19. The Committee was also informed of the type of continuous monitoring which the Secretariat pursued with regard to projects which were the subject of international campaigns or supported by UNDP. A recently published brochure on the work carried out in Sana'a, as well as the report on the mission to Bulgaria which was annexed to the Document SC-91/CONF.002/3, showed that the most efficient monitoring could be done through technical assistance missions. Unfortunately, the financial and personnel resources of the Secretariat were far too small compared with the many World Heritage sites to be monitored.

20. In the opinion of the Secretariat, a monitoring action should be carried out in the form of a continuous dialogue with the State Party which should begin even before the inscription of the site, in order to inform local competent authorities (politicians and technicians) about the values to be maintained and the principles and methods of conservation to be applied. In particular, the implementation of the management plan requested at the time of the proposal for inscription should be verified by means of a monitoring exercise.

21. The representative of ICOMOS brought to the attention of the Committee alarming news about the deterioration of certain parts of monuments of Khizi Pogost (USSR). He stressed the fact that his organization was interested in sending a mission on the spot to evaluate the state of conservation of the site. With reference to the cultural centre in the process of being built between the Tower of Belem and the Monastery of the Hieronymites (Portugal), he underlined that the work was almost completed and that a comprehensive file submitted by the government showed that the rules of the competition had taken account of the fact that the site was classified as a World Heritage property. Part of the existing building replaced industrial constructions and this represented an improvement. This case proved that it was necessary to determine a future strategy to guide architects in charge of the development of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Portuguese observer remarked that the project of integrating this cultural centre was part of a plan for safeguarding of the zone with a view to reasserting the value of the site. The Committee took note of the report of ICOMOS and, in the light of this example, emphasized that States Parties should attach the greatest attention to maintaining the values of World Heritage properties, when elaborating development projects, new constructions or major restorations. They should equally inform the Committee, through UNESCO's Secretariat, of their intention to undertake or to authorize projects in an area protected under the Convention before any irreversible decisions were taken. The need for close collaboration between the Secretariat and the local competent authorities was stressed during the debate. The Committee took note that ICOMOS, in co-operation with ICCROM, was preparing a guide on the management of sites for authorities responsible for World Heritage.

22. The Co-ordinator of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project on Cultural Heritage and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean introduced the method which had been used in the detailed analysis of six sites in the region. The documents presented only reflect work already achieved within the framework of a wider project concerning sixteen sites in all, the evaluation of which will be carried out up until 1993 and will cost the World Heritage Fund US$40,000.

23. The Committee took note of this report. While considering that the method was interesting, it judged that it would not be necessarily applicable to all regions.

24. The Co-ordinator of a network set up by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for the protection of Mediterranean sites under the Barcelona Convention introduced in his turn his working method on monitoring. During visits to seventeen sites around the Mediterranean, he evaluated,, in collaboration with local experts, the different problems raised by the conservation of the sites concerned. Following his visits he kept in touch with the competent authorities with a view to assisting them in their task with technical advice and documentation.

25. Regarding the management of sites, a member of the Committee questioned the limits to the possibility of intervention by the Committee and the Secretariat. The Secretariat explained that national authorities, whose collaboration was obviously indispensable, were always informed.

26. The possibility of intervention by the private sector in activities of safeguarding and development of World Heritage was raised. A delegate considered that progress in this field remained far below desirable levels. For instance, various difficulties encountered by a high visiting capacity of the sites could be solved through co­operation with, private associations.

28. Aware of the fact that it represents 123 States, including Yugoslavia, which are signatories of the Convention, the Committee expressed deep concern about the armed conflict, devastating a region that comprises several sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, in particular the Old City of Dubrovnik. It decided to urge the parties in conflict to do their best so that a ceasefire which allows as soon as possible for the repair of the damage already caused in the fighting area, in particular in Dubrovnik, in response to the appeal by the Director-General of UNESCO for international solidarity.

29. Recalling that the repeated requests of UNESCO to observe the obligations of the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage have so far not been heeded, and noting the state of exceptional emergency caused by the armed conflict, the Committee decided, in accordance with the provisions of Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Convention, to inscribe Dubrovnik on the List of World Heritage in Danger and to publicize this entry immediately.

30. Several delegates pointed out that the decision of the Committee should not be interpreted as an act of accusation but as the affirmation that all States Parties to the Convention are involved in this situation where a World Heritage city was seriously damaged by an armed conflict. The observer from Yugoslavia requested that the Committee should be cautious in this action, and stressed that in view of the importance of the situation, it is advisable to refer to all the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, following the request of Yugoslavia.

32. The Secretariat announced that following a Resolution of the General Conference, a report would be prepared concerning the possibilities for strengthening UNESCO's action in the protection and preservation of World Heritage. This report, which will take into account the evaluation of the implementation of the Convention, will be submitted to the Executive Board at its 140th session.

33. While deciding to abandon the use of questionnaires which had not yielded the results anticipated, the Committee requested the Secretariat to carry on the monitoring of cultural heritage properties.

35. The Committee examined documents SC-91/CONF.002/4 and SC-91/CONF.002/4Add and noted reports on the status of conservation of 14 natural and mixed World Heritage properties. IUCN reported on the status of conservation of 25 sites, including the sites described in the above­mentioned documents.

When this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988, the Committee requested IUCN to provide a report on the status of conservation in 1991. The Committee noted that IUCN had gathered some information but, as requested by the representative of IUCN, deferred the submission of this monitoring report until 1992, to accommodate the findings of a proposed field visit to this site next year.

The Committee noted that eight helicopters simultaneously overfly these adjacent sites which cover the same waterfall area. Over 7,000 visitors had registered complaints and local conservation groups are opposed to the use of helicopters in the area because it contravenes legal regulations for air traffic over protected areas. The Brazilian Delegate informed the Committee that a working group had been established to study the matter with a view to introducing more stringent regulatory measures for helicopter tourism. The Committee requested the Secretariat to contact the authorities of Argentina in order to request information on steps taken by them.

The Committee noted that the Bulgarian authorities were considering a major expansion of this site to include the area of the Rhodope Mountains and recognized the potential for establishing a transfrontier site with Greece that could be one of the most outstanding sites of Europe. The Committee encouraged the Bulgarian authorities to proceed with the extension of Pirin National Park and submit a nomination for the extension of the site. The Committee also requested the Secretariat to contact the Greek authorities to obtain their views on the possibilities for establishing a transfrontier site.

The Committee was concerned to note that the water quality and balance in this small World Heritage site (600 ha) has deteriorated to such an extent that the site is no longer ecologically viable; large colonies of water birds, except for the Dalmation Pelican, are absent, and many of the passerine species have emigrated or occur only in low numbers. The Committee recognized that most problems were attributable to the slow drying of the lake bed, exacerbated by upstream development projects, impacts of nearby pig farms and a rise in the wild boar population. The Committee, while awaiting the results of a joint Ramsar/World Heritage field mission to assess whether the site still meets criterion (iv), recommended that the Secretariat request the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment to nominate this site to the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee noted that IUCN agreed, in principle, to deleting 1,415 acres of privately owned land comprising natural gas deposits from this site and including 1,478 acres of higher geological value as compensation. The Committee noted that the technology used to drill gas wells had low impacts but pointed out that it would be concerned if the drilling extends to sites within the World Heritage property. The Canadian Delegate informed the Committee that the maps of the area clearly showed that the sites which will be drilled are outside the Park boundaries. The Committee requested that IUCN evaluate the maps recently submitted by Canada, showing the locations of the drilling sites.

The Committee recalled that logging was permitted within this site and that as many as 3,200 of the Park's bison population were affected by brucellosis and tuberculosis. The Committee was satisfied to note that forestry regulations are now more strictly enforced by the Canadian Park Service personnel and that negotiations are underway to terminate logging rights before their official expiry in the year 2002. The Committee recognized that the large size of a site is no longer a guarantee for the conservation of this site and development activities in upstream areas of the Peace/Athabasca Rivers threaten the integrity of this Park. The Committee noted that a river basin assessment study was now underway with support from Canada's Green Plan and the Alberta Provincial Government. The Committee urged the Canadian authorities to make special efforts, both within the Park and throughout its entire drainage basin, in order to retain and restore the site's integrity. The Committee acknowledged that the conservation of Wood Buffalo National Park is, in many ways, a test case for conservation of large remote reserves, such as the World Heritage sites of Yellowstone (USA), Banc D'Arguin (Mauritania) and Serengeti (Tanzania), and had the potential to demonstrate lessons that will be applicable elsewhere.

The Committee was pleased to note that in accordance with its request the authorities of Costa Rica and Panama had agreed to a single listing of this site. The Committee was satisfied that the Costa Rican authorities had agreed to the IUCN recommendation to delete three Indian reserves and add one forest and wildlife refuge. In accordance with another IUCN recommendation, the Committee urged the Costa Rican authorities to delete four additional Indian reserves in the north-eastern Atlantic sector and provide to the Secretariat a map showing the new boundaries of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves of Costa Rica.

The Committee was deeply concerned that 59,000 ha of the La Amistad National Park of Panama has been given to Texaco for oil exploitation without consulting the Panamanian conservation authorities and in contravention to the law creating the Park. The Committee instructed the Secretariat to contact the Panamanian authorities and express its concern over the prospect of oil exploration inside the Park and suggest that they nominate the site for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee also suggested that a high-level mission to Panama be undertaken on the occasion of the World Park's Congress, to be held in Caracas, Venezuela, during February 1992, in order to call the attention of the relevant authorities to Panama's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

The Committee was satisfied to note that the Secretariat, based upon the information provided by IUCN, had sought clarification on the construction of an eight-kilometre highway through this Park. The Committee was pleased to note that the Sub-Secretariat of Forestry and Natural Resources in Ecuador had been able to halt the construction of this road until environmental impact studies are completed. The Committee complimented the Ecuadorean authorities for taking timely action and requested the Secretariat to remind them of the. possibilities for obtaining technical assistance for the Park from the World Heritage Fund.

The Committee was glad to note that the Government of Zaire and the German Ministry for Co-operation (BMZ) have dropped plans to construct a road through this Park. The Committee commended the Government of Zaire for its decision and encouraged the BMZ to continue its technical co-operation to strengthen protection of the Kahuzi Biega National Park.

The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session requested the Guinean authorities to submit a new file stating the boundaries of the property receiving adequate protection, and the long-term guarantees for that protection. The Committee was glad to note that such a file had been submitted by the Guinean authorities and that IUCN had undertaken a field mission to evaluate the information provided in that file.

The Committee noted that the proposed iron-ore mining site was within the boundaries of the Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981. In the light of the evaluation presented by IUCN, the Committee took cognizance of the fact that the new boundaries proposed by the Guinean authorities, though intended to excise that part of the site where iron-ore mining is expected to take place, will also reduce the Reserve's area by about 30% and seriously endanger the integrity of the values for which Mt.Nimba was originally granted World Heritage status. For instance, the montane and moist forest areas of the Reserve would be reduced by 50% and the area of montane grasslands would decreased by 30%. The Committee also observed that the site did not have management plans and programmes for ensuring long-term protection. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that an independent environmental impact study of the iron-ore mining project had not been carried out.

In considering the options available to it for ensuring the conservation of this World Heritage property, the Committee was unwilling to accept that option where the organization(s) financing the iron-ore mining project would compensate for the reduction in the size of the area of the Reserve by supporting projects which would strengthen the conservation of this site. The Committee was of the view that the proposed reduction in the size of the Reserve's area was in itself a major threat to the World Heritage status of the site. The Committee found it likely that some of the features which made this site worthy of World Heritage status were located within the area proposed to be deleted.

The Committee recalled that additional habitats of Mt.Nimba within Côte d'Ivoire were added to this site in 1982 and since then the World Heritage site has been a transborder property of Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea. The Committee was concerned that the Government of Côte d'Ivoire had not been consulted in any of the negotiations related to the modification of the boundaries of the site.

While recognizing the legitimate economic aspirations and needs of Guinea, the Committee concluded that the Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981, was seriously at risk from a variety of threats, primarily the proposed iron-ore mining project. Hence, the Committee instructed the Secretariat to contact the Governments of Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea and request them to nominate this site, in accordance with Article 11 paragraph 4 of the Convention, for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee requested the Secretariat to transmit these recommendations together with the criteria and procedures (as outlined in paragraphs 59-71 of the Operational Guidelines), for nominating the Mt.Nimba Nature Reserve to the World Heritage in Danger List to the authorities in Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea under the signature of the Director­General of UNESCO.

The Delegate of the United States of America recalled that, during its last session, the Committee had requested him to consider the application of Article 6 (3) of the Convention, which imposes obligations on States Parties to the Convention with regard to cultural and natural heritage situated on the territory of other States Parties to the Convention. He continued by informing the Committee that his Government was not involved in the mining project by direct activity or financing. Hence, the Delegate concluded that even if the mining project were to proceed, the United States would not breach its obligations as specified in Article 6 (3).

The Committee noted that there had been a recent change in the national agency responsible for the management of this site. The Vice-President of Honduras requested the Committee at its last session to include this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee was informed that the new management authority would submit to the Secretariat a request for international assistance in order to enable the Committee to consider including this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that this site had been threatened by the invasion of the Sanctuary by the people of the Bodo tribe in 1989. The Committee was concerned that there had been no response from Indian authorities to its recommendation, made in 1989 and 1990, to nominate this site to the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee noted that a survey undertaken by WWF of the surrounding villages might lead to a more co-operative approach to management in the future and a programme for implementing corrective measures has been suggested by members of IUCN's rhino specialist group. Members of the Committee were unanimous in their view that this site was a prime candidate for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate from Thailand was of the view that the Committee had the authority, under Article 11, paragraph 4, to include this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger without waiting for a formal request. The Committee however, wished that the Secretariat reiterates the Committee's concern to the Indian authorities and find ways and means to obtain response for submission to the Bureau at its next session in mid-1992.

The Committee was pleased to note that the Irrigation Department and the Nepal Planning Commission have formally dropped their plans for a US$30 million irrigation project to divert the Rapti River which would have seriously threatened the integrity of this Park. A study undertaken by the Government of Nepal and the Asian Development Bank, following the intervention of the Committee, showed the project was environmentally unacceptable and its economic benefits to be doubtful. The Committee commended the Nepalese authorities for taking decisive action for the conservation of this site.

The Committee recalled that this site was taken off the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1988, and since then had been the location of a training course from 4-15 March 1991 on Wetland Management, jointly organized by the National Parks Service of Senegal, IUCN's Wetland Programme and the Netherlands Research Institute for Nature Management.