The Representative of IUCN underlined that they are awaiting a detailed monitoring report from the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and recalled that the previous Bureau felt that the site may no longer retain the values for which it was inscribed.

The Bureau took note of both the report received from the State Party and the comments made by IUCN and recommended that no decision can be taken until the monitoring report by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat is received. This report should be presented to the session of the outgoing Bureau in December 1995.

From the report it is clear that the road has caused irreversible damage to the natural environment, as the construction has caused a number of landslides. The Commission recommended that the following measures should be taken: the “road should be made narrower (6 meters) ; manual labour should be used and not heavy machinery, to take care of the disposal of excavated material; the establishment of supervision by environmental experts; the setting-up of additional control posts at the entrance of the Park to halt spontaneous settlements; intensification of patrols in the Park to allow only government controlled eco-tourism; the creation of a small visitor centre for tourists; an inventory of the legal land owners in the Park should be made, and the new part of the road should be considered as an ‘environmental pilot stretch”.

The Representative of IUCN underlined that the impact on the site was worse than expected and that the local IUCN office will provide an update on conditions in the site in September 1995.

The Bureau asked the Centre to write to the Government of Ecuador to commend the authorities for the impact report and to transmit the concerns of the Bureau as well as to ask for clarification on the present situation of the threats to the site.

Two experts from the French IUCN Committee presented a report on a mission to the site which took place end-1994. The mission stated the international donor community has not given support and there are also problems with regard to the absence of commitment by the Government of Guinea, including the fact that the site is legally not sufficiently protected or classified as a protected area on the national level, with responsibilities shared by four ministries. The expert also spoke of negativeimpacts of the potential mining project adjacent to the site. The mission, furthermore, reported on scientific issues, including the lack of topographic thematic mapping and monitoring of water quality. The mission recommended enhanced conservation management including resource inventories with international cooperation and bilateral development agencies. Road projects should be reviewed and rural development projects outside the site extended. The enhancement of educational and development projects with the local population are considered as a cornerstone for the future protection of the site.

The Bureau recalled that the boundaries were revised and adopted by the seventeenth session of the World Heritage Committee and requested the Centre, jointly with IUCN, ‘to follow-up on the results of the mission, including a letter to the Guinean authorities to ask for clarifications on the legal protection and classification of the site. It recommended to the World Heritage Committee to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Government of India, to elaborate the terms of reference for a mission to New Delhi, Assam and Manas in India.

The World Heritage Centre received a monitoring report from the National Park Service in May 1995 indicating that the Federal Government is engaged in restoration planning for the Everglades National Park under the aegis of a Federal Restoration Working Group. The Group provided a comprehensive statement listing priorities, recent accomplishments and critical next steps in the Federal programme for the Everglades restoration. The Governor and Cabinet of the State of Florida approved the acquisition of portions of the Frog Pond, a historically transitional wetland on the eastern boundary of the Park, crucial to the restoration of ground water levels and surface flow. Recent negotiations have led to agreement with property owners.

The Bureau concluded that the site remains seriously threatened and recommended that the site be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The report recommends:(1) a long-term-political solution, including the evacuation of refugee camps within the site and (2) that IZCN should pay the salaries of their staff at the Park.

The Bureau discussed the situation at length and recommended: (1) to prepare a press release jointly with IUCN to raise awareness of the need for repatriation and re-location of the refugee camps; (2) to write a letter to the Government of Zaire for greater operational support including the payment of salaries of the staff of the site; (3) that the Centre arranges a meeting between the Director-General of UNESCO with the Ambassador of Zaire to discuss these issues, and (4) that, at the request of the Delegate of Senegal, all possibilities should be explored within the UN system, in particular with UNHCR and UNDP, to find a solution. The Bureau furthermore, requested the Centre to write a letter commending UNDP/GEF, the European Union and the GTZ for their support for the protection of the site and encourages continuous cooperation between the newly-appointed environmental coordinator and the World Heritage Centre.

The Director-General of IUCN wrote to the Australian Government in March 1995 seeking advice on this issue. A detailed reply was received from Senator Faulkner, Australian Minister for the Environment, dated 28 June 1995, stating the commitment of the Australian and Tasmanian Governments to protecting World Heritage values and to undertake a comprehensive assessment of Tasmanian forests.

The Bureau noted concerns which have been expressed about logging and reading activities in forest areas which may impinge on World Heritage values in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area, and resolved to thank the State Party for the encouraging response of the Australian Minister for the Environment. In particular the Bureau noted: (1) the commitment of both the Australian and Tasmanian Governments to negotiate a Regional Forest Agreement which would involve a comprehensive assessment of a wide range of values, including World Heritage values, for forested areas in Tasmania; (2) that, in the meantime, the two governments have agreed to avoid activities that may significantly affect those areas of the old-growth forest or wilderness that are likely to have high conservation value; (3) that pending completion of a Regional Forest Assessment, the two governments have agreed to jointly undertake an assessment of those forest areas where commercial logging will be deferred, to allow among other things, an assessment of World Heritage values. The Bureau asked to be kept informed of developments which should maintain the integrity of the existing site and may lead to the identification by the State Party of further World Heritage values, including possible additions to the boundaries of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage site.

ICOMOS stressed that as this was a mixed site all additional information concerning this site should be referred to ICOMOS as well as to IUCN.

In 1994 a new government took office and the French company, "Compagnie Generale d'Aéronautique-CGA” decided to move forward with a significant tourism venture for which they had obtained a 20-year concession in 1985. The ‘Company La Gounda-Manova S.A." has been working with the new government negotiating funding,staffing and management direction for the site. From the 9 to 14 of May 1995 a monitoring mission was carried out on behalf of the World Heritage Centre by staff member of the Division of Ecological Sciences of UNESCO. This mission produced a positive report on the current situation in the Park. The Bureau took note of the report, acknowledged that finally a report was made on this World Heritage site and asked the Centre and IUCN to jointly follow-up the project.

IUCN raised concern that the report was still not available, although the World Heritage Committee had specifically requested this information and indicated that this concerns not only the boundary question, but also the management regime, the legal status of the different parts as well as a new map of the site. The Delegate from Oman indicated that the consultant could not start his work earlier due to factors beyond his control and indicated that the results will be presented in due course.

The Bureau requested the Centre to inform the Ugandan authorities of its concerns about the depletion of the population of mountain gorillas and to obtain information about the steps undertaken in this respect to ensure no further reductions in the future.

The Observer of the United States indicated that the proposed plans for the realignment have been abandoned. A detailed report will be presented to the next session of the Bureau.

The Delegate of Germany raised concern about the serious threats to the world's first National Park to be established. The Bureau recalled Article 6.3 of the World Heritage Convention. The Canadian Observer underlined that the proposed mining operation was to be carried out by a privately-owned American company. IUCN recalled a range of other threats outlined in a recent IUCN publication, such as deforestation by a religious group, tourism impact and wildlife policies. The Observer from the United States invited the Centre and IUCN to visit the site and to review the situation before the end of August. The Bureau decided that: (1) a letter from the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee be written to the States Party, underlining the serious concerns of the Bureau; (2) that a joint mission should take place to the site, subject to extrabudgetary funding, and (3) that a report on the impact of the proposed mine as well as an outline of other threats facing Yellowstone, should be made available for the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee.