The Bureau suggested that the State Party consider inviting an IUCN mission to the site for verification of the results of the measures undertaken to mitigate threats to the integrity of Srebarna. It authorised the Centre to provide funds for IUCN from the monitoring allocation approved by the Committee for the European Region at its last session (December 1997), in order to enable IUCN to undertake such a mission.

The Bureau reiterated the Committee’s request that the Centre and IUCN contact the State Party and the Foundation to prepare a detailed state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan for the site and recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau recalled that the four sites under consideration were declared as World Heritage in Danger by the Committee, during the years between 1994 and 1997, when the country had been affected by war and civil strife. The Bureau after reviewing the report of the Secretariat, based on the reports received through IUCN and other international NGO partners, decided to:

(i) reiterate the Committee’s concerns for the conservation and management of the four sites and recommended that the Committee retain all four sites in the List of World Heritage in Danger; the Bureau however noted that the political situation in the country was stabilising and that the impact of the war-period on some wildlife populations, such as the rhino population in the Garamba National Park, has been less severe than previously expected;

(ii) request the Secretariat to work with the Permanent Delegation of the State Party to UNESCO regarding the letter sent by the Centre describing the Committee’s recommendations, including the fielding of a high level UNESCO mission to be headed by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, made at its last session in Naples, by drawing attention to those recommendations during a meeting between the Permanent Delegation and the UNESCO Secretariat, scheduled for 25 June 1998, in order to obtain formal responses;

(iii) urge the Centre and IUCN to continue co-operation with NGOs like WWF and WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) to monitor the state of conservation of the sites and ensure that the two vehicles purchased for Garamba and Kahuzi Biega National Parks, using US$ 45,000 approved by the Committee in Naples, are safely delivered to the sites as soon as possible;

(iv) request the Chairperson of the Committee to authorise the Centre, subject to the receipt of evidence of the safe transfer and delivery of one vehicle each to Garamba and Kahuzi Biega, to use an additional US$ 45,000 for the purchase, transfer and delivery of one vehicle each for Virunga and Okapi in accordance with the recommendation made by the Committee at its last session; and

(v) decided to consider replenishing the emergency assistance allocation of US$ 500,000 approved by the Committee for 1998 during its last session in Naples, and which had been already exhausted, during its discussions on international assistance requests (Agenda item 8), so that additional requests submitted by the Democratic Republic of Congo for undertaking scientific studies, in co-operation with international NGOs, to evaluate the impacts of the war on selected indicator species in Kahuzi Biega National Park, could be considered for support by the Chairperson of the Committee.

The Bureau learnt that IUCN has received considerable information on the site from WWF-and that a site-visit had been considered not necessary at present. The Bureau noted that the on-going construction of the Guamote-Macos road as the main issue facing this Park. The road is being built primarily for strategic purposes and there has not been an EIA despite the Committee's requests. Construction has been slow but very destructive to the environment. Although only a small section of the road is inside the World Heritage site, the remainder of the road forms the Park’s southern limit. While the Bureau was concerned with IUCN’s view that the completion of the construction of the road is likely to be inevitable, it agreed with the recommendations of IUCN and:

(i) recommended that the Committee retain Sangay in the List of World Heritage in Danger;

(ii) strongly encouraged the Government of Ecuador to improve the standards of the construction of the Guamote-Macos Road and undertake mitigation measures for sections of the road where the environment has been adversely impacted;

(iii) requested the Government to complete the long overdue management plan, particularly with a view to reviewing the expanding presence of livestock in the Park;

(iv) invited the Government to clarify unconfirmed reports of any oil exploration concession that may have been awarded over a part of the Park; and

(v) commend the Government of the Netherlands for their efforts to assist the official Ecuadorean agency responsible for the management of the Park, i.e. INEFAN, and to improve protection of the site through co-operation with Fundacion Natura, Ecuador.

The Bureau encouraged the Centre to co-operate with the Ethiopian authorities and the UNESCO Office in Addis Ababa and continue to urge the Bahir Dar authorities to view the Committee’s 1996 decision to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger in a positive manner and organise, as quickly as possible, the Stakeholders’ Workshop for which the Committee had approved a sum of US$ 30,000 in 1996. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger and authorised the Chairperson to re-allocate US$ 30,000 from the 1998 budget for Technical Co-operation, in the event the Stakeholders’ Workshop could be organised.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat to report to the twenty-second session of the Committee on the outcome of its participation at the meeting organised by the CNRS and French Foundations and on the feasibility of establishing a foundation for Mt. Nimba. It recommended that the Committee retain Mt. Nimba in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau urged IUCN and the Centre to obtain more details concerning the hydroelectric development project and to report to the twenty-second session of the Committee. It recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger pending a review of its state of conservation foreseen during 1999.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to continue to monitor the implementation of the rehabilitation plan and submit a progress report to the twenty-second session of the Committee in November-December 1998, on the use of US$ 90,000 approved by the Committee at its last session in Naples. It recommended that the Committee retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN co-operate to field a mission to the site and prepare a detailed state of conservation report and a long term action plan for the site, including recommendations. These recommendations should address whether or not the Committee should retain the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger, for the consideration of the twenty-second session of the Committee.

The Bureau received a report from IUCN, which provided technical data to indicate that the salinity of the water in the lake may have reached excessively high proportions and that the chances for the recovery of the World Heritage values of the site may be fast receding. IUCN expressed its concern at the pace and the effectiveness of the implementation of the rehabilitation programme by the State Party.

The Bureau was informed by the Observer of Tunisia 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. In particular, he spoke in detail of the repairs done to sluice gates controlling the entry of fresh water into the lake, and the supply of fresh water from a newly constructed reservoir to the lake to strengthen the lake’s conservation, as well as providing irrigation and water supply needs of people, and several economic incentives to reduce the dependence of the people on the resources of the nearby mountain which constitutes part of an area from where the waters drain into the lake. The Observer of Tunisia also pointed out that his Government was closely monitoring the number of migratory birds arriving at Ichkeul during the European winter in order to assess the extent to which Ichkeul continues to retain its value as a site of international importance for migratory birds. The Observer also disagreed with some of the data presented by IUCN to the Bureau.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and expressed its concerns regarding the feasibility of effectively rehabilitating this site. The Bureau urged the State Party to take all necessary measures to ensure rapid and effective implementation of the programme for rehabilitating Ichkeul The Bureau recommended that the Committee allow time for the implementation of the programme and reiterated its recommendation that the State Party submit a comprehensive report on the results of the implementation of the rehabilitation programme to the twenty-third session of the Committee in 1999.

Furthermore, the Bureau requested the Centre to co-operate with the State Party to field an expert mission to the site, similar to the one organised to the Galapagos in 1995, to undertake a thorough review of the state of conservation of the site. The Bureau noted the observation made by one of its members that the original nomination of Ichkeul, submitted in 1979, lacked adequate baseline data for evaluating the outcome of the programme of rehabilitation currently underway. The Bureau therefore recommended that the expert mission establish the necessary baseline data and information, and prepare a report on the adequacy of conservation measures undertaken and propose additional measures that may be needed for the conservation of the site. It also recommended the preparation of a statement of significance on the World Heritage values of the site, which could provide a framework for an objective evaluation of the success or failure of the rehabilitation programme currently being implemented by the State Party. In the event it is determined that the rehabilitation programme has failed to restore Ichkeul’s World Heritage values, steps for the eventual deletion of Ichkeul from the World Heritage List should be set in motion, as per paragraphs 89(iii) and 50(d) of the Operational Guidelines. However, the Bureau’s intention in suggesting an expert mission was based on the intention to give equal consideration to the possibility for developing an improved rehabilitation programme for Ichkeul and retain its status as a World Heritage site.

The Observer of Greece repeated the interest of her country to collaborate in and provide expert advice for the preservation of Butrinti.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat to submit a progress report to the twenty-second session of the Committee.

The Bureau, however, requested UNESCO to continue its work in the strengthening of training activities for local and national capacity-building, especially in measures prohibiting and preventing the illicit traffic of cultural property. In this regard, and alarmed by press reports on the alleged pillage of cultural property from sites of national importance, the Bureau requested the State Party to submit a report to the twenty-second session of the Committee. This report should summarise the steps taken in the preparation of a national inventory of cultural properties and on legal and regulatory measures adopted by the Government in the protection of cultural property in Angkor and in other sites on the Tentative List.

The Bureau underlined the serious need to address illicit traffic of cultural property, not only at a national level but also at an international level. To this end, the Bureau encouraged UNESCO Member States to ratify existing legal instruments for preventing illicit traffic of cultural properties, such as the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property 1970 and the UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects 1995.

The Bureau congratulated the Croatian authorities on the progress made in the restoration and rehabilitation of the city. With great satisfaction, the Bureau decided to recommend the Committee to delete the Old City of Dubrovnik from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Observer of Australia, informed the Bureau of measures taken to address other potential threats to the site which had been brought to the attention of the Centre and the Chairperson of the Committee by several Australian NGOs. In doing so, she pointed out that the expressed concerns of the NGOs in their December 1997 letter were extremely vague, with no supporting evidence and that therefore they were difficult to respond to. However, she outlined the following steps which had been taken and indicated that she had in fact previously commented on most of these issues.

• rigorous environmental conditions have been put in place on the development activities in the Hinchinbrook region. The Government of Australia considered them to be adequate to ensure the continued protection of the World Heritage values of the Reef; a regional development plan has been developed;
• a special protected area had been established to conserve dugong populations and habitats;
• there are no proposals at present to mine oil shale anywhere near the Great Barrier Reef; the construction of a pilot-plant for investigating the viability of recovery from oil shale near Gladstone has undergone an EIA, but there are no plans to proceed with a full scale production facility in the foreseeable future; any future proposals to proceed towards a commercial facility will be subjected to a comprehensive impact assessment and the Commonwealth Government has made it clear that mining will not be allowed where it could have a detrimental affect to the Great Barrier Reef. World Heritage legislation in Australia would override any such proposals from the states;
• significant conservation measures have been taken as part of the regional planning process to ensure that fisheries management in the Reef is consistent with Australia’s World Heritage obligations and to protect threatened species, and
• recently, a review of the values of the Great Barrier Reef was conducted by Mr B. Lucas. The review report augments information on the values of the Reef and confirms that they are well conserved, and makes some useful recommendations for future planning.

IUCN raised an issue in regard to the report submitted by the Australian. IUCN pointed out references to prospecting licences being issued by the Queensland Government which could have implications for the Great Barrier Reef area and by the Western Australian Government involving part of the Shark Bay World Heritage area. While IUCN noted the Australian statement that mining would not be permitted if it would have adverse effect on the World Heritage properties, and that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act would override any State action which threatened World Heritage values, IUCN suggested the situation merited closer liaison with the Government over the issuing of property licenses, especially as IUCN understood the Queensland mining laws carried an automatic right to a mining permit following the granting of an exploration licence.

The investigator reported three cases of clearing, two of which were within the World Heritage area. Based on the advice of the inspector, the Minister for the Environment determined that World Heritage values were not at risk and that no further action was required in relation to these incidents.

The Bureau was satisfied to note that the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area Plan of Management would come into effect on 1 September 1998. The Plan, by removing the ability of land management agencies like Local Councils and the Queensland Department of Natural Resources to clear vegetation without scrutiny from WTMA, and by developing better co-ordination between actions of agencies, will help to prevent the any future clearings within the World Heritage area.

The Bureau noted IUCN’s acknowledgement that it receives a large volume of reports and statements concerning threats to many of the thirteen World Heritage sites of Australia and that it does not have the capacity at its Headquarters in Switzerland to evaluate all of them. The Bureau welcomed the offer of the Australian Committee of IUCN, made in November 1997, to undertake annual assessments of a selected number of properties and to provide reports to the annual sessions of the Committee.

The Bureau recommended that IUCN in co-operation with its Australian Committee, establish a mechanism for assessing, in a timely manner, the continuous stream of information received by the Centre on the state of conservation of Australian natural World Heritage sites. This would ensure that up-to-date state of conservation reports on the Great Barrier Reef, Shark Bay and the Wet Tropics of Queensland are submitted to the twenty-second session of the Committee.

The Centre informed the Bureau that: (1) on 11 January 1998, local people illegally re-gained access to the road in the Park; (2) the Brazilian National Congress had established a Task Force under its Permanent Environmental Commission to investigate the issue; (3) the Task Force visited the area on 5 March 1998 and urged that a solution to the conflict be found; (4) the National Institute for the Environment envisaged the preparation of a new management plan as soon as invaders left the area; and (5) members of the Brazilian judicial community have reiterated their call for the closure of the road. The Director of the UNESCO Office in Brazil received a letter dated 27 May 1998 from the Director of Ecosystems of the Ministry of the Environment, confirming that the road has been illegally reopened and that parts of the Park are damaged. The Ministry hopes to solve the problems through the Task Force, the revision of the Management Plan and the preparation of a comprehensive revitalisation programme.

The Bureau requested the Centre to prepare a mission to the site jointly with IUCN to review the situation and to assist the State Party to mitigate the threats to the Park. The Bureau furthermore requested the Centre to write to the Brazilian authorities to express its serious concerns with regard to the state of conservation of the site. The Bureau asked the State Party to provide by 15 September 1998: (1) a copy of the revitalisation programme and a time frame for the rehabilitation of damaged areas, and (2) a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site and actions taken with regard to the permanent closure of the road.