World Heritage Centre

10 GA 1-4

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Tenth General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural heritage was held in Paris at UNESCO Headquarters, on 2 and 3 November 1995, during the 28th session of the General Conference.
One hundred and nineteen States Parties to the Convention were represented at the meeting.
Representatives of two non-governmental organizations and the European Communities Commission attended the meeting as observers. Several other observers were also present.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre provided the Secretariat for the Assembly.

10 GA 5 Opening of the General Assembly by the Director-General or his representative

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

5. In his opening address, the Deputy Director-General, representing the Director-General, evoked the progress made in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention to which 143 States Parties now adhered; since the eighteenth session of the Committee, 440 properties situated in 100 States Parties were now inscribed on the World Heritage List.

He emphasized that the desire to preserve the diversity of cultural and natural heritage has made it possible to accomplish noteworthy actions and to strengthen the feeling of belonging to a world community working towards greater tolerance, solidarity and peace.

He informed the General Assembly that the Director-General of UNESCO had signed several Green Notes concerning the role of the World Heritage Centre and its relations with other units within the Secretariat, in order to rationalise its procedures and to increase its field of action.

He also requested the States Parties to make an effort to settle outstanding dues to the World Heritage Fund, now amounting to a total of more than two million US dollars.

10 GA 6 Election of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairpersons and Rapporteur of the General Assembly

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

6. The General Assembly elected by acclamation Mr Kronfol (Lebanon) as President. The General Assembly also elected unanimously representatives of Brazil, Niger and Japan as Vice-Presidents, and Mr. J. Jelen (Hungary) as Rapporteur.

10 GA 7-8 Adoption of the Agenda of the General Assembly

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

7. After having moved to item 9 of the draft agenda the examination of new monitoring activities and to item 10 elections to the World Heritage Committee, the General Assembly adopted its draft agenda.

8. Following a point of order on the part of Slovenia, which recalled a resolution of the UN Security Council and a decision of the UNESCO General Conference, and after having heard the advice of the Legal Advisor, the General Assembly decided that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) could not participate in this tenth session.

10 GA 9 Report of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

9. In accordance with the recommendation made by the World Heritage Committee at its eighteenth session, the Chairman of the Committee, Dr Adul Wichiencharoen (Thailand) presented to the General Assembly the report which the Committee was submitting to the UNESCO General Conference. The text of Dr. Wichiencharoen's presentation, as well as the Committee's Report to the General Conference, is presented in Annex I to this document. The General Assembly took note of this report.

10 GA 10-11 Examination of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

10. The General Assembly examined the Document WHC-95/CONF.204/3 concerning the budgetary situation of the World Heritage Fund, in accordance with the Financial Regulations of the Fund. The situation concerning contributions up to 28 October 1995, replacing Document WHC-95/CONF.204/3 Add., was also distributed during the session. The Assembly was further informed that the following contributions had been received since 28 October 1995:

State Party	Amount (US $)	Year of contribution
Algeria	10,768	balance 1993, 1994 and 1995
Argentina	129	balance 1995
Guyana	301	part of 1994
India	9,979	1995
Jordan	180	balance 1995
Mozambique	658	balance 1993, 1994 and 1995
Nigeria	19,089	balance 1993, 1994 and 1995
Pakistan	1,878	balance 1994, part of 1995

11. The General Assembly then took note of the statement of accounts of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period ending on 31 December 1993, the interim statement of accounts for the period 1994-1995, as at 31 August 1995, and the summary contributions received from States Parties as at 31 August 1995. The Assembly also took note of information provided by the Secretariat regarding contributions received since 28 October 1995.

During examination of the accounts, the General Assembly requested the Secretariat to work towards improving the presentation of the budget and the accounts in order to provide greater transparency and clarity, especially with regard to the special voluntary contributions to the Fund and their use. The General Assembly also requested that in the future the accounts up to 31 December carry the visa of the Director of the Centre and the Financial Comptroller.

10 GA 12 Determination of the amount of the contributions to the World Heritage Fund in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Convention

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

12. The General Assembly unanimously decided that the amount of mandatory contributions to the World Heritage Fund for the period 1996-1997, calculated in US dollars, would be maintained at 1 percent of contributions made by States Parties to the Regular Programme of UNESCO, in accordance with Article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as had been decided by the nine previous General Assemblies.

10 GA 13-14 Proposed procedural changes for the election to the World Heritage Committee ¬Proposed amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

13. The President then explained for which reasons it was proposed to simplify the procedure in force for the election of members to the World Heritage Committee, in order to avoid an excessive number of ballots. This simplification, contained in the proposed amendments to Rules 13.8, 13.9 and 13.10 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly (cf. Document WHC-95/CONF.204/5), would comprise four ballots with absolute majority and at the fifth ballot a simple majority, and in the event of two or more candidates obtaining the same number of votes, to proceed by drawing lots.

14. The General Assembly rejected several additional amendments proposed during the session by delegations, comprising:

in the case of candidates obtaining the same number of votes, deferral of drawing of lots until the sixth ballot;
replacement of drawing of lots in the case of egality of votes by preference accorded to the State which had not yet been elected to the Committee;
interdiction of an outgoing Committee member to present its candidature for immediate re-election;
consideration as^-invalid the ballot papers where the number of States marked is less than the seats to be filled.

Following these discussions, Rules 13.8, 13.9 and 13.10 as amended in the proposal contained in the Document WHC-95/CONF.204/5 were adopted by consensus, and Rule 13.4 was modified as follows:

"Each delegation shall cast its vote by encircling the names of those States for which it.... desires.... to vote."

10 GA 15-33 New monitoring activities related to World Heritage sites

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

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.

10 GA 34-42 Elections to the World Heritage Committee

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

34. Under item 10 of its agenda, the General Assembly was called upon to elect seven members to the World Heritage Committee, to replace the following seven members whose mandate would expire at the end of the twenty-eighth session of the General Conference: Colombia, Indonesia, Oman, Peru, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic and Thailand. Following the withdrawal of its candidature by Nigeria, as well as that of Colombia which withdrew in favour of Ecuador, the list of twenty-eight States Parties having submitted their candidature was read to the General Assembly: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Benin, Cambodia, Canada, Cuba, Ecuador, Ghana, Greece, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lithuania, Mali, Malta, Morocco, Mauritania, Mozambique, Oman, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

35. On the decision of the President, the elections were held by secret ballot. Mr. Li Jiangang (China) and Ms. A.K. Endresen (Norway) were appointed tellers.

36. The results of the first ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 142

Number of States absent 28

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 0

Number of votes recorded 114

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 58

Australia, having polled 68 votes, was declared elected by the President.

37. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the second ballot was to be limited to those States which had obtained the greatest number of votes, provided that the number of States did not exceed twice the number of seats remaining to be filled, which was six. The following States obtained the greatest number of votes: Canada, Morocco, Ecuador, India, Benin, Viet Nam, Cuba, Oman, Poland, Lithuania, Zimbabwe, Greece and Malta. These last two candidates having obtained the same number of votes, and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, an eliminatory ballot between these two States was held.

38. The results of the eliminatory ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 142

Number of States absent 26

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers

Number of votes recorded 114

Malta, having obtained the greatest number of votes (61) was maintained as candidate for the second ballot.

39. The results of the second ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 142

Number of States absent 33

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 1

Number of votes recorded 108

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 55

States which obtained the required majority of votes were:

Canada 68

Morocco 68

Ecuador 56

Malta 56

The President thus declared the above States elected.

40. Two seats remaining to be filled, the following States, having obtained the greatest number of votes, were maintained as candidates for the third ballot: Benin, Cuba, India and Viet Nam.

41. The results of the third ballot were as follows:

Number of States Parties eligible to vote 142

Number of States absent 29

Number of abstentions 0

Number of invalid ballot papers 1

Number of votes recorded 112

Number of votes constituting the majority required to be elected 57

State having obtained the required majority:

Benin 61

The President declared this State elected.

42. At the end of the third ballot, with one seat remaining to be filled, the following States having obtained the greatest number of votes were maintained as candidates for the fourth ballot: Cuba and Viet Nam.

Following Viet Nam's announcement to stand down in favour of Cuba, and applause and expressions of gratitude by the General Assembly, the President declared Cuba elected.

10 GA 43-45 Other business

wh-support@unesco.org — Thu, 02 Nov 1995 00:00:00 EST

43. The Representative of Germany informed the General Assembly that the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee would be held in his country, in Berlin, and invited all States Parties to attend.

44. The Representative of Mexico and the Representative of Italy both proposed to host in their countries the twentieth session of the World Heritage Committee. The General Assembly thanked these two States for their generous invitations and decided that the question would be examined during the nineteenth session of the Committee.

45. No other question having been raised under the item "Other business", the President declared the tenth session of the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention closed.

19 BUR VI.20 Danger Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau 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. A report was presented by the State Party on their restoration efforts at the last session of the Bureau. Two small-scale international assistance projects from the World Heritage Fund are presently under way at the site, as well asinternational assistance from other sources. On 29 June 1995 the World Heritage Centre received a report prepared by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Bulgaria recalling the history of the site and the deterioration of the state of conservation, which led to the listing of the site both on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the Montreux List of the Ramsar Convention in 1993. The main results of the measures taken to restore the ecological integrity of the site were research studies and the construction of a channel and a monitoring programme to oversee the status of the Reserve since 1994. The hydraulic connection between the lake and the Danube River was reestablished and the water level is now raised by lm. Furthermore, it is indicated that the Dalmatian Pelican is continuing to nest in the site.

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that 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. The situation remains critical due to armed conflict and the political situation in the region which remains unchanged. The Committee at its eighteenth session decided to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and another fact-finding mission to this area, particularly to the Korkaova Uvala Virgin Forest is to be scheduled for 1995-96. Given the continued armed conflict in the region, the Bureau recommended to the Committee to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

19 BUR VI.20 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed 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. A technical assistance project from the World Heritage Fund is underway. The equipment component of this project was carried out in 1994. Furthermore, the World Heritage Centre received in March 1995 a preliminary report by INEFAN (Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Are-as Naturales y Viola Silvestre) on the environmental impact of the construction of the Guamote-Macas road in the Park and a final report of the Commission (Ministry of Public Work/INEFAN) was received in May 1995. The Commission had studied the following issues: (1) the environmental impact of the first 7kms of the road, which havebeen constructed; (2) the measures to be taken to mitigate the environmental impact of the last 23 kms which still have to be constructed and (3) guidelines for the management of the Park to mitigate the negative impact of the new road.

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d’Ivoire)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that 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 from neighboring countries. 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 recently carried out in 1994, and a report was presented to the eighteenth session of the World Heritage Committee. The French Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry for Cooperation, in cooperation with IUCN-France, has carried out a study and review of the site for the Government of Guinea with regard to priority needs and potential future investment.

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that at its eighteenth session, the World Heritage Committee took note of the information provided by the Indian Government through the Permanent Delegate that "if the representatives of the World Heritage Centre and of the World Heritage Committee desire to visit New Delhi, Assam and Manas for discussion, or see the site" then they "would be welcomed by the concerned authorities of the Government of India". In the same letter the Indian authorities also indicated that the Indian Government will involve local level NGOs in monitoring the state of conservation of the site. Cooperation between the management authorities of the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary of India and Manas National Park in Bhutan should be encouraged. To enhance cooperation between India and Bhutan in the conservation of the Manas ecosystem, the Government of Bhutan should be invited to ratify the Convention as soon as possible.

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Everglades National Park (United States of America)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau 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 List in 1979. Federal State and local governments as well as private foundations have joined forces in providing significant financial support for the management of the site and for its long-term restoration. The Committee took note of a detailed report prepared by the American authorities which was presented at its eighteenth session.

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Virunga National Park (Zaire)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

Virunga National Park, inscribed under criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv) in 1979, was included in 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 arrival of refugees from that country. Virunga National Park, situated at the border between Rwanda and Uganda, has been destabilized by the uncontrolled arrival of refugees, causing deforestation and poaching at the sites. The Bureau recalled that the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee approved a total of US$ 50,000 emergency assistance for both Kahuzi-Biega National Park and Virunga National Park. The project is carried out in cooperation with IUCN, WWF and the International Gorilla Conservation Programme. A report on the project was received at the time of the Bureau session indicating the World Heritage Fund project was effective and crucial to help in maintaining the Park’s management activities and to support the staff. However, the ecological situation at the Park is not improving, the bamboo forests have been cut and the number of elephants and hippos are much reduced within the site. The buffalo population is also threatened. The report indicates that the Park is a primary source of fuelwood and construction wood for the refugees and that 30 to 40,000 people are entering the Park daily.

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that this mixed site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1982 and that the Bureau at its eighteenth session in July 1994, discussed reports received on logging operations in areas adjacent to the World Heritage area. IUCN gave an update on the situation and recalled two concerns which were raised: that there is forested land outside the site which may have World Heritage values, and furthermore that adverse impact on the existing World Heritage site could result from logging and reading activities adjacent to the site. IUCN noted that both the 1990 and 1994 General Assemblies of IUCN had urgedAustralia to evaluate the World Heritage values of these areas and that recent concerns about the impacts of forestry operations had been expressed by the Australian and New Zealand Committees for IUCN and the Wilderness Society (Tasmania).

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.

19 BUR VI.20 Manovo-Gounda St.Floris World Heritage Site (Central African Republic)

wh-support@unesco.org — Mon, 03 Jul 1995 00:00:00 EST

The Bureau recalled that the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1988 and was the subject of a monitoring report at the sixteenth session of the Committee held in Santa Fe. At that time the management regime had collapsed and the site was under numerous threats. It was recommended that the World Heritage Centre should carry out a mission to the site. Unstable conditions continued to prevail throughout 1993 and into 1994.

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.