCN report on measures taken to support site management at the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau in mid-2000.
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
IUCN noted several reports received, including from its Antarctic Advisory Committee (AAC) on the management of the island. There appears to be ongoing concern over long-line fishing in the waters around Gough Island, but that it is occurring outside the boundaries of the World Heritage site. The reports suggest that, even if the UK Government could enforce strict controls on all fishing within the 200 nautical mile EEZ around the islands, it would not totally prevent the problem, as the affected birds forage much further than even the 200 nautical miles, even while breeding. On the terrestrial front, Gough Island is managed according to the management plan and there are relatively few problems. In August 1999 a comprehensive report from the environmental observer to Gough Island was submitted to IUCN. The report details: preventative measures to be taken against the introduction of alien species; outlines actions to be taken to maintain the area; and lists the status and recommendations relating to the operations in the logistic zone (i.e., waste control, response to fuel spillage, management regulations on entry to the reserve and fishing, and conservation awareness).
One issue that emerged last year was the insurgence of the weed sagina cf. procumbens that was believed to have been transported from Marion Island where there was a problem with this plant. A specialist had visited the site this year to assess the extent of the invasion and attempt to eradicate it. Also a two-year inventory of invertebrate communities, begun in September 1999, will give better insight into this fauna, and the impact mice have had on the island. IUCN notes that the boundaries of the Gough Island Wildlife Reserve area lie three nautical miles out to sea, since this was the extent of territorial waters when the Tristan Conservation Ordinance of 1976 and the Wildlife Reserve were promulgated. Subsequently, territorial waters in the Gough-Tristan group were extended to 12nm.
The Observer of the UK confirmed to the Bureau that the weed accidentally introduced last year is an issue and that a Dutch expert had visited the island and produced a detailed report about the invasive species. This is currently being conveyed to the Centre. It is hoped that an eradication team can be sent to the Island in February 2000.
The Bureau recommended that the State Party encourages the St. Helena Government (of which Tristan and Gough are dependencies) to expand the boundaries of the Gough Island Wildlife Reserve to 12nm. Following that, the Bureau recommended that the UK Government should consider extension of the World Heritage boundary and to report on what it can do to protect the wider marine environment.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
The Bureau was informed that the Ngorongoro Conservation Area was included in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1984 due to poaching and threats posed by illegal agricultural encroachments. Continuous monitoring and technical assistance projects contributed towards improving the state of conservation leading to the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1989.
The Bureau was informed that IUCN’s East African Regional Office has been approached by a consultant firm working with the Tanzanian Ministry of Works to provide input to a feasibility study on a gravel access road to Loliondo (the administrative centre of the Ngorongoro District). Four routes are being considered for upgrading. Two of the routes proposed would pass through the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. The other route would cut across the eastern end of Olduvai Gorge. However, there are two other possible alignments that start from Monduli and Mto-wa-Mbu. The two roads would come together near Engaruka, from where the road would pass between Lake Natron and Oldonyo Lengai Volcano before ascending the Rift Valley escarpment towards Loliondo. IUCN has welcomed the consultative approach taken by the Government of Tanzania in the planning phase of this road. IUCN considers that options should be carefully considered and should take fully into account potential impacts on the values of both Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Olduvai Gorge.
The Centre reported to the Bureau about the two vehicles which have been stored at the Kenyan port of Mombasa since 1998 and could no longer be delivered to the sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, their original destination. Following a recommendation of the twenty-third session of Bureau, the two vehicles are in the process of being delivered to the United Republic of Tanzania which had requested similar support for Kilimanjaro and Serengeti National Parks, with the assistance of WWF East African Regional Office and UNESCO Office in Dar-es-Salaam. The Chairperson had approved US$20,000 to enable the WWF Office to clear customs duty and to forward the vehicles to the Tanzanian sites.
IUCN confirmed to the Bureau that IUCN’s East African Regional Office has been involved with the State Party on the review of options for an access road to Ngorongoro. He stated that IUCN believes that the potential impact on the World Heritage value of the site should be a critical factor in the assessment of the options.
The Hungarian Delegation suggested that the mandate of the mission could be expanded so that it could also study the proper definition of the boundaries of the site.
The Zimbabwe Delegation applauded the enlightened approach adopted by Tanzania. He stated that the problem of access to Loliondo (the administrative centre of Ngorongoro District) were such that a drive to it, for example, from Arusha was difficult. The suggestion to have a mission to Tanzania was very welcome and that such a mission should consider the balance of the issues of both integrity of the property as well as the crucial one of access.
ICOMOS drew attention to the cultural importance of this site, which contained one of the most famous fossil hominid sites in the world, Olduvai Gorge, as well as the more recently discovered Laetoli site. ICOMOS had been in contact with the State Party which was proposing to nominate Ngorongoro under the cultural criteria in the near future.
The Bureau invited the State Party to fully extend its co-operation to involve UNESCO and IUCN and ICOMOS in the consultation process and to invite a mission to consider the various options available, with a view to minimising impacts of the road construction project to the two World Heritage sites.
The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN and ICOMOS submit a status report on the proposed road construction project, impacts of the various options available on the two sites and recommendations which the Bureau could submit to the consideration of the State Party after the proposed mission is undertaken.
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
The Bureau recalled that the full report of the UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site was presented to its last session which endorsed the following recommendations made by the mission team: to encourage the State Party to submit a request for technical assistance to organize and implement a national workshop on Canaima National Park; to request the Government to provide increased support to the National Park Institute (INPARQUES) and the Ministry for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (MARNR) and to explore ways to enhance the institutional capacity of these institutions; that MARNR and INPARQUES should give maximum priority to establishing a buffer zone around Canaima National Park, including Sierra de Lema; to recommend that an adequate follow-up to the implementation of the mission’s Short-Term Action Plan, including the possible revision of the boundaries of the site, be implemented; to invite the State Party to submit annual progress reports on the state of conservation of this site; and to recommend that the State Party creates mechanisms to promote dialogue between all relevant stakeholders interested in the conservation and management of this area.
IUCN informed the Bureau that the Action Plan, jointly developed with the State Party, provides a useful framework for further action. IUCN noted that concerns have been raised about recent conflicts between Pemons communities and the National Guards. The Bureau was informed that an international assistance request has been submitted for a workshop aimed at various target groups with a view to raising awareness of the status of the World Heritage sites and its international significance.
The Bureau recalled the recommendation from the mission report (presented to its twenty-third session) on the need to create mechanisms to promote dialogue between all relevant stakeholders, including the Pemon communities, and on the conservation and management of this area. The Bureau invited the State Party to follow-up on the Action Plan recommended by the mission.
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Centre informed the Bureau that the Vietnam authorities, via their letter of 18 August 1999, have transmitted the following to the Centre: Two volumes of the EIA of the Bai Chay Bridge Construction Project which has been approved by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment (MOSTE) of Vietnam ; A draft report of the study on « The Environmental Management for Ha Long Bay Project » jointly prepared by the Japanese International Co-operation Agency (JICA), MOSTE and the Quang Ninh Province Government. These voluminous reports have been transmitted to IUCN for review. IUCN provided comments based on its preliminary review of these reports. In addition, the Government of Vietnam has re-nominated the Ha Long Bay under natural heritage criterion (i). The re-nomination will be evaluated by IUCN in the year 2000 and a report submitted to the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau in mid-2000. The World Bank Office in Vietnam has responded to the observations and recommendations of the twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau, via a letter dated 19 August 1999, and has indicated that it intends to implement an augmented lending programme for Hai Phong - Ha Long improvement over the next few years in accordance with the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy.
IUCN highlighted the Bank/IUCN co-operation to prepare a proposal for a GEF Block B grant to develop a marine management programme for the North Tonkin Archipelago, which included Ha Long Bay. IUCN Vietnam has recruited a marine officer from one of the local institutions to assist with the development of this proposal. The project will implement an integrated management programme for the Archipelago which will lay the foundation for a model Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) programme for the region. The project, according to the letter from the Bank Office in Vietnam will provide for pilot scale development of methods of reducing pollutants carried into the Archipelago from agriculture, forestry, industrial and urban development activities in the Hai Phong and the Quang Ninh Provinces. IUCN has informed the Centre that Environment Australia and the Embassy of the Government of the Netherlands in Hanoi have also been approached in relation to support for this project. The latter has also been approached to support other projects, such as the implementation of a project to strengthen the capacity of the Ha Long Bay Management Department. They have expressed an interest in principle to offer support for both projects should the request come directly from the Vietnam Government. The World Bank Office in Vietnam has committed itself to support and co-ordinate development and conservation activities made by UNESCO as well as by other donors in the World Heritage. The Bureau also noted standards for environmental monitoring of the Ha Long Bay used as data in the JICA/Government of Vietnam Environmental Study could be improved through obtaining data on environmental quality standards used for Bay waters and atmospheric conditions from a number of internationally significant protected areas (e.g. Great Barrier Reef etc.) The environmental qualities would have to be improved according to those internationally acceptable standards.
The Observer of Vietnam informed that as requested by the Bureau the draft final report on the study of the Environmental Management Plan for Ha Long Bay and the Environmental Impact Assessment of Baichay Bridge have been submitted to the Centre. He said that they are comprehensive and take into account all potential and possible sources of pollution, which could have impacts on the environment and the ecosystem of Ha Long Bay. The two documents also included many effective measures and projects, to be implemented in the future for environmental protection of Ha Long Bay, especially the World Heritage area. The implementation of the two projects will constitute positive factors for the economic development as well as the environmental preservation of Ha Long Bay World Heritage site. However, their sound realization and implementation would need a lot of time, funds and efforts by all related local authorities and agencies as well as the co-operation and assistance from international institutions including UNESCO, thus making positive contributions to the preservation and environmental protection of Halong Bay and the World Heritage area in particular.
The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that the co-operation with Vietnam on this project has already begun.
The Observer of Japan stated that information on the JICA project could be obtained in time for the next session of the Bureau. The Delegate of Hungary underlined the importance of the UNESCO Office in Hanoi for the co-ordination between the State Party and donor agencies.
The Bureau noted that the Government of Vietnam has submitted to the Centre comprehensive reports on the EIA of the Baichay Bridge project and on the JICA/Government of Vietnam Environmental Study of Ha Long Bay. The Bureau also noted the views of the Observer of Vietnam that economic development of the region could contribute positively to the environmental protection of Ha Long Bay. The Bureau expressed its satisfaction with the commitment of the World Bank Office in Hanoi, Vietnam, in co-operation with the UNESCO Vietnam Office to support the State Party in co-ordinating conservation and development activities in the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area. The Bureau invited the State Party to use the rising donor interest to support the conservation of the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area and implement measures, in particular, to upgrade the profile, authority and the capacity of the Ha Long Bay Management Department which has the principal responsibility to manage the World Heritage area as a coastal and marine protected area located in an area of intensive economic development. The Bureau invited the State Party to submit annual reports to the extraordinary sessions of the Bureau, highlighting in particular, measures that are being taken to build capacity for the management of the site and monitor the environment of Ha Long Bay in accordance with internationally acceptable standards and norms applicable to a coastal and marine protected area.
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Bureau noted that IUCN’s Regional Office for Southern Africa was intending to organize a bilateral meeting for 28 July 1999 but it was not held due to lack of funding. IUCN recommended that a formal request be submitted by the State Parties to fund this meeting in 2000.
The Centre informed the Bureau that the Zimbabwean Department of Physical Planning had informed IUCN’s Regional Office for Southern Africa, i.e. IUCN/ROSA, on the status of the Victoria Falls Environmental Capacity Enhancement and Master Plan. CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) has pledged to provide financial and technical support for the implementation of this Master Plan Project. A Memorandum of Understanding between CIDA and the Government of Zimbabwe was to be signed in mid-October. The Canadian Executing Agency has been contracted and the inception phase of the project has begun. IUCN/ROSA and other agencies have been invited to a preliminary meeting, scheduled for October, to discuss project implementation arrangements and progress to date. IUCN/ROSA has been co-opted on to the Project Steering Committee for the Master Plan Project, specifically to represent interests of the Zambia/Zimbabwe Joint Commission, formed at the time of the Victoria Falls Strategic Environmental Study.
IUCN informed the Bureau that the priority was to move forward on the Victoria Falls Environmental Capacity Enhancement and Master Plan as quickly as possible. IUCN/ROSA has been co-opted on the Steering Committee for this Master Plan. IUCN further reiterated its willingness to work with both State Parties to help organize the bilateral meeting mentioned in the Bureau report, and hoped that support would be provided from the World Heritage Fund to convene this meeting in 2000.
The Zimbabwe Delegate remarked that there are two issues in the report of the Bureau: one relating to the development on the hotel project on the northern side (Zambia) and the other relating to IUCN/ROSA on the status of the Environmental Capacity Enhancement and Master Plan.
Following clarifications from the Centre that the meeting was in the first context, Zimbabwe supported the recommendation and the action required of the Bureau.
The Bureau invites the States Parties to expedite the organization of the bilateral meeting as soon as possible in 2000 in order to report the outcome of the meeting to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in mid-2000. The Bureau urges the two States Parties to submit a joint request for financial support for the organization of the meeting to be submitted to the Chairperson for approval.
MIXED HERITAGE
State of conservation reports of mixed properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
The Bureau recalled that at its twenty-third ordinary session, in July 1999, the Australian Government was requested to inform the Centre of (i) any potential boundary extensions that may be foreseen together with a timetable for the implementation of the Regional Forestry Agreement (RFA); (ii) its assessment of the implications of the RFA on other areas identified as having World Heritage value and (iii) the potential impacts on forest catchments in the World Heritage site of other areas which may be logged under the RFA.
The Bureau noted that the State Party responded in a letter dated 14 September 1999 stating that its priority was in enhancing the management regime for the existing World Heritage property and ensuring that all World Heritage values are protected. Boundary extensions are not being actively considered at this stage. The State Party had informed the Centre of the recently completed Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan developed by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and the new Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which will come into effect no later than July 2000.
The Bureau noted that IUCN has informed the Centre that the Australian Committee for IUCN (ACIUCN) proposes to undertake an assessment of the conservation status of the Tasmanian Wilderness within the next year. IUCN noted and supported, in principle, the Tasmanian Regional Forestry Agreement (RFA) process as it represents a significant step towards a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system, as well as potentially providing the basis for the ecologically sustainable management of forests in Tasmania. IUCN also noted that the RFA consolidates relationships between state and federal governments on matters affecting the World Heritage site relating to policy, management and funding. IUCN had also expressed its view that it is important that options for any future extension of the World Heritage property should not be foreclosed. IUCN thus considered that areas of the dedicated RFA reserve system which have been previously identified as having World Heritage value should be managed in a manner consistent with potential World Heritage status.
IUCN expressed its concern that the timeframe proposed for the preparation of a report for the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau may not be able to be realized, being contingent on the human and financial resources available to ACIUCN. IUCN commended the recently completed management plan for the site and reiterated that it is important that options for extension of the World Heritage property should not be foreclosed. IUCN considered that the possibilities provided by the Regional Forest Agreement to support the integrity of the property need to be realized as soon as practicable.
The Delegate of Australia also expressed concern about the time limits and the considerable commitments of ACIUCN. He informed the Bureau that his Delegation would have discussions with IUCN with a view to expediting the ACIUCN process for a state of conservation report on the Tasmanian Wilderness. He noted the importance of drawing constructively on the knowledge gained in the RFA process for the future management of the Tasmanian Wilderness.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee requests the Australian Committee for IUCN (ACIUCN) to complete its review process on the state of conservation of the Tasmanian Wilderness with the aim of submitting an up-to-date report to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in 2000. ACIUCN's review should include reference to any continuing concerns, such as those noted at the twenty-third ordinary session of the Bureau, and suggestions relating to any future extension of the World Heritage property and the management of areas of the dedicated Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) reserve system which have been previously identified as having World Heritage value.
The Committee commends the State Party for the recent completion of the 1999 Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan, and recommends that its effectiveness be regularly monitored over time."
Mount Emei Shan Scenic Area, including Leshan Giant Buddha Scenic Area (China)
The Bureau recalled that at the time of its inscription at the twentieth session in 1996, the Committee recommended that the Chinese authorities carefully control tourism development at the site and encourage involvement of the Buddhist monasteries in conservation activities on the mountain. The Bureau noted that IUCN has recently been informed that the construction of the light railway for tourists between Golden Summit and the main summit of Emei Shan (Wanfoding) has resumed and is well advanced. The Bureau was informed that the World Heritage Centre has requested that the Chinese authorities provide further information on the latest progress with this development.
IUCN said that it awaits the report of the State Party with great interest because of its concern about the construction of the light railway and the implications of tourism facilities associated with it. ICOMOS noted the considerable cultural values of the property. The Bureau noted that a Tourism Development Plan had been prepared for the site in 1998. The Plan expressed deep concern about the construction of the railway and recommended the development of a detailed management plan for the site.
The Observer of China thanked the Bureau for its concern about the state of conservation of the site. He reported that the Chinese authorities and the World Heritage Centre had organized an on-site meeting to prepare a strategy for the better protection of the World Heritage property. He expressed the commitment of his authorities to protect the site and to provide the World Heritage Centre with a report by 15 April 2000.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee adopt the following decision:
"The Committee requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, before 15 April 2000, a state of conservation report on developments at "Mount Emei Shan Scenic Area, including Leshan Giant Buddha Scenic Area"".
Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)
The Bureau recalled that the state of conservation of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu was discussed at several sessions of the Committee and the Bureau, particularly with reference to the management and planning for the Sanctuary as well as a proposed project for the construction of a cable car.
At the request of the Bureau at its twenty-third session, the World Heritage Centre, IUCN and ICOMOS undertook a mission to the site to assess five issues identified by the Bureau. The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the mission took place from 18 to 25 October 1999, that the conclusions of the mission were presented on 25 October 1999 to the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA), the National Institute for Culture (INC) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that the draft report was transmitted to the Government of Peru on 15 November 1999 for comments. The full report of the mission was presented in Information Document WHC-99/CONF.208/INF 7. The Secretariat then introduced the report, conclusions and recommendations of the mission.
The Secretariat recalled that the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1983 under cultural criteria (i) and (iii) in recognition of the testimony to the Inca civilization and under natural criteria (ii) and (iii), as they were formulated in 1983, for man’s interaction with his natural environment and for the beauty of its landscape.
As to the planning and management arrangements for the site, the mission reported that the Master Plan for the Sanctuary was adopted in October 1998 and that a Management Unit was established jointly by the National Institute for Culture and the National Institute for Natural Resources in June 1999. In this respect it was noted that only the successful operation of the Management Unit and the full application of the Master Plan and the operational plans derived from it, will ensure that a situation of gradual deterioration over many years will be reversed and a process of improved management and preservation will be initiated. Important initiatives had been developed already at the time of the mission, such as a fire prevention programme, waste management and the initiation of a plan for the village of Aguas Calientes.
With regard to specific projects, the mission concluded that any proposed development or intervention could not be studied in isolation but only in the overall context of the site and considering the specific criteria applied for the inscription on the World Heritage List. Having analysed the overall state of conservation of the site, the mission noted very strong tourism and demographic pressure particularly on the area surrounding the Ciudadela. In this sense, the mission concluded that any intervention in this area would very seriously affect the World Heritage value, the integrity and authenticity of the site. At the same time, the mission concluded that decisions on means of access to the Ciudadela could only be taken in relation to the carrying capacity of the Sanctuary and its components.
The mission, therefore, recommended the preparation of detailed studies on the carrying capacity of, and the means of access to the Sanctuary and its components, the reorganization and, if possible, reduction of visitor facilities in the area surrounding the Ciudadela, and for overall planning for the village of Aguas Calientes. The mission concluded that studies and plans should be developed within the framework of the Master Plan for the Sanctuary and in full recognition of the need to preserve the natural and cultural values of the World Heritage property, its authenticity and its integrity.
Representatives of both IUCN and ICOMOS expressed strong support for the mission’s findings and recommendations that, for the first time, had analysed the state of conservation of Machu Picchu in a holistic and integrated approach. They commended the Government of Peru for the actions it had recently taken and emphasized that a key issue will be to ensure that the Management Unit has the resources and support to convert the strategic Master Plan into action and to implement the recommendations of the mission. IUCN also emphasized the desirability of extending the site, as recommended by the Committee at the time of its inscription, to enhance the property’s natural values.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe commended the way in which the report, for the first time, presented the issues at stake with clarity, enabling the Bureau to make an informed opinion on a question that is complex and not just refer to the construction of a cable car. He made particular reference to recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the mission report that would establish a period of study of issues related to tourism management. Finland also expressed support for the report and made reference to the involvement of his country in a major support programme for Machu Picchu.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and to recommend the Committee to adopt the following:
"The Committee, having examined the report of the World Heritage Centre-IUCN-ICOMOS mission to the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, endorses the conclusions and recommendations contained in it.
The Committee congratulates the Government of Peru on the adoption of the Master Plan and the establishment of the Management Unit. It urges the Government of Peru to ensure that all institutions, authorities and agencies involved in the Sanctuary give their full support to the Management Unit for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu so that this unit can effectively and efficiently fulfil the tasks entrusted to it.
The Committee recognizes that there is strong tourism pressure on the site and that the studies proposed in recommendations 6, 7 and 8 of the mission report would allow this matter to be addressed in an integrated manner.
The Committee requests the Government of Peru to submit, by 15 April 2000 for transmission to and examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, a report that should include its response to the mission’s conclusions and recommendations, as well as information on the progress made in the preparation and execution of operational plans for the implementation of the Master Plan for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu."
The Observer of Peru commended the co-operation between her Government and the World Heritage Committee. She confirmed that her Government would transmit all available information on the application of the Master Plan to the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. While she expressed reservations about certain parts of the mission report, there was full agreement on the need to undertake in-depth studies on the carrying capacity of the site and the management of tourism and these will be undertaken as soon as possible within the available means. She concluded by saying that the Government is committed to preserve the integrity and authenticity of the site and that no new constructions will be undertaken unless impact studies are first approved by the competent authorities.
State of conservation reports of mixed properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting
Kakadu National Park (Australia)
The Bureau recalled the decision of the third extraordinary session of the Committee on 12 July 1999 concerning the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park.
The Bureau noted that on 25 October 1999 the Centre received a letter from the State Party providing a report on progress made since the third extraordinary session of the Committee. The report recalled that a formal report would be submitted in April 2000 in accordance with the request of the Committee. In summary, the report from the State Party highlighted the following results:
- Drilling at Jabiluka has ceased
- Discussions have taken place on the future implementation of the Kakadu Regional Social Impact Study (KRSIS)
- Work on resolving the cultural issues has been delayed due to the withdrawal by the Mirrar Aboriginal people of their application for a declaration of protection under Section 10 of the 1984 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act for an area described as the "Boyweg-Almudj Sacred Site Complex".
- Stakeholders (for example, ICOMOS) have been invited to participate in the development of projects to contribute to the Cultural Heritage Management Plan.
The report from the State Party expressed concern about a delay in the commencement of the assessment of the remaining scientific issues and noted that this may make it difficult for the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the International Council for Science (ICSU) and the Australian Supervising Scientist to provide the Committee with further advice by the 15 April 2000 as had been requested. This point was also made in a letter received from the Australian Supervising Scientist on 21 October 1999 in which he also outlined suggestions as to how to proceed with the assessment of scientific issues relating to the Jabiluka mine development.
The Bureau also noted that the State Party had informed the Centre that the Aboriginal traditional owners of the Koongarra mine site (located within another enclave to the south) had recently instructed the Northern [Aboriginal] Land Council (NLC) to continue negotiating an agreement with the mining company (Koongarra Ltd). These negotiations were reported by the State Party as having been on-going for the last twenty-two years.
The Bureau noted that the Centre received supplementary information from the State Party on 27 October 1999. Energy Resources of Australia Ltd (ERA) had received advice that the Northern Land Council (which negotiates on behalf of the Aboriginal Traditional Owners) would not consider any proposal in relation to trucking ore from the Jabiluka mine to the existing Ranger mill for processing until at least 1 January 2005. ERA’s remaining option would be to build a new mill at Jabiluka. The State Party reported that ERA would now focus on refining the best outcomes that could be delivered by developing a milling operation at Jabiluka. The State Party informed the Centre that ERA has resolved to work in consultation with the traditional owners, and other key stakeholders, in developing the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP). The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, wrote to the Mirrar on 25 October 1999 providing copies of studies on the potential impacts of dust and vibration on the rock art at Jabiluka and a copy of a peer review of the Interim CHMP prepared by ERA. The Senator’s letter also sought the co-operation of the Mirrar in the preparation of the CHMP.
The Delegate of Australia expressed the State Party’s support for the Bureau’s decision. In recalling their commitment to provide a more comprehensive progress report by 15 April 2000, the Delegate of Australia stated that they would continue to keep the World Heritage Centre informed of new information concerning the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for action
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Bureau took note of the report and recommendations of the ICOMOS-ICCROM Joint Mission, undertaken in September 1999, which examined the state of conservation, management and factors affecting the Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian. ICOMOS underlined the importance of the basic, systematic, low-cost monitoring regime to be instituted for the whole site, for assessing the needs for major and expensive physical site protection measures, such as the construction of shelters over various localities. ICOMOS also reiterated the Joint Mission’s recommendation in preparing an overall conservation and management plan. The Observer of China expressed his Government’s appreciation to the Bureau, the World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies for organizing the Joint Mission. The Observer of China expressed his Government’s wish to co-operate closely with the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre in seriously examining the Joint Mission findings and recommendations, and his Government’s intention to propose a detailed plan of action for examination by the twenty-fourth Bureau. As to the recommendation concerning the criteria under which the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Government of China agreed with the view of the Joint Mission that the justification for inscription of this site on the World Heritage List should include cultural criterion (iv).
The Bureau recommended the following for adoption by the Committee:
"The Committee takes note of the findings of the report and recommendations of the ICOMOS-ICCROM Joint Mission, undertaken in September 1999, which examined the state of conservation, management and factors affecting the Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian. The Committee expresses appreciation to the Government of China, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat for the organization of the Joint Mission, which resulted with concrete recommendations for short and long term actions for enhanced management of the site. The Committee underlines the importance of putting into place a systematic low-cost monitoring system for the whole site, as well as the need for preparing an overall conservation and management plan.
The Committee welcomes the Government’s intention to seriously examine the Joint Mission recommendations, and requests the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre to closely co-operate with the national authorities in the necessary follow-up actions. As to the Joint Mission recommendation to add criterion (iv) and remove criterion (vi) under which the site is inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Committee requests ICOMOS to examine this matter further in consultation with the State Party. The Committee requests ICOMOS to make a further recommendation for examination by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau."
Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
The Bureau took note with satisfaction of the progress of the work begun on the project and achieved in 1999 for the revitalisation of Islamic Cairo and the excellent co-operation established with the Governor of Cairo and the Ministry of Culture - Supreme Council of Antiquities. He considered that the priority given to the co-ordination of the various actions undertaken by the national institutions and the international co-operation at the site is of major importance for the launching of the pilot projects for urban rivalization. In this framework, he acknowledged the importance of co-operation established with France with the secondment oto the project of an architect-restorer already working in Cairo. The Bureau finally took note of the decision of the Minister of Culture to allocate an additional amount of US$ 120,000 for this project.
With regard to the Al-Azhar Mosque, the Bureau was informed that an ICOMOS specialist would undertake a mission to Cairo shortly.
The Bureau recommended that the Committee approve the following text:
"The Committee thanks the national authorities and the international community for its commitment in supporting this important and complex site. The Committee wishes to remind the State Party of the need to ensure the continuity of the long-term action for the success in the safeguarding and revitalization of Islamic Cairo. It encourages the State Party to continue its direct and indirect financial contributions to the project."
City-Museum Reserve of Mtskheta (Georgia)
From 1996 to 1999 an amount of US$ 36,800 was made available under technical co-operation for expert services on a management and tourism policy. A preliminary study for a Master Plan for the heritage and tourist policy for the World Heritage site was prepared. In September 1999, the major elements of this study were presented during a World Heritage Centre mission to potential donor institutions in the form of "Terms of Reference for 9 Actions". As a result, a project is being prepared with UNDP (to be financed by UNDP and the World Heritage Fund) for the development of a Heritage and Tourism Master Plan.
The mission team particularly noted the critical conditions of two archaeological sites: the Armaztsikhe and the Samtavros Veli sites. Furthermore, the mission took note of a plan to build a new bell tower within the enclosure of the cathedral.
The Observer of Germany inquired about the results of the previous assistance and pointed out that urgent interventions and rehabilitation works are needed in the site. These issues should be taken into account by the Committee when examining a request for technical co-operation for the preparation of the Master Plan.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and recommended the following for adoption:
"The Committee welcomes the initiative of the Government of Georgia and the Mtskheta Foundation to develop a Heritage and Tourism Master Plan for the City-Museum Reserve of Mtskheta. It expresses its full support for this initiative that will provide the appropriate framework for a coherent set of actions to be financed by different sources and donor institutions. The Committee recognizes that on the middle and long-term major investments will be required for the actual implementation of the Master Plan and calls upon States Parties, international institutions and organizations to collaborate in this effort.
The Committee urges the Government of Georgia to take immediate measures for the protection of the Armaztsikhe archaeological site and for the recuperation of the total area of the Samtavros Veli Necropolis site. It requests the Georgian authorities to provide the plans for the bell tower at the cathedral for further study by ICOMOS."
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
The fifth state of conservation report, requested by the twenty-second session of the Committee was submitted by the German authorities and evaluated by ICOMOS.
ICOMOS stated that important progress had been made in the planning for and preparation of urban planning mechanisms for the Quartier am Bahnhof and the Potsdam area in such a way that the cultural landscape values are preserved.
ICOMOS expressed concern about the so-called German Unity Project 17, a project to improve waterways in the eastern part of Germany. In Potsdam two alternatives exist, one of which goes through the World Heritage site and large vessels might be a danger for the landscape and individual monuments. The other alternative, the northern route, would use existing waterways that do not affect the World Heritage value of the cultural landscape of Potsdam.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and recommended the adoption of the following decision:
"The Committee commends the German authorities for their fifth report on the state of conservation of the Parks and Palaces of Potsdam and Berlin. It acknowledges the efforts made to restrict as much as possible the negative effects of the Havel project (German Unity Project 17) on the integrity of the World Heritage site. Nevertheless, it considers that considerable threats persist to the landscape and certain historic monuments, such as the Sacrow Church and the Babelsberg Engine House.
The Committee wishes to know whether it would be possible to restrict passage through the World Heritage site to standard-sized vessels and to develop the Havel Canal, which lies outside the site (the northern route) so as to permit the passage of larger vessels.
It requests the German authorities to continue its efforts to find a solution in conformity with the requirements of the World Heritage Convention. A report should be provided before 15 April 2000 in order that it may be examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session."
Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
The Bureau examined the updated state of conservation report presented by the Secretariat, and transmitted the following for adoption by the Committee.
"The Committee, having examined the developments at the Sun Temple of Konarak, expresses concern over its state of conservation. The Committee reiterates the Bureau’s requests to the Government of India to submit information concerning the structural study implemented with the financial assistance from the World Heritage Fund emergency assistance reserve, made available in 1998. The Committee requests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to continue its arrangements for an urgent reactive monitoring mission, in close co-operation with the national authorities concerned. The Committee requests the findings of this ICOMOS mission, and reports submitted by the Government of India, to be submitted for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session. The Committee also requests the Secretariat and ICOMOS to clarify whether or not the Government of India intends to nominate this site for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger."
Byblos (Lebanon)
The Bureau decided to transmit the state of conservation of this site to the Committee for examination and the provision of information concerning the second expert meeting that was held in Byblos in November 1999.
Tyre (Lebanon)
The Director CLT/CH and WHC, reported on the progress made in the activities relating to the archaeological site of Tyre which had suffered considerably for several years from the lack of appropriate archaeological regulations, an archaeological map and a management plan.
It is for this reason that the Lebanese authorities have requested UNESCO at every General Conference and once again during its thirtieth session, to ensure the participation of international experts in long-term missions to the site.
The Bureau adopted the following recommendation :
"The Committee thanks the Lebanese Government for their co-operation in the preservation of the City of Tyre. In view of the serious and persistent threats to the safeguarding of the site, the Committee requests that the recommendations of the International Scientific Committee be urgently implemented, particularly the adoption of a city management plan to ensure the safeguarding of the archaeological zones as well as their protection through the creation of an appropriate landscape design. The Committee also requests the authorities to appoint a national co-ordinator and open a national account for the International Safeguarding Campaign as it was agreed with UNESCO, and recalled in the letter dated 7 July 1999 from the Director-General to the Minister of Culture".
Historic Centre of Puebla (Mexico)
In response to a request from the Bureau at its twenty-third session, the Mexican authorities submitted a detailed inventory of damages caused to the Historic Centre of Puebla and the Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl by the earthquake of 15 June 1999. The inventory refers to 102 buildings in the State of Puebla, a great number of which are located within the two World Heritage sites. The report included immediate actions that have been taken already by the Mexican authorities, as well as an estimate of the funds needed for consolidation, restoration and repair.
The observer from Germany commended the Government of Mexico for the immediate response to the earthquake so that collapse of monuments could be prevented. ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it had also received a detailed report on damages to the site of the Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Alban and that it would made this report available to the World Heritage Centre.
The Delegate of Mexico informed the Bureau that a special commission had been set up to deal with the damages caused by the earthquakes and that it had consulted with other States Parties on defining the appropriate response to this situation.
A request for emergency assistance for an amount of US$ 100,000 will be considered by the Committee at its twenty-third session. The request refers particularly to the Monastery of Tochimilco, one of the monasteries on the slopes of the Popocatepetl.
The Bureau recommended the Committee to adopt the following decision:
"The Committee thanks the Mexican authorities for the detailed report on the damages caused by the earthquake of 15 June 1999 to the World Heritage sites of the Historic Centre of Puebla and the Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl. It commends the authorities for the immediate response given to the earthquake and the emergency measures that have been taken to prevent further damage and collapse.
The Committee requests the Mexican authorities to submit, by 15 September 2000, a report on the progress made in the consolidation of the monuments, for examination by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session."
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
Background
At its sixteenth session in 1992, the Committee, at the initiative of ICOMOS, examined the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley, which was the subject of a UNESCO International Safeguarding Campaign, and of numerous reports written since the 1970s. ICOMOS expressed concern for the future safeguarding of this site, especially due to the absence of technical personnel and skilled labour, and to the quality of some restorations of wooden monuments with true architectural value. The Delegate of Germany, who expressed his concern at the alarming report, suggested recommending to the Nepalese Government to substantially increase the staff of at the Department of Archaeology and the funds at their disposal so that they may act effectively with regard to urban development threatening the Valley. The Delegate of Pakistan and ICCROM stressed the importance of acting in order to preserve the heritage of the Kathmandu Valley. The Committee adopted the recommendations made by ICOMOS and asked the Secretariat to contact the Nepalese authorities to study all the recommendations of ICOMOS and the Committee.
In 1993, a Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Mission was undertaken, whose conclusions stressed the continuing urgency of the situation and defined sixteen areas in which significant improvements should be made in order to maintain the integrity of the original inscription. The Joint Mission recommended that the site be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and returned to the World Heritage List within a period of one to three years, after sixteen specific matters of concern had been met. The mission further recommended the effective delisting of parts of the Hanuman Dhoka Darbar Square and Bauddhanath Monument Zones, following a general failure to control development, but an extension of the monument zones of Swayambhunath, Patan and particularly Bhaktapur, which was considered at the time to be the only Newari city to retain its overall traditional character. At the seventeenth session of the Committee, the Observer of Nepal pledged to follow-up on the recommendations of the Joint Mission.
At its eighteenth session, the Bureau examined the 1993 Joint Mission report, and the Representative of Thailand stated that it was important to judge the degree to which the site had deteriorated and whether it was now worthy of being included in the World Heritage List. The Bureau recommended to the Committee to envisage partial delisting and redefinition of the part still intact and qualifying as World Heritage, which should be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, to bring particular attention to the site to avoid further deterioration. The Nepalese State Party was informed of the Bureau's concerns and UNESCO was asked to work out an international assistance project.
At its eighteenth session, the Committee took note of the Secretariat’s report on the Nepal/UNESCO/ICOMOS strategy meeting held in 1994 immediately following the Kathmandu Valley International Safeguarding Campaign Review Meeting. The Committee also took note of the action plan: to be co-ordinated by an inter-ministerial task force which the representatives of various ministries agreed to establish and which included the establishment of a Development Control Unit in the Department of Archaeology to work closely with the municipalities and town development committees. The Committee called upon the State Party to take into consideration the recommendation for ensuring the protection of the site from uncontrolled development, especially by adopting a more stringent policy in the granting of demolition and construction permits and other land use authorization. Recognizing the limited national resources in carrying out the variety of required activities, the Committee requested UNESCO to assist the authorities in seeking international donor support, including the documentation of the site to be undertaken as a priority. In this connection, the Committee discussed the advantages of the Kathmandu Valley being put on the List of World Heritage in Danger to draw the priority attention of the international community, and urged the Government to reconsider this option.
In 1995 at its nineteenth session, the Committee noted that the official gazettes of the revised boundaries of the Monument Zones had not yet been issued despite repeated indication by the Department of Archaeology of its imminent publication, and expressed its concern over the continued demolition of and inappropriate alterations to historic buildings within the World Heritage protected zones.
At its twentieth session in 1996, the Committee while expressing appreciation for the progress made by the Government towards the fulfilment of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission, it expressed its hope that efforts would be continued to strengthen the institutional capacities of the Department of Archaeology and the concerned municipalities by officially adopting and publicizing regulations on building control and conservation practice.
In view of the continued deterioration of the World Heritage values in the Bauddhanath and Kathmandu Monument Zones affecting the integrity and inherent characteristics of the site, the Committee at its twenty-first session in 1997, requested the Secretariat again, in collaboration with ICOMOS and the State Party, to study the possibility of deleting selected areas within some Monument Zones without jeopardizing the universal significance and value of the site as a whole. This review was to take into consideration the intention of the State Party to nominate Khokana as an additional Monument Zone. The Committee, at its twenty-first session, decided that it could consider whether or not to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-second session.
Financed with US$ 35,000 authorized by the Committee, a UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Joint Mission was undertaken in March 1998, resulting in 55 Recommendations and a Time-Bound Action Plan of Corrective Measures for Enhanced Management, adopted by the State Party. Recommendations to delete selected areas were not made by the Joint Mission in view of the clearly evident necessity to protect the essential setting of the monuments, and as the Hanuman Dhoka Darbar Square and Bauddhanath Monument Zones were already limited to the areas immediately surrounding the main monuments and historic buildings.
At its twenty-first session in 1998, the Committee decided to defer consideration of the inscription of the Kathmandu Valley site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until its twenty-second session. However, the Committee requested the State Party to continue implementing the 55 Recommendations, and in addition, recommended that the State Party adopt the three additional ICOMOS recommendations annexed to the 55 Recommendations. Finally, the Committee requested the State Party to take measures to ensure that adequate protection and management are put into place at Khokana, prior to its nomination as an additional Monument Zone.
Deliberations during the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau
The Secretariat presented the findings and recommendations of the October 1999 mission undertaken by an independent international expert, who represented ICOMOS at the time of the March 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Joint Mission. The report confirmed that Kathmandu Valley remained in danger. The Bureau examined this report, together with the reports of the Secretariat and His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, presented as Documents WHC-99/CONF.208/ INF.8A,B,C. The Observer of Nepal stated that his Government was making all efforts to implement the 55 Recommendations of the 1998 Joint Mission and the Time-Bound Action Plan of Corrective Measures for Enhanced Management, adopted by his Government.
The Bureau, although appreciating the efforts made by HMG of Nepal, expressed serious concern over the persisting problems of demolition or alteration of historic buildings within the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. The Bureau acknowledged that although continuous and large sums of international assistance and technical support had been provided to the Government from the World Heritage Fund, UNESCO Funds-in-Trust projects and numerous international donors over the years, the very serious degree of uncontrolled change and gradual deterioration of the historic fabric continued to threaten the authenticity and integrity of the site.
The Bureau, referring to discussions at every session of the Bureau and Committee since 1992, noted that the Committee had deferred inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger many times since the Committee’s attention was drawn to the alarming situation in 1992. The Bureau underlined the importance of inscribing sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger at an early stage to mitigate the threats endangering a World Heritage site. Bureau members and observers stressed that the inscription of sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger should be utilized in a more constructive and positive manner, to mobilize the support of policy makers at the highest level and international donors.
Four Bureau members and some observers recommended that it was now the time for Kathmandu Valley to be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, especially as the important integrity of the site has gradually been undermined over a long period of time. The Delegate of Australia stated his Government was of the view that that the concerned State Party should agree before a decision is taken for inscribing a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. ICOMOS stated that as the Committee did not inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1993, ICOMOS was reluctant to recommend inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage Danger at this time, as improvements had been made since 1993 as a result of efforts made by the State Party.
After further consideration, the Bureau recommended the following for adoption by the Committee:
"The Committee examines the state of conservation reports presented in WHC-99/CONF.209/INF.17A,B,C and expresses deep concern over the serious degree of uncontrolled change and deterioration of the authenticity and integrity of the Monument Zones placed under the protection of the World Heritage Convention. It notes with appreciation that the State Party has made every effort to implement the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission, as well as the 55 Recommendations of the 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Joint Mission and the Time-Bound Action Plan.
The Committee requests HMG of Nepal to continue making all possible efforts to protect the remaining authentic historic urban fabric within the Kathmandu Valley site. The Committee requests the Secretariat and the advisory bodies to continue to assist the State Party as appropriate and to the extent possible: in strengthening its capacity in controlling development, retaining historic buildings in-situ, and in correcting illegal construction and alteration of historic buildings within the Kathmandu Valley site.
The Committee decides to defer inscription of the Kathmandu Valley site on the List of World Heritage in Danger again, until the next session of the Committee.
Moreover, in view of the fact that the demolition and new construction or alterations of historic buildings within the Kathmandu Valley have persisted in spite of the concerted international and national efforts, resulting in the loss or continuous and gradual deterioration of materials, structure, ornamental features, and architectural coherence making the essential settings of the Monument Zones as well as in their authentic characters, the Committee requests a High Level Mission to be undertaken to hold discussions with representatives of HMG of Nepal in early 2000. This High Level Mission would be composed of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee or a representative of the Committee members, a senior staff of the World Heritage Centre, and two eminent international experts. The findings of the mission would be reported the next sessions of the Bureau and Committee, in 2000."
Taxila (Pakistan)
Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)
The Secretariat reported that since the October 1999 mission undertaken during the political disturbance and change of Government, numerous discussions had taken place between the national authorities and the World Heritage Centre concerning the completed football stadium on Bhir Mound, Taxila, and the demolished hydraulic works of Shalamar Gardens. The Secretariat further reported that the former President of the UNESCO Executive Board informed the Secretariat that the Government would review the situation urgently and examine the possible measures to correct the recent developments at these sites.
Concerning the Shish Mahal Mirrored Ceiling within the Lahore Fort, ICCROM congratulated the authorities of Pakistan for preventing further water leakage during the 1999 monsoon. Underlining the importance to carefully consider proposals for constructing a temporary roof, ICCROM recommended that a follow-up mission be undertaken to discuss the protective measures with the national authorities concerned.
The Bureau examined the report of the Secretariat and recommended the following for adoption by the Committee.
"The Committee examined the report of the Secretariat. The Committee expresses concern over the demolition of the 375 year old essential hydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens, which has been carried out to enlarge the 4-lane Grand Trunk Road into a 6-lane motorway, as well as the completed football stadium built on the archaeological remains of Bhir Mound, the most ancient citadel site dating between 6th BC - 2nd AD within Taxila. In view of the ascertained threats undermining the authenticity and integrity of these two sites, the Committee requests the State Party to take urgent corrective measures to restore the hydraulic works at Shalamar Gardens, and to consider removing the football stadium negatively impacting upon the archaeological remains of Bhir Mound. The Committee requests the State Party to report on the actions taken for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau. Should the Bureau find that the World Heritage values have been compromised, it would recommend the Committee to consider inscription of these sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-fourth session, in view of the threats facing these sites.
Taking note of the need to elaborate a comprehensive management plan for both the Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore, the Committee requests the World Heritage Centre to urgently organize a reactive monitoring mission by the advisory bodies to Lahore. The Committee requests that consultation on the proposals for protecting the Shish Mahal Mirrored Ceiling be undertaken by ICCROM with the national authorities, during this mission. The Committee requests the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre to report on findings and recommendations of the mission for examination by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau."
Central Zone of Angra do Heroismo in the Azores (Portugal)
The Portuguese authorities submitted in July and September 1999 substantive documentation on the project for the marina and the rehabilitation of the waterfront of Angra do Heroismo. These reports were examined by the ICOMOS expert who undertook several missions to the site. The expert was of the opinion that the justification for the location of the marina had been provided and he was in agreement with the solution proposed for the connection of the dam to the waterfront of the city.
The expert agreed with the proposals for the revitalisation of some of the parts of the waterfront, but he made specific observations and reservations about other parts. The expert furthermore noted that a general urban development plan was still missing and that an integration of the marina/waterfront project in the city plan was not shown.
To conclude, the ICOMOS expert observed that the construction of the marina will have a visual impact on the Bay and the waterfront of the city and that this should be accompanied by a rehabilitation that should fully respect, and with minimal change, the structure and characteristics of the waterfront. Particular attention should be given to the area between the city and the proposed marina.
The Bureau decided to transmit the report to the Committee for examination and recommended the following for adoption:
"The Committee takes note of the information provided by the State Party on the marina project in the Bay of Angra do Heroismo and the opinions expressed by ICOMOS. The Committee endorses the views of ICOMOS regarding the proposed rehabilitation of the waterfront and urges the Portuguese authorities to take these into account in reconsidering the plans for this area, more particularly for the area of the Patio da Alfandega, Jardim dos Corte-Reais and Antigo Mercado do Peixe, the Encosta do Cantagalo and the S. Sebastiao Fort.
The Committee requests the authorities to continue its collaboration with ICOMOS on the further development of the plans for the marina and the waterfront and their integration into the overall urban plan for Angra do Heroismo.
It requests the authorities to submit a report on the above matters by 15 April 2000 for consideration by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session."
The Observer of Portugal informed the Bureau that the regional authorities of the Azores informed him that they are in full agreement with the observations made by the ICOMOS expert on the plans for the waterfront and wished to continue their co-operation with ICOMOS.
Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
The Bureau was informed that since the drafting of the state of conservation report, this site has been seriously impacted by the worst flood in 48 years that occurred in November 1999. On the basis of information received from the Hue Conservation Centre, the Secretariat reported that some 14 monumental complexes out of the 16 in the World Heritage protected area, were damaged. The Imperial City was under 1.5 metres of water, and two of the mausoleums were under 5-4 metres of water, with others under 1 metre of water, causing ground erosion and risk of structural instability. Moreover, the urban landscape of the site, characterized the lush vegetation has been seriously impacted by the uprooting of several centenarian trees. The Observer of Vietnam expressed appreciation for the Committee’s support for the conservation of this site and thanked the World Heritage Centre for the international assistance it has been mobilizing. Stressing the seriousness of the damage caused by the flood, he requested the Committee to call on the world community to extend emergency assistance to Vietnam . He welcomed the reactive monitoring mission to Hue and Hoi An being organized by the Centre for December 1999.
The Bureau recommended the following for adoption by the Committee:
"The Committee examines the report of the Secretariat and expresses sympathy for the victims of the November floods and concern over the serious extent of the damage caused by the floods to the monuments and urban landscape of the Hue World Heritage site. Having examined the new information provided to the Bureau by the Vietnamese authorities and the Secretariat, the Committee allocates an initial sum of US$ 50,000 under the emergency assistance fund to support the rehabilitation of Hue and Hoi An, and the preparation of a comprehensive emergency rehabilitation programme including risk assessment and mitigation schemes. The Committee notes the deployment of an expert mission organized by the Secretariat for early December, and requests the Centre to support the State Party in preparing the emergency rehabilitation programme and in mobilizing international co-operation.
With regard to the new focus since 1997, on urban heritage conservation, the Committee noted the efforts being made by the Provincial and Municipal Authorities of Hué and the Hué Conservation Centre in mitigating the deterioration of the historic urban fabric of the World Heritage protected areas and commends Lille Metropole, UNESCO and the French Government for the support provided to the local authorities in integrating conservation concerns in the overall urban development plan. In this regard, the Committee reiterated the importance of preserving the authenticity and integrity of the Citadel of Hué marked by its urban morphology, spatial organization and vegetation which together form the « feng shui » philosophy adopted in the original construction and subsequent transformation of this imperial city. The Committee encouraged the State Party for its initiative in organizing the donors’ meeting scheduled in April 2000 with technical support from the World Heritage Centre and Lille Metropole, and suggests that the emergency programme for the rehabilitation of the flood-caused damages be presented at this donors’ meeting in addition to the urban conservation programme. It suggested, furthermore, that the project proposals be forwarded in advance to the members of the Committee, and that invitations be extended to the Committee and advisory bodies, as well as to the international development co-operation agencies and Vietnam-based diplomatic missions. Finally, the Committee noted that the written report that the Bureau at its twenty-second session requested the State Party to submit by 15 September 1999, had not been received to date. The Committee therefore requested the State Party to prepare an initial progress report on the rehabilitation effort, as well as on measures taken to ensure the conservation and appropriate development of the urban heritage of Hué by 1 May 2000 for review by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session."
State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Bureau transmitted to the Committee for noting
Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis (Argentina and Brazil):
The Jesuit Mission of Santa Ana (Argentina)
Following the examination of the state of conservation by the Bureau in July 1999, the Secretariat received a report from the authorities of Argentina on the construction of an industrial plant in the village of Santa Ana. It is reported that the plant is at a distance of 700 meters from the ruins of the Jesuit Mission and that it is not visible from there. A new access road to the mission is being planned that will improve security for visitors, will re-introduce the historical access to the site and will avoid visitors being directly confronted with the industrial plant.
The Bureau took note of the information provided by the authorities of Argentina on the construction of an industrial plant in the village of Santa Ana. It concluded that the plant has no visual impact on the World Heritage site and that the proposed new access road to the missions will improve the presentation of the site.
Following an observation made by ICOMOS, the Bureau also requested the authorities of Argentina to define buffer zones around the Jesuit missions and to inform the Secretariat about the measures taken to this effect.
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
The Secretariat reported on increased international co-operation with the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) of China for the conservation of the historic areas of Lhasa. This co-operation also involves the participation of the Lhasa Municipality in activities carried out within the framework of the World Heritage Centre’s Special Programme for the Cities of Asia , and among others, exchanges through the Tibet-Norway University Network Co-operation scheme. The organization of a technical workshop with support from the Centre and NIKU (Norwegian Conservation Institute), was proposed to: (1) review the Old Lhasa Historical Map, a Norwegian-supported project carried out since 1996 by a German NGO, and (2) add to recent mural painting conservation skills through an on-the-job training workshop to restore the paintings of Lukhang Temple of the Potala Palace.
The Bureau was also informed that in anticipation of the extension of the Potala Palace World Heritage site to cover Jokhang Temple and the historic areas, to be examined by the Committee in December 2000, the Centre and the State Party are discussing measures to raise awareness and respect for conservation among the local population, in view of the continued incidents of illegal demolition and inappropriate reconstructions in the Barkhor Historic Area, mainly by private and business concerns.
An ICOMOS mission would be visiting Lhasa early in 2000 to evaluate the Jokhang Temple Monastery , which was nominated as an extension to the Potala Palace. The expert would be requested to visit the Potala Palace and provide a report on the state of conservation.
The Bureau expressed appreciation for enhanced international co-operation for the conservation of the monumental and urban heritage of the Historic Area of Barkhor, notably the long-term support offered by various international non-governmental organizations and universities. The Bureau took note of the proposed training activities in urban conservation planning and mural painting restoration with the involvement of UNESCO and the Norwegian Conservation Institute (NIKU) among others. The Bureau recalled the interest expressed by ICCROM and ICOMOS in these activities and requested the State Party to consider their involvement, especially in training activities. The Bureau expressed its readiness to consider international assistance from the World Heritage Fund to support the national and local efforts in these areas and requested the World Heritage Centre to work in close collaboration with the State Party in reviewing the conservation plan of the Historic Area of Barkhor.
City of Quito (Ecuador)
The Ecuadorian authorities provided detailed information on the disaster preparation scheme introduced to respond to the possible impact of the re-activation of the volcano La Pichincha that is at a close distance to the World Heritage site.
The Bureau requested the Ecuadorian authorities to keep the Secretariat informed on the threats posed by the volcano activities to the historic centre of Quito and on the disaster preparedness activities undertaken.
Historic Centre of Tallin (Estonia)
The Estonian authorities informed the Secretariat that, in response to the ICOMOS expert monitoring mission (1998) and the Bureau’s recommendations, the national and local governments are now looking for an alternative location for the construction of a new theatre. The historic buildings at the originally foreseen location of the theatre have been consolidated and new functions are being sought for them.
The authorities pointed out, however, that as long no development plan for the Protected Area of Tallin exists, similar cases might occur in the future.
The Bureau congratulated the authorities of Estonia for their efforts to find a more suitable location for a theatre that was planned within the Historic Centre of Tallin and to preserve the historic structures on its planned location. It urged the authorities to proceed with the preparation of a development plan for the Historic Centre of Tallin in order to provide the adequate framework for interventions and preservation in the Historic Centre. It offered its support to such effort, if requested by the State Party.
Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France)
On the occasion of the Assembly of the Friends of Mont-Saint-Michel, on 24 September 1999, to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List, the project «Re-establishment of the Maritime character of the Mont-Saint-Michel», prepared by the Ministry for Equipment, was presented to the public. This project will greatly contribute towards the rehabilitation of the spiritual nature of Mont-Saint-Michel and will help regulate the tourist influx (more than three million per year).
The Delegate of Greece inquired about the tourism installations that affect the morphology of the monument. The Observer of France responded that this would be dealt with by relocating functions that are not appropriate to the site.
The Bureau took note of the development of the project for the re-establishment of the maritime character of the Mont-Saint-Michel prepared by the French authorities and congratulated them for their continuing commitment for the protection of the World Heritage. The Bureau appreciated the quality of the work and the aims of the project. It hoped that its implementation, which has also to respect the needs of the residents of the Mont-Saint-Michel, would be carried out as soon as possible. Finally, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to study, together with the French authorities, the possibility of organizing an exhibition on the Mont and on the project.
Roman Monuments, Cathedral and Liebfrauen Church in Trier (Germany)
The German authorities submitted a report and plans on the protection and development of the surroundings of the Roman amphitheatre. This included information on the extension of the area protected by a municipal ordinance, as well as the reduction of the number and the height of the buildings north of the theatre. The draft plan on the proposed integration of the Roman water pipes and town ramparts was not available yet.
ICOMOS observed that significant progress had been made in the extension of the protected area and in the restructuring of the buildings.
The Bureau welcomed the information provided by the German authorities on the extension of the protected area around the Roman amphitheatre and the revision of the building plan for the area to the north. It encouraged the German authorities to develop the plan for the integration of the Roman water pipes and town ramparts and to submit this plan, if possible before 15 April 2000, for evaluation by ICOMOS.
Ashanti Traditional Buildings (Ghana)
The Bureau noted with satisfaction the progress achieved for the improvement of the state of conservation of the property, and the efforts undertaken for the development of promotional activities, and its attempts to generate revenues to achieve sustainability. However, it requested the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board to proceed with the preparation of an overall management plan as soon as possible and report to the Committee at its twenty-fifth session.
ICCROM recalled that most of the activities in this site are undertaken in the framework of the Africa 2009 programme and supported the need of an overall management plan. He suggested that AFRICA 2009 would use a meeting of its co-ordination committee, already scheduled to take place in Ghana in early 2000, to visit the site and meet with officials of the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board to discuss a proposal for drafting the management plan.
Churches and Convents of Goa (India)
The Bureau took note of the state of conservation report of the Secretariat, and while expressing its appreciation to the State Government on its plans to divert National Road No. 4 away from the Churches and Convents of Goa, it requested further information to be provided to the advisory bodies for their examination. The Bureau also requested the World Heritage Centre to provide any available reports on the management of the site to be transmitted to the advisory bodies for their comments.
The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to continue assisting the relevant authorities in addressing the conservation needs of the monuments and historic urban fabric composing the World Heritage site. The Bureau encouraged the local, regional and national authorities concerned to continue to follow-up on the decision of the Bureau at its twenty-third session, and to submit a report on the actions taken by 15 April 2000 for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session.
Luang Prabang (Laos)
The Secretariat reported that catalytic funds provided to this site from the World Heritage Fund since its inscription in 1995, amounting to a total of approximately US$ 70,000 have raised some US$ 4.5 million in projects designed by the Centre and the Luang Prabang-Chinon (France) joint team under the decentralized co-operation scheme supported by the Government of France and the European Union, among other donors. The draft conservation and development plan for the core historic centre within the World Heritage site of the Historic Town of Luang Prabang is due for completion by the end of 1999. Upon approval by the Inter-ministerial Commission for the Protection of Cultural, Natural and Historic Properties of Laos, the plan is to be enforced provisionally for a period of one year prior to finalization. The Secretariat reported on concerns over a number of large-scale public works and the rapid growth in tourism. The Bureau was informed that an international donors meeting is scheduled for late-January 2000 for the Luang Prabang Provincial Government to present the conservation and development plan to sensitize the donors on the need to design infrastructural development projects will not undermine the World Heritage value of the site.
The Bureau congratulated the national and local authorities for the progress made in strengthening the legal and administrative structure for the protection of the Luang Prabang World Heritage site, as well as in the elaboration of the conservation and development plan of the site. However, the Bureau expressed concern about the delay in the official enactment by the National Assembly of the law for the protection of national cultural, natural and historic properties, as well as over the absence in the decree of reference to the financing of conservation. Noting the important financial and technical assistance mobilized by UNESCO from bilateral and multilateral sources over the past four years for the conservation of this site, the Bureau requested the State Party to consider the ways and means to ensure the long-term sustainability of conservation and maintenance activities of this World Heritage site.
Moreover, the Bureau expressed concern over the potential negative impact of a number of public works projects financed by international development co-operation agencies, as well as over the rapid tourism development works at the site. Commending the initiative of the Governor of Luang Prabang in organizing a donors’ meeting, the State Party was requested to submit a written report to the Secretariat by 10 May 2000 on the outcome of this meeting and on the concerns raised over the riverbank consolidation, drainage and sewage works, electricity transmission poles, and the proposed bridge construction, as well as the results of the tourism study. In the preparation of this report, the Bureau requested the international development co-operation agencies concerned and the World Heritage Centre to support the national and local authorities of Laos. The Bureau, moreover, requested the Secretariat to discuss with the State Party on the feasibility of establishing an international co-ordinating committee composed of donor governments for the safeguarding and development of Luang Prabang, modelled on the committee established for Angkor in Cambodia.
Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
The Bureau congratulated the Mozambican authorities for their efforts to preserve the Ilha de Mozambique by taking into account the social and economic aspects of the site and the successful donors’ meeting, and called upon the donors’ community to provide a wide support to this endeavour, by making contributions to the UNDP-UNESCO Trust Fund, or by implementing projects on a bilateral basis, or by taking into account the Programme for Sustainable Human Development and Integral Conservation in order to achieve better synergy with the projects that have already been funded.
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
The Bureau examined the undated report of the Secretariat concerning the announcement by the Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture that the construction of the Maya Devi Temple would start by mid-November 1999. The Observer of Nepal stated that the Government had been seeking international contribution for the rehabilitation of the Maya Devi Temple for many years, but regrettably without response. HMG of Nepal is therefore determined to undertake work at the Maya Devi Temple site, regardless of the availability of financial support from international donors. The Observer, however, assured the Bureau that his Government was fully prepared to accept international expert advice and assistance from the World Heritage Committee, the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre, during the construction of the Maya Devi Temple. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to organize a reactive monitoring mission in co-operation with the advisory bodies and the State Party, for further consultations with the authorities concerned, and to examine the management and conservation needs of the fragile archaeological site. The Bureau decided to examine the findings of this report at its twenty-fourth session.
Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru)
An ICOMOS expert undertook a mission to Chavin in September/October 1999 to update the 1993 state of conservation report and advise on future actions for the management and preservation of the site.
ICOMOS reported that the site is in a very fragile state and that urgent interventions are needed. ICOMOS pointed out, however, that there had been a lack of financial and human resources for a long time. Future planning for the site should consider the rational use of tourism and the re-definition of the boundaries of the site, particularly in view of the vicinity of the village of Chavin. In ICOMOS’s view, no excavations should be undertaken until a Master Plan is adopted and financial means are available for preservation.
The Observer of Peru then informed the Bureau that she had just transmitted information to the Secretariat that a special commission had been established with the participation of recognized experts to: 1) define and implement emergency measures at the site; 2) prepare an emergency intervention plan, and 3) to prepare a Master Plan. She informed the Bureau that considerable funding was being negotiated with the Government of Japan and a private mining company for these activities. She expressed the wish of her Government to continue the collaboration with ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre in this endeavour.
The Bureau commended ICOMOS for its report and the Government of Peru for the decisions taken for emergency intervention and future planning for the archaeological site of Chavin. It welcomed the wish of the Government of Peru to continue to collaborate with ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre and requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on the progress made by 15 September 2000 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session.
City of Cuzco (Peru)
Technical co-operation for an amount of US$ 20,000 for the preparation of a Master Plan was provided in 1997. This assistance was provided under the condition that adequate arrangements be made between the National Institute for Culture and the Municipality of Cusco for the joint preparation of the Master Plan. There is now a joint committee and a contract has been signed between UNESCO and both the INC and Municipality of the city. The Secretariat is awaiting the work plan for its implementation.
The Bureau encouraged the National Institute for Culture and the Municipality of Cusco to collaborate in the preparation of the Master Plan for the city and to inform the Secretariat, by 15 April 2000, on the progress made. This information will be transmitted to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session.
The Observer of Peru informed the Bureau that a report on the situation had been prepared and would be submitted to the Secretariat shortly.
Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
The Bureau examined the state of conservation report of the site. The Bureau was informed that additional reports from the national authorities had been transmitted to the Secretariat before the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau, but due to time constraints, the World Heritage Centre had not been able to transmit the information to ICOMOS, but would do so immediately. In response to the report submitted by the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF), ICOMOS considered that it answers the points raised by ICOMOS Germany in December 1998. However, ICOMOS expressed its view that the conservation process and enhanced management of this fragile site should be a continuing project. It recommended that the Bureau thank the State Party for its report and at the same time request periodic reports for examination by the Bureau.
The Observer of the Philippines expressed appreciation to the Committee and the World Heritage Centre for the attention given to the state of conservation of this site. He reported that the GIS activity supported with the World Heritage Fund would commence in December 1999, utilizing the financial assistance in a catalytic manner to generate further assistance from other funding sources. The Observer informed the Bureau that the Philippines National Commission for UNESCO was joining forces with the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force to reinforce co-operation with the local communities through heritage education programmes and by carrying out hydrological studies aimed to reinforce the cultural identity, revive and update traditional agricultural skills.
The Delegate of Zimbabwe noted that the maintenance of the ecosytem of this site, being intimately linked to the traditional ways of life of the local communities provides a good case study for sustainable management of the site, particularly for the protection of World Heritage cultural landscape sites. The Observer of Germany added that this site was one of the first cultural landscapes to be protected under the World Heritage Convention, inscribed with the full awareness by the Committee of the great challenges the conservation process would pose. Underlining the importance of the participation of the local communities, he expressed appreciation for the interdisciplinary approach adopted by the State Party.
The Bureau expressed its appreciation for the informative report of the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF) dated 30 August 1999 on the on-going activities for the protection of the Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras. The Bureau stressed the importance of these activities, notably the watershed management of the site and its buffer zone as well as those to mitigate the negative impact of infrastructural development works on the site. The Bureau recommended the State Party to update the existing development plan to ensure that the socio-economic development needs of the local inhabitants are met while maintaining the authenticity and sustainable conservation of this fragile site. In this connection, the Bureau expressed concern over the impact of increasing tourism to the site and requested the State Party to inform the Bureau through the Secretariat by 15 September 2000 on whether or not the integrated development strategy including a tourism development plan for this site which were reportedly under preparation at the time of the site’s inscription had been completed. Should the State Party require international expertise in completing this, the Bureau expressed its readiness to support the national effort through technical co-operation under the World Heritage Fund.
Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
The Secretariat informed the Bureau that major progress had been made in the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Auschwitz and of the Act for the Protection of Former Nazi Extermination Camps. The Bureau at its twenty-third session requested the Government of Poland to submit a further progress report by 15 April 2000 for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session. The Observer of Poland confirmed that the Spacial Management Plan would be completed shortly for submission to the local authorities and to the International Expert Group. A request for assistance for this meeting from the World Heritage Fund is forthcoming.
As to the request from the Polish National Commission for UNESCO for the Committee’s views on the matter of the restitution to the author of portraits made while she was imprisoned in the camp, the Director of the World Heritage Centre stated that this is probably more a matter of national than of international law. The Observer of Poland made a statement explaining the background and implications of this request. Several delegates and observers supported the view expressed by the Director of the Centre. Subsequently, the Bureau concluded that legal advice is required before this matter can be further examined by the Bureau or the Committee.
The Sokkuram Grotto and Pulguksa Temple (Republic of Korea)
The Bureau was informed of the written report submitted by the State Party as requested by the Bureau at its twenty-third session in June 1999. It was noted that the construction of the incinerator has not yet been approved by the Kyongju City Council and that no scientific study exists on the effect of dioxin on construction material. ICOMOS confirmed the latter point and stressed the urgent need of such a study.
The Bureau, upon examining the report presented by the State Party and the Secretariat thanked the State Party for its commitment to monitor the planning and eventual construction process of the incinerator, if and when the project is approved in order to ensure that international standards based on scientific research are respected. Negative impacts on the inhabitants or on the environment of the Sokkuron Grotto and the Pulguksa Temple will also be monitored. The Bureau requested the State Party to keep the Bureau informed through the Secretariat of future developments regarding the incinerator construction and of any other works which may impact upon this World Heritage site.
Alhambra, Generalife and Albaycin, Grenada (Spain)
The Bureau took note of progress in the revision of the Special Plan of the monumental part of the site (Alhambra and Generalife) as well as the substantial improvement made in the co-ordination of the management of the two components of the site (monumental part and urban part).
Consequently, the Bureau congratulated the Spanish authorities for the progress made in the revision of the special plan of the monumental site and for the co-ordination of the different protection and management plans. It also congratulated the responsible authorities for the work in progress in the Albaycin and especially for the role of the Albaycin Foundation and encouraged them to deal with the remaining problems concerning the respect of the Convention and the characteristics of the site. However the Bureau remains concerned about the possible extension of the municipal cementry which could affect the site.
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
The Bureau was informed that the State Party submitted a written report on the state of conservation of the site as requested by the Bureau at its twenty-third session and the Committee at its twenty-second session. It noted that the Ministry of Culture had allocated an important sum (US$250,000) to Fatih Municipality for the conservation of Zeyrek and that the conservation plan of the historic peninsula of Istanbul was under preparation by the Greater Istanbul authorities and the concerned municipalities. The Bureau was informed that the August 1999 earthquake in Turkey had caused only minor damage to the rampart and not to any other part of the World Heritage protected zones. The Delegate of Greece however indicated that the impact of earthquakes are only evident over time and therefore requires continued surveillance. With regard to Zeyrek, she recalled the statement of ICOMOS at the twenty-third session of the Bureau that the degraded condition of the timber buildings of Zeyrek and the poverty of the inhabitants, makes the on-going conservation effort a utopian cause, and suggested the need to set priorities for assistance, especially in view of the many monumental and urban heritage of importance within the World Heritage site. The Bureau noted the concern raised by the Secretariat that the revoking, after the August 1999 earthquake, of all construction plans and permits by the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, pending completion of the urban conservation and development plan, may result in an even greater number of illegal constructions. The Bureau also noted the on-going efforts to support Greater Istanbul and the municipalities in expediting the finalization of the urban conservation and development plan (at 1/5000 and 1/1000) which are being undertaken by the Istanbul Technical Univerity and French technical experts seconded to the Centre under the France-UNESCO Agreement.
The Bureau expressed its sympathies to the victims of the tragic earthquake of 17 August 1999. Noting that the impact of earthquakes on monuments and sites are only evident over time, the Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to support the national rehabilitation effort and to monitor the effects of the earthquake. The Bureau noted its appreciation for the significant allocation of funds to the Fatih Municipality by the Government to prepare the conservation plan and to undertake rehabilitation activities in Zeyrek. In this regard, the Bureau suggested that the feasibility of conserving the timber buildings of Zeyrek should be considered within the context of the overall conservation needs of the World Heritage areas of Istanbul, and on the basis of prioritizing such needs. The Bureau encouraged the continued efforts of the Centre in mobilizing international technical support, particularly to expedite the elaboration of the 1/5000 scale urban development and conservation plan by Greater Istanbul and the 1/1000 scale detailed conservation plan by the municipal authorities of Fatih and Eminonu. Finally, it requested the State Party to submit a report to the Bureau through the Secretariat by 15 September 2000 of progress in corrective measures being carried out in Zeyrek and in the adoption of the conservation and development plan if the historic peninsula of Istanbul.
Annex IX
Statement of the United States of America on Mining Activities
STATEMENT OF DONALD J. BARRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES FOR AN OVERSIGHT HEARING CONCERNING A "PROPOSED WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE POLICY PROHIBITING MINING 1N AREAS SURROUNDING WORLD HERITAGE SITES."
October 28, 1999
I want to thank the Chairman of the Committee for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss the Department of the Interior's views regarding the proposed policy to prohibit mining in areas surrounding World Heritage Sites.
At the outset of this discussion it is important to clarify exactly what is at issue here and what is not. First, I note that the invitation the Department received to testify references "The Proposed World Heritage Committee Policy Prohibiting Mining in Areas Surrounding World Heritage Sites," which is an understandable but incorrect characterization of the document you have invited us here to discuss. The document entitled "A Position Statement on Mining and Associated Activities in Relation to Protected Areas," a copy of which is attached to my testimony, has been drafted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
This statement does not propose a ban on mining around parks and protected areas. Moreover, this statement has not been formally proposed for adoption by the World Heritage Committee and there is no indication that it will be proposed for adoption. It was provided to the World Heritage Committee as an information document only.
Furthermore, even if such a statement of policy were adapted by the World Heritage Committee, it would not bind the United States in any way. The World Heritage Convention explicitly recognizes the sovereignty of parties over sites in their territories that are on the World Heritage List. Actions taken in the United States to protect World Heritage Sites are taken pursuant to our own domestic laws.
Further background on IUCN's Position Statement and on United States participation in the World Heritage Convention is offered in the interest of putting concerns surrounding this document to rest. The World Heritage Committee was established under the 1972 World Heritage Convention to place natural and cultural sites of outstanding universal value on the World Heritage List. The Committee also identifies sites on the List for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The United States has played a long-standing and leading role in all aspects of the World Heritage Convention. To begin with, the idea of negotiating the Convention was an environmental initiative of the Nixon Administration. Following the ratification of the Convention by the United States Senate in 1973 with a 95-0 vote, the United States has been active in the work of the World Heritage Committee. The first meeting under the Convention to list sites took place here in Washington in 1978. The Committee's 1992 meeting was held in Santa Fe. The United States is just concluding a second consecutive 6-year term on the Committee under the Convention. With 150 parties, the Convention is one of the most universally adopted international environmental treaties.
The lead authority for United States participation in the World Heritage Convention rests in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the Department of the Interior. This responsibility was prescribed in Federal law of 1980 and program regulations promulgated during Secretary of the Interior Watt's tenure in 1982.
The World Heritage List currently includes 20 of America's most outstanding natural wonders and cultural sites that are recognized as of world importance. Mesa Verde, Grand Canyon, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks, and the Statue of Liberty are some of the United States sites on the World Heritage List. These United States World Heritage Sites are beloved by the American public. They also attract tourists from all over the world.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), also known as the World Conservation Union, is an international non-governmental organization. Established in 1948, it is one of the world's oldest international conservation organizations. IUCN is a union of governments, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations who work with scientists and experts to protect nature. The State Department, NOAA, EPA, USAID, FWS, and NPS are some of the U.S. government agency members. In addition to bringing together governments and non-governmental organizations, IUCN has set up international networks of volunteer experts grouped together in six global commissions that perform specialized work. The World Commission on Protected Areas is one of these commissions; it is concerned with parks and nature reserves generally.
The World Heritage Convention itself designated IUCN as its official advisor on natural site issues. The World Heritage Bureau, a subcommittee of the World Heritage Committee, was informed in December 1998 that a "Position Statement on Mining and Associated Activities" was being prepared by IUCN. The Bureau requested that IUCN make the document available for information purposes at the Bureau's July 1999 meeting. To the best of our knowledge, it will be nothing more than an information document for the full Committee meeting in December. I would like to emphasize again that the Statement is not being proposed for adoption by the Committee as a policy to be applied to World Heritage Sites.
Insofar as the content of IUCN's mining statement is concerned, it defines positions towards mining and associated activities in and adjacent to protected areas. The statement recommends that mining be considered an incompatible activity within national parks and equivalent reserves that are managed mainly for science, wilderness protection, ecosystem protection, or the protection of specific natural features or species. In protected areas managed for mixed uses, the statement suggests that mining could be permitted under controlled conditions. Regarding mining outside parks, it concerns itself only with the indirect impacts that mining may have on the parks.
The Department receives advice all the time from many quarters on how to manage and operate the national parks in the United States. These suggestions are considered, but they do not control us nor do they dictate in any way United States park policy. We protect parks because they are America's national treasures and it is our responsibility under United States law, not because an IUCN document suggests we should. We are sworn to protect the parks and the American people and your constituents expect us to do so.
In conclusion, let me emphasize that there will be no occasion for the United States to either endorse or accept the IUCN's statement, inasmuch as such informational policy statements by IUCN or the World Heritage Committee do not supersede U.S. law under any circumstances.
This concludes my prepared statement.
Annex X
|
World Heritage |
23 COM |
| Distribution limited |
WHC-99/CONF.209/21 Marrakech, 3 December 1999 Original: English/French |
ORGANIZATION
AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Marrakesh, Morocco
29 November - 4 December 1999
Item 16 of the Provisional Agenda: Provisional Agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO Headquarters, June 2000)
1. Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative
2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable
3. Report on the activities undertaken by the Secretariat since the twenty-third session of the Committee
4. State of conservation of properties inscribed on List of World Heritage in Danger and on the World Heritage List
4.1 State of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
4.2. Reports on state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List
5. Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List
6. Reports of the Working Groups :
6.1 Task Force on the implementation of the Convention
6.2 Working Group on Operational Guidelines
6.3 Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List
6.4 Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee
7. Requests for international assistance
8. Provisional agenda of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session
of the Bureau (November/December 2000)
9. Provisional agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the World
Heritage Committee (December 2000)
10. Other business
11. Adoption of the report of the session
12. Closure of the session
Annex XI
Statement by the Hungarian Delegation
Distinguished President, Honorable delegates,
As you may remember, Hungary officially invited the Committee to hold one of its sessions during our Committee membership that will expire in 2003. In our written statement in Kyoto, December 1998 the Hungarian delegation underlined that the year 2000 is of particular importance for Hungary, since it is the Millennium of our Statehood. The Committee certainly was well aware that Australia has already invited the Committee for the year 2000. Australia and Hungary carried out intensive negotiations during the last year to resolve the issue. Hungary also carefully considered the interest of Finland; who will, in case the Committee decides so in 2000, host the Committee meeting in 2001. As Finland, Hungary was also worried about the level of understanding within Committee members regarding the tremendous differences that divide the region "Europe II", as it is called in UNESCO, and "Europe I" that comprises Western Europe and North America. We hope after the events of the last Bureau and Committee meetings during the last days it is even more evident than before. Hungary is confident that the 26 Emerging Countries, without a single representative from 1991 to 1997, among them 22 Low Income and Least Developed Countries, with more than 71 World Heritage sites, including some Central Asian countries, former parts of the Soviet Empire, deserve your special attention. Hungary, if the honor will fall upon us, will do all to demonstrate it to the distinguished members of the Committee in 2002. In short, Hungary withdraws its invitation for the year 2000 in favor of Australia, and asks the Committee and the Secretariat to register our official invitation for 2002. Hence Hungary strongly supports the candidature of our Australian friends to host the next Committee meeting.
Annex XII
Statement by the Australian Delegation
Australia welcomes the Committee's decision to accept Australia's long standing invitation to host the December 2000 meeting in Cairns, Queensland.
Cairns is a gateway to two of Australia's World Heritage areas - the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of Queensland. The meeting will provide us with an excellent opportunity to showcase Australia's World Heritage management. Cairns is also well placed to profile World Heritage management in the Asia-Pacific region and we hope that delegates from the region will be able to more easily attend the meeting and associated activities. We look forward to delegations taking the opportunity to visit and study the World Heritage areas in Australia.
We strongly welcome and appreciate Hungary's generous offer to withdraw their invitation in favour of Australia, noting that such generosity of spirit has characterised the excellent contribution made by Hungary to the success of the Convention.