World Heritage Centre

9 GA 1-6 Opening of the General Assembly by the Director-General or his representative

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Ninth General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was held in Paris, at UNESCO Headquarters, on 29 and 30 October, during the twenty-seventh session of the General Conference.
One hundred and fifteen of the one hundred and thirty-six States Parties to the Convention were represented at this meeting.
The representatives of two intergovernmental organizations and two non-governmental organizations attended the meeting as observers.
The list of participants is given is Annex I of this document.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the Secretariat of the Assembly was ensured by the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO.
In his opening address, the Assistant Director-General for Culture, representing the Director-General, spoke of the progress made in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention to which 136 States are now party; as from the Committee's sixteenth session, the World Heritage List included 378 properties in 86 countries. The success of the Convention could also be measured by the growing interest in it shown by the media and the general public, and by the numerous initiatives for publications, films, exhibitions, etc., to which it has given rise. He recalled that the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention had been celebrated enthusiastically by most of the States and the events organized on this occasion had further increased public interest. The Convention also encouraged the involvement of new partners, as, for instance, the Organization of World Heritage Finally, he reminded the States Parties of their obligation to preserve properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, and of the World Heritage Committee's increasing efforts to ensure regular monitoring of the state of these properties, with the assistance of ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, and also, on a broader scale, with competence drawn from the different regions of the world.

9 GA 7 Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur of the General Assembly

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

7. The General Assembly elected by acclamation Mr. C. Leventis (Cyprus) as Chairman. The General Assembly also elected unanimously the representatives of Burkina Faso, China and Tunisia as Vice-Chairmen, and Mr. H. Palma (Peru) as Rapporteur.

9 GA 8 Adoption of the Agenda of the General Assembly

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

8. The draft agenda of the session was adopted.

9 GA 9 Report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

9. In accordance with the recommendation of the World Heritage Committee at its sixteenth session, the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. R. Milne, (United States of America) presented to the General Assembly the report that the Committee was submitting to the General Conference of UNESCO. The text of Mr. Milne's presentation, as well as the Committee's report to the General Conference, is presented in Annex II to this document. The General Assembly took note of this report.

9 GA 10-12 Examination of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund, including the status of the States Parties' contributions

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

10. The General Assembly examined documents WHC-93/CONF.003/3 presenting the accounts of the World Heritage Fund, in accordance with the Financial Regulations of the Fund, and WHC.93/CONF.003/3 add. presenting the contributions received up to 28 October 1993. The Assembly was also informed that the following contributions had been received since 28 October 1993:

State Party Amount (US $) Year of contribution

Ethiopia 618 1992-1993

Hungary 5,563 end of 1992 and part of 1993

Mozambique 618 1992-1993

Senegal 309 1992

Portugal 3,090 part of 1993

11. The General Assembly then took note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending 31 December 1991, the interim statement of accounts for the period 1992-1993 as at 30 September 1993, and the summary of .contributions received from States Parties as at 28 October 1993. The Assembly also took note of the information provided by the Secretariat concerning contributions received since 28 October 1993. During examination of the budget, the General Assembly was informed that the Secretariat was working towards improving the budget's presentation and that this matter would be examined in detail by the World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session. The Representative of Thailand expressed the wish that the Director-General provide the World Heritage Centre with sufficient financing and personnel so it would not be necessary to finance temporary assistance at the Secretariat under the World Heritage Fund.

12. The General Assembly unanimously decided that the amount of mandatory contributions to the World Heritage Fund for the period 1994-1995, calculated in US dollars, would be maintained at 1 per cent of contributions made by States Parties to the regular programme of UNESCO, in accordance with Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as had been decided at eight previous General Assemblies.

9 GA 13-28 Elections to the World Heritage Committee

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

13. Under item 8 of its agenda, the General Assembly was called upon to elect seven Members to the World Heritage Committee, to replace the following seven Members whose mandate would expire at the end of the twenty-seventh session of the General Conference: Brazil, Cuba, France, Italy, Pakistan, Tunisia, United States of America. The list of the thirty-one States Parties having submitted their candidature was read to the Assembly. Upon the proposal of the Representative of Niger, seconded by numerous delegations, the General Assembly suspended its work to consult among groups with a view to encouraging the withdrawal of candidates. Upon reconvening, the Representative of Niger announced, in the name of the African States and Arab countries, that only four candidates were maintained for this group: Mozambique, Niger, Jordan, Lebanon. After these withdrawals, the list of candidates included Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Mozambique, Niger, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, United States of America.

14. On the decision of the Chairman, the elections were held by secret ballot. The delegates of Germany and the Philippines were appointed tellers.

15. The results of the first ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 36

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 3

Number of votes recorded 97

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 49

No candidate received the required majority of votes, thus no State Party was elected.

16. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States which had obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled which was seven seats. The second ballot was thus organized between the fourteen following candidates: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lebanon, Mozambique, Niger, Poland, United States.

17. The results of the second ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 43

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 4

Number of votes recorded 89

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 45

States which obtained the required majority of votes were:

Japan: 49

France: 47

United States: 46

The Chairman thus declared the above States Parties elected to the World Heritage Committee.

18. Four seats remaining to be filled, the following States, having obtained the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the third ballot: Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Niger, Poland.

19. The results of the third ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 43

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 3

Number of votes recorded 90

Number of votes constituting the majority required

to be elected 46

Niger, having polled 46 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

20. Three seats remained to be filled. Amongst the States having obtained the greatest number of votes: Brazil, Canada, India, Italy, Lebanon, Jordan, Poland, the latter two candidates had obtained the same number of votes. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, an eliminatory vote was held between Poland and Jordan.

21. The results of this eliminatory vote were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 67

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 1

Number of votes recorded 68

Poland, having obtained the greatest number of votes (41) , was maintained as a candidate for the fourth ballot.

22. The results of the fourth ballot were:

Number	of	States Parties eligible to vote	136
Number	of	States absent	61
Number	of	abstentions	0
Number	of	invalid ballot papers	1
Number	of	votes recorded	74
Number	of	votes constituting the majority required to be elected	38

No candidate having obtained the required majority of votes, no State Party was elected, and a fifth ballot was held with the same candidates.

23. The results of the fifth ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 68

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 1

Number of votes recorded 67

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 34

Italy, having polled 36 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

24. Two seats remaining to be filled, the following States, having received the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the sixth ballot: Brazil, Canada, Lebanon, Poland.

25. The results of the sixth ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 77

Number of Abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 1

Number of votes recorded 58

Number of votes constituting the majority required 30

No candidate having obtained the required majority, no State Party was elected, and a seventh ballot was held with the same candidates.

26. The results of the seventh ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 35

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 1

Number of votes recorded 100

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 51

Lebanon, having polled 51 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

27. One seat remaining to be filled, the following States, having obtained the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the eighth ballot: Brazil and Canada.

28. The results of the eighth ballot were:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 136

Number of States absent 47

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 2

Number of votes recorded 87

Brazil, having polled 47 votes, was declared elected by the Chairman.

9 GA 29-33 Conclusions and Closure of the session

wh-support@unesco.org — Fri, 29 Oct 1993 00:00:00 EST

29. The General Assembly felt that these elections showed that the voting system as set out in the Rules of Procedure was no longer suitable to the present situation. On the one hand, the requirement of obtaining an absolute majority had necessitated nine ballots, and, on the other hand, the system did not guarantee an equitable representation of the different cultures and regions of the world. Consequently, the General Assembly recommended that the revision of this item of its Rules of Procedure should be inscribed on the agenda of its next session, and requested the Secretariat to propose modifications which would take account of the different suggestions made during this session, especially regarding the requirement of absolute majority, the creation of a General Assembly Candidates Committee, and the obligation for outgoing States to abide by the Recommendation not to seek immediate re-election. The States Parties were also invited to forward to the Secretariat their written proposals in this regard.

30. Under other matters, the General Assembly recommended that its future sessions devote more time to debates of substance aimed at defining general policy directives for the implementation of the Convention.

31. The Representative of Colombia informed the General Assembly that the seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee would be held in her country, in Cartagena, and invited all the States Parties to attend the meeting.

32. Finally, the General Assembly adopted the following declaration and requested that it be widely diffused:

"The Representatives of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, meeting at UNESCO on 29 and 30 October 1993, in the framework of their General Assembly:

Express their grave concern in the face of the multiplication of risks brought about by armed conflict, turmoil and acts of terrorism, which increasingly threaten the very existence of the world cultural and natural properties;

Urgently request all State Parties to the Convention to make use of the media, to strengthen educational programmes and cultural events, and to encourage all populations world-wide to respect the cultural and natural heritage of their fellow men".

33. The Chairman then closed the ninth session of the General Assembly of the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention.

17 BUR VIII.2 Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the Committee at its last session included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Prevention of seasonal flooding has led to a decrease in the size and productivity of Srebarna and agricultural and residential use of surrounding areas have led to decline or disappearance of migratory and passerine bird populations. The Bureau recalled that IUCN, on the basis of two missions to the site in 1992, had concluded that Srebarna's World Heritage status may no longer be justified because it has deteriorated to a state where it may have irretrievably lost the characteristics which merited its inclusion in the World Heritage List.

The Bureau at its sixteenth session, held in Paris in July 1992, had recommended that the Committee consider deleting this property from the World Heritage List and had invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit their observations and comments to the Committee. At its last session, the Committee was informed by the Representative of Bulgaria that the Bulgarian Government, in order to restore the World Heritage values of Srebarna, was preparing a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of Srebarna and an ecosystem restoration plan. The Committee had indicated to the Bulgarian authorities that available scientific evidence suggested that the site may no longer possess the natural habitat values for which it was inscribed, and that a full restoration of a naturally functioning ecosystem might be impossible. However, the Committee invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit, before 1 May 1993, to the World Heritage Centre, the results of the on-going project to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of the site, including an analysis of available data to monitor biological populations and environmental quality, and a plan for ecosystem restoration.

The Bureau noted that the Bulgarian authorities have submitted to the World Heritage Centre, a project document entitled 'Environmental Recovery and Restoration of the Biosphere Reserve "Srebarna"'and had indicated that a report on the comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of Srebarna will be sent to the Centre as soon as its translation into French is finalized. A representative of IUCN made a detailed presentation on the state of conservation of Srebarna and the Bulgarian plan for its restoration, and emphasized the fact that most small wetlands like Srebarna (600 ha) are inherently unstable and their ecological integrity is easily threatened by changes occurring outside their boundaries. The Bureau noted that the restoration plans currently being implemented by the Bulgarian authorites could restore the hydraulic regime of Srebarna, and hence have the potential to restore the ecosystem which existed at the time of Srebarna's inscription on the World Heritage List. Furthermore, the Bureau learnt that the Bulgarian authorities were introducing a system to issue permits to local people for hunting wild boar and foxes which threaten the population of Dalmatior- Pelicans in Srebarna. The Bureau, however, noted that the Peli_in population of Srebarna comprised only about 10% of the global population of the species, and continued to breed in sites outside of Srebarna, including some sites in Romania, where they were hunted.

The Bureau recommended to the Committee to: (a) retain Srebarna on the List of World Heritage in Danger; (b) defer its decision on whether or not to delete Srebarna from the World Heritage List for a period of two years and (c) request IUCN, in co-operation with the Ramsar Convention, to monitor the extent to which the project(s) implemented by the Bulgarian authorities are restoring the ecological integrity of Srebarna. Furthermore, the Bureau requested that the proposal for the restoration of Srebarna, and the comprehensive assessment of its state of conservation be made available to members of the Committee for review, and that the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities co-operate in protecting the populations of Dalmation Pelicans in the region. The Bureau requested IUCN and the Centre to co-operate with the Ramsar Convention and the Bulgarian authorities and report to its eighteenth session on the extent to which the restoration efforts implemented by the Bulgarian authorities are helping to restore Srebarna.

17 BUR VIII.2 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the integrity of this site, which has been inaccessible since the onset of armed conflict in the region in 1991, still remained intact. However, recognizing that the potential for a resurgence of hostilities continued to threaten the integrity of this site, the Committee, at its last session included the Plitvice Lakes National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger and called upon the Government of Croatia, UNPROFOR and the authorities in the Krajina Region to co-operate to implement the Vance Plan and its successor resolutions to stabilize the political situation in the region. The Bureau learnt that as recommended by the Committee, at its sixteenth session, UNPROFOR undertakes regular surveillance patrols in the Park area, and is trying to bring together authorities from the Croatian Government and the Krajina Region to discuss the organization of a second international mission to the site. The Bureau requested the Centre to continue its dialogue with UNPROFOR to explore the possibilities for organizing such an international mission and report on the outcome to the seventeenth session of the Committee.

17 BUR VIII.2 Mt. Nimba Nature Reserve (Côte d'Ivoire/Guinea)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

In 1981 the World Heritage Committee inscribed Mt. Nimba on the World Heritage List. In 1992 Mt Nimba was placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee which requested the Centre to send an expert mission to: (a) ascertain the boundaries of the site at the time of inscription and recommend an appropriate boundary; (b) assess the impact of the iron-ore mine and other threats to the integrity of the site; (c) work towards an integrated rural development project.

The mission was carried out between 15 to 30 May 1993. It included representatives from the Centre, UNDP, UNEP, the Government of Guinea, NIMCO (the mining company), IUCN, CEDI (an international NGO in France), Guinea Ecology (local NGO) and two consultants as well as local specialists.

A comprehensive review of the part of Mt. Nimba situated in Guinea was carried out with extensive site and village visits and reviews of specific issues such as: the original nomination, the mineral body, the boundaries, and the socio-economic situation relating to local communities.

The major findings were as follows:

i) the site met World Heritage criteria at the time of the original nomination in 1981. It continues to meet these criteria;

ii) the site should remain on the List of World Heritage in Danger primarily because of the high risk of agricultural intrustions due to the lack of an established administrative structure and effective protection. At the present time, the Mt. Nimba Pilot Project provides a management presence, but this is not assured; Guinea was fully aware of the mineral potential. Over $25 million had been spent on prospecting and a potential ore body of 500 million tonnes had been identified. As the Government has stated, it was not their intention to include the mineral body in the World Heritage nomination. It is recommended that this perspective be accepted;

iv) the revised nomination submitted in 1991 should be considered as withdrawn, as it was not accepted by the Committee;

v) a revised nomination has been requested. It will include a revised area of 17,740 ha. which is 610 ha larger than the 1981 nomination of 17,130 ha. It is, however, 1,550 ha less than the true size of the 1981 nomination which was 19,290 ha, including the Côte d'Ivoire section of 5,200 ha. The area required for mineral operations (1,500 ha.) is not included in the World Heritage nomination;

vi) there are 18 recommendations in the mission report which is available from the World Heritage Centre. The recommendations include a commitment by the Government and the mining company to an "Environmental Convention" in which NGOs will be invited to participate. In addition, the mining company agrees, once the mine becomes operational, to contribute $500,000 per year towards conservation projects;

vii) until the war and the political situation in Liberia stabilises, it is unlikely that the mine will become operational;

viii) continued surveillance through a management presence is essential for the conservation of the site - primarily to prevent agricultural incursions into the World Heritage site.

The integrity of this site will require technical and financial support from the Committee until an adequate on-site management regime is established. It is recommended that $30,000 in emergency funds be provided for the express purpose of maintaining a management presence on the site.

The Bureau accepted the findings of the Task Force and concurred with the revised boundaries and the retention of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Observer of Guinea expressed thanks for having organized this mission and the Bureau emphasized that it accepted the new boundaries and would pursue with vigour the implementation of the eighteen recommedations in the report. The Observer added that he welcomed the recommendation of Germany and the United States of America regarding the participation of the Centre in future environmental studies. The Government of Guinea submitted a request for $30,000 in emergency assistance to implement the recommendations.

Bureau members underlined their long-term concern for the protection of the site, which would undoubtedly receive some impact if the potential mine adjacent to the site became operational. The Government of Guinea agreed to take all measures to ensure that any impact of the mining operations would be subject to detailed environmental assessment and all measures would be taken to minimize potential damage.

IUCN again underlined its concern that potential repercussions of the mine in 30 to 40 years could become a future problem for the Committee. The Bureau was in agreement with the findings of the mission and was pleased that the mission was able to respond to the questions placed before them and to clarify the current status of the site.

17 BUR VIII.2 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

Noting that the Ecuadorean authorities have not yet provided the information requested by the Committee, the Bureau requested the Centre to contact them once again and obtain information on the status of the road construction project and on-going efforts to assess its impact on the integrity of the site. In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, the Bureau also invited the Ecuadorean authorities to consider (a) submitting a proposal to extend this World Heritage site to include new areas that have been added to the Park, and (b) inviting a mission comprising regional experts to assess the severity of the threats faced by this site and plan remedial action. The Bureau requested the Centre to report on the implementation of the Committee's recommendation to the seventeenth session of the Committee, scheduled to be convened during December 1993.

17 BUR VIII.2 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session, was informed that the damage caused by the invasion of this site by militants belonging to the Bodo tribe in Assam was estimated to be about US$1.6 million and that although the Park infrastructure had suffered considerable damage, habitats in the inaccessible parts of the Sanctuary appeared to be intact. Concerned by the information reported by the Representative of IUCN that the area is still not completely free from encroachments by militants belonging to the Bodo tribe, and that illegal cultivation was spreading into parts of the Sanctuary, the Committee at its last session, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph (4), of the Convention, included the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau was informed that the Centre had drawn the attention of the Indian authorities to the fact that they have not yet provided a formal written report on the state of conservation of Manas, despite repeated requests from the Committee since 1989, and had reiterated the Committee's request for a comprehensive report providing a full assessment of the damage to the site and remedial measures that are being taken. Noting that the Indian authorities have not yet provided the report requested by the Committee, the Bureau asked the Centre to continue its efforts to obtain such a report for submission to the seventeenth session of the Committee.

17 BUR VIII.2 Air and Ténéré Nature Reserve (Niger)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session, included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger because it was concerned that the region in which it is situated has been affected by civil disturbance and that six members of the Reserve staff were being held hostage since February 1992. The Bureau deeply regretted that two of the six Reserve staff who had been held hostage died during their captivity and the health of the other four who were released in April 1993 was found to be poor. The Bureau instructed the Centre to transmit the Committee's condolences to the families of Messrs Mamadou Cheffou and Alassoum Oumarou who died whilst being held captive. Furthermore, the Bureau also expressed the wish that the four members of the Reserve staff who were released in April 1993 would soon regain their health. The Bureau noted that the Government of Niger has initiated informal negotiations with armed opposition and encouraged the authorities to continue the dialogue with a view to finding an early solution to the conflict in the region.

17 BUR VIII.2 Iguazu National Park (Argentina)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its fifteenth session held in Carthage, Tunisia, in December 1991, noted that eight helicopters regularly overflew the waterfall area and that local conservation groups opposed the use of the area by helicopters since it contravened legal regulations for air traffic control over protected areas. The Bureau was satisfied to note that the efforts of the Argentine National Park Administration and the Air Force, to establish an agreement to regulate the use of air space over the Iguazu National Park by helicopters is proceeding. The Bureau urged the Argentine authorities to expedite its finalization and until such time to enforce existing air space regulations in that area.

17 BUR VIII.2 Iaguaçu National Park (Brasil)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau was satisfied to note that the Brazilian authorities were in contact with their counterparts in Argentina to study the possibilities for establishing common regulations for helicopter traffic over the waterfalls area.

17 BUR VIII.2 Wrangell-St. Elias-Kluane-Glacier Bay National Parks (Canada/United States of America)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the Committee, while approving the extension of this transfrontier site to include the Glacier Bay National Park (USA), at its last session, urged the American and the Canadian authorities to incorporate additional areas to the World Heritage property.

In this regard, the Bureau was pleased to be informed ty the Observer for Canada that the Provincial Government of British Columbia has decided to propose to the World Heritage Centre to establish a new provincial park in the Alsek Tatshenshint region and nominate this park as part of the transfrontier world Heritage property. The Bureau commended the Canadian authorities for having taken this initiative and urged them to proceed according to the Operational Guidelines.

17 BUR VIII.2 Manovo-Gounda Saint Fions (Central African Republic)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

In response to the December 1992 request of the World Heritage Committee, two meetings were held with representatives of the Central African Republic (CAR) to discuss: (a) the protection of the site; (b) participation of local people, and (c) the social-economic ramifications of a "privatized management regime". The first meeting in April determined that the issues were of an administrative and legal nature rather than ecological and thus it was decided not to carry out a field mission.

On 10 May 1993 legal representatives of the Central African Republic, UNESCO and IUCN met at the World Heritage Centre to review the above-mentioned items (a), (b) and (c).

The following major findings were noted:

(i) the site and the surrounding region are currently socially, politically and economically unstable. Poaching from neighbouring countries is serious and presents high risks to anyone trying to prevent it;

(ii) the Government of the Central African Republic does not have the financial or staff resources to effectively manage the World Heritage site. It is interested in some form of privatization, leasing or franchising. This could involve an advisory body with representation from international organizations as well as local people. The body should have a fund-raising and management capability;

(iii) there is not a consensus on whether privatization would be appropriate. Technically and legally it is feasible, but further clarification of the proposal is required and has been requested.

The Central African Republic was recommended to continue to explore alternative management approaches and the Centre should co-operate in seeking an effective management solution. The Bureau agreed to the above recommendation and the Centre will report to the Committee when new information becomes available. The Bureau requested the Centre to ensure that the State Party respected all obligations incurred by joining the Convention and ensure the long-term conservation of the site.

17 BUR VIII.2 Talamanca-La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica-Panama)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau took note of the fact that the proposal to construct a road through of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves of Costa Rica is unlikely to be implemented in the immediate future. The Bureau was informed that the Costa Rican authorities were not in agreement with all the boundary modifications recommended by the Committee, at its fifteenth session. The Bureau noted that the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines, which is responsible for the management of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves, and the general public, as well as the indigenous people resident within the site, were not in favour of all proposed modifications of the boundary suggested by the Committee. The Bureau noted the interest of the Costa Rican authorities to receive technical advice on measures to improve living conditions of people resident in Indian Reserves within the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves. A representative of IUCN informed the Bureau that specialists from IUCN's Regional Office in Costa Rica are discussing the boundary modifications proposed by the Committee with the Costa Rican authorities. These discussions have taken into consideration the need to accommodate the socio-economic aspirations of indigenous people in the Biosphere Reserve whilst protecting the World Heritage values of the site. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to continue dialogue with the Costa Rican authorities in this important matter and report on the outcome during the forthcoming session of the Committee in December 1993.

17 BUR VIII.2 Tikal National Park (Guatemala)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the size of this mixed World Heritage property might be enlarged by about 50% and that the new areas earmarked for inclusion in the Park may contain natural and cultural heritage values of universal significance. The Bureau was informed that an IUCN project in the buffer zone of the Park is working with 26 villages to find alternative livelihood strategies which will minimize the dependence of the indigenous people on resources within the World Heritage site.

The Bureau commended the efforts of the Government of Denmark which is supporting this project with a contribution of US$ 520,000 over a two-year period. The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the competent authorities in Guatemala and encourage them to extend the boundaries of thi!: mixed World Heritage property. Full use should be made t the above-mentioned project.

17 BUR VIII.2 Te Wahinounamu - Southwest New Zealand (New Zealand)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 21 Jun 1993 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that at its last session the Committee was informed that the Government of New Zealand had approved an application from a private company for a licence to export water from this World Heritage site. The exportation of freshwater would require the construction of a dam, a buried pipeline and four large reservoirs at Jackson's Bay. The Committee noted that the visual and ecological impacts of the proposed development project were not clearly known and that the legal and economic considerations which guided the decision to approve the project were being actively debated in New Zealand.

The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the Minister of Conservation has subsequently indicated to the private company (Okuru Enterprises Ltd.) that he would not approve locating the pipeline inside the Mt. Aspiring National Park located within this World Heritage site. Authorities of the Okuru Enterprises Ltd. are now modifying their application to obtain water from a creek situated outside the boundaries of the National Park. The changes which the Okuru Enterprises Ltd. will introduce to the original proposal will be advertized for public comment and have to be agreed upon on a consensual basis. Following this procedure, a new report on the modified proposal will be submitted to the Minister of Conservation so that all relevant information could be re-assessed. The Bureau concurred with the New Zealand authorities that it will be some time before a final decision at Ministerial level is taken on the acceptability of the modified proposal. The Bureau noted that the New Zealand authorities have assured the Centre that the environmental impact of the modified proposal will be carefully considered and that decisions will not be made in haste, and that the maintenance of the values of the World Heritage area will be an important consideration in reviewing any project for water export. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to remain regularly updated on the the review of the water-export proposal to be carried out by New Zealand's Department of Conservation.