III.2 The Committee warmly thanked the out-going Chairperson, Mr Francesco Francioni for the excellent leadership he provided the Committee during the past year which had resulted in closer working relations between the Committee and the Secretariat. The newly-elected Chairperson, Mr Koichiro Matsuura, expressed his appreciation for the remarkable manner in which Mr Francioni carried out his functions as Chairperson of the Committee.

III.3 In assuming the Chair of the Committee, Mr Matsuura stated that the process of globalization occurring in almost all domains, has made the preservation of cultural diversity even more important. The fostering of understanding and respect for all cultures, each for its specificity, is essential and is part of the fundamental mission of UNESCO to promote mutual understanding and co-operation between all countries in the building of peace. In this regard, the World Heritage Convention, since its adoption a quarter of a century ago, has played a vital role. He identified three main issues that he felt required the continued attention of the Committee: the question of geographical imbalance, the concepts of authenticity and integrity taking into consideration the different cultures, and lastly, the relationship with UNESCO. He concluded by indicating the importance of the venue of this session of the Committee, as the City of Kyoto, established more than 1200 years ago and designed to be in harmony with its natural surroundings has always placed culture as the goal of its development. Requesting the support of all present at this session to enable him to fulfill the important tasks before him, Mr Matsuura reiterated his firm commitment to the ideals of the World Heritage Convention. (His speech is included as Annex II.6 to this report).

VI.2 During the debate, numerous Committee members commended the Secretariat for the work accomplished and expressed general agreement with the proposals made.

VI.3 Committee members expressed strong support for the regional approach and the development of regional strategies for the periodic reporting process, as proposed in the Working Document, as a means to respond to the specific characteristics of the regions and to promote regional collaboration.

VI.4 As to the periodicity of the reporting, the Committee agreed to a six-year cycle. It decided that in the first reporting cycle those properties should be reported upon that were inscribed up to eight years before the examination of the reports by the Committee.

VI.5 The Committee, furthermore, stressed the important role the States Parties themselves, as well as the advisory bodies and other organizations should play in the periodic reporting process, in the development of the regional strategies and in the review of the reports submitted by the States Parties.

VI.6 Several delegates referred to the future workload for the Secretariat, the advisory bodies and the Committee and requested that this be carefully considered in the planning of the work of the Centre and the advisory bodies, as well as in the management of the agenda of the Committee.

VI.7 The Committee, having examined Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/6 and the corresponding Section of Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/16, adopted the following decision:

A. Following the request made by the 29th General Conference of UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee:

(a) Invites States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to submit, in accordance with Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention and the decisions of the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties and the 29th General Conference of UNESCO, periodic reports on the legislative and administrative provisions and other actions which they have taken for the application of the World Heritage Convention, including the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located on its territories;

(b) Invites States Parties to submit periodic reports every six years using the format for periodic reports as adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-second session;

(c) Expresses its wish to examine the States Parties' periodic reports region by region. This will include the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List according to the following table:

Region	Examination of Properties inscribed up to and including	Year of examination by Committee
Arab States	1992	2000
Africa	1993	2001
Asia and the Pacific	1994	2002
Latin America and the Caribbean	1995	2003
Europe and North America	1996/1997	2004/2005

(d) Requests the Secretariat, jointly with the advisory bodies, and making use of States Parties, competent institutions and expertise available within the region, to develop regional strategies for the periodic reporting process as per the above-mentioned time table, and to present them with budgetary proposals for their implementation to the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee for consideration and adoption. These strategies should respond to specific characteristics of the regions and should promote coordination and synchronization between States Parties, particularly in the case of transboundary properties.

B. As to the format for the periodic reports, the Committee adopted the proposal made in Annex I of Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/6, with the following revisions:

Section II.1. to read as follows :

"II.1 Introduction

a. State Party

b. Name of World Heritage property

c. Geographical co-ordinates

d. Date of inscription on the World Heritage List

e. Organization(s) or entity(ies) responsible for the preparation of the report

f. Date of report

g. Signature on behalf of State Party"

Section II, item II.3. to read as follows :

"II.3. Statement of authenticity/integrity"

Section II, item II.7. to read as follows :

"II.7. Conclusions and recommended action

a. Main conclusions regarding the state of the World Heritage values of the property (see items II.2. and II.3. above)

b. Main conclusions regarding the management and factors affecting the property (see Items II.4 and II.5. above)

c. Proposed future actions

d. Responsible implementing agency/agencies

e. Timeframe for implementation

f. Needs for international assistance."

C. As to the explanatory notes that will be attached to the format for periodic reports, the Committee adopted the proposals made in Annex I of Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/6, with the following revisions:

II.2. Statement of Significance, paragraph four to be read as follows:

"If a statement of significance is not available or incomplete, it will be necessary, in the first periodic report, for the State Party to propose such a statement. The statement of significance should reflect the criterion (criteria) on the basis of which the Committee inscribed the property on the World Heritage List. It should also address questions such as: What does the property represent, what makes the property outstanding, what are the specific values that distinguish the property, what is the relationship of the site with its setting, etc. Such statement of significance will be examined by the advisory body(ies) concerned and transmitted to the World Heritage Committee for approval, if appropriate ."

II.4. Management, paragraphs one and two to be read as follows:

"Under this item, it is necessary to report on the implementation and effectiveness of protective legislation at the national, provincial or municipal level and/or contractual or traditional protection as well as of management and/or planning control for the property concerned, as well as on actions that are foreseen for the future, to preserve the values described in the statement of significance under item II.2.

The State Party should also report on significant changes in the ownership, legal status and/or contractual or traditional protective measures, management arrangements and management plans as compared to the situation at the time of inscription or the previous periodic report. In such case, the State Party is requested to attach to the periodic report all relevant documentation, in particular legal texts, management plans and/or (annual) work plans for the management and maintenance of the property. Full name and address of the agency or person directly responsible for the property should also be provided."

D. The Committee adopted the revision of Section II of the Operational Guidelines as submitted in Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/16, including the amendments made above.

VI.8 The format for periodic reports and explanatory notes as adopted by the World Heritage Committee is attached in Annex III.

At its twenty-second session, the Bureau was informed that a number of laws for the national protection of the Lake existed and that the Duma had adopted the Federal Law on "The Protection of the Baikal Lake" which was, however, vetoed by the President. The Federal Law had been tabled for a third reading in the Duma, taking into account comments made by the President's intervention. In addition to the legal concerns, the authorities had not come to any conclusions regarding the reprofiling of the Pulp and Paper Mill at Baikalsk, one of the main polluters of the Lake. The Observer of the Russian Delegation attending the Bureau session in June 1998 pointed out that the situation at Lake Baikal is of major concern, due to its unresolved legal status, continuing and increasing pollution, lack of resources for management and monitoring, and logging and other negative factors. The Observer was of the view that the site is under serious threat and that the State Party would not oppose inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage Danger.

The Bureau had expressed its serious concerns over the threats to the integrity of Lake Baikal, and urged the State Party to inform the Centre, before 15 September 1998, of the status of the Baikal Law and its adoption as well as a time table for its implementation. The Bureau drew the attention of the Russian authorities to paragraphs 82-89 of the Operational Guidelines ("Procedure for the Inclusion of Properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger") and invited them to prepare a programme of corrective measures for submission to its twenty-second extraordinary session.

The Bureau was informed that the State Committee for the Environment had indicated, on 17 November 1998, that the Law is currently being revised and that, according to the UNESCO Office, Moscow, the reason for the revision was the need to include financial measures to implement the Law. The revision has been done both by the Region of Irkutsk and the Buryat Republic and has been through the Duma. It is expected that the Law will be approved in the near future. Concerning the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, the Minister for Economy proposed an international competition to transform the mill. The State Committee however, indicated that there is no solution yet and the closing of the mill would aggravate the social problems of the region. Monitoring of the site is underway, despite financial problems. IUCN informed the Bureau that it does not recommend the inclusion of Lake Baikal in the List of World Heritage in Danger at present.

The Observer of the Russian Federation stated that the law is being processed and that monitoring of the state of conservation of the site is underway. He informed the Committee that a meeting of the Governmental Baikal Commission is scheduled for late December 1998. He underlined that the Russian Federation tries to fulfil its obligations under the World Heritage Convention and to protect the site.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the State Committee for the Environment and IUCN. It expressed its serious concerns about the problems of the site as indicated in the report of the twenty-second session of the Bureau. The Committee re-iterated its requests made at the time of the inscription of the site, in particular the urgent need to re-profile the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill and the adoption of the Baikal Law. The Committee noted that IUCN does not recommend inclusion of the Lake Baikal in the List of World Heritage in Danger at present.

The Committee, at its last session (Naples, 1997), was seriously concerned about the uncontrolled poaching by armed groups which had led to the death of four members of the Park staff, decimated more than 80% of the Park's wildlife populations and brought tourism to a halt. The Committee had welcomed the efforts of the Government of CAR to assign site management responsibilities to a private Foundation and had requested the Centre and IUCN to contact the State Party and the Foundation to prepare a detailed state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan for the site. The Committee noted that the State Party had not responded to the Centre's letter outlining the Committee's recommendations mentioned above.

The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Director-General of UNESCO and the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee to write to the President of the CAR inviting his urgent intervention for the preparation of a detailed state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan for the conservation of this site.

At its twenty-second session, the Bureau was informed that a giant holding pool of the Aznalcollar mine owned by the Canadian-Swedish Boliden-Apirsa Company burst resulting in an ecological disaster. Although the main toxic flow had been diverted away from the National Park, the adjoining areas have been badly damaged. The Bureau was informed that the spill could spread into the World Heritage area as pollutants dispersed more widely. The State Party had submitted a number of technical reports on the situation and on actions taken to mitigate the threats. The President of the Spanish MAB Committee had proposed the organization of an international conference to review actions taken and rehabilitation plans elaborated for the conservation of the site and provided an outline for a project entitled "Doñana 2005". The State Party had welcomed UNESCO involvement and suggested that financial support be considered for this purpose. The Bureau had expressed its serious concerns on the long-term restoration of the property and urged the State Party to undertake all possible measures to mitigate the threats. Furthermore, the Bureau had requested the State Party to collaborate with UNESCO, IUCN and the Ramsar Convention to prepare an international expert conference to develop a long-term vision, and to compile a detailed report in time for the twentysecond session of the World Heritage Committee.

The Bureau was informed that at the invitation of the Spanish Government, the Centre carried out a mission from 10 to 13 November 1998 reviewing the situation at the site and the area affected by the toxic spill. The Centre received a number of documents presented by the Spanish authorities on the actions undertaken since the last session of the Bureau, including the Doñana 2005 project. The project "Doñana 2005 - hydrological regeneration of the watersheds and river channels flowing towards Doñana National Park", has been prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. It mainly proposes: (a) to avoid the influx of contaminated water into the Doñana marshes; (b) to restore the flow of waters towards Doñana in the long term (drinking water; original hydrological dynamics); and (c) to maintain the hydrological system of the connection between Doñana and the Guadalquivir Estuary. The Bureau noted that the World Heritage site and the Biosphere Reserve are currently little affected, whereas the Natural Park around the site has been impacted by the toxic spill. The actions taken by the Spanish authorities have been substantial. The Bureau suggested that great caution should be taken in re-starting mining activities and requested that EIAs be carried out for each step.

The Observer of Spain reiterated the threats to ecological integrity of the region and expressed his appreciation for the mission carried out prior to the Committee session to review the situation. He noted that, while the World Heritage site and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve were little affected by the spill, the impacts for the surrounding Natural Park and also for the agriculture and fisheries were considerable. He underlined the need to purify the polluted waters upstream of the site and the estuary using biological filters and silt lagoons and the restoration of the marsh dynamics and ecological mechanisms. He provided copies of the "Doñana 2005" project to the Chairperson, IUCN and the Centre, which would need a budget of approximately US$ 120,000.000.

IUCN underlined the lesson learnt from the Doñana spill that had also been learnt from other cases such as Everglades, Srebarna and Ichkeul; i.e. that many World Heritage natural sites are at the mercy of activities occurring upstream in the drainage basin of the site.

The Committee reiterated the Bureau's request that the State Party collaborates with UNESCO, IUCN and the Ramsar Convention to organize an international expert conference and to present its results to the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The Committee also invited the State Party to submit, in time for the next Bureau session, details concerning the financing plan and a time table for the implementation of the project "Doñana 2005" to be carried out in the framework of the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Programme (MAB). The Committee commended the State Party for the actions taken to prevent impacts to the World Heritage site by the toxic spill. It requested the State Party to proceed with great caution with regard to re-opening the mine and to monitor long-term impacts for both the World Heritage site and the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

The Committee, at its last session was informed that colonization and small-scale mining activities had been stopped, a new management plan was nearing finalization and that several conservation projects funded by WWF had begun. The Committee had urged the Centre, in collaboration with IUCN, and agreement with the State Party and possible support from WWF, to plan and organize a site visit to address the problem of the Guamote-Macas road construction project and other threats to the integrity of the site. The Committee was informed that the Bureau, at its twenty-second session in June 1998, had noted that the on-going construction of the Guamote-Macos road was the main threat to this Park and an EIA had not been conducted. Construction has been slow but very destructive to the environment. Only a small section of the road is inside the World Heritage site; the remainder of the road forms the Park's southern limit. The Committee noted that since the conclusion of the last session of the Bureau in June 1998, economic constraints have led to a halt in the activities related to the construction of the Guamote-Macos road. IUCN has noted that a 5-year, US$ 1.6 million project, financed by the Government of the Netherlands and jointly implemented by WWF and Fundacion Natura, will strengthen protection of the Park.

The Committee was informed that the Ecuadorean authorities have submitted to the Centre several new documents, including the "Strategic Management Plan for the Sangay National Park" immediately before the beginning of the Committee's twentysecond session. The Delegate of Ecuador informed the Committee that his Government has not issued any permits for oil exploration in Sangay and would welcome a Centre/IUCN mission to the site in 1999. The Committee noted with satisfaction the view of IUCN that conditions for strengthening the conservation of this site were improving and that it is possible that the planned mission in 1999 may recommend its removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and thanked the Delegate of Ecuador for inviting a Centre/IUCN mission in 1999 to review the state of conservation of Sangay National Park. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party and with other partners such as WWF to field such a mission as soon as possible in 1999 with a view to submitting an up-to-date state of conservation report to the twenty-third session of the Committee.

At the request of the authorities of the Dominican Republic, an expert mission was undertaken in August 1998 to assess the state of conservation of the World Heritage site of Santo Domingo. The report emphasized the need to balance interventions in the physical-environmental recuperation of the area, tourism development and the socio-cultural development of the local population (housing, services etc.). It furthermore stressed that the effective control by the Office for the Cultural Heritage depends very much on the adoption of the Master Plan for the City which would establish an extended protection zone and norms for land-use. It also pointed out that several buildings in the city had collapsed recently, not caused by natural disasters but by the lack of maintenance.

On 22 September 1998, Hurricane Georges caused severe damage to the Dominican Republic. The Secretariat received reports from the Office for Cultural Heritage of the Dominican Republic and the national ICOMOS Committee. It was reported that serious damage was caused to residential buildings, churches and to the Casa de Juan de Herrera at the Plaza de Colon.

The Committee expressed concern about the damage caused by Hurricane George to the World Heritage site of Santo Domingo and encouraged the national authorities to take the necessary measures for the consolidation and safeguarding of the damaged buildings. It expressed its readiness to assist in undertaking emergency measures for the consolidation and recuperation of damaged buildings. It noted that the Chairperson had approved emergency assistance for the safeguarding of the Casa de Juan de Herrera.

At the same time, however, the Committee noted that part of the damage could only occur due to the lack of maintenance and preventive measures. It stressed the need for risk preparedness and preventive planning and conservation measures, particularly in hurricane prone areas such as the Caribbean.

The Committee requested the authorities to submit, by 15 April 1999, a progress report on the actions taken in response to the report of the monitoring mission of August 1998 and to the damage caused by Hurricane Georges.

The Committee requested the Secretariat and the advisory bodies to look into the possibilities to develop specific activities for the Caribbean to promote and implement risk preparedness schemes.

At its last session (Naples, 1997), the Committee noted that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals Management and the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment had both signed, on 12 August 1997, the decision authorizing the withdrawal of mineral entry from 22,065 ha near Cooke City, Montana. The potential threat due to the extraction of the New World Mine by Crown Butte was thus mitigated. The Delegate of the United States of America informed the Committee that since then his Government has entered into an additional agreement with Crown Butte to devote US$ 22.5 million of the US$ 65 million to clean up contamination from nearly 100 years of mining near Yellowstone. The New World Mine property was formally transferred to the US Forest Service on 12 August 1998; the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency have begun developing a plan to remedy historic mine impacts.

A potential threat to Yellowstone's bison population arises from the concerns of the livestock regulatory officials that free-ranging bison might transmit brucellosis to domestic cattle on private and public lands outside the Park. These concerns have resulted in a law-suit being brought against the National Park Service in 1995, and created pressure on the Park authorities to develop an interim plan which, amongst other measures, foresaw the capture and slaughter of bison which are infected with the disease both within and outside of the Park. Given that the capture and slaughter outrages the public, bison management is likely to remain contentious. The work of the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Committee is facilitating information exchange among several state and federal agencies and is addressing various issues regarding brucellosis in wildlife, notably bison and elk. The purchase of 15,000 acres of critical areas of the bison's winter range, in November 1998, may contribute further towards the development of a long-term bison management plan that would minimize the need for widespread slaughter witnessed in the winter of 1997.

The ascertained threat to the Yellowstone cutthroat trout, caused by the invasion of the non-native Yellowstone Lake trout also continues to prevail, despite the fact various mitigation measures are being attempted. A serious decline in the population of cutthroat trout could impact grizzly bears, bald eagle and 40 other mammalian and avian species which feed on the native fish species to some extent. Intensive gill netting and liberal angling regulations have helped to remove more then 6000 non-native trout from the Yellowstone Lake. But netting programmes appear to be affecting adults only and the population of the non-native species could show a resurgence as juveniles enter the fishery.

The Park management continues its efforts to address other ascertained threats to water quality due to leaking wastes and sewage and regulate visitor pressure and improve Park roads to ensure safety of visitors. While the Park management is investigating several options to minimize the impacts of these threats, progress in implementing remedial actions is slow and the Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that his Government believes that Yellowstone is still in Danger. The Committee agreed with the request of the State Party and decided to retain Yellowstone in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee applauded the exemplary dedication and highest levels of commitment that the US Government has shown in its efforts to mitigate threats to the two sites included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

In November 1998, a staff member of ICCROM during a preappraisal mission for The World Bank in Ethiopia, noted that a wooded site directly across from the main Stele had been cleared of its trees, and that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church had plans to build a residence for the Patriarch of the Church. However, no construction work had yet commenced. It furthermore noted that the Director of the Centre for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH), while aware of the planned construction, had not been shown the plans of the proposed building nor was he informed that work was about to begin.

The Committee, aware of the very important role of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the life of the community, and as a hold of very important cultural heritage in the town of Aksum and Ethiopia, requested

1. the Centre to send a letter to the Centre for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) and the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church drawing attention to the significance of the World Heritage values of the site and underlining the need to preserve it, which would require the postponement of any further work in the proximity of the Stele,

2. that the mission on the state of conservation planned by the World Heritage Centre in June 1998, which was postponed for security reasons, be carried out as soon as possible with the purpose of drawing a clear definition of the boundaries of the World Heritage site,

3. due support and consideration be given by the Ethiopian institutions and UNESCO to the preparation of a comprehensive town plan of Aksum with a clear conservation component which balances the conservation constraints with the need for the continued growth and development of the city and the communities of Aksum.

The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its twenty-second session requested the French authorities a report on the planning for the surrounding of the Cathedral and on the project for the construction of a media library (mediateque) in its vicinity. The Secretariat informed that it had received information from a nongovernmental organization that the demolition permit for the existing buildings on the location of the media library had been delivered and authorization for the building of the media library would have been given.

ICOMOS reported that it had sent an expert mission to Reims and that it was of the opinion that the scale of the building of the media library is too large, that its height and form will not provide a balanced townscape, that the monumental scale of the building is wholly out of context with the building's immediate surroundings and can, therefore, not be properly integrated in it. ICOMOS also expressed the opinion that a clearly defined buffer zone around the monuments inscribed on the World Heritage List should be established and that a management plan for the monuments and their buffer zone should be prepared.

As to the planning for the surroundings of the Cathedral (the 'Parvis'), the French Delegate confirmed information provided by the French authorities that a commission had been established to study the preservation and planning of the 'Parvis' and that it invited ICOMOS to participate in this commission. He stressed that the setting of the Cathedral had been completely destroyed during the First World War and that, since then, no coherence had been given to its urban space and to the surrounding architecture. He informed that a protection zone would be identified, as stipulated by French legislation, to replace the five hundred-meter radius around national monuments. He said that the media library was necessary to revitalise the area and that the building project had been revised and approved.

The Committee noted the information provided by ICOMOS and the French Delegate. It encouraged both parties to continue the dialogue on the planning for the surroundings of the Cathedral and to keep the Committee informed on progress made in this respect.

The Minister of Science, Research and Culture of the Land of Brandenburg submitted the fourth state of conservation report as per the request of the World Heritage Committee at its twentyfirst session. This report was made available to the Committee as Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.15.

The report referred to the proposed extension of the World Heritage site, the Planning Guidelines, town planning competitions for the Green Centre - Alter Markt/Lustgarten and the Quartier am Bahnhof, as well as other specific building projects.

The Committee took note of the report. It commended the authorities of the Land of Brandenburg for the actions taken in response to the recommendations made by the Committee at its twenty-first session.

The Committee welcomed the submission of the proposed extension to the World Heritage site and requested the Bureau to examine this proposal at its twenty-third session in the light of the discussions and recommendations made by the Committee at its twentieth and twenty-first sessions.

The Committee noted the completion of the urban competition for the Green Centre -Alter Markt/ Lustgarten. As to the town planning competition for the Quartier am Bahnhof, the Committee regretted that the reconsideration of the building blocks 9 to 12 in the context of the results of the competition had not led to a major revision of the programme or design of these blocks and had therefore not resulted in an entirely satisfactory solution. It noted, however, with satisfaction the information provided by the Observer of Germany that the height of the building had been reduced and no longer would interfere with the visual lines of the components of the World Heritage site. It considered that their volume and monotony constitute a negative element in the urban context. A revision of their design could still diminish their negative impact.

The Committee encouraged the municipal authorities to continue the process of urban planning and the development of planning guidelines to this effect. It appreciated the commitment of the authorities to transmit the planning guidelines for the Potsdam cultural landscape to the World Heritage Committee by the end of 1998. It requested ICOMOS to examine these guidelines in the context of the evaluation mission it will undertake to Potsdam in early 1999 and to submit its findings to the Bureau at its twentythird session.

With reference to the 'German Unity Transport Project No 17' (improvement of waterways), examined by the Committee at its twentieth session, the Committee commended the Federal Government for the efforts to find an alternative solution that would avoid any interference in the Babelsberg Park or other components of the Potsdam cultural landscape.

In conclusion, the Committee requested the State Party to submit by 15 September 1999 for examination by the Committee at its twenty-third session, a fifth state of conservation report particularly on the following matters:

- Final version of the planning guidelines and information on their adoption and enforcement;

- Progress in the implementation of the winning project for the Quartier am Bahnhof as well as on measures taken to diminish the negative impact of building blocks 9-12 on the architectural and urban environment;

- Results of the consideration of alternative routes for the waterways under 'German Unity Transport Project No 17' and their possible impact on the integrity for the World Heritage site.

The Committee noted that the Observer of Tunisia had informed the Bureau of several measures undertaken by his Government to retain freshwater in the lakes on a year-round basis and thereby reduce salinity of the lake. He had described other measures taken for providing: (i) irrigation and water supply needs of the population; (ii) economic incentives to reduce the dependence on the resources of the nearby mountain which constitutes part of an area from where the waters drain into the lake; and (iii) monitoring the number of migratory birds in Ichkeul during the European winter. The Observer of Tunisia had disagreed with some of the data presented by IUCN to the Bureau.

The Committee noted that the Bureau, while being concerned regarding the feasibility of effectively rehabilitating this site and urging the State Party to take all necessary measures to ensure rapid and effective implementation of the programme for rehabilitating Ichkeul, had also recommended an expert mission to the site. The intention of the Bureau in recommending such an expert mission was to give due consideration to the possibility for developing an improved rehabilitation programme for Ichkeul and retain its status as a World Heritage site. The Committee agreed with the Bureau's suggestion that the State Party needs to be allowed sufficient time for the implementation of the rehabilitation programme. The Committee noted that the State Party has already invited an expert mission to visit the site in the second half of December 1998.

The Committee decided to retain Ichkeul National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to field the expert mission as soon as possible. The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN ensure that the expert mission (i) establish the baseline data and information necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation measures which are being currently implemented; (ii) prepare a report on the adequacy of conservation and rehabilitation measures; and (iii) if necessary, propose additional measures that may be needed for the conservation of the site. The Committee requested the Centre to submit a report of the expert mission for review by the twentythird session of the Bureau, and invited the State Party to provide a comprehensive report on the results of the implementation of the rehabilitation measures to the twenty-third session of the Committee, in 1999.

At its last session (Naples, 1997), the Committee noted significant progress made in the state of conservation of this site following generous Federal and State allocations of financial and human resources. The Delegate of the United States of America provided a detailed state of conservation report on this site, which outlined important measures undertaken to ensure continuing progress in the restoration of this site. In particular, the Committee noted the following:

(i) US$ 26 million worth of land purchases have been completed in the East Everglades Expansion Area; an additional US$ 40 million are needed to finalize the total of 109,000 acres of additional land purchases foreseen as part of the programme to expand the total extent of the Everglades National Park;

(ii) The western population of the cape sable seaside sparrow has suffered from abnormally prolonged wet periods which had been created by water management structures that artificially keep waters in the western Shark Slough in order to keep the eastern parts dry. Flooding denies the sparrow access to its nesting sites, found only in the transitional grasslands of the western Shark Slough. Restoration of water flows to the eastern Shark Slough is a high priority measure for the restoration of the overall Everglades ecosystem and will serve the interests of the sparrow as well. Everglades National Park and the Fish and Wildlife Services are planning water diversions to the Eastern Shark Slough. Fortunate dry weather conditions coincided with the nesting season of the sparrow in April 1998 and enabled breeding success comparable to the previous year;

(iii) Legislation has been introduced in the US Congress that would permanently retain the presence of the Miccosukee Tribe within the Everglades National Park. Any agreement for providing a site for the Tribe's continued practice of its living culture may come into conflict with the restoration of water flows through the eastern Shark Slough (where the Miccosukee Tribe is located), considered to be a essential measure for the restoration of the overall Everglades ecosystem.

The Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that despite significant progress in acquiring land, and allocating financial and human resources necessary for the restoration of the Everglades, the US Government believes that the site continues to be in Danger. In response to a question raised by IUCN as to how the State Party would determine when the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, the United States Delegate pointed that success measures to determine effects of the restoration activities are being developed and will be reported to the Committee in due course.

The Committee agreed to the request of the State Party and decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee took note of the confirmation by the Observer of Spain that planning for the hill and Fortress of Burgos had been suspended and that no works would be undertaken.

The Committee requested the State Party to keep the Secretariat informed of any new development in this matter.

At its nineteenth session (Berlin, 1995) the Committee had requested the Bulgarian authorities to submit a threat mitigation status report to its twenty-second session in 1998. The Bulgarian authorities submitted the report requested by the Committee on Srebarna Nature Reserve, on 28 August 1998, and invited the Centre and IUCN to field a mission to verify the results of measures undertaken to mitigate threats to the integrity of Srebarna. A team consisting of one specialist each from IUCN and the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, and a consultant representing the Centre, visited Srebarna and Sofia, Bulgaria, from 1 to 6 October 1998.

The Committee reviewed a summary of the report submitted by the mission team, which included: (i) a brief description of Srebarna's World Heritage values; (ii) causes which led to the decline in Srebarna's ecology and state of conservation and its inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992; (iii) principal findings concerning the results of rehabilitation measures implemented by the Bulgarian authorities; and (iv) proposals for recommendations to be made by the Committee to the State Party.

The Committee recalled that Srebarna Nature Reserve was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1983. This 602 ha. fresh water site on the flood plain of the Danube River was acknowledged to be of regional and global significance under criterion (iv) of the 1983 Operational Guidelines; i.e. geological and physiographic formations and precisely outlined areas which are habitats of species threatened by extinction, and of plant or animal species with extraordinary and universal value from the point of view of science, nature protection or natural beauty. The site was of particular significance as a nesting site for the Dalmatian pelican, ferruginous duck, the pygmy cormorant and corncrake.

Srebarna was disconnected from the Danube in 1949 by the construction of a dike between the lake and the river. Engineering efforts in 1979 to mitigate the impacts of the dike construction were not successful. Between 1985 and 1990, the adverse impacts of a protracted drought in the Balkan peninsula, and the cumulative impacts of historical and recent anthropogenic influences became more readily observable in the deteriorating ecological conditions of Srebarna. The latter causal agents and the regulation of annual Danube flood crests by the Romanian Iron Gates control structure led to decreasing inundation of Srebarna by the Danube waters. The introduction of modern agricultural practices (chemical fertilizers and insecticides) and the increase in domestic animal populations in the surrounding arable drainage area also led to net adverse results. These results include increased levels of dissolved nitrogen and phosphate, and sedimentation and turbidity, decreased water column and lake volume, increased primary productivity and significant changes in the structure of phytoplankton populations. An acceleration of eutrophication and the transition of Srebarna from a lake to a marsh, the decline of biodiversity (particularly fish species), the diminished use of the area by rare and threatened resident and migratory bird species, and reduced nesting success ratios of key breeding bird species of World Heritage significance was also noted. At its sixteenth session in 1992, the Committee included Srebarna Nature Reserve in the List of World Heritage in Danger; in 1993, Srebarna was placed on the Montreux Record, a register of sites in need of priority conservation action in the implementation of the Ramsar Convention.

In 1995, the Committee examined a state of conservation report from the State Party which indicated that a canal, linking the Danube and Srebarna for the first time since 1949, had been successfully established with bilateral assistance from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), and was operational with control structures. A permanent Reserve Administration had been established and intensive monitoring studies were ongoing. In 1996, the Committee examined a monitoring report prepared by the Ramsar Secretariat indicating that the new canal and water control structure were operational allowing water into Srebarna Lake. It also indicated that the Dalmatian pelican nesting colony had been re-established at levels higher than that found at the time of Srebarna's inscription on the World Heritage List in 1983. In 1997, a 35,000SF allocation from the Ramsar Small Grants Fund (1997), enabled the initiation of the preparation of a management plan for Srebarna.

The Committee was pleased to learn that the team that undertook the mission from 1 to 6 October 1998 had been able to observe continuing improvements in the state of conservation of Srebarna. The team concluded that significant affirmative actions and investments have been made by the Bulgarian authorities to investigate, analyse and mitigate threats to Srebarna's World Heritage values. In particular, the mission team noted the following positive results:

A. The re-establishment of an operational, seasonal connection between the Danube and the Srebarna Lake and surrounding wetlands has resulted in an increase in the water volume and water column, dilution and/or reduction of dissolved nitrogen and phosphate levels and lowered turbidity; phytoplankton populations have been re-established and their structure stabilised and fish species diversity had increased to pre-inscription (1983) levels;

B. The 1998 breeding success ratio of the nesting colony of Dalmatian pelicans significantly exceeded 1980s average population levels; 80 breeding pairs produced 99 successfully fledged chicks, registering a marked improvement over success ratios recorded for any period since Srebarna's recognition as World Heritage. The sixty breeding pairs of pygmy cormorant also reflect a similar significant key species response to more favourable ecological conditions now present. Other globally significant and rare water bird species including the corncrake and ferruginous duck, have also responded in a positive manner.

C. Administratively, significant legislation (Draft Protected Areas Act - No. 802-01-16) has been promulgated by the Ministry of Environment and Waters (MoEW), approved by the Council of Ministers, and is under a second review in the National Assembly. The intent of this legislation is to strengthen conservation in Bulgaria in general and harmonize Bulgarian protected area classification with international standards, including relevant European Union Directives. Elements of the draft legislation have a particular relevance to the continuing recognition of Srebarna, as a "strict" nature reserve where activities other than scientific research are excluded.

D. A small but competent staff has been established for the Srebarna Nature Reserve management and is currently cooperating well with the Academy of Science on ongoing monitoring activities; an automated weather recording facility is in place and will facilitate monitoring activities. Both management staff and Academy researchers appear on excellent terms with local community leadership that would be necessary to establish effective co-operation for the management of the buffer zone. Although the necessary integrated management planning process has been initiated, the final draft of the plan may still be 18 months away and does not appear to adequately involve public participation, or to address ethno-historical and socio-economic considerations. The plan outline may not necessarily translate into an action plan in its current form.

In the light of the significant improvements in the state of conservation of Srebarna, the Committee:

1. Commended the State Party for the efforts undertaken to restore Srebarna's environment and World Heritage values to 1983 standards;

2. Encouraged the State Party to accelerate the interdisciplinary management planning and threat mitigation efforts and continue to pursue intensive monitoring to assure continued ecological restoration so that the area may be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger when it can be demonstrated that recovery appears sustainable;

3. Encouraged the State Party to seek the necessary cooperation with Romania to assure that the feeding areas and flyways for the Srebarna breeding Dalmatian pelican population are offered safe haven, and based on the terms of the World Heritage Convention (Article 6.3), to establish a more favourable hydraulic regime of the Danube River;

4. Encouraged the State Party to actively participate in regional and international scientific, and management exchanges to further benefit the management of all the Danube River wetland resources;

5. Encouraged the State Party to explore the ways and means to collaborate with other States Parties sharing resident and migratory bird species and populations to collectively consider a composite transboundary "Danube Wetland World Heritage Site", to link and embrace all suitable and qualified areas which collectively represent a globally significant and outstanding natural and cultural resource.

The Committee will consider removing Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger upon the passage of the pending Draft Protected Areas Act (No. 802-01-16) or substantively similar conservation legislation, the satisfactory and timely completion of the Srebarna Management Plan together with the establishment of effective resource and buffer zone management regimes compatible with restoring and maintaining World Heritage values, and the provision of data to support indices of sustained World Heritage value recovery through to the year 2000. To this effect the Committee suggested that the State Party:

(i) involve the local community and NGO representation in the management planning process and in the formulation of specific co-operative actions which may be required in the management of the buffer zone and the adjacent Lake Srebarna drainage area;

(ii) consider acquiring additional scientific data and information including ethno-historical and palaeobotanical analysis of lake sediments prior to dredging activity, and to complete aerial-photographic records for management planning;

(iii) develop a Srebarna Action Plan establishing management and environmental education, interpretation priorities and requirements to supplement the Srebarna Management Plan as outlined; and

(iv) continue to participate in the implementation of activities that mutually support the objectives of the World Heritage Convention, Ramsar Convention, and the Man and the Biosphere Progamme (MAB).

The Committee recalled the fact that the regional authorities in Bahir Dar, where this site is located, had disagreed with its decision to include this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996. The Committee was informed that the Bureau, at its twenty-second session (June 1998) had noted with satisfaction the efforts of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks of Ethiopia and the UNESCO Office in Addis Ababa, to provide more information to the Bahir Dar authorities on the meaning and implications of the Committee's decision to include Simen National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee took note of the fact that a stakeholders' meeting had been convened in Gondar on 24-25 June 1998, and that the responsibilities for the management of the Park had been transferred from the Central Authorities to the region. The meeting had led to the formation of a 'dialogue-group' of various national and regional offices to discuss follow-up activities for the conservation of the Park. The meeting had called for the organization of a second stakeholders' seminar, before June 1999, in collaboration with UNDP, Austria, UNESCO, UNCDF, Bahir Dar Regional Heads and donors, to follow-up on the outcome of the first meeting held in June 1998. The objectives of the second stakeholders' meeting would be to establish a strategy for:

(i) minimizing the human population inside the Park, estimated at 8-10,000 people at present;

(ii) rehabilitation of the Park and re-establishing populations of selected species, like the Walia Ibex which have moved out of the Park due to human presence and the cultivation of considerable areas of the Park;

(iii) creation of an alternative to a road which currently goes through the Park; and

(iv) establishment of a framework for co-ordination, including the possible setting up of an Inter-Agency Committee where donor participation will be invited, for the sustainable development of the Simen Mountains ecosystem.

The Committee recalled the fact that it had approved a sum of US$ 30,000 in 1996 for the organization of a stakeholders' meeting for the conservation of Simen which had not been utilized because the Regional authorities in Bahir Dar had disagreed with the Committee's decision to include the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger at that time. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to consult with the Ethiopian authorities regarding the use of the US$ 30,000 from the 1999 budget of the World Heritage Fund, either for the organization of the second stakeholders' meeting or for other strategic planning activities pertaining to the conservation and management of this site. The Committee decided to retain Simen National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee, at its last session (Naples, 1997), had requested the State Party (Guinea) and the Centre to contact the relevant mining companies, which foresee the exploitation of an iron-ore mine in the vicinity of the Reserve, in order to learn more details of their interest to set up an international foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Committee was informed of a letter dated 20 September 1998, from the Permanent Executive Secretary of the MAB National Committee for Guinea informing the Centre that the Nimba Mining Company (NIMCO) has been dissolved by the Government and no other enterprise has been created to replace it.

The Committee noted that the establishment of a foundation or a trust fund for the conservation of Mt. Nimba appears increasingly unlikely in the immediate future. The Committee agreed with IUCN's observation that on-site information on the state of conservation of Mt. Nimba had not been updated for about three years. It accepted IUCN's offer to request its Regional Office for West Africa in Burkina Faso to undertake a mission, at the invitation of States Parties concerned, in order to prepare a state of conservation report for submission to the twenty-third session of the Committee. The Committee decided to retain Mt. Nimba in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled the fact that it included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996, and requested the State Party to implement the eleven-point corrective action plan that had been endorsed by the Minister for the Environment of Honduras. The elaboration of a management plan for Rio Platano is being carried out with a contribution of US$ 30,000 from the World Heritage Fund, as part of a large scale project for strengthening the conservation of Rio Platano financed by GTZKFW (Germany). The Committee was informed of a hydroelectric development project (Patuca II), proposed for implementation near the Reserve. Terms of reference for a draft environmental impact assessment of the development project have been prepared; potential impacts of the project include opening of new access roads to the Reserve, reduction in downstream water flow and quality, and the loss of scenic and bio-diversity values. The Committee noted that IUCN has received a large number of reports on the hydroelectric development project, reflecting in particular the concern and disagreement of a number of indigenous peoples living in and around the area. According to these reports, the Government is promoting the rapid implementation of this project, and the process for preparing an EIA, currently underway, lacks consultation and transparency. Reports received also indicate a plan for opening a new road. Furthermore, the Committee noted that communications with relevant authorities in Honduras have become difficult following recent damages caused to the country's infrastructure by Hurricane Mitch and information on the damage caused by the hurricane to this site need to be urgently obtained.

The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the State Party to obtain detailed information on the proposed hydroelectric development project, including on EIA which is currently under preparation, as well as on the impact of Hurricane Mitch on Rio Platano. Moreover, the Committee requested the State Party to invite the Centre and IUCN to undertake a site visit with a view to providing a detailed state of conservation report on Rio Platano to the twenty-third session of the Committee in 1999.