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

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

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

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

Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.8 The Committee expressed its appreciation to UNESCO for commissioning a legal analysis on the ways and means by which the implementation of the relevant UNESCO Conventions concerning the protection of cultural heritage can be reinforced. 1.9 The Committee reaffirmed the duty of the international community as a whole to protect the heritage of humanity, in accordance with Article 6 of the World Heritage Convention.

Part 2

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

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

(i) to assist the Afghan authorities in elaborating a national action plan for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention;

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

(iii) to assess the state of conservation of the natural and cultural heritage of Afghanistan;

(iv) to encourage the authorities, supported by the World Heritage Centre, in reactivating the nomination process initiated by the former Afghan authorities in 1981;

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

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

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

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

Part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The current revisions to the Operational Guidelines are being prepared on the basis of recommendations of an Expert Meeting held in Canterbury (United Kingdom) in April 2000, that were adopted by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns (2000).
• The overall objective of the current process of revision of the Guidelines is to create a userfriendly document that is streamlined and simplified and includes a consolidated section on the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties.
• The 1st Draft Annotated Revisions of the Operational Guidelines were sent to all States Parties under cover of a Circular Letter (CL/WHC.8/01) in July 2001. Seventeen submissions were received in response. The 1st Draft and comments received are included on the web site www.unesco.org/whc/opgu/ (English) and www.unesco.org/fr/orient/ (French).
• From 8 to 12 October 2001, a Drafting Group met at UNESCO Headquarters to review the 1st Draft and the submissions and to elaborate a 2nd Draft. The Drafting Group included experts from the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Finland, Morocco and Zimbabwe). Due to other commitments, the expert from Thailand was unable to attend. An expert from the United Kingdom (Dr Christopher Young, English Heritage who had chaired the Canterbury meeting) and representatives of the three Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage Centre and the Culture Sector of UNESCO, attended the meeting. The report of the Drafting Group was made available to the Committee as WHC-01/CONF.208/6 and is also included on the web site.

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

• It is proposed that the revised Operational Guidelines include five main sections: I. Introduction II. Establishment of the World Heritage List III. Protection and conservation of World Heritage Properties IV. International Assistance V. Mobilisation of national and international support in favour of the World Heritage Convention

• The Drafting Group considered that three issues require policy and legal consideration by the Committee before drafting can be finalised for consideration by the Committee. These are:

  (i) The role of State Party consent in reactive monitoring;

  (ii) The role of State Party consent for inscription of a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger; and

  (iii) The capacity of the World Heritage Committee to decide and the role of the State Party to consent to deletion of properties from the World Heritage List.

The Committee:

2. approved the organization of the next meeting of the Drafting Group at UNESCO Headquarters from 18 to 22 March 2002 to review the Annexes and sections of the Operational Guidelines still requiring finalization. The composition of the next Drafting Group will include an expert nominated by each State Party that is a Bureau member in 2002, an expert nominated by each State Party that were Bureau members in 2001 (Australia, Canada, Morocco, Ecuador and Zimbabwe) in order to use their experience to finalise the text, representatives from the Advisory Bodies, other experts as required (to be selected by the Director of the World Heritage Centre in consultation with the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee) and the World Heritage Centre.

3. invited States Parties to provide written comments on the 2nd Draft Annotated revisions of the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2001 for consideration by the Drafting Group in March 2002;

4. recalled that the Director of the Centre had indicated that the UNESCO analysis of legal/policy issues identified in the report of the Drafting Group would be available in time for the March 2002 Operational Guidelines Drafting Group;

5. considered that the Drafting Group should only examine technical questions and should leave discussions on legal and policy issues to the Committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• the complete Report should have been provided to enable the Committee to have the information which led to the conclusion and recommendations of the Report, provided as a Working Document;
• in view of the importance of the Report and the issues involved in the Periodic Reporting Exercise, the Committee requested that a copy of the report be provided to all members to provide an opportunity to thoroughly study the Report (CD-Rom version), and certain recommendations contained in the Report submitted to the Committee which may be difficult to implement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIII.31 The Committee adopted the benchmarks proposed by the Bureau and referred to above as a basis for the future monitoring of progress in improving the state of conservation of Simen and invited the State Party to formally respond to the letter from the Centre transmitting the above-mentioned recommendations. The Committee urged the State Party and its site-level partners in project execution to be cognizant of the need to implement the project in close consultation with all stakeholders, and particularly local communities under consideration. The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN collaborate with the State Party to raise international awareness for the conservation of this site and mobilize necessary financial resources to implement rehabilitation measures and to ensure the eventual removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger as soon as possible. The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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