TABLE OF CONTENTS

*[1]

site. The Committee decided to retain Simen National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.7 Mount Nimba Nature Reserve (Guinea/ Côte d' Ivoire)

The Committee, at its last session (Naples, 1997), had requested the State Party (Guinea) and the Centre to contact the relevant mining companies, which foresee the exploitation of an iron-ore mine in the vicinity of the Reserve, in order to learn more details of their interest to set up an international foundation for the conservation of Mt. Nimba. The Committee was informed of a letter dated 20 September 1998, from the Permanent Executive Secretary of the MAB National Committee for Guinea informing the Centre that the Nimba Mining Company (NIMCO) has been dissolved by the Government and no other enterprise has been created to replace it.

The Committee noted that the establishment of a foundation or a trust fund for the conservation of Mt. Nimba appears increasingly unlikely in the immediate future. The Committee agreed with IUCN's observation that on-site information on the state of conservation of Mt. Nimba had not been updated for about three years. It accepted IUCN's offer to request its Regional Office for West Africa in Burkina Faso to undertake a mission, at the invitation of States Parties concerned, in order to prepare a state of conservation report for submission to the twenty-third session of the Committee. The Committee decided to retain Mt. Nimba in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.8 Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)

The Committee recalled the fact that it included this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996, and requested the State Party to implement the eleven-point corrective action plan that had been endorsed by the Minister for the Environment of Honduras. The elaboration of a management plan for Rio Platano is being carried out with a contribution of US$ 30,000 from the World Heritage Fund, as part of a large scale project for strengthening the conservation of Rio Platano financed by GTZ-KFW (Germany). The Committee was informed of a hydroelectric development project (Patuca II), proposed for implementation near the Reserve. Terms of reference for a draft environmental impact assessment of the development project have been prepared; potential impacts of the project include opening of new access roads to the Reserve, reduction in downstream water flow and quality, and the loss of scenic and bio-diversity values. The Committee noted that IUCN has received a large number of reports on the hydroelectric development project, reflecting in particular the concern and disagreement of a number of indigenous peoples living in and around the area. According to these reports, the Government is promoting the rapid implementation of this project, and the process for preparing an EIA, currently underway, lacks consultation and transparency. Reports received also indicate a plan for opening a new road. Furthermore, the Committee noted that communications with relevant authorities in Honduras have become difficult following recent damages caused to the country's infrastructure by Hurricane Mitch and information on the damage caused by the hurricane to this site need to be urgently obtained.

The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee requested the Centre to contact the State Party to obtain detailed information on the proposed hydroelectric development project, including on EIA which is currently under preparation, as well as on the impact of Hurricane Mitch on Rio Platano. Moreover, the Committee requested the State Party to invite the Centre and IUCN to undertake a site visit with a view to providing a detailed state of conservation report on Rio Platano to the twenty-third session of the Committee in 1999.

VII.9 Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)

The Committee was informed that the implementation of the rehabilitation plan for this site, approved at the twenty-second session of the Bureau (June 1997), was progressing satisfactorily. All equipment purchased using the first instalment of US$ 75,000 approved under emergency assistance by the Bureau in June 1997, has been delivered to the site. The Committee agreed to the use of the small sum of unspent balance from the US$ 75,000 (i.e. US$ 872) by the UNESCO Office in New Delhi for a site-visit to Manas in early 1999. Construction of range posts and staff housing to be undertaken using the second instalment of US$ 90,000, approved by the Committee as emergency assistance at its last session (Naples, 1997), has however, been delayed due to adverse climatic conditions in the area throughout 1998, but is expected to gather momentum in 1999.

The Committee noted that while security conditions in and around Manas have improved, the threat of insurgency still prevails in the State of Assam and militants often traversed the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, the Committee was informed that the Indian authorities were of the view that conditions for site-protection and the relationship with local villagers were gradually improving. The Committee noted the fact that the Indian authorities had provided US$ 400,000 to strengthen the conservation of Manas during 1997-98 and provided an additional US$ 100,000 in 1998. Additional contributions will be considered for disbursement as soon as the funds provided so far are utilized in accordance with plans agreed upon by the Ministry of Environment and Forests in New Delhi, the State Government of Assam and site management.

The Committee decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre to continue monitoring the progress in the implementation of the rehabilitation plan for this site. Furthermore, the Committee decided to request the Director-General of UNESCO to invite the Government of Bhutan to ratify the World Heritage Convention and to consider nominating the Royal Manas National Park of Bhutan for consideration by the Committee for World Heritage status. The Committee noted that this could help to strengthen the overall protection of the trans-border Manas ecosystem.

VII.10 Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)

The Committee at its twentieth (Merida, 1996) and twenty-first (Naples, 1997) sessions had called for a site visit to evaluate the state of conservation in order to determine whether the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee was pleased to note that the findings of the Centre/State Party/IUCN mission to the site, undertaken from 21 September to 3 October 1998, and those of previous exploratory field missions of the IUCN Office in Niger undertaken with the assistance of the Swiss Development Co-operation (SDC), have indicated that the numbers of most wildlife species are recovering. The flora appears to be intact in most parts, except in some valleys where over-use by local people was noted. Some wildlife species like the ostrich however, continue to be seriously threatened by poaching and international trade in live animals and its by-products. Population size of ostrich in the Reserves has been found to be less than 10% of the 1990-91 estimates. IUCN Niger has progressed in the preparation of a new programme, in co-operation with SDC and DANIDA, for the conservation of the area, with the aim of establishing conditions for conservation of the Reserves and decentralized sustainable use initiatives. The programme will attempt to increase the economic value of the

*[10]

Reserves to local communities through eco-tourism, agriculture and animal husbandry.

The Committee noted with satisfaction that the Peace Agreement signed between the Government and rebels has been effectively implemented. Impact of rebel activities in the area on the integrity of the site has been less severe than expected. Furthermore, the Committee was informed that the State Party has submitted an emergency programme for the rehabilitation of the site which foresees the implementation of the following activities: (i) restoration of sites which were used as bases by the rebels in the past; (ii) strengthening surveillance and protection capacity; (iii) ostrich breeding in partially enclosed areas; (iv) rapid evaluation of impacts on populations of key faunal species; (v) establishment of a Committee for development and management of the site; and (vi) training workshops for selected target groups like border police, customs officers etc., on threats to natural heritage. The Committee noted that detailed proposals for each of these activities need to be elaborated in consultation with possible donors, such as UNDP so as to ensure their rapid implementation.

The Committee commended the State Party for ensuring the protection of this site in spite of rebel activity and uncertain security conditions and welcomed the interest of SDC, DANIDA, UNDP and other donors to contribute to the conservation of this site. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party and all other stakeholders to explore modalities for financing the implementation of the emergency rehabilitation plan and to identify priority activities for consideration of support from the World Heritage Fund. The Committee requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to submit to the twenty-third session of the Bureau, a plan of action for implementing the emergency rehabilitation programme and a recommendation as to whether the Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-third session in 1999.

VII.11 Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)

The Committee inscribed Ichkeul National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1996 and requested the Tunisian authorities to provide a programme of corrective measures to reverse the degradation of the site. The Committee was informed that the Bureau, at its twenty-second ordinary session (June 1998), received a report from IUCN, which provided technical data to indicate that the salinity of the water in the lake may have reached excessively high proportions and that the chances of recovery of the World Heritage values of the site may be fast receding. IUCN expressed its concern at the slow pace and effectiveness of the implementation of the rehabilitation programme by the State Party.

The Committee noted that the Observer of Tunisia had informed the Bureau of several measures undertaken by his Government to retain freshwater in the lakes on a year-round basis and thereby reduce salinity of the lake. He had described other measures taken for providing: (i) irrigation and water supply needs of the population; (ii) economic incentives to reduce the dependence on the resources of the nearby mountain which constitutes part of an area from where the waters drain into the lake; and (iii) monitoring the number of migratory birds in Ichkeul during the European winter. The Observer of Tunisia had disagreed with some of the data presented by IUCN to the Bureau.

The Committee noted that the Bureau, while being concerned regarding the feasibility of effectively rehabilitating this site and urging the State Party to take all necessary measures to ensure rapid and effective implementation of the programme for rehabilitating Ichkeul, had also recommended an expert mission to the site. The intention of the Bureau in recommending such an expert mission was to give due consideration to the possibility for developing an improved rehabilitation programme for Ichkeul and retain its status as a World Heritage site. The Committee agreed with the Bureau's suggestion that the State Party needs to be allowed sufficient time for the implementation of the rehabilitation programme. The Committee noted that the State Party has already invited an expert mission to visit the site in the second half of December 1998.

The Committee decided to retain Ichkeul National Park in the List of World Heritage in Danger and requested the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party to field the expert mission as soon as possible. The Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN ensure that the expert mission (i) establish the baseline data and information necessary for evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation measures which are being currently implemented; (ii) prepare a report on the adequacy of conservation and rehabilitation measures; and (iii) if necessary, propose additional measures that may be needed for the conservation of the site. The Committee requested the Centre to submit a report of the expert mission for review by the twenty-third session of the Bureau, and invited the State Party to provide a comprehensive report on the results of the implementation of the rehabilitation measures to the twenty-third session of the Committee, in 1999.

VII.12 Everglades National Park (United States of America)

At its last session (Naples, 1997), the Committee noted significant progress made in the state of conservation of this site following generous Federal and State allocations of financial and human resources. The Delegate of the United States of America provided a detailed state of conservation report on this site, which outlined important measures undertaken to ensure continuing progress in the restoration of this site. In particular, the Committee noted the following:

1. US$ 26 million worth of land purchases have been completed in the East Everglades Expansion Area; an additional US$ 40 million are needed to finalize the total of 109,000 acres of additional land purchases foreseen as part of the programme to expand the total extent of the Everglades National Park;

2. The western population of the cape sable seaside sparrow has suffered from abnormally prolonged wet periods which had been created by water management structures that artificially keep waters in the western Shark Slough in order to keep the eastern parts dry. Flooding denies the sparrow access to its nesting sites, found only in the transitional grasslands of the western Shark Slough. Restoration of water flows to the eastern Shark Slough is a high priority measure for the restoration of the overall Everglades ecosystem and will serve the interests of the sparrow as well. Everglades National Park and the Fish and Wildlife Services are planning water diversions to the Eastern Shark Slough. Fortunate dry weather conditions coincided with the nesting season of the sparrow in April 1998 and enabled breeding success comparable to the previous year;

3. Legislation has been introduced in the US Congress that would permanently retain the presence of the Miccosukee Tribe within the Everglades National Park. Any agreement for providing a site for the Tribe's continued practice of its living culture may come into conflict with the restoration of water flows through the eastern Shark Slough (where the Miccosukee Tribe is located), considered to be a essential measure for the restoration of the overall Everglades ecosystem.

*[11]

The Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that despite significant progress in acquiring land, and allocating financial and human resources necessary for the restoration of the Everglades, the US Government believes that the site continues to be in Danger. In response to a question raised by IUCN as to how the State Party would determine when the site could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, the United States Delegate pointed that success measures to determine effects of the restoration activities are being developed and will be reported to the Committee in due course.

The Committee agreed to the request of the State Party and decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.13 Yellowstone National Park (United States of America)

At its last session (Naples, 1997), the Committee noted that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Lands and Minerals Management and the Under Secretary of Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment had both signed, on 12 August 1997, the decision authorizing the withdrawal of mineral entry from 22,065 ha near Cooke City, Montana. The potential threat due to the extraction of the New World Mine by Crown Butte was thus mitigated. The Delegate of the United States of America informed the Committee that since then his Government has entered into an additional agreement with Crown Butte to devote US$ 22.5 million of the US$ 65 million to clean up contamination from nearly 100 years of mining near Yellowstone. The New World Mine property was formally transferred to the US Forest Service on 12 August 1998; the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency have begun developing a plan to remedy historic mine impacts.

A potential threat to Yellowstone's bison population arises from the concerns of the livestock regulatory officials that free-ranging bison might transmit brucellosis to domestic cattle on private and public lands outside the Park. These concerns have resulted in a law-suit being brought against the National Park Service in 1995, and created pressure on the Park authorities to develop an interim plan which, amongst other measures, foresaw the capture and slaughter of bison which are infected with the disease both within and outside of the Park. Given that the capture and slaughter outrages the public, bison management is likely to remain contentious. The work of the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Committee is facilitating information exchange among several state and federal agencies and is addressing various issues regarding brucellosis in wildlife, notably bison and elk. The purchase of 15,000 acres of critical areas of the bison's winter range, in November 1998, may contribute further towards the development of a long-term bison management plan that would minimize the need for widespread slaughter witnessed in the winter of 1997.

The ascertained threat to the Yellowstone cutthroat trout, caused by the invasion of the non-native Yellowstone Lake trout also continues to prevail, despite the fact various mitigation measures are being attempted. A serious decline in the population of cutthroat trout could impact grizzly bears, bald eagle and 40 other mammalian and avian species which feed on the native fish species to some extent. Intensive gill netting and liberal angling regulations have helped to remove more then 6000 non-native trout from the Yellowstone Lake. But netting programmes appear to be affecting adults only and the population of the non-native species could show a resurgence as juveniles enter the fishery.

The Park management continues its efforts to address other ascertained threats to water quality due to leaking wastes and sewage and regulate visitor pressure and improve Park roads to ensure safety of visitors. While the Park management is investigating several options to minimize the impacts of these threats, progress in implementing remedial actions is slow and the Delegate of the United States informed the Committee that his Government believes that Yellowstone is still in Danger. The Committee agreed with the request of the State Party and decided to retain Yellowstone in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee applauded the exemplary dedication and highest levels of commitment that the US Government has shown in its efforts to mitigate threats to the two sites included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

 

CULTURAL HERITAGE

VII.14 Butrinti (Albania)

On the basis of a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-Butrint Foundation assessment mission (October 1997), the Committee at its twenty-first session decided to inscribe Butrinti on the List of World Heritage in Danger and to allocate US$ 100,000 as emergency assistance for the implementation of remedial actions.

The Secretariat reported that arrangements had been made with the Albanian authorities for the implementation of concrete actions, such as an inventory and publication of stolen archaeological objects, purchase of water pumps, improvement of fences, the construction of sanitary facilities and repairs at the museum building and the storage facilities. It also advised the Albanian authorities on the redefinition of the boundaries of the World Heritage site and the establishment of a buffer zone.

The Butrint Foundation organized in April 1998 a workshop to define the guidelines for a master plan and in September 1998 on the presentation and preservation of the baptistery and its extremely well preserved mosaics. The Government of Greece made a high-level expert available for the workshop. Consultations are underway with the European Union, The World Bank and public and private organizations, with a view to incorporate the planning for Butrinti in local and regional planning schemes.

The Government of Albania decided in August 1998 to create an Office for the Protection of the World Heritage Site of Butrinti for co-ordination and implementation of coherent actions for the site.

The Committee commended the Albanian authorities and collaborating institutions on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 1997 assessment mission. It congratulated the Government of Albania for the decision to create the Office for the Protection of the World Heritage Site of Butrinti and encouraged the authorities to provide it with adequate authority and human and financial resources.

The Committee confirmed that it places particular importance on the redefinition of the boundaries and buffer zone of the site, as well as the preparation of a management and master plan.

The Committee requested the Secretariat to submit a report on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 1997 assessment mission to its twenty-third session.

The Committee decided to retain Butrinti on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.15 Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin)

At the request of the World Heritage Committee, the Benin authorities prepared a conservation plan, partly financed by the World Heritage Fund. This conservation plan was developed as

*[12]

an instrument for co-operation and partnership to coordinate and ensure the coherence of actions carried out at the site. The Benin Government has allocated additional funding for the implementation of this plan.

Among the objectives set for the coming five years are:

- the establishment of partnerships at the local, national and international level,

- the increase of resources for the museum and the establishment of dynamic management and strengthening of capacities of the museum team, and the creation of a data base on the site,

- the creation of a management advisory body and establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system,

- the strengthening of legal protection,

- improved promotion, in line with the increased knowledge of the site and its components,

- the removal of the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, after an initial programme of action of five years.

The Committee congratulated the Benin authorities for their efforts in preparing the conservation plan, and the allocation of additional resources for this site. The Committee requested the Benin authorities to report to the Committee at its twenty-fourth session concerning the progress made in the implementation of this plan.

The Committee decided to retain the Royal Palaces of Abomey on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.16 Angkor (Cambodia)

The Director of UNESCO's Division of Cultural Heritage, reported on progress made in the safeguarding of the site of Angkor which was inscribed on the World Heritage List and simultaneously on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 1992.

He recalled that international assistance for Angkor is co-ordinated by an International Co-ordinating Committee co-chaired by the Ambassadors of Japan and France in Phnom Penh, with a Secretariat provided by UNESCO. The International Co-ordinating Committee for Angkor meets periodically to set priorities and monitor the conservation work on the site as well as to mobilize the necessary funds. He commented that through the international efforts to safeguard Angkor, the site is now the largest conservation workshop in the world.

Among the 1998 priorities decided upon by the International Co-ordinating Committee and supported by the Cambodian Minister of State and the Minister for Culture, were hydrological studies of the moats of Angkor financed under Emergency Assistance approved by the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in June 1998. The Director reported that the operational projects being financed by UNESCO funds-in-trust and managed by the different international teams progress normally. Phase II of the restoration project for the Pre Rup Temple, financed by the Government of Italy through its UNESCO funds-in-trust, will commence in November 1998. A digital imagery department is also being set up at the photographic laboratory at the Angkor Conservation Office, with international assistance through UNESCO.

In additional, he reported that a bilaterally-financed project to restore the Preah Ko Temple will recommence in November 1998.

Commenting on the Secretariat's report, the Delegate of Japan announced that the "First Phase of Safeguarding Angkor" activities will be concluded in the spring of 1999 and financed by the Japanese Government with a US$ 10 million contribution to UNESCO funds-in-trust. A "Second Phase" will commence in June 1999 with an additional commitment of Japan to contribute a further US$ 10 million over the course of the next six years, also through UNESCO funds-in-trust. The Delegate of Japan requested closer co-ordination between the Centre and the Cultural Heritage Division, in the implementation of international assistance activities at Angkor.

The Rapporteur, speaking in his capacity as the Delegate of Hungary, requested that the documentation of activities undertaken with international assistance which is routinely prepared for the Angkor International Co-ordinating Committee be made available to the Committee. He commented that documentation of this type – especially topographic data – is also important for periodic reporting.

The Delegate of France commented that the assistance to Angkor is internationally-co-ordinated assistance, contributed to by many donor countries, including France, and that this important fact should not be overlooked by the Committee.

The Delegate of the Republic of Korea commented that in spite of the considerable resources which are being committed by the international community to Angkor, this will not have the desired effect in safeguarding the site unless the Government of Cambodia and the international community increase their diligence in preventing the theft and traffic in cultural property from Angkor. He also inquired as to the guarantees of transparency and effective use of the considerable funds contributed to Angkor.

Italy supported the need for vigilance in preventing illicit traffic in cultural property, recalling the provisions of the UNIDROIT Convention in this respect.

Thailand explained the successful measures that have been taken to cut down on illicit cross-border trafficking in cultural property from Cambodia to Thailand.

The Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage explained UNESCO's support for action to combat illicit traffic in cultural property from Cambodia. He also clarified that funds-in-trust with UNESCO are subject to both internal and external audits.

The Rapporteur, speaking in his capacity as the Delegate of Hungary, also commented that the UNIDROIT Convention was starting to work in the market states as well as in the source states, pointing specifically to the return of suspected stolen works of art by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

The Committee noted the report of the Secretariat concerning Angkor and commended the continued efforts of the International Co-ordinating Committee in mobilizing international support for Angkor. The Committee expressed appreciation for the progress made in the implementation of the various restoration and training projects. The Committee requested the State Party and the Secretariat to continue its work in promoting measures to prevent the illicit traffic of cultural properties and to keep the Committee informed on developments in this regard.

The Committee decided to retain Angkor on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

 VII.17 Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)

On the basis of a substantive report on the state of conservation of Dubrovnik that was submitted by the Croatian authorities, ICOMOS advised that it was greatly impressed by the restoration works undertaken in Dubrovnik, and strongly supported the request made by Croatia to delete Dubrovnik from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee, following the recommendation of the Bureau, decided with great satisfaction to delete the Old City of Dubrovnik from the List of World Heritage in Danger. It congratulated the Croatian authorities for the effective measures taken for the preservation and restoration of this World Heritage site.

It encouraged the authorities to continue and complete the excellent works of restoration and rehabilitation and to give due consideration to risk preparedness in the future planning and management of the city.

VII.18 Bahla Fort (Oman)

Following previous expert missions, a third mission took place in September 1998 to assess the quality of the restoration works in terms of authenticity and use of materials, advise on future works and particularly on the preparation of a management plan for an extended area, including the Fort and the oasis, as well as on the hydro-graphic survey that should be urgently undertaken.

The mission reported that photogrammetric works were due to begin, facilitating therefore the restoration of the Fort. It recommended, among other things, that the conservation plan be completed including planning of archaeological works.

Finally, considering that the situation in the site has improved in a sensible manner, the mission discussed with the authorities the possibility of reinforcing the cost-sharing approach used so far. It submitted to the authorities a draft proposal and the Centre was awaiting a reply on this proposal.

The Committee commended the Government of Oman for the actions taken for the preservation of the Fort. It requested the Secretariat to collaborate with the national authorities in the preparation of a five-year conservation plan for the entire oasis, for examination by the Committee at its twenty-third session.

The Committee decided to retain the Bahla Fort on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VII.19 Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)

The Government of Peru submitted in the course of 1998 periodic progress reports on the preparation of the management plan by an interdisciplinary team of experts.

As to the impact of the El Nino phenomenon, the Secretariat informed that this has been relatively modest and that the protective measures, undertaken with emergency assistance from the World Heritage Fund, were effective.

As to training, a second Pan-American Course on the Conservation and Management of Earthen Architectural and Archaeological Heritage will be held in Chan Chan in 1999 jointly organized by the Government of Peru, ICCROM, CRATerre EAG and the Getty Conservation Institute. This course will directly benefit to the preservation and management planning for the site.

The Committee commended the Government of Peru for its initiative to prepare a management plan for the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone. It requested the Government to submit the management plan as soon as it is finalized together with a report on the arrangements for its implementation.

The Committee decided to retain the Chan Chan Archaeological Zone on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

 VII.20 Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)

The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had received from the Polish authorities a technical report assessing the effectiveness of the dehumidifying system at the mines. The report stated that the system had contributed to the elimination of one of the major preservation hazards to historic sculptures, chambers and passages in the salt mine.

ICOMOS advised that the report was credible and that it fully supported the deletion of the Salt Mines from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Committee noted with satisfaction that the dehumidifying system, installed with the support of the World Heritage Fund, the Polish-American Fund of Maria Sklodowska-Curie and the Polish Government, had proven to be effective and made it possible to eliminate one of the major threats to the site.

It decided, therefore, to delete the Wieliczka Salt Mines from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

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

VII.21 The Bureau at its twenty-second extraordinary session examined the state of conservation of eighty-one properties inscribed on the World Heritage List (thirty-two natural; eight mixed and forty-one cultural properties), as well as World Heritage sites in Central America. The Committee examined nineteen of them and noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau on the remaining properties as reflected in Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5 (Report of the Bureau) and WHC-98/CONF.203/8.Rev.

 

NATURAL HERITAGE

a) Reports on the state of conservation of natural properties examined by the Committee

VII.22 Plitvice Lakes National Park (Croatia)

Since the Committee decided to remove this site from the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-first session, the Centre has received a brief status report on the site's protection. A seven-member Administrative Council is responsible for the management of the site. The Park has statutes and rules of procedures, with regulating principles for residents, staff and visitors. Further positive results have been achieved with the efforts to limit traffic through the Park by the construction of a detour around the Park. The authorities had provided a map showing the extension of the Park's boundaries by about 100 km^2. The map has been returned to the Croatian authorities requesting them, in accordance with the recommendation of the last session of the Committee, to nominate the extension of the 100 km² using standard nomination procedures set out in paragraph 64 of the Operational Guidelines.

The Committee commended the authorities for their continuing efforts to enhance the protection of Plitvice Lakes National Park and urged them to nominate, as soon as possible, the 100km² extension, using standard nomination procedures set out in paragraph 64 of the Operational Guidelines.

*[14]

VII.23 Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)

The Committee at its twenty-first session invited the Government of Ecuador to notify the Chairperson of the Committee of the final enactment and entering into force of the Galapagos Special Law. The Committee decided that if, by the opening date of the twenty-second ordinary session of the Bureau, the Government of Ecuador had not notified the Chairperson of the enactment and entry into force of the "Special Galapagos Law", the Galapagos Islands be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

At its twenty-second ordinary session in June 1998, the Bureau was informed that the "Special Law on the Galapagos" was published, on 18 March 1998, by the Official Registry of Ecuador as Law No. 278, and that the Chairperson of the Committee had been officially notified of the enactment and the entry into force of the Law. Hence, the Bureau recommended that the Committee not consider Galapagos Islands for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Bureau noted that the Law, if implemented, would greatly strengthen conservation in both the Galapagos Islands as well as in the marine waters surrounding them. The Law provides for the extension of the outer boundary of the marine reserve from 24 to 64 km offshore and for the establishment of a significant 130,000 km² Reserve for the conservation of marine biodiversity where only tourism and artisanal fisheries will be permitted. The Bureau was satisfied to note that the Law addresses most of the major issues relating to conservation and sustainable development of Galapagos, including:

• regulations for the control and eradication of introduced species and the establishment of a quarantine inspection system;

• appreciation of Galapagos by local people and their participation in its conservation through environmental education;

• building local skills and conservation institutions, including the strengthening of the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and improving inter-agency co-ordination through the work of a revived INGALA (Instituto National de Galapagos);

• immigration and residence control measures to stabilise the rate of growth of human population size; and

• a participatory planning process for marine resources conservation.

The Bureau commended the Government of Ecuador and all agencies, groups, local residents and experts for reaching a consensus on this new Law. The Bureau urged the Ecuadorian authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the Law and invited them to re-nominate the Marine Reserve, deferred by the Committee in 1994, to be a part of the World Heritage site as soon as the management plan for the Marine Reserve is finalized in 1999.

The Charles Darwin Research Station (CDRS) and the GNPS have jointly implemented a project, partly financed by the World Heritage Fund, to gather basic information needed for the establishment of an ecological monitoring system for Galapagos. The final report of the project has been submitted and includes an exhaustive list of introduced species belonging to a number of animal and plant taxa. The Bureau was informed that an Inter-American Development Bank Project is being developed for Galapagos and, if approved, could facilitate the effective implementation of the Special Galapagos Law, particularly with regard to the conservation of marine resources and for ensuring sustainable tourism development. The Bureau learned that the UNESCO Office in Quito has entered into agreement with the Ecuadorian Ministry for the Environment for providing legal assistance on the implementation of the Galapagos Law and that the volcanic eruption of the Cerro Azul on Isabela Island did not have any major impacts on the wildlife of Galapagos.

The Committee commended the Ecuadorean Government for ensuring the passage of, and entry into force of the Special Galapagos Law and decided not to consider including the Galapagos Islands in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee urged the State Party to re-nominate, in 1999, the Marine Reserve as an extension of the World Heritage site. The Committee drew the attention of the State Party to the Bureau's recommendation, made at its twenty-first ordinary session in June 1997, that the State Party submit annual reports on the state of conservation of Galapagos until the end of the year 2002. The Committee invited the State Party to submit the first of the requested series of annual reports to the twenty-third session of the Committee in 1999.

VII.24 Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)

At its twenty-second session, the Bureau was informed that a number of laws for the national protection of the Lake existed and that the Duma had adopted the Federal Law on "The Protection of the Baikal Lake" which was, however, vetoed by the President. The Federal Law had been tabled for a third reading in the Duma, taking into account comments made by the President's intervention. In addition to the legal concerns, the authorities had not come to any conclusions regarding the re-profiling of the Pulp and Paper Mill at Baikalsk, one of the main polluters of the Lake. The Observer of the Russian Delegation attending the Bureau session in June 1998 pointed out that the situation at Lake Baikal is of major concern, due to its unresolved legal status, continuing and increasing pollution, lack of resources for management and monitoring, and logging and other negative factors. The Observer was of the view that the site is under serious threat and that the State Party would not oppose inclusion of the site in the List of World Heritage Danger.

The Bureau had expressed its serious concerns over the threats to the integrity of Lake Baikal, and urged the State Party to inform the Centre, before 15 September 1998, of the status of the Baikal Law and its adoption as well as a time table for its implementation. The Bureau drew the attention of the Russian authorities to paragraphs 82-89 of the Operational Guidelines ("Procedure for the Inclusion of Properties in the List of World Heritage in Danger") and invited them to prepare a programme of corrective measures for submission to its twenty-second extraordinary session.

The Bureau was informed that the State Committee for the Environment had indicated, on 17 November 1998, that the Law is currently being revised and that, according to the UNESCO Office, Moscow, the reason for the revision was the need to include financial measures to implement the Law. The revision has been done both by the Region of Irkutsk and the Buryat Republic and has been through the Duma. It is expected that the Law will be approved in the near future. Concerning the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, the Minister for Economy proposed an international competition to transform the mill. The State Committee however, indicated that there is no solution yet and the closing of the mill would aggravate the social problems of the region. Monitoring of the site is underway, despite financial problems. IUCN informed the Bureau that it does not recommend the inclusion of Lake Baikal in the List of World Heritage in Danger at present.

The Observer of the Russian Federation stated that the law is being processed and that monitoring of the state of conservation of the site is underway. He informed the Committee that a meeting of the Governmental Baikal Commission is scheduled

*[15]

for late December 1998. He underlined that the Russian Federation tries to fulfil its obligations under the World Heritage Convention and to protect the site.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the State Committee for the Environment and IUCN. It expressed its serious concerns about the problems of the site as indicated in the report of the twenty-second session of the Bureau. The Committee re-iterated its requests made at the time of the inscription of the site, in particular the urgent need to re-profile the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill and the adoption of the Baikal Law. The Committee noted that IUCN does not recommend inclusion of the Lake Baikal in the List of World Heritage in Danger at present.

VII.25 Doñana National Park (Spain)

At its twenty-second session, the Bureau was informed that a giant holding pool of the Aznalcollar mine owned by the Canadian-Swedish Boliden-Apirsa Company burst resulting in an ecological disaster. Although the main toxic flow had been diverted away from the National Park, the adjoining areas have been badly damaged. The Bureau was informed that the spill could spread into the World Heritage area as pollutants dispersed more widely. The State Party had submitted a number of technical reports on the situation and on actions taken to mitigate the threats. The President of the Spanish MAB Committee had proposed the organization of an international conference to review actions taken and rehabilitation plans elaborated for the conservation of the site and provided an outline for a project entitled "Doñana 2005". The State Party had welcomed UNESCO involvement and suggested that financial support be considered for this purpose. The Bureau had expressed its serious concerns on the long-term restoration of the property and urged the State Party to undertake all possible measures to mitigate the threats. Furthermore, the Bureau had requested the State Party to collaborate with UNESCO, IUCN and the Ramsar Convention to prepare an international expert conference to develop a long-term vision, and to compile a detailed report in time for the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee.

The Bureau was informed that at the invitation of the Spanish Government, the Centre carried out a mission from 10 to 13 November 1998 reviewing the situation at the site and the area affected by the toxic spill. The Centre received a number of documents presented by the Spanish authorities on the actions undertaken since the last session of the Bureau, including the Doñana 2005 project. The project "Doñana 2005 - hydrological regeneration of the watersheds and river channels flowing towards Doñana National Park", has been prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. It mainly proposes: (a) to avoid the influx of contaminated water into the Doñana marshes; (b) to restore the flow of waters towards Doñana in the long term (drinking water; original hydrological dynamics); and (c) to maintain the hydrological system of the connection between Doñana and the Guadalquivir Estuary. The Bureau noted that the World Heritage site and the Biosphere Reserve are currently little affected, whereas the Natural Park around the site has been impacted by the toxic spill. The actions taken by the Spanish authorities have been substantial. The Bureau suggested that great caution should be taken in re-starting mining activities and requested that EIAs be carried out for each step.

The Observer of Spain reiterated the threats to ecological integrity of the region and expressed his appreciation for the mission carried out prior to the Committee session to review the situation. He noted that, while the World Heritage site and UNESCO Biosphere Reserve were little affected by the spill, the impacts for the surrounding Natural Park and also for the agriculture and fisheries were considerable. He underlined the need to purify the polluted waters upstream of the site and the estuary using biological filters and silt lagoons and the restoration of the marsh dynamics and ecological mechanisms. He provided copies of the "Doñana 2005" project to the Chairperson, IUCN and the Centre, which would need a budget of approximately US$ 120,000.000.

IUCN underlined the lesson learnt from the Doñana spill that had also been learnt from other cases such as Everglades, Srebarna and Ichkeul; i.e. that many World Heritage natural sites are at the mercy of activities occurring upstream in the drainage basin of the site.

The Committee reiterated the Bureau's request that the State Party collaborates with UNESCO, IUCN and the Ramsar Convention to organize an international expert conference and to present its results to the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The Committee also invited the State Party to submit, in time for the next Bureau session, details concerning the financing plan and a time table for the implementation of the project "Doñana 2005" to be carried out in the framework of the Man and the Biosphere Reserve Programme (MAB). The Committee commended the State Party for the actions taken to prevent impacts to the World Heritage site by the toxic spill. It requested the State Party to proceed with great caution with regard to re-opening the mine and to monitor long-term impacts for both the World Heritage site and the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

VII.26 Canaima National Park (Venezuela)

The Committee at its twenty-first session expressed its concern with regard to the integrity of the Canaima National Park due to considerable threats posed by a proposal to erect a series of power transmission lines across the Park. At its twenty-second session, the Bureau was informed that the Director-General of UNESCO had transmitted the Committee's concerns and recommendations to the President of Venezuela. In his response, the President of Venezuela had re-affirmed the commitment of his Government to protect the World Heritage site and welcomed the possibility of a UNESCO mission to the site to evaluate the project and determine the boundaries of the World Heritage site. An IUCN-Centre mission to Venezuela, including a site visit to Canaima, planned for late August 1998, had to be postponed upon instructions from the Resident Representative of UNDP in Venezuela. In the meantime, IUCN has received several reports from indigenous people living in the Gran Sabana and the Imataca areas expressing their strong concerns over the future of the Canaima National Park. Although the Committee's deliberations have revolved around the construction of the power line, IUCN has pointed out that serious attention should be given to plans to open up the fragile ecosystem of this Park and the Imataca rainforest to large-scale mining, tourism and logging concessions

On 28 September 1998, the Permanent Delegation of Venezuela to UNESCO invited the Centre and IUCN to field a site visit as soon as possible. The Bureau was informed that the UN Resident Representative in Caracas, Venezuela, is unable to provide clearance for the mission until 9 December 1998. A mission is foreseen for early 1999. IUCN has suggested that the Committee's recommendation, made at the time of inscription of the site (December 1994), that the Government of Venezuela co-operate with the Centre and IUCN to "initiate a process to review the boundaries of the site, taking into consideration the interests of the local people and the need to focus the nomination on the Tepui portion (approximately 2 million ha) of the Park", be used as a basis for establishing the terms of reference for the mission.

The Committee called upon the Centre and IUCN to field a mission to Canaima as soon as security clearance from the UN Resident Co-ordinator for Venezuela is available. The Committee agreed with IUCN that the terms of reference for the mission be derived from the recommendations of the Committee made at the

*[16]

time of the inscription of this site on the World Heritage List in 1994. The Committee requested that the findings of the mission and its recommendation concerning whether Canaima needs to be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger be submitted to the twenty-third session of the Bureau in 1999.

a) Reports on the state of conservation of natural properties noted by the Committee

 

VII.27 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV on the following properties:

Great Barrier Reef (Australia)

In addition to the report noted by the Committee (Annex IV), the Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that Australia hosted an International Symposium on Tropical Marine Ecosystem Management (ITMEMS), which called upon the global community for urgent action and co-ordinated efforts to address threats to coral reefs and tropical marine systems. The Committee noted and supported this initiative, and encouraged States Parties to identify suitable areas of coral reefs, mangroves and sea grasses for nomination to the World Heritage List and protection under other international treaties.

Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia)
Shark Bay, Western Australia (Australia)
Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/Poland)
Iguacu National Park (Brazil)
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)
Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area (China)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
Morne Trois Pitons National Park (Dominica)
Nanda Devi National Park (India)
Whale Sanctuary of El Viscaino (Mexico)
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
Sagarmatha National Park (Nepal)
Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (Oman)

Huascaran National Park (Peru)
The Committee noted that the Bureau's decision reflected the suggestion to establish an informal contact group on mining and World Heritage and that the IUCN "Draft Policy on Mining and Protected Areas" will be circulated.

Kamchatka Volcanoes (Russian Federation)
The Observer of the Russian Federation informed the Committee that the Federal and Regional authorities agree with the development of the Aginskoe Gold Mine project in the Kamchatka Province. The new data and documents which were transmitted to the Centre, include the results of a Feasibility Study which noted that the proposed development of the mining project is outside the territory of the Bystrinsky Natural Park. The Committee noted IUCN's efforts to monitor the state of conservation of this area of the World Heritage site if the proposed Aginskoe Gold Mine Project proceeds.

Virgin Komi Forests (Russian Federation)
The Observer of the Russian Federation confirmed that gold exploration has been halted and that the affected lands are being restored.

Skocjan Caves (Slovenia)

Thung Yai-Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand)
The Delegate of Thailand informed the Committee that the fire affected only a small part of the site and that such surface fires are a normal part of the dynamics of the dipterocarp forest ecosystem. His statement is included as Annex V of this report.

St. Kilda (United Kingdom)
The Observer of the United Kingdom informed the Committee that the following statement should be included in the text: The decision on the blocks offered for petroleum licensing was agreed with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee who co-ordinated their response with Scottish Nature.

Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
The Observer of Vietnam informed the Committee that his Government noted the Bureau report and considered that the preservation and conservation of the World Heritage site should be parallel and in harmony with the socio-economic development of the area. With regard to Ha Long Bay, the Vietnam authorities have the initial results of the JICA (Japan) Environmental Management Study which show that there are no serious environmental impacts in the World Heritage area. The final results of the study will provide further clarification and a clearer picture.

Durmitor National Park (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)
The Committee noted the UN official name for the State Party: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls (Zambia/Zimbabwe)
The Delegate of Zimbabwe pointed out that the response of the Zimbabwean Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management (ZDNPWLM) concerning the hotel development proposal has been reflected in the Annex IV to this report, and that the organization of a bi-national meeting with representatives from the Governments of Zambia and Zimbabwe should be in the framework of the existing co-operation.

MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE

a) Reports on the state of conservation of mixed properties examined by the Committee

VII.28 Kakadu National Park (Australia)

The twenty-first sessions of the World Heritage Committee and Bureau examined reports on the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park from the Australian authorities and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 1997. Reports were also examined by the twenty-second session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in June 1998. The reports from IUCN noted potential threats from the proposal to commence construction of a uranium mine on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease within one of the three enclaves in the World Heritage property. The Commonwealth Government of Australia provided reports to demonstrate its commitment to the conservation of World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park. The reports detailed the assessment and approvals process that has allowed development of the Jabiluka uranium mine site to proceed. The reports also outlined the assessment process being conducted to determine the milling and tailing management options for the Jabiluka mine. The World Heritage Centre had received many protest letters concerning the Jabiluka mine from around the world.

The Chairperson recalled that the twenty-second session of the Bureau in June 1998, requested that an expert mission be fielded to Kakadu National Park, Australia and that the report of the

*[17]

mission be presented to the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau and the twenty-second session of the Committee.

The Chairperson recalled that the mission report (WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.18) was presented to, and discussed by, the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau. Furthermore he noted that the Bureau had agreed upon a number of recommendations and that two of the advisory bodies, IUCN and ICOMOS, had made statements on the subject. He recalled that the mission had been led by the former Chairperson of the Committee, Professor Francioni (Italy). He thanked Professor Francioni for the leadership he had provided in examining the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park and thanked the other six members of the mission team – the Director of the World Heritage Centre, P. Dugan (IUCN), P. Parker (ICOMOS), J. Cook (US National Park Service) and J. Altman and R. Green from Australia. Furthermore, he thanked the Australian authorities for their considerable assistance and hospitality during the mission.

The Chairperson acknowledged the presence of Yvonne Margarula the senior traditional owner from the Mirrar Gundjehmi Aboriginal clan. The Mirrar are the traditional owners for the area covered by the Jabiluka and Ranger mining leases. Their traditional land extends into Kakadu National Park. He then invited Professor Francioni to present the main findings and recommendations of the mission and the recommendations of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau.

Professor Francioni began his presentation (Annex VI.1) by referring to the objective of the mission as being to determine and describe any ascertained and potential threats to the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park, particularly in relation to possible threats arising from the Jabiluka uranium mining proposal. He referred to the presentation he had made at the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau at which time he had outlined the mandate, organization and membership of the mission, and the process of report preparation (WHC-98/CONF.203/5).

Professor Francioni informed the Committee that the mission report focuses primarily on ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park posed by the Jabiluka mining proposal, and presents 16 recommendations. He noted that the mission had concluded, in its first recommendation, that there are severe ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka. The mission therefore recommended that the proposal to mine and mill uranium at Jabiluka should not proceed.

Professor Francioni projected a map of Kakadu National Park that showed three mineral leases (Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra) located within enclaves of the Park. He showed a slide of the open cut uranium mine at Ranger which has been in operation for 18 years and is expected to continue operating for another seven or eight years. He then showed slides illustrating the status of the construction of the uranium mine at Jabiluka at the end of October 1998. He informed the Committee that the Jabiluka mine will be an underground mine that will however, require significant surface works and facilities. He showed the location of the mine portal that provides an entrance to the 1,800 metre mine decline currently under construction and the location of the retention pond.

Professor Francioni reported that the mission had been concerned that the construction of a mine, and mining of uranium, at Jabiluka have been presented to the Committee as a fait accompli. Furthermore he commented that the mission had noted the relevance of Paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines as it clearly states that States Parties should inform the Committee of their intention to undertake or to authorize major restorations or new constructions which may affect World Heritages values and before making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse.

Professor Francioni informed the Committee that the mission had seriously questioned the compatibility of mining, and particularly uranium mining and milling, with such close proximity, and upstream from, a World Heritage property. The mission regarded the Jabiluka mine as contributing threats that are posing both ascertained and potential dangers to the cultural and natural values of the World Heritage property. The mission determined that there are three issues of scientific uncertainty that lead to a finding of potential danger: (i) the degree of uncertainty concerning the quality of the hydrological modeling carried out in designing the water management plan for the mine site; (ii) the degree of uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of the concrete pasting process as a means of storing the tailings in the mine void, and (iii) the possible impacts on catchment ecosystems. The mission had therefore concluded that application of the Precautionary Principle required that mining operations at Jabiluka not proceed.

Professor Francioni referred to the visual impacts and dangers to the cultural values and living cultural heritage of Kakadu National Park. He referred to the mission's findings concerning the lack of recognition of the Kakadu cultural landscape and the need to reassess and expand the boundaries of the Park. He briefly outlined the threats to the continuation of the "joint management" regime at Kakadu National Park, referred to an overall breakdown in trust and communication between some stakeholders, and informed the Committee of the mission's recommendation concerning the Koongarra Mineral Lease, the town of Jabiru and invasive plant and animal species.

In conclusion, Professor Francioni referred briefly to the recommendations of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau and again emphasised that in spite of the dangers to the World Heritage values of Kakadu National Park, construction of the mine at Jabiluka began earlier this year and is currently progressing.

The Chairperson thanked Professor Francioni for his detailed and exhaustive presentation.

The Delegate of Thailand observed that the issue confronting the Committee was charged with emotion. He noted that the enclaves of Ranger, Jabiluka and Koongarra are excised from the World Heritage property and were therefore not included in the three stages of the nomination of Kakadu National Park in 1981, 1987 and 1992. He stated that he could not accept the Delegate of Australia's view that a World Heritage property can only be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger with the consent of the State Party concerned. He maintained that the World Heritage Committee has the authority under the Convention (Article 11(4)) to place any World Heritage property threatened by serious and specific dangers on the List of World Heritage in Danger at any time in case of urgent need. He noted that Dubrovnik had been inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger without consultation with the State Party. He commented that the consent of a State Party is only required in the case of a property being included on the World Heritage List.

The Delegate of Thailand referred to the sovereign rights of the State Party and to the authority of the Committee to enter a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He asked the Delegate of Australia for confirmation concerning the proposed system of disposing of the tailings from future mining of uranium at Jabiluka. He questioned whether the system had been designed so as to ensure that there would not be the possibility of spillage, leakage or underground seepage of any contaminants at any time and under any circumstances whatsoever from the disposal site.

*[18]

The Delegate of the United States of America referred to the recommendations of the twenty-second session of the Bureau being examined by the Committee, as a consensus text that tries to establish an equilibrium recognizing the rights of States Parties, the interests of the Convention and the concerns of Bureau members. She reminded the Committee that the language of the recommendations was developed over long hours of consultation between the parties concerned. She therefore moved that the recommendations be immediately adopted. The Delegate of Japan endorsed the proposal.

Following an extensive debate concerning the procedural mechanism to be used to implement the recommendations of the twenty-second session of the Bureau, the Committee adopted the following decision:

The Committee recognised the report of the mission to Kakadu National Park as being both thorough and credible. The Committee:

1. expressed grave concern at the ascertained and potential dangers to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park which, as noted in the mission report, are posed primarily by the proposal for uranium mining and milling at Jabiluka;

2. noted with concern that in spite of the dangers to the World Heritage values, construction of the mine at Jabiluka began in June 1998 and is currently progressing;

3. has been informed by the Australian authorities that construction of the mine decline and site will proceed; however in the next six months no mining of uranium will take place, the construction of the mill will not commence and an export permit for the Jabiluka uranium will not be issued. The Committee has also been informed that the Australian authorities will act to complete the cultural heritage management plan with independent public review and they will accelerate the implementation of the Kakadu Region Social Impact Study;

4. noted that there is significant difference of opinion concerning the degree of certainty of the science used to assess the impact of the mine on the World Heritage values of Kakadu (notably hydrological modeling, prediction and impact of severe weather events, storage of uranium ore on the surface and the long-term storage of the mine tailings);

5. noted that the associative cultural values, and the archaeological and rock art sites, on the basis of which Kakadu National Park was inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the ability of affected Aboriginal communities to continue their traditional relationships to the land, are threatened by the Jabiluka mine proposal; and,

6. emphasized the fundamental importance of ensuring thorough and continuing participation, negotiation and communication with Aboriginal traditional owners, custodians and managers in the conservation of the outstanding heritage values of Kakadu for future generations.

In view of the ascertained and potential dangers posed by the Jabiluka uranium mine that are noted in the report of the World Heritage mission to Kakadu, and have again been noted with concern by the Committee, IUCN, ICCROM and ICOMOS, the Committee decided the following:

1. In light of the concerns expressed by the Delegate of Australia, the Australian authorities be requested to provide, by 15 April 1999, a detailed report on their efforts to prevent further damage and to mitigate all the threats identified in the World Heritage mission report, to the World Heritage cultural and natural values of Kakadu National Park, Australia. The report should address these threats posed by the construction of the Jabiluka mine, by the mining of uranium ore at Jabiluka, and the alternatives for milling the ore at Jabiluka and Ranger. The report should be prepared in accordance with the intent of (vi) above. The report submitted by the Australian authorities should include a detailed update on the implementation of the cultural heritage management plan referred to in (iii) above and in the mission report.

2. Immediately upon its receipt by the Secretariat, the report referred to in paragraph 1 above, be provided to ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN, who will ensure that the twenty-third session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, be provided with a written independent expert review concerning the mitigation of threats posing ascertained and potential dangers to Kakadu National Park by the Jabiluka mine. The expert opinion of ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN will be provided to the Secretariat by 15 May 1999 for immediate distribution to members of the Bureau and the Australian authorities.

3. The Australian authorities be requested to direct the Australian Supervising Scientist Group to conduct a full review of the scientific issues referred to in Paragraph (iv) above, to be provided to the Secretariat by 15 April 1999. The review will be submitted to peer review by an independent scientific panel composed of scientists selected by UNESCO in consultation with the International Council of Scientific Unions and the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. The report of the peer review will be provided to the Secretariat by 15 May 1999 for immediate distribution to members of the Bureau, IUCN and the Australian authorities.

4. The reports referred to in Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 will be examined by the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

5. The twenty-second session of the Committee has decided that an extraordinary session of the Committee, to immediately follow the twenty third session of the Bureau in July 1999, will be convened at UNESCO Headquarters to decide whether to immediately inscribe Kakadu National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Representative of ICOMOS said that despite the concern expressed by the Bureau at its twenty-second session in June 1998, the construction of the mine at Jabiluka was continuing. He referred to Kakadu National Park as being in danger because

*[19]

the work on the mine had continued. He questioned the legality of the proposed delegation of responsibility by the Committee to the Bureau as had been expressed in the recommendations from the twenty-second session of the Bureau. He cautioned the Committee that if it was to continue the situation could become irreversible.

The Representative of IUCN read a joint statement by IUCN and ICOMOS in which they stated that the conditions exist for inscribing Kakadu National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger (Annex VI.2). The statement also cautioned that a failure to recognise the dangers to the property would diminish the standards of, and risk prejudicing the prestige of the Convention.

The Representative of ICCROM informed the Committee that they had not been invited by the World Heritage Centre to be involved in the issue. He stated that it was important to follow the principles of the Convention. He referred in particular to ICCROM's hope that the Committee would give proper weight to the opinion of the advisory bodies in its considerations. He insisted that if scientific research provided by the advisory bodies indicates, without any doubt, that the values of Kakadu National Park are threatened, the decision is expected to be consistent with the principles previously applied and it should be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. In conclusion, he informed the Committee that ICCROM was available to assist the Committee in mediating between the different viewpoints on this issue.

The Delegate of Australia said that his Government had not stood in the path of the Committee in its consensus decision to adopt the recommendations of the Bureau. He said that while his Government could not associate itself with some of the Bureau's conclusions and judgments, it would undertake to provide the reports and reviews requested by the Committee. The Delegate of Australia then responded to a number of the concerns expressed by Committee members as to the urgency of the issue (see Annex VI.3).

The Delegate of France referred to the mission report as being impressive, complete, and highly accurate with a clear commentary having been presented by the former Chairperson. He referred to the decision of the Committee as leaving little time for Australia to provide its point of view and commented that this was right and correct. He did say however that he was not entirely satisfied. Indeed, he noted that the time that had been granted would enable a response from the Australian authorities however, the mining company will proceed with its work. He said that he found this a little shocking as it could be interpreted as jeopardizing the Committee and its authority. He warned that the mining company might think that the Committee has given their tacit approval of the mining activity.

The Delegate of France expressed his concern that the Committee may be interpreted as not taking a stand against the fait accompli presented to it. He stated that he would not like the decision of the Committee to be contested in a divisive way in the future. He recommended that the Committee call on Australia's good will and desire to co-operate and voluntarily suspend the construction of the mine until the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

The Delegate of Cuba expressed her concern as to the seriousness of the threats to Kakadu National Park, not just to the physical heritage, but to the human heritage. She expressed her agreement with the advisory bodies that the property should be inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

The Delegate of Zimbabwe agreed with the proposal from France and acknowledged that this was a test case and a threshold issue. He noted the high powered delegations that visited Australia to assess the Kakadu case. It comprised the Chairman of the Committee, Professor Francioni, the Director of the World Heritage Centre and other eminent persons. He declared that a procedural precedent had been set that could well be relevant to the examination of state of conservation of other World Heritage properties. He referred to the need to ensure the participation of traditional owners in the action plan and timetable in paragraphs 1 to 3, as well as in paragraphs (v) and (vi) of the preamble section of the Committee decision. This point was later supported by Benin and Hungary.

The Delegate of Hungary recommended that a dialogue with both actual or potential developers and the traditional owners be maintained and, appropriate conclusions be drawn based on such experiences by the Committee at a later stage.

The Delegate of the United States of America stated that the proposal to cease construction of the mine flowed logically from the recommendations of the Bureau adopted by the Committee. She stated that the position of the Australian Government was understood and respected. However, she commented that the mission report raised many serious and legitimate concerns that cannot be overlooked. The Delegate of the United States of America concluded by stating that the Committee should go on record as requesting the parties concerned to voluntarily halt construction of the mine decline pending the review by the Bureau at its twenty-third session in 1999.

Following statements by the Delegates of Benin, Canada, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lebanon, Morocco, Niger and Thailand a clear consensus emerged and the Committee adopted an additional decision:

The Committee urged the Australian authorities and Energy Resources Australia Inc. to immediately undertake, in the context of their examination of the mission report, the voluntary suspension of construction of the mine decline until the twenty-third session of the Bureau in July 1999.

The Delegate of Australia disassociated his government from the decision (see Annex VI.4).

VII.29 Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru)

The Committee recalled that over the last three years the Committee and the Bureau examined the state of conservation of the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu at several occasions, particularly with reference to adequate management arrangements and comprehensive master planning. It also recalled that the Committee and the Bureau had reiterated that no actions should be undertaken on the implementation of a cable car system, or to that effect any other major works, until an adequate master plan is in place.

In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee and the Bureau, the Government of Peru prepared, as a joint effort between several institutions, a Master Plan for the Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. This was adopted by the National Institute for Natural Resources (INRENA) and the National Institute for Culture (INC) at the end of October 1998 and received at the World Heritage Centre on 17 November 1998.

The Committee commended the Government of Peru for the actions it had taken to respond to the concerns expressed by the Committee and its Bureau, particularly the adoption of the Master Plan for the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu. It requested IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake an in-depth examination of the Master Plan and to submit its findings to the twenty-third session of the Bureau in June/July 1999.

It requested the Peruvian authorities to transmit all relevant documentation and provisions with regard to the management

*[20]

structure and Master Plan for the Sanctuary, the cable car system (Environmental Impact Study, detailed plans etc.), as well as other works or projects that are or will be considered for implementation within the boundaries of the World Heritage site as soon as they become available, to the World Heritage Centre. This information will be reviewed by ICOMOS and IUCN and examined by the Bureau and/or the Committee.

The Committee furthermore requested the Bureau to consider at its twenty-third session whether it is appropriate for IUCN and ICOMOS to undertake a second mission to Peru to assess the implementation and effectiveness of the Master Plan, the project of the cable car system, the eventual hotel extension and other major works that may be planned. The Committee urged the Government of Peru not to take any decision on projects that could have considerable impact on the World Heritage values of the Park prior to a possible IUCN/ICOMOS mission. Prior consultations with the World Heritage Committee as recommended in paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines should also be envisaged.

Finally, the Committee commended the Finnish Government for its interest in the preservation of the Park and the implementation of a major debt-swap project to this effect.

b) Reports on the state of conservation of mixed properties noted by the Committee

VII.30 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV on the following properties:

Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
Mount Taishan (China, Peoples Republic of)
Mount Huangshan (China, People's Republic of)
Ohrid Region with its Cultural and Historical Aspect and its Natural Environment (Macedonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of)
Cliff of Bandiagara (Land of the Dogons) (Mali)
Tongariro National Park (New Zealand).

 

CULTURAL HERITAGE

a) Reports on the state of conservation of cultural properties examined by the Committee

VII.31 Colonial City of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)

At the request of the authorities of the Dominican Republic, an expert mission was undertaken in August 1998 to assess the state of conservation of the World Heritage site of Santo Domingo. The report emphasized the need to balance interventions in the physical-environmental recuperation of the area, tourism development and the socio-cultural development of the local population (housing, services etc.). It furthermore stressed that the effective control by the Office for the Cultural Heritage depends very much on the adoption of the Master Plan for the City which would establish an extended protection zone and norms for land-use. It also pointed out that several buildings in the city had collapsed recently, not caused by natural disasters but by the lack of maintenance.

On 22 September 1998, Hurricane Georges caused severe damage to the Dominican Republic. The Secretariat received reports from the Office for Cultural Heritage of the Dominican Republic and the national ICOMOS Committee. It was reported that serious damage was caused to residential buildings, churches and to the Casa de Juan de Herrera at the Plaza de Colon.

The Committee expressed concern about the damage caused by Hurricane George to the World Heritage site of Santo Domingo and encouraged the national authorities to take the necessary measures for the consolidation and safeguarding of the damaged buildings. It expressed its readiness to assist in undertaking emergency measures for the consolidation and recuperation of damaged buildings. It noted that the Chairperson had approved emergency assistance for the safeguarding of the Casa de Juan de Herrera.

At the same time, however, the Committee noted that part of the damage could only occur due to the lack of maintenance and preventive measures. It stressed the need for risk preparedness and preventive planning and conservation measures, particularly in hurricane prone areas such as the Caribbean.

The Committee requested the authorities to submit, by 15 April 1999, a progress report on the actions taken in response to the report of the monitoring mission of August 1998 and to the damage caused by Hurricane Georges.

The Committee requested the Secretariat and the advisory bodies to look into the possibilities to develop specific activities for the Caribbean to promote and implement risk preparedness schemes. 

VII.32 Aksum (Ethiopia)

In November 1998, a staff member of ICCROM during a pre-appraisal mission for The World Bank in Ethiopia, noted that a wooded site directly across from the main Stele had been cleared of its trees, and that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church had plans to build a residence for the Patriarch of the Church. However, no construction work had yet commenced. It furthermore noted that the Director of the Centre for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH), while aware of the planned construction, had not been shown the plans of the proposed building nor was he informed that work was about to begin.

The Committee, aware of the very important role of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church in the life of the community, and as a hold of very important cultural heritage in the town of Aksum and Ethiopia, requested

*[21]

1. the Centre to send a letter to the Centre for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (CRCCH) and the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church drawing attention to the significance of the World Heritage values of the site and underlining the need to preserve it, which would require the postponement of any further work in the proximity of the Stele,

2. that the mission on the state of conservation planned by the World Heritage Centre in June 1998, which was postponed for security reasons, be carried out as soon as possible with the purpose of drawing a clear definition of the boundaries of the World Heritage site,

3. due support and consideration be given by the Ethiopian institutions and UNESCO to the preparation of a comprehensive town plan of Aksum with a clear conservation component which balances the conservation constraints with the need for the continued growth and development of the city and the communities of Aksum.
   
   

VII.33 Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Former Abbey of Saint-Remi and Palace of Tau, Reims (France)

The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its twenty-second session requested the French authorities a report on the planning for the surrounding of the Cathedral and on the project for the construction of a media library (mediateque) in its vicinity. The Secretariat informed that it had received information from a non-governmental organization that the demolition permit for the existing buildings on the location of the media library had been delivered and authorization for the building of the media library would have been given.

ICOMOS reported that it had sent an expert mission to Reims and that it was of the opinion that the scale of the building of the media library is too large, that its height and form will not provide a balanced townscape, that the monumental scale of the building is wholly out of context with the building's immediate surroundings and can, therefore, not be properly integrated in it. ICOMOS also expressed the opinion that a clearly defined buffer zone around the monuments inscribed on the World Heritage List should be established and that a management plan for the monuments and their buffer zone should be prepared.

As to the planning for the surroundings of the Cathedral (the 'Parvis'), the French Delegate confirmed information provided by the French authorities that a commission had been established to study the preservation and planning of the 'Parvis' and that it invited ICOMOS to participate in this commission. He stressed that the setting of the Cathedral had been completely destroyed during the First World War and that, since then, no coherence had been given to its urban space and to the surrounding architecture. He informed that a protection zone would be identified, as stipulated by French legislation, to replace the five hundred-meter radius around national monuments. He said that the media library was necessary to revitalise the area and that the building project had been revised and approved.

The Committee noted the information provided by ICOMOS and the French Delegate. It encouraged both parties to continue the dialogue on the planning for the surroundings of the Cathedral and to keep the Committee informed on progress made in this respect.

VII.34 Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)

The Minister of Science, Research and Culture of the Land of Brandenburg submitted the fourth state of conservation report as per the request of the World Heritage Committee at its twenty-first session. This report was made available to the Committee as Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.15.

The report referred to the proposed extension of the World Heritage site, the Planning Guidelines, town planning competitions for the Green Centre – Alter Markt/Lustgarten and the Quartier am Bahnhof, as well as other specific building projects.

The Committee took note of the report. It commended the authorities of the Land of Brandenburg for the actions taken in response to the recommendations made by the Committee at its twenty-first session.

The Committee welcomed the submission of the proposed extension to the World Heritage site and requested the Bureau to examine this proposal at its twenty-third session in the light of the discussions and recommendations made by the Committee at its twentieth and twenty-first sessions.

The Committee noted the completion of the urban competition for the Green Centre –Alter Markt/ Lustgarten. As to the town planning competition for the Quartier am Bahnhof, the Committee regretted that the reconsideration of the building blocks 9 to 12 in the context of the results of the competition had not led to a major revision of the programme or design of these blocks and had therefore not resulted in an entirely satisfactory solution. It noted, however, with satisfaction the information provided by the Observer of Germany that the height of the building had been reduced and no longer would interfere with the visual lines of the components of the World Heritage site. It considered that their volume and monotony constitute a negative element in the urban context. A revision of their design could still diminish their negative impact.

The Committee encouraged the municipal authorities to continue the process of urban planning and the development of planning guidelines to this effect. It appreciated the commitment of the authorities to transmit the planning guidelines for the Potsdam cultural landscape to the World Heritage Committee by the end of 1998. It requested ICOMOS to examine these guidelines in the context of the evaluation mission it will undertake to Potsdam in early 1999 and to submit its findings to the Bureau at its twenty-third session.

With reference to the 'German Unity Transport Project No 17' (improvement of waterways), examined by the Committee at its twentieth session, the Committee commended the Federal Government for the efforts to find an alternative solution that would avoid any interference in the Babelsberg Park or other components of the Potsdam cultural landscape.

In conclusion, the Committee requested the State Party to submit by 15 September 1999 for examination by the Committee at its twenty-third session, a fifth state of conservation report particularly on the following matters:

- Final version of the planning guidelines and information on their adoption and enforcement;

- Progress in the implementation of the winning project for the Quartier am Bahnhof as well as on measures taken to diminish the negative impact of building blocks 9-12 on the architectural and urban environment;

*[22]

- Results of the consideration of alternative routes for the waterways under 'German Unity Transport Project No 17' and their possible impact on the integrity for the World Heritage site.

VII.35 Forts and Castles of Ghana (Ghana)

The Forts and Castles of Ghana, as inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979, consist of three castles, 15 forts in a relatively good condition, ten forts in ruins and seven sites with traces of former fortifications. All sites are protected monuments in the custody of the Ghana Museums and Monuments Board (GMMB), with the exception of James Fort, Accra and Fort William, Anomabu, which are still being used as prisons. The sites are periodically inspected, however, their regular maintenance and conservation is severely affected by the limited financial resources of the GMMB.

During the period 1992–1997 major conservation works were carried out on Cape Coast Castle in Cape Coast, St. George's Castle and Fort St. Jago in Elmina within the scope of the Historic Preservation component of the "Central Region Integrated Development Programme" funded by UNDP and USAID.

The main threats to the sites can be confined to three principal areas: environmental pressures; lack of buffer zones and development pressure and lack of adequate funding for the regular maintenance and conservation of the sites.

The Committee:

- thanked the national authorities in Ghana for their efforts in preservation of the World Heritage sites in Ghana and congratulated them on the recent conservation works carried out in Cape Cost and Elmina;

-urged the national authorities to ensure that all the Forts listed as World Heritage are not used for unrelated purposes such as prisons and that their World Heritage values are preserved;

- recommended priority be given to sustainable conservation and not to the rehabilitation of buildings for tourism purposes;

-recommended that action be taken urgently to define buffer zones around the properties, as well as other protective measures to stop further environmental degradation of the areas in the direct vicinity of the World Heritage sites;

-recommended that the national authorities in Ghana submit an Emergency Assistance request with regard to the urgent conservation works on some of the Forts;

-encouraged the authorities to implement awareness building activities among the population.

VII.36 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)

Thanks to a contribution from the World Heritage Fund, the World Heritage site Ilha de Mozambique, has been the object of the World Heritage Centre's "Programme for Sustainable Human Development and Integral Conservation". The programme, prepared in 1996, is funded by: UNDP – US$ 300,000 (over the period 1997-1999), UNESCO – US$ 100,000, European Union – US$ 100,000 and the Finnish Government, which is financing a post of an Associate Expert for the 2-year period (1997-1998). Currently, a number of micro-projects in such areas as: water and sanitation, tourism development and heritage restoration, are being developed. These projects will be presented to potential donors during the donor meeting scheduled for February 1999.

In addition, works have already started on the restoration of the Casa da Cultura building to be used as the project office. The restoration is progressing relatively quickly and completion expected by January 1999.

The Committee congratulated the Mozambique authorities for their efforts to preserve the Ilha de Mozambique by taking into account the social and economic aspects of the site and called upon the potential donors to support this endeavour.

The Committee requested the authorities to report at its twenty-third session on the results of the donor's meeting and on the progress made in the implementation of the "Programme for Sustainable Human Development and Integral Conservation".

VII.37 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)

The Committee, at its seventeenth session, expressed deep concern over the state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley site and considered the possibility of placing this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger, following discussions on the findings of the 1993 Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Review Mission.

At its twenty-first session, the Committee examined the state of conservation report of this site, and in view of the continued deterioration of the World Heritage values in the Bauddhanath and Kathmandu Monument Zones, affecting the integrity and inherent characteristics of the site, the Committee requested the Secretariat, in collaboration with ICOMOS and His Majesty's Government (HMG) of Nepal, to study the possibility of deleting selected areas within some Monument Zones, without jeopardizing the universal significance and value of the site as a whole. This review was to take into consideration the intention of HMG of Nepal to nominate Kokhana as an additional Monument Zone.

The Committee authorized up to US$ 35,000 from the World Heritage Fund Technical Co-operation budget for a Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal team to conduct a thorough study and to elaborate a programme for corrective measures in accordance with paragraphs 82-89 of the Operational Guidelines. Based upon the information of this study and recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee, at its twenty-first session, decided that it could consider whether or not to inscribe this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger at its twenty-second session. Following this decision, a Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Mission was organized in March-April 1998.

The Committee examined the findings and results of the Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Mission, and the 55 recommendations and Time-Bound Action Plan adopted by HMG of Nepal. The Committee commended HMG of Nepal for its efforts in strengthening the management of the Kathmandu Valley site with the creation of the Heritage Conservation Unit. The Committee took note of the special efforts made by the local authorities to raise awareness amongst the private home owners to prevent further illegal demolition and inappropriate new constructions, which destroys the essential historical urban fabric of the Kathmandu Valley site.

The Committee decided to defer consideration of the inscription of the Kathmandu Valley site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until its twenty-third session. However, the Committee requested HMG of Nepal to continue implementing the 55 recommendations of the Joint Mission and to respect the deadlines of the Time-Bound Action Plan adopted by HMG of Nepal. In addition, the Committee recommended that HMG of Nepal adopt the three additional ICOMOS recommendations annexed to the 55 recommendations adopted by HMG of Nepal. Moreover, the Committee requested HMG of Nepal to submit a report on the progress made in implementing the 55 recommendations before 15 April 1999 for examination by the twenty-third session of the Bureau in June 1999.

*[23]

Finally, the Committee requested HMG of Nepal to take measures to ensure that adequate protection and management are put into place at Kokhana, prior to its nomination as an additional Monument Zone to the Kathmandu Valley site.

VII.38 Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)

The Committee recalled that on 5 March 1997 a 'Declaration Concerning Principles for Implementation of Program Oswiecimski' was initialed by the Polish Government Plenipotentiary for the Government Strategic Plan for Oswiecim, the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the International Council of the State Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the Mayor of Oswiecim in the presence of the President of Poland. The Committee took note of information provided by the Secretariat on the progress made in the implementation of the Declaration, particularly through an expert meeting that was held on 2 and 3 June 1998 on the spatial management of the area around the two Concentration Camps. It took note, furthermore, of the information provided by the Observer of Poland that further consultations are taking place with the participants of the expert meeting and that the Government of Poland will present a progress report. It requested the Polish authorities submit this report by 15 April 1999 for examination by the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

The Committee confirmed its support for the principles laid out in the Declaration of March 1997 and also confirmed its support that this process continues in a consensual manner among all parties involved. It expressed the belief that no steps should be made unless consensus is reached.

The Committee expressed its readiness to contribute to the implementation of this process, if required.

VII.39 Central Zone of Angra do Heroismo in the Azores (Portugal)

The Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, at its twenty-second ordinary session, was informed about a marina project that seriously threatened the characteristic features of the waterfront of the World Heritage site. ICOMOS undertook a mission to the site in October 1998 and concluded that, although there is the economic need for a marina, it opposed this particular project for the negative impact it would have on the World Heritage values of the site. It recommended that an alternative location be sought for the marina.

The Observer of Portugal stressed the need for a marina in Angra do Heroismo and that this marina would not affect the values of the site. He also informed about the actions taken with respect to the underwater heritage in the Bay of Angra de Heroismo. ICOMOS confirmed that this had been done according to the highest standards.

The Committee expressed concerns and preoccupation about the location and impact of the marina on the World Heritage values of the site. While recognizing the economic need for a marina, it was of the opinion that this should be considered in the context of an overall conservation plan for the site. It encouraged the State Party to continue its dialogue with ICOMOS and the World Heritage Committee in order to find the best solution. It requested that the Committee be kept informed periodically on further developments in this matter.

VII.40 Burgos Cathedral (Spain)

The Committee took note of the confirmation by the Observer of Spain that planning for the hill and Fortress of Burgos had been suspended and that no works would be undertaken.

The Committee requested the State Party to keep the Secretariat informed of any new development in this matter.

VII.41 The Rock Carvings in Tanum (Sweden)

At the invitation of the Director of Monuments and Sites of the County Administration of Västra Götaland, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre undertook a mission to Tanum in September 1998 to discuss the E6 road upgrading project, funded by the European Union.

The mission examined various options for the road and expressed preference for alternatives that would avoid the World Heritage site. However, it was felt that one alternative solution, developed during the mission, although passing into the World Heritage site, would have a minimum impact on the continuity of the landscape of the World Heritage site and would not affect the rock carving sites as such.

The Committee expressed its appreciation of the fact that it was consulted on this project at such an early stage of its implementation. It recommended this consultation as a desirable precedent to other States Parties. Furthermore, it requested the State Party to study further the possibility of utilizing the Blue Route, passing to the west of the World Heritage site. In the event that this had to be precluded for engineering, social, and/or financial reasons, the Committee requested the State Party to carry out further study on the alternative route through the World Heritage site as developed during the mission.

The Committee requested the State Party to present a progress report on the E6 project, by 15 April 1999, to be examined by the Bureau at its twenty-third session.

VII.42 World Heritage sites in Central America

The Secretariat reported that Hurricane Mitch swept over Central America during the final days of October 1998, causing heavy rains and storms and inundating important parts of Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador. The region has a number of World Heritage sites, including:

El Salvador: Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site

Guatemala: Tikal National Park Antigua Guatemala Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua

Honduras: Maya site of Copan Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (on the Danger List)

Nicaragua: The site of Leon Viejo, recognised by the Bureau as having World Heritage values, but not inscribed as yet.

The Secretariat informed of serious flooding in the excavated areas of the extremely fragile site of Joya de Ceren in El Salvador as well as damage to the roofs that protect the excavated structures. A request for emergency assistance for an amount of US$ 35,000 was under consideration by the Chairperson. Serious damage was also reported to Leon Viejo in Nicaragua. During the session, the Observer of Guatemala informed that no major damage had occurred to the monuments of Tikal or Quirigua, but that flooding destroyed the infrastructure at Quirigua and had left behind a thick layer of mud in Quirigua and Antigua Guatemala. Some churches in Antigua Guatemala were also affected. No information had been obtained on the properties in Honduras.

*[24]

The Committee expressed its sincere regrets and serious concern about the loss of life and destruction caused by Hurricane Mitch in the countries of Central America. It expressed its readiness to collaborate with the authorities in the States Parties concerned in assessing damage that may have been caused to the World Heritage in the region and in taking remedial actions that may be necessary for their preservation or restoration.

The Committee requested the Secretariat to transmit the above to the States Parties concerned and to provide, jointly with the advisory bodies, a full report on the conditions of the World Heritage in the region to the twenty-third session of the Bureau.

During the examination of this matter, ICOMOS stressed the need to incorporate risk preparedness schemes in overall planning activities. It drew the attention of the Committee to the Manual for Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties that it recently published in collaboration with ICCROM with funds provided from the World Heritage Fund.

b) Reports on the state of conservation of cultural properties noted by the Committee

VII.43 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau as reflected in the Report of the Bureau session (Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/5) and included in Annex IV of this report on the following properties:

Rapa Nui National Park (Chile)
The Mountain Resort and Its Outlying Temples in Chengde (China)
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
Temple and Cemetery of Confucius and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu (China)
Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang Mountains (China)
City of Quito (Ecuador) Memphis and its Necropolis – the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur (Egypt)
Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis (Egypt)
Islamic Cairo (Egypt)

Historic Centre (Old Town) of Tallinn (Estonia)
The Observer of Estonia informed the Committee that the case of the new theatre is only one of the problems encountered in the preservation of the historic centre of the city and that the State Party will be requesting further assistance from the World Heritage Centre in planning and preservation matters.

Collegiate Church, Castle and Old Town in Quedlinburg (Germany)

Historic Centre of Florence (Italy)
The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee that the high tension power line is located outside of the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Florence and that it would not be visible from the World Heritage site which is limited to the Historic Centre of the city. Consultations are underway between the Ministry for Cultural Properties and Activities, the Ministry of Industry and the electricity company to mitigate its impact. In general terms, he called upon States Parties and experts to look into the problems posed by power lines and to develop appropriate new technologies for the transmission of energy that would avoid negative visual impact on valuable landscapes and historic sites.

Quseir Amra (Jordan)
Luang Prabang (Laos)
Baalbek (Lebanon)
Tyre (Lebanon)
Vilnius Historic Centre (Lithuania)
Old Towns of Djenné (Mali)
City of Cusco (Peru)
Archaeological site of Chavin (Peru)
Historic Centre of Lima (Peru)

The Baroque Churches of the Philippines (The Philippines)
The Observer of the Philippines informed the Committee that reports on the training activity had been recently submitted to the World Heritage Centre.

Historic Centre of Porto (Portugal)
Island of Gorée (Senegal)
Sacred City of Anuradhapura (Sri Lanka)
Ancient City of Polonnaruva (Sri Lanka)
Ancient City of Sigiriya (Sri Lanka)
Site of Palmyra (Syrian Arab Republic)

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
On the request of the Observer of Finland, the Secretariat and the Observer of Turkey confirmed that the Zeyrek Conservation Site forms part of the areas inscribed on the World Heritage List.

Kiev: Saint Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings (Ukraine)
Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
Old City of Sana'a (Yemen)

VII.44 The Delegate of Italy informed the Committee that on 4 November 1998 a fire occurred in a part of the attic of the Royal Palace at Caserta, but that damage had been restricted to less monumental spaces and the roof. Restoration works have already been initiated.

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

EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORKD HERITAGE IN DANGER

 

VIII.1 The Committee did not recommend any properties to be included in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.2 The Committee recalled that, having examined the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, it had decided to delete the following two properties from the List:

Old City of Dubrovnik (Croatia)

On the basis of a substantive report on the state of conservation submitted by the authorities of Croatia, the positive advice of ICOMOS on the restoration works undertaken and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to delete the Old City of Dubrovnik from the List of World Heritage in Danger (see also paragraph VII.17 of this report).

Wieliczka Salt Mines (Poland)

Considering the positive impact of the dehumidifying equipment on the conditions of the historic sculptures, chambers and passages in the Salt Mine, and following ICOMOS' advice, the

*[25]

Committee decided to delete the Wieliczka Salt Mines from the List of World Heritage in Danger (see also paragraph VII.20 of this report).

EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

VIII.3 The Committee noted that a number of sites have been withdrawn by the States Parties concerned since the twenty-second session of the Bureau (June 1998): Cultural Stratification in the Historic Centre of the City of Pecs, Hungary (853); Gdansk : the Main Town, the Motlava Side Channel, and the Vistula Mouth Fortress, Poland (882); The Medieval Town of Provins, France (873), and the Archaeological Ensemble of Tarraco, Spain (875).

 

A. NATURAL PROPERTIES

A.1 Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	New Zealand Sub-Antarctic Islands
Id. N°	877
State Party	New Zealand
Criteria	N (ii)(iv)

The site consists of five island groups (the Snares, Bounty Islands, Antipodes Islands, Auckland Islands, and Campbell Island) in the Southern Ocean south-east of New Zealand. The islands, lying between the Antarctic and Sub-tropical Convergences, and the seas have a high level of productivity, bio-diversity, wildlife population densities, and endemism among birds, plants and invertebrates. The bird and plant life, especially endemic albatrosses, cormorants, land birds and "megaherbs" are unique to these islands and are clearly of outstanding universal value under criterion (iv). Under criterion (ii) the islands display a pattern of immigration of species, diversification and emergent endemism. Several evolutionary processes such as the development of loss of flight in both birds and invertebrates offer particularly good opportunities for research into the dynamics of island ecology. Human impacts are confined to the effects of introduced species at Auckland and Campbell islands but their ongoing eradication is leading to a recovery of native vegetation allowing evolutionary processes to continue.

The Committee inscribed this property under criteria (ii) and (iv). The Committee noted the Bureau's comments, which commended the State Party for submitting a model nomination but at the same time expressed its concern over the integrity of the marine area and the conservation of the marine resources. The need for co-operation with the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in elaborating strategies for strengthening the protection of the marine environment (especially regarding fishery by-catch) was noted. The Committee recalled that at its twenty-first session it had encouraged the Australian authorities to consider for the future a re-nomination of Macquarie Island with the Sub-Antarctic Islands of New Zealand as one single Sub-Antarctic site. It invited both States Parties to continue to liaise on this possibility.

The Delegate of Australia underlined the willingness of her Government to co-operate with New Zealand in considering a single site. The Observer of New Zealand informed the Committee that the responsible Minister would meet his Australian counterpart the following week and would discuss this issue, and that New Zealand is in contact with the Secretariat of CCAMLR. His Government participated in the seventeenth CCAMLR meeting in Hobart, which discussed prohibition of daylight fishing and alternative mitigation measures for the Antarctic waters.

 

Property	Golden Mountains of Altai
Id. N°	768 Rev.
State Party	Russian Federation
Criteria	N (iv)

The Altai region is an important and original centre of biodiversity of plant and animal species. It contains rare and endemic species, including the Snow Leopard. The Altai population of the Snow Leopard serves as a core source for the southern Siberian region. The site also displays the geological history of Asia, a variety of landscapes and ecosystems and contains excellent examples of glacial features.

The Committee discussed whether to apply criterion (iii) and reviewed the situation of the management plans for the different clusters of the site. The Delegate of Thailand in referring to the Operational Guidelines, stated that the management plan should ideally be complete before the inscription of the site.

The Committee decided to inscribe the site for its rich biodiversity and as the global centre of origin of montane flora of northern Asia under natural criterion (iv).

The Committee urged the State Party to complete management plan for all of the three areas as soon as possible and suggested that other States Parties may wish to assist with this. It furthermore encouraged the State Party to start a co-operative process with neighbouring States Parties to consider a possible transboundary expansion. The Observer of the Russian Federation informed the Committee that his Government is continuing the efforts to complete all management plans.

 

Property	East Rennell
Id. N°	854
State Party	Solomon Islands
Criteria	N(ii)

East Rennell is part of Rennell Island, the southernmost of the Solomon Islands group. Rennell, the largest raised coral atoll in the world, is 86 km long and 15 km wide and covers an area of 87,500ha. A major feature is Lake Tegano, which was the former lagoon on the atoll and is the largest lake in the insular Pacific (15,500ha). Rennell is mostly covered with dense forest with a canopy averaging 20m in height. East Rennell is of outstanding universal value under natural criterion (ii), demonstrating significant on-going ecological and biological processes and is an important site for the science of island bio-geography. These processes relate to the role of East Rennell as a stepping-stone in the migration and evolution of species in the western Pacific and for speciation processes underway, especially with respect to the avifauna. Combined with the strong climatic effects of frequent cyclones, the site is a true natural laboratory for scientific study.

Following the Bureau's request at its twenty-second session concerning the application of cultural criteria, the Solomon Islands Government indicated that this would be further investigated. The Bureau had also sought further information on the development and implementation of a resource management plan bearing in mind that the land concerned is under customary ownership. The State Party advised that while a draft World Heritage Protection Bill is not yet ready to proceed through the legislative process, it has committed itself to the protection of any World Heritage site. The State Party pointed out that the rights of

*[26]

customary owners in customary law are acknowledged in the Constitution of the Solomon Islands and the Customs Recognition Act of 1995. The State Party also indicated that members of the East Rennell community have agreed to the concept of World Heritage Listing of their land and are working with the State Party and a facilitator provided by the New Zealand Government to prepare a resource management plan. IUCN reported that the document entitled "East Rennell Resource Management Objectives and Guidelines" had been provided and reviewed and was considered to be acceptable in meeting the requirements for World Heritage inscription, even though it may be some years before the final resource management plan is completed.

The Committee had a considerable debate on customary protection and agreed that customary management should be supported. It pointed out that while traditional protection and management mechanisms are provided for in the Operational Guidelines for cultural sites (par. 24 b(ii)), no similar provision exists for natural sites (par. 44 b (vi)) and that this item would be discussed under the agenda item "Operational Guidelines". A number of delegates welcomed the nomination and noted that a site protected by customary law is breaking new ground, and that the inclusion of this type of property is in line with the Global Strategy. Sites from other States Parties, which are under traditional management and customary law, may provide examples for general principles.

The Delegate of Thailand stated that although he had no doubt about the World Heritage values of the site, he could not support the nomination at this stage, as it did not comply with the requirements of the Operational Guidelines. He noted that customary land tenure does not automatically guarantee effective customary management and that there are no legislative provisions to protect the site from rapid changes such as tourism, which may affect it. He therefore dissociated himself from the Committee's decision.

The Committee inscribed the site under natural criterion (ii). The Committee recommended that the State Party should proceed with the preparation of the Resource Management Plan and the draft national World Heritage Protection Bill and that a mission be undertaken in three years time to assess progress made.

The Observer of the Solomon Islands thanked the Committee and stated that his office is constantly working on the conservation of the site and that customary protection often hinders development. He noted that a number of NGOs, including WWF, The Nature Conservancy and Greenpeace are working in the Solomon Islands to enhance environmental awareness and sustainable development. His Government finalized the Environmental Conservation Bill, which is a milestone in the conservation and shows the commitment to heritage protection. The Chairperson congratulated the Solomon Islands for the inscription of their first site on the World Heritage List.

A.2 Properties which the Committee did not inscribe on the World Heritage List

Property	Vodlozero National Park
Id. N°	767
State Party	Russian Federation

The Committee noted that the site consists of boreal forest ecosystems of the Eurasian taiga and is an important bird breeding area. It is of European importance, but on its own, does not meet any natural World Heritage criteria. The Committee took note of the rich cultural heritage of the region and encouraged the State Party to consider nomination the area for cultural values.

The Committee decided not to inscribe the site on the World Heritage List. The Committee noted the possibility of Vodlozero being considered as part of a serial site proposal being developed by the State Party for the Green Belt of Fennoscandia. The Delegate of Finland informed the Committee that the Scandinavian countries are ready to assist with this proposal and would also provide support for the assessment of cultural values. The Observer from Russia indicated that his Government would continue to work on a proposed serial site.

 

Property	Bashkirian Ural
Id. N°	879
State Party	Russian Federation

The Committee noted that the site is of European importance for the study of the natural dynamics of broadleaf forests. However, the site does not possess outstanding universal value. The proposal that this site could be considered as a Biosphere Reserve was noted and it was agreed that the State Party would follow this up with IUCN and UNESCO.

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

 

Property	The Ravines of the Slovak Paradis and Dobsinska Ice Cave
Id. N°	858
State Party	Slovakia

The Committee recalled that the Bureau at its twenty-second session decided to refer the nomination back to the State Party asking the Slovak authorities to consider incorporating the Dobsinska Ice Cave portion into the nearby World Heritage site of the Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst. The Committee was informed that the State Party indicated a number of options including as a possible addition to the cultural World Heritage site of "Spissky Castle with its surroundings".

The Committee noted that the natural values of the Ravines of the Slovak Paradis and the Dobsinska Ice Cave are considered to be of national and regional significance. The current nomination thus does not meet natural World Heritage criteria. The Committee did not inscribe the site on the World Heritage List.

The Delegate of Hungary said he was not fully satisfied with the recommendation of the Bureau not to inscribe the site, since he was aware that the Dobsinska Ice Cave could be considered in its own right. He noted that the scientific importance of the Ice Cave which was more significant at this site than anywhere else in the world. Therefore Hungary supported reconsideration of this matter and a possible inscription of this part of the site at a later stage.

The Observer of the Slovak Republic stated that his Government has reconsidered previous statements made and accepts the recommendations made by the Bureau and IUCN. He asked if the Committee could consider the options of a separate nomination of the Dobsinska Ice Cave or as a possible extension to the transborder site of the Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst. He informed the Committee that his Government withdraws the remaining portions of the Ravines and Slovak Paradise, which are intended to be considered in relation to a future mixed nomination, which will be prepared subsequently.

*[27]

The Chairperson encouraged the State Party, the Centre and IUCN to co-operate in the preparation of a revised nomination which may be presented to the twenty-third session of the Committee and its Bureau.

B. CULTURAL HERITAGE

VIII.4 The Committee was informed that all the cultural properties proposed for inscription figure on the tentative lists of the respective countries mentioned in Document WHC-98/CONF.203/9: Information on Tentative Lists. The Delegate of Benin indicated that "The W Reserve of Niger and its Vernacular Habitat of North Benin" was a mixed property, and requested that this information be reflected in the above-mentioned document. The Delegate of Lebanon furthermore wished that the information contained in the Document WHC-98/CONF.203/9 be accompanied by a regional analysis to guide the States Parties in the choice of new proposals for inscription and provide the advisory bodies with a planning tool.

B.1 Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	The Semmering Railway
Id. N°	785
State Party	Austria
Criteria	C(ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): The Semmering Railway represents an outstanding technological solution to a major physical problem in the construction of early railways.

Criterion (iv): With the construction of the Semmering Railway, areas of great natural beauty became more easily accessible and as a result these were developed for residential and recreational use, creating a new form of cultural landscape.

Several delegates supported this inscription as it reflected the inclusion on the World Heritage List of new categories of properties.

Property	Flemish Béguinages
Id. N°	855
State Party	Belgium
Criteria	C (ii)(iii)(iv)

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): The Flemish béguinages demonstrate outstanding physical characteristics of urban and rural planning and a combination of religious and traditional architecture in styles specific to the Flemish cultural region.

Criterion (iii): The béguinages bear exceptional witness to the cultural tradition of independent religious women in north-western Europe in the Middle Ages.

Criterion (iv): The béguinages constitute an outstanding example of an architectural ensemble associated with a religious movement characteristic of the Middle Ages associating both secular and conventual values.

Property	The Four Lifts on the Canal du Centre and their Environs, La Louvière and Le Roeulx (Hainault)
Id. N°	856
State Party	Belgium
Criteria	C (iii)(iv)

 

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

Criterion (iii): The boat-lifts of the Canal du Centre bear remarkable testimony to the hydraulic engineering developments of 19th-century Europe.

Criterion (iv): These boat-lifts represent the apogee of the application of engineering technology to the construction of canals.

Property	La Grand- Place, Brussels
Id. N°	857
State Party	Belgium
Criteria	C (ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): The Grand-Place is an outstanding example of the eclectic and highly successful blending of architectural and artistic styles that characterizes the culture and society of this region.

Criterion (iv): Through the nature and quality of its architecture and of its outstanding quality as a public open space, the Grand-Place illustrates in an exceptional way the evolution and achievements of a highly successful mercantile city of northern Europe at the height of its prosperity.

In thanking the Committee for these first Belgian inscriptions to the List, the Observer of Belgium offered his country's services in reducing the imbalance of representativity of African countries in the World Heritage List, in the framework of the Global Strategy and the Programme Africa 2009.

Property	El Fuerte de Samaipata
Id. N°	883
State Party	Bolivia
Criteria	C(ii)(iii)

The Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii) and (iii):

Criterion (ii): The sculptured rock at Samaipata is the dominant ceremonial feature of an urban settlement that represents the apogee of this form of prehispanic religious and political centre.

Criterion (iii): Samaipata bears outstanding witness to the existence in this Andean region of a culture with highly developed religious traditions, illustrated dramatically in the form of immense rock sculptures.

*[28]

Property	The Summer Palace, an Imperial Garden in Beijing
Id. N°	880
State Party	China
Criteria	C(i)(ii)(iii)

The Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), and (iii):

Criterion (i): The Summer Palace in Beijing is an outstanding expression of the creative art of Chinese landscape garden design, incorporating the works of humankind and nature in a harmonious whole.

Criterion (ii): The Summer Palace epitomizes the philosophy and practice of Chinese garden design, which played a key role in the development of this cultural form throughout the east.

Criterion (iii): The Imperial Chinese Garden, illustrated by the Summer Palace, is a potent symbol of one of the major world civilizations.

The Delegate of Thailand suggested that the wording of the citation from criterion (iii) would read better and also add dignity to this site if the proposed wording would read: "The Imperial Chinese Garden, together with the Summer Palace, is a potent symbol of one of the major world civilizations". In short, the wording "illustrated by" be substituted by "together with".

Property	The Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing
Id. N°	881
State Party	China
Criteria	C(i)(ii)(iii)

The Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), and (iii):

Criterion (i): The Temple of Heaven is a masterpiece of architecture and landscape design which simply and graphically illustrates a cosmogony of great importance for the evolution of one of the world's great civilizations.

Criterion (ii): The symbolic layout and design of the Temple of Heaven had a profound influence on architecture and planning in the Far East over many centuries.

Criterion (iii): For more than two thousand years China was ruled by a series of feudal dynasties, the legitimacy of which is symbolized by the design and layout of the Temple of Heaven.

Property	Choirokoitia
Id. N°	848
State Party	Cyprus
Criteria	C (ii)(iii)(iv)

 

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (ii): In the prehistoric period, Cyprus played a key role in the transmission of culture from the Near East to the European world.

Criterion (iii): Choirokhoitia is an exceptionally well preserved archaeological site that has provided, and will continue to provide, scientific data of great importance relating to the spread of civilization from Asia to the Mediterranean world.

Criterion (iv): Both the excavated remains and the untouched part of Choirokhoitia demonstrate clearly the origins of proto-urban settlement in the Mediterranean region and beyond.

Several delegates supported the inscription of this property for its importance in the study of exchanges between the populations of the eastern Mediterranean and the process of urbanization.

Property	The Gardens and Castle at Kromeríz
Id. N°	860
State Party	Czech Republic
Criteria	C (ii)(iv)

 

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

Criterion (ii): The ensemble at Kromeríz, and in particular the Pleasure Garden, played a significant role in the development of Baroque garden and palace design in central Europe.

Criterion (iv): The Gardens and Castle at Kromeríz are an exceptionally complete and well preserved example of a princely residence and its associated landscape of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Property	Holašovice Historical Village Reservation
Id. N°	861
State Party	Czech Republic
Criteria	C(ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): Holašovice is of special significance in that it represents the fusion of two vernacular building traditions to create an exceptional and enduring style, known as South Bohemian Folk Baroque.

Criterion (iv): The exceptional completeness and excellent preservation of Holašovice and its buildings make it an outstanding example of traditional rural settlement in central Europe.

The Delegate of Mexico emphasized the importance of this inscription that demonstrates recognition by the Convention of vernacular heritage and underlines an additional aspect of the criterion for authenticity.

The Delegate of Hungary wholeheartedly supported this inscription and invited the State Party together with Slovakia to undertake a special regional evaluation of experiences, not always exclusively positive, with similar sites so as to be able to retain the values of these sites even after their exposure to a dramatically increased presence of tourists. The suggestion was warmly accepted by the Observer of the Czech Republic.

Property	The Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France
Id. N°	868
State Party	France
Criteria	C(ii)(iv)(vi)

 

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): The Pilgrimage Route of Santiago de Compostela played a key role in religious and cultural

*[29]

exchange and development during the later Middle Ages, and this is admirably illustrated by the carefully selected monuments on the routes followed by pilgrims in France.

Criterion (iv): The spiritual and physical needs of pilgrims travelling to Santiago de Compostela were met by the development of a number of specialised types of edifice, many of which originated or were further developed on the French sections.

Criterion (vi): The Pilgrimage Route of Santiago de Compostela bears exceptional witness to the power and influence of Christian faith among people of all classes and countries in Europe during the Middle Ages.

Several delegates congratulated France on this inscription, particularly important for "itineraries", a very useful concept for the evolution of world heritage. The Delegate of France, responding to a question raised by the Delegate of Thailand, stated that his country was ready to examine a joint inscription of the two sites of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela with Spain.

Property	The Historic Site of Lyon
Id. N°	872
State Party	France
Criteria	C (ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): Lyon bears exceptional testimony to the continuity of urban settlement over more than two millennia on a site of great commercial and strategic significance, where cultural traditions from many parts of Europe have come together to create a coherent and vigorous continuing community.

Criterion (iv): By virtue of the special way in which it has developed spatially, Lyon illustrates in an exceptional way the progress and evolution of architectural design and town planning over many centuries.

The Delegate of Finland, had doubted at the meeting of the twenty-second session of the Bureau the universal significance of this nomination. He now expressed his support for this nomination not as an example unusual for its homogenous urban structure, but on the contrary of its very additive character.

 

Property	Classical Weimar
Id. N°	846
State Party	Germany
Criteria	C(iii)(vi)

The Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (vi):

Criterion (iii): The high artistic quality of the public and private buildings and parks in and around the town testify to the remarkable cultural flowering of the Weimar Classical Period.

Criterion (vi): Enlightened ducal patronage attracted many of the leading writers and thinkers in Germany, such as Goethe, Schiller, and Herder to Weimar in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, making it the cultural centre of the Europe of the day.

 

The Delegate of Thailand asked if the nomination of Weimar could stand alone on the basis of criterion (iii). ICOMOS responded that indeed it could, but underscored the linkage between criterion (iii) and (vi) in respect of this nomination.

The Delegate of Germany informed the Committee that Weimar would be the cultural capital of Europe in 1999 and that the German authorities would take the necessary measures in conformity with the obligations of the Convention to accommodate the increase in the number of visitors due to this event.

The Observer of Poland commended this inscription. His statement is attached as Annex VI.1 to this report.

 

Property	The Archaeological Area and the Patriarchal Basilica of Aquileia
Id. N°	825
State Party	Italy
Criteria	C (iii)(iv)(vi)

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (iii): Aquileia was one of the largest and most wealthy cities of the Early Roman Empire.

Criterion (iv): By virtue of the fact that most of ancient Aquileia survives intact and unexcavated, it is the most complete example of an Early Roman city in the Mediterranean world.

Criterion (vi): The Patriarchal Basilican Complex in Aquileia played a decisive role in the spread of Christianity into central Europe in the early Middle Ages.

 

Property	The Historic Centre of Urbino
Id. N°	828
State Party	Italy
Criteria	C(ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): During its short cultural pre-eminence, Urbino attracted some of the most outstanding humanist scholars and artists of the Renaissance, who created there an exceptional urban complex of remarkable homogeneity, the influence of which carried far into the rest of Europe.

Criterion (iv): Urbino represents a pinnacle of Renaissance art and architecture, harmoniously adapted to its physical site and to its medieval precursor in an exceptional manner.

The Delegate of France commended the management of this site at both the local and national levels.

Property	The Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park with the Archealogical sites of Paestum and Velia and the Certosa di Padula
Id. N°	842
State Party	Italy
Criteria	C(iii)(iv)

The Committee inscribed this site as a cultural landscape on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): During the prehistoric period, and again in the Middle Ages, the Cilento region served as a key route for cultural, political, and commercial communications in an

*[30]

exceptional manner, utilizing the crests of the mountain chains running east-west and thereby creating a cultural landscape of outstanding significance and quality.

Criterion (iv): In two key episodes in the development of human societies in the Mediterranean region, the Cilento area provided the only viable means of communications between the Adriatic and the Tyrrhenian Seas, in the central Mediterranean region, and this is vividly illustrated by the relict cultural landscape of today.

 

Property	Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara
Id. N°	870
State Party	Japan
Criteria	C(ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)

The Committee inscribed the property on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv) and added criterion (vi):

Criterion (ii): The historic monuments of ancient Nara bear exceptional witness to the evolution of Japanese architecture and art as a result of cultural links with China and Korea which were to have a profound influence on future developments.

Criterion (iii): The flowering of Japanese culture during the period when Nara was the capital is uniquely demonstrated by its architectural heritage.

Criterion (iv): The layout of the Imperial Palace and the design of the surviving monuments in Nara are outstanding examples of the architecture and planning of early Asian capital cities.

Criterion (vi): The Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines of Nara demonstrate the continuing spiritual power and influence of these religions in an exceptional manner.

The Delegate of Thailand proposed the inscription of this site on the basis of criterion (vi) as well as the other three. Following on other situations in which criterion (vi) was applied, the Committee by consensus agreed that in this case the use of criterion (vi), in combination with the other criteria, was fully justified.

 

Property	Ouadi Qadisha (the Holy Valley) and the Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz el-Rab)
Id. N°	850
State Party	Lebanon
Criteria	C(iii)(iv)

Following clarification of the buffer zone by the State Party, the Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (iii) and (iv):

Criterion (iii): The Qadisha Valley has been the site of monastic communities continuously since the earliest years of Christianity. The trees in the Cedar Forest are survivors of a sacred forest and of one of the most highly prized building materials of the ancient world.

Criterion (iv): The monasteries of the Qadisha Valley are the most significant surviving examples of this fundamental demonstration of Christian faith.

Property	The Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes
Id. N°	560rev
State Party	Mexico
Criteria	C (iii)(iv)

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

Criterion (iii): Paquimé Casas Grandes bears eloquent and abundant testimony to an important element in the cultural evolution of North America, and in particular to prehispanic commercial and cultural links.

Criterion (iv): The extensive remains of the archaeological site of Paquimé Casas Grandes provide exceptional evidence of the development of adobe architecture in North America, and in particular of the blending of this with the more advanced techniques of Mesoamerica.

 

The Delegate of Morocco asked if criterion (v) could be used in this case. ICOMOS clarified that criterion (v) is for use in cases of living traditional human settlements.

 

Property	The Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan
Id. N°	862
State Party	Mexico
Criteria	C(ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): The urban layout and architecture of Tlacotalpan represent a fusion of Spanish and Caribbean traditions of exceptional importance and quality.

Criterion (iv): Tlacotalpan is a Spanish colonial river port on the Gulf coast of Mexico that has preserved its original urban fabric to an exceptional degree. Its outstanding character lies in its townscape of wide streets, modest houses in an exuberant variety of styles and colours, and many mature trees in public and private open spaces.

The Delegates of Brazil and Ecuador underscored the universal significance of this site for all of Latin America and commended the Mexican authorities on their conservation and management of the site.

Property	Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station)
Id. N°	867
State Party	The Netherlands
Criteria	C (i)(ii)(iv)

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii), and (iv):

Criterion (i): The advent of steam as a source of energy provided the Dutch engineers with a powerful tool in their millennial task of water management, and the Wouda installation is the largest of its type ever built.

Criterion (ii): The Wouda Pumping Station represents the apogee of Dutch hydraulic engineering, which has provided the models and set the standards for the whole world for centuries.

Criterion (iv): The Wouda pumping installations bear exceptional witness to the power of steam in controlling the forces of nature, especially as applied to water handling by Dutch engineers.

The Delegates of Thailand and Greece, while agreeing with the inscription of the site, expressed their reservation with the application of criterion (i).

*[31]

Property	Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley
Id. N°	866
State Party	Portugal
Criteria	C (i)(iii)

The Committee inscribed the site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i) and (iii):

Criterion (i): The Upper Palaeolithic rock-art of the Côa valley is an outstanding example of the sudden flowering of creative genius at the dawn of human cultural development.

Criterion (iii): The Côa Valley rock art throws light on the social, economic, and spiritual life on the life of the early ancestor of humankind in a wholly exceptional manner.

The Delegate of Thailand agreed with the inscription but expressed his reservation with the application of criterion (i). The Delegates of Australia and Morocco warmly welcomed this nomination for contributing to the diversity and credibility of the World Heritage List and commended the State Party on its management of the site.

Property	Rock Art of the Mediterranean Basin on the Iberian Peninsula
Id. N°	874
State Party	Spain
Criteria	C (iii)

The Committee inscribed this property on the basis of criterion (iii).

 

Criterion (iii): The corpus of late prehistoric mural paintings in the Mediterranean basin of eastern Spain is the largest group of rock-art sites anywhere in Europe and provides an exceptional picture of human life in a seminal period of human cultural evolution.

 

Property	The University and Historic Precinct of Alcalá de Henares
Id. N°	876
State Party	Spain
Criteria	C (ii)(iv)(vi)

The Committee inscribed this property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi):

Criterion (ii): Alcalá de Henares was the first city to be designed and built solely as the seat of a university, and was to serve as the model for other centres of learning in Europe and the Americas.

Criterion (iv): The concept of the ideal city, the City of God (Civitas Dei), was first given material expression in Alcalá de Henares, from where it was widely diffused throughout the world.

Criterion (vi): The contribution of Alcalá de Henares to the intellectual development of humankind finds expression in its materialization of the Civitas Dei, in the advances in linguistics that took place there, not least in the definition of the Spanish language, and through the work of its great son, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra and his masterpiece, Don Quixote.

The Delegate of Thailand, while agreeing with the inscription, expressed his reservation on the application of criterion (vi).

The Delegate of Morocco added that the Islamic origins of the city are important to note. The Delegate of Mexico commended the preservation and management of this site in view of its proximity to a large urban centre.

Property	The Naval Port of Karlskrona
Id. N°	871
State Party	Sweden
Criteria	C (ii)(iv)

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

Criterion (ii): Karlskrona is an exceptionally well preserved example of a European planned naval town, which incorporates elements derived from earlier establishments in other countries and which was in its turn to serve as the model for subsequent towns with similar functions.

Criterion (iv): Naval bases played an important role in the centuries during which naval power was a determining factor in European Realpolitik, and Karlskrona is the best preserved and most complete of those that survive.

The Delegate of Canada expressed appreciation for the comprehensive nature of this inscription.

The Observer of Sweden thanked the Committee and pledged to protect the World Heritage values for which the property had been inscribed.

 

Property	Archaeological site of Troy
Id. N°	849
State Party	Turkey
Criteria	C(ii)(iii)(vi)

The Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), and (vi):

The archaeological site of Troy is of immense significance in the understanding of the development of European civilization at a critical stage in its early development. It is, moreover, of exceptional cultural importance because of the profound influence of Homer's Iliad on the creative arts over more than two millennia.

The Delegate of Thailand wholeheartedly supported this nomination, pointing out that the application of criterion (vi) in this case is entirely justified.

The State Party informed the Committee that cartographic maps would be provided to the Committee as soon as possible.

 

 

Property	L'viv – The Ensemble of the Historic Centre
Id. N°	865
State Party	Ukraine
Criteria	C(ii)(v)

The Committee inscribed this site on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (ii), and (v):

Criterion (ii): In its urban fabric and its architecture, L'viv is an outstanding example of the fusion of the architectural and artistic traditions of Eastern Europe with those of Italy and Germany.

Criterion (v): The political and commercial role of L'viv attracted to it a number of ethnic groups with different cultural and religious traditions, who established separate yet interdependent communities within the city, evidence for which is still discernible in the modern townscape.

*[32]

The Delegate of Hungary remarked that State Party would need to give increased attention to the management of tourism at this site.

The Observer of Poland commended the State Party for this nomination (see Annex VII.2 to this report). The Mayor of L'viv thanked the Committee and pledged to maintain and promote the plural cultural values of this property.

B.2 Extension of a property already inscribed on the World Heritage List

Property	Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of the Asturias
Id. N°	312bis
State Party	Spain
Criteria	C(i)(ii)(iv)

The Committee approved the extension of the Churches of the Kingdom of the Asturias to include the Cámara Santa, the Basilica of San Julián de los Prados, and La Foncalada in Oviedo, on the World Heritage List, under the existing criteria (i), (ii) and (iv).

The Delegate of Canada commended the Representative of ICOMOS for his comprehensive and informative presentation. The Chairperson thanked ICOMOS on behalf of the members of the Committee.

IX FOLLOW-UP TO THE WORK OF THE CONSULTATIVE BODY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

IX.1 At its twentieth session in December 1996, the Committee requested a Financial Audit of the World Heritage Fund for the year ending 31 December 1996 and a Management Review of the World Heritage Convention. Furthermore, the Committee established a Consultative Body "to take action on the proposal adopted by the Committee, to undertake a review of the way in which the World Heritage Centre has assisted the Committee in implementing the World Heritage Convention".

IX.2 At its twenty-first session in December 1997, the Committee had requested that the Consultative Body examine the following four issues and present a report to the twenty-second session of the World Heritage Committee and its Bureau:

1. Technical issues

2. Communications and Promotion

3. Management Review and Financial Audit

4. Use of the World Heritage Emblem and Fund-Raising Guidelines.

IX.3 A meeting of the Consultative Body was held at UNESCO Headquarters on 29 and 30 April 1998. In accordance with the decision by the Consultative Body in December 1997, preliminary discussion papers on each of the four issues were prepared by designated members of the Consultative Body. These discussion papers then formed the basis of the Consultative Body's deliberations during their meeting in April 1998.

IX.4 The Report of the Rapporteur of the meeting of the Consultative Body was adopted on 24 June 1998 and was subsequently discussed by the twenty-second session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee. At its twenty-second session, the Bureau examined the Report of the Rapporteur of the Consultative Body and made specific recommendations to the World Heritage Committee. Some of the Bureau's recommendations have required substantial follow-up on the part of the World Heritage Centre and the advisory bodies as well as by members of the Consultative Body.

IX.5 The Chairperson thanked Professor Francioni (Italy) for having chaired the Consultative Body in 1998. He also thanked the members of the Consultative Body - Australia, Benin, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, the United States of America and Zimbabwe. He also thanked Greece for their contributions to the work of the Consultative Body. He commented that the intensive work on the complex issues faced by the Consultative Body was to be highly commended.

1. TECHNICAL ISSUES

IX.6 The Delegate of Australia, who had prepared a discussion paper for the Consultative Body meeting in April, informed the Committee that the following technical issues were examined by the Consultative Body at the request of the twenty-first session of the Committee:

(a) the application of cultural criteria (i) and (vi);

(b) the test of authenticity;

(c) the imbalance of the World Heritage List; and

(d) the implementation of the Global Strategy.

IX.7 The Delegate of Australia, informed the Committee about the deliberations of the Consultative Body and also referred to some of the main findings of the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Heritage Expert Meeting, held in Amsterdam in March 1998 (Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.7). She acknowledged that the discussion on the use of cultural criteria (i) and (vi) and the test of authenticity had benefited from written contributions from Greece, Malta and Zimbabwe. The contribution from Malta had proposed more detailed guidelines for the more stringent application of cultural criterion (i). The Delegate of Zimbabwe's contribution had focussed on the different understanding of authenticity in an African compared to a universal context. His paper also referred to the inseparability of natural and cultural heritage in Africa. Whilst noting that no change had been suggested to cultural criteria (i) and (vi) it was deemed necessary to suggest sparing use and a better definition of exactly how they should be used. She suggested that the advisory bodies may wish to review the qualifying conditions used to apply cultural criteria (i) and (vi) as part of their work to propose revisions to Section I of the Operational Guidelines.

IX.8 The Delegate of Australia then made reference to discussions on the test of authenticity and the application of the conditions of integrity. For authenticity, the discussions had focused on the nature of authenticity as outlined in the Nara Declaration on Authenticity. The Delegate of Australia highlighted two issues that had emerged from discussions. Firstly she stressed the need for more rigour to deter over-restoration. She also indicated the need to understand the link between authenticity and cultural value. In this respect she expressed the overwhelming view of the Amsterdam meeting that authenticity provisions should be defined for each of the criteria used to justify properties for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Furthermore, she noted that when devising new authenticity and integrity provisions, reference also needed to be made to geo-cultural contexts.

IX.9 The Delegate of Australia made reference to the recommendation of the twenty-second session of the Bureau that had asked, that in line with the discussions at the Global Strategy Expert Meeting in Amsterdam, further work be undertaken on breaking down the cultural themes outlined at the 1994 Global Strategy Experts Meeting into sub-themes that would assist identification of those types places that are over- or under-

*[33]

represented on the World Heritage List. The Bureau had requested that this work should recognise the inseparability of natural and cultural heritage. The Delegate of Australia commented that for natural heritage a number of thematic studies have been carried out by IUCN in a global context. However, she noted the ICOMOS studies seemed to be based on types of properties rather than cultural themes.

IX.10 The Delegate of Canada gave a brief report on the Global Strategy meeting held in Amsterdam in March 1998. She reminded the members of the Committee that following the expert meeting on natural heritage held in the Parc de la Vanoise in 1996, the twentieth session of the Committee had requested a truly joint natural and cultural heritage expert meeting to discuss the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible and representative World Heritage List. She informed the Committee that the Amsterdam meeting had addressed four main points – (i) the application of the conditions of integrity versus the test of authenticity; (ii) the question of a unified or a harmonized set of criteria; (iii) the notion of outstanding universal value and its application in different regional and cultural contexts; and, (iv) the credibility of the Convention and its implementation.

IX.11 The Delegate of Canada referred the Committee to the recommendations made in the report of the Amsterdam meeting for, (i) the existing natural and cultural heritage criteria to be unified into one single set of criteria to better reflect the continuum between nature and culture (Table 2 of Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.7); and (ii) the conditions of integrity (to include reference to the notion of authenticity) to be applied to both natural and cultural heritage (Table 3 of Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.7). She noted that the experts at Amsterdam asked that the World Heritage List reflect the broad spectrum of natural and cultural diversity and the outstanding relationships between people and the environment.

IX.12 With reference to the notion of outstanding universal value, the Delegate of Australia informed the Committee that a more regional and thematic approach to its interpretation deriving from broad themes and sub-themes had been recommended by the Amsterdam expert meeting. The expert group had noted that the implementation of the Global Strategy, using a regional and thematic approach, would be applied to fill in the gaps in the World Heritage List. The expert group had acknowledged that good progress had been made in this regard but had recommended that steps be taken to accelerate its implementation.

IX.13 With regard to the credibility of the Convention and its implementation, the Delegate of Canada noted that the experts attending the Amsterdam meeting had stressed that inscription of a site on the World Heritage List is not a single event but part of a continuing process to ensure the protection of the values for which the site has been inscribed. The Delegate of Zimbabwe informed the Committee of the discussions on credibility of the Convention and its implementation that took place at the expert meeting in Amsterdam. He referred to the details of that discussion presented in Table 7 of Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.7. He noted that the working group on credibility at the Amsterdam meeting had emphasized that the cornerstone of the credibility of the World Heritage List is the rigorous monitoring of properties and the political commitment of the States Parties to their protection.

IX.14 With reference to the application of cultural criteria (i) and (vi), the Committee did not suggest revisions. A number of Committee members did however suggest that a better understanding of the application of both criteria is required and explanatory text to accompany the criteria could be formulated to assist in this regard. It was noted that in applying cultural criterion (i), for example for rock art sites, it was important to go beyond reference to the 'masterpiece of human creative genius' to the landscape context which is inseparable to the meaning and prehistoric articulation of the landscape. The use of other cultural criteria and the three categories of cultural landscapes was noted as being important in this regard. A number of delegates and ICCROM stressed the need to finalise the work on bringing the natural and cultural criteria together and to expressing how they are to be used with greater clarity.

IX.15 Several delegates referred to the differential regional applications of the notion of authenticity. The Delegate of Greece made a statement that is included in Annex VIII.

IX.16 On the question of the balance of the List, the Committee emphasized that it was less useful to simply refer to the numbers of properties on the List than to assess the expressions of cultural and natural diversity and of cultural and natural themes from different regions represented on the List. Whilst some delegates noted that there are obstacles to achieving representation on the List in some regions and countries (for example, because of lack of awareness of the Convention or of technical and financial capacity etc.), others referred to the high numbers of nominations being presented to the World Heritage Committee each year. A number of delegates noted that the decision by the Committee concerning nominations are sometimes disconnected from the implementation of the Global Strategy as had been seen by the high number of European sites the Committee had inscribed on the World Heritage List at its twenty-second session. It was also noted that the interests of national authorities might differ from the objectives of the Global Strategy in relation to the inclusion of properties on the List. Currently the work of the Convention is highly respected in many countries, but the pressures on the entire system are substantive.

IX.17 In this context, the need was stressed to move from recommendations to action and to assess the issue from a political perspective, basically founded on two aspects: the urgency of meeting the legitimate expectations of a substantial number of countries to be assisted in presenting applications for their sites; and the need for some countries to self-contain their ambitions. The Delegate of France expressed concern about the useful discussions concerning the balance of the List and the decisions taken by the Committee, emphasizing that the credibility of the latter was at stake. He insisted upon the importance of avoiding the perpetration of this imbalance. The Delegate of Finland proposed a moratorium on inscriptions, in order for the Committee and the World Heritage Centre to focus more on preparing applications for countries that are underrepresented on the List.

IX.18 The Committee was of the general opinion that regionally specific approaches to the implementation of the Global Strategy for a representative and credible World Heritage List (as adopted by the Committee as part of the Action Plan on the Global Strategy – see Section X) should be accelerated to ensure results. The Committee noted the need to use a more strategic approach to funding activities relating to underrepresented regions and themes.

IX.19 The Representative of IUCN reinforced the importance of there being one World Heritage that recognizes the nature-culture continuum. IUCN informed the Committee that they had discussed the concept of this continuum with IUCN members on several occasions, including the World Conservation Congress (Montreal 1996). The concept of one single set of criteria and the issue of a credible and representative World Heritage List reflecting cultural and natural diversity had received support among the IUCN membership. The IUCN Representative referred to their continuing work on thematic studies with new partners, including the WWF Global 200 Programme. He

*[34]

informed the Committee that IUCN sees further scope for cooperation with ICOMOS in relation to cultural landscapes, especially those with biodiversity values. He stated that the assessment of outstanding universal value in an international context and the maintenance of integrity and authenticity are key to ensuring the credibility of the World Heritage List.

IX.20The Representatives of ICOMOS wished that attention be given to the actual inscription of a property on the World Heritage List rather than to the criteria, which may be considered as tools for analysis and which, furthermore, need not be mentioned in the published List. They insisted upon the importance of regular communication with the site managers so that they may be well informed of the debates taking place and take into account the reality of the field. Finally, they were of the opinion that the objectives of the Convention should be re-affirmed, that they do not have as aim the establishment of a list of the most prestigious properties, but first and foremost to implement international co-operation for the safeguarding of humankind's cultural heritage.

IX.22The Chairperson thanked the Government of the Netherlands for hosting the Amsterdam Global Strategy meeting (March 1998) and the Committee, advisory bodies and observers for the rich and intensive debate. The Committee adopted the following decisions:

1. The Committee thanked the Delegate of Italy (who had chaired the Consultative Body in 1998) and all the members of the Consultative Body for their productive work on the technical issues and paid tribute to the work of the Global Strategy Expert Meeting held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in March 1998.

2. The Committee stressed the urgent need to establish a representative World Heritage List and considered it imperative to ensure more participation of those States Parties whose heritage is currently underrepresented on the World Heritage List. The Committee requested the Centre and the advisory bodies to actively consult with these States Parties to encourage and support their active participation in the implementation of the Global Strategy for a credible and representative World Heritage List through the concrete regional actions described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session.

3. Given the purposes of the World Heritage Convention, the policy of the Committee regarding nominations should have two parts: (i) the Committee should value all nominations from all States Parties and (ii) the Committee should strategically expend its resources to increase nomination of sites from parts of the world which are presently not represented or underrepresented.

4. The Committee asked that when the Bureau examines new nominations at its future sessions, it take into account the debate of the twenty-second session of the Committee on the establishment of a representative World Heritage List.

5. The Committee requested the Centre to work with the advisory bodies, to further develop the revision of Section I of the Operational Guidelines and submit them to the twenty-third session of the Bureau. The Bureau should submit for adoption its recommendations to the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee.

6. The Committee urged the advisory bodies to pursue further work on breaking down the themes into sub-themes, taking into consideration the recommendations of relevant expert meetings. Particular attention should be given to secure the highest level of scientific and technical consensus. The advisory bodies are asked to report on progress made and suggest any concrete decisions to be taken by future sessions of the Committee.

7. The Committee requested that the Centre, in collaboration with the advisory bodies present a progress report on the implementation of the regional actions described in the Global Strategy Action Plan adopted by the Committee at its twenty-second session to the twenty-third session of the Committee.

8. The Committee requested that an agenda item on "Ways and means to ensure a representative World Heritage List" be presented to the twelfth General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention in 1999. The twenty-third session of the Bureau is asked to prepare the agenda item for the General Assembly.

 

2. Communications and Promotion

IX.22The Consultative Body's work on communication and promotion was discussed under Agenda Item 13 and is included in Section XIII of the report.

3.Management Review and Financial Audit

Follow-up to the Report of the External Auditor to the Director-General of UNESCO on the Management Review of the World Heritage Convention

IX.23 Members of the Committee were reminded that the "Report of the External Auditor to the Director-General of UNESCO on the Management Review of the World Heritage Convention" (Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.16) had been submitted to its twenty-first session in Naples, Italy in December 1997. The recommendations of the Management Review and Financial Audit were discussed at the April 1998 Consultative Body meeting with reference to a discussion paper prepared jointly by France and Italy. The twenty-second session of the Bureau examined the Report of the Rapporteur of the Consultative Body and prepared a number of recommendations. The recommendations of the twenty-second session of the Bureau were presented to the twenty-second session of the Committee as Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/11.

IX.24 A Progress Report on Follow-up to the "Report of the External Auditor to the Director-General of UNESCO on the Management Review of the World Heritage Convention" was included as Annex I of the above-mentioned document. The Committee could not examine the progress report in detail, due to time constraints.

The Committee adopted the following decision:

Having examined the work of the Consultative Body in 1998, the Committee requested the twenty-third session of the Bureau to examine the Progress Report on Follow-up to the "Report of the External Auditor to the Director-General of UNESCO on the Management Review of the World Heritage Convention" prepared by the Centre (Annex I of Document WHC-98/CONF.203/11). The twenty-third session of the Bureau is asked to present its own report and recommendations on the subject to the twenty-third session of the World Heritage Committee for adoption.

Role and functions of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre

IX.25 At its twenty-second session, the Bureau requested that the Director-General of UNESCO provide a report outlining "the

*[35]

tasks and functions of the World Heritage Centre as Secretariat to the Convention".

IX.26 At the request of the Committee, the Green Note entitled the 'Preservation and Presentation of Cultural and Natural Heritage' issued by the Director-General of UNESCO on 23 November 1998 was presented to the Committee in Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/11 Add.

IX.27 During a lengthy discussion, which focused on the future of the World Heritage Centre and the replacement of the Director of the Centre following his retirement, the Committee acknowledged that the Green Note was an internal document and does not constitute the report requested.

IX.28 The Committee highlighted the important contribution of the Centre to the work of UNESCO, the Convention and the Committee. The Delegate of Canada described the Centre as reflecting the genius of the Convention in expressing the continuum between nature and culture.

IX.29 The Representative of the Director-General of UNESCO stated that,

'The Green Note is not the report requested by the Bureau and the Consultative Body from the Director-General. As you know, the World Heritage Committee has, itself, reaffirmed year after year, that the World Heritage Centre, created by the Director-General, should be considered as a unit of the Secretariat.

Consequently, it remains the prerogative of the Director-General to take, in particular by a Green Note, as he does for all units of the Secretariat, the measures he deems necessary for the organization and the functioning of the World Heritage Centre.

For the internal organizational questions of the Secretariat, the Director-General refers to procedures established by the General Conference and the Executive Board of UNESCO, which he has to consult.'

Subsequently, the Committee debated how best to express the vision they have for the future of the Centre. The Delegate of Thailand urged that the "distinct identity of the World Heritage Centre in UNESCO but outside the traditional sectoral structure" must be retained. The Delegate of Italy suggested alternative wording that was subsequently adopted (see paragraph 2 below.)

The Committee adopted the following decision:

1. The Committee expressed satisfaction and appreciation of the work of the World Heritage Centre under the direction of Mr von Droste, successfully bringing together work on the protection of both cultural as well as natural World Heritage.

2. The Committee is convinced that the World Heritage Centre should remain a unit specifically dedicated to provide Secretariat services to the World Heritage Convention under the direct authority of the Director-General.

3. The Committee believed that the recommendation of the twenty-second session of the Bureau in June 1998 addressed to the Director-General remains valid. Therefore, the Committee kindly requested the Director-General of UNESCO to prepare a report on the following points:

• the tasks and functions of the World Heritage Centre as Secretariat to the Convention;

• the modalities for intervention and co-operation with other specialized sectors of UNESCO in the field of World Heritage;

• the modalities for co-ordination of the other sectors with the World Heritage Centre;

• the way in which decisions are adopted and applied on the use of the funds related to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention;

• the tasks and functions of the World Heritage Centre with respect to the use of funds as Secretariat to the Convention.

The report is requested in due time for the twenty-third session of the Bureau to consider it and provide recommendations, if necessary, to the twenty-third session of the Committee.

The Centre is asked to circulate the report to all members of the Committee as soon as it becomes available.

IX.30 The Representative of the Director-General stated that the Director-General has no intention to change the status of the Centre as a unit of UNESCO not forming part of the sectoral structure and under the direct authority of the Director-General.

IX.31 The Delegates of Thailand and the United States of America asked that the report on this agenda item note that the Representative of the Director-General had affirmed in his statement, that the Centre would remain a distinct unit within UNESCO specifically assigned to work as the Secretariat of the Convention and would not be part of the traditional sectoral structure

4.USE OF THE WORLD HERITAGE EMBLEM AND FUND-RAISING GUIDELINES

IX.32 The Secretariat briefly introduced the issue on the use of the World Heritage Emblem and Fund-raising, by recalling the step by step process followed by the Consultative Body in proposing new Guidelines on the Use of the World Heritage Emblem and Fund-raising to the Committee at its twenty-second session. The Secretariat further recalled that the document submitted to the Committee for examination within document WHC-98/CONF.203/11Add remained unchanged since it was last presented to the extraordinary session of the Bureau.

IX.33 Concerning the use of the World Heritage Emblem, the Chairperson recalled discussions of the twenty-second extraordinary session of the Bureau and invited the Delegate of Canada, who had suggested amendments to the Guidelines prepared by Japan and the United States of America, to present them.

IX.34 In presenting the proposed document, "Guidelines and Principles for the Use of the World Heritage Emblem", the Delegate of Canada informed the Committee that the proposal emanated from the Guidelines prepared by Japan and the United States of America (WHC-98/CONF.203/11Add) and was finalized in co-operation with these delegations. She underlined the fact that the document was not a new proposal, but a slightly modified version of the Japanese/USA Guidelines, presenting a more concise, but nevertheless self-contained document. She recalled that the adoption of the proposed Guidelines and Principles would entail a revision of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. She concluded by stating that, after having spent close to two years working on this issue and in view of the growing urgency of the

*[36]

matter, the Committee should adopt guidelines to provide all concerned parties with a tool ensuring appropriate use of the Emblem.

IX.35 While recognizing that the proposed Guidelines reflected the comments of the Secretariat to some extent, the representative of the UNESCO Publishing Office who participated in the debate, expressed reserve regarding the applicability of the Guidelines and quality control requirements proposed in the document. He stated that this might discourage media related companies (publishers, film producers, etc.) from requesting the use of the Emblem on World Heritage related information products.

IX.36 During the discussions, concerns were raised on the legal aspects related to the protection of the Emblem and the implications of these aspects in terms of the responsibilities of the Committee and the States Parties to the Convention. The need for quality control of World Heritage site-specific products from States Parties was reaffirmed and considered indispensable.

IX.37 A working group, composed of the Governments of Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America was established on a voluntary basis to continue working on this issue before the end of the session. The working group made amendments to the text to reflect the discussions of the Committee. The Delegate of the United States of America briefly presented the modifications made to the document. This new version of the document (attached as Annex XII to this report) was adopted by the Committee.

IX.38 The Chairperson briefly introduced the Fund-raising Guidelines and reminded the Committee that the "Internal Guidelines for Private Sector Fund-Raising in Favour of UNESCO" have been in use within UNESCO since 1997 but have not yet been adopted by the Executive Board. Therefore, the Chairperson proposed that the Committee ask the Centre to work in accordance with the "Internal Guidelines for Private Sector Fund-Raising in Favour of UNESCO". The Committee agreed with the proposal and then adopted the decision as formulated

X.PROGRESS REPORT, SYNTHESIS AND ACTION PLAN ON THE GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A REPRESENTATIVE AND CREDIBLE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

X.1 The Chairperson introduced Working Document WHC-98/CONF.203/12 and the following information documents:

WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.7
Report on the World Heritage Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Expert Meeting,, 25–29 March 1998, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.8
Report of the Regional Thematic Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in the Andes, Arquipa/Chivay, Peru, 17-22 May 1998 (English only)

WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.9
Synthetic Report of the 4^th Global Strategy Meeting for Western Africa, Benin, 16-19 September 1998

X.2 He recalled that the Agenda item was prepared in pursuance of a recommendation adopted by the Consultative Body and that its draft had been discussed with the advisory bodies: ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN. He underlined that the Committee would take note of the Information Documents and of Section I: Background to the Document, and Section II: Introduction to the Global Strategy for a representative and credible World Heritage List. He pointed out that it was the first time that the Committee would be examining regional action plans for Africa, Arab States, Asia, the Pacific, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean.

X.3 The Secretariat then introduced Section III: Priority issues, Section IV: Regional Action Plans and Section V: Overall Action Plan.

X.4 It was recalled that the report of the Expert Meeting on the Global Strategy and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List in 1994 was examined by the Committee at its eighteenth session in 1994 at UNESCO Headquarters, Paris (Document WHC-94/CONF.003/INF.6). It also adopted the proposed Global Strategy for a representative World Heritage List at the time. The Committee had been concerned by a number of gaps and serious imbalances regarding the representation of regions, kinds of properties and historical periods on the List, as well as over-representation of architectural masterpieces of Europe. It recognized therefore the need to identify themes and areas whose investigation in their broad anthropological context would have high potential to complete gaps on the representation of the List. The Secretariat pointed out during the presentation of Section III "Priority issues" the:

1. continuing imbalances of new categories defined in the Operational Guidelines and still under-represented on the List, such as Cultural Landscapes, Routes and Itineraries. It deplored the absence of natural sites in the Amazon Basin, the low representation of heritage of Arctic and Sub-arctic regions, as well as the lack of implementation of the natural part of the World Heritage Convention in the Arab States. On the other hand, it noted the continuing increase in the number of categories of sites already represented. It underlined that little consideration had been given to paragraph 6 (vii) of the Operational Guidelines which "invites States Parties to consider whether their cultural heritage is already well represented on the List, and if so to slow down voluntarily their rate of future nominations".

2. constraints faced by many States Parties whose heritage is still under-represented on the List, and which have inadequate legal protection and management mechanisms, as well as insufficient human and financial resources for the preservation and conservation of their heritage. Many of these States Parties cannot present "Preparatory Assistance" requests because of their arrears to the World Heritage Fund. The Secretariat also voiced the concern expressed at African Regional and Sub-Regional Experts meetings regarding the level of "Preparatory Assistance" which is limited to US$ 15.000 and is deemed insufficient for the preparation of nominations files.

X.5 Due to time constraints, the six regional action plans for Africa, Arab States, Asia, the Pacific, Europe and North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, were not presented in detail. However, the Secretariat underlined that each action plan provided complete information on: (i) the status of implementation of the World Heritage Convention, number of States Parties, tentative lists, natural and cultural sites as well as the categories of heritage still under-represented; (ii) activities undertaken since the adoption of the Global Strategy; (iii) an assessment of results and shortcomings which justify the rationale for (iv) an action plan for the year 1999-2000. These action plans presented detailed activities that addressed issues taking into account specific needs in each region with a view of achieving a more representative, diversified and credible World

*[37]

Heritage List. These activities concerned natural and cultural heritage and underlined the continuum between nature and culture. However, bearing in mind the recommendation of the Consultative Body "to prepare a prioritised action plan to ensure an acceleration of the implementation of the Global Strategy", an overall action plan was also submitted to the Committee with reference to:

(i) methods for communicating the objectives and regional and thematic approach of the Global Strategy to all States Parties which included (a) a modification of the Operational Guidelines as approved by the Committee at the present session; (b) as well as to the necessity of their translation into Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese and national languages when deemed necessary; (c) and also an analysis of categories of heritage relevant to the geo-cultural context to be proposed at national and regional meetings of experts, in co-operation with the advisory bodies, thus promoting awareness of the present imbalances in the implementation of the Convention;

(ii) ways of channeling and increasing resources available to States Parties to ensure sustainable conservation of World Heritage properties in the long term. In that respect, the World Heritage Centre will increase (a) its co-operation in conservation activities on World Heritage sites within UNESCO, with other international organizations, and bilateral donors, and remind the States Parties of their obligations under Paragraph 56 of the Operational Guidelines, (b) further development of regional training strategies in co-operation with ICCROM, (c) enlargement of professional and political networks amongst managers, decision-makers, administrators and professionals.

X.6 During the debate, the Observer of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) presented the "Global 200" analysis, which is a comparative biological assessment leading to the selection of globally outstanding examples of the major habitat types on earth - marine, freshwater and terrestrial. This analysis has been presented in a map, the "Global 200 Ecoregions", which identifies the world's habitat priorities in all their extraordinary diversity. The "Global 200" could be a useful tool for States Parties to identify natural sites suitable for World Heritage Listing and to assist in fulfilling the Convention's unique role in securing conservation of natural sites of universal value. He noted the participation of the World Wide Fund for Nature in the forthcoming World Heritage Forest meeting in Sumatra, Indonesia, in December 1998.

X.7 IUCN supported the Committee's efforts to establish a credible and balanced World Heritage List. It noted, however, that the main focus of the exercise should be output-oriented and clear goals and objectives should guide this process. IUCN has developed the technical working papers, as outlined in Document WHC/CONF.203/12, to help to define outstanding universal value with regard to natural heritage criteria for a credible World Heritage List. IUCN offers to strengthen co-operation with the Centre and the States Parties in this regard. The World Parks Congress in 2002 in Africa would be a key global event and will be held in Kenya or South Africa, and IUCN will work with the Centre to ensure that World Heritage is an integral element of this. IUCN emphasized that it fully endorses the effective linkage between nature and culture, which is particularly crucial for Small Island states (i.e the Caribbean and the Pacific). While the imbalance between natural and cultural heritage is significant, the main challenge is that of effective management of World Heritage sites. The yearly increase of the World Heritage List may be a "ticking time bomb" and the continuing increase in nominations, if unchecked, could reduce World Heritage standards.

X.8 ICOMOS recalled that its comparative studies had been so far reactive; and upon receipt of properties that had not previously been considered for the List, they had requested advice on criteria and methodology for evaluating them. However, they were engaged in more systematic comparative studies with TICCIH and Do Co Mo Mo and they held themselves ready to assist the Committee and States Parties to undertake a programme of comparative studies on regions whose heritage was still under-represented on the World Heritage List. ICCROM declared that it was pleased to note that the emphasis on training strategies and capacity building had been integrated in the Global Strategy approach.

X.9 The Observer of Poland underlined the importance of Eastern Europe in the implementation of the Global Strategy, as the heritage of Eastern Europe is subject to rapid economic and social transformation. He noted with satisfaction that a seminar on cultural landscapes in Eastern and Central Europe is to be organized in 1999. He stated that his Government would be happy to host this meeting in the city of Gdansk. The Director of the Centre informed the Committee that an invitation has been also received from Slovakia and that it has to be discussed with the States Parties concerned.

X.10 The Observer of the Netherlands informed the Committee that it was an honour for his Government to host the Global Strategy Expert Meeting, held in Amsterdam in March 1998 (see Information Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.7), and that the proceedings of the meeting are currently being published.

X.11 The Delegate of Japan noted that in the proposed budget for activities in Asia in the year 2000 on page 51 of Document WHC-98/CONF.203/12, amounted only to US$ 6,000 for the publication of the report of the South-East Asia Meeting to be held in 1999. Stating that this budget does not reflect the important needs and activities proposed as indicated in the regional action plan for Asia in the document, he asked the Secretariat to readjust the budget for the year 2000 and to give further thought on activities to improve the representation of Asian properties on the World Heritage List. Referring to the activities in Afghanistan proposed by the Centre, he stated Japan's strong interest in the protection of cultural heritage in Afghanistan, especially for the site of Bamiyan, and indicated his Government's willingness to consider the funding of activities if security conditions permit their implementation.

X.12 The Delegate of Mexico remarked that Mexico organized in Mexico City in 1998 a regional course on the Convention and its application. He considered this course also of relevance for the Global Strategy as it specifically addressed matters such as representativity of the World Heritage List and identification of new types of cultural heritage properties.

X.13Representatives of South Africa and Benin commended the work of the Secretariat concerning the Global Strategy and said that they had witnessed the impact of the activities that had been undertaken so far. The Delegate of Benin stated that the process has already borne tangible results, but that it always takes time to increase capacity building and therefore, generate nominations in the region. The Delegate of South Africa recommended that the World Heritage Centre involve regional institutions, like the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and OAU, to accelerate the process of nominations and ratification. On the other hand, the Delegate of Benin requested the World Heritage Centre to organize information meetings with the delegations at UNESCO Headquarters, to inform them and

*[38]

report on the activities undertaken within the framework of the Global Strategy. Reference was made to the 4th Global Strategy meeting for Western Africa held in Porto-Novo (Benin) in September 1998, which highlighted the importance of the intangible aspects inherent in the African heritage. The Delegate asked the Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage whether the lack of representativity of African heritage on the World Heritage List would entail that it would qualify more specifically for inscription on the list of humankind's oral and intangible masterpieces.

X.14 In response to the question of the Delegate of Benin concerning the imbalance in representativty of the World Heritage List in Africa which would to a certain degree be counter-balanced by UNESCO's recent initiative in favour of humankind's oral and intangible heritage, the Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage indicated that it would be appropriate to refer to the work of the 154^th and 155^th sessions of the Executive Board concerning this item on the agenda. The statement by UNESCO on humankind's oral and intangible masterpieces should not be confused with the establishment of the World Heritage List, stemming from the implementation of an international convention (1972 Convention), even if, as in the case of the Place Djemaa Al Fna of Marrakesh, it may be complementary.

X.15 Following the intervention by the Delegate of Japan concerning the heritage of Afghanistan, the Director of the Division of Cultural Heritage recalled that no Afghan property is inscribed on the World Heritage List to date. He informed the members of the Committee of a meeting which was organized on 30 September 1998 at UNESCO Headquarters by the Blue Shield International Committee (in collaboration with ICOM and ICOMOS), on the situation of Afghan heritage as well as the approval of a funds-in-trust agreement of US$ 113,000 that Italy has granted to carry out emergency operations and encourage the presentation of sites and museums, more particularly the Kabul Museum.

X.16 The Delegate of Finland noted that the proposed budget did not reflect the regional imbalances and that the budget for Europe for the year 2000 is proportionally too large in comparison to Asia, which seems inconsistent with the imbalance of the global strategy aims. She stated, however, that if the budget for Europe is for the under-represented Baltic States, the proposed budget for Europe would be justified.

X.17 The Chairperson responded that the budget for the year 2000 is merely an indicative one and that the Committee is being requested to review and approve the activities and budget for 1999. He said, however, that the comments on the low budget for Asia for the year 2000 had been noted and he asked the Secretariat to look into this matter. He confirmed that the activities proposed for Europe were indeed to increase the number of nominations from Eastern and Central Europe as well as the Baltic States.

X.18 At the end of the debate, the Director of the Centre promised that the actions for the year 2000 would be reviewed in the light of the discussion. The Chairperson commended the regional approach that would redress the imbalances of the World Heritage List. The prioritized action plan prepared as a follow-up of the Consultative Body concerning the implementation of the Global Strategy was endorsed. The activities foreseen in the regional action plans for 1999 presented under Section VI of the Working Document, were approved, and in addition: US$ 15,000 for IUCN and US$ 23,000 for ICOMOS.

 

Summary Workplan of regional activities approved in 1999 under Chapter II: Global Strategy

1. AFRICA

Publication of report and follow-up of the 4th Global Strategy Meeting	3,000
Regional Thematic Global Strategy Meeting on Cultural Landscapes (40,000 approved in 1997)	8,000
	11,000

2. ARAB STATES

Second Regional Study on the identification of potential natural sites (Publication and translation of the report in Arabic)	8,000
Seminar on Monuments (Publication and distribution of the report in Arabic)	30,000
	38,000

 

3. ASIA

Publication and distribution of the report of the Central Asian Archaeological Heritage meeting	5,000
Completion of ongoing analysis on representativity of World Heritage Cultural sites in Asia in cooperation with ICOMOS and ICCROM	6,000
Mission and case study on Afghanistan to address issue of cultural properties in situation of armed conflicts	10,000
	21,000

 *[39]

 

4. PACIFIC

Regional review of all protected areas including South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) initiated Community Based Conservation Area (CBCAs)	15,000
Support to Pacific participants to attend regional workshops and meetings	15,000
	30,000

 

5. EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA

Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes for Eastern and Central Europe and Baltic States	30,000
	30,000

6. LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN

Latin America
Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes in the Andean region (Publication of report in Spanish)	5,000
Expert meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Central America	25,000
The Caribbean
The Cultural Heritage of the Caribbean and the World Heritage Convention (Publication and distribution of the report)	5,000
Compilation of existing studies of Caribbean natural and cultural heritage	10,000
Grand Total	45,000

 

 

TOTAL BY REGION

- Africa - Arab States - Asia - Pacific - Europe and North America - Latin America and the Caribbean

1999 11,000 38,000 21,000 30,000 30,000   45,000   175,000

 

XI. EXAMINATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE FUND AND APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET FOR 1999, AND PRESENTATION OF A PROVISIONAL BUDGET FOR 2000

XI.1 The Chairperson presented the documents related to agenda item 11:

• WHC-98/CONF.203/13, which presents the World Heritage Fund, the income and forecasts, the work plan and the proposed budget;

• WHC-98/CONF.203/13Add., which presents the approved financial statements of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 1998;

• WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.19, which presents the approved international assistance requests as at 15 November 1998.

Furthermore, it is recalled that the advisory bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM) had submitted their activity reports for 1997 concerning the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Document WHC-98/CONF.203/INF.13).

Finally, the Chairperson reminded the Committee of the decisions that had been taken during this session:

• first, take note of the approved accounts of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 December 1997 and the provisional accounts for 1998 up to 31 October 1998,

• adopt the budgetary ceiling for 1999,

• allocate budgetary amounts to the different chapters according to the approved ceiling and the Committee's decisions taken during the discussions on other items of the agenda,

• examine and approve the provisional budget for 2000.

 

XI.2 The Deputy Director of the Centre then presented the agenda item as follows:

• the response of the World Heritage Centre to the recommendations of the financial and administrative audit,

• the resources available for the implementation of the Convention (contributions of States Parties, Regular Programme budget, extrabudgetary funds, staff costs of the World Heritage Centre) and the state of the approved accounts of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 1998,

• the situation of the World Heritage Centre as at 31 October 1998,

• the budgetary proposal for 1999 and the provisional budget for 2000.

XI.3 The Committee congratulated the Secretariat for the efforts made to improve the financial management of the World Heritage Fund. It noted the creation of a database for monitoring international assistance and preparatory action for the establishment of an integrated information management for the overall work. Members of the Committee warmly thanked Finland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America for their efforts in contributing towards the installation of this system.

XI.4 Concerning the outstanding mandatory contributions, the Committee wished that the Secretariat contact the States Parties concerned to encourage them to pay their outstanding dues. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the outstanding dues of fifteen States Parties represented 93% of the total outstanding contributions. It also informed the Committee that, taking into consideration the new rate of calculating

*[40]

UNESCO Member States' contributions, the total mandatory contributions to be perceived would change from US$ 2,011,116 in 1997 to US$ 1,998,522 in 1999. Consequently, the Secretariat proposes to inform the General Assembly of States Parties and to propose a minimum amount as contribution.

XI.5 After several questions concerning the Reserve Fund and its replenishment, the global amount of the budget was approved. This amount, taking account of the decisions taken by the Committee during its earlier sessions, amounts to four million six hundred and seventy-six thousand United States dollars (US$ 4, 676,000). The provisional budget for the year 2000 was fixed at four million eight hundred thousand United States dollars (US$ 4,800,000). The Emergency Reserve Fund approved for 1999 is six hundred thousand United States dollars (US$ 600,000).

 

XI.6 The resources of the World Heritage Centre were also discussed by the Committee.

• From 1997 to 1998, the Centre experienced a reduction of two associate expert posts, whilst the contracts of three associate experts presently working at the Centre will terminate during the first six months of 1999. Consequently, the Secretariat requested the Committee to study the possibility of reinforcing the Secretariat through new associate expert posts.

• With regard to the Regular Programme budget of the Centre, on steady decrease since the past two biennium, the Committee was requested to provide its support for the next budgetary exercise (2000-2001) to assist the Centre to carry out its mission.

XI.7 The decisions of the Committee for the chapters and components of the budget are as follows:

Chapter I – Implementation of the Convention

An amount of US$ 30,000 is reserved for the organization of the extraordinary session of the Committee that will discuss the state of conservation of Kakadu National Park (Australia). This approximate amount replaces the amount deducted from the budget of Chapter V by the Committee.

The Consultative Body for the financial and management evaluation of the Centre will not receive a budgetary allocation.

The evaluation of international assistance for an amount of US$ 40,000 of which the use is submitted for the decision of the next Bureau based on a proposal to be presented by the Secretariat, is approved.

The amount of US$ 40,000 for the Strategic Planning Working Group was not approved.

The total approved for Chapter I amounted to US$ 225,000

With regard to the budgetary line for attendance at statutory meetings, and following interventions concerning the use of this amount, the Secretariat proposed that the Committee study the possibility of opening this line to States Parties non-members of the Committee belonging to the group of least developed countries (LDC). No formal decision was taken on this matter by the Committee.

Chapter II – Establishment of the World Heritage List

Following discussions concerning the components of this Chapter: amounts allocated to ICOMOS and IUCN; the place of ICCROM in this Chapter and the possibility to retain a budgetary allocation for other organizations and institutions in the advisory body services (implementation level is at 60% as at 31 October 1998), the Committee approved this Chapter in its entirety.

The total amount approved for Chapter II amounted to US$ 975,000. ICOMOS requested that one contract be established for its Global Strategy activities and advisory services.

Chapter III – Technical Implementation of the Convention

The amount foreseen for ICCROM for Training activities was adjusted in accordance with the decisions of the Committee and reduced to US$ 241,000.

The other budgetary lines were approved.

The total approved for Chapter III amounted to US$ 2,626,000.

Chapter IV – Reactive monitoring and submission of periodic reports

This Chapter was approved without change and the total for Chapter IV therefore amounted to US$ 465,000.

Chapter V – Documentation, information and education

Following the decisions of the Committee during discussions on item 15 of the agenda,

US$ 5,000 proposed in the component "Documentation" for the application of thematic categories of properties included on the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists was not approved.

US$ 25,000 proposed in the component "Information material" for the application of a marketing strategy for the promotion of sales of the World Heritage Review was not approved.

The total approved for this Chapter amounted to US$ 385,000.

The approved budget by chapter and component is provided in the following Table.

*[41]

 

Approved budget for 1999 and Tentative Budget for 2000 (in United States Dollars)

(in United States dollars)

 

Chapters and components	ApprovedBudget for 1997	Approved Budget for 1998	ApprovedBudget for 1999	Budget for 2000
Chapter I– Implementation of the Convention
Attendance of Experts in Statutory Meetings	80 000	80 000	70 000	65 000
Extraordinary Session of the World Heritage Committee	0	0	30 000	0
Financial, Management Reviews and Consultative Group	120 000	50 000	0	0
Development of an Information Management System	0	0	60 000	60 000
Evaluation of international assistance	0	0	40 000	0
Co-ordination with other Conventions and Programmes,etc.	0	30 000	25 000	25 000
Sub-total Chapter I	200 000	160 000	225 000	150 000
Chapter II– Establishment of the World Heritage List
Global Strategy	100 000	243 000	213 000	249 000
Advisory Services:
ICOMOS	350 000	327 000	407 000	407 000
IUCN	247 000	237 750	325 000	325 000
Others	35 000	40 000	30 000	30 000
Sub-total Advisory services	632 000	604 750	762 000	762 000
Sub-total Chapter II	732 000	847 750	975 000	1 011 000
Chapter III – Technical Implementation of the Convention
Preparatory Assistance	300 000	300 000	300 000	350 000
Technical Co-operation	900 000	1 032 500	1 245 000	1 285 000
Training	745 000	982500	981 000	1 024 000
Including ICCROM	n.a.	p.m.	241 000	275 000
Including IUCN	n.a.		30 000	30 000
Including activities for the preparation of monitoring reports	n.a.	n.a.	50 000	50 000
Support to promotional activities at sites	0	125 000	100 000	100 000
Sub-total Chapter III	1 945 000	2 440 000	2 626 000	2 759 000