III.2 The newly-elected Chairperson thanked warmly the outgoing Chairperson, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen, for his dedicated work in the past year. Having underlined Dr Wichiencharoen's great experience and passionate commitment to World Heritage, Dr Winkelmann then outlined the challenges that lie ahead of the Committee and which can be met only through a coordinated effort of all parties concerned. The full text of his speech is given in Annex III.

VI.2 The Committee also decided to create a working group which would prepare sub-items (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Agenda item 7 (reports on the state of conservation) for their subsequent discussion in the Committee in light of the debate at the Tenth session of the General Assembly of states Parties. It was also agreed that this working group, as proposed by Australia, would prepare for the Committee a set of options on the policy and methodology of systematic monitoring.

VII.51 The report of the Working Group was presented by its Chairperson to the Committee's plenary session on Friday, 8 December 1995. He informed the Committee that the Working Group recognized that the issue under consideration consists of two steps:

1. the monitoring by the states Parties of the state of their World Heritage sites;
2. the regular reporting on the state of these sites in accordance with the Convention.

VII.52 He furthermore "indicated that a small group of States Parties (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hungary and India) upon the proposal of the Delegate of Cyprus, had prepared a preliminary version of a draft resolution for the eleventh General Assembly. This text was discussed at length and amended accordingly, with important suggestions made by the Delegates of Hungary and Italy. A final draft was prepared for discussion at the plenary session of the Committee which read as follows:

The General Assembly,

1. Noting that the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has recognized that the cultural and natural heritage 'are increasingly threatened with destruction, not only by traditional causes of decay, but also by changing social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction';

2. Reaffirms that 'deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world';

3. Considers that the Convention should be interpreted in the light of twenty-three years of experience in its implementation.

4. Considers that such interpretation recognizes the sovereign right of the state Party concerned over the World Heritage sites situated on its territory;

5. Considers that a well-reflected and formulated common policy for the protection of cultural and natural heritage is likely to create a continuing interaction between states Parties;

6. Emphasizes the interest of each state Party to be informed of the experience of others with regard to conservation methods and the possibilities so offered, through voluntary international cooperation, for the general improvement of all actions undertaken;

7. Reaffirms its role and the role of the World Heritage committee as standard setting organizations;

8. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the state Party concerned and that the commitment to provide regular reports on the state of the site is consistent with the princip1es ser our in the Convention in

(i) the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth preambular clauses,

(ii) Art. 4

(iii) Art. 6.1. and 6.2.

(iv) Art. 7

(v) Art. 10

(vi) Art. 11

(vii) Art. 13

(viii) Art. 15

(ix) Art. 21.3

(x) Art. 29;

9. Emphasizes that monitoring by the state Party is part of the site management which remains the responsibility of the states Parties where the site is located, and that regular reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the convention;

10. Recalls that Article 4 of the Convention provides that 'Each state Party .... recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage . . . situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that state'.

11. Recalls that Article 6 lays down the concept of world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate' , and that Article 7 requires the establishment of a 'system of international cooperation' and assistance 'designed to support states Parties' efforts to conserve and identify that heritage.

12. Emphasizes that regular reporting should be part of a consultative process and not treated as a sanction or a coercive mechanism;

13. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting must respect the principles of state sovereignty.

The involvement of the Committee, through its secretariat or advisory bodies, in the preparation of the regular reports would be with the agreement of the state Party concerned. The states Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat or the advisory bodies. The Secretariat may also commission expert advice with the agreement of the states Parties.

14.  Suggests the General Conference of UNESCO to activate the procedures in Art. 29 of the Convention and to refer to the World Heritage Committee the responsibility to respond to the reports.

15. Encourages States Parties to take advantage of shared information and experience on World Heritage matters;

16. Invites other States to become states Parties to the Convention.

VII.53 The Committee adopted the draft resolution by acclamation and decided that the committee at its twentieth session should examine and adopt a report prepared by the Bureau for submission to the eleventh General Assembly of states Parties. The committee also decided to include it in its Report to the 29th session of the General Conference of UNESCO.

VII.54 As regards points A ('Revised nomination form'), B (Format for periodic World Heritage state of conservation reports'), C (Work plan for the implementation of regional monitoring programmes and the examination of regional synthesis reports by the World Heritage Committee') and D ('Progress report on the preparation of regional synthesis reports') of the agenda item, the Committee decided to defer its decision until the next session and invited the states Parties to comment in writing on the appropriate working documents on each point.

- Reports on the state of conservation of specific properties;
- Report of the working group on monitoring and reporting.

This question also appears in Chapter IX in the framework of the presentation of the Report of the General Assembly of States Parties.

Furthermore, the committee examined state of conservation reports on thirteen natural, one mixed cultural and natural site and nineteen cultural World Heritage sites.

The Committee recalled that the site was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 because of negative impacts from a proposed iron-ore mining project and threats due to the arrival of a large number of refugees from neighbouring countries. It furthermore recalled that an extensive report was presented to the Bureau at its nineteenth session in July 1995.

The Committee noted that in response to the Bureau's request for clarifications on the legal protection and classification of the site, the Ministry for Energy and Environment, by letter of 15 September 1995, indicated that the Government had taken several measures to develop and protect the site. This included the creation of a Management centre, "Centre de Gestion de l'Environnement des Monts Nimba (CEGEN)", responsible for all environmental and legal questions, as well as the international classification of the site, the monitoring of the water quality in the region and integrated rural development and socio-economic studies.

The Committee commended the States Parties for their efforts. Given the uncertainties and the shortcomings in on-site management, the Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The IUCN Representative informed the Committee that recent information on the site indicates that the civil unrest continues to restrict management efforts. Habitat conditions in a portion of Manas were still intact, but numbers of large fauna species were particularly low due to commercial poaching.

The Committee recalled that it had on numerous occasions expressed its concerns on the state of conservation of the site and requested the State Party to provide detailed information.

The Committee took note of the intervention by the Observer of India regarding Manas wildlife Sanctuary and welcomed the offer of the Government of India to provide a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site. The Committee recalled and thanked the Government of India for its invitation to representatives of the World Heritage committee to undertake a mission to New Delhi, Assam and Manas, for discussions and to visit the site. The committee requested the Centre to cooperate with the Indian authorities in arranging for this visit as soon as possible and report back to the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee.

The Committee recalled that at the request of the Niger authorities, the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 as it was affected by civil disturbances. A Peace Accord was signed in October 1994.

The Delegate of Niger took the floor and recommended that an evaluation mission be organized to review the situation at the site.

Meanwhile, the Committee decided that the site would remain on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The situation will be reviewed by the Committee at its twentieth session in the light of information provided by the mission.

The Committee recalled that 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 World Heritage List in 1979 and that Federal State and local governments, as well as private foundations, had joined forces in providing significant financial support for the management of the site and its long-term restoration.

The World Heritage Centre presented a monitoring report, received from the State Party in November 1995, indicating that the rehabilitation of the Everglades ecosystem (restoration of water regime) would take 17 years at a cost of US$ 2 billion. The Committee commended the State Party for the actions taken to redress the situation.

The Committee, however, concluded that the site remains seriously threatened and decided that it be retained on theList of World Heritage in Danger.

The committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 and that the Bureau at its nineteenth session examined a substantive state of conservation report, prepared by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Bulgaria.

The Representative of IUCN informed the committee that a monitoring mission was undertaken by the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention and a detailed monitoring report was prepared. This report indicates that the new water control structure allows an inflow of water on a small scale, and that a small colony of the Dalmatian Pelican had been reestablished. The integrity of the site, however, has not yet been adequately restored.

The Committee took note of the report received from the Ramsar Secretariat and the comments made by IUCN. The Delegate of France supported the report presented.

The Committee encouraged the Bulgarian authorities in their continuing efforts to restore the site, including increasing the water intake and the preparation of a management plan for the site. The Committee furthermore requested that a status report be presented in three years time. Meanwhile, the Committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 and that information was received from both the Permanent Delegation of the Republic _of Croatia to UNESCO and the Croatian National Commission for UNESCO, indicating that damage from the period of occupation was evident. The Committee furthermore noted that the site was reopened to the public on 10 August 1995 and that the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee approved a request for emergency assistance (communications equipment) for an amount of US$ 30,000. Upon the granting of US$ 30,000, the State Party agreed to provide a contribution of US$ 60,000 for a total of US$ 90,000. The Centre informed the Committee that a management and planning meeting for the Park is scheduled for spring 1996.

The Committee took note of the report presented by the Secretariat and commended the State Party for its special contribution and endorsed the management and planning meeting for the Park scheduled for spring 1996. The committee decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until the region stabilizes.

The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1983 and placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992 due to threats from poachers, boundary encroachment and unplanned road construction. It took note of the preliminary report by INEFAN (Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Areas Naturales y Vida Silvestre) on the environmental impact of the construction of the Guamote-Macas road in the Park, and an extensive report of October 1995 provided by the IUCN Office in Ecuador. This report indicates that the road continues to be the main threat and has caused irreversible damage to the natural environment, both through direct (pollution, dynamite use, loss of biological corridors etc.) and indirect impacts (new settlements, poaching, cattle ranching etc.).

The Delegate of Ecuador provided further information on the situation at the site, underlining that measures are being taken to modify the situation and to reduce the impacts. He emphasised that the state Party will make more efforts to halt the damage in the future.

The Committee commended the state Party for the reports provided, however, expressed its continuing concerns about the construction work causing negative environmental impacts. It requested the Centre to send a letter to the Minister for the Environment for an environmental impact study and to urge the state Party to take steps to ensure much stricter environmental regulations. The Committee furthermore, requested the Centre to write to INEFAN commending them for their actions for modifications of the road, the tenure study and the initiative for an updated management plan. The Committee decided to retain on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee recalled that Virunga National Park was included on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the last session of the World Heritage Committee in December 1994, due to the tragic events in Rwanda and the subsequent massive influx of refugees from that country. It noted that the site is seriously threatened by the uncontrolled arrival of refugees, causing deforestation and poaching at the site.

The Committee took note of the reports provided both by the Secretariat and IUCN, as well as the responses received by the Ministry for the Environment of Zaire on the concerns raised by the Bureau at its nineteenth session. The Committee also took note that the European Union, the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) and UNHCR are currently carrying out projects mainly to strengthen the management of the site.

The Committee, taking into account the presence of thousands of refugees in and adjacent to Virunga, expressed its serious concerns about the continuing degradation of the Park and decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Centre to support the work of IGCP and other organizations and asked both the Centre and IUCN to continue to liaise with various donors and agencies. It requested the Centre to organize a mission to the site and asked that a report be provided to the twentieth session of the World Heritage Bureau.

The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its nineteenth session took note of a report received from the Fundaci6n Rio Platano concerning the site, inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982. The report concerned the agricultural intrusion at the south and western borders of the site and on the land reform programme and its implementation in north-eastern Honduras. The Bureau at its nineteenth session requested IUCN to verify the situation and to report back to the nineteenth session of the World Heritage committee. Subsequently, the Centre received a letter from the Minister for the Environment requesting a mission to the site to evaluate the situation.

The mission was carried out by the IUCN Regional Office based in Costa Rica in November 1995. The report of the mission outlines the major threats and concludes with eleven follow-up actions, including the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee took note of the report and requested the Centre to contact the authorities to obtain an official letter on the actions to be taken to protect the site.

The Committee took note that a mission to consider the state of conservation of Komodo National Park took place in July 1995 under the leadership of the Chair of the Indonesian World Heritage Committee, accompanied by representatives of the national authorities and the UNESCO Office in Jakarta. The Committee expressed its concern for the four officials of the Indonesian World Heritage Committee still missing at sea after a tragic accident during the course of a monitoring mission to Komodo. The Committee paid tribute to their dedication to the cause of World Heritage protection and preservation.

The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its last session took note of the report on the site, presented by the IUCN Representative, indicating that the Mitsubishi Corporation in partnership with the Mexican Government, has a project to convert a part of the lagoon into salt ponds for industrial salt production. A one-mile long pier is proposed, which could disturb the grey whales within the lagoon. The Committee noted that no response has yet been received to a letter written to the authorities indicating the concerns raised at the nineteenth session of the Bureau. The Delegate of Mexico took the floor and informed the Committee that the project is still under study.

The committee recalled that at its eighteenth session it requested IUCN to present to the Bureau an evaluation of the revised boundaries of this site, based on the report of the consultant working on the plan for the area. The World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that it has received a "Preliminary Land Use and Management Plan" of November 1995 which the Centre has transmitted to IUCN for review.

The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed under natural criteria on the World Heritage List in 1990 and as a cultural landscape in 1993. The Centre informed the Committee that it received information from a member of the local Maori community about the dropping of 1080 poison on Mount Tongariro to-combat the possum browse which threatens indigenous flora, and that the Department of Conservation had held consultations with the community, which agreed to a time-limited operation, which would not contaminate waterways. The Committee took note of the report.

The Committee recalled that the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1985 and that a report on the site was presented to the nineteenth session of the Bureau. In addition, the IUCN Representative informed the Committee about (a) the need for an inventory of cultural heritage within the Park to be undertaken, and (b) road proposals which might become a serious threat to the integrity of the World Heritage site.

The Committee thanked the Peruvian authorities for the arrangements made to facilitate the IUCN mission to the Huascaran National Park World Heritage site.

The Committee commended the commitment of the Chief of Huascaran National Park and the Director-General of Protected Natural Areas and wildlife for their stewardship of the site.

The Committee, however, expressed concern at the low level of financial support for the site's management and urged the authorities to allocate additional resources in recognition of the importance of the Park as a World Heritage site and its value for education and tourism.

The Committee recommended that an archaeological/historical heritage inventory be compiled to facilitate conservation of the cultural elements of the site.

The Committee noted with concern reports that there are proposals to develop roads within the site and invited the Peruvian authorities to provide clarification on this issue.