<
 
 
 
 
×
>
You are viewing an archived web page, collected at the request of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) using Archive-It. This page was captured on 12:14:40 Dec 19, 2015, and is part of the UNESCO collection. The information on this web page may be out of date. See All versions of this archived page.
Loading media information hide

Click here to get the PDF file of this report PDF version (1000K)
FRENCH VERSION


World Heritage

24 COM

Distribution limited

WHC-2000/CONF.204/21
Paris, 16 February 2001
Original: English/French




UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,
SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION

CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE
WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fourth session

Cairns, Australia

27 November - 2 December 2000

REPORT








Table of Contents

  1. OPENING SESSION

  2. Adoption of the Agenda and Timetable

  3. Election of the Chairperson, Rapporteur and Vice-Chairpersons

  4. Report by the Secretariat on the Activities undertaken since the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee

  5. Reports of the Rapporteurs on the sessions of the World Heritage Bureau

  6. Work of the World Heritage Reform Groups

  7. Periodic Reporting

  8. State of Conservation of Properties Inscribed on the World Heritage List

  9. Progress Report on regional actions for the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan

  10. Information on Tentative Lists and examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and World Heritage List

  11. Information Strategy

  12. Documentation, information and education activities

  13. Examination of the World Heritage Fund and approval of the budget for 2001 and presentation of a provisional budget for 2002

  14. International assistance

  15. Training Strategy

  16. Date, place and provisional agenda of the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee

  17. Date, place and provisional agenda of the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the World Heritage Committee

  18. Other business

  19. Closure of the session
List of Annexes

  1. List of Participants

  2. Speech of the outgoing Chairperson Mr. Abdelaziz Touri

  3. Speech of the Assistant Director General for Culture of UNESCO, Mr. Mounir Bouchenaki

  4. First Pacific World Heritage Youth Forum Action Plan

  5. Recommendations transmitted to the attention of the World Heritage Committee by the Indigenous Peoples Forum

  6. Speech of the incoming Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr. Peter King

  7. Speech of the Director of the World Heritage Centre, UNESCO, Mr. Francesco Bandarin

  8. Revised Calendar and Cycle for World Heritage Statutory Meetings to be implemented as of 2002

  9. Letter from the Italian Government concerning Representativity of the World Heritage List

  10. State of Conservation of Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

  11. Report from Professor Brian Wilkinson, leader of the ICSU Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) on Kakadu National Park, Australia

  12. Statement by IUCN on Kakadu National Park, Australia

  13. Statement on the Report of the Independent Scientific Panel of ICSU by the Supervising Scientist of Australia concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia

  14. Letter from Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner concerning Kakadu National Park, Australia

  15. Recommendation of the Technical Workshop on World Heritage and Mining

  16. Declaration of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs in the Arab World

  17. Statement by the Observer of Palestine

  18. Statement by the Observer of Israel

  19. Provisional Agenda of the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Bureau in Paris







I. OPENING SESSION

I.1 The twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee was held in Cairns, Australia, from 27 November to 2 December 2000. It was attended by all twenty-one members of the World Heritage Committee: Australia, Belgium, Benin, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Thailand, and Zimbabwe.

I.2 The following States Parties to the Convention who are not members of the Committee were represented as observers: Angola, Argentina, Austria, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, Fiji, France, Germany, Holy See, India, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovak Republic, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Yemen.

I.3 The Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to UNESCO, non State Party to the World Heritage Convention, also participated at this session as an observer.

I.4 Representatives of the advisory bodies to the Committee, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property (ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The meeting was also attended by representatives and observers of the following international governmental organizations (IGOs), international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Organization of World Heritage Cities, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Rainforest Conservation Society, Bama Wabu, The Colong Foundation for Wilderness Ltd (Australia), CRC Tourism/Southern Cross University, Environment Center NT Inc. (Australia), Environmental Defender's Office of Northern Queensland, Inc., Fraser Island Defenders Organization, Friends of the Earth Australia, Friends of the Earth Japan, Gimy Walubara Yidinji, Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, Waanyi Traditional Elders Corporation, International Centre for Cultural Landscapes, International Council for Science [ICSU Independent Science Panel - Kakadu], International Federation of Landscape Architects (IFLA), North Queensland Conservation Council, Organisation for Museums, Monuments and Sites of Africa (OMMSA), Simon Wiesenthal Centre Europe, United Nations Foundation, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand), The Wilderness Society (Australia), and the World Archaeological Congress, WWF Australia and Queensland Conservation Council. (The full List of Participants is attached as Annex I to this report).

I.5 The twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee was opened by Mr Abdelaziz Touri, Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, who presented Ms Jeanette Singleton, Traditional Owner. Ms Singleton, representative of a coastal indigenous group, informed the Committee that her people lived on the land from time immemorial coming into contact with the first Europeans in 1876. She expressed her appreciation that the Committee was held in Cairns near the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage site.

1.6 The outgoing Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Abdelaziz Touri thanked Ms. Singleton for her presentation. He expressed his appreciation for the support of the Committee during a demanding year and highlighted progress made and challenges faced. (His speech is attached as Annex II to this report).

1.7 Mr Roger Beale AM, Secretary, Department of the Environment and Heritage, on behalf of the host country, welcomed all participants to Australia, noting that the meeting was being held on Aboriginal lands of North Queensland. He commended Mr Touri for his efficient Chairmanship of the World Heritage Committee and Bureau and the way he had steered the sessions of the Bureau and Committee. He expressed his gratitude to Mr. Bouchenaki and the staff of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre for their support. With respect to the preparations for the meeting, he drew attention to the enormous task involved and urged the Secretariat and the Committee to use new technological tools to make these meetings more efficient. Mr Beale also acknowledged the great contribution made by the Queensland Government; and the staff of the two local World Heritage sites, namely, the Wet Tropics of Queensland, and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority all which made the meeting possible.

1.8 Mr Rod Welford, Minister for Environment and Heritage, Queensland Government, paid respect to the Traditional Owners of Queensland on whose land the meeting was being held. He welcomed the Chairperson, the Committee members and all participants and informed the Committee that Queensland has five of the thirteen World Heritage areas of Australia and that these unique sites are managed with responsibility. On behalf of the Queensland Government, he warmly welcomed all the Committee participants.

1.9 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO, Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant Director-General for Culture, expressed his sincere gratitude to the Australian authorities for hosting the meeting and for their generosity and hospitality. Noting the special significance of this meeting in the Pacific region, where only six of the 16 Member States of UNESCO were States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, he made special mention of the two Pacific Island States Parties, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, who were present. He informed the Committee about reform measures undertaken in UNESCO, which he linked to the complementary reform process being undertaken by the Committee and the Secretariat. He said that he was fully confident that "Cairns 2000" would become as equally well known as the recently concluded "Sydney 2000" and, like it, a worldwide success. (His speech is included as Annex III).

1.10 Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of UNESCO World Heritage Centre, then took the floor to acknowledge the warm welcome given by Australia. He praised the leadership of Mr Touri who had been at the helm during a challenging year. The Director expressed appreciation for the way he had been received into the Secretariat and the support from the Committee that enabled him to settle in well into his new position.

I.11 A delegation of students presented the results of the First Pacific World Heritage Youth Forum, held in Cairns, Australia, 23 - 28 November 2000. The Forum was organised by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO and Environment Australia within the framework of the UNESCO Special Project "Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion". The students presented an action plan for 2001 to better ensure young people's participation in World Heritage identification, preservation and promotion in the Pacific (see Annex IV). They emphasised the need for 1) integrating World Heritage into classroom teaching, 2) organisation of on-site conservation activities for young people and 3) proposed to set up a network of "Pacific Patrimonitos' Centres" at schools to provide students with a platform for concrete conservation work and research in the fields of local and World Heritage. These centres would furthermore ensure networking and exchange of know-how between young people throughout the region. A teacher from New Zealand presented the plan to develop a Pacific version of the World Heritage Educational Resource Kit and an Associated Schools Coordinator from Fiji explained how World Heritage is being integrated into the curriculum at the national level. The Director of the UNESCO Apia Office underlined the complementarity of education and World Heritage conservation in the Pacific region.

I.12 On 28 November 2000 representatives from Australia, Canada, the Solomon Islands and New Zealand attending an Indigenous Peoples Forum on World Heritage held in Cairns (24 November) made a presentation to the World Heritage Committee. In their presentation they made a plea for the protection of indigenous knowledge systems, values and traditions in World Heritage areas, asserting that these sites were "ancestral lands" that had to be treated with respect. In the management of these sites, consideration should be taken to involve and negotiate with Indigenous Peoples who are the Traditional Owners. They urged the Committee to adopt four specific recommendations that they submitted, particularly for the establishment of a World Heritage Indigenous Council of Experts. Representatives of Traditional Owners from Kakadu, Uluru-Kata Tjuta, the Willandra Lakes Region, the Tasmanian Wilderness, the Wet Tropics Area and New Zealand, returned to the Committee to confirm the authenticity of the presentation. (See Annex V).

I.13 Following a proposal by Australia and supported by members of the Committee, the Committee asked the Secretariat to follow-up on the recommendations of both the Youth Forum and the Indigenous People's Forum. A review of the feasibility of these proposals would be presented by the Secretariat to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.




II. II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND TIMETABLE

II.1 The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda and Timetable (WHC-99/CONF.204/1 Rev.10) without any modifications.




III. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, RAPPORTEUR AND VICE-CHAIRPERSONS

III.1 Proposed by the Delegate of Hungary, and endorsed by Canada, Thailand and Benin, Mr Peter King (Australia) was elected as Chairperson by acclamation. The following members of the Committee were elected as Vice-Chairpersons by acclamation: Canada, Ecuador, Finland, Morocco and Thailand. Mr. Dawson Munjeri (Zimbabwe) was elected as Rapporteur.

III.2 The Committee warmly thanked the out-going Chairperson, Mr Abdelaziz Touri for the excellent leadership he provided the Committee during the past year which had resulted in closer working relations between the Committee and the Secretariat.

III.3 The newly-elected Chairperson, Mr Peter King, expressed his appreciation for the remarkable manner in which Mr Touri carried out his functions as Chairperson of the Committee. He pointed out that this had resulted in several important initiatives taken during his tenure of office and thanked all Committee members for electing him into office. Mr King further highlighted regional initiatives and concluded by stating his commitment to a new partnership in the World Heritage movement and to finding new ways of encouraging practical support for heritage conservation. (His speech is attached as Annex VI).




IV. REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT ON THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN SINCE THE TWENTY-THIRD SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

IV.1 Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage Committee, presented the report on activities undertaken since the last session of the World Heritage Committee in 1999. He referred to Information Document WHC-2000/CONF/204/INF.4. Using a Powerpoint presentation, he highlighted the important points of the past year's activities.

IV.2 The Director stressed the wide reform agenda within UNESCO and commitments made by Mr Koichiro Matsuura, the new UNESCO Director-General, to reform the Secretariat in order to meet these challenges. Among positive changes envisaged were the announced reform of the Committee's working methods, to energize the Centre and which will increase its efficiency to meet the growing demands of the Committee and the States Parties.

IV.3 The Director briefly mentioned the four World Heritage statutory meetings held in 2000 and the work accomplished by the four reform groups, namely the Task Force on the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, the Working Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List, the Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee and the International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. He also presented some preliminary proposals for improvement in Documentation. These were designed to facilitate and speed-up decision-making by the Bureau and the Committee.

IV.4 Concerning co-operation with the advisory bodies, the Director referred to two meetings held in February and September 2000 which enabled close co-ordination between inputs from the advisory bodies and the Centre in the preparation of working documents for the Bureau and the Committee sessions. Other meetings and workshops were organized in co-operation with the advisory bodies, for example, the expert meeting on World Heritage and Mining (September 2000) in Gland, Switzerland, jointly organized by the Centre and IUCN, with the active participation of ICOMOS and the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME).

IV.5 The Director highlighted the continuing co-operation of the Centre with other UNESCO Sectors and Units in the implementation of a variety of projects related to the preservation of World Heritage sites, as well as the increasing number of activities undertaken in co-operation with the regional offices.

IV.6 In the framework of co-operation with other Conventions, the Director mentioned fruitful exchanges that included the Biodiversity Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species and the Ramsar Convention. He also mentioned the adoption of the European Landscape Convention by the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers in July 2000.

IV.7 Concerning the co-operation with other organizations, special mention was made of the partnership with the United Nations Foundation for strengthening the protection of World Heritage natural sites, in the framework of which some 8.5 million dollars had been provided as outright grants for projects of benefit to World Natural Heritage of global biodiversity significance. The Director further mentioned ongoing projects and co-operation with, among others, the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), the World Tourism Organization, The World Bank, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the French Agency for Development, the Caisse des dépôts et consignation de France, the European Union Asia Urbs Programme and the Nordic World Heritage Office. In all this, the Director stressed the increasing importance of strategic partnerships that would reinforce the Centre's efforts and help improve the problems arising from insufficient resources.

IV.8 The Director of the Centre indicated that Namibia, Kiribati and Comoros had ratified the Convention in 2000, bringing the number of States Parties to the Convention to 161. He stressed the record number of 72 nominations to be discussed at this session of the World Heritage Committee and informed the Committee that 115 among the 161 States Parties, had submitted Tentative Lists that comply with the format specified in the Operational Guidelines.

IV.9 Within the activities related to the Global Strategy to ensure a representative and balanced World Heritage List, reference was made to a certain number of initiatives undertaken to address lacuna related to under-represented regions and types of heritage. Among the meetings and workshops held in 2000, mention was made of the following: 'Assessing Natural Heritage of Coastal and Marine Areas of Africa', held in Maputo, Mozambique; 'Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context', held at Great Zimbabwe; the AFRICA 2009 regional 3-month training course, 'Conservation and Management of Immovable Cultural Heritage', Porto Novo, Benin; the 'Regional Capacity-Building Workshop for the Promotion of Awareness in Natural Heritage Conservation', Muscat, Oman. Furthermore, a Global Strategy Expert Meeting on Central Asian Cultural Heritage was hosted by the Government of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat; a seminar on Natural Heritage in the Caribbean was held in Paramaribo, Suriname; a Workshop on the Management of Sites in the Guyana Shield was held in Georgetown, Guyana; a Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential Natural World Heritage Sites in the Alps took place in Hallstatt, Austria; a conference was organized on World Heritage Fossil Sites in Australia, and cultural landscapes meetings were held in Italy, Kenya and Costa Rica.

IV.10 In the framework of Periodic Reporting, the Director indicated that the final synthesis report for periodic reporting for the Arab Region will be presented to this session of the Committee and that the Periodic reporting exercise for Africa, taking place in 2001, is in preparation.

IV.11 Several other sites had been in the focus of public attention in 2000, such as the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, Peru, and the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino, Mexico. The Director briefly mentioned reports on the state of conservation of sites inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the last session of the World Heritage Committee, and particularly the recent developments at the Group of Monuments at Hampi, India.

IV.12 The increase in the number of international assistance requests approved in 2000 (105) reflects the growing number of sites and threats to them. In view of the limited budget within the World Heritage Fund, the World Heritage Centre continued to give priority to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or Low-Income Countries (LICs), especially those with sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, encouraging them to utilize the funds in catalytic ways. Moreover, non LDC/LIC States Parties were encouraged to actively seek funds for large-scale projects from other sources.

IV.13 The Director referred to the activities of the Centre's Documentation, Information and Education Unit, emphasizing the increased range of activities undertaken in 2000. He particularly stressed the heavy workload concerning the Centre's statutory archival and documentary function, but pointed out that the Unit had been reinforced with two staff members detached from the UNESCO Culture Sector. He also indicated that the World Heritage Review had increased its frequency by becoming a bi- monthly edition, and that new partnership initiatives had been undertaken, notably through activities with the tourism industry. Special mention was made of the Special Project Young People's Participation in World Heritage Preservation and Promotion, which is proving to be one of the most successful flagship projects launched by UNESCO for young people. In 2000, more than 130 Member States actively participated in the experimentation and adaptation of the Educational Resource Kit for Teachers "World Heritage in young hands".

IV.14 Finally, the Director brought to the attention of the Committee, the inadequacies of resources, but was optimistic that this would not delay the work of the Committee.

IV.15 At the end of the presentation of the Secretariat's report, the Director shared with the Committee his initial impressions as newly appointed Director of the World Heritage Centre and Secretary of the World Heritage Committee. (His speech is attached as Annex VII to this report).

IV.16 The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee thanked the Director for his excellent presentation that enabled him to gain insight into the wide and diverse array of the Centre's activities.




V. REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON THE SESSIONS OF THE WORLD HERITAGE BUREAU

V.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (26 June - 1 July 2000), Ms Anne Lammila, had finished her term as Deputy Permanent Delegate of Finland to UNESCO and had returned to Finland to the take up new duties. Therefore, at the invitation of the Chairperson, the Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/2, had been adopted by the Bureau.

V.2 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Bureau, at its twenty-fourth session, decided to hold a Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, Hungary from 2-4 October 2000. This Special Session was held in order to further discuss the:

As the position of the Rapporteur was vacant, in accordance with Rule 15.2 of the Rules of Procedures of the World Heritage Committee, the Committee was informed that Australia had been called upon to provide a replacement Rapporteur for the Special Session of the Bureau and the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in Cairns, Australia (23-24 November 2000). Mr Kevin Keeffe served as Rapporteur at these two sessions.

V.3 The Rapporteur drew the attention of the Committee to the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) presented in Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/3 that includes recommendations on:

  1. Statutory meetings, strategic planning, the proposal for a sub-committee system and equitable representation in the World Heritage Committee
  2. Representivity of the World Heritage List
  3. Information and documentation management
  4. Other matters.
The Committee was informed that the Budapest Bureau session was very fruitful and should lead to the finalisation of some of the important reform measures which were now before the Committee, including those related to World Heritage statutory meetings.

V.4 In relation to the discussions held concerning the Revision to the Operational Guidelines, Mr Keeffe presented the following text, to replace paragraph III.22 of the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) presented in Document WHC- 2000/CONF.204/3.

"The Bureau recommended that once the new overall framework for revised Operational Guidelines (WHC- 2000/CONF.202/9) had been approved by the Committee, details of new text could be finalized. The Bureau agreed that the production of revised Operational Guidelines, incorporating proposed changes be considered by the Committee as a high priority. The Bureau agreed that the revision of the Operational Guidelines would require teamwork on the part of the Secretariat, advisory bodies and representatives of States Parties."

An initial draft text had been prepared by Australia and is presented as an Information document, but not intended for discussion by the Committee.

With this correction, the Report of the Special Session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee was adopted by the Committee.

V.5 The Rapporteur thereafter presented the Report of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Cairns, 23-24 November 2000) presented in Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/4. He recalled that this was a working document for the twenty-fourth session of the Committee and drew the attention of the Committee to the sections concerning:

III. State of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

IV. Examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List

VI. Feasibility study on the proposed system of sub-committees.

The Rapporteur informed the Committee that any additional comments on the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List could be made during discussions under Agenda Item 8.2, and on the Feasibility Study during Agenda Item 6 respectively.




VI. WORK OF THE WORLD HERITAGE REFORM GROUPS

VI.1 The Committee noted the reports of the following four reform groups and sincerely thanked the States Parties who had participated in their work.

Task Force on the implementation of the Convention
Chair: C. Cameron (Canada)
Rapporteur: K. Keeffe (Australia)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF. 7

Working Group on the Representativity of the World Heritage List
Chair: H.E. Ambassador Mr Olabiyi B.J. Yai (Benin)
Rapporteur: H.E. Mr M. Peek (Australia)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF. 8

Working Group on Equitable Representation in the World Heritage Committee
Chair: H.E. Ambassador J. Musitelli (France)
Rapporteur: D. Masek (Czech Republic)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF.9

International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines, Canterbury, United Kingdom (10-14 April 2000)
Chair: C. Young (United Kingdom)
Rapporteur: K. Kovacs (United States of America)
WHC-2000/CONF.2000/INF.10

VI.2 In view of the large number of detailed recommendations prepared by the four groups listed above, and given that there was limited time for discussion, the Committee focused its discussions on the reform process by examining four specific issues as follows:

1. PROPOSED REFORM OF THE CALENDAR AND CYCLE OF WORLD HERITAGE STATUTORY MEETINGS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM OF SUB-COMMITTEES

The Committee recalled that the Task Force for the Implementation of the Convention, chaired by Ms Christina Cameron (Canada), had proposed that sub-committees be established to facilitate the work of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre.

The Committee also recalled that the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau (June 2000) had requested that there be further examination of the possibility of a sub-committee system and that the Special Session of the Bureau (Budapest, 2-4 October 2000) had discussed the proposal further with reference to a paper prepared by the United Kingdom.

As requested by the Special Session of the Bureau, a paper on the feasibility and implications of a sub-committee system was prepared and examined by the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.203/6).

The four objectives for proposing changes to the existing Bureau and Committee system were to:

Objective 1Facilitate the work of the World Heritage Centre,
Objective 2 Facilitate the work of the World Heritage Committee and allow it to devote more time to general policy discussions for the implementation of the Convention,
Objective 3Improve the prior examination of various issues submitted to the Committee, and
Objective 4 Increase representation of States Parties in the work of the Committee.

The Committee decided to:

The revised deadline for nominations would be 1 February. Evaluations would be due from IUCN and/or ICOMOS 6 weeks prior to the April Bureau.

Referrals of nominations would be re-examined by the Bureau in the year following initial examination before proceeding to the Committee for decision.

The deadline for receipt of international assistance requests and state of conservation reports would also be on 1 February.

During the transition period the following timetable would apply:

Nominations received by To be examined by the Bureau To be examined by the Committee
1 July 2000June/July 2001 December 2001
31 December 20001April 2002June 2002
1 February 2002April 2003June 2003
1 February 2003 April 2004June 2004

______________________
1Full and complete nominations received by the World Heritage Centre prior to 31 December 2000 will be considered together with nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines.

The Committee decided to defer a decision on the introduction of a sub-committee system or the extension of the Bureau session from six to eight days, until the effectiveness of the other reforms (changed statutory meeting calendar and cycle, limitation in number of nominations to be examined each year and reforms to meeting documentation) could be assessed at a later date. It was thus agreed that reform should proceed gradually. Greater efforts were to be given to structuring the work of the Bureau to focus its work. The ordering of the agenda by topics was considered useful as was the use of informal ad hoc working groups to expedite the work of the Bureau and Committee.

The Delegate of Hungary presented a document distributed to the Committee entitled "A Hungarian World Heritage Vision". The document refers to the need to address the balance of representation of the World Heritage List in favour of under- represented or non-represented countries. It also calls for a more prominent role for tentative lists. The Delegate of Hungary suggested that with a pause in the examination of nominations in 2002, the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002 could concentrate on the preparation of a Strategic Plan and other issues important for the future implementation of the Convention.

Documentation

The Committee noted that the Task Force on the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention had recommended a number of reforms to the documents prepared for World Heritage statutory meetings.

Following a presentation by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, the Committee agreed that the objectives of reforming meeting documentation would be to:

The Committee decided that reform of the system of documentation, as proposed by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, would include:

To enhance communication between the World Heritage Centre and the Committee, the Committee also decided, as proposed by the Director of the World Heritage Centre, that the Centre would,

The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to implement as many of these reforms as are feasible before the twenty-fifth session of the Committee.

2. EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

The Committee recalled that in October 1999 the twelfth General Assembly,

The Committee noted that in 2000, a Working Group on Equitable Representation within the World Heritage Committee was established under the Chairmanship of H.E. Ambassador J. Musitelli (France). The report of the Working Group was discussed at the June and October 2000 sessions of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.9).

The Committee noted the proposals on the equitable representation of the Committee developed following the Special Session of the Bureau session (WHC-2000/CONF.204/6) and decided to recommend the following Draft Resolution for adoption by the 13th General Assembly:

The General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

Recalling Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention which stipulates that "Election of members of the Committee shall ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world";

Recalling Article 9 of the Convention which stipulates that "The term of office of States members of the World Heritage Committee shall extend from the end of the ordinary session of the General Conference during which they are elected until the end of its third subsequent ordinary session";

Recalling the Resolution of the 7th General Assembly of States Parties (1989);

Considering the representivity of the World Heritage List could be enhanced through the increased participation in the work of the Committee of States Parties whose heritage is currently unrepresented in the List;

Considering that the strong interest of States Parties in participating in the work of the World Heritage Committee could be addressed by a more frequent rotation of Committee members;

Invites the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, to voluntarily reduce their term of office from six to four years;

Encourages States Parties that are not members of the Committee to make use of their right to participate in meetings of the World Heritage Committee as observers;

Discourages States Parties from seeking consecutive terms of office in the World Heritage Committee;

Decides that before each election of Committee members, the President of the General Assembly of States Parties will inform States Parties of the situation of the representation of regions and cultures in the World Heritage Committee and World Heritage List;

Decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as follows:

New Rule to be inserted after Rule 13.1

A certain number of seats may be reserved for State Parties who do not have sites on the World Heritage List, upon decision of the World Heritage Committee at the session that precedes the General Assembly. Such a ballot for reserved seats would precede the open ballot for the remaining seats to be filled. Unsuccessful candidates in the reserved ballot would be eligible to stand in the open ballot.

Amendment to existing Rule 13.8 (new text in bold)

13.8 Those States obtaining in the first ballot the required majority shall be elected, unless the number of States obtaining that majority is greater than the number of seats to be filled. In that case, the States obtaining the greatest number of votes, up to the number of seats to be filled, shall be declared elected. If the number of States obtaining the majority required is less than the number of seats to be filled, there shall be a second ballot, followed by a third and, if necessary a fourth, to fill the remaining seats. If the number of States obtaining the majority required is less than the number of seats to be filled, there shall be a second ballot. If the number of States obtaining the majority required is still less than the number of seats to be filled there shall be a third and, if necessary a fourth ballot, to fill the remaining seats. For the third and fourth ballots, the voting shall be restricted to the States obtaining the greatest number of votes in the previous ballot, up to a number twice that of the seats remaining to be filled.

Decides that this resolution should be implemented immediately.

The Committee also recommended that the General Assembly organize the agenda of its thirteenth session so that the measures foreseen by these amendments may enter into force at that same session.

In order to implement the new rule to be inserted following Rule 13.1, the Committee decided that one seat be reserved for a State Party not having a site inscribed on the World Heritage List at the date of the thirteenth session of the General Assembly.

The Committee requested the Secretariat to inform all States Parties of the implementation of the new electoral procedures, particularly those States Parties which may fulfill the conditions to be candidates for the reserved seat.

The Committee requested the Secretariat to prepare with the involvement of interested States Parties and the advisory bodies, a proposal for the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee for further amendment to Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedures of the General Assembly relating to the election of members of the World Heritage Committee in order to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world. This proposal is to be based on a thorough analysis of the consequences of the proposed changes and the adjustments that would be required to the election procedures.

The Committee also decided to revise the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee as follows:

New Rule 4.3

"In determining the place of the next session, the Committee shall give due regard to the need to ensure an equitable rotation among the different regions and cultures of the world."

New Rule 20.4

"In appointing consultative bodies, due regard shall be given to the need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world."

New Rule 21.3

"In appointing subsidiary bodies, due regard shall be given to the need to ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures of the world."

3. REPRESENTIVITY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

The Committee examined and discussed the recommendations of the Working Group on the Representivity of the World Heritage List chaired by Ambassador Yai (Benin), which had been transmitted by the Special Session of the Bureau with some changes.

The Committee recognized that the issue of representivity of the World Heritage List was the most difficult of the reform issues under consideration by the Committee. The Committee noted that more effective use of tentative lists and greater regulation of the ever-increasing number of nominations was required. It was agreed that other measures, such as assistance for capacity-building would be vital for ensuring the representation of sites from all regions on the World Heritage List.

The Committee therefore agreed on a decision presented in 5 sections:

  1. Respecting the Convention
  2. Tentative Lists
  3. Nominations
  4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999
  5. Capacity Building for under-represented Regions

With reference to Section 3, the Delegate of Hungary asked that his request for a change in the deadline for submission of nominations to be examined in 2002, from December 2000 as agreed by the Committee, to April 2001, be noted in the Report. The Committee agreed to note this request by the Delegate of Hungary but stated that in the interest of a smooth transition, the majority position of the Committee will be maintained.

With the exception of Hungary, the text of the decision was adopted by all members of the Committee. A letter from the Italian Government is included as Annex IX of this report.

The Committee agreed to transmit its decision to the Thirteenth General Assembly of States Parties in 2001.

1. Respecting the Convention

The Committee reaffirmed the Convention for the Protection of the World Natural and Cultural Heritage as an instrument of consensus, cooperation and accord between States Parties and takes particular note of Articles 6 (1) and 6 (2) and Article 11 (1):

(i) Whilst fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is situated, and without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation, the States Parties to this Convention recognize that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate (Article 6 (1)

(ii) The States Parties undertake, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, to give their help in the identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage . . . if the States on whose territory it is situated so request (Article 6 (2)).

(iii) Every State Party to this Convention shall, in so far as possible, submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage, situated in its territory and suitable for inclusion in the list . . . (Article 11 (1).

Decisive cooperative action is required by the Committee and States Parties to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully representative of the world's natural and cultural heritage.

2. Tentative Lists

(i) In the future, consistent with Article 11, .the tentative lists of cultural and natural sites should be used, as a planning tool to reduce the imbalances in the World Heritage List. States Parties are reminded of the invitation to submit tentative lists in conformity with Article 11 of the Convention. The Committee should revise paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Operational Guidelines to extend to natural sites its decision not to examine nominations of sites for inscription if the property does not appear on a tentative list.

(ii) The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should proceed with an analysis of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and the tentative list on a regional, chronological, geographical and thematic basis. This analysis should be undertaken as soon as possible, taking into account the workload on advisory bodies and the financial implications of this work, particularly in regard to the large number of sites on the tentative list. For this reason, the work should be undertaken in two parts, sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and sites on the tentative list. The analysis will provide States Parties with a clear overview of the present situation, and likely trends in the short to medium term with a view to identifying under-represented categories.

(iii) The advisory bodies should take into account in their analyses:

(iv) The World Heritage Centre and advisory bodies should communicate the results of the analyses to the World Heritage Committee and, following the Committee's examination, the results should be conveyed to States Parties to the Convention, together with the Committee's recommendations. This will allow them to prepare, revise and/or harmonise their tentative list, taking into account, where appropriate, regional considerations, and to take the results of the analyses into consideration for the submission of future nominations.

(v) The results of the analyses should be communicated no later than 30 September 2001.

3. Nominations

In order to promote the effective management of the increasing size of the World Heritage List, the Committee at each ordinary session will set the maximum number of nominations to be considered. In the first instance and on an interim basis, it is proposed that at the twenty-seventh session of the Committee in 2003, the number of nominations examined by the Committee will be limited to a maximum of 30 new sites.

In order to determine which sites should be given priority for consideration, all nominations to be considered at the twenty- seventh session of the Committee must be received in full by the new due date of 1 February 2002 agreed by the Committee as part of the change of cycle of meetings. No State Parties should submit more than one nomination, except those States Parties that have no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List who will have the opportunity to propose two or three nominations.

In order to address the issue of representivity of the List the following criteria will be applied in order of priority:2

In the event that the number of nominations received exceeds the maximum number set by the Committee, the following priority system will be applied each year by the World Heritage Centre before nominations are transmitted to the advisory bodies for evaluation, in determining which sites should be taken forward for consideration:

  1. Nominations of sites submitted by a State Party with no sites inscribed on the List;3

  2. Nominations of sites from any State Party that illustrate un-represented or less represented categories of natural and cultural properties, as determined by analyses prepared by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies and reviewed and approved by the Committee;

  3. Other nominations.

When applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre shall be used as the secondary determining factor within the category where the number of nominations established by the Committee is reached.

In addition to the approved maximum number of sites, the Committee will also consider nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines.
____________________
2 In nominating properties to the List, States Parties are invited to keep in mind the desirability of achieving a reasonable balance between the numbers of cultural heritage and natural heritage properties included in the World Heritage List (Paragraph 15 of the Operational Guidelines)

3 In evaluating these, and all other nominations, the Advisory Bodies should continue to apply a strict evaluation of criteria as set out in the Operational Guidelines.



Transition arrangements

Committee meeting, December 2001

No change to existing system.

Committee meeting June 2002

Full and complete nominations received by the World Heritage Centre prior to 31 December 2000 will be considered together with nominations deferred, or referred, from previous meetings and changes to the boundaries of already inscribed properties. The Committee may also decide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines.

Committee meeting June 2003

Nominations to be submitted by 1 February 2002 and prioritized in accordance with the system as described above.

Review

The system described above is to be reviewed by the Committee after two full years of operation.

4. Resolution of the Twelfth General Assembly, 1999

The Committee decided to call on States Parties concerned to inform the Committee with a minimum of delay, of measures taken in the implementation of the clauses of the Resolution adopted by the Twelfth General Assembly (Paragraph B) that invites all States Parties that already have a substantial number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List to:

(i) Apply paragraph 6 (vii) of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention:

  1. by spacing voluntarily their nominations according to conditions that they will define, and/or

  2. by proposing only properties falling into categories still under-represented, and/or

  3. by linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is under- represented, or

  4. by deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the presentation of new nominations.

ii) Initiate and encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation with States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented in the List within the framework of the preparation of tentative lists, nominations and training programmes,

iii) Give priority to the re-examination of their tentative lists within the framework of regional consultations and to the preparation of periodic reports.

5. Capacity Building for Under-represented Regions

The Committee decided that cooperative efforts in capacity-building and training are necessary to ensure that the World Heritage List is fully representative and agrees that:

(i) The World Heritage Centre should continue to promote training programmes, preferably at the regional level, aimed at allowing States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented to be better versed in the Convention and to better implement the measures under Article 5. These primarily concern the identification, management, protection, enhancement and conservation of heritage. Such programmes should also assist States Parties to acquire and/or consolidate their expertise, in the preparation and harmonisation of their tentative lists and the preparation of nominations.

(ii) The advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre should use the opportunity of evaluation missions to hold regional training workshops to assist under-represented States in the methods of preparation of their tentative list and nominations. Appropriate financial and human resources should be provided through the World Heritage Centre budget process to undertake such workshops.

(iii) Requests by States Parties whose heritage is non- represented or under-represented should be given a high priority when the portion of the World Heritage budget relating to Preparatory Assistance in preparing nominations is developed.

(iv) The order of priorities for the granting of international assistance, as defined in paragraphs 91 and 113-114 of the Operational Guidelines, should be revised in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines (Canterbury, United Kingdom) to improve the representivity of the World Heritage List and to be coherent with the Global Strategy. Beyond the conditions provided for by the Convention, and subject to the conclusions of the evaluation of international assistance, the new priority order should take into account:

(v) Regional Plans of Action should be updated and developed within the framework of the Global Strategy. These should specify for each targeted region and State Party, the objective, action needed, responsibility, timetable for adoption, state of play and a mechanism to report on progress in implementing these at each session of the World Heritage Committee. In order to underline their incentive nature, the Plans of Action should highlight the actions by the States Parties concerned, notably in application of Article 5 of the Convention, and should mention the bilateral or multilateral co-operation programmes in the field of heritage in general, for the elaboration in particular of nominations.

(vi) The next UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy should stress the necessity of adopting an intersectoral policy aimed at better implementing the Convention. From the 2002-2003 biennium, an intersectoral project should be developed and implemented to encourage the States Parties whose heritage is still under- represented to reinforce their capacity to protect, conserve and enhance it.

The Committee noted that the Hungarian authorities had prepared a proposal for the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme to be examined by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns (WHC-2000/CONF.204/19).

The Committee decided that a review of the implementation and effectiveness of such measures should take place not later than 2003.

4. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES

The Director of the World Heritage Centre thanked English Heritage and the Government of the United Kingdom for having organized, jointly with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the International Expert Meeting on the Revision to the Operational Guidelines in Canterbury, England, from 10 to 14 April, 2000. He also thanked the Government of the United Kingdom for having offered to provide an additional financial contribution to this important activity in 2001.

Following a report on the results of the Expert Meeting by Christopher Young (United Kingdom), who had chaired the meeting, the Committee decided that the Operational Guidelines be restructured according to the proposed new overall framework (WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.10).

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
  3. PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTIES
  4. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
  5. ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

The Committee requested that the Operational Guidelines be simplified, streamlined and presented in a user-friendly form with most of the existing and new supporting material to be moved to annexes and other documentation. The Committee asked that the Operational Guidelines be organized in a logical way, returning to the fundamental principles of the World Heritage Convention. The revised Operational Guidelines will introduce for the first time a consolidated section on the Protection and Conservation of World Heritage Properties.

IUCN welcomed the excellent work done at the Canterbury Expert Meeting to propose a reshaping of the Operational Guidelines. IUCN agreed that a comprehensive overhaul of this key document was required rather than the past practice of incremental, ad hoc amendments. IUCN expressed their wish to contribute to a process of revisions and proposed five objectives for the revised Operational Guidelines:

  1. The integration of cultural and natural criteria while maintaining the current wording of the natural criteria
  2. The close link between concepts of integrity and authenticity
  3. Stronger emphasis placed on site management
  4. Emphasis on reactive monitoring as nothing does more for the credibility of the Convention
  5. More creative use of tentative lists.

The Committee decided that the process for revising the Operational Guidelines should be co-ordinated by the World Heritage Centre through a collaborative process involving representatives of States Parties, the advisory bodies and the Secretariat. It was agreed that revised Operational Guidelines should reflect different regional and cultural perspectives. The Committee agreed to the following phased approach to the revision of the Operational Guidelines. The Director of the World Heritage Centre noted that additional human and financial resources would be required for the Centre to co-ordinate this process.

Phase I Meeting at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris in January 2001 to define the process for revising the Operational Guidelines
Phase IIPreparation by the Secretariat of a first draft revised text in English and French to reflect all current proposals for revision and showing the source of the proposed revisions

Phase IIICirculation of the revised text to all States Parties and posting of revised text on the Web

Phase IVContributions in writing from States Parties

Phase VMeeting to refine new Operational Guidelines, section by section

Phase VISubmission of revised Operational Guidelines to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee in 2001 for decision.






VII. PERIODIC REPORTING

Report on the state of conservation of World Heritage in the Arab region

VII.1 The report (WHC-2000/CONF.204/7) was presented to the Committee by Mr Abdelaziz Daoulatli, Consultant (WHC) for Periodic Reporting in the Arab Region. In all, as at the beginning of November 2000, there were 52 sites on the World Heritage List, of which 44 were inscribed prior to 1993 and the latter were the subject of the report. He explained the processes followed in the compilation of the report (a synthesis of 2,500 pages of data) and underscored the high level of co-operation received from the States Parties. Out of a possible 44 reports, 36 had been received.

From his observations, Mr Daoulatli drew special attention of the Committee to the following areas:

In the light of these observations, Mr Daoulatli advocated an Action Plan focused on:

VII.2 He recommended the holding of a second regional meeting to submit the final report to the States Parties of the Arab region; the harmonization of the tentative lists for the Arab Region; the limiting of new nominations whilst taking into account an equitable representation in States Parties and categories of properties, and focusing on the conservation of existing ones. He also recommended the setting up of a monitoring service for the Arab region and the study of an Action Plan, the implementation of which to be funded jointly by the World Heritage Fund and extrabudgetary sources.

VII.3 The Delegates of Mexico, Italy, Canada, Morocco, Cuba, the Observer of the United Kingdom and the Delegate of Greece, as well as the Representative of IUCN, successively took the floor to express their satisfaction with the report, the first of its kind. They pointed out that it served as a prototype for the other regions, and conveyed their congratulations to the authors. The Delegate of Mexico questioned the existence of a system for inventories and the Delegate of Italy queried the reasons why some Arab States had advocated the revision of the statement of value in the nomination forms, or the elaboration of new statements of value. This notion of value was taken up by the Delegate of Morocco, who considered it to be a critical question that deserved thorough discussion. He also drew attention to the appropriateness of the Moroccan boundary, as reflected on the presenter's map of the Arab region. The Observer of the United Kingdom underlined the need to take into account, at the time of the revision of the Operational Guidelines, changes concerning the boundaries of the inscribed sites or their buffer zones. The Delegate of Greece emphasized the need to evaluate, prior to the inscription of new sites, their management plans. She referred to the statement of the Observer of the United Kingdom, to integrate monitoring into the framework of the global approach to site management, idea also taken up by the Representative of IUCN.

VII.4 Noting the awareness problem, the Delegate of Canada suggested that the Secretariat arrange a meeting with the representatives of the States Parties of the Arab region to appraise them on the Report. The Secretariat could arrange another meeting with possible funding agencies. In concluding, the Chairperson invited the Director of the Centre to study the proposals contained in the Report, as they were unanimously supported by all delegates, who looked forward to their implementation, in co-operation with the States Parties concerned. In this respect, the Director was called upon to convene a meeting with the Permanent Delegates to UNESCO to inform them of the results of the periodic reporting exercise.

Periodic Reporting: Progress report on regional strategies for periodic reporting.

VII.5 The Secretariat recalled that in accordance with the decisions taken by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty- second session regarding the application of Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention, the following principles guide the design and implementation of the regional periodic reporting strategies:

VII.6 Following the overall approaches to periodic reporting for the Arab States and Africa that were presented to and endorsed by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-third session (working document WHC-99/CONF.209/12), a progress report on the implementation of the periodic reporting strategy for Africa, as well as the regional strategies for Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean were presented to the World Heritage Committee.

VII.7 Concerning the African region reporting on 40 sites located in 18 States Parties, the Committee was informed that the first two phases of the seven-phase action plan were already completed. The remaining phases are foreseen for completion in time for the presentation of the regional synthesis report to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee in 2001:

Phase I Preparation of the periodic reporting exercise and finalisation of a questionnaire
Phase II Exploitation of the first replies to the questionnaires
Phase III Organisation of periodic reporting workshops and set-up of electronic communication as well as analysis of questionnaires
Phase IV Completion of analysis of questionnaires
Phase V Analysis and synthesis of periodic reporting exercise
Phase VI Assistance missions to identify and solve problems on the ground
Phase VII: Presentation of the regional report to the World Heritage Committee in 2001.

VII.8 A Periodic Reporting Workshop for the Francophone African countries was held in Dakar, Senegal from 5-8 July 2000. Site managers of four cultural and five natural sites attended this Workshop representing six out of the invited nine countries. Various sections of the reporting questionnaire were examined by the participants. The participating managers, who completed the questionnaires themselves, expressed their general satisfaction with this reporting tool, which was designed by the World Heritage Centre. At the Workshop several general problems concerning site management and more specifically information-flow and decision- making processes were identified. Furthermore, the lack of human and material resources was highlighted, especially emphasising the need for regular training to enable site managers to apply more efficiently the decisions of the World Heritage Committee. A regional Periodic Reporting Workshop for Anglophone African countries will be held during the first half of 2001.

VII.9 The geographically vast Asia-Pacific Region, with 26 Asian and six Pacific States Parties, is home to 124 World Heritage sites. There are 42 natural or mixed World Heritage sites distributed over thirteen countries in Asia and the Pacific. Of these, 42 natural or mixed, 33 from eleven countries were inscribed on the World Heritage List in or before 1994 and will be included in the periodic reporting exercise. Three of the eleven countries, i.e. Australia, China and India, account for 21 of the 33 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List up until 1994. As for cultural heritage sites, out of 84 cultural World Heritage sites in the Asia-Pacific Region, all concentrated in the Asian Region, 55 were inscribed before or in 1994 located within 14 States Parties. In China, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are located 36 of 55 of these cultural sites. The reporting approach is subdivided into the following four phases:

Phase I: Information to States Parties of the periodic reporting procedures
Phase II: Desk studies to harmonise and collate existing data
Phase III: Collection and analysis of data
Phase IV: Preparation of a synthesis report and submission for examination by the Committee in 2002.

VII.10 Considering that an integrated approach combining all forms of assistance for national capacity building has been applied in the region since 1996, fact sheets on countries and on sites which have been compiled, will be made available to the States Parties for the reporting exercise. National focal points are being identified and a regional meeting for cultural properties to be hosted by the Republic of Korea in early 2001, followed by sub-regional meetings in 2002, are intended to stimulate exchange of information and experience to enrich the preparation of the synthesis report for submission to the Committee in 2002.

VII.11 The process for Latin America and the Caribbean was presented as a five-phase approach, leading from a preparatory information phase, through three sub-regional meetings and one regional meeting to the presentation of the regional report to the Committee in 2003. The first phase, which is already underway, is centred on informing the concerned States Parties about the reporting process and providing them with the necessary information material. The States Parties have been requested to identify national focal points.

VII.12 For Europe and North America, a regional strategy proposal will be submitted to the Committee at its twenty-fifth session.

VII.13 During the debate, several States Parties and IUCN took the floor. Regarding the action plans presented for the Asia- Pacific region, the Delegate of Australia remarked that it was not entirely clear how the process leads from the preparation of national reports to the synthesis report to be presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2002. Concern was expressed that the region's States Parties had not been given enough opportunities to contribute to the development of the action plan. The Delegate of Hungary highlighted the importance of the reporting exercise and suggested the use of the regional division used by UNESCO, i.e. Europe and North America, to be divided into the Western Europe and North America group and the Eastern and Central European group, taking into consideration the different budgetary requirements of these sub-regions. The Delegate of Italy asked about the existence of management plans for African sites. The Secretariat responded that most of the African sites do not have management plans and those that do are facing difficulties in their implementation due to lack of financial resources and expertise. A request by the African States Parties for a model management plan applicable to the African context was mentioned by the Secretariat. The Delegate of Canada remarked that the approaches outlined in Annex 4 of Working Document WHC-2000/CONF.204/8 mentioned the creation of reporting tools in different regions and stated the need to avoid the duplication of efforts. She suggested that the World Heritage Centre take the leadership in co-ordinating these efforts. IUCN commended the Secretariat as well as the States Parties for the preparation of the action plan for Asia-Pacific and welcomed the proposed linkage between periodic reporting and reactive monitoring, as well as the provisions for input from external bodies such as the advisory bodies and NGOs. IUCN furthermore informed the Committee about a World Heritage Centre/IUCN project focused on monitoring, which is funded by the United Nations Foundation over a four-year period. The project will operate in pilot World Heritage sites in Eastern and Southern Africa, South Asia and Latin America. The selection of sites is currently being discussed with States Parties, site managers and other partners. In preparation of the periodic reporting exercise, IUCN urges linking meetings whenever possible to avoid the multiplication and duplication of efforts.

VII.14 The Committee approved the regional strategies presented in Annexes I, II, III and IV of Working Document WHC- 2000/CONF.204/8. The budgetary implications are considered under item 13 of the Agenda (WHC-2000/CONF.204/15, Chapter IV of the budget).




VIII. STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

A. REPORTS OF THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER

VIII.1 The Committee reviewed document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 describing state of conservation reports of eighteen natural and five cultural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

A. NATURAL HERITAGE

VIII.2 The Committee was informed that in accordance with the recommendation it made at the last session, the Centre and IUCN had organised a workshop on the "Role of World Heritage Danger Listing in Promoting International Co-operation for the Conservation of World Natural Heritage" on 6 and 7 October 2000 in Amman, Jordan, at the time of IUCN's Second World Conservation Congress. As requested by the participants of that Workshop, the Committee noted the seven priority recommendations included in WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 and suggested that the Centre consider incorporating them as appropriate in revisions to the Operational Guidelines. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to consult with States Parties and other suitable partners to study the feasibility of implementing the priority recommendations and submit a report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001.

VIII.3 Iguacu National Park (Brazil)

The Committee noted that an oil spill that occurred 600 km from the site did not have any major impact on the site. The Committee recognised that the illegal opening and the use of the Colon Road is the most immediate threat to the site and learned that IBAMA has allocated the equivalent of US $560,000 to support action related to the closure of the road and to restore areas affected by road construction. The Committee was informed that the Brazilian participant at the workshop held in Amman, Jordan had informed the Centre and IUCN of other potential threats posed by expanding agricultural lands outside of the northeastern sectors of the Park that would require systematic monitoring.

The Committee commended the State Party for its persistence in strictly enforcing the Federal legal decision to close the Colon Road and urged the State Party to communicate the reasons for the closure of the road to the wider public and take all necessary actions to restore the World Heritage area affected by road construction activities. The Committee invited the State Party to report to the Centre, before 15 April 2001, on progress to ensure effective closure of the Colon Road and rehabilitate impacted areas. The State Party was also requested to provide an up-date on the results of monitoring the impacts of the oil spill that occurred in July 2000. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.4 Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)

The Committee was informed that the Minister of Environment and Water, by a letter dated 11 September 2000, has transmitted a state of conservation report to the Centre. The report reached the Centre only on 17 November 2000 and hence allowed only a preliminary desk- review by IUCN.

The report describes changes in physical (e.g. water quality) and biodiversity indicators that show improvements in the state of conservation of the site. It outlines measures taken by the State Party to strengthen social, cultural and political support for the protection of the site, including regional and international arrangements made to co-ordinate the overall protection of wetlands in the Danube River basin. The report stresses the fact that the improvements registered in the state of conservation of the site, including the administrative and organizational arrangements put in place to sustain those improvements, justify the removal of Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger by the twenty- fourth session of the Committee. However, IUCN, while noting the positive achievements in the state of conservation reported, suggested that the Committee defer its consideration of the removal of Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger until a site visit is undertaken to assess the results of the rehabilitation efforts reported by the State Party.

The Committee thanked and commended the State Party for submitting a comprehensive report and for its efforts to fully rehabilitate the site. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and other suitable partners to field a mission to the site to undertake a thorough evaluation of the successes of the rehabilitation efforts reported and their sustainability. The Committee asked the Centre and IUCN to submit a report to the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001, advising the Committee whether it could remove Srebarna from the List of World Heritage in Danger and of the next steps in preparing a trans-national, multi-country Danube Delta World Heritage area nomination incorporating designated and potential World Heritage areas of the Danube Delta River Basin. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.5 Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris National Park (Central African Republic (CAR))

The Committee was informed that a representative of the State Party had presented a paper on the state of conservation of the site at the Amman Workshop held on 6 and 7 October 2000. He had confirmed that poaching, including by armed groups from neighbouring States, was widespread in the area and that an UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site to plan mitigation and rehabilitation measures would be welcome. The UNESCO National Commission of CAR had contacted the Centre and plans to field a mission were underway. The Committee noted opportunities for possible collaboration with a US-based non- governmental organisation, namely the Earth Conservancy.

The Committee thanked the UNESCO National Commission of CAR for facilitating discussions to plan and field a mission to the site and for arrangements to prepare a state of conservation report and a rehabilitation plan. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to undertake the mission as early as possible in 2001 with a view to submitting a comprehensive report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.6 World Heritage sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

The Committee noted detailed information on the state of conservation of the five sites in the DRC, i.e. Virunga, Garamba and Kahuzi Biega and Salonga National Parks and the Okapi Wildlife Reserve, reported from pages 2 to 5 of the document WHC- 2000/CONF.204/9. Furthermore, the Committee noted the following additional information reported by the Centre:

(1) In addition to the UNOMC, contacts have been established with members of a UN Panel conducting a Probe on Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in DRC and located at the UN complex in Nairobi, Kenya. Information on the state of conservation of the five sites will be regularly transmitted to the UN Panel mentioned above for appropriate action;

(2) A Co-ordination Unit for the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project has been operational in Nairobi, Kenya since 10 September 2000, assisted by the services of a consultant and an "ICCN Homologue" seconded by ICCN, Kinshasa. Recruitment of a Project Co-ordinator had been delayed but is likely to finalized before the end of the first quarter of 2001;

(3) A meeting of technical personnel representing the three different governance regimes within the territory of the DRC was convened from 8 to 10 November 2000 in Nairobi, Kenya. The three technical personnel have signed a formal agreement of co-operation that will facilitate the monitoring of the state of conservation of the sites, execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project, information and material exchange between sites and the organization and conduct of joint activities involving staff from the five sites. Furthermore, the three authorities have also agreed to co-ordinate together movements and career development options for ICCN personnel, despite prevailing administrative and political barriers to such co-ordination;

(4) Following a meeting on 28 September 2000, the Director-General of UNESCO and the Executive Director of UNEP expressed an interest to lead a high-level mission to the capitals of the three countries (i.e. Kinshasa, Kigali and Kampala) implicated in the war in eastern DRC to meet with the Heads of States and other important personalities and draw their attention to the need to respect international law and strengthen conservation of the all World Heritage sites in the area, and particularly those in eastern DRC. The possibility of fielding such a mission will be further pursued by the Centre in co-operation with relevant partners of UNESCO under the framework of activities for executing the UNESCO/DRC/UNF- UNFIP Project. The three technical authorities located in the three different regions of DRC (see point 3 above) have committed to facilitate such a high-level diplomatic mission to the fullest extent possible, if and when it is fielded.

IUCN underlined the significance and the timeliness of the financial support provided by the UN Foundation to support the work of site personnel and commended the dedication and commitment of the site staff to protect the sites.

The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Centre has established contracts with project partners for payment of salaries, performance related bonuses and medical and food rations to site staff in all of the five World Heritage sites and transfer of funds to benefit site staff are about to begin soon. The UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP project has set aside funds for the continuation of such payments to site staff over a period of four years; i.e. until October 2004. The Committee also noted with appreciation the support of the Government of Belgium for a project focusing on providing support to local communities in and around the five sites to enable them to contribute towards their protection. The Government of Belgium is expected to provide a sum of US$ 500,000 for the four-year project that is expected to begin in early 2001.

The Centre, based on information received from partners of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP Project and a variety of other sources, informed the Committee that the state of conservation in Garamba and Virunga National Parks was relatively good. In Okapi, recent assistance from military authorities in the region had enabled staff of the Wildlife Reserve to disarm poaching gangs and improve conservation prospects. Salonga, though outside of the war zone and still accessible to ICCN-Kinshasa, is significantly threatened by illegal poaching. The situation in Kahuzi Biega is the most disconcerting, as staff do not have access to nearly 90% of the Park's surface area.

The Committee requested the Centre to further develop its relations and explore optimal ways of liaising with UNOMC and other appropriate bodies, like the UN Panel undertaking a Probe on Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in DRC, in order to promote the links between peace-building and World Heritage conservation in DRC and in neighbouring countries. The Committee recommended that the Centre, in co-operation with ICCN and other partners, ensure effective execution of the UNESCO/DRC/UNF-UNFIP project emphasizing and prioritizing project components that strengthen the work of site staff. The Committee urged the Centre to work with relevant administrative and support units of UNESCO to find ways and means to ensure rapid and effective transfer of funds via project partners to on-site beneficiaries who are attempting to protect World Heritage sites in a zone of high security risks. The Committee thanked and welcomed the interest of the Government of Belgium to support a project that would enable local communities to work with site staff to support conservation of the five sites, and urged UNESCO and the Centre to expedite finalisation of negotiations with Belgium to enable early transfer of assistance to local communities resident near the five sites. The Committee decided that all five sites be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.7 Sangay National Park (Ecuador)

The Committee was informed that the Minister for Environment of Ecuador participated in the Amman Workshop and had noted that the inclusion of the Sangay National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger had helped the Ministry of Environment in negotiations with the Ministry Public Works and other Government bodies to obtain resources to evaluate environmental impacts of the Guamote Macas Road and plan mitigation measures. The Minister was of the view that despite recent improvements in the state of conservation of the site, Sangay should continue to remain in the List of World Heritage in Danger. IUCN informed the Committee that the increased access to the site resulting from the construction of the Guamote Macas Road could threaten the integrity of the site

The Committee requested that the Centre and IUCN continue negotiations with the State Party to elaborate a plan with indicators and benchmarks, including those that could signal the timing for the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee endorsed IUCN's view that indicators must directly relate to the values for which the site had been granted World Heritage status and that they should be clear, understandable and capable of replication over time. The Committee retained Sangay in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.8 Simen National Park (Ethiopia)

The Committee was informed that the Director of the Department of Agriculture from the Amhara Region, which is directly responsible for the management of this site, participated in the Amman Workshop. In his presentation, the Director had pointed out several improvements in the state of conservation of the site and expressed his disagreement with the 1996 consultant mission findings that led to the Committee to include Simen in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Permanent Delegate of Ethiopia, by letter of 16 October 2000 to the Director of the Centre, has confirmed agreement of the Amhara Regional authorities to receive a new and high-level consultant mission that may view and discuss the many efforts of the Regional Government to rehabilitate the Park. Such efforts including: (a) increases in budget and staff deployment; (b) favourable outcome of discussions with local communities; (c) steering committee for rehabilitation and development; (d) a 5-year plan for execution; (e) strengthened co-operation with donors; and (e) increased numbers of key species such as ibexes and red foxes. In the same letter, the Permanent Delegate also informed the Centre that the Amhara Regional Government is intending to propose a realignment of a road expected to run through the Park, resettle farmers currently resident inside the Park and enlarge the Park and redefine boundaries to excise areas occupied by villagers.

The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party and the Amhara Region to field a site visit to Simen National Park in order to prepare a report for the next session of the Committee, including observations and comments on existing plans for rehabilitation and changes and modifications to such plans that may be needed. In preparing such a report, the Centre and IUCN may also wish to discuss indicators and benchmarks that may be described and be useful in determining when the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.9 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)

The Committee noted that at a World Heritage and Mining Technical Workshop, held at IUCN Headquarters from 20-23 September, 2000, the case of Mt. Nimba was discussed and participants noted that key issues at this site include: (a) the need for clear boundary demarcation, taking into consideration the boundaries proposed at the time of inscription and changes proposed subsequently; (b) the need for effective transboundary co-operation between the two States Parties (Guinea and Côte d'Ivoire) as well as Liberia, which has yet to ratify the Convention; and (c) the need to stimulate fund-raising efforts for this site, based on previous proposals and recommendations, including those made by the Committee concerning the establishment of a fund or a foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Director General of CEGEN (Centre for Environmental Management of Mt. Nimba), presented a paper at the Amman Workshop which reiterated the findings reported at the World Heritage and Mining Workshop referred to above. In that context, the Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN co-operate with CEGEN and relevant authorities in Côte d'Ivoire and Liberia to address points (a), (b) and (c), as described above, and prepare an action plan describing specific measures to be taken within a defined time period. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.10 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)

The Committee was informed that the Centre/IUCN mission to this site was fielded from 24 to 30 October 2000. A preliminary report of the mission indicated that of the ten major recommendations of the previous (1995) Centre/IUCN mission which led to the inclusion of this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger 1996, five have been implemented. Some notable achievements made since 1995 include: completion of a participatory management plan; increasing on-the-ground management presence; establishment of inter-agency control posts in strategic locations; preparation and the beginning of the execution of an inter-institutional action plan; and organization of agro-forestry co-operatives. Continuing concerns regarding the integrity of the site centre around: deforestation rates in the buffer zone that exceed the national average (4%); resettling core-zone family units into the buffer zone and land- titling issues in influence zones; and unacceptable levels of logging and poaching. The mission report acknowledges and appreciates the support given by the German Government to the conservation of Rio Platano. The Committee was informed of a UN Foundation-financed project to link biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism development targeting six sites, including Rio Platano. This project may generate employment and economic benefits via outreach, ecotourism and research activities as recommended by the 1995 mission.

The Committee requested the Centre to transmit the full report of the IUCN/Centre mission to the site to the State Party to obtain formal written responses and comments from the State Party for submission to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee urged the State Party to continue its efforts to improve management of the site. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.11 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

The Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) in New Delhi, in a letter of 26 September 2000 addressed to the Charge d'Affairs of the Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO suggested that the proposed UNESCO World Heritage Centre mission to Manas be undertaken in May 2001. The Deputy Inspector General for Wildlife also presented a paper at the IUCN/Centre Workshop in Amman in which he emphasised the fact that the inclusion of Manas in the List of World Heritage in Danger has influenced State and Central Government decision to invest funds to rehabilitate the Sanctuary. IUCN observed that this is another example of a site where the inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger resulted in the elaboration of a rehabilitation plan and its execution with partial support from the World Heritage Fund.

The Committee recommended that the Centre/IUCN mission to review progress in the implementation of the rehabilitation plan adopted in 1997 and partly financed by grants amounting to US$ 165,000 from the World Heritage Fund be undertaken in May 2001 as proposed by the State Party, and a report submitted to the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. The Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to use all available information to plan the site visit, particularly to assess the impacts of the rehabilitation measures designed to minimize poaching threats to the rhinos in Manas. The Committee retained the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger

VIII.12 Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)

The Committee was informed that the State Party had notified the Centre that it wished to complete implementation of all activities of the rehabilitation programme before requesting the Committee to consider removing this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger. A representative of the State Party who participated and presented a paper at the Amman Workshop confirmed this position of the State Party.

The Committee invited the State Party to submit a comprehensive progress report, before 15 April 2001, to the Centre on the achievements of the rehabilitation programme implemented to date. It also requested the Centre and IUCN to review that report and submit their findings to the twenty-fifth ordinary session of the Bureau in 2001. The Centre and IUCN should undertake a detailed assessment of the threats to the site that have been effectively mitigated and determine the need for any additional actions that may be required to enable the twenty-fifth session of the Committee to decide whether or not this site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger by the Committee at its twenty-fifth session at the end of 2001. The Committee retained this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.13 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

The Committee was informed that following two winters of adequate rainfall that allowed recovery of the freshwater vegetation, reversal in rainfall patterns has led to a renewed increase in the salinity of Lake waters, resembling levels that prevailed in the area in 1997 and as such, the benefits of the restoration of the Lake achieved during the last two years are in danger of being lost. Such unpredictable, climate-induced reversals are likely to happen in the future. Nevertheless, the Committee stressed the need to fully implement the recommendations of a mission to the site undertaken in March 2000 by a team comprising representatives from IUCN, the Ramsar Convention Secretariat and other international and regional organisations described in document WHC-2000/CONF.204/9. A representative of the State Party who participated at the Centre/IUCN Workshop in Amman, Jordan from 6 to 7 October 2000, also emphasised the importance of implementing the recommendations of the March 2000 mission team.

The Committee recommended that the State Party take all necessary steps to implement, as expeditiously as possible, the recommendations of the mission team that visited the site in March 2000. The Committee highlighted, in particular, the importance of the development of a clear timetable of activities leading to measurable improvements of the Lake and surrounding marshes within the next five years. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the State Party once again to obtain a formal written response to the recommendations proposed by the mission team that visited the site in March 2000. The Committee retained this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.14 Rwenzori Mountains (Uganda)

The Committee noted that the Executive Director of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UAW), in his letter of 13 September 2000, has stressed that the Rwenzori Mountains National Park (RMNP) should be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger, owing to the fact that: (a) RMNP is still closed to visitors and effects of insurgency by armed groups continue to affect management, habitats and wildlife; (b) Communities resident around the Park are equally affected and regard the Park as a major source of resources posing clear threats to habitats and wildlife and, in the absence of control and management, may adopt unsustainable resource use practices; and (c) the Park lacks basic management tools to meet the challenges of insurgency and community pressure for resources. The Executive Director has welcomed suggestions of the twenty- fourth ordinary session of the Bureau to increase international awareness for the conservation of the site and expressed his readiness to work with the Centre and others concerned for raising funds for the protection of the World Heritage site in Danger. The Committee noted that the Centre has initiated communication with the Executive Director to explore possibilities for financing projects and activities to strengthen conservation of the site.

The Committee suggested that the Centre and IUCN continue to explore possibilities to raise international awareness for the conservation of this site, and co-operate with the State Party and concerned UN units in the region to study ways and means, including mobilising necessary financial resources, to support staff responsible for the protection of the site and minimize threats posed by militant and armed groups. The Committee retained the property in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.15 World Heritage sites of the United States of America:

Everglades National Park
Yellowstone National Park

The Committee recalled that the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN to meet with the State Party and discuss the preparation of a schedule of actions for complete rehabilitation of the site and its eventual removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Centre, IUCN and relevant authorities from the State Party, including the Directors of the two sites, participated in a conference call on 27 October 2000. The Observer of the United States of America informed the Committee that measures to address the threats to both Parks continue to be undertaken. In the view of the State Party, neither Yellowstone nor Everglades National Park has shown enough progress to warrant removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Following the conference call, consultations between the Centre, IUCN and the State Party, comprehensive discussions of the issue by the appropriate US Department of the Interior and National Park Service staff have taken place.

U.S. officials determined that complex scientific analyses of measures necessary to abate the threats to these two Parks are required. They have also concluded that it will be possible to prepare for review by the Committee a schedule of actions necessary for the eventual removal of these two sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger. This schedule will include measures as part of a national assessment of risks to Parks based on domestic law. Once this national assessment has been completed, the U.S. will derive from those analyses the information necessary to respond more fully to the Bureau's request.

Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service will continue to submit interim reports on the condition of the two Parks and will work on completing the schedule for their removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Observer of the United States of America also indicated that the Operational Guidelines do not provide clear procedures for removing sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger. Consequently, the potential exists for different interpretations of how removal from the List should be accomplished. It was noted that the issue had not been resolved in the Operational Guidelines revisions proposed by the Canterbury Working Group. Accordingly, it was believed that a technical workshop on the process for delisting, involving other States Parties, as well as the United States, is well merited. Such a workshop could propose an appropriate amendment to the Operational Guidelines.

IUCN welcomed the observations of the Observer of the United States and agreed that the elaboration of measures and indicators that could provide a systematic approach to placing and removal of sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger require considerable research work and scientific analyses. IUCN expressed its readiness to co-operate with the State Party and the Centre to test out work needed to improve these aspects of state conservation monitoring.

The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN co-operate with the State Party to carry out the necessary scientific and technical work, using suitable means such as conference calls and workshops, in order to put in place a schedule of actions that will enable the Committee to track improvements in the state of conservation of these two sites in an objective manner and determine, in consultation with the State Party, the appropriate time for their removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

CULTURAL HERITAGE

State of Conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

VIII.16 Butrint (Albania)

The Committee recalled that in October 1997, a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS- Butrint Foundation mission was undertaken to assess the damages caused to the site by civil unrest earlier that year. US$ 100,000 was made available as emergency assistance in 1997 to implement activities identified in the Programme of Corrective Actions, but to date, no report has been received on its implementation.

The Committee reiterated its request to the State Party to submit a progress report by 15 April 2001 on the implementation of recommendations of the 1997 UNESCO-ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation Joint Mission, to enable the Bureau to examine this case at its twenty- fifth session.

Noting the apparent difficulties in the implementation of the Programme of Corrective Actions, including those financed under the World Heritage Fund's Emergency Assistance, the Committee requested the Albanian authorities concerned to establish the administrative procedures necessary to enable the implementation of the Programme.

The Committee requested UNESCO and ICOMOS to undertake a joint mission in early-2001 for an assessment of the current situation and to report to the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

VIII.17 Angkor (Cambodia)

The Secretariat recalled that this site, inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the time of its inscription in 1992, is the largest cultural site in Southeast Asia. It extends over an area of some 400 km2 and includes no less than 100 monuments and hundreds of archaeological features. The socio-economic needs of the inhabitants require integration of conservation and development considerations. Although the armed conflict in the region of Angkor, which prompted its in-danger listing is now over, looting, illicit excavation and traffic in cultural objects and the continued need for large-scale international assistance, have kept this site on the Danger List. It was recalled that the Committee expressed concern at its twenty-third session in 1999, and the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, regarding the airport extension plan, rapid development of tourism facilities, and uncoordinated public and private works that may undermine the integrity of the site. Responding to the Committee's request for APSARA, the site management authority, and the International Coordinating Committee for Angkor (ICC) to coordinate all conservation and development projects in the region and strengthen national capacity through training, the State Party, through the UNESCO Office in Phnom Penh, provided the information contained in WHC-2000/CONF.204/9 for the attention of the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.

The Delegate of Hungary stated that despite past requests by the Bureau and the Committee for the report of the ICC meetings, these had not been made available. Furthermore, he drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the report on all on-going and planned projects for conservation, as well as on infrastructure had not been received. He urged the Committee and the advisory bodies to demonstrate more commitment for the safeguarding of this outstanding site. The Secretariat, at the invitation of the Chair, responded that the case of Angkor has been examined by the Bureau and Committee, at every single session since 1992, or no less than 20 times. All requests for international assistance submitted by the State Party have been supported, in addition to multi-year projects being financed through the Culture Sector of UNESCO in the largest operational programme being undertaken by the Organization. As for the advisory bodies, the Committee was informed that ICOMOS participated in the ICC meeting, and both IUCN and ICCROM have had operational presence, including a highly successful well-appreciated training programme (Tanee) recently implemented by ICCROM.

The Committee, after having examined the report on the state of conservation of the site, congratulated the Royal Government of Cambodia for the significant progress made in the field of training thus ensuring the control and maintenance of the monuments and encouraged it to continue in its efforts. The Committee invited the APSARA and UNESCO to strengthen development activities for the collection of documents for the International Centre for Scientific and Technical Documentation of Angkor, which should aim at securing all documentation produced during the safeguarding and development projects of the site. It also encouraged further efforts to develop partnerships with international teams at the site.

Furthermore, the Committee requested additional information on the monitoring of work undertaken on the entrance porch of the central monument and the collapsed tiers of the western moat of the Angkor Vat Temple. The Committee reiterated its earlier request for information concerning tourism development at the site and the development of infrastructure in this respect, with particular reference to the question of the extension of the Siem Reap/Angkor airport. Finally, the Committee decided to retain this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.18 Group of Monuments of Hampi (India)

The Committee's attention was drawn to the state of conservation of the Group of Monuments of Hampi and the updated information concerning progress made by the State Party in removing the threats facing the site caused by the ad-hoc public works within the World Heritage protected areas. The Committee examined the findings and recommendations for corrective measures of the ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring (February 2000) requested by the Committee at its twenty-third session. It noted with appreciation the successful work of the Karnataka State Government's Task Force for Hampi that examined the ICOMOS-UNESCO mission recommendations leading to the State Government's decision to demolish and relocate the two bridges that were negatively impacting upon the site. The Committee noted that the Task Force Chairperson had informed the Director- General of UNESCO that the decision by the State Government had been received favourably by the general public in India. The Committee also examined the deliberations and decision of the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session in June 2000, as well as the resolution concerning Hampi adopted by the participants of the UNESCO-Archaeological Survey of India National Workshop for Management of Indian World Cultural Heritage (22-24 October 2000).

The Observer of India expressed her Government's appreciation for the co-operation of the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre for the actions taken to enhance conservation and management of this site. She informed the Committee that the Indian Government was taking all necessary actions to ensure the conservation and development of this unique and vast site. The Observer stated that the construction of the two bridges was halted, not withstanding repeated news that work to complete the bridges had resumed. The Observer informed the Committee that the State Government of Karnakata decided to dismantle and relocate the footbridge connecting the Virupaksha Temple and the Virapapura Gada Island. Reference was also made to other actions such as removal of illegal encroachment and preparation of a comprehensive management plan, being taken by the District Commissioner of Bellary. The relevant State authorities were committed to ensure the protection of the integrity and authenticity of the site. The Committee was informed that the Chief Minister of the State Government of Karnataka had recently announced his commitment to protect the World Heritage areas of Hampi, and that a careful study of the vehicular bridge would be undertaken, with a view to maintaining a balance between the needs to protect the heritage values and those of the local community members who had been demanding the construction of these bridges and therefore had strong views on the matter. The Observer underlined the importance of fully involving the local communities in the process of elaborating the comprehensive management plan.

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the positive actions and measures taken by the State Party to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Group of Monuments of Hampi. The Committee requested State Party to submit for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session, a report on the progress made in:

  1. relocating the two intrusive bridges outside the World Heritage site;
  2. implementing the 4-point recommendations for corrective measures of the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission in February 2000;
  3. preparing a comprehensive management plan for the site.

In addition, the Committee requested the Government of India to examine the possibilities of establishing a special administrative body empowered to ensure integrated development and conservation of the whole World Heritage protected areas, whose primary objective would be to co-ordinate various development and cultural and natural heritage conservation activities within the protected areas of Hampi World Heritage site. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre to continue closely co-operating with the State Party to ensure the development of a comprehensive management plan. The Committee decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.19 Bahla Fort (Oman)

The Secretariat informed the Committee that following the recommendations of the twenty-fourth ordinary session of the Bureau, two consultants prepared "Guidelines for the establishment of a Management Plan for Bahla Fort and Oasis, a World Heritage Site". A mission was scheduled to visit the site in September 2000 to discuss the management plan, but the mission has been rescheduled to December 2000. A report will be provided to the Bureau for examination at its twenty-fifth session.

The Committee encouraged the State Parties to proceed with the preparation of the management plan and furnish a progress report by 15 April 2001. It decided to retain the property in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.20 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)

As suggested by ICOMOS at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in 2000, the Peruvian authorities prepared a single volume Management Plan to summarize the nine volumes previously produced and approved. Furthermore, a document on the state of conservation of the site was submitted to the World Heritage Centre, following the periodic reporting format. The entire documentation was transmitted to ICOMOS.

The Committee commended the State Party for its efforts to protect the property and to implement the Master Plan and congratulated the completion of the single volume Management Plan and the use of the periodic reporting format for the state of conservation document. The Committee requested the Peruvian authorities to submit a report on further progress made in the implementation of the Management Plan by 15 September 2001 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-fifth session. The Committee furthermore decided to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

VIII.21 The Committee considered the decisions of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau (WHC-2000/CONF.204/4) and the working document WHC-2000/CONF.204/10). The relevant section of the report of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau is attached as Annex X.

i) Natural properties which the Committee inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

VIII.22 Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)

The Committee noted the results of the joint expert mission by the Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Bureau undertaken from 14 - 22 September 2000, which was examined by the Bureau. The report of the mission called for urgent financial assistance to deal with the introduced species Salvinia molesta. In view of the imminent danger facing the site, the Director of Senegal National Parks had requested that the site be inscribed in the List of World Heritage in Danger. IUCN highlighted the seriousness of the threat to both the environment and the economy of the region, and the difficulty of controlling the introduced species. The Delegate of Benin commented that the site is facing a number of threats as discussed by the Bureau, and that danger listing would be an appropriate step to be taken.

The Committee decided to include the site in the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the State Party. The Committee furthermore called on international donor support.

ii) State of conservation reports of natural properties examined by the Committee

VIII.23 Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino (Mexico)

The Secretariat informed the Committee that, following the President of Mexico's statement of 2 March 2000, the proposed salt works at the World Heritage site of El Vizcaino would not proceed. The Committee noted that letters from the Chairperson of the Committee and the Director-General of UNESCO welcomed this decision and congratulated the President of Mexico for the actions taken to implement the World Heritage Convention. The UN Foundation had approved a US$ 2.5 million project entitled "Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites" for six sites, including the two natural sites in Mexico, the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and Sian Ka'an. The Committee furthermore noted that the Management Plan of the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve has been published and transmitted to the Centre.

The Committee commended the Mexican Government for its actions to ensure the conservation of the World Heritage values of the Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino and to implement the World Heritage Convention. It encouraged the authorities to collaborate with the Centre and other interested partners in implementing on-site projects for demonstrating possibilities for generating employment and income for local communities, such as the UN Foundation project on 'Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World Heritage Sites'.

iii) State of conservation reports of natural properties noted by the Committee

VIII.24 World Natural Heritage Properties of Australia

Shark Bay, Western Australia
Great Barrier Reef

The Secretariat informed the Committee that a letter on the recent grounding incident was received from the Australian authorities on 28 November 2000 and that a report will be presented to the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Bureau in 2001.

Central Eastern Australian Rainforest Reserves
Wet Tropics of Queensland

Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Canadian Rocky Mountains Parks (Canada)

VIII.25 Los Katios National Park (Colombia)

The Delegate of Colombia informed the Bureau that the field visit foreseen from 10-12 November 2000 had not taken place and looked forward to a visit in 2001. Such a field visit would not only review the state of conservation of the site, but moreover review co-operation possibilities for a World Heritage nomination of the meso-american biological corridor project and transboundary collaboration with the adjacent Darien National Park (Panama).

Comoe National Park (Côte d'Ivoire)
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorenz National Park (Indonesia)
Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand (New Zealand)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)
Huascarán National Park (Peru)
Danube Delta (Romania)

VIII.26 Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)

The Observer of Russia informed the Committee that the proposed road and gas pipeline through the Ukok Plateau is supported at the highest political level. The project will be reviewed at a meeting on 15 and 16 December 2000 in the Altai Republic.

VIII.27 Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)

The Observer of Russia informed the Committee that the information provided in the Bureau report seemed to relate to the Kamchatka region and not the World Heritage site. He stated that in-depth information would be provided by September 2001.

Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest (Uganda)
Gough Island (United Kingdom)
Ngorongoro Conservation Area and the Serengeti National Park (United Republic of Tanzania)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)

MIXED (CULTURAL AND NATURAL) PROPERTIES

(i) Mixed properties which the Committee inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

VIII.28 The Committee did not inscribe any mixed sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

(ii) State of conservation reports of mixed properties examined by the Committee

VIII.29 Kakadu National Park (Australia)

The Committee recalled that in July 1999, the third extraordinary session of the Committee examined the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park with reference to the development of a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease in an enclave of the Park. The Committee examined the state of conservation of this mixed cultural and natural property in two parts relating to natural values and cultural values.

Natural values

The Committee was informed that the Independent Scientific Panel (ISP) of the International Council of Science (ICSU) and a representative of IUCN had participated in a mission to Kakadu National Park and the Jabiluka and Ranger Mineral Leases in July 2000.

The Committee noted the conclusions of the report of the ISP of ICSU presented by Professor Brian Wilkinson, the leader of the ISP (WHC-2000/CONF.203/INF.20) (see Annex XI), the statement made by IUCN to the Committee (see Annex XII) and the response of the Supervising Scientist of Australia (see Annex XIII).

The Director of the World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that on 28 November 2000 the State Party had advised that a new agreement had been signed between the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government to provide further regulation of mining in the Northern Territory.

The Delegate of Australia thanked the ISP of ICSU and IUCN for their constructive participation in the mission in July 2000. With reference to a concern raised about the change in ownership of the mining company Energy Resources of Australia Inc (ERA), he informed the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage had written to ERA on 22 September 2000, to ensure that they meet commitments made to the World Heritage Committee in July 1999. The Minister's letter had been copied to the new parent company of ERA, Rio Tinto. ERA replied on 31 October 2000 confirming it would honour the commitments.

The Delegate of Australia indicated his full respect for the advice of the ISP and Supervising Scientist concerning monitoring. He stated that he would seek resources for early implementation of monitoring at Jabiluka as part of normal budgetary appropriation procedures.

Responding to questions relating to the ISP's recommendation to establish an Independent Science Advisory Committee for the proposed mine and mill at Jabiluka raised by the Delegate of Finland, the Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that the appointment of the chair and the majority of the voting members of the existing statutory scientific review committee will be made by learned societies in Australia such as the Australian Academy of Science and the equivalent academy for engineering and technology.

The Committee adopted the following decision concerning the protection of the natural values of Kakadu National Park:

The twenty-fourth Session of the World Heritage Committee, recalling
  1. The Committee decision of July 1999 that ICSU should continue the work of the ISP to assess, in co-operation with the Supervising Scientist and IUCN, the Supervising Scientist's response to the first ISP report
Notes
  1. That the overall conclusion of the ISP is that the Supervising Scientist has identified all the principal risks to the natural values of the Kakadu World Heritage site that can presently be perceived to result from the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative proposal; these risks have been analysed in detail and have been quantified with a high level of scientific certainty; such analyses have shown the risks to be very small or negligible and that the development of the approved Jabiluka Mill Alternative should not threaten the natural World Heritage values of the Kakadu National Park

  2. That the ISP assessment has been made only in relation to the proposal to develop Jabiluka as described in the April 1999 Report of the Supervising Scientist to the World Heritage Committee and does not necessarily relate to any future new proposals for the Jabiluka Mill Alternative

  3. That Australia has provided an assurance that all new aspects of the Jabiluka proposal would be the subject of formal assessment by the Supervising Scientist and that any significant changes would be referred to the Chair of the scientific review committee (see below) for comment

  4. That the ISP has made a number of recommendations related to processes that should, in its view, be followed in the final design of the project and on the ongoing regulation and monitoring process

  5. That the Australian government has accepted the intent of all of the recommendations of the ISP and the IUCN. In particular,

    1. The Australian Government has decided to amend the membership and role of the existing statutory scientific review committee to meet the needs identified by the ISP in its recommendation on the establishment of an Independent Science Advisory Committee. The chair and the majority of the voting members will be appointed following selection by the most appropriate body representing Australian scientists and engineers, possibly the Australian Academy of Science. This Committee will be able to report openly, independently and without restriction

    2. The supervisory role of the Supervising Scientist has been strengthened through the Agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments dated 17 November 2000

  6. That Australia, noting that the natural values of the lease and surrounding areas have been extensively investigated and documented through the environmental assessment process for Jabiluka, has undertaken to extend this work in the manner recommended by the ISP and the IUCN.
The World Heritage Committee:
  1. Welcomes the work of the ISP and the IUCN and the response of the Australian Government to their recommendations

  2. Requests that the Australian Government allocate resources as soon as possible to enable the implementation of the landscape and ecosystem analysis and monitoring program recommended by the ISP and IUCN and the appointment of a water resource specialist to the Office of the Supervising Scientist

  3. In the light of the above, concludes that the currently approved proposal for the mine and mill at Jabiluka does not threaten the health of people or the biological and ecological systems of Kakadu National Park that the 1998 Mission believed to be at risk.

Cultural values

The Director of the World Heritage Centre referred the Committee to the text of the recommendation of the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau. Since then, the Committee had been informed that he had received a letter dated 28 November 2000 from Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, informing him that discussions between the Mirrar and the Australian Government in relation to a new process regarding cultural heritage protection (as outlined in the Bureau recommendation) had broken down. (See Annex XIV).

The Representative of ICOMOS reflected that when ICOMOS had evaluated the Phase I and Phase 2 nominations of Kakadu, for inclusion on the World Heritage List, the cultural values had been assessed in relation to the area's archaeology and rock art. It had only been in the evaluation of Phase 3 of the nomination that the living cultural traditions were properly considered.

The Representative of ICOMOS stressed that for any cultural heritage impact assessment there must be cultural mapping. He acknowledged the existence of an impasse between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the Australian government and suggested that the same process as had been used for the review of scientific issues by the ISP of ICSU should be used for resolving the issue of cultural mapping. He suggested the establishment of an independent international group to consult with the Mirrar and the Australian government to find a way forward.

The Delegate of Thailand cautioned against intervening in domestic affairs by establishing an independent international group to deal with cultural issues at Jabiluka.

The Delegate of Hungary trusted that a solution could be found and made reference to the outstanding importance of the living cultural heritage of Kakadu National Park and expressed his concern with the current situation reported to the Committee.

The Delegate of Australia expressed his concern about the breakdown in dialogue between the Mirrar Traditional Owners and the Australian government. He however saw it as "an interruption" and "not termination" of the dialogue process. He informed the Committee that the Minister for Environment and Heritage was ready to re-commence talks at any time. Explaining what could have been the cause of the interruption, he referred to the letter from Yvonne Margarula that referred to concern to allegations that financial incentives had been offered to the Mirrar People (see Annex XIV). He stressed that indeed at no time had such an offer been made by the Australian negotiators.

The Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that he considered that the only commitment made by the Australian government to the Committee in July 1999 that had not been fully met was the development of a cultural heritage management plan and cultural mapping. He recalled that the Jabiluka mine was on stand-by and in environmental management mode and that commercial production would not take place for a considerable time reflecting the commitment to sequential mines. He stated that the mining company was legally obliged to provide a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and that the Australian government was concerned that a correct process for its preparation be found as soon as possible through a process of domestic negotiation.

The Delegate of South Africa expressed her agreement with the independent review process proposed by ICOMOS and suggested use of a facilitator. She appealed to the Australian government to agree to a process involving an outside facilitator noting that Kakadu is a site of value to all humankind not just Australia.

The Delegate of Finland suggested that a similar method of working to that which had been used to address scientific issues at Kakadu should be used to ensure progress on cultural heritage issues.

The Delegate of Canada acknowledged the importance of the living cultural values of Kakadu and expressed the wish of Committee members to see their protection. If an agreement between the Mirrar and the State Party was not possible, then involvement of a third party should be considered.

The Observer of Papua New Guinea stressed the importance of recognizing living cultural heritage values right at the beginning of the process of World Heritage identification and protection.

ICCROM commented that while they had strongly supported the recommendation proposed by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau, particularly given its emphasis on process, they were concerned that "process" was being interpreted in different ways by different delegates, as "mediated dialogue" by South Africa, and as "study" or "scientific reference group" by ICOMOS and others. ICCROM felt that clarification of the implications of reference to process was necessary for the consolidated recommendation being drafted to be fully effective in assisting the State Party.

Yvonne Margarula, Mirrar Senior Traditional Owner, was invited to address the Committee. She spoke about her country (her traditional lands) and of the sacred sites and "dangerous sites" (djang) at Jabiluka. She said that her country was "in danger" because the Government of Australia said that they were lying when they said the site was sacred and the Mirrar appealed for help from the World Heritage Committee. The Delegate of Australia said that the Minister for Environment and Heritage stressed that he did not believe the Mirrar were acting dishonestly.

The Committee adopted the following decision on the protection of cultural values at Kakadu National Park:

The Committee,
  1. Noted the concern of the Traditional Owners that serious impacts on the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park posed by the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka still exist.

  2. Considered that the Committee's previous decision regarding cultural mapping and the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan for Jabiluka cannot be implemented at this stage and that an approach founded on partnership between all parties concerned is required to ensure the protection of the living cultural values of Kakadu National Park.

  3. Recalled that at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau in Paris (2000) ICOMOS indicated its willingness to "participate in activities leading towards resolving cultural heritage issues pertaining to the management of Kakadu National Park".

  4. Noted that the State Party is prepared to consider a new process to address any outstanding issues relating to cultural values. Any new process would be facilitated by the State Party, in consultation with Traditional Owners and other domestic stakeholders.

  5. Expressed disappointment about the current interruption in dialogue between the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners.

  6. Reaffirmed the importance of the living cultural heritage of Kakadu National Park.

  7. Encouraged the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners to resume and continue their efforts in a constructive dialogue, in order to develop together a process leading towards the protection of Kakadu's cultural heritage.

  8. In the event that the interruption in the dialogue continues, requested that the State Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners consider a facilitated dialogue to achieve an agreed-upon process by the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001.



(iii) State of conservation reports of mixed properties noted by the Committee

Mount Emei and Leshan Giant Buddha (China)
Historic Sanctary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

CULTURAL HERITAGE

(i) Cultural property which the Committee inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

VIII.30 Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)

The World Heritage Centre informed the Committee that the Director- General of UNESCO had received a letter dated 27 November 2000 from the authorities of Pakistan requesting the World Heritage Committee to inscribe the Shalamar Gardens on the List of World Heritage in Danger. In the letter, the authorities of Pakistan informed the Director-General that the State Party recognised the urgent need to restore the damaged part of the outer walls and hydraulic works of Shalamar Gardens. Reiterating the great importance attached to activities for protecting the World Heritage sites located in Pakistan, the Director-General was assured that all necessary steps would be taken to ensure proper renovation and restoration of these unique gardens, which are not only an important cultural heritage landmark in the historic city of Lahore, but also a site visited by thousands of people. The authorities informed the Secretariat that the Department of Archaeology and Museums of the Ministry of Culture, and the local authorities concerned are actively co- operating to ensure that the gardens remain intact and do not suffer any further deterioration.

Through this letter, the Government of Pakistan expressed its appreciation for continued assistance from the World Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Centre for the conservation and development of the Shalamar Gardens. By nominating the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the State Party expressed its hope to increase public awareness both nationally and internationally on the importance of preserving this Moghul exemplary site of World Heritage of value, which continues to be a living cultural heritage site.

The Committee examined the state of conservation of Shalamar Gardens and the deliberations of the Bureau during the twenty- fourth extraordinary session, and took note of the request by the State Party to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee expressed serious concern over the complete loss of two of the three hydraulic works and the partial demolition of the third hydraulic work. Recognising that the property is threatened by serious and specific danger, necessitating major operations to ensure the protection of these essential components of the historic monumental and garden complex within the property, the Committee decided to inscribe the Fort and Shalamar Gardens on the List of World Heritage in Danger. While appreciating the co-operation between the central and local authorities concerned to enhance the conservation of the Shalamar Gardens, the Committee requested the State Party:

The Committee requested the State Party to provide clarification concerning ownership, land use and the legal status of the land within 60 metres of these hydraulic works, particularly in view of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, applicable to this site.

Finally, the Committee underlined that the damage to this property illustrates a case where world heritage values of a property had been severely undermined due to insufficient attention given to conservation needs in the planning and implementation of public works.

VIII.31 Historic City of Zabid (Yemen)

The Committee recalled the report on the state of conservation of the Historic City of Zabid, examined by the Bureau at its twenty- fourth extraordinary session that included information on the State Party's request to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. ICOMOS fully supported the findings and recommendations of the UNESCO monitoring mission undertaken in 1999 and the request by the State Party that the site be inscribed on the World Heritage in Danger in view of the serious condition of the historic buildings within the property.

The Committee decided to inscribe the Historic City of Zabid on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS to organize a mission composed of multidisciplinary experts in order to evaluate the situation and recommend further actions.

(ii) State of conservation reports of cultural properties examined by the Committee

VIII.32 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)

The Committee recalled that it had repeatedly expressed concern for this site and repeatedly deferred inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1992. The Committee recalled that it had decided again to defer decision on in-danger listing at its twenty- third session, pending a report from a High Level Mission that the Committee decided to send to Kathmandu in 2000 for consultations with representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal. This mission, headed by the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Mr Abdelaziz Touri, would also transmit the Committee's concerns and try to convince the Nepalese authorities of the merits of in- danger listing. This mission took place from 24 to 29 September 2000. The High Level Mission was well received by the State Party and met high level authorities including His Majesty the King and the Prime Minister of Nepal.

The Director of the World Heritage Centre presented the conclusive findings and final considerations of the Report of the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley (23-30 September 2000), WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.17. The Director informed the Committee that no new plans had been put forth by the Nepalese authorities to redress the persistent and continued deterioration of the materials, structures, ornamental features, and overall architectural coherence in most Monument Zones. He drew the attention of the Committee to the state of conservation of the site, highlighting the fact that in general, publicly-owned historic monuments were in good condition, but the problem lay in the urban fabric within the Monument Zones. Thus, essential and authentic urban fabric had been severely altered to the point that in a number of Monument Zones, the changes were irreversible.

The Committee was informed of the continuing commitment of His Majesty's Government of Nepal to protect the seven Monument Zones composing the site. The Director reported that the authorities had emphasised the difficulties in imposing international standards in the conservation of privately-owned historic buildings without substantial subsidy and technical support. The Director informed the Committee, however, that the mission was unable to convince the representatives of His Majesty's Government of Nepal on the constructive aims of the system of in-danger listing, notably to mobilise the support of policy makers at the highest level and international donors. In light of this, the High Level Mission concluded that the deterioration of the historic urban fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the vernacular architecture surrounding the public monuments, and consequently destroying the World Heritage values of this unique and universally significant site. The problem was compounded by the lack of technical capacity and the population pressures giving rise to encroachment from the periphery to the Monument Zones. As a result of this, the Bureau at its twenty-fourth extraordinary session, transmitted the recommendations presented in WHC-2000/CONF.204/4 to the Committee.

The Committee examined the state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley and the discussion of the Bureau. The Committee also took note of the two information documents tabled on 27 November 2000, WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.21 (Updated progress report on the implementation of the 55 Recommendations for Enhanced Management of Kathmandu Valley and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures, submitted by His Majesty's Government of Nepal on 22 November 2000) and WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.22 (Conclusions of Mr. Henrik Lilius, Vice-President of the World Heritage Committee and ICOMOS Representative during the High Level Mission to Kathmandu Valley).

The former Chairperson, Mr Abdelaziz Touri, who headed the High Level Mission, noted that the serious state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley had been examined at 20 sessions of the Committee and Bureau since 1992. The situation was indeed grave. However, he informed the Committee that the Bureau had formulated a recommendation for the Committee's consideration at its twenty- fourth extraordinary session, which allowed two more years for the Nepalese authorities to further implement the 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS- HMG of Nepal Joint Mission's 55 Recommendations for Enhanced Management and Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures adopted by the State Party.

The Committee, recalling that it had deferred the inscription of Kathmandu Valley on the List of World Heritage in Danger numerous times, expressed its disappointment that the State Party was not convinced of the constructive objectives of the List of World Heritage in Danger, as a mechanism for strengthening further political commitment and mobilizing international technical co- operation and greater awareness at both national and international levels.

During the ensuing debate, discussions focused on the objectives of the Convention and international co-operation. The Committee underlined the need to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage List, while effectively implementing the mechanisms provided under the Convention and appropriately assisting States Parties in safeguarding the World Heritage properties, especially when both ascertained threats faced sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. Most members of the Committee agreed that it would be desirable to define procedures for examining cases such as Kathmandu Valley, where certain values or components justifying World Heritage inscription have been irreversibly lost.

The question of whether or not consent by a State Party was necessary for inscribing a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger was debated at length, especially in relation to the interpretation of Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of the Convention. Some delegates and the Observer of Nepal felt that the Committee was not empowered to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the concerned State Party and without the request for assistance by the State Party. However, other members of the Committee and Observers stressed that Article 11.4 allowed the Committee to inscribe a property on the List of World Heritage in Danger without the consent of the State Party concerned, although it was preferable to have the State Party's consent in advance.

The Delegate of Belgium underlined the crucial importance of clarifying this point. Recalling the obligation of UNESCO to provide legal advice to Members of the Committee when requested, the Delegate of Belgium formally requested legal advice concerning this question on behalf of his Government.

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the UNESCO Legal Adviser pointed out that this subject was quite controversial. It had most recently been debated at the Canterbury International Expert Meeting on the Revision of the Operational Guidelines where the experts had recommended that legal advice be sought on the matter. The Legal Adviser had been informed that certain States Parties in fact had obtained legal advice from eminent jurists on this question, and that these jurists apparently had provided legal opinions that were widely divergent.

The Committee was reminded that the UNESCO Legal Adviser had no authority to provide any definitive interpretations of the terms of the Convention. Under international law it was only the States Parties as a whole who could make definitive interpretations of the terms of their Convention. In his view, there were various options available to the States Parties. They could:

  1. exchange copies of the expert legal opinions which they had obtained or would obtain, with a view to reaching a consensus as to which legal arguments were the most persuasive,

  2. agree to have the matter decided simply by a vote of the General Assembly of States Parties, or

  3. agree to have the matter arbitrated by some competent legal body such as the World Court at the Hague.

The Legal Advisor concluded by indicating that while he was not in a position to give a spontaneous opinion on this matter without the benefit of appropriate research, especially on the relevant preparatory work preceding the adoption of the Convention, he remained at the disposal of the States Parties to provide, in due course, any further advice or opinions as may be considered useful.

The Delegate of Belgium, expressed regret that the UNESCO Legal Advisor would limit himself to mentioning general principles concerning the interpretation of the World Heritage Convention. He requested that the UNESCO Legal Advisor would clearly declare whether, in his opinion, prior consent of the Government concerned is or is not necessary and that his advice would be transmitted to all States Parties to the Convention through the World Heritage Centre early enough for the question to be discussed during the forthcoming Meeting for the Revision of the Operational Guidelines to be organized by the Secretariat or at the next Bureau or Committee session. The Delegate of Belgium underlined that the advice and view of the UNESCO Legal Advisor could only be an interpretation and would not provide a definitive answer to the issue in question. Finally, the Delegate of Belgium stressed that should the view of the UNESCO Legal Advisor and those of international legal experts in various States Parties be divergent and States Parties do not reach an agreement on the interpretation of Article 11 of the Convention, this question must be submitted to the International Court of Justice of the Hague or arbitrated by another competent legal body.

The Committee decided to consider the issue of the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger in a broader context, in order to develop appropriate criteria and procedure for the Committee to evaluate situations such as Kathmandu Valley. To this end, the Committee accepted the offer by the Government of Morocco to host a meeting on this issue, and decided to consider developing a draft agenda and allocation of funds for the organisation of this meeting, within the context of the revision of the Operational Guidelines.

The Committee expressed its appreciation to Nepal for the continued efforts to enhance the management and conservation of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site. The Committee reiterated its deepest concern for the state of conservation of Kathmandu Valley, where urban encroachment and alteration of the historic fabric in most of the seven Monument Zones composing the site have significantly threatened its integrity and authenticity.

The Committee requested the State Party to produce a new structured framework for monitoring all corrective measures by the State Party, to be reviewed by the Committee within the context of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise in 2002. In the interim, the State Party was requested to submit a progress report for consideration by the Committee at its twenty-fifth session in 2001. The Committee further recommended that other States Parties be engaged in the conservation and monitoring effort by providing technical and financial assistance to the concerned authorities of His Majesty's Government of Nepal. In this regard, the Committee decided to consider reserving an appropriation within the 2001 International Assistance budget, to finance specific time-bound activities related to the protection of the urban fabric within the World Heritage site.

The Observer of Nepal expressed to the Committee his Government's appreciation for the favourable response to requests for technical and financial assistance which the Committee and UNESCO have been providing for Kathmandu Valley since the 1970s. He recalled the great pride of the Nepalese citizens in 1979 when the site was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, but informed the Committee that they were unaware, until 1992, of the World Heritage conservation standards, hence the errors made. The Observer reiterated the Government's strong commitment to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 Joint Mission, the 55 Recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint Mission, and requested that the Bureau provide the Government of Nepal sufficient time to redress the situation and defer decision on in-danger listing until 2004.

The Committee finally decided to adopt the Bureau's recommendations including the acceptance of the invitation extended by the Government of Morocco.

VIII.33 Taxila (Pakistan)

The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site, and adopted the following:

The Committee noted the Reports submitted by the State Party, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre concerning the state of conservation of the Taxila World Heritage site. The Committee expressed its appreciation to the authorities of Pakistan for taking the necessary measures to mitigate the threats caused by the construction of the sports stadium on the Bhir Mound within Taxila. The Committee, while noting the efforts made by the State Party to strictly control illicit trafficking of sculptures illegally excavated from Buddhist archaeological remains, nevertheless reiterated its request to the State Party to continue strengthening the protection of unexcavated areas in Taxila. The Committee requested the Government of Pakistan to implement the recommendations formulated by ICOMOS following the October 2000 ICOMOS-UNESCO reactive monitoring mission. The Committee requested the State Party to submit a report before 15 September 2000 on the progress made in implementing these recommendations, for examination by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session in September 2001. Finally, in order to support the State Party to overcome the difficulties faced in regularly monitoring the numerous and physically dispersed archaeological remains of the Taxila World Heritage site, the Committee expressed its commitment to extend its assistance to support the State Party, and requested the State Party to consider nominating the site for the List of World Heritage in Danger at the twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.

VIII.34 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)

The Committee examined the state of conservation of the site and noted the information provided by the Secretariat and by the Under- Secretary of State of Poland, responsible for the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim .

The Committee recalled that, at its twenty-third session (Kyoto, 1998), it confirmed its support for the principles laid out in the Declaration of March 1997; this process should continue in a consensual manner among all parties involved. It expressed the belief that no steps should be taken unless consensus had been reached.

The Committee expressed its concern regarding the delay in implementing the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim and the work of the international group of experts. It urged the Polish authorities to address these issues without further delay.

Concerning the construction projects within the zones related physically or symbolically to the Concentration Camp, the Committee requested the State Party to avoid any action that could compromise reaching consensus between the authorities, institutions and organizations involved and to ensure that the sacred nature of the site and its environment are preserved giving special attention to their integrity.

The Committee reiterated its request to the State Party, previously made during its twenty-fourth session, to submit a progress report on the implementation of the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim, and requested the State Party to submit this detailed report by 15 April 2001, at the latest, for examination by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.

Furthermore, the Committee requested the Secretariat to maintain close contacts with the State Party and other parties involved in order to support planning actions and the process for establishing a consensus as indicated in the decision adopted by the Committee at its twenty-third session.

In conclusion, the Committee reiterated the need for the establishment of a buffer zone to be created around the site, as well as a plan for the implementation of development control mechanisms within this newly identified area. It urged the Polish authorities to pay particular attention to this matter and to submit a report on the progress made in the identification of a buffer zone and control mechanism for examination by the twenty- fifth session of theBureau.

The Observer of Israel underlined that the two former Concentration Camps -Auschwitz and Birkenau - approximately 3 kms from each other, are located in two different municipalities - Oswiecim and Birkenau - are managed under different jurisdictions, and that before the creation of a buffer zone, the two locations should be unified. He stressed that the Strategic Governmental Programme for Oswiecim was not the management plan but a plan developed by the town of Oswiecim and that this should be clarified. Furthemore, he declared that he had taken note of the comments from Zimbabwe, Finland and Greece (included in the Report of the Rapporteur). Finally, he underlined that coordination between the International Group of Experts, the State Party and ICOMOS was essential and should be reinforced. In addition, due to the high sensitivity linked to this site, the Observer of Israel specified that representatives of the State Party and of the Jewish community should be involved in the work undertaken by the International Group of Experts.

(iii) State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Committee noted

VIII.35 Brasilia (Brazil)

Concerning the state of conservation report to be noted by the Committee, the Observer of Brazil stated that strict building regulations are being applied to all construction activities in Brasilia. Although the city is facing challenges due to the increase in population (3 million for a city originally designed for 500,000 inhabitants), which has led to some tension in the outskirts, the core of the city which forms the World Heritage site is intact and the World Heritage value is not adversely affected in any way by new developments. The Observer pointed out that the recommendation as adopted at the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau, did not reflect the situation on the site.

Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

VIII.36 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)

The Delegate of Belgium recalled an intervention during the Committee's twenty-third session in Marrakesh in 1999, on the need to make the local population aware of the need to ensure the conservation of this site, and stated that this important issue should be taken into account.

VIII.37 Roman Monuments, Cathedral St Peter and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany)

The Observer of Germany stressed that the vestiges of a water pipe and the wall of the ramparts in proximity to the Amphitheatre are important witnesses to the history of the town and the Roman civilization of the north of the Alps. However, he indicated that these vestiges are located inside a building for commercial use and that the problems linked to conservation, presentation and public access are not entirely resolved. The Minister of Culture of the Land Rhenanie-Palatinat has decided to provide the necessary funding to elaborate a project which aims at preserving the property without altering its authenticity. The Observer of Germany further indicated that the Minister intended to invite ICOMOS to carry out a mission before the twenty-fifth session of the Committee to examine these discoveries and the efforts made for their preservation.

Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hortabagy National Park (Hungary)

VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India)

The Observer of India informed the Committee that her Government intended to provide an updated report on the state of conservation of Khajuraho Group of Monuments site to the World Heritage Centre. She informed the Committee that the authorities have ascertained that the unauthorized construction has taken place on privately owned land, near the western group of the Khajuraho Temple but not within the area of 100-meter boundary limits of the protected monuments. Nevertheless, the Archaeological Survey of India is taking the necessary legal measures to correct the illegal construction. Moreover, the authorities concerned are acquiring vacant areas surrounding the western group of temples in order to prevent further encroachment. Therefore, the Observer from India expressed her Government's view that the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission in early 2001 may be premature and requested postponement.

Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
Petra (Jordan)
Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Byblos (Lebanon)
Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco)

VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)

The Observer of Israel made a statement regarding the situation in Mozambique after the Cyclone Eline and the present socio-economic conditions in the country. He underscored the importance of enhancing conservation strategies through capacity-building of the African States Parties, in particular offering training programmes which provided employment opportunities in conservation. He welcomed the views of the Delegate of Zimbabwe as reflected in the Bureau report, which emphasizes the importance of consultation and co-operation with the States Party's Ministry of Culture.

Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama)
Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru)

VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)

The Observer of the Philippines underlined that monitoring of the fragile cultural landscape of the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras required not only a GIS database but also a comprehensive management plan for ensuring its conservation and sustainable development. He informed the Committee that the Philippines National Mapping Authority was expected to complete its work in January 2001 for the GIS mapping project, supported by the World Heritage Fund. For this reason, the Observer expressed his Government's appreciation for the Bureau's decision requesting the World Heritage Centre to organize a reactive monitoring mission to the site in close co-operation with ICOMOS and IUCN. Regarding the site's tourism development plan requested by the Bureau, the Committee was informed that the Government and the World Tourism Organization were co-operating to elaborate a National Tourism Master Plan which would integrate management plans for the conservation of all World Heritage properties in the Philippines as a priority concern.

VIII.41 Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)

The Observer of the Philippines informed the Committee of the intention of the authorities to elaborate in January 2001, a Conservation Master Plan for the San Agustin Church of Intramuros Manila, in accordance with the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission recommendations. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the Philippines National Committee for Culture and the Arts had commenced consolidation of the façade of the San Agustin Church of Paoay to enhance protection against further earthquake damage, following the ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission recommendations.

VIII.42 Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)

The Observer of Portugal stated that, contrary to what was indicated in the Bureau Report, the "Monte da Lua" Agency was created to strengthen the integrated management of the site.

VIII.43 Istanbul (Turkey)

The Observer of Turkey assured the Committee that all efforts were being made to complete the conservation plan of the Historic Peninsula of Istanbul and the detailed plan of Fatih and Eminonu. The Observer confirmed the report of the Secretariat that the delay was caused by public hearings on the revised land use regulations.

Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)



WORLD HERITAGE AND MINING

VIII.44 The Committee recalled that in accordance with its request at its twenty-third session, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre planned and organised, in consultation with the International Council on Metals and the Environment (ICME), a technical meeting which analysed case studies on World Heritage and mining. This meeting was held at the IUCN Headquarters (Gland, Switzerland) from 21 to 23 September 2000 and reviewed practical case studies from 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, South Africa.

VIII.45 The Committee noted the deliberations of the twenty- fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau on this matter included in working document WHC-2000/204/4.

VIII.46 The Observer of the United States stated that the discussions at the Bureau session on mining and World Heritage were helpful. This partially stems from the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) position statement on mining and World Heritage that had been discussed at past meetings of the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau. The Rapporteur's report of the twenty-fourth session cited IUCN's view "that this issue has been characterized by a lack of dialogue between conservation and mining interests". He agreed, and applauded IUCN, ICME and the Centre for holding a technical meeting in Gland (Switzerland), that included representatives of mining and conservation interests. He believed that there remained a need for more dialogue on this issue to resolve outstanding issues. As a result, he requested that the Centre and IUCN consider holding a follow-up workshop on this issue to build on the progress made at the Gland meeting. Finally, he informed the Committee that the US House of Representatives Committee on Resources held a hearing on this subject in October 1999. The report of this hearing is available at http://www.house.gov/resources, listed as document 106-80.

VIII.47 The Delegate of Canada supported the comments by the United States of America and recommended that the proceedings of the workshop be published. Concerning the specific recommendations of the workshop, his country would see the preparation of guidelines on World Heritage and mining and the dissemination of the results of the workshop as a priority. The Delegate of Hungary noted that this issue is a breakthrough in terms of a strategic policy development and requested that progress made in this matter be brought back to the next Committee session and that possibly similar strategic issues, such as World Heritage and tourism be raised.

VIII.48 In summing up the discussion, the Chairperson said that the Committee agreed to the establishment of a Working Group on World Heritage and Mining to carry forward the work in this important field.

VIII.49 The Committee noted the recommendations of the report for transmission to the various key actors. The recommendations of the Workshop are contained in Annex XV.




IX. PROGRESS REPORT ON REGIONAL ACTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY ACTION PLAN

IX.1 The Secretariat introduced document WHC-2000/CONF.204/11 describing the progress report on the implementation of regional actions as described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session (Kyoto, 1998). The Committee reviewed progress achieved in the year 2000, noting the regional Action Plans for 2001-2002 and approved specific activities to be executed during 2001.

IX.2 The Delegate of Benin noted the importance of implementing the Global Strategy and linking it to issues related to improving the representivity of the List. The Centre's efforts in Africa were commended. He informed the Committee that international co-operation activities offered by countries such as Norway and France have improved support to African States Parties and appealed for the expansion of such effective partnerships with other donor nations. He drew the attention of the Committee to the recommendations of the meeting held in Zimbabwe on authenticity within the African context (reference: WHC-2000/CONF.4/INF.11) and suggested that the list of recommendations of that meeting be widely circulated. He welcomed planned activities to improve awareness of the work of the Convention in States Parties and urged the Centre to aim for a balanced distribution of activities 2.2 - 2.8 of the Action Plan among the various sub-regions of Africa.

IX.3 The Delegate of South Africa acknowledged the usefulness of Global Strategy activities in Africa and called for special attention to raise awareness for the protection of World Heritage of States Parties such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) suffering from war and armed conflict. She expressed the hope that peace would return to DRC soon and in the meantime urged the Centre to make efforts to raise awareness among decision- makers and the people as a whole so that they can understand the universal significance of these sites. She proposed that consideration be given to designating World Heritage sites in zones of conflict, such as those in the DRC, as 'peace parks' and efforts be made to link protection of these sites to peace-making efforts.

IX.4 The Observer of Japan made reference to the Workshop on "Nature and Biodiversity as World Heritage", (page 12 of working document CONF.204/11), and expressed Japan's satisfaction with the successful conduct of that Workshop which was held in close co-operation with the Centre, IUCN and East and Southeast Asian States Parties, as well as with the participation of New Zealand. The Workshop had resulted in a "Strategic Statement on Natural World Heritage in East and Southeast Asia" describing practical measures to enhance the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and raising awareness of the role of the Convention in biodiversity conservation. He said that copies of the "Strategic Statement" and the proceedings of the Workshop could be made available to interested States Parties. He expressed Japan's continuing interest to collaborate with the Centre and IUCN to improve the implementation of the Convention and attain the objectives of the "Strategic Statement" in East and Southeast Asia.

IX.5 Japan intends to host a thematic expert meeting on Asian Sacred Mountains as Cultural Landscapes at the Wakayama Prefecture from 4 to 12 September 2001 and hoped that the participation of representatives of less developed countries at the Workshop could be supported through international assistance from the World Heritage Fund.

IX.6 The Delegate of Greece pointed out that the document needed to set out priorities as well as emphasizing a selection of themes for meetings and workshops. She called for a better illustration of the links between the activities implemented as part of the Global Strategy Action Plan and the preparation of indicative lists and training activities. She noted that several workshops and seminars had been held, but a critical analysis and evaluation of such activities was lacking.

IX.7 The Representative of IUCN highlighted the need to link the implementation of the Global Strategy Action Plan and improving the representivity of the World Heritage List. He noted the importance of identifying critical gaps in the List and in that regard highlighted the work of the Centre and IUCN to undertake a global review of the application of the Convention in coastal and marine ecosystems. Currently, World Heritage sites in coastal and marine ecosystems are under-represented. To address that, there would be a workshop on marine World Heritage in 2001. The IUCN Representative also drew the attention to the World Parks Congress to be held in 2003 in Durban, South Africa. Referring to the comments of the Delegate of South Africa, he emphasized the significance of the links between the Global Strategy and periodic and reactive monitoring activities.

IX.8 The Ambassador of France to UNESCO made a presentation of the France-UNESCO Co-operation Agreement for Protection of Monumental, Urban and Natural Heritage signed in 1997. This instrument of co-operation aims to support the implementation of the Convention, and in particular, includes provisions for preparatory assistance to assist under-represented States Parties to meet the conditions required for the nomination of sites. The co-operation therefore includes activities that strengthen legal protection, management and restoration of sites on the tentative lists as well as designated World Heritage sites, and support for improvement of documentation and training of personnel in less developed countries. A joint co-ordination and a technical committee facilitate the selection and implementation of activities and emphasis is on decentralised co-operation; i.e. co-operation between designated sites in less developed countries (e.g. Luang Prabang in Laos) and in France (e.g. Chinon), or co-operation between local authorities. Most projects are of a minimum 3-year duration and between 1997 and 1999, 17 projects have been launched in 26 countries including amongst others, Argentina, Brazil and Colombia in Latin America, Benin, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Nigeria and Senegal in Africa and China and Laos in Asia. He invited other countries interested in participating in the co-operative programme to contact the French Delegation at UNESCO, Paris.

IX.9 The Chairperson thanked the Ambassador of France for the information provided and noted that the French-UNESCO co-operative programme could serve as a model for similar efforts of other interested States Parties. He requested the Ambassador of France to transmit the Committee's thanks to the relevant French authorities.

IX.10 The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee that following the "Regional Thematic Expert Meeting on Potential Natural World Heritage Sites in the Alps" (Hallstatt, Austria, 18 to 22 June 2000) it wished to follow-up on the important issues related to the definition and protection of the Alpine Arc as a transborder territory with outstanding natural and cultural landscape values. To this end, a meeting is to be organized in spring 2001 in Turin, Italy. States Parties from the Alpine Arc, the Centre, the advisory bodies, local communities, NGOs, as well as other institutions and organizations involved were invited to attend.

IX.11 The Observer of Germany congratulated the Centre for the excellent and valuable work in the framework of the Global Strategy. Following the comments from Greece, he felt that the results are sometimes not well recognized by the national and local authorities and that a more comprehensive follow-up including publication and dissemination of results, would be needed. He requested that the Centre report back on this matter to the next Committee session.




X. INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND WORLD HERITAGE LIST

Tentative Lists

X.1 The Chairperson indicated that all the cultural nominations for inscription are included in the tentative lists of the countries concerned.

X.2 The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had received in the year 2000 six new tentative lists from Australia, Israel, Malawi, Poland, Turkey and Ukraine. It also had received a letter from the Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) dated 24 November 2000 transmitting the Declaration of the meeting of Arab Ministers of Cultural Affairs held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 21 to 22 November 2000 concerning the Tentative List of Israel (see Annex XVI to this Report).

X.3 Both the Observer of Palestine and the Observer of Israel presented statements that are attached as Annexes XVII and XVIII.

Changes to names of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

Following the request from the States Parties concerned, the Committee approved changes to the names of the following properties included on the World Heritage List:

Canada

Existing NameName change requested
Anthony Island /
Ile Anthony 		SGaang Gwaii (Anthony Island) /
SGaang Gwaii (Île Anthony)
Parcs des Rocheuses canadiennes Parcs des montagnes Rocheuses canadiennes
Parc provincial des Dinosaures Parc provincial Dinosaur
Parc national du Gros Morne Parc national du Gros-Morne
Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex /
Secteur du précipice à bisons "Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump Complex" 		Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump /
Le précipice à bisons Head-Smashed-In
L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park /
Parc national historique de l'Anse aux Meadows 		L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site /
Lieu historique national de L'Anse aux Meadows
Lunenburg Old Town /
Vieille ville de Lunenburg 		Old Town Lunenburg /
Le Vieux Lunenburg
Quebec (Historic area) Historic District of Québec
Parc national de Wood Buffalo Parc national Wood Buffalo

Canada and the United States of America:

Tatshenshini-Alsek/ Kluane National Park/ Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
and Reserve and Glacier Bay National Park /

Tatshenshini-Alsek, Parc national de Kluane, Parc national et Réserve de Wrangell-St-Elias, et Parc national de la baie des Glaciers

Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek

Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek

Glacier Waterton Parc international de la paix Parc international de la paix Waterton-Glacier

Germany:

Existing NameName change requested
Roman Monuments, Cathedral and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St. Peter and Church of our Lady in Trier



List of World Heritage in Danger

X.4 Following the review of the state of conservation reports and at the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to inscribe the following natural cultural properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

X.5 The Committee did not recommend the deletion of any properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Examination of nominations of cultural and natural properties to the World Heritage List

X.6 The Secretariat informed the Committee that the following sites have been withdrawn: National Park of Abruzzo (Italy) and Lena River Delta (Russian Federation).

X.7 The Committee noted that concerning the sites of Fernando de Noronha Marine National Park (Brazil), Ancient Pula with the Amphitheatre (Croatia) and The Cape Floristic Region - Phase 1: Cape Peninsula Protected Natural Environment (South Africa), the respective States Parties have requested postponement.

A. NATURAL HERITAGE

A.1 Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List



Property Ischigualasto/Talampaya Natural Parks
Id. N� 966
State Party Argentina

Criteria

 N (i)

The Committee inscribed Ischigualasto/Talampaya Natural Parks on the World Heritage List under natural criterion (i).

Criterion (i). The site contains a complete sequence of fossiliferous continental sediments representing the entire Triassic Period (45 million years) of geological history. No other place in the world has a fossil record comparable to that of Ischigualasto-Talampaya which reveals the evolution of vertebrate life and the nature of palaeoenvironments in the Triassic Period.

IUCN noted that existing pressures on the site are low, that the site is effectively managed and that a positive response was received from the State Party concerning a co-operative management plan.

A number of delegates, in supporting the nomination, highlighted the uniqueness of the site covering the whole Triassic period.

The Observer of Argentina thanked the Committee for the decision, which will strengthen the protection of natural areas in his country. He informed the Committee that the two areas are now well integrated and that a joint management plan is in place since 2 October 2000. He also agreed to a name change from Ischigualasto Provincial Park and Talampaya National Park to Ischigualasto/ Talampaya Natural Parks as suggested by some delegates who felt the name was complicated.



Property Greater Blue Mountains Area
Id. N� 917
State Party Australia

Criteria

 N (ii) (iv)

Recalling the history of the nomination, IUCN informed the Committee that the Bureau at its twenty-third session had recommended deferral for the natural part of this originally mixed nomination inviting the Australian authorities to consider the possibility of a serial nomination to cover the full range of values of eucalyptus ecosystems. The Bureau had noted that although the area was nationally important, it was not considered on its own to be a significant representation of eucalyptus-dominated vegetation on a global scale. There were also unresolved integrity questions. The Bureau at the time also did not recommend inscription for its cultural values. 

IUCN informed the Committee that a thorough evaluation of the additional material subsequently presented by Australia took place. The additional material did not address the question of a serial nomination to cover the full range of values of eucalyptus ecosystems. IUCN also noted that, while the information provided by the State Party had verified the international significance of eucalypt dominated vegetation, the areas to be included in a serial site were not identified and recommended again to defer the site. Now that the issue was before the Committee to decide, IUCN's advice was to defer the nomination, as recommended by the Bureau in 1999 in favour of a possible serial site and reminded the Committee of Operational Guidelines, Paragraph 19 dealing with serial sites. IUCN noted however, that this was a finely balanced case and if the Committee wished to inscribe the site, it would suggest that criterion (ii) would be a potential one. He also referred to proposed national legislation where the identification of eucalypt heritage sites could go some way to meeting IUCN's suggestion of a serial site. Possible sites could include areas in Southwest Australia and the Australian Alps, although integrity problems may need to be addressed.

The Committee discussed the issues raised by IUCN at length and supported the nomination, in particular highlighting the need to recognize eucalyptus ecosystems on a global scale. Committee members also pointed out the uniqueness of the site in relation to the recently discovered Wollemi Pine and the increase in the representation of eucalypts on the World Heritage List. They emphasised Australia's responsibility in protecting eucalypts in their original ecosystems. The Committee also considered adding criterion (iv).

The Committee inscribed the Greater Blue Mountains Area under natural criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criteria (ii) and (iv): Australia's eucalypt vegetation is worthy of recognition as of outstanding universal value, because of its adaptability and evolution in post-Gondwana isolation. The site contains a wide and balanced representation of eucalypt habitats from wet and dry sclerophyll, mallee heathlands, as well as localised swamps, wetlands, and grassland. 90 eucalypt taxa (13% of the global total) and representation of all four groups of eucalypts occur. There is also a high level of endemism with 114 endemic taxa found in the area as well as 120 nationally rare and threatened plant taxa. The site hosts several evolutionary relic species (Wollemia, Microstrobos, Acrophyllum) which have persisted in highly restricted microsites.

The Delegate of Australia thanked the Committee and IUCN for the constructive process and informed the Committee that the world's most eminent experts on biodiversity and eucalypts have stated the outstanding universal value of the Blue Mountains. Whilst the Greater Blue Mountains has been inscribed as a stand-alone site, Australia recognises that there may be other important key sites of outstanding significance representing the evolution of the eucalyptus.

He informed the Committee that the Australian Government is shortly to introduce legislation to allow listing of places of national heritage significance. These places will be protected to the same level under Commonwealth law currently provided to World Heritage sites. The national list will be compiled according to themes representing the natural, cultural and historic environment. Whilst any particular site can only be listed following a public assessment and consultation process, it is expected that the identification of places representing the evolution of the eucalyptus would be an appropriate early theme for assessment, complementing the inscription of the Blue Mountains on the World Heritage List.



Property Noel Kempff Mercado National Park
Id. N� 967
State Party Bolivia

Criteria

 N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Noel Kempff Mercado National Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site contains an array of habitat types including evergreen rainforests, palm forests, cerrado, swamps, savannahs, gallery forests, and semi-deciduous dry forests. The cerrado habitats found on the Huanchaca Meseta have been isolated for millions of years providing an ideal living laboratory for the study of the evolution of these ecosystems. The site also contains a high diversity of plant and animal species, including viable populations of many globally threatened large vertebrates.



Property Ja� National Park
Id. N� 998
State Party Brazil

Criteria

 N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Jaú National Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site protects a large and representative example of the Amazon Central Plain Forest including the entire hydrological basin of the Jaú River. The site is important for biodiversity, protecting a large portion of the biodiversity associated with the Blackwater River system - one of the three types of lymnological systems associated with the Amazon basin. The site has a sufficient size to allow the maintenance of significant on-going ecological and biological processes, such as blow downs, changes in the river flood dynamics and natural burns, thus providing unique opportunities to study their effect on biodiversity in natural ecosystems.

The Observer of Brazil informed the Committee that his Government is committed to the protection of the Amazon system.



Property Pantanal Conservation Area
Id. N� 999
State Party Brazil

Criteria

 N (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Pantanal Conservation Complex on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv): The site is representative of the Greater Pantanal region. It demonstrates the on-going ecological and biological processes that occur in the Pantanal. The association of the Amolar Mountains with the dominant freshwater wetland ecosystems confers to the site a uniquely important ecological gradient as well as a dramatic landscape. The site plays a key role in the dispersion of nutrients to the entire basin and is the most important reserve for maintaining fish stocks in the Pantanal. The area preserves habitats representative of the Pantanal that contain a number of globally threatened species. The area is a refuge for fauna as it is the only area of the Pantanal that remains partially inundated during the dry season.

The Committee discussed a number of potential threats to the site, including extraction of minerals and the use of mercury to extract gold from the soils. IUCN pointed out that although there are threats in the Panatanal ecosystem, the nominated site is located upstream from them and studies confirmed that there are no pollution-related impacts. The Committee decided to change the name from Pantanal Conservation Complex to Pantanal Conservation Area.

The Observer of Brazil concurred with this and assured the Committee that his Government is committed to the protection of this unique area, part of a larger recently designated UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.



Property Isole Eolie (Aeolian Islands)
Id. N� 908
State Party Italy

Criteria

 N (i)

The Committee inscribed the Aeolian Islands on the World Heritage List under natural criterion (i).

Criterion (i): The volcanic landforms of the site represent classic features in the continuing study of volcanology worldwide. With their scientific study from at least the 18th Century, the islands have provided two of the types of eruptions (Vulcanian and Strombolian) to vulcanology and geology textbooks and so have featured prominently in the education of all geoscientists for over 200 years. They continue to provide a rich field for volcanological studies of on-going geological processes in the development of landforms.

The Committee noted that the State Party has adequately responded to the issues raised at its twenty-third session and commended the State Party for further strengthening the nomination by simplifying the boundaries of the nominated area, creating a clear surrounding buffer zone and a co-ordinated management structure.

A number of delegates supported the nomination and emhasized that the site is a textbook example of the world's volcanology.

The Delegate of Italy stated that his authorities were happy to comply with all requests by Committee and that they were ready to cooperate with IUCN in the implementation of the management plan for the site.



Property Kinabalu Park
Id. N� 1012
State Party Malaysia

Criteria

 N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Kinabalu Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site has a diverse biota and high endemism. The altitudinal and climatic gradient from tropical forest to alpine conditions combine with precipitous topography, diverse geology and frequent climate oscillations to provide conditions ideal for the development of new species. The Park contains high biodiversity with representatives from more than half the families of all flowering plants. The majority of Borneo's mammals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates (many threatened and vulnerable) occur in the Park.

IUCN noted that on request from the Bureau, the State Party has provided the information requested concerning land-use impacts near the boundaries of the Park.

In supporting the nomination, a number of delegates pointed out that the authorities have successfully tackled the Bureau's request and that the site is clearly of outstanding universal value for its high biodiversity.

The Observer of Malaysia informed the Committee about the importance of the cultural and natural heritage in her country.



Property Gunung Mulu National Park
Id. N� 1013
State Party Malaysia

Criteria

 N (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Gunung Mulu National Park under natural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv): The concentration of caves in Mulu's Melinau Formation with its geomorphic and structural characteristics is an outstanding feature which allows a greater understanding of Earth's history. The caves of Mulu are important for their classic features of underground geomorphology, demonstrating an evolutionary history of more than 1.5 million years. One of the world's finest examples of the collapse process in Karstic terrain can be also found. GMNP provides outstanding scientific opportunities to study theories on the origins of cave faunas. With its deeply-incised canyons, wild rivers, rainforest- covered mountains, spectacular limestone pinnacles, cave passages and decorations, Mulu has outstanding scenic values. GMNP also provides significant natural habitat for a wide range of plant and animal diversity both above and below ground. It is botanically- rich in species and high in endemism, including one of the richest sites in the world for palm species.

IUCN also noted the positive response received from the authorities received concerning a number of issues raised at the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau and proposed that the authorities be encouraged to review the additions to the site for their World Heritage potential when the gazetting process is completed.

The Observer of Malaysia stressed the commitment of the authorities to preserve the site.



Property Central Suriname Nature Reserve
Id. N� 1017
State Party Suriname

Criteria

 N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Central Suriname Nature Reserve under natural criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criteria (ii) and (iv): The site encompasses significant vertical relief, topography and soil conditions that have resulted in a variety of ecosystems. This ecosystem variation allows organisms within these ecosystems to move in response to disturbance, adapt to change and maintain gene flow between populations. The site's size, undisturbed state (in general a rare condition in Amazonian forest parks) and protection of the entire Coppename watershed, will allow long-term functioning of the ecosystem. The site contains a high diversity of plant and animal species, many of which are endemic to the Guyana Shield and are globally threatened.

The Delegate of Thailand expressed his concern about potential threats from gold mining and impacts to the integrity of the site. IUCN noted that the site is a pristine area, that the first phase of the management planning has been completed and that a US$ 18 million trust fund to support protection of the site was established, which could serve as a model for other sites.

This Chairperson informed the Committee that the site is Suriname's first inscription on the World Heritage List.



Property The High Coast
Id. N� 898
State Party Sweden

Criteria

 N (i)

The Committee inscribed The High Coast under natural criterion (i).

Criterion (i): The site is one of the places in the world that is experiencing isostatic uplift as a result of deglaciation. Isostatic rebound is well-illustrated and the distinctiveness of the site is the extent of the total isostatic uplift which, at 294m, exceeds others. The site is the "type area" for research on isostacy, the phenomenon having been first recognised and studied there.

A number of Committee members supported the nomination. The Committee, however, discussed a number of issues relating to the integrity of the site. In light of the evolving management regime, the Committee requested a review of the effectiveness of the management of this site in two year's time.

The Delegate of Finland informed the Committee that the evaluation of the site was beneficial for the preparation of the proposed Kvarken World Heritage nomination.

In supporting the enlistment, the Delegate of Morocco highlighted the fact that The High Coast was very significant because, apart from Hudson Bay in Canada, it was the most important example of glacio-isostatic uplift and the only icecap and geological feature in the north.

The Observer of Sweden informed the Committee that the designation of this property is of great importance and thanked the Committee for the constructive review process requiring the production of additional studies. This material will be beneficial for the management of the area.

A.2 Inclusion of an additional criterion to a property inscribed on the World Heritage List



Property Ha Long Bay (renomination)
Id. N� 672 Bis
State Party Viet Nam

Criteria

 N (i) (iii)

The Committee inscribed Ha Long Bay under natural criterion (i) in addition to the site's existing 1994 listing under criterion (iii).

Criterion (i): The site is the most extensive and best known example of marine invaded tower karst and one of the most important areas of fengcong and fenglin karst in the world. The size of the area provides sufficient integrity for these large scale geomorphic processes to operate unhindered.

The nomination under criterion (i) was supported by a number of Committee members, who wondered why this criterion was not taken into account originally. The Delegate of Hungary also noted the environmental impact assessment referred to under the item "state of conservation of properties" discussed during the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.

A.3 Extension of natural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List



Property Plitvice Lakes National Park
Id. N� 98 Bis
State Party Croatia

Criteria

  

The Committee approved the extension of Plitvice Lakes National Park site by the nominated area of 10,020 ha as this would contribute to the integrity of the site.



Property Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst
Id. N� 725-858 Bis
State Party Hungary / Slovakia

Criteria

  

The Committee approved the incorporation of the Dobsinská Ice Cave as part of the Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst World Heritage site. Although this ice cave is a relatively small (6km2) and specialised feature, it does add variety to the existing site and its features relate to and complement the Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst.

The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the extension and the Observer of Slovakia informed the Committee that an intergovernmental agreement between the two States Parties was established in 1999 for joint projects including research, protection and monitoring.

A.4 Natural property which was not inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property Kopacki rit
Id. N� 964
State Party Croatia

Criteria

  

The Committee noted that Kopacki rit is an important site at the European scale and very significant within the Danube Basin as a whole. Nonetheless, it does not meet the criteria set by the World Heritage Convention and a number of important integrity questions remain unresolved.

The Committee decided not to inscribe the property on the World Heritage List.

B. MIXED PROPERTY

B.1 Mixed Property inscribed on the World Heritage List



Property uKhahlamba / Drakensberg
Id. N� 985
State Party South Africa

Criteria

 N (iii) (iv) C (i) (iii)

The Committee inscribed uKhahlamba/Drakensberg Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (iii) and (iv) and cultural criteria (i) and (iii):

Natural criteria (iii) and (iv): The site has exceptional natural beauty with soaring basaltic buttresses, incisive dramatic cutbacks and golden sandstone ramparts. Rolling high altitude grasslands, the pristine steep-sided river valleys and rocky gorges also contribute to the beauty of the site. The site's diversity of habitats protects a high level of endemic and globally threatened species, especially of birds and plants.

Cultural criteria (i) and (iii):

Criterion (i): The rock art of the uKhahlamba/Drakensberg is the largest and most concentrated group of rock paintings in Africa, south of the Sahara and is outstanding both in quality and diversity of subject.

Criterion (iii): The San people lived in the mountainous uKhahlamba/Drakensberg area for more than four millennia, leaving behind them a corpus of outstanding rock art which throws much light on their way of life and their beliefs.

A number of delegates supported the nomination, which enhances the diversity of African biogeographical provinces represented on the World Heritage List, with this site being an example of the Mediterranean biome. The Committee furthermore encouraged the State Party to work on an integrated management plan, including the management of fire and invasive species as well as visitor management.

The Delegate of South Africa informed the Committee of the importance of Izintaba zoKhahlamba in her country and that the authorities are addressing a number of issues raised by the Committee. She hoped that with bilateral and international assistance the integrated management plan could be accomplished.

C. CULTURAL HERITAGE

C.1 Properties that the Committee inscribed on the World Heritage List



Property The Jesuit Block and Estancias of C�rdoba
Id. N� 995
State Party Argentina

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii) The Jesuit buildings and ensembles of Córdoba and the estancias are exceptional examples of the fusion of European and indigenous values and cultures during a seminal period in South America.

Criterion (iv) The religious, social, and economic experiment carried out in South America for over 150 years by the Society of Jesus produced a unique form of material expression, which is illustrated by the Jesuit buildings and ensembles of Córdoba and the estancias.

The Delegate of Mexico noted the influence of the Jesuit Order on the American continent and highlighted the fact that the property was representative of an extensive agricultural system founded by religious orders.



Property The Monastery of Geghard and the Upper Azat Valley
Id. N� 960
State Party Armenia

Criteria

 C (ii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii):

Criterion (ii): The Monastery of Geghard, with its remarkable rock-cut churches and tombs, is an exceptionally well preserved and complete example of medieval Armenian monastic architecture and decorative art, with many innovatory features which had a profound influence on subsequent developments in the region.

The Delegate of Italy stressed that this site is integrated in a programme of cultural routes initiated by the Council of Europe and Italy.



Property The Cathedral and Churches of Echmiatsin and the Archaeological Site of Zvartnots
Id. N� 1011
State Party Armenia

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii):The developments in ecclesiastical architecture represented in an outstanding manner by the Churches at Echmiatsin and the archaeological site of Zvartnots had a profound influence on church design over a wide region.

Criterion (iii): The Churches at Echmiatsin and the archaeological site of Zvartnots vividly depict both the spirituality and the innovatory artistic achievement of the Armenian Church from its foundation.



Property The Wachau Cultural Landscape
Id. N� 970
State Party Austria

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribed this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Wachau is an outstanding example of a riverine landscape bordered by mountains in which material evidence of its long historical evolution has survived to a remarkable degree.

Criterion (iv):The architecture, the human settlements, and the agricultural use of the land in the Wachau vividly illustrate a basically medieval landscape that has evolved organically and harmoniously over time.

Several members of the Committee expressed their appreciation for this nomination including the Delegate of Canada who underlined the importance of the coordinating commission for the management of the site. She also inquired whether the new boundaries of the site protected its viewscape; this question was answered positively by ICOMOS.



Property The Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower
Id. N� 958
State Party Azerbaijan

Criteria

 C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The Walled City of Baku represents an outstanding and rare example of a historic urban ensemble and architecture with influence from Zoroastrian, Sassanian, Arabic, Persian, Shirvani, Ottoman, and Russian cultures.
In response to several Delegates, expressing concern about the authenticity and coherence of the management policy of the site, ICOMOS underlined that the Walled City of Baku was the best preserved city of this region and that the inscription on the World Heritage List enhances the protection of the site. This statement was endorsed by several delegates. The Committee agreed to enlist the property but indicated that its concerns should be brought to the attention of the State Party.



Property The Mir Castle Complex
Id. N� 625
State Party Belarus

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv).

Criterion (ii): Mir Castle is an exceptional example of a central European castle, reflecting in its design and layout successive cultural influences (Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque) that blend harmoniously to create an impressive monument to the history of this region.

Criterion (iv): The region in which Mir Castle stands has a long history of political and cultural confrontation and coalescence, which is graphically reflected in the form and appearance of the ensemble.



Property Historic Centre of Brugge
Id. N� 996
State Party Belgium

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The Historic Town of Brugge is testimony, over a long period, of a considerable exchange of influences on the development of architecture, particularly in brick Gothic, as well as favouring innovative artistic influences in the development of medieval painting, being the birthplace of the school of the Flemish Primitives.

Criterion (iv): The Historic Town of Brugge is an outstanding example of an architectural ensemble, illustrating significant stages in the commercial and cultural fields in medieval Europe, of which the public, social, and religious institutions are a living testimony.

Criterion (vi): The Town of Brugge was birthplace of the Flemish Primitives and a centre of patronage and development of painting in the Middle Ages with artists such as Jan van Eyck and Hans Memling.

The Delegates of Thailand and Mexico questioned the application of criterion (vi) for this site. ICOMOS justified the criteria on the basis that the city had sponsored the development of Flemish primitive art and was home to artists. The Delegate of Thailand expressed his reservation on the use of criterion (vi).



Property The Major Town Houses of the Architect Victor Horta (Brussels)
Id. N� 1005
State Party Belgium

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (i):The Town Houses of Victor Horta in Brussels are works of human creative genius, representing the highest expression of the influential Art Nouveau style in art and architecture.

Criterion (ii):The appearance of Art Nouveau in the closing years of the 19th century marked a decisive stage in the evolution of architecture, making possible subsequent developments, and the Town Houses of Victor Horta in Brussels bear exceptional witness to its radical new approach.

Criterion (iv):The Town Houses of Victor Horta are outstanding examples of Art Nouveau architecture, brilliantly illustrating the transition from the 19th to the 20th century in art, thought, and society.

Further to a question raised by several delegates concerning the protection of the town houses, Belgium underlined that town planning provisions already exists and that the protection goes beyond the requirements of the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS confirmed protection measures in place in particular the series of bufferzones.



Property The Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons)
Id. N� 1006
State Party Belgium

Criteria

 C (i) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (iii) and (iv): Criterion (i):The Neolithic flint mines at Spiennes provide exceptional testimony to early human inventiveness and application.

Criterion (iii):The arrival of the Neolithic cultures marked a major milestone in human cultural and technological development, which is vividly illustrated by the vast complex of ancient flint mines at Spiennes.

Criterion (iv):The flint mines at Spiennes are outstanding examples of the Neolithic mining of flint, which marked a seminal stage of human technological and cultural progress.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Archaeological Site of the Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes, Mons to The Neolithic Flint Mines at Spiennes (Mons).



Property Notre-Dame Cathedral in Tournai
Id. N� 1009
State Party Belgium

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Tournai bears witness to a considerable exchange of influence between the architecture of the Ile de France, the Rhineland, and Normandy during the short period at the beginning of the 12th century that preceded the flowering of Gothic architecture.

Criterion (iv):In its imposing dimensions, the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Tournai is an outstanding example of the great edifices of the school of the north of the Seine, precursors of the vastness of the Gothic cathedrals.



Property Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture
Id. N� 567 Rev
State Party Bolivia

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii) The ruins of Tiwanaku bear striking witness to the power of the empire that played a leading role in the development of the Andean prehispanic civilization.

Criterion (iv) The buildings of Tiwanaku are exceptional examples of the ceremonial and public architecture and art of one of the most important manifestations of the civilizations of the Andean region.

Several States Parties raised the issue of the authenticity of the site as noted in the ICOMOS report. The Advisory Body remarked that the restorations made in Tiwanaku were not of recent date and that scientific knowledge available today would permit more careful interventions.

The Delegate of Cuba stressed the universal significance of the site as an icon of a larger pre-columbian culture.



Property The Churches of Chilo�
Id. N� 971
State Party Chile

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii) The Churches of Chiloé are outstanding examples of the successful fusion of European and indigenous cultural traditions to produce a unique form of wooden architecture.

Criterion (iii) The mestizo culture resulting from Jesuit missionary activities in the 17th and 18th centuries has survived intact in the Chiloé archipelago, and achieves its highest expression in the outstanding wooden churches.

A number of delegates took the floor to express their support for the nomination citing the churches as emblematic of the architecture of the archipelago and as embodiment of Jesuit ideals. The need to protect the vernacular architecture surrounding the churches was also stressed. Ecuador noted that tourism numbers might rise with the construction of a planned bridge that connects the area to the mainland making additional protection necessary. Finland suggested that sub-numeration of properties including distinct monuments, would give a better idea of the number of monuments actually inscribed on the World Heritage List. Italy and South Africa both indicated that they felt sub-numeration would detract from the unity of the site, and that the churches should be seen as an ensemble within their setting and not be subdivided.



Property Mount Qincheng and the Dujiangyan Irrigation System
Id. N� 1001
State Party China

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii),(iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The Dujiangyan Irrigation System, begun in the 2nd century BCE, is a major landmark in the development of water management and technology, and is still discharging its functions perfectly.

Criterion (iv): The immense advances in science and technology achieved in ancient China are graphically illustrated by the Dujiangyan Irrigation System.

Criterion (vi):The Temples of Mount Qingcheng are closely associated with the foundation of Taoism, one of the most influential religions of East Asia over a long period of history.

The Delegate of Hungary recommended the application of cultural criterion (v) for this site as it is an outstanding example of traditional land-use marked by the irrigation system which is representative of a culture. ICOMOS was requested to examine this point, particularly for sites in Asia, but it maintained that in this case, the site's outstanding universal value could not be justified on the basis of cultural criterion (v).

The Committee discussed the question of inscription under natural criteria, a proposal for the construction of a dam by the water conservancy project and the issue of sacred mountains in China. The Committee noted that Mt Qingcheng is considered to meet natural criteria (ii) and (iv). However, it decided to defer the nomination under natural criteria and requested that IUCN and the World Heritage Centre clarify with the State Party the following matters relating to the integrity of the site: the management regime in the buffer zone; the completion of the Overall Plan for the management of Longxi-Hongkou Nature Reserve, and a commitment to its early implementation; the inclusion within the plan of arrangements to deal with long term funding, the development of adequate trained staff, satisfactory controls over tourism development and activities, and programmes for monitoring, research, education and public awareness and information on the water conservancy project and the possible impacts of the dam proposal.

The Delegate of China explained that the proposal for a new dam was only a proposition at this stage and the authorities were willing to invite foreign experts to inspect the site.

The Committee encouraged the State Party to consider: (a) the merits of enlarging the site to include other Giant Panda areas, such as Wolong Nature Reserve, physically linked to the site; (b) initiating a wider review of the potential which exists in China for other natural World Heritage sites with consideration for a workshop focusing on possible boundaries for an enlarged site as well as to identify other sites of biodiversity value in the region.

The Chairperson also recalled that a workshop on sacred mountains in Asia will be hosted by the Japanese Government.



Property Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui - Xidi and Hongcun
Id. N� 1002
State Party China

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv), and (v):

Criterion (iii): The villages of Xidi and Hongcun are graphic illustrations of a type of human settlement created during a feudal period and based on a prosperous trading economy.

Criterion (iv):In their buildings and their street patterns, the two villages of southern Anhui reflect the socio-economic structure of a long-lived settled period of Chinese history.

Criterion (v):The traditional non-urban settlements of China, which have to a very large extent disappeared during the past century, are exceptionally well preserved in the villages of Xidi and Hongcun.

The Committee recommended that the State Party consider nominating other historic villages in Southern Anhui to extend the site.



Property Longmen Grottoes
Id. N� 1003
State Party China

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), and (iii):

Criterion (i):The sculptures of the Longmen Grottoes are an outstanding manifestation of human artistic creativity.

Criterion (ii):The Longmen Grottoes illustrate the perfection of a long-established art form that was to play a highly significant role in the cultural evolution of this region of Asia.

Criterion (iii):The high cultural level and sophisticated society of Tang Dynasty China are encapsulated in the exceptional stone carvings of the Longmen Grottoes.



Property Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties
Id. N� 1004
State Party China

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (i):The harmonious integration of remarkable architectural groups in a natural environment chosen to meet the criteria of geomancy (Fengshui) makes the Ming and Qing Imperial Tombs masterpieces of human creative genius.

Criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv):The imperial mausolea are outstanding testimony to a cultural and architectural tradition that for over five hundred years dominated this part of the world; by reason of their integration into the natural environment, they make up a unique ensemble of cultural landscapes.

Criterion (vi):The Ming and Qing Tombs are dazzling illustrations of the beliefs, world view, and geomantic theories of Fengshui prevalent in feudal China. They have served as burial edifices for illustrious personages and as the theatre for major events that have marked the history of China.

The Committee took note, with appreciation, of the State Party's intention to nominate the Mingshaoling Mausoleum at Nanjing (Jiangsu Province) and the Changping complex in the future as an extention to the Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing dynasties.



Property The Cathedral of St. James in Sibenik
Id. N� 963
State Party Croatia

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property be on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (i):The structural characteristics of the Cathedral of St James in Sibenik make it a unique and outstanding building in which Gothic and Renaissance forms have been successfully blended.

Criterion (ii):The Cathedral of St James is the fruitful outcome of considerable interchanges of influences between the three culturally different regions of Northern Italy, Dalmatia, and Tuscany in the 15th and 16th centuries. These interchanges created the conditions for unique and outstanding solutions to the technical and structural problems of constructing the cathedral vaulting and dome.

Criterion (iv):The Cathedral of St James in Sibenik is a unique testimony to the transition from the Gothic to the Renaissance period in church architecture.



Property Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee Plantations in the Southeast of Cuba
Id. N� 1008
State Party Cuba

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii) The remains of the 19th and early 20th century coffee plantations in eastern Cuba are unique and eloquent testimony to a form of agricultural exploitation of virgin forest, the traces of which have disappeared elsewhere in the world.

Criterion (iv) The production of coffee in eastern Cuba during the 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in the creation of a unique cultural landscape, illustrating a significant stage in the development of this form of agriculture.

In support of the nomination some delegates mentioned the significance of the nomination as the first of its kind and drew attention to the slave trade on which these plantations were founded.



Property Holy Trinity Column in Olomouc
Id. N� 859 Rev
State Party Czech Republic

Criteria

 C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i):The Olomouc Holy Trinity Column is one of the most exceptional examples of the apogee of central European Baroque artistic expression.

Criterion (iv):The Holy Trinity Column constituted a unique material demonstration of religious faith in central Europe during the Baroque period, and the Olomouc example represents its most outstanding expression.

The Delegate of Greece expressed some reservations regarding the application of criterion (i) for this site.



Property Kronborg Castle
Id. N� 696 Rev
State Party Denmark

Criteria

 C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv):Kronborg Castle is an outstanding example of the Renaissance castle, and one that played a highly significant role in the history of this region of northern Europe.



Property The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes
Id. N� 933
State Party France

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii)and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Loire Valley is an outstanding cultural landscape along a major river which bears witness to an interchange of human values and to a harmonious development of interactions between human beings and their environment over two millennia.

Criterion (iv): The landscape of the Loire Valley, and more particularly its many cultural monuments, illustrate to an exceptional degree the ideals of the Renaissance and the Age of the Enlightenment on western European thought and design.

Chambord has been inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (i) alone. The revised State Party nomination incorporated this property into the cultural landscape of the Loire Valley. The Committee decided that criterion (i) is also applicable to this new inscription.

Criterion (i): The Loire Valley is noteworthy for the quality of its architectural heritage, in its historic towns such as Blois, Chinon, Orléans, Saumur, and Tours, but in particular in its world-famous castles, such as the Château de Chambord.

Members of the Committee commended the State Party for taking into account the recommendations of the Bureau.



Property The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz
Id. N� 534 Rev
State Party Germany

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz is an outstanding example of the application of the philosophical principles of the Age of the Enlightenment to the design of a landscape that integrates art, education, and economy in a harmonious whole.

Criterion (iv):The 18th century was a seminal period for landscape design, of which the Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz is an exceptional and wide- ranging illustration.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz (The Garden Kingdom of Dessau- Wörlitz, cultural landscape of Dessau-Wörlitz) to The Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz.



Property Monastic Island of Reichenau
Id. N� 974
State Party Germany

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (iii):The remains of the Reichenau foundation bear outstanding witness to the religious and cultural role of a great Benedictine monastery in the early Middle Ages.

Criterion (iv):The churches on the island of Reichenau retain remarkable elements of several stages of construction and thus offer outstanding examples of monastic architecture in Central Europe from the 9th to the 11th century.

Criterion (vi):The Monastery of Reichenau was a highly significant artistic centre of great significance to the history of art in Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries, as is superbly illustrated by its monumental wall paintings and its illuminations.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Monastic Island of Reichenau in Lake Constance (Klosterinsel Reichenau im Bodensee) to The Monastic Island of Reichenau.



Property The P�cs (Sopianae) Early Christian Cemetery
Id. N� 853 Rev
State Party Hungary

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): The burial chambers and memorial chapels of the Sopianae cemetery bear outstanding testimony to the strength and faith of the Christian communities of Late Roman Europe.

Criterion (iv): The unique Early Christian sepulchral art and architecture of the northern and western Roman provinces is exceptionally well and fully illustrated by the Sopianae cemetery at Pécs.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Sopianae Palaeochristian Cemetery Site, Pécs to The Pécs (Sopianae) Early Christian Cemetery.



Property City of Verona
Id. N� 797 Rev
State Party Italy

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): In its urban structure and its architecture, Verona is an outstanding example of a town that has developed progressively and uninterruptedly over two thousand years, incorporating artistic elements of the highest quality from each succeeding period.

Criterion (iv):Verona represents in an exceptional way the concept of the fortified town at several seminal stages of European history.



Property Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and Other Franciscan Sites
Id. N� 990
State Party Italy

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (i):Assisi represents an ensemble of masterpieces of human creative genius such as the Basilica of San Francesco, which have it a deep fundamental reference for art history in Europe and in the world.

Criterion (ii):The interchange of artistic and spiritual message of the Franciscan Order has significantly contributed to developments in art and architecture in the world.

Criterion (iii):Assisi represents a unique example of continuity of a city-sanctuary within its environmental setting from its Umbrian-Roman and medieval origins to the present, represented in the cultural landscape, the religious ensembles, systems of communication, and traditional land-use.

Criterion (iv):The Basilica of San Francesco is an outstanding example of a type of architectural ensemble that has significantly influenced the development of art and architecture.

Criterion (vi):Being the birthplace of the Franciscan Order, Assisi has from the Middle Ages been closely associated with the cult and diffusion of the Franciscan movement in the world, focusing on the universal message of peace and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs.

The Observer of the Holy See warmly congratulated the Committee for the inscription of the site. He underlined that the rehabilitation work of the Balisica of San Francesco undertaken after the earthquake of 1997 was carried out remarquably. He stressed the importance of the commitment - including financially- of the Italian State. He considered that the application of criterion (vi) was particularly justified.



Property Gusuku Sites and Related Properties of the Kingdom of Ryukyu
Id. N� 972
State Party Japan

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), and (vi):

Criterion (ii):For several centuries the Ryukyu Islands served as a centre of economic and cultural interchange between south-east Asia, China, Korea, and Japan, and this is vividly demonstrated by the surviving monuments.

Criterion (iii):The culture of the Ryukyuan Kingdom evolved and flourished in a special political and economic environment, which gave its culture a unique quality.

Criterion (vi):The Ryukyu sacred sites constitute an exceptional example of an indigenous form of nature and ancestor worship that has survived intact into the modern age alongside other established world religions.



Property Curonian Spit
Id. N� 994
State Party Lithuania/Russian Federation

Criteria

 C (v)

The Committee inscribed the Curonian Spit as a cultural landscape on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (v):

Criterion (v) The Curonian Spit is an outstanding example of a landscape of sand dunes that is under constant threat from natural forces (wind and tide). After disastrous human interventions that menaced its survival the Spit was reclaimed by massive protection and stabilization works begun in the 19th century and still continuing to the present day.

Concerning natural values, the Committee noted that the Curonian Spit is an important site at the European scale and very significant within the Baltic Region as a whole. However, it was not considered to meet the criteria for inscription on the World Heritage List as a natural property.

The Committee welcomed the effective collaboration in the management planning between the two States Parties.

The Observer of Lithuania in expressing her appreciation, informed the Committee of her Government's commitment to the effective protection of this fragile environment. The Observer from the Russian Federation noted that this is the first cultural landscape from his country and a result of continuous transborder co- operation for the last two years. He hoped that a similar exercise could be envisaged with Finland for a potential World Heritage area.



Property Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House)
Id. N� 965
State Party Netherlands

Criteria

 C (i) (ii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (ii):

Criterion (i):The Rietveld Schröderhuis in Utrecht is an icon of the Modern Movement in architecture and an outstanding expression of human creative genius in its purity of ideas and concepts as developed by the De Stijl movement.

Criterion (ii):With its radical approach to design and the use of space, the Rietveld Schröderhuis occupies a seminal position in the development of architecture in the modern age.

Following an extensive debate on the application of criterion (vi) to this particular site and in general, and at the request of several delegates, the Delegate of Zimbabwe (Rapporteur) informed the Committee that during the meeting "Authenticity and Integrity in the African Context" held recently in Zimbabwe, the application of criterion (vi), as well as, of criterion (i) was debated at considerable length. He therefore proposed, upon completion of the report of that meeting, to transmit it to the Committee in order to enable the Committee to continue discussions on this matter.

The Committee therefore decided to defer the the application of criterion (vi) to this property.



Property Ruins of Le�n Viejo
Id. N� 613 Rev
State Party Nicaragua

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii) The ruined town of León Viejo provides exceptional testimony to the material culture of one of the earliest Spanish colonial settlements.

Criterion (iv) The form and nature of early Spanish settlement in the New World, adapting European architectural and planning concepts to the material potential of another region, are uniquely preserved in the archaeological site of León Viejo.



Property The Frankencense Trail
Id. N� 1010
State Party Oman

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv).

Criterion (iii): The group of archaeological sites in Oman represent the production and distribution of frankincense, one of the most important luxury items of trade in the Old World in antiquity.

Criterion (iv): The Oasis of Shisr and the entrepots of Khor Rori and Al-Balid are outstanding examples of medieval fortified settlements in the Persian Gulf region.

At the initiative of ICOMOS, and with the agreement of the State Party the name of the property was changed to The Frankincense Trail.



Property Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa
Id. N� 1016
State Party Peru

Criteria

 C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The ornamented architecture in the historic centre of Arequipa represents a masterpiece of the creative integration of European and native characteristics, crucial for the cultural expression of the entire region.

Criterion (iv): The historic centre of Arequipa is an outstanding example of a colonial settlement, challenged by the natural conditions, the indigenous influences, the process of conquest and evangelization, as well as the spectacular nature of its setting.



Property Kyongju Historic Areas
Id. N� 976
State Party Republic of Korea

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii):The Kyongju Historic Areas contain a number of sites and monuments of exceptional significance in the development of Buddhist and secular architecture in Korea.

Criterion (iii):The Korean peninsula was ruled for nearly a thousand years by the Shilla Dynasty, and the sites and monuments in and around Kyongju (including the holy mountain of Namsan) bear outstanding testimony to its cultural achievements.

The Delegate of Morocco commended the State Party for agreeing to remove the railway line currently truncating the site.



Property Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kanghwa Dolmen Sites
Id. N� 977
State Party Republic of Korea

Criteria

 C (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iii):

Criterion (iii):The global prehistoric technological and social phenomenon that resulted in the appearance in the 2nd and 3rd millennia BCE of funerary and ritual monuments constructed of large stones (the "Megalithic Culture") is nowhere more vividly illustrated than in the dolmen cemeteries of Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kangwha.

Supporting the nomination, the Delegate of Australia commended the impeccable state of the site and hoped that when the time is ripe, dolmen sites north of the 38° parallel would be added.



Property Historic and Architectural Complex of the Kazan Kremlin
Id. N� 980
State Party Russian Federation

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii):The Kazan Kremlin complex represents exceptional testimony of historical continuity and cultural diversity over a long period of time, resulting in an important interchange of values generated by the different cultures.

Criterion (iii): The historic citadel represents an exceptional testimony of the Khanate period and is the only surviving Tatar fortress with traces of the original town- planning conception.

Criterion (iv):The site and its key monuments represent an outstanding example of a synthesis of Tatar and Russian influences in architecture, integrating different cultures (Bulgar, Golden Horde, Tatar, Italian, and Russian), as well as showing the impact of Islam and Christianity.



Property The Ensemble of Ferapontov Monastery
Id. N� 982
State Party Russian Federation

Criteria

 C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i):The wall paintings of Dionisy in the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Virgin at Ferrapontov Monastery are the highest expression of Russian mural art in the 15th-16th centuries.

Criterion (iv):The complex of Ferrapontov Monastery is the purest and most complete example of an Orthodox monastic community from the 15th-17th centuries, a crucial period in the cultural and spiritual development of Russia.



Property The Island of Saint-Louis
Id. N� 956
State Party Senegal

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List in the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The historic town of Saint-Louis exhibits an important exchange of values and influences on the development of education and culture, architecture, craftsmanship, and services in a large part of West Africa.

Criterion (iv): The Island of Saint-Louis, a former capital of West Africa, is an outstanding example of a colonial city, characterized by its particular natural setting, and it illustrates the development of colonial government in this region.

ICOMOS informed the Committee that it had received a map of the property responding to the request by the Bureau to expand the boundaries of the property to include the entire island.



Property Bardejov Town Conservation Reserve
Id. N� 973
State Party Slovakia

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii):The fortified town of Bardejov provides exceptionally well preserved evidence of the economic and social structure of trading towns in medieval Central Europe.

Criterion (iv):The plan, buildings, and fortifications of Bardejov illustrate the urban complex that developed in Central Europe in the Middle Ages at major points along the great trade routes of the period.



Property The Archaeological Ensemble of T�rraco
Id. N� 875 Rev
State Party Spain

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii):The Roman remains of Tárraco are of exceptional importance in the development of Roman urban planning and design and served as the model for provincial capitals elsewhere in the Roman world.

Criterion (iii):Tárraco provides eloquent and unparalleled testimony to a significant stage in the history of the Mediterranean lands in antiquity.



Property The Pameral of Elchel
Id. N� 930
State Party Spain

Criteria

 C (ii) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (v):

Criterion (ii): The Palmeral (palm groves) of Elche represent a remarkable example of the transference of a characteristic landscape from one culture and continent to another, in this case from North Africa to Europe.

Criterion (v):The palm grove or garden is a typical feature of the North African landscape which was brought to Europe during the Islamic occupation of much of the Iberian peninsula and has survived to the present day. The ancient irrigation system, which is still functioning, is of special interest.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from The Palmeral of Elche: A Cultural landscape Inherited from Al-Andalus to The Palmeral of Elche.



Property The Roman Walls of Lugo
Id. N� 987
State Party Spain

Criteria

 C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The Roman walls of Lugo are the finest surviving example of late Roman military fortifications.



Property Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Bo�
Id. N� 988
State Party Spain

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The significant developments in Romanesque art and architecture in the churches of the Vall de Boí testify to profound cultural interchange across medieval Europe, and in particular across the mountain barrier of the Pyrenees.

Criterion (iv): The Churches of the Vall de Boí are an especially pure and consistent example of Romanesque art in a virtually untouched rural setting.

In relation to the works of art of these churches, which are currently exhibited in a museum in Barcelona, ICOMOS recommended that the State Party investigate the possibility of returning some of these to their original location.

The Delegate of Finland recalled his previous statement on the necessity of a sub-numbering system for serial nominations such as this property. He urged the Committee to examine this issue. The Delegate of Ecuador disagreed with the proposal of a sub-numbering system.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from The Catalan Romanesque Cultural Landscape of the Vall de Boí to The Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Boí.



Property The Archaeological Site of Atapuerca
Id. N� 989
State Party Spain

Criteria

 C (iii) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (v):

Criterion (iii):The earliest and most abundant evidence of humankind in Europe is to be found in the caves of the Sierra de Atapuerca.

Criterion (v):The fossil remains in the Sierra de Atapuerca constitute an exceptional reserve of information about the physical nature and the way of life of the earliest human communities in Europe.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Archaeological Site of the Sierra de Atapuerca, in the Municipalities of Atapuerca and Ibeas de Juarros (Burgos) to The Archaeological Site of Atapuerca.



Property The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland
Id. N� 968
State Party Sweden

Criteria

 C (iv) (v)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iv) and (v):

Criterion (iv):The landscape of Southern Öland takes its contemporary form from its long cultural history, adapting to the physical constraints of the geology and topograpy.

Criterion (v): Southern Öland is an outstanding example of human settlement, making the optimum use of diverse landscape types on a single island.

Several delegates, as well as IUCN, emphasized that the site was an outstanding example of a continuing landscape which supports and maintains biological diversity.

The Committee noted the change of name of the property from Södra Ölands Odlingslandskap (The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland) to The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland.



Property Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-town of Bellinzone
Id. N� 884
State Party Switzerland

Criteria

 C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv):The fortified ensemble of Bellinzone is an outstanding example of a late medieval defensive structure guarding a key strategic Alpine pass.

The Delegate of Italy drew the attention of the Committee to the influence of the Dukes of Milan in the construction of the defensive walls.



Property The Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications, Bermuda
Id. N� 983
State Party United Kingdom

Criteria

 C (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (iv):

Criterion (iv): The Historic Town of St George with its related fortifications is an outstanding example of a continuously occupied, fortified, colonial town dating from the early 17th century and the oldest English town in the New World.

ICOMOS recommended that this property be inscribed on the basis of criteria (iv) and (vi).

The Delegate of Mexico expressed surprise at seeing the property nominated as a single site instead of as part of a serial nomination of Caribbean fortifications.

The Committee discussed the application of cultural criterion (vi) for this site. The Delegate of Thailand noted that the criterion had not been requested by the State Party. ICOMOS responded that the Advisory Bodies evaluated properties according to the procedures set out in the Operational Guidelines and recommended criteria deriving from their evaluations. The Committee decided to inscribe the property only under cultural criterion (iv), indicating the possibility of re-nomination of the property under cultural criterion (vi) at a later date.



Property The Blaenavon Industrial Landscape
Id. N� 984
State Party United Kingdom

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): The Blaenavon landscape constitutes an exceptional illustration in material form of the social and economic structure of 19th century industry.

Criterion (iv):The components of the Blaenavon industrial landscape together make up an outstanding and remarkably complete example of a 19th century industrial landscape.

The Observer of the United Kingdom, representing the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape, hoped that this decision would encourage nominations of other industrial sites. At Blaenavon, heritage is integrated in the development process, in a partnership between local people, governmental and other organizations, as well as the private sector.



Property The Stone Town of Zanzibar
Id. N� 173 Rev
State Party United Republic of Tanzania

Criteria

 C (ii) (iii) (vi)

The Committee decided to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The Stone Town of Zanzibar is an outstanding material manifestation of cultural fusion and harmonization.

Criterion (iii): For many centuries there was intense seaborne trading activity between Asia and Africa, and this is illustrated in an exceptional manner by the architecture and urban structure of the Stone Town.

Criterion (vi): Zanzibar has great symbolic importance in the suppression of slavery, since it was one of the main slave-trading ports in East Africa and also the base from which its opponents such as David Livingstone conducted their campaign.

The Committee requested the State Party to report to the twenty-sixth session of the Committee on the progress made in clarifying the co-ordinating and supervisory role and strengthening of the Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority.



Property Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz
Id. N� 885
State Party Uzbekistan

Criteria

 C (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribed this property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): Shakhrisyabz contains many fine monuments, and in particular those from the Timurid period, which was of great cultural and political significance in medieval Central Asia.

Criterion (iv): The buildings of Shakhrisyabz, notably the Ak-Sarai Palace and the Tomb of Timur, are outstanding examples of a style which had a profound influence on the architecture of this region.



Property Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas
Id. N� 986
State Party Venezuela

Criteria

 C (i) (iv)

The Committee decided to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iv):

Criterion (i): The Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas is a masterpiece of modern city planning, architecture and art, created by the Venezuelan architect Carlos Raúl Villanueva and a group of distinguished avant- garde artists.

Criterion (iv): The Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas is an outstanding example of the coherent realization of the urban, architectural, and artistic ideals of the early 20th century. It constitutes an ingenious interpretation of the concepts and spaces of colonial traditions and an example of an open and ventilated solution, appropriate for its tropical environment.



C.2 Extension of cultural properties already inscribed on the World Heritage List



Property The Monasteries of Haghpat and Sanahin
Id. N� 777 Bis
State Party Armenia

Criteria

 C (ii) (iv)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property.



Property The Potala Palace and the Jokhang Temple Monastery, Lhasa
Id. N� 707 Bis
State Party China

Criteria

 C (i) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property of the Potala Palace to include the Jokhang Temple Monastery.

The Committee decided to retain the name of the city (Lhasa) in the name of the property.



Property The Classical Gardens of Suzhou
Id. N� 813 Bis
State Party China

Criteria

 C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the inscribed property of the Classical Gardens of Suzhou to include the Canglang Pavilion, the Lion Forest Garden, the Garden of Cultivation, the Couple's Garden Retreat, and the Retreat and Reflection Garden.



C.3 Cultural Properties which the Committee deferred

Property The Old City of Mostar
Id. N� 946
State Party Bosnia and Herzegovina

Criteria

 C (iv) (vi)

ICOMOS recommended that this property be inscribed under criteria (iv) and (vi). However, following information received from the UNESCO Office in Sarajevo concerning the threats to the site due to uncontrolled building in the old town and its perimeter, the Committee decided to defer the inscription of this property, in order to allow the State Party to provide more information on the protection of the site. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Secretariat to report on this issue at the forthcoming session of the Bureau.

Property The Bolgar Historical and Architectural Complex
Id. N� 981
State Party Russian Federation

Criteria

 C (iii)

The Committee decided that this nomination be deferred to allow the State Party to provide more detailed information about the reconstruction of the Great Minaret, confirmation that the industrial project has been definitively abandoned, and a more detailed comparative analysis, as requested by the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau.



C.4 Cultural Property which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List

Property The Abava Valley
Id. N� 997
State Party Latvia

The Committee decided not to inscribe this property on the World Heritage List.




XI. INFORMATION STRATEGY

XI.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre introduced document WHC-2000/CONF.204/13, describing the Centre's plans for developing an Information Management Systems Plan. The plan has been developed based on the work of a Senior Information Consultant, Ms Gwynneth Martin, who worked at the Centre during a period of three months. The plan had already been presented by Ms. Martin to the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest, 2-4 October 2000.

XI.2 The Director outlined the history of the initiative, including the early calls in 1998 by the Management Audit and the Expert Group on Information Management for an Integrated System to receive, process, and archive large quantities of information in an efficient and expeditious manner followed by a prototype in 1999. The plan, recognized the limited capacity of the Centre to implement such a system, and urged that an incremental approach should underlie all planning. Plan implementation would proceed in three stages, as follows:

Stage I: Design and consolidation (months 1-4) - to produce detailed system specifications; to begin building capacity in the Centre and to make better use of existing information technology facilities;
Stage II: Development and implementation (months 5-12) - to acquire and install hardware, to develop, install and test the system, and to train users; and
Stage III: Operation and review of an integrated data base (months 13-14) - to review and assess system operation, and recommend further developments

XI.3 The Delegate of Hungary welcomed the Plan and said it formed the first step towards defining an overall information management strategy for the Centre and for the work of the Convention. He recalled discussions held during the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest (2-4 October 2000) when the Ministry of Information and Technology of his Government indicated strong willingness and commitment to support the work of the Centre in this regard. He urged the Centre to continue the incremental approach recommended in the Plan with a view towards elaborating and adopting a fully-fledged Information Management Strategy by the time of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in Hungary in 2002. He indicated fully Hungary's willingness to be a strategic partner in the process.

XI.4 The Observer of Argentina noted the discrepancy between the total budget indicated for the implementation of the Plan, i.e. US$ 165,000 and the sum allocated in the budget proposals for the year 2001 in document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. The Director of the Centre pointed out that the shortfall between the total amount needed and the amount proposed for the year 2001 would be bridged by funds remaining unspent in the year 2000. He said that the latter funds are currently being held in order to pay for the services of a consultant who will commence work before the end of the year. He also responded to Hungary's points, which he was in agreement with, namely that the issue had to eventually be addressed in a wider context. Currently, the focus was on addressing an immediate problem to do with internal organization.

XI.5 The Delegate of Greece, echoing another remark of the Observer of Argentina, noted the importance of coordinating the Centre's information planning with that of UNESCO and asked if the Centre was in consultation with the Organization's Informatics Division. In response, the Director noted that both the consultant and members of his staff had established these contacts.

XI.6 The Observer of the United Kingdom expressed satisfaction with the Director's response and also highlighted the importance of this aspect of the Centre's work and recalled the fact that his Government, as well as the United States of America and Finland, have provided support to the Centre's work in this regard. He supported the views of the Delegate of Hungary about preparing an Information Management Strategy to be considered in the year 2002 which should look ahead to the needs of the Convention over the coming 10 years.

XI.7 The Chairperson concluded discussions on the subject. The Committee adopted the Information Management System Strategy as presented by the Centre and endorsed the incremental approach to its implementation. The Committee however, invited the Centre to work with Hungarian and other interested delegations to elaborate an Information Management Strategy that could be adopted at the time of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in 2002. To this effect, he suggested that the Centre should be requested to submit a progress report on steps taken, to the next session of the Bureau in 2001.




XII. DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

XII.1 The Chairperson introduced item 12 of the agenda concerning documentation, information and education activities and invited the Secretariat to present the report of activities and the proposals for the programme and budget for 2001. The Secretariat emphasized the increasing interest of States Parties in the activities of Chapter V, and notably with regard to information and educational activities, a fact demonstrated by an ever-growing number of international assistance requests for promotional activities. The Committee was informed that the activities of the Centre's Documentation, Information and Education Unit and the promotional activities of UNESCO's Cultural Heritage Division were now centralised at the World Heritage Centre. The Secretariat also indicated that this would contribute towards ensuring a better synergy between the programme activities, optimize the technical, financial and human resources available and improve the visibility and impact of the mobilizing messages to be conveyed.

XII.2 The Secretariat emphasized upon the need to seize the opportunity of the 30th anniversary of the Convention to give decisive momentum for its promotion amongst the local populations, young people, universities, decision-makers and public and private media sectors.

XII.3 The Secretariat then presented the activities proposed for 2001 and the corresponding budget. It underlined the need to devote particular attention to the activities developed at the local and national levels. The need to strengthen efforts for the management and updating of data bases through the development of new methods of access to information was also expressed. Partnerships with the media, the private sector and especially with the tourism industry, in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention, would be enhanced to inform the different target groups and ensure a better comprehension of the objectives of the Convention. With regard to education, the Secretariat stressed the complementarity of these activities, more particularly between the Special Project for the participation of young people and the Forum UNESCO, University and Heritage.

XII.4 During its presentation, the Secretariat drew the attention of the members of the Committee to the fact that the budget for this Chapter had been considerably reduced and underlined that this decrease could affect the execution and development of new projects. It stressed the need to reinforce in the future the information activities and in particular the production of specific material on technical and scientific subjects.

XII.5 The Chairperson congratulated the Secretariat for the quality of its presentation. The Delegate of Belgium intervened to commend the Secretariat and to indicate the importance that her country accorded to the questions relating to the Guidelines and Principles governing the use of the emblem. She also under-scored the need to put into practice a rigorous selection process for partners. With regard to the documents prepared by the Secretariat for the statutory meetings, the Delegate emphasized the need to ensure the simultaneous availability of these documents in the two working languages of the Committee. The Director of the World Heritage Centre responded to the questions raised and underscored the importance he attached to awareness programmes, indicating that he had already begun to take measures to establish linkages with possible strategic partners and donors. The Delegate of Morocco emphasized the importance of the UNESCO itinerant heritage exhibitions to different countries and their presentation at regional events such as those organized by the OAU.




XIII. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 2001 AND PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 2002

XIII.1 The Chairperson presented the following documents concerning the agenda item 13 :

The Chairperson then reminded the Committee of the actions to be taken during this session:

XIII.2 The Director of the  Centre, Mr Francesco Bandarin, then presented the documents in three parts, each part followed by observations, comments and some questions from the Committee:

XIII.3 In introducing document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev, the Director of the Centre, pointed out that the proposed budget of the World Heritage Fund was considerably reduced compared to previous years. Expenditures were now nearly 25% more than the income. If the income-to-expenditure ratio of the Fund is maintained at this level, it could lead to seriously reduce future budgets, thus curtailing the number and range of activities which could be supported. The Director therefore suggested the following :

The current need to reduce the budget of the Fund for 2001 results from:

XIII.4 The Chairperson noted that the Director of the Centre had adopted a responsible attitude to budget planning for the year 2001. Delegates from Hungary, Canada, Argentina, Thailand and Finland thanked and congratulated the Director for providing a clear and concise introduction to factors determining budget planning for the year 2001. The Delegate of Hungary expressed the hope that in the coming years the Director would move towards developing a financial strategy for the work of the Convention. Delegates of Canada and Thailand recalled the fact that at its annual session in 1996 (Mérida, Mexico) the Committee had urged the Centre to reduce the reserves of the Fund to the minimum required by the financial regulations of UNESCO and use maximum resources of the Fund for supporting projects and activities. This strategy of the Committee had led to a reduction in these reserves. Both Delegates urged the Director to negotiate with the Comptroller of UNESCO to reduce reserves to a suitable level that would allow more financial resources for the Centre's annual budget for the Fund.

XIII.5 The Observer of Argentina noted that the extra- budgetary resources of the Centre (44%) now exceeded contributions from UNESCO' s Regular Programme Budget (21%) as well as the World Heritage Fund (35%). He commented that this situation was not normal and that the Centre should aim to obtain more funds from UNESCO' s Regular Programme Budget. He said that given the fact that the Centre enjoys a certain degree of autonomy, its Regular Programme Budget should be considered incompressible and budget cuts should not be permitted. In addition, States Parties to the 1972 Convention could consider requesting through the governing bodies of the Organization, a larger share of UNESCO's Regular budget to benefit the work of the Convention. In this context, he recalled the fact that the Director-General of UNESCO had been an active Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee in 1998. The Delegate of Finland noted that the volume of unpaid dues to the Fund was alarming and that the Committee should call upon all States Parties to pay their dues urgently.

The Director of the Centre responded to the comments of the Delegates by reiterating his view that unless there are structural changes in the management of the Fund through a strong increase in income resources, the crisis that may result from continued deficit spending is likely to be unavoidable.

XIII.6 In the second part of his presentation, the Director of the Centre informed the Committee that he had made all efforts to meet the requirements of the advisory bodies so that the core component of the Convention's work, i.e. evaluation of nominations submitted by the States Parties, would not suffer despite overall budgetary reductions he has proposed. He praised the constructive attitude and cordial environment that had marked the negotiations between the Centre and advisory bodies and said that they have initiated a new and joint approach to budgetary planning issues.

Referring to extra-budgetary resources available for the work of the Convention, the Director noted that most donors, including States Parties to the Convention, preferred supporting project activities bringing benefits to specific sites rather than other core activities of the Convention like improving the representativity of the World Heritage List. He noted that extra- budgetary contributions to the work of the Convention had risen substantially, that the UN Foundation (UNF) has become a major partner and that the Centre will do its best to continue to develop the co-operation with this important new partner. He said that Regular Programme Budget of UNESCO met the Centre's staff costs, costs of statutory meetings and a certain amount of travel and other operational costs.

He then informed the Committee of estimated amounts of extra- budgetary resources benefiting each of the five Chapters of the World Heritage Fund totaling US$ 5,295,280 and distributed as follows:

Chapter IUS$ 746,630
Chapter II US$ 809,000
Chapter III US$ 2,969,650
Chapter IV US$ 540,000
Chapter V US$ 580,500

He informed the Committee that UNF was an important donor contributing towards Chapter II, III and IV for about US$ 3.5 million for 2001; Belgium, China and New Zealand contributed towards Chapter I activities, whereas Italy supported projects under Chapter II and Belgium and France projects under Chapter III. Other than UNF, other contributors of extra-budgetary resources do not provide overheads to cover the Centre's administrative costs. While UNF and other co-operation are important for the Centre' s future, there are serious shortages of human resources to ensure effective delivery of quality outputs and services demanded by such donors.

XIII.7 The Director continued with the third part of his presentation of document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev. and introduced the 2001 proposed budget Chapter-by-Chapter.

Chapter I - Implementation of the Convention

The amount proposed for Chapter I was approved: US$ 195,000.

Chapter II - Establishment of the World Heritage List

In presenting Chapter II proposals, the Director pointed out the increases in the amounts proposed for the Advisory Bodies under this Chapter fixed on the basis of the consultations held during the Committee: US$ 430,000 for ICOMOS, US$ 325,000 for IUCN, and once again reassured Delegates that funds provided to the advisory bodies are sufficient for them to effectively carry out all evaluations submitted by States Parties.

The total sum approved for Chapter II amounts to US$ 975,000.

Chapter III - Technical Implementation of the Convention

In the presentation of this Chapter, the Director explained that the amount for Technical Cooperation was reduced to offset the increase made to the Advisory Bodies contributions in Chapter II. This was feasible due to the various extrabudgetary resources available this year against this budgetary line.

Training: the amount foreseen for ICCROM for training was approved for US$ 156,000 including ICCROM management costs and coordination operations for World Heritage (US$46,000), training sessions for modules testing (US$30,000) and AFRICA 2009 (US$80,000).

The total sum approved for Chapter III amounts to US$ 2,355,000.

Chapter IV - Reactive Monitoring and Submission of Periodic Reports

For reactive monitoring, ICOMOS and IUCN are attributed the same amounts as per year 2000.
Support to States Parties for the submission of periodic reports: Africa will be the region submitting periodic reports in 2001

The total sum approved under Chapter IV amounts to US$ 520,000.

Chapter V - Documentation, Information and Education

The amount for this Chapter was approved without any modification (US$303.000)

XIII.8 Following this presentation, comments were made by Committee members on different aspects of the budget.

The Canadian Delegate noted that as the percentage of the extrabudgetary contributions to the work of the Convention increased, more external partners were participating the Convention's projects and activities and the Centre may therefore need to develop tool-kits to develop standards and guidelines that could inform such partners on how to carry out the Convention's work. She also pointed out that the Centre's critical needs for office space, additional staff and programme resources from Regular Budget of UNESCO shall be addressed. She suggested that resolutions to the UNESCO General Conference in 2001 should be tabled in order to met some of these needs in the 2002-2003 biennium. She also emphasized the need to adhere strictly to provisions of the Operational Guidelines in authorising promotional products and texts and in the use of the emblem by parties external to UNESCO involved in the implementation of the Convention.

XIII.9 The Chairperson pointed out that the services provided by the Centre to the States Parties to prepare nominations and implement other Convention activities may have to be paid for in the future under pay-as-you-go principle which could imply some special provisions to exempt or accommodate the needs of less developed countries (LDC).

XIII.10 The Director acknowledged the need to strictly follow Operational Guidelines paragraphs on the use of the emblem and that he has recently raised this point with other UNESCO Units. He noted that the importance of the World Heritage in UNESCO is not adequately reflected in policy and budgetary documents. He also committed himself to provide the Committee next year with estimates of in-kind contributions provided by the Centre staff's involvement in promoting bilateral and other projects benefiting the work of the Convention.

XIII.11 The Delegate of Thailand recalled the fact that the World Heritage Fund resources were once used to pay staff salaries. The Committee however requested UNESCO to absorb these costs from the Regular Budget.

The Representative of South Africa pointed out that the Committee must undertake strong action against States Parties who have not paid their dues, including preventing the inclusion of sites nominated by such Parties in the World Heritage List.

The Delegate of the United Kingdom called upon the Committee Members to ensure consistency in their interventions in inter- governmental meetings such as that of the World Heritage Committee and the UNESCO Executive Board. He acknowledged that the protection of the tangible heritage as promoted by the Convention needs to be a UNESCO strategic priority; but he pointed out that the recent strategic priorities established by UNESCO' s Executive Board did not make sufficient reference to the conservation of tangible heritage. Committee Members who are also Members of the Executive Board should send a strong message to the Director General and the UNESCO Secretariat staff involved in the preparation of the next session of the Executive Board to raise the profile of the Convention's work to protect tangible heritage as a strategic priority of the organization. He also invited the Centre to follow UNESCO' s shift from inputs-based to results oriented budgeting. The Director of the Centre agreed to make that shift next year as the Centre, in accordance with the Committee's decision made at its current session, will prepare biennial budgets to coincide with UNESCO biennal programme and budget.

XIII.12 The Chairperson closed the debate on the document WHC-2000/CONF.204/15Rev and declared that the budget of the World Heritage Fund for the year 2001 was approved for four million three hundred and forty eight thousand US dollars (US$ 4,348,000) and the Emergency Reserve Fund for six hundred thousand US$ (US$ 600,000). The provisional budget for the year 2002 was fixed at four million one hundred thousand US dollars (US$ 4,100,000).

XIII.13 The Committee asked the Chairperson, on their behalf, to write to the President of the Executive Board and to the Director-General of UNESCO, requesting that the relevance of the objectives of the Convention be recognized and resources of the World Heritage Centre, within the Culture Sector, be enhanced in the framework of the next biennial exercise. The Committee, after having approved the content of this letter, suggested that the Chairperson meet the President of the Executive Board and the Director-General of UNESCO to discuss these matters in more depth. It was also suggested that a copy of this letter be sent to all members of the Executive Board.

The following table provides details of the approved budget by Chapter and component.

Approved budget for 2001 and provisional budget for 2002

Chapters and components
Approved budget 2000
Approved Budget 2001
Provisional Budget 2002
Chapter I - Implementation of the Convention
Participation at statutory meetings 60 000 70 000 60 000
Reforms Group 20 000
Working group for WH strategic planning 10 000
Working group on revision of Operational Guidelines 15 000
Development of an Information Management System 114 000 80 000 100 000
Evaluation of International Assistance 40 000
Coordination with other Conventions and Programmes etc... 25 000 25 000 30 000
Sub-total Chapter I 264 000 195 000 190 000

Chapter II - Establishment of the World Heritage List
Global Strategy 278 000 200 000 180 000
Africa 40 000 5 000
Arab States 8 000 20 000
Asia, including Central Asia 50 000 30 000
Pacific 50 000 35 000
Europe & North America 10 000 5 000
Eastern and Central Europe 20 000 20 000
Latin America 25 000 25 000
The Caribbean 20 000 20 000
Thematic studies:
ICOMOS 40 000 30 000
IUCN 15 000 10 000
Advisory services:
ICOMOS 495 000 430 000 400 000
IUCN 355 000 325 000 300 000
Others 20 000 20 000 20 000
Sub-total Advisory Services: 870 000 775 000 720 000
Sub-total Chapter II 1 148 000 975 000 900 000

Chapter III - Technical Implementation of the Convention
Preparatory Assistance 325 000 350 000 300 000
Technical Co-operation1 245 000 965 000 960 000
Including IUCN/WHC Africa 2003 Nature 60 000 50 000
Training 980 000 960 000 900 000
Including ICCROM 85 000 46 000
Including training activities 107 635 30 000
Africa 2009 80 000 80 000
Including IUCN 30 000 30 000
Support to on-site promotional activities 80 000 80 000 70 000
Sub-total Chapter III 2 630 000 2 355 000 2 230 000

Chapter IV - Monitoring the state of conservation of sites
Reactive Monitoring 262 500 200 000 200 000
Including ICOMOS 60 000 60 000
Including IUCN 56 500 56 500
Including ICSU (monitoring of Kakadu National Park) 61 000
Support to States Parties for the submission of Periodic Reports:

Methodology development 22 500 20 000 0
Support to States Parties of a Region selected by the Committee (Article 29)
Technical Coordination for Submission 35 000 0 0
Africa 77 000 130 000 20 000
Arab States 100 000 20 000 20 000
Asia and Pacific 55 000 80 000 130 000
Europe and North America 15 000 10 000 20 000
Eastern and Central Europe 20 000 20 000 30 000
Latin America and the Caribbean 35 000 40 000 80 000
Sub-total support for periodic reporting 337 000 320 000 300 000
Sub-total Chapter IV 622 000 520 000 500 000

Chapter V - Documentation, Information and Education
Documentation 38 000 38 000 40 000
Information material 140 000 105 000 95 000
Internet and WHIN 70 000 70 000 70 000
Media and Publishers 8 000 5 000 5 000
Education 80 000 85 000 70 000
Sub-total Chapter V 336 000 303 000 280 000


 
TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET OF WHF 5 000 000 4 348 000 4 100 000
Emergency Reserve Fund 600 000 600 000 600 000
Promotional Activities and services for these activities 305 469 651 272
GRAND TOTAL 5 905 469 5 599 272 4 700 000




XIV. INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

XIV.1 Report on the evaluation of international assistance and prioritization in granting international assistance to States Parties

The attention of the Committee was drawn to WHC-2000/CONF.204/16, the Report on the evaluation of international assistance and prioritization in granting international assistance to States Parties. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee, at its twenty-second session decided to carry out an evaluation of international assistance. The Central Evaluation Unit of UNESCO was entrusted with this evaluation, which was carried out by a French company, C3E. The evaluation was undertaken between summer 1999 and April 2000, through a study of the files of the World Heritage Centre, interviews with the States Parties, advisory bodies, and the Secretariat, followed by a meeting with all parties concerned. The evaluation did not include an impact study to permit the evaluation of the results of assistance granted to the beneficiary sites. Similarly, it did not incorporate the results of the parallel evaluation carried out by ICCROM on international training requests for cultural heritage, as ICCROM had not completed its study at the time. The Bureau, at its twenty-fourth session examined the C3E Report, and a summary of the discussions at the Bureau is contained in the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty- fourth session of the Bureau, WHC-2000/CONF.204/2, paragraphs VII.5 to VII.9.

The Special Session in Budapest in October 2000 did not have time to discuss the C3E Report. However, the IUCN and ICCROM submitted comments on the C3E Report, which were made available at the time.

Moreover, there have been substantial discussions for the improvement of the implementation of international assistance at the

The Committee examined the C3E Report and took note of its findings.

XIV.2 Requests for International Assistance

The Bureau met during the twenty-fourth session of the Committee after the budget for Technical Assistance for year 2001 under Chapter III was approved, to take decisions or recommend decisions to the Committee concerning international assistance requests. The attention of the Committee and Bureau was drawn to document WHC- 2000/CONF.204/17 and 6 requests for decision by the Committee and 14 requests for decision by the Bureau were examined and took the following decisions. All decisions taken by the Bureau and Committee concerning these requests are listed below:

(i)Preparatory Assistance

Mixed Heritage

No: 2001-444           Philippines
"Regional expert meeting for the preparation of the World Heritage nomination file of the Batanes Archipelago and Ivatan Archaeological Landscape in the Philippines"

IUCN's evaluation was favourable and the Bureau approved the requested amount of US$ 30,000 to support the proposed activity, requesting the World Heritage Centre to co-ordinate the implementation of the activity in close collaboration with the State Party and the UNESCO Bangkok Office.

New request presented to the Bureau: Kyrgystan
"Preparation of the nomination dossier for the Cholpon-Ata Petroglyphs in the Issyk-Kul Basin as a mixed property."

The Secretariat informed the Bureau that both ICOMOS and IUCN reviewed the request favourably, and the Bureau approved the requested amount of US$ 23,100 to support the proposed activity. The Bureau noted with appreciation that this was the first international assistance request submitted by this relatively new State Party to the Convention with no property inscribed on the World Heritage List, and that this activity would eventually lead to a better representation of the World Heritage List in the Central Asian Region.

Cultural Heritage

No: 2001-423           Mali
"Preparation of a nomination file for the Askia Tomb in Gao"

The Bureau approved this request for US$ 30,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, and requested the Centre to ask the national authorities to implement the activity within the framework of Africa 2009.

No: 2001-433           Niger
"Preparation of the cultural nomination for the Aïr and Ténéré site as a mixed site"

The Bureau approved this request for US$ 15,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, and requested the Centre to clarify with the national authorities the points raised by the Advisory Bodies before preparation of the contracts.

No. 2001-449           United Republic of Tanzania
Preparation of nomination for the Kondoa Irangi Rock Art Paintings

The Bureau approved US$ 30,000 for this activity, which should be implemented within the framework of Africa 2009, following the activities implemented in year 2000.

No. 2001-427           Peru
"Background Studies and Preparation of Nomination Dossier for the Historic Centre of Trujillo"

The Bureau approved US$ 15,000 for this activity, subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund.

No: 2001-454           Israel
"Meeting for the harmonisation of the Tentative Lists within the same geo-cultural area"

After discussing this case at length, the Bureau decided to defer approval of this request, recommending the State Party to reformulate the request with the agreement of the other Party and authority concerned (Jordan and Palestine) in the same geo-cultural region.

The Observer of Israel informed the Bureau that, as a new State Party to the World Heritage Convention since 1999, his Government had established a National World Heritage Committee and prepared a Tentative List. Upon identifying three cultural heritage themes, his Government had formulated this request for support for the organisation of a Meeting to harmonise trans-national sites with other States Parties in the sub-region, and not for preparing nominations for Israeli sites. The Observer informed the Bureau that preparatory work has already been achieved with support from UNESCO and the European Union for the Dead Sea Basin with Jordan and the Palestinian Authorities. He stated that there continues to be a need for extending research for the Rift Valley, to be organised with the Friends of the Earth, an NGO. Finally, stressing that heritage protection should be undertaken through consensus, the Observer informed the Bureau that the current climate may not be the most suitable for implementing the proposed activity, but called upon States Parties to support this activity when the climate improved.

(ii) Technical Co-operation

Natural Heritage

No. 2001 - 459           Senegal
"Fight against Salvinia molesta in the Delta of the Senegal River at Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary"

Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of US$ 130,475 for implementing phase 1 of the 3-phased mitigation project under the following conditions:

Furthermore, the Committee decided that this sum of US$ 130,475 be allocated from the emergency assistance budget for 2001 rather than from the technical co-operation allocation for natural heritage for the year 2001.

No. 2001-461           Costa Rica
"Education and Protection in the Conservation Area of Guanacaste at the Area de Conservación Guanacaste"

Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved US$ 40,000 for this activity for covering expenses for educational (US$ 17,600) and protection (US$ 22,400) activities as proposed by the State Party.

Cultural Heritage

No. 2001-439           Cuba
"Continuation of the Consolidation and Rehabilitation of the Ruinous Third Cloister of Santa Clara's Convent of the Old Havana and its Fortifications site"

Taking into account the previous contribution to the renovation of the building of US$ 30,000, the Committee approved a contribution of US$ 35,000 subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund, following the recommendation of the Bureau.

No. 2001-446           Dominican Republic
"Study on Cultural Tourism in the Historic Centre of Santo Domingo"

The Bureau approved US$ 24,207 for this activity subject to the State Party paying its dues to the Fund and requesting the State Party to bear the costs of the secretarial costs.

(iii) Training

Natural Heritage

No. 2001-458           Cameroon
"Three fellowships for African specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the Academic Year 2001 - 2002"

Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of US$ 45,000 for three fellowships for African specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the academic biennium 2001 - 2003 at the Gaorua School for Training Specialists in Wildlife, Cameroon.

No. 2001-431           Malawi
"Capacity Building for Lake Malawi National Park"

In accordance with the recommendation of the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau, the Committee approved a sum of US$ 37,094 for the proposed activity.

No. 2001 - 457           United Republic of Tanzania
"Three fellowships for African specialists in Protected Area/Wildlife Management for the Academic Year 2001 - 2002"

The Bureau approved a sum of US$ 30,000 for supporting three fellowships at Mweka College of African Wildlife Management for the academic year 2001-2002

Cultural Heritage

No: 2001-445           Pakistan
"Training Course for physical, chemical and biological technical analysis of the problems related to the conservation of brick & stone archaeological monuments"

The Representative of ICCROM informed the Bureau that the activity proposed was an important national training course targeted for professionals. However, the Representative of ICCROM recommended that the activity proposed be expanded to include participants from the region, who could benefit from the activity held at World Heritage sites. She informed the Bureau that ICCROM would be prepared to provide technical advice for the reformulation of the programme of the training activity proposed.

The Bureau approved an amount of US$ 22,000, subject to the State Party implementing this activity as a sub-regional activity, in close co-operation with ICCROM, the UNESCO Bangkok Office and the World Heritage Centre.

No: 2001-442           Norway
"Culture, Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Co-operation among Stakeholders. Workshop to elaborate models of co-operation"

ICCROM informed the Bureau that the request was, in principle, found to be worthy of support, as the activity proposed would form a part of the existing activity being implemented by the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific under the title "Integrated Community Development and Cultural Heritage Site Preservation in Asia and the Pacific Through Local Efforts (LEAP)". This LEAP project commenced in 1997 based on understanding of the circumstances and problems in the region and has been achieving results in the training of regional site managers and their partners, especially in the awareness-raising aspects of site management. The programme covers a wide area of conservation issues from historic areas to cultural landscapes and from site-management issues to tourism issues. This particular request covers tourism. ICCROM, while supporting the technical content of the request, recommended that the contribution from the World Heritage Fund be restricted to travel costs of participants to the workshop from developing countries.

The Bureau stated that such requests should be submitted through the host country or with their endorsement.

The Delegate of China informed the Bureau that his Government, in principle, supported the activity proposed which appeared to be well organised and for the benefit of numerous Asia-Pacific States Parties, and expressed his appreciation for the initiatives taken by the Government of Norway to strengthen the capacity of site managers in the Asia- Pacific Region. However, as the potential host Government of the proposed workshop, the Delegate of China recommended that his Government and the local authorities of Lijiang World Heritage site be officially consulted. In addition, China expressed concern relating to the absence of resource persons from Asia region It requested that the meeting should be put in a global rather than regional context.

While the Bureau expressed its appreciation for the initiative of the Government of Norway and the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region, it requested the host country to submit the request in consultation with Norway, the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific and the World Heritage Centre.

No. 2001-426           Russian Federation
"International Workshop on the preservation and conservation of wooden structures on the example of the restoration project of the Church of the Transfiguration of the Kizhi Pogost"

No.: 2001-460           Russian Federation
"International Training Workshop for decision-makers on the World Heritage from Eastern and Central Europe"

The Bureau, temporarily waiving the application of Operational Guidelines paragraph 121, deferred examination of the two requests from the Russian Federation, in view of the outstanding dues of the State Party since 1992, amounting to US$ 1,514,246.

No. 2001-430           Mexico
"Course on Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites in the Humid Tropics"

ICCROM informed the Bureau that the request addresses issues of great importance through an approach which is well designed, has accurate costs, is committed to post-event dissemination of training materials, and programmed to strengthen regional exchange and co-operation. However, ICCROM also noted that it would be useful to build on lessons learnt in past similar courses in Latin America, supported by the World Heritage Committee, notably PAT 96 and PAT 99. While this course may well be a pilot experience on the humid tropics, many of the issues involved are common to management of archaeological sites everywhere. Indeed, it would be useful to examine precedents beyond Latin America, in the Cultural Triangle of Sri Lanka for example, where many innovative approaches to management of archaeological sites in the tropics have been developed. Moreover, ICCROM informed the Bureau that it would be useful to see the nine modules in the proposed course linked within an explicit framework promoting integrated conservation and management.

The Bureau approved US$ 20,900 for this activity, recommending the State Party to take into due consideration the comments provided by ICCROM.

(iv) Emergency Assistance

Cultural Heritage

New Request           Pakistan
"Development of a Rescue Programme for the Shalamar Gardens, following the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and Activities for Awareness Raising"

The World Heritage Centre informed the Bureau and the Committee that it had received on 30 November 2000, a request for Emergency Assistance, seeking support to elaborate a "rescue programme" following the recommendations of the UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission (October 2000), which had been adopted by the Bureau and Committee. The activity would address the priority actions aimed to remove the threats facing the site, as recognised by the Committee at its 24th session. The request amounting to US$ 84,724, include funding for

The Bureau and Committee were informed that this request would support specific actions requested by the Committee during its examination of the state of conservation of the site during its 24th session, and subsequent inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Moreover, the activity would lead to the development of project proposals, which could be utilised to seek other funding sources for financing the major works necessary to ensure the conservation and development of this site. Regarding the funding requested for the organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore, the Education Sector support the objectives. The organization of a Youth Forum in Lahore and the translation of the "World Heritage in Young Hands" into Urdu language were considered important in light of the impact anticipated from such an activity (Pakistan being an E9 State). It was noted that, should the Committee support this sub-activity, new modules for inclusion in the Education Resource Kit for teachers specifically addressing in-danger listing could be developed.

The Representative of ICOMOS informed the Bureau that it had not had sufficient time to examine the request in detail. However, it appeared that the budget allocation for international experts was high, and suggested that an international legal expert was not appropriate as national legal expertise could be found in Pakistan. The ICOMOS Representative informed the Bureau that it would be prepared to work closely with the State Party and the World Heritage Centre to reformulate the request.

After considerable discussion, the Bureau recommended that the Committee approve an allocation of US$ 50,000, requesting the State Party to adjust the budget allocation and activity plan in close co-operation with ICOMOS, ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre, which should be approved by the Chairperson before contracts were issued. The Bureau considered that the component related to the Youth Forum and translation of the Education Kit could be considered under "Assistance for Educational, Information, Promotional Activities", and should not be funded under Emergency Assistance.

Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee approved US$ 50,000, requesting the State Party to adjust the budget allocation and activity plan in close co-operation with ICOMOS, ICCROM and the World Heritage Centre, which should be approved by the Chairperson before contracts were issued.

Special note: Conditions for the granting of international assistance. Following a proposal from Thailand, the Committee agreed that, with respect to countries in arrears, conditions for granting assistance as set out in Operational Guidelines, paragraph 121 should be adhered to.




XV. TRAINING STRATEGY

I. GLOBAL TRAINING STRATEGY

XV.1 The Chair stated that this agenda item has two components, the Global Training Strategy and the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme. The Secretariat presented working document WHC-2000/CONF.204/18 indicating that there were two recommendations for adoption by the Committee, the first on a Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage, prepared by ICCROM, and the second, recommendations for follow-up activities to the Strategic Action Plan for Training in the Field of Natural Heritage. The Centre drew the attention of the Committee to the substantive 66-page document Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage prepared by ICCROM, which is provided in full as information document WHC-2000/CONF.204/INF.16, to complement the summary of ICCROM's reflection contained in working document CONF.204/18.

XV.2 The Secretariat reported that the meeting between the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM and interested States Parties and other advisory bodies to develop "the Regional Training Strategy and Programme Matrix and Related Action Plan", which ICCROM proposed to host was not held due to the Special Session of the Bureau in Budapest. She emphasized the increasing awareness of the importance of training, especially national-level capacity building and how the target audience for training evolved along with the changed notion of heritage. Stating that training forms an essential part of UNESCO's fundamental task to support national capacity building in the fields of competence of the Organization, the Secretariat informed the Committee of the main orientation of past and on-going training activities incorporating them in the heritage conservation supported by UNESCO. Due to difficulties in obtaining donor support for specialized national and regional training institutions for heritage conservation, UNESCO shifted its focus to site-based on-the-job training activities inserted in the operational projects entrusted to the Organization to coordinate or execute, and to building partnerships with existing institutions to insert teaching in heritage management and conservation skills. In this regard, she expressed the Centre's appreciation for the newly established world heritage studies programmes at the Technical University in Cottbus, Germany, Cilento National Park, Italy; Beijing University, China, Waseda University, Japan, and indicated that the Francois Rabelais University in Tours, France will soon be starting a programme on world heritage and cultural landscape.

XV.3 Stressing the need for coherence and complementarity in the numerous on-going initiatives and activities, the Centre expressed its appreciation for the collaboration of ICCROM in the development of this Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage which was fully endorsed by the Centre. ICCROM's newly appointed Director-General, Dr. Nicholas Stanley-Price, introduced the Global Training Strategy for World Cultural Heritage and stressed ICCROM's interest in strengthening its role as an Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee. The detailed presentation, made by ICCROM staff Herb Stovel and Nobuko Inaba, emphasized the importance of bringing the 6 year development of the Strategy to a close, given the advent of the periodic reporting process, and its expected strategic outputs for training. The ICCROM presentation covered historical development of the strategy as initially requested by the Bureau in June 1994, a brief review of ICCROM activities in support of the Convention in 2000, and outlined and elaborated on key elements of the proposed strategic approach.

XV.4 These key elements included a "framework of principles" developed in expert discussions over several years and used to define a "strategic orientation" for the training strategy, priority actions within international strategies and programmes, indicative areas of action within regional strategies and programmes, a funding and implementation strategy and particular roles and responsibilities within a World Heritage training system. The funding and implementation strategy proposed included administrative measures (enhancing use of internal assessment and periodic reporting review tools), measures concerning more focussed use of the World Heritage Fund, and measures to attract and guide external funding. The presentation of roles and responsibilities within an overall World Heritage training system elaborated on the role assigned to ICCROM as "priority partner in training" by the Committee in 1996, stressing ICCROM's co-ordination role, its quality control role, its role as builder of networks for World Heritage training, its role in development of training materials for delivery by others, and the importance of its role in developing training proposals with the World Heritage Centre.

XV.5 The delegates strongly welcomed the Strategy for providing a coherent framework, for emphasizing the link to periodic reporting and for stressing the importance of the practical guidelines. Some Delegates expressed a feeling that the existence of three different documents (two working documents and one information document) rather than a consolidated one, caused confusion. The Committee asked the Secretariat and ICCROM to produce one integrated document for consideration by the Bureau at the twenty-fifth session.

XV.6 The Committee, upon reviewing the actions proposed by the Centre in document CONF/ 204/18, adopted the following:

XV.7 The Committee, upon examining the proposed Global Training Strategy for Cultural Heritage adopted the following priority actions:

Strategic orientation

The Committee should integrate these results into its overall strategic planning process

International training perspectives

Challenges:

Priority Actions

Natural Heritage

XV.8 The Secretariat introduced the natural heritage component of the document WHC-2000/CONF.204/18 as reported on pages 13 - 15 of that document.

XV.9 IUCN agreed with the five points of action recommended by the Secretariat for adoption by the Committee. IUCN considered training to be an important tool for achieving the goals and objectives of the Convention and informed the Committee that it will start discussions with the Centre to find better ways to implement the Strategic Action Plan for Training Specialists in Natural Heritage as adopted by the eighteenth session of the Committee (Berlin, 1995). IUCN also offered to assist the Committee and the Centre to elaborate a Global Training Strategy for Natural Heritage similar to that developed by ICCROM for cultural heritage.

XV.10 The Delegate of Canada encouraged the Committee and the Centre to accept the offer of IUCN to develop Global Training Strategy for Natural Heritage. If developed, this natural heritage component, together with that developed by ICCROM for cultural heritage, will constitute a complete training strategy for the Convention.

The Committee requested the Centre to co-operate with IUCN and other relevant partners in order to:

XV.11 The Chairperson requested that the Centre should also, in accordance with the proposal made by the Delegate of South Africa, place significant emphasis on the Training of Trainers as a way to ensure sustainability of knowledge and skills transfer and a more cost-effective use of the limited resources provided by the World Heritage Fund for training specialists in natural heritage.

II. PROPOSAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A HERITAGE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME

The Chairperson referred to document WHC-2000/CONF.204/19 on the Training Strategy: Proposal for the establishment of a Heritage Partnership Programme. The Committee was informed of the background for the Heritage Partnership Programme and the close linkages between this programme and the implementation of the Global Training Strategy.

In the ensuing discussions, the Delegate of Hungary also pointed out their interest in developing a broad based partnership related not only to the implementation of the Global Training Strategy but also to other aspects of the implementation of the Convention, such as information management. The Chairperson requested the Hungarian Delegate, in consultations with the Centre and the advisory bodies, to prepare a detailed proposal with a budget breakdown on the implementation of the Heritage Partnership Programme for the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau.




XVI. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

XVI.1 The Committee decided that the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 25 to 30 June 2001.

XVI.2 The provisional agenda of this meeting is attached in >a href=repcom00-annexes.htm#annex19>Annex XIX to this report.




XVII. DATE, PLACE AND PROVISIONAL AGENDA OF THE TWENTY-FIFTH ORDINARY SESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

XVII.1 The Chairperson recalled that at the earlier sessions, Finland had offered to welcome the twenty-fifth session of the Committee in 2001. Furthermore, he also recalled that Hungary and China had proposed to host the Committee in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

XVII.2 The Delegate of Finland confirmed that her Government would have the honour of hosting in Helsinki the twenty- fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau from 7 to 8 December 2001 and the twenty-fifth session of the Committee from 11 to 16 December 2001.

XVII.3 A presentation on the World Heritage sites and the City of Helsinki was made, and the Delegate informed the Committee that an Internet site has been established to provide information on the organization of these meetings (www.minedu.fi/minedu/whmeeting).




XVIII. OTHER BUSINESS

XVIII.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Observer of Germany wished to seek clarification concerning the States Parties to the Convention, not members of the Committee, attending the session of the Bureau and the Committee. The Chairperson responded that according to Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, "States Parties to the Convention which are not members of the Committee" may attend the sessions of the Committee as observers. They shall be consulted by the Committee on all matters in respect of which consultation is prescribed by the Convention.

XVIII.2 Concerning the document sent by Hungary relating to its Vision of the Implementation of the Convention, the Chairperson proposed that this document be studied and transmitted for discussion at the next session of the Committee.

XVIII.3 Given the various issues relating to the application of cultural criterion (vi), the Chairperson informed the Committee that a meeting to discuss all criteria would be held in Paris during the next Bureau session.

XVIII.4 The Delegate of Australia then paid tribute to Mr Bing Lucas for his contribution to the work of the Committee since its creation and drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that this session would be the last one in which Mr Lucas would participate with IUCN. The members of the Committee as well as the Secretariat warmly applauded Mr Lucas.




XIX. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

XIX.1 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr. Francesco Bandarin, on behalf of the Director-General of UNESCO, thanked the Traditional Owners for their participation and the Australian authorities for having organized and provided the facilities for this session. He thanked the Chairperson and all delegates for their dedication to World Heritage and for a new spirit towards the thirtieth anniversary of the Convention. He also thanked his colleagues for their support. He highlighted the progress achieved in particular with regard to the new calendar, the improved documentation and the positive exchange between the Secretariat and the Committee.

XIX.2 The Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee expressed his gratitude to the Rapporteur for his excellent work and thanked his predecessor, Mr A. Touri (Morocco) for the guidance provided. He commended the Secretariats of both UNESCO and Environment Australia for their hard work, all members of the Committee and the advisory bodies for their constructive participation in the debates as well as the interpreters for their support. He recalled progress made with the new cycle, the budget approved and the inscription of a record number of 61 new nominations. He reminded the Committee of the work to be achieved in 2001 with a Bureau meeting in Paris, a Committee meeting in Finland as well as the thirteenth session of the General Assembly of States Parties.

XIX.3 On behalf of all members of the Committee and participants, the Delgate of Morocco, Mr Touri, thanked the Chairperson for the results achieved during the twenty-fourth session, noting in particular his flexible management style which facilitated new ideas that were brought forward as part of the reform process launched. He also highlighted the role of the new Director of the World Heritage Centre as Secretary of the Committee, to implement the decisions of the Committee during the year 2001. He also thanked Ms. Lammila (Finland), Mr. Keeffe (Australia) and Mr. Munjeri (Zimbabwe), the three Rapporteurs of the Bureau and Committee sessions in the year 2000. He thanked the Australian authorities and traditional owners for their hospitality and for providing excellent facilities for the session.

XIX.4 The Delegate of Finland thanked the Australian Government for having provided such a good model for a Committee session and invited the Committee to the twenty-fifth session which would be held in her country in 2001.

XIX.5 The Chairperson then declared the twenty-fourth session of the World Heritage Committee closed.






Annex I - List of Participants
Annexes II- XIX