Annex I /Annexe I

BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

Twenty-third session / Vingt-troisième session

UNESCO Headquarters /Siège de l'UNESCO
5 - 10 July 1999 / 5 - 10 juillet 1999

___________

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

___________

I. MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU

BENIN

M. Joseph YAI O.
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent
Délégation permanente du Bénin auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Alioune Sylla ALADJI BONI
Directeur des Forêts et des Ressources naturelles
B.P. 393, Cotonou

M. Eric TOTAH
Directeur du patrimoine culturel
B.P. 120, Cotonou

M. Isidore MONSI
Premier Conseiller à la Délégation permanente du Bénin
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mme Edith LISSAN
Deuxième Conseiller à la Délégation permanente du Bénin
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

CUBA

Ms Marta ARJONA PEREZ
Presidenta, Consejo Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural
Ministerio de Cultura
Calle 4 esquina a 13, Vedado
La Habana

Mr Antonio PERERA PUGA
Director, Centro de Areas Protegidas
Ministerio de Ciencia Tecuatogía y Medio Ambiente
Calle 18A No 4114 e/ 41 y 47
11300 Miramar, Playa, C. Habana,

HUNGARY / HONGRIE

M. Zsolt VISY
Secrétaire d'Etat adjoint
Ministère du Patrimoine Culturel National de Hongrie
Président du Comité National Hongrois du Patrimoine
H-1055 Budapest, Sialay u. 10-14

M. János TARDY
Secrétaire d'Etat adjoint
Ministère de l'Environnement
Office de Protection de la Nature
H-1121, Budapest, Költö u. 21

M. Ferenc NÉMETH
Directeur général
Ministère du Patrimoine Culturel National
Secrétaire du Comité national Hongrois du patrimoine
H-1052 Budapest, Szalay u. 10-14

M. János JELEN
Ambassadeur
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Rapporteur du Comité du patrimoine mondial
c/o Mission de Hongrie auprès de l'UNESCO

M. Béla KOVÁCSI
Conseiller administratif
Ministère de l'Agriculture et du Développement rural
H-1055 Budapest, Kossuth Ter 11

M. Peter KARIKAS
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente de Hongrie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Gäbor SZILAGYI
Deputy Director
Hortobagy National Park
H-4024 Sumen u. 2 Debrecen

ITALY / ITALIE

S. Exc. M. Gabriele SARDO
Délégué permanent de l'Italie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. le Conseiller Pietro SEBASTINI
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente d'Italie pour l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mme Marina MISITANO
Délégation permanente d'Italie pour l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Prof. Umberto LEANZA
Chef du Service du Contentieux Diplomatique
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, Rome

Mme Maria Clelia CICIRIELLO
Service du Contentieux Diplomatique
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, Rome

M. Francesco FRANCIONI
Prof. de Droit International
Université de Sienne
53100 Sienne

M. Stefano CACCIAGUERRA
Direction Générale des Relations Culturelles
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, Rome

Mme Silvia LIMONCINI
Direction Générale des Relations Culturelles
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, Rome

Mme Gabriella IAVICOLI
Direction Générale des Relations Culturelles
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Piazzale della Farnesina 1, 00194, Rome

M. Pasquale Bruno MALARA
Surintendant pour les Biens Culturels du Piémont
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Palais Royal, Turin

M. Stefano DE CARO
Surintendant archéologue des villes de Naples et Caserta
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Piazza Museo 19, Naples

M. Luciano MARCHETTI
Surintendance pour les Biens Culturels de Florence
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Piazza Pitti, Florence

Mme Alessandra MELUCCO VACCARO
Bureau Central pour les Biens paysagers
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Piazza del Popolo 18 - 00186 Rome

Mme Roberta ALBEROTANZA
Cabinet du Ministre
Ministère pour les Biens et les Activités Culturelles
Via del Collegio Romano 27, 00186 Roma

Mme Licia BORRELLI VLAD
Commission nationale italienne pour l'UNESCO
Piazza Firenze 27, 00186 Rome

JAPAN / JAPON

H. E. Mr Koichiro MATSUURA
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Japan to France
7 avenue Hoche, 75008 Paris

Mr Yasukuni ENOKI
Director-General of Cultural Affairs Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku 100-8919, Tokyo

M. Kensuke TSUZUKI
Minister, Deputy Permanent Delegate of Japan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Akira YOSHIKAWA
Minister-Councellor
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Yuichi ISHII
Director
Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division
Cultural Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919

Mr Takahiro OKAMOTO
Official, Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division
Cultural Affairs Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8919

Mr Tomoyuki ONO
Troisième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Japon auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Akihiro TAKAZAWA
Troisième Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Japon auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Kanenori MIURA
World Natural Heritage Ecosystem Conservation Officer
Nature Conservation Bureau, Environment Agency
2-1-1 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8975

Mr Hirosi SOWAKI
Director, Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0013

Dr Makoto MOTONAKA
Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural properties
Monuments and Sites Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0013

Dr Nobuko INABA
Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Architecture Division
Cultural Properties Protection Department
Agency for Cultural Affairs
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0013

Ms Kumiko YONEDA
Senior Research Scientist
Japan Wildlife Research Centre
2-29-3 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0034

MOROCCO / MAROC

M. Abdelaziz TOURI
Directeur du Patrimoine Culturel
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
17 rue Michlifen, Agdal, Rabat
M. Salah Salomé ELHONSALI
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Ahmed SKOUNTI
Chargé de recherche
Ministère des Affaires Culturelles
Direction du Patrimoine Culturel
17 rue Michlifen, Agdal, Rabat 10000

REPUBLIC OF KOREA / REPUBLIQUE DE COREE

Mr June-Hyuck CHO
Director, Cultural Cooperation Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Government Building, Kwanghwamun, Seoul

Mr Jae-Sun SHIM
Director, Cultural Properties Planning Division
Cultural Properties Administration
Government Complex-Taejon 920, Taejon-City

Mr Il CHUNG
First Secretary, Korean Representative
Embassy of Republic of Korea
125 rue de Grenelle, 75007 Paris

Mr Sung-Soo PARK
Assistant Director, Cultural Cooperation Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
137-13 Dolim/domy, Youngdungpogu, Seoul

Mr Mancheol SUH
Professor, Department of Geoenvironmental Sciences
Kongju National Univ., Kongju Chungnam, 314-901

I. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY /
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM) / CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS (ICCROM)

Ms Joan DOMICELJ Mr Herb STOVEL
Director World Heritage Convention Coordinator
Domicelj Consultants Pty Ltd. Via di San Michele, 13
49 Olympian Parade 00153 Rome, Italy
LEURA, N.S.W. 2780, Australia

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS) / CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)

M. Jean-Louis LUXEN
Secrétaire général
49-51 rue de la Fédération
75015 Paris

Mme Carmen AÑON
Member, Executive Committee
Puerto Santa Maria 49, Spain

Mr Michel JANTZEN
Consultant

Dr Henry CLEERE
Coordinateur du patrimoine mondial
49-51 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris

Mlle Regina DURIGHELLO
Assistante du Coordinateur
49-51 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris

Mlle Gwenaëlle BOURDIN
ICOMOS
49-51 rue de la Fédération - 75015 Paris

M. Joseph PHARES
Vice-Président ICOMOS
B.P. 50222 Beyrouth, Liban

THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN) / UNION MONDIALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN)

Mr Patrick DUGAN
Global Programme Director
IUCN
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

Mr David SHEPPARD
Head, Programme on Protected Areas
IUCN Headquarters
rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

Dr Jim THORSELL
Senior Advisor World Heritage, Programme on Protected Areas
c/o IUCN Headquarters
rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

Mr P.H.C. (Bing) LUCAS
Vice-Chair World Heritage
World Commission for Protected Areas (WCPA)
1/268 Main Road, Tawa
Wellington 6006, New Zealand

Mr Rolf HOGAN
Administrative Assistant for World Heritage
Programme on Protected Areas
rue Mauverney, 28
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland

WORLD CONSERVATION MONITORING CENTRE

Mr Jeremy Harrison
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL, United Kingdom

III. OBSERVERS / OBSERVATEURS

(i) STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION /ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

ARGENTINA / ARGENTINE

H. Exc. Mr Carlos A. FLORIA
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Argentina to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Dra. Beatriz GUTIERREZ WALKER
Secretaria de Cultura de la Nación
Alvear 1690, Buenos Aires

Lic. Francisco MAYORGA
Ministro de Turismo, Ministerio de Turismo
Suipacha 1111, Piso 20 (1368)
Buenos Aires

Mr Antonio TORREJON
Secretario de Turismo de la Provincia de Chubut
Patagonia, Bv Brown 1772, Puerto Madryn

Ms Cristina SAN MARTIN
Assistant to the Minister
Ministerio de Turismo
Suipacha 1111, Piso 20, 1368 Buenos Aires

Ministro Maria Susana PATARO
Permanent Delegation of Argentina to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Sr Pedro NEIFF
Directeur des Relations Internationales
Secretaría de Turismo de la Nación
Suipacha 1111, Piso 21, 1368 Buenos Aires

Dra. Diana ROLANDI
Directora, Instituto Nacional De Antropología y Pensamiento Latina Americano
Secretaría de Cultura
3 de Febrero 1378 - 1426 Buenos Aires

Lic. Maria ONETTO
Researcher, Instituto Nacional de Antropología
Secretará de Cultura de la Nación
3 de Febrero 1378 - 1426 Buenos Aires

Ing. Francisco ERIZE
Assesseur, Secrétariat des Ressources Naturelles
Rodriguez Peña 1882, 1023 Buenos Aires

AUSTRALIA / AUSTRALIE

Senator the Honourable Robert HILL
Minister for the Environment and Heritage
Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Mr Roger BEALE
Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage
John Gorton House, Parkes ACT 2600

Mr Matthew PEEK
Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Howard BAMSEY
Deputy Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage
P.O. Box 787 Canberra, ACT 2603

Ms Gillian BIRD
First Assistant Secretary, International Organisations Branch
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Canberra, ACT 2601

Dr Arthur JOHNSTON
Supervising Scientist
Department of the Environment and Heritage
PMB 2 Jabiru, NT 0886

Mr Peter VAUGHAN
First Assistant Secretary
Office of Indigenous Affairs
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
3-5 National Circuit
Barton ACT 2600

Mr Robin BRYANT
General Management
Department of Industry, Science and Ressources
Assistant Secretary, Australian Government
c/o Australian Embassy, Paris

Mr Kevin KEEFFE
Assistant Secretary
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
Canberra, ACT 2601

Mr Jon DAY
Director, Conservation, Biodiversity and World Heritage
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
P.O. Box 1379 Townsville QLD 4812

Mr David Charles WALKER
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Australia to UNESCO
4 rue Jean Rey, 75724 Paris Cedex 15

Ms Anne SIWICKI
Attaché
Australian Permanent Delegation to UNESCO
4 rue Jean Rey, 75724 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Michael REED
Deputy Chief Minister, Norther Territory Govt.
P.O. Box 3146, Darwin N.T.

AUSTRIA / AUTRICHE

M. Hans HORCICKA
Director
Federal Ministry for Education and Cultural Affairs , Minoritenplatz 5, A-1014 Vienna

Mr Ernst BACHER
Conservator-General
Bundesdenkmalamt
Hofburg-Säulenstiege, A-1010 Vienna

BELGIUM / BELGIQUE

Mme Bénédicte SELFSLAGH
Relations avec les Organisations Internationales
Division du Patrimoine
Ministère de la Région Wallonne de Belgique
14 rue d'Aumale, 75009 Paris

Mme Gislaine DEVILLERS
Première attachée
Région Wallonne - Division du Patrimoine
Rue Brigade d'Irlande - 51000 Jambes

Mr Edgard GOEDLEVEN
Head Division Monuments and Sites
Ministry Flemisch Community
Em. Jacqmainlaon 156 b7, 1000 Brussels

Ms Suzanne VAN AERSCHOT
Assistant to the Director
Architectural Heritage Inventories
Ministry Flemisch Community, Monuments and Sites Board
Waaistraat 1, B-3000 Leuven

BRAZIL / BRESIL

M. José Pedro de OLIVEIRA COSTA
Secrétaire National pour la Biodiversité et Forêts
Ministère de l'Environnement
Brasilia, Esplanada dos Ministerios Bloco B - 70000

M. Carmelito DE MELO
Conseiller, Délégation permanente du Brésil auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

CANADA

Dr. Christina CAMERON
Director General
National Historic Sites, Parks Canada
25 Eddy Street, 5th Floor
Hull, Quebec, K1A OM5

Mme Gisèle CANTIN
Chef, Affaires internationales
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy Street, 5^e étage
Hull, Québec, K1A OM5

Mr John PINKERTON
Analyst, National Parks Directorate
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy Street, 4th Floor
Hull, Quebec, K1A OM5

CHINA / CHINE

Mr Zhan GUO
Director
Department of Preservation of Cultural Heritage
National Administration of Cultural Heritage of China, 29 Wusi Street, Beijing 10009

Mr Zhe LI
Deputy Director, Comprehensive Division
Department of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of Construction of China
Sanlihe Road 9, Beijing 100835

Ms Xiaoping ZUO
Deputy Director, National Parks Division
Department of Urban Planning
Ministry of Construction of China
Sanlihe Road 9, Beijing 100835

Mr Enhua XU
Director, Wuyi Mountains Protection and Management Committee
Yingbin Road, Wuyishan, Fujian

Mr Xiangying GUO
Director of Dazu Arts Museum
7 Beishenlo, Longgang Zheng, Dazu, Chengqing

Ms Xiaoping YU
Program Officer
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
37 Damucanghutong, Xidan, Beijing

Mr Jin XU
Vice-Director
Office of Application by Dujiangyan for inclusion in the World Heritage List
52 Ruilianjie, Dujiangyan 611830

Mr Jianhua Gerald YANG
Officer, Overseas Liaison Department
Wuyi Mountains Protection and Management Committee
Yingbin Road, Wyishan- Puzian

COLOMBIA / COLOMBIE

S. Exc. M. Augusto GALÁN
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent de la Colombie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Ms Marcela ORDONEZ
2^e Secrétaire
Délégation permanente de la Colombie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

COSTA RICA

Mme LEIVA-BILLAULT
Ambassadeur, Déléguée adjointe
Délégation permanente du Costa Rica auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

CZECH REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

Dr Josef STULC
Director of the State Institute for Historic Sites
Valdstesnske 3, Praha 1, 11800

M. Michal BENES
Secrétaire pour les Affaires Culturelles de l'UNESCO
Ministère de la Culture
160 00 Praha 6, Milady, Horakove 139

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO / REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO

M. Mbo MALEMBE
Président - Directeur général de l'ICCN
Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature
B.P. 868 Kinshasa

M. Georges DORKEN
Conseiller technique principal
21 rue Ituvi, Kinshasa

M. Norbert MUSHENZI-LUSENGE
Directeur provincial ICCN/Kivu
B.P. 868 Kinshasa

M. Karl RUF (Expert)
Director, Gilman International Conservation
3823 Owens Road, Yulee 32097, USA

Mme Kes FRAZER (Expert)
Coordinator Monitoring and Research
Garamba National Park Project
P.O. Box 15024, Nairobi, Kenya

Mme Annette LANJOW (Expert)
AWF/WWF/FFI
P.O. Box 48177, Nairobi, Kenya

Dr. Thérèse HART
Directrice CEFRECOF
Wildlife Conservation Society
185^th Street and Southern Blvd, Bronx, NY. 10460, USA

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC / REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE

Ms Laura FAXAS
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Dominican Republic to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Jimmy SIERRA
Délégation permanente de République Dominicaine
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

ECUADOR / EQUATEUR

Mr Mauricio MONTALVO
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Ecuador to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Edmundo BATALLAS
Director of International Relations
Universidad Tecnologica Equinoccial
P.O. Box 5001 CCI, Quito

Ms Ximena BATALLAS
Assistant of Director of CODEU
P.O. box 5001, CCI, Quito

Mr Teodoro PENTA
Ministro de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda
Calle Cordero y du 10 Agosto
Quito

Mr Fernando CORDERO
Alcalde
Municipalidad de Cuenca 01-05-1940

EL SALVADOR

S. Exc. M. José Ramiro ZEPEDA ROLDAN
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent d'El Salvador en France
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mme Nanette VIAUD DESROCHES
Conseiller
Délégation permanente d'El Salvador auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

FINLAND / FINLANDE

Ms Taina KIEKKO
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Henrik LILIUS
State Archaelogist
Director-General of the National Board of Antiquities
Nervandersnk 13, 00100 Helsinki

Mr Jukka-Pekka FLANDER
Chief Inspector
Ministry of the Environment, Land Use Department
Kasarminkatu 25, P.B. 380,
00131 Helsinki

Ms Anne LAMMILA
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

FRANCE

M. Alain MEGRET
Directeur adjoint de la nature et des paysages
Ministère de l'Aménagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement
20 Avenue de Ségur, 75302 Paris 07 SP

Ms Catherine CARO
Administrateur civil, Adjoint au sous-Directeur des sites et paysages
Ministère de l'Environnement
20 Avenue de Ségur, 75302 Paris 07 SP

Mme VINCENT
Chargée de Mission Formation en patrimoine
Centre des Hautes Etudes de Chaillot
1 Place du Trocadéro, 75116 Paris

Mlle Eva CAILLART
Chargée de Mission
Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication
DAPA, 8 rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris

Mme Anne LEWIS-LOUBIGNAC
Délégué permanent adjoint de la France auprès de l'UNESCO
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Olivier POISSON
Inspecteur général des Monuments Historiques
Ministère de la Culture
2 Bis rue Manuel, 66000 Perpignan

Mme Catherine DUMESNIL
Conseillère technique
Commission nationale française pour l'UNESCO
57 Bd des Invalides, 75700 Paris SP

M. Gérard CHIODO
Directeur
Ecole d'Architecture de Paris-Ile-de-France
41 Allée le Corbusier, 92023 Nanterre

M. Antoine THELAMON
Stagiaire, Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

GERMANY / ALLEMAGNE

Mr Hans CASPARY
Conservateur
Monuments Historiques Rhenanie-Palatinat
Schillerstra. 44, D-55156 Mainz

Mr Michael WORBS
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Germany to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

GREECE / GRECE

Mme Hélène METHODIOU
Conseiller pour la Culture
Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr Nicolas KALOGERAS
Professor
School of Architecture National University
42 Patission Str., Athens 10682

HONDURAS

S. Exc. Mme Sonia MENDIETA DE BADAROUX
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent de Honduras auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr J.C. BENDANA-PINEL
Délégué permanent adjoint de Honduras auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

IRAN

Mr Jarad SAFAEI
Conseiller
Permanent Delegation of Iran to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

IRAQ / IRAK

M. Iyad AFLAK
Conseiller
Délégation permanente de l'Irak auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

JORDAN

Ms Janette BERMAMET
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Jordan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

KAZAKHSTAN

Mr Rustam MUZAFAROV
First Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Kazakhstan to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

LEBANON / LIBAN

M. Samia MOUKARZEL
Délégation permanente du Liban auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mme Carla JAZZAR
Délégué permanent adjoint
Délégation permanente du Liban auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Assaad SEIF
Archéologue
Direction Générale des Antiquités du Liban
Musée National, rue de Damas, Beyrouth

MEXICO / MEXIQUE

Lic. Dámaso LUNA CORONA
Director General de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente
Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores
Av. Veracruz 101

M. Francisco Javier LOPEZ MORALES
Deputy Director
INAH
Correo Mayor 11, Centro Historico Mexico D.F.

Ministro José SANCHEZ GUTIERREZ
Representante Permanente Alterno de México ante la UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Mexico to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Oscar RAMIREZ
Director General de Investigación de los Procesos de Desarrollo Sustentable
Instituto Nacional de Pesca
Ministry of Environment (SEMARNAP)
Pitagoras # 1320
Col. Sta Cruz Atoyac, Mexico 03310 D.F.

Biólogo David GUTIERREZ CARBONEL
Director General Adjunto de Manejo y Conservación de las Areas Naturales Protegidas
Instituto Nacional de Ecología
Revolucion # 1425, 14000, Mexico D.F.

Mr Alejandro MONTEAGUDO
Deputy Director for Environmental Affairs
Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development
Alfonso Reyes N° 30, 1^st Floor, Mexico D.F.,
C.P. 06140

NEPAL

Mr Indra Bahadur SINGH
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate of Nepal to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

NETHERLANDS / PAYS-BAS

Dr. Robert de JONG
Co-ordinator Netherlands Department for Conservation World Heritage UNESCO
President ICOMOS-IFLA Committee
P.O. Box 1001, 3700 BA Zeist

Mr Fred SCHOORL
Head Immovable Heritage Division
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
Post Box 2500, 2700 LZ, Zoekimeer

NIGER

M. Amadou TCHEKO
Délégué permanent adjoint du Niger auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Alioune Sylla ALADJI-BONI
Directeur des Forêts et des Ressources Naturelles
B.P. 393 Cotonou

M. Seyni SEYDOU
Directeur, Parc national du W du Niger
Direction de la Faune, Pêche et Pisciculture
Ministère de l'Hydraulique et de l'Environnement
B.P. 721 Niamey

NIGERIA

M. Yémi LIJADU
Permanent Delegation of Nigeria to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Dr Yaro GELLA
National Commission for Museums and Monuments
Abuja, 2018 Cotonou Crescent, Wuse Zone 6

Dr Joseph EBOREIME
Co-ordinator Nigerian World Heritage Committee
National Commission for Museums and Monuments
PO Box 1115, Benin City

NORWAY / NORVEGE

Ms Ingunn KVISTEROY
Nordic World Heritage Office
Postbox 8196 Dep., N-0034 Oslo

PANAMA

Ms Maria Elena DE AGUILAR
Déléguée permanente adjointe du Panama auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

PERU / PEROU

S. Exc. Mme Maria Luisa FEDERICI
Ambassadeur, Délégué permanent du Pérou auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Dra. Josefina TAKAHASI
Jefa del Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA)
Calle Diecisiete 355, San Isidra, Lima

Sr. Miguel PAZOS RIVERA
Asesor de la Alta Dirección del Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INC)
Av. Javier Prado Este, 2465, Lima
Ministro Alberto CARRION TEJADA
Deputy Permanent Delegate of Peru to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Carlos VASQUEZ
Premier Secrétaire
Délégation permanente du Pérou auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

PHILIPPINES

Ms Deanna ONGPIN-RECTO
First Secretary/Senior Foreign Affairs Adviser for UNESCO
Permanent Delegation of Philippines to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

POLAND / POLOGNE

Prof. Andrzej TOMASZEWSKI
Ministère de la Culture
Varsovie, Krakowskie Przedmiescie, 26

ROMANIA / ROUMANIE

M. Aurelian TRISCU
Architecte, Vice-président de la Commission nationale des Monuments Historiques
Ministère de la Culture, Piafa Presei Libere, Bucarest

Mr Ion MACOVEI
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Roumanie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

SAUDI ARABIA / ARABIE SAOUDITE

Mr Abdulaziz BIN SALAMAH
Permanent Delegate of Saudi Arabia to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

SLOVAKIA /SLOVAQUIE

Mr Jozef HLAVAC
Director
Slovak Show Cave Organisation
Hodaova 11, Liptovske Mikulas

Mr Jozef KLINDA
Director General
Ministry of the Environment
Namestie L. Stura 1, 812 35 Bratislava

Ms Katarina NOVAKOVA
Director ing.
Centre for the Protection of Cultural Landscape and Natural Heritage
Kammerhofska 26, Banska Stiavnica

SOUTH AFRICA / AFRIQUE DU SUD

Ms Juanita PASTOR-MAKHURANE
Heritage Resources Manager
Robben Island Museum, Robben Island, 7400

Mr Karl NAUDE
Assistant Director, Biodiversity Management
Dept. of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
P/Bag 441 Pretoria

Mr Devandhran MOODLEY
Permanent Delegation of South Africa to UNESCO
Embassy of South Africa
59 Quai d'Orsay, 75007 Paris

Mr MAKGOLO
Acting Deputy Director, Cultural Resources Management
Dept. of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
P.O. Box 447, Pretoria 0001

Dr Stephen TIBA
Chief Director
Biodiversity and Heritage
Dept. of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag 447, Pretoria

SPAIN / ESPAGNE

H.E. D. Jesús EZQUERRA
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Spain to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

D. Antonio NUÑEZ GARCIA-SAUCO
Director General de Relaciones Culturales
Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores

D. Luis LAFUENTE BATANERO
Subdirector General Protección Patrimonio Histórico
Dirección General Bellas Artes y Bienes Culturales

D. Alberto RUIZ DEL PORTAL
Director de Parques Nacionales
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente

D. Pablo BENAVIDES
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Spain to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

D. Jesús CASAS
Dirección de Parques Nacionales
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente

Da Mónica FERNANDEZ MUÑOZ
Jefa Servicio Inventario
Subdirección General Protección Patrimonio Histórico

Dra. Clara BARREIDO
Consejera de Educación y Cultura, Delegación Permanente de España

Mr Juan Carlos RODRIGUEZ ACOSTA
Vicerrector de Cultura
Universidad de las Palmas de Graw Canaris
Juan de Quesada 30, 35001 Las Palmas de Graw Canaris

SWEDEN / SUEDE

Ms Birgitta HOBERG
Senior International Officer
National Heritage Board
P.O. Box 5405, 11484 Stockholm

Mr Lars WILSON
Head, Division for Cultural Heritage
Ministry of Culture
SE-103 33 Stockholm

Mr Rolf LÖFGREN
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Mr Jan LUNDQVIST
Expert, Country Administration of the Province of Västernorrland

Mr Jan TURTINEN
Expert, University of Stockholm
Score SE-10691 Stockholm

SWITZERLAND / SUISSE

S. Exc. Mme Sylvie MATTEUCCI
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de la Suisse auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mme Nicole WYRSCH
Conseiller (Education, Science et Culture)
Délégation permanente de la Suisse auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

THAILAND / THAILANDE

Prof. Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROEN
Chairman, National Committee for Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Pibunwattana, Rama 6 Road, Bangkok 10400

Mr Manit SIRIWAN
Secretary, National Commission on the Protection of the World Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Pibunwattana, Rama 6 Road, Bangkok 10400

Mrs Siriporn NANTA
Assistant Secretary, National Committee for Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning
60/1 Pibunwattana, Rama 6 Road, Bangkok 10400

TUNISIA / TUNISIE

Ms Dhouha BOUKHRIS
Délégué permanent adjoint de la Tunisie auprès de l'UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

M. Jamel THLIBI
Directeur
Agence nationale de Protection Environnement
B.P. 52 Tunis-Belvédère

TURKEY / TURQUIE

M. Muzaffer ADALI
Chercheur
12 rue du Bac, 75007 Paris

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA / REPUBLIQUE-UNIE DE TANZANIE

Mr Mohammed S. SHEYA
Deputy Permanent Delegate of the United Republic of Tanzania to UNESCO
13 Avenue Raymond Poincaré, 75116 Paris

UNITED KINGDOM / ROYAUME-UNI

Mr Nigel PITTMAN
Dept. for Culture, Media and Sport
2-4 Cocurpur St. London SW1Y 5DH, U.K.

Mr Christopher YOUNG
Director for Hadrian's Wall
English Heritage, Abbey Gate House, Market St.
Hewham, Northumberland, England NEU6 3LJ

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE

Ms Karen KOVACS
Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife Parks
Department of the Interior
1849 C. Str., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240, U.S.A.

Mr John J. REYNOLDS
Regional Director
Pacific West Region
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
San Francisco

Mr William W. McILHENNY
United States Observer to UNESCO
United States Embassy
2 Avenue Gabriel, Paris

Mr James H. CHARLETON
International Cooperation Specialist
Office of the International Affairs
National Park Service
Department of the Interior
1849 C. Str., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240

VENEZUELA

Mr Hiram GAVIRIA
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Venezuela to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Ms Clarelena AGOSTINI
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Venezuela to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Ms Cristiane ENGELBRECHT
Second Secretary
Permanent Delegation of Venezuela to UNESCO
1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15

Ing. Jorge ROMERO
Director General
Sectorial de Parques Nacionales

Lic. Jaqueline MENDOZA
Directora de la Oficina de Desarrollo Profesional y Relaciones Internacionales

ZIMBABWE

Mr Dawson MUNJERI
Executive Director
National Museums and Monuments
Box CY 1485 Causeway, Harare

(ii) UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATIONS

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

Mr Andrew PARSONS
United Nations Environment Programme
Tour Mirabeau -- 39-43 quai André Citroén
75739 Paris Cedex 15

(iii) NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS /
ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (FOE)

Mr Ben OQUIST
Friends of the Earth
P.O. Box A474 Sydney South 1235
53 rue Ramus, 75020 Paris

Mr Lincoln SILIAKUS
Friends of the Earth
121 rue de Rennes, 75006 Paris

WORLD ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONGRESS

Prof. Rob LAYTON
The World Archaeological Congress
Anthropology Dept., University of Dunham
43 Old Elvet, Dunham DH1 3HN, U.K.

AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

Mr Dave SWEENEY
Australian Conservation Foundation
340 Gore Street, Fitzroy,
Victoria 3065 Australia

GREENPEACE

Mr Rob GUETERBOCK
Campaigner, Greenpeace UK
Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN
United Kingdom

Mr Simon REDDY
Greenpeace International
Keizergradht 176, 1016 DW, Amsterdam, Netherlands

GUNDJEHMI ABORIGINAL CORPORATION

Ms Jacqueline KATENA
Executive Officer
Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation
PO Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia

Mr Mathew FAGAN
Legal Policy Officer
Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation
PO Box 245 Jabiru NT 0886 Australia

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr Alec MARR
National Campaign Director
The Wilderness Society
130 Davey St. Hobart Tasmania, Australia 7000

Ms Christine MILNE
The Wilderness Society
130 Davey St. Hobart Tasmania, Australia 7000

SIERRA CLUB

Mr Stephen MILLS
Director, International Program
Sierra Club
408 C Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20002 USA

SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL

M. Jean-Patrick RAZON
Directeur
Survival International (France)
45 rue du Faubourg du Temple, 75010 Paris, France

Melle Sara FEUERSTEIN
Chargée de la Communication
Survival International (France)
45 rue du Faubourg du Temple, 75010 Paris, France

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr Hemmo Jan MINTINSH
Senior Policy Consultant
Habitat for Animals Program, International Fund for Animal Welfare
13 rue Boduogrant, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium

UNITED NATIONS FOUNDATION

Mr Nicholas LAPHAM
Program officer for Environment , United Nations Foundation
1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 USA

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE / CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL POUR LA SCIENCE

Prof. Brian WILKINSON
Leader of Independent Scientific Panel (Kakadu)
International Council for Science
Conseil International des Unions
51 Bd de Montmorency
75016 Paris

Ms Anne LARIGAUDERIE
International Council for Science
Conseil International des Unions
51 Bd de Montmorency
75016 Paris

(iv) NON PROFIT-MAKING INSTITUTION

NAMGYAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Ms Amita BAIG
Heritage Manager Consultant
Namgyal Research Institute
8 A Hauz Khas, New Delhi, India

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT

Mr Justin O'BRIEN
Representive of the Australian Democrats
Level 1, Wellington Parade, East Melbourne 3002
Australia

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr John RISHEL
Congressional Staff
U.S. House of Representatives
1413 A Longworth Hob, Washington, D.C. 20515
U.S.A.

Mr Kurt CHRISTENSEN
Professional Staff
U.S. House of Representatives
Lhob, Washington D.C., 20515, U.S.A.

(v) NGO OR NON PROFIT MAKING INSTITUTIONS WHICH WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE AS OBSERVERS

WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL MEDIA GROUP Inc.

Ms Joan VEON
Executive Director
The Women's International Media Group Inc.
P.O. Box 77, Middletown MD 21769, U.S.A.

IV. UNESCO SECRETARIAT / SECRETARIAT DE L'UNESCO

Mr M. IACCARINO
Assistant Director-General , Science Sector

World Heritage Centre / Centre du patrimoine mondial

Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKI
Director

Mr Georges ZOUAIN
Deputy Director

Ms Minja YANG
Director, Asia/Pacific Region

Ms Galia SAOUMA-FORERO
Mr Natarajan ISHWARAN
Mr Herman van HOOFF
Ms Elizabeth WANGARI
Ms Mechtild ROSSLER
Ms Sarah TITCHEN
Ms Josette ERFAN
Ms Junko TANIGUCHI
Mr Peter STRASSER
Ms Vesna VUJICIC-LUGASSY
Mr Feng JING
Mr Stéphane DUCLOT
Ms Joanna SULLIVAN
Mr Peter STOTT
Ms Jane DEGEORGES
Ms Jocelyne POUTEAU
Ms Marianne RAABE
Mr David MARTEL
Ms Claire SERVOZ
Ms Marie-Christine BOTTE
Ms Réjane HERVE
Ms Laeticia MAUCOURANT
Ms Vittoria FRESCO

Bureau for Coordination of Environmental Programme / Bureau de Coordination du Programme d'Environnement

Mr Thomas SCHAAF

Division of Ecological Sciences / Division des Sciences Ecologiques

M BRIDGEWATER, Director a.i.
Ms M. JARDIN

Ms J. ROBERTSON
M. Sami MANKOTO

Division of Cultural Heritage / Division du Patrimoine culturel

M L. LEVI-STRAUSS

UNESCO Office / Bureau de l'UNESCO

M. Celso Salatino SCHENKEL
Bureau de l'UNESCO
SAS Q5 L6 11^e étage, CEP 70775-100
Brasilia - Brésil

Annex II

Speech of the Assistant Director-General of Natural Sciences for UNESCO

Ambassador Matsuura, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Your Excellencies, Members of the Bureau and Observers, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Colleagues,

It is a great honour and a pleasure for me to open the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee on behalf of the Director-General.

The growing international interest and support for the World Heritage Convention is witnessed year after year by the increasing number of participants who come from all regions of the world as part of the Member and Observer Delegations to the annual Committee sessions, as well as to the Bureau sessions held twice a year.

Requests to observe these sessions also abound from elected Members of the Parliament, of local authorities, and representatives of non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations.

This can only be an indication that concerns over our environment, both natural and built, have now spread beyond the confines of governmental institutions and out into the streets. Citizens around the world are now, more than ever, aware that a threat to the environment in one corner of the earth is a threat to us all.

The globalisation of the world economy through the interdependence of its components have made it all the more necessary that those who struggle to conserve the environment also unite to ensure that the efforts at the local and national levels are strengthened by the support of other nations and their citizens. In this regard, the World Heritage Convention provides a formidable mechanism of international solidarity.

Today, with 156 States Parties to the Convention, and close to 600 World Heritage sites, I believe that the authority and power of our Convention has grown far beyond the limits imagined by the founders of the Convention. But helas, it remains woefully inadequate.

Members of the Bureau, you have before you a heavy agenda. With some 80 state of conservation reports to examine and over 70 new nominations to evaluate for the decision of the Committee later this year, the responsibilities in your hands are greater than ever before. Behind the words summarizing each case, assiduously prepared by the Advisory Bodies and the Secretariat, that make up the voluminous documents that have reached you through the internet and mail, are years, if not decades of work of individuals and institutions committed to the cause of conservation.

You are here, gathered today, at the pinnacle of this effort. But far from being an end, it is an important part of the World Heritage conservation process to protect the heritage of outstanding universal value. The examples that are set by your work will also serve to protect many other sites of national and local value, equally important to humankind.

On behalf of the Director-General, allow me to reiterate his personal commitment and that of UNESCO, to further strengthen our efforts to serve the Committee and through it, the States Parties and their citizens in the vital work to ensure the protection of the world's cultural and natural diversity. The Director-General has asked me to convey his deep gratitude to you, the Members of the Bureau, for having worked closely with the Secretariat in preparing the work of the Committee and the General Assembly. In this regard, he hopes that the on-going effort by the Committee to guide the Secretariat in optimizing its effectiveness and those of the statutory organs of the Convention will continue.

These months leading to this Bureau session have been particularly difficult for the Secretariat in dealing with the multitude of tasks entrusted to us by the Committee, and in meeting the growing demands from conservation groups and the general public. The transition phase after the retirement of Mr Bernd von Droste and the arrival of Mr Mounir Bouchenaki as Director of the World Heritage Centre, I am sure you will agree, has been smooth. And this has been in large part thanks to the excellent leadership provided over the past months by His Excellency Ambassador Matsuura, as Chairperson to the Committee.

Finally, permit me to conclude by transmitting the Director-General's best wishes to you in the deliberation of the tasks before you.

Thank you.

Annex III

Statement by Australia on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

· The Great Barrier Reef is a massive and complex property. It is bigger than the Italian peninsula and only slightly smaller than Japan.

· It has a full range of IUCN categories - it is a multiple use area, not just IUCN categories I and II.

· The IUCN report identifies a number of issues which have the potential to impact in the long-term in parts of the GBR World Heritage Area. It also highlights concerns about the possible long term impact of climate change. It does not suggest that any of these issues mean the GBRWHA is currently `in danger'.

· Australia is already addressing all of the points raised by IUCN:
· To meet the emerging challenges in the GBRWHA, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was restructured by the Government in 1998 to more specifically address the four most critical issues in the Marine Park: namely, fisheries; tourism and recreation; water quality and coastal development; and the maintenance of conservation, biodiversity and World Heritage values.

· a Representative Areas Program was commenced in 1996 to review the identification and distribution of broad-scale habitats occurring in the GBRWHA (refer to the `Overview' document). This program aims to ensure that representative areas of all broad scale habitats/communities are identified for highly protected categories (IUCN I or II) by the end of 2000. I would point out the extent of IUCN category I & II areas alone in the GBRWHA cover 15,000 sq km (this alone is bigger than most other Marine Protected Areas anywhere in the world!).

· The report makes 29 recommendations - most of which can be supported by the Australian Government in full or in substantial part.

· There must be a real question for the Committee whether a report of this complexity and with a long list of detailed recommendations puts it more in the position of a manager than a high level policy body.

· We therefore agree with IUCN there are advantages in further consultation between IUCN and Australia to see if these recommendations can be simplified and consolidated.

It is important that monitoring reports produced for the World Heritage Bureau and Committee are carefully coordinated with GBRMPA's five-yearly State of the Reef Report as well as its other monitoring programs. As much as it is possible we should only be asking the Authority to collect and publish information once to meet its reporting obligations, domestic and international on the state of the Reef.

Annex IV

STATEMENT OF MEXICO REGARDING THE SANCTUARY OF EL VIZCAINO

The Government of Mexico is grateful to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee for the opportunity to update information on the Vizcaino Sanctuary.

First of all, the Government of Mexico wishes to reaffirm its political will to comply fully with its obligations as Party the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Second, I wish to report that, pursuant the decisions adopted at the Meeting of the Bureau in Kyoto, on December 1998, the Government of Mexico has invited the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to send a Mission to assess the state of conservation of the "Ojo de Liebre" and "San Ignacio" lagoons, located in the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve.

In this regard, the Government of Mexico reiterates its willingness to receive the UNESCO Mission as soon as possible and, consequently, takes this opportunity to present:

· A third proposal of dates for conducting the mission.

· Mexico's consent with the proposal of experts designated by the World Heritage Centre.

· The Mexican experts who will join the Mission.

· The Mission's programme, in accordance already agreed terms of reference.

On behalf of my Government, I also wish to clarify two specific points regarding the Mission:

· It's mandate should be the one agreed at the Kyoto Meeting.

· The Mission's recommendations should be based on the best available scientific evidence.

In the other hand, while the Government of Mexico recognize the importance of transparency and full participation of all stakeholders, we are also convinced that the treatment of this cases should be govern by the principles and criteria of the Convention. Therefore the case of El Vizcaino should not be judged through political or emotional arguments nor through a media debate.

The Government of Mexico considers that the Mission's efforts should be aimed at determining whether the fundamental values of the Site have changed, as a result of current problems, and, as appropriate, to demonstrate on scientific basis any potential threats.

Since the Bureau Meeting held in Kyoto, the Government of Mexico has provided the World Heritage Centre with reports on the Site's state of conservation in view of the comments made by the Centre's scientific advisory body. This additional information has not been reflected in the report to the Bureau as part of the new developments related to the case.

Mexico's reports broadly reflect the extensive scientific investigations that various national and international research institutions have been conducting for several decades. As specified in the agreed terms of reference for the Mission, these researches could be reviewed.

While the Mission is in Mexico, we hope to have the opportunity to review the scientific evidence that substantiates the reports that several organizations and individuals have sent to the Centre and to IUCN.

Meanwhile, it should once again be noted that this year the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission has recognized that the Northwest Pacific gray whale population continues to grow, based on evidences provided by institutions and researchers of Mexico and other countries.

Finally, the comments formulated by the Government of Mexico at the Kyoto Meeting remain valid. In this regard, we wish to reiterate the following remarks:

· The Government of Mexico has neither authorized, nor evaluating at this time any project to establish salt production facility at Laguna San Ignacio. Consequently, the indications of actual problems at the site are groundless.

· Compliance with Mexican legislation, as well as with the environmental and socio-economic criteria established by the International Committee of Experts of member countries of the International Whaling Commission is a prerequisite that must be fulfilled by any project that is to be carried out at the Site, or to be submitted in the future to the pertinent national competent authority.

· Salt production in areas adjacent to the Site included on the World Heritage List is subject to national regulations that are being fully enforced. The company has been audited in 1996, and as result of such process 150 corrective measures have been applied. Meanwhile, my Government considers that it is inappropriate that the scientific advisory body evaluates compliance of the Mexican regulations, as it exceeds its authority.

· The Government of Mexico is conducting a thorough investigation of the sea turtle deaths recorded in 1997 and, until that investigation has been concluded, it is premature to attribute them to causes not based on science.

· There has not been new human settlements in El Vizcaino .

Annex V

VENEZUELAN POSITION REGARDING THE UNESCO- IUCN EXPERT

MISSION TO EVALUATE THE CANAIMA NATIONAL PARK SITUATION

AS A SITE ON THE WORLD NATURAL HERITAGE LIST

Paris, France, 5 July 1999

On behalf of the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources and of the President of the National Institute of Parks of Venezuela, we would like to thank UNESCO's World Heritage Centre for the opportunity to express our opinion concerning Canaima National Park, without doubt one of the most important sites of World Natural Heritage due to its exceptional universal values.

Our participation in this meeting is an authentic demonstration of the Venezuelan Government's interest in maintaining the entire National Park as a World Natural Heritage site. We are aware of the necessity of reinforcing our environmental monitoring and actions with the help of the Pemon community, native inhabitants of these valuable lands which every day face the threat of various types of economical interests.

For this reason the new administration of the Ministry of Environment has outlined as a fundamental objective, the reclaiming of control over Venezuela's environment, in order to guarantee the preservation of the said environment and of natural resources for present and future generations. This governmental action will be enforced in all our protected natural areas, especially in those where native communities are settled.

The UNESCO - IUCN mission that visited our country last May noted in its report our position - which we share with the representatives of the Gran Sabana native community, with non governmental environmental organizations, with the Venezuelan Congress and with the members of the IUCN national committee - to maintain Canaima National Park as a World Heritage site, exactly as it was initially included on the World Heritage List in 1994.

The mission stated that Canaima is and continues to be a site worthy of being declared a Natural World Heritage site. Therefore, we do not believe it to be necessary to redefine its border or to take any other measure that could diminish its status or position on the World Heritage List. We do agree with the UNESCO mission to immediately create an action plan to solve the problems observed in Canaima.

It is important to point out the actions that have already been implemented in Venezuela to restrain and monitor mining and forestry activities close to the Park in the Imataca Forest Reserve. We will establish a buffer zone in the Lema Sierra, which will constitute an extension of the entire protected zone of the Northern border of the Canaima National Park.

On the other hand, measures of surveillance will be reinforced on the Southern border of the protected zone. We will study at the same time the possibility of including the "tepuyes" in the Eastern region on the Natural World Heritage List, as well as to put the "humedales" on the Ramsar site list, located on the left borderline of "troncal" 10, outside of the Eastern border of the Park.

Concerning the electrical line, we agree with the mission's conclusion that it is not compatible with the image of a National Park. Ideally it should not have been built anywhere within the Park. However, it is necessary to recognize that it was built with the minimum possible impact on nature. It is important to mention that the competent bodies of the Ministry of Environment are consulting at present with the native communities and with the parties involved with the electrical line problem in order to correct technical details and to define measures to curb the resulting social and environmental impacts.

We welcome the mission's recommendations but wish to stress that the problems observed in Canaima can be found in any other National Park in the world. These problems do not justify in any way its inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger. With the firm intention of preserving this site for present and future generations, we request technical and financial support from UNESCO to hold an international workshop in Canaima to make the Pemon native community and the other involved parties aware of the action plan recommended by the UNESCO - IUCN mission.

Finally, we reaffirm the exceptional universal values that distinguish Canaima National Park as a World Heritage site for Humanity. We wish to thank again the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for this opportunity and particularly to thank the UNESCO - IUCN experts, Mr. Rosabal and Mr. Oliveira, who visited us recently.

Annex VI.1

Statement by the Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Robert Hill to the World Heritage Bureau, UNESCO. Paris, July 7, 1999

Mr Chairman

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Bureau on an issue, which is important not only for Australia, but also for the further development of the World Heritage Convention.

I take the opportunity to reaffirm Australia's support for the principles espoused in the World Heritage Convention.

Australia remains, however, resolutely opposed to the listing of the Kakadu World Heritage Area on the "in danger" list.

We do so on two grounds.

Firstly, the facts, when presented free of the emotion which has surrounded this issue to date, simply do not support such a listing.

They indicate, in fact, that Australia has set in place a system of management and protective measures for Kakadu which represents world's best practice.

Secondly. Australia has said consistently that the Committee cannot list a property against the objections of a Member State. This has been confirmed by independent legal advice.

KAKADU HISTORY

Kakadu is an issue which the Committee has addressed on three separate occasions dating back to 1981

The original inscription of Kakadu in 1981 was made with the knowledge that there were three separate, clearly defined uranium mining leases, one of which was Jabiluka.

The Committee revisited the issue in 1987 and 1992 as Stages II and III of the Kakadu National Park were assessed and accorded world heritage status.

These additional inscriptions were made at a time when the Committee had had several years to assess any impact of the Ranger uranium mine which had been operational since 1981.

Ranger, a large open cut uranium mine, has now been operational for more than 18 years. It is the most intensively monitored uranium mine in the world.

The independent office of the Supervising Scientist has advised that the Ranger Mine has had no adverse environmental impact on Kakadu National Park.

It would be directly inconsistent with the Committee's previous decisions to now rule that an underground mine with a significantly smaller physical impact than Ranger could be considered a threat to world heritage values.

Under the preferred Jabiluka option, the mine would cover less than one square kilometre while the Park itself stretches over almost 20,000 square kilometres.

It has undergone a rigorous and transparent environmental assessment process lasting almost three years.

The monitoring systems and regulatory measures put in place for the operation of Jabiluka have drawn on the 18 years experience at Ranger.

The volumes of evidence from the operation of Ranger along with the additional information provided by Australia in response to the Committee's concerns about Jabiluka should give the Committee every confidence that the world heritage values of Kakadu will be managed and protected in a manner consistent with the Convention and consistent with world's best practice.

For the Committee to hold otherwise would be, in effect, to change the rules after nearly 20 years in a manner which is grossly unfair to the State party - Australia.

CULTURAL ISSUES

Australia has also been a sensitive manager of the cultural values of Kakadu.

All recognised indigenous sacred sites on the Jabiluka lease will be protected under Australian law.

Australia recognises there is some disagreement, including disagreement between relevant indigenous communities, over the extent and significance of certain sites. These sites are not in the world heritage area.

Even so, Australia is committed to developing a comprehensive cultural management plan for the Jabiluka lease and is seeking the cooperation of the traditional owners.

Under Australian law, mining on indigenous land in the Northern Territory is prohibited without the consent of the traditional owners. This right is not available to non-indigenous Australians, reflecting a recognition of the special link between indigenous Australians and their land.

In this instance, the Mirrar, along with other affected Aboriginals, gave their informed consent to mining on the Jabiluka lease in 1982. This was reiterated in 1991. The current senior traditional owner does not support mining. However the regional Aboriginal body upholds the legitimacy of the agreement.

Australia is also conscious that there is a wide range of views among traditional owners of Kakadu on the issue of mining. The Mirrar are the traditional owners of less than five per cent of Kakadu National Park in addition to the Jabiluka lease. The traditional owners of the other 95% of Kakadu have not indicated support for the in danger" listing, and many of them support mining for the economic, cultural and social benefits it can deliver.

Australia, and the Committee, must consider the hopes and aspirations of all traditional owners living within Kakadu National Park.

AUSTRALIA'S RECORD

Against this background, Australia has demonstrated a level of commitment to the World Heritage Convention that is second to none.

For example

*Australia was one of the first nations to ratify the Convention.
*Australia is the only nation in the world with domestic legislation that specifically implements the Convention.
*No country in the world has more natural sites on the World Heritage List than Australia.
*We have management plans in place or under preparation for all our World Heritage properties
*Australia spends more than $50 million each year on our World Heritage properties (in addition to the amount spent by provincial governments).

We are particularly proud of our record in protecting Kakadu National Park.

We have established and maintained an innovative joint management arrangement with the traditional owners of the Park.

We are successfully protecting an area of 20, 000 square kilometres - an area nearly twice the size of Lebanon.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Jabiluka lease is outside of Kakadu National Park and was specifically excluded for the purposes of uranium mining, Australia would never have approved the new mine without being absolutely satisfied that it would not threaten a park we regard as a national treasure.

In order to be certain that Kakadu will not be damaged, we have imposed the world's most stringent and rigorous regulatory and monitoring regime. The regime is enforced by two levels of government - the national government and the government of the Northern Territory.

The Northern Territory Deputy Chief Minister is here today to reinforce the commitment from both levels of government to strictly enforce that regime.

ADDITIONAL MEASURES

Australian governments at both national and provincial levels have the greatest confidence in our environment protection measures. We have, nevertheless, sought to respond in good faith to the issues raised by the Mission to Kakadu and subsequently by the ICSU and advisory bodies to the Committee.

Australia prepared a detailed response to the Mission report and through the Supervising Scientist we have undertaken further scientific analysis to refine environmental requirements and provide an even greater degree of certainty that Kakadu National Park is under no threat.

Having listened carefully to the comments from other state parties. Australia has also developed further assurances on the environmental, social and cultural issues which we will put to the Committee for its consideration.

These measures will:

-Enhance the existing environmental protection regime governing Jabiluka and Kakadu;
-Address the social and economic conditions of the Aboriginal communities living in Kakadu; and
-Provide additional assurance that the cultural values of the Park - including those of the Mirrar - are protected.

In addition. in consultation with ERA, the company which holds the Jabiluka lease, we will be responding to the expressed concerns of some Committee members about the potential impact on the natural values of the Park if both the existing mine at Ranger and the new mine at Jabiluka were in full commercial production at the same time. I can say now that this will not occur.

We would be prepared to respond constructively to any further reasonable requests that the Committee may put forward in discharging its duty.

CONCLUSION

In summary, Australia has always been and remains firmly committed to the World Heritage Convention. We have addressed the issues raised in relation to Kakadu National Park in good faith.

We believe that Kakadu is securely protected and that there is no basis for listing it as "in danger". We urge the Bureau and the Committee to recognise the efforts Australia has made to protect Kakadu and to respect the provisions of the Convention which would prevent an "in danger" listing in the absence of Australia's consent.

We look forward to concluding this issue next Monday in a way which promotes the cooperation amongst parties on which the Convention is based.

Annex VI.2

JOINT ICCROM, ICOMOS AND IUCN STATEMENT

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK, AUSTRALIA

BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-third session

Mr Chairman

ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN thank you and the members of the Bureau for the opportunity to highlight a number of key issues concerning ascertained and potential dangers posed to Kakadu National Park by the Jabiluka mine.

We are of course aware of the political dimensions of this issue. However these factors lie outside of our mandate and competence. They underline however that when issues have a sharp political dimension, it is especially important to be objective and to ensure that the provisions and standards of the Convention are closely adhered to, so that procedural fairness and the expectations of the Contracting Parties, and the peoples they represent, may be achieved.

In light of this mandate the three advisory bodies believe it is also important to highlight the Committee's own guidelines for inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the list of World Heritage in Danger. Specifically:

Cultural properties are held to face an Ascertained Danger when the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as .... Important loss of cultural significance.

Cultural properties are held to face potential danger when the property is faced with threats which could have deleterious effect on its inherent characteristics.

Natural properties are held to face an ascertained danger when the property is faced with specific and proven imminent danger, such as ... severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by human settlement, ....... Industrial and agricultural development .... major public works, mining etc.

Natural properties are held to face potential danger when the property is faced with major threats which could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats include ... planned development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts threaten the property.

We reiterate that the World Heritage Mission to Kakadu believed these guidelines to have been met and noted "severe ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka". The Mission therefore recommended: "that the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed."

At its 22^nd Session in Kyoto in November 1998, the World Heritage Committee "recognised the report of the mission to Kakadu National Park as being both thorough and credible

In reviewing the response of the Australian Government concerning the mitigation of threats posing ascertained and potential dangers to Kakadu National Park by the Jabiluka mine, we have sought to assess whether this response removes the concerns identified by the Mission and confirmed by the Committee relating to the ascertained and potential dangers to the site.

The concerns expressed by the Mission and recognised by the Committee at its 22^nd Session focused upon three principal issues. These can be summarised as concerns over:

(i) scientific uncertainties and the application of the Precautionary Principle (Recom-mendation 2);
(ii) visual encroachment on the integrity of Kakadu National Park (Recommendation 3);
(iii) a series of threats to the cultural values of the Park (Recommendations 4,5,6,7 and 8).

ICOMOS and ICCROM will focus on the threats to the cultural values. IUCN will therefore address the concerns for the natural values.

1. Scientific Uncertainties and the Precautionary Principle.

IUCN welcomes the report of the Australian Supervising Scientist Group which we believe responds to a number of the concerns identified by the World Heritage Mission. However we are concerned that this report confirms the existence of uncertainties despite the extensive process of EIA including the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the Public Environmental Review (PER), that has been pursued in approving the Jabiluka mine project and allowing excavation of the mine decline to proceed over the course of the past year. Specifically the review of areas of scientific uncertainty by the Supervising Scientist has both identified "areas for improvement in the hydrological model" and highlighted issues that need to be addressed in the "detailed design" of the water management system for Jabiluka. In other words, weaknesses in the mine design were recognised only following international review by the World Heritage Mission. Further the final design of the mine is not yet available, including for issues of major concern, notably the water retention system and disposal of tailings. While it may be argued that this level of uncertainty is normal in mine design, it is IUCN's view that it is of serious concern for a mine physically located within the boundaries of a World Heritage site. We therefore believe that the potential threat to the natural values of Kakadu as identified by the World Heritage Mission remains.

2. Visual Encroachment.

In its response to the World Heritage Mission the Government of Australia expressed its view that the evidence did not substantiate the "case for visual encroachment as a significant issue or as a threat". Having considered the arguments given for this response IUCN has reaffirmed its support for the view of the World Heritage Mission that the Jabiluka mine site "is readily visible from the air from where visitors making overflights are especially well able to appreciate the sweeping landscapes for which Kakadu was inscribed on the World Heritage List and is famous". The Mission Report also argued that "the visual impact of Jabiluka, 22km north of Ranger and Jabiru, is a distinct and significant additional impact" and concluded that the visual impact of the Jabiluka mine constitutes "an ascertained danger for the natural World Heritage values of Kakadu in that it constitutes a deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property".

Indeed these concerns have been strengthened by the report of the Supervising Scientist that recommends increasing the capacity of the retention pond at Jabiluka, an increase that has been estimated as being of the order of 50%. Similarly the 20km road has not yet been constructed, but will if the project proceeds. Both would aggravate the visual encroachment which we consider to already be severe.

In conclusion IUCN believes that Jabiluka does indeed constitute a significant additional impact on the visual integrity of the sweeping landscapes for which the Park is rightly recognised as being of universal natural value.

Annex VI.3

Statement read by the representative of ICOMOS

L'ICOMOS a étudié avec attention les réponses circonstanciées du Gouvernement du Commonwealth d'Australie aux graves préoccupations exprimées à Kyoto, en particulier quant aux respect des valeurs culturelles du Parc national du Kakadu. En dépit des importantes précisions apportées, l'ICOMOS considère que restent pertinentes la plupart des recommandations formulées par le Rapport de la mission UNESCO de 1998 et ses propres prises de position quant aux dangers réels et potentiels d'une exploitation minière sur le site de Jabiluka justifiant l'inscription du Parc national de Kakadu sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en danger.

Trois considérations majeures fondent, entre autres, cette conviction:

1. L'impact physique et symbolique de l'exploitation minière sur le patrimoine culturel.
Nul ne conteste le fait que l'enclave minière dans le site du patrimoine mondial renferme des lieux sacrés pour la population aborigène de la région ni l'importance spirituelle du site du Boiwek-Almudj et des pistes du "Dreaming" qui y sont associées. L'ICOMOS est persuadé que les opérations minières dans le sous-sol de cette zone de grande signification spirituelle pour le peuple Mirrar entraîneraient des dommages irréparables, à la fois tangibles et non tangibles, en violation des principes généraux de la conservation du patrimoine et, en particulier, du prescrit de la Convention du patrimoine mondial.

2. La relation de l'enclave minière avec les valeurs culturelles du site inscrit sur la Liste.
Les lieux sacrés situés dans l'enclave font partie d'un réseau bien plus étendu de sites d'importance spirituelle et de sentiers de "Dreaming" qui couvrent toute la région en une seule et même entité culturelle. Depuis la dernière extension du site, le cadre conceptuel de la Convention s'est enrichi du concept de paysage culturel qui, au titre de "paysage évolutif", caractérise le Parc national de Kakadu en tant que témoignage exceptionnel d'une tradition culturelle et d'une civilisation vivante. Aux yeux de L'ICOMOS, toutes dégradations importantes de ces sites sacrés, qu'elles soient physiques ou symboliques, à l'intérieur comme à l'extérieur du site inscrit, doivent être considérées comme une atteinte à l'intégrité du paysage culturel du Parc national de Kakadu dans son ensemble.

3. Les droits des propriétaires traditionnels.
Une occupation traditionnelle du site par la population aborigène depuis plus de 50.000 ans fonde la légitimité des relations particulières des Mirrar avec leurs terres, relations que reconnaît d'ailleurs le droit australien. Au-delà de droits fonciers ou coutumiers, une forme de droits culturels fondamentaux requiert leur participation aux décisions qui les concernent. L'ICOMOS considère qu'une reconnaissance effective des droits des propriétaires traditionnels est nécessaire pour que soient prises en compte les valeurs singulières dont ils assument l'héritage et qui sont inhérentes aux qualités culturelles du site. Comme le recommandait déjà le rapport de la mission UNESCO de 1998, il est impératif de restaurer la confiance et la communication et d'inviter instamment tous les partenaires concernés, autochtones ou non autochtones, à s'engager dans un dialogue interculturel pour assurer la conservation des valeurs patrimoniales exceptionnelles de Kakadu pour les générations futures.

Annex VI.4

Statement read by the representative of ICCROM

ICCROM has thus far focussed its attention on process and the necessary elements for objective analysis of the issues involved. ICCROM recognizes that objectivity in assessing cultural values and the impact of proposed actions on cultural values involves close attention to those for whom the values hold most meaning. In this context, the Preamble to the WHC's 1998 mission report emphasized the fundamental importance of "ensuring thorough and continuing participation, negotiation and communication with Aboriginal traditional owners.....in the conservation of the outstanding universal values of Kakadu for future generations."

The Mirrar people are legally the undisputed traditional owners and custodians of the Jabiluka area and hence are the undisputed spokespeople for the outstanding universal cultural associations cited under criterion (vi) of the Operational Guidelines. In this, they share with the Australian government the weight of responsibility for the conservation of the cultural values in this part of Kakadu.

Australia's Kakadu, the Australian Government's report of April 15, 1999, does not claim that the Government has fulfilled the WHC mission's above request for ensuring thorough and continuing dialogue with the traditional owners. The Mirrar, as traditional owners, continue to voice their strong belief that the cultural values of Kakadu are threatened by site works at Jabiluka.

We cannot dismiss these voices as coming from a negligibly small group of indigenous owners. The Mirrar , through the oral transmission of their traditions, beliefs and values, bear witness to a rare strand of human memory , unbroken for some 50,000 years. Indeed we believe that the Committee holds a responsibility to protect the vulnerable link between the Mirrar people and the land which has nourished them physically and spiritually for so long. Their claim, that the current site operations, particularly in the sacred Boyweg-Almudj area, are destroying the very fabric of their culture, deserves the most serious attention of the Committee.

ICCROM is of the opinion accordingly, that the outstanding cultural values of Kakadu National Park are, at this moment of time, in danger from ascertained and potential threats and that the site should be inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger.

In addition the results of the studies of the impact of dust and vibration from site works on significant rock art and archaeological sites are not yet available. With respect to these potential threats , ICCROM is therefore not in possesion of evidence to discount the impact of these threats. Accordingly, in the terms of the Convention, ICCROM must state that the existence of these potential threats also serves to warrant inscription of Kakadu on the World Heritage List in Danger.

The justification for inscription stated, ICCROM remains uncomfortable with the heavily polarized nature of this debate. In such a debate, which ends without reconciliation, the real loser is the World Heritage Convention and its moral power, as a unifying force for humanity. For that reason, inscription of the property on the World Heritage List in Danger should be accompanied by strenuous efforts to support dialogue between the Government of Australia, the Mirrar people and other key stakeholders, in order to foster approaches to site use which can meet their respective interests.
In conclusion Mr Chairman, and speaking now on behalf of the 3 advisory bodies (ICOMOS, ICCROM, IUCN), having reviewed the response of the Australian Government concerning the mitigation of threats posing ascertained and potential dangers to Kakadu National Park, we agree unanimously that the concerns identified by the World Heritage Mission and confirmed by the Committee remain. We therefore believe that the conditions exist for inscribing Kakadu on the List of World Heritage in Danger immediately.

We further believe that failure to do so after such an extensive process of analysis and review would risk diminishing the standards for which the World Heritage Convention enjoys such high international prestige.

Annex VI.5

Report from the leader of the independent scientific panel established by ICSU,

Professor Brian Wilkinson

WORLD HERITAGE SITE - KAKADU

1.
Chairman - Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation relating to the Independent Science Panel Report. This report is available in your Information Document WHC-99/CONF-204/INF.9E. At the outset it is important that the Bureau understands the Scientific Panel's structure and method of analysis. There were four members of the Independent Scientific Panel, which was established by ICSU:

Dr. John Rodda - President of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences and formerly Director of Water Resources at the World Meteorological Organisation;
Professor Gene Likens - Director of the Institute of Ecosystem Studies in New York;
Professor Jane Plant - Assistant Director, British Geological Survey; and
myself Professor Brian Wilkinson - Professor at the University of Reading and formerly Director of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

The panel members were selected by ICSU and I was asked by ICSU, and the Panel agreed, that I should act as Team Leader.

The Panel's work began on 22 April as soon as the first documentation became available and our Report was submitted on 14 May against a deadline of May 15. Our brief was to make a scientific review of the report - "Assessment of the Jabiluka Project" (WHC-99/CONF.204/.9C) from the Supervising Scientist Environment Australia which had been called for by this Bureau. We also saw a number of other supporting documents, but in time available there was a limitation on the information that was readily accessible; Our insights may have been restricted by not having visited Jabiluka or the Kakadu World Heritage Site.

The Panel's method of operation was based on a work plan which identified a Panel member to make a first response to a specific section of the Supervising Scientific Report particularly relevant to his or her expertise. These responses were then circulated by e-mail to all members for their comments which were then consolidated into the first Draft.

All Panel members approved the Final Report prior to its transmission to ICSU and UNESCO. Other than the presentation of its Report to the Bureau which the Panel made today, the Panel has discharged its remit to ICSU and the delivery of its report on 14 May.
However, during June Dr Arthur Johnston the Supervising Scientist contacted me to say he would like some clarification on the Recommendations in the Independent Scientific Panel Report. I obtained agreement from the Panel members and from ICSU and UNESCO to hold a telephone conversation and this took place on 3 June with a subsequent approved conversation on 11 June. There are agreed notes of these conversations available.

Towards the end of June I received a 62 pages report giving the response of the Supervising Scientist to the Independent Scientific Panel Review. I forwarded this document to my fellow Panel members but they have had no time to make a formal assessment of this and furthermore believe such a consideration is outside their original brief from ICSU. I understand that this response document has been made available to the Bureau.

Turning to the Independent Scientific Panel Report, we considered that we could conveniently divide the work into four activity areas as follows:

a. Hydrological modelling and the assessment of the retention ponds design capacity
b. Risk assessment for the ERA proposal
c. Long term storage of the mine tailings
d. General environmental protection issues

However, there is strong interaction between these areas and the panel took these interactions into account in making its 17 Recommendations, which are given at the end of our Report. I don't intend going through our findings for each of these activity areas now. I understand there is to be an extended debate on Monday 12 July and I will take the opportunity to expand the Panel's views on that occasion. The conclusions in our Report and the Recommendations can, however, be placed in four broad categories as follows:

First Category, some of the analyses in the Supervising Scientists Report do lead to the assessment of impacts of the proposed Jabiluka mining operation being made with a higher degree of certainty than formerly. For example, the hydrological method of analysis using a stochastically generated data set, linked into a multiple run-off model using a Monte Carlo approach follows good international scientific practice. It gives greater confidence in the design method to be used for determining the pond capacity against extreme rainfall events.

Second Category, there are some recommendations that we suggest should be followed out of prudence e.g. the data for rainfall should be increased by 5% because it is recognised that raingauges often under record and the retention pond design capacity is crucially dependent on this rainfall data.

Third Category, there are some areas in the Supervising Scientist Report where we were unable to make a judgement on ascertainable or potential impacts due to lack of information or data. For example, the applicability of the Ranger radiation model to the Jabiluka Site.

Finally, there were some elements dealt with an unsatisfactory way in the Supervising Scientist Report, and some important issues that were missing for example, the failure to recognise the need for a full landscape/ catchment assessment extending outside of the mine lease area. There was also the lack of any impact analysis in the event of the mine life being extended from 30 to 50 or 60 years. In the later case we consider that such analysis should be undertaken now.

It may well be that some of our concerns are addressed by the Supervising Scientist's response to the Independent Scientific Panel Report - but this response would require detailed consideration by the Panel and as such it lies outside our brief. We are therefore unable to make appropriate comment on this document at this time.

Overall, the Panel felt there was a theme running through some part of the Supervising Scientist Report of `Trust us' and we will ensure that it will be well even though there are uncertainties for example in the final ERA design. Perhaps this is based on the 18 years of satisfactory operational experience at the Ranger mine. The scientific community must clearly take note of this. However, Kakadu is such a rich and important site interns of World Heritage values that we believe that such a assurances should be accompanied with firm and binding commitments, not just on the present administration but also on those in the future. These are particularly important for both short and long term monitoring and reparation in the event of this monitoring exposing some presently unforeseen event or threat.

Annex VII

10 July 1999

DRAFT RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (PARIS, 5- 10 JULY 1999)

PREPARED BY THE INFORMAL WORKING GROUP CHAIRED BY THE RAPPORTEUR (HUNGARY) AND COMPOSED OF THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU (BENIN, ITALY, JAPAN, MOROCCO, REPUBLIC OF KOREA), THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE (CANADA, FINLAND, FRANCE, ZIMBABWE), THE FOLLOWING OBSERVERS (BELGIUM AND UNITED KINGDOM) AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF ICOMOS

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

- Considering that the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, referred to here under as the 1972 Convention, is a general framework for international co-operation,

- Underlining the importance of finding the correct balance between the various activities linked to the implementation of the Convention, in particular nominations of properties on the List, reporting on the state of conservation, training of specialists, and improving public awareness to safeguard the heritage of humankind,

- Noting that the representative nature of the World Heritage List has been the subject of numerous debates by the World Heritage Committee since 1979,

- Recognizing that since the adoption of the Global Strategy by the World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session in December 1994 with a view to improving the representativity of the List, this objective has not been attained, despite the remarkable efforts of the Secretariat and States Parties concerned,

- Noting that at present two-thirds of the States Parties have fewer than three sites on the List and that their heritage of outstanding universal value is still under-represented or not represented,

1. Agrees to give its full support for the implementation of the Convention, in the States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List,

2. Recognizes the interest of all the States Parties and the advisory bodies in preserving the authority of the 1972 Convention, by improving, through appropriate means, the representativity of the World Heritage List which must reflect the diversity of all cultures and ecosystems of all regions,

3. Endorses the objectives of the Global Strategy while reaffirming the sovereign rights of the States Parties and the sovereign role of the General Assembly,

4. Shares the will expressed by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-second session in December 1998 "to move from recommendations to action" and to improve the representativity of the List, and therefore:

A. Invites all the States Parties to:

i) Give the highest priority to the "adoption of a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes", according to Article 5 of the 1972 Convention,

ii) Take measures to redress the imbalance and improve the representativity of the World Heritage List, in order to reinforce the authority of the 1972 Convention,

iii) Prepare or re-examine their tentative lists in the light of the methodology developed and regional and thematic definitions by focusing on categories of heritage which are still under-represented on the List,

iv) Rigorously establish the outstanding universal value of properties when preparing the tentative lists,

v) Give priority to the submission of nominations resulting from regional consultations in the categories under-represented that highlight notably the interaction between human beings and their environment and human beings in society, expressing the diversity and richness of living or past cultures.

B. Invites the States Parties that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List to:

i) Apply paragraph 6 (vii) of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention:

a) by spacing voluntarily their nomin-ations according to conditions that they will define, and/or

b) by proposing only properties falling into categories still under-represented, and/or

c) by linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is under-represented, or

d) by deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the presentation of new nominations,

and to inform the Committee of the measures taken,

ii) Initiate and encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation with States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented in the List within the framework of the preparation of tentative lists, nominations and training programmes,

iii) Give priority to the re-examination of their tentative lists within the framework of regional consultations and to the preparation of periodic reports.

C. Invites the States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List to:

i) Give priority to the preparation of tentative lists and nominations,

ii) Initiate and consolidate at regional level, partnerships based on the exchange of technical expertise,

iii) Encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation so as to increase their expertise and the technical capacities of institutions in charge of the protection, safeguard and management of their heritage,

iv) Participate, as much as possible, in the meetings of the World Heritage Committee.

D. Invites the advisory bodies to:

i) Pursue their collaboration with the Secretariat for the preparation and co-ordination of regional consultations,

ii) Pursue their programmes of thematic studies and the classification of the themes into sub-themes, on the basis of the tentative lists prepared by States Parties and the recommendations of the regional experts meetings,
iii) Observe the greatest scientific rigour during the evaluation of the proposals for inscription, so that the decisions of the Committee can reflect more systematically the positive results of the implementation of the Global Strategy,

iv) Develop mechanisms that would give experts of the regions under-represented on the List the necessary training to prepare and evaluate nominations and ensure the state of conservation of properties.

E. Invites the World Heritage Committee to:

i) Continue its actions undertaken within the framework of the Global Strategy,

ii) Provide the necessary resources from the World Heritage Fund to support the efforts of the States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List, in order to increase the number of their nominations,

iii) Adopt a regional and multi-year Action Plan for the implementation of the Global Strategy, as a follow-up to the Action Plan adopted in 1999,

iv) Evaluate the progress in the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan with the participation of all States Parties and define, should the need arise, adjustment measures to fulfil its objectives.

F. Invites the Secretariat of the Convention to:

i) Pursue its collaboration with the advisory bodies in the framework of regional consultations,

ii) Support in particular the efforts of States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List in the preparation of their tentative lists and nominations,

iii) Ensure that the human resources allocated to the implementation of the Action Plan are consistent with it objectives,

iv) Submit to the General Assembly a progress report on the implementation of the regional and multi-year Action Plan.

G. Invites the international community and more particularly the donor agencies to:

i) Support, in co-operation with the advisory bodies and the Secretariat, the protection of cultural and natural heritage and the implementation of the 1972 Convention,

ii) Give priority to the actions directed towards the implementation of the Global Strategy, undertaken in States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List.

The General Assembly invites all States Parties, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat to transmit this resolution to the concerned agencies.

ANNEX VIII

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-third extraordinary session
Marrakesh, Morocco

26 - 27 November 1999

PROVISIONAL AGENDA

1. Opening of the session

2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable

3. Nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List

4. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

5. Requests for international assistance

6. Other business

7. Closure of the session

ANNEX IX

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-third session
Marrakesh, Morocco

29 November - 4 December 1999

PROVISIONAL AGENDA

1. Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative

2. Adoption of the agenda and the timetable

3. Report by the Secretariat on the activities undertaken since the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee

4. Reports of the Rapporteurs on the sessions of the World Heritage Bureau

5. Report on the decision of the General Assembly of States Parties with regard to "Ways and means to ensure a representative World Heritage List"

6. Progress report on the implementation of the regional actions described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session

7. Follow-up to the work of the Consultative Body of the World Heritage Committee

8. Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List

9. Periodic Reporting: Regional Strategies for periodic reporting

10. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger and on the List of World Heritage sites

10.1 State of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

10.2 State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

11. Activities concerning World Heritage documentation, information and education

12. Evaluation of International Assistance: Examination of the recommendations of the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee concerning prioritization in granting International Assistance to States Parties

13. Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention

14. Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of the budget for 2000, and presentation of a Provisional Budget for 2001

15. Requests for international assistance

16. Date, place and Provisional Agenda of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee

17. Date and place of the twenty fourth-session of the World Heritage Committee

18. Other business

19. Adoption of the report of the session

20. Closure of the session