World Heritage Centre https://whc.unesco.org?cid=305&l=en&search_theme=5&year_start=1992&action=list&mode=rss World Heritage Centre - Committee Decisions 90 en Copyright 2024 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre Fri, 11 Oct 2024 11:21:25 EST UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Decisions https://whc.unesco.org/document/logowhc.jpg https://whc.unesco.org 7 EXT.COM 5 First cycle of Periodic Reporting
  • Having examined Documents WHC-04/7EXT.COM/5A, WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5B, WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5C, WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5D, and WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5E,
  • Aware of the need to:
    1. study and reflect on the first cycle of Periodic Reporting;
    2. develop strategic direction on the forms and the format of the Periodic Reports, training priorities and international cooperation priorities; and
    3. to streamline the Committee's consideration of matters raised through Periodic Reporting relating to inscribed properties;
  • Decides to suspend for one year the commencement of the next cycle of Periodic Reporting.
    • ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/40 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST     7 EXT.COM 5A.1 Progress report on the preparation of the Periodic Report for Europe and North America The World Heritage Committee,

    1. Having examined Document WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5A, 
    2. Recalling its Decision 25 COM VII.25-27 at its 25th session (Helsinki, 2001)  to examine at its 29th session (Durban, 2005), the Periodic Report for North America, 
    3. Notes the report on the progress of such Periodic Report.
    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/42 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST     7 EXT.COM 5B Follow-up to Periodic Report for the Arab States The World Heritage Committee,

    1. Having examined Document WHC-04/7 EXT.COM/5B,
    2. Recalling its Decisions 24 COM VII.1-4 and 27 COM 20B.I, adopted at its 24th session (Cairns, 2000) and its 27th session (UNESCO, 2003), respectively,
    3. Takes note of the progress made in the implementation of the Regional Programme for the Arab States and in responding to the priority needs identified in the Periodic Report for the Arab States;
    4. Thanks the Dutch Government for supporting the publication of such Periodic Report;
    5. Requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to continue developing the Assistance Modules, as well as projects, as part of the strategy outlined in the Regional Programme, and to consult the concerned States Parties in the process;
    6. Further requests the World Heritage Centre to report at its 30th session (2006) on the outcome of the Regional Meeting foreseen in 2005 – with particular attention to the review of the Assistance Modules and the mobilization of extra-budgetary resources for their implementation.
    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/45 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST     7 EXT.COM 5C https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/49 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5D https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/50 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5E https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/48 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5E https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/51 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 7 EXT.COM 5F https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/52 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Dec 2004 00:00:00 EST 10 GA 15-33 New monitoring activities related to World Heritage sites 15. This agenda item was introduced by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand), who summarized the contents of his report on this subject as reflected in Working Document WHC-95/CONF.204/7 (see note [1] ) and the proposed resolution that had been prepared by him for this General Assembly (WHC­95/CONF.204/DR.1). He recalled that the World Heritage Committee, after a long process of consultations, discussions and practical experiences in several States Parties and regions, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, decided, at its eighteenth session in December 1994, to introduce a voluntary system of on-site monitoring of the state of conservation of World Heritage properties by the States Parties themselves, with a periodic reporting by the States Parties to the World Heritage Committee. With reference to specific provisions in the Articles 4, 6, 7, 8, 11 and the eighth preambular clause of the Convention, the Chairman emphasized that the Committee considered monitoring and reporting to constitute the appropriate modern and scientific means to meet the requirements and responsibilities of the States Parties and the World Heritage Committee as set out in the World Heritage Convention for ensuring the collective protection and conservation of properties on the World Heritage List. Therefore, he concluded, the reporting, i.e. the presentation of periodic state of conservation reports as proposed by the Committee, is a technical instrument for the implementation of the Convention and is of a different order than the reports to the General Conference of UNESCO mentioned in Article 29 of the Convention.

    16. The Delegate of India introduced a draft resolution submitted by her country together with Indonesia, Jamaica, Oman and the Republic of Korea (see Document WHC­95/CONF.204/DR.2 which was replaced by WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.2.Corr.1). Another draft resolution was also submitted by India as an amendment to the Chairman's proposed resolution (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3). She proposed to use the terminology 'systematic observation' instead of 'systematic monitoring' in order to avoid any misunderstanding and misinterpretation. She also pointed out that, in her country's view and based upon Article 29 of the Convention, reports from States Parties can only be required by the General Conference of UNESCO and not by a 'select outside body' such as the World Heritage Committee.

    17. The UNESCO Legal Adviser replied to some specific questions that were raised in the draft resolution DR.2.corr. 1. He clarified that the World Heritage Convention only foresees a reporting by the States Parties to the General Conference of UNESCO and that no legal basis exists for the Committee to demand reports on a mandatory The Committee could, however, request reports as long as this would be done on a voluntary basis.

    18. In reply to a question posed by the Delegate of India, the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Committee to make detailed provisions for the implementation of the different aspects of the Convention which are subsequently reflected in the 'Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention'. In this sense, he repeated that monitoring and reporting were conceived by the Committee as a technical means of implementing the Convention and as an effective tool for management and planning remedial actions by the States Parties themselves and for the Committee to undertake the tasks entrusted to it in the Convention. He reiterated that the World Heritage Committee can only undertake its tasks to establish and keep up-to-date the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger as well as to provide international assistance for the safeguarding of World Heritage properties, if it has updated and reliable information on their state of conservation available.

    19. In the ensuing debate, the decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee and the Chairman's proposed resolution WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.1. were fully supported by the Delegates of Cambodia, Argentina, Colombia, Netherlands, Croatia, Mexico, Italy, Sweden, Poland, Cuba, United States of America, Canada, among others, whereas the resolution WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3 tabled by India was favoured or considered suitable for revision by the Delegates of Germany, Greece, France, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Laos, China, Mali, Sudan, among others. The Delegate of Germany, however, expressed reservations about the final part of paragraph 7 of the draft resolution DR.3 and proposed that the text 'on a totally voluntary basis and without any obligation under the Convention to do so' be deleted.

    20. The Delegate of Canada then pointed out that it seemed that the main divergence was not on the need for monitoring or reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties in itself, but on the question if reports should be submitted to the World Heritage Committee or to the UNESCO General Conference. Upon her suggestion that reports could be presented to the General Assembly of States Parties, the President of the General Assembly decided to adjourn the session to give the delegates the opportunity to discuss and prepare a consensus resolution. After the recess, a 'revised amendment' was submitted by India (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.1). This document was then distributed to all delegates.

    21. The Delegate of Germany expressed his support for this DR.3.Rev.1, whereas the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee expressed his strong opposition towards it. In view of the fact that many delegates wished to consult with their respective governments on this new text, the President of the General Assembly decided to defer the debate until after the elections of the new members of the Committee (item 10 of the agenda).

    22. After the conclusion of the elections, the President of the General Assembly stated that he had received a written statement from the Delegates of Sweden, Denmark and Finland which supported the resolution DR.1 proposed by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and which proposed specific amendments to the DR.3.Rev.1 in case the DR.1 were not accepted by the General Assembly (for the full text of this statement see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.2). A revision to DR.3.Rev.1 was also submitted to the President of the General Assembly in a written statement submitted by the Delegate of Brazil and reproduced in Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.3. The President then proposed to amend DR.3.Rev.1 in the sense that reporting would take place to the 'General Assembly of States Parties as well as to the General Conference of UNESCO'. He also proposed amendments to paragraph 4 of the same document regarding the 'prime responsibility' of the States Parties in the observation of the conditions of World Heritage properties, and paragraph 5 regarding the role of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies in providing expert advice to States Parties (for the full text of this proposal see Document DR.3.Rev.4).

    23. The Chairman of the World Heritage Committee intervened to express his disappointment that not all members of the World Heritage Committee openly defended the Committee's decisions. Hereafter, the Delegate of Italy requested that his country's full support to the Committee's decisions be recorded in the report of the session. The Chairman, supported by the Delegates of Italy, Australia and Canada, also raised objections that his proposed resolution was not taken as the basis for the discussions. The President referred to Rules 12.6 and 12.7 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly to justify his decision to first invite discussions on the draft resolutions submitted by India (DR.3.Rev. I) and himself (DR.3.Rev.4).

    24. The discussions then focused on the DR.3.Rev.4 proposed by the President of the General Assembly.

    25. The Delegates of Brazil and Italy supported the President's proposal to bring paragraph 4 of DR.3.Rev.1 in line with Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention which stipulates that 'the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage (...) belongs primarily to that State'. As to paragraph 5 of the President's proposal, the Delegate of Brazil, supported by the Delegates of Italy, Madagascar, Australia and the Netherlands, found this too restrictive and proposed to replace its text by the following: "Emphasizes further that with the expressed agreement of the State Party concerned, UNESCO, through the World Heritage Centre and/or the advisory bodies mentioned in Art. 13.7, may provide expert advice on ...." (see Document WHC-95/CONF.204/DR.3.Rev.3). The Delegate of Italy questioned the meaning of paragraph 9 of DR3.Rev.3 and DR.3.Rev.4 inviting the World Heritage Committee to explore the possibility of activating the reporting procedure mentioned in Article 29.

    26. The Delegate of Australia expressed the view that the Assembly did not seem to be close to a consensus on the matter of monitoring and reporting. In response to the fear he felt among some of the delegates for excessive bureaucracy and an intrusion on the sovereignty of the States Parties, the Delegate stated that the World Heritage Committee's decisions on monitoring and reporting indeed strengthen the role of the Convention and the Committee but that these are in no way intrusive. Given the fact that the Convention as such, of course, cannot reflect the experiences gained since 1972, he felt that there is an important role to play for UNESCO in setting standards in this field. He concluded that he would not concur with the President's proposal DR.3.Rev.4.

    27. Adding to this, the Delegate of Canada referred to specific articles in the World Heritage Convention, particularly Article 6, to illustrate the delicate balance between the sovereignty of the States Parties and the responsibility of the international community to cooperate in the conservation of the World Heritage properties, and to the importance of paragraph 5 (a) of the proposed resolution DR.1. She concluded that both DR.3.Rev.1 and DR.3.Rev.4 would imply a step back as compared to the Convention.

    28. In response to the President's draft resolution (DR.3.Rev.4), the UNESCO Legal Adviser remarked that this proposal would encounter the same legal difficulties as the one proposing reporting to the Committee. He again recalled that, according to Article 29 of the Convention, it is to the General Conference of UNESCO to determine the dates and the manner in which the States Parties to the Convention shall give information on the legislative and administrative provisions which they have adopted and other actions which they have taken for the application of the Convention, together with details of the experience required in this field. He stressed that Article 29 could be used in a flexible way and that 'the manner' of the reporting could very well be, if the General Conference would so decide, through the General Assembly or the World Heritage Committee.

    29. During the debate, the Delegate of Zimbabwe observed that the decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee address the concerns of, what he called, the practitioners and that monitoring is crucial for their work and that he therefore supported the Committee's position. He also proposed to mandate the Committee to look again into this matter. The Delegates of Australia and Austria equally stressed the need to develop, on the basis of the past experiences, standards for management and monitoring of World Heritage properties including a format for periodic state of conservation reports and the important role the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO, in collaboration with the advisory bodies ICCROM. ICOMOS and IUCN, should play in this matter.

    30. The Delegates of Algeria and Morocco remarked that the positions defended by the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee and the Delegate of India differed fundamentally from each other and that more reflection was needed on this matter. They proposed to defer the discussion and decision-making to the next General Assembly in 1997. This was supported by the Delegates of Australia, Canada, Sweden, Malta and Pakistan. As the discussion continued on various related matters, the Delegate of Sweden requested the President to bring the proposal to defer the debate to a vote. The President did so and the proposal was adopted by forty-one votes in favour. Ten delegates voted for the continuation of the debate and five abstentions were recorded.

    31. As a conclusion, - the General Assembly decided to continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at the eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a proposed resolution for the eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions thereon.

    32. The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Assembly that the report of the session will be finalized by the Rapporteur and will be distributed, in English and French, to all States Parties before the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee (4-9 December 1995). Furthermore, he indicated that the item 'the state of conservation of World Heritage cultural and natural properties' figured already on the provisional agenda of the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee and that the Committee would certainly examine this matter in the light of the debate at the Tenth General Assembly very seriously. He furthermore informed that the Committee will decide whether financial support will be given to States Parties upon their request, for monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and for training of site managers in this field. He also indicated that guidelines were being prepared jointly with ICCROM for on-site recording, and documentation.

    33. Subsequently, upon the proposal made by the Delegate of the United States of America, the General Assembly thanked the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee for the work undertaken by the Committee and for his personal commitment and professional input in the debate at this General Assembly.


    [1] The Rapporteur decided, for the sake of clarity, to re-number the proposed draft resolutions and revisions to these resolutions submitted to the General Assembly in their chronological order. All these documents as well as the Report of the Chairman of the World Heritage Committee for this agenda item are included among the official documents of the General Assembly and are included in Annex II. Reference numbers used in this report are the ones attributed to them by the Rapporteur.]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6517 wh-support@unesco.org Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST     11 GA 22-25 Monitoring and reporting the state of conservation of World Heritage properties 22. The Director of the World Heritage Centre recalled that the Tenth General Assembly examined the monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and that it decided the following (paragraph 31 of the Summary Record of the Tenth General Assembly):

    'As a conclusion, the General Assembly decided to continue the debate on the systematic monitoring and reporting on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties at the Eleventh General Assembly of States Parties that will be held in 1997. The General Assembly requested the World Heritage Committee to prepare a report and a draft resolution for the Eleventh session of the General Assembly of States Parties taking into account the discussions and experiences gained over the past years as well as the documents that had been presented to the Tenth General Assembly and the discussions thereon.'

    23. In response to this request, the World Heritage Committee submitted working document WHC-97/CONF.205/5 which included a report and a draft resolution. The Committee proposed in its report that the methodology and procedures of monitoring and reporting should be governed by the following principles:

    i) monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage properties is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and is part of the site management;
    ii) the commitment of the States Parties to provide regular reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties is consistent with the principles of the World Heritage Convention and should be part of a continuous process of collaboration between the States Parties and the World Heritage Committee;
    iii) regular reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention. The General Conference of UNESCO should be asked to activate Article 29 of the Convention and to entrust the World Heritage Committee with the responsibility to respond to these reports;
    iv) the World Heritage Committee should define the form, nature and extent of the regular reporting in respect of the principles of State sovereignty.

     24. After long discussion and taking into account interventions of several States Parties, the General Assembly adopted, by consensus, the following resolution :

     

    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. Considering the twenty-five years of experience in the implementation of the Convention;
    3. 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';
    4. While reaffirming the sovereign right of the State Party concerned over the World Heritage sites situated on its territory, 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;
    5. 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 co-operation, for the general improvement of all actions undertaken;
    6. Reaffirms the standard setting role of the General Assembly as well as of the World Heritage Committee;
    7. Concludes that monitoring is the responsibility of the State Party concerned and that the commitment to provide periodic reports on the state of the site is consistent with the principles set out 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;

    8. Emphasizes that monitoring is part of the site management which remains the responsibility of the States Parties where the site is located, and that periodic reports may be submitted in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention;
    9. 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';
    10. 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 co-operation and assistance' designed to support States Parties' efforts to identify and conserve that heritage;
    11. Emphasizes that periodic reporting should be an integral part of a consultative process and not treated as a sanction or a coercive mechanism;
    12. Notes that within the broad responsibility of the World Heritage Committee in standards setting, the form, nature and extent of the periodic reporting must respect the principles of State sovereignty and that the involvement of the Committee, through its Secretariat and/or advisory bodies, in the preparation of the periodic reports would be with the agreement of the State Party concerned;
    13. Further notes that the States Parties may request expert advice from the Secretariat and/or the advisory bodies and that 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.

     

    25. The General Assembly requested the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee to transmit to the General Conference of UNESCO its views on monitoring and reporting, as well as its suggestion to the General Conference 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.]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6505 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:00:00 EST     15 GA 7 Adoption of the Declaration on the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes The General Assembly,

     

    1. Having examined documents WHC-05/15.GA/7 et WHC-05/15.GA/INF.7,
    2. Takes note of the report and warmly welcomes the Vienna Memorandum adopted by the International Conference “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture” (Vienna, 2005);
    3. Based on the Vienna Memorandum, adopts the Declaration on the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes, as amended by the General Assembly.
    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6471 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.32-33 Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe) 32. The Bureau noted that a proposal to construct a dam across the Batoka Gorge could flood some parts of this transfrontier World Heritage site and that the World Heritage Centre has informed the group of consultancy engineers who are undertaking an environmental impact assessment of the dam construction project of potential threats to the integrity of this site. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact the States Parties concerned and obtain more information on the proposed dam construction project for submission to the Committee in December 1992.

    33. The Bureau took note of information provided by IUCN that a workshop on the Conservation of the Subantarctic Islands was being jointly organized by IUCN and the Scientific Research Council for Antarctica (SCAR) to develop recommendations for the application of the World Heritage Convention in the Antarctic region. The Bureau also noted the summary report of the Workshop on the World Heritage Convention held within the framework of the Fourth World Congress on National Parks, convened in Caracas, Venezuela, in February 1992.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5371 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.13 Iguazu National Park (Argentina) and Iguacu National Park (Brazil) The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session, had noted that eight helicopters simultaneously overflew the waterfall area and that local conservation groups opposed the use of the area by helicopters since it contravened legal regulations for air traffic over protected areas. At its last session, the Committee was informed that the Brazilian authorities had established a group to study the matter and had requested the Secretariat to contact the Argentine authorities to obtain lir information on the steps taken by them. The Brazilian authorities have, by their letter of 5 June 1992, indicated that the Working Group had considered the positive (economic benefits to local people) and negative (noise pollution) aspects of helicopter tourism and had identified potential mechanisms (regulation of number of visits, time-table of visits, maximum level of noise permitted for helicopter traffic in the area, taxing helicopter operators for using the National Park area) for regulation and control. However, the Group had concluded that at present the negative impacts do not override the positive effects and had recommended that the situation be further monitored before any regulatory measures are introduced.

    The Argentine authorities, by their letter of 17 June 1992, provided information on the joint efforts of their National Park Administration and Air Force to establish an agreement to regulate use of the air space over the Iguazu National Park by helicopters. Until such time as an agreement will be drafted and finalized, the existing norms for use of air space between surface level and an altitude of 112 km will be strictly enforced. Violation of these regulations by an helicopter operator is punishable by cancellation, for six months, of the permit to use the National Park area.

    The Bureau noted the views of, and the steps taken by the two States Parties concerned to regulate helicopter use of the air space over the waterfall area and requested IUCN and the World Heritage Centre to continue to monitor the problem and its management by the authorities responsible for the two National Parks.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5352 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.14 Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia) The Bureau noted that, as requested by the Committee at the time of the inscription of this property on the World Heritage List in 1988, IUCN had undertaken a mission to the site. The Bureau learnt with satisfaction that despite a slow start, the management of the Wet Tropics area had achieved much progress last year, particularly with respect to:

    (a) establishing a headquarters and appointment of staff; (b)drafting of legislation; (c) preparing of management plans andsite plans; (d) carrying out a number of policy-relevant studies; (e) setting-up advisory committees and a management authority (f) improving budgetary allocations for site management, and (g) rehabilitating degraded forest areas.

    The Bureau commended the Australian authorities for taking these steps for ensuring the adequate management of this site and requested IUCN and the World Heritage Centre to continue to monitor progress.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5353 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.15 Srebarna Biosphere Reserve (Bulgaria) The Bureau recalled that the Committee, at its last session, recommended that the Bulgarian authorities nominate this site for inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger because this small (600 hectare) World Heritage site had lost much of its ecological viability. The Bureau was informed that IUCN had undertaken two missions to Bulgaria since the last session of the Committee and that although the site's importance as a Ramsar site and a Biosphere Reserve, in particular within a European context, could still be retained with the implementation of specific remedial actions, its World Heritage status can no longer be justified because it has deteriorated to a state where it has irretrievably lost many of the characteristics which determined its inclusion on the World Heritage List.

    The Bureau recommended that the Committee, at its forthcoming session in December, consider deleting this property from the World Heritage List, and in accordance with paragraph 41(c) of the Operational Guidelines, requested the World Heritage Centre to inform the Bulgarian authorities of its recommendation to the Committee. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to obtain all observations and comments the Bulgarian authorities may wish to make regarding this recommendation to the Committee in time to submit them to the consideration of the Committee, scheduled to meet in December 1992.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5354 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.16 Dinosaur Provincial Park (Canada) The Bureau was in agreement with the proposal of the Canadian authorities to delete 423 hectares, where petroleum and natural gas exploration will take place, and add 2,133 hectares of significantly higher conservation value to this site. In effect, the proposed modification of the boundaries of the site has resulted in a net gain of about 1,700 hectares in the total area of this Park. The Bureau recommended that the Committee register the report and the map provided by the Canadian authorities describing the revised boundaries of this World Heritage site.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5355 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.17 Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada) The Bureau was informed of progress achieved by the Canadian authorities in addressing threats to the conservation of this, Ripe site. The Bureau congratulated the Canadian authorities for the programme of action they have set in motion for its conservation. However, the Bureau was in agreement with the fact that safeguarding the World Heritage values of this site require continuous action over the long-term and requested the World Heritage Centre and IUCN to monitor the state of conservation of this site to report to the Committee any problems that may arise.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5356 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.18 Manovo-Gounda Saint Floris National Park (Central African Republic) The Bureau recalled that when this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988, several members of the Committee had registered their reservations as to its state of conservation and several threats to its integrity. The Bureau was concerned that despite assurances given to the Committee at the time of its inscription and the US$27 million EEC project in the region, the deterioration of the property had continued and this site still does not have a management plan. The Bureau took note of the intention of the President of the Central African Republic to transfer the management of the site to a private foundation and of the invitation made to UNESCO to participate, as a scientific body, in the management of the site by this foundation. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to study this proposal, together with IUCN, and undertake a detailed analysis of the implications of the transfer of management of the site to a private foundation. The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact the State Party to know whether the national authorities would invite an expert mission to review the state of conservation of this Park and assess the proposal to lease its management to a private organization. The Bureau emphasized that such a mission should build upon the recent project audit carried out by the EEC and present recommendations on the future viability and management of this site.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5357 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.19 Talamanca-La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica/Panama) The Bureau commended the Panamanian authorities for preventing 59,000 hectares of La Amistad National Park being released for oil exploration.

    The Bureau noted that the Costa Rican authorities have not responded to the Secretariat's letter of 6 February 1992, requesting them to consider revising the boundaries of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves by deleting four Indian Reserves in the north-eastern Atlantic sector and submit a map showing the new boundaries of the site. Furthermore, the Bureau was also informed by the representative of IUCN that earlier plans to construct a road through the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves of Costa Rica were also being revived.

    The Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to contact the Costa Rican authorities to request, once again, that they consider revising the boundaries of the Reserves and provide a map showing the new boundaries. Furthermore, the Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to obtain detailed information regarding the proposal for constructing a road through the middle of the Talamanca-La Amistad Reserves, including an assessment of the potential impact of this project on the state of conservation of the site. A report on the situation should be given to the Committee at its forthcoming session.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5358 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST     16 BUR V.20 Plitvice Lake National Park (Republic of Croatia) The Bureau noted that the Croatian authorities have officially informed UNESCO that they will abide by the obligations of the World Heritage Convention and requested that a joint UNESCO/IUCN mission be undertaken to assess the impacts which unrest in the region has had on the state of conservation of Plitvice Lake National Park. The Bureau recommended that the Committee, as requested by the Croatian authorities, inscribe Plitvice Lake National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau also decided to set aside an amount upto US$30,000 as emergency assistance to enable the organization of a joint UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site, in co-operation with the Croatian authorities as well as the relevant UN bodies responsible for monitoring the conflict in the region, in order to prepare and initiate the implementation of an international assistance project for the rehabilitation of the Plitvice Lake National Park.

    ]]>     https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5359 wh-support@unesco.org Mon, 06 Jul 1992 00:00:00 EST