11. He noted that many States Parties had demonstrated their support of the World Heritage Convention by concluding special cooperation agreements with UNESCO. He thanked the Government of France for its continued support, the Governments of Italy and the Netherlands for their co-operation, as well as those States Parties cooperating through the Nordic World Heritage Office. He thanked the Governments of China and the Republic of Korea for their extrabudgetary contributions over and above their dues and paid a special tribute to the United Nations Foundation (UNF) for its important contribution of over US$8 million for the protection of natural heritage sites, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

12. Mr Bouchenaki thanked the States Parties who had supported the World Heritage Centre by providing human resources over the past two years, including Austria, China, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom as well as Delft University of the Netherlands. He also thanked the recent commitment by Belgium to make available an expert for natural heritage.

13. He thanked Mr Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco), the former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, and commended Mr Peter King (Australia) and the outgoing members of the World Heritage Committee for their services. Mr Bouchenaki then declared the thirteenth General Assembly open.

15. The Chairperson thanked the General Assembly for his election and commented on the tremendous importance of the World Heritage Convention.

16. The Delegate of Algeria congratulated the Chairperson on his election and welcomed the three new States Parties to the Convention. He then asked that the representative of Palestine be accepted as an observer to the 13th General Assembly. The Delegates of Cuba, the Republic of Dominica, Egypt, the Republic of South Africa, Malaysia, Oman, India, Pakistan, Yemen, Benin, France, Finland, Laos, Costa Rica, Morocco, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Zimbabwe and Angola supported Algeria's proposal. The Delegate of Israel spoke against the proposal commenting that the Palestinian authority was not a full-fledged state. The Delegate of France commented that Palestine enjoyed observer status at UNESCO and that Palestine had always enjoyed observer status at the General Assembly. He then asked if there were any legal reason to counter Algeria's proposal.

17. The Legal Advisor of UNESCO referred to Rules 2 and 16 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. He concluded that according to Rule 2.2, Palestine could not be accepted as an observer at the General Assembly unless Rule 2.2 was amended in accordance with Rule 16. He noted however, that Palestine had been accepted as an observer in the past. The Delegate of Spain noted that the general view of the General Assembly was clear and it was not necessary to resort to amending Rule 2.2.

18. The Delegate of Algeria proposed an amendment to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly to state "The representatives of member States and observers of UNESCO…". The Chairperson then suggested that Algeria's proposal to allow Palestine as an observer be accepted. There were no objections. The representative from Palestine thanked the General Assembly for the decision and commented that it opened the way to dialogue amongst peoples that was the only way to achieve peace.

20. The Delegate of the United States of America agreed with the proposal made by the Delegate of France and also commented that in future the General Assembly needed to be given prior notice of issues such as the discussion on the changes to the Rules of Procedure that had been discussed under the previous agenda item.

21. The Chairperson informed the General Assembly that the Director-General of UNESCO might be available to attend the closure of the session. He therefore suggested that an item be added to the end of the Agenda - "Closure of the session".

22. The Provisional Agenda was adopted with the proposed amendments.

23. The Director of the World Heritage Centre noted that in relation to Item 10: Elections to the World Heritage Committee, all candidates for election must have paid their contributions to the World Heritage Fund. If States Parties had not yet paid their contributions and wished to stand as a candidate for the Committee, the Comptroller of UNESCO would accept contributions up until the beginning of the election. Candidates were requested to inform the Secretariat if they intended to pay their outstanding contribution to the World Heritage Fund.

26. Dr Christina Cameron (Canada), Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee presented the report of the Committee (a copy of Dr Cameron's speech is included as Annex I of this report) and introduced two Draft Resolutions to be examined by the General Assembly:

• Draft Resolution presented by the Bureau of the Committee on the protection of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan (WHC-2001/CONF.206/2B); and
• Draft Resolution presented by Mr Peter King (former Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee) - proposal for a new additional voluntary contribution by States Parties to the World Heritage Fund (WHC-2001/CONF.206/2C).

27. With reference to the first Draft Resolution, she remarked that the destruction of the ancient statues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan on 12 March 2001 had brought a new focus on the need to strengthen the safeguarding of the common heritage of humankind. In June 2001 the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee discussed ways to strengthen the protection of heritage.

28. Dr Cameron stated that this Draft Resolution should be examined in the context of the debate and Draft Resolution of the UNESCO General Conference on “Acts constituting a Crime against the Common Heritage of Humanity”. She thanked the representative of the Director-General, Mr Bouchenaki, for having referred, in his opening speech, to the important discussions that took place on this subject in Commission IV of the General Conference the previous Saturday.

29. With reference to the second Draft Resolution, Dr Cameron noted that in the last two years many States Parties had benefited from International Assistance from the World Heritage Fund. Hundreds of requests for assistance to prepare nominations, tentative lists, management conservation plans and to organise training workshops had been supported. The sustainability of this support however, had been questioned. In his letter of 2 July 2001, Mr Peter King (then Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee) commented that "in the long term I believe that the compulsory contribution by States Parties of 1% of the contribution to the Regular Budget indicated in the Convention is outdated". In noting that there were also many other fiscal initiatives that must be examined to enhance the protection of World Heritage, Mr King called for the support of all States Parties to a voluntary additional contribution to the World Heritage Fund.

30. Dr Cameron advised that after considering the financial statements as at 31 December 2000, the Comptroller of UNESCO highlighted the World Heritage Fund’s position in relation to cash reserves. He indicated that during 2001 the financial resources of the Fund would be fully stretched. The only other resources were locked in the US$2,000,000 outstanding debts from States Parties, a significant asset which was not available.

31. The Chairperson of the General Assembly congratulated Dr Cameron and expressed satisfaction with the work accomplished by the Committee to date. The General Assembly took note of the report.

32. The Chairperson referred to the Draft Resolution on the protection of the cultural heritage of Afghanistan submitted by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fifth session (Paris, 25-30 June 2001) (document WHC-2001/CONF.206/2B). He noted that the international community voiced deep concern when the statues of Bamiyan were destroyed. He stated that the General Assembly might wish to amend the wording of the Draft Resolution to reflect the current situation.

33. The Delegate of Greece questioned the procedure whereby the Bureau prepared the Draft Resolution without seeking the views of the Committee. She stated that the Bureau had no legal authority to do so. The Director of the World Heritage Centre stated that this situation had occurred due to the calendar of meetings whereby the Committee was not scheduled to meet until December. The Delegate of Thailand stated that if the Draft Resolution had been put to the Committee, it would have definitely been adopted.

34. The Resolution concerning "Acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity" adopted by Commission IV on 27 October 2001 for adoption by the UNESCO General Conference, was distributed to the General Assembly. This Resolution was read to the General Assembly by the Director of the World Heritage Centre (see Annex II).

35. Recalling that the situation in Afghanistan had changed since the Bureau prepared the Draft Resolution, the Chairperson of the General Assembly requested that a small working group comprising the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, interested delegations and the Secretariat meet to make amendments, in light of the Resolution concerning "Acts constituting a crime against the common heritage of humanity". The revised Draft Resolution was proposed and adopted by the General Assembly by consensus (see Annex III).

36. The Chairperson of the General Assembly then referred to the second Draft Resolution presented by Mr Peter King which was a proposal for a new additional voluntary contribution by States Parties to the World Heritage Fund (WHC-2001/CONF.206/2C).

37. The Delegate of Spain advised the General Assembly that it was a complex issue that required considerable thought and further study, commenting that the proposed voluntary contribution was actually compulsory. Following this, he stated that without further study and explanation of the rationale, Spain could not accept the Draft Resolution. The Delegate of Greece agreed and stated that voluntary contributions were not a predictable way to secure funds. Furthermore, she stated that the World Heritage Committee, the statutory organ to define strategy, had not been consulted about this Draft Resolution. She suggested that every State Party to the Convention should encourage the establishment of public and private means to provide further funding for World Heritage.

38. The Delegate of Belgium gave credit to the former Chairperson for the ideas presented in the Draft Resolution but stated that an increase of 1% in voluntary contributions was minor. She commented that additional funding should be sought through, for instance, co-operative arrangements. She mentioned that several proposals suggested by States Parties in response to Mr King's proposals had not been made available to the General Assembly and that this issue needed to be more thoroughly prepared and investigated. She suggested that the decision be referred to the World Heritage Committee.

39. The Director of the World Heritage Centre announced that he would make the responses of States Parties to Mr King's proposals available to the General Assembly (see Annex IV)

40. The Delegate of Thailand stated that before proposing the Draft Resolution, Mr King had approached States Parties at the Bureau and Committee session in Cairns. The idea of the Draft Resolution was not to change the provisions of the Convention (Article 16). He noted that table 1 in the Draft Resolution may lead to some misunderstanding as the figures under "proposed additional voluntary contribution of 1% US$" were too specific. He advised that the word "additional" should be changed to "supplementary".

41. The Delegates of Lithuania, Uruguay, Finland, Hungary, Panama and Japan supported the Delegate of Spain and requested that more time be given to consider the Draft Resolution in greater depth. The Delegate of Argentina suggested that resources be strengthened by active, imaginative and efficient identification of extra budgetary resources and a reallocation of resources within UNESCO's regular budget. The Delegate of Benin commented that a 1% voluntary contribution set a ceiling which was undesirable as States Parties may want to give more. The Delegate of Finland stressed that States Parties who had not paid their contributions to the World Heritage Fund should pay their dues. The Delegate of Israel suggested that the Secretariat take note of the States Parties' responses to the Draft Resolution and provide the General Assembly with an analysis of voluntary and compulsory contributions related to the number of World Heritage sites within each State Party.

42. The Director of the World Heritage Centre agreed that a ceiling could not be put on voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund and that there was no upper limit. 1% was chosen for its simplicity. He also informed the General Assembly that the Draft Resolution also proposed a US$300 minimum contribution to the World Heritage Fund for all States Parties.

43. Following these remarks, the Chairperson of the General Assembly suggested that the matter be deferred and that the World Heritage Committee examine the Draft Resolution in greater depth. This decision was adopted by the General Assembly.

• the accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period 1998-1999, certified by the auditors within the framework of the UNESCO General Audit; and
• the Fund accounts for the year 2000 approved by the Comptroller and which will be part of the external audit for the financial period 2000-2001.

45. He explained each one of the financial statements and tables contained in this document, noting that it reflected the actual financial situation as at the end of the 1998-1999 biennium and the end of 2000.

46. The Delegate of Canada requested clarification as to the difference between the contingency reserve and the operating reserve (Statement II: Balance Statement of Assets, Liabilities, Reserves and Fund Balance as at 31 December 1999). The representative of the Comptroller recalled that the Reserve for unforeseen expenses amounting to 2 million US dollars, had been established following the decision of the Committee at its 17^th session, and that it concerned long-term economies destined to ensure a cash reserve for the budget of the Fund.

47. The Chairperson proposed that the General Assembly approve the accounts for the period 1998-1999 and to take note of the accounts for 2000. The Assembly took note of the document and approved the accounts.

49. The Delegate of Thailand referred to the last page of document WHC-2001/CONF.206/3b, State of contributions as at 31 August 2001, and requested clarification regarding the minimum level of voluntary and compulsory contributions for 2001. The representative of the Comptroller confirmed that the calculations were based, in both cases, on 1% of the contribution of each State to the UNESCO budget, and that the minimum contribution was $27 for 2001, and that the figure indicated was correct.

50. The representative of the Comptroller then informed the General Assembly of other contributions received as at 30 October 2001 amounting to US$ 61,826. The Delegate of Bangladesh intervened to announce that his country had paid its contribution for 2001. The representative of the Comptroller confirmed that Bangladesh had indeed paid on 13 September 2001.   He indicated that some payments were being processed and would be accepted up until the announcement of the first round of voting so that candidate States to the Committee could regularize their contribution.

51. The General Assembly took note of these documents.

54. The Director of the World Heritage Centre recalled that a Resolution had been adopted by the 12th General Assembly concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Furthermore, he acknowledged the work of the Working Group that was chaired by H.E. Ambassador Yai (Benin) in 2000 whose mandate was to make recommendations, based on the Resolution, towards improving the representivity of the World Heritage List.

55. The Director of the World Heritage Centre summarised the main points of the decision of the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns 2000, which were based on the recommendations of the Working Group.

56. The Delegate of Argentina supported the decision of the World Heritage Committee and stressed the importance of the preparation of tentative lists as a first step to protecting heritage. He advised that a committee was recently established in Argentina for this purpose and there were already 10 sites on the tentative list that would be valid until 2010. Under-represented heritage such as cultural landscapes and intangible heritage had been considered as well as sites bordering neighbouring countries.

57. The Delegate of France welcomed the Committee decision but questioned the priority system to be used to select the 30 nominations to be considered by the Committee in 2003. He asked when information from the analysis of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists (requested by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session) would be available to States Parties to assist them in prioritising their nominations. The Director of the World Heritage Centre responded that an initial analysis would be completed in early 2002.

58. The Delegate of Finland commented that the World Heritage List should be analysed according to a whole range of typologies and categories so that States Parties can identify when they had too much or not enough of a type of heritage represented on the List. He suggested that this would be an important discussion topic at the next World Heritage Committee meeting in Helsinki.

59. The Delegate of Israel referred to document WHC-2001/CONF.206/INF.5 "Distribution of World Heritage properties in States Parties" in which it was stated that 33 States Parties had no properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. He stated that by proposing a limit of 30 nominations to be examined, a "gate keeper" was created whereby underrepresented States Parties may be able to present only 1 or 2 properties, thus limiting their potential for representation on the List. He stated that a limitation of 30 nominations was too strict and suggested that the scale of contributions to the World Heritage Fund for each State Party be based on the number of properties it had inscribed on the World Heritage List.

60. The Director of the World Heritage Centre reminded the General Assembly that it was only asked to note the document on Representivity of the List (WHC-2001/CONF.206/5). He also recalled that the Committee had decided to limit the number of new nominations to be examined in 2003. The World Heritage Committee would decide on the number of nominations to be examined in future years.

61. The Delegate of Greece reiterated the comments made by the Delegate of France emphasising that the results of the analysis of the World Heritage List and tentative lists were required by States Parties to prepare nominations of categories of heritage not well represented on the List. She stressed that the analysis should be a priority of the World Heritage Centre.

62. The Director of the World Heritage Centre provided a brief explanation of the analysis of the World Heritage List and tentative lists which had been requested by the World Heritage Committee in Cairns. The deadline for the report of the analysis was 30 September 2001, but the World Heritage Committee had not provided funding for the study and the World Heritage Centre was unable to find resources to initiate the study. He advised that the study would be funded in 2002.

63. The Delegate of New Zealand supported the work done to date to balance the World Heritage List and acknowledged that the Pacific region was underrepresented on the World Heritage List. He mentioned that the Pacific was under-resourced and welcomed assistance to prepare nominations. He noted that the General Assembly must not forget the objective of quality in the words "outstanding universal value". He stated that New Zealand did not believe that properties of "outstanding universal value" should be restricted from being inscribed just because they were located within a State Party that was well represented on the List. He stressed that New Zealand did not want a distorted List or suppression of high-quality nominations.

64. The Delegate of Chile shared the misgivings of the Delegate of France regarding the priority system to be used to select the 30 nominations to be examined by the Committee in 2003. He asked the Director of the World Heritage Centre to explain how joint nominations between two or more State Parties would be considered. The Director responded by noting that while this type of nomination had not been considered by the Cairns Committee, a solution would be proposed in Helsinki that might encourage more of these nominations in the future.

65. The Delegate of Lithuania supported the work conducted to date to balance the World Heritage List and stated that they eagerly awaited the results of the analysis of the World Heritage List and tentative lists. The Delegate of Denmark supported the decision of the Cairns Committee as indicated in the document (WHC-2001/CONF.206/5) and commented that Denmark had selected three natural/cultural areas in Greenland that they would like to nominate for inclusion in the World Heritage List. Furthermore, he informed the General Assembly that the government of Denmark would provide the expertise to assist in the preparation and co-ordination of these nominations.

66. The Delegate of Slovenia mentioned the importance of scientific research for World Heritage properties and suggested that Karstic phenomena be used as one of the criteria for inclusion in the World Heritage List. She also offered to host a seminar in Slovenia in 2002 on Karstic phenomena.

67. The Delegate of India agreed with the comments made by the Delegates of France, New Zealand and Chile. She stated that nominations of properties of quality should not be excluded from the List in the search for new categories, typologies and themes of heritage. She stated that the process for selecting which nominations were to be examined by the World Heritage Committee must be inclusive and consultative rather than exclusive.

68. The Delegate of Iceland welcomed the work to date to ensure a representative World Heritage List and mentioned that Iceland hoped to nominate a property in the near future.

69. The Delegate of Sudan supported the criteria for selecting nominations to be examined by the Committee in 2003. He stated that Sudan had no sites on the World Heritage List even though it covered a large land mass and contained a considerable number of cultural and natural sites. He commented that as part of the priority system for selecting nominations to be examined, the date when a State Party became a signatory to the World Heritage Convention should be considered as Sudan ratified the Convention 25 years ago.

70. The Delegates of Armenia, Iraq and Indonesia all supported the work achieved to date in trying to achieve a more representative and balanced World Heritage List and mentioned that they had cultural and natural sites that could potentially be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

71. The Delegate from the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated that his country had a number of sites on the World Heritage List but due to war, one of the sites had been put on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He appealed to the General Assembly for appropriate funds to be allocated to enable restoration of the site. Furthermore, he stated that the Congo was full of cultural riches that were not on the World Heritage List and asked that a balance be made between cultural and natural sites.

72. Following these interventions, and at the request of the Chairperson, the General Assembly took note of the decision adopted at the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee as presented in document WHC-2001/CONF.206/5.

73. The Director of the World Heritage Centre reiterated that the priority system for limiting the number of nominations to be examined by the Committee each year would be evaluated by the Committee in one to two years' time. He thanked the General Assembly for their words of appreciation and stated that there was a need to establish ongoing activities for States Parties with no sites on the World Heritage List such as Sudan. He advised that the World Heritage Centre had begun a process to identify desertic sites in this region that may have the potential to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. He also stated that with the assistance of a major grant from the United Nations Foundation work was now being conducted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He noted that the Director-General of UNESCO would visit the Congo in 2002.

On an exceptional basis, the Bureau decided to allocate the sum of US$30,000 from the World Heritage Fund in 2001 (Chapter III – International Assistance) for the organisation of the meeting of the Drafting Group.

V.3          The Delegate of Brazil noted that a guard-post is being established at a point where the entrance to the road was located to prevent any illegal entry.  A new management plan for Iguaçu is ready for implementation and includes measures to improve relations with local communities affected by the road closure. The Delegate noted that the declaration of Iguaçu as a World Heritage site in Danger by the Committee played an important role in his Government’s decision to enforce the legal mandate to close the road, despite opposition from local people, and thanked the Bureau, the Centre and IUCN for their support and co-operation to preserve the World Heritage values of the site.

V.4          Visitor facilities in the site have improved; introduction of bus transport in the Park is expected to reduce visitor traffic by 70% by the end of 2001 and an environmental impact assessment of helicopter flights over the waterfalls is proposed. In October 2000, the first workshop on the Management of Natural World Heritage sites in South America was convened in Foz do Iguaçu. Since then, staff of Iguacu of Brazil and Iguazu National Park of Argentina meet on a monthly basis for transborder co-ordination of management activities.

V.5          The Bureau commended the Government’s courageous and decisive action in closing the Colon road. The Bureau noted that the closure of the road has alienated the local communities and invited the State Party, IUCN and the Centre to co-operate to build goodwill and support of the people for the conservation of Iguacu. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the efforts taken by the State Party to improve visitor flow and management in the Park and welcomed the increasing transborder co-operation with the Iguazu National Park of Argentina. The Bureau recommended that, subject to continued positive developments, the Committee, at its forthcoming session, would consider the removal of Iguacu from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

• seek alternatives, some of which are identified in the plan, to the mechanical removal of bottom sediments from the Lake in order to reduce eutrophication, because they have less ecosystem impacts;
• monitor water quality in the Danube River and the Srebarna Lake in a comparable manner so as to regulate water transfers between the two ecosystems to minimize eutrophication and improve and restore natural ecological relationships between the two inter-connected ecosystems; and
• use the practice of reed cutting as a management tool in selected areas and regulate it to improve habitat diversity and generate income for the local community.

V.7          The Bureau commended the State Party and the Ramsar Secretariat for the preparation of the management plan and invited the State Party to consider the above-mentioned recommendations of Ramsar for further refining the plan. The Bureau urged the Centre and IUCN to consult with the State Party and determine an early date for a Centre/Ramsar/IUCN mission to the site in 2001 in order to submit a detailed report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in December 2001. The proposed mission should study issues such as: plans and processes for the preparation of a project to establish a bilateral Ramsar site with Romania to promote transboundary co-operation; long-term water management regimes; links and water-flows between the Danube and Srebarna; specific management needs in the short-to-medium term, including technical and financial support from external sources; and indicators for the systematic monitoring of the state of conservation of the site. In accordance with the wish of the last session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000), the Bureau also recommended that the mission review the sustainability of the rehabilitation efforts undertaken; and determine whether the twenty-fifth session of the Committee should consider removing Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

V.9          The Bureau learnt that the primary threat to this site, as reported in the Bureau and Committee sessions of the last two years, originates from poachers coming from outside the borders of the CAR. The mission had received direct support from the President of the CAR who had met the mission team and made public his Government’s strong commitment to the conservation of the site. Despite the transborder poaching threats, the site still contains substantial numbers of key wildlife species. Given adequate protection, in combination with efforts to promote sustainable economic development in the broader region and promote co-operation with neighbouring countries to control poaching, the site could be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time.

V.10       The Bureau thanked the President and the Government of the CAR for assisting the Centre, IUCN and the Earth Conservancy to field a successful mission to the site and identify urgent rehabilitation measures. The Bureau noted with satisfaction the conclusions and recommendations of the mission, including  urgent rehabilitation measures and the costs of their implementation, described in document WHC-2001/CONF.205/INF.6. The Bureau agreed with the mission team that rehabilitation and conservation of the site must be linked to socio-economic development of local communities in and around the site. The Bureau invited the Director-General of UNESCO to write to all the neighbouring countries around the CAR to seek their full co-operation in curbing trans-border poaching which is threatening wildlife populations in and around the site. The Bureau invited the Centre and IUCN to work together with all parties concerned to prepare a fund-raising plan for the implementation of the urgent rehabilitation measures, a realistic workplan including institutional responsibilities for the implementation of those measures, and a time frame for the effective rehabilitation of the site and 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. The Bureau requested that the fund-raising plan and the workplan be submitted to the Committee session in Finland in December 2001.

V.16       The Tantalum-Niobium International Study Centre (T.I.C.) located in Brussels, Belgium, estimates that less than 15% of the world's tantalum supply comes from Africa. T.I.C. in Brussels, Belgium, has issued a press statement condemning the illegal mining in Kahuzi Biega and Okapi and in other protected areas of DRC. The T.I.C. has agreed to:

• inform its 66 member companies around the world of the issues surrounding the illegal activities and their consequences;
• support the efforts of relevant authorities to enforce an immediate removal of miners from within the boundaries of the national parks; and
• encourage major processors to obtain their tantalum and niobium supplies from lawful sources in Africa and other parts of the world and refrain from purchasing materials from regions where either the environment or wildlife is threatened.

V.17       An appeal was made by the Director General of IUCN in March 2001 to the Heads of States in the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda and to world-wide media and interest groups, calling upon buyers of coltan to ensure that they are purchasing the product from lawful sources outside of World Heritage sites. The IUCN appeal called on the Governments of the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda to help enforce the immediate removal of miners from within the boundaries of both affected sites, and invited the three Governments concerned and the buyers of coltan to take necessary steps to find alternative livelihoods for all miners evicted from World Heritage sites of the DRC. 

V.19       The UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project - Biodiversity Conservation in Regions of Armed Conflict – conservation of the World Heritage sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - was designed and launched in 2000 as a step to build the morale of the staff who demonstrated dedication to conservation of the sites in the DRC by continuing to remain and work in a region where risks to their lives and property are significant. Paying monthly support payments, performance related bonuses and other remuneration to site staff as a way of stabilising the conservation situation in each site was considered a priority. Despite legal and administrative delays during late 2000/early 2001, contracts have now been finalised with NGO partners to deliver support payments to site staff of all five sites.

V.20       Monthly support payments, performance related bonuses and other remuneration to more than 500 staff in Virunga, about 230 in Garamba and about 60 in Okapi had begun to reach the sites and will cover a period backdated to October 2000. In the case of Salonga, the Zoological Society of Milwaukee (ZSM) has begun transferring payments to the site with the help of several partners in Kinshasa including the UN Organisation Mission in DRC (MONUC). In Kahuzi Biega too, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), in co-operation with the GTZ (Germany) project for the site is assisting the Centre in transferring funds for the benefit of this site staff. In Salonga and Kahuzi Biega payment to staff will be backdated as of February-March 2001. The delays incurred in establishing contracts with NGOs for transferring year 1 payments to site staff were regretted by all concerned but will help to prevent such delays in establishing similar contracts at the beginning of the subsequent years of the 4-year project. Hence the path for effective delivery of assistance to site staff on a continuous basis for the period 2001-2004 has now been cleared.

V.21       Other arrangements for the execution of site-specific and joint activities, e.g. biodiversity monitoring, training for site staff in law enforcement monitoring, purchase and delivery of equipment essential for staff performance of duties etc., are being negotiated with selected NGO partners and will be finalised soon. Possible dates for a high level diplomatic mission to the DRC, Uganda and Rwanda, and the possibilities for the Director-General of UNESCO leading such a mission, are also under study.

V.22       The Bureau was pleased to note that the Belgium Government has approved a 4-year project (for 300,000 Euros) to support community-based activities for the conservation of the DRC sites. This project brings in essential benefits to the sites through the work of local communities who must support the work of site staff for effective conservation. UNESCO and the DRC Government are about to finalise the Operational Plan for the execution of the UNESCO/Belgium/DRC Project. Project execution will commence soon and run parallel to the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project.

V.23       A UN Panel Report on the "Illegal exploitation of mineral and forest resources in the DRC", released in April 2001 holds many of the African countries implicated in the war in the DRC responsible for unsustainable and often illegal resource extraction practices in DRC. Most of those countries are States Parties to the World Heritage Convention. In respect of the coltan mining threat reported earlier, IUCN pointed out that the UN Panel has recommended that the "Security Council should immediately declare a temporary embargo on the import or export of coltan (and other resources)....." and that "UNESCO in collaboration with UNEP, the Secretariat of CITES and non-governmental organisations working in the DRC, should assess the extent of damage to wildlife in Garamba National Park, Kahuzi Biega National Park, the Okapi Reserve and Virunga National Park, and propose sanctions to be taken against those countries whose Governments were involved in the mass killings of endangered species". The report's findings imply that many African States Parties involved in the war in the DRC may have failed to comply with Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention that calls upon States Parties to refrain from actions that may directly or indirectly damage the Heritage situated in the territory of another State Party to the Convention.

V.24       Pointing out the historical responsibilities of Belgium to the DRC, the Delegate of Belgium expressed his country’s satisfaction at being able to support conservation of World Heritage sites in the DRC.   He, however, emphasised that poverty is the prime cause driving unsustainable exploitation of resources in the DRC, including the illegal exploitation of coltan. He called for the Convention’s emphasis on international co-operation, as highlighted in Article 11 of the Convention, as the best approach to appeal to other States Parties, including the closest neighbours of the DRC, to support the conservation of World Heritage sites in the DRC.

V.25       The Delegate of Thailand expressed concern with the situation in Kahuzi Biega, as 90% of the area was inaccessible and there were 10,000 mines.  In such a situation he wondered whether de-listing of the property was not advisable.  In response to that, the Centre and IUCN, noted that considerations for de-listing of any one of the DRC sites, including the worst-affected Kahuzi Biega National Park, are premature at present. It was not possible to quantify the problem in the absence of research.  The area had lowland gorillas, a "flagship" species.  In addition, there were positive developments indicating that peace would return to the DRC.  The Delegate of Morocco observed that ecosystem rehabilitation will have to figure prominently in the future management of the sites in the DRC in order to revive wildlife populations that are being decimated during the current period of conflict and restore other World Heritage values which are under severe pressure.

V.26       The Bureau invited the Director-General of UNESCO to write, quoting appropriate texts from the UN report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the DRC, to Heads of concerned African States Parties to the Convention, recalling their obligations to comply with Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Convention and inviting them to ensure that their representatives and agents in the DRC refrain from taking actions that may directly or indirectly threaten the integrity of the World Heritage sites in the DRC. The Bureau urged the Centre and IUCN to liaise with T.I.C. to explore ways and means to initiate a dialogue between the member companies of T.I.C. and their respective Governments, States Parties to the Convention. Such a dialogue should make the T.I.C. membership fully aware of their countries' obligations under the World Heritage Convention to protect the heritage of all States Parties to the Convention, including that of the DRC. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that monthly support and other payments are now reaching the site staff and thanked the UNF for providing this timely assistance that will continue until 2004. The Bureau stressed, however, the need for the Centre and its project partners to ensure effective and timely execution of the 4-year UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project and requested the Centre to submit a report on the progress achieved by the project to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in December 2001.

V.27       The Bureau also thanked the Government of Belgium for approving, within the framework of its co-operation agreement with Belgium, a project to support local community activities for conserving the World Heritage sites of the DRC. The Bureau recalled its discussions during the special opening session on the morning of 25 June 2001 on heritage conservation in regions of civil unrest and armed conflict, and noted that the implementation of UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP and the UNESCO/DRC/Belgium Projects in the DRC could provide valuable lessons on the subject. Any future discussions on this theme should henceforth include both World Cultural as well as Natural Heritage.

V.30       The Bureau was informed that a high-level mission to the site had been fielded in March 2000 by the Amhara Regional Government which is now directly responsible for the Park. As a result of that mission, a high-level Simen Mountains Development and Conservation Co-ordination Committee, chaired by the Vice-President of the Regional Government, has been set up to consider the recommendations of the mission that relate to: (a) Park boundary adjustment; (b) re-alignment of the road; (c) development in the buffer zone and beyond; (d) relocation of some villages from the centre of the Park; and (e) integration of tourism into management.

V.31       There are an estimated 1,450 households inside the Park and the human population growth in the Park is around 1.5 - 2.0%. The total cultivated area in the Park, about 24%, has not increased significantly since the time of its establishment in 1969, but grazing pressure from livestock on forests and grasslands has intensified and is particularly heavy near human settlements. The endangered Walia Ibex tends to have some natural protection in the steep escarpments in the eastern boundary of the Park.  Large areas of the unique afro-alpine habitat in the region, which are the main stronghold for the Ethiopian wolf, remain outside the boundaries of the Park and some efforts are underway to protect them by modifying the boundaries of the Park and to reduce poaching on the ibex. However, a systematic monitoring regime to track wildlife population trends is not yet in place.

V.32       A road that has been built through the Park to Chennek Camp and extending southwards has had erosion impacts and has provided greater access to the Park's resources, including for tourism development. Enforcement of regulations is weak; livestock grazing, which poses significant threats to natural habitats in the Park, needs to be controlled in order to preserve the World Heritage values of the site.

V.33       The Bureau thanked the Government of Ethiopia, and in particular the Government of the Amhara National Regional State, for inviting the mission and assisting the work of the mission team. The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the declaration of Simen as a World Heritage site in Danger has probably encouraged donors such as GEF (Global Environmental Facility), initiating negotiations with the Bureau of Agriculture of the Amhara Regional State for designing and developing conservation projects. The Bureau recommended that the Committee adopt the benchmarks established by the mission team for the Committee’s consideration of the eventual removal of Simen from the List of World Heritage in Danger, as follows: i.e. (i) re-alignment of the boundary and acceptance of the new boundaries and the associated conservation laws by local communities; (ii) exclusion of villages along the boundary of the Park from within the World Heritage site, as proposed by the management plan; (iii) extension of the Park to include the Mesarerya and Lemalino Wildlife Reserves, and initiation of steps to include the Ras Dejen Wildlife Reserve; (iv) resettlement of all human populations from the core zone of the Park and recent villages like Muchilla and Kewa, and significant and sustainable reduction of the population and environmental impacts of the extended Gich village in co-ordination with the indigenous communities; and  (v) effective conservation and demonstration of increases in the numbers of populations of Walia Ibex and Simien Fox within the extended boundaries of the Park/World Heritage area.

V.35       The Bureau expressed serious concerns over the resurgence of a refugee influx into the Mt Nimba Nature Reserve and requested the Centre and IUCN to contact the States Parties, FFI and other partners to ascertain the impacts of refugee activities on the values of the site and ways and means by which those impacts could be mitigated. The Bureau asked the Centre and IUCN to submit a report, based on their findings, to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in December 2001. In addition, the Bureau requested the Centre to report to the forthcoming session of the Committee on the plans for the organisation of the two stakeholders' meetings in 2001, and the progress achieved in the design and development of the GEF project.

V.37       The Bureau, once again, invited the State Party to submit its responses on the conclusions and recommendations of the IUCN/Centre mission to the site in October 2000. The Bureau urged the Centre, IUCN and other partners to ensure effective execution of the two UNF-financed projects where Rio Platano is included as a pilot site and submit a brief update on the progress achieved in initiating project activities to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in December 2001.

V.39       The Bureau noted the view of IUCN that poaching continues to be a significant threat to key wildlife species in the Sanctuary, e.g. populations of rhino, elephants and swamp deer. The construction of a road through the Bhutan side of the Manas ecosystem has significantly increased traffic and access to the core areas of Manas World Heritage site of India. However, IUCN also noted that the efforts of the Forest Department and village communities have led to the establishment of 25 "Manas Bandhu" ("Friends of Manas") groups. These groups of young volunteers from the villages around the Sanctuary have been conducting awareness campaigns and contributing to conservation work. A Forest Department Workshop on Wildlife Conservation conducted in September 2000 at Bansbari Range to explore possibilities of co-operation between these volunteer groups and NGOs, generated self-employment opportunities for some local villagers and increased people's support for the conservation of Manas.

V.40       The Bureau learnt that Manas is also a pilot site included in the UNESCO/IUCN/UNF-UNFIP project entitled: "Enhancing our heritage: monitoring and managing for success in World Natural Heritage sites". As part of the project a site-specific monitoring regime, including indicators and benchmarks tracking the state of conservation of the site and which could signal the time of removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, will be elaborated and tested over a 4-year time frame.

V.41       The Bureau urged the State Party, Centre and IUCN to organize the field visit as early as possible and submit a detailed report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in December 2001. The Bureau welcomed the co-operative approach of the Forest Department to solicit the support of local communities for conservation and encouraged the work of the "Manas Bandhu" groups. The Bureau encouraged the site authorities to co-operate with their counterparts in the Royal Manas National Park in Bhutan to curtail illegal activities threatening wildlife populations within the World Heritage site. The Bureau however, reiterated the urgent need for Bhutan's ratification of the Convention and requested the Director-General of UNESCO to invite His Majesty, the King of Bhutan to ratify the World Heritage Convention as early as possible.