The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that only a few days ago, agreement had been reached between the local and the regional authorities to lower the already constructed building by 1.5 meters and to apply materials more suitable to the surroundings. Several delegates emphasized that Operational Guideline 47 invites the States Parties to inform the Committee of their intention to undertake or to authorize in an area protected under the Convention, major restoration or new constructions which may affect the world heritage value of the property. The Bureau expressed its disappointment that this was not done in the case of Santiago and that the already inscribed World Heritage site of Santiago is being affected by an extremely disharmonious construction at the same time as the Route of Santiago is being nominated for inscription.

One delegate pointed out that action could be taken only after reports had been received on the construction already in progress and that this case dearly shows the need of a continuous monitoring process involving local communities and organizations. The Bureau concludes that its concerns about the construction will be communicated to the Spanish national and regional authorities emphasizing the need for consultations with the Committee in the case of important interventions at World Heritage sites.

A preliminary report will be presented to the Committee in December 1993. Financial support from UNESCO's Regular Programme will be allocated for this action which will be implemented in the framework of the International Safeguard Campaign for Istanbul.

The Bureau at its sixteenth session, held in Paris in July 1992, had recommended that the Committee consider deleting this property from the World Heritage List and had invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit their observations and comments to the Committee. At its last session, the Committee was informed by the Representative of Bulgaria that the Bulgarian Government, in order to restore the World Heritage values of Srebarna, was preparing a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of Srebarna and an ecosystem restoration plan. The Committee had indicated to the Bulgarian authorities that available scientific evidence suggested that the site may no longer possess the natural habitat values for which it was inscribed, and that a full restoration of a naturally functioning ecosystem might be impossible. However, the Committee invited the Bulgarian authorities to submit, before 1 May 1993, to the World Heritage Centre, the results of the on-going project to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of the site, including an analysis of available data to monitor biological populations and environmental quality, and a plan for ecosystem restoration.

The Bureau noted that the Bulgarian authorities have submitted to the World Heritage Centre, a project document entitled 'Environmental Recovery and Restoration of the Biosphere Reserve "Srebarna"'and had indicated that a report on the comprehensive assessment of the state of conservation of Srebarna will be sent to the Centre as soon as its translation into French is finalized. A representative of IUCN made a detailed presentation on the state of conservation of Srebarna and the Bulgarian plan for its restoration, and emphasized the fact that most small wetlands like Srebarna (600 ha) are inherently unstable and their ecological integrity is easily threatened by changes occurring outside their boundaries. The Bureau noted that the restoration plans currently being implemented by the Bulgarian authorites could restore the hydraulic regime of Srebarna, and hence have the potential to restore the ecosystem which existed at the time of Srebarna's inscription on the World Heritage List. Furthermore, the Bureau learnt that the Bulgarian authorities were introducing a system to issue permits to local people for hunting wild boar and foxes which threaten the population of Dalmatior- Pelicans in Srebarna. The Bureau, however, noted that the Peli_in population of Srebarna comprised only about 10% of the global population of the species, and continued to breed in sites outside of Srebarna, including some sites in Romania, where they were hunted.

The Bureau recommended to the Committee to: (a) retain Srebarna on the List of World Heritage in Danger; (b) defer its decision on whether or not to delete Srebarna from the World Heritage List for a period of two years and (c) request IUCN, in co-operation with the Ramsar Convention, to monitor the extent to which the project(s) implemented by the Bulgarian authorities are restoring the ecological integrity of Srebarna. Furthermore, the Bureau requested that the proposal for the restoration of Srebarna, and the comprehensive assessment of its state of conservation be made available to members of the Committee for review, and that the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities co-operate in protecting the populations of Dalmation Pelicans in the region. The Bureau requested IUCN and the Centre to co-operate with the Ramsar Convention and the Bulgarian authorities and report to its eighteenth session on the extent to which the restoration efforts implemented by the Bulgarian authorities are helping to restore Srebarna.

The mission was carried out between 15 to 30 May 1993. It included representatives from the Centre, UNDP, UNEP, the Government of Guinea, NIMCO (the mining company), IUCN, CEDI (an international NGO in France), Guinea Ecology (local NGO) and two consultants as well as local specialists.

A comprehensive review of the part of Mt. Nimba situated in Guinea was carried out with extensive site and village visits and reviews of specific issues such as: the original nomination, the mineral body, the boundaries, and the socio-economic situation relating to local communities.

The major findings were as follows:

i) the site met World Heritage criteria at the time of the original nomination in 1981. It continues to meet these criteria;

ii) the site should remain on the List of World Heritage in Danger primarily because of the high risk of agricultural intrustions due to the lack of an established administrative structure and effective protection. At the present time, the Mt. Nimba Pilot Project provides a management presence, but this is not assured; Guinea was fully aware of the mineral potential. Over $25 million had been spent on prospecting and a potential ore body of 500 million tonnes had been identified. As the Government has stated, it was not their intention to include the mineral body in the World Heritage nomination. It is recommended that this perspective be accepted;

iv) the revised nomination submitted in 1991 should be considered as withdrawn, as it was not accepted by the Committee;

v) a revised nomination has been requested. It will include a revised area of 17,740 ha. which is 610 ha larger than the 1981 nomination of 17,130 ha. It is, however, 1,550 ha less than the true size of the 1981 nomination which was 19,290 ha, including the Côte d'Ivoire section of 5,200 ha. The area required for mineral operations (1,500 ha.) is not included in the World Heritage nomination;

vi) there are 18 recommendations in the mission report which is available from the World Heritage Centre. The recommendations include a commitment by the Government and the mining company to an "Environmental Convention" in which NGOs will be invited to participate. In addition, the mining company agrees, once the mine becomes operational, to contribute $500,000 per year towards conservation projects;

vii) until the war and the political situation in Liberia stabilises, it is unlikely that the mine will become operational;

viii) continued surveillance through a management presence is essential for the conservation of the site - primarily to prevent agricultural incursions into the World Heritage site.

The integrity of this site will require technical and financial support from the Committee until an adequate on-site management regime is established. It is recommended that $30,000 in emergency funds be provided for the express purpose of maintaining a management presence on the site.

The Bureau accepted the findings of the Task Force and concurred with the revised boundaries and the retention of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Observer of Guinea expressed thanks for having organized this mission and the Bureau emphasized that it accepted the new boundaries and would pursue with vigour the implementation of the eighteen recommedations in the report. The Observer added that he welcomed the recommendation of Germany and the United States of America regarding the participation of the Centre in future environmental studies. The Government of Guinea submitted a request for $30,000 in emergency assistance to implement the recommendations.

Bureau members underlined their long-term concern for the protection of the site, which would undoubtedly receive some impact if the potential mine adjacent to the site became operational. The Government of Guinea agreed to take all measures to ensure that any impact of the mining operations would be subject to detailed environmental assessment and all measures would be taken to minimize potential damage.

IUCN again underlined its concern that potential repercussions of the mine in 30 to 40 years could become a future problem for the Committee. The Bureau was in agreement with the findings of the mission and was pleased that the mission was able to respond to the questions placed before them and to clarify the current status of the site.

In this regard, the Bureau was pleased to be informed ty the Observer for Canada that the Provincial Government of British Columbia has decided to propose to the World Heritage Centre to establish a new provincial park in the Alsek Tatshenshint region and nominate this park as part of the transfrontier world Heritage property. The Bureau commended the Canadian authorities for having taken this initiative and urged them to proceed according to the Operational Guidelines.

On 10 May 1993 legal representatives of the Central African Republic, UNESCO and IUCN met at the World Heritage Centre to review the above-mentioned items (a), (b) and (c).

The following major findings were noted:

(i) the site and the surrounding region are currently socially, politically and economically unstable. Poaching from neighbouring countries is serious and presents high risks to anyone trying to prevent it;

(ii) the Government of the Central African Republic does not have the financial or staff resources to effectively manage the World Heritage site. It is interested in some form of privatization, leasing or franchising. This could involve an advisory body with representation from international organizations as well as local people. The body should have a fund-raising and management capability;

(iii) there is not a consensus on whether privatization would be appropriate. Technically and legally it is feasible, but further clarification of the proposal is required and has been requested.

The Central African Republic was recommended to continue to explore alternative management approaches and the Centre should co-operate in seeking an effective management solution. The Bureau agreed to the above recommendation and the Centre will report to the Committee when new information becomes available. The Bureau requested the Centre to ensure that the State Party respected all obligations incurred by joining the Convention and ensure the long-term conservation of the site.

The Bureau commended the efforts of the Government of Denmark which is supporting this project with a contribution of US$ 520,000 over a two-year period. The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the competent authorities in Guatemala and encourage them to extend the boundaries of thi!: mixed World Heritage property. Full use should be made t the above-mentioned project.

The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the Minister of Conservation has subsequently indicated to the private company (Okuru Enterprises Ltd.) that he would not approve locating the pipeline inside the Mt. Aspiring National Park located within this World Heritage site. Authorities of the Okuru Enterprises Ltd. are now modifying their application to obtain water from a creek situated outside the boundaries of the National Park. The changes which the Okuru Enterprises Ltd. will introduce to the original proposal will be advertized for public comment and have to be agreed upon on a consensual basis. Following this procedure, a new report on the modified proposal will be submitted to the Minister of Conservation so that all relevant information could be re-assessed. The Bureau concurred with the New Zealand authorities that it will be some time before a final decision at Ministerial level is taken on the acceptability of the modified proposal. The Bureau noted that the New Zealand authorities have assured the Centre that the environmental impact of the modified proposal will be carefully considered and that decisions will not be made in haste, and that the maintenance of the values of the World Heritage area will be an important consideration in reviewing any project for water export. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to remain regularly updated on the the review of the water-export proposal to be carried out by New Zealand's Department of Conservation.

The Bureau noted that the Danube Delta World Heritage site will benefit from the Danube River Basin Environment Programme which will be financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and implemented with technical advice from IUCN.

The Representative of Romania informed the Bureau that new research institution for the Danube Delta has been established and will undertake studies relevant to the conservation of the Danube Delta. The Bureau requested the Romanian authorities to inform the Centre when the Parliament has approved the draft law and encouraged them to co-operate with the Centre to prepare a technical assistance project for the conservation of the Danube Delta. IUCN and other non-governmental organizations should be involved to the extent possible.