IV.2 The Rapporteur of the Committee presented his report on the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, held on 28 and 29 November 1997 in Naples which has been prepared in three parts according to the agenda items. The Committee took note of the report.

The World Heritage Committee, convened in Naples from 1 to 6 December 1997 at its twenty-first session,

Concerned at news reports about threats to the cultural and natural heritage of Afghanistan, particularly the Buddhist statues in Bamyan,

Stressing the need to consider this heritage, for its inestimable value, not only as part of the heritage of Afghanistan but as part of the heritage of humankind,

Recalling the appeal made by the Director-General of UNESCO in September 1997 in Islamabad for international solidarity for the protection of the Afghan cultural heritage,

Bearing in mind the rights and duties of all State Parties to the Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage,

1. Reaffirms the sovereign rights and responsibilities, towards the International Community, of each State for the protection of its own cultural and natural heritage;

2. Calls upon the International Community to provide all the possible assistance needed to protect and conserve the cultural and natural heritage of Afghanistan under threat;

3. Invites the authorities in Afghanistan to take appropriate measures in order to safeguard the cultural and natural heritage of the country;

4. Further invites the authorities in Afghanistan to co-operate with UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee with a view to ensuring effective protection of its cultural and natural heritage;

5. Requests the Secretariat of UNESCO to take appropriate steps to foster international awareness of the outstanding value of Afghan cultural and natural heritage and to co-operate with the SPACH (Society for Preservation of Cultural Heritage of Afghanistan) and other partners for safeguarding that heritage;

6. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.

Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to submit in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention, through the World Heritage Committee, via its Secretariat the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, reports on the legislative and administrative provisions and other actions which they have taken for the application of the Convention, including the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located on its territories;

and

Requests the World Heritage Committee to define the periodicity, form, nature and extent of the periodic reporting on the application of the World Heritage Convention and on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and to examine and respond to these reports while respecting the principle of State sovereignty;

and

Requests the World Heritage Committee to include in its reports to the General Conference, presented in accordance with article 29.3 of the Convention, its findings as regard to the application of the Convention by the States Parties.

VII.1 The Committee considered the manner in which to implement the decision of the General Conference on the basis of some initial reflections that were presented by the Secretariat in Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/7.

VII.2 While recognizing the need for the States Parties to report on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have taken for the application of the Convention, the Committee stressed the importance of periodic reporting as a mechanism for exchange of information and experiences between States Parties. In this context, the attention was drawn to Article 29.1 of the Convention in which States Parties are requested to report also on other actions, together with details of the experience acquired.

VII.3 A regional approach for the examination of the periodic reports by the Committee, as already proposed in paragraph 72 of the Operational Guidelines, was supported as a means to promote regional co-operation and to identify specific needs.

VII.4 As to the format of the periodic reports, the Committee stressed that this should be practical and simple with due consideration given to the specific characteristics of different types of cultural and natural heritage properties. It should, furthermore, focus on the main issue, which is the maintenance of the World Heritage values of the site and the identification of indicators for its measurement.

VII.5 The Committee reviewed different options for the periodicity of the periodic reporting, i.e. four, five or six years. Although these options will have to be studied in more detail, a great number of Committee members expressed their preference for a six-year cycle, whereas some others were of the opinion that a four- or five-year cycle would be preferable.

VII.6 There was general agreement that the decision-making on periodic reporting would not affect the importance and continuing role of reactive monitoring that is foreseen in the procedures for the eventual deletion of properties from the World Heritage List, and in reference to properties inscribed, or to be inscribed, on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.7 Finally, a suggestion was made to look into the relation between the allocation of international assistance and compliance with the periodic reporting requirement.

VII.8 Concluding the debate, the Committee, having examined the resolution adopted by the 29th General Conference of UNESCO, as well as Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/7:

1. requested the Secretariat jointly with the advisory bodies to prepare, on the basis of the observations made by the Committee, for consideration by the twenty-second session of the Bureau in 1998, a draft format for the periodic reporting by the States Parties on the application of the World Heritage Convention and on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties;

2. requested the Secretariat to submit, for consideration by the twenty-second session of the Bureau in 1998, proposals for the handling and the examination and response by the Committee to the periodic reports;

3. requested the Secretariat to prepare, on the basis of the discussions at the twenty-second session of the Bureau, a draft revision of Section II of the Operational Guidelines for consideration by the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee.

The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida, 1996), it included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger, on the basis of the findings of a technical mission to the site and IUCN reports, and approved a sum of US$ 30,000 for a meeting with stakeholders and donors, scheduled to be held in April 1997. The Bureau, at its twenty-first session in June 1997, learnt that the Regional Authorities in Bahr Dar, where Simen National Park is located, had disagreed with the Committee's decision to declare Simen as a World Heritage site in Danger; hence, they had indefinitely postponed the meeting of the stakeholders and donors and called upon the Central Government authorities in Addis Ababa to organise a discussion forum with UNESCO with a view to reversing the Committee's decision.

 The Centre discussed the matter with the Ambassador of Ethiopia to France and the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia to UNESCO, and sought his assistance in encouraging the Ethiopian authorities to view the Committee's decision in a positive light and to proceed with the convening of the meeting of the stakeholders and donors. The Permanent Delegate was in agreement with the fact that the Committee's decision must be viewed positively, and had agreed to discuss the matter with relevant authorities during his visit to Ethiopia during September-October 1997. No written information was received by the Centre, the Permanent Delegate however informed Centre staff orally that there had been no change in the views of the Regional Government in Bahr Dar to date.

In the absence of any further information, the Committee decided to retain Simen National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger and urged the Centre to continue to pursue its efforts to resolve this deadlock.

The Committee recalled that at the time of its last session (Merida, 1996), UNESCO's Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs Office was considering a proposal for setting up an "International Foundation for Mount Nimba". The Bureau, at its twenty-first session in June, 1997, was informed that such a foundation cannot be created by UNESCO but could be set up under the national legislation of a suitable State Party, following the example of the Foundation established for the Banc d'Arguin, (Mauritania) in Switzerland. However, the Bureau noted that the mining companies expected to contribute to the Fund are not yet ready to launch the initiative and the Minister of Environment of Guinea had requested that Mount Nimba be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee furthermore noted that technical assistance for an amount of US$ 20,000 was provided to the site in 1997.

The Committee decided to retain Mount Nimba in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the State Party and the Centre to contact relevant mining companies to know more details of their interest and willingness to set up an international foundation.

The Committee, at its last session (Merida, 1996), included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger, and requested the State Party to implement the eleven-point corrective action plan that had been endorsed by the Minister for the Environment of Honduras. The Sub-Secretary for the Environment of Honduras, via letter of 12 September 1997, has provided a description of the proposed use of the US$ 30,000 approved by the Bureau in 1996. These funds will form a component of the larger GTZ-KFW (Germany) project, which in its first year preparatory phase foresees the elaboration of a management plan as a priority activity.

The Committee commended Honduras, with support from the GTZ and WWF, for launching a large scale programme for strengthening the conservation of Rio Platano. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre, in collaboration with IUCN, to plan a site visit during early 1999 to review the state of conservation of Rio Platano.

The Committee took note of the site visit to Manas, jointly undertaken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) of India and the World Heritage Centre, between 20 and 23 January 1997 and of the report on the state of conservation submitted to the Bureau at its twenty-first session in June 1997. MOEF and the State Government of Assam had elaborated a 2-3 year rehabilitation plan, at a total cost of US$ 2,135,000, of which US$ 235,000 was requested as emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund. The Bureau at its twentyfirst session approved an initial grant of US$ 75,000, for the purchase of three vehicles, two boats and 55 wireless communication sets and recommended that the Committee consider approving additional amounts of the US$ 235,000 requested by the Indian authorities subject to satisfactory use of the US$ 75,000 provided, and written documentation on counterpart Indian funds disbursed for strengthening the conservation of Manas Wildlife Sanctuary. The Centre and the Observer of India informed the Committee that this information has been provided by facsimile of 10 November 1997.

The Committee took note of this information on progress with regard to the implementation of the emergency assistance project and referred the discussion concerning the approval of additional amounts of the US$ 235,000 requested by the Indian authorities as emergency assistance to Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda (International Assistance). The Committee decided to retain Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that the Delegate of Niger, at the twenty-first session of the Bureau, was of the view that the state of conservation of the site had considerably improved and the site may be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger and that a monitoring mission to the site was foreseen for autumn 1997. The Centre informed the Committee that this mission did not take place due to time constraints. IUCN informed the Committee that a number of activities are underway to resume the IUCN/Danish/Swiss Cooperation project at this site.

In the absence of further information, the Committee decided to retain Air-and-Ténéré Reserve in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida, 1996), it found that the construction of two dams had limited freshwater flow, dramatically increased the salinity of the lake and marshes and led to sharp reductions of migratory bird populations. In 1996, the Committee decided to declare Ichkeul as a World Heritage site in Danger and requested the Tunisian authorities to provide a programme of corrective measures to reverse the degradation of the site and alerted them to the possibility of the deletion of Ichkeul from the World Heritage List, if rehabilitation of the site is not possible. IUCN informed the Bureau at its twenty-first session in June, 1997, of the following recommendations of a Ramsar mission to the site in January 1997: Tunisian authorities provide a clear indication of the measures they plan to take based on several scientific studies already carried out; establishment of an agreement on the release of water from the dams; setting up of a central authority addressing all management issues, including the long term management of the Tindja sluice; repair of the sluices; filling up of the Joumine Canal to restore the Joumine Marsh; and continuous scientific monitoring of the Park's ecology. The Bureau at its twenty-first session recommended that the Committee establish a three-year time table to review efforts of the restoration of Ichkeul and, in the meantime, retain the site in the List of the World Heritage in Danger.

The Centre informed the Committee that on 14 October 1997 a "Report on the action programme for the safeguarding of Ichkeul National Park" was provided by the "Ministere de l'environnement et de l'amenagement du territoire" and was transmitted to IUCN and the Ramsar Convention Secretariat for review. IUCN informed the Committee that this report does not provide a sufficient response to the recommendations of the Ramsar mission indicated above and that the serious threats to the integrity of the site are not adequately addressed.

The Committee decided to retain Ichkeul in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre to write a letter urging the State Party to implement the recommendations of the Ramsar mission and submit a threat mitigation status report to the twenty-third session of the Committee, in 1999.

The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida, 1996), it noted significant progress made with regard to acquisition of land, refinement of ecological indicators, and generous Federal and State allocations of financial and human resources, but decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger due to continued prevalence of threats. In response to the Committee's call to the State Party to share knowledge and experience gained through the restorative effort, the Park authorities convened an international seminar, in November 1997, to which all western hemisphere World Heritage site managers were invited.

The Centre informed the Committee that a site monitoring report on the Everglades National Park was provided by the State Party on 25 November 1997, which indicated progress in the organization, planning and implementation of the ecosystem restoration projects in the region since the last report reviewed by the Committee in December 1996. In addition, significant amounts for ecological research and the purchase of land were made available by the Government.

After discussing whether the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Committee noted that the Delegate of the United States of America indicated that the site is still under threat despite significant progress made. The Committee congratulated the Government of the United States on its progress and commitment and decided to retain Everglades National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida, 1996), it commended the initiative of the President of the State Party to remove the potential mining threat to Yellowstone National Park, by offering a mutually agreed upon trade of land valued at US$ 65 million, and requested the State Party to outline, before 15 September 1997, the steps and schedule for threat mitigation which could be followed. Since then a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Cooke City Mineral Withdrawal was issued and circulated for public comment. The Final Version of the EIS and its Summary were published in July 1997. Subsequently, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals Management and the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment have both signed, on 12 August 1997, the decision authorising the withdrawal of a mineral permit from 22,065 acres near Cooke City, Montana.

The Centre informed the Committee that a report was received on 25 November 1997, which indicates that significant progress has been made on some of the issues noted by the Committee in December 1995, such as the proposed mine. However, there remain serious threats to the natural resources and values. The Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that US$ 65 million have been made available to acquire the Crown Butte mining interests and to preserve the Park.

The Committee commended the Government of the United States on its progress and commitment. Following discussion as to whether the site could be removed from the Danger List, the Committee decided to retain Yellowstone National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.10 The observations and recommendations of the Bureau at its twenty-first session (see WHC-97/CONF.208/4) were transmitted to the respective States Parties. The Committee took note of the integrated report provided by IUCN and the World Heritage Centre contained in Working Document WHC-97/CONF.208/8A and of updated information presented during the session.

The Committee recalled that at its nineteenth session (Berlin, 1995) it requested the Bulgarian authorities to submit a threat-mitigation status report in 1998. The Committee requested the State Party to submit, before 1 September 1998, a status report on measures taken to mitigate threats to the site.

The Committee requested IUCN to review that report and to recommend measures to the consideration of the Committee at its next session. The Committee decided to retain Srebarna in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that at its last session (Merida, 1996), it decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger due to damage to the Park infrastructure and possible negative impacts due to over-visitation. The Bureau, at its twenty-first ordinary session held in June 1997, commended the Park authorities for having increased the total area of the Park to include the entire underground basin supplying the Park's lakes and streams. The Park had admitted and managed 270,000 visitors, using educational guided tours. The construction of a new sewage system will commence soon. The Director's view that Plitvice Lakes should no longer remain in the List of World Heritage in Danger, had been endorsed, via a letter dated 18 September 1997, by the Croatian Permanent Delegate to UNESCO.

The Committee commended the Croatian authorities for having undertaken measures to repair damage to the Park's infrastructure. The Committee decided to remove Plitvice from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Park management to expedite the reconstruction of the sewage system. In accordance with paragraph 66 of the Operational Guidelines, the Committee invited Croatia to nominate the extension of 100 km2, using standard nomination procedures as set out in paragraph 64 of the Operational Guidelines.

IUCN provided a detailed report, including a map showing locations of major areas of armed conflict, refugee camps and rebel activity in relation to Virunga and three other World Heritage sites in the eastern parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The situation in and around Virunga is unstable with militia groups threatening human population and wildlife. Aerial census of wildlife has not been undertaken since 1995; there are frequent reports of deforestation, poaching and illegal gold mining in the Park. Many automatic weapons left behind by fleeing soldiers have been claimed by local inhabitants and poachers and greatly endanger the life of the small number of Park personnel attempting to carry out anti-poaching activities. IUCN has listed fourteen recommendations for restoring the Park; however, it has noted that the high-level mission to Kinshasa, recommended by the Bureau at its June 1997 session, to remind the national authorities of their responsibilities under the Convention and determine the policy of the new Government on nature conservation, is the most urgent priority action needed at this time.

The Committee decided to retain Virunga in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Director-General of UNESCO to send a high-level mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as soon as possible.

Since the Committee included this property in the List of World Heritage in Danger, at its last session in December 1996, the eastern regions of the country where this site is located have become further destabilised. Infrastructure of the Park has been damaged and wildlife poached. The uncertainty surrounding the new policy as regards nature conservation puts all World Heritage sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo under threat.

The Committee decided to retain Garamba in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Director-General of UNESCO to send a high-level mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo as soon as possible.