World Heritage 24 COMDistribution limited WHC-2000/CONF.204/4

Cairns, 25 November 2000Original : English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURALORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLDCULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Twenty-fourth sessionCairns, Australia

27 November - 2 December 2000

Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth extraordinary sessionof the Bureau, Cairns, Australia (23-24 November 2000)

ANNEXES

Annex I List of Participants

Annex II Speech of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee,Mr Abdelaziz Touri

Annex III Speech of the Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre,Mr Francesco Bandarin

Annex IV Existing Calendar and Cycle of Statutory Meetings

Annex V Proposed Revised Calendar and Cycle of Statutory Meetings

Annex VI Presentation on Committee Documentation by the Director ofthe World Heritage Centre

- i -

1

I OPENING SESSION

I.1 The twenty-fourth extraordinary session of theBureau of the World Heritage Committee was held inCairns, Australia from 23 to 24 November 2000. It wasattended by the following members of the Bureau: Mr.Abdelaziz Touri (Morocco), as Chairperson of theCommittee, Mr Kevin Keeffe (Australia) replacing AnneLammila (Finland) as the Rapporteur, and Finland, Greece,Hungary, Mexico and Zimbabwe, as Vice-Chairpersons.

I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention,who are not members of the Bureau, were represented asobservers: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso,Canada, China, France, Germany, Holy See, Italy, Japan,Korea (Republic of), Nepal, New Zealand, Peru, SlovakRepublic, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Uganda, UnitedKingdom and Vietnam.

I.3 Representatives of the advisory bodies to theConvention: the International Centre for the Study of thePreservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property(ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments andSites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union(IUCN) attended. The meeting was also attended by thefollowing non-governmental organisations: AustralianConservation Foundation (Australia), Centre SimonWiesenthal Europe (France), Committee on Energy andNatural Resources (United States of America), The ColongFoundation for Wilderness Ltd (Australia), TheEnvironment Centre NT Inc (Australia), EnvironmentalDefenders Office of Northern Queensland Inc. (Australia),Fraser Island Defenders Organization (Australia), Friendsof the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth Japan,Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (Australia),International Council for Science (ICSU), InternationalFederation of Landscape Architects (IFLA), Organisationfor Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa (OMMSA),United Nations Foundation, (UNF), the House ofRepresentatives Committee on Resources (USA) andVictoria University of Wellington (New Zealand). The fulllist of participants is included as Annex I of this report.

I.4 The Chairperson opened the twenty-fourthextraordinary session of the Bureau of the World HeritageCommittee by thanking the Australian authorities for theirwarm hospitality. He welcomed the members of theBureau, the advisory bodies, observers and all participantsto the meeting. He then gave an overview of the proposedagenda for the meeting. The Chairperson’s speech isincluded as Annex II of this report.

I.5 The Chairperson then invited the Director of theUNESCO World Heritage Centre to deliver his openingremarks to the Bureau. The Director’s speech is includedas Annex III to this report. The Chair thanked MrBandarin on behalf of the Bureau members.

II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, THEANNOTATED AGENDA AND THETIMETABLE

II.1 The Bureau adopted the Provisional Agenda andTimetable (WHC-2000/CONF.203/1).

III. STATE OF CONSERVATION OFPROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THEWORLD HERITAGE LIST

WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING

In accordance with the Committee’s request at its twenty-third session, IUCN and the World Heritage Centreplanned and organised, in consultation with theInternational Council on Metals and the Environment(ICME), a technical meeting which analysed case studieson World Heritage and mining. This meeting was held atthe IUCN Headquarters (Gland, Switzerland) from 21 to23 September 2000 and reviewed practical case studiesfrom the following sites: Lorentz National Park, Indonesia;Huascaran National Park, Peru; Doñana National Park,Spain; Camp Caiman Gold Project, French Guyana(adjacent to a Ramsar site); Kakadu National Park,Australia; and Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park, SouthAfrica. These case studies were presented by site managersand the mining companies. The report of the meetingincluded: (a) principles underlying the relationshipbetween World Heritage and mining; (b) recommendationsto: World Heritage Committee and States Parties;management agencies; and the mining industry; and (c)follow up actions.

IUCN informed the Bureau that mining has been acontroversial issue at many World Heritage sites and thatthe issue has been characterized by a lack of dialoguebetween conservation and mining interests. Thus IUCNwelcomed the Committee’s invitation to host a technicalworkshop jointly with ICME and UNESCO. IUCNhighlighted the following issues: There was agreement todisagree on a number of points, for example on miningwithin World Heritage sites, whereas IUCN feels itincompatible, the industry representatives called for amore flexible approach, but agreed on maintaining theintegrity of World Heritage values. The workshop alsonoted the close co-operation that exists between somemining companies and World Heritage site managers andthe importance of considering World Heritage sites in theirbroader context and for the effective planning for miningand conservation to be considered in land-useprogrammes. The critical importance of disaster mitigationplans was also emphasised. The meeting was successfuland productive and should be considered as part of an on-going process.

ICOMOS agreed with the conclusions by the Secretariatand IUCN concerning the outcome of the workshop.

2

Some delegates spoke in support of the Mining Workshopproposal, including Australia. Several delegates (includingGreece, Hungary) addressed the issue of the workinggroup to be established and its budgetary implications. Itwas pointed out that the number of working groups onstrategic issues should be harmonized with on-goingstrategic planning and periodic reporting efforts of thestatutory meetings of the Convention in general, and theCommittee in particular. The number of such workinggroups need to be determined and budgetary implicationsincorporated along with the best timing requirements formaximising the strategic impact of the reports produced bythe working groups. The chair of every group would needto be secured by one of the Bureau members to ensureclose involvement of the statutory bodies of theConvention. The reports of each working group shouldinclude a comprehensive analysis of each World Heritagesite inscribed in relation to the issues examined. Theyshould also examine tentative lists of the States Parties togive recommendations, if necessary, regarding preliminaryanalysis of potential impacts of the issue on thenominations of those sites that are involved.

“The Bureau took note of the report contained in theInformation Document WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.7which is based on specific case studies on mining andWorld Heritage and commended the States Parties,site managers, IUCN, UN agencies and the miningindustry for having started a collaboration in thismatter. The Bureau noted the recommendations ofthe report and transmitted them to the World HeritageCommittee for examination.

The following recommendations are addressed tovarious key actors.

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND STATEPARTIESare invited to note these findings:

• Mining and conservation specialists areencouraged to work together, taking into accountthe unique aspects of mining (e.g. mineralpotential, deposits) and the unique values andconditions of World Heritage sites; each caseneeds to be carefully considered, taking accountof the conditions and integrity under the WorldHeritage Convention

• Early in the nomination process, relevant nationaland local government ministries and agencies, allaffected stakeholders and independent thirdparties should be identified and an open,transparent and effective communicationmechanism established, including conflictresolution mechanisms

• An open and transparent multi-disciplinary/science-based approach should beadopted for determining boundaries for WorldHeritage sites - one that protects World Heritagevalues and takes into account ecological, cultural,

and mineral and other economic values, as well associo-economic factors

• Tentative lists of potential World Heritage sitesshould be made public to all stakeholders toencourage input of views and information

• An effective flow of information should beassured between the UNESCO World HeritageCentre, IUCN and ICOMOS regarding mining-related activities and World Heritage sites prior todesignation, in compiling state of conservationreports, and during/after emergency situations

• Regarding the evaluation of new nominations, theAdvisory Bodies should ask State Parties toconfirm that all affected stakeholders, includingthe mining industry, have been consulted

• Given that World Heritage and mining issues areoften polarized, there is a need to protect theprocess of World Heritage nomination and thestate of conservation evaluations

• If a mine is operating near a World Heritage site,facilities should be designed, operated and closedin consideration of World Heritage values andshould contribute to the conservation of thosevalues

• Education and awareness programs are requiredso that local communities understand theimportance and the values of World Heritage sitesand can benefit from the presence of such areas.

WORLD HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AGENCIESshould

• Clarify and communicate roles andresponsibilities regarding World Heritage sites

• Put monitoring programs in place, as well asemergency preparedness and response plans, allwith effective indicators, to ensure that theintegrity of World Heritage values is notthreatened by mining, agricultural, tourism orother activities, and to deal with incidents

• Endeavour to link protected areas planning withbroader regional land useplanning, so that protected areas are seen as an

integral element of their region.• Increase awareness about mining and recognize

that mining companies may be key stakeholders• Establish communication mechanisms with all

affected stakeholders• Work with mining companies in order to integrate

their environmental management and communitydevelopment programs into the overallmanagement objectives of World Heritage sites.

MINING INDUSTRY

The mining industry has the potential to make significantcontributions as follows:

3

a) In respect of World HeritageProtection/Conservation, it can:• Undertake assessments of unique biodiversity,

increase scientific understanding of ecosystems,and contribute to the conservation of flora andfauna affected by exploration, extraction andprocessing activities

• Support research to expand scientific knowledgeand develop improved technologies to protect theenvironment, and promote the internationaltransfer of technologies that mitigate adverseenvironmental effects

• Assist in the development of ecotourism• Contribute to government capacity in World

Heritage management and support sitemanagement programs

• Contribute to the promotion of the WorldHeritage Convention and sites through buildingawareness.

b) In respect of Environmental Management andProtection, it can:

• Encourage all those involved in the miningindustry to better understand ecosystemmanagement and adopt these principles

• Work with governments and other relevant partiesin developing sound, economic and equitableenvironmental standards and clear decision-making procedures, based on reliable andpredictable criteria

• Comply with all applicable environmental lawsand regulations and, in jurisdictions where theseare absent or inadequate, apply cost-effectivetechnologies and management practices to ensurethe protection of the environment and worker andcommunity welfare

• Conduct environmental assessments ofexploration, infrastructure development, miningor processing activities, including secondaryeffects, and plan and conduct the design,development, operation, remediation and closureof any facility in a manner that optimizes theeconomic use of resources while reducing adverseenvironmental and community impacts toacceptable levels

• Employ risk management strategies and bestpractices that take account of local cultures andeconomic and environmental circumstances in thedesign, construction, operation anddecommissioning, including the handling anddisposal of hazardous materials and waste

• Ensure that adequate financial resources or suretyinstruments are in place to meet the requirementsof remediation and closure plans

• Implement effective management systems,conduct regular reviews and act on the results

• Develop, maintain and test emergency plans andresponse procedures in conjunction with theprovider of emergency services, relevant

authorities and local authorities to deal adequatelywith any emergency

• At the initial phases of mining projects, developclosure concepts and/or plans that addressenvironmental and community related issues aswell as World Heritage values, in consultationwith appropriate stakeholders

• Encourage governments to establishcommunication mechanisms that will promotedialogue amongst local communities and otheraffected organizations, facilitate the provision ofexpert advice and serve in a regular planningand/or oversight capacity; and establish effectiveprocesses for conflict resolution.

c) In respect of Community Development, it can:• Assess the social, cultural, environmental and

economic impacts of proposed activities andengage with local communities and other affectedorganizations in the design of communitydevelopment strategies, including such a strategyfor mine closure

• Contribute to, and participate in, the social,economic and institutional development ofcommunities, and encourage the establishment ofsustainable local and regional economic activities

• In cooperation with international agencies, publicinterest groups and national governments,contribute to the development of localgovernment capacity as well as to plans toaddress secondary impacts created by miningactivity

• Mitigate, to the greatest practical extent, adverseeffects on communities by activities related toexploration, extraction and closure of mining andprocessing facilities

• Provide adequate resources and build requisitecapabilities so that employees at all levels areable to fulfill their environmental and communityresponsibilities

• Develop relevant sustainable developmentmonitoring indicators on a site by site basis

• Respect the authority of national and regionalgovernments, take into account their developmentobjectives, and support the sharing of theeconomic benefits generated by operations.

Granting of Exploration LicensesFinally, in respect of granting of explorationlicenses, the mining industry should work withstakeholders to create clarity by defining thedecision-making process, roles andresponsibilities. It is expected that the granting ofpermits would carry a reasonable assurance of theright to develop, subject to appropriate approvalmechanisms based on a clear decision-makingprocess set out in advance.

4

FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

The conclusion of the workshop was that aWorking Group on World Heritage and Miningshould be formed to carry forward the work inthis important field.

It is important that the World Heritage Committeeshould give its support to such a Group. TheGroup's membership should be drawn fromvarious UN Agencies, the Advisory Bodies,ICME, and other interested parties. It could be co-chaired by IUCN and ICME. The Group shouldwork closely with other consultative mechanismssuch as MMSD and other initiatives.

! If established, the Group would be able assist theWorld Heritage Committee in this area, and inparticular it could:

! If invited, assist the Committee in any review ofcriteria used for assessing potential World Heritagesites

! Arrange for the case studies presented at this meetingand the recommendations arising from the discussionsto be widely publicized, possibly in the form of a bestpractice guidelines volume

! Explore the interest in preparing a guidance documenton World Heritage and Mining

! Plan a workshop and other activities on Mining andWorld Heritage at the World Parks Congress in 2002

! Investigate the development of databases of existingand potential World Heritage sites and other protectedareas, along with mineral occurrences and publicdomain exploration information. This may involveuse of existing map databases of protected areasmaintained by UNEP-WCMC

! Increase awareness through all possible means of theissues raised by the interaction of World Heritage sitesand mining, involving World Heritage Managers asappropriate

! Investigate sources of funding for the Group'sprogram of work.

In addition to its collaboration with ICME on WorldHeritage and mining, IUCN should consider how bestto establish linkages with the wider mining sector on abroad range of issues concerning sustainabledevelopment, working with appropriate establishedinitiatives.

NATURAL HERITAGE

III.1 The Bureau examined the state of conservationreports of a total of thirty-four natural heritage properties,which were presented in Working Document 5. The relevantparagraph number is indicated below the property name. TheBureau also noted that a report will be presented onCanaima National Park (Venezuela) at its next session.The Bureau decided not to discuss the site of Thungyai

Huay Kha Khaeng (Thailand) as the issue mentioned inthe Working Document concerns fire prevention in general.

i) Natural properties which the Bureaurecommended for inscription on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger

Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)(see paragraph I.24)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the results ofthe joint expert mission by the Centre, IUCN and theRamsar Bureau undertaken from 14–22 September 2000,presented in Information Document 8. The report of themission calls for urgent financial assistance to deal withthe introduced Salvinia molesta. In view of the imminentdanger facing the site, the Director of Senegal NationalParks has requested that the site be inscribed in the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger. An international assistancerequest will be presented to the World HeritageCommittee.

IUCN pointed out that the key issue is the invasivespecies, first detected in September 1999, which hasspread rapidly including the neighbouring DiawlingNational Park (Mauritania). The IUCN West AfricanRegional Office has convened an international meeting topromote co-ordinated action against this species. Thereport underlined the seriousness of the threat to both theenvironment and the economy of the region. The globalenvironmental significance of the Senegal River Deltamainly for migratory species was also noted. Positive stepshave been taken by the Government of both Senegal andMauritania but, despite these efforts, the situation is notunder control. There is a need for a practical action plan atlocal, national and international level. The reports alsocalled for this site to be placed on the Danger Listrecognizing that this list can be used as a managementtool. IUCN endorses the States Party’s request for DangerList and called on international donors to urgently supportactions at the site.

A number of Bureau members supported therecommendation for danger listing, highlighting the factthat Salvinia molesta is an invasive species very difficultto eradicate and that the same problem has beenencountered in other regions of the world. They pointedout that this has also enormous economic and socialconsequences. The question of dams in arid zones was alsodiscussed.

The Bureau recommended the Committee considerwhether the site should be inscribed in the List of WorldHeritage in Danger, in accordance with the expressedwishes of the State Party. The Bureau also recommendedthe Committee call on international donor support.

5

ii) State of conservation reports of naturalproperties which the Bureau transmitted to theCommittee for action

Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico)(see paragraph I.16)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that, following thePresident of Mexico’s statement of 2 March 2000, theproposed salt-works at the World Heritage site of ElVizcaino would not proceed. Letters from the Chairpersonof the Committee and the Director-General of UNESCOwelcomed this decision and congratulated the President ofMexico for the actions taken to implement the WorldHeritage Convention. The UN Foundation approved a US$2.5 million project entitled “Linking conservation ofBiodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritagesites” for six sites, including the two natural sites inMexico, the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and SianKa’an. IUCN strongly supported and commended theState Party for its decision to halt the proposed salt-worksat the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino. This sends aclear message to the world about the importance ofconserving natural values within World Heritage sites anddemonstrates the value of focused UNESCO/IUCNmonitoring missions. IUCN suggested that this bepromoted as a World Heritage success story.

The Delegate of Mexico thanked UNESCO for thesuccessful work carried out and expressed his appreciationto the Bureau. He highlighted the social pragmatism inlinking development and ecology, and expressed his wishthat all countries should collaborate on sustainabledevelopment.

The Bureau suggested that the World Heritage Committeecommend the Mexican Government for its actions toensure the conservation of the World Heritage values ofthe Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and to implement theWorld Heritage Convention. It encouraged the authoritiesto collaborate with the Centre and other interested partnersin implementing on-site projects for demonstratingpossibilities for generating employment and income forlocal communities, such as the UN Foundation project on'Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and SustainableTourism at World Heritage sites.

(iii) State of conservation reports of naturalproperties which the Bureau transmitted tothe Committee for noting

World Natural Heritage Properties of Australia(see paragraph I.1)

The Bureau took note of the information on thecommencement of the Environment Protection andBiodiversity Conservation Act (EPBCA) of 1999including the recommendation by IUCN and noted that itwould be made available to delegates on request.

IUCN noted that the ACIUCN process for monitoringAustralian sites has continued and that there are a numberof features of this process which are of interest andpotential relevance for other States Parties: (a) it bringstogether the government and NGOs under the umbrella ofthe Australian Committee for IUCN; (b) it is based onextensive consultation focusing on key issues, and (c) itemphasises the identification of a limited number ofpractical recommendations. It is hoped that the processwill be extended to other Australian sites depending onfunding available.

The Delegate of Australia commented that this processcoincides with the preparations for the periodic reportingprocess and that it would be useful if these reports bepresented in 2002.

Shark Bay, Western Australia(see paragraph I.2)

IUCN noted that the ACIUCN report for the site wasdiscussed at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau.ACIUCN has advised some amendments of the FocusedRecommendations on mining consistent with the originalACIUCN recommendation to emphasise that no mineralsands mining or exploration should be allowed if itdamages the World Heritage Area and values. IUCNwelcomed the State Party’s response to the five FocusedRecommendations and looked forward to the completionof the strategic plan for the property and offered to workwith the State Party to establish time frames for actionsidentified.

The Bureau commended the State Party and ACIUCN forsuccessfully repeating the process applied to the GreatBarrier Reef for the Shark Bay World Heritage area. TheBureau urged them to develop a Framework forManagement that could be used as a basis for annualmonitoring of progress in the implementation of the fiveFocused Recommendations, and submit it to theconsideration of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in2002, in the context of periodic reporting.

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)(see paragraph I.3)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the recentgrounding of a freighter upon the reef. IUCN commendedthe first-year progress report on implementing the FocusedRecommendations for this site. IUCN agreed with theState Party that a key issue is to effectively managecatchments adjacent to the reef to reduce overallenvironmental impact on the site and noted that 80catchment management projects are currently underway.IUCN suggested that the effectiveness of these projects inreducing pollution impacts should be monitored. IUCNalso noted and applauded efforts to establish arepresentative management planning system in the WorldHeritage areas based around an expanded core of highlyprotected areas. IUCN saw a clear link between such areas

6

and sustainable fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef region.IUCN reviewed the recent refloating of the groundedcontainer vessel with a potentially dangerous cargo fromthe reef. This was achieved by the use of explosives by thesite management agency. It was noted that legal action isbeing taken against the shipping operator. This highlightedseveral issues: the need for pilotage of large vessels withinthe World Heritage area, especially those carryinghazardous materials, as well as the need for effectiveresponse strategies which aim to minimise environmentalimpact and which involve consultation with keystakeholders, including traditional owners.

Bureau members noted the fragile ecosystem and the needfor continuous monitoring of the coral reef and the need toprotect it from pollution.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau about theactions taken to remove the vessel and that other optionswould have been preferred, but there was a need for urgentremoval. Criminal procedures are underway against theowners of the vessel. The management of shipping needsto be of highest international standards. Australia alsoparticipates actively in the International Coral ReefInitiative and in the Coral Reef Watch.

The Bureau thanked the State Party for submitting a first-year progress report on the implementation of the“Focused Recommendations” adopted by the Committeeat its twenty-third session. The Bureau noted withsatisfaction the State Party's efforts to involve localcommunities in the work of Management Committees thatare beginning to address integrated land and catchmentmanagement issues. The Bureau invited the State Party tosustain the pace of progress in the implementation of the“Focused Recommendations” achieved in the first yearand submit the second-year report to the twenty-sixthsession of the Bureau in 2002 in the context of periodicreporting.

The Bureau also requested the State Party to submit areport on the grounding of the vessel on the Great BarrierReef and follow-up actions for the consideration of thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001.

Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves(see paragraph I.4)

IUCN noted that the State Government of Queensland hasdecided not to approve the Naturelink Skyraildevelopment. IUCN had concerns about theappropriateness of this development impacting on theWorld Heritage area and applauded the reported decisionof the Queensland Government. The Delegate of Australiaconfirmed the cancellation of the project and stated thatfurther information will be provided to the Secretariatshortly.

The Bureau noted with satisfaction that the cable carconstruction was not proceeding and requested the StateParty to keep the Centre informed on this matter.

Wet Tropics of Queensland(see paragraph I.5)

The Bureau took note of Information Document INF.6“ACIUCN Report on the state of conservation of the WetTropics of Queensland World Heritage Area, Australia”.ACIUCN carried out a comprehensive monitoring exercisefor this site, which involved a series of stakeholderconsultations and extensive joint involvement of theGovernment and NGOs. The report identified four priorityaction areas: (i) the need to support site management,particularly to ensure adequate resources to effectivelyimplement the Wet Tropics Management Plan andStrategic Plan; (ii) the need to closely monitor themanagement of native and introduced species, in particularthe control of feral and exotic species; (iii) the need toensure complementary management of land use andhuman impacts within and beyond the boundaries of theWorld Heritage area. ACIUCN recommended a particularfocus on industrial and tourism developments, as well asthe need to carefully assess electricity options in theregion, which may impact the World Heritage area, and(iv) consideration of a number of strategic issues,including indigenous involvement on management, therecognition of cultural values in any review of boundariesto enhance site management.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that theState Party’s response to the priority action areas asdescribed by IUCN is under Ministerial consideration andwill be transmitted to the Centre very shortly.

The Bureau noted the State Party’s response would bemade available in due course. The Bureau requested theState Party and IUCN to collaborate in the development ofa Framework for Management that could be used as a basisfor annual monitoring of progress in the implementation ofthe five Focused Recommendations and submit it for theconsideration of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in2002, in the context of periodic reporting.

Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest(Belarus/Poland)(see paragraph I.6)

IUCN noted that the document “Principles of theBialowieza National Park” would guide the organizationof the proposed extended Park. The extension has beencontroversial and this document represents an importantcompromise as it balances conservation and sustainabledevelopment of the region. It allows for zoning, phasingout of the logging activity that is outside of the WorldHeritage area and increasing emphasis on tourism. IUCNsupported the extension of the National Park to include theentire Polish side of the Bialowieza Forest. While thisextension area was assessed by IUCN not to be of World

7

Heritage value, it is still considered important tocomplement the existing World Heritage site.

The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party. TheBureau urged the State Party to expedite the enlargementof the National Park to include the entire Polish side of theBialowieza Primeval Forest, and to apply the document“Principles of the Bialowieza National Park functioningafter its extension on to the entire Polish side of theBialowieza Primeval Forest (Proposition)” as a basis formanagement of the National Park when it is enlarged.

Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)(see paragraph I.8)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a letter from theMinistry of Environment and Water (MOEW) of Bulgariawas received on 3 November 2000 concerning the projectproposal of the enlargement of the existing ski zone withinthe World Heritage site. It pointed out that the existing skizone was constructed in 1985/86 in compliance with theexisting national nature protection. The MOEW decided togive approval for the construction of two new ski runs(13.5 ha) and a ski lift facility and to give approval for astudy on a new ski run (7ha) and a lift. At the same time,no approval is given for the remaining ski runs proposed.The information has been transmitted to IUCN and will bereviewed carefully.

The Bureau requested the State Party to provide an up-datereport on this development as well as on the legal status ofthe existing ski zone within the World Heritage site in timefor the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)(see paragraph I.7)

IUCN welcomed the State Party’s report on the site thatindicated proposals to enhance the management capacity.However, IUCN noted that the situation on the ground isdifficult with illegal opening of roads for forestry activityand poaching continuing to be a threat. The IUCN CentralAfrican Office has been working with the State Party tosecure funding since the main funding agencies pulled outof the site in 1999. In 1999 the IUCN/WWF ForestInnovations Project conducted an assessment ofmanagement effectiveness in co-operation with sitemanagers and partners. The review highlighted problemsarising from the withdrawal of funding and issues such asbushmeat. There was a recent meeting between the keyDja partners (IUCN, ECOFAC and other NGOs) to discussthe Dja Reserve Management Plan in relation tosurrounding pressures. A meeting in January 2001 willdiscuss the bushmeat issue, a key issue relating topoaching at Dja and it is hoped that a project proposal mayarise. In view of the circumstances, it is considered that amission to this site is warranted to assess the situation.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to review thereport and to co-operate with the State Party to work out

methods for the implementation of the recommendationsof the Sangmelima Workshop, and to report on thesemeasures, and on the state of conservation of this site withspecial reference to illegal roading, poaching, and thestatus of mineral exploration and any proposed miningactivities in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.The Bureau also encouraged international donors andpartners to support conservation efforts at this site.

Gros Morne National Park (Canada)(see paragraph I.9)

IUCN noted that logging outside the Gros Morne NationalPark could affect the exceptional natural beauty of the site.It is noted that Parks Canada has expressed concernregarding the cumulative impacts of logging in areasadjacent to the Park, as part of the environmental impactprocess of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.As part of this process, the logging company has beenasked for more information relating to the potentialimpacts on the Park. IUCN recommended the State Party,through Parks Canada, continue to work with the Province,environmental groups and the forest industry to findsolutions to this issue.

The Observer of Canada informed the Bureau that thecompany’s proposition concerning additional loggingplans outside the area has been cancelled.

The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a reporton this development and issues associated with this site asindicated by IUCN in time for the twenty-fifth session ofthe Bureau.

Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)

The Observer of Canada informed the Bureau that theplans for the Cheviot Coal Mine outside the JasperNational Park portion of the Canadian Rocky MountainsParks, have been cancelled, mainly due to declining coalprices.

Los Katios National Park (Colombia)(see paragraph I.10)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the report ofthe technical meeting on the two World Heritages sites ofLos Katios National Park and Darien National Park(Panama) held in Bogota on 23 and 24 May 2000.Following the Bureau’s request for a mission to the site toobtain detailed information on the state of conservation,the Centre received an invitation for a field mission from10 to 12 November 2000 including visits to Medellin,Turbo and Bogota for discussions with on-site staff.Security clearance for the mission was obtained fromUNDP. Due to the dates just prior to the Bureau sessionand the unavailability of a representative from IUCN, themission had to be postponed.

8

IUCN noted the continuing instability in this area thatcontinues to impact Los Katios and the contiguous DarienWorld Heritage site. IUCN recommended that furtherconsideration of this site await the 2001 mission. Thismission should review the potential for inclusion of thesite on the List of World Heritage in Danger as well asreviewing the potential for developing one transfrontiersite. IUCN supported the efforts by the States Party toencourage on-site co-operation and capacity buildingbetween Los Katios and Darien World Heritage sites.

The Bureau welcomed the transboundary collaboration andrecalled the request of the Committee at the time of theinscription to create a transboundary site between Colombiaand Panama. Concerning the mission to the site, the Bureaurequested UNESCO and IUCN collaborate and find suitabledates to carry out the mission in 2001.

Comoe National Park (Côte d’Ivoire)(see paragraph I.11)

IUCN, through its West African Office, noted continuingmajor problems at this site mainly relating to poaching andforestry and agricultural encroachments on Parkboundaries. IUCN supported a mission to the site, ifinvited by the State Party.

The Bureau decided to give additional time to the StateParty to enable it to complete the implementation of theInternational Assistance provided. The Bureau requestedthe Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Partywith a view to undertaking the mission requested by thetwenty-third session of the Committee, and requested theState Party to provide the detailed state of conservationreport and corrective measures for mitigating threats to thesite before 15 September 2001 to be considered by thetwenty-fifth session of the Committee.

Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)(see paragraph I.12)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau of positivedevelopments at the site. However, reports had also beenreceived concerning tensions with lobster fishermen andtheir recent occupation of the offices of the CharlesDarwin Research Station on Isabella Island.

IUCN commended the States Party for its positiveconservation measures implemented at the site,specifically the development of regulations to theGalapagos Special Law for immigration, invasive speciesand tourism. IUCN noted the need to ensure theseregulations are effectively implemented. IUCN urgedfinalization of the special regulations for fisheries. Thisshould address issues such as permissible fishing methods,boat permits and principles for setting fisheries quotas,including for lobster fisheries. The unsuitability oflongline fisheries in this area rich in seabirds, sharks andturtles was also noted. IUCN commended the States Partyfor fundraising efforts for the site, especially the success

with the GEF Grant and the Inter American DevelopmentBank Loan. These will strengthen the quarantine system,marine reserve management and the conservation agency.IUCN looks forward to reviewing the marine extension tothe World Heritage site in 2001 and suggested thisevaluation be combined with a monitoring mission.

The Bureau welcomed the positive developments forconservation at this site and thanked the State Party forconsidering extending the World Heritage Area to includethe marine zone. The Bureau commended the State Partyon the excellent progress with implementing theManagement Plan and recommended that a monitoringmission be linked with the IUCN evaluation of the marineextension in 2001. The Bureau, however, noted withconcern recent threats arising from industrial fishinginterests and invited the States Party to strictly enforce alllaws and regulations, to underline its commitment to theconservation of the site. The Bureau also encouraged theState Party to expedite finalising regulations and otherprovisions for the effective enforcement of the GalapagosLaw, particularly in the fisheries, tourism and quarantinesectors.

Komodo National Park (Indonesia)(see paragraph I.13)

IUCN and UNESCO participated in a monitoring missionto this site in September 2000. Key issues were identifiedas: destructive fishing using cyanide and dynamite, mainlyby fishermen outside the Park. It is a difficult challenge forthe Park management to control the application of theregulation and enforcement of fishing laws. Due toinadequate staffing levels, poaching and collectingactivities are impacting the natural values of the site. Theseproblems are exacerbated by internal migration to thePark. The State Party is addressing this by trying toimprove the socio-economic conditions of communitiesoutside of the Park boundary. There are a number ofmanagement issues, including the provision of water andthe need for improved waste management and sanitation.IUCN also noted that the existing 25-year Master Plan is avery useful document, but recommends development of amore detailed 5-year management plan. It is critical thatthere be strong emphasis on involving local communitiesin plan preparation. IUCN noted the positive steps beingtaken by the State Party to address management issues andthe very constructive partnership role of the NatureConservancy in the management of the site. The missionidentified a number of recommendations, including (1) topromote and increase community awareness of the benefitsof the Komodo National Park; a critical element is toensure full involvement of local communities in thepreparation of the management plan; (2) other specificrecommendations include increasing public awareness,encouraging appropriate eco-tourism, improving sitemanagement and developing effective monitoring andresearch programmes. IUCN concluded that this positivereactive monitoring mission identified practical steps toaddress key issues.

9

The Bureau also took note of the UN Foundation projectof US$ 2.5 million entitled “Linking Conservation ofBiodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritagesites” for six sites, including the Komodo and UjungKulon National Parks of Indonesia.The Bureau noted the recommendations by theIUCN/UNESCO mission and also that the UNESCO-UNEP project already addresses several of the issuesmentioned (training, funding and park management). TheBureau urged the State Party to develop an action plan forthe implementation of the recommendations of the Reportof the IUCN/UNESCO mission to Komodo National Parkand submit it, as well as a progress report, for theconsideration of the twenty-fifth session of the Committeein 2001.

Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)(see paragraph I.14)

The Bureau noted that the site was one of the case studiesat the Mining Workshop. IUCN informed the Bureau thatthe study presented was an excellent case which noted theclose collaboration between the company and the Park,with Freeport being a major source of funding support forbiodiversity projects and studies in the Park. A number ofenvironmental impacts associated with the disposal ofmine tailings from the site and potential impacts werenoted. It recommended that those be further investigated.Freeport is developing ways to contain and treat waste andis undertaking a health and ecological risk assessmentstudy. The issue of mine tailings should be also addressedas part of the study. IUCN also pointed out the co-operation between WWF, TNC and the State Party todevelop a three-year Action Plan for this site and proposalsfor a Lorenz Trust Fund.

The Bureau encouraged the Indonesian authorities toclosely collaborate with Freeport and other partners likeWWF and TNC who are keen to support the conservationof Lorentz. The Bureau welcomed the idea for theestablishment of a Lorentz Trust Fund or similararrangements to ensure long-term conservation financingfor the site.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to collaboratewith the State Party and Freeport to obtain detailedinformation on the current practice of tailings disposalfrom the mining concession adjacent to the Park and thepotential threats it may pose to its integrity. The Bureauendorsed IUCN’s suggestion that Freeport be requested toaddress this issue as part of the ecological and health riskassessment study it is preparing.

Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)(see paragraph I.15)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that a letter wasreceived by the Centre on 17 November 2000 from theKenyan Embassy in France, on a number of positive

actions by the Government, including security operationsin the newly gazetted National Reserve, a task force on thetransition of management to the Kenya Wildlife Serviceand the extension of the boundaries to cover an area of1632 sq. km. It stated that these positive actions wouldnegate suggestions to include Mt. Kenya on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger.

IUCN noted positive measures that will have long-termbenefits for the management of the site. IUCN is howeverconcerned about the critical situation of the site andsuggests a monitoring mission to assess the potential forinscription of this site on the List of World Heritage inDanger.

The Bureau welcomed the actions taken by the State Party,and requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with theState Party with a view to undertaking a monitoringmission to the site to ascertain its state of conservation.The Bureau requested the State Party to co-operate withthe Centre and IUCN with a view to completing themanagement plan and the programme of rehabilitation, tobe submitted to the Centre by 15 March 2001 forconsideration by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Te Wahipounamu – South West New Zealand(New Zealand)(see paragraph I.17)

IUCN reported that the issue arose from concerns of a NewZealand NGO at the impact on parts of the World Heritagesite from the Himalayan Thar, introduced for sport huntinglong before the World Heritage inscription. The HimalayanThar Management Plan aims at sustained control of thar tomaintain vegetation in an ecological acceptable condition.Thar numbers had been reduced significantly under thecontrol plan in place but the New Zealand ConservationAuthority favours a review of the policy. IUCN stated thatsuch a review would be possible when the managementagency reviews the impacts of the existing policy over thenext few years.

The Observer of New Zealand reaffirmed the commitment tothe sustained control of this particular introduced animal andasked the Bureau to note the legal status of the controlmeasures being implemented and to be reviewed in 2003.The State Party believed it may be useful to report back in2002, when the process to review the control plan will havecommenced.

The Bureau noted that the State Party is in the process ofimplementing a Himalayan Thar Control Policy but invitedthe State Party to take into consideration the criticisms ofNZCA concerning some aspects of the Policy. The Bureaurequested that the State Party give due consideration tochanges called for by the NZCA when it reviews thePolicy’s impacts during 2002/2003, or if possible, earlier.The Bureau invited the State Party to submit a progressreport on the implementation of the Policy and its plan or

10

efforts to undertake a review of policy implementation tothe twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in 2002.

Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)(see paragraph I.18)

IUCN carried out a reactive monitoring mission to the sitein May 2000 and the report has been circulated. It includesthe following points: The poaching of the Arabian Oryxhas been stopped for the past 16 months, thus arresting theprevious decline in populations. The key role of theSultan’s special force should be noted, indicating thehighest level of support of this species for the conservationof this site. A new management plan has been preparedwith revised boundaries and clearly identified managementzones. It is important that these boundaries are marked onthe ground and adequate resources allocated to ensure itsimplementation. The Report also identified a number ofother issues, including control of vehicles, overgrazing andmining. These issues need to be addressed in theimplementation of the management plan. The site shouldnot be considered for Danger Listing.

The Delegate of Morocco welcomed the progress madeand highlighted the fragile environment and the economicand petroleum exploitation interests. Such a site could beseen as a core area in a wider Biosphere Reserve context toinclude sustainable development.

The Bureau commended the State Party for finalising thedraft management plan for the Sanctuary and proposingnew, more rational boundaries. To maintain the integrityof the site, the Bureau requested the State Party, as amatter of urgency, to adopt the draft management plan,complete the boundary marking, and allocate adequateresources for the plan’s implementation. The Bureauinvited the State Party to submit a new boundary for theWorld Heritage listing which excluded the buffer zone.Finally, the Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN tocollaborate with the State Party in order to continuouslymonitor the site and to report regularly to the Bureau.

Huascarán National Park (Peru)(see paragraph I.20)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the site was oneof the successful case studies of the Mining Workshop.IUCN pointed out that the mining company agreed todevelop the southern route for the transport of mineralresources, rather than transporting them through the Park.IUCN highlighted the positive co-operation between theState Party, the mining company and the MountainInstitute at this site. The need for the development of anew management plan which focuses on effectivemanagement of tourism and better control of small-scalemining operators within the Park was emphasized.

The Bureau encouraged the State Party to implement therecommendations of the mission report and to regularly

report on the status of the implementation of theserecommendations.

Danube Delta (Romania)(see paragraph I.21)

The Bureau took note of the report supplied by the StateParty. IUCN noted reports of re-opening of miningoperations upstream from this site. IUCN urged caution,bearing in mind that there have been four spills of cyanideand heavy metals from three mine sites in Romania in thefirst half of this year. This situation needs to be carefullyreviewed. IUCN also noted that it is essential that miningcompanies have clear and effective disaster mitigationplans, experience borne out from this case and DoñanaNational Park, Spain.

The Delegate of Hungary asked that a report be providedby the State Party on measures taken in the mine region.

The Bureau thanked the State Party for having providedinformation on the impacts of the spill on the DanubeDelta World Heritage area and urged the State Party todevelop clear and effective disaster mitigation plans forany on-going or future mining activities that may affectWorld Heritage values. It requested the State Party toprovide a report on measures taken in the mine region intime for the twenty-fifth session of the Committee.

Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)(see paragraph I.22)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Director ofthe UNESCO Office in Moscow would attend a meetingon the proposed road and gas pipeline through the UkokPlateau, from 18 to 20 December 2000 in the AltaiRepublic. IUCN pointed out that it is currently only aproposal and suggested caution on this issue. There is aneed to assess options for the road outside of the WorldHeritage area and consult with stakeholders. IUCN alsonoted proposals for an Altai Convention, which aims toprovide a framework for balancing conservation anddevelopment needs.

The Bureau invited the State Party to inform the Centre ondetails concerning the proposed road construction project,including any environmental impact studies that may beunderway and any future developments in time for thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)(see paragraph I.23)

IUCN noted the serious reports received on salmonpoaching, gold mining, gas pipeline and a geothermalpowerplant in the region. IUCN noted the socio-economicchallenges in this region and emphasised the need to linkplanning of the World Heritage site with developmentopportunities for local populations and regional planningas set out in the Project Kamchatka Report. Additional

11

donor support would be required and more initiatives needto be developed. The Secretariat informed the Bureau thata mission of a staff member of the UNESCO Office inMoscow will take place in January 2001.

A number of Bureau members and observers expressedconcerns about the magnitude of the problemsencountered, and requested that these brought to theattention of the State Party.

The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to thissite and that a case may exist for inscription on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger. The Bureau requested the StateParty to provide a state of conservation report on this site,which addresses the points raised by IUCN, and thepotential for inscription on the List of World Heritage inDanger, in time for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)(see paragraph I.24)

IUCN noted that a Workshop on Lake Baikal was held inJuly 2000 and that this meeting and other reports haveindicated: (a) continuing concerns about the discharge ofwaste waters into Lake Baikal, and the main tributary ofLake Baikal, the Selenga River. One of the major wastewater inputs is the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill; (b) adelay in the preparation of a detailed plan for theconversion of the Pulp and Paper Mill; (c) concerns aboutthe adequacy and effectiveness of the Federal Law onLake Baikal were pointed out, as well as concerns aboutother threats to the integrity of the site (unregulatedhunting, fishing). IUCN also noted that the StateCommittee on Environmental Protection has beenabolished. The specific implications for World Heritagesites in the Russian Federation are unclear.

The Bureau expressed its concern that no updatedinformation was received from the State Party on thisproperty and that other recent reports indicate seriousthreats to this site and that a case may exist for inscriptionon the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureaurequested the State Party invite a mission to this site in2001 to ascertain whether it should be inscribed on the Listof World Heritage in Danger.

Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)(see paragraph I.26)

IUCN noted significant threats from poaching by localsubsistence farmers and armed gangs. The reportsuggested that there may soon be no Derby Elands left,unless urgent measures are taken. The IUCN SenegalOffice has expressed concern about the situation in thePark and has reported proposals to transfer animals,including the Derby Elands, from the World Heritage site.There are also recent proposals to import western giantelands from Senegal to a commercial ranch in SouthAfrica. IUCN noted that there has not been a study to

assess the impacts of the translocation of animals on theconservation status of the Park and urged caution.

The Bureau noted with concern the reports concerning thissite. The Bureau requested the State Party to considerinviting a monitoring mission to this site in 2001.

Doñana National Park (Spain)(see paragraph I.27)

IUCN recognized the efforts made by the State Party toclean up the site, particularly associated with the Doñana2005 Restoration Project and the Green corridor project.However, there is still a long way to go. The need fordecommissioning of the old tailings dam and better storageof mining waste was highlighted.

The Bureau commended the continuing efforts of the StateParty to clean up the area, which indicated a gradualrecovery of the Guadiamar River Basin. However, theBureau noted that there is still a great deal of effort requiredand that there remains high pollution in some areas. TheBureau urged the State Party to accelerate implementation ofthe Doñana 2005 restoration project and implement thereview meeting to be held during 2001. The authorities areinvited to inform the Centre by 15 April 2001 on tentativedates and a programme for the review meeting.

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)(see paragraph I.28)

IUCN urged priority attention to resolving boundary issuesand endorsed efforts to incorporate an additional 1,000 haof natural forest into the Reserve. IUCN Sri Lanka will beworking with the State Party on this issue and onimplementing a proposed GEF-funded project to conservethe south-western rainforests of Sri Lanka.

The Bureau noted that the Forest Department is makingefforts to reclaim the land released for organic tea farmingand may encounter a legal challenge from the privateenterprise concerned. The Bureau requested the Centre andIUCN to monitor further developments on the matter andreport on progress to the next extraordinary session of theBureau in 2001. In addition, the Bureau invited the StateParty to report on steps taken to incorporate 1,000 ha ofnatural forest to the National Reserve and its eventualinclusion in the World Heritage site.

Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)(see paragraph I.30)

IUCN noted continuing problems regarding security at thissite. The Observer of Uganda informed the Bureau aboutthe difficult situation and civil unrest in the whole region.A new strategic plan was prepared in September 2000 thataddresses a number of issues including a security plan.This will be translated into an Operational Plan withbudgetary implications by March 2001. This will alsodefine which areas could be financed by the World Bank

12

and the World Heritage Fund. He confirmed thatinformation would be provided as soon as possible to theCentre. IUCN also noted there is a $7 million trust fundfor Bwindi.

The Bureau recalled its earlier request and recommended thatthe Centre and IUCN continue efforts to verify, with theUgandan authorities, their needs for support for purchase ofvehicles and staff training and to continue assisting theUgandan authorities to obtain financial support from suitablesources, including the World Heritage Fund. The Bureaurequested the State Party to provide the information on theOperational Plan by 15 April 2001 and asked the Centre andIUCN to report on the measures taken to support themanagement programme at the twenty-fifth ordinary sessionof the Bureau in mid-2001.

Gough Island (United Kingdom)(see paragraph I.31)

IUCN noted that the invasive species Sagina has beeneradicated but urged the State Party to carefully monitorthe situation to ensure that future outbreaks do not occur.The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Bureauthat his Government is addressing long-term issuesthrough the revision of the management plan. The revisionof boundaries of the Reserve had been extended from threenautical miles to 12 nautical miles, but that this did notaffect the World Heritage area.

The Bureau commended the State Party and the St. HelenaGovernment for their effective and prompt response ineradicating this invasive species. It invited the State Partyto keep the future situation of the site under close review.

Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the SerengetiNational Park (United Republic of Tanzania)(see paragraph I.32)

IUCN noted that an Environmental Impact Assessmentwas carried out on the proposed routes for the plannedaccess road and a decision made that the road should avoidenvironmentally sensitive areas. IUCN urged the StateParty to proceed slowly and with caution on this matter.IUCN also noted problems with introduced species in thecrater.

The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to continuemonitoring this site, and invited the State Party to providereports to the Centre on a regular basis and to provide theCentre with a copy of both the management plan and theEnvironmental Impact Assessment Study.

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)(see paragraph I.33)

IUCN reviewed the State Party’s annual report andapplauded many positive actions underway, includingraising community awareness and support for the area. Thekey concerns are the cumulative impacts of activities in the

Ha Long Bay region outside the site. IUCN supportedprogrammes such as the integrated coastal and marinemanagement programme for the Tonkin Archipelagoproposed by IUCN Vietnam and the World Bank. Thistries to balance conservation and development across theregion.

The Delegate of Hungary highlighted the complexity ofthe site and the need for a broader heritage impactassessment, as well as the need for the consolidatedinvolvement of all partners.

The Observer of Vietnam informed the Bureau that duringthe last months a strategic partnership framework has beenagreed upon for a consolidated integrated managementapproach. On 1 December 2000 the Master Plan 2000-2020 would be due for ratification by the Prime Minister.The Master Plan will take into account the World Heritagearea and its buffer zone. The environmental legislation wasamended to allow a thorough environmental managementaudit of the Bai Chay Bridge construction project. There isa high level of commitment by both the provincial andcentral Government. World Heritage educationprogrammes are to be introduced into all schools in theregion. A new donor strategy is being developed andtraining in donor advocacy is being provided to staff of theHa Long Bay Management Department.

The Bureau commended the commitment of the StateParty to continue to improve infrastructure and capacityfor the protection of the site and for providing a report onthe Management and Preservation of the site. The Bureauhowever, drew the attention of the State Party to riskslinked to addressing environmental impacts of individualprojects to the neglect of monitoring cumulative impactsof the overall development of Ha Long City and otherareas surrounding the World Heritage area. The Bureauurged the Government of Vietnam and the ProvincialGovernment of Quang Ninh to seek donor support,including from JICA and other Japanese Institutions thatco-operated to carry out the Study on EnvironmentalManagement of Ha Long Bay, to initiate implementationof the Study’s recommendations with minimum possibledelay. The Bureau noted that the State Party amended theenvironmental legislation as appropriate to ensure the fullimplementation of the Environmental Management andAudit Programme recommended by the EIA of the BaiChay Bridge Construction Project, during the constructionphase as well as beyond. The Bureau also encouraged theState Party to increase its efforts to co-ordinate andconsolidate inputs of all stakeholders for the conservationof the Ha Long Bay World Heritage area and thesustainable development of its surrounding region. TheBureau invited the State Party to submit a progress reporton the outcome of its efforts to implement the aboverecommendations to the next extraordinary session of theBureau at the end of 2001.

13

Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)(see paragraph I.34)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that problems wereencountered with the proposed bilateral meeting. Arelated international assistance request has been receivedfrom Zambia. IUCN saw the implementation of the jointZambia/Zimbabwe planning workshop as a priority andlooked forward to participating. The Delegate ofZimbabwe confirmed that problems existed and welcomedthe Centre’s letter on this matter. He informed the Bureauthat a meeting would take place in Zimbabwe from 19 to22 December 2000 prior to the bilateral meeting.

The Bureau reiterated its requests of earlier sessions andthose of the Committee, that the States Parties expedite theorganisation of the bilateral meeting in order to report tothe twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in mid-2001.

MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE

i) State of conservation reports of mixedproperties which the Bureau transmitted to theCommittee for action

Kakadu National Park (Australia)(see paragraph I.35)

The Bureau recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinarysession of the Committee examined the state of conservationof Kakadu National Park with reference to the developmentof a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in anenclave of the Park.

The Bureau reviewed progress on two main issues.Firstly, the resolution of a number of scientific issues and,secondly, cultural issues.

Scientific issues

The Bureau noted the conclusions of the report of theIndependent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the InternationalCouncil for Science (ICSU) (see Executive Summary ofWHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.5).

The Bureau also noted that on 10 November, in a letteraddressed to the Chair of the Committee, the State Partyhad advised that:

• they accepted the intent of the ISP recommendationsand will ensure that their implementation achieves theobjectives outlined by the ISP and IUCN in thatreport.

• subject to a review of the resource implications, andthe need to ensure the cooperation of Traditional

Owners, a more extensive monitoring programme at alocal and regional level could be put in place.

• they will explore mechanisms for improving thetransparency of the external technical advice reviewprocess through the incorporation of furtherindependent advice from the most appropriateAustralian scientists and engineers.

• amendments have been made to Australia’s legalregime in relation to environmental protection and theregulations governing the exports of uranium.

The leader of the ISP of ICSU informed the Bureau thatthe ISP report was concerned principally with issuesrelating to the approved proposal for the Jabiluka MillingAlternative (JMA). The ISP considers that the risks tonatural values of the World Heritage Area have beenquantified with a high level of scientific certainty and aresmall or negligible for the approved mining and millingproposal. However, the ISP considers that there is still theneed for:

(a) landscape and ecosystem analyses;(b) improvement in management arrangements as a leakageincident at the Ranger Mine showed that the response of themining company and authorities was unsatisfactory, and thatthe standard of monitoring and maintenance had fallen belowthose expected;(c) an independent scientific advisory group andtransparent review process.

The ISP considers that the Australian Governmentresponse to the ISP recommendations dated 10 November2000 are satisfactory in relation to some of the ISPrecommendations, but unsatisfactory for others. Theleader of the ISP of ICSU said that the ISP findings do notnecessarily relate to milling proposals other than the JMA.Furthermore he commented that the ISP had littleinformation on alternative milling proposals.

The ISP stated that if these alternative milling proposalscan be shown to reduce any potential environmental risk,then the ISP would accept and welcome them but wouldstill need:

- detailed rigorous environmental analyses- full stakeholder involvement at the earliest stage- transparency of process, and- a fully independent review body.

IUCN referred to the joint statement made by the advisorybodies in July 1999 and to the report of the IUCN expertwho had participated in the mission in July 2000 (seeAnnex 4 of WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.5). IUCNendorsed the process of scientific peer review and said thatin accordance with the Precautionary Principle thereshould be no mining until there was a completeEnvironmental Impact Assessment on the modified mineplans.

14

IUCN said they were very concerned about the leak at theRanger uranium mine reported to the twenty-fourth sessionof the Bureau in June 2000, and about other reported leaks,but noted that only minor ecological impacts haveoccurred. They expressed concern about the potentialcultural impacts of the leak and the inconsistencies in thereports of the Northern Territory and the FederalGovernment on the leak.

IUCN recommended that there be further documentationof the natural values of the Lease and adjacent areas at theearliest opportunity. In noting that there were also ethicaland cultural issues relating to the scientific and technicalissues at Jabiluka, IUCN indicated that it was essential forthe Traditional Owners not to feel excluded from futurediscussions and assessments.

The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU andthe IUCN Representative for their constructiveparticipation in the mission to the Jabiluka and RangerMineral leases in July 2000. In referring to the ISP’s workas a good example of a process of scientific peer review,he welcomed the finding of the ISP report, particularly theoverall finding that risks to natural values were small orneglegible. He informed the Bureau that discussionsbetween the leader of the ISP of ICSU, the SupervisingScientist of Australia and IUCN would continue over thecoming days to seek agreement on a proposed decision tobe submitted to the twenty-fourth session of theCommittee.

Cultural issues

At its twenty-fourth session in June 2000, the Bureau alsorequested that all affected parties and the AustralianGovernment, work to find a constructive solution toaddressing the economic, social and cultural expectation ofthe people of Kakadu while protecting the full range ofWorld Heritage values.

On 10 November the State Party informed the Chair of thecurrent status of initiatives to improve the social andeconomic circumstances of Aboriginal people living inKakadu. However, for cultural issues, particularly inrelation to cultural mapping and the development of acultural heritage management plan, all parties reported alack of progress and some difficulties in co-operation.

ICOMOS recommended that an independent scientificgroup perform an objective assessment of the culturalvalues of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease and referred to thepossible development of international guidelinesconcerning World Heritage and indigenous people.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Bureau that theAustralian Government was pleased to begin a newdialogue with the Traditional Owners and otherstakeholders to together consider a process for addressingcultural issues at Jabiluka. The majority of members of the

Bureau, in welcoming these developments, acknowledgedthat dialogue between the Traditional Owners and the StateParty was crucial if progress could be made towardsdeveloping a new process to address any outstandingcultural issues relating to the development of the uraniummine and mill at Jabiluka.

The Bureau,

1. Noted the report of the ISP of ICSU and IUCN on thescience issues and the new information provided bythe State Party and recommended it be examined bythe twenty-fourth session of the Committee.

2. Welcomed the fact that discussions are taking placebetween the State Party and the Traditional Owners.

3. Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners thatserious impacts on the living cultural values ofKakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mineand mill uranium at Jabiluka might still exist.

4. Considered that the Committee’s previous decisionregarding cultural mapping and the preparation of acultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannotbe implemented at this stage and that an approachfounded on partnership between all parties concernedis required to ensure the protection of the livingcultural values of Kakadu National Park.

5. Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of theBureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated itswillingness to “participate in activities leadingtowards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining tothe management of Kakadu National Park”.

6. The Bureau requested that the Committee note that theState Party is prepared to consider whether a newprocess is required to address any outstanding issuesrelating to cultural values. Any new process would befacilitated by the State Party, in consultation withTraditional Owners and other domestic stakeholders.

ii) State of conservation reports of mixedproperties which the Bureau transmitted to theCommittee for noting

Mount Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China)(see paragraph I.36)

Monitoring missions were carried out by IUCN andICOMOS to evaluate the impact of a monorail linking twosummits of Mt. Emei. The construction of the monorailwas noted with concern when IUCN evaluated the site in1996. At the time, the relevant authorities announced thatconstruction had been suspended and the site wasinscribed in December 1996. Subsequently, the Bureaulearnt that the monorail was completed and has beenoperating since December 1998. IUCN pointed out that the

15

outcome of the monitoring mission has been positive, asthe monorail has largely followed the existing footpath.The footpath has been closed and vegetation isencroaching and there is control over the visitor numbersto Wanfo Summit. The route of the monorail is relativelyunobtrusive.

ICOMOS drew the attention of the Bureau to the proposedaccess walkway to view the Leshan Giant Buddha. Thesiting and general appearance of the structures wereacceptable, but ICOMOS recommended that modificationbe made relating to the use of materials in conformity withthe proposals of the World Bank expert.

The Bureau, upon examining the findings of the IUCN andICOMOS missions, requested the State Party to inform thesite management authorities of the World Heritage propertiesin China that major projects of this type should not beundertaken without prior evaluation of all environmentalimpacts, and for the Committee to be provided withinformation prior to their implementation. The Bureau alsorequested the State Party to provide more trainingopportunities to the staff of the site in (1) tourismmanagement, including measures to monitor and mitigate theimpact of tourism; and (2) management tools for biodiversityprotection. The Bureau recommended that the report of theIUCN/ICOMOS missions be transmitted to the relevantChinese authorities and requested the State Party, with thesupport of UNESCO and the advisory bodies, to develop aprogramme of action to ensure follow-up to therecommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS missions.

Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)(see paragraph I.37)

ICOMOS noted that, of the 16 recommendations made bythe UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOS mission of October 1999,only some are referred to in the report received from thePeruvian authorities and others still needed to be approvedand/or implemented. The advisory body also observed thatit was necessary to undertake the study on the carryingcapacity of the Sanctuary and the Ciudadela as a basis forother programmes and projects such as access to the site,tourism use as well as protection of natural and culturalresources etc.

IUCN welcomed the progress made concerning theestablishment of a national co-ordinating Committee andthe management committee of the Historic Sanctuary aswell as the approved fire prevention plan. IUCNrecommended encouraging the Government of Japan tofinance the landslide project and acknowledged thecontinuous support of the Government of Finland. IUCNfurthermore noted that the installation of the cable carwhile retaining the road access would add to the problemof visitor numbers which the Peruvian Management Unitis addressing through a study on the carrying capacity.IUCN also recalled the monorail that led to the eliminationof ground access at Mt. Emei in China and suggested that

the Peruvian authorities include such an approach in theirplanning process.

The Secretariat informed the Bureau about the accident thathad occurred on the site during the production of a beercommercial, when a crane that formed part of the film team’sequipment, fell on the Intihuatana or stone sundial, chippingoff a piece of stone. A detailed report reached the WorldHeritage Centre in October 2000, prepared by an assessmentmission to Machu Picchu, which examined the damage aswell as initial actions taken in response to the accident. TheCentre also informed the Bureau of the preparation of aTechnical Co-operation request for an international expert instone restoration.

Several Bureau members expressed concern and suggestedthat guidelines for the use of World Heritage sites shouldbe devised, although there was no agreement concerning asite specific or general approach. ICOMOS suggested thatthe use of World Heritage sites in general, not only theHistoric Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, should be regulatedby some form of charter or guidelines to avoid damage incomparable situations. The Observer of the UnitedKingdom informed the Bureau of the experience withmanagement and use-regulations at Stonehenge. TheChairperson concluded that the issue was of generalconcern and that the United Kingdom was in a position tosupply valuable information for other States Parties.

The Bureau commended the State Party for the actionstaken to protect the property, especially the advances madein consolidating the institutional structure for themanagement of the site. Furthermore, the Bureau urged thePeruvian authorities to consider and implement allrecommendations made by the UNESCO-IUCN-ICOMOSmission of October 1999. It also requested the authoritiesto submit a further progress report on the implementationof the mission recommendations, particularly theconsolidation of the institutional structure and thedevelopment of the carrying capacity study and the cablecar project, by 15 April 2001 for examination by theWorld Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session. Uponreceipt of this report the Bureau may decide whether afurther field mission to review progress made would benecessary.

The Bureau furthermore expressed serious concern overthe accident that damaged one of the main monuments atMachu Picchu, the Intihuatana Sundial. It recommendedthe Peruvian authorities to review its policy for the use ofthe World Heritage site for commercial purposes. Itrequested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on theaccident, the restoration efforts taken and the policyreview by 15 April 2001 for examination by the WorldHeritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session.

16

CULTURAL HERITAGE

III.2 The Bureau examined the state of conservation of atotal of twenty-eight cultural heritage properties which werepresented in Working Document 5. The relevant paragraphnumber is indicated below the property name.

i) Cultural properties which the Bureaurecommended for inscription on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger

Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)(see paragraph I.52)

The Bureau recalled the Committee and Bureau’s requestfor a reactive monitoring mission to be organized by theCentre and ICOMOS following receipt of informationconcerning the demolition of the 375 year-old hydraulicworks, an essential monument within the site of theShalamar Gardens. The Bureau examined the findings andrecommendations of the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactivemonitoring mission undertaken in October 2000, whichwas summarized as below:

The 375 year-old hydraulic works of the ShalamarGardens

The three water tanks forming part of the 375 year-oldhydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens had beenirretrievably demolished over a period of ten days in June1999 by the Metropolitan Corporation of Lahore (MCL) ofthe Provincial Government of Punjab in order to widen theGrand Trunk Road located along the southern wall of theShalamar Gardens. Two of the three water tanks originallyconstructed in brick and mortar were demolished and whatremains are parts of its walls at the ground level. The thirdtank now, considerably reduced in size, stands alone alongthe Grand Trunk Road (GT Road) threatened by traffic.These tanks were linked to the canal “Shah Nahar”, whichonce irrigated the fountains of the Shalamar Gardens.

The site of the ancient hydraulic works after thedemolition has been used by the MCL as a parking lot forheavy trucks (eastern part), and partially for the sale offurniture by a vendor (western part) who has illegallyoccupied the site.

The mission found that:! the legal ownership and boundary of the area where

the hydraulic works were located are unclear;! the Department of Archaeology and Museums (DoA)

of the Federal Government of Pakistan protestedseveral times against the demolition work but to noavail;

! alternative proposals drawn up by the DoA forwidening the GT Road were not given dueconsideration;

! the DoA was requested by the Commissioner ofLahore and the Governor of Punjab to proposecorrective measures on 14 August 2000. However, at

the time of the ICOMOS-UNESCO Mission inOctober 2000, the DoA had not yet submitted aproposal.

Perimeter Walls of the Shalamar Gardens

Examination of the exterior of the perimeter wall aroundthe Shalamar Gardens, the three terraced gardens and theNaqqar Khana, the garden to the east, indicated thatdespite efforts made by the DoA to mobilize resources andthe co-operation of the various authorities concerned,restoration and rehabilitation of the historic monumentsand gardens had not progressed. Difficulties inimplementing the Recommendations of the 1998 ICOMOSmission that had been adopted by the DoA during a 1999UNESCO mission, were also noted. Although the 1998ICOMOS mission had been informed that funds had beenmade available for restoration activities in the NaqqarKhana, there was no evidence that such works had beenimplemented.

During the past year, a modern hydraulic system wasinstalled to supply water to the upper two terraces locatedat the southern part of the Shalamar Gardens. The naturalstone decorating the eastern and western entrance gateswithin the lowest northern terrace were being replaced byhand-carved stone at the time of the October 2000Mission.

Both sides of the perimeter wall have deteriorated (peelingplaster and flaking mud mortar, advertisements painted onthe outside, vandalism, graffiti, illegal construction alongthe walls, damage to the original hand-painted decorationon the outside, humidity rising at the base of the wallcaused by raising the ground level along the outside walls,aggravated by the construction of paved sidewalks againstthe wall along the northern and western sides, garbage).

Awareness of the unique character, historical significance,and World Heritage values of the Shalamar Gardensappeared to be low.

Threats facing the Shalamar Gardens

The integrity and authenticity of the 375 year-oldhydraulic works of the Shalamar Gardens have beenseverely damaged by the demolition of the greater part ofthe hydraulic works, the Shah Nahar, located on theopposite side of the Grand Trunk Road.

The property is threatened by serious and specific danger,and to conserve this site, major operations are necessary.

All parts of the site are subject to “ascertained danger” dueto serious deterioration of materials, structure, ornamentalfeatures, town-planning coherence, and significant andimportant loss of historic authenticity and culturalsignificance.

17

The site is subject to “potential danger” due to a lack ofeffective means to implement existing conservationpolicies for the site in the face of rapid urbanisation of thegreater Lahore City and its surrounding areas.

The State Party should define and implement a “rescueprogramme” as soon as possible in order to safeguard theremains of the hydraulic works.

Legal, political, financial and management measures areneeded to redress the situation. There is no structured co-operation between the federal and local authoritiesconcerned. Unchecked growth (human settlements, traffic,etc) undermine the integrity and authenticity of the site.

Priority actions recommended by the UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission

The authorities are urged to undertake conservation of theperimeter wall and of the gates. This will require full co-operation of the Metropolitan Co-operation of Lahore, andmay require establishment of a sound drainage system nearthe walls to prevent further damage caused by humidityundercutting the walls.

The authorities are urged to prioritise for the restoration(not reconstruction) of the pavilions and other historicmonuments within the Shalamar Gardens.

The authorities are urged to revitalize the garden layoutand water works, based upon archaeological research andscientific analysis of the original layout of the gardens.

The authorities are urged to establish a co-ordination bodywith representatives of all stakeholders concerned in theprotection and utilisation of the Shalamar Gardens.UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS,ICCROM and other bodies will need to provide financialand technical support in developing a long-termmanagement plan to ensure the development andconservation of this unique site.

Conclusion

The ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring missionrecommended that the World Heritage Committee inscribethe Shalamar Gardens of Lahore on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger, taking into due consideration the stateof conservation of the site, the ascertained and potentialthreats, and the positive response from the State Partyconcerning the inscription of the site on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger during discussions held between theCentre and the authorities concerned since 1999.

Deliberations by the Bureau during its twenty-fourthextraordinary session

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that consultationsbetween the Representatives of the Government ofPakistan, the Director-General of the Department of

Archaeology and Museums, and the World HeritageCentre had taken place since 1999 concerning thepossibility of nominating the property for inscription onthe List of World Heritage in Danger. The Bureau wasinformed that representatives of Pakistan to UNESCO andthe DoA indicated that the Government is considering theinscription of the site on the List of World Heritage inDanger. A formal letter of request that was expected priorto the twenty-fourth session of the Committee, had notbeen received.

The Bureau expressed serious concern over the completeloss of two of the three hydraulic works, and the partialdemolition of the third hydraulic work. Taking note of theprevious assistance requested by the State Party, andrecognizing that the property is threatened by serious andspecific danger, necessitating major operations to ensurethe protection of the remains of an essential historicmonument within the property, the Bureau recommendedthat the Committee examine the state of conservation ofthis site at its twenty-fourth session, with a view toinscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger,at the request of the State Party.

The Bureau recommended that the Committee request theState Party to define and implement a "rescue programme"as soon as possible in order to safeguard the remains of theformer hydraulic works, through consolidation as anarchaeological relic of the remaining foundations of twotanks, by taking measures to prevent further deteriorationof what still remains of the third tank with its brick arches,and by fencing off the site on which these remains arelocated from the immediate surroundings so that it is nolonger directly accessible. Parking on the site of the firstand second tanks should be prohibited as soon as possible,and the Bureau recommends the Committee underline theequally urgent need to adequately conserve the remains ofthe third tank, currently being used both as a toilet and agarbage disposal area. Considering the extent ofdestruction and loss of the original materials of the twodemolished tanks, reconstruction is no longer possible. Forthe area around the remains of the hydraulic works, theBureau recommends that the Committee request the StateParty to provide clarification concerning ownership, landuse and the legal status of the land within 200 feet of thesehydraulic works, particularly in view of the Punjab SpecialPremises (Preservation) Ordinance, No. XXXIV of 1985(The Punjab Gazette, Lahore, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 1985)applicable for this site.

The Bureau underlined that the state of conservation of thisproperty illustrates a case where world heritage values of aproperty had been severely damaged due to insufficientattention given to conservation needs in the planning andimplementation of public works.

18

Historic City of Zabid (Yemen) (see paragraph I.42)

The Secretariat presented its report, including newinformation following the mission in October 2000.Following a question raised by the delegate from Hungaryabout the position of the Yemen authorities concerning theState Party’s request to inscribe the Historic City of Zabibon the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Secretariatinformed the Bureau that an official letter of 17 October2000 had been received requesting the Committee toconsider an inclusion of the site in the List of WorldHeritage in Danger as this would be necessary to safeguardthe site.

The Bureau decided to transmit the report to theCommittee for examination and to recommend theCommittee to adopt the following:

“The Committee notes the request of the Yemeniauthorities to inscribe the Historic Town of Zabib on theList of World Heritage in Danger and decides to inscribethe site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Itrequests the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to senda multidisciplinary team in order to evaluate the situationand take further actions.”

ii) State of conservation report of culturalproperties which the Bureau transmitted to theCommittee for action

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)(see paragraph I.49)

The Bureau recalled that the Committee had repeatedlyexpressed concern for this site and deferred inscription onthe List of World Heritage in Danger since 1992.Recognizing the continuing loss of authenticity of theurban fabric of the site, the Committee at its twenty-thirdsession decided to again defer decision on in-danger listinguntil the twenty-fourth session. The Committee alsodecided to send a High Level Mission in 2000 to ensureconsultations with representatives of His Majesty’sGovernment of Nepal to transmit the Committee’s concernand to convince the authorities of the merit of in-dangerlisting. This mission took place from 24 to 29 September2000.

The Director of the World Heritage Centre reported on theconclusive findings and final considerations of the HighLevel Mission to Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site,presented in WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.4. He drew theattention of the Bureau to the state of conservation of thesite, much of which had not improved since 1999. TheBureau was informed of the continuing commitment ofHis Majesty’s Government of Nepal to protect the sevenMonument Zones composing the site. The Directorreported that the authorities had emphasized thedifficulties in imposing international standards in the

conservation of privately-owned historic buildings withoutsubstantial subsidy and technical support.

The Director informed the Bureau that no new plans hadbeen put forth by the Nepalese authorities to redress thepersistent and continued deterioration of the materials,structures, ornamental features, and overall architecturalcoherence in most Monument Zones. The High LevelMission was received positively by the representatives ofthe central and local government authorities including anaudience with His Majesty the King. The Directorinformed the Bureau, however, that the mission wasunable to convince the representatives of His Majesty’sGovernment of Nepal on the constructive aims of thesystem of in-danger listing, notably to mobilise the supportof policy makers at the highest level and internationaldonors.

Finally, the Bureau was informed that the High LevelMission concluded that should no new measures beundertaken, the deterioration of the historic urban fabricwill persist, irreversibly damaging the vernaculararchitecture surrounding the public monuments, andconsequently damaging the world heritage values of thisunique and universally significant site.

The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, wholed the High Level Mission, thanked the Director of theWorld Heritage Centre for his comprehensive presentation.The Chairperson stressed that the gravity of the situationshould not be underestimated and reminded the Bureauthat the decision of the Committee whether or not toinscribe this site on the List of World Heritage in Dangerat its twenty-fourth session would reflect upon thecredibility and moral responsibility of the World HeritageConvention and its Committee.

The Delegate of Finland, who participated in the HighLevel Mission as both a Vice-President of the Committeeas well as the ICOMOS Representative during the mission,underscored the complexity of the site, composed of sevenMonument Zones located in different geographic areas atconsiderable distances from each other and in differentconservation conditions. He emphasized that the principalcause of concern is the difficulty in conserving the historicurban fabric, as the public monuments are in generallygood condition. The Delegate of Finland recommendedthat the Committee defer inscription of the site on the Listof World Heritage in Danger, as the inscription of theentire site could be discouraging for the authorities and thepeople of Monument Zones. ICOMOS concurred with thisview.

The Delegate of Australia, underlining the importance ofthe Committee’s decision, stated that a decision by theCommittee to inscribe the site on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger against the wish of the State Partywould set a precedent, which could impact upon the workof the Convention and the States Parties' common goals toprotect world heritage. He informed the Bureau that

19

Australia did not consider that under the Convention theCommittee was empowered to inscribe a property on theList of World Heritage in Danger without the consent ofthe State Party concerned and without the request forassistance by the State Party.

Discussions ensued on the objectives of the Conventionand international co-operation. The Delegate of Hungaryrecognized the challenges in urban heritage protection inthe face of rapid urbanization, change in urban life styleand economic growth. The use of the Convention as amechanism for mobilising further political commitmentand international technical co-operation was underscored.

The Delegate of Greece recalled that the Committee haddeferred the inscription of the Kathmandu Valley on theList of World Heritage in Danger numerous times. Shepointed out the evident difficulty faced by both theCommittee and the State Party in implementing theConvention to safeguard the site for future generations.With reference to the debate on the necessity for StateParty consent for in-danger listing, she stated that Article11.4 allows the Committee to inscribe a property on theList of World Heritage in Danger without the consent ofthe State Party concerned. Recalling her intervention at thetwenty-third session of the Committee, she reminded theBureau that she had foreseen that the High Level Missionwould not be able to convince the Nepali Government onthe merits of the in-danger listing system. She drew theBureau’s attention to the significant loss of historicbuildings within Bauddhanath Monument Zone wherethere were approximately 88 historic buildingssurrounding the stupa in 1979, which decreased to 27 in1993, and 15 in 1998. Recalling that the serious state ofconservation of this site has been examined at 19 sessionsof the Committee and Bureau since 1992, the Delegate ofGreece stressed the gravity of the situation and the need toensure the credibility of the UNESCO World HeritageConvention, its Committee and the World Heritage List.

The Delegate of Mexico reminded the Bureau that theseven Monument Zones of the Kathmandu Valley werenominated and inscribed together as one site in 1979,exemplifying the heritage of Nepalese art and culture at itsheight. He emphasized the importance of “preventiveconservation” in addressing the conservation of historiccities to prevent irreversible damages.

The Delegate of Zimbabwe reminded the Bureau that theconclusive findings of the High Level Missionunderscored the fact that Kathmandu Valley was indanger. Regardless of whether or not it was placed on theList of World Heritage in Danger, he suggested thepossibility of deleting certain parts of the MonumentZones as a means of retaining the credibility of the WorldHeritage Convention.

In the discussion which followed, the Bureau membersagreed that the Committee would need to defineprocedures for examining cases such as Kathmandu

Valley, where certain world heritage values or componentsjustifying inscription have been irreversibly lost.

The Observer of the United Kingdom noted theshortcomings of Committee decisions in previous years forhaving inscribed properties which lacked adequatemanagement and conservation mechanisms, andunderscored the importance of the periodic reportingexercise in addressing related problems.

The Observer of Nepal expressed his Government’sappreciation for responding favourably to requests fortechnical and financial assistance which the Committeeand UNESCO have been providing for Kathmandu Valleysince the 1970’s. He recalled the great pride of theNepalese citizens in 1979 when the site was inscribed onthe UNESCO World Heritage List, but informed theBureau that they were unaware until 1992 of the worldheritage conservation standards and the errors made. TheObserver of Nepal stated that Government instability upuntil 1998 had prevented the enforcement of measures toprotect the urban heritage of the site. The Observerreiterated the Government’s strong commitment to ensurethe implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the1993 Joint Mission, the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint Mission,and requested that the Bureau provide the Government ofNepal sufficient time to redress the situation and deferdecision on in-danger listing until 2004.

The Chairperson reminded the Bureau that thedeliberations taking place were repeating discussions heldin Marrakesh during its twenty-third extraordinary session.Noting the importance of elaborating a better process forinscribing properties on the List of World Heritage inDanger, the Chairperson offered to host a meeting inMorocco to discuss this issue separately in a morecomprehensive manner.

The Bureau adopted the following recommendation fortransmission to the Committee for examination at itstwenty-fourth session:

“The Bureau examined the findings of the High LevelMission to Kathmandu Valley which was undertakenbetween 24 to 29 September 2000, which heldconsultations with the Representatives of His Majesty’sGovernment of Nepal and was granted an audience withHis Majesty the King.

The Bureau, noting the findings of the High LevelMission, expressed its appreciation to the State Party forits continued efforts to enhance the management andconservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritagesite. The Bureau reiterated its deepest concern for the stateof conservation of Kathmandu Valley, where urbanencroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in mostof the seven Monument Zones composing the site aresignificantly threatening its integrity and authenticity.

20

The Bureau recommended that the Committee request theState Party to produce a new structured framework formonitoring all corrective measures by His Majesty’sGovernment of Nepal, to be reviewed by the Committeewithin the context of the Asia-Pacific Regional PeriodicReporting exercise in 2002. The Bureau furtherrecommended that other States Parties be engaged in theconservation and monitoring effort by providing technicaland financial assistance to the concerned authorities of HisMajesty’s Government of Nepal. In this regard, the Bureaurecommended that the Committee reserve an appropriationwithin the 2001 International Assistance budget, to financespecific time-bound activities related to the protection ofthe urban fabric within the World Heritage site in order tostrengthen the State Party’s capacity.

The Bureau recommended the Committee to consider theissue of the inscription of properties on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger in a broader context, in order todevelop appropriate criteria and process for the Committeeto evaluate situations such as Kathmandu Valley. To thisend, the Bureau welcomed the offer by the Government ofMorocco to host a meeting on this issue, and recommendsthat the Committee decides on a general schedule for themeeting and allocate funds for the organisation of thismeeting.

Taxila (Pakistan)(see paragraph I.51)

The Secretariat presented the findings andrecommendations of the UNESCO-ICOMOS reactivemonitoring mission to Taxila (1-5 September 2000)organised by the Centre and ICOMOS following therequest of the Committee and Bureau. The purpose of themission was to examine the state of conservation of theBhir Mound archaeological area, where a football stadiumhad been constructed.

The findings and recommendations included the followingpoints:

1. The mission was convinced that the work on thestadium had been stopped and that the demolition ofthe walls would soon be commenced. It isrecommended that action be taken to conserve andpresent Bhir Mound site as an important part of theTaxila World Heritage site.

2. Recent excavation of Bhir Mound and removal ofvegetation was observed. Although appreciative of theefforts made by the concerned authorities inundertaking excavations of Bhir Mound, theauthorities of Pakistan are urged to place priority onconservation and presentation of archaeological areasalready excavated and exposed, rather than engage innew excavation exercises. In this context, theauthorities are urged to elaborate a comprehensivemanagement programme for the development andconservation of Taxila as a matter of priority.

3. Illicit excavations did not appear to constitute a majorthreat to the site. Nevertheless, the nationalprogramme to prevent illegal excavation and illicittrafficking of artefacts should be applied to Taxila.

4. Demarcation of the existing boundaries and bufferzones and the preparation of management andmaintenance programmes for each of thearchaeological areas composing Taxila is required, notonly to conserve individual monuments, but also toprotect the natural setting and historical evolution ofTaxila in its entirety.

5. Impact assessment studies of the heavy industries andmilitary compounds within the Taxila Valley, whichwill require substantial efforts on the part of theauthorities concerned, should be carried out.

6. Co-operation between planning, development andcultural heritage protection agencies is encouraged asa matter of priority.

7. The authorities may wish to consider proposing thesite for inscription on the List of World Heritage inDanger to encourage the mobilisation of financial andtechnical assistance.

The Secretariat also presented the information transmittedby the Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO on10 November 2000, which provided updated informationconcerning actions taken by the Government. According tothis updated information,

(a) ownership of Bhir Mound site has been restoredto the Department of Archaeology and Museumsand the structures of the sports stadium are to bedismantled in November 2000;

(b) excavation on Bhir Mound is continuing,supported by additional funding from theNational Fund for Cultural Heritage;

(c) heavy industries have not had any adverse effectso far on the Taxila World Heritage areas;

(d) Custom Authorities are taking strict measures toprevent illegal trafficking of artefacts from theTaxila areas.

The Bureau recommended the following decision foradoption by the Committee:

“The Committee takes note of the Reports submitted bythe State Party, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centreconcerning the state of conservation of the Taxila WorldHeritage site. The Committee expresses its appreciation tothe authorities of Pakistan for taking the necessarymeasures to mitigate the threats caused by the constructionof the sports stadium on the Bhir Mound within Taxila.

21

The Committee expresses its appreciation for the effortsmade by the State Party to strictly control illicit traffickingof sculptures from Buddhist archaeological remainsillegally excavated, but nevertheless reiterates its requestto the State Party to continue strengthening the protectionof unexcavated areas in Taxila from illegal looters. TheCommittee requests the Government of Pakistan toimplement the Recommendations formulated by ICOMOSfollowing the October 2000 ICOMOS-UNESCO reactivemonitoring mission. The Committee requests the StateParty to submit a report before 15 September 2000 on theprogress made in implementing these recommendations,for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifthextraordinary session in September 2001. Finally, in orderto support the State Party to overcome the difficultiesfaced in regularly monitoring the numerous and physicallydispersed archaeological remains of the Taxila WorldHeritage site, the Committee expresses its commitment toextend its assistance to support the State Party, andrequests the State Party to consider nominating the site forthe List of World Heritage in Danger at the twenty-fifthsession of the World Heritage Committee.”

Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)(see paragraph I.63)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the receipt of newinformation transmitted by the Under-Secretary of State ofPoland, responsible for the implementation of the StrategicGovernmental Programme for Oswiecim, and the PermanentDelegate of Poland to UNESCO, following the finalisationof the working document. The information reportedconcerned the Strategic Governmental Programme forOswiecim, a proposal to build a « visitor centre » at theentrance of the national Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and adiscotheque in the vicinity of the site.

In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State specified that thePolish Government gives great importance to the StrategicGovernmental Programme for Oswiecim, and furtherindicates that the Programme’s first phase will end in 2001and its second phase is planned for 2002 -2007. Heexpressed regret concerning the delay of the work assignedto the International Group of Experts, as so far there has beenno meeting in 2000. He further reported that the Governmentplanned to integrate this group of international experts withinthe structure of the International Council for Auschwitz.

In his letter, the Under-Secretary of State also informed theSecretariat about modifications to the construction plan(which initially included a shopping mall). This was revisedto consist of a service centre including a restaurant, a carpark, bookshops for publications on the history of theMuseum, a flower shop and rest-rooms. This proposal isbeing studied by the Polish Government and localauthorities.

Concerning the discotheque, the Under-Secretary of Statestressed that, contrary to previous information submitted, thebuilding in which the discotheque is situated, is 2 kilometres

distance from the site; it is a building constructed after theSecond World War, replacing a tannery used for slave labourduring the War. He underlined the importance that the PolishGovernement gives to this matter and further stated hisGovernment’s will to find solutions within the limits of thelaw. The Under-Secretary of State mentioned the possibilityof establishing an inventory of monuments and locationswithin the World Heritage area that could be placed underspecial protection.

Finally, the Under-Secretary of State recalled that should theBureau request additional information relating to theStrategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, asummary of the annual reports prepared by the divisionresponsible for this Programme could be submitted to thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau for examination.

A representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre was giventhe floor as observer on this subject. He underlined the factthat the opening of the discotheque in the vicinity of the sitewas contrary to the spirit of the site itself, as a place ofmemory, and that all efforts should be undertaken tomaintain the site’s World Heritage values. He urged theBureau to ask the Committee to take appropriate action bystudying a list prepared by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre oftwenty-one monuments and locations within a buffer zonearound the site. In light of the information provided, ICOMOS expressedits concern on this issue, and stressed the need to establisha buffer zone, which had not been foreseen at the time ofthe site’s inscription in 1979. ICOMOS furtheremphasized the need to impose a system, designed tocontrol development within the buffer zone, onceidentified.

The Delegate of Zimbabwe underlined the necessity toidentify a new perimeter of the site, and that it would beuseful to ask ICOMOS to undertake a site mission andpresent its conclusions to the twenty-fifth session of theBureau.

The Delegate of Greece supported the proposal formulatedby ICOMOS to establish a buffer zone and control and useof the buildings.

The Delegate of Finland recalled that the issues at stakewere strongly linked to moral values and supported theproposals made by the other delegations.

The Bureau agreed to recommend the following to theCommittee :

« The Committee takes note of the information provided bythe Secretariat and by the Under-Secretary of State ofPoland, responsible for the implementation of the StrategicGovernmental Programme for Oswiecim .

The Committee recalls that, at its twenty-third session(Kyoto, 1998), it confirmed its support for the principles

22

laid out in the Declaration of March 1997; this processshould continue in a consensual manner among all partiesinvolved. It expressed the belief that no steps should betaken unless consensus had been reached.

The Committee expresses its concern regarding the delayin implementing the Strategic Governmental Programmefor Oswiecim and the work of the international group ofexperts. It urges the Polish authorities to address theseissues without further delay.

Concerning the construction projects within the zonesrelated physically or symbolically to the ConcentrationCamp, the Committee requests the State Party to avoid anyaction that could compromise reaching consensus betweenthe authorities, institutions and organizations involved andto ensure that the sacred nature of the site and itsenvironment are preserved giving special attention to theirintegrity.

The Committee reiterates its request to the State Party,previously made during its twenty-fourth session to submita progress report on the implementation of the StrategicGovernmental Programme for Oswiecim, and requests theState Party to submit this detailed report by 15 April 2001,at the latest, for examination by the twenty-fifth session ofthe Bureau.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Secretariat tomaintain close contacts with the State Party and otherparties involved in order to support planning actions andthe process for establishing a consensus as indicated in thedecision adopted by the Committee at its twenty-thirdsession.

In conclusion, the Committee reiterates the need for theestablishment of a buffer zone to be created around thesite, as well as a plan for the implementation ofdevelopment control mechanisms within this newlyidentified area. It urges the Polish authorities to payparticular attention to this matter and to submit a report onthe progress made in the identification of a buffer zone andcontrol mechanism for examination by the twenty-fifthsession of the Bureau. »

(iii) State of conservation reports of culturalproperties which the Bureau transmitted to theCommittee for noting

Brasilia (Brazil)(see paragraph I.56.)

ICOMOS emphasized the need for a mission to investigatereports on the threats to the environment of the site. Inresponse, the Observer of Brazil stated that even thoughthere was increased demographic pressure, constructionactivity concentrated on areas outside the main urban design,did not threaten the integrity of the World Heritage site.

The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to thesite. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a reporton the issues raised above by 15 April 2001 to be examinedat the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau, and furthermorerequested an ICOMOS/UNESCO mission to examine thestate of conservation of Brasilia.

Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)(see paragraph I.44)

ICOMOS presented the findings of its study concerningthe six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the WorldHeritage List, undertaken at the request of the Committee.It noted that there was some inconsistency in the criteriaapplied in some cases. In 1999, a ICOMOS - ICCROMJoint Mission had recommended that cultural criterion (iv)be removed. After closely studying the criteria applied forall six fossil hominid sites inscribed on the World HeritageList, ICOMOS did not support the proposal of the JointMission, recommending that the two criteria currentlyapplied be retained.

The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau that theGovernment of China had expressed its agreement to thefinal recommendation made by ICOMOS to retain the twocultural criteria currently applied for the Peking Man Siteat Zhoukoudian. The Bureau decided not to change thecriteria currently applied to the Peking Man Site ofZhoukoudian.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS tomake the comparative thematic study undertaken byICOMOS available to States Parties to contribute toenhancing understanding of similar sites.

The Bureau, recognising the need to review the criteriajustifying the inscription of a number of propertiesinscribed on the World Heritage List, underscored theimportance and usefulness of the Periodic ReportingExercise as a mechanism for re-examining the applicationof natural or cultural criteria applied to sites. The Bureauagreed that the 6-year cycle exercise would provide theopportunity for revising inscription criteria, removinganomalies and ensuring greater consistency.

The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)(see paragraph I.45)

The Bureau took note of the information provided by theGovernment of the People’s Republic of China, ICOMOSand the Secretariat, and requested the State Party forclarifications regarding the buffer and construction-restrictedzones of the site.

The Bureau noted with appreciation, the explanationprovided by the State Party on the established proceduresfor the approval of international co-operation activities forcultural heritage, and the offer by the State Administrationfor Cultural Heritage to assist international expert groupsinterested in working in Lhasa.

23

The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS toundertake a mission and to report on the situation to thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001.

Islamic Cairo (Egypt)(see paragraph I.38) The Secretariat presented the report on Islamic Cairo,including the recommendations of the July 2000 ICOMOSmission to report on the state of conservation of the Al-AzharMosque.

The Bureau thanked the Egyptian Government for theirongoing financial support in the preservation of IslamicCairo. For 2001, the Bureau recommended the EgyptianAuthorities launch the next phase in the Islamic CairoProject, being the conservation of Shareh Al Mouizz area,initiated by a seminar on the approach and actions to betaken and to be held in Cairo in the beginning of 2001.

The Bureau supported the holding of a seminar in Cairo asthe start of the next phase for Islamic Cairo, together withan expert and high-level mission to Cairo, including theDirector of the World Heritage Centre, in order to reviewthe project and discuss follow-up actions for the year2001.

ICOMOS expressed concerns in relation to the Al AzharMosque, in particular the impacts of traffic and the need tomonitor the structural condition of the Mosque. He alsoraised the important issue of the appropriateness of modernintervention techniques that conflict with principles ofconservation. Furthermore, ICOMOS is well aware of thesensitive and delicate issue of potential conflicts betweenspiritual requirements and the protection of religiousmonuments. Special care should be taken when evaluatingthe restoration of monuments that still are in religious use.

The Chairperson endorsed the ICOMOS concerns.

Roman Monuments, Cathedral St. Peter andLiebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany) (see paragraphI.59)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that it had receivedsome comments from ICOMOS on the report transmittedby the German authorities. These comments stressed that,contrary to the opinion expressed by the State Party in itsreport, the safeguarding of the remains of the water systemto the north of the amphitheatre, is a central issue and thatevery effort should be made to conserve it for furtherscholarly study and presentation to the general public.ICOMOS underlined the need for an adequate andcomprehensive long-term planning system for Trier.

The Bureau expressed the view that the Roman City walland the Roman water system discovered to the north of theRoman amphitheatre in Trier, represents exceptional facetsof Roman town planning that are not well represented

north of the Alps. The Bureau requested the Germanauthorities to formulate and implement without delayplanning regulations that will ensure the long-termpreservation of the archeological remains in this area.

Palaces and Parks of Postdam and Berlin (Germany)(see paragraph I.60)

ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the report provided bythe State Party did not fully answer all the questionsregarding the site. In particular, the Havel project(German Unity project 17) seriously jeopardized theWorld Heritage values of the site.

The Observer of the United Kingdom asked whetherICOMOS was requesting further information from theGerman authorities regarding this issue. ICOMOSclarified that this would enable it to present a thoroughreport to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau. Toaccomplish this, close contact between the ICOMOSexpert and the German authorities should be maintained.

The Bureau noted the comments made by ICOMOS on thereport transmitted by the State Party and that this issue willbe further examined by the Bureau at its twenty-fifthsession.

Classical Weimar (Germany)(see paragraph I. 61)

The Bureau noted that ICOMOS expressed its concernsregarding the planned road, as it may have an adverseimpact on the values of the site.

The Bureau requested the German authorities to submit areport on the possible impact of the construction of a roadclose to the Castle of Tiefurth, which forms part of theWorld Heritage site Classical Weimar, before 15 April2001 in order that it may be examined by the Bureau at itstwenty-fifth session. Furthermore, the Bureau requestedthe Secretariat, in cooperation with ICOMOS, to identifyan independent expert to undertake a thorough analysis ofthis matter.

Hortobágy National Park (Hungary)(see paragraph I.62)

ICOMOS informed the Bureau that consultations with theState Party had taken place and reassured the Bureau thatthe accident had had a negative impact on the naturalvalues, but no impact on the cultural values of the site.

The Delegate of Hungary thanked the Bureau for therecommendation proposed and reassured trhe Bureau thatthe Government will do its best to remove any danger tothe area and expressed his hope that a similar accidentnever will occur. He recalled that the Bureau requested areport from the Romanian authorities on preventionmesures which was discussed in relation to the natural siteof the Danube Delta.

24

The Bureau commended the efforts of the State Party forestablishing a monitoring programme and many otherorganisations for their actions taken in response to thisenvironmental disaster. The Bureau encouraged the StateParty to provide reports on the results from this programmeand give priority to the implementation of a restorationprogramme. The Bureau requested the State Party to providea report on the monitoring programme, its action plan andthe state of conservation by 15 April 2001.

Khajuraho Groups of Monuments (India)(see paragraph I.46)

The Bureau recalled that, following the informationreceived from ICOMOS and ICCROM internationalexperts concerning illegal encroachment within the site,the World Heritage Centre requested ICOMOS to organisea reactive monitoring mission. The Bureau was informedthat the mission of the ICOMOS expert was postponed andwas expected to take place in early 2001. The Bureautherefore recommended the Committee agree that theBureau examine the findings of the ICOMOS expertreactive monitoring mission at its twenty-fifth session inJune 2001.

Sun Temple of Konarak (India)(see paragraph I.47)

The Bureau recalled that it had examined the findings andrecommendations of the ICOMOS reactive monitoringmission at its twenty-fourth session. In order to mitigatepotential threats caused by illegal encroachment and ad-hoc construction in areas surrounding the site, the Bureauhad requested the authorities concerned to prepare urgentlya Comprehensive Development Plan and requested theSecretariat to assist the State Party in mobilisinginternational technical expertise and co-operation asrequired.

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the Government ofIndia had not submitted its report on the progress made inpreparing this Plan. However, a report on soil investigation,geo-radar studies, sampling and testing of stones of the SunTemple of Konarak had been received by the Secretariat inNovember 2000. This report had been carried out by theCentral Building Research Institute in September 1999utilizing US$ 27,000 of the US$ 39,000 allocated in 1997 asEmergency Assistance for carrying out a thorough structuralsurvey of the Sun Temple of Konarak.

According to the investigations, the ground level profilesindicate no spread of the foundations of the Sun Temple.The lateral movement of the subsurface in the unconfinedareas appears to be due to the structural load, but dating toprevious years. The report found that the soil underneaththe Temple has already settled and no further settlement isexpected.

The Bureau expressed its appreciation to the Indianauthorities for carrying out the soil and stone analysis ofthe Sun Temple of Konarak site. The Bureau, informedthat the structures are stable, thanked the authorities fortheir efforts to preserve and present the Sun Temple.

Following the ICOMOS monitoring mission to the siteundertaken in February 2000, the Bureau reiterated itsrequest made at its twenty-fourth session to the State Partyto urgently prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan tomitigate potential threats caused by illegal encroachmentand ad-hoc construction in the areas surrounding the site,and requested the Secretariat to assist the State Party inmobilising international technical expertise and co-operation as required and appropriate. The Bureaurequested the State Party to report on the progress made indeveloping the Plan and on the measures taken in favourof the conservation and development of this site forexamination by the Bureau at the twenty-fifthextraordinary session in November 2001.

Petra (Jordan)(see paragraph I.39)

The Secretariat presented its report on Petra, including theconclusions of the report of the ICOMOS mission inSeptember 2000.

The Bureau, having examined the ICOMOS report,thanked the Jordanian authorities for their efforts andstrongly recommended them to take a high-level decisionin order to prepare and implement a management plan andto support all the actions stated in the report.

Town of Luang Prabang (Laos)(see paragraph I.48)

The Bureau was informed that ICOMOS has identified anexpert in hydro-engineering and soil mechanics toundertake a mission to evaluate the design and technicalspecifications of the riverbank consolidation project sothat this Asian Development Bank-financed public workscan resume after five months halt following the concernsexpressed by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session inJune-July 2000. The Secretariat also informed the Bureauthat the Japan International Co-operation Agency (JICA)is considering approval of a request from the Governmentof Laos to finance construction of a bridge over theMekong River within the World Heritage protected area.The Bureau was informed that the State Party has beenrequested to make available the technical specifications ofthe bridge for review by the Committee.

Having examined the report of the Secretariat, the Bureauexpressed appreciation to the State Party and the AsianDevelopment Bank for halting the planned works on theriverbank consolidation and the quay to take intoconsideration the outcome of the ICOMOS reactivemonitoring mission. The Bureau noted with interest thereport by the Secretariat on its cooperation with the

25

Agence Francaise de developpement (AFD) to establish asystem of subsidies and soft loans to be offered to ownersof historic buildings located within the World Heritageprotected area through a “Fund for Conservation Aid tothe Local Population” and requested to be kept informedof developments. The Bureau requested the State Party toprepare, with support from the Secretariat, a full report forthe twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau onthe national heritage protection laws and regulations, aswell as information on all on-going national andinternational conservation and development projectsrelated to Luang Prabang. The Bureau also requested theState Party to ensure protection of the urban wetlands andthe traditional village form and vernacular architecture,which are as important as the historic monuments to theintegrity of the site.

Byblos (Lebanon)(see paragraph I.40)

The Bureau supported the March 2001 follow-up meetingin Byblos and the establishment of the Task Force for aManagement and Master Plan for Byblos.

The Bureau reiterated its request for ICOMOS to carry outa mission to examine the state of conservation of thearchaeological mound and the presentation of the ByblosWorld Heritage site.

The ICOMOS Representative explained that the reasonwhy a mission had not taken place earlier, as was indicatedin the Secretariat’s report, was to avoid duplication withthe preparation of periodic reporting and the concurrentUNESCO mission. He informed the Bureau that a missionwas to take place in January 2001.

Ksar Aït Ben Haddou (Morocco)(see paragraph I.41)

Following the presentation by the Secretariat, theChairperson spoke on behalf of Morocco, and confirmedthat the mission had taken place at the request of theMoroccan authorities. The mission included an expert withlong-standing experience in Morocco, and particularly inearthen architecture.

The Chairperson presented a brief overview of thecomplex situation at this site, and explained the difficultyfor the Government to intervene in a situation where mostof the buildings are privately owned. In spite of this, theGovernment has made the necessary contacts and decidedto implement the recommendations presented by themission. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation of thework undertaken by the expert.

Based on new information and the presentation by theChairperson, the Bureau congratulated the Moroccanauthorities for the measures taken to implement therecommendations of the expert report, and welcomed theirproposal to conduct an evaluation of the activities by mid-

2001 and to report on progress at the Bureau and theCommittee at its meeting in November-December 2001.

The Chairperson made it clear that, during 2001, theMoroccan authorities will do their utmost to implement themission’s recommendations. He also gave the assurancethat, should the proposed actions not be achieved, theMoroccan authorities will submit a request for inclusion ofthe site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Delegate of Australia commended the Moroccanauthorities for their commitment, and stated that the StateParty’s approach was positive and would conserve itsproper role in the spirit of the Convention.

The Delegate of Greece commended the Moroccanauthorities for their efforts, and for considering dangerlisting. She stated that danger listing is an effective tool forthe protection of sites.

Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)(see paragraph I.43)

The Secretariat presented its report, including therecommendations of the ICOMOS mission in October2000.

The Bureau recommended the authorities of Mozambiquegive the most urgent priority to the legal protection of thesite, and to the appointment of a site manager and thepreparation of a conservation plan that would involve thelocal population. The plan should be based on arehabilitation and participation approach, including acomprehensive social and economic programme for theIsland.

The programme should:i) allow the local people to be economically

productive;ii) improve the infrastructure and stimulate the

economic base of the Island to combineconservation and development;

iii) determine a specific conservation policy toinclude the recuperation of the buildings whichhave potential, such as:• those that could characterise the Island• those reflecting the past with integrity• those belonging to the Government• those which could serve as adequate lodging

for the inhabitants of the Island;• those which could serve for

visitation/tourism/research/training/culturalactivities

The ICOMOS Representative reaffirmed the need foraction and added that none of the recommendations of anearlier report from 1995 had been implemented.Inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage inDanger might be the most appropriate course of action.

26

The Delegate of Zimbabwe emphasised the need for amore systematic approach to linkages between theMinister of Culture and the agencies responsible forcultural heritage management. He also requested that theICOMOS report be viewed by the Mozambique Ministerof Culture, so that appropriate action could proceed. Headded that ICOMOS should be an active player in theprocess of raising local capacity.

The Delegate of Greece questioned the inscription of thissite on the World Heritage List, as there seemed to be alack of legal instrument for the protection of the site, andquestioned ICOMOS on whether this had been taken intoaccount in their evaluation.

The ICOMOS Representative explained that evaluationmissions were not always sent to sites before 1993 and thatthis site had been inscribed in 1991.

The Secretariat further clarified the point, recalling theimportant work undertaken under a joint UNDP/UNESCOproject that included the drafting of legal protection.However, the draft plans have not been implemented.Given the socio-economic situation of Mozambique, it wasof critical importance to take practical measures in order torectify the situation.

Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)(see paragraph I.50)

The Bureau was informed by the World Heritage Centrethat the International Technical Meeting to discussalternative conceptual designs to rehabilitate the MayaDevi Temple was scheduled to take place in March 2001.Noting that the Maya Devi Temple was both a fragilearchaeological site and a living site of great religiousimportance and a major destination of Buddhist pilgrims,the Bureau requested the findings of this InternationalTechnical Meeting to be reported to its twenty-fifthsession. In the meantime, the Bureau requested theauthorities to continue implementing the recommendationsmade by the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, and toreport to its twenty-fifth session in June 2001 on anyfurther measures taken to enhance the management andconservation of the site.

Fortifications on the Caribbean side of Panama:Portobelo – San Lorenzo (Panama)(see paragraph I.57.)

ICOMOS stated that the information concerning the lackof management and the precarious state of conservation ofthe site had been received from two distinguishedICOMOS members. The advisory body’s representativealso mentioned that, upon receipt of the report that theSecretariat had requested the State Party to submit, theBureau may decide whether a field mission to review thesituation on the site would be necessary.

The Bureau noted with concern the reported threats to thesite. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide a reporton the state of conservation by 15 April 2001 to be examinedat the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Archaeological Site of Chavín (Peru)(See paragraph I.58.)

The Bureau commended the State Party for its efforts toensure the conservation of the site but emphasised theimportance of a Master Plan for well co-ordinated shortand long-term actions to be taken. The Bureau furthermoreencouraged the State Party authorities to collaborate withthe Centre and other interested partners in the endeavour togenerate the necessary funds for safeguarding of the site.The Bureau requested the Peruvian authorities to submit areport on the progress made by 15 April 2001 forexamination by the World Heritage Bureau at its twenty-fifth session.

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras(Philippines)(see paragraph I.53)

The Bureau examined the report on the state ofconservation presented in the Working Document. TheBureau underscored the information provided by theSecretariat that the Ifugao Rice Terraces are extremelyfragile, where human land-use has been in balance withthis mountainous environment for centuries. The Bureaurecalled that this was the most prominent justification toinscribe the Ifugao Rice Terraces as World Heritage in1995. There is a continuous and essential shift in therelationship between human land- use and theenvironment, and the Bureau underlined the need tocontinuously monitor the socio-economic and physicalchanges within this cultural landscape. Although a validGIS system is an important tool to achieve, suchmonitoring, as previously discussed by the Committee, theBureau recognized that the problems are complex and aGIS database alone may not be sufficient. The Bureaunoted that a comprehensive management plan for the sitehad not yet been elaborated, in spite of the Committee’srequest in 1995 at the time of the site’s inscription on theWorld Heritage List. Recognizing the challenges inspecifying and implementing a management plan for acomplex cultural landscape inhabited and owned by a largepopulation, the Bureau was convinced that such acomprehensive management plan was essential, as in othercomparable cases such as Lake Baikal in the RussianFederation.

The Bureau, noting the concern expressed by theSecretariat regarding the sustainability of the on-going GISproject and consequently of the management of the site asa whole, requested the Centre to urgently organize areactive monitoring mission to the site together withICOMOS and IUCN, to discuss the following issues withthe authorities of the Philippines:

27

! elaboration of measures to overcomedifficulties in activating the GIS system,

! evaluation and provision of technical adviceconcerning the type and quality of data to begathered and utilized to enable the fullprotection and sustainable development ofthe site, and

! definition of the aims and scope of thepermanent agency to manage and conservethe Philippines Cordilleras, currently underconsideration by the national authorities.

Recalling the allocation of considerable funds for mappingthe Ifugao Rice Terraces by the Committee in 1998, theBureau expressed its commitment to extend its assistanceto support the State Party to overcome the difficultiesfaced in sustainably managing the fragile culturalresources of this property. The Bureau encouraged thenational authorities to give priority to the creation of apermanently staffed agency responsible for theimplementation of the site’s conservation, preservation anddevelopment programmes, including the GIS mapping ofthe site, as well as its heritage resources. The Bureaurequested the State Party to report, through the Secretariatby 1 September 2001 on the progress made with regard tothe Above and to report to the twenty-fifth extraordinarysession. Finally, the Bureau reiterated the request of theCommittee to the State Party to submit the tourismdevelopment plan and management plan for the site.

Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)(see paragraph I.54)

The World Heritage Centre and the Representative ofICOMOS presented to the Bureau the findings of theICOMOS reactive monitoring missions to the San AgustinChurch in Paoay and San Agustin Church in IntramurosManila. The Bureau noted that this ICOMOS Mission tothe Paoay San Agustin Church formulated an 8-pointRecommendation concerning the following issues:

1) General conservation;2) Monitoring of movement of the cracks in

the main façade;3) Further surveys needed for the structural

stability;4) Evaluation of the cause of the cracks and

the deformation of the façade;5) Structural safety evaluation in the

present conditions;6) Structural analyses for designing the

seismic intervention;7) Materials for structural intervention;8) Recommendation for use of a flow-chart

for the structural preservation of thePaoay Church;

The Bureau also examined the findings andrecommendations of the ICOMOS Mission to the San

Agustin Church of Intramuros Manila, which concludedthat

1. It is essential that the community of the AugustinianOrder should stay in its original home.

2. The original layout or "footprint" of the Monastery isdistinct and consists of two courtyards meeting alongthe diagonal axis of the site. The location of thecourtyards on the diagonal axis may have been forreasons of cross-ventilation. It allows a wider visualentry to the Church. The adjacent garden may haveacted as a parking place for some of the transportsystems used in the past; this would have freed thenarrow street and restricted the junction for other roadusers.

3. Before any further interventions for developing thesite are decided upon, the following studies should beundertaken:

! formulation of a master plan for the site, addressingthe uses of existing buildings in relation to futuredevelopment needs, land-use studies, and proposalsfor the ideal development of the site;

! a detailed engineering study of the site;! a detailed archaeological survey of the site.

The Bureau examined the findings and recommendationsof the ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Missions to thePaoay Church of San Agustin and the Intramuros ManilaChurch of San Agustin. The Bureau requested the StateParty to examine the possibility of adopting andimplementing the ICOMOS mission recommendations,and requested the State Party to report to the Bureau at itstwenty-fifth extraordinary session in November 2001 onthe progress made and measures taken.

The Bureau requested the Secretariat and ICOMOS tomake the comparative thematic study undertaken byICOMOS to be made available to States Parties interestedin the subject, as it would contribute in enhancingunderstanding of similar sites.

The Bureau, recognising the need to review the criteriajustifying the inscription of a number of propertiesinscribed on the World Heritage List, underscored theimportance and usefulness of the Periodic ReportingExercise as a mechanism for re-examining the applicationof natural or cultural criteria applied to sites. The Bureauagreed that the 6-year cycle Exercise would provide theopportunity for revising inscription criteria, removinganomalies and ensuring greater consistency.

Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)(see paragraph I.64)

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the jointmission IUCN/ICOMOS took place from 30 October to 3November 2000. ICOMOS stressed that during the

28

original evaluation mission assurances had been given bythe State Party regarding the implementation ofmanagement and conservation programmes. However,little if any progress had been made in the interveningperiod. These points were raised in the report of themission and will be dealt with in the coming years. Theadvisory bodies had made a number of proposals to thelocal authorities and would continue to maintain contact.

The Bureau encouraged the Portuguese authorities toundertake a restoration programme and to improve themanagement of the cultural landscape of Sintra during thenext six years. This includes the restoration of individualmonuments, gardens, parks and forests. It recommendedthey develop a concept of dynamic conservation, to set upa programme of education and public awareness raisingand to ensure the integrity of the buffer zone and avoidundertaking new works. Furthermore, the Bureaurequested the State Party to provide a management plan forthe site by the end of 2001. Following the joint IUCN-ICOMOS mission, four practical steps are requested :

1. Creation of an independent CulturalLandscape Advisory Committee

2. Creation of an advisory body/association ofresidents

3. The establishment of a public information,research and archives centre

4. An adjustment of the high protection area ofthe Natural Park to coincide with the corearea of the World Heritage site.

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)(see paragraph I.65)

The Secretariat indicated that it received on 22 November2000, a report on the mission to Istanbul and Ankara byMessrs Stephane Yerasimos and Pierre Pinon undertakenfrom 13-18 November 2000. The terms of reference of thismission to review progress in the preparation of theconservation plan of Istanbul, was extended to gatheringinformation and making an initial assessment on theimpact on the World Heritage values of Istanbul caused bythe on-going construction of the Istanbul subway. TheBureau was informed that the State Party transmitted, byletter dated 16 November 2000, a map indicating the routeof the planned subway with the location of stations, as wellas an assessment containing technical details on the impacton the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul.

The Bureau, upon examining the report of the Secretariat,expressed concern over the delay in the completion of theConservation Plan by the Greater Istanbul Authority andthe detailed conservation plan by the Fatih and EminonuMunicipalities. Regarding the Istanbul subway, the Bureaunoted the information provided by the State Party by letterdated 16 November 2000, stating that:

• the route of the Istanbul subway and the StraitRailway Tube Tunnel for the city of Istanbul wasapproved by the Ministry of Culture;

• the Council has continued to assess theimplementation of the projects, the urban design of thestations and bridge to be built on the Golden Horn;

• all excavations of the station areas are carried outunder the control of the Istanbul ArchaeologyMuseum Directorate.

• inspection of the cracks on the building of theguardian in the premises of the French GeneralConsulate in Istanbul led the Council to conclude thatthe damage was not due to design but due to itsimplementation. The Council, by decision No. 118-78of 7 June 2000, subsequently decided to issue awarning to the Greater Istanbul Authorities.

The Bureau expressed regret that the State Party did notinform the Committee of this major public work at itsplanning phase, in conformity with paragraph 56 of theOperational Guidelines, and requested the Secretariat andICOMOS: to study the technical information madeavailable by the State Party; undertake a mission to assessthe impact of the subway construction on the WorldHeritage values of the site, and report to the twenty-fifthsession of the Bureau in June 2001. For matters requiringurgent attention, the Chairperson of the Committee shouldbe alerted for instructions.

Complex of the Hue Monuments (Vietnam)(see paragraph I.55)

The Bureau noted with interest the work underway inestablishing the Housing Improvement Loan and subsidyscheme in co-operation with the Caisse des Depots etConsignation (CDC) within the framework of the Hue-LilleMetropole Programme (France), and requested the StateParty to keep the Bureau informed of developments in thisregard.

The Bureau, with regard to the emergency rehabilitationneeds, requested the Secretariat to support the efforts ofthe State Party in seeking international assistance.Concerning the inscription of the site on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger, the Bureau requested the State Party toconsider this as a means to promote international solidarityto meet the rehabilitation needs caused by the floods ofNovember-December 1999.

29

(iv) Reports on the state of conservation ofproperties inscribed on the World HeritageList, which the Bureau noted:

Historic Centre of the City of Salzburg (Austria)Colonial City of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)Amiens Cathedral (France)Palace and Park of Fontainebleau (France)Historic Centre of Puebla (Mexico)Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the slopes of

Popocatepetl (Mexico)Historic City of Meknes (Morocco)

The Observer of Germany raised the question of reportswhich were requested by the Committee at previoussessions and for which no information was brought back tothe Committee, such as in the case of Pompei (Italy)discussed at the twenty-first session of the Committee. TheObserver of Italy confirmed that the requested reports weresubmitted. The Chairperson expressed his appreciation forthe clarification.

IV. EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OFCULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIESTO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE INDANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGELIST

IV.1 The Bureau recalled that following theexamination of Agenda item 3 on State of Conservation ofproperties inscribed on the World Heritage List, itrecommended the Committee to inscribe the followingsites on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)

MIXED PROPERTY WHICH THE BUREAUDEFERRED

Property Shey Phoksundo National ParkId. N° 992State Party NepalCriteria

IUCN recognised that Shey Phoksundo National Park hasmany significant natural values and is effectivelymanaged. The site is an important park in the Himalayanregional context, but IUCN concluded that the case forinscription has not yet been made. This may be clearerwhen the results of the regional biodiversity assessmentare available in 2001. IUCN suggested that the Bureaudefer a decision on the nomination.

ICOMOS informed the Bureau that the Shey PhoksundoNational Park contains a remarkably intact cultural heritage

that goes back many centuries. It retains a living pre-Buddhist religion, which is active in the everyday life of thepeople, along with its places of worship and pilgrimage. Apure form of transhumance, with livestock moving toupland pastures in summer, is still being practised.ICOMOS recommended deferral, noting a number ofcritical issues relating to siting, material and workmanshipof administrative buildings, restoration of the chortens andscientific documentation.

The Bureau decided to defer the nomination.

V. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

V.1 The Chairperson recalled that the budget for 2001would be approved by the twenty-fourth session of theCommittee. Subsequently, a meeting of the new Bureauwill take place to examine international assistancerequests.

VI. FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE PROPOSEDSYSTEM OF SUB-COMMITTEES

VI.1 The Bureau recalled that the Task Force for theImplementation of the Committee, chaired by ChristinaCameron (Canada), had proposed that sub-committees beestablished to facilitate the work of the World HeritageCommittee and the World Heritage Centre.

VI.2 The twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (June2000) requested that there be further examination of thepossibility of a sub-committee system.

VI.3 The Special Session of the Bureau (Budapest, 2-4October 2000) discussed the proposal further withreference to a paper prepared by the United Kingdom. TheSpecial Session of the Bureau requested the Secretariat,with the help of the States Parties nominated by the Chair(Australia, Belgium, Benin, Hungary and the UnitedKingdom), to prepare a paper on the feasibility andimplications of a sub-committee system. The FeasibilityStudy was requested in order to evaluate the organizationaland cost implications of the proposed reform of the Bureauand Committee system.

VI.4 On 30 October, a meeting with these five StatesParties was held at the World Heritage Centre to discuss adraft of the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study waspresented to the Bureau as WHC-2000/CONF.203/6.

VI.5 The Director of the World Heritage Centrepresented the Feasibility Study to the Bureau. He referredto the exponential growth in the number of participantsattending the Bureau sessions (267 in June 2000) as beingat the same time a success of the Convention and aproblem for a more efficient and careful examination ofthe issues to be reported to the Committee. He recalledthat the four objectives for proposing changes to theexisting Bureau and Committee system were to:

30

Objective 1 Facilitate the work of the WorldHeritage Centre,

Objective 2 Facilitate the work of the WorldHeritage Committee and allowit to devote more time togeneral policy discussions forthe implementation of theConvention,

Objective 3 Improve the prior examinationof various issues submitted tothe Committee, and

Objective 4 Increase representation ofStates Parties in the work of theCommittee.

VI.6 The Director referred to the following optionsexamined in the Feasibility Study. He noted the estimateddirect cost of each option.

OPTION LENGTH OFMEETING

EXTRAORDINARYSESSIONS

NUMBER OFBUREAUMEMBERS

TOTALESTIMATEDDIRECT COSTS

OPTIONS FORMEETINGS OFTHE BUREAUOF THEWORLDHERITAGECOMMITTEE

OPTION A –Existingsystem of theBureau

6-day ordinary session(June/July atUNESCOHeadquarters)

2-day extraordinarysession (November inhost country)

7 US$53,500

OPTION B –Modification ofexistingsystem of theBureau

6-day ordinary session(April at UNESCOHeadquarters)

None7 US$43,100

OPTIONS FORMEETINGS OF3 SUB-COMMITTEESOF THEWORLDHERITAGECOMMITTEE

31

OPTION LENGTH OFMEETING

COMMITTEEMEMBERS IN EACHSUB-COMMITTEE

NON-COMMITTEEMEMBERS INEACH SUB-COMMITTEE

OPTION C1 5 DAYS INPARALLEL

7 6 US$100,680

OPTION C2 5 DAYS INPARALLEL

7 4 US$91,400

OPTION C3 5 DAYS INPARALLEL

7 2 US$82,100

OPTION D1 8 DAYSCONSECUTIVELYAND NOT INPARALLEL

7 6 US$107,700

OPTION D2 8 DAYSCONSECUTIVELYAND NOT INPARALLEL

7 4 US$97,400

OPTION D3 8 DAYSCONSECUTIVELYAND NOT INPARALLEL

7 2 US$87,100

VI.7 The Director described the existing calendar andcycle of World Heritage meetings (see Annex IV) andpresented a proposal to eliminate the extraordinarysessions of the Bureau and Committee and have theBureau session (or sub-committees) in April followed bythe Committee in June (see Annex V). This would result infewer meetings and more time for implementation by theWorld Heritage Centre and would allow the Committee toset one deadline only for all reporting and submission ofInternational Assistance requests.

VI.8 The Bureau did not reach a consensus on theestablishment of a system of sub-committees. Somemembers of the Bureau considered that the introduction ofthree sub-committees could assist in achieving Objective 3above – to improve the prior examination of various issuessubmitted to the Committee. Others considered that sub-committees might complicate decision-making and theflow of information and that improvements to the existingBureau should be made. The Bureau could, for example,meet for eight days with its work organised into segments.No agreement was reached as to whether sub-committeeswould meet consecutively or in parallel or a combinationof consecutive and parallel sessions. Several proposals onthe duration of the sub-committees were made. It wasproposed that final analysis of the proposed sub-committeesystem could not be made until the proposed themes ofeach sub-committee were better defined.

VI.9 The Bureau did not reach agreement on whethernon-Committee members could be members of sub-committees should the sub-committee system beintroduced by the Committee.

VI.10 Several members of the Bureau stressed thatBureau (or sub-committee) and Committee meetings mustbe open to observers to ensure transparency.

VI.11 It was proposed that if a revised calendar andcycle of meetings was to be introduced, a pause (6 or 18months) in the examination of nominations could be takento ensure synchronisation with the new deadlines. Severalmembers of the Bureau considered that this would havethe added advantage of allowing IUCN and ICOMOS tohave time to examine tentative lists and work on thematicand other studies.

VI.12 ICOMOS and IUCN expressed concerns as to thecost implications of servicing a number of sub-committeespossibly meeting in parallel. In principle, they supportedthe revised calendar and cycle, single deadline andintroduction of biennial funding. They agreed that theyshould work closely with the Centre in planning a revisedtimetable for nominations and evaluations for submissionto the Committee for decision.

VI.13 The Bureau reached consensus in recommendingto the Committee that it,

! Revise the calendar and cycle of World Heritagemeetings from June/November to April/June

! Abolish the extraordinary sessions of the Bureau andCommittee

• Implement changes to the calendar and cycle of theBureau and the Committee in 2002 (Note: Hungary,who hopes to be host country to the Committee in

32

2002 expressed their agreement to this date for theintroduction of a new calendar and cycle)

! Introduce Items A and B decision-making system(Item A: items which are the subject of consensus foradoption and, Item B: items requiring discussion bythe Committee)

• Enforce Rule 22.2 of Committee’s Rules of Procedureto limit the time allowed to each speaker (especially ifthey are an observer)

! Defer the examination of nominations for the year2002 to the year 2003. This deferral will imply only alimited pause (7 months) in the nomination process,and will allow the necessary transitional adjustments

! Introduce a biennial budget for the World HeritageFund to harmonize with the UNESCO budget cycle

• Review any changes to the calendar, cycle and meetingsof the Bureau (or sub-committees) and the Committeeafter they have been in operation for 4 years.

Committee Documentation

VI.14 The Director of the World Heritage Centre,recalling one of the recommendations of the Task Force onthe Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, madea presentation concerning new initiatives proposed by theCentre to reform the system of statutory meetingdocumentation. His presentation is included as Annex VI.He cited four objectives:

! To facilitate decision-making and increaseefficiency

! To streamline document preparation! To provide transparency and equity of access to

documentation! To reduce costs.

VI.15 In referring to the current system of meetingdocuments, the Director noted the large quantity ofdocuments produced for meetings in 2000: 111 in eachlanguage, including 48 working, information, and webdocuments for the twenty-fourth session of the Committeealone.

VI.16 The Director proposed that the number ofdocuments could be reduced by combining some of them. Asnot all documents are produced by the Secretariat, there is alimit to the possibility of reduction. In order to facilitate thework of the Committee, the Director proposed, on anexperimental basis, to produce a decision-making guide,containing all the elements needed for the work of theCommittee. All other documents would be treated asInformation documents, published on the Internet and/ordistributed on demand in paper form. All documents wouldbe distributed by e-mail prior to each meeting, as well asbeing made available on the Centre’s web site.

VI.17 To improve communication with the Committee,the Director proposed to circulate regular reports (to includereference to documents currently available), and to organisetwo “information meetings” at UNESCO Headquarters, opento both Committee and non-Committee members.

VI.18 A second issue concerned the question of publicaccess to documents, already raised by the Task Force on theImplementation of the Convention, mainly, “whichdocuments should go public and when?” The Directorrecognized that this issue required further study before beingpresented to the World Heritage Committee. A draftproposal will be presented at the twenty-fifth session of theBureau.

VI.19 Several delegates expressed their support for theDirector’s proposals and encouraged the Centre to test thenew proposals. IUCN also expressed support, and calledattention to the increased opportunities for e-mail distributionlists, such as the list server set up for the Task Force on theImplementation of the Convention in 2000.

VI.20 The Bureau noted the presentation by the Directorof the Centre and expressed appreciation for his efforts atinnovation in dealing with the problems of documentation atthe meetings of the Bureau and Committee and improvingcommunication with the Committee.

VI.21 The Bureau recommended that the Committeegives favourable consideration to the strategy presented bythe Director and advise the World Heritage Centre toimplement as many of the proposals as is feasible beforethe twenty-fifth session of the Committee.

VI.22 The Bureau particularly welcomed the proposalfor regular information meetings and asked thatimplementation ensures access to all States Parties,including those with limited electronic access.

VII. OTHER BUSINESS

VII.1 There was no discussion under this agenda item.

VIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

VIII.1 The Chairperson thanked all participants for therich and productive debates during this Bureau meeting inan atmosphere of cordiality. This allowed the Bureausession to close on a positive and optimistic note. Heexpressed his gratitude to the Australian authorities andthe Queensland Government for having hosted the sessionin Cairns, the native city of the Rapporteur.

VIII.2 The Delegate of Australia thanked theChairperson for the efficient conduct of the deliberationsof the Bureau and for the work achieved during ademanding year. Due to the professional Chairmanship,substantial progress in managing the Convention can benoted, and his term would be seen as a turning point in thehistory of the Convention.

33

VIII.3 The Assistant Director-General for Culture, Mr.Bouchenaki, thanked the Chairperson on behalf of allcolleagues and the Director-General of UNESCO forhaving guided the work from Marrakesh to Cairns withtact and diplomacy, and for having conducted the sessionsin a year of reform.

VIII.4 The Chairperson thanked the host country andMr. Bouchenaki for the kind words. He expressed his

gratitude to the interpreters for their hard work during thetwo-day meeting of the Bureau and the Secretariat for itssupport throughout the year. He emphazised the highresponsibility to make decisions not only relevant for onecountry, but for humanity as a whole. The Bureau thankedthe Chairperson by acclamation. The Chairperson thendeclared the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of theBureau closed.

34

ANNEX I

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION /ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L'EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA

CULTURE

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTIONOF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE /

CONVENTION CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL,CULTUREL ET NATUREL

BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE/BUREAU DU COMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

Twenty-fourth extraordinary session/ Vingt-quatrième session extraordinaireCairns, Australia / Cairns, Australie

23 - 24 2000 November 2000 / 23 - 24 novembre 2000___________

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS

I. MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU / ETATS MEMBRES DU BUREAU

AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIE

Mr. Roger BEALE AMSecretary, Department of the Environment and HeritageGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. Matthew PEEKAustralian Permanent Delegation to UNESCOUNESCO1 rue Miollis75015 Paris

Mr. Bruce LEAVERFirst Assistant Secretary, Australian and World Heritage DivisionDepartment of the Environment and HeritageGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. Peter KINGChair, Australian Heritage CommissionAustralian Heritage CommissionGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

Dr. Arthur JOHNSTONSupervising ScientistOffice of the Supervising ScientistGPO Box 461Darwin NT 0801

Mr. Kevin KEEFFEAssistant SecretaryWorld Heritage Branch,Department of the Environment and HeritageGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. David WALKERDirectorInternational Section, World Heritage Branch,Department of the Environment and HeritageGPO Box 787Canberra ACT 2601

Mr. Matt BROWNSenior AdviserOffice of the Minister for the Environment and HeritageSuite MG 68, Ministerial Wing,Parliament HouseCanberra ACT 2600

Dr. Ian MCPHAILExecutive Director,National Parks and Wildlife Service, QueenslandQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service160 Ann St Brisbane QLD 4000

Professor Tor HUNDLOEChair, Wet Tropics Management AuthorityPO Box 2050Cairns QLD 4870

35

Official Australian State Party Observers –Representatives from Australian World HeritageArea Management Bodies

Mr. Brian CLARKDistrict RangerAustralian Fossil Mammal Sites (Naracoorte)South East RegionDept of Environment & HeritagePO Box 134NARACOORTE SA 5271

Mr. Steven BOURNEGuideAustralian Fossil Mammal Sites (Naracoorte)South East RegionDept of Environment & HeritagePO Box 134NARACOORTE SA 5271

Mr. Clive COOKRegional Service Director NorthernQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Mr. Russell WATKINSONExecutive DirectorWet Tropics Management AgencyPO Box 2050CAIRNS QLD 4870

Mr. Doug WILLIAMSExecutive OfficerWillandra Lakes Region WHAc/o NSW Parks & Wildlife ServicePO Box 318BURONGA NSW 2739

Mr. Jon DAYDirector, Conservation, Biodiversity and WorldHeritageGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityPO Box 1379TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

Mr. John TANZERExecutive DirectorGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park AuthorityPO Box 1379TOWNSVILLE QLD 4810

Mr. Lachlan FULLERTONFraser IslandManagerGreat Sandy RegionQld Parks & Wildlife ServicePO Box 101MARYBOROUGH QLD 4650

Ms. Karen JACOBSONSpecial Interest Tourism Products TeamSport and Tourism DivisionDepartment of Industry, Science and ResourcesGPO Box 9839Canberra City ACT 2601

FINLAND/FINLANDE

Ms. Taina KIEKKOAmbassador, Permanent Delegate of Finland toUNESCOPermanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO1, rue Miollis, Bureau M3.35F-75732 Paris Cedex 15

Mr. Henrik LILIUSDirector GeneralNational Board of AntiquitiesP.O.Box 913FIN-00101 Helsinki

Mr. Jukka-Pekka FLANDERCheaf InspectorMinistry of the EnvironmentP.O.Box 380FIN-00131 Helsinki

Ms. Leena RINKINEVAProject leaderThe Kvarken CouncilKauppapuistikko 23AFIN-65100 Vaasa

GREECE/GRECE

Mme Hélène METHODIOUConseiller pour la cultureDélégation permanente de la Grece auprès del’UNESCOMAISON de l”UNESCO1, rue Miollis75732 PARIS Cedex 15

HUNGARY/HONGRIE

Dr. Zsolt VISYDeputy Secretary of StateHungarian Ministry of the Cultural HeritageMadach u. J/AH-7623 PECS

H.E. Ambassador Janos JelenMinistry of Foreign AffairsDepartment of Culture, Science and InformationNagy Imre ter 4.Budapest H-1027

36

MEXICO/MEXIQUE

H.E. Ambassador Raphael STEGER14 Perth AvenueCanberra ACT 2600

Professor Dr. Architect Salvador DIAZ-BERRIOUAM-INAHCalvejon Ojito No-9GYOACANMEXICO D.F. 04320

Sr. Francisco Javier LÓPEZ MORALESExpert Dirección General del Instituto Nacional deAntropologia e Historia (INAH)Reforam 101 San AngelMEXICO DF CP 01000

MOROCCO/MAROC

Mr. Abdelaziz TOURIMinistère de la culture et de la communication1, Rue Ghandi, Rabat,

Prof. Driss FASSIUniversité Mohamed V de Rabat14 cité El Khadra, Guich OudayasRabat

Ms. Meriem BENHARBITChargée de RechercheMinistère de la Culture et de la Comunication1, Rue GhandiRabat.

ZIMBABWE

Mr. Dawson MUNJERIExecutive DirectorNational Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe107 Rotten RowBox CY 1485 CausewayHarare

II. ORGANIZATIONS ATTENDING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY/ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIF

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDYOF THE PRESERVATION AND THERESTORATION OF CULTURALPROPERTY/CENTRE INTERNATIONALD'ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LARESTAURATION DES BIENS CULTURELS(ICCROM)

Mr. Herb STOVELProgramme Director, Heritage Settlements ProgrammeICCROMVia di Michele, 131-00153 RomeItaly

Ms. Nobuko INABA,Project Manager, Heritage Settlements ProgrammeICCROMVia di Michele, 131-00153 RomeItaly

Ms. Jane LENNONCouncillor, AutraliaICCROM11 Joynt StreetHamilton QLD 4007Australia

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTSAND SITES/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DESMONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)

Mr. Henry CLEERECoordinateur pour le Patrimone mondialICOMOS49-51 rue de la Fédération75015 Paris, France

Mme Regina DURIGHELLOCoordinateur adjointICOMOS49-51 rue de la Fédération75015 Paris, France

Mr. Jukka JOKILEHTOConsultantICOMOS49-51 rue de la Fédération75015 Paris, France

Mr. William LOGANPrésident ICOMOS AustraliaAustralia ICOMOS incc/o Faculty of ArtsDeakin UniversityBurwood Victoria 3125Australia

37

THE WORLD CONSERVATIONUNION(IUCN)/UNION MONDIALE POUR LANATURE (UICN)

Mr. David SHEPPARDHead,Programme on Protected AreasIUCN-The World Conservation UnionRue Mauverney 28CH-1196 GlandSwitzerland

Mr. Jim THORSELLSenior Advisor World HeritageIUCN Programme on Protected AreasBox 2846Banff, Alberta, T0L 0C0Canada

Mr. Rolf HOGANProgramme Associate for World HeritageProgramme on Protected AreasIUCN-The World Conservation UnionRue Mauverney 28CH-1196 GlandSwitzerland

Mr. Bing LUCASVice-Chair World Heritage (outgoing)IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas1/268 Main Road, TawaWellington 6006New Zealand

Ms. Pam EISERExecutive OfficerAustralian Committee for IUCNGPO Box 528725 George Street, Level 5Sydney, NSW 2001Australia

Mr. Marc HOCKINGSSenior LecturerSchool of Natural Rural Systems ManagementThe University of Queensland, GattonGatton, Queensland 4343Australia

Mr. Rodney SHEPPARDIUCN Volunteer224 Iindah RoadTinanaMaryborough, Queensland 4650Australia

III. OBSERVERS

AUSTRIA

Mr. Hans HORCICKADirecteurMinistère fédéral de l'Education, des Sciences et de laCultureAbteilung IV/3Schreyvogelgasse 2A - 1014 Vienna

BELGIUM

H.E. Mr. Hubert VAN HOUTTEAmbassador, Permanent Delegate of Belgium toUNESCO4 Villa de Saxe75007 Paris, France

Ms. S. VAN AERSCHOT-VAN HAEVERBEECK,Statut Adjunct van de directeurMinistère de la Communauté FlamandeDépartement de l'Environnement et de l'InfrastructureAdministration de l'Aménagement du Territoire, duLogement et des Monuments et SitesDivision des Monuments et SitesGraaf de Ferraris-gebouwKoning Albert II-laan 20 bus 71000 Bruxelles

Mr. André MATTHYSInspecteur généralMinistère de la Région wallonneDirection générale de l'Aménagement du Territoire, duLogement et du PatrimoineDivision du PatrimoineRue des Brigades d'Irlande 1B-5100 Jambes

38

Mr. Philippe THIERYDirecteurService des Monuments et SitesRegion de Bruxelles-CapitaleMinistere de la Region de Bruxelles-CapitaleRue du Progres, 80/1B - 1030 Bruxelles

BRAZIL

Ms. Vera Cíntia ALVAREZHead of the Division of Accords and CulturalMultilateral AffairsMinistry of Foreign AffairsDAMC/Ministerio dos Relacoes Exteriores, Sala 407Esplanada dos MinisteriosMRE/Brasilia – D.F. Brazil

BURKINA FASO

Mr. Oumarou NAODirecteur du Patrimoine CultureMinistere de la Culture et des Arts01 BP 2727 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

CANADA

Dr Christina CAMERONDirector GeneralNational Historic SitesParks Canada25 Eddy StreetHull, Québec, K1A 0M5

Mr. Murray MCCOMBManager Special ProjectsNational Parks DirectorateParks Canada25 Eddy StreetHull, Québec, K1A 0M5

Ms. Gisèle CANTINAffaires internationalesParcs Canada25, rue EddyHull, Québec, K1A 0M5

CHINA

Mr. GUO ZhanDirector of Division, State Administration of CulturalHeritage29 Wusi Street, Beijing 10009

Ms. ZUO Xiaoping,Deputy Director of Division, Ministry of ConstructionNational Commission of the People's Republic of Chinafor UNESCO37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng DistrictBeijing 100816

Mr. XU WentaoDirector , Suzhou Municipal Bureau of Parks andGardensNational Commission of the People's Republic of Chinafor UNESCO37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng DistrictBeijing 100816

Mr. HOU XiongfeiDirector, Dujiangyan Municipal People's CongressNational Commission of the People's Republic of Chinafor UNESCO37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng DistrictBeijing 100816

Mr. LI WanguiDirector, Management Office of Eastern Qing TombsNational Commission of the People's Republic of Chinafor UNESCO37 Damucang Hutong, Xicheng DistrictBeijing 100816

Mr. DENG ChangzhuVice-DirectorAdministrative Committee of Dujiangyan andQuingchen Mt. National ParkNo. 52 Ruilian StreetDujiangyan,611830 Sichuan

Mr. LAI XueboEnglish interpreterSichuan Foreign Affairs Office, P.R. ChinaNo. 100, Section 3, 1st Ring RoadChengdu, Sichuan

Mr. XU JinDeputy DirectorChengdu Planning Commission, P.R. ChinaNo. 1, Tenmin XiluChengdu, Sichuan

Niu MINVice MayorDujiangyan Municipal People’s GovernmentDujiangyan, Sichuan

39

FRANCE

Ms. Catherine DUMESNILConseillere TechniqueCommission Nationale pour l’UNESCO57 Bd. Des Invalides75700 Paris

GERMANY

Mr. Detlev RUNGERFirst CounsellorEmbassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, Canberra119 Empire Circuit, YarralumlaACT 2600 Australia

Dr. Hans CASPARYCurator, State Authority of Rhineland-Palatinate forPreservation of MonumentsSchillerstr. 1455116 Maintz

Prof. Dr. Harald PLACHTERPhilipps University, Marburg,/GermanyFaculty of Biology35032 Marburg

HOLY SEE

Mons. Tullio POLIHead of DelegationSecretariat of StateSection for Relation with States00120 Vatican CityItaly

ITALY

Mr. Cons. Mario PANAROItalian Ministry of Foreign AffairsDGPCC, Ufficio IIIpiazzale della Farnesina 100194 Rome

Arch. Pasquale Bruno MALARAMinistero per i Beni e le Attività CulturaliSoprintendente ai Beni Ambientali e Architettoniciper il Piemontepiazza San Giovanni 210100 Torino

Dott.ssa Roberta ALBEROTANZAItalian Ministry of Foreign AffairsDGPCC, Ufficio IIIpiazzale della Farnesina 100194 Rome

Dott.ssa Lisa ZAFFIItalian Ministry of Foreign AffairsDGPCC, Ufficio IIIpiazzale della Farnesina 100194 Rome

Dott.ssa Federica MUCCIItalian Ministry of Foreign AffairsServizio del Contenzioso Diplomaticopiazzale della Farnesina 100194 Rome

JAPAN

Ms. Naomi TAKAHASHIOfficial,Multilateral Cultural Cooperation Division,Cultural Affairs Department,Ministry of Foreign AffairsTokyo

Mr. Atsuhiro YOSHINAKASenior Planning Officer,Protected Area Planning Division,Nature Conservation Bureau,Environment AgencyTokyo

Mr. Tsuyoshi HIRASAWATechnical Official for Curltural Propterties Monumentsand Sites DivisionCultural Properties Protection DepartmentAgency for Cultural AffairsTokyo

Mr. Kazuhiko NISHITechnical Official for Cultural PropertiesArchitecture Division, Cultural Properties ProtectionDepartmentAgency for Cultural AffairsTokyo

Ms. Kumiko YONEDASenior Research ScientistJapan Wildlife Research CenterTokyo

NEPAL

H.E. Mr Indra BAHADUR SINGHRoyal Nepalese Ambassador to Franceand Permanent Delegation of Nepal to UNESCO7, Place Alberic MagnardParis, France

Dr. Safalya AMATYAJoint SecretaryMinistry of Culture, Tourism Civil AviationMuseum Road, Chawani, Katmandu

40

NETHERLANDS

Dr Robert DE JONGNetherlands Department of ConservationBroederplein 41,3703 CD ZeistP.O. Box 10013700 BA Zeist

NEW ZEALAND

Mr. Murray REEDYTechnical Support ManagerWest Coast ConservancyDepartment of ConservationPrivate BagHokitika

PERU

Mr Manuel Soarez DocumetMinister CounselorEmbassy of Peru in Australia – Canberra7, Brisbane Av. Borton ActAustralia

REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Mr. Seong-doo AHNFirst SecretaryDelegation of the Republic of Korea to UNESCO1, rue Miollis, M 3.3275015 ParisFrance

SLOVAKIA

Dr. Josef KLINDAMinistry of the Environment of the Slovak RepublicNamestie I. Stura 1 Bratislava

Ms. Katarina NOVAKOVAMinistry of the Environment of the Slovak RepublicKammerhofska’ 26, 969 01 Banska’ Stiavnica

Dr. Tamas DÖMENYMinistry of the Environment of the Slovak RepublicNa’mestie l Stura Bratislava

Mr. Jozef HLAVACSlovak Cave’s AdministrationsLiptovsky’ Hikula’s

Mr. Miroslav Tonci’kSlovac Environmental AgencyBanska’ Bystrica, Tajouske’ho

SPAIN

Mr. Luis LAFUENTE BADANEROSub. Grl. Protección Patrimonio Histórico,Ministry of Culture

SWEDEN

Mr. Rolf LÖFGRENPrincipal adm.officerSwedish Environmental Protection Agency106 48 Stockholm

Mr. Mats HENRIKSSONCounty ArchitectCounty Administration of VästernorrlandSE-871 86 Härnösand

Mr. Curt FREDÉNSenior state geologistGeological survey of SwedenBox 670751 28 Uppsala

Mr. Mats-Rune BERGSTROEMPrincipal administrative officerVasterbulhenLanstyrelsen, S-901 86 Umea

THAILAND

Professor Dr. Adul WICHIENCHAROENChairman of the National CommitteeOffice of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP)60/1 Rama 6 Rd, Phayathai, Bangkok 10400

Ms. Prasertsuk CHAMORNMARNDirector for Natural and Cultural Conservation DivisionRama 6 Rd Phayathai, Bankok

Ms. Korapin PhayakprakarnOffice of Environmental Policy and Planning60/1 Rama6 Rd, Phayathai, Bankok 10400

Mr. Chartree CHEUPRASITDirector General of DEOPPharam6 Rd, Phayathai, Bangkok

Mr Marit SiriwanSenior Environmental Planning ExpertOffice of Environmental Policy and Planning60/1 Rama6 Rd, Phayathai, Bankok 10400

Mr. Borvornvate RungrudeeFine Art Department

41

Mr. Arak SUNGHITAKULDeputy Director GeneralFine Arts Department Ministry of Education

UGANDA

Mr. Moses Mapesa WAFULADeputy Director Field OperationsUganda Wildlife AuthourityP. O. Box 3530Kampala

UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Nigel PITTMANHead of Buildings, Monuments and Sites DivisionDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport2-4 Cockspur StreetLondon SW1Y 5DH

Dr. Christopher YOUNGHead of World Heritage and International PolicyEnglish Heritage23 Savile RowLondon W1X 1AB

Dr. Anthony WEIGHELLEarth Science and Coastal AdvisorJoint Nature Conservation CommitteeMonkstone HouseCity RoadPeterborough PE1 1JY

VIETNAM

Mr. Nguyen VAN TUANHead of Halong Bay Management Department,Quang Ninh Province, VietnamAddress: 86 Le Thanh Tong Street, Halong City,Quang Ninh Province

Dr. Amareswar GALLAPrincipal Technical AdviserHa Long Bay Management Department, VietnamC/o P.O. Box 3175,Manuka, ACT2603Australia

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALES

Australian Rainforest Conservation Society

Mr. Gavan MCFADZEANCampaigner16 Colorado Ave.BardonAustralia

Ms. Lyndon SCHNEIDERCampaigner

Centre Simon Wiesenthal Europe

Dr Shimon SAMUELSDirector for International Liaison64, avenue Marceau75008 ParisFrance

Environmental Defender’s Office of NorthernQueensland Inc.

Ms. Joanna CULLSolicitorFirst floor corner Grove & Sheridan StreetP.O. Box 854 NNorth Cairns 4870Australia

Mr. Henry BOER196 Sheridan StreetCairns 4870Australia

Frazer Island Defenders Organization

Mr John SINCLAIRP.O . Box 71, Gladesville, NSW, 1675Australia

Friends of the Earth Australia

Mr. Gavin Mark MUDDP.O. BOX 222Fitzroy, 3065Australia

Ms. Rebecca DUFFY

Gimy Walubara Yidinji

Mr. Keith FOURMILEPo Box 1805, QLD 4870Australia

42

Gundjehmi Arboriginal Corporation

Ms. Yvonne MARGARULAChairpersonP.O Box 245Jabiru NT 0886Australia

Mr. Justin O’BRIENAdministration Manager

Ms. Jacqui KATONAExecutive Officer

Ms. Christine CHRISTOPHERSENResearch Consultant

Mr. Stuart GARDELLField Officer

Ms. Valerie BALMOOREMember

Mr. Scott ALDERSONMember

Mr. Leigh Bruce TILMOUTHMember

Waanyi Traditional Elders Corporation

Mr. Brad FOSTER93 Roberts St.Doomadgee, QLD 4830Australia

International Council for Science [ICSUIndependent Science Panel - Kakadu]

Prof. William Brian WILKINSON17/18 Union StRamsbury, Wiltshire SN8 2PRUnited Kingdom

United States House of RepresentativesCommittee on Resources

Mr. Kurt CHRISTENSENWashington, DC 20515U.S.A.

Mr. John RISHELWashington, D.C. 20515U.S.A.

Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)

Mr.Ralf PETTMANChair of International RelationsP.O BOX 600, Wellington,

The Wilderness Society (Australia)

Mr. Alec MARR7A, Hammgasley PlaceFisher, ACT 2608

Ms. Virginia YOUNGNational Forest Campaign Co-ordinator

World Archaeological Congress

Ms. Lyndon ORMOND-PARKERExecutive MemberC/o University of NewcastleNewcastle-upon-ThyneUnited Kingdom

43

(iii) SECRETARIAT DE L’UNESCO/UNESCO SECRETARIAT

Mr Mounir BOUCHENAKIAssistant Director-General for Culture

UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Mr. Francesco BANDARINDirector

Mme Minja YANGDeputy Director

Ms. Mechtild RÖSSLERMs. Sarah TITCHENMs. Junko TANIGUCHIMs. Fréderique ROBERTMs. Johanna SULLIVANMr Peter STOTTMr. Niklas SCHULZE

Ms. Jane DEGEORGESMs. Marianne RAABEMr. David MARTELMr. Jan TURTINEN (Intern)

Ms. Sabine DE VALENCETranslator

Ms. Anne SAUVETRETranslator

Division of Ecological SciencesScience SectorMme Mireille JARDIN

UNESCO Regional Office, SamoaMs. Elspeth WINGHAMWorld Heritage Officer for PacificP.O. Box 5766Matautu Post OfficesApia, Samoa

44

ANNEX II

Speech of Mr Abdelaziz Touri, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee

Twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau23-24 November 2000

Cairns, Australia

Distinguished Members of the World Heritage Bureau,Ladies and Gentlemen,

Since the last session of the World Heritage Committeeand its Bureau, threats to World Heritage sites have beenreported more and more frequently. This is illustrated by atotal of 65 reports on the state of conservation of sites onthe World Heritage List (34 natural, 3 mixed and 28cultural) which this Bureau is going to examine. Thereports include the examination of the Kathmandu Valleysite in Nepal, where I presided over the High-LevelMission.

At the same time, the results of the technicalmeeting on World Heritage and mining, which theCommittee requested at its last session, will be presentedto the Bureau for examination and transmission ofrecommendations to the Committee. This is a new steptowards a thematic review of issues which concern theStates Parties, the site managers and the internationalcommunity as a whole.

The other main issue of this Bureau session is thefeasibility study. As requested by the Special Session ofthe Bureau in Budapest in October, the Secretariat hasprepared a feasibility study on a proposed system of sub-committees. The Secretariat consulted withrepresentatives of Australia, Belgium, Benin, Hungary andUnited Kingdom in the preparation of the study. Thisextraordinary session of the Bureau will examine thefeasibility study and transmit its recommendations to theCommittee session next week where a broad reformagenda will be discussed. The key issues raised in thefeasibility study relate to the calendar, number and type ofWorld Heritage statutory meetings held each biennium.The overall objective should be for the system of WorldHeritage meetings and decision-making to become moreefficient and streamlined for the Committee, the StatesParties, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat.

In this regard, progress can be noted and a number ofchanges requested by the special session have been alreadyimplemented at this Bureau session. A case in point is thereduction of Information Documents to the absoluteminimum. I hope you appreciate this change in your work.

Two other items appear on your agenda: nominations andinternational assistance. Concerning the nomination ofproperties I would like to recall our discussions at the Junesession of the Bureau not to review nominations twice.Therefore all cases will be presented directly to the WorldHeritage Committee session. The one exception is a site, wewere not able to review at the June session as the fieldevaluations were carried out later. This will not take a lot oftime on our agenda.

In the case of international assistance, I would like toinform you that we have decided not to present a documentto you, as the budget for 2001 has not yet been approved bythe Committee. As this will be approved by the Committeeonly next week and as a meeting of the new Bureau will takeplace after this decision to review the international assistancerequests under the new 2001 budget.

Therefore, you can see that we will focus our discussion onthe two main issues: state of conservation and the feasibilitystudy. I am pleased that this reform process has startedduring my time of presidency of the World HeritageCommittee and I am proud of having taken part in thisprocess, which will be reviewed by the Committee nextweek.

At this Bureau session, you may wish to also look into thefuture ways the World Heritage Committee and its Bureauwill examine the state of conservation of the sites inscribedon the World Heritage List.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As I am fully aware of the complex agenda of this meetingand the challenging tasks ahead of you, I wish us a verysuccessful session. As it is my last task as Chairperson, Iwould like to ensure you that the World Heritage Centre andits new director is always standing ready to assist you in thecomplex and demanding task of implementing theConvention for the Protection of the World Cultural andNatural Heritage.

45

ANNEX III

Statement by Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director, World Heritage Centre

Twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau23-24 November 2000

Cairns, Australia

Mr Chairperson,Members of the Bureau,Ladies and Gentlemen,

With your permission, I would like to take the floor toinform the Bureau as well as the representative of theDirector-General and Assistant Director-General forCulture, Mr Bouchenaki, of my first steps in my capacityas Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre andSecretary of the World Heritage Committee.

I have already had the privilege of meeting the members ofthe Bureau in Budapest, but I wish here to express mymost sincere gratitude as much for their welcome, as fortheir encouragement.

I would also like to thank you, Mr Chairperson, for thecongratulatory letter you sent to me when I took up myfunctions and also for your support. It was indeed a greathonour for me to start my work by participating in theHigh Level Mission, led by yourself, to Kathmandu. Itprovided me with the opportunity to appreciate both yourprofessional and human qualities and to begin in the bestway possible my new tasks.

During the short period of my direction, I have been ableto appreciate the quality of the work developed by mypredecessors: the Centre is a structure that is very aware ofthe importance and complexity of its tasks and links highprofessionalism with a strong motiviation. Of course,there are also problems but they are for the most part dueto insufficient administrative and technical staff.

In the future, I shall attempt to remedy this situation sothat the Secretariat may better serve the Committee.

Moreover, I will try to define and implement, with theassistance of States Parties, a programme of activities thatwill allow us to respond to the new demands that areawaiting us.

All the above, as you can imagine, will take some time.But I hope to be able to present an initial outline of thisprogramme of activities to the Bureau, during its sessionnext June.

This meeting of the World Heritage Bureau andCommittee is of great importance for the Secretariat, notonly because of the new nominations and the examination

of the state of conservation of properties, but also for thedecisions which will be taken on the reform of the work ofthe Bureau and the Committee.

The meeting of the Bureau in Budapest provided theopportunity to clarify questions that are of great concern tothe Committee, such as the representivity of the List andrepresentation in the Committee. The Secretariat hasprepared a feasibility study, as was requested by theBureau, which comprises the different options forevaluation.

It is most important that we reach a decision at leastconcerning the reform of the statutory meeting cycle,which could lighten our work and render our service to theCommittee more effective.

I would also like to speak briefly about another problem:documentation. As you know, this problem was discussedseveral times in the sessions of the Bureau and theCommittee. In this next session of the Committee, theSecretariat will present forty working and informationdocuments. I realize that it is not possible to develop anefficient working system with so many documents.

Therefore, as I indicated during the Bureau session inBudapest, I wish to respond rapidly to this problem bysetting up a more suitable documentation system.Already, we have ventured to improve the documentationfor the coming Bureau and Committee, as well as for thissession, in an initial and not entirely satisfactory manner.

To take this a step further, I would like to receive thecomments of the Bureau on the following initiatives thataim at changing and reducing the documentation forCommittee and Bureau decisions. I again emphasize thatthese proposals attempt to respond to a concern voiced onmany occasions by the Committee: reduce documentationrequired for decisions.

I indicate here in a synthetic way, the basic proposalsconcerning the organization of documentation relating tothe decisions of the Bureau and the Committee that itwould be useful to discuss in a more thorough manner:

- retain the Reports of the Rapporteur of the Bureauas they are today;

- transform all other documents into informationdocuments, available upon request;

46

- creation of a working document comprising allthe discussion points as well as the referencesrequired for decisions;

- maintain documents for which text has to beapproved by the Bureau or Committee (such asthe new Operational Guidelines, etc..);

- publication of all information documents on theInternet site, according to a timetable and criteriastill to be discussed.

These preliminary proposals have to be thoroughly studiedto evaluate all their implications and to verify theireffectiveness in relation to the goal expressed by theCommittee.

As I have already underlined, I intend, in the future, topresent to the Bureau and the Committee other proposalsaimed at improving the service of the Secretariat to StatesParties.

However, during the past two months, I was able toidentify certain measures aimed to improve our work thatcould be introduced by the Centre even before this date, inorder to gain precious time. I will only mention two:

1. Increased awareness of the List and the TentativeLists

During the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, wenoted, once again, the need for a better knowledge of theWorld Heritage List and especially the tentative lists. Ofcourse, this question is directly linked to that of a betterrepresentivity of the List in the future, and therefore hasgreat importance for the ongoing discussions. I think thatit is crucial to progress in this matter and that animmediate effort should be made.

The reference framework for this study can only be aunitary conception of the Convention as an instrument forthe safeguarding of cultural and natural heritage.

I therefore intend to commence this study in January, inclose cooperation with the advisory bodies to theConvention and experts on the question.

2. Increased visibility of World Heritage Sites

I have often observed that World Heritage sites are notefficiently signposted.

However, I am convinced that good signposting of sites isthe best form of “publicity” for the Convention. MostWorld Heritage sites are visited by thousands, evenmillions, of tourists. They are therefore are mostimportant witnesses.

To achieve this goal, I think that it is necessary to create a“User Manual” for our emblem to distribute to all WorldHeritage site managers.

Furthermore, it would be productive to make use of thisoccasion to study the best ways of adapting our emblem

for display using different materials and the newtechnologies of video projection and computer-use.

Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for allowing me to expressthese points, and I thank the members of the Bureau fortheir attention.

47

ANNEX IV

EXISTING CALENDAR AND CYCLE INCLUDES 1 EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE AND 2 EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS OF THE BUREAU EACH BIENNIUM

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

YE

AR

1

6 DAY BUREAU2 DAY GENERALASSEMBLY(includes electionof Committee)

1 DAY EXTRA-ORDINARYCOMMITTEE (forelection ofBureau)

GENERALCONFERENCE

2 DAY EXTRA-ORDINARYBUREAU

6 DAYCOMMITTEE(includes approvalof annual budget)

YE

AR

2

6 DAY BUREAU 2 DAY EXTRA-ORDINARYBUREAU

6 DAYCOMMITTEE(includes approvalof annual budgetand election ofnew Bureau)

� � � � � � � �Deadlines

� STATE OF CONSERVATION (15 APRIL AND 15 SEPTEMBER)� INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE (1 MAY AND 1 SEPTEMBER)� NOMINATIONS (1 JULY AND 1 OCTOBER)

� COMMITTEE AND BUREAU DOCUMENTS TO BE DISPATCHED 6 WEEKS PRIOR TO MEETING

Advantages

• The existing cycle has been in operation for many years and is quite well known

Disadvantages

• 6 statutory meetings in Year 1, and 3 in Year 2 – total of 9 statutory meetings in a biennium• Nominations received at the same time as Bureau meeting creating unmanageable workload at that time for the Secretariat• Only 3 months of the year (January – March) are free of preparations for organization of statutory meetings• The extraordinary session of the Committee held immediately after the General Assembly is convened only to elect a new Bureau yet interpretation, documentation etc. still have to be arranged• Annual budget cycle is in use (although a biennial cycle is referred to in the Financial Regulations for the World Heritage Fund)• There is some repetition and redundancy in having an extraordinary session of the Bureau immediately prior to a Committee session. This is especially the case for state of conservation reporting• The report of the Committee to the General Conference is approved by the Bureau (and not the Committee itself) in June prior to submission to the General Conference. This problem would be solved if the

Committee meeting in Year 2 was a few months in advance of the General Conference.

48

ANNEX V

PROPOSED REVISED CALENDAR AND CYCLE TO KEEP THE BUREAU (OR INTRODUCE SUB-COMMITTEES) BUT CHANGE TO AN APRIL/JUNE CYCLE AND ABOLISH EXTRAORDINARY SESSIONS OFTHE COMMITTEE AND BUREAU

JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

YE

AR

1

6 DAY BUREAU

OR5 DAYSPARALLEL OR 8DAYS OFCONSECUTIVESUB-COMMITTEES

6 DAYCOMMITTEE

2 DAY GENERALASSEMBLY(includes electionof Committee andBureau or sub-committeemembers)

GENERALCONFERENCE

YE

AR

2

6 DAY BUREAU

OR5 DAYSPARALLEL OR 8DAYS OFCONSECUTIVESUB-COMMITTEES

6 DAYCOMMITTEE

� � �

Deadlines

� PROPOSED DEADLINE FOR STATE OF CONSERVATION, INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND NOMINATIONS (1 FEBRUARY)

� DOCUMENTS TO BE DISPATCHED 6 WEEKS PRIOR TO MEETING

Advantages

• Reduction in number of statutory meetings for the biennium from 9 to 6• More months per year free of statutory meetings and available for implementation• An 8-week separation between the Bureau and Committee sessions would bring greater immediacy to the recommendations of the Bureau to the Committee thus removing the necessity for an extraordinary

session of the Bureau• In the first year of implementation there would be a Committee session in November/December of Year 1 followed by a Bureau session (or sub-committees) only 4 months later in April of Year 2 – in the first year

the agenda for the Bureau and Committee could therefore be quite light allowing for time to discuss strategic planning issues• All deadlines for international assistance, nominations and state of conservation could be streamlined. It is proposed that 1 February be the common deadline. The length of the nomination cycle would therefore

be maintained at 18 months (Note: IUCN has proposed a 2-year cycle for nominations).

49

ANNEX VI

Presentation on Documentationby the Director of the World Heritage Centre

WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU ANDCOMMITTEE DOCUMENTATION

CURRENT SITUATION

•Working, Information and Web documents (most prepared by Centre, some by Advisory Bodies and some submitted by States Parties)

•Dispatched 6 weeks in advance of meeting

•Electronic access via password protectedInternet site

•Distribution limited to meeting participants

NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS PREPARED IN 2000

• 24th Bureau 34

• Special Session of Bureau 15

• 24th extraordinary Bureau 14

• 24th Committee 48

TOTAL in each language 111

plus documents for Task Force & 2 Working Groups

OBJECTIVES FOR PROPOSED DOCUMENTATION REFORM

• Facilitate decision-making and increase efficiency

• Streamline document preparation

• Transparency and equity in access -

“Go public”

• Reduce costs

2 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

• Number, length and content of documents

• Access to documents

OVERALL PROPOSAL TO REFORM MEETING DOCUMENTS

• Maintain Reports of the Rapporteurs

• Reduce number of Working documents by compiling one decision-making guide

• Additional Working documents only in exceptional cases - e.g. Strategic Planning documents, or changes to Reference Texts (Operational Guidelines, Rules of Procedure etc.)

• All other documents as Information Documents

DOCUMENT ACCESSCURRENT STATUS

Documents accessible on public web site

• Reports of Rapporteurs

• High profile state of conservation mission reports (e.g. El Vizcaino and Machu Picchu) only made available after Committee meeting

• Reports of Expert Meetings

Other working and information documents DO NOT generally go on public web site but are all available from UNESCO Archives

50

PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS TO COMMITTEE

• Electronic distribution by E-mail

• Dispatch of hard copy to Committee members without E-mail

• All documents available upon request

• All documents on password protected web site

Which documents can go public and when?

IMPROVING COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMITTEE

• Regular report from the Centre referencing documents currently available

• Organisation of 2 information meetings per year for Committee members at UNESCO HQ (non-Committee members to attend as observers)

• Continue Secretariat Report to Bureau and Committee but improve its content