VIII.2 Although the shortage of time did not allow a real debate on this item, a number of speakers in Work Group 1 referred to work Document WHC-94/CONF.003/5. The Delegate of Italy reiterated his Delegation's statement, previously expressed at the plenary, that their legal experts had examined carefully the proposals contained in this Document and found them unacceptable. Recalling that the Centre had been established only two years ago and that its competences were regulated by Articles 14, 15 and 18 of the Convention, he reminded that the Centre was meant to be simply a Secretariat for coordination, monitoring of the Convention's implementation, information and cooperation with the States Parties in order to assure follow-up actions. The proposal put forward in the above-mentioned document, however, seems to lead on the contrary to a full autonomy of the Centre by giving it functional and administrative autonomy. The Italian Delegation is opposed to this for philosophical/political, juridical and administrative reasons. As regards the philosophical/political concerns, he said, all actions of UNESCO need to be united in order to achieve a major impact, and to allow better linkage among the great themes it is committed to, including the protection of cultural and natural heritage. To detach the Centre from UNESCO would weaken it precisely at a time when UNESCO's mandate and its message of peace, fraternity and mutual understanding needs to be strengthened in a world which is going through a difficult phase of transition, the breakdown of the previous sense of balance, and the precarious way to a new international order. Explaining the juridical implications, the Delegate of Italy reminded that according to Articles 3, 4 and 14 of the Convention, the Committee should express its advice on this matter. Furthermore, the examples given in the above-mentioned document, i.e., the institutional set-up of the International Institute for Education Planning (IIEP) and the International Bureau for Education (IBE), do not seem appropriate, as these have been established within the General Conference of UNESCO, which means that all Member States of UNESCO are included, and not just some, as is the case with the Centre. Moreover, the internal structure is quite different: the IIEP and IBE have each an administration council which, however, does not exist in the case of the Centre, as this is directly under the Director-General of UNESCO and is, as such, a simple Secretariat. Regarding the administrative aspects, the document compares the Intergovernmental Oceanographic commission (IOC) to the Centre, forgetting that this commission deals with oceans, which are beyond the States' sovereignty, while the Centre is responsible for the protection of cultural and natural heritage which is a matter of the States' sovereignty. In conclusion, he reiterated that the Centre belongs to the UNESCO Secretariat and serves as the Secretariat of the Committee. The Centre was created by the Director-General in order to facilitate better implementation of the Convention. In Cartagena, the Committee expressed its wish to have a stronger Centre, and nothing more than that. On that occasion the Committee stated that it would achieve better its goals by relating its activities to those stemming from other legal instruments and other UNESCO competent services. The Centre should therefore continue to: (i) coordinate the actions decided by the Committee with other related actions in UNESCO and other organizations, and (ii) ensure within this framework the services of the Secretariat of the Committee and of the General Assembly of the States Parties.

VIII.3 The Delegate of China stated that his country was in favour of a strengthened World Heritage Centre, and was therefore pleased with the Director-General's intention of giving functional autonomy to the Centre, and giving it support through a 'financial allocation', as expressed at the 145th session of the Executive Board. He felt that there need be no fear that the Centre may disassociate itself from UNESCO, since it would remain an integral part of UNESCO just like the case of IIEP and IBE.

VIII.4 While expressing his regret that such an important item was discussed only in the Work Group, and having endorsed the statement made by the Delegate of Italy, the Delegate of France said that his country is also in favour of a strong World Heritage Centre, but that this should by no means be understood as creating a unit which might lead to a separation from UNESCO, or to a modification in the terms of the 1972 Convention which foresaw the provision by UNESCO of a Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee. The evolution of the Centre should be administrative and structural within the Organization. Projects such as the Centre's current project on World Heritage education, which is carried out in collaboration with other units, is an example of intersectoral activities which should be encouraged. However, a private foundation cannot be created in the shadow of a Convention between States Parties, which is what appeared to be envisaged.

VIII.5 The Delegate of Germany also spoke in favour of a strong Centre, underlining however that the spirit and letter of the Convention must be fully respected.

Expressing his view that the statements made by Mr de Haes and Mr Badran on this matter gave conflicting messages on what the Centre's autonomy would imply, he reminded that the Committee cannot decide by itself on issues which may perhaps entail modifications of the Convention.

VIII.6 The Delegate of Japan expressed his support for an increased 'functional effectiveness' of the Centre, but felt that the Committee needed more information in order to decide about a future 'functional autonomy' of the Centre. He also wished to know how the Centre would cooperate in the future with other units within UNESCO should autonomy be granted, and what the UNESCO Legal Adviser's view on this were. Finally, he suggested that a detailed study on this matter be prepared for the Committee.

VIII.7 The proposal made by the Delegate of Japan was endorsed by the Delegate of Spain, stressing the comments made previously by the Delegates of France and Italy concerning the legal and institutional aspects of functional autonomy.

VIII.8 Replying to the debate, the Director of the World Heritage Centre reassured the speakers that the Director-General laid great stress on coordinating the Centre's activities with those of other units in the Organization. He reminded that the Director-General had created to that effect a Steering Committee, chaired by the Assistant Director-General for Culture in the absence of the Director-General, the purpose of which is to provide guidance to the Centre and other units in matters of heritage protection. The Centre is under the authority of the Director-General and its staff is appointed by him in conformity with Article 14 of the Convention. Should there be any changes, these can be carried out only in strict respect of the Convention. He confirmed readiness to prepare an in-depth study on the question and proposed to contact the Representatives of, for example, Italy, France, China and the United States of America, in order to see how the Centre's functioning could be improved. He also suggested that the Centre prepare a detailed document which would express the different views expressed by the States Parties. Finally, Mr von Droste reiterated that the Centre has been created within UNESCO to coordinate World Heritage activities, and that some progress has been achieved in this sense. What is now important is that the General Conference at its 28th session approves a staffing table for the World Heritage Centre which would make it unnecessary to use the World Heritage Fund for supporting staff positions.

VIII.9 Following this statement, the Chairman of the Work Group, Mr Rob Milne, proposed that the Group express its appreciation to the Director-General for having strengthened the staff of the Centre in response to the Committee's request expressed last year at the session in Cartagena.

VIII.10 The Committee addressed this item in plenary when discussing the proposals made by Work Group 1. The Italian Delegation, endorsed by many other delegations, underlined that it was favourable to the strengthening of the Centre, provided that it is kept in mind that its autonomy is already defined by the World Heritage Convention, which expresses the sovereign will of the States Parties.

Arguments of legal, administrative and philosophical nature can be made against the 'proposal for the Centre's future as defined, among others by items 8 and 15 of the Agenda. However, given the time constraints, the Delegation of Italy expressed in plenary only the juridical (legal) aspects. In order to define the status of the Centre and the Secretariat one has to consider the following elements: creation, composition and functions. The Delegate of Italy then stated the following:

- "Foremost, Article 14 of the Convention affirms that the Committee is assisted by a Secretariat appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO;

- Secondly, the Centre, created at a later stage by the Director-General in order to assure the functions of the Secretariat to the Committee, has been made up of staff coming from two UNESCO sectors (Science and Culture) which are already entrusted the responsibility of the Convention's implementation;

- Finally, the same Committee has entrusted its Secretariat, through the World Heritage Centre, to ensure the coordination and information between the Committee and other UNESCO conventions concerned with the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.

The above-stated three elements reveal that the Centre is an integral part of the organization and of the Secretariat of UNESCO, and that any change of its legal status requires a new manifestation of the States Parties' will, which must be embodied in a new international agreement for the revision of the Convention.

A decision by the Committee therefore cannot be regarded as sufficient."

SYSTEMATIC MONITORING AND REPORTING

IX.2 In introducing this item the Secretariat recalled that Article 3 of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention stipulates that one of the essential functions of the World Heritage Committee is to "monitor the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List." However, provisions had been made only for regular monitoring of the sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and where sites were threatened. At the request of the Committee, therefore, the Secretariat and the advisory bodies, in consultation with the States Parties and individual experts, proceeded to develop a concept and framework of systematic monitoring and reporting.

IX.3 It was recalled that the initial discussions were held at the Committee's seventeenth session in December 1993 and that further proposals were endorsed by the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994. On that occasion, the Bureau requested the Secretariat to prepare a draft text on monitoring for inclusion in the Operational Guidelines.

IX.4 The Secretariat presented the Committee, in Working Documents WHC-94/CONF.003/6 and 003/9Rev., a detailed description of the proposed systematic monitoring methodology. The draft text on monitoring for the Operational Guidelines was presented under the corresponding agenda item (see section XIV of this report).

IX.5 The Committee commended the Secretariat for the progress made in defining the framework for the implementation of this important function of the Committee. It emphasized that one of the principal aims of monitoring was to assess if the values, on the basis of which the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List, have remained intact. It also stressed that a monitoring methodology should be flexible and adaptable to regional and national characteristics, as well as to the natural and cultural specificities of the sites. Furthermore, it expressed the need to involve external advice in the periodic reporting through the non-governmental advisory bodies and/or the existing decentralized UNESCO structures. The Delegate of Italy insisted on clarifying that "writing of Reports with the participation of experts should be finalized in order to ensure better the monitoring in the management of properties". The Delegate of Italy also drew attention to the positive experiences in his country in involving the authorities from different levels and sectors as well as the civic community in the conservation and management of the sites.

IX.6 The Observer of India informed the Committee of his Government's position that according to the World Heritage Convention's explicit stipulation it is the State Party which decides what measures are to be taken to ensure the preservation and protection of the World Heritage sites on its territory, and that monitoring procedures should not affect the decision-making prerogative of the States Parties. He also emphasized that any involvement of outside agencies in the monitoring process could be done only on the specific request and consent of the State Party concerned.

IX.7 The Representative of ICOMOS introduced this organization's experiences in monitoring and offered its assistance in monitoring, World Heritage information management and the identification of needs for preventive action and its implementation. He drew particular attention to the need to develop guidelines for site specific monitoring and the identification of the World Heritage values of each site. He stressed that in his opinion the key to meaningful monitoring is the understanding of what impact time and circumstances have had upon these values.

IX.8 The Representative of IUCN stressed that his organization had been monitoring World Heritage natural sites since 1983 and that, following the Operational Guidelines (para. 57), this is one of the functions attributed to it by the Committee.

IX.9 Following the discussion, the Committee adopted the proposals presented in Document WHC-94/CONF.003/6, section A, as the general framework for monitoring and reporting. The Committee also adopted a text on monitoring and reporting to be included in the Operational Guidelines. The adopted text is included in section XIV of this report.

IX.10 In order to implement its decisions regarding systematic monitoring, the Committee invited the Secretariat to undertake the following actions:

(a) Prepare a revised nomination format for presentation to the nineteenth sessions of the Bureau and the Committee, so as to provide adequate baseline information at the time of inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.

(b) Organize in early 1995, with the participation of the advisory bodies and other relevant institutions, a meeting of experts on World Heritage information management, in order to develop guidelines for the establishment of a World Heritage Data Base.

(c) Inform the States Parties of the decisions of the Committee, invite them to put monitoring structures in place and to report on the state of conservation of the property to the Committee on a 5-year basis.

(d) Prepare workplans for and implement regional programmes to provide advice and assistance to the States Parties in setting up adequate monitoring and management systems, to promote the preparation of 5-year state of conservation reports, to handle and analyse these reports and to present 5-year Regional state of the World Heritage Reports to the World Heritage Committee.

(e) Incorporate monitoring as a management tool in World Heritage training courses and other activities.

(f) Report to the nineteenth session of the Bureau on the implementation of the decisions of the Committee and on the application of the new monitoring and reporting procedures.

IX.11 Following the recommendations of Work Group 2, the Committee also invited the Secretariat in collaboration with the advisory bodies, to:

(a) present to the nineteenth session of the Bureau a workplan for the implementation of regional monitoring programmes so that States Parties will have sufficient time to prepare the state of conservation reports;

(b) develop a format for monitoring reporting as an aid to the States Parties and to facilitate the processing of the reports and the information contained in them through a computerized data base.

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING INITIATIVES

IX.12 As regards systematic monitoring and reporting, the Committee drew heavily on the positive experiences provided by different monitoring models that had been applied during the past years on an experimental basis. The Committee took note of monitoring reports prepared by States Parties (e.g. Mexico), non-governmental organizations at the invitation of the States Parties concerned (ICOMOS's involvement in monitoring of World Heritage sites in the united Kingdom, Norway and Sri Lanka) and through existing united Nations structures such as the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for the Cultural, Urban and Environmental Heritage in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Committee concluded that all of these models had resulted in credible monitoring reports and that the framework for systematic monitoring should allow for these models to be applied, depending on the wishes of the States Parties and the particular conditions of the countries and the regions.

Latin America and the Caribbean

IX.13

The Director of the UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project, recalling that in 1991 the Committee commissioned the project to undertake a pilot monitoring programme in Latin America and the Caribbean and that since 1991 site specific monitoring reports had been presented at the annual sessions of the Committee, presented to the Committee the final report of this monitoring programme.

IX.14 This synthesis report, entitled 'Systematic Monitoring Exercise, World Heritage sites Latin America, the Caribbean and Mozambique: Findings and International Perspectives' contains an assessment of the implementation of the Convention in the region and describes in detail the methodology and modalities applied in undertaking the monitoring programme. It also provides an analysis of the trends and threats relevant to the conservation of historic sites in the region, seven essays on specific case studies that illustrates different types of World Heritage sites, as well as individual synthesis reports of thirty-one properties.

IX.15 The Director presented to the Committee the recommendations on policies and guidelines for future action which emanated from the monitoring programme. He confirmed that on-site monitoring arrangements are indispensable as well as sound baseline information on each of the sites, if credible reporting is to take place on a periodic basis. In this sense monitoring should be seen as a management tool, whereas the reporting should be the basis of decision-making by the Committee and its Bureau regarding requests for technical cooperation, regional policies and action plans. He strongly advocated a regional approach to monitoring through the existing UNESCO structures to facilitate regional cooperation and networking.

IX.16 The Committee and the advisory bodies unanimously commended the Regional Project's Director for the holistic and at the same time practical approach to monitoring and for the excellent presentation of its results in the synthesis report.

Mexico

IX.17 As requested by the Bureau at its eighteenth session, ICOMOS reviewed the report prepared by the Government of Mexico on the state of conservation of ten cultural World Heritage sites in Mexico. ICOMOS informed the Committee that it is very impressed by the high standard of these reports. They are objective and do not seek to disguise problems where these exist. The format adopted corresponds very closely with that proposed for the systematic monitoring programme.

ICOMOS' involvement in monitoring in Europe and Asia

IX.18 ICOMOS informed the Committee of several initiatives in Europe and Asia where ICOMOS was invited by the State Party concerned to collaborate in the monitoring of the World Heritage sites on their territories. Such monitoring had been undertaken in 1994 in Norway, the United Kingdom and in the Asian region.

IX.19 The chief characteristics of the approach used in monitoring in Sri Lanka were its preparation through a survey of conservation issues and concerns in Asia with the aim to provide a broad framework within which to examine issues specific to Sri Lanka, followed by the mission of a monitoring team. This team included three external experts, three Sri Lankan experts and a team concerned with documentation issues. A series of seminars on conservation and World Heritage was also included in the mission programme.

IX.20 The Committee recalled that the World Heritage Committee at its seventeenth session and the Bureau at its eighteenth session examined reports on the state of conservation of seven natural and six cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger and on seventeen natural and fifty-nine cultural properties on the World Heritage List.

IX.21 The Committee commended the States Parties which had responded to its recommendations or observations and urged the States Parties which had not done this, to do so. In this context, the Committee emphasized that, according to the Operational Guidelines, one of the essential functions of the Committee is to monitor the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and that a continuous communication between the Committee and the states Parties regarding the state of conservation of the World Heritage sites is indispensable in this respect.

IX.22 The Committee examined the state of conservation reports prepared by the secretariat and the advisory bodies and concluded the following:

[see following decisions]

The Committee was informed that the Secretariat is continuously in contact with the Bulgarian authorities, which presented a report on their restoration efforts at the last session of the Bureau and have recently updated this report.

The Committee confirmed the decision of the Bureau at its eighteenth session that a detailed report on conservation measures should be presented to the nineteenth session of the Bureau in 1995. The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992. Missions to the site were carried out in 1992 and 1993. Given the fact that there had been a recent outbreak in fighting in the Bihac region, the situation remains critical. The Committee decided, therefore, that another fact-finding mission to this area, particularly to the Korkaova Uvala Virgin forest should take place. The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

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. The situation at the site was discussed between a representative of the President of Ecuador and World Heritage Centre staff and the Committee's continuous concerns were brought to the attention of the Government of Ecuador.

The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that another fact-finding mission should be carried out.

The site was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of a proposed iron-ore mining project and threats due to the arrival of a large number of refugees. An expert mission was undertaken in 1993 and proposals to revise the boundaries of the site were endorsed by the seventeenth session of the Committee in 1993. An international assistance project under the World Heritage Fund was carried out in 1994. The Committee was informed that the French Ministry of Cooperation and the Ministry of the Environment in cooperation with IUCN France is carrying out a study and review of the site with regard to potential future investment. A report on this project is expected in due course.

The Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested that the Bureau at its nineteenth session be informed of the results of the French mission.

At its eighteenth session, the World Heritage Bureau took note of the response by the Indian Government concerning Manas wildlife Sanctuary which was inscribed on the List of World Heritage In Danger in 1992.

The Committee was informed that the Secretariat received a report on the conditions of the site from WWF-India. The report emphasises the critical situation in the area. Furthermore, the Government of India has indicated its interest in a joint mission to the site by World Heritage Centre staff and local NGOs.

The Committee commended the Indian authorities on this initiative and recommended that this mission be undertaken when conditions in the area are sufficiently stable. The Committee decided to retain Manas wildlife Sanctuary on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee was informed that the wildlife in this site has been decimated due to the consequences of the conflict between the Resistance Army of the Tuaregs and Government forces. Hence, the Committee was encouraged to note that the warring parties had signed a peace accord on 9 October 1994. The implementation of this accord by the new Government is however an essential prerequisite for the conservation of this site. The Committee requested the Centre to write to the new Government, recalling Niger's international obligations under the Convention to safeguard the Aïr and Tenere Reserves and encourage them to implement the peace accord. The Committee also wished that the Centre inform the Niger authorities that the continuous implementation of the peace accord will permit an assessment of the current status of wildlife populations and the resumption of the IUCN/WWF Project, funded by Denmark and Switzerland.

The site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1993 due to an increasing number of threats since the date of its inscription on the List in 1979. The State and Federal Governments and the Agricultural Industry are providing significant financial support for the management of the site and for its long-term restoration in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. The American authorities had prepared a report for the eighteenth session of the Committee.

The Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that at its last session it was deeply concerned about the civil unrest in Zaire which led to donors (EEC and USAID) suspending their support to this site. Many Park staff had not been remunerated for almost a year. Despite the fact the Bureau granted emergency assistance of US$ 20,000 to meet costs of field operations, poaching of wildlife has continued and the capability of staff to patrol the 650 km long boundary of the Park remains far below desirable levels. Human population in the fishing village near Lake Idi Amin has grown several fold and pose a serious threat to the integrity of the Park. Since July 1994, the threats to the Park have exacerbated several fold by the influx of almost 1 million refugees, fleeing the war in Rwanda, adjacent to the southern parts of the Park. The fuelwood demand of the refugees camped inside the Park, estimated at 600 metric tons/day, is leading to widespread depletion of forests in the lowlands; the Mountain Gorilla and its habitats at higher elevations, fortunately, have not been impacted so far.

The Committee was informed by the Representative of IUCN that the Director of the Zairois Institute for the Conservation of Nature has verbally indicated his agreement to IUCN's suggestion of placing this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Accordingly, the Committee included Virunga National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee recognized that a major effort over the next decade will be needed to rehabilitate and strengthen management of Virunga and obtain local support for its conservation. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Centre to communicate its decision to UNHCR and other agencies involved in the management of refugee camps in and around Virunga and express its concern over depletion of forest resources in the Park, stressing that utmost care be taken to avoid establishment of refugee camps in or near national parks. The Committee also asked the Centre to inform the Government of Zaire of its willingness to co-operate with IUCN as well as WWF, World Bank, UNDP, UNHCR and GTZ and provide technical cooperation and training assistance to address threats to the integrity of Virunga.

The Committee was informed that the Minister of Environment, Australia, has temporarily halted a 1500-bed, resort development project immediately adjacent to the boundary of this site to allow for a study of potential impacts on the World Heritage site. The Committee requested the Centre to write to the Minister of Environment, Australia, expressing support for his efforts to protect this site from the impacts of the proposed large scale tourism development project.

The Committee recalled that at the time of inscription of this site it requested IUCN to report back on the progress with respect to
(1) implementation of the Commonwealth/State management agreement and
(2) efforts to achieve more effective conservation of the site.

As the Government of Australia had assured that the October 1990 agreement was to provide the management framework for this site, the Committee was concerned that most of the provisions of the agreement have not been operationalised. Therefore, the Centre wrote to the Australian authorities requesting positive and concrete action, and was informed by the national authorities that a copy of the new agreement would be available by early December. A report from the Australian authorities is anticipated shortly.

A report prepared by WWF and Ecumenical Patriachate of Constantinople (EPC) has pointed out that the ecology of this site is being impacted by overgrazing, chemical pollution and forestry activities. In early December the World Heritage Centre received a letter from the Greek authorities outlining the measures which are being implemented to address these concerns. The Committee requested that a field review together with the appropriate Greek authorities be carried out to evaluate these conflicting reports.

The Committee was informed of IUCN's field evaluation report on the state of conservation of this property. It requested the Australian authorities to review the boundaries of the site and to continue their recent progress in improving the management of the site.

The Committee recalled that this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List because of its importance as a wintering ground for the Siberian crane. At the time of inscription in 1985, there were 41 cranes which wintered in Keoladeo National Park. The Committee was informed that in 1994, no Siberian cranes wintered in Keolodeo; it was thought that due to hunting along their migratory routes in Afghanistan and Pakistan the population which used Keoladeo for wintering appears to have been extirpated. The Committee therefore requested that the Centre write to the Indian authorities expressing its concern and requesting that the status of the Siberian crane population be monitored for another year. The Committee noted that in the event that there are no signs of the return of the species to Keoladeo in 1995, then it might consider the prospect of delisting this site. In that case the Committee would request IUCN to make a detailed presentation on the subject at its next session.