The Bureau was informed that the Croatian authorities had revised the boundaries of the Park to increase its total area to include the entire underground basin which supplies water to lakes and streams of Plitvice and had trained Park employees. A road outside the northeast boundary of the Park to re-direct traffic currently passing through the Park is under construction and, a state of conservation report on the Park, including the experience gained from the management of visitors during the summer of 1997, is expected to be submitted to the Centre by 15 September 1997. 

The Bureau commended the Croatian authorities for increasing the total area of the Park to include the entire underground basin supplying Plitvice's lakes and streams and constructing a road outside of the Park's northeast boundary in order to redirect truck-traffic currently flowing through the Park. The Bureau requested the Centre to contact the Croatian authorities to obtain a map of the new boundaries of the Park and to find out whether they intend to enlarge the World Heritage area to conform with the Park's new boundaries. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, after reviewing the state of conservation report due by 15 September 1997, decide whether or not to remove Plitvice Lakes National Park from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to contact relevant authorities of the new Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in order to arrange for a high-level mission to meet with senior officials to remind them of their responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention and to discuss restoration and rehabilitation of the country's five World Heritage sites. This mission should initiate project proposals in consultation with the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Implementation of some of the projects may be financed by emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund. A long-term policy and strategic vision for World Heritage conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the main need at the moment. The Centre should co-ordinate its activities with those of other UN agencies and conservation NGOs active in the country. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to provide detailed reports on both sites, at the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau to be held on 28 and 29 November 1997, in Naples, Italy.

IUCN informed the Bureau that the implementation of a number of conservation projects at Sangay, including several funded by WWF and the European Union have begun.

The Bureau commended INEFAN for its report and action, but reiterated it's calls for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Guamote Macas road construction project. The Bureau recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau was informed that the Head of the Bureau of Agriculture of the Bahir Dar Region, where Simen National Park is located, informed the Centre of his Regional Government's disagreement with the Committee's decision to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. He drew the Centre's attention to the fact that although Simen was neglected in the past, currently Simen receives high attention and effective protection. The number of Walia Ibex has increased as a result of proper protection of the Park and the Central and the Regional Governments are implementing a rehabilitation programme to restore the Park's infrastructure to its previous state. Furthermore, he indicated that the Regional Authorities do not accept the statement in the report of the technical mission to Simen, undertaken in November, 1996: i.e. "A majority of participants endorsed the recommendation that Simen Mountain National Park should be listed as World Heritage site in Danger". Following the Committee's decision to include Simen National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Regional Authorities in Bahir Dar have decided not to convene the technical workshop, originally scheduled for 10-18 April, 1997, and for which the Committee approved a sum of US$ 30,000 at its last session. They have called upon the Central Government of Ethiopia to co-operate with concerned national and regional institutions to organize a discussion forum with UNESCO in order to reverse the decision taken by the Committee.

The Bureau noted that a mission to Simen National Park had been undertaken by the United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) from 10 to 25 April 1997 and that a buffer zone development project for the site is under consideration.

The Bureau acknowledged the possibility that the views of the Regional Government in Bahir Dar may not have been accurately reflected when the Committee decided to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. Nevertheless, the Bureau called upon the Ethiopian authorities in Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar to view the Committee's decision in a positive light and to proceed with convening the stakeholders meeting. The Bureau in particular requested the Director of the Centre to meet with the Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia to UNESCO to resolve the problem and to explain the Committee's decision. Furthermore, the Bureau recommended that the Centre and IUCN take actions to assist the Ethiopian authorities to convene the stakeholder's meeting and to submit a report to the twenty-first session of the Committee in December 1997 so as to enable the Committee to review Simen National Park's status as a World Heritage site in Danger.

The Bureau, while recognizing these options for setting up a Foundation or a Special Fund for Mt. Nimba, noted that the mining companies are not yet ready to contribute funds to launch the initiative. Furthermore, the Bureau took note of the fact that the Minister of Environment of Guinea acknowledged the threats to Mount Nimba, reiterated the commitment of his Government to the protection of the site and requested that the site be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit information concerning the options for setting up a Foundation or a Special Fund for Mt. Nimba to the authorities of Guinea and recommended that the Committee retain Mt. Nimba on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau noted that a revised budget breakdown requested from the Honduran authorities for a US$ 30,000 project, approved by the Bureau at its twentieth session for preparing a management plan for Rio Platano, has not yet been received. The Bureau was informed that major changes in the staff of the Ministry of Environment of Honduras had occurred and that a number of projects have been initiated in cooperation with Nature Conservancy, WWF and KFW (Germany). The Bureau noted that IUCN will provide a report on Rio Platano at the forthcoming session of the Committee.

The Bureau requested that the Centre contact the Honduran authorities to obtain the necessary information for the implementation of the management planning project and recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

(i) Militancy of the Bodo people in the early 1990s had damaged the infrastructure for the protection of Manas and demoralized staff, resulting in poachers taking a heavy toll of wildlife populations within Manas Wildlife Santuary. (ii) Since 1993, militant activity has diminished and Manas authorities have been able to improve relationships with surrounding villagers and seek their support for conservation. Peace and order in and around Manas have been re-established and an estimated 8,000 tourists visited Manas in 1996. (iii) Damaged ranger and guard units are in urgent need of repair and/or reconstruction. The poaching threat continues to prevail as the mobility and the communications capability of Manas staff remain limited.

The Bureau was informed of a report on Manas Wildlife Sanctuary from the MOEF transmitted via the Permanent Delegation of India, which notes that "Manas deserves to continue to be in the World Heritage in Danger List", as it helps to draw international attention to the site. The MOEF has also submitted an emergency assistance request for a contribution from the Fund for US$ 235,000 to implement a three-year rehabilitation plan estimated to cost a total sum of US$ 2,135,000.

The Bureau commended the Indian authorities for the report provided and their support for organizing the mission to the site. The Bureau noted that the emergency assistance request in support of the rehabilitation of the site will be discussed under Agenda Item 6 "Requests for international assistance" and recommended that the Committee retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

By letter of 20 March 1997, the Permanent Delegation of Niger has provided the terms of reference for a monitoring mission to the site, expected to be carried out in the autumn of 1997. The Bureau heard a presentation by Mr. André Bourgeot (CNRS/EHESS, France) who had carried out a mission to the site in April 1997 together with local IUCN staff. He indicated that: (a) there were no security problems in the area; (b) the vegetation is less impacted than the wildlife populations, whose decline was noticeable; and (c) an analysis of the Reserve's situation should be undertaken by a team including a competent specialist in ecology. The Bureau noted that the proposal to establish an Air-and-Ténéré Biosphere Reserve covering 24 million hectares was favourably recommended to the MAB Bureau for inscription on the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. The Delegate of Niger informed the Bureau that this Biosphere Reserve would reach as far as the Algerian border and constitute a huge wildlife reserve with the World Heritage site as core area and buffer zone. The Delegate of Niger thanked Mr. Bourgeot for his report and commended IUCN for their efforts to support the conservation of the site. Furthermore, he was of the view that the state of conservation of the site has improved considerably and the site might be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee at its forthcoming session review the status of Air-and-Ténéré, future plans for its continuing recovery and decide whether or not it should be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

IUCN informed the Bureau that the report of an official mission to the site by the Ramsar Convention Secretariat had suggested that the Tunisian authorities give a clear indication of the measures they plan to take based on a number of studies already carried out and which have identified conservation actions. Furthermore, an agreement on the release of water from the dams should be reached and a central management authority addressing all management issues in the site, including the long-term management of the Tindja sluice needs to be established. The Ramsar mission recommended the repair of the sluices, the filling of the Joumine Canal to restore the Joumine Marsh, and continuous scientific monitoring of the Park's ecology.

In its discussions on the potential delisting of Ichkeul, the Bureau recalled the Committee's discussions with regard to another wetland, i.e. Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria) and that the Committee had given the Bulgarian authorities a three-year time frame to restore the site.

The Bureau requested the Centre to transmit the recommendations made by the mission of the Ramsar Secretariat to the Tunisian authorities and invite them to provide their views with regard to the implementation of the recommendations, by 15 October 1997. The Bureau also recommended that the Committee set up a three-year time table to review the outcome of efforts to restore Ichkeul National Park and in the meantime retain the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee in consultation with IUCN and the State Party and based on its review of the state of conservation report due from the State Party by 15 September 1997, determine whether actions taken to mitigate potential and ascertained threats to Yellowstone are adequate and whether or not Yellowstone should be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau decided to commend the State Party on the comprehensive approach adopted and to invite the State Party to report to the Centre on the outcome relevant to World Heritage by 15 October 1997.

IUCN also commented favourably on the manner in which World Heritage cultural and natural values are being taken into account in the preparation of a new management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, including a workshop held on 16 June 1997 with the Anangu people (traditional and legal owners of the Park) and Park staff on the implications of World Heritage status on visitor management. Issues raised in the IUCN report on other sites, i.e. Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and Shark Bay, noted a number of positive decisions taken, particularly those aimed at conserving dugong habitats in the Great Barrier Reef.

The Delegate of Australia commented in detail on all the issues raised in the IUCN report about Australia and suggested that IUCN seek official comment from the Australian government as the next step. She also expressed concern at the lack of time to consider and respond to the report and requested more advanced consultations with the State Party to permit dialogue on the issues raised. Concern at the late tabling of the report was also expressed by the Delegate of Germany. The Delegate of Australia assured the Bureau that the State Party would continue to maintain its commitment to respect the integrity of its World Heritage sites.

The Chairperson ruled that the issues raised in the IUCN report should not be further considered at this meeting, because in many cases the States Parties had not been given the opportunity to examine the issues raised, to verify their accuracy and to respond.

The Bureau requested the Centre to urgently contact Brazilian authorities to encourage them to re-establish control over the section of the Park to close the road and to rehabilitate the damaged areas within the Park. The Bureau observed the fact that Iguacu (Brazil) and Iguazu (Argentina) National Parks continue to remain as two separate World Heritage sites, despite the prevailing opportunity to link them into a single transborder World Heritage area for purposes of the World Heritage List.

The Bureau was deeply concerned to learn that the armed conflict which spread, during early 1997, to the whole of the region has led to the looting of all facilities and killing of several elephants in this site, inscribed on the World Heritage List in Mexico (December, 1996). Most of the expatriate and research staff have fled the Park and those remaining in the site receive only minimum salaries. There are reports of gold mining within the Park and the new Government's policy with regard to respecting the boundaries of the World Heritage area remain unclear.

b)   Kahuzi Biega National Park 

The Bureau noted with grave concern that portions of this Park had been deforested and considerable hunting of wildlife had been reported. Park facilities have been looted and destroyed and most of the Park staff have left the area. The Park may also be serving as a hide-out for militant groups and conflicts between tribal populations in the area have also been reported. Although UNHCR and GTZ (Germany) are considering to provide support for the Park projects cannot be started until the security situation in the area returns to normal.

The Bureau expressed its serious concerns regarding the integrity of Okapi Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park and recommended that the Committee, at its next session, include these two sites in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau recalled its recommendation of a high level mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, made with regard to the two sites in this State Party already recognized as World Heritage Sites in Danger (i.e. Garamba and Virunga National Parks) and suggested that such a mission include discussions on the state of conservation of Okapi Faunal Reserve and the Kahuzi Biega National Park as well with a view to initiating projects for their rehabilitation.

The Bureau recalled that, at its twentieth session in Merida, the World Heritage Committee decided "to include the Galapagos National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger, effective 15 November 1997, unless a substantive written reply by Ecuador is received by 1^st of May 1997, and the Bureau, at its twenty first session determine that effective actions have been taken".

Having studied both the report of the State Party and the report of IUCN, the Bureau came to the conviction that such effective actions have been taken that the efforts of the Ecuadorean authorities should be honoured. The Bureau therefore decided that it would not be appropriate to include the Galapagos National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger at this time.

In order to enable the World Heritage Committee, at its twenty first session, to have a full picture of the up-to-date situation of the World Heritage Site, the Bureau asked the State Party to deliver a progress report by, 15 November 1997, on the nine issues outlined in the IUCN report of 3^rd June 1997, as follows:

• Decree
• Law
• Control of Residency
• Quarantine
• Environmental management of populated areas
• Introduced species
• Marine reserve
• Tourism
• Financing

The Bureau recommended the World Heritage Committee to ask the State Party for an annual progress report on the above mentioned issues from the end of 1998 until the end of 2002.

The Bureau further recommended that if the decrees of the Government of Ecuador are not reflected in law by the time of the twenty-first session of the World Heritage Committee, scheduled in December 1997, in Naples, Italy, the Committee could once again consider adding the Galapagos to the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau encouraged the management of Kaziranga to proceed with their plans to add six adjacent patches totalling more than 400 sq.km. to the Park, increase the number of anti-poaching camps along the periphery of the Park, build upland refuges for animals to retreat during the annual flooding of the Brahmaputra River and launch conservation awareness and environmental education programmes for local villagers. Furthermore, the Bureau noted that the Indian authorities have submitted a request for financial assistance to support the implementation of parts of the above-mentioned activities and that the Bureau will consider the request under Agenda Item 6 (Requests for international assistance).

The Bureau noted that the State Party, recognizing that the decrease in the number of Siberian cranes arriving to winter at Keoladeo may be attributable to the intensity of hunting and other threats prevailing along the migratory route of the species, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the eight countries (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakstan, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) with whom it shares the range of the central and western Asian populations of the Siberian crane. UNEP, which hosts the Secretariat of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), International Crane Foundation (ICF) and the Wild Birds Society of Japan are also signatories to the MOU, under which an action plan foresees: (i) the release of captive-bred Siberian cranes to augment wild populations; and (ii) capturing of Siberian cranes and the deployment of satellite transmitters on the cranes for tracking their migratory route from their wintering areas in Keoladeo to spring breeding grounds in other countries. At the site level, the management has introduced a controlled burning and cutting regime for grasses in order to limit their growth from negatively impacting the breeding habitats of the cranes and closed the Park for grazing by cattle belonging to local villagers. The Bureau urged the Centre to cooperate with the CMS Secretariat and support the implementation of the action plan.