Approved Emergency Reserve for 1994 and Indicative Reserve for 1995

VII. 10 The committee requested the chairperson to transmit to the Director-General of UNESCO the proposal as it now reads:

"Based on the conclusions of the working group, consisting of China, Colombia, France, Germany, Italy, Senegal, Thailand and the United States of America, the Committee agrees on the importance of the World Heritage Centre as a unified body within the Secretariat of UNESCO. The Committee believes that the determination of needs on staffing and funding levels can only be reached based on a clarification of the role and functions of the Centre.

1. The Committee believes the role and functions of the Centre are as follows.

The Centre should:

(a) fulfill the function of Secretariat to the organs of the 1972 Convention;

(b) act as a clearing house for the purpose of coordination and information-sharing between the Committee and other conventions, programmes and international organizations related to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, as requested by the Committee;

(c) oversee the implementation of training, monitoring, and technical assistance by the States Parties, the intergovernmental body ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN and other NGOs, and cooperate with other units of UNESCO and its Field Offices, as requested by the Committee;

(d) be the primary instrument for facilitating the implementation of the decisions of the committee and in this regard should be the primary contact with the States Parties on all technical aspects of the Convention, including:

(i) coordination of the inscription process;
(ii) assistance to and coordination of requests by States Parties for training and technical assistance, including evaluation of the results;
(iii) coordination of monitoring of the World Heritage sites carried out by the States Parties, the advisory bodies and other institutions, as requested by the Committee;
(iv) organization of regular meetings and other meetings as requested by the Committee;
(v) preparation of reports as directed by the Committee;
(vi) development of draft proposals for technical guidelines to improve the effectiveness of the Convention as requested by the Committee;
(vii) preparation of the budget for the Committee's approval;
(viii) disbursement of funds in a timely manner.

(e) implement plans and seek partnerships to increase materials promoting the Convention, as directed by the Committee and in accordance with the goals and policies of UNESCO.

2. Therefore, the Committee expresses its strong concern that every effort be made to secure funding and staff necessary to perform adequately the above tasks. The Committee requests the Director-General to take this concern into consideration for further action."

VII.11 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, thereupon made a statement emphasizing that with respect to the document presented by the working group, it had to be clearly stated that the Director-General of UNESCO is bound to abide strictly to the provisions of the 1972 Convention. Article 14, para. 1, of the convention provides that "a Secretariat appointed by the Director- General of UNESCO" shall assist the Committee and that UNESCO will continue to do so. The Convention also provides in para. 2 of Article 14 that "the Director-General of UNESCO utilizing to the fullest extent possible the services of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), in their respective areas of competence and capability, shall prepare the Committee's documentation and the agenda of its meetings and shall have the responsibility for the implementation of its decisions". Accordingly, he pointed out, the UNESCO Secretariat - of which the World Heritage Centre is a part - will work closely, as it had done in the past, with the intergovernmental organization ICCROM, the NGOs, such as IUCN, ICOMOS and others, in the implementation of the decisions of the Committee. In this regard, UNESCO is bound also to respect the directives issued and the decisions taken by the General Conference of UNESCO. Concluding his statement, Mr Bouchenaki underlined that the Director-General and the Secretariat of UNESCO, both at Headquarters and in the field, will make every effort - as they have done for World Heritage sites in the past - to harmonize contributions from various partners such as the UNDP, FIT, voluntary contributions, associate experts, and bilateral inputs.

VII.12 Upon the proposal of the Delegate of Japan, the above statement of the Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO was to be included in the Final Report of the session.

IX.2 The Secretariat emphasized that this document is a progress report reflecting the present state of achievement in a long process of defining the concept of monitoring. In this context, it was noted that three types of monitoring could be distinguished:

Systematic monitoring: the continuous process of monitoring the conditions of World Heritage sites with periodic reporting on its state of conservation.

Administrative monitoring: follow up actions by the World Heritage Centre to ensure the implementation of recommendations and decisions of the World Heritage Committee and Bureau at the time of inscription or at a later date.

Ad hoc monitoring: the reporting by the Centre, other sectors of UNESCO and the advisory bodies to the Bureau and the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage sites that are under threat. Ad hoc reports and impact studies are necessary each time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have an affect on the state of conservation of the sites.

As regards systematic monitoring, the Secretariat emphasized that in the spirit of the Convention, it is the prime responsibility of the States Parties to put in place on-site monitoring arrangements as an integral component of day-to-day conservation and management of the sites. At the same time, however, it is considered essential that external and independent professional advisers are involved in a periodic reporting system. This reporting system should not only be addressed to site managers and national authorities, but should also lead to improved World Heritage assistance and decision-making. A regional or national approach is recommended for systematic monitoring so as to optimize its impact. For each of the national or regional programmes the most appropriate partners should be identified. The established monitoring framework should be reviewed and, if necessary, adapted to the particular conditions of the region.

IX.3 Several delegates commended the results of the expert meeting and noted that it had elevated the thinking on monitoring considerably. However, it was emphasized in the discussions that the involvement of the States Parties is essential in further developing the concept of monitoring. In this respect, the Delegate of Italy underlined the importance which must be given to the carrying out of impact studies and ad hoc reports each time exceptional circumstances occur. It was also noted that, a monitoring methodology should on the one hand be applicable to all sites and should therefore have scientific rigour, while on the other, it should be sufficiently flexible so as to respond to regional and national characteristics, available technical expertise and their economic and cultural conditions and identities.

IX.4 The Committee discussed the necessity to establish, at the time of inscription, comprehensive baseline information and that particular attention should be paid to the collection and management of data and documentation. The costs of implementing a baseline information collection should be estimated in advance, particularly for the developing countries. The Delegate of Colombia remarked that the establishment and operation of monitoring systems would require the development of comprehensive cooperation programmes. She therefore suggested that when developing a monitoring methodology, the cost estimate should take into consideration such programmes. Furthermore, the expert meetings should include participants from developing countries to help define feasible monitoring systems.

IX.5 Following the discussion, the Committee invited the States Parties to put on-site monitoring arrangements in place as an integral part of site conservation and management, and to report to the Committee on the actions taken to implement this.

IX.6 The Committee also endorsed the recommendations made by the Centre and asked it to form a small working group of experts from States Parties and the advisory bodies which would, on the basis of the observations made by the Committee, undertake the following actions:

• establish guidelines for baseline information and its collection and management;
• revise the nomination and evaluation procedures and process to secure baseline information at the time of inscription of sites on the World Heritage List;
• establish a format for periodic reporting;
• prepare a draft text on monitoring and its procedures for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines;
• determine, jointly with ICCROM, ICOMOS, and IUCN, the need for training in monitoring;
• estimate the costs to States Parties of the implementation of a systematic monitoring programme and look into possibilities of assistance to States Parties;
• establish a small unit at the World Heritage Centre to oversee the implementation of a systematic monitoring and reporting system.

IX.7 The Committee invited the Centre to report to the Bureau at its eighteenth session on the results of the above activities so that the Committee could take concrete and precise decisions on this matter.

IX.8 The Secretary informed the Committee that parallel to the implementation of the above activities, regional monitoring activities would be promoted, such as the completion of the Latin American monitoring programme which should result in a regional state of conservation report in 1994. Furthermore, it is foreseen that regional seminars for site managers will also be held in 1994 in different regions. In this way, it is expected that the further development of the monitoring system will benefit directly from the practical implementation of monitoring programmes and will be firmly grounded in local and national experiences.

The Representative of IUCN recalled that the site was inscribed in 1983 and added to the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from poachers, boundary encroachment and unplanned road construction. A field mission was conducted by IUCN's Office in Ecuador and the Committee discussed the proposed six-point action plan including the recommendation that an environmental impact assessment of the road construction be undertaken. The technical assistance request for Sangay National Park (US$ 28,500) will be reviewed in the light of the findings of the IUCN field review. The Centre is requested to transmit the Committee's concerns about the impact of the new road to the authorities in Ecuador.

The Committee noted the prospects to expand the size of the site from 57,400 ha to 85,000 ha to include a substantial area of undisturbed natural forest and that a buffer zone project on agroforestry is being carried out with funding from Danish Government sources (DANIDA). The Centre is requested to send a letter to the authorities in Guatemala informing them of the opportunity which exists to apply for assistance for the preparation of a new nomination incorporating all the new elements of the site, both cultural and natural.

The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its sixteenth session in 1992 due to threats caused by the encroachment of the Bodo tribe. No response had been received from the Government of India to several letters transmitting the Committee's previous requests for information since 1990. The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee furthermore that a mission to India was undertaken by a staff member of the Centre to contact the authorities directly. The Committee had an extensive discussion on the action to be taken, including the possibility of delisting the site. Several delegates voiced their concerns about the failure of the Government of India to respond to the Committee's request. However, the present situation makes a site mission impossible. The Committee agreed to take further steps: (i) to request the Director­-General of UNESCO to express, by letter to the Prime Minister of India, the Committee's concern; and ii) that other diplomatic channels be used to transmit the Committee's concerns about the continuing threats to Park values by the invasion of the Bodo tribe, as well as subsequent encroachments and poaching activities.

On the basis of a detailed report provided by the IUCN Office in Nepal, a state of conservation report on this site was presented. A number of threats were noted including poaching of the rhinoceros and tiger populations in the Park. It was further noted that the 1976 Management Plan does not address many of the current management issues and thus urgently requires updating. The new legislation providing for a buffer zone around the Park is, however, a commendable step and should be implemented as soon as possible. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the appropriate authorities to encourage them to continue the process underway with regard to the buffer zone concept and to begin the preparation of a new Management Plan.

The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its session in 1992. The Committee noted that very little could be done until political negotiations are concluded. It was further noted that the Centre had sent condolences to the families of the reserve staff who were killed during the civil disturbances at the site.

The Committee recalled that this site is protected as a National Wilderness Area and had been listed on the World Heritage List since 1988. There are many incremental threats to the site, but the Committee noted that a Management Plan to address these had been completed. It was further noted that continued monitoring of the site should be implemented as a priority activity of the Plan.

The Committee noted the contribution of the Government of Norway of US$ 600,000 over a four-year period for the implementation of the Plan. The Committee asked the Centre to congratulate the administrators for their efforts in completing a Management Plan for the site and to urge them to give close attention to monitoring encroachments.

The Committee recalled that the site was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1990 and noted the recommendations and discussion of the seventeenth session of the Bureau concerning uncontrolled cultivation in the conservation area. Technically, this cultivation is not permissible under the legislation for the area and much damage to natural values had been caused.

The Director of the World Heritage Centre and the Director of the UNESCO Division of Physical Heritage provided information regarding the situation of the site's cultural heritage (Olduvai Gorge), and particularly regarding the serious threats to the footprints of early man. The Committee was informed that a project by the Getty Conservation Institute was underway to protect this priceless cultural heritage.

The Committee discussed the possibility of including the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. It was noted that the Government of Germany provided US$ 275,000 for the preparation of a new Management Plan for the site.

Finally, the Committee requested the Centre to report back at the next session of its Bureau in 1994 regarding the protection of the cultural values of the site. The Centre should also transmit to the Government of Tanzania the Committee's serious concerns regarding the ongoing cultivation which threatens the natural values of this property.

IUCN reported on the difficult social and economic situation which is creating serious negative impacts on Virunga National Park. However, the emergency assistance project funded by the World Heritage Fund and carried out by WWF since its approval by the Bureau in June 1993, had positive effects for the protection of the site. The Committee discussed in detail the impact of listing the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and IUCN confirmed that Virunga National Park would definitely be a candidate for this procedure. After considerable discussion and a vote, the Committee agreed to address a letter to the Zairois authorities underlining serious concern for the protection and management of the site, particularly the serious recurring encroachments, and suggesting to the Government of Zaire to consider preparing a technical assistance request.

IUCN reported about the proposed construction of a dam (Batoka Gorge Hydro Power Scheme), which would not affect the Falls but would have a serious impact on the lower gorges, changing the character of the site from a turbulent river to a hydroelectric reservoir. The Committee was informed about an environmental impact assessment to which the IUCN Office in Harare was contributing technical assistance. The Committee requested the Centre to invite the authorities of both Zimbabwe and Zambia to activate the joint Victoria Falls World Heritage Management Committee in order to promote a coordinated approach to manage this transfrontier site. The Committee also asked to be kept informed of the possible dam project.

The Centre informed the Committee that a mission was carried out in September 1993 in cooperation with IUCN to Plitvice Lakes National Park. The report noted the continuing cooperation of the authorities in the region as well as that of the United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR). The report underlined the current situation whereby the natural values of the Park are intact and essentially recovering. There was no evidence of new damage to the Park as a result of the ongoing war in the region. However, social tension had increased and the economic crisis deepened. The mission team was unable to visit the Korkaova Uvala virgin forest because of military mines on the access roads. The Committee took note of the report.

The Committee recalled that this site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its sixteenth session in 1992. In its presentation, IUCN continued to stress its concern over the long-term risks associated with potential mining operations adjacent to the World Heritage site. It further noted the growing population pressure in the region.

Recalling that a comprehensive report had been submitted to the Bureau in June 1993, the Secretariat highlighted several developments which occurred since the mission in May 1993. A corrected and revised boundary proposal had been submitted by the Government of Guinea in late November 1993. The boundaries correspond to those recommended by the mission and incorporate an area of 17,749 ha. Furthermore, a draft legislation was received in late November 1993 concerning the establishment of an Environmental Conservation Centre to be located on the site in order to coordinate conservation and protection measures in the region.

An additional technical assistance request for US$ 45,000 for the continuing implementation of the mission recommendations relating to the conservation and protection of the site was received. The Committee concurred with findings of the report and took note of the technical assistance request.

The Committee recalled that the damage caused to the site by Hurricane Andrew on 24 August 1992 was discussed at the sixteenth session of the Committee. Further discussion on the ecological impacts took place at the seventeenth session of the Bureau. IUCN reported that it had not been able to carry out a site mission.

The United States Delegation informed the Committee that the Superintendent of the Everglades National Park was present and that he would be pleased to present a report. The Superintendent indicated that a significant number of threats to the Park have existed since the time of its listing in 1979. These are still present, including alterations to the hydrological regime as well as impacts from adjacent urban growth. Several new threats, both man­made and natural, have aggravated conditions since the initial listing. These include increased nutrient pollution from agricultural activities, reduced water levels from flood control operations and mercury contamination of fish and wildlife. In addition, there had been a dramatic ecological deterioration of Florida Bay, as well as the severe effects of Hurricane Andrew. In response to these conditions, substantial Government actions have been initiated in recent years. Legal actions and negotiations to resolve nutrient pollution are very close to a successful conclusion. An addition of 107,000 acres to protect the north-eastern part of the Park has been incorporated. Structural changes in the water management regime to restore the water level in the north-eastern addition are underway. Experiments are being carried out with respect to optimum water deliveries:

The Government provided 4.5 million US$ for monitoring and research, as well as a significant increase in other management funding. A major new emphasis and commitment has also been undertaken to accomplish long-term restoration through ecosystem management of the entire south Florida system. This brought all appropriate federal agencies together in a collaborative effort which should shortly include state and local governments.

In conclusion, the report stated that the outcome of these efforts was by no means certain, however the outlook was hopeful. At the request of the Chair, IUCN underlined its agreement with the report given and suggested that the Everglades National Park should be a candidate for the List of World Heritage in Danger.

After considerable discussion, the Committee agreed to include the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and asked the Centre to communicate with the appropriate authorities. The Committee recognized the extensive research and other work underway to alleviate the threats to the Everglades National Park. It therefore congratulated the Government of the United States of America on the new initiatives it had taken and encouraged it to continue its efforts to restore the ecological balance of the Everglade ecosystem. IUCN was invited to monitor and assess the results of the restorative efforts.

The Representative of IUCN informed the Committee that the road project was almost completed and that the University of Dakar had finished an environmental assessment study on the impacts of the road construction. A donors' round table was held in June and has led to a project supported by the French Government for the future management of the Park. The Centre was requested to transmit the Committee's views to the appropriate authorities in Senegal and to be kept informed about the long-term effects of the improved road access on the Park. In the light of the fortieth anniversary of the Park in 1994, the Centre was asked to collaborate with the Park authorities in marking this event.

A comprehensive plan for the integral conservation and rehabilitation of the city should be prepared, particularly in relation to traffic flow, tourism and housing. Such a plan should lead to projects for urban rehabilitation and tourism development. A further concern is the state of conservation of the numerous ruins in the city that are in danger of collapse in the event of an earthquake.