World Heritage

25 COM

Distribution limited

WHC-01/CONF.208/24
Paris, 8 February 2002
Original: English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURALORGANIZATIONCONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLDCULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fifth session
Helsinki, Finland
11 - 16 December 2001

REPORTTABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Opening Session

1

II.a

Adoption of the Agenda and the Timetable

2

II.b

Proposal for a Revision of the Rules ofProcedure

2

III.

IV.a

IV.b

V.

Report on the Activities Undertaken by the
Secretariat since the Twenty-Fourth
Session of the Committee
Reports of the Rapporteurs on the Bureau
Sessions of the World Heritage Committee,
2001

2

57

Examination of the World Heritage Fundand Approval of the Budget for 2002-2003

57

XVII.

Information on International Assistance62

XVIII.

Requests for International Assistance

64

XIX.

Date, Place and Provisional Agenda of theTwenty-Sixth Session of the Bureau of theWorld Heritage Committee (April 2002)

66

Date, Place and Provisional Agenda of theTwenty-Sixth Session of the World
Heritage Committee (June 2002)

66

XXI.

Other Business

66

XXII.

Adoption of the Report

66

XXIII.

Closure of the Session

66

XVI.

4

Follow-Up to the Resolution of theThirteenth General Assembly of States
Parties (30-31 October 2001): Acts
Constituting "Crimes Against the Common
Heritage of Humanity"

4

Progress Report on the Implementation of
Reform Measures

8

XX.

Revision of the Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention

11

VII.

Periodic Reporting

12

VIII.

State of Conservation of Properties
inscribed on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and on the World Heritage List

VI.

Report on the Proposed World Heritage
Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts(WHIPCOE)

XV.

AnnexesI

List of Participants

69

II.

Opening Speech of the Chairperson, Mr
Henrik Lilius

91

Speech of the Director General
UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura

93

15
III.

IX.

X.

XI.

XII.

Progress Report on Regional Actions for
the Implementation of the Global Strategy
for a Representative and Balanced World
Heritage List
Information on Tentative Lists andExamination of Nominations of Cultural
and Natural Properties to the List of World
Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage
List

XIV.

Awareness
Activities

Building

Information

55
and

97

Speech of the Minister of Environment,
Minister for International Development
Affairs, Finland, Ms Satu Hassi

99

VII.

Statement by the Observer of Israel

101

VIIIa.

Budget for Afghanistan Mission

103

VIII.bBudgetforDocumentation

VI.

54

30th Anniversary Events

Speech of the Minister of Culture of
Finland, Ms Suvi Lindén

40

Progress Report on
Management Strategy

XIII.

95

V.

53

the

Speech of the President of Finland, Ms
Tarja Halonen

IV.
38

Progress Report on the Global Training
Strategy

Education
56

ofAfghanistan

Scientific103State of Conservation of Properties
Inscribed on the World Heritage List
(Extract From the Report of the
Rapporteur of the Twenty-Fifth ExtraOrdinary Session of the Bureau)

105

X.

World Heritage Global Training Strategy

145

XI.

Speeches of the Young People’s
Presentation “World Heritage In Young
Hands”

149

Provisional Agenda and Timetable of theTwenty-Sixth Session of the Bureau(Paris)151

Provisional Agenda of the Twenty-Sixth
Session of the World Heritage Committee(Budapest)

155

IX.

XII.

XIII.

I.

OPENING SESSION

I.1
The twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage
Committee was held in Helsinki, Finland, from 11 to 16
December 2001. It was attended by the twenty-one
memebers of the World Heritage Committee: Argentina,
Belgium, China, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, Greece,
Hungary, India, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman,
Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint
Lucia, South Africa, Thailand, United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland and Zimbabwe.
I.2
The following States Parties to the Convention
who are not members of the Committee were represented
as observers: Angola, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France,
Gambia, Germany, Holy See, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran,
Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Morocco, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan,Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian
Arab Republic, Turkey, Tunisia, United States of America,
Uzbekistan.
Barbados and the Permanent Observer
Mission of Palestine to UNESCO, non States Parties to theWorld Heritage Convention, also participated at thissession as observers.
I.3
Representatives of the Advisory Bodies to theCommittee, the International Centre for the Study of the
Preservation and Restoration of the Cultural Property(ICCROM), the International Council on Monuments andSites (ICOMOS) and the World Conservation Union(IUCN) attended the meeting in an advisory capacity. The
meeting was also attended by representatives of thefollowing international governmental organizations(IGOs), international non-governmental organizations(INGOs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs):
The Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific
Organization (ALECSO), Common Wadden Sea
Secretariat (Germany), Organization of World Heritage
Cities (OWHC), Nordic World Heritage Office (NWHO),The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Getty
Conservation Institute, Global Heritage Fund (USA),International Centre for Mediterranean CulturalLandscapes (Italy), International Council of Museums(ICOM),International Federation of Landscape Architects(IFLA), International Union of Architects (IUA), Islamic
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(ISESCO), The Gibraltar Museum (Gibraltar) andUniversity of Edinburgh (U.K).
(The full List ofParticipants is included as Annex I to this report).
I.4
The twenty-fifth session of the World Heritage
Committee was opened in the presence of the President of
Finland, Ms Tarja Halonen, by Mr Henrik Lilius,
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee. During his
address, Mr Lilius welcomed the newly-elected membersof the Committee: Argentina, India, Lebanon, Oman,
Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia and the United

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Kingdom. He recalled that several among these newmembers had announced that they would limit theirmandate to four years instead of six. He also recalled that
great progress had been made in the Revision of the
Guidelines and remarked that the Convention helped in therecognition of the cultural and social differences and inovercoming conflicts and finding pacific solutions for theprotection of World Heritage throughout the world. (Thespeech of Mr Lilius included as Annex II to this report.)
I.5
The Chairperson welcomed the Director-Generalof UNESCO, Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, and invited him todeliver his speech. In his allocution, the Director-General
thanked the Finnish authorities for their warm welcome.
He acknowledged the presence of Ms Tarja Halonen,
President of the Republic of Finland, which was anadditional testimony of the strong commitment of her
country to UNESCO and notably for the protection andconservation of World Heritage. He recalled that diversity
lies at the core of UNESCO's agenda and one of theprincipal contributions for diversity had been the Universal
Declaration for Cultural Diversity, recently adopted byunanimity. He also mentioned that, in the framework ofheritage, a new Convention had just been adopted by theOrganization's General Conference, the Convention on theProtection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage. He
emphasized that this represented two major steps forwardin the domain of heritage protection. He stressed theimportance of addressing conservation issues within theoverall framework of sustainable development. He statedthat the World Heritage Convention can become apowerful tool for sustainable development as it has proved
to be for environmental conservation. He finally indicatedthat UNESCO would spare no effort in safeguarding thediversity of the world's cultural and natural heritage. (The
Director-General's speech is included as Annex III to thisreport.)I.6
The Chairperson welcomed Ms Tarja Halonen,
President of Finland, and invited her to deliver her address.
Ms Halonen stressed the importance of including heritage
preservation in the framework of sustainable development,
and mentioned that it was essential to build sustainable
development on sustainable ethics. She also recalled that
education, especially for young children was of crucial
importance with regard to heritage. She thus emphasized
the need for UNESCO to assist Member States in thedevelopment of education values. Ms Halonen alsocommended the adoption by the UNESCO General
Conference of the Declaration on Cultural Diversity which
will encourage greater respect for the diversity of cultures,
tolerance, dialogue and co-operation. (The speech of Ms
Halonen is included as Annex IV to this report.)
I.7
In her address, Ms Suvi Lindén, Minister ofCulture of Finland, stressed that one of the principal
objectives of the World Heritage Committee was toachieve balance in the World Heritage List. She statedthat Finland had been active in the implementation of theConvention, since its adhesion in 1987. She continued byunderlining the great importance of encouraging theyounger generations to cherish World Heritage values.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 1

(The speech of Ms Lindén is included as Annex V to thisreport.)I.8
Ms Satu Hassi, Minister of the Environment of
Finland, indicated that in view of the increasing threatsweighing upon our natural hertiage, the World Heritage
Convention is an important instrument in the combat for
species preservation. In this regard, she commented on thestrict application of the World Heritage criteria by IUCN
in its evaluations. She also indicated that Finland would
continue to protect natural heritage in the framework of theConvention and that assistance could be granted to otherStates in the administration and management of properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List. (The speech of Ms
Hassi is included as Annex VI to this report.)
I.9
Following these interventions, the Chairperson
announced the opening of the twenty-fifth session of theWorld Heritage Committee.
II.a

ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND THE
TIMETABLE

II.1
The Committee adopted the Provisional Agenda
and the Timetable (WHC-01/CONF.208/1Rev.1) after theDelegate of Belgium requested that an additional item be
added to the Agenda concerning the organization of the
30th anniversary of the Convention foreseen in Venice in
2002.
II.b

PROPOSAL FOR A REVISION OF THE
RULES OF PROCEDURE

II.2
The Chairperson reminded the Committee that a
written request for a revision of the Rules of Procedure
had been submitted by the Ambassador of Egypt. He
requested the Delegate of Egypt to present this proposal.
II.3
The Delegate of Egypt presented the following
proposal for an amendment to Article 8.2 of the Rules ofProcedure (the proposed amendment is in bold): "TheUnited Nations and organizations of the United Nations
system, as well as, upon written request, otherinternational
governmental
andnon-governmentalorganizations, permanent observer missions to
UNESCO and non profit-making institutions having
activities in the fields covered by the Convention, may be
authorized by the Committee to participate in the sessionsof the Committee."
II.4
The Delegates of Lebanon, Oman, South Africa
and Finland supported this proposal. The Observer ofIsrael disassociated himself from this decision. (Theintervention by the Observer of Israel is included as Annex
VII of this report.) The Committee adopted this decision.

III.

REPORTON
THE
ACTIVITIESUNDERTAKEN BY THE SECRETARIAT
SINCE THE TWENTY-FOURTH SESSION
OF THE COMMITTEE

III.1
Mr Francesco Bandarin, Director of the World
Heritage Centre and Secretary to the World Heritage
Committee, presented the report on activities undertaken
since the last session of the World Heritage Committee in
2000. He referred to Information Document WHC01/CONF/208/INF.3. In an audio-visual presentation, hehighlighted the important points of the past year’s
activities.
III.2
The Director of the Centre indicated that in 2001,
six countries had ratified the World Heritage Convention:
Bhutan, Eritrea, Niue, Rwanda, Samoa and the United
Arab Emirates, bringing the number of States Parties to theConvention to 167.
III.3
The Director pointed out that the Centre hadorganized five statutory meetings in 2001, including theThirteenth General Assembly of States Parties. As
requested at the last Committee session, the Centreorganized the meeting of the Drafting Group to revise the
Operational Guidelines, held at UNESCO Headquarters in
October 2001. Furthermore, the Centre has promoted andorganized several workshops on the implementation of theWorld Heritage Convention in all the regions in particularconcerning Periodic Reporting and Global Strategy.
Additionally, the Centre participated in the workshop on
the proposed World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Councilof Experts (WHIPCOE) held in Winnipeg, Canada in
November 2001.
III.4
The Director referred to the reform issues that had
been the focus of the Centre's attention throughout thisyear, namely those expressed in the Resolutions of theThirteenth General Assembly of States Parties:
Representivity of the World Heritage List (the decision to
examine only 30 new nominations in 2003) and Equitable
Representation of the Committee (new electoral rules wereadopted, with a seat in the Committee reserved for a State
Party with no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List);changes in the cycle of the statutory meetings have been
adopted for implementation as of 2002: an April/June
cycle will replace the June/November Bureau andCommittee meetings and extraordinary sessions of the
Bureau will be abolished. The Director further indicatedthat, following the submission of the Draft Revision of the
Operational Guidelines to this Committee, the next
meeting of the Drafting Group is proposed for March
2002, with the final approval of the document beingscheduled for the twenty-sixth session of the Committee inJune 2002.
III.5
The Director informed the Committee about steps
taken to clarify issues concerning inscription on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger and the possibility for deletionof a property from the World Heritage List, as requested at
the last Committee session. He noted that during thecourse of the year new issues had been raised. These

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 2

included the implications for a State Party andconsequences for the international community when asite's values are considered endangered, the means
available to the Committee and actions available to a State
Party that does not agree with the determination of theCommittee. He referred to progress in the analysis of theissues noting that a preliminary internal analysis had been
prepared in April 2001. The Director-General had
requested further internal analysis to involve both the
Culture and Science Sectors. The Director reported thatthe analysis was proceeding and should be ready by March
2002 to guide the work of the March 2002 Operational
Guidelines Drafting Group. The analysis will also bepresented to the next session of the Committee in Budapest
in June 2002 in the context of approving revised
Operational Guidelines.
III.6
Within the framework of the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention, in particular concerning
Periodic Reporting, the Director indicated that the final
synthesis report for periodic reporting for Africa will bepresented to this Committee, as well as an overview of theactivities in progress in Asia and the Pacific (2003), Latin
America and the Caribbean (2004) and Europe and North
America (2005/2006).
III.7
The Director highlighted the rapid growth of theWorld Heritage List during the past ten years, and showeda table analysing the sites inscribed by region and by type.
The analysis of the types of sites to be examined at thissession indicates that the results of the Global Strategy arestarting to show, but that efforts still need to be made,among others, in the domain of Tentative Lists, where
States Parties are invited to submit their lists or renew theexisting ones.
III.8
In the framework of the Global Strategy, theDirector brought to the attention of the Committee thevarious meetings the Centre had organized in 2001. He
stressed in particular the progress made in theestablishment of the proposed World Heritage Indigenous
Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE).
III.9
The Director then outlined the objectives of the
Global Training Strategy, drafted by ICCROM in
consultation with the Centre, ICOMOS and IUCN.
III.10 Referring to the main activities and results in thefield of awareness-raising and education, the Director
informed the Committee about steps taken in creating aclearer international identity for World Heritage andassisting States Parties in developing their own
communication strategy. He stressed that progress had
been made in management of World Heritage data throughthe World Heritage Information Management Programme,
thanks to partnerships with, among others, the Council ofEurope, the Nordic World Heritage Office and national
space agencies. He referred to the success of the World
Heritage Education project, in particular of the kit "World
Heritage in Young Hands" as one of the flagship projectsof UNESCO.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.11 The Director gave an overview of the budget
utilised for international assistance in 2001 and stressedthat its implementation rate of 89% was satisfactory, giventhat the emergency assistance had not been fully used.
Bilateral and multilateral co-operation and partnerships,
both with the public and the private sector were mentioned
in relation to support of World Heritage activities andpreservation of sites.
III.12 In referring to the position of the World Heritage
Centre within UNESCO, the Director stressed that within
UNESCO's Medium Term Strategy 2002-2007, World
Heritage has been established as a UNESCO flagshipprogramme, and as a sub-programme within UNESCO's
Programme and Budget for 2002-2003. He emphasizedthat the Centre had undergone restructuring and showed
the new distribution of sections and units. He stressed
however that office space was lacking, in particular forarchiving of statutory documentation and solutions werebeing sought for obtaining more working and storage
space.
III.13 Pointing out that, for the first time, the World
Heritage Fund budget was to be presented to theCommittee for a biennial period, the Director showed atable of the evolution of the World Heritage Fund and theExtrabudgetary funds since 1997, which clearly indicatedthat, after the highest point had been reached in 2000, both
sources were diminishing and this trend would continue
for the next two years. He also stressed the need toestablish a separate bank account for the World Heritage
Fund within the UNESCO system.
III.14 The Director highlighted some of theachievements in the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention in the recent years, such as: greater efforts on
Representivity of the List, more reactive monitoring, thelaunch of the Periodic Reporting Exercise, better
information management and increasing public interest.
He also stressed a number of issues remaining to besolved: stronger focus on management and capacity
building, the growing gap in meeting international
assistance needs, the lack of an international co-operation
strategy and limited public outreach. He brought forward a
proposal for the improvement of the long-term
conservation strategies for World Heritage consisting of:
1. Principles (Guidelines for the conservation of World
Heritage properties), 2. Programmes (Reorganization ofinternational assistance) and 3. Partnerships (Partners
initiative).
III.15 Finally, the Director referred to the 30th
anniversary of the Convention in 2002, highlighting that
this was the opportunity to discuss new strategies,
strengthen existing networks and increase visibility andeffective site management. The twenty-sixth session of theWorld Heritage Committee to be held in Budapest in June
2002 and the International Congress planned in Venice,November 2002, as well as the virtual, web-based
Congress in October 2002, were presented as occasions toevaluate the impact of the World Heritage Convention,

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 3

improve international co-operation and raise awareness on
the need to preserve World Heritage.
III.16 The Chairperson and members of the World
Heritage Committee thanked the Director for his very
complete presentation. Several questions were raised
concerning the involvement of World Heritage inforthcoming events, such as the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (Rio + 10 Conference) to beheld in Johannesburg, South Africa in September 2002, as
well as participation of the Centre in activities marking the2002 United Nations Year of Cultural Heritage. Delegates
pointed out that greater focus should be placed on theissues such as sustainable development and dialogue forconservation. Clarification was sought on the relative rolesof UNESCO’s governing bodies and the World Heritage
Committee and the funding sources for the 30thAnniversary events and the role of the States Parties inthese events. Some members of the Committee expressed
concern with the situation of the World Heritage Centre
within UNESCO, in particular with regard to working
conditions and space for staff and documentation.
III.17 Several Committee members stressed that theWorld Heritage Centre should place greater focus on its
Secretariat and statutory functions, as the delayed
distribution of some of the working documents for thesession had made it difficult for them to properly prepare
for the work of the session.

IV.a

IV.1
Mr Dawson Munjeri, Zimbabwe, Rapporteur of
the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee, presented the report of this session
held at UNESCO Headquarters from 25 to 30 June 2001
and outlined the main issues which were discussed. The
Committee took note of the report of the Rapporteur.
IV.2
Mr Francisco Lopez Morales, Mexico,
Rapporteur of the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (Helsinki, 7-8
December 2001), thereafter presented the report of thissession (Document WHC-01/CONF.208/4). He recalledthat this was a working document for the twenty-fifthsession of the Committee and drew the attention of theCommittee to the fact that any comments on the state ofconservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage
List could be made during discussions under Agenda item
8.2. The Committee took note of the report.
IV.3
The Chairperson thanked Messrs Munjeri and
Morales for their reports, as well as Mr Gaballa Ali
Gaballa, Egypt, for having acted as Rapporteur until thearrival of Mr Morales in Helsinki on the first day of the
Bureau session.
IV.b

III.18 In responding to the questions raised, the Director
stressed that sustainable development was indeed one of
the main issues of relevance to the preservation of World
Heritage, and fully supported the linking of World
Heritage with the Rio + 10 Conference. He pointed outthat the 2002 International Congress initiative had been
approved by the General Conference within the UNESCO
31C/5 Programme and Budget and specified that its costs
would be completely covered through extrabudgetary
sources, but that additional partners were still beingsought. He further stated that the 2002 International
Congress was mainly an event for experts and all States
Parties, Advisory Bodies and other partners would be
invited to participate. He stressed that in this, as in allother aspects, the Centre was working in full co-operation
with other UNESCO sectors and the Advisory Bodies. The
Director also clarified the functioning of the assistanceprovided by States Parties through the system of
secondment of staff and associate experts to the Centre.
III.19 Mr Mounir Bouchenaki, Assistant DirectorGeneral for the Culture Sector, reassured the Committeethat the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO had taken
close interest in finding solutions for the Centre's space
problems, which he expected to be solved in the course of
the next few months.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

REPORTS OF THE RAPPORTEURS ON
THE BUREAU SESSIONS OF THE WORLDHERITAGE COMMITTEE, 2001

FOLLOW-UP TO THE RESOLUTION OF
THE THIRTEENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF STATES PARTIES (30-31 OCTOBER
2001): ACTS CONSTITUTING "CRIMESAGAINST THE COMMON HERITAGE OF
HUMANITY"

IV.4
The Secretariat presented Working Document
WHC-01/CONF.208/23 concerning the chronology ofevents related to the nomination for inclusion on the World
Heritage List of the statues of Bamiyan and other Afghan
cultural heritage properties submitted by the Afghan
authorities. The Committee was informed that in 1982,
nine nominations of cultural heritage properties submitted
by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan had been
received by UNESCO for inscription on the World
Heritage List. However, as five were incomplete
nominations, only four were evaluated by ICOMOS andwere subsequently deferred by the Committee at its
seventh session in 1983.
IV.5
The Assistant Director-General for Culture, in his
capacity as the Representative of the Director-General of
UNESCO informed the Committee that the Opening
Session of the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau of theWorld Heritage Committee held in June was dedicated to
Afghan heritage. He informed the Committee of
UNESCO’s recent actions relating to the protection of
Afghan heritage and the wider scope of activities within
the competence of the Organization. A special Task Force
had been established by the Director-General, headed by
the Assistant Director-General for Education, Sir John
Daniels, to prepare UNESCO’s programme which will

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 4

form part of the United Nations Inter-agency Programme
for the rehabilitation of Afghanistan. Education will be themain priority of UNESCO, although activities for theprotection of cultural and natural heritage will also bepresented.
IV.6
A representative of the Culture Sector is amember of this UNESCO Task Force and the Centre will
be working closely with him. The urgent need for anassessment of the present state of conservation of thecultural heritage properties of Afghanistan was recognized
as a priority within the range of cultural activities in postconflict Afghanistan. Among the priority actions identified
are: assessment of the current state of (1) the Kabul
National Museum, where many artifacts fromarchaeological properties, monuments and sites within
Afghanistan were kept; (2) Bamiyan, (3) the Minaret ofJam, (4) the Mosque of Haji Piyada in Balkh Province, (5)the site of Surkh Kotal, and (6) the Old Town of Herat(including the Friday Mosque, ceramic tile workshop,
Musallah complex, fifth minaret, Gawhar Shadmausoleum, mausoleum of Ali Sher Navaï and the Shah
Zadehah mausoleum complex). To this end, the Assistant
Director-General for Culture informed the Committee thata mission as early as January 2002 was being planned.
IV.7
He stated that the Governments of Belgium andSwitzerland had offered to organize expert meetings in2002 to reflect upon ways and means to enhance theimplementation of the UNESCO legal instruments for theprotection of the common heritage of humanity. Moreover,the Director-General of UNESCO will organize a meeting
concerning the interpretation of Islamic law and cultural
heritage, in co-operation with the Faculty of Law of Qatar,
ISESCO, and ALECSO. The Ministry of Foreign Affairsof the Government of France organized, on 6 December
2001, a meeting to discuss the reconstruction of
Afghanistan. During this meeting, UNESCO participatedin a roundtable discussion concerning the cultural heritageof Afghanistan with former Ambassador Pierre Lafranceof France, who undertook a mission to Afghanistan in
March 2001 as Special Envoy of the Director-General in
an attempt to convince the Taliban not to destroy the
Bamiyan Buddhas.
IV.8
The Committee was informed that UNESCO
continued to work in close collaboration with theCommittee’s Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS and ICCROM),
institutions and NGOs such as the Society for theProtection of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage (SPACH),
the Pakistan-based international NGO, Hirayama
Foundation (Japan), Fondation Bibliotheca Afghanica(Switzerland), and the Musée Guimet (France).
IV.9
The Committee and observers, noting thedeliberations during the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session
and the General Assembly of States Parties to the World
Heritage Convention at its thirteenth session, reiterated theimportance of education, awareness building activities,
and capacity building to prevent deliberate and wilful
destructions of the cultural and natural heritage ofhumankind. The Delegate of Egypt informed theReport of the World Heritage Committee

Committee that his Government had immediately sent thehighest ranking Islamic religious leader of Egypt toattempt to dissuade the Taliban forces from destroying the
Bamiyan Buddhas.
The Committee noted withappreciation all the efforts made by the States Parties
aimed to dissuade the Taliban forces from destroying themonuments and sites of Bamiyan. Taking into
consideration the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan,
the Committee underscored the necessity for taking
concrete actions to support the protection of the country’s
cultural and natural heritage.
IV.10 A number of delegates stated that a situation suchas the Bamiyan case merited the convening of an
extraordinary session of the Committee to activate
paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines which could
have been applicable for Bamiyan and other nominatedsites whose outstanding universal value had beenrecognized by ICOMOS and the Bureau. In response to thepoint raised by the Delegate of Greece on why UNESCO
did not convene an extraordinary session of the World
Heritage Committee soon after the threat proclaimed by
the Taliban forces, the Committee was informed that all
possibilities were examined, as if the Bamiyan Buddhas
were actually inscribed on the World Heritage List. The
Director-General considered that the urgent inscription of
Bamiyan and other Afghan cultural heritage properties onan exceptional basis may not serve the intended purpose ofprotection and conservation because of the unpredictabilityof the Taliban’s reaction. Unfortunately, the destruction of
the Bamiyan Buddhas occurred within days of the
proclamation.
IV.11 Several delegates suggested that the events
related to the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage
Convention be devoted to drawing international attention
to the natural and cultural heritage of Afghanistan, withappropriate budgetary provisions.
IV.12 Regarding the debate over the reconstruction of
the Bamiyan Buddhas, the Committee underlined theimportance of respecting the wishes of the Afghan
authorities and international conservation norms such as
the Venice Charter and Nara Statement on Authenticity.
The Assistant Director-General informed the Committeethat the Bamiyan Buddhas had been carved out of a softstone cliff, and any reconstruction project would require
careful consideration with international technicalexpertise. The Observer of Austria extended the technicalexpertise of Graz Technical University for the elaborationof the technical details for the reconstruction of the
Bamiyan Buddhas.
IV.13 IUCN, recalling that plundering and illicit
trafficking of the irreplaceable resources was not only
restricted to cultural heritage but also affecting natural
heritage resources, drew the attention of the Committee tothe importance of the country´s natural heritage. ICOMOS
underscored the serious degree of looting and illegaltransfer of cultural heritage properties from sites ofpotential World Heritage value and stressed theimportance and need for effective co-operation of non-

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 5

governmental organizations such as the International
Committee of the Blue Cross (ICBC), the International
Council on Archives (ICA), the International Council ofMuseums (ICOM) amongst others, which complement
inter-governmental activities for the protection of movableand immovable properties in times of armed conflict,including in Afghanistan. The Observer of ALECSO
appealed to the Committee to take concrete action topromote the protection of the cultural and natural heritageof Afghanistan. The Committee and observers emphasized
the importance for the World Heritage Convention to be
implemented in a pro-active manner, instead of in areactive manner.
IV.14 Following the deliberations, the Chairperson
requested a Working Group to:(i)elaborate a plan of action to provide assistance toAfghanistan to implement the World Heritage
Convention in the wake of the destruction of themonuments of Bamiyan Valley;(ii)

consider:a)ways and means by which the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention can be
reinforced, especially in relation to the otherrelevant UNESCO Conventions for the protectionof cultural heritage;b) measures for enhancing the promotion of
education, awareness raising activities andcommunication concerning the irreplaceablevalues of the cultural heritage of humanity;c)

improved mechanisms for promoting thescientific documentation of potential and existingworld cultural heritage properties.

IV.15 The Group was composed of the Delegates ofArgentina, Egypt, Greece, India, South Africa, Observersof Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Pakistan, the three
Advisory Bodies, the UNESCO Assistant DirectorGeneral for Culture, the Director and Deputy Director of
the World Heritage Centre. The Delegate of India, Ms
Neemal Sabhrawal, chaired the Working Group, which
met twice and also held consultations.
IV.16 Upon examination of the work of the Working
Group the following decision, composed of three parts,
was adopted:
Part 1
1.1 The Committee examined the chronology ofevents related to the nomination for inclusion on theWorld Heritage List of the statues of Bamiyan andother cultural heritage properties of Afghanistan by theAfghanauthorities
presented
in
WHC01/CONF.208/23 at the request of the Thirteenth
General Assembly of States Parties to the World
Heritage Convention.
Report of the World Heritage Committee

1.2 It expressed appreciation for the additional
information presented by the Representative of the
Director-General of UNESCO concerning thecontinued efforts being made by UNESCO to protect
the heritage of Afghanistan.
1.3 The Committee reiterated the condemnation of
the wilful destruction of the cultural heritage ofAfghanistan by the Thirteenth General Assembly ofStates Parties to the World Heritage Convention, andtook note of the Resolution adopted by the thirty-first
UNESCO General Conference concerning the Acts
constituting “crimes against the common heritage ofhumanity”.
1.4 The Committee underscored its conviction that all
steps taken to implement the UNESCO World Heritage
Convention in Afghanistan should be planned andexecuted within the overall framework of the UN Interagency programme being elaborated for the
rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan.
1.5 It recognized the need to examine possible
actions that the World Heritage Committee can take insimilar future cases where there are threats ofdeliberate and wilful destruction of the World Heritageand potential World Heritage.
1.6 The Committee underlined the provisions of theConvention for the Protection of Cultural Property inthe Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954) and its
Protocols, the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting
and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transferof Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), the World
Heritage Convention concerning the Protection of theWorld Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), the
UNIDROIT
Convention
and
other
relevant
international legal instruments.
1.7 It further noted with regret that of the 167 States
Parties to the World Heritage Convention, only 100
countries are States Parties to the 1954 Convention, 83
States Parties to the First Protocol, and 91 States
Parties to the 1970 Convention.
1.8 The Committee expressed its appreciation to
UNESCO for commissioning a legal analysis on theways and means by which the implementation of therelevant UNESCO Conventions concerning theprotection of cultural heritage can be reinforced.
1.9 The Committee reaffirmed the duty of theinternational community as a whole to protect theheritage of humanity, in accordance with Article 6 of
the World Heritage Convention.
Part 2
2.1 The Committee encouraged States Parties to theWorld Heritage Convention, UNESCO and the World
Heritage Centre to mobilize and support to the extent

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 6

possible and as appropriate, activities by nongovernmental organizations active in the field of
heritage protection for safeguarding the heritage ofAfghanistan.
2.2 It requested the World Heritage Centre toorganize a technical fact-finding and consultative
mission to Afghanistan, within the framework of the
UN Inter-Agency programme for the reconstruction of
Afghanistan, as soon as possible and when the security
situation permits,(i)to assist the Afghan authorities in elaborating anational action plan for the implementation of theWorld Heritage Convention;(ii) to provide assistance to the Afghan authorities forcollating scientific documentation to elaborate anational inventory on natural and cultural heritage
properties of Afghanistan in close co-operation
with the relevant Advisory Bodies;(iii) to assess the state of conservation of the naturaland cultural heritage of Afghanistan;(iv) to encourage the authorities, supported by theWorld Heritage Centre, in reactivating thenomination process initiated by the former
Afghan authorities in 1981;(v) to provide assistance to the authorities asappropriate to reformulate and/or complete thenomination dossiers of those properties deferredin 1983 by the World Heritage Committee, inspite of the recognition of the universal
significance of such properties;
2.3 Based upon the results of this fact-finding
mission, the Committee encouraged the Afghan
authorities in elaborating a Tentative List of properties
that they may wish to nominate for inscription on theWorld Heritage List.
2.4 The Committee decided to allocate US$49,000
from the World Heritage Fund Emergency Assistance
Budget on an exceptional basis for (a) the organizationof the fact-finding and consultative mission (see Annex
VIII.A) and for (b) the compilation of the scientificdocumentation to assist the Afghan authorities in
preparing national inventories of natural and cultural
heritage properties and to reformulate the nominations
submitted by the former Afghan authorities in 1981(see Annex VIII.B).
2.5 The Committee requested the World Heritage
Centre to keep it informed of the results of the factfinding and consultative mission to Afghanistan soonafter its completion. The Committee requested theWorld Heritage Centre to inform the Committee at its
twenty-sixth session in June 2002 on the progress madein assisting the Afghan authorities in implementing theWorld Heritage Convention.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Part 3
3.1 The Committee reiterated the appeal made by theGeneral Assembly of States Parties to the World
Heritage Convention to all States Parties to become
signatories to the Hague Convention on the Protectionof Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, its
two Protocols, the Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export
and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, the
UNIDROIT Convention and other international legal
instruments protecting cultural heritage, if they have
not yet done so, in order to maximize the protection of
the cultural heritage of humanity, and in particular,
against destructive acts, especially taking into
consideration the designation of year 2002 as theUnited Nations Year for Cultural Heritage.
3.2 The Committee noted the fundamental principles
and guidelines included in these instruments to preventthe destruction of the heritage including looting andillicit excavations and transfer.
3.3 The Committee requested UNESCO through theWorld Heritage Centre to prepare, in the meantime,
explanatory notes outlining the obligations of States
Parties of the World Heritage Convention in relation tothe other relevant UNESCO Conventions for theprotection of cultural heritage.
3.4 It requested the UNESCO World Heritage Centre
to make available for the information and considerationby the Committee at its twenty-sixth session in June
2002, the legal analysis on the ways and means toreinforce the implementation of the relevant UNESCO
Conventions for the protection of cultural heritage
being completed by the former Chairperson of theWorld Heritage Committee, Dr F. Francioni, for the
UNESCO Director-General.
3.5 The Committee decided to reconsider at its
twenty-sixth session when further information is madeavailable, ways and means by which theimplementation of the World Heritage Convention canbe reinforced, especially in relation to other relevant
UNESCO Conventions for the protection of culturaland natural heritage, including possible modalities for
activating paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines
for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention, in future cases like the destruction of thestatues of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.
3.6 The Committee requested the World Heritage
Centre to elaborate all possible initiatives the World
Heritage Committee and the Director-General of
UNESCO can take in future cases of wilful anddeliberate destruction of heritage.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 7

V.

PROGRESSREPORT
ON
IMPLEMENTATION OF REFORM
MEASURES

THE

Introduction
V.1
The Secretariat summarized the current situationof the reform process ("Putting Reform into Action") andthe emerging issues for the future ("The Way Forward")(see Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/5).
V.2
The discussion by the Committee brought to theforefront a number of orientations and recommendations
that could constitute a significant contribution to the futurepreparation of new strategic orientations for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. The
substance of the proposal and ensuing discussion could be
developed for further review at the twenty-sixth session of
the Committee to be held in Budapest in June 2002. This
could be one of the key tasks for the Committee in
Budapest.
Putting Reform into Action
V.3
The Secretariat presented a report on theimplementation of reform decisions of the twenty-fourth
session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000). The key
components of the report included reference to changes
and improvements to the World Heritage statutory
meetings, documentation and communication and followup actions concerning Representativity of the World
Heritage List and Equitable Representation of theCommittee.
V.4
The Committee noted the report and commented
that it was vital to implement the reform decisions of theCommittee. The Committee requested that further efforts
be made by the Centre to implement the Item A and B
decision-making
system.
Discussionontheimplementation of the new priority system for theselection of the 30 new nominations to be examined inJune 2003 by the twenty-seventh session of the Committee
is reported in section X of this report.

5.

V.6
The 1992 Strategic Orientations have been
implemented through the adoption and implementation of
the Global Strategy, Periodic Reporting, and the more
recent recommendations of the Working Groups on
Representivity of the World Heritage List and on the
Equitable Representation in the World Heritage
Committee endorsed by the twenty-fourth session of theWorld Heritage Committee (2000) and the Thirteenth
General Assembly of States Parties (30-31 October 2001).
V.7
Although some reform activities have yet to becompleted (revision of the Operational Guidelines) there
is now a recognized need to give a new strategicorientation to the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. For example, there is a limitation in theamount of technical assistance available for the adequate
and effective conservation of World Heritage properties.
This is becoming more critical as more sites are added to
the World Heritage List. While it is recognized that the
primary responsibility for World Heritage conservation
belongs to each State Party, the Director of the Centre
underlined the responsibilities of the international
community in providing help to States Parties for theconservation of World Heritage properties, especially inregions of the world with less technical and financial
capacities. He asked the Committee to evaluate whether
the current international assistance system is adequate forthe long-term conservation of World Heritage sites.
V.8
The Director of the Centre recalled that a
preliminary "Agenda" for future reform and strategicorientations had been outlined in four points by the
Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, Ms
Cameron (Canada), during her speech at the opening of thefifth extraordinary session of the World Heritage
Committee (1 November 2001):
1.
2.
3.

The Way Forward(i)Background

V.5
The Director of the Centre informed theCommittee that an important cycle of implementation ofstrategic orientations adopted at the sixteenth session of
the Committee in Santa Fe in 1992 is coming to an end. In
summary the goals of the strategic orientations were to:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Promote completion of the identification of theWorld Heritage;
Ensure the continued representativity and credibilityof the World Heritage List;
Promote the adequate protection and management of
the World Heritage sites;
Pursue more systematic monitoring of World
Heritage sites;

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Increase public awareness, involvement and support;

4.

the necessity to focus more on the conservation needsof sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
strengthening efforts in support of the Global
Strategy;
the need to align the World Heritage Fund withstrategic priorities, in part by exploring new avenues
for securing significant new funds throughpartnerships, foundations, extra-budgetary initiatives
and other;
the need for a statement of principles for World
Heritage conservation or a World Heritage Charter
for World Heritage conservation, to be prepared.

V.9
The Director of the Centre informed theCommittee that following discussions at the twenty-fifthsession of the Bureau of the Committee (June 2001) and asa follow up to the Thirteenth General Assembly (30-31
October 2001), the Centre had formulated elements of new
proposed strategic orientations to be discussed by theCommittee in 2001 and 2002.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 8

(ii)Overview of the proposal for Principles,
Programmes and Partnerships

V.10
The proposal presented in Section III of Working
Document WHC-01/CONF.208/5 is based on thedevelopment of the following tools (to be called, for thesake of synthesis, the "3 P's"):
1.
2.
3.

(iii)

a new document of "Principles" - Guidelines forWorld Heritage Conservation;
the reorientation of international assistance based ona "Programmes" approach; anda new "Partnerships" initiative in support of World
Heritage conservation.
General overview of the discussion

V.11
Following the presentation of the Director, theCommittee provided a number of significant comments
and inputs to the proposal. The Delegate of Belgium
asked for closer links between the proposal and theobjectives of the Global Strategy and the results ofPeriodic Reporting. Furthermore, several delegates asked
that the objectives underlying the proposal be more clearly
defined. The Delegate of Belgium suggested that theobjectives could usefully be summarized as follows (andcalled the proposal, the "3 C's"):
1.
2.
3.

Strengthening the "Credibility" of the implementationof the World Heritage Convention.
Supporting "Conservation" of the World Heritage
properties.
Fostering "Capacity-building" for conservation.

V.12
In order to meet these objectives, analyses of theWorld Heritage List, tentative lists and a complete
evaluation of the state of conservation of sites through theperiodic reporting exercise needed to be completed as soon
as possible. The analytical work could lead to a revision
to the way the budget is presented to better reflect regional
needs. Several members of the Committee, observers,
IUCN and ICOMOS agreed with the Belgian proposal,
stressing the need to focus on long-term conservation, andthe development of more effective tools for supporting theconservation efforts of States Parties. The need to linkconservation and development was also stressed.
Furthermore, the Committee recognized the need for an
overall strategic reflection on the implementation of theConvention to be discussed in Budapest at the twenty-sixth
session of the Committee in June 2002.
(iv)

Specific comments on "Principles" - tools forbetterguidance
concerningtheimplementation of the World Heritage
Convention

V.13
The Director of the Centre explained the meaningof the proposed "Principles" tool. As the World Heritage
List increases in size, and conservation needs become
more and more important, the need to establish clear
guidelines for World Heritage conservation becomesurgent.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

V.14
The Director indicated that these guidelines
would not replace existing "charters" developed bytechnical organizations such as IUCN and ICOMOS. The
Guidelines would clarify to governments, site managers
and potential partners directly involved in conservation ofWorld Heritage, the accepted principles, methods andorientations on conservation of cultural and natural
heritage recognized by the World Heritage Committee.
The conservation guidelines could complement the
Operational Guidelines.
V.15
The Committee offered comments on the
proposal. It was questioned whether there should be
separate guidelines for World Heritage as compared toother heritage. Others pointed out the difficulty of
establishing procedures that would be applicable for thediversity of all regions.
V.16
Some members of the Committee supported theidea of a World Heritage Charter and recommended that it
be annexed to the revised Operational Guidelines. Others
recommended giving emphasis to the development ofpractical guidelines for site managers. The Committee
noted that the only cultural heritage protection charter
addressed to governments in the form of a "political
document" is the 1931 Athens Charter developed by the
League of Nations International Committee for Intellectual
Co-operation.
V.17
ICOMOS supported the second proposal but
cautioned that the exercise could be complex, based on
their extensive experience. IUCN stated that it is very
important to clarify the objectives and target audience,
particularly to ensure that it does not duplicate otherexercises such as the process for revising the Operational
Guidelines. IUCN considered that it would help to have aclear hierarchy in mind when considering Principles:First:
Second:Third:A brief statement of heritage principles
The Operational Guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage
Convention
Detailed technical guidance.

V.18
IUCN informed the Committee that it has
produced a great deal of technical guidance in the form ofBest Practice manuals etc., however, there are gaps.
(v)

Specific comments on "Programmes" - a tool
for more efficient use of resources for World
Heritage conservation

V.19
The Director of the Centre informed theCommittee that, following the orientation provided by thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001, the Centre
has proposed a preliminary set of Programmes forconsideration by the Committee (see Working Document
WHC-01/CONF.208/19). The proposal is, in the first
instance, limited to four programmes and to a maximum of
10% of the total International Assistance budget(US$200,000 for 2002).

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 9

V.20
The basic principle underlining the proposal isthat International Assistance under the World Heritage
Fund can be used strategically, as recommended by theCommittee, to provide seed money to programmes that canthen be supported financially and technically by otherpartners. The programmes proposed have been identified
on the basis of International Assistance priorities adopted
by the Committee in accordance with Section V of theConvention. These programmes represent an initial stageof a process of the redefinition of the use of International
Assistance.
Further strategic direction from theCommittee on the application of International Assistanceis required. A discussion on this item could be foreseen to
take place at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee in
Budapest in June 2002.
V.21
The Committee expressed its support for the
proposal to develop long-term programmes and stressed
the need to link this activity more closely to Global
Strategy and Periodic Reporting, in order to reflect moreaccurately the programme needs. This would require
analyses of the World Heritage List, the tentative lists andof the Periodic Reports and could, for example, result in abudget presented in regional groupings. The Centre's
capacity to implement the proposals was questioned given
staff and other constraints.
V.22
IUCN and ICOMOS welcomed the Programmeapproach proposed and stressed the need for the Centre todevelop it in collaboration with the Advisory Bodies.
IUCN stated that they considered that it is important tofocus efforts and welcomed the approach. However,
IUCN commented that it is important to clearly and openly
explain the rationale for the selection of programmes, andalso provide clear estimates of costs. It is also importantto have an appropriate balance between natural andcultural topics. IUCN welcomes a focus on forests but
also suggested adding other biomes such as the marine
environment.
Further discussion on the Programme
proposal is reported in Chapter XVI of the report.
(vi)Partnerships - a tool to strengthen long-term
World Heritage conservation efforts

V.23
The Director of the Centre presented the proposal
to develop an initiative aimed at strengthening andstructuring partnerships for World Heritage conservation.
UNESCO and the Centre, in line with the orientation
provided by the Director-General and the increasing
involvement of the United Nations in this area, havealready begun to develop several partnerships involving
Governments, local authorities, universities, private
foundations and the corporate sector. Some of the mostsignificant technical assistance programmes for World
Heritage currently being implemented depend on
partnership agreements (eg. the UNF-UNESCO
partnership for the conservation of the World Heritage
sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo).
V.24
The proposed scheme intends to give coherence
and to expand activities based on co-operation with

Report of the World Heritage Committee

partners in a significant manner according to the priorities
established by the Committee.
V.25
The Committee asked for clarifications on themodalities of the proposal, noting the need to proceed withcaution in an innovative area. ICOMOS stressed the needto establish clear selection criteria for partners and toclarify existing partnerships such as those establishedthrough Forum UNESCO. A clear distinction should bemade between those seeking to become genuinely
involved in conservation and those using World Heritage
for marketing purposes only. IUCN noted that key
partners are often local communities and it is important toconsider bottom-up approaches to partnerships. IUCN
commented that there is scope (to be explored) for linking
partnerships with key events, such as the 2003 World
Parks Congress. IUCN said they will work with the World
Heritage Centre to encourage more effective partnerships.
V.26
The Committee noted that Articles 17 and 18 of
the Convention encourage States Parties to consider or
encourage the establishment of national public and private
foundations or associations whose purpose is to invite
donations for the protection of the cultural and natural
heritage and to give their assistance to international fundraising campaigns organized for the World Heritage Fundunder the auspices of UNESCO.
V.27
The Representative of UNEP fully supported the
proposal and its focus on long-term conservation. She
mentioned the existence of mutually beneficial partnershipand projects of UNESCO and UNEP.
V.28
A summary of the discussion concerning eventsin 2002 is presented in Section XIII of the report (see also
WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.3).
(vii)

Conclusions

V.29

The Committee adopted the following decision:

The Committee requested the World Heritage Centre,
in consultation with the Advisory Bodies, to further
develop a concept paper on Principles, Programmes
and Partnerships taking into consideration the opinions
expressed by the Committee, with specific reference tothe need to define terms within a framework ofstrategic objectives. In particular, the paper should
consider the need to define and strengthen the"credibility", the "conservation" and the capacity
building" objectives of the World Heritage Convention.
Taking this into consideration,
requested the Centre to:theCommittee

1.

indicate the nature of the "Principles" document,
its target and the time frame needed to develop
and finalize it;

2.

provide an overall framework on the proposed"Programmes" system, and to present its

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 10

Sector of UNESCO, attended the meeting. The
report of the Drafting Group was made available to
the Committee as WHC-01/CONF.208/6 and is also
included on the web site.

connections with the Global Strategy and Periodic
Reporting; and3.

illustrate the proposal on the "Partnerships"
scheme, its regulations, the types of partnerships
being sought, the selection criteria and the planfor its development and implementation.

The paper should be prepared in time for considerationby the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in April 2002
and decision by the Committee in June 2002. The
paper should be provided to Committee members assoon as possible to allow time for it to be studied.

VI.

•=

The 2nd Draft Annotated Revisions of the
Operational Guidelines was presented to theCommittee as Annex IV of WHC-01/CONF.208/6.

•=

It is proposed that the revised Operational
Guidelines include five main sections:I.
Introduction
II. Establishment of the World Heritage List
III. Protection and conservation of World Heritage
Properties
IV. International AssistanceV. Mobilisation of national and international
support in favour of the World Heritage
Convention

REVISION
OF
THE
OPERATIONALGUIDELINESFOR
THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLDHERITAGE CONVENTION

VI.1
The Secretariat presented a brief progress reporton the revision of the Operational Guidelines making
reference to working document WHC-01/CONF.208/6(Revision of the Operational Guidelines) and WHC01/CONF.208/INF.13 (Application of cultural criterion(vi)). The Committee noted that:•=

The Drafting Group considered that three issues
require policy and legal consideration by theCommittee before drafting can be finalised forconsideration by the Committee. These are:(i)•=

The current revisions to the Operational Guidelines
are being prepared on the basis of recommendationsof an Expert Meeting held in Canterbury (United
Kingdom) in April 2000, that were adopted by theCommittee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns(2000).

•=The overall objective of the current process ofrevision of the Guidelines is to create a userfriendly document that is streamlined andsimplified and includes a consolidated section on
the protection and conservation of World Heritage
properties.

•=

The 1st Draft Annotated Revisions of the
Operational Guidelines were sent to all States
Parties under cover of a Circular Letter(CL/WHC.8/01) in July 2001.
Seventeen
submissions were received in response. The 1st
Draft and comments received are included on the
web site www.unesco.org/whc/opgu/ (English) and
www.unesco.org/fr/orient/ (French).

•=

From 8 to 12 October 2001, a Drafting Group met
at UNESCO Headquarters to review the 1st Draft
and the submissions and to elaborate a 2nd Draft.
The Drafting Group included experts from the
Bureau of the World Heritage Committee(Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Finland, Morocco andZimbabwe). Due to other commitments, the expert
from Thailand was unable to attend. An expert
from the United Kingdom (Dr Christopher Young,
English Heritage who had chaired the Canterbury
meeting) and representatives of the three Advisory
Bodies, the World Heritage Centre and the Culture

Report of the World Heritage Committee

The role of State Party consent in reactive
monitoring;(ii) The role of State Party consent for inscriptionof a property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger; and(iii) The capacity of the World Heritage
Committee to decide and the role of the State
Party to consent to deletion of properties fromthe World Heritage List.
The Committee:
1.

2.

3.

congratulated the Drafting Group for the substantial
progress made in revising the Operational
Guidelines;
approved the organization of the next meeting of the
Drafting Group at UNESCO Headquarters from 18 to
22 March 2002 to review the Annexes and sections oftheOperational
Guidelines
still
requiring
finalization. The composition of the next DraftingGroup will include an expert nominated by each State
Party that is a Bureau member in 2002, an expert
nominated by each State Party that were Bureau
members in 2001 (Australia, Canada, Morocco,
Ecuador and Zimbabwe) in order to use theirexperience to finalise the text, representatives fromthe Advisory Bodies, other experts as required (to be
selected by the Director of the World Heritage Centre
in consultation with the Chairperson of the World
Heritage Committee) and the World Heritage Centre.
invited States Parties to provide written comments on
the 2nd Draft Annotated revisions of the Operational
Guidelines to the World Heritage Centre by 1
February 2001 for consideration by the DraftingGroup in March 2002;

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 11

4.

5.

recalled that the Director of the Centre had indicatedthat the UNESCO analysis of legal/policy issues
identified in the report of the Drafting Group would
be available in time for the March 2002 Operational
Guidelines Drafting Group;
considered that the Drafting Group should only
examine technical questions and should leave
discussions on legal and policy issues to theCommittee.

VI.2
The Delegate of Belgium noted that there was aneed to further discuss the application of the criteria, andin particular cultural heritage criterion (vi).
The
Committee did not make a decision on this specific point.
However, the Chairperson noted that criterion (vi) will be
discussed by the Operational Guidelines Drafting Group.
VII.

PERIODIC REPORTING

1.

Report on the state of the World Heritage in
the Africa Region

VII.1 The Secretariat presented the report on Periodic
Reporting in the Africa Region (WHC-01/CONF. 208/7)
to the Committee. As at November 2001, fifty-three sites
were inscribed on the World Heritage List. Forty of thesesites were inscribed prior to 1993 and located in eighteencountries, comprising twenty-three natural, sixteen culturaland one mixed site, and were the subject of this monitoring
report. The strategic approach for the compilation of thereport and the co-operation of the African States Parties in
the Periodic Reporting Exercise was explained. Of thepossible eighteen reports on the state of implementation of
the Convention by the States Parties, sixteen had been
received, and of a possible forty state of conservation
reports, thirty-two had been received, representing a rateof 80%.
VII.2 As regards the state of the regional overview on
the implementation of the Convention, the Secretariat
drew the attention of the Committee to the following
issues:
•=
•=

•=
•=
•=
•=
•=

Periodic Reporting on the implementation of theConvention should not only be limited to countries
with sites inscribed on the List;
Lack of policy and legislative measures for heritage
conservation: where policy measures exist, the lack ofsolid policies and programmes to put these measures
into effect is insufficient to implement them;High central government-driven initiatives concerning
sites with little involvement of the local population or
non-governmental organizations;
Inadequate professional personnel, skills andequipment;
Lack of scientific information to enhance and update
the management knowledge and methods;
Lack of financial resources to manage sites andtechniques for mobilizing international support;
Lack of education and public awareness concerningWorld Heritage values;

Report of the World Heritage Committee

•=
•=
•=
•=

Poorly defined and poorly understood World Heritage
values;Lack of mechanisms for addressing natural andanthropic threats to World Heritage;
Non-existence of frameworks for bi- and multilateral
cooperation for designing transborder sites; andLack of nominations from countries that ratified theConvention in earlier years.

VII.3 In the light of these observations, and theachievements of the Global Strategy, the Secretariat
emphasized the following challenges facing World
Heritage conservation in Africa:
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=

Mainstreaming World Heritage protection within the
public and private sectors of the African countries;
Convincing the private sector to incorporate heritage
protection in their activities;
Establish
long-term
conservation
financingprogrammess for African sites (e.g. the setting up of
the African Heritage Fund);Promoting urban and regional planning for bothurban and rural heritage;
Promoting transparency in heritage resource
management;
Promoting more proactive use of environmental
assessment tools for the decision making process; andEffective management through regional and subregional training, accountability, cooperation,
coordination and agreements.

VII.4 The Secretariat presented an Action Plan focusedon:•= Co-operation and Networks for better sharing ofresources;•= Training for more skilled and efficient manpower;•= Wider participation to ensure long and sustained
conservation of World Heritage in Africa;•= Management to address deficiencies at the national
level and on the sites;•= Scientific research and reporting to enhanceknowledge at sites, and•= update methods for site protection and information
sharing.
VII.5 The Secretariat recommended the convening of
the second round of regional meetings with site managers.
Meetings with the Permanent Delegations to UNESCO
and with the National Commissions for UNESCO should
also be held. The Secretariat also recommended theadoption by the Committee of the Action Plan, to be
funded by the World Heritage Fund, extrabudgetary
sources and the African Heritage Fund.
VII.6 Following the presentation, several interventions
were made by Committee members and observers. After
debate, the Committee deferred the adoption of theAfrican Periodic Report, on the basis of the following
comments:

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 12

•=the complete Report should have been provided toenable the Committee to have the information which
led to the conclusion and recommendations of theReport, provided as a Working Document;•=in view of the importance of the Report and the issues
involved in the Periodic Reporting Exercise, theCommittee requested that a copy of the report beprovided to all members to provide an opportunity tothoroughly study the Report (CD-Rom version), andcertain recommendations contained in the Reportsubmitted to the Committee which may be difficult toimplement.

VII.7 The Committee noted that the proposed Action
Plan should be completed with a quantitative plan,
highlighting actions to be undertaken in the short and in
the long term, and associating the follow up activities toperiodic reporting with the activities undertaken under the
Africa 2009 Programme.
VII.8 As regards the proposed African Heritage Fund,while expressing the urgent need to support Africancountries, the Committee requested a detailed descriptionof the Fund and suggested that it should have a structure
whereby the Committee could have a say in its utilisation.
VII.9 In considering the level of awareness raising, theCommittee noted that each regional action plan differed,and that more awareness raising activities are foreseen in
the follow up to the Periodic Reporting Exercise. The
Committee noted that the countries concerned will gain six
more months following approval of the proposed cycle for
periodic reporting.
VII.10 To simplify the work of the Committee, it was
decided to provide the Committee with the summary
report. However, the Committee was informed that thefull report would be made available to its members.
VII.11 IUCN welcomed the report on Africa. Africa is
the only region where the number of natural sites exceeds
the number of cultural sites. In addition, 22% of all
natural World Heritage sites are from Africa. Alarmingly,
42% of natural sites on the List of World Heritage in
Danger are from Africa, in some cases the result of armed
conflict related issues as in the Democratic Republic ofCongo. IUCN considered that this required increasingemphasis by the Committee on African heritage
conservation, particularly through activities which build
local support, linking conservation to sustainable
development and support capacity building efforts.
However, it is important to understand that root causessuch as poverty, debt, lack of development and ethnic
conflict afflict too many African countries.
These
underlying causes will be addressed at the World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002.
VII.12 IUCN felt the report has many positive points butthat the recommendations would have more impact if theset of priority items were presented in a clearer and shorter
fashion. IUCN also informed the Committee that theReport of the World Heritage Committee

World Parks Congress (WPC) will be held in Durban in
September 2003. This 10-yearly event is key in shaping
the world's protected areas now covering the equivalent of
10% of the earth's terrestrial surface. The WPC will
include a major focus on World Heritage and on African
conservation. The meeting will provide an important
opportunity to address the issues identified in the Periodic
Reporting Exercise.
VII.13 The ICCROM Representative reported thatseveral activities proposed in the Action Plan are alreadybeing implemented by ICCROM under Africa 2009, andmore links will be established with the periodic reporting.
VII.14 The Committee noted that the Action Plan as wellas the recommendations were derived from consultations
with the States Parties during regional meetings, responses
to the questionnaires and through various consultant
missions undertaken to assist the participating countries.
VII.15 As regards follow up consultations with theconcerned African States Parties, the Committee noted that
the Chairperson had approved two international assistancerequests amounting to US$40,000 to enable theorganization in Africa of two follow up meetings forFrancophone and Anglophone African countries
respectively.
VII.16 Taking into consideration the above observations,the Committee deferred the adoption of the African
Periodic Report and the proposed Action Plan. It
recommended that the Centre re-examine the African
Periodic Report in consultation with the States Parties,
taking into consideration the comments, and re-submit theReport to the next session of the World Heritage
Committee. The Report should include more details on
the proposed Action Plan and the proposed African
Heritage Fund, and be circulated to the States Parties. A
Progress Report on the African Periodic Reporting
Exercise should be submitted to the next Bureau of theWorld Heritage Committee.

2.

Progress Reports on Regional Periodic Reporting
Strategies

Asia and the Pacific Region
VII.17 The Committee examined Section 2 of Document
WHC-01/CONF.208/8 concerning the progress report on
the preparation of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic
Reporting Exercise. The Committee took note that the
Asia-Pacific Region with thirty-five States Parties (twentyseven Asian and eight Pacific States Parties) will be
undertaking the Exercise for preparing Part I (State Party
information) of the Periodic Report to report to theCommittee in June 2003. It was noted that in the AsiaPacific Region, there are 135 World Heritage properties,
including ninety-one cultural, thirty-five natural and nine
mixed sites, of which fifty-five cultural and thirty-threenatural or mixed properties were inscribed before or in
1994, located in sixteen countries, to be reported within

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 13

Part II (site information) of this first round of the AsiaPacific Regional Periodic Report.
VII.18 The Centre informed the Committee that
following the Action Plan it had approved at its twentyfourth session, the Asia-Pacific States Parties have started
the preparation of their national Periodic Reports in close
co-operation with the Centre and the Advisory Bodies. It
was underscored that the entire process involved
consultation between States Parties, UNESCO, theAdvisory Bodies and other relevant authorities; twentyone out of thirty-five Asia-Pacific States Parties had
appointed national coordinators for the Exercise. The main
activities undertaken in 2001 for the Periodic Reporting
Exercise were highlighted.
VII.19 The Centre expressed appreciation to the States
Parties who are making special efforts to support thisimportant Exercise within the work of the Convention,
notably, the Republic of Korea and Australia, who have orare planning to host UNESCO Regional or Sub-Regional
Workshops for the preparation of the periodic reports for
the Asia-Pacific Cultural, Mixed and Natural properties
inscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994.
Moreover, the Centre drew the attention of the Committee
to the generous contribution by the Government of Japan,
which had committed US$334,800 to support the Periodic
Reporting Exercise for this region to be reviewed in June
2003.
VII.20 For Natural and Mixed Heritage, the Committee
was informed that close links have been developed
between the Periodic Reporting Exercise and theCentre/IUCN Global Project entitled “Enhancing our
Heritage: Monitoring and Managing Success in World
Natural Heritage sites”, financed by the UN Foundation.
The first meeting to co-ordinate the preparation of theperiodic report on natural and mixed World Heritage
properties (33 from 11 States Parties) will be hosted byAustralia, in March 2002.
VII.21 The Delegates of India and the Republic ofKorea, and the Observer of Iran underscored theimportance of consultation and usefulness of the close cooperation between UNESCO, the concerned States Parties,
the Advisory Bodies and other relevant organizations toensure a positive outcome of this exercise.
VII.22 The Committee was assured by the Secretariat,that the Periodic Reporting Exercise was being conductedby the States Parties themselves, and that the Report, to be
examined by the Committee at its twenty-seventh sessionin June 2003, would be presented by representative(s) of
the Asia-Pacific States Parties, and not by the Secretariat.
VII.23 The Committee approved the Action Plan
proposed in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8 Section 2 aswell as the regional strategic action plan to complete theAsia-Pacific Regional Periodic Reporting Exercise.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Latin America and the Caribbean Region
VII.24 The Committee took note of the presentation ofSection 3 of the Document WHC-01/CONF.208/8
concerning the Periodic Report on the Latin American and
Caribbean Region. The Delegate of Argentina informed
the Committee that his country had designated two focal
points, one for natural sites and one for cultural sites. The
Periodic Report of Argentina will be discussed during thesecond seminar on the 1972 Convention, foreseen in
Cordoba, in March 2002, after the sub-regional meeting ofMontévideo and with the technical assistance of theCentre. Argentina is studying, among others, the means toensure its own permanent evaluation mechanism. Whilst
approving the strategy proposed for Latin America and the
Caribbean, the Delegate of Argentina requested that thebudget of this part of the programme be discussed at thesame time as the budget for international assistance andthe World Heritage Fund. Following a question raised by
the Delegate of Mexico, the Secretariat informed that eachState Party designated one or more focal points. The
Committee took note of Section 3 of the Periodic Reportfor the Latin American and Caribbean Region andapproved the proposed timetable.
Europe and North America Region
VII.25 Concerning the proposals for the Periodic
Reporting Exercise for Europe (Section 4 of Document
WHC-01/CONF.208/8), the Committee agreed both withthe timing and the proposal to collaborate with the Councilof Europe and its HEREIN project, a comparative
databank on European cultural heritage policies. It
furthermore noted the co-operation with the Nordic World
Heritage Office/Foundation in the development oftechnical tools.
VII.26 The Committee also requested that all States
Parties be included in this effort and to fully co-operatewith the Advisory Bodies. A number of European States
Parties took the floor to support the arrangements
proposed, namely to cover Section I of the reports for all
countries in 2005 and Section II in 2006. A question was
raised as to whether the capacity in the Centre would be
sufficient for the work to be carried out and the Director
responded that assistance be provided by States Parties
through the Associate Expert Scheme.
VII.27 The Delegate of Hungary pointed out that theyear 2007 should be devoted to a stocktaking exercise andthe development of conceptual guidelines for the second
cycle. The Delegate of Greece informed the Committeethat a Conference on the Safeguarding of Byzantine
Heritage had been organized in May 2001 and that a
database on the state of conservation of this type ofheritage for the Mediterranean countries is being
established. ICOMOS fully supported the link to theCouncil of Europe and the HEREIN project, as this is an
open project which could be very beneficial to otherregions. The thesaurus already exists in English, Frenchand Spanish and the thematic and methodological

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 14

approach could be expanded to cover the other reporting
exercises as it includes heritage protection in general.

modern material for cultural and natural training courses
and is able to accommodate up to 52 trainees.

Arab States Region

VII.33 The Committee furthermore agreed on thenecessary link between international assistance activities
and the "programme" approach, and requested that theexperience of the Periodic Reporting in the Arab region be
used to develop indicators and benchmarks, which would
enable an assessment of the progress accomplished in agiven region once the cycle completed.

VII.28 The Committee noted the summary on the followup to the Arab Region Periodic Reporting (Section 1 ofDocument
WHC-01/CONF.208/8).
Backgroundinformation was provided on the activities of theSecretariat since the adoption of the regional summary
report in Cairns in 2000, such as on the meeting organizedin April 2001, to inform States Parties of the conclusions
and recommendations of this report. The Delegate ofLebanon commented that the identification of Modern
Heritage is not a priority within the Arab region.
VII.29 The Secretariat outlined its proposed strategy toimplement the above-mentioned recommendations,insisting on the need to establish and reinforce national
World Heritage "focal points", fine-tune regional strategies
and national work plans, develop model international
assistance packages and encourage States Parties to apply
for those packages under the World Heritage Fund.
VII.30 The Committee noted the various actions aimed
at implementing the above-mentioned strategy, that the
Secretariat is carrying out. These include: nationalseminars to assist States Parties in reviewing periodic
reports and generating requests for international assistanceactivities; regional and sub-regional meetings to strengthen
the capacity of States Parties in implementing theConvention and improve the representivity of the Arab
Region on the List; and Regional Technical Assistance
Programmes, mainly funded through extrabudgetary
sources, to provide best-practice examples in addressing
common management and conservation problems of theregion.
VII.31 The Committee noted that a special effort is madeby the Secretariat to ensure that all international assistanceactivities, under the World Heritage Fund, are conceived
in such a way to contribute to the general objectives of theregional strategy.
VII.32 The Committee, recalling that heritage
conservation is an absolute priority for all States Parties
from the region, supported the idea of establishing World
Heritage "focal points" in each State Party, suggesting that
there might be an overall World Heritage Co-ordinator foreach country, and two "executives", one for cultural andone for natural heritage. In this respect, the Delegate of
Egypt underlined that National MAB, where they exist,
Committees are best placed to become the counterparts of
the Centre for natural heritage. The need to involve
renowned universities from the region as well as
encouraging interregional Mediterranean co-operation was
also stressed.
The Delegate of Egypt drew theCommittee's attention to the Training Center at Sharm ElSheikh, located near the Ras Mohamed Marine Park, St
Catherine Monastery and other noteworthy natural andcultural sites. This Center is equipped with the mostReport of the World Heritage Committee

VII.34 The ALECSO Observer took the floor proposingthat a strategic partnership be established between theCentre and his Organization, to co-operate in the Arabregion on the basis of the recommendations and Action
Plan deriving from the Periodic Reporting. He recalled thatALECSO is in the process of setting up its own global
strategy, which will take into account the directives of theCommittee, and he underlined the need to integrate efforts
with a view to optimising the resources.

VIII.

STATE
OF
CONSERVATIONOF
PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST
OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND
ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LISTSTATEOFCONSERVATIONOF
PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OFWORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER

VIII.1 The Committee examined document WHC01/CONF.208/9 describing reports on the state ofconservation of nineteen natural and seven cultural heritage
properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
NATURAL HERITAGE
Iguaçu National Park (Brazil)
VIII.2 The Committee learned that the Colon road was
effectively closed in June 2001 through the intervention of
the Brazilian Federal Police. The Committee was informedthat the State Party provided information by a letter dated
5 December 2001 to the Centre on several steps taken: on
the one hand to ensure permanent closure of the road andrehabilitate areas damaged by the illegal use of the road;and on the other, to assist local communities affected by
the closure of the road.
VIII.3 To ensure permanent closure of the road, theBrazilian authorities sunk a ferry boat, scarified the wholeof the 18 km of the road to render it unuseable, destroyed
three bridges along the road and established a guard-postat the entrance to the road manned by 12 Federal Police
personnel to prevent any attempt by dissidents to begin
illegal use of the road again. Soon after the closure of theroad on 13 June 2001, 5000 seedlings of native tree
species were planted to rehabilitate areas damaged by theroad; an additional 20,000 saplings are being planted
during December 2001.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 15

VIII.4 An interministerial Working Group has beencreated with the participation of the State Government of
Paraná, and under the leadership of the Ministry for
National Integration, to promote sustainable development
initiatives among local populations inhabiting the vicinityof the Iguaçu National Park. FUNPAR (Fundação da
Universidade do Paraná) has been hired to carry out
appraisal studies on how municipalities around the Park
could benefit from projects and activities that will soon belaunched. The Government of the State of Paraná hasdeveloped a joint project with the surrounding populations
focusing on organic agriculture and sustainable use
activities, including development of craftmanship andecotourism. Private enterprises and public agencies have
set up infrastructure projects with the aim of fostering
ecotourism and organic agriculture. These projects will
employ approximately 450 persons.
VIII.5 The twenty-fifth session of the Bureau that met in
Paris from 25 to 30 June 2001 had recommended that if
the positive developments are sustained, the Committee
could remove this site from the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Committee concluded that the State Party had
met the conditions it had set at its twenty-third session(1999), i.e. ensuring the permanent closure of the Colonroad, to remove the site from the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Committee invited the State Party to continue
forest rehabilitation efforts and monitor their outcome andbuild co-operative programmes to enhance income
generation and employment opportunities for local
communities in municipalities bordering the Park. The
Committee decided to remove the site from the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger and requested that IUCN and
the Centre undertake a site visit during 2002/2003 toprepare a status report for submission to the twentyseventh session of the Committee in June 2003. Based on
the suggestions made by the Delegate of Argentina and theObserver of Brazil, the Committee welcomed the idea tostudy a permanent mechanism for transborder co-operation
between the World Heritage sites of Iguaçu (Brazil) andIguazu (Argentina) National Parks, in particular forsustainable tourism.
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
VIII.6 The Committee noted with satisfaction that inaccordance with the recommendation made at its lastsession the State Party had invited a Centre/IUCN/Ramsar
mission to the site which took place from 1 to 4 October
2001. The Committee reviewed the findings of themission, included in document WHC-01/CONF.208/
INF.5.
VIII.7 The Committee was pleased to note that
improvements observed by a 1998 mission to the integrityof the site have all been sustained and that the chances ofcontinuing improvements to the state of conservation of
the site are quite high. Population of the dalmatianpelicans, control of water flow in and out of the Lake,water quality indicators and institutional aspects such ascontinuity in data collection and maintenance forsystematic monitoring of the state of conservation of theReport of the World Heritage Committee

site, were all showing positive or stable trends. The
mission team had commended the staff for its dedication topreserve the site’s World Heritage values despite cashflow and financial constraints. The Committee invited theState Party to consider, if necessary, to submit a request
for international assistance from the World Heritage Fundfor purchasing equipment and materials essential to ensure
effective regulation of water flow in and out of the Lake.
The Committee took note of the fact that the management
plan, being prepared with a small grant from the Ramsar
Convention Secretariat, will be finalized and adopted by
the Government in due course and that discussions withother countries sharing the Danube Delta to developtransborder co-operation for World Heritage are underway.
VIII.8 The Committee congratulated the State Party forsustaining all the positive and stable trends in the
rehabilitation of the site reported by the 1998 mission andwelcomed the management’s co-operation with thescientific community to ensure continuous data collection
for systematic monitoring of changes in key parametersreflective of trends in the state of conservation of the site.
The Committee invited the State Party to finalize themanagement plan and confirm its adoption by theGovernment and to submit a calendar of activities for
preparing a proposal for a transborder World Heritage areain the Danube Delta in co-operation with other concerned
States Parties to the Convention. The Committee decided
to remove Srebarna from the List of World Heritage
Danger, effective from the date at which the State Party
submits to the Centre, IUCN and the Ramsar Convention
Secretariat, a copy of the approved management plan forthe site and a letter commiting core resources for thetimely and effective implementation of the plan.
Manovo-Gounda-St.Floris
African Republic (CAR))

National

Park(Central

VIII.9 The Committee noted with satisfaction that inaccordance with the recommendations made at its lastsession, a mission to the site was fielded from 5-13 May
2001. The Committee took note of the conclusions andrecommendations deriving from the examination of thatreport by the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau held in
June 2001.
VIII.10 The Committee noted that the Centre and IUCN
were in the process of co-operating with the State Party to
prepare a fundraising plan for the implementation ofurgent rehabilitation measures and a realistic workplan
includinginstitutional
responsibilitiesforthe
implementation of those measures. These plans will
include benchmarks that could signal improvements in thestate of conservation of the site and assist the Committee’s
decision concerning the eventual removal of the site fromthe List of World Heritage in Danger. As part of this cooperative process, a two-phase, 24-month programme ofactions for addressing the critical and most urgent needs
for the conservation of the site have been developed. The
list of actions includes those needed to provide urgent
protection for the site and others to encourage dialogue
among stakeholders to link site protection to socio-

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 16

economic development of the broader region. The
Committee took note of those actions included in pages 38
and 39 of the Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/20
as part of the description of an emergency assistancerequest from the World Heritage Fund submitted by theState Party.

Programme (IGCP). The northern and central sectors, andthe southern sectors are under the authority of two separate
rebel Governments. ICCN staff in the two territories aregradually increasing contacts and collaboration with one
anothertoimplement
activities
under
the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project.

VIII.11 The Committee was informed that, in accordancewith the recommendation of the twenty-fifth session of the
Bureau, the Director-General had written to the Permanent
Delegations of all countries neighbouring the Republic ofCentral Africa inviting their co-operation in mitigating
across-the-border poaching. The Committee invited theState Party to actively seek the co-operation of all its
neighbours to combat poachers entering fromneighbouring countries. The Committee requested theCentre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party toidentify potential financial sources, over and above thatwhich the Committee may consider providing from theWorld Heritage Fund, to implement the urgent
rehabilitation measures and long-term conservation actions
for the benefit of this site. The Committee decided that thesite be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

VIII.14 Guards in Garamba National Park have been
prevented from receiving their monthly payments provided
under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project because of
misunderstandings between the Conservator of Garamba
and the co-operating NGO, i.e. the International Rhino
Foundation (IRF). These differences were discussed by thetwo parties in the presence of other ICCN personnel from
Kinshasa and the rebel-held region of Beni/Bunia during ameeting in Nairobi immediately preceding the mission led
by the Director of the Centre. It is expected that thepayments to Garamba staff can now be delivered without
any hindrance. Despite these difficulties in the executionof the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project, guards continue tocarry out their patrol and surveillance duties regularly. The
population of the northern white rhinos in this site
continues to be stable around 30 individuals.

World Heritage sites of the Democratic Republic of theCongo (DRC)

VIII.15 Kahuzi-Biega National Park is perhaps the mostthreatened of the five sites despite the continuing presenceof the the GTZ (Germany) financed project staff who pay
the conservators and other senior staff. The guards andlabourers
arereceiving
payments
under
the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. Only 10% of the area isaccessible to staff; most of the lowland sector (90% of thetotal area of the Park) is inaccessible due to the presence ofarmed groups and renegade militias. Coltan mining was
rampant in this site at the time of the twenty-fifth sessionof the Bureau in June 2001 but has been reduced sincethen due to the sharp decline in the price of coltan. But
miners who were camped in the Park have remained,
resorting to poaching and gold mining. Park staff and GTZ
Project personnel have made some contacts with armed
groups along the borders of the inaccessible sector andhave been able to enter into informal negotiations withthem to seek support for protecting wildlife. Their task has
been made difficult because site staff are not armed. The
leaders of the rebel Government in Goma have agreed toaddress the possibility of providing arms and ammunition
to the staff and progress in this regard will be monitored
over the next few months.

Virunga National Park
Garamba National Park
Kahuzi-Biega National Park
Okapi Wildlife Reserve
Salonga National Park
VIII.12 The Committee was updated on the state ofconservation of each of the five sites and the outcome of a
mission led by the Director of the Centre to DRC from 24
November to 3 December 2001.
VIII.13 Virunga National Park has been considerably
affected by the war in eastern DRC and its impacts. Morethan 20,000 families are resident in the central andnorthern sectors of the Park, most of them undertaking
fishing and livestock herding activities. Renegade militia
groups are hiding in the forests in the northern and central
sectors of the Park and subsist by poaching on wild
animals. It is believed that several keystone species in thearea, including elephants and hippos, are being hunted
regularly and fishing intensity in the Lakes of the Virunga
National Park is on the increase. Forests are being cleared
for agriculture and settlements. In the northern sector,
ICCN staff from Beni are beginning to increase patrolling
operations as guards have started receiving payments thatare being made available under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF
Project. State of conservation in the central sector is ofserious concern as staff are unable to enter the area forregular patrols and surveillance. The southern sector of
Virunga is relatively stable and regularly patrolled;
mountain gorilla population in the latter sector is stable
and has increased from 325 to 355 over the last decade.
Staff belonging to protected areas in southern Virunga cooperate with their counterparts in Uganda and Rwanda
under the aegis of the International Gorilla Conservation

Report of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.16 In the Okapi Wildlife Reserve the guards andlabourers
havereceived
payments under the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF project dating back to October 2000
and the NGO partner assisting the Project to deliver
payments to the site, i.e. Gilman International
Conservation (GIC), has continued paying othersupervisory staff, such as the conservators. Hence, the staff
morale is rather high. A third of the area still remains
inaccessible to staff, an improvement compared to lastyear when more than half the surface area of the Reserve
was not accessible to the staff. Co-operation between staff
and military authorities is improving and the mission team
met with the Governor responsible for the area who
committed to visit the area and dialogue with military

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 17

groups and local communities to bring about further
improvements to the conservation of the site. The
Conservator of the Reserve informed the mission that after
a long period of time, no known cases of elephantpoaching have been reported in the month of October
2001. In the short-to-medium term this site has the best
potential among the five sites of DRC for recovery subject
to the continuation of the current trend recovery.
VIII.17 The 36,000-square kilometer Salonga National
Park is the only site under the direct responsibility of
ICCN, Kinshasa; although about 20% of the area in thesoutheastern sector is controlled by the rebel authorities inGoma. The partner NGO, namely Zoological Society of
Milwaukee (ZSM), has hired local staff who brave long
distances and insecure access conditions to pay guards,
labourers and other staff from support made available
under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. Poaching in thesite continues; the number of staff working in the Park is
totally inadequate for the huge area where access isextremely difficult. The ability of ICCN, Kinshasa, tobetter manage this and other protected areas under its
authority may improve when a GTZ project, that was
temporarily suspended in June 2001, re-starts operations inJanuary 2002. This GTZ project may recommence
payments to several ICCN-Kinshasa staff and provide
other basic needs such as vehicles and travel allowancesthat would enable ICCN to better protect Salonga andother protected areas under its direct supervision.
VIII.18 The mission led by the Director of the Centre
visited Kinshasa, as well as Goma, Beni and Bunia, which
now serve as seats of rebel Government authorities in theeastern parts of DRC. The mission met with ICCN staff in
all destinations as well as senior decision-makers,
including Heads of the rebel administration in Goma, Beniand Bunia. The Director and his team met withrepresentatives of staff from all five World Heritage sites
and visited a guard post at the southwestern border ofVirunga. The mission's flight in the eastern parts of DRC
traced a south-north route along the western boundary of
the Virunga National Park providing an overview of thesite's state of conservation.
VIII.19 The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) of
the United States of America has applauded the dedicationof the guards of protected areas of the DRC. The Director
General of ICCN (Kinshasa) accepted an award on behalfof the guards of the protected areas of DRC at a ceremonyin Hawaii in June 2001. The financial contribution of
approximately US$5,000 provided by members of SCB
were used to provide medals to all the guards andlabourers (approximately 1,000 individuals) of the five
World Heritage sites; the Director of the Centre handed
over medals to individual representatives of each site insimple ceremonies held during the mission. A part of the
US$5,000 collected will be used to provide small sums ofcash compensation to widows of guards who lost theirlives in the line of duty.
VIII.20 In accordance with the request of the twenty-fifthsession of the Bureau, a detailed report (English andReport of the World Heritage Committee

French) on the progress of the UNESCO/DRC/UNFUNFIP Project is included as document WHC01/CONF.208/INF.4. The Minister of Environment of
DRC in Kinshasa described the project to the Director of
the Centre as a "project of hope" since it arrived at a time
when no other donor was willing to provide support tostaff of the five World Heritage sites. In the absence ofmonthly support payments to guards, training andmonitoring and equipment and other amenities provided
under the project, many of the staff might have deserted
the Park.
VIII.21 The ICCN authorities in Kinshasa and in the rebel
regions of Goma, Beni and Bunia also welcomed theBelgium Government-financed project to support local
communities to work with staff to conserve the World
Heritage sites. This aspect of the conservation agenda was
not adequately financed under the UNESCO/DRC/UNF
Project. Hence, the Belgium contribution of 300,000 Euros
over the 4-year period overlapping with that of the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project is seen as a criticallyimportant contribution for the success of the overall effort
to sustain the conservation status of the five sites. The firstplanning workshop to identify site specific community
support activities to be implemented under the
UNESCO/Belgium Government Project has beenscheduled for mid-February 2002 and will be held in Beni,at the boundary of the northern sector of the Virunga
National Park. The workshop will be organized by a local
NGO working in and around Virunga that has been
established and supported by the WWF Regional
Programme for Eastern Africa.
VIII.22 The Committee was informed of the important
logistical and other support provided by the UN
Organization Mission in the Congo (MONUC) both fortravel of the mission team and in assisting partners such as
ZSM to deliver UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project payments tostaff in Salonga National Park. MONUC has staff in
Kinshasa, Goma, Beni and Bunia and in several other partsof DRC and operates regular flights between these
destinations that are open (at no cost) to other UN staff andtheir collaborating NGOs and DRC counterparts.
MONUC, other UN agencies, bi and multilateral donors
and a growing number of conservation NGOs who areentering the country as the peace process under the Lusaka
Agreement slowly takes root, are likely to play a majorrole in reviving the conservation status of World Heritage
sites in the DRC.
VIII.23 In the long-term, the return of peace and stability
are essential to conservation of World Heritage sites andother protected areas and habitats in the DRC. The Centre
will attempt to match resources provided by the UNF, theGovernment of Belgium and with other donors to expand
sustainable development options in areas surrounding thefive sites with a view to minimising pressure on resources
within the sites. While demilitarzing the Parks andunarming renegade militias hiding in protected areas,
including the World Heritage sites, is likely to be adifficult task, representatives of several aid organziations
and the DRC and rebel military forces believe many such

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 18

armed groups comprise deserters and youth who would
accept a return to civilan life if alternative livelihood
options are offered to them.
VIII.24 The Committee was pleased to note that the
Director-General of UNESCO, in accordance with thewish of the Committee expressed at several of its previous
sessions, has agreed to lead a mission to Kinshasa (DRC),
Kampala (Uganda) and Kigali (Rwanda) in late March
2002. The mission led by the Director of the Centre
informed all important personalities met, including
authorities of MONUC and other UN bodies in the DRC,of the Director-General's mission. Several persons met
expressed the hope that the visit of the Director-General to
the three capitals could establish a basis for co-operation
amongst the three countries for biodiversity conservation,
including important endangered species such as themountain and the eastern lowland gorillas. As the Lusaka
Peace Agreement's execution progresses, opportunities forformal collaboration between the DRC, Uganda and
Rwanda for the conservation of mountain and lowland
gorillas in the ecosystems shared by the three countries arelikely to become available.
VIII.25 The Committee learned that the Centre,
encouraged by the Deputy Director-General of UNESCO,
has initiated a study of gorilla habitats as a pilot activity
for the UNESCO-ESA (European Space Agency) Cooperative Initiative to demonstrate the use of satellite
images and other space-borne technologies in monitoring
the state of conservation of World Heritage sites. Thisinitiative will generate state-of-the-art information on
land-use changes in and around the two sites ofsignificance as gorilla habitats; i.e. Virunga for themountain gorilla and Kahuzi Biega for the eastern lowland
gorilla. Similar studies on habitats of other apes such as
the chimpanzees and the bonobos that inhabit Salonga arealso foreseen as part of UNESCO collaboration with
UNEP under the Great Apes Survival Project (GRASP)
recently launched by UNEP.
VIII.26 The Committee noted with satisfaction theoutcome of the mission led by the Director of the Centre
but expressed its serious concerns over the range of threats
to the integrity of the five World Heritage sites in the
DRC. Several delegates expressed their appreciation of themission team's efforts to visit a region of uncertainty andsecurity risks to further the cause of World Heritage
conservation. The Committee appealed to the international
community to live up to the spirit and ideal of international
co-operation promoted by the World Heritage Convention
and intervene in all possible ways to assist ICCN, site
staff, partner NGOs and others to protect and preserve theWorld Heritage sites of the DRC. The Committee
applauded the Governments of Belgium and Germany andother donors like the UNF and NGO partners of the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project for the crucial support they
are already providing for the conservation of the five sites.
The Committee welcomed the opportunity for close
collaboration with MONUC and other UN bodies in theexecution of conservation-support activities and missions.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.27 The Committee urged the Centre to liaise with allconcerned units in UNESCO to ensure effective executionof UNF and Belgium-financed projects by minimizing
administrative and other delays. The Committee requested
the Centre, IUCN and other partners to expand the searchfor projects and programmes that provide alternative
livelihoods for communities inhabiting areas around theWorld Heritage sites. Such alternative livelihood options
may also have a role in attracting individuals belonging toarmed groups hiding inside the World Heritage sites and to
re-integrate them into civilan life. The Committeeemphasized the need to explore the feasibility for building
long-term conservation financing mechanisms for the
DRC, one of the principal objectives of the
UNESCO/DRC/UNF Project. The Committee thanked the
Director-General of UNESCO for agreeing to lead a
mission to the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda and invited him
to consider discussing an agenda of co-operation amongst
the three countries for World Heritage conservation as animportant component of the implementation of activities
under the Lusaka Peace Agreement.
VIII.28 The Committee requested that the Centre and
IUCN work together with all concerned partners to preparea long-term integrated strategy for the conservation ofWorld Heritage in the DRC incorporating economic,
social, peace and capacity building and other relevant
aspects. The Committee recognized the need to educate
youth and other target groups on the importance of World
Heritage conservation and use the culture of the people of
the DRC, particularly their music and songs, to inculcate
and transmit conservation values. The Committee decided
to retain all the five sites in the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Committee thanked the Secretariat for theirstrong commitment in undertaking this mission in difficult
conditions.
Sangay National Park (Ecuador)
VIII.29 The Committee noted with interest the inclusionof Sangay as one of the Latin American pilot sites in the
UN Foundation financed pilot project entitled: "Enhancing
our heritage: monitoring and managing for success inWorld Natural Heritage sites". The project will test out
monitoring and management effectiveness evaluation tools
developed by an IUCN/WCPA Task Force. The project
management in co-operation with IUCN, both in Glandand in Latin America, is discussing the details for theorganization of a national workshop where thedevelopment of indicators and benchmarks to monitorchanges in the state of conservation of the site and linking
their monitoring to the timing of the possible removal of
the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger will be
discussed. IUCN noted that there may be potential for
removing this site from the Danger List. The Committee
invited the Centre and IUCN to submit a report on theoutcome of that workshop to its twenty-sixth session in
Hungary in June 2002 and submit regular progress reportson the execution of project activities to the subsequentannual sessions of the Committee. The Committee decided
to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 19

Simen National Park (Ethiopia)
VIII.30 The Committee noted that the Bureau, at its
twenty-fifth session held in June 2001, had reviewed areport of an IUCN/Centre mission that visited the site from
8 to 13 April 2001 and recommended the adoption of thefollowing specific benchmarks for the future monitoring of
the state of conservation of Simen and its eventual removalfrom the List of World Heritage in Danger: (a) the realignment of the boundary of the Park to exclude thevillages along the boundary of the Park; (b) the extensionof the Park to include at least Mesarerya and Lemalino
Wildlife Reserves; (c) significant and sustainablereduction in the human population density within the Park,
especially within the core area; and (d) effective
conservation within the extended National Park of a larger
population of Walia Ibex and Simien Fox. The Centre hadtransmitted the Bureau's recommendations to theCommittee by a letter dated 11 July 2001, but has not yet
received a response.
VIII.31 The Committee adopted the benchmarks proposedby the Bureau and referred to above as a basis for the
future monitoring of progress in improving the state ofconservation of Simen and invited the State Party toformally respond to the letter from the Centre transmitting
the above-mentioned recommendations. The Committee
urged the State Party and its site-level partners in project
execution to be cognizant of the need to implement the
project in close consultation with all stakeholders, andparticularly local communities under consideration. The
Committee recommended that the Centre and IUCN
collaborate with the State Party to raise internationalawareness for the conservation of this site and mobilize
necessary financial resources to implement rehabilitation
measures and to ensure the eventual removal of the sitefrom the List of World Heritage in Danger as soon as
possible. The Committee decided to retain this site in the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côted'Ivoire)
VIII.32 The Committee noted that two tri-national (Côted’ Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia) meetings were held in
Abidjan and Man, Côte d’Ivoire, on 11 September, andfrom 12 – 14 September 2001, respectively. The World
Heritage site is shared by Guinea and Côte d’Ivoire;
Liberia is yet to ratify the Convention. The meetings were
jointly financed by the World Heritage Fund, the Rio Tinto
Plc. and the Governments of Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire andLiberia, in cooperation with several conservation NGOs,
notably Fauna and Flora International (FFI), Conservation
International (CI), Bird Life International (BLI), and theNetherlands Committee for IUCN. These meetings wereintended to contribute to the long-term conservation of theMount Nimba Massif by: (i) establishing and encouraging
contacts between technical staff, site managers, local
decision-makers and local community representatives toshare information and experience; and (ii) increasing
harmonization of management planning and practice

Report of the World Heritage Committee

among the three countries that share the Mount Nimba
ecosystem.
VIII.33 The one-day seminar on the 11 September 2001
was designed to sensitise Government authorities on theimportance of regional co-operation for the protection of
Mount Nimba. The second, technical meeting from 12 to
14 September discussed in detail basic issues of crossborder co-operation, national and regional problems facing
Mount Nimba, the value of a regional approach andbiodiversity conservation at the regional level. The
meeting put in place a strategy for continued dialogue for
future cooperation for the conservation of the Mount
Nimba ecosystem for the benefit of the three countries.
The meeting in Man decided to hold a second meeting
before the end of 2001 in Conakry, in the Republic ofGuinea. Exact dates for the second meeting has not yet
been communicated to the Centre.
VIII.34 The goal of the second meeting is to “initiate atrinational dialogue for the conservation of Mount
Nimba”, and the objectives are to: validate the issues andproblems identified by the Man meeting; identify thestrategy and tools for the conservation of Mount Nimba;
propose a protocol for long-term collaboration between thethree countries for joint planning and conservation of
Mount Nimba; and prioritise national and regional actions.
The two meetings were the first trinational event on Mount
Nimba. Participants at the Man meeting included
representatives
from
local
Governments,
local
development interest groups, village leaders, protectedarea managers, UNESCO and the MAB Programme,
mining industry, water and forest management authorities
and groups concerned with refugees and settlements. The
meetings also invited the participation, for the first time, of
Rio Tinto, a mining company, to dialogue withconservation stakeholders interested in the long-term
protection of Mount Nimba.
VIII.35 The GEF Focal point at UNDP in Guinea and Mr
Salamady Toure, the Director of CEGEN, have informed
the Centre that the first three components of the
GEF/PDF-B grants for the Mount Nimba (UNDP-GEF
Project Gui/2000/31 financed by the World Heritage Fundand GEF) have been completed. The activities of thisproject comprise the following: (a) identification of theelements for the preparation of guidelines for integrated
management of Mount Nimba and its surroundings; (b)building local and national technical and institutional
capacity with a view to improving management; (c)establishing support services, such as communication,
monitoring, promotion and alternative livelihood options
for communities to ensure Mount Nimba conservation; and(d) preparation of a detailed long-term, Integrated
Development Project for the Mount Nimba region. UNDP
and the Centre are currently discussing the elaboration of
the Integrated Development Project for Mt. Nimba as partof a UNDP-GEF Project that may last over a period of 7 to
10 years with a total budget of US$8m. GEF has agreed inprinciple to provide US$6m; additional resources will besought from other donors. The Centre, UNDP/Conakry
and other partners concerned are currently discussing the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 20

best way forward for elaborating the project document
early and the roles of the different institutions concerned in
the project execution, co-ordination and management. It is
hoped that the design of that project will include
benchmarks and success indicators that could facilitate theCommittee‘s efforts to track the state of conservation of
the site and its eventual considerations concerning theremoval of Mount Nimba from the List of World Heritage
in Danger.
VIII.36 In Man, discussions were also held concerning thesetting up of a Mount Nimba Foundation. Guinea is still
keen to establish the Foundation to enable it to put in placesustained support mechanisms for Mount Nimba. At Man
the participants were informed that Côte d’Ivoire is setting
up an agency for the management of protected areas withfinancial assistance from the World Bank and theEuropean Union. This agency will have responsibility forthe management of Mount Nimba and other World
Heritage sites in Côte d’Ivoire and the mandate to mobilize
funds from international sources for Côte d’ Ivoire. It
would therefore be difficult to set up a common
Foundation for all three countries sharing Mount Nimba.
The Man meeting requested the Centre and FFI to assist
Guinea with a consultant to study the feasibility of setting
up a Foundation, and look into the possibility of utilisingsome of the funds that will become available under the
GEF project as initial seed money for establishing theFoundation.
VIII.37 The Committee may recall that a donor’s Round
Table meeting was held at the Centre for Scientific andTechnical Documentation (CEDUST) in Conakry in April
1996 and that the conclusions of that Round Table werereported to the twentieth session of the Bureau in June
1996. The Guinean mining company NIMCO, reported atthat time that it would donate US$500,000 each year forthe conservation of Mount Nimba as soon as the mine
became operational. The company has since then left
Guinea and the promised funds were never made available.
The Guinean Government is currently negotiating withother mining companies mainly Billiton (from South
Africa) and EURONIMBA (a concession of European
Union). These two companies are currently studying
various environment-friendly options on how to control
polluted waste waters and avoid sedimentation and erosion
into rivers which supply drinking water to people
downstream. The companies estimate that around 80
million tons of tailing will be produced each year, andhope to construct a dam where the tailings can becontained and allowed to percolate down into the soil
without runoff. The companies also plan to forgo themining of about 50 million tons of rich iron-ore in sometargeted areas of the mountain for environmental andecological reasons. The companies are studying ways to
avoid bringing a large work force and their families near
the mining areas by relocating living quarters away fromthe mining zone.
VIII.38 To guarantee the application of rigorous
environmental management standards, an “International
Memorandum of Understanding” or Accord is to be

Report of the World Heritage Committee

established between the mining companies and theGovernment of Guinea and will be overseen by UN
Agencies (UNESCO-World Heritage Centre, UNEP,
UNDP, FAO etc.) and international non-governmentalorganizations (IUCN, FFI, WWF, BLI etc).
The
Memorandum will bind the companies to “goodbehaviour” in biodiversity conservation vis-à-vis theirmining activities near Mount Nimba Nature Reserve ofGuinea. The companies have expressed interest to put
aside US$18 per ton of iron ore produced for theconservation of the environment in Guinea and particularlyof the Mount Nimba area; annually, an estimated 800
million tons will be produced by the companies.
VIII.39 The mining activities in the Mount Nimba massif
have to be carefully controlled for their environmental
impacts. The parts of the Mount Nimba ecosystem in
Liberia, the only part that is not World Heritage, has
undergone significant transformation since the 1950s due
to mining activities, shifting cultivation and humansettlements. The area includes the East Nimba and West
Nimba National Forests, gazetted in the 1960s. In the late1970s IUCN recommended that these two forests beconnected, other important adjacent areas added, and theentire area set aside as a strict nature reserve. The Liberian
Mining Corporation continues to have a caretaker role in
the administration of the affairs of Mount Nimba, while
the Forestry Development Authority is the other major
governmental authority involved in the area. There has
been no organized conservation programme for Mount
Nimba on the Liberian side as there has been in Guinea
and Côte d’Ivoire.
VIII.40 The Committee congratulated the two States
Parties, UNDP and the conservation NGOs for starting thetri-partite dialogue for the conservation of the overall
Mount Nimba ecosystem and invited the Government of
Liberia to consider becoming a signatory to the World
Heritage Convention as soon as possible. In the meantime,
the Committee invited the Government of Liberia to
consider implementing the 1970 IUCN recommendation togazette East and West Mount Nimba Forests as strict
nature reserves, develop a project based on the two strict
nature reserves to participate in the tri-national initiativeand in due course and following ratification of theConvention, consider nominating the two strict nature
reserves for inclusion in the World Heritage site currently
shared by Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea. The Committee urged
the Government of Liberia to co-operate with UNDP and
the conservation NGOs to undertake a rapid biodiversity
assessment of the two reserves to determine their potential
for incorporation within the World Heritage site shared by
Guinea and Côte d‘Ivoire.
VIII.41 The Committee requested that the Centre and
IUCN assist the three countries in organizing the second
tri-national meeting in order to continue the dialogue andassist in the prepartion of a detailed long-term, Integrated
Development Project for Mount Nimba. The Committee
asked the Centre to collaborate with all conservation
NGOs to study the modalities for establishing theFoundation for Mount Nimba in Guinea, and the feasibility

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 21

to utilize parts of the GEF funds that are likely to be madeavailable for the Integrated Development Project for
Mount Nimba for launching the Foundation. The
Committee requested that the States Parties, CEGEN andothers co-operate to elaborate the International
Memorandum of Understanding for thorough review by
the collaborating UN agencies and conservation NGOs
prior to its adoption by the Governments. The Committee
decided that the site be retained in the List of World
Heritage in Danger.

•=

Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Honduras)
VIII.42 The Committee was informed that the State Forest
Administration of Honduras had informed the Centre inAugust 2001 of the actions taken to follow up on therecommendations of the IUCN mission to this site in
October 2000. Principal elements of the report submitted
by the Honduran authorities are:•= Compensation for people living inside the core zoneof Rio Platano has started and the first 52 families outof 152 have voluntarily moved to areas outside after
receiving 3.7 million lempiras from the Honduran
Government. The Ministry of Finance has madeavailable additional funds for the second phase ofcompensatory payments;•= Demarcation of boundaries of the core zone has begun
and 26 km of the most critical stretches of theboundary have been marked in co-operation with local
communities. Demarcation of the boundaries in thesouthern and western parts of the buffer zone has been
initiated;•= A field office has been set up in response to theadministrative and infrastructure needs of the World
Heritage site protection in the region. Two more field
offices will be set up in the near future;•= A multitemporal analysis on vegetation cover andexpansion of the agricultural area within the reserve
has been undertaken. This analysis allows systematic
monitoring of the state of the ecosystem. Initial
findings of the analysis points to a decrease in the rateof loss of the vegetation compared to the findings of asimilar study undertaken during 1997-1999;•= A study of the threats on Rio Platano BR is being
elaborated by the Regional Biosphere Reserve
Programme (RBRP), Universidad Nacional Autonoma
de Honduras and NGO’s. The national workshop
under the UN Foundation financed project,"Enhancing our heritage: monitoring and managing forsuccess in World Natural Heritage sites“ is expected
to be convened soon and will look at threats and stateof conservation related issues. These initiatives willcontribute towards improved monitoring of the site’sconservation status;•= The first forest management plan was elaborated by
the RBRP staff following the Transforma approachdeveloped by CATIE (A regional Research andTraining Institute in Costa Rica). Another plan fororganisational and productive aspects for eightagroforestry cooperatives in specific locations in thesouthern part of the Reserve and locally co-ordinated,nine community-development plans are under
Report of the World Heritage Committee•=

preparation. These plans will identify priority actions
for social and community infrastructure and forfacilitating co-management and protection of theReserve. Establishment of a technical commission toprepare a legal instrument for defining the recognitionof land use rights within the Reserve has been
proposed;
Action has been taken to reinforce the staff in chargeof the management of the site. A forest technician andthree guards have been hired. Coordination with otherpartners like TNC (The Nature Conservancy) andWWF, Mesoamerican Biological Corridor Project,
German Technical Co-operation and local NGOs has
been strengthened;
A three-year workplan of specific actions linking
biodiversity conservation to sustainable tourism
development in and around Rio Platano is to be
finalized before the end of 2001; this work plan has
been elaborated as part of the execution of another UN
Foundation-financed global initiative attempting tolink biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism
development at World Heritage sites.

VIII.43 The Committee welcomed the range of initiatives
undertaken by the State Party, and other partners including
those undertaken as part of two UN Foundation financed
projects that are contributing towards the implementationof the recommendations of the IUCN mission to the site
undertaken in October 2000. These were endorsed by theCommittee at its last session in Cairns, Australia. The
Committee urged the Centre and IUCN to continue tocollaborate with the State Party and partners to sustain thecurrent momentum gained in improvements in the state ofconservation of the site. The Committee recommended
that a detailed assessment of the state of conservation of
the site, including considerations of the possible removalof the site from the List of World Heritage in Danger, be
prepared for submission to the twenty-seventh session of
the Committee in June 2003. The Committee decided toretain this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
VIII.44 The Committee was informed that at its twentyfifth session in June 2001, the Bureau had noted that themission to this site had been postponed from May to
October 2001 due to climatic reasons. Despite regularcontacts with the State Party and agreements of all parties
concerned the proposed mission has been delayed again
and is now scheduled for February 2002. Security risks inthe area continue to prevail. Uncertainties linked to theorganisation of regular field visits to this site has led the
management of the UNESCO/IUCN/UNF-UNFIP Project"Enhancing our heritage: monitoring and managing forsuccess in World Natural Heritage Sites" to substitute
Manas with the Keoladeo National Park as one of the threepilot sites for the project in South Asia (the other two sites
being Kaziranga National Park of India and the Royal
Chitwan National Park of Nepal).
VIII.45 The Committee was pleased to note that theGovernment of Bhutan has ratified the World Heritage
WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 22

Convention in October 2001.
It urged the joint
Centre/IUCN mission to Manas in February 2002 to
explore possibilities for initiating a dialogue between India
and Bhutan for promoting trans-border collaboration in the
management of the World Heritage site of Manas Wildlife
Sanctuary of India and the possible nomination of theRoyal Manas National Park of Bhutan as World Heritage.
The Committee stressed the necessity to carry the mission
to Manas without any further delays and recommended
that a detailed report on the state of conservation of the site
and the implementation of rehabilitation measures
accepted by the Bureau in 1997 be submitted to its twentysixth session in June 2002.
Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)
VIII.46 The Committee was informed that a workshop formembers of the local Committee for the development andthe management of the site was held in in Iferouan, Niger
from 19 to 24 September 2001 in which the Centre wasrepresented. A “Feasibility and modality study on the
project for the reintroduction of Red necked Ostriches forAïr and Ténéré”, undertaken with the assistance of
National Wildlife Research Centre in Saudi Arabia, hasbeen completed.
VIII.47 A mission for rapid evaluation of fauna in Aïr and
Ténéré, financed by the World Heritage Fundcontributions for the implementation of the emergency
rehabilitation plan approved by the Committee at its
twenty-third session in 1999, was undertaken from 5 to 27
March 2001. The Committee noted that IUCN had
reviewed a copy of the Rapid Wildlife Assessment Reportfor Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves and observed that the
principle species of large mammals had recovered to
viable levels similar to those seen before the war. But theostrich has totally disappeared, and the gazelle was rarely
seen during the assessment mission in March 2001. IUCN
had also noted that despite the recovery of many species,
the overall state of conservation of the site remains
threatened. IUCN has highlighted the following
recommendations of the Report: (a) restart and strengthen
surveillance activities; (b) establish regulations on tourist
activities; (c) create a breeding centre for large SahelSaharan mammals and ostrich, with a view to reintroduce
individuals and strengthen conservation of wild
populations; (d) develop a wildlife census system toinclude the participation of stakeholders; and (e) develop
reliable survey techniques for estimating the addax
population.
VIII.48 The Committee was informed that the ostrich inAïr and Ténéré is a North African sub species and is now
found as a viable population only in Chad. IUCN is of theview that the re-introduction of ostrich by selecting
individuals from the population in Chad is quite importantbecause individuals from other sub-species in othercountries of the region may not adapt to the specificconditions in Niger. Re-introduction is vital for generating
benefits for the local community in the long-term as they
will be able to undertake breeding programmes and make aliving from the utilisation of the ostrich population and its

Report of the World Heritage Committee

products. The Committee strongly supported the report’s
recommendations and invited the State Party to implement
the recommendations of the Rapid Wildlife Assessment
Report. The Committee noted that valuable advice on
ostrich re-introduction programmes may be obtained fromthe ostrich specialist group of IUCN’s Species Survival
Commission (SSC). The re-establishment of the ostrich
and addax (gazelle) populations of Aïr and Ténéré is likely
to take several years and the site may have to be retainedin the List of World Heritage in Danger until such time
when conditions for the recovery of these populations
could be ensured.
VIII.49 The Committee was informed that the Fonds
Francais de l’Environment Mondiale (FFEM) has initiateda 5-year programme of support for equipment and thereintroduction of species. This programme is being
implemented in co-operation with the “Direction Nationale
de la Faune” and the IUCN Office in Niamey. Within theframework of a GEF programme concerned with the“Biodiversity of Sahara”, UNDP and IUCN, Niamey, arealso assisting with the implementation of selected aspectsof rehabilitation and species reintroduction programmes aswell as the establishment of a database for monitoring.
IUCN Niamey is playing a wide-ranging support role inthe development of several co-operative initiatives withother donors and assisting the Government of Niger toeffectively conserve this important site. The Committee
noted that the Centre has transmitted letters of appreciation
to FFEM, Swiss Department of Technical Co-operation
and DANIDA for their support to develop conservation
projects for this site. The Committee expressed its
satisfaction with the efforts of the State Party to implement
the rehabilitation plan and generate wide-ranging donor
support for the conservation of the site. The Committee
decided to retain this site in the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary (Senegal)
VIII.50 The Committee noted that in June 2001, thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau noted detailed findingsof the results of the two-person mission undertaken to thesite from 31 March to 10 April 2001, including mechanicaland biological control measures being initiated to preventthe spread of the invasive species Salvinia molesta. The
Committee noted the awareness, donor co-ordination andother co-operative activities needed for the effective
eradication of this invasive species.
VIII.51 UNESCO’s Division of Equipment Procurement
is in the process of purchasing and delivering essential
equipment foreseen as part of the project, for which theCommittee approved a sum of US$130,000 at its lastsession in Cairns, Australia. A regional workshop on
invasive species was organized from 15 to 17 October
2001, in Djoudj, Senegal, with joint financial support from
Ramsar, IUCN and the World Heritage Fund. The
Chairperson approved an amount of US$20,000 to enable
the participation of World Heritage site managers at thisworkshop. The aim of the workshop was to work out
modalities for a co-operative project on “Wetlands and

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 23

Harmful Invasive Species in Africa – Awareness andInformation” involving IUCN, the Ramsar Convention
Bureau,the
MacArthurFoundation,
Wetlands
International, WWF International and others. Focusing on
fresh water ecosystems, the programme aimed to define
the best strategic tools and the most appropriate
operational instruments that can help to achieve theprevention, control or the eradication of invasive species
wherever they could have adverse impacts on ecological,
economic and social functions and values of wetlands. The
project led to the establishment of a network of expertise
who could provide “rapid response services” and beaccessed quickly by wetland managers in need of further
information and assistance in the prevention and control ofinvasive species.
VIII.52 Preliminary information from the State Party
indicate that biological control methods being tested out inthe site may already be leading to considerable control ofinvasive species. The Committee requested that the Centre
and IUCN obtain more detailed and quantitative
information to validate such claims. The Committee
requested that the Centre and IUCN collaborate with theState Party, the Ramsar Convention Secretariat, FAO andother partners to further efforts to control and eradicate
Salvinia molesta from the Djoudj wetlands. The
Committee decided to retain this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.

establishing benchmarks, time-frames and conditions for
the Committee's annual assessments of progress made by
the State Party to rehabilitate the Ichkeul National Park.
The Committee took note of the fact that the State Party
has submitted an emergency assistance request from theWorld Heritage Fund for a sum of US$50,000 that would
be used for international expertise and national level
activities to assist the State Party to refine the scientificmonitoring programme it has developed and meet theneeds of conservation monitoring and reporting to beagreed upon by the State Party and IUCN.
VIII.55 The Committee urged the State Party and IUCN tocontinue and finalize their negotiations soon and agree on
benchmarks, time frames and conditions that could form
the basis of the Committee's annual monitoring of the stateof conservation of the site and for determining progress inState Party efforts to restore the Lake Ichkeul ecosystem.
The Committee invited its Chairperson to consider the
emergency assistance request submitted by the State Party
and assist the State Party to take all necessary measures torehabilitate the integrity of the World Heritage site. The
Committee requested that a detailed report on the outcomeof the negotiations between IUCN and the State Party be
submitted to the twenty-sixth session of the Committee inJune 2002. The Committee decided to retain the site in the
List of World Heritage in Danger.
Rwenzori Mountains National Park (Uganda)

Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
VIII.53 The Committee was informed of the concerns of
the tweny-fifth session of the Bureau (June 2001)
regarding the deterioration in the ecology of the Lake from1999 to 2000 as lower than average amounts of rain fell in
the area. The Sidi Barak Dam construction and its link to
the Tunisian Water Grid have been completed; but water
releases from the Dam to the Lake had not yet
commenced. The Lake needs 280 million of cubic metersof water annually and the Sidi Barak Dam is expected toserve as the stabilizer compensating for any annual
shortfalls caused by low rainfall and/or high rates of
evapotranspiration. The Committee noted that theObserver of Tunisia had expressed the hope to the twentyfifth session of the Bureau that the Bureau and theCommittee would provide adequate time for determining
the efforts of the State Party to rehabilitate Ichkeul andsupport the extension and strengthening of the scientificmonitoring programme that has been set up by the State
Party.
VIII.54 The Committee noted that IUCN had reviewed thereport from the State Party, dated September 2001, on"Ecosystem status and safeguarding measures for Ickeul
National Park“. The report contains detailed informationon actions taken to implement several earlier
recommendations of the Bureau and the Committee madeover the years and quantitative, time-series data on anumber of parameters that may be useful in tracking
changes in Lake ecology. IUCN has started negotiations
with the State Party to select parameters and indicators formonitoring the state of conservation of this site andReport of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.56 The Committee noted with satisfaction that
security conditions in the Park have improved and that thePark was re-opened to visitors in July 2001 and that thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau, based on an
identification of the Park’s needs with regard to purchaseof equipment and materials had approved a sum of
US$64,000 as emergency assistance to the site. The
UNESCO Division for Equipment Procurement is
assisting the Centre and the State Party to purchaseessential communication and other equipment requested
urgently by the site management. The Committee urged
the Centre and IUCN to co-operate with the State Party toassess other needs that the site may require in order tofully recover its integrity and regain its role as animportant visitor destination within the Ugandan networkof protected areas. The Committee proposed that theCentre and IUCN discuss with the State Party to field amission to the site in 2002 with a view to providing adetailed report on the state of conservation of the site,
including an assessment of the feasibility of its earlyremoval from the List of World Heritage in Danger to thetwenty-seventh session of the World Heritage Committee
in 2003.
World Heritage sites of the United States of America:
Everglades National Park
VIII.57 The State Party has updated the comprehensive
report it submitted at the time of the twenty-fifth session of
the Bureau on this site. The Committee noted the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 24

following specific improvements achieved between Juneand December 2001:•= The appropriation increases of the fiscal year 2002
over the previous year for Everglades restoration
amounts to a sum of US$31.4 million or a 37.4%;•= As of May 2001 104,340 acres or 95% of theauthorized addition of lands are either in public
ownership condemnation or referred for Declarationof Taking; only about 5,260 acres of the habitat
earmarked for Park expansion remains to acquired.
Sufficient funds for the acquisition of this remaining
tract of land have been earmarked; and•= The Everglades Strategic Plan is now available at the
web site: http://www.nps.gov/ever/current/strategic
plan/.
VIII.58 In response to a query from the Committee
regarding the potential for an early removal of this sitefrom the List of World Heritage in Danger, the Observer
from the State Party committed to discuss the matter with
relevant authorities in Washington D.C. and report to theCentre as soon as possible.
Yellowstone National Park
VIII.59 The State Party has updated the comprehensive
report it submitted at the time of the twenty-fifth session of
the Bureau on this site. The Committee noted thefollowing specific improvements, achieved between Juneand December 2001:•= The number of predatory lake trout fish removed
through intensive gill netting and liberal angling
regulations have increased from 28,000 (in the June
2001 report) to more that 43,000 in December 2001;•= Wooden water tanks at Indian Creek Campgroundwere replaced in fall 2001; work in the contract
awarded, in 2000, to line sewer lines at Lake andMammoth Lewis Lake has started. But a backlog ofwork with regard to replacement or updating of
smaller wastewater facilities remains to be attendedto;•= The decision to ban the use of snowmobiles in placeof multi-passenger snowcoaches, reported at thetwenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001, hasbeen challenged by the International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association and the Department ofInterior has entered into a settlement agreement with
the Association. As part of the settlement the National
Park Service will prepare a supplemental EIS toanalyze the ban on snowmobile use in Yellowstoneand Grand Teton National Parks and the John D.
Rockefeller Jr., Memorial Parkway and thealternatives to the ban. The process to prepare thesupplemental EIS, invite public comment, carry out
new research that may be needed, finalize, publish andbegin execution of decisions would have await until
the end of 2002. The outcome of the analysis will
result either in the continuation of the ban or someform of continued snowmobile use.
VIII.60 The Committee recommended that the State Party,
IUCN and the Centre discuss and develop action plans for
Report of the World Heritage Committee

the two sites including benchmarks and conditions formonitoring progress in the restoration of the integrity ofthe two sites and for guiding the Committee's decisions
concerning the eventual removal of the two sites from the
List of World Heritage in Danger. The Committee
requested that the outcome of the discussions between
State Party, IUCN and the Centre be reported to thetwenty-sixth session of the Committee in June 2002. The
Committee decide that both Everglades and Yellowstone
be retained in the List of World Heritage in Danger.

CULTURAL HERITAGE
State of conservation of properties inscribed on the Listof World Heritage in Danger
Butrint (Albania)
VIII.61 The Committee examined the state ofconservation of the site and urged the State Party to submit
a report on the progress made in the implementation of therecommendations made by the joint UNESCO-ICOMOSButrint Foundation mission by 1 February 2002, forexamination at its twenty-sixth session (June 2002).
Angkor (Cambodia)
VIII.62 The Committee examined the report on the stateof conservation of Angkor and additional information
presented concerning the progress being made by thenational authorities together with support from UNESCO
and relevant donors to implement the conservation andmanagement plans of the ASPARA Authorities.
VIII.63 The Committee, after having examined the reporton the state of conservation of the site, commended theRoyal Government of Cambodia for the significant efforts
undertaken in the reorganization of the APSARA
Authority. In the perspective of implementation in thenear future of the Master Plan for Development of Cultural
Tourism at Angkor, it invited APSARA to strengthen its
capacities in the management of private investment
requests, notably with regard to the archaeological park,
and to call upon all national and international expertisenecessary. Taking note of the continued progress being
made by the International Co-ordination Committee for the
Safeguarding and Development of the Historic Site of
Angkor (CIC) and to mark the tenth anniversary of theinscription of the site, the Committee requested that areport with technical details on all activities carried out
over the past ten years be made available to the Committee
for information. Finally, the Committee decided to retain
the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Group of Monuments at Hampi (India)
VIII.64 The Committee examined the report on the stateof conservation of the Group of Monuments at Hampi. The
Committee was informed that the Centre organized a
mission by an international rural planner in close cooperation with the national and state government

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 25

authorities responsible for the conservation andmanagement of this large site. The expert mission assisted
the authorities concerned to elaborate and carry out animpact assessment study related to the two bridges
partially constructed within the site and to examine thefeasibility and alternative sites for relocating these bridges.
The Committee was informed that the Centre had received
information concerning the progress being made inestablishing a Hampi Management and Development
Authority to co-ordinate, in a comprehensive manner, allconservation and development activities within the core
World Heritage protected areas of Hampi.
VIII.65 The Delegate of India confirmed that necessary
steps were being taken by the concerned authorities toestablish the Hampi Management and Development
Authority and to implement the recommendations of the
UNESCO international expert. He informed theCommittee that the report on the progress made would besubmitted in time for examination by the Committee at its
twenty-sixth session.
VIII.66 The Committee welcomed the positive actions
taken and being planned by the State Party and the World
Heritage Centre to elaborate a comprehensive management
plan for the site. The Committee congratulated the State
Government of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner
of Bellary for taking the necessary actions in removing alarge number of illegal encroachments from within theWorld Heritage protected areas. The Committee requested
the State Party and the Centre to continue its close cooperation in order to complete the needs assessment andfeasibility studies as a matter of urgency, in order to ensurethat an integrated conservation and development
management plan be elaborated, adopted and implemented
as soon as possible. The Committee requested the State
Party and the Centre to report on the progress made inremoving the threats to the site for examination by theCommittee at its twenty-sixth session.
Bahla Fort (Oman)
VIII.67 The Committee examined the report on the stateof conservation of Bahla Fort and noted the significant
progress made since the last Bureau session, especiallyconcerning the conservation works being carried out
within the Fort and on the two nearby Mosques. The
Committee also noted that the preparation of aManagement Plan has been finally undertaken, and thestrong commitment, stressed by the Delegate of Oman, of
the State Party towards the protection and presentation ofthis site.
VIII.68 The Committee commended the State Party forhaving started the preparation of the Management Plan, inclose collaboration with the Centre, and for having
submitted a request of international assistance for theorganization of a Regional Seminar on the Conservation ofEarthen Structures. The Committee invited the State Party
to pursue its efforts towards the completion and full
implementation of the Management Plan, and requested

Report of the World Heritage Committee

the Centre to submit a report on its progress at the next
session of the Bureau, in April 2002.
Fort and Shalamar Gardens of Lahore (Pakistan)
VIII.69 The Committee examined the report on the stateof conservation of the Fort and Shalamar Gardens of
Lahore. The Committee was informed that the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Archaeology had informed
the Centre on 3 December 2001 that all efforts were being
made to implement the recommendations of theCommittee, Bureau and UNESCO international expert
missions to address the conservation and management
issues facing the property. In particular, the Department ofArchaeology was continuing its discussion with the Lahore
Development Co-operation and the Lahore Commissioner
to clarify the land-ownership of the area where thedemolished 375-year old hydraulic works were located.
VIII.70 The Observer of Pakistan, assuring the Committeeof her Government’s continued commitment to the World
Heritage Convention, expressed her Government’s
appreciation for the support of the World Heritage
Committee and the Centre in enhancing the managementof the site. She stated that the annual plan for 2002 hadbeen recently adopted by the authorities which specificallyaddresses the recommendations of the Committee, Bureau
and UNESCO expert missions organized to respond to theconservation and management needs of this site.
Concerning the 375-year old hydraulic works that werepartially demolished in 1999, the Observer informed theCommittee that conservation and restoration work was
being planned.
VIII.71 With reference to Article 5a of the Convention
which calls for heritage conservation activities to be
integrated within the overall comprehensive planning
process for heritage areas, the Observer of Pakistan
underscored the importance for the Committee to take intodue consideration the conservation needs within thecontext of sustainable development, especially in highly
populated urban areas such as Lahore.
VIII.72 The Committee welcomed the positive actions
taken and being planned by the State Party and the World
Heritage Centre for the rehabilitation of the Shalamar
Gardens and in elaborating a comprehensive management
plan for the site. The Committee requested the State Party
and the Centre to continue its close co-operation to ensurethat an integrated conservation, management anddevelopment plan be elaborated, adopted and implemented
as soon as possible. The Committee requested the State
Party and the Centre to report on the progress made inremoving the threats facing the site for examination by theCommittee at its twenty-sixth session.
Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
VIII.73 The World Heritage Committee took note of thesecond periodic report prepared by the the National
Institute for Culture of Peru, on the implementation of the
Master Plan of the site. It also noted that priority was

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 26

given to international fund-raising.
Furthermore, as
indicated in the first report, the dwellings, illegallyconstructed in situ, have been demolished. However,illegal cultivation continues at the site.

of police for the protection of the site, to be examined at its
twenty-sixth session. Furthermore, the Committee decided
to retain this property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.

VIII.74 To remedy this situation, the high-level Chan
Chan Commission was created, comprising representatives
from the Ministries of Education and Agriculture.
However, it has not yet identified a satisfactory solution.
To contend with looting of tombs and other protection
problems at the site, the surveillance staff has been
reinforced. The question of introducing mounted police
has also been considered, but due to lack of funds, theconstruction of the stables has not been undertaken.
Furthermore, a multisectoral Committee including local
authorities and a consultative experts' commission havebeen established.

Historic Town of Zabid (Yemen)

VIII.75 The book collection of the documentation centre
on earthen architecture has incresed slightly and theworkshop on the conservation of materials works incooperation with the Universities of Carolina and Utah
State. According to the report, the stockage ofarchaeological objects is carried out under optimal
conditions.
VIII.76 The excavation works have continued in the northpart of the Tschudi Palace, as well as conservation workon the structures and reliefs of the Huaca La Esmeralda
and the Huaca Arco Iris, and in the sector of the
Audiences. A new signposting and new access have
improved the presentation of the site.
VIII.77 However, the Committee noted that a great part of
the activities foreseen in the Master Plan for 2000 and2001 have slowed down or been postponed due to lack offunds, including the indispensable drainage project which
was postponed until 2002 and which should be carried out
in cooperation with the National Research Council of Italy.
Also, following the El Niño phenomenon and the ensuingrise in the underground water level, the waterproofing of
the bases of the structure is becoming a matter of urgency.
In fact, if it is true that climatic changes have encouraged
the return of fauna and flora to their original state, thesechanges have negative and unexpected repercussions on
the adobe structures.
VIII.78 The Committee took note of this information as
well as that provided by the State Party concerning the
Panamerican training courses carried out with the TERRAGroup. It commended the important effort made by theState Party to submit a report on the site. However, itconsidered that the State Party should recognize the needto provide reports in a timely fashion and with sufficient
information.
VIII.79 The Committee also noted the measures
undertaken by the national authorities and urged the State
Party to submit a more detailed report by 1 February 2002,
on the implementation of the master plan, the legal
response to questions concerning the encroachment of thesite and the measures undertaken concerning the presence

Report of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.80 The Committee examined the report on the stateof conservation of Zabid.
It noted the positive
development of the situation on the ground, especiallywith regard to the large mobilization of resources, both at
the national and international level, resulting from theinscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger in 2000.
VIII.81 The Committee also noted the results of the firstmissions carried out by the Centre in the framework of theemergency assistance approved by the Bureau at its lastsession in June 2001. The very significant steps taken by
the State Party in order to halt new constructions within
the World Heritage site, and the recommendations of theCentre concerning the necessary steps for the future wererecognized. These recommendations include:
•=
•=

•=
•=

•=
•=

•=

Urgent launching of a campaign for awarenessraising and systematic information targeted at the
local population.
Creation of a 1 km wide buffer zone from Madrassa
Al-Baysha, situated east of the town, including an
arc of 225° in a clockwise direction up to the North
entrance of the town.
Creation of protection zones of a minimum widthof 50m around the mosques and medersas(numbering 83) in the town.
Strengthen and physically protect the historic
residential ensembles of the town which are indanger of falling into ruin or collapsing (about 200
houses).
Revitalisation of the Souk by undertaking effective
measures to stimulate the economy.
Include in the urban extension of the town, the area
situated north/north-east of the historic town, in theframework of the new urban plan underpreparation.
Start immediate production by the brick oven andbuild others to be able to respond to the new
demands.

VIII.82 The Committee commended the Yemeni
authorities for their efforts and continued co-operation
with the World Heritage Centre, and thanked the GTZ, theKFW and the Dutch authorities for their precious
contributions and their interest in the Historic Town ofZabid. The Committee, furthermore, encouraged the
Yemeni authorities to continue their efforts andimmediately implement the seven urgent measures
recommended by the World Heritage Centre mission of
September/October 2001.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 27

REPORTS ON THE STATE OF CONSERVATIONOF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE WORLDHERITAGE LIST

effort to include all logging companies working in
Cameroon.
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)

VIII.83 The Committee considered the decisions of thetwenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau (WHC01/CONF.208/4) and the Working Document WHC01/CONF.208/10). The relevant section of the report of
the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau isattached as Annex IX to this report.
NATURAL HERITAGE
MINING AND WORLD HERITAGE
VIII.84 The Committee noted that the proceedings of theworkshop on "Mining and World Heritage" were
published by the International Council on Metals and theEnvironment (ICME), IUCN and the World Heritage
Centre and were distributed to all Committee members.
The Committee furthermore noted that the proposal for theestablishment of a Working Group on World Heritage andMining, as proposed by the World Heritage Committee at
its twenty-fourth session, and will be presented to its
twenty-sixth session.
Reports on the state of conservation of naturalproperties inscribed on the World Heritage List
examined by the Committee
Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
VIII.85 The Committee noted the concerns over the
Territorial Development Plan (TDP), which it anticipates
will lead to further incremental development within theremaining larger area. It requested the State Party toensure that tourism development does not take place in theremaining TDP area in the future. The Committee urgedthat the mission invited by the State Party be carried out assoon as possible.
Dja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
VIII.86 The Committee welcomed the recommendationsof IUCN, and called upon the State Party to take urgent
action to halt illegal poaching in the Reserve, andrequested a full report from the State Party on thissituation by 1 February 2002. This report shall be
submitted for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of
the World Heritage Committee (June 2002), at which time
it will decide on the need for a mission to the site.
Furthermore, the Committee commended the chief
executives of major European logging firms active inCentral Africa, representatives from various conservation
NGOs (WCS, IUCN, WWF) and officials from the WorldBank and the European Union for their initial efforts inbringing stakeholders together to tackle the environmental
problems associated with logging operations. The code of
conduct should be supported, and the Committee urged the
CEO-AWG to strengthen its efforts to involve Asiancompanies in the work of the group and to undertake every

Report of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.87 The Committee, recognising the continued andincreasing threats posed to the marine and terrestrial floraand fauna of the Islands, urged the State Party to make all
efforts to finalise the specific regulations under the Special
Law and enforce them as soon as possible. The Committee
commended the ruling by the State Party’s Constitutional
Court to uphold the Galapagos Special Law. It alsocommended the Ecuadorian Government for supportingthe “Sea Shepherd” patrols in the Galapagos Marine
Reserve, as well as efforts to protect the marine ecosystemin the Reserve. The Committee also commended the Smart
Voyager initiative, given the nature of tourism visitation to
the Galapagos and the impacts of tourism on the fragile
environment and in light of the proposed Marine Reserve.
It believed that consideration should be given to promoting
similar schemes in other World Heritage sites. The
Committee furthermore noted that the sea lion incident
demonstrates the need to enhance the capacity of the Park
to reinforce patrolling and control of the Islands.
Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
VIII.88 The Committee requested the State Party to invitea mission to the site as soon as possible to enable anindependent assessment of the state of conservation of theWorld Heritage site.
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
VIII.89 The Committee noted that the State Party had
invited a UNESCO-IUCN mission to this site following
the recommendation of the twenty-fourth session of theCommittee. The mission took place from 25 August to 3
September 2001. IUCN and the Director of the UNESCOMoscow Office, representing the World Heritage Centre,
conducted the mission. The Committee was informed thatthe full report of this mission was presented to the twentyfifth extraordinary session of the Bureau and that it notedin particular the series of recurrent problems and new
potential threats that, according to IUCN, would seriously
threaten the integrity of this site.
VIII.90 The Committee noted the Bureau's concern about
a number of new potential threats to the integrity of thissite including a project to develop a gas and oil pipeline to
China, which was confirmed, and that the Government of
the Republic of Buryatia had granted a license to Buryat
Gas Company. The Committee was also informed that a
number of Bureau members noted that no indication wasreceived from the State Party concerning the inclusion of
the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger and that a
number of consultation meetings on this matter were held
between the Delegation of the Russian Federation, IUCN,
the Director of the UNESCO Moscow office and staff
members of the Centre. In conclusion, the need wasrecognized to consult and comment on the results of themission to Lake Baikal.
WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 28

VIII.91 The Delegate of the Russian Federation informed
the Committee that his Government would like to review
the full report of the mission in detail and that theauthorities would be prepared to present a reply by 1
February 2002. He thanked the members of the mission
and in particular the Director of the UNESCO Moscow
Office for his support and co-operation to find a solution.
VIII.92 The Committee noted that little substantial
progress has been achieved towards enhancing theprotection of Lake Baikal, and addressing issues
repeatedly raised by the Committee, and that there are new
emerging threats that pose unprecedented risks to theintegrity of this site. The Committee furthermore notedthat international support is needed to enhance the capacityof the State Party to deal with the complex issues related tothe conservation of this site.

alternative livelihoods for local people as the BPPM
is the main source of employment in the region.
VIII.94 Finally, the Committee requested that the State
Party provides an urgent response by 1 February 2002 inrelation to these issues, particularly on the development ofa gas and oil pipeline to China, and the potential impactsof this project on the integrity of this site, as well as the
proposed oil and gas exploration in the Selenga Delta. The
Committee furthermore requested the World Heritage
Centre to undertake all possible efforts to encourage theWorld Bank, GEF, UNF, and other relevant international
donors to provide urgent support, in the form of soft loans,grants and projects, to enhance the State Party efforts toaddress the complex conservation and development issues
facing Lake Baikal.
Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)

VIII.93 The Committee furthermore noted the following
as key milestones in assessing future progress:(1) Development and enforcement of all related
regulations and by-laws required for the Federal
Baikal Law to become fully operational. These
regulations and by-laws should be developed througha participatory and transparent process involving
local people and all key stakeholders dealing with theprotection and management of this site.
(2) Development and implementation of an integrated
management plan for the whole Baikal region, withemphasis on the protection of the World Heritagesite. Priority should be given to develop an adequate
ecological zoning of this site to enforce the Federal
Baikal Law.
This plan needs to include acomprehensive monitoring system on the state ofLake Baikal.
Adequate human and financial
resources are required to ensure its long-term
implementation.
(3) Development and implementation of adequate
institutional and co-ordination mechanisms for
implementing the Federal Baikal Law, its regulations
and by-laws. This could take the form of a renewed
Baikal Commission or a similar institutionalarrangement that would enhance co-ordination
between federal and regional authorities while
involving also NGOs, scientific institutions and otherstakeholders.
(4) Development
andimplementationofacomprehensive programme to adequately address thepollution problems affecting this site, giving
particular priority to the case of BPPM, but also
including other sources of pollution that are affecting
the integrity of this site.
(5) Detailed consideration of various scenarios for the
Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, including total phasingout of the Mill. This requires a long-term strategy
and must be associated with the development ofReport of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.95 The Committee noted with concern threats to the
Bystrinsky Nature Park and noted conflicting reports
relating to the gold mine operation and its relationship to
the World Heritage boundary. The Committee requested
the Centre to work in consultation with the State Party to
prepare a mission to the site to review the state ofconservation and to ascertain whether a case exists forinscribing this site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
VIII.96 The Committee endorsed the recommendations of
the IUCN/Centre mission, and requested the State Party toreview the document and report back with an action planfor implementation of the recommendations by 1 February
2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of theCommittee (June 2002).
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of
Tanzania)
VIII.97 The Committee requested the State Party toprovide a report on the encroachment situation in thenorthern section of the World Heritage site and on theimpacts of commercial farming introduced by immigrant
farmers on the integrity and values of this World Heritagesite by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twentysixth session of the Committee.

Reports on the state of conservation of naturalproperties inscribed on the World Heritage List notedby the Committee
Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
Fraser Island (Australia)
The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/
Poland)Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
Nahanni National Park (Canada)
Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 29

Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst,(Hungary/Slovakia)
The Committee noted that the issues raised concern only
the Slovak part of this transboundary site.
Sundarbans National Park (India)
The Delegate of India informed the Committee that there
is no National Waterways Project that is planned or likely
to impact this site.

Doñana National Park (Spain)
Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (United
Kingdom)
St Kilda (United Kingdom)
Serengeti National Park
(United Republic of
Tanzania)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United Statesof America)
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)

Kaziranga National Park (India)
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)
The Observer of Indonesia thanked the Australianauthorities for their financial assistance. He informed theCommittee that it would be difficult to comply with thedeadline of 1 February and that a report could be provided
by the end of March 2002.
Aeolian Islands (Italy)
The Observer of Italy confirmed that there was a court
decision on 4 December 2001, which is not yet public, butthat it is hoped to be available soon. She informed theCommittee that the collaboration between the autonomous
regional Government and the central Government hascommenced and that a meeting will take place to find asolution.
Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)
Banc d'Arguin National Park (Mauritania)
The Delegate of Egypt brought to the attention of theCommittee the importance of protecting the wetlands,
which are known to be important rest places for the
migratory birds along their routes. He suggested that theWorld Heritage Centre should have a plan defining thewetlands, which are important for the birds and to use thisinformation for establishing "satellite" World Heritage
sites. IUCN informed of the co-operation between theWorld Heritage Centre and the Ramsar Convention as wellas with Bird Life International for the protection of thewetlands. He also highlighted the importance of thesurrounding areas to the World Heritage sites and the links
with the Man and Biosphere programme for the protectionof the sites. The Secretariat informed of the on-going
discussions with the Secretariat of the Convention ofMigratory Species to establish a Memorandum ofUnderstanding between these two Conventions.
Sian Ka’an (Mexico)
The Delegate of Mexico informed that the confirmation of
the Ecological Land-Use Plan is in its final phase andconsequently she asked that the deadline for the report
requested by the Bureau be set for 15 May 2002 for
examination at the twenty-sixth session of the Committee
in June.
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
Western Caucasus (Russian Federation)
Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)
Report of the World Heritage Committee

MIXED(CULTURAL
PROPERTIESAND

NATURAL)

State of conservation reported of mixed properties
examined by the Committee
Kakadu National Park (Australia)
VIII.98 The Committee noted the report of the twentyfifth extraordinary session of the Bureau and new
information provided by the State Party. The State Party
considered that issues raised by Australian nongovernmental organisations concerning the status of the
Jabiluka mine site, located within an enclave, surrounded
by Kakadu National Park, could have been more
effectively addressed if they had first been raised with therelevant responsible authorities in Australia. The State
Party provided information on Best Practice Technology,
irrigation at Jabiluka and the reverse osmosis unit, themineralised stockpile, and water inflow to the mine
decline.
VIII.99 IUCN reported that there was continuing concern
from some environmental NGOs and some representativesof Aboriginal Peoples, on water management andtreatment issues, the possible extension of the Jabiluka
stand-by period, the frequency of environmental
performance reviews and rehabilitation options. Suchmatters should be examined by the independent scientificadvisory committee agreed to in Cairns and there should
be formal NGO representation on that committee.
VIII.100 ICOMOS commented on the importance of theintangible values of Kakadu National Park. ICOMOS wasvery pleased with the pause in development at Jabiluka as
it provided the opportunity to discuss the difficult processof cultural mapping of the Jabiluka Mineral Lease. The
ICOMOS Representative referred to the positive role to beplayed by Australia ICOMOS in this process.
VIII.101 The Committee noted that, as discussed in theJune 2001 Bureau session, the Jabiluka project would
remain on environmental management and standby mode
until at least 2008-09. To ensure that the natural andcultural values of Kakadu National Park remain protectedduring this period, the Committee urged all parties andstakeholders to work together and share information in thedevelopment of agreed long-term strategies for protection.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 30

VIII.102 The Committee welcomed the information that
the Mirrar traditional owners were giving active
consideration to a process proposed by the State Party,
involving Australia ICOMOS, to use the Australian
Heritage Commission `Protecting Heritage Places` process
as a means to analyse, define and manage the culturalvalues of areas on Mirrar land, including the Jabiluka
mineral lease. In order to ensure adequate time forengagement on these complex and sensitive issues,
reporting on progress with this process and other ongoingmeasures to protect the cultural values of Kakadu National
Park should be provided to the June 2003 session of theCommittee.
VIII.103 The Committee noted a statement of the IUCN
Council seeking the removal of the stockpile of the ore at
Jabiluka, and rehabilitation of the mine site to a condition
appropriate for inclusion within the Kakadu World
Heritage area. The Committee noted the response of theState Party which advised that the Traditional Owners had
refused permission for the removal of the stockpile andtransport of ore to the Ranger mine for storage and thatrehabilitation plans for the site continue to be formallyreviewed annually.
VIII.104 The Committee welcomed the advice that theState Party would raise the IUCN suggestion of an NGO
representative on the independent scientific advisorycommittee, the Alligator Rivers Region TechnicalCommittee (ARRTC), with the Chair of ARRTC. The
Committee noted further claims, received on the eve of its
meeting, on water management, review of environmental
performance, assessment of rehabilitation, further
involvement of the Mirrar people and the possible
extension of the standby period at Jabiluka.
The
Committee noted the preliminary response of the State
Party to these matters, and that the State Party, despite its
concern to maintain the independence of the ARRTC andthe statutory role of the Supervising Scientist, would referthese issues for the consideration, as appropriate, of the
ARRTC and requested a report from the State Party forconsideration of the Committee in June 2002.
Tongariro National Park (New Zealand)
VIII.105 The Committee noted that an eruption of Mt.
Ruapehu in 1995/1996 caused a large build-up of ash thatblocked the outlet of Crater Lake. There is concern thatwhen the Lake refills, a rapid collapse of the ash dam
could occur followed by a major lahar (ash flow). Options
to manage this risk need to take account of the protectionof both the natural and the cultural values, as interferencewith the summit area and Crater Lake has implications forthe protection of spiritual, traditional and cultural values tothe Maori people.

and other national parks. IUCN recommends that naturalprocesses be allowed to function and measures be
implemented to protect both public safety andinfrastructure.
VIII.107 The Committee also noted that ICOMOS had
recalled that the mountains of Tongariro National Park aresacred to the Maori and that a culturally appropriate
solution needs to be found to the management of the ashbuild-up.
VIII.108 The Observer of New Zealand greeted theCommittee and acknowledged the presence of theParamount Chief of Tongariro, Tumu Te Heu Heu whose
ancestors had gifted the sacred peaks of Tongariro to the
Crown in 1887 making it the second oldest National Parkin the world. He referred to the dilemma of needing toconserve the values of the Crater Lake whilst also taking
into consideration public safety. He referred to thedevastating lahar (ash flow) that had taken place in 1951
and had resulted in the death of 151 people. Finally heinformed the Committee that the Minister for theEnvironment of New Zealand would be making a publicannouncement concerning the management of the ashbuild-up in the very near future. He informed theCommittee that New Zealand would provide a report to theWorld Heritage Centre by 1 February 2001 forconsideration by the Bureau at its twenty-sixth session in
April 2002.
VIII.109 The Committee requested the State Party toreport on the state of conservation of Tongariro National
Park and to specifically outline alternative options to the
proposed engineering works so as to maintain theoutstanding natural and cultural values of the site. The
Committee requested the State Party to provide a report by
1 February 2002 for review by the Bureau at its twentysixth session in April 2002.
State of conservation reports of mixed properties
noted by the Committee
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
Hierapolis-Pamukkale (Turkey)
Further to the recommendation of the Bureau andfollowing an update of information from ICOMOS, theCommittee noted that a Management Plan for this property
had recently been completed.

CULTURAL HERITAGE
Cultural Properties that the Committee inscribed on
the World Heritage List in Danger
Abu Mena (Egypt)

VIII.106 The Committee noted IUCN's comments thatsubaquatic eruptions within the Crater Lake are a regularand ongoing natural feature.
IUCN considers that
proposed engineering works to manage the ash build-up at
Crater Lake might establish a precedent within Tongariro

Report of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.110 The Committee decided the inscription of Abu
Mena on the List of World Heritage in Danger, andrequested the Egyptian authorities to co-ordinate with all
the competent national institutions, and the World
Heritage Centre, with a view to identifying rapidly the
WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 31

necessary corrective measures to ensure the safeguardingof the site.

•=•=

Rice Terraces(Philippines)

of

the

Philippine

Cordilleras

VIII.111 The Committee, recalling previous discussions
concerning the state of conservation of the Rice Terracesof the Philippine Cordilleras, examined the information
presented in WHC-01/CONF.208/4, the findings andrecommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive
Monitoring Mission (September 2001) and decided to
inscribed the property on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.
VIII.112 The Committee expressed its appreciation to thePhilippine authorities for facilitating the IUCN/ICOMOS
Reactive Monitoring Mission to the World Heritage site of
the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras, as
requested by the Committee at its twenty-fourth session in
December 2000. The Committee examined the findings
and recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS mission andnoted with deep concern that:
•=

•=

•=
•=
•=
•=

Despite efforts to safeguard the property by the
Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF) andIfugao Terraces Commission (ITC), the BRTTF lacks
full Government support and needs more resources,
greater independence and an assurance of
permanence;
About 25-30% of the terraces are now abandoned,
which has led to damage to some of the walls. This
has arisen because parts of the irrigation system havebeen neglected, which in turn is due to people leaving
the area. The situation is also aggravated by theeffects of pest species of worms and snails;
Despite good planning, irregular development istaking place, which threatens to erode the heritage
landscape;International assistance has so far not been mobilized
to help the area;
Little progress has been made in addressing the needsof tourism. For example, access from Manila andwithin the property remains poor;
As a result, the World Heritage values may be lost
unless current trends are reversed within 10 years(maximum).

VIII.113 The Committee therefore endorsed the following
recommendations made by the IUCN/ICOMOS mission:
•=
•=
•=

Establish a permanent and effective body to coordinate and lead efforts to restore and protect the
Ifugao Rice Terraces;
Review existing management plans for further
improvement;
Develop a short and long-term strategy to finance theconservation of the Rice Terraces, drawn fromnational and international sources and from tourism;

Develop a long term sustainable conservation policy
to redress the problem and enhance management
capacity.
Develop a sustainable tourism industry that supports
the future conservation of the rice terraces, placing
priority on improving access to and within thesite.Establish an exchange programme with other
World Heritage sites which share similar conservation
challenges.

VIII.114 The Observer of the Philippines informed the
Bureau that his Government considered the inscription of
the Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras on the Listof World Heritage in Danger, not as a dishonour but on thecontrary, as an essential tool for mobilizing effective,
decisive and rapid intervention to address the threatsfacing an endangered World Heritage property. Referringto the letter dated 26 November 2001 from the Minister ofTourism and Culture and the Chairperson of the Banaue
Rice Terrace Task Force addressed to the Director of theWorld Heritage Centre, the Observer confirmed his
Government’s nomination of this property for inscription
on the List of World Heritage in Danger and theGovernment’s request for urgent international assistance toaddress the alarming state of conservation of this property.
VIII.115 The Committee was informed that theGovernment of the Philippines concurred with the findings
and recommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive
Monitoring Mission. The Observer stated that thefollowing steps are being taken in order to address therecommendations of this mission:
•=
•=

•=

Establish by legislation, a permanent and effective
authority to co-ordinate and lead efforts to restore andprotect the property;
Involve all stakeholders including national
government agencies, congressmen, provincial
governors, representatives of municipalities, andprivate individuals in the re-evaluation and updatingof the existing management plan for the protection of
the site;
Develop sustainable tourism industries which will
support the future conservation of the Rice Terraces.

VIII.116 The Observer of the Philippines drew theCommittee’s attention to the fact that this property was thefirst organic evolving cultural landscape to be inscribed on
the World Heritage List and a living monument manuallybuilt 1,000 years ago by the genius of the indigenous
Ifugao people.
VIII.117 Underlining the vulnerability of properties suchas the Rice Terraces where the relationship between
human land-use and the environment is continuously
evolving, the Observer hoped that the country and sitespecific methodological framework elaborated forsustainable utilization of the Rice Terraces could later be
adapted for the conservation of similar agriculturallandscapes in other regions.

•=

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 32

VIII.118 Drawing the attention of the Committee to therecently adopted UNESCO Universal Declaration on
Cultural Diversity which encompasses the promotion andprotection of indigenous cultures, the Observer of thePhilippines expressed his Government’s hope that the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee would favourably
endorse the request for international assistance to address
the conservation and management issues of thistraditionally owned and utilized property.
VIII.119 Taking into due consideration the conservation
challenges and threats facing the property, the Committee
decided to inscribe the Rice Terraces of the Philippine
Cordilleras on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The
Committee commended the Philippine authorities fornominating this site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger, demonstrating positive use of this importantmechanism.
VIII.120 Finally, the Committee requested the World
Heritage Centre and the UNESCO Bangkok Office tocontinue assisting the authorities in the elaboration of along-term comprehensive management plan for the site.
The Committee requested that a progress report on
measures taken to elaborate the management plan and toenhance the conservation and development of the property
be submitted for examination by the Committee at its
twenty-sixth session.
State of conservation reports of cultural properties
examined by the Committee
City of Luxembourg: its
Fortifications (Luxembourg)

Old

Quarters

andVIII.121 Following a meeting between the Delegation of
Luxembourg, the Chairperson, the Secretariat andICOMOS, the Bureau decided that the project concerning
the building of a Judiciary Centre on the Saint Esprit
Plateau of the City of Luxembourg should be examined by
the Committee in the presence of the Secretary General of
ICOMOS. The Committee noted that a revised project
proposing substantial changes to the original plan was
submitted by the State Party to the World Heritage Centre
on 1 November 2001. This information was transmitted to
ICOMOS which stressed that the State Party should be
encouraged to study the alternative solution proposed by
the Municipality of the City of Luxembourg to move someof the proposed buildings to another location. Thissolution would reduce the number of buildings on the siteof the Saint Esprit Plateau and preserve the archaeologicalremains which were found there and which should beconserved in an open area.
VIII.122 The Secretary General of ICOMOS informed theCommittee that based on the results of an expert mission,
ICOMOS had expressed its concern as to the excessive
size of the project and its potential impact both visual andon the integrity of the site. He also emphasized that recent
important archaeological discoveries had been made at thesite that called for safeguarding and presentation measures.
However, he recalled that it was the Luxembourg
Report of the World Heritage Committee

authorities who had taken the initiative to call upon
UNESCO for advice with regard to this project and heinformed the Committee that, in a spirit of open andconstructive dialogue, consultations were ongoing betwen
ICOMOS, the State Party and the Centre concerning thedevelopment of this project, with positive results so far.
He also informed that further improvements to the revised
project were still necessary and that the ICOMOS experts
were at the disposal of the authorities for consultation.
VIII.123 The Observer of Luxembourg stressed that his
country strived to maintain, as always, a policy of
dialogue with UNESCO. He also informed that thisproject had been foreseen since 1991 and had recently
been modified to take into account the recommendations
made by ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre. He
indicated that given the need to treat the recently
discovered remains, the authorities proposed to remove apart of the buildings foreseen, notably a parking lot, so as
to create an archaeological crypte providing a detailed visitof the site. The Observer of Luxembourg finally statedthat regular consultations would be held with the World
Heritage Centre and ICOMOS regarding this project.
VIII.124 The exemplary conduct of this dossier by the
Luxembourg authorities was commended with the wish
that this could be the case with each construction project
within a World Heritage site or its proximity.
VIII.125 In response to the Delegate of Greece, whoquestioned the future treatment and protection of the
excavation area, ICOMOS underlined that the proposedsolution - the construction of a crypte - is very innovativeand permitted visitors to discover the remains. The
Delegate of Greece noted that post excavation research
was not completed and requested that the decision adopted
by the Committee take this query into consideration.
VIII.126 The Chairperson remarked that this project
would be implemented and that the Luxembourg
authorities had assured the Committee of the close
collaboration they would maintain with ICOMOS and theCentre in this regard.
VIII.127 The Committee took note of the informationtransmitted by the State Party and thanked the authorities
for the efforts made in the frame of the revision of the
proposed project. It noted that the consultations were
underway between ICOMOS, the State Party and theCentre, and requested the State Party to inform of thestatus of this project, as well as the projects regarding thearchaeological excavations, to its next session in June
2002.
Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco)
VIII.128 The Committee examined the state ofconservation of the site, as presented in Document WHC01/CONF.208/4, and took note of the recommendation
made by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary
session, contained in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/10,
suggesting that the site might be inscribed on the List of

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 33

World Heritage in Danger, pending consultation with theState Party.

Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
VIII.134 The Committee recalled that it had:

VIII.129 The Secretariat informed the Committee of aletter, received on 10 December 2001, and addressed to the
Chairperson of the Committee, in which the Moroccan
authorities listed a series of measures recently taken inaccordance with the recommendations of the Committee at
its last session in Cairns (2000), and reiterated the State
Party's full commitment towards the preservation andpresentation of the site.

•=examined the state of conservation of Kathmandu
Valley at twenty-one sessions of the Committee andits Bureau since 1992;•=

debated on the inscription of this site on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger at each session upon
examining the 1993 Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS
Mission, the 1998 Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-Nepal
Mission, and the reports submitted by the State Party
on progress made in the implementation of the 16point recommendation adopted by the Committee in1993 and the 55 Recommendations for Enhanced
Management and Time-Bound Action Plan for
Corrective Measures adopted by the State Party in
1998;

•=

dispatched a High Level Mission in September 2000
headed by the former Chairperson of the Committee,
and comprising the current Chairperson of theCommittee, the Director of the World Heritage Centre
among others, for consultations with His Majesty's
Government of Nepal at the highest level on the
merits of the in-danger listing as a tool for
conservation;•=

noted the conclusion of the High Level Mission whichstated that whilst the major monuments were in goodstate of conservation, should no new measures be
undertaken, the deterioration of the historic urban
fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the
traditional architecture surrounding the publicmonuments, and consequently undermine the World
Heritage values of this unique and universallysignificant site;•=

expressed its disappointment at the twenty-fourth
session, that the State Party was not convinced of theconstructive objectives of the List of World Heritage
in Danger, as a mechanism for strengthening further
political commitment and mobilizing international
technical co-operation and greater awareness at bothnational and international levels, and underlined theneed to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage
Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage
List, while effectively implementing the mechanisms
provided under the Convention in safeguarding theWorld Heritage properties, especially when the threats
are ascertained and the process in the loss of theWorld Heritage values have already occurred; but,•=

decided to defer consideration of the inscription on the
List of World Heritage in Danger until 2002 in viewof the State Party´s strong desire to avoid inscription
on this List.

VIII.130 The Observer of Morocco provided further
details on the specific steps taken by the national
authorities, mentioning in particular:
•=
•=
•=
•=

•=

The near completion of the administrative proceduresfor the listing of the entire site as a protected cultural
site under the Law N. 22-80;
The establishment of a Follow-up Inter-Ministerial
Commission for the management and conservation of
the site;
The start of a consultation process with local
communities to identify their needs and priorities witha view to the revitalization of the Ksar;
The launching of selected infrastructure projects andthe preparation of feasibility studies for initiatives
related to the conservation and development of thesite;
The sensitization of representatives from local
authorities on the importance of implementing urgent
safeguarding and presentation measures.

VIII.131 The Observer of Morocco informed theCommittee that a meeting had taken place in Rabat, on 13
November 2001, of a Commission including all thevarious institutions concerned, which has confirmed theabove-mentioned decisions. Stressing once again the great
importance that Morocco attaches to the preservation ofthis unique site, she expressed her Government's readinessto implement whatever decision the Committee would takeand thanked the Committee for its interest in the Moroccan
cultural heritage.
VIII.132 In view of these recent developments, theCommittee, commending the State Party on the important
preliminary measures taken in view of the safeguarding of
the site, urged nevertheless the Moroccan authorities toproceed, in close co-operation with the World Heritage
Centre, in the strengthening of the CERKAS, responsible
for the site, and in the preparation and effective
implementation of a Management and Safeguarding Plan
for Ksar Ait Ben Haddou.
VIII.133 To this end, the Committee invited the State
Party to submit as soon as possible a request ofinternational assistance under the World Heritage Fund.
The Committee, furthermore, requested the State Party tosubmit a detailed report on the progress achieved in theimplementation of the recommendations made at thetwenty-fourth session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000), by
1 February 2002.
Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 34

VIII.135 The Committee examined new information
concerning:•=•=the demolition of the Saraswati Nani Temple within
the World Heritage protected area of Patan Darban
Square Monument Zone by the Guthi Samthan, thelocal guardians and owners of this public building;total reconstruction of the Temple reportedly using
inappropriate new building material; removal anddisappearance of the unique and exquisitely carved
struts originally adorning this Temple. This Temple
was included in the Kathmandu Valley Protective
Inventory and figure in the 1979 nomination dossier
submitted by HMG of Nepal;
demolition of several historic buildings or illegal
additions within the Seven Monuments Zones ofKathmandu Valley. A photo of an example of atypical illegal addition of a new floor with cantilevers
to a historic building was shown.

authorities to further implement the corrective measuresagainst urban encroachment and alteration of the historicfabric in the seven Monument Zones to safeguard its
integrity and authenticity during its twenty-fourth session,and taking into consideration the change in schedule of its
annual meetings, the Committee:•=

requested the State Party to submit the state ofconservation report within the context of the AsiaPacific Regional Periodic Reporting exercise by
December 2002;•=

dispatch another High Level Mission to be undertaken
between December 2002 and June 2003, so that thefindings and recommendations of this second HighLevel Mission could be examined by the Committee
at its twenty-seventh session, where the inscription ofthis site on the List of World Heritage in Danger
would be reconsidered.

Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
VIII.136 The Centre informed the Committee that a
progress report prepared by the Government of Nepal
requested by the Committee was received on 8 December
2001. Neither the Centre nor the Bureau had sufficient
time to examine the content of the report.
VIII.137 The Observer of Nepal, headed by the Joint
Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil
Aviation, reiterated her Government's strong commitment
to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendationsof the 1993 Joint Mission, and the 55 Recommendations
and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint
Mission. She expressed her appreciation for the favourable
response to requests for technical and financial assistancewhich the Committee and UNESCO had been providingfor Kathmandu Valley since the 1970s. With regard to thedemolition of Saraswati Nani Temple, the Observer statedthat the poor condition of the building necessitateddemolition and reconstruction and assured the Committeethat traditional building material and techniques werebeing used.
VIII.138 During the ensuing debate, the Committee
expressed with deep concern, the loss of the authenticity
and integrity of the historic urban fabric of Kathmandu
Valley caused by the difficulties the authorities continued
to face to control development. It was noted that should
the Committee continue to defer inscription of this site on
the List of World Heritage in Danger any further, theWorld Heritage values may be irretrievably lost. Concern
was expressed about sending another High Level Mission,
which may perhaps face difficulty in convincing theGovernment on the constructive objectives of the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger and the need to ensure thecredibility of the World Heritage Convention, its
Committee and the World Heritage List.
VIII.139 The Committee took note of the deliberations of
the Bureau at its twenty-fifth extraordinary session
presented in WHC-01/CONF.208/4. Recalling that it had
decided to allow two more years for the Nepalese
Report of the World Heritage Committee

VIII.140 The Observer of Israel noted with satisfaction thesubstantive progress that has been made with regard to thissite. He informed of the positive dialogue between the
mission members and the Polish authorities as well as theconstructive discussions held between the Observerdelegations of Poland and Israel during the Committee
session in Helsinki, and reiterated the proposal of his
Government to provide both technical and financial
support to the Polish authorities.
VIII.141 In welcoming this good co-operation, theObserver of Poland reconfirmed that priorities are being
defined and informed the Committee that progress in thebi-lateral talks with the Delegation of Israel have beenmade. Furthermore, he informed the Committee that thePolish authorities will soon submit a number ofsuggestions for the future work of the International Groupof Experts, and expressed his hope that some of the major
recommendations contained in the mission report could be
followed and accomplished in the next two months.
VIII.142 The Committee took note of the report of the site
visit to Auschwitz Concentration Camp and its
surroundings and thanked the former Chairperson for his
great commitment concerning this site. The Committee
urged the State Party to implement the recommendationsof the mission as soon as possible and requested theauthorities to provide a report by 1 February 2002 withdetails on the status and structure of the implementation of
the recommendations and a timeframe.
Historic Centre of Sighisoara (Romania)
VIII.143 The Committee examined the state ofconservation of this site and was informed of theconstruction project of a theme park, "Dracula Land", inthe vicinity of Sighisoara, which is part of a Special
Programme for tourism development for the region. The
Committee noted that the Special Programme and thecreation of an Interministerial Committee for its
WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 35

monitoring had been approved by the authorities in July
2001, launched in November 2001 and that its
implementation was foreseen for May 2002.
VIII.144 The Committee was informed that since theexamination of the project by the twenty-fifth
extraordinary session of the Bureau, new information had
been received concerning notably the location and the sizeof this project.
VIII.145 ICOMOS recalled that it remained concerned
about the proximity of the theme park to the town centre ofSighisoara. He indicated that the documents provided by
the State Party mention a distance of 6 km, whereas inreality it was only 1.5 km distance and that the potential
visual impact on the town was a cause for concern. Whilst
remarking that ICOMOS was not adverse to tourism
development in this economically weak region, he addedthat the tourism generated by this park would constitute amass tourism of a very different kind than that generated
by cultural tourism experienced by the town itself.
Finally, he again indicated that it was essential that a joint
UNESCO-ICOMOS mission be undertaken to the site
without delay to evaluate the impact of the project.
VIII.146 The Observer of Romania thanked theCommittee for its attention to the project. He indicatedthat a few years ago, the Romanian authorities had begun
the restoration of a large part of the town of Sighisoara andan amount of US$120,000 had already been invested inthis activity. He also indicated that the safeguarding of
this town is an important element of the Special
Programme. The coordinator of the project, present during
the examination of this issue, informed that the location of
the park was foreseen to be 6 km from the town centre andthat a dense forest of about 20-metre high trees separates
the plateau upon which the construction of the park is
foreseen. He drew the Committee's attention to the factthat access to this park could not be made directly from thetown of Sighisoara. He also informed the Committee thatthe height of the buildings foreseen in the park is limited.
In the name of the Ministry of Tourism, he invited a joint
UNESCO-ICOMOS mission at an early date to the site to
study the detailed plans of the project. He finally indicatedthat the environmental impact study of the project was
being carried out and that the Romanian experts were at
the disposal of the Centre and ICOMOS for all future
information and collaboration.
VIII.147 The Committee noted with concern the building
project of a theme park in the vicinity of the site, and its
possible negative impact on the integrity and theenvironment of the World Heritage site. The Committee
took note with disquiet of the information provided by theState Party and in particular the fact that the Romanianauthorities had already approved the project as well as theimplementation of the Special Programme foreseen for
May 2002. The Committee requested the State Party to
immediately undertake the environmental impact study
foreseen and informed the State Party that assistance could
be granted in this context. Furthermore, the Committee
strongly encouraged the State Party to explore all possible

Report of the World Heritage Committee

solutions for an alternative location for the construction ofthis theme park. The Committee requested that a joint
UNESCO-ICOMOS mission be undertaken to the site assoon as possible and that a report on the mission be madeto the Committee at its twenty-sixth session (June 2002).
Kizhi Pogost (Russian Federation)
VIII.148 The Committee examined the state ofconservation of the site and took note that an emergency
assistance request for an international technical workshop
had been approved by the former Chairperson of theCommittee. This workshop would also include theelaboration of a workplan for the safeguarding of the site.
VIII.149 The Delegate of the Russian Federation informed
the Committee that the workshop will be held from 31 Julyto 5 August 2002. During this workshop the participants
will be given the opportunity to study the project that has
been developed and approved by experts. He thanked theCommittee and the Director of the UNESCO Moscow
Office for their support.
VIII.150 Speaking on behalf of ICCROM and ICOMOS,ICCROM congratulated the Russian authorities for theirinitiative to organise a workshop to develop a workplan forthe safeguarding of the site. He stressed that theinternational workshop should, apart from looking at thesevere structural problems of the Church of theTransfiguration, focus on the ensemble of buildings aswell as on a wide set of issues: the biological deteriorationof the wood, structural stability, conservation of icons andmanagement of visitors. The initial multidisciplinaryconservation plan, adopted for the site in 1995, althoughnever implemented, remains an excellent starting point toaddress the "old" as well as the new issues such as thepotential development of mineral deposits in the landscapearound Kizhi Pogost. In conclusion, in addressing thestructural problems, ICOMOS and ICCROM stressed theimportance of providing a scientific review of all options
available for the stabilisation of the Church in order toassure that an appropriate solution respecting theauthenticity of the structure can be found.
VIII.151 The Committee took note of the information
provided by ICCROM and thanked the authorities of theRussian Federation for having initiated the process toensure the protection of the site. In view of the alarming
state of conservation of the site, the Committee requested
the Secretariat to work in close collaboration with theauthorities of the Russian Federation and the Advisory
Bodies with regard to the international workshop on
conservation measures for Kizhi Pogost. Furthermore, theCommittee requested the State Party to provide a detailed
update of the situation, by 1 February 2003, and requested
the Centre to provide a full report on the results of theworkshop, in collaboration with the authorities of theRussian Federation and the Advisory Bodies, for its
twenty-seventh session in June 2003.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 36

State of conservation reports of cultural properties
noted by the Committee
M'Zab Valley (Algeria)
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
Tipasa (Algeria)
Brasilia (Brazil)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage
statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States
Parties for the submission of the requested reports havebeen considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin
American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee
stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau andnot directly to the Committee. However, in view of thedifferent degrees of urgency for each site, and after
consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested
that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1
February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventhsession of the Bureau.
Historic District of Québec (Canada)
The Potala Palace and the Jokhang
Monastery, Lhasa (China)
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)

TempleColonial City of Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic)
The Observer of the Dominican Republic recalled theefforts of her Government, particularly in the legal and thestandard setting field, to protect cultural heritage and more
especially the Colonial City of Santo Domingo. These newmeasures will be submitted to the national Congress inJanuary 2002. Furthermore, she provided additional
information on the situation of the six houses designed by
Nicolás de Ovando and emphasized the need to take into
account the recommendations of the ICOMOS mission torevert to the original use of these constructions which are
the first colonial homes in Latin America and the
Caribbean. After having noted the recommendations of the
Bureau, the Committee also requested the State Party toseek a more compatible use for the site.
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage
statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States
Parties for the submission of the requested reports havebeen considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin
American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee
stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau andnot directly to the Committee. However, in view of thedifferent degrees of urgency for each site, and after
consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested
that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1
February 2002 for examination by the twenty-sixth sessionof the Bureau.
Islamic Cairo (Egypt)City-Museum Reserve of Mtskheta (Georgia)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hanseatic City of Lübeck (Germany)
Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter, and Churchof Our Lady, Trier (Germany)
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Report of the World Heritage Committee

Acropolis, Athens (Greece)
Antigua Guatemala (Guatemala)Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage
statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States
Parties for the submission of the requested reports havebeen considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin
American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee
stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau andnot directly to the Committee. However, in view of thedifferent degrees of urgency for each site, and after
consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested
that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1
February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventhsession of the Bureau.
Ellora Caves (India)
Ajanta Caves (India)
Historic Centre of Naples (Italy)
Tyre (Lebanon)
The Delegate of Lebanon informed the Committee of aWorld Bank Project on Protection and Rehabilitation ofCultural Heritage, which may significantly contribute to
the conservation of three of the five Lebanese World
Heritage sites, including Tyre. More detailed informationon the scope of activities of this project will hopefully beavailable for the next session of the Committee, in
Budapest. The Delegate of Lebanon also mentioned that ameeting is being organized in Beirut, upon the initiative of
the Minister of Culture, to raise awareness among
representatives from local communities of the importanceof World Heritage status and relative implications, andrequested the Centre to participate.
The Curonian Spit (Lithuania/Russian Federation)
The Delegate of the Russian Federation informed theCommittee that the D-6 Krakovskaya oil platform in theBaltic Sea shelf, 22km off the coast of the Curonian Spit,
was built in 1986 and that there was no oil extraction at thesite. He notified the Committee that an official response
would be sent by 1 February 2002.
The Observer of Lithuania informed the Committee that
the Lithuanian Government had to date not received an
official reply to their inquiries regarding the oil platform
and that following the EIA the oil company had alreadyobtained permission for oil extraction to commence in
2003. She further explained that the Lithuanian experts
had never been given the opportunity to visit the platform,
although there is an excellent transboundary co-operation
at the World Heritage site.
ICOMOS pointed out that no information regarding thisoil platform had been available at the time of the joint
ICOMOS and IUCN evaluation mission of the nominationand that this would certainly have been taken into accountin the evaluation of the site.
Megalithic Temples of Malta (Malta)
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 37

Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama:
Portobelo, San Lorenzo (Panama)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage
statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States
Parties for the submission of the requested reports havebeen considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin
American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee
stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau andnot directly to the Committee. However, in view of thedifferent degrees of urgency for each site, and after
consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested
that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1
February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventhsession of the Bureau.
Chavin (Archaeological Site) (Peru)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage
statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States
Parties for the submission of the requested reports havebeen considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin
American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee
stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau andnot directly to the Committee. However, in view of thedifferent degrees of urgency for each site, and after
consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested
that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1
February 2002 for examination by the twenty-sixth sessionof the Bureau.
Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa (Peru)
Following changes in the cycle of the World Heritage
statutory meetings, the time limits imposed on States
Parties for the submission of the requested reports havebeen considerably reduced. With regard to the Latin
American and the Caribbean Region, the Committee
stressed the need to submit these reports to the Bureau andnot directly to the Committee. However, in view of thedifferent degrees of urgency for each site, and after
consultation with the State Party, the Committee requested
that the state of conservation for this site be submitted by 1
February 2003 for examination by the twenty-seventhsession of the Bureau.
Spišský Hrad and its Associated Cultural Monuments(Slovakia)
Route of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
Ancient City of Sigiriya (Sri Lanka)
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites (United
Kingdom)
Old City of Sana'a (Yemen)

IX.

PROGRESS REPORT ON REGIONALACTIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE GLOBAL STRATEGY FOR A
REPRESENTATIVEAND
BALANCEDWORLD HERITAGE LIST

IX.1
The Secretariat highlighted the essential points
contained in Document WHC-01/CONF.208/11 byrecalling that the Global Strategy for a representative,
balanced and credible World Heritage List was adopted by

Report of the World Heritage Committee

the Committee in 1994. At the request of the Committee,
Regional Action Plans were developed by the Secretariat
to meet the particular needs of each region which wereapproved by the Committee in 1999. The Secretariat
reported that in Africa and the Pacific, global strategy
actions have focused more on awareness raising andpromotion for ratification in view of the important numberof UNESCO Member States that have not yet ratified theConvention. In both these regions and also in the
Caribbean and the Arab States, considerable work was
being done to encourage States Parties to establish theirnational Tentative List and to identify potential sites fromunder-represented categories. Thematic studies and expert
thematic meetings have been carried out in all regions.
Important achievements have been made in elaborating theconcepts of various types of cultural landscapes. In Asia,
thematic studies and meetings with States Parties havefocused on the categories of cultural properties most at risk
due to the absence or weakness of legal protection(modern heritage, vernacular architecture of minority
groups in SE Asia), as well as in the harmonization of theTentative Lists of the five Central Asian States Parties.
IX.2
Particular mention was made of the following
Global Strategy thematic studies and meetings: Meeting ofStates Parties and Experts on Global Strategy in Southeast
Asia (Tana Toraja, Indonesia in April 2001); Meeting ofStates Parties on the Alpine Arc (Turin, Italy, July 2001);
Thematic Meeting on Vineyard Cultural Landscapes(Tokai, Hungary, July 2001); Expert Meeting on
Plantation Systems in the Caribbean (Paramaribo,
Suriname, July 2001); Expert Meeting on Sacred
Mountains in Asia-Pacific (Japan, September 2001);
Expert Meeting on Desert Landscapes and Oasis Systems(Oasis Kharga, Egypt, September 2001); Regional
Training Course on the Application of the Convention and
its Role in Sustainable Development and Tourism in the
Caribbean (September-October 2001); Capacity-building
Workshop for Southwestern Indian Ocean Island
Countries (Madagascar, October 2001); Sub-regional
Workshop on Capacity-building and Institutional
Development for Southern African Countries (Windhoek,
Namibia,
September2001),ICCROM/UNESCO/
CRATerre-supported Africa 2009 regional training course
to promote representivity (July-September 2001), Sixth
Meeting of the Pacific Islands Round Table (Suva, Fiji,
October-November 2001); Workshop on Cultural
Interpretation of Heritage Sites for Preservation andTourism (Palau, July 2001).
IX.3
In determining Global Strategy activities for the
2002-2003 period, the Secretariat drew the attention of theCommittee to its five-part decision adopted at its twentyfourth session concerning the Representivity of the List: 1.
Respecting the Convention; 2. Use of the Tentative List asa planning tool to reduce imbalances; 3. Establishment of apriority system for nominations; 4. Resolution of the
Twelfth General Assembly regarding representivity and 5.
Capacity-building for under-represented regions.
IX.4
Several Committee members stressed theimportance of the Resolution of the General Assembly

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 38

concerning the Representivity of the World Heritage List
and that the substantive work on the analysis of the current
World Heritage List and the tentative lists must be given
top priority. New thematic studies and meetings should be
carried out only upon the completion of this global
analysis, and on the basis of the priorities identified foreach region. A number of delegates stated that since 1994,
many regional and thematic meetings have been convened,
and the results of these meetings need to be reviewed
before others are launched.
IX.5
ICOMOS informed the Committee that a numberof thematic studies have been carried out or are in
progress, including textile industries, rock art in Southern
Africa and early agricultural landscapes in the Pacific.
IX.6
IUCN commended the Centre and stated thatclear criteria are needed for future thematic workshops.
The priority for IUCN lies in the coastal and marine
ecosystems, boreal forests and geological sites. The World
Parks Congress (South Africa, 2003) provides an excellent
opportunity, as World Heritage and African Heritage
would enjoy a high profile at this event.
IX.7
The Committee thanked the Secretariat for the
document prepared but stated that the numerous activities
proposed need to be prioritised. Members of theCommittee noted the following points:
IX.8
For the Caribbean, the work proposed for coastal
and marine sites has a high priority and needs to be linked
to existing GEF/World Bank projects and other regionaland sub-regional programmes and projects; that the Slave
Route project also be given high priority for the Caribbean
under the cultural heritage category; and that the proposed
study and expert meeting on rock art are not priorities inview of extensive studies already existing on this subject.
The Committee stressed the need to ensurecomplementarity of activities under the Global Strategy fora representative World Heritage List and the Periodic
Reports.
IX.9
A number of delegates from Latin America
underlined the importance of using the tentative lists as aplanning tool and that the inclusion of sites on these lists
indicated that they already meet minimum standards.
Although agreement on the limitation of nominations is amajor step forward, this should not negatively affect States
Parties that are under-represented in the World Heritage
List or having sites belonging to under-represented
categories. States Parties that are already well represented
on the List should voluntarily refrain from submitting
nominations. It was mentioned that the Ibero-American
network (Ushuaia, Argentina, 2002), would be an
important forum to discuss potential natural heritage fromthe region.
IX.10 For the African region, priority should be given to
the preparation of tentative lists and nominations fromStates Parties, and in the identification of underrepresented categories. Given the capacity-building
requirements in the majority of States Parties of thisReport of the World Heritage Committee

region, the need to mobilize international co-operation was
stressed. A number of African State Party representatives
expressed concern over the demand for high quality
documentation for the nomination files, often beyond thecapacity of the African States Parties to provide.
IX.11 Concerning Asia, the Committee commended theCentre for the well-structured analysis by sub-region of theWorld Heritage List that provides a useful overview of therepresented and under-represented categories in the region.
The Delegate of India underscored the importance ofidentifying ancient routes and trade links within the southeast Asian sub-region. A standard presentation for all
regions could be used as a strategic tool to assess theoverall situation, and budget allocations should be madeaccordingly. The Committee noted the results of theregional thematic meeting on Sacred Mountains in AsiaPacific and of the proceedings already published by theGovernment of Japan. The results should be also taken
into account for discussions on criterion (vi), as many sites
may only qualify for their relationship between theintangible values and the natural environment. It wasstressed that the conditions of integrity need to be applied
for cultural heritage in this region.
IX.12 The Observer of Australia referred to a number ofpartnerships in support of the World Heritage Global
Strategy in the Asia-Pacific region, including the ACCU
(Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO). He proposedthat IUCN and the World Heritage Centre look at the
impact of climate change in the region with reference toWorld Heritage sites, especially in marine and coastal
ecosystems. He also referred to the support of New
Zealand in funding a World Heritage Officer in the
UNESCO Office in Apia, Samoa and called for the
position to be continued by UNESCO in the future. He
referred to the legal and technical assistance being
provided in the region through the Asia-Pacific Focal
Point for World Heritage Managers hosted by Australia
and suggested a Memorandum of Understanding with theWorld Heritage Centre.
IX.13 Several observers of European States Parties
congratulated the Centre for a number of thematic
meetings carried out and the recommendations stemmingfrom these, such as the vineyard thematic meeting. The
recommendation for a global vineyard study wasemphasized by a number of Committee members andobservers to ensure the credibility of future nominations
under this category. An appropriate delimitation of thewine growing area should be chosen for these sites. The
Delegate of Hungary expressed his country's commitment
to promote the co-ordination of the tentative lists within
their sub-region.
IX.14 The Committee was informed that a number ofStates Parties are currently preparing transboundary
nominations. Co-operation between countries should be
encouraged to ensure a better representivity of the World
Heritage List and solidarity between countries fromdifferent regions. The fact that forty-nine countries still
have no tentative lists indicated the urgent need to extend

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 39

assistance in this field. The Committee agreed thattransfrontier, serial and other nominations should be
encouraged as well as links to the MAB programme.
IX.15 With regard to the Alpine Arc, the Committee
noted that a new, co-ordinated and regional approach forinternational collaboration was promoted by the six
countries of the Alpine region (Austria, Germany, France,
Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland), and that following the expert
meeting at Hallstatt (Austria, June 2000), two States Party
meetings were convened (Turin, Italy, July 2001 and
UNESCO Headquarters, October 2001) to discuss thediversity, values and composition of the Alpine Arc.
Taking into account the complexity of such a regional
approach, the countries agreed to schedule a follow-up
meeting for the beginning of 2002.
This processaccompanied by international experts and the World
Heritage Centre should encourage the States Parties tocontinue with this innovative and regional approach in
World Heritage nomination.
IX.16 Commenting on the Secretariat's report on theDesert Landscape Meeting, organized in Egypt (September2001), the Committee recalled the importance of thiscategory of properties. It recommended that resources beallocated to further the process of identification ofpotential desert landscapes for possible inclusion on theWorld Heritage List, starting with those located across two
or more countries. Committee members from the Arabregion stated that this should be the focus rather thandispersing resources on less urgent initiatives, such as the
proposed Thematic Study on Modern Heritage in the ArabStates. In this respect, and taking into account that deserts
are a common feature across several regions of the world,X.

the Committee stressed the desirability of a more intenseinter-regional co-operation in this field, such as in the
Mediterranean Action Plan. The Delegate of Egypt
suggested that the year 2003 be declared an InternationalYear of the Desert.
IX.17 Concerning priorities, particularly in the Arabregion, the Committee insisted also on the importance ofaddressing heritage legislation and institutional building,as these are an essential precondition for the establishmentof appropriate conservation practices.
IX.18 The Observer of ALECSO recalled the
publication by his Organization (in 2001) of an Arab
Biodiversity Strategy. He recommended that thisdocument be translated into English and taken into accountin future World Heritage programmes and activities in theregion. IUCN recognized the gap in the representivity ofnatural heritage in the Arab Region and stated its intention
to address it in the future.
IX.19 The Committee concluded its examination of
Global Strategy activities by reiterating the need for the
Secretariat to focus on the analysis of the World Heritage
List and the national tentative lists as a priority, as well as
on assistance to States Parties for the establishment andrevision of these tentative lists as required. The Committee
however noted that a conceptual discussion is needed toprovide a framework for such analyses and also
recognized the need to identify methodologies to define
under-represented categories of heritage.

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

Tentative Lists
X.1
The Director of the World Heritage Centre
indicated that all nominations were included in the
Tentative Lists of the country concerned.

Existing Name (English / French)
Sokkuram Grotto and Pulguksa Temple /Grotte de Sokkuram et temple Pulguksa
Haeinsa Temple Changgyong P'ango, the Depositories for
the Tripitaka Koreana Woodblocks /Temple d'Haeinsa Changgyong P'ango, les dépôts destablettes du Tripitaka Koreana
Chongmyo Shrine /Sanctuaire de Chongmyo

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Changes to names of properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List
X.2
At the request of the Republic of Korea, becauseof the recent changes to the Romanisation system of
Korean characters, the Committee approved the followingchanges to the names of properties included on the World
Heritage List:
Name change requested (English / French)
Seokguram Grotto and Bulguksa Temple /Grotte de Seokguram et temple Bulguksa
Haeinsa Temple Janggyeong Panjeon, the Depositories for
the Tripitaka Koreana Woodblocks /Temple d'Haeinsa Janggyeong Panjeon, les dépôts destablettes du Tripitaka Koreana
Jongmyo Shrine /Sanctuaire de Jongmyo

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 40

Existing Name (English / French)
Ch'angdokkung Palace Complex /Ensemble du palais de Ch'angdokkung
Hwasong Fortress /Forteresse de Hwasong
Kyongju Historic Areas /Zones historiques de Kyongju
Koch'ang, Hwasun, and Kanghwa Dolmen Sites /Sites de dolmens de Koch'ang, Hwasun et Kanghwa

Name change requested (English / French)
Changdeokgung Palace Complex /Ensemble du palais de Changdeokgung
Hwaseong Fortress /Forteresse de Hwaseong
Gyeongju Historic Areas /Zones historiques de Gyeongju
Gochang, Hwasun, and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites /Sites de dolmens de Gochang, Hwasun et Ganghwa

Examination of nominations of cultural and naturalproperties to the List of World Heritage in Danger

Examination of nominations of cultural, natural, andmixed properties to the World Heritage List

X.3
Following the review of the state of conservation
reports and the recommendations of the twenty-fifth
extraordinary session of the Bureau, the Committee
decided to inscribe the following properties on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger:

X.5
The Committee noted that the following two
natural properties will be examined in 2002:•=•=

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras(Philippines)
Abu Mena (Egypt)

X.4
Furthermore, the Committee decided to remove
Iguaçu National Park (Brazil) from the List of World
Heritage in Danger.

I.

CULTURAL PROPERTIESA.

Properties which the Committee inscribed on
the World Heritage List

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Historic Centre of Vienna
1033
Austria
C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Historic Centre of Vienna on
the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):
Criterion (ii): The urban and architectural qualities ofthe Historic Centre of Vienna bear outstanding witness
to a continuing interchange of values throughout thesecond millennium.
Criterion (iv): Three key periods of European culturaland political development – the Middle Ages, theBaroque period, and the Gründerzeit – are exceptionallywell illustrated by the urban and architectural heritage ofthe Historic Centre of Vienna.
Criterion (vi): Since the 16th century Vienna has been
universally acknowledged to be the musical capital of
Europe.
While taking note of the efforts already made for theprotection of the historic town of Vienna, the Committee
recommended that the State Party undertake the necessary

Report of the World Heritage Committee•=•=

Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park (Viet Nam)Natural System of "Wrangel Island" Sanctuary(Russian Federation)

X.6
The Committee was informed that the Guyanese
authorities have withdrawn the nomination of Kaieteur
National Park and that the Italian authorities requested
that the proposed extension of Crespi d'Adda not be
examined by the twenty-fifth session of the World
Heritage Committee.

measures to review the height and volume of the proposed
new development near the Stadtpark, east of theRingstrasse, so as not to impair the visual integrity of thehistoric town. Furthermore, the Committee recommended
that special attention be given to continuous monitoring
and control of any changes to the morphology of thehistoric building stock.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Cultural Landscape ofFertö/Neusiedlersee
772 Rev
Austria/Hungary
C (v)The Committee inscribed the Cultural Landscape ofFertö/Neusiedlersee on the World Heritage List undercriterion (v):
Criterion (v): The Fertö/Neusiedlersee has been themeeting place of different cultures for eight millennia,
and this is graphically demonstrated by its varied
landscape, the result of an evolutionary and symbiotic

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 41

process of human interaction with the physicalenvironment.
The Committee encouraged the States Parties to provide
within two years of inscription a revised management planfor the enlarged area resulting from the revised boundariesof the cultural landscape.
Although the site was originally nominated as a mixed site,
the Committee did not inscribe Fertö/Neusiedlersee on theWorld Heritage List under natural criteria.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Tsodilo1021
Botswana
C (i) (iii) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Tsodilo on the World Heritage
List under criteria criteria (i), (iii), and (vi):
Criterion (i): For many thousands of years the rocky
outcrops of Tsodilo in the harsh landscape of the
Kalahari Desert have been visited and settled byhumans, who have left rich traces of their presence inthe form of outstanding rock art.
Criterion (iii): Tsodilo is a site that has witnessed
visits and settlement by successive human communities
for many millennia.
Criterion (vi): The Tsodilo outcrops have immense
symbolic and religious significance for the humancommunities who continue to survive in this hostileenvironment.
The Delegate of Thailand, while supporting the inscriptionof the site, questioned the application of criterion (i),asking whether the rock art itself or the entire property wasa "masterpiece of human creative genius". The
representative of ICOMOS explained that criterion (i) wasapplicable to the rock art.
The Chairperson congratulated Botswana on theinscription of its first site on the World Heritage List. The
Observer of Botswana emphasized that this is a milestone,
illustrating the commitment of her county to fulfil theobligations of the Convention and to adhere to the Global
Strategy.
Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Historic Centre of the Town of Goiás
993 Rev
BrazilC (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Historic Centre of the Town
of Goiás on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and(iv):
Criterion (ii): In its layout and architecture theHistoric Town of Goiás is an outstanding example of aEuropean town admirably adapted to the climatic,
geographical and cultural constraints of central SouthAmerica.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Criterion (iv): Goiás represents the evolution of a formof urban structure and architecture characteristic of thecolonial settlement of South America, making full use
of local materials and techniques and conserving its
exceptional setting.
Following comments from the Committee concerning thestate of conservation of the site, the Observer of Brazil
informed the Committee that major investments are under
way to improve the conditions of the site.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Yungang Grottoes
1039
China
C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Yungang Grottoes on theWorld Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv):
Criterion (i): The assemblage of statuary of the
Yungang Grottoes is a masterpiece of early Chinese
Buddhist cave art.
Criterion (ii): The Yungang cave art represent thesuccessful fusion of Buddhist religious symbolic art
from south and central Asia with Chinese cultural
traditions, starting in the 5th century CE under Imperial
auspices.
Criterion (iii): The power and endurance of Buddhist
belief in China are vividly illustrated by the Yungang
grottoes.
Criterion (iv): The Buddhist tradition of religious caveart achieved its first major impact at Yungang, where it
developed its own distinct character and artistic power.
The Committee encouraged the State Party to continue themaintenance efforts and management planning for the site.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Tugendhat Villa in Brno
1052
Czech Republic
C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Tugendhat Villa in Brno on
the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii): The German architect Mies van der Roheapplied the radical new concepts of the Modern
Movement triumphantly to the Tugendhat Villa in thedesign of residential buildings.
Criterion (iv): Architecture was revolutionized by theModern Movement in the 1920s and the work of Miesvan der Rohe, epitomized by the Tugendhat Villa,
played a major role in its worldwide diffusion andacceptance.
The Chairperson stressed the need for an in-depth
discussion on the Modern Movement.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 42

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs
873 Rev
FranceC (ii) (iv)

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Masada1040
IsraelC (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs
on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):

The Committee inscribed the Masada National Park on theWorld Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (vi):

Criterion (ii): At the beginning of the 2nd millennium
Provins was one of several towns in the territory of theCounts of Champagne that became the venues for great
annual trading fairs linking northern Europe with theMediterranean world.
Criterion (iv): Provins preserves to a high degree thearchitecture and urban layout that characterize thesegreat medieval fair towns.

Criterion (iii): Masada is a symbol of the ancient
Jewish Kingdom of Israel, of its violent destruction in
the later 1st century CE, and of the subsequent
Diaspora.
Criterion (iv): The Palace of Herod the Great at
Masada is an outstanding example of a luxurious villaof the Early Roman Empire, whilst the camps and otherfortifications that encircle the monument constitute thefinest and most complete Roman siege works to havesurvived to the present day.
Criterion (vi): The tragic events during the last days of
the Jewish refugees who occupied the fortress andpalace of Masada make it a symbol both of Jewish
cultural identity and, more universally, of thecontinuing human struggle between oppression andliberty.

The Delegate of Greece recalled her intervention made at
the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001,
underlining that nothing remained of the installations
relating to the Trade Fair in the Medieval Town ofProvins, while other cities preserved better examples.
Several delegates questioned the research carried out on
medieval fair towns, and asked whether archaeologicalexcavations had taken place at Provins. The Delegate of
St Lucia requested the reasons for the change in therecommendation by ICOMOS from negative in 1996 to
positive in 2001.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

The Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial
Complex in Essen
975
Germany
C (ii) (iii)

The Committee inscribed the The Zollverein Coal Mine
Industrial Complex in Essen on the World Heritage List
under criteria (ii) and (iii):
Criterion (ii): The Zollverein XII Coal Mine Industrial
Complex is an exceptional industrial monument byvirtue of the fact that its buildings are outstanding
examples of the application of the design concepts of
the Modern Movement in architecture in a wholly
industrial context.
Criterion (iii): The technological and other structuresof Zollverein XII are representative of a crucial period
in the development of traditional heavy industries in
Europe, when sympathetic and positive use was madeof architectural designs of outstanding quality.
The Observer of Germany informed the Committee thatpeople from all over Europe had worked in the mine andthat the recognition of this heritage is important for its future
protection.

Although the site was originally nominated as a mixed
property, the Committee did not inscribe Masada National
Park under natural criteria.
The Chairperson congratulated Israel on the inscription of
its first site on the World Heritage List. In agreement with
the State Party, the name of the property was changed to
Masada.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

The Old City of Acre
1042
IsraelC (ii) (iii) (v)The Committee inscribed The Old City of Acre on theWorld Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iii), and (v):
Criterion (ii): Acre is an exceptional historic town inthat it preserves the substantial remains of its medieval
Crusader buildings beneath the existing Moslem
fortified town dating from the 18th and 19th centuries.
Criterion (iii): The remains of the Crusader town ofAcre, both above and below the present-day street level,
provide an exceptional picture of the layout andstructures of the capital of the medieval Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Criterion (v): Present-day Acre is an important example
of an Ottoman walled town, with typical urban
components such as the citadel, mosques, khans, andbaths well preserved, partly built on top of theunderlying Crusader structures.
A number of delegates commented that the texts containedin the ICOMOS evaluation report needed revision toaccurately reflect the history of the site. ICOMOS agreed toReport of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 43

discuss appropriate amendments with the delegations
concerned to reflect the history of the social and economic
situation of the site and the inhabitants of the Old City.
The Committee recommended that the State Party
incorporate into its management plan a coherent policy forthe improvement of the economic and social condition of
local residents of the Old City of Acre and to ensure that itremains a living city.
The Observer of Israel stated that the inscription of the site
recognizes the heritage of the people of this multicultural
centre, representing the entire region.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Villa d'Este, Tivoli
1025
Italy
C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)(vi)

The Committee inscribed the Villa d'Este, Tivoli on theWorld Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), (iii),(iv) and (vi):
Criterion (i): The Villa d’Este is one of the mostoutstanding examples of Renaissance culture at its
apogee.
Criterion (ii): The gardens of the Villa d’Este had aprofound influence on the development of garden
design throughout Europe.
Criterion (iii): The principles of Renaissance design
and aesthetics are illustrated in an exceptional mannerby the gardens of the Villa d’Este.
Criterion (iv): The gardens of the Villa d’Este areamong the earliest and finest of the giardini dellemeraviglie and symbolize the flowering of Renaissanceculture.
Criterion (vi): The Villa d'Este, with its palace andgarden, bears exceptional testimony to the Italian
Renaissance and has been a source of artistic
inspiration ever since its creation.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Lamu Old Town
1055
Kenya
C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Lamu Old Town on the World
Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):
Criterion (ii): The architecture and urban structure of
Lamu graphically demonstrate the cultural influencesthat have come together there over several hundredyears from Europe, Arabia, and India, utilizing
traditional Swahili techniques to produce a distinct
culture.
Criterion (iv): The growth and decline of the seaportson the East African coast and interaction between the
Bantu, Arabs, Persians, Indians, and Europeans
represents a significant cultural and economic phase in
the history of the region which finds its mostoutstanding expression in Lamu Old Town.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Criterion (vi): Its paramount trading role and its
attraction for scholars and teachers gave Lamu an
important religious function in the region. It continues
to be a significant centre for education in Islamic andSwahili culture.

Property

Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Vat Phou and Associated Ancient
Settlements within the Champasak
Cultural Landscape481
Lao People's Democratic Republic
C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed Vat Phou and Associated Ancient
Settlements within the Champasak Cultural Landscape on
the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv) and (vi):
Criterion (iii): The Temple Complex of Vat Phou bears
exceptional testimony to the cultures of south-east Asia,and in particular to the Khmer Empire which dominatedthe region in the 10th–14th centuries.
Criterion (iv): The Vat Phou complex is an outstanding
example of the integration of a symbolic landscape ofgreat spiritual significance to its natural surroundings.
Criterion (vi): Contrived to express the Hindu versionof the relationship between nature and humanity, Vat
Phou exhibits a remarkable complex of monuments
and other structures over an extensive area between
river and mountain, some of outstanding architecture,
many containing great works of art, and all expressing
intense religious conviction and commitment.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Royal Hill of Ambohimanga
950
Madagascar
C (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Royal Hill of Ambohimangaon the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (vi):
Criterion (iii): The Royal Hill of Ambohimanga is themost significant symbol of the cultural identity of thepeople of Madagascar.
Criterion (iv): The traditional design, materials, andlayout of the Royal Hill of Ambohimanga arerepresentative of the social and political structure of
Malagassy society from at least the 16th century.
Criterion (vi): The Royal Hill of Ambohimanga is an
exceptional example of a place where, over centuries,
common human experience has been focused inmemory, ritual, and prayer.
The Committee emphasized that the site is a classic
example of an associative cultural landscape, which fully
justifies the application of criterion (vi), linking thetangible and intangible values. The Observer ofMadagascar informed the Committee that the inscriptionof the first cultural site on the World Heritage List would
inspire the people of her country to protect their heritage.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 44

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Medinaof
Mogador)753 Rev
MoroccoC (ii) (iv)

Essaouira(Formerly

The Committee inscribed the Medina of Essaouira(Formerly Mogador) on the World Heritage List undercriteria (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii): Essaouira is an outstanding and wellpreserved example of a late 18th century European
fortified seaport town translated to a North African
context.
Criterion (iv): With the opening up of Morocco to therest of the world in the later 17th century Essaouira waslaid out by a French architect who had been profoundly
influenced by the work of Vauban at Saint-Malo. It hasretained its European appearance to a substantial extent.
A number of delegates expressed their reservations as tothe outstanding universal value of the site, as well as someconcerns on the reported alterations that had taken place inthe city, where inappropriate materials had been used formodern additions. ICOMOS informed the Committee that
although some degree of integrity had been lost in the past,
the degree of loss did not compromise the overallsignificance of the site. Adequate safeguarding measuresand a comprehensive Management Plan were now inplace, which would prevent further damage to the historic
structures of the city.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Churches of Peace in Jawor and
Swidnica
1054
PolandC (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Churches of Peace in Jawor
and Swidnica on the World Heritage List under criteria (iii),(iv), and (vi):churches bear witness to an act of Tolerance that, at thetime of their construction, was extremely rare.
Furthermore, with regard to their state of conservation,
they demonstrate close and fruitful co-operation between
the two neighbouring countries, Poland and Germany.
The cultural heritage of Silesia, formerly disputed by bothcountries, is today considered as common heritage forwhich Poland and Germany are responsible.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Historic Centre of Guimarães
1031
PortugalC (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Historic Centre of Guimarães
on the World Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iii), and (iv):
Criterion (ii): Guimarães is of considerable universal
significance by virtue of the fact that specializedbuilding techniques developed there in the Middle
Ages were transmitted to Portuguese colonies in Africa
and the New World, becoming their characteristicfeature.
Criterion (iii): The early history of Guimarães isclosely associated with the establishment of Portuguese
national identity and the Portuguese language in the
12th century.
Criterion (iv): An exceptionally well preserved town,
Guimarães illustrates the evolution of particularbuilding types from the medieval settlement to thepresent-day city, and particularly in the 15th–19th
centuries.
Several delegates noted apparent inconsistencies in the
ICOMOS evaluation report that were clarified.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Alto Douro Wine Region
1046
PortugalC (iii) (iv) (v)

Criterion (iii): The Churches of Peace are outstanding
testimony to an exceptional act of tolerance on the partof the Catholic Habsburg Emperor towards Protestantcommunities in Silesia in the period following the ThirtyYears’ War in Europe.
Criterion (iv): As a result of conditions imposed by theEmperor the Churches of Peace required the builders, toimplement pioneering constructional and architectural
solutions of a scale and complexity unknown ever before
or since in wooden architecture. The success may be
judged by their survival to the present day.
Criterion (vi): The Churches of Peace bear exceptional
witness to a particular political development in Europe
in the 17th century of great spiritual power andcommitment.

The Committee inscribed the Alto Douro Wine Region on
the World Heritage List under criteria (iii), (iv), and (v):The Observer of Germany noted that the symbolic
importance of these two monuments was due to two
factors, one historic and the other contemporary: the two

The Committee requested the State Party to provide areport for its meeting in 2003, commenting on theimplementation of the recent management plan and its

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Criterion (iii): The Alto Douro Region has been
producing wine for nearly two thousand years and its
landscape has been molded by human activities.
Criterion (iv): The components of the Alto Dourolandscape are representative of the full range ofactivities associated with winemaking – terraces,
quintas (wine-producing farm complexes), villages,
chapels, and roads.
Criterion (v): The cultural landscape of the Alto Dourois an outstanding example of a traditional Europeanwine-producing region, reflecting the evolution of thishuman activity over time.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 45

effectiveness, setting out details of the measures applied in
the buffer zone.
Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Aranjuez Cultural Landscape
1044
Spain
C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Aranjuez Cultural Landscapeon the World Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii):
Aranjuez represents the coming
together of diverse cultural influences to create acultural landscape that had a formative influence on
further developments in this field.
Criterion (iv): The complex designed culturallandscape of Aranjuez, derived from a variety ofsources, marks a seminal stage in the development oflandscape design.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

The Mining Area of the Great Copper
Mountain in Falun
1027
SwedenC (ii) (iii) (v)The Committee inscribed The Mining Area of the Great
Copper Mountain in Falun on the World Heritage List
under criteria (ii), (iii), and (v):
Criterion (ii): Copper mining at Falun was influenced
by German technology, but this was to become themajor producer of copper in the 17th century andexercised a profound influence on mining technology
in all parts of the world for two centuries.
Criterion (iii): The entire Falun landscape isdominated by the remains of copper mining andproduction, which began as early as the 9th century andcame to an end in the closing years of the 20th century.
Criterion (v): The successive stages in the economic
and social evolution of the copper industry in the Falun
region, from a form of “cottage industry” to fullindustrial production, can be seen in the abundantindustrial, urban, and domestic remains characteristicof this industry that still survive.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi
1022
UgandaC (i) (iii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the Tombs of Buganda Kings at
Kasubi on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (iii),(iv), and (vi):
Criterion (i): The Kasubi Tombs site is a masterpieceof human creativity both in its conception and in its
execution.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Criterion (iii): The Kasubi Tombs site bears eloquent
witness to the living cultural traditions of the Baganda.
Criterion (iv): The spatial organization of the Kasubi
Tombs site represents the best extant example of aBaganda palace/architectural ensemble. Built in thefinest traditions of Ganda architecture and palace
design, it reflects technical achievements developed
over many centuries.
Criterion (vi): The built and natural elements of the
Kasubi Tombs site are charged with historical,
traditional, and spiritual values. It is a major spiritual
centre for the Baganda and is the most active religious
place in the kingdom.
The Committee noted that the site combines the historicaland spiritual values of a nation.
Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Derwent Valley Mills
1030
United Kingdom
C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Derwent Valley Mills on theWorld Heritage List under criteria (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii): The Derwent Valley saw the birth of thefactory system, when new types of building wereerected to house the new technology for spinningcotton developed by Richard Arkwright in the early
19th century.
Criterion (iv): In the Derwent Valley for the first time
there was large-scale industrial production in a hitherto
rural landscape. The need to provide housing and otherfacilities for workers and managers resulted in thecreation of the first modern industrial towns.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

New Lanark
429 Rev
United Kingdom
C (ii) (iv) (vi)

The Committee inscribed the New Lanark on the World
Heritage List under criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi):
Criterion (ii): When Richard Arkwright’s new factory
system for textile production was brought to New
Lanark the need to provide housing and other facilities
to the workers and managers was recognized. It wasthere that Robert Owen created a model for industrial
communities that was to spread across the world in the
19th and 20th centuries.
Criterion (iv): New Lanark saw the construction not
only of well designed and equipped workers’ housing
but also public buildings designed to improve their
spiritual as well as their physical needs.
Criterion (vi): The name of New Lanark is synonymouswith that of Robert Owen and his social philosophy inmatters such as progressive education, factory reform,
humane working practices, international cooperation,and garden cities, which was to have a profound

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 46

influence on social developments throughout the 19th
century and beyond.
Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Saltaire
1028
United Kingdom
C (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Saltaire on the World Heritage
List under criteria (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii):
Saltaire is an outstanding and wellpreserved example of a mid 19th century industrial
town, the layout of which was to exert a major influenceon the development of the “garden city” movement.
Criterion (iv): The layout and architecture of Saltaireadmirably reflect mid 19th century philanthropic
paternalism, as well as the important role played by the
textile industry in economic and social development.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Samarkand - Crossroads of Cultures
603 Rev
Uzbekistan
C (i) (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Samarkand - Crossroads ofCultures on the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii),and (iv).
Criterion (i): The architecture and townscape ofSamarkand, situated at the crossroads of ancient
cultures, are masterpieces of Islamic cultural creativity.
Criterion (ii): Ensembles in Samarkand such as the Bibi
Khanum Mosque and Registan Square played a seminalrole in the development of Islamic architecture over theentire region, from the Mediterranean to the Indian
subcontinent.
Criterion (iv): The historic town of Samarkand
illustrates in its art, architecture, and urban structure
the most important stages of Central Asian cultural andpolitical history from the 13th century to the present
day.
The Committee noted with satisfaction the extension of thebuffer zone to include the whole Timurid town, thearchaeological area, Ulugh-Bek’s Observatory, and the 19th
century development. It encouraged the city to continue
with the preparation of an integrated management plan forthe historic town as a whole and to report back to theCommittee at its twenty-eighth session in 2004.

B.

Property

Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace,
Lhasa [Extension to include theNorbulingka area]
707 TerChina
C (i) (iv) (vi)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of theinscribed property, Potala Palace and the Jokhang
Temple Monastery, Lhasa, to include the Norbulingka
area, maintaining the existing criteria (i), (iv), and (vi).
The Committee noted that, because of development
pressures in the city of Lhasa, particular attention be given
to the mitigation of the changes in the areas surrounding
the World Heritage properties.

Property

Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Painted Churches in the Troodos
Region [ Extension to include the Churchof Ayia Sotira, Palaichori ]351 BisCyprusC (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee decided to approve the extension of the
Painted Churches in the Troodos Region, maintaining theexisting criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv).
This serial
10 structures:
DATE

inscription

NAME

will

henceforth

includeLOCATIONINSCRIBED

1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
1985
2001

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Extensions of Cultural Properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List

Church of Ayios Nikolaos (St. Kakopetria
Nicholas) tis Steyis
Ayios
Ionannis(St.
John) Kalopanayioti
Lambadhistis Monasterys
Church of Panayia (The Virgin) Nikitart
Phorviotissa (Asinou)
Church of Panayia (The Virgin) tou Lagoudhera
ArakouChurch of Panayia (The Virgin)
Moutoullas
Church of Archangelos Michael Pedhoulas(Archangel Michael)
Church of Timios Stavros (Holy Pelendria
Cross)
Church of Panayia (The Virgin) Galata
Podhithou
Church of Stavros (Holy Cross) Platanistasa
Ayiasmati
Church of Ayia Sotira (Trans- Palaichori
figuration of the Savior)

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 47

Property

Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Mudejar Architecture of Aragon[Extension of the Mudejar Architecture ofTeruel]378 BisSpain
C (iv)The Committee decided to approve the extension of the
Mudejar Architecture of Teruel, maintaining the existing
criterion (iv). The State Party was urged to complete andimplement the required management plan as soon as
possible, and to take the necessary measures to guaranteethat the relationship of the monuments with their historicsetting be maintained. The State Party agreed to the changeof the name to "Mudejar Architecture of Aragon."This serial
10 structures:

inscription

will

henceforth

Furthermore, the Committee suggested that a workshop
could be organized on the question of authenticity andreconstruction to provide clear guidance in this matter.

D.

Property
Id. N°
State Party

include

TOWN

NAME

1986

Teruel

1986
1986
1986
2001

TeruelTeruelTeruelCalatayud

2001
2001
2001

Cervera dela Cañada
Tobed
Zaragoza

Torre, techumbre y cimborrio de lacatedral de Santa María deMediavilla
Torre e iglesia de San Pedro
Torre de la iglesia de San Martín
Torre de la iglesia del Salvador
Abside, claustro y torre decolegiata de Santa María
Iglesia parroquial de Santa Tecla

2001

Zaragoza

2001

Zaragoza

INSCRIBEDC.

Iglesia de Santa María
Restos mudéjares de palacio de la
Aljafería
Torre e iglesia parroquial de San
Pablo
Abside, parroquieta y cimborriode La Seo

Property which the Committee deferred

Property
Id. N°
State Party

The Bolgar Historical and Architectural
Complex981
Russian Federation

The Committee discussed extensively the authenticity andmaterials used for reconstruction at the site. Severaldelegates questioned whether the type of early
documentary evidence supplied from the 19th century
would be sufficient to guarantee authenticity for thereconstruction of the Great Minaret.
A number of interventions focused on the importance ofthe site as historical evidence for a nomadic empire. The
Committee encouraged the State Party to submit a revised
nomination dossier, which further elaborated the history of
movements of people.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

JurmalaWoodenConstruction(Dzintari District of Summer Cottages)
1036
LatviaThe Committee did not inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.

II.
DATE

Property which the Committee did not inscribe
on the World Heritage List

MIXED PROPERTY

Property
Id. N°
State Party

Karain Caves and Surroundings
1059
TurkeyThe Committee decided not to inscribe the Karain Caves
and Surroundings on the World Heritage List under natural
criteria.
Concerning cultural values, the Committee noted that the
Bureau at its twenty-fifth session decided that further
consideration of this nomination be deferred, so that theState Party may prepare and present both a morecomprehensive and scientifically well documented
justification for inscription and an adequate management
plan for the site.

III.

NATURAL PROPERTIESA.

Properties which the Committee inscribed on
the World Heritage List

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Brazilian Atlantic Islands: Fernando deNoronha and Atol das Rocas Reserves
1000 Rev
BrazilN (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Brazilian Atlantic Islands:
Fernando de Noronha and Atol das Rocas Reserves on theWorld Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii), (iii) and(iv):
Criterion (ii): Fernando de Noronha / Rocas Atollrepresents over half the insular coastal waters of theSouthern Atlantic Ocean. These highly productive
waters provide feeding ground for species such as tuna,
billfish, cetaceans, sharks, and marine turtles as theymigrate to the Eastern Atlantic coast of Africa. An
oasis of marine life in relatively barren, open ocean,

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 48

the islands play a key role in the process ofreproduction, dispersal and colonisation by marineorganisms in the entire Tropical South Atlantic.
Criterion (iii): Baía dos Golfinhos is the only known
place in the world with such a high population ofresident dolphins and Rocas Atoll demonstrates aspectacular seascape at low tide when the exposed reefsurrounding shallow lagoons and tidal pools forms anatural aquarium. Both sites have also exceptional
submarine landscapes that have been recognised
worldwide by a number of specialised diving
literatures.
Criterion (iv): Fernando de Noronha / Rocas Atoll is a
key site for the protection of biodiversity andendangered species in the Southern Atlantic. Providing
a large proportion of the insular habitat of the South
Atlantic, the site is a repository for the maintenance ofmarine biodiversity at the ocean basin level. It is
important for the conservation of endangered andthreatened species of marine turtles, particularly thehawksbill turtle. The site accommodates the largest
concentration of tropical seabirds to be found in theWestern Atlantic Ocean, and is a Global Centre of Bird
Endemism. The site also contains the only remaining
sample of the Insular Atlantic Forest and the only
oceanic mangrove in the South Atlantic region.
The site consists of the Archipelago of Fernando deNoronha and Atol das Rocas, a reef approximately 150 km
to the west of the Archipelago.
Area
National Marine Park of Fernando deNoronha
Biological Marine Reserve of Rocas
Atoll

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Location
State of
Pernambuco
State of Rio Grande
do Norte

Cerrado Protected Areas: Chapada dos
Veadeiros and Emas National Parks
1035
BrazilN (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed the Cerrado Protected Areas:
Chapada dos Veadeiros and Emas National Parks on theWorld Heritage List on the basis of criterion (ii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii): The site has played a key role formillenia in maintaining the biodiversity of the Cerrado
Ecoregion. Due it its central location and altidudinalvariation, it has acted as a relatively stable species
refuge when climate change has caused the Cerrado tomove north-south or east-west. This role as a species
refuge is ongoing as Earth enters another period ofclimate change.
Criterion (iv): The site contains samples of all key
habitats that characterise the Cerrado ecoregion – oneof Earth’s oldest tropical ecosystems. It contains over
60% of all floral species and almost 80% of allvertebrate species described for the Cerrado. With the
exception of the Giant Otter, all of the Cerrado’s

Report of the World Heritage Committee

endangered large mammals occur in the site. In
addition, the site supports many rare small mammals
and bird species that do not occur elsewhere in the
Cerrado and a number of species new to science havebeen discovered in the Cerrado Protected Areas.
The site comprises two parts:
Park
Chapadados
Veadeiros
National Park
Emas National
Park

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

LocationCentral Brazil Plateau, NE
State of GoiásSize
235,970 haCentral Brazil Plateau, SW
State of Goiás

131,386 ha

Alejandro de Humboldt National Park839 Rev
Cuba
N (ii) (iv)

The Committee inscribed Alejandro de Humboldt National
Park on the World Heritage List under natural criteria (ii)and (iv):
Criterion (ii): The size, altitudinal diversity, complex
lithologies, and landform diversity of Alejandro de
Humboldt National Park have resulted in a range of
ecosystems and species unmatched in the Insular
Caribbean. It was a Miocene-Pleistocene refuge site,
particularly in the glacial eras, for the Caribbean biota.
The fresh water rivers that flow off the peaks of thepark are some of the largest in the insular Caribbean
and because of this have high freshwater biologicaldiversity. Because of the serpentine, peridotite, karst
and pseudokarst geology of the region, the park is an
excellent example of ongoing processes in theevolution of species and communities on underlying
rocks that pose special challenges to plant survival.
Criterion (iv): Alejandro de Humboldt National Park
contains the most important and significant natural
habitats for in-situ conservation of terrestrial biologicaldiversity in the entire insular Caribbean. It contains 16
of 28 plant formations defined for Cuba, the largest
island in the Caribbean, which is a uniquebiogeographic province. It is one of the most importantsites for conservation of endemic flora in the entire
Western Hemisphere – nearly 70% of the 1,302
spermatophytes already described, of an estimated totalof 1,800-2,000, are endemic to the park. The park is
one of the most biologically diverse terrestrial tropicalecosystems in an island setting anywhere on earth.
Endemism rates for vertebrates and invertebrates foundin the park are also very high. Many of these arethreatened because of their small range. Because of
their uniqueness and the fact that they represent uniqueevolutionary processes, they are of outstanding
universal value from the point of view of science andconservation.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 49

climatic change is particularly well illustrated in theregion, as reflected in the varying rates of retreat of thedifferent glaciers, in turn providing new substrates forongoing ecological succession.
Criterion (iii): The impressive landscape of theJungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region has played an
importantrole
in European literature,art,mountaineering and alpine tourism. The aesthetics ofthe area have attracted an international clientele and it isglobally recognised as one of the most spectacularmountain regions to visit.

The Committee requested that the management plan befinalized within a timeframe of 12 months and be sent to
the World Heritage Centre in three copies.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Central Sikhote-Alin
766 Rev
Russian Federation
N (iv)The Committee inscribed Central Sikhote-Alin on theWorld Heritage List under criterion (iv):
Criterion (iv): The nominated area is representative of
one of the world’s most distinctive natural regions. The
combination of glacial history, climate and relief has
allowed the development of the richest and most unusual
temperate forests in the world. Compared to othertemperate ecosystems, the level of endemic plants andinvertebrates present in the region is extraordinarily highwhich has resulted in unusual assemblages of plants andanimals. For example, subtropical species such as tiger
and Himalayan bear share the same habitat with species
typical of northern taiga such as brown bear andreindeer. The site is also important for the survival ofendangered species such as the scaly-sided (Chinese)merganser, Blakiston’s fish-owl and the Amur tiger.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

The Committee inscribed the Dorset and East Devon Coaston the World Heritage List under criterion (i):Criterion (i): The Dorset and East Devon Coast
provides an almost continuous sequence of Triassic,
Jurassic and Cretaceous rock formations spanning theMesozoic Era, documenting approximately 185 million
years of Earth history. It also includes a range ofinternationally important fossil localities – vertebrate
and invertebrate, marine and terrestrial - which haveproduced well-preserved and diverse evidence of life
during Mesozoic times.

This serial nomination consists of two protected areas in
the Sikhote-Alin mountain range in the extreme southeastof the Russian Federation:
Name
Sikhote-Alin Nature Preserve
Goralij Zoological Preserve

Location
Terney district
Coastal zone on the Sea ofJapan, N of Terney

The Committee encouraged the State Party to improve
management of the Bikin River protected areas (Bikin
Territory of Traditional Nature Use and Verkhnebikinski
zakaznik) before nominating it as an extension.

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn
1037
Switzerland
N (i)(ii)(iii)

The Committee inscribed the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhornon the World Heritage List under criteria (i), (ii), and (iii):
Criterion (i): The Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn regionis the most glaciated area in the Alps and incorporates
the Great Aletsch glacier, the largest and longest in
western Eurasia. It is thus of significant scientificinterest in the context of glacial history and ongoingprocesses, particularly related to climate change.
Criterion (ii): The Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn
region provides a wide range of alpine and sub-alpine
habitats. Superb examples of ecological succession
exist, including the distinctive upper and lower treeline of the Aletsch forest. The global phenomenon ofReport of the World Heritage Committee

Dorset and East Devon Coast
1029
United Kingdom
N (i)

B.

Extensions of Natural Properties inscribed on
the World Heritage List

Property
Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Galápagos Islands [Extension to include
the Galápagos Marine Reserve]
1 Bis
EcuadorN (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee approved the extension of the Galápagos
Islands by the addition of the Galápagos Marine Reserve,
maintaining the existing natural criteria (i), (ii), (iii) and(iv). The Marine Reserve adds substantially to thejustification of the existing World Heritage site as one ofthe premier nature reserves on the planet. The Committee
requested the Government of Ecuador to finalize as soon
as possible the adoption of the regulations deriving fromthe Special Law for Galápagos.
The Committee stressed the importance of long-term
protection and management of the site and noted that theextension will further enhance the protection of the site.
The Committee commended the State Party on progress
made and requested it to invite a mission to review the
implementation of the regulations in late 2002.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 50

C.
Property

Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Lake
Turkana
National[Extension of Sibiloi/Central
National Parks]
801 BisKenya
N (i) (iv)Parks
IslandProperties which the Committee did notinscribe on the World Heritage List

Property
Id. N°
State Party

Holy Tops (Svyati Gory)
1047
Ukraine

The Committee approved the extension of the extension of
Sibiloi/Central Island by the addition of South Island
National Park, maintaining the existing criteria (i) and (iv).
As requested by the State Party, the new name of the sitewould be “Lake Turkana National Parks”.

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.

This serial inscription includes three protected areas:

Id. N°
State Party

DATE

PARK

Sibiloi National Park
Central Island
South Island

Polissian Swamps
Ovruch Ridge
1048
UkraineandSlovechno-

AREA

INSCRIBED

1997
1997
2001

Property

157,085 ha
500 ha3,900 haThe Committee did not inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.

The Committee strongly encouraged the Kenyan
authorities to complete the management plan for the threeparks as an integrated unit.

Property
Id. N°
State Party

Property

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.

Id. N°
State Party
Criteria

Volcanoes of Kamchatka [Extension to
include Kluchevskoy Nature Park ]765 BisRussian Federation
N (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee approved the extension of the Volcanoesof Kamchatka by the inclusion of the Kluchevskoy Nature
Park as the sixth component. In addition to the 1996
inscription under criteria (i), (ii), and (iii), the Committee
decided to inscribe the site also under criterion (iv).
Criterion (iv) The site contains an especially diverse
range of palearctic flora, including a number ofnationally threatened species and at least 16 endemics,
and 33 mammal species, including internationallysignificant populations of sea lions and sea otter and athriving population of brown bear, as well as 145 bird
species. The rivers inside and adjacent contain theworld's greatest known diversity of salmonid fish.
This serial inscription includes six protected areas:Dateinscribed

Name of Park

1996

Kronotsky State Biosphere Nature
Preserve
Bystrinsky Nature Park
Nalychevo Nature Park
Southwestern Tundra Nature Reserve
Southern Kamchatka Nature Park andthe Southern Kamchatka State Nature
Reserve
Kluchevskoy Nature Park

1996
1996
1996
1996

2001

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Area
1,007 ha1,500 ha265 ha123 ha1,025 haProperty
Id. N°
State Party

Kaniv's Hills (Kanivski Gory)
1049
UkraineKaradag
1050
Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.

Property
Id. N°
State Party

Podillian Ridge
1051
Ukraine

The Committee did not inscribe the property on the World
Heritage List.
Following the review of the five nominations from
Ukraine, the Committee noted that potential sites fornomination could be identified by means of a World
Heritage expert workshop, organised by the World
Heritage Centre and the Ukrainian authorities. Such aworkshop could develop an understanding of World
Heritage requirements, help in the selection of appropriate
sites and set the required standards for their management.
Ideally, the workshop would involve natural heritage
specialists from neighbouring countries as well as
Ukrainian specialists. Cultural interests should also be
involved, because several sites reviewed by IUCN haveimportant cultural components.

376 ha

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 51

The Identification of un-represented or lessrepresented categories of natural and culturalproperties
X.7
The Director of the World Heritage Centre
introduced the topic by recalling the decision of theCommittee at its twenty-fourth session in Cairns,
Australia, in 2000 to limit, for a two-year trial period, thenumber of new nominations to be examined by theCommittee in June 2003 to thirty. The Committee agreed
to implement the decision according to a priority system:
1.

States Parties with no sites on the List may submit up
to three new nominations;2.

All other States Parties may submit only one newnomination;

3.

If the number of new nominations is greater than
thirty, then a selection process will be applied, basedon whether the nomination falls into one or more unrepresented or less-represented categories.

X.8
He noted that the Committee had also decided toconsider nominations which had been deferred or referredfrom previous meetings, as well as extensions to sites
already inscribed in addition to the thirty new nominations.
He invited the Committee to consider the case oftransboundary nominations, which he proposed as anothercategory of nomination which could be excluded from the
30-nomination limit, as a means to encourage morenominations of this type.
X.9
The Director indicated that an examination of thenumber of States Parties which had actually submitted newnominations each year revealed that in only two cases overthe life of the Convention had more than thirty States
Parties submitted new nominations in any one year. The
implication of this, he stressed, was that if each State Party
submitted only one nomination, it was quite possible that
the Secretariat would receive less than 30 nominations. In
that case, no selection of nominations to be examinedbased on un- or less-represented categories would need tobe made.
X.10
Finally, in the event that more than thirty
nominations were received, the Director described several
proposed selection processes that had been examined. In
particular, he suggested that, to address the smaller
number of natural sites on the World Heritage List, theCommittee accept all natural nominations up to a certain
specified limit.
X.11
A long discussion followed the Director’spresentation. While some delegates questioned thedecision of the previous Committee to limit the total
number of nominations to be examined, and to limit the
number of new nominations which a State Party could
submit to one per year, other delegates recalled that thesedecisions had been taken as a result of long deliberation in
the Twelfth and Thirteenth General Assemblies, in the
Working Group on Representivity, and in the twenty-

Report of the World Heritage Committee

fourth session of the Committee in Cairns. These meetings
had consistently argued for a limit on the number of
nominations examined by the Committee. This limit would
give the Committee more time to take on its important roleof reviewing the state of conservation of sites alreadyinscribed and to develop a proactive approach to Periodic
Reporting, and to have time for strategic discussions. It
would also relieve the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies
of a workload that had been growing larger each year.
X.12
Several delegates mentioned that the applicationof these rules would disadvantage large States Parties withmulti-ethnic populations whose diverse heritage should bereflected in nominations to the World Heritage List.
X.13
Several observers reminded the Committee of thevoluntary restraints requested of States Parties wellrepresented on the List by the resolutions of the General
Assembly. It was noted that while some well-represented
States Parties had refrained from nominating new sites,
seven of the ten States Parties with the greatest number ofsites had had new sites inscribed on the World Heritage
List this year. Several delegates reminded the Committeethat the decision once taken by the Cairns Committee
should not be reopened at this stage, before the two-year
trial proposed by the Committee had actually taken place.
The Committee also noted that the initial first phase of thisexperiment would only be for one year and was to beevaluated in 2003.
X.14
Concerning the selection process recommendedin Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/12ADD, mostdelegates cautioned against using the preliminary cultural
categories presented therein. In addition, while theproposed priority for natural nominations might beappropriate to some regions, there are more natural thancultural properties in Africa for example. The Committee
regretted that the full analysis of the World Heritage List
and Tentative Lists and the World Heritage List requestedby the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns
had not yet been undertaken. Delegates urged that in thebudget discussions this activity be fully funded so that it
could take place as soon as possible.
X.15
ICOMOS undertook to carry out a summary
analysis of the existing List, to serve as the basis for aworking group on a proposed methodology for selection of
nominations, based on perceived under-represented
regions and categories of property.
X.16
Several delegates took up the proposal that, forthe nominations to be reviewed by the Committee in 2003
(to be received in the Centre by 1 February 2002), theApril 2002 session of the Bureau should be asked for its
guidance if the number of nominations exceeded the 30nomination threshold.
The Committee came to the following consensus
agreement:
X.17
The Committee confirmed that at its session in2003 the number of new nominations examined would be

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 52

limited to a maximum of thirty, as decided at its twentyfourth session in Cairns. In addition to the approved
maximum number of nominations, the Committee would
also consider nominations deferred or referred fromprevious meetings and extensions to the boundaries ofalready inscribed properties. The Committee may alsodecide to consider, on an emergency basis, situations
falling under paragraph 67 of the Operational Guidelines.
X.18
The Committee also confirmed that only one
nomination per State Party would be accepted, except for
those States with no sites on the World Heritage List,
which might present up to three nominations.
X.19
Transboundary nominations would
counted within the limit of thirty nominations.

not

be

X.20
If more than thirty nominations are received, thedate of receipt of full and complete nominations by theWorld Heritage Centre would be considered as asecondary determining factor for the selection, as decided
by the twenty-fourth session of the Committee in Cairns.
X.21
If for reasons of co-incidence in the dates ofpresentation, more than thirty nominations are still
received and acceptable, the issue would be referred to theApril 2002 Bureau for a decision.
XI.

PROGRESS REPORT ON THE GLOBALTRAINING STRATEGY

XI.1
ICCROM presented the Working Document
WHC-01/CONF.208/14, on a Global Training Strategy
and Priority Action Plan (see Annex X), for theconsideration of the Committee.
XI.2
The Committee took note that the proposed
Strategy originated from a request that the Bureau had
made in 1994, and was intended to improve theeffectiveness of the Committee's use of the Fund in
responding to training requests, but also to begin to movetowards a more proactive approach in addressing training
needs.
XI.3
ICCROM recalled that, at its last session in
Cairns, the Committee had requested it to take the lead, inclose co-operation with ICOMOS, IUCN and the Centre,
to produce a synthesis of all previous efforts in order toprepare a comprehensive document integrating concern forboth cultural and natural heritage.
XI.4
The Committee took further note of the structureof this proposed Strategy, composed of a general purpose
and three main principles, with some suggested
operational implications. The latter were included upon thespecific request of the Chairperson of the Committee inMarch 2001.
XI.5
ICCROM explained that the general purpose of
the Strategy was the strengthening of conservation ofcultural and natural heritage worldwide, by increasing theReport of the World Heritage Committee

capacity of those responsible for, and involved with the
management and conservation of World Heritage sites.
XI.6
On the three principles, it was clarified that theyreferred, respectively, to recognizing the cost-effectivenessof training for the achievement of the Committee's overall
objectives, to the need to integrate training into the general
World Heritage planning framework, and to ensuring thehighest possible quality of the training activities carriedout within the framework of the Convention. For each ofthese principles, the relative implications for the work of
the Committee, the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies
was described.
XI.7
ICCROM then introduced the Priority Action
Plan, noting that this moved from needs analysis andidentification of priorities (necessarily linked with the
Periodic Reporting and Global Strategy exercises), to thearticulation of possible training modules and programmes
at global and regional levels. The need for the Committee
to regularly review the general planning framework of the
proposed training programmes for impact andeffectiveness, and the importance of integrating intotraining modules existing regional resources and materials
was emphasized.
XI.8
Among the possible priority areas for action,
ICCROM mentioned a more effective implementation of
the Convention, the improvement of site management andthe strengthening of technical, scientific and traditional
conservation skills. For each of these areas, a list of
possible preliminary themes was provided, recalling thatthese had resulted from close consultations with all
Advisory Bodies.
XI.9
In concluding its presentation, ICCROM stressed
the importance of establishing an appropriate
implementation process, with continued updating ofpriorities and related adjustment of programmes andmodules, and reviewing of results. The Committee
strongly commended ICCROM for the excellent work
accomplished, in collaboration with the other Advisory
Bodies and the Centre, and found the Global Training
Strategy a very useful document, both comprehensive andwell articulated. It also noted with satisfaction that the
Hungarian proposal for the establishment of a Fellowshipscheme had been integrated into the Global Training
Strategy.
XI.10 After some remarks on the need to improve theFrench translation of the text, the Committee stressed thattraining activities carried out in the framework of theWorld Heritage Convention should contribute toimproving conservation of cultural and natural heritage in
general. The Committee also expressed its appreciation forthe list of possible actions related to the Global Training
Strategy, although it cautioned against undertaking too
many initiatives, especially when these have already beendeveloped by other bodies or States Parties.
XI.11 On the proposed areas of action and themes,
IUCN suggested that these be defined taking into account

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 53

the priority programmes agreed upon by the Committee
during the present session, such as the one on Forests.
Among the technical skills, which could be the subject oftraining modules, some members of the Committee
mentioned the conservation of wooden structures in viewof their importance in all regions of the world.
XI.12 With regard to the introduction of a moreproactive approach, the Committee recognized that thiswas a necessity, but warned the Secretariat against an
exclusive top-down needs identification process, andstated that States Parties' requests should not be
discouraged but better organized.
XI.13 The Committee approved the Global Training
Strategy and the Priority Action Plan, and expressed thewish that the progress achieved on its implementation bereviewed regularly at Statutory Meetings.
XII.

PROGRESS REPORT ON THE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

XII.1 The Secretariat introduced Working Document
WHC-01/CONF.208/16 on the proposed World Heritage
Information Management Programme. It recalled that thestrategy of this programme had previously been developedin consultation with interested States Parties and Advisory
Bodies. The World Heritage Information Programmemust have wide participation and close co-ordination. If
the necessary funds are secured, it will create significant
savings in efficiency as well as improvement of theeffectiveness of the Convention.
XII.2 The Programme is based on the following
principles: (1) an incremental approach; (2) partnerships;(3) strengthening the capacity of the less developed States
Parties to handle their own data and information; (4)coordinating and including in the proposed five-year
Programme, the Periodic Reporting Exercise and theinclusion of geo-referenced data; (5) avoidance of
duplication by working jointly with organizations/institutions already involved in conservation, presentationand preservation activities.
XII.3 Within the proposed partnership approach theSecretariat informed the Committee that joint co-operation
with institutions had already been established. The
following partnerships have been established with:
•=

•=

•=

Council of Europe, in order for the World Heritage
Convention to take advantage of the HEREIN system.
This co-operation will provide significant assistanceto the work of gathering and disseminating World
Heritage associated information.
Nordic World Heritage Office, to take advantage of
the Information Technology (IT) tool developed for
the Nordic countries as an assistance tool to obtaincountry and site-related data.
United Nations Environment Programme GRID
Office in Geneva, in order to set up the basis for longterm cooperation to produce basic maps for World
Heritage sites.

Report of the World Heritage Committee•=

International space agencies: This partnership will
benefit the work of the Convention with free access tosatellite data for the monitoring of World Heritage
sites. In addition, the space agencies are willing toassist the Secretariat with the provision of experts andknow-how so that this partnership benefits States
Parties requesting such assistance.

XII.4 The Secretariat emphasized the need to support
States Parties with the development and implementation ofnational World Heritage information systems.
XII.5 The Committee congratulated the Secretariat forthe presentation and expressed its support andendorsement of the World Heritage Information
Management Programme. The Committee underlined its
particular appreciation for the Capacity Building aspects
included in such a Programme, oriented to strengthen
national and regional capacity to manage heritage data andinformation.
XII.6 The Committee underlined the need to have all
the information of the system presented in languages otherthan the official ones. These additional languages are
required to enable local end-users to have optimum
understanding of the information stored and disseminated.
Should this information be translated, the Committee
expressed the need for high quality translations and for thisto be done preferably, by people from the region.
XII.7 The Secretariat drew the attention of theCommittee to the costs associated with translating andmaintaining the information in additional languages. It
proposed that funds could be sought to entrust this task toexisting, recognized regional organizations. This will
enable the establishment of partnerships at regional level
not only to support regional language versions of World
Heritage information but, what is more important, tostrengthen regional capacity.
XII.8 The Committee encouraged and requested theSecretariat to make use of the existing Information
Technology (IT) infrastructure of UNESCO. It also
instructed the Secretariat to continue working jointly withother UNESCO sectors that have already developed
similar information systems. The example of the "Man and
the Biosphere Programme" was mentioned. The fact ofworking jointly with the overall communication andinformation strategy of UNESCO could bring somesavings in the total amount of funding required to support
the World Heritage Information Management Programme.
The Committee requested the Secretariat to describe thelinks of the proposed Programme with the new IT systembeing developed by UNESCO.
XII.9 The Secretariat explained that use is alreadybeing made of the existing IT infrastructure of UNESCO(the servers of the World Heritage Centre are managed andmaintained by the UNESCO Division of Information
Technology), and it is in close contact with the Culture andScience Sectors. These sectors do not manage all
information required by the World Heritage Convention.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 54

The need for a separate World Heritage Information
system remains valid. The new system being developed in
UNESCO (FABS) is a financial system and will assist the
Secretariat in its administrative tasks. Such a system is notdesigned to assist the Secretariat in managing data andinformation associated with the Convention.
XII.10 The Delegate of Hungary expressed his
appreciation for the clarity of the presentation andsupported the proposed Programme in the form of an open
initiative. He indicated that funds have already been
allocated at the national level in order to harmonize theinformation for the national World Heritage sites. He
recalled that Hungary was one of the countries that
initiated the HEREIN initiative. The Secretariat informed
the Committee of current discussions towards a
partnership with Hungary in the area of national heritage
information management.
XII.11 An observer expressed support of the Programme,
but indicated concerns of the use of such a technology by
the less developed States Parties. The Secretariat
recognized the difficulties for certain countries to haveaccess to high-tech (expensive telecommunications
services and non-availability of computers at office level).
However, it was explained that the proposed integrated
system would make the work of the Secretariat and theAdvisory Bodies more efficient, thereby servicing theseStates Parties by dispatching rapidly requested informationin paper format.
XII.12 The Chairperson concluded discussions on thesubject. The Committee adopted the proposed World
Heritage Information Management Programme under theco-ordination of the World Heritage Centre.
XIII.

30TH ANNIVERSARY EVENTS

XIII.1 As requested by the Committee, a specific item
was devoted to the examination of events scheduled totake place during 2002 in celebration of the 30th
anniversary of the World Heritage Convention.
XIII.2 The Director of the Centre introduced this item
giving some background concerning initiatives conductedin the past in celebration of anniversaries. He further notedthat it was important to commemorate the adoption of theConvention as this would certainly give greater visibility
to the Convention and promote its objectives. He further
stressed that most of the events proposed to take place in2002 would be participatory. Such occasions would
provide experts and other actors with opportunities toassess the effectiveness of existing conservation tools andidentify issues to be addressed in the future.
XIII.3 He recalled that the General Assembly of States
Parties of the United Nations had just recently decided toproclaim 2002 as the UN Year of Cultural Heritage, in theaftermath of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in
Afghanistan, and underlined the need to establish linkages
between the anniversary of the Convention and thisdecision.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

XIII.4 The Director of the Centre drew the attention to anumber of events scheduled in 2002 in addition to thetwenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee(Budapest, Hungary), that include the World Summit on
Sustainable Development and the World Heritage Virtual
Congress. He then provided extensive information to theCommittee about the World Heritage International
Congress of Experts, scheduled to take place in Venice,
Italy from 14 to 16 November 2002, following a series oftechnical workshops taking place on 11 and 12 November
2002 in various cities that have accepted to host theseworkshops. He informed the Committee that this Congress
was to be jointly organized by the Italian Government and
UNESCO, following a mission of the Director-General of
UNESCO to Italy in March 2001 and the subsequentdecision of the Italian Government to contribute extra
funding through a Funds-in-Trust framework for World
Heritage activities.
XIII.5 In addition, he informed the Committee that themeeting would also receive funds from other donors andthat a contribution would be made by UNESCO´sRegional Office for Science and Technology in Europe(ROSTE), based in Venice, from extrabudgetary funding it
receives for cultural activities.
XIII.6 The Director stressed the need for this Congress
to be one of high level, involving public personalities andleading experts. In addition, he indicated that the Congress
would be open to the media in order to ensure the visibilityof the event for it to contribute to building the awarenessof the public at large.
XIII.7 Lastly, the Director informed the Committee thatthe initiative had been included in the 2002-2003
UNESCO Programme and Budget that has been approvedby the Executive Board and the General Conference.
XIII.8 While expressing support to activities aimed atcelebrating the 30th anniversary and, more generally thosepromoting the work accomplished in implementing theConvention, and in particular to the organization of anInternational Congress of Experts, several delegates took
the floor to stress the need to consult closely with theCommittee and keep it involved in preparatory stages of
all World Heritage activities in accordance withappropriate decision-making processes. Certain delegates
asked for clarification concerning the agenda of theCongress, how it might directly contribute to theimplementation of the Convention and its relation to thetwenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee.
Certain delegates informed the Committee that at the
Executive Board they had raised legal questions
concerning the distinction between UNESCO and theWorld Heritage Committee during the examination of the
proposed programme and budget for 2002-2003.
XIII.9 Other delegates stressed the need to use the 30th
anniversary and the events linked to it in a forwardlooking manner, as an additional opportunity to assess thework already undertaken, examine achievements, andmake new contributions.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 55

XIII.10 A suggestion was made to invite the Bureau
members, represented through their permanent delegationsin Paris, to attend future meetings of the Steering
Committee of the Congress, as it finalises the programmeof the International Congress and other events linked to the30th anniversary, as have been the Advisory Bodies.
XIII.11 Another suggestion was made regarding the needto encourage the inclusion of a theme relating to the recent
resolution adopted by the General Assembly of States
Parties concerning acts constituting “a crime against thecommon heritage of humanity” and the need to prevent thedestruction of heritage.
XIII.12 The Secretariat was asked to report back to theCommittee after the International Congress to enable theCommittee to examine and evaluate the results of theCongress. ICOMOS suggested studying the possibility of
establishing an International Day for World Heritage,
based on existing examples.
XIII.13 In his response, the Director of the Centre made aclear distinction between the associated events of thesession of the Committee in Budapest organised incelebration of the 30th anniversary of the Convention andthe International Congress of Experts of Venice and madereference to the different scopes of the meetings and thedifference in the type of participants that would attend.
XIII.14 He indicated that the objectives of theInternational Congress were designed within the overall
context of the strategic reform process and were
specifically linked to the development of the partnershipinitiatives for World Heritage conservation. He also
underlined that the Congress would not be a policymaking meeting and had no decision-making power.
XIII.15 He welcomed the proposals made to involve the
Bureau members in the Steering Committee of theCongress while recalling the need for this Steering
Committee to be informal in its nature. He also invited
States Parties to develop other initiatives at the national
level. Finally, he thanked the Committee for theconstructive discussion.
XIV.

AWARENESS – BUILDING AND
EDUCATION ACTIVITIESof heritage. The importance of involving universities in
research and training was also stressed.
XIV.3 Questions were raised concerning specificactivities proposed in the work plan, notably on the World
Heritage Review and the new series of World Heritage
Papers being proposed and underlined the need to ensure
better co-ordination of these activities with other partners,
including the Advisory Bodies, in order to strengthen theimpact of these projects and avoid any duplication ofefforts. The issue of quality control was also raised and theCentre was invited to consult with States Parties concerned
before information materials are produced and used inpromotional contexts, particularly with regard to the public
service announcements under preparation.
XIV.4 The Committee debated on the proposed World
Heritage Visual Identity and the need to examine thisdocument more closely as similar initiatives may havealready been undertaken at local and national levels andnew information may be derived from existing
experiences. The need to keep this new tool as flexible aspossible and to take other visual identities designed by
local management authorities into consideration was alsoemphasized. The design of the new World Heritage
signature, illustrated in the draft Visual Identity manual,
was considered positively, provided that a certain measureof flexibility be given to management and national
authorities for the choice of language versions attached tothis Signature as stipulated in the Guidelines andPrinciples for the use of the World Heritage Emblem
contained in the Operational Guidelines. It was suggested
that the current draft manual on the proposed World
Heritage Visual Identity could be circulated to themembers of the Committee for comments and that a newdraft should be prepared for examination at the next
session of the Bureau in April 2002. This proposal wasapproved by the Committee.
XIV.5 Following the comments made by delegates on
this item, the Committee decided to approve the proposed
work plan of Awareness-Building and Education activities.
In addition, the Committee requested the Centre to study
the process for ensuring the legal protection of the World
Heritage Emblem and report on its findings during the next
session of the Bureau.
International World Heritage Education Workshop

XIV.1 The Chairperson then introduced Agenda item
XIV concerning Awareness Building and Education
Activities and, due to lack of time, asked the Committee toaccept reviewing the work plan of activities proposed in
document WHC-01/CONF.208/17 without hearing theSecretariat's presentation on this item.
XIV.2 The delegates demonstrated their support for thecommunication strategy in developing awareness activities
and reiterated their unyielding support to activities such as
the World Heritage Education project for Young People. It
was suggested that activities in this programme also
include awareness-raising with regard to wilful destruction

Report of the World Heritage Committee

XIV.6 An International World Heritage Education
Workshop, was held concurrently with the twenty-fifthsession of the World Heritage Committee and hosted by
the Finnish National Commission for UNESCO and the
National Board of Education of Finland. The Workshop
brought together sixteen participants (students, teachers
and advisors) who were involved in major World Heritage
Education events in 2001 as well as those preparing
upcoming events in early 2002. The main objectives wereto:•= Present
recentWorld
Heritage
Educationachievements and the results of the external World
Heritage Education evaluation;

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 56

•=
•=
•=

Develop proposals for the integration of the World
Heritage Education Kit in school curricula;
Propose the future orientation for the World Heritage
Education Project;
Formulate recommendations for the 30th Anniversaryof the World Heritage Convention.

XIV.7 On the occasion of the Workshop, the Finnish
version of the World Heritage Educational Resource Kit
for Teachers "World Heritage in Young Hands", waslaunched.
XIV.8 One of the main results of the Workshop was thepresentation made by four young people to the Committee
on 15 December 2001 on:
1.

2.

3.
4.

The First World Heritage Youth Forum for Latin
America and the Caribbean, Lima, Peru, whose main
output was the Lima Declaration;
The World Heritage Marine Environmental
Education Programme for Disadvantaged Youth,
Belize;The Third European Course in Restoration for Youth,
Røros, Norway; andThe 10th International Youth Forum on World
Heritage Education, Karlskrona, Sweden, where theparticipants
developedtheKarlskrona
Recommendations.

XIV.9 During the presentation, the young people
highlighted proposed activities for the 30th Anniversary of
the World Heritage Convention and for the enhancement
and strengthening of the World Heritage Education
Project. The presentations are attached to this report as
Annex XI.
XV.

REPORT ON THE PROPOSED WORLDHERITAGE
INDIGENOUS
PEOPLESCOUNCIL OF EXPERTS (WHIPCOE)

XV.1 The Chairperson sincerely thanked Parks Canada
for having hosted the WHIPCOE workshop in Winnipeg,
Canada in early November 2001 and welcomed thefollowing indigenous delegates to the session: Mr TumuTe Heu Heu (Paramount Chief, Tongariro National Park,New Zealand), Mr Eru Manuera (General Manager, Maori
Issues, Department of Conservation, New Zealand) and
Mrs Josie Weninger (Field Unit Superintendent, Parks
Canada). The Chairperson conveyed the Committee's
respects to the Paramount Chief and thanked him forhaving traveled from New Zealand to attend theCommittee session.
XV.2 Mrs Josie Weninger presented a report on the
proposed WHIPCOE making reference to WHC01/CONF.208/13. Her presentation summarized progresssince the twenty-fifth session of the Bureau in June 2001.
She informed the Committee that the proposed purposes of
WHIPCOE are, in co-operation with States Parties, theAdvisory Bodies and indigenous peoples:

Report of the World Heritage Committee(i) to serve as a network,(ii) to allow indigenous voices to be heard inprotecting and promoting the world's natural andcultural heritage,(iii) to bring complementary indigenous competencies
and expertise, and(iv) to support best practice management and, uponrequest,makerecommendationsfor
improvements.
XV.3 She also made reference to other aspects of the
proposal, such as suggested functions, membership, thereporting process and the funding mechanisms of
WHIPCOE.
XV.4 The Committee thanked Mrs Weninger for her
excellent presentation and commended the WHIPCOE
working group for their work. A number of Committee
members, observers and the representatives of theAdvisory Bodies commented that indigenous peoples havea special role with respect to certain World Heritage
properties and that a network could provide a positive
forum for an exchange of information and experience
concerning their protection.
It was proposed thatindigenous peoples could meet on their own initiative, be
included as part of State Party delegations to theCommittee and were encouraged to be involved in
UNESCO's work relating to the intangible heritage.
XV.5 The Committee raised a number of legal concerns
and issues relating to the funding, legal status, role andrelationships (with the States Parties, Advisory Bodies,
World Heritage Committee and World Heritage Centre).
Some members of the Committee questioned the definitionof indigenous peoples and the relevance of such a
distinction in different regions of the world. As a result,
the Committee did not approve the establishment of
WHIPCOE as a consultative body of the Committee or asa network to report to the Committee. The Committee did
not provide funding for a second meeting to discuss
WHIPCOE as proposed in WHC-01/CONF.208/13.
However, the Committee encouraged professional researchand exchange of views on the subject.
XVI.

EXAMINATION
OF
THE
WORLD
HERITAGE FUND AND APPROVAL OF
THE BUDGET FOR 2002-2003

XVI.1 The Director of the Centre presented the Working
Document WHC-01/CONF.208/18 concerning agenda
item 15 on the World Heritage Fund, the income andforecasts, the work plan and the budget for 2002-2003.
This document also presents in annex the budgets
proposed by the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN,ICCROM), the accounts of the World Heritage Fund as at
31 December 2000 and the provisional accounts andincome of the World Heritage Fund as at 31 October 2001.
XVI.2 He called the attention of the Committee to thedecisions to be taken during this session:

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 57

•=

•=

•=

•=

Take note of the approved financial statements of theWorld Heritage Fund for 2000 and the provisional
accounts for 2001, as at 31 October 2001;
Examine the budget of the World Heritage Fund
proposed for 2002-2003 and approve its ceiling anddifferent allocations by chapter and component;
Take a decision on the ceilings for international
assistance, as proposed by the twenty-fifth session of
the Bureau in June 2001;
Study the situation of the World Heritage Fund andthe mandatory and voluntary contributions, and theway to implement the Convention by improving thefinancial resources of the Fund taking into
consideration the draft resolution of the thirteenth
General Assembly for an additional contribution to
the Fund.

XVI.3 The Director of the Centre stressed that for the
first time he submitted for the approval of the Committee abiennial budget (2002-2003), according to the decision
taken by the Committee in Cairns in 2000 to adjust thebudget of the Fund to the biennial budget cycle of theRegular Programme of UNESCO. He indicated that thepresentation of the biennial budget would be improved for2004-2005 based on discussions of a new format and a
new organization of the chapters, reflecting the present
reforms and the new strategic orientations. This revised
structure and the adjustments to the current budget will bepresented to the next Committee session in Budapest for
approval (Agenda items 13 and 14).
XVI.4
•=

•=

•=

The Director then presented the following points:

The situation of current reserves from States Parties
contributions, notably increased by the payment by
the Russian Federation of all its outstanding dues($US1,500,000);
Other available resources for the implementation of
the Convention(Regular Programme Budget,
extrabudgetary funds and income from promotional
activities);
The budget proposed for 2002-2003, for a total
amount of 8.1 million US dollars ($4,105,000 for
2002 and $3,995,000 for 2003).

XVI.5 The Director of the Centre informed theCommittee that despite the current improved state of thereserves, the proposed budget was reduced by 20% incomparison to 1999, and that the income-expenditure ratioof the Fund could not be maintained at the same level
beyond the period 2002-2003. He then indicated that thebudget ceiling for 2002-2003 had been established basedon the recommendations of the Comptroller who suggested
setting it at about 8 million dollars for the biennium, so as
to maintain a certain liquidity of the Fund’s reserves. The
gradual reduction of the reserves of the Fund is due to:•=•=

Stagnation of contributions to the Fund and theirminimum ceiling ($27);
The outstanding dues of mandatory contributions
which concerns 51 States Parties;

Report of the World Heritage Committee•=•=($474,780) and some voluntary contributions($915,313);
A relatively high implementation rate of activities,
which does not permit a substantial replenishment of
the operational reserve.

XVI.6 The Director then evoked the pending questions
concerning the current budget.
•=

•=

•=

The establishment of a separate bank account for theWorld Heritage Fund, to avoid tedious enquiries
concerning contributions made to the Fund, paid into
the UNESCO bank account at the Chase Manhattan
Bank, New York;The ten-month time period between the Committee inJune and the Bureau in April and the eventual
modifications to be made to the current system forauthorization of expenditure;
The level of budget ceilings authorized by the
Chairperson of the Committee.

XVI.7 Before the chapter-by-chapter examination of thebudget, the Chairperson invited comments from theCommittee members. A delegate expressed the wish of theinformal working group on the budget which met prior to
the debate, that the budget of the Fund be presented in a
new simplified format providing an overall view of all thesources of income, real and projected expenditures, andtaking into account the current reforms and strategicorientations. Several delegates endorsed the establishmentof a separate bank account for contributions to the Fundand asked that a proposal be made along these lines. The
Committee requested that coherence between the budget of
the Fund and the activities under extrabudgetary resources,
be highlighted, and an appropriate work plan beelaborated. Concern was expressed with regard to theoutstanding dues, which amounted to the additional
allocation that the Director-General requested the General
Conference of UNESCO to grant to the Centre to reinforce
its activities, but which was not approved. The Committee
expressed appreciation for the commitment and dynamismof the Centre in the preparation and the implementation of
the programme and budget despite the limited resources
available. A delegate indicated that the item dealing withthe budget was placed too late in the Committee agenda
and that the time remaining for discussion was too limited
for in-depth discussion. It was suggested that the Centretake necessary measures to restructure the budget in linewith the current reform process.
XVI.8 The Director of the Centre responded to theobservations of the delegates and reaffirmed that thebudget of the Fund required a better presentation, andmore clarity to enable rapid decision-making by theCommittee. He stressed that the Centre would be pleased
to receive any suggestions from the Committee concerning
the budget presentation and whether or not to discuss thisagenda item at the outset of its session.
XVI.9 He confirmed that the extrabudgetary resources
allocated to the World Heritage Centre were integrated
into the extrabudgetary fund system received by UNESCO

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 58

and that the amount of 13% generally received foroverhead costs (5% for the UNFIP projects) wereredistributed to the Centre up to amount of 6.5% (thebalance being paid to UNESCO’s central services), basedon the actual outstanding expenditures and not theallocated budget.
XVI.10 Several delegates regretted that the total overhead
costs paid by donors were not paid back to the Centre.
They were concerned as to who made the choice of theactivities financed by these projects, the donor or
UNESCO and if their objectives were taken into accountin the framework of the priorities of the Centre.
XVI.11 The Director indicated that before accepting any
contribution, the Centre always entered into a dialogue
with the donors and ensured that there was leeway toadjust the projects to take account of priority activities.
For example, Belgium is supplementing the funds received
from the UNF through extrabudgetary funding.
XVI.12 The Director then presented the draft budget
chapter-by-chapter:
Chapter I – Implementation of the Convention ($320,000
for 2002; $330,000 for 2003)
XVI.13 The Director noted that this Chapter should in the
future comprise other budget lines concerning the servicesof the Advisory Bodies.
XVI.14 Some delegates intervened with regard to therevision of the Operational Guidelines and requested thatsufficient budget be allocated to cover the follow up
activities of the working group in 2002 and the publicationof the Guidelines and their dissemination.
Chapter II – Establishment of the World Heritage List($935,000 for 2002; $820,000 for 2003)
XVI.15 Several delegates requested that the amounts
allocated to the new budget line “Global Framework
Studies” which should regroup the analysis of the World
Heritage List and the studies of the Tentative Lists beincreased. Certain delegates proposed using the funds
foreseen for the “Thematic Studies” by the Advisory
Bodies for these analyses. These studies should beundertaken by the Advisory Bodies concerned and theamounts allocated directly to them. Other delegates
expressed their concern in the reduction of the amounts
allocated to ICOMOS whilst the number of evaluations
would remain unchanged. ICOMOS intervened to confirm
that it had no financial resources other than those of theFund, and that it adjusted its activities in function to thebudget allocated: a reduction would entail de facto adecrease in their activities. IUCN added that it noted the
reductions in the budget, was seriously concerned about
2003, and informed the Committee that many experts
provided services free of charge.
XVI.16 The Director of the Centre commended theAdvisory Bodies on their valuable services unmatched

Report of the World Heritage Committeewith the amounts actually allocated. He then indicatedthat the Centre will propose to the Committee an increaseof allocations for 2003 to the Advisory Bodies to ensurethat the evaluation continues under optimal conditions.

Chapter III – Technical implementation of the Convention($2,120,000 in 2002; $2,150,000 in 2003)
XVI.17 The Director of the Centre then presented the
proposed budget for the different types of international
assistance (Preparatory Assistance, Technical Cooperation, Training, Promotion), the budget proposals for
the ICCROM and IUCN projects and the annex activities.
He proposed to include a new budget line devoted to theevaluation of international assistance devoted to theanalysis on the use of the funds spent on assistancegranted.
XVI.18 Some delegates expressed satisfaction with thisinitiative, requesting a systematic annual evaluation ofinternational assistance, its cost/efficiency ratio for theoperation and the modalities to be implemented. A
delegate insisted on the implication of the Advisory
Bodies in this process. In view of the involvement ofsome of the Advisory Bodies in the actual execution ofinternational assistance activities, the Committee agreed to
entrust the Director of the Centre to find the bestmodalities to carry out this evaluation. Other delegates
requested that this chapter reflect the Committee’s
priorities and that certain categories of countries or regions
should be excluded for the benefit of other priorities.
XVI.19 The Director of the Centre informed that thebudget document indicated, for each type of assistance, theregional division of requests, their number, their type andtheir amount. He added that this assistance was based onrequests presented by the countries and the allocation offunds made according to the priorities and after approvalby the Committee, the Bureau or the Chairperson. He
indicated that the proposed budget for Technical Cooperation had been reduced in comparison to previous
years. However, this area of activities had benefited fromconsiderable extrabudgetary resources.
XVI.20 Some delegates then asked information on the
new programmes proposed by the Centre at the end of thischapter and expressed the wish that the Advisory Bodies
be consulted on such initiatives.
Chapter IV – Monitoring the state of conservation of thesites ($540,000 for 2002; $505,000 for 2003)
XVI.21 For reactive monitoring, the amounts foreseen for
ICOMOS and IUCN were increased by approximately
25% for 2002, thus covering the proposals of the Advisory
Bodies for that year.
XVI.22 For periodic reports: Asia and the Pacific willsubmit periodic reports in 2002 and Latin America and the
Caribbean in 2003. Financial allocations are foreseen in

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 59

nomination. They were concerned about the low level ofthe 2003 budget, not sufficiently high to ensure theseanalyses and requested the Centre to make a new budget
proposal for submission at the next Committee session in
Budapest. The Advisory Bodies renewed their wish toprovide assistance in the reorganization of the work in theframework of the programmes. ICOMOS proposed to use
the funds allocated under the line “Other” to increase theamounts foreseen for the analyses of the Lists. A delegate
finally insisted that the Centre prepare a long-term action
programme to define targeted objectives and expected
results.

2002 and 2003 to ensure monitoring activities for eachregion having already submitted their periodic reports.
XVI.23 Several delegates stated that the amounts foreseen
for follow-up activities to periodic reporting were too low
and barely credible and that the work would not be
productive.
XVI.24 The Director of the Centre responded that
although the amount is modest, the intention is to assist
States Parties to obtain international assistance funds forthese follow-up activities.

XVI.28 The Director of the Centre undertook to revise theallocation of the funds proposed under Chapter II to reflect
the wishes of the Committee members. In particular, theDirector indicated that priority would be given to theincrease in 2003 of the funds allocated for the Advisory
Bodies’ activities, to guarantee at least the same level offunding for 2002. Moreover, the Director informed thatthe budget line “Other advisory services” of Chapter II
would be suppressed and its amount ($20,000) transferredto the activities for the analyses of the Lists to be sharedequally between IUCN and ICOMOS. Each chapter wasthen approved with the budget ceiling proposed.

Chapter V – Awareness raising and Education ($190,000
per year)
XVI.25 The Director presented this Chapter, which nolonger includes statutory documentation and the WEB(Chapter I), and currently only includes awareness raising
activities, partnerships with the tourism industry (theprincipal objective of which is to seek extrabudgetary
resources) and Education activities, comprising inparticular the youth programme for the preservation of theWorld Heritage and some activities with universities.
Following the request of a delegate, the Director indicatedthat no part of the World Heritage Fund budget would be
used for activities linked to the 30th Anniversary of theConvention in 2002 which will be entirely funded byextrabudgetary resources.

XVI.29 The Chairperson closed the debate on theDocument WHC-01/CONF.208/18 and declared that thebudget of the World Heritage Fund for 2002-2003 wasapproved for an amount of four million one hundred andfive thousand dollars ($4,105,000) for 2002 and three
million nine hundred and ninety-five thousand dollars($3,995,000) for 2003.

XVI.26 Several delegates expressed satisfaction with theawareness raising programme for young people for thepreservation of World Heritage.

XVI.30 The following table provides the details of theapproved budget by Chapter and by component.

XVI.27 Following this presentation, members of theCommittee made observations on different aspects of thebudget before the adoption of the report. They once again
insisted that funds be allocated for the analysis of theWorld Heritage List and the tentative lists (Chapter II) to
define the priorities and different categories for

Approved Budget for 2002 and 2003
Approved
Budget
2002(US$)

Chapters and components

Approved
Budget2003(US$)

Chapter I – Implementation of the Convention
Participation in statutory meetings

50 00060 00050 00050 000100 000

100 000

Documentation , Registration & Statutory Web

100 000

100 000

Coordination with other conventions, programmes etc.

20 000

20 000320 000

330 000

Operational Guidelines:
dissemination
Information Management

followup,

publicationandSub-total Chapter I

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 60

Chapters and components

Approved
Budget2002

Approved
Budget2003

Chapter II – Establishment of the World Heritage List
Global Strategy:

325 000

280 000

Analyses of the List & Tentative Lists

65 00060 000Africa30 00025 000Arab States

30 00025 000Asia, including Central Asia

30 00025 000

Pacific

30 00025 000Europe & North America

15 000

10 000Central & Eastern Europe

20 000

15 000Latin America

25 000

20 000

Caribbean

25 000

20 000ICOMOS

30 00030 000IUCN

25 00025 000ICOMOS

310 000

280 000

IUCN

300 000

260 000

Sub-total Advisory Services

610 000

540 000

Sub-total Chapter II

935 000

820 000

Chapter III – Technical Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention
Preparatory Assistance

370 000

400 000

Technical cooperation

650 000

600 000

15 000

15 000

Thematic studies:

Advisory services:

Including Africa 2003 Nature (IUCN/WHC):(i) contribution to IUCN for
projects/activities
preparation(ii) earmarked for regional/national activities benefiting
States Parties
Including other technical cooperation activities

40 00040 000595 000

545 000

Training

800 000

800 000

Including ICCROM support costs

37 90046 050Earmarked for ICCROM training activities

69 40060 000« Africa 2009 » (WHC/ICCROM)

100 000

80 000Including IUCN

30 00030 000Including Africa 2003 Nature (IUCN/WHC):(i) earmarked for regional/national activities benefiting
States Parties- Including other training activities

45 00045 000517 700

538 950

Evaluation of International Assistance

30 00030 000Programme initiatives

200 000

250 000

Support to promotional activities

70 00070 0002 120 000

2 150 000

Sub-total Chapter III

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 61

Approved
Budget2002

Chapters & Components

Approved
Budget2003

Chapter IV – Monitoring of the State of Conservation of sites
Reactive monitoring

220 000

200 000

Including ICOMOS

80 00080 000Including IUCN

80 00060 000Support to State Parties for submission of periodic reports(Article 29):
Africa00

Arab States

00Asia & Pacific

130 0000Europe & North America Pacific20 000

20 000Eastern & Central Europe

30 00040 000Latin America & Caribbean

70 000145 000

250 000

205 000

Arab States

30 00025 000Africa40 00030 000045 000540 000

505 000

Awareness-building

100 000

100 000

Partnerships with tourism industries

10 000

10 000

Education & cooperation with the Universities

80 00080 000190 000

190 000

4 105 000

3 995 000

Emergency Reserve Fund

600 000

600 000

Promotional activities and services

283 000

273 000

4 988 000

4 868 000

Follow-up to periodic reporting:

Asia & PacificSub-total Chapter IV
Chapter V – Awareness & Education

Sub-total Chapter V
TOTAL WHF BUDGETGRAND TOTALXVII.

INFORMATIONASSISTANCEON

INTERNATIONAL

Information on International Assistance – Towards a
Programme Approach
XVII.1 The Secretariat informed the Committee that
document WHC-01/CONF.208/19 provides an analysis ofinternational assistance under the World Heritage Fund
based on the review of more than 1200 requests approved
from 1978 to the end-of September 2001, and proposals
of four thematic programmes aimed to address some of the
major conservation problems of World Heritage sites. The
Secretariat recalled that these programme proposals were

Report of the World Heritage Committee

developed for consideration by the Committee at therequest of the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session which
endorsed the strategic orientations in the use of the World
Heritage Fund’s international assistance. The overall aim,
the Secretariat stated, was to use limited funds in aproactive way and to support conservation activities witha multiplier effect with demonstration value.
XVII.2 The Committee was informed that a total of about
US$27 million had been allocated since 1978 to support
activities requested by the States Parties. Although theamount available annually for international assistance had
increased significantly since 1992, the growing demand
from States Parties of the developing world made it

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 62

impossible to respond adequately to all the requests. In
terms of distribution of the cumulative amount, support toAfrican States Parties represents some 27% (36 States
Parties and 53 properties), Arab States 13% (18 States
Parties and 52 properties), Asia-Pacific 21% (35 States
Parties and 135 properties), Latin America and the
Caribbean 24% (29 States Parties, 98 properties), Europe
and North America 15% (49 States Parties and 352
properties).

•=

•=

•=

XVII.3 The proposed 2002-2003 budget for international
assistance (Chapter III of the budget) is composed of three
sections: (1) States Parties request in accordance with the
Operational Guidelines, for preparatory assistance,
training, technical cooperation and on-site promotion, andemergency assistance for the amount of US$4 million (forbudget details see Chapter XV of this report), (2) World
Heritage Programme Initiatives for the amount of
US$450,000 to launch four thematic programmes and (3)evaluation of international assistance for US$60,000.
XVII.4 Stressing the need for multi-year programmes toensure the sustainability of conservation policies andactions, the Secretariat referred to the mutually reinforcing
relationship between Principles, Programmes, and Partners
which would be the means to achieve "the credibility,
conservation and capacity-building areas" advanced by
the Delegate of Belgium.
XVII.5 The programmes would be guided by theprinciples laid out in the World Heritage Convention andother international conventions on the protection ofheritage and the environment, as well as recommendations
and charters of UNESCO, ICOMOS and IUCN. These
principles would also serve to ensure that the partners tobe solicited to support the programme activities would do
so upon adhering to the conservation objectives of theseinternational norms and standards.
XVII.6 The Committee was informed that the selection of
the themes of the four programmes proposed for theirconsideration was based on the identification of the typesof conservation problems that have resulted in the greater
amount of international assistance in the past, crossreferenced with issues emerging from a review of thereactive monitoring reports and the findings from theperiodic reports (Arab States, Africa and initial findings
from the on-going exercise in Asia-Pacific). The rationale
for the thematic programme, composed of sub-regionaland site-specific activities is to address conservation issues
prevalent in all regions through site-specific activities sothat concrete lessons can serve to improve methodology .
XVII.7 Tourism management; conservation of forestsites; conservation management of cities and conservationof earthen structures were proposed.
XVII.8 The Secretariat provided
justifications for the selection:

Report of the World Heritage Committee

thefollowing•=

Tourism - growing threats on World Heritage sites
from tourism which, if sustainably managed could
offer socio-economic development opportunities;
Forests – since close to 60 of the natural sites on theWorld Heritage List are forests and that the lessons
being learned from the large-scale UNESCO-UN
Foundation projects in the tropical forest sites in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo can serve as casestudies to enrich the programme;
Cities – since close to 200 of the cultural sites on the
List are historic centres or entire cities, and because
20% of the Fund’s international assistance have
served to address the challenge of urban heritage
conservation;
Earthen structures – since some 30 of the cultural sites
on the List are included in this category, and due tothe particularity of conservation of earthen heritage,
and threats.

XVII.9 The Secretariat concluded its presentation bystating that in view of the many other categories ofheritage and the wide range of conservation issues which
need to be addressed in a systematic manner, it would be
prepared to develop alternative programmes should theCommittee wish to give priority to others. The Secretariat
also drew the attention of the Committee to otherprogrammes which can be developed for consideration by
the Committee at Budapest, namely: risk preparedness;
coastal and marine ecosystems; cultural landscapes;
wooden heritage, and mural paintings.
XVII.10 The Committee expressed its appreciation for the
clarity of the presentation and the justifications provided.
Indicating strong support for the overall programming
approach, the Committee however indicated the need forthe programme to respond to the priorities established by
the Committee and to create strong links with the results of
the Global Strategy actions and Periodic Reporting. The
Committee approved the four proposed themes of the
programmes in this first series of initiatives and authorized
the Centre to proceed in their development.
XVII.11 One Committee member requested thedevelopment of a programme for coastal marine and small
island ecosystems, stressing the need to take advantage ofthe attention being given to this by GEF andenvironmental protection agencies. The Secretariat agreed
to its importance and on-going activities in this area but
indicated the need to avoid the dispersion of human andfinancial resources, especially in view of the attention
needed to develop the forest programme.
XVII.12 ICCROM and ICOMOS expressed regret thatthey had not been adequately associated in thedevelopment of the thematic programmes and pilot casestudies, although they had been consulted on the
programme approach. ICCROM stressed that the
programmes proposed by the Centre all have capacitybuilding focus where ICCROM has long years ofexperience. The Secretariat assured the Advisory Bodies
that their involvement is foreseen and would be essential
to the success of these initiatives.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 63

XVIII.

REQUESTS FORASSISTANCE

INTERNATIONAL

XVIII.1 During the Committee's twenty-fifth session, theBureau met to examine all requests for decision by the
Bureau and the Committee presented in Working
Documents
WHC-01/CONF.208/20
and
WHC01/CONF.208/20Add. The Bureau approved the following
requests:
XVIII.2

Preparatory Assistance approved by the
BureauXVIII.2.1 NATURAL Bahrain
Preparation of the nomination file of Hawar Islands: The
Bureau approved US$30,000 for this activity, subject tothe receipt of a detailed budget breakdown to be approvedby the Chairperson. Furthermore, the Bureau requested
the State Party to include within the activity a comparative
study of the site with other coastal island protected areas in
the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea. IUCN
suggested that the professionals implementing this activity
be encouraged to participate at the February 2002 expert
workshop being organized in Vietnam within theframework of the UN Foundation project "Filling criticalgaps and promoting multi-sites approach to newnominations in tropical coastal, marine and small islands
ecosystems".
XVIII.3

Technical Co-operation approved by the
BureauXVIII.3.1 CULTURAL United Republic of Tanzania
Preparation of a Management Plan for the Ruins of Kilwa
Kisiwani Songo Mnara and the extension to Kilwa
Masoko: ICOMOS, while supporting this request, noted
the need to examine further details on the budget
breakdown. ICCROM expressed its support for thisactivity. Simultaneously, it recommended that the Bureau
request the Centre to organize a reactive monitoring
mission to the State Party to undertake consultations forthe future nomination of this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger. The Bureau approved US$24,320 for
this activity, subject to the approval by the Chairperson ofa detailed budget breakdown.
XVIII.3.2 CULTURAL Algeria
Rehabilitation of the traditional hydraulic system in
M’Zab Valley and the organization of a training
workshop: ICOMOS supported the request. The Bureau
approved US$25,000 for this activity, subject to the State
Party paying its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.
XVIII.3.3 CULTURAL Morocco
Rehabilitation and restoration of Bab Agnaou in the
Medina of Marrakesh: ICOMOS, although supporting thisrequest, recommended that the US$4,400 requested forcomputer equipment be financed by the State Party. The
Bureau approved this request for US$22,984 requesting
the computer equipment to be financed by the State Party.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

XVIII.3.4 CULTURAL Estonia
Regional Conference on “Alternatives to Historical
Reconstruction in UNESCO World Heritage Cities” (1618 May 2002): The Bureau approved US$28,000 for thisactivity, requesting the State Party to make all efforts inpublishing the results of the Conference to complement the
UNESCO World Heritage Cities Programme.
XVIII.4

Training
BureauAssistanceapproved

bythe

XVIII.4.1 NATURAL Senegal
Regional workshop for training in wetlands inventory
methodologies: The Bureau was informed that IUCN,
although endorsing the Workshop, had requested further
information on the profile of participants, and had also
noted the usefulness of involving the IUCN Senegal Officein projects in Djoudj or Diawling National Parks as
trainers in addition to Ramsar Convention staff. The
Bureau approved US$21,690 for this activity, subject to
the State Party submitting the list of participants to beapproved by the Chairperson and requesting that the IUCN
Senegal Office be invited to participate in this Workshop.
XVIII.4.2
CULTURAL
Pakistan
Regional seminar for systematic monitoring for enhanced
management of World Cultural Heritage sites in SouthAsia: The Bureau approved US$26,596 for this activity,
requesting the State Party to pay its arrears to the World
Heritage Fund.
XVIII.4.3
CULTURAL
Sri Lanka
National seminar for preparing Periodic Reports for Sri
Lankan World Cultural Heritage properties to be reviewed
by the World Heritage Committee in 2003: ICCROM
supported the request. The Bureau approved US$25,000
for this activity.
XVIII.5
The
Committee
examinedtherecommendations of the Bureau and took the following
decisions for international assistance requests:
XVIII.6

Technical Co-operation approved by theCommittee

XVIII.6.1 NATURAL Seychelles
Enhancing the capacity of Aldabra Atoll management:
The Secretariat informed the Committee that IUCN, while
supporting the request had underlined the importance ofensuring that the boats and the engines purchased haveminimal pollution and are easily maintained.
The
Committee approved US$44,150 for this activity,
requesting the Centre to ensure through the UNESCO
equipment purchasing unit that the engines purchased haveminimum pollution emission and can be maintained.
XVIII.6.2 NATURAL Zimbabwe
Increasing the management capacity of Mosi-oatunya/Victoria Falls and Mana Pools National Parks: The
Centre informed the Committee that the State Party had
paid its dues to the World Heritage Fund, and that
additional information concerning the assessment of the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 64

current situation, particularly concerning existing
equipment, had not yet reached the Centre. However, theCommittee was informed that the State Party had assured
the Centre that this additional information had beentransmitted. Therefore, the Committee approved thisrequest for an amount of US$63,708 on the condition that
the Centre and IUCN receive the additional information,and the allocation of funds be made upon authorization by
the Chairperson.

training activity in close collaboration with CRATerre andthe Ministry of National Heritage and Culture of Oman,
ensuring that:

XVIII.6.3 CULTURAL
The Philippines
Emergency Technical Co-operation for the enhancementof the conservation and management of the Rice Terracesof the Philippines Cordilleras: The Centre informed theCommittee that the Advisory Bodies supported therequest. The Committee approved US$75,000 subject to
the State Party paying its dues to the World Heritage Fund,and requested that the national authorities implement theactivity in close co-operation with the UNESCO Regional
Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region (UNESCO
Bangkok Office).

(iii)

XVIII.7

Training AssistanceCommittee

approved

bythe

XVIII.7.1 NATURAL
Côte d’Ivoire
National workshop on “Research contribution for thedevelopment and sustainable management of Taï National
Park: The Committee approved US$30,514, requesting
the State Party to integrate the recommendations of IUCN
in fine-tuning the objectives of the proposed activity, andurging the State Party to pay its arrears to the World
Heritage Fund.

(i)

(ii)

the detailed technical guidelines concerning baseline conservation, monitoring, and maintenancepractices for earthen architecture in the region be
included within the final publication;
the proceedings and material resulting from theWorkshop be widely distributed;
a follow up strategy be discussed and adopted at
the Seminar.

XVIII.7.5 CULTURAL
Brazil
1st Territorial and Urban Conservation Specialization
Distance Training Programme (ITUC/ALTD 2002) and 5th
Territorial and Urban Conservation Specialization Course(ITUC/BR 2003) (Brazil): The Committee approved thisrequest for US$43,300, requesting the State Party:(i)to follow ICCROM’s recommendation to raise
the percentage of places for participants fromoutside Brazil to 25 %;(ii) to submit the results of the group work to theWorld Heritage Centre after the activity iscompleted;(iii) to pay its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.
XVIII.7.6 CULTURAL
Brazil
XII CECRE specialization course on the conservation ofmonuments and rehabilitation of historical cities: The
Committee approved this request for US$50,000,
requesting the State Party:(i)to include a substantial number of international
trainees;(ii) to strengthen presentation of World Heritage
themes in the CECRE programme;(iii) to publish the course proceedings at their own
expense as assured in previous years;(iv) to pay its arrears to the World Heritage Fund.

XVIII.7.2 CULTURAL
WHC, ICCROM,
CRATerre-EAG
AFRICA 2009: Conservation of Immovable Cultural
Heritage in Sub-Saharan Africa:
The Committee
approved this request for the sub-Saharan African Region
for an amount of US$100,000, noting that the activity be
implemented by the World Heritage Centre, ICCROM and
CRATerre-EAG, in accordance with establishedprocedures governing the Africa 2009 training programme.

XVIII.8

XVIII.7.3 CULTURAL
Algeria
Workshop on mosaic conservation: The Centre informed
the Committee that clarification on the points raised by
ICCROM had been provided and that ICCROM supported
the activity. The Committee approved this request for
US$50,000.

XVIII.8.1 NATURAL Central African Republic
Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park Emergency
Rehabilitation Plan: The Committee was informed that therequested clarifications had been received. IUCN
expressed its support for the request. The Committee
approved US$150,000 for this activity.

XVIII.7.4 CULTURAL
Oman
Regional Seminar on the Conservation of Earthen
Architecture: ICOMOS and ICCROM noted that theamount requested could be considered high, as the training
workshop was only for three days. The Centre informed
the Committee that the cost included travel support forparticipants from the region and that this seminar was anactivity that could lead to a general capacity building forearthen architectural conservation in the Arab Region. The
Committee approved US$43,340, requesting the World
Heritage Centre to co-ordinate the organization of this

XVIII.9
The Committee reiterated that States Parties
requesting international assistance should be requested toprovide budget breakdown for the utilization of funds to beprovided from the World Heritage Fund and for requests
over US$100,000 to be more detailed.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Emergency Assistance

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 65

XIX.

DATE,
PLACE
AND
PROVISIONALAGENDA OF THE TWENTY-SIXTHSESSION OF THE BUREAU OF THE
WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE (APRIL
2002)

XIX.1 The Committee decided that the twenty-sixth
session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee
would be held at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris from 8
to 13 April 2002.
XIX.2 The Committee decided that agenda items onreforms and strategic reflection should be considered by
the Bureau early in the meeting to ensure enough time fordebate, decision and report preparation.
XIX.3 The Committee requested that presentations to the
Bureau and Committee be brief to allow time fordiscussion.
XIX.4 The Delegate of Hungary informed theCommittee that a draft "Budapest Declaration on World
Heritage" prepared by Hungary would be circulated to all
States Parties for comment and then presented to the
Bureau for discussion before being presented to theCommittee for adoption.
XIX.5 The Reports on the 30 years of the World
Heritage Convention (Item 2) will be presented to the
Budapest session by experts and representatives of theAdvisory Bodies. Proceedings of this item could be
prepared for publication following the session.
XIX.6 The Provisional Agenda and Timetable isattached in Annex XII.

XX.

DATE,
PLACE
AND
PROVISIONALAGENDA OF THE TWENTY-SIXTHSESSION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE
COMMITTEE (JUNE 2002)

XX.1 The Committee gratefully accepted the offer from
Hungary to host the twenty-sixth session of the World
Heritage Committee in Budapest from 24 to 29 June 2002.
XX.2 In addressing the Committee, the Delegate of
Hungary said that it was an honour for his Government tohost the Committee session. An Internet site has been
established to provide information on the organization of
the Committee: http://www.whc.bme.hu/
XX.3 The Delegate of Lebanon requested inclusion of
an item on the agenda on changes to the Rules ofProcedures to not allow Observers to make interventions
during examination of a nomination. The Delegate of theUnited Kingdom commented that in the case of Observers
who were experts, they were often in a position to provide
information to help the Committee make an informed
decision.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

XX.4 The Delegate of Belgium requested that theReport of the Secretariat (Item 5) be provided only as awritten report for noting.
XX.5 The Provisional Agenda and Timetable isattached in Annex XIII.
XXI.

OTHER BUSINESS

XXI.1

There was no other business.

XXII.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORTXXII.1 The Committee adopted the Report with a numberof amendments, which have been taken into considerationin the preparation of the final version of the Report.
XXII.2 During the adoption of section X of the report adebate took place concerning the implementation of theCommittee’s decision on the selection of 30 nominations
to be reviewed by the Committee in 2003. A number ofCommittee members sought clarification on the wordingof paragraphs X.16 and X.21. It was agreed that if morethan 30 complete and acceptable nominations are received
by the Centre by 1 February 2002, the matter would bereferred to the April 2002 Bureau for guidance.
XXII.3 With reference to the debate reflected inparagraph X.12, the Delegate of India recalled that while
the Committee welcomed the decisions on reforms madein Cairns as a positive development, there are a number ofinherent contradictions. In particular whilst aiming
towards representativity and equity, the Committee should
ensure that further imbalances are not accentuated between
the un- and underrepresented and over-represented regions
and categories. Countries with un- or underrepresented
categories of heritage should not be debarred just because
they are already overrepresented. India views the process
as an inclusive one.
XXII.4 The Delegate of St. Lucia noted that there was arequest for legal advice, as to whether it was possible for
the Committee to amend a resolution of the General
Assembly.

XXIII. CLOSURE OF THE SESSIONXXIII.1 The Rapporteur thanked the Chairperson for the
harmonious work in chairing the session and expressed his
gratitude to the Finnish authorities, the delegates andobservers for their contributions to the session and thereport. He underlined that in the spirit of solidarity,
progress had been made at this Committee meeting withregard to a number of items under discussion for a longtime.
XXIII.2 On behalf of the Committee members andparticipants, the Delegate of Egypt thanked the
Chairperson for his effective and wise chairmanship. He
expressed his gratitude to the Director of the Centre andhis team for serving the Committee in an admirable way

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 66

and stated that he will be looking forward to the next
Committee session in Budapest, Hungary.
XXIII.3 In supporting this intervention, the Delegate ofIndia commended the Chairperson on his excellent and fairmanagement of the Committee session. She highlighted
the fact that the next session will be an anniversary eventand that the way has been paved for the revised
Operational Guidelines, the review of the categories and anumber of other issues defining the way ahead. She also
thanked the Centre and its Director for their excellent
work.
XXIII.4 The Delegates of Santa Lucia and Argentina
also expressed their gratitude to the Chairperson, theRapporteur, the Centre, the interpreters and translators andthe Finnish Secretariat for the work achieved.
XXIII.5 The Delegate of Nigeria, attending his first
Committee session and speaking on behalf of the African
region, also expressed his gratitude to the Chairperson andall participants.
XXIII.6 The Delegate of the United Kingdom thanked
the Chairperson on behalf of the European region for
managing the session in a timely fashion as well as all
those involved in its smooth running.
XXIII.7 The Director of the World Heritage Centre, Mr
Francesco Bandarin, on behalf of the Director-General of
UNESCO, expressed his gratitude to the Finnish
authorities. With reference to the conclusions reached by
the Committee on the establishment of an Indigenous
Council of Experts, he stated that UNESCO will continue
to support the initiatives relating to the promotion of therights of indigenous peoples in the framework of theUnited Nations International Decade of the World's
Indigenous People (1995-2004). He sincerely thanked theCommittee for its work and engagement and expressed thefirm commitment of the Secretariat to serve the Committee
in the best way possible to improve communication among
all World Heritage partners, including the Advisory
Bodies.
XXIII.8 The Chairperson thanked the Committee for theencouraging words and articulated his wish to continue the
new working methods, which have been developed since
the sessions in Marrakesh (1999) and Cairns (2000). He
thanked all delegates, observers, the advisory bodies andthe Secretariat for their constructive and active
participation in the Committee’s work and the Finnish
authorities for having organized and provided the facilities
for this session.
XXIII.9 The Chairperson then declared the twenty-fifthsession of the World Heritage Committee closed.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 67

ANNEX I/ ANNEXE I

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEECOMITE DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Twenty-fifth session/ Vingt-cinquième session
Helsinki, Finland/ Helsinki , Finlande
11-16 December 2001/11-16 décembre 2001

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS / LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS_____________I.

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE/ETATS MEMBRES DU COMITE

ARGENTINA/ARGENTINEBELGIUM/BELGIQUE

H.E. Mr Lucio Garcia Del Solar
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Argentina to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE

H.E. Mr Yves HaesendonckAmbassadeur
Délégation permanente de la Belgique auprès del’UNESCO
4 Villa de Saxe
75007 PARISFRANCE

Ms Maria Susana Pataro
Direction Organisations Internationales
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères
Esmeralda 1212
BUENOS AIRES C1007 ABP
Mr Ariel W. Gonzalez
Secretary of Embassy
Permanent Delegation of Argentina to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis -7th floor
Paris 75015
FRANCEDr Patricia Marconi
Directora Regional
Administración de Parques Nacionales
Santa Fe 23
SALTA 4400
Mr Carlos Pernaut
Consultant
Secretariat of Culture and Communication
Alvear 1690
Buenos Aires 1014

Report of the World Heritage Committee

M. Edgard Goedleven
Chef de Division des Monuments et Sites
Ministère Communauté FlamandeKon. Albert II - Laan 20 Bus 7
BRUXELLES 1000
Mme Bénédicte Selfslagh
Relations Internationales
Division du Patrimoine du Ministère de la Région
Wallonne
p/a 30 Avenue Junot
PARIS 75018
FRANCE
M. Philippe Thiéry
Directeur du Service Monuments et Sites
Ministère de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
CCN, Rue du progrès 80bte 1
BRUXELLES 1030
Dr Paul Van Lindt
Ministère Communauté Flamande
Division des Monuments et Sites
Kon. Albert II - Laan 20 Bus 7
Bruxelles 1000

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 69

CHINA/CHINE
Mrs Shi Shu Yun
Deputy Secretary-General
Chinese National Commission for UNESCO
35, Damucang Hutong, Xidan
BEIJING 100816
Mr Zhi Jung Yang
Director
Dept. of Protection of Cultural Property
State Administration of Cultural Heritage
N.10 Chaoyangmen Street
BEIJING 100020
Mr Zhan Guo
Inspector
State Administration of Cultural Heritage
Secretary General ICOMOS/China
N.10 Chaoyangmen Street
BEIJING 100020
Mr Zhe Li
Deputy Director
International Organisations
Dept. of International Relations
Ministry of Construction
9, Sanlihe Road
BEIJING 100835
Ms Zuo Xiaoping
Deputy Director
Office of National Park
Ministry of Construction
9, Sanlihe Road
BEIJING 100835
Mr Chen Xicheng
Deputy Director
Construction Bureau of Yunan Province
KUNMING 650032
Ms WeiWei Sheng
Deputy-Director of Foreign Affairs
State Administration of Cultural Heritage
N.10 Chaoyangmen Street
BEIJING 100020
Mr Chamba Kelsang
Director
Administration of Potala Palace
LHASA, TIBETMr Zhi-Guo Li
Professor
State Administration of Cultural Heritage
N.10 Chaoyangmen Street
BEIJING 100020

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Prof Liang Yongning
Professor
Kunming University of Science
Faculty of Land resources
KUNMING 660093
Official Chinese State Party Observers:
Fang-ming Li
City Council of Datong
1, Yungang Street
037007 Datong
Shanxi Province
Funzi Sun
Mayor
Datong Municipality
5, W.Yingbing Road
037008 Datong
Shanxi Province
Yuyi Zou
Vice Mayor
Datong Municipality
1, Yungang Street
037007 Datong
Shanxi Province
Dian Sheng Zhang
City Council of Datong
1, Yugang Street
031007 Datong
Shanxi Province

COLOMBIA/COLOMBIE
H.E. Mr Augusto Galan-Sarmiento
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de la Colombie auprès del’UNESCO
1 rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE
Ms Katya Gonzalez
Directora de Patrimonio
Ministerio de Cultura
Calle 9 N° 8-31
BOGOTA 215
Mr Edgar Emilio Rodriguez-Bastidas
Coordinator Sistema de Informacion
Parques Nacionales
Carrera 10 N. 20-30, Piso 5
BOGOTA

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 70

EGYPT/EGYPTE
Dr. Gaballa Ali Gaballa
Secretary-General
Supreme Council of Antiquities
Ministry of Culture
CAIRO
Dr Samir Ghabbour
Rapporteur HAB Committee
Egypt National Commission
17 Kuwait St. Dokki
CAIROZahi Hawass
Ministry Of Culture
CAIRO
Dr Mohamed Abdel Maksoud
General Director of Egyptian Antiquities S.C.N.
Cairo Abb Asiyia

Ms Aira Kalela
Director General
Ministry of the Environment
P.O. Box 380
HELSINKI 00131
Ms Raija Mattila
Counsellor of Cultural Affairs
Ministry of Education
P.O. Box 29
HELSINKI 00023
Mr Jukka-Pekka Flander
Senior Adviser
Ministry of the Environment
P.O. Box 380
HELSINKI 00131
Ms Zabrina Holmström
Counsellor for Cultural Affairs, Secretary-General
Ministry of Education
P.O. Box 29
HELSINKI 00023

FINLAND/FINLANDEMr Markku Linna
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Education
P.O.Box 29
HELSINKI 00023
H.E. Mr Esko Hamilo
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Pekka Kangas
Director General
Ministry of the Environment
P.O.Box 380
HELSINKI 00131
Mr Kalevi Kivistö
Director General
Ministry of Education
P.O. Box 29
HELSINKI 00023
Mr. Henrik Lilius
Director General
National Board of Antiquities
P.O. Box 913
HELSINKI 00100

Mr Pekka Kärki
Director of Department
National Board of Antiquities
P.O. Box 169
HELSINKI 00511
Ms Maire Mattinen
Chief IntendantNational Board of Antiquities
P.O. Box 169
HELSINKI 00511
Mr Ari Mäki
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Finland to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE
Ms Irma-Liisa Perttunen
Counsellor
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
P.O. Box 127
HELSINKI 00131
Ms Paula Purhonen
Director of Department
National Board of Antiquities
P.O. Box 169
HELSINKI 00511
Ms Riitta Resch
Director
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
P.O. Box 176
HELSINKI 00131

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 71

Ms Liisa ValjentoCounsellor
Ministry for Foreign Affairs
P.O. Box 176
HELSINKI 00161
Mr Matti Vatilo
Director
Ministry of the Environment
P.O. Box 380
HELSINKI 00131

Ms Inker-Anni Sara
Secretary for Cultural Affairs
The Sami Parliament
INARI 99870
Mr Stig Östdahl
Managing Director
City of Nykarleby
Topeliusesplanaden 7
NYKARLEBY 66900

Official Finnish State Party Observers:

GREECE/GRECE

Seppo Ala-Siuru
Municipal Manager
Lappi Municipal Office
P.O.Box 5
LAPPI 27231

Ms Helene Methodiou
Conseiller pour la Culture
Délégation permanente de la Grèce auprès de l'UNESCO
Maison de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARISFRANCEMr Jaakko Antti-Poika
Director
Governing Body of Suomenlinna
Suomenlinna C 40
HELSINKI 00190
Mr Pentti Koivu
Mayor
City of Rauma
Kanaalinranta 3
RAUMA 26100
Mr Lasse Lovén
Park Director
Finnish Forest Research Institute, Koli National Park
Ylä-Kolintie 22
KOLI 83960
Mr Eero Niinikoski
Director
UPM-Kymmene Corporation
KUUSANKOSKI 45700
Mr Matti Määttä
Regional Director
Forest and Park Service
Akselinkatu 8
SAVONLINNA 571 30
Seppo Ojala
Vicar
Petäjävesi Parish
Papintie 6PETÄJÄVESI 41900

Ms Helene Korka
Head of the Department
Greek and Foreign Archaeological Institutes
Ministry of Culture
Boubolinos 20
ATHENS 10286
Dr Niki Tselenti-Papadopoulou
Direction of Byzantins and Post-Byzantins Monuments
Ministry of Culture
Bouboulinos 20-22
ATHENS 10286

HUNGARY/HONGRIEDr Tamás Fejérdy
President of Hungarian Committee of ICOMOS
National Office of Cultural Heritage
Tancsics Mihaly n.1
BUDAPEST 1014
Dr János Tardy
Deputy Secretary of State
Ministry for Environment
Költö u. 21
BUDAPEST 1121
H.E. Dr Janos Jelen
Ambassador
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary
Nagy Imre tér 4
BUDAPEST 1027

Ms Leena Rinkineva
Project Leader
The Kvarken Council
Kauppapuistikko 23 A
VAASA 65100

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 72

Dr Zoltán Szilassy
Deputy Head of Department
Ministry for Environment
Költö u. 21
BUDAPEST 1121
Ms Edit Herboly
Staff
Hungarian World Heritage Committee
Szinhàz u.5-9
BUDAPEST 1014
Ms Julia Buda
Staff
Hungarian World Heritage Committee
Szinhàz u.5-9
BUDAPEST 1014

LEBANON/LIBAN
Ms Carla Jazzar
Délégué Permanent
Délégation permanente du Liban auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARISFRANCEMr Jad Tabet
Expert patrimoine mondial
UNESCO
33bis Avenue Reille
PARIS 75014
FRANCEMEXICO/MEXIQUE
Dr Lia Korcsmáros-Bassa
Staff
Hungarian World Heritage Committee
Szinhàz u.5-9
BUDAPEST 1014

INDIA/INDE
Mr N. Gopalaswami
Secretary/Dept. of Culture
Government of India
CII/39 Shahjahan RoadNEW DELHI 110001
H.E. Ms Neelam Sabharwal
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of India to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEDr Francisco Javier Lopez Morales
Director Patrimonio Mundial
Institute Nacional de Anthropología e Historia (INAH)
Puebla 95
MEXICO D.F 06700
Ms Viviana Kuri Haddad
Subdirectora Patrimonio Mundial
INAH
Puebla 95
MEXICO D.F 06700
Prof Salvador Diaz-Berrio F.
Profesor Posgrado
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana
Callejon Ojito n.9
CoyoacánMÉXICO D.F. 04320

NIGERIAMr Umang Narula
Deputy Secretary
Government of India
Ministry of Tourism & Culture
Shastri Bhawan
NEW DELHI 110001
K. P. Poonacha
Director (Archaeology)
Archaeological Survey of India
JanpathNEW DELHI

Report of the World Heritage Committee

H.E. Prof. Michael Omolewa
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Nigeria to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEDr Joseph Eboreime
Deputy Director
Ministry of Culture &Tourism
Plot 2018
Cotonou Crescent
Wuse Zone 6
ABUJA P.M.B 171

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 73

Ms Fatima OthmanCounsellor
Permanent Delegation of Nigeria to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75732
FRANCE

OMAN
H.E. Dr Musa Jaffar Bin Hassan
Ambassadeur, Délégué Permanent
Délégation permanente de l’Oman auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
75015 PARISFRANCEMr Hassan Allawati
D.G. of Finance & Administration
Ministry of National Heritage & Culture (M.N.H.C.)
P.O. Box 668
MUSCAT 113
Mr Hassan Al Jaberi
Archaeologist
Office of Adviser to H.M the Sultan
for Cultural Affairs
P.O. Box 129, Mina Al Fahal 116
Mr Ahmed Alhajri
M.N.H.C.-Oman
P.O. Box 668
MUSCAT 113
Mr Sultan Albakri
M.N.H.C.-Oman
P.O. Box 668
MUSCAT 113
Mr Khalifa Al Shamsi
Archaeologist

PORTUGAL
H.E. Mr Marcello Mathias
Ambassador, Permanent delegate
Permanent Delegation of Portugal to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE

Prof José-Augusto Franca
National Commission for UNESCO
Rua Escola Politecnica 49-4
LISBON 1200-069
Ms Ana Maria Ribeiro Da Silva
DiplomatEmbassy of Portugal
Itäinen Puistotie
HELSINKIFINLAND
Ms Francisca Abreu
Maire Adjoint Chargée de la Culture
Câmara Municipal de Guimarâes
Largo Conego José Maria Gomes
GUIMARAES 4810-242
Ms Alexandra Gesta
Directeur du Cabinet TechniqueCâmara Municipal de Guimarâes
Largo Cónego José Maria Gomes
GUIMARAES 4710-242
Mr José Nobre
Directeur de la Culture
Câmara Municipal de Guimarâes
Largo Conego José Maria Gomes
GUIMARAES 4810-242

REPUBLIC OF KOREA/REPUBLIQUE DE COREE
Mr Kyung-surk Kim
Deputy Director General
Cultural Affairs Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & TradeSEOUL
Ms Jung-ae HuhAssistant Director
Cultural Cooperation Division
Cultural Affairs Bureau
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade
SEOUL
Mr Seong-yong Park
Deputy Director for Culture
Korean National Commission for Unesco
CPO 64
SEOUL

H.E. Mr Filipe Guterres
Ambassador
Embassy of Portugal
Itäinen Puistotie 11 B
HELSINKI 00140
FINLAND

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 74

RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
FEDERATION DE RUSSIE
H.E. Mr Eugeny Sidorov
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de la Fédération de Russie auprès
de l'UNESCO
8, rue de PronyPARIS
FRANCE
Prof. Igor Makovetsky
President
ICOMOS-Russie
1, Proezde Novadeitchy
MOSCOW 119435
Mr Vladimir Pichtchelev
Deputy Head of Division
Ministry of Nature Resources
B. Gruzinskaia 4/6
MOSCOW 123995
Prof. Rafael Valeev
Vice-Minister
Ministry of Culture
Novo-Svetlaya Str. 16-119
KAZAN 420004
Prof. Oleg Vasnetsov
Secretary General
National Commission of the Russian Federation for
UNESCO
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Smolenskaya-Sennaya Sq.32-34
MOSCOW 121200
Prof. Alexei Butorin
Director
Natural Heritage Protection Fund, Russian World Heritage
Viborgskaya, 8-3
MOSCOW 125 212
Prof. Natalia Potapova
Deputy Chief
Moscow State Dept. for Restoration of Heritage
19 Pyathitskaya St.
MOSCOW
Prof. Alexey Denisov
Bureau Member
ICOMOS-Russie
Shcolnay St. 426
MOSCOW 109544

SAINT LUCIA/SAINTE LUCIE
Ms Vera Lacoeuilhe
Permanent Delegation of Saint Lucia to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Giles Romulus
Executive Director
St. Lucia National Trust
P.O. Box 595
CASTRIES

SOUTH AFRICA/AFRIQUE DU SUD
H.E. Ms Thuthukile Eskweyiya
Ambassador to France and Permanent Representative to
UNESCOSouth African Embassy
59, Quai d'Orsay
PARIS 75007
FRANCE
Ms Maria Mbengashe
Chief Director
Dept. of Environmental Affairs &Tourism
Private Bag x 447
PRETORIA
Mr Makgolo Makgolo
Deputy Director
Dept. of Environmental Affairs&Tourism
Private Bag x 447
PRETORIA 001
Ms Louise GrahamCounsellor and Deputy Permanent Representative to
UNESCOSouth African Embassy
59, Quai d'Orsay
PARIS 75007
FRANCETHAILAND/THAILANDE
Prof.Dr. Adul Wichiencharoen
Chairman, National Committee for WHC of Thailand
Office of Environmental Policy & Planning (OEPP)
Piboon Wattana 7
Rama 6 Road
Phrayathai
BANGKOK 10400

Prof Tatiana Kameneva
Bureau Member
ICOMOS-Russie
Shcolnay St. 426
MOSCOW 109544

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 75

Mr Arak Sunghitakul
Deputy Director General
Fine Arts Department
Naprathat Rd.
BANGKOK 10200
Mr. Borvornvate Rungrujee
Director of General Management Div.
Fine Art Department
81/1 Sri Ayuttaya RoadBANGKOK 10300
Dr Schwann Tunhikorn
Director
Natural Resources Conservation OfficeRoyal Forest Department
Paholyothin Rd. , Chatichak
BANGKOK 10900
Ms Siriporn Nanta
Assistant Secretary
National Committee for WHC of Thailand
OEPP Piboon Wattana
Rama 6 RoadBANGKOK 10400

UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI
H.E. Mr David Stanton
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
United Kingdom Delegation to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Paul Alsey
DCMS
2-4 Cockspur Street
LONDON SW1Y 5DH
Mr Paul McCormack
DCMS
2-4 Cockspur Street
LONDON SW1Y 5DH
Dr Christopher Young
Head of World Heritage and International Policy
English Heritage23 Savile Row
LONDON W1S 2ET
Ms Christine Atkinson
Deputy Permanent Delegate
United Kingdom Delegation to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Dr Tony Weighell
Science Advisor
UK Delegation
JNCC Monkstone House
City Road
PETERBOROUGH PE1 1JY
Mr Mark Watson
Historic Buildings Inspector
Historic Scotland
Longmore House
Salisbury PlaceEDINGBURGH EH9 1SH
Mr Tim Badman
World Heritage Nomination Officer
Dorset County Council
County Mall
DORCHESTER ST1 1X5Prof. Denys Brunsden
Chairman
Dorset Coast Forumc/o County Mall
DORCHESTER DT11XT
Mr Tim Whitfield
Project Manager
Capital of Culture
Bradford 2008
Merchants House
Peckover Street
Bradford BD1 58D
Mr Jim Arnold
Director
New Lanark Conservation Trust
New Lanark Mills
LANARK ML11 9DB
Mr Geoff Carlile
Member of Management Panel
Derwent Valley Mills Partnership
Sunny Brow, 71 Old Road
Derbyshire
DERBY DE456 2BN
Mr Barry Joyce
Chair Technical Panel
Derwent Valley Mills Partnership
40 St John Street
Wirksworth, Derbyshire
DERBY DE4 4DS

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 76

ZIMBABWE
Mr Dawson Munjeri
Executive Director
National Museums and Monuments
107 Rotten Row
Box CY 1485 Causeway
HARAREII.

Mr Epmarcus Walter Kanhanga
National Parks
P.O.Box CY 140
Causeway
HARAREORGANISATIONS ATTENDING IN ADVISORY CAPACITY/
ORGANISATIONS PARTICIPANT A TITRE CONSULTATIFINTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRESERVATION AND THE RESTORATION OF
CULTURAL PROPERTY (ICCROM)/CENTRE INTERNATIONAL D’ETUDES POUR LA CONSERVATION ET LA RESTAURATION DES BIENSCULTURELS (ICCROM)
Dr Nicholas Stanley-Price
Director General
ICCROMVia di San Michele, 13
ROME 00153, ITALYMr Herbert Samuel Stovel
Programme Director
ICCROMVia di San Michele, 13
ROME 00153, ITALYMr Joseph King
Programme Manager
ICCROMVia di San Michele, 13
ROME 00153
ITALY

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON MONUMENTS AND SITES (ICOMOS)/CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SITES (ICOMOS)
M. Jean-Louis Luxen
Secretaire General
ICOMOS
49-51 Rue de la Fédération
PARIS 75015
FRANCE

Ms Regina Durighello
Assistant Coordinator
ICOMOS
49-51 Rue de la Fédération
PARIS 75015
FRANCEDr Henry Cleere
Coordinator
ICOMOS
49-51 Rue de la Fédération
PARIS 75015
FRANCEDr Jukka Jokilehto
ICOMOS
Via Anicia 6
ROME 00153
ITALY

Prof. Giora Solar
Treasurer General
ICOMOS
49-51 Rue De La Fédération
PARIS 75015
FRANCE

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Ms Anna Nurmi-Nielsen
President of ICOMOS Finland
Rauma Museum
Kauppakatu 24
RAUMA 26100
FINLAND

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 77

THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION (IUCN)/UNION MONIDALE POUR LA NATURE (UICN)Mr David Sheppard
Head, PPAThe World Conservation Union
Rue Mauverney 28
GLAND 1196
SWITZERLAND

Dr Jim Thorsell
Senior Adviser
IUCN
Rue Mauverney 28
GLAND 1196
SWITZERLAND

Mr Adrian Phillips
Vice Chair-World Heritage
IUNC World Commission on Protected Areas
2 The Old Rectory
DUMBLETON NEAR EVESHAM WR11 7TG
UNITED KINGDOMMr Rolf Hogan
Programme Officer
The World Conservation Union
Rue Mauverney 28
GLAND 1196
SWITZERLAND

III.

OBSERVERS/OBSERVATEURS(i)

STATES PARTIES TO THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION/ETATS PARTIES A LA CONVENTION DU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL

ANGOLA

AUSTRIA/AUTRICHEProf Pedro Massala Nsingui-Barros
Chargé d'Affaires a.i.
Délégation permanente de l'Angola auprès de l'UNESCO
1, Rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEDr Hans Horcicka
Director
Ministry of Culture
Schreyvogelg. 2
VIENNA 1014

AUSTRALIA/AUSTRALIEMr Kevin Keeffe
Assistant Secretary
World Heritage Branch, Environment Australia
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA 2601
Mr Matthew Peek
Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Australia to UNESCO
4, Rue Jean Rey
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr David Walker
Director
International Section, World Heritage Branch
Department of the Environment and Heritage
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT2601

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Dr Manfred Wehdorn
Professor
University of Technology of Vienna
Kolbetergasse 3
VIENNA 1140
Dr Arnold Klotz
City Planning Director
City Planning Bureau
RathausVIENNA 1082
Mr Franz Schuller
City of Vienna
Friedrich Schmidt Platz 5
VIENNA 1082
AZERBAIJAN/AZERBAIDJAN
Mr Rizvan Bayramov
Head of Department
Ministry of Culture
Government House, Ministry of Culture
BAKU 870016

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 78

BOTSWANA
Ms Tickey Pule
Director
Botswana National Museum
331 Independence Avenue
Private Bag 00114
GABORONEBRAZIL/BRESIL
H.E. Mr Luiz Hernrique Pereira Da Fonseca
Ambassador
Embassy of Brazil
Itäinen Puistotie 4 B 1
HELSINKI 00140
FINLAND
Mr Joao Lanari Bo
Counsellor
Permanent Delegation of Brazil to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Marco Antonio Galvão
Instituto do Patrimônio Histórico e Artístico Nacional(IPHAN)
BRASILIA-DF
Mr J.Fernando Madeira Da Costa
Architect
IPHAN/ICOMOS Brazil
Colina UnB "A" 22
BRAZILIA DF 70910 900
Prof. Nasr Chaul
Presidente
Agencia Galanca de Cultura
Praça Civica n.2
GALANCABRAZILDr Fernando Cupertino De Barros
Secretario
Secretaria de Saude
Av.Portugal 744
Mr José Pedro De Oliveira Costa
Sécretaire à la Biodiveristé et Fôrets
Ministére de l'Environment
Esplanada Dos Ministerios-Bloco B
BRASILIA-DF
Mr Alcides Rodrigues
Vice Governador
Governo de Goias
Rua 10 N.810
Apt. 501- Setor Oeste
GOIANIA 741 20020

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Ms Raquel Rodrigues
Deputada
Assembléia Legislativa
Rua 10 N.810
Apt. 501-Setor Oeste
GOIANIA 74120020
Dr Sergio Abi-Sad Caldas
Minister-Counsellor
Brazilian Embassy
Itäinen Puistotie 4 B 1
HELSINKI 00140
FINLAND
Ms Brasilete Caiado
President
Movimento Pró-Cidade Goias
Pca Dr Brasil Caiado
GOIAS
Mr Marco Antonio Veiga Almeida
Secretario
Prefeitura
Travessa Seminario
GOIAS
Ms Karla Morais
R. 1024 No. 351, Ap.401
S.P. Ludovico
GOIANA-GO
Dr. Agenor Curado
Deputado
Assembleia Legislativa
GOIANA-GO

CANADADr Christina Cameron
Director General
Parks Canada
25 Eddy
HULL K1A OM5
Mme Gisèle Cantin
Affaires Internationales
Parcs Canada
25 Eddy, 25-6-Y
HULL K1A OM5
Ms Josie Weninger
Superintendent
Parks Canada
149 Mae Dougal RoadBox 750
FORT SMITH NWT X0E 0P0

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 79

CHILE/CHILIMr Alejandro Rogers
Chargé d'Affaires
Permanent Delegation of Chile to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE
Prof Antonio Garrido
First Secretary -Diplomat
Embassy of Chile in Finland
Erottajankatu 11 A 14HELSINKI 00130
FINLANDCROATIA/CROATIE
H.E. Mr Zeljko Bosnjak
Ambassador
Embassy of Croatia
Eteläesplanadi 12
HELSINKI 00130
FINLAND
Mr Zvonimir Sviben
Counsellor
Embassy of Croatia
Eteläesplanadi 12
HELSINKI 00130
FINLANDCYPRUS/CHYPREDr Sophocles Hadjisavvas
Director
Department of Antiquities
Museums Street 1
NICOSIA 1516

Mr Torsten Ingerslev
Project Coordinator
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland
Thoravej 8
COPENHAGEN 2400 NV
DENMARK
Prof. Naja Mikkelsen
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland
Thoravej 8
COPENHAGEN 2400 NV

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/
REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE
Ms Teresa Del Pilar Contin De Perez
Direction General Monuments
Ataranzana #2
Colonial Zone
SANTO DOMINGO
Prof. Maria Cristina Guizado de Carias
Subdirector
Direction General Monuments
Ataranzana #2
Colonial Zone
SANTO DOMINGODOMINICAN REPUBLICFRANCE
H.E. M. Jean Musitelli
Ambassadeur
Délégation permanente de la France auprès de l’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015

CZECH REPUBLIC/REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

Mme Catherine Caro
Sous-Directeur
Ministère Environnement
20 Avenue De Segur
PARIS 75007

Dr. Michal Benes
Chef de la Section de l'UNESCO
Ministère de la Culture
Milady Horakové 19
PRAGUE 160 00

Mme Eva Caillart
Chargée de Mission
Ministère Culture
8 Rue Vivienne -DAPA
PARIS 75002

DENMARK/DANEMARK
Ms Henriette Uggerly
Head of Section
Ministry of Cultural Affairs
Haraldsgade 53
COPENHAGEN 2100

Report of the World Heritage Committee

M. Olivier Poisson
Inspecteur Général des Monuments Historiques
Ministère de la Culture
2bis Rue Manuel
PERPIGNAN 66000

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 80

GAMBIA/GAMBIEICELAND/ISLANDEMr Baba Ceesay
Principal Cultural Officer, Museums and Monuments
Division
National Council for Arts and Culture
Independence Drive
PMB 151BANJUL

Prof. Margret Hallgrimsdottir
State Antiquarian
National Museum of Iceland
Lyngas 7
GARDABAER 210

INDONESIA/INDONESIEGERMANY/ALLEMAGNEMr Frank Burbach
Auswärtiges Amt
1 Werderscher MarktBERLIN 11013
Dr. Hans Caspary
ConservateurState Conserv. Office
Schillerstrasse 44
MAINZ 55116
Dr. Birgitta Ringbeck
Head of Section
Ministry of Urban Development and Culture
Fürstenwall 25
DUSSELDORF 40219
Dr. Wolfgang Roters
Ministry of Urban Development and Culture
Fürstenwall 25
DUSSELDORF 40219
Mr Stefan Schwarz
Geschäftsführer
Entwicklungsgesellschaft Zollwein
Gelsenkirchener Str. 181
ESSEN 45309

HOLY SEE/SAINT-SIEGE
Dr. Tullio Poli
Secretariat of State
Palazzo Apostolico
00120 Città del Vaticano
Prof. Kalevi Pöykkö
Josafatinkatu 9 A 27
HELSINKI 00510
FINLAND

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Mr Jose Tavares
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation Of Indonesia To UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEIRAN
Mr Javad SafaeiCounsellor
Permanent Delegation of Iran to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEDr Abdolrasool Vatandoust
Director
Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation
5, Nader Street
Hashtroudi Rd., Evin
P.O.Box 11365-4834
TEHERANISRAEL
H.E. Mr Yitzhak Eldan
Ambassador, Permanent delegate
Permanent delegation of Israel to UNESCOPARIS
FRANCEMr Michael Turner
Chair
Israel World Heritage Committee
25, Caspi Street
JERUSALEM 93554
Ms Hemda Golan
Deputy Legal Adviser
Ministry Of Foreign Affairs
6 Sharoni St Jerusalem

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 81

Mr David Harari
Managing Director
Old Acre Development Company
1, Weitzman St.
Old Akko, P.O.Box 1088
AKKO
Mr Israel Skop
Deputy District Manager
Israel Land Administration
Haniel, P.O.Box 501
HAIFA
Mr Mordechai Yedid
8 Beit Hakerem St.
JERUSALEMITALY/ITALIECons. Mario Panaro
Chief of Bureau III
Ministry of Foreign Affairs-DGPC
Piazzale della Farnesina 1
ROME 00194
Dr Roberta Alberotanza
Chef de la Section n.1
Ministère des Affaires Etrangeres-DGPC
Piazzale della Farnesina 1
ROME 00194
Ms Anna Elisa Zaffi
Programme Officer
Ministry of Foreign Affairs-DGPC
DGPCC, Ufficio III
Piazzale della Farnesina 1
ROME 00194
Mr Pasquale Bruno Malara
ExpertItalian Delegation
TORINO 10122
Ing. Luciano Marchetti
Soprintendente Regionale dell'Umbria
Ministero Beni e Attività Culturali
Piazza Della Repubblica 78
PERUGIA 06100
Arch. Giovanna Rossi
Programme Officer
Ministry of the Environment
Via Cristoforo Colombo 44
ROME 00147

Report of the World Heritage Committee

JAPAN/JAPON
H.E. Mr Fumiaki Takahashi
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of Japan to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75732
FRANCE
Ms Naomi Takahashi
Official
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO 100-8919
Mr Norio Suzuki
Counsellor on Cultural Properties
Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan
2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-Chome
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO 100-8959
Dr Makoto Motonaka
Chief Senior Specialist for Cultural Properties
Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan
2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-Chome
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO 100-8959
Mr Yousuke Hashimoto
Senior Specialist
Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan
2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-Chome
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO 100-8959
Mr Tsuyoshi Hirasawa
Associate Specialist for Cultural Properties
Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan
2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-Chome
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO 100-8959
Mr Kazuhiko Nishi
Associate Specialist for Cultural Properties
Agency for Cultural Affairs of Japan
2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-Chome
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO 100-8959
Mr Minoru Soeya
Assistant Director
Ministry of the Environment
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-Ku
TOKYO

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 82

Ms Kumiko Yoneda
Senior Research Scientist
Japan Wildlife Research Center
3-10-10 Shitaya
Taito-Ku
TOKYO

JORDAN/JORDANIEMr Abdel Sami Abu Dayyeh
Director General
Department of Antiquities
AMMAN 11196

KENYA
Mr Athman Lali Omar
Head Coastal Archaeology
National Museum of Kenya
Box 82412
MOMBASALITHUANIA/LITUANIE
H.E. Ms Ugne Karvelis
Ambassadeur, Délégué Permanent
Délégation permanente de la Lithuanie auprès del’UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE
Ms Ina Marciulionyte
Vice Minister
Ministry of Culture
Basanaviciaus 5
VILNIUS 2001

LUXEMBOURG
Prof Guy Dockendorf
Director General
Ministry of Culture
20, Montée de la Pétrusse
Mr Jean-Pierre Kraemer
President of the National Commission for UNESCOLUXEMBOURG
Mr Jean Herr
Architect
LUXEMBOURG
Mr Robert Krier
Architect
LUXEMBOURG

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Mr Fernand Otto
Director Of The Administration Of Public WorksLUXEMBOURG

MADAGASCAR
Ms Malalatiana Ravelonary
Directeur Patrimoine Culturel
Ministère de Culture
Antaninarenina
P.O.Box 760
ANTANANARIVO
Ms Ravaomalala Rasoanaivo-Randriamamonjy
Délégué Permanent Adjoint
Délégation Permanente auprès de l'UNESCO
40, rue du Général
PARIS 75008
FRANCE

MALTA/MALTE
Prof. Joseph Licari
Permanent Delegate of Malta to UNESCO
46, rue de Longchamp
PARIS 75116
FRANCEMr Mark Anthony Mifsud
Assistant Curator of Archaeology
National Museum of Archaeology
Republic Street
VALLETTA CMR 02

MOROCCO/MAROC
H.E. Prof. Aziza Bennani
Ambassadeur, Déléguée Permanente
Délégation Permanente du Maroc auprès de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Aziz Ouarrak
Chargé d'Affaires
Embassy of Morocco in Finland
Mikonkatu 8A
HELSINKI 00100
FINLAND

NEPAL
Ms Sannani Kansakar
Director General
Department of Archaeology
KATHMANDU

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 83

Ms Riddhi Pradhan
Joint Secretary
Ministry of Culture
Singha Durbar
KATHMANDU

NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS
Dr Robert de Jong
Co-ordinator RDMZ World Heritage
Netherlands Dept. for Conservation
Broederplein 41
ZEIST 3703CD

Prof. Dag Myklebust
Directorate for Cultural Heritage
Dronningens Gate 13
OSLO 0034
Mr Gaute SønstebøSenior Executive Officer
Directorate for Nature Management
Tungasletta 2
TRONDHEIM 7485
Mr Per Morten Gullsvåg
Kultursjef
Dept.of Environment/Vega Commune
Gladstad
VEGA 8980

NEW ZEALAND/NOUVELLE ZELANDEMr Tumu Teheuheu
Chief Executive
Tongariro WHS
1, Taaku Lane, Acacia BayTAUPOMr Eru Manuera
General Manager
Department of Conservation
59 Boulcott Street
WELLINGTON 6001

NICARAGUA
Ms Ximena Flores
Délégué Permanente
Délégation de Nicaragua auprès de l' UNESCO
1,rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCENORWAY/ NORVEGE
Mr Einar Holtane
Deputy Director General
Ministry of Environment
Myntgt. 2
OSLO 0030
Ms Berit Lein
Assistant Director General
Directorate for Nature Management
Tungasletta 2
TRONDHEIM 7485
Mr Nils Marstein
Director General
Directorate for Cultural Heritage
Dronningens Gate 13
OSLO 0034

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Ms Margrethe Wika
Miljövernsjef
Dept.of Environment/Vega Kommune
Gladstad
VEGA 8980

PAKISTAN
Dr Rukshana Zia
Deputy Permanent Delegate
Permanent Delegation of Pakistan to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEPERU/PEROUMr Carlos VasquezCounsellor
Permanent Delegation of Peru to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEPHILIPPINES
H.E. Mr Hector Villarroel
Ambassador
Permanent Delegation of the Philippines to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Augusto Villalon
National Commission for UNESCO
Pacific Plaza Towers
Pacific Avenue, Fort Bonifacio
TAGUIG, M.MANILA 1630

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 84

Mr Solomon Chumgalao
Congressman
Banalie, Irugao

POLAND/POLOGNEDr Andrzej Tomaszewski
Representant du Ministère
Ministère de Culture
Leszcynska 6 M. 14
WARSZAWA 00339
Dr Tomasz Orlowski
Secretary General
Polish National Commission for UNESCO
Palac Kultury i Nauki
WARSZAWA 00-901

ROMANIA/ROUMANIE
Mr Ion Opris
Secretary of State
Romanian Ministry of Culture
BUCHAREST
Mr Ion Buzatu
Diplomatic Councellor
Ministry of Tourism
17 Apolodor Street
BUCHAREST 74547
Mr Dan Covali
Architect
Ministry of Tourism
17 Apolodor Street
BUCHAREST 74547

SLOVAKIA/SLOVAKIE
Ms Viera Dvorakova
Vice Director
Institute for Heritage Preservation
Cesta Na #268
Erveny Most 6
BRATISLAVA 814 06

SLOVENIA/SLOVENIE
Ms Marjutka HafnerState Under-Secretary
National Commission for UNESCO
Tivolska 50
LJUBLJANA 1000
Ms Zofija Klemen-Krek
Secretary General
National Commission for UNESCO
Tivolska 50
LJUBLJANA 1000

SPAIN/ESPAGNE
Prof Luis Lafuente
Subdirector General de Protección del Patrimonio
Historico
Spanish Ministry for Education, Culture and Sport
Plaza del Rey n°1
MADRID 28071
H.E. Mr Fernando Carderera
Ambassador of Spain to Finland
Embassy of Spain in Finland
Kalliolinnantie 6
HELSINKI 00140
FINLANDSAUDI ARABIA/ARABIE SAOUDITE
Prof. Hussein Abu al-Hassan
Ministry Of Education
P.O. Box 3734
RIYADH 11481
Dr Abdullah Saud Al-SaudDirector General of Museums
Ministry of Education
P.O. Box 3734
RIYADH 11481

Prof Juan Manuel Gonzales de Linares
Counsellor
Embassy of Spain in Finland
Puistokatu 11 A 16
HELSINKI 00140
FINLAND
Prof Diego Fernandez
Chief of Service
Spanish Ministry for Education, Culture and Sport
Plaza del Rey n°1
MADRID 28071
Ms Carmen Anon
Conseiller
Ministerio Cultura
Puerto Santa Maria 49-1
MADRID 28043

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 85

Ms Iciar Alcala
Cultural Heritage Manager
Government of Aragon
P° Ruiseñores 26, Casa 2 1°A
ZARAGOZA 50006
Mr José Manuel Molina Garcia
Mayor
Ayuntamiento de Toledo
Plaza del Consistorio 1
TOLEDO 45071
Ms Abigail Pereta
Cultural Heritage Manager
Government of Aragon
C/ Mariano Barbsán 9, 8° Dch.
ZARAGOZA 50006

SWEDEN/SUEDE
Mr. Hans Enflo
Deputy Director
Ministry of Culture
STOCKHOLM 10333
Ms Birgitta Hoberg
Senior International Advisor
National Heritage Board
P.O. Box 5405
STOCKHOLM 11484
Ms Inger Erikson
Deputy Governor
County Administration
Orrholmsvägen 29
FALUN 79153

Ms Maria José Rodriguez-Relaño
Jefe de Servicio de Promocion
Comunidad de Madrid
Calle José Ortega y Gasset 91
MADRID 28006

Mr Bo Berggren
Chairman of the Board
The Stora Kopparberget Foundation
FALUN 791 80

Mr Carlos Lopez
Jefe de Prensa
Ayuntamiento de Aranjuez
StuartARANJUEZ 28300

Mr Ulf Löfwall
County AntiquarianCounty AdministrationÅsgatan
FALUN 79184

Ms Maria Gloria Encinas
PoliticoAyuntamiento de Aranjuez
Plaza de la Constitucion
ARANJUEZ 28300

Mr Jan-Olof Montelius
Chairman of The Cultural Board
The City of Falun
Falu Kommun
Kulturförvaltningen
FALUN 79183

Ms Maria José Martinez
Tecnico Politico
Ayuntamiento de Aranjuez
c/Stuart
ARANJUEZ
Ms Magdalena Merlos
Tecnico Patrimonio
Ayuntamiento de Aranjuez
c/Stuart
ARANJUEZ
Ms Teresa Suarez
PoliticoAyuntamiento de Aranjuez
c/Stuart
ARANJUEZ 28300

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Mr Sven Olsson
Kommunantikvarie
Falu Kommun
Morag. 4
FALUN 79172
Prof Mats-Rune Bergström
Principal Administrative Officer
County Administration of Västerbotten
Storgatan 71 BUMEÅ 901 86

SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
H.E. Mr Denis Feldmeyer
Ambassadeur, Délégué Permanent
Délégation Permanente de la Suisse auprès de l'UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCE

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 86

Dr. Meinrad Küttel
Head of Section
Swiss Agency for the Environment
BERN 3001

SYRIA/SYRIE
Prof. Jawdat Ibrahim
Vice Dean
Al-Bath University
P.O.Box 2236
Roda Al-Shabibi Street
RAMS
Dr Khairia Kasmieh
History Department
Damascus University
Mazza Avenue
DAMASCUS

TURKEY/TURQUIEMr Mehmet Gürkan
Urban Planner
Ministry of Culture
ANKARA 06100
Mr Celik Topcu
Ministry of Culture
ANKARA 06100

TUNISIA/TUNISIE
Mohamed Saied
Directeur
Ministère de l'Environnement
12 rue du Cameroun
TUNIS 1002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/ETATS-UNIS D’AMERIQUE
Ms Sharon Cleary
Chief, Office of International Affairs
U.S. National Park Service
1849 C Street, N.W.
Rm 2252
WASHINGTON D.C. 20240
Ms Shirley Hart
U.S Observer to UNESCO
2 rue Gabriel
PARIS 75008
FRANCEUZBEKISTAN/OUZBEKISTAN
H.E. Mr Tokmirjon Mamajonov
Ambassadeur
Ambassade d'Ouzbékistan
22 rue d'Aguesseau
PARIS 75008
FRANCE(ii)

OTHER OBSERVERS/AUTRES OBSERVATEURSBARBADOS/BARBADE
Ms Alissandra Cummins
Chairperson
Barbados National Commission for UNESCO
St.Ann's Garrison
St.Michael
BRIDGETOWNPERMANENT MISSION OF PALESTINE TO
UNESCO/MISSION PERMANENTE D’OBSERVATION DE LA
PALESTINE AUPRES DE L’UNESCO
Mr Ahmad Abdelrazek
Ambassador
Delegation of Palestine to UNESCO
1, rue Miollis
PARIS 75015
FRANCEMr Zuheir Elwazer
Head of Palestine Delegation
Fredrikinkatu 25 A
HELSINKIFINLAND

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 87

(iii)

INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES INTERNATIONALES

THE ARAB LEAGUEEDUCATIONAL CULTURALAND SCIENTIFIC
ORGANIZATION/
L’ORGANISATION ARABE
POUR L’ÉDUCATION, LA
CULTURE ET LA SCIENCE(ALECSO)
Dr Abdelaziz Daoulatli
ExpertP.O.Box 1120
TUNIS
TUNISIACOMMONWADDENSECRETARIATSEAMr Jens Enermark
Secretary General
Virchowstrasse 1
WILHELMSHAVEN 26382
GERMANYORGANIZATION OF WORLDHERITAGE CITIES (OWHC)/
ORGANISATION DES VILLESDU PATRIMOINE MONDIAL(OVPM)
Mr. Denis Ricard
Secretary General
OWHC
Saint-Nicolas Street
QUEBEC G1K 4A1
CANADATHE ORGANIZATION OF THE
ISLAMIC CONFERENCE/L’ORGANISATION
DE LA CONFÉRENCEISLAMIQUE (OIC)Mr Abdelaziz Abougouche
Assistant Secretary General
P.O. Box 178
JEDDAH 21411
SAUDI ARABIANORDIC WORLD HERITAGE
OFFICE/BUREAUNORDIQUEDUPATRIMOINE MONDIAL
Ms Anne-Kristin Endresen
Director
Nordic World Heritage OfficeDronningens Gate 13
P.O.Box 8196, Dep.
OSLO 0034
NORWAY
Prof. Synnove Vinsrygg
Senior International Advisor
Nordic World Heritage Office
P.O.Box 8196
OSLO 0034
NORWAYUNITED NATIONSENVIRONMENTPROGRAMME (UNEP)/
Regional Office for Europe
Ms Francoise Belmont
Deputy Director
15, Chemin des Anémones
CHATELAINE,GENEVE 1219
SWITZERLAND(iv)

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS/ORGANISATIONS NON-GOUVERNEMENTALESGETTY CONSERVATIONINSTITUTE
Mr François LeBlanc
Head of Field Projects
1200 Getty Center Drive, Ste 700
LOS ANGELES CA 90049
USA
GLOBAL HERITAGE FUND
Mr Jeff Morgan
Executive Director
2191 Gordon Avenue
MENLO PARK 94025
USA

Report of the World Heritage Committee

INTERNATIONAL CENTRE
FOR MEDITERRANEAN
CULTURAL LANDSCAPESDr Carla Maurano
Director
International
CentreforMediterranean Cultural Landscapes
Via Selva 7
AGROPOLI 84043
Italy

INTERNATIONALFEDERATION OF
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS(IFLA)
Dr. Hans Dorn
Chair Com. Historic Gardens andCultural Landscapes
Holbeinstrasse 17
FRANKFURT/MAIN 60596
GERMANY

INTERNATIONAL COUNCILOF MUSEUMS (ICOM)
Ms Outi Peisa
Chairperson of Finnish National
Committee
ICOM
P.O.Box 4300
HELSINKI 00099

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 88

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
ARCHITECTS/ (IUA)
UNION INTERNATIONALE
DES ARCHITECTES (UIA)
Ms Eija Salmi
The President of the Central
Council (SAFA)
International Union of Architects
Torikatu 4 B 20
OULU 90100
FINLANDIV.

THE GIBRALTAR MUSEUM

Mr Ouhar Saad Touré
DGA
Avenue Attine
RABAT 10104
MOROCCOUNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH

Prof. Clive Finlayson
Director
18-20 Bomb House Lane
P.O. Box 939
GIBRALTAR
UNITED KINGDOM

Ms Cate Turk
Postgraduate Researcher
Dept. of Geography
Drummond Street
EDINBURGH EH8 9XP
UNITED KINGDOMHOST COUNTRY SECRETARIAT (FINLAND)

Ms Anu Ahoniemi
Ms Anne Brax
Ms Margaretha Ehrström
Ms Lea Halttunen
Ms Hanna Hämäläinen
Ms Satu Heikkinen
Ms Nina Heiska

V.

ISLAMIC EDUCATIONAL,SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURALORGANIZATION/
L'ORGANISATIONISLAMIQUE POURL'ÉDUCATION, LESSCIENCES ET LA CULTURE(ISESCO)Ms Sirkku Salomaa
Ms Päivi Salonen
Mr Eeva-Liisa Siru
Mr Kristian Slotte
Mr Hannu Vainonen
Ms Satu-Kaarina Virtala

Ms Raija Helpi
Mr Petja Hovinheimo
Ms Jonna Lehtinen
Ms Seija Linnanmäki
Ms Marjo Merivirta
Ms Lea Murto-Orava
Mr Karim Peltonen

UNESCO SECRETARIAT/SECRETARIAT DE L’UNESCO

Mr Koïchiro Matsuura
Director-General

Mr Mounir Bouchenaki
Assistant Director-General

World Heritage Centre
Mr Francesco Bandarin
Director
Ms Minja Yang
Deputy Director
Mr Natarajan Ishwaran
Ms Elizabeth Wangari
Ms Mechtild Rossler
Ms Carmen Negrin
Ms Josette Erfan
Mrs Sarah Titchen
Mr Giovanni Boccardi
Ms Junko Taniguchi
Ms Frédérique Robert
Ms Vesna Vujicic-Lugassy
Ms Marjaana Kokkonen
Mr Peter Stott
Mr Mario Hernandez
Ms Joanna Serna-Sullivan

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Ms Alexandra zu SaynWittgenstein
Ms Jane Degeorges
Ms Marianne Raabe
Ms Nina Dhumal
Ms Claire Servoz
Mr David Martel
Other UNESCO Sectors:
Mr Wolfgang Reuther
Director
UNESCO Moscow Office
Mr John Donaldson
Legal Advisor
Mr Roni Amelan
Press Officer, BPI

Dr Bernd von Droste
AdviserInterpreters:
Mr Mourad Boulares
Chief Interpreter
Ms Antoinette Bourdelet
Ms Catherine Lattanzio-Hinthaas
Ms Chantal Bret
Mr Charles Speed
Mr David Shearer
Mme Odile Monpetit
Translators:
Ms Sabine de Valence
Ms Anne Sauvêtre
Ms Brigitte Guérin

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 89

ANNEX II
Speech by Mr. Henrik Lilius,
President of the World Heritage Committee
On the occasion of the Opening of the World Heritage Committee session
Helsinki, Finland, 11 December 2001

Madam President,
Honourable Ministers,Your Excellencies,
Members of the World Heritage Committee,
Distinguished Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my great pleasure to open the 25th session of theWorld Heritage Committee. I have the challenging task tochair this Committee session and to guide World Heritage
during the next 6 months.
Let me begin by thanking our former Chairperson, Mr
Peter King from Australia, for his immense personalcommitment during the last year.
In 2001 we have made a lot of progress for the future ofWorld Heritage and I would like to highlight some of the
major issues.
During the meeting of the Drafting Group for the revisions
to the Operational Guidelines which I was pleased toattend, we made a major step towards a user-friendly
format of the main document. I hope that the revised
Guidelines will guide us, and all partners in World
Heritage conservation.
Concerning the reform process, following the 13th
General Assembly of States Parties in October, we now
have a World Heritage Committee, which is more
representative of all regions and cultures of the world. I
would especially like to welcome the new members of theCommittee -- Argentina, India, Lebanon, Oman, Nigeria,
Russia, Santa Lucia and the United Kingdom. Most ofthese new members of the Committee have also chosen to
make a declaration to the General Assembly that they will
limit their term of office to four rather than six years. This
will allow a greater rotation of Committee membershipand will open the way for new countries to contribute to
the work of the Committee. This progressive step followed
the most generous and forward-thinking example of the
Italian Government in 1999, making their seat on theCommittee available after only two of the six years of theirmandate.

In this regard I would also like to express my satisfaction
with the preliminary typology of sites now underpreparation. During the past years we have had somemajor achievements with respect to the representivity of
the World Heritage List. We have moved the World
Heritage List from cathedrals and other monuments to theconcept of sites and landscapes, including technological
heritage, vernacular architecture and the heritage oftransport. On the natural side we have seen the inclusion ofsites from a number of regions underrepresented andcountries, such as Malaysia and Suriname. These are
unique sites displaying the biological and geologicaldiversity of our earth. However, there is much more to be
developed in this regard - particularly for natural heritage,
the Caribbean and the Pacific. Following the Committee's
decision to only examine 30 new nominations in 2003, we
will now have the time for a period of reflection about thecategories and types of heritage on our national tentative
lists and the World Heritage List. Our objective must be
for the World Heritage List to represent a greater diversityof all cultures and environments.
The World Heritage List should represent the democraticidea of sharing our heritage with all of humankind.
Every individual will find a site on the List with which it
can relate and identify. The Convention is there tocontribute to a better understanding of the cultural andnatural diversity of the world. It helps people to be awareof social and cultural difference and to overcome conflict
to find a peaceful solution to protect heritage in all parts of
the world.
In closing, I would like to express my sincere thanks to theCommittee for your trust and confidence in me and myelection as Chairperson. It is a great pleasure for me
working with you in the implementation of such aprestigious instrument as the World Heritage Convention.
Furthermore, I very much appreciate the continuous
commitment of UNESCO, its Director-General and the
Director of the World Heritage Centre and his staff.
Thank you.

I will continue to follow your decisions with regard to thereform process. I am convinced that despite the enormous
tasks in front of us, you will welcome the efforts achievedin such a short time.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 91

ANNEX III
Speech of the Director-General of UNESCO,Mr Koïchiro Matsuura

Madam President,
Honourable Ministers,Your Excellencies,
Honourable Delegates,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It gives me great pleasure to welcome you all to thetwenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.
First let me convey my sincere thanks to our hosts from
Finland for organizing this session here in Helsinki. This is
the first World Heritage Committee session to be held in
the Nordic region, and our congratulations go to you forthis. We are honoured, Madam President of Finland, by
your presence here with us today, which we take as afurther sign of your country’s long-standing commitment
to UNESCO and its action to protect the cultural andnatural heritage of humankind.
The diversity of Finland’s cultural and natural heritage
provides a stunning setting for this meeting. We meet here
within the walls of the modern grandeur of architect Alvar
Aalto’s Finlandia Hall. It is a testimony to the traditions ofmodern design and style for which Finland is renowned.
Around us we have also admired the extraordinary
innovation of Finland’s wooden architecture and flown
over the exceptional beauty of the wild landscapes ofcoast, lakes and peatlands.
Diversity – whether in education, science, culture orcommunication – was prominent on the agenda of
UNESCO’s recent session of the General Conference. Oneof the most important contributions to diversity was the
adoption, by acclamation, of the UNESCO Universal
Declaration on Cultural Diversity, the first majorinternational standard-setting instrument designed topromote cultural diversity. Cultural diversity has thereby
been recognized by all Member States to be as vital forhumankind as is biodiversity in the natural world. The
protection of cultural diversity thus becomes an ethicalimperative, inseparable from human identity and dignity.

These are two major steps forward and I welcome themboth wholeheartedly. At the same time, however, one
cannot ignore the fact that much remains to be done incertain areas We need to strengthen the fields ofapplication of existing instruments and broaden theprinciple of protection to new areas of heritage.
I am thinking in particular of the shocking acts ofdeliberate destruction of heritage which we witnessed as
helpless bystanders this year.
The demolition of the Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan has
generated an overwhelming level of concern by theinternational community and civil society. This tragic casehas highlighted the importance of effective prevention ofsuch unacceptable behaviour, through a strengthening of
sanctions if need be. It is in this context that the General
Conference has invited me to prepare a Draft Declaration
against the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage.
The aim of the Declaration would be to reinforce
provisions contained in existing international cultural
heritage conventions such as the World Heritage
Convention. Our legal instruments will mean nothing
unless they can give a greater guarantee of protection.
Commitment and action by each of the States Parties to theConvention is required.
Another area which calls for serious and urgent
investigation is that of intangible heritage. As you know,even before assuming my present position in the
Organization, as Chair of the World Heritage Committee I
had been concerned with the need to broaden the scope ofheritage protection. During my chairmanship, theacceptance by the Committee of customary law andtraditional management was broadened, paving the way
for international recognition of the vital role of traditional
forms of governance. Intangible cultural values associatedwith sites are also increasingly recognized as an integral
component of their world heritage values. However, there
is an intrinsic limit to the World Heritage Convention
which does not deal with intangible heritage as such.

This is an important source of satisfaction for me.
Underwater heritage that was previously outside the scopeof existing legal instruments – now also has its own newconvention: the International Convention on theProtection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, which
was also adopted during our recent General Conference.
This new Convention prohibits the pillage and destructionof ancient shipwrecks and sunken archaeological sites forcommercial exploitation. It gives priority to in-situ
preservation of heritage that has been under water for atleast 100 years. International law on the protection of thecultural heritage is thus considerably reinforced by thisConvention.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

It is my pleasure, therefore, to inform you that I have beenauthorized by the General Conference to begin preparatory
work towards an international legal framework for theprotection of intangible cultural heritage. This newconvention will need to be elaborated in the coming years.
We shall further define what is called intangible cultural
heritage and examine the best form for a new standardsetting instrument on the protection of such cultural
heritage. This will have to be developed with reference tothe ground-breaking work of this Committee in the area ofWorld Heritage cultural landscapes and the recognition of
traditional culture and practice through World Heritage
listing.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 93

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The international community is looking to UNESCO torise to the challenge and add strength to all of its efforts toprotect heritage. How can we meet such highexpectations?
During my term as Chair of the Committee, and sincethen, in my capacity as Director-General of UNESCO, I
stressed the importance of addressing the problem ofheritage protection and conservation at its roots. To takeproactive measures for preventive action, we must ensurethat our conservation work is development-oriented, forconservation to be part of the development process.
I count on you, as members of the Committee to steer the
future course of the Convention to make it a powerful tool
for sustainable development, as it has proven to be for theprotection of the environment. Official Development
Assistance (ODA) funds of the OECD Member Statesalone, will amount to over US$50 billion this year to
support developing countries, including many social andeconomic infrastructural development projects. The
recognition of the importance of World Heritage sites must
serve to promote the attribution of ODA funds for thesafeguarding and development of cultural and natural
heritage and for the defence of diversity.
To strengthen the legal basis for heritage protection andfor heritage conservation to become a vector for socioeconomic development, a spirit of cooperation andgenuine partnership with all sectors of society will be
required. I think that we must continue to explore newforms of partnerships with the key actors of heritage
conservation:
local
and
regional
governments,
development co-operation agencies, universities, private
foundations, the corporate sector and the growing numberof NGOs. The multiplication of our efforts in the long term
and the creation of a support network for World Heritage
conservation through such partnerships will be vital andnecessary to respond to the growing challenges facing
World Heritage sites.

As you know, much of the conservation responsibility andeffort rests on the States Parties with key contributions
from local and regional governments, public and privateorganizations. Many countries do not have the necessary
technical and financial capacity to cope with thischallenge. They rely on UNESCO, the World Heritage
Fund and extrabudgetary resources made available byother States Parties and private foundations.
I wish to thank all those States Parties who havegenerously supported World Heritage in recent years. I
also pay tribute to the United Nations Foundation which
has granted a very large contribution to the World Heritage
Centre to implement projects to benefit natural World
Heritage sites, particularly in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
I encourage you to proceed, with the necessary caution andexperimental attitude, to develop a stable and strong
network of partners to support you. I encourage you to findthe best way to promote and focus the positive energy ofgovernments, local authorities, the private sector and civilsociety at large.
In concluding, and wishing this Committee well in its
deliberations, I again give you my assurances that I will
spare no effort in safeguarding the diversity of the worlds’
cultural and natural heritage. I call on you all to support
me in this challenge.
Thank you.

The year 2002 which marks the 30th Anniversary of theConvention and recently declared as the United Nations
Year for Cultural Heritage by the UN General Assembly
will, I hope, provide an opportunity to broaden thispartnership for World Heritage protection andmanagement.
To this end the General Conference of UNESCO hasapproved a series of initiatives as part of the 30th
Anniversary. The June session of the World Heritage
Committee to be held in Budapest, Hungary will provide atimely opportunity to take stock of lessons learnt and chart
our future course. With the generous support of the ItalianGovernment, an international congress will be held in
Venice in November 2002 to develop partnerships to
support the strategic orientation of the Convention which I
count on the Committee to develop.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 94

ANNEX IV
Speech by Tarja Halonen, President of the Republic of Finland

Ladies and gentlemen,Ladies and gentlemen,

Heritage comprises of all the manifestations and messagesof intellectual activity in our environment. Heritage
mirrors a nation's soul and reflects personal identity in achain from past to future generations.

Let us look at heritage from the perspective of children
and young people.

In terms of heritage, be it cultural or natural, sustainable
development will remain mere rhetoric without an
operational content. It is essential to build sustainable
development on sustainable ethics. We can ask ourselves
whether our ethics is on a sound basis and do we truly
cherish our intellectual, cultural and natural heritage,
passing its message on to future generations?
Ten years ago the Conference on Environment andDevelopment in Rio raised sustainable development as acentral concept both in international cooperation and innational action.
Every country bears the primary
responsibility for sustainable development as well as for
cultural and natural heritage. When the ethical norms inthe management of cultural and natural heritage rest on asound basis, sustainable development can be promoted invarious ways.
In ecologically sustainable development, economic growthmust be accommodated to the limits imposed by nature.
This is a great challenge for political decision-making andtechnologies. International conventions and other common
commitments increase our possibilities to foster ourcommon heritage - fostering World Heritage is an elementof sustainable development.
Socially just development means an aspiration to distribute
welfare equitably. All people have the right to satisfy theirbasic needs. To achieve this goal, we must combat
poverty and exclusion. For this work, education offers avast range of possibilities. We have made a strong
political commitment to education by adopting the Dakar
Framework on “Education for All". This framework is an
important step in achieving the goals of the Millennium
Declaration to guarantee equal education for every boy
and girl in this world. This challenge is particularly great
concerning girls.
At the same time we must help also illiterate adults learn
to read and write. Illiteracy hampers inter alia people's
participation in common affairs and construction of thesociety. Thus illiteracy weakens democracy.
One fundamental characteristic of intellectual and creative
heritage is that sharing does not decrease it, on thecontrary. It is society's responsibility to create possibilities
for such sharing. Education and culture are both essential
tools for this.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

In children and young people, we have the key to a futuresociety where cultural tolerance and respect for difference
shall come true. Family primarily transmits traditions, butschool also has a great responsibility for passing on
heritage in ail its forms. School lays the foundation for anappreciation of culture and for tolerance, We mustencourage networking and co-operation between schools
and we have to promote dialogue between cultures at alllevels. There is a need for UNESCO to support its
Member States in developing values education. This iseducation for peace, human rights and democracy in otherwords, education for the prevention of intolerance,
discrimination and conflict. In this respect I see great
potential in the World Heritage Education Project initiatedby UNESCO. This project deserves our strong support.
Minorities are often left out from power centres. The
position of minorities is essential in the preservation ofindigenous cultures. By working together we can remove
obstacles and ensure minorities the right to their own
culture. Responsibility for nature and its diversity, for theliving environment and cultural heritage cannot be
conceded to others, it rests with everybody. I am pleased
to note that this meeting will deliberate the establishmentof a World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council ofExperts. There is a close link between this Council and theIndigenous Peoples Forum established by the United
Nations.
One paradox in the preservation of heritage is that we must
conserve in order to renew. The vitality of culture is bornout of diversity - in a society that gives peace, welfare andculture a chance.
The challenge facing the world is to reach across cultures,
religions and history to forge a new vision fordevelopment that rests on a shared interest in
sustainability, stability and prosperity. Such a visionoffers the prospect of a more human, inclusive
globalisation one that embraces cultural diversity.
I welcome therefore the decision of UNESCO's General
Conference to focus the Organisation's cultural programmeon diversity, intercultural pluralism and dialogue. Let us
hope that the Declaration on Cultural Diversity adopted by
the General Conference, will mark the take-off towards
greater respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance,
dialogue and co-operation. The declaration is an important
input to the observation of the International Year of
Dialogue among Civilisations. Civilisations or cultures
are changing, developing and adapting themselves to new

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 95

times and new realities through interaction with eachother.
This interaction creates multiethnic andmulticultural societies, rich and diverse in their heritage.
Preserving heritage obviously means preserving its
diversity. The current international context prompts us to
sharpen our focus on this dialogue. Preservation ofcultural diversity is inseparable from action to strengthenintercultural dialogue. Both are at the heart of mutual
understanding.
The UN General Assembly has declared the year 2002 as
United Nations Year for Cultural Heritage, whichcoincides with the 30th anniversary of the World Heritage
Convention. This not only shows how highly we value ourcommon heritage, but also underlines the need forsafeguarding it for future generations. UNESCO, having acentral role in this effort, faces compelling challenges infulfilling this mission.
We have to keep in mind that the world heritage is about
more than monuments and natural wonders.
The
intangible ideas and beliefs that constitute our collective
memory must never be neglected.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let me give a positive example from my own country,
Finland gained her independence 84 years ago, we foughta civil war and we have had to fight three wars against
foreign enemies. Still we have reached a high standard ofliving and in a recent OECD-study Finnish students scoredhighest marks in exams of reading and writing. In fact
when comparing the national averages among OECD
countries, Finland is above the average in reading,mathematics and natural sciences, We can thank ourcomprehensive education for the advancement in building
a knowledge based society in Finland. By giving also girls
equal possibility for education at all levels we have at least
doubled our resources.
Let me conclude with a quotation from the Declaration on
Cultural Diversity: "Heritage in all its forms must bepreserved, enhanced and handed on to future generations
as a record of human experience and aspirations, so as tofoster creativity in all its diversity and to inspire genuine
dialogue among cultures".
I wish the World Heritage Committee the best of successin its important work.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 96

ANNEX V
Address by the Minister of Culture of Finland, Ms Suvi Lindén

Madam President,
Mr Chairperson of the Committee,
Mr Director-General,
Distinguished delegates and observers,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss has said that world
culture is in fact global cooperation between cultures, inwhich each culture maintains its unique characteristics.
This is what the World Heritage Convention and theWorld Heritage Committee are all about. The protection ofcultural heritage promotes dialogue between cultures. We
must learn to understand and respect difference - torecognise its value as an intellectual and cultural wealth.
One vital objective for the World Heritage Committee is toachieve balance in the World Heritage List. The need toinclude new countries and new kinds of cultural heritage isa challenge to experts. Procedures and criteria must be
defined in a way which enables us to protect the common
heritage of humankind.
National resources are often inadequate for protecting
cultural and natural heritage. Countries which haveknowledge, know-how and economic resources play a keyrole in international cooperation. On the other hand,countries which have numerous sites on the World
Heritage List need to hold back and help those countries
which have no listed sites as yet. The protection ofcultural heritage is a generally recognised value in allsocieties, but the resources available for the work vary
greatly.
For a country, having sites on the list is a significant
acknowledgment. A listed site gives publicity and draws
positive attention to the town or region. At its best, it
boosts self-respect, revitalises traditional skills and crafts,
stimulates tourism and business. Having said this, I thinkit crucial to bear in mind that the ultimate aim is to protect
the sites and not to use them for other purposes.

identity of a nation. Unesco's efforts to intervene in acts
constituting a crime against the common human heritage
are especially valuable and necessary in our days. In thiswork ft is important to make use of existing instruments
for safeguarding cultural property and heritage andcommitment to them.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Finland greatly appreciates the work done by the World
Heritage Committee and its secretariat, the World Heritage
Centre, in implementing the World Heritage Convention.
Finland has actively taken part in its work since webecame its member in 1997. For us hosting the 25th
session of the World Heritage Committee is both anhonour and a vote of confidence. Helsinki and theFinlandia Hall have been the venue of many importantinternational meetings, which were often said to haveproceeded in the "Helsinki spirit".
Side by side with this session, there is another Unesco
event, the International Workshop on World Heritage
Education, which is held at the near-by National Museum.
I would like to refer to President Tarja Halonen's address
and reiterate how important it is to encourage newgenerations to appreciate the value and significance of theworld heritage.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those
involved in the organisation of this session. Our gratitude
is also due to the World Heritage Centre staff for theirvaluable input. I hope that this session will deliberate
decisions in a positive spirit, with a view to making boththe local and the global public appreciate the value of
cultural and natural heritage and the role it plays inboosting identity and promoting mutual understanding.
Thank you.

We must learn to see protection in a new way and develop
new action models which accommodate the whole varietyof global heritage. The current efforts made by the World
Heritage Committee to simplify procedures and to renew
the operational guidelines are an important step on thisroad. For instance, it would be very much easier toinclude the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples if thecriteria of cultural and natural sites were combined into
one set of guidelines.
All the manifestations of cultural heritage are fragile andsubject to various hazards. Historical buildings andartefacts have always suffered in warfare. Heritage isoften destroyed with a clear intent to undermine theReport of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 97

ANNEX VI
Speech of the Minister of Environment,
Minister for International Development Affairs, Finland,
Ms Satu Hassi

Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have enterered a new millennium with an enormous
amount of ecological knowledge and awareness. Satellite
technology has vastly improved our means of monitoring
environmental changes in the atmosphere, on thecontinents and in the oceans – and in real time, too. Yet it
still is difficult to obtain a global reaction to negativeenvironmental changes. These are mainly anthropogenic,
caused by man himself. To address such issues is thesame as addressing established praxes within another state
or a branch of industry, or interfering with longestablished prerogatives or benefits of a group of people.
We know that natural vitality and biological diversity are
waning from year to year. The WWF Living Planet Index
states that one-third of the biological diversity of the world
has been lost during the last 25 years. An increasing
number of species dependent on indigenous biotopes,
habitats and cultural landscapes lose out in competition
with other species. Efficient land use, agriculture andforestry shrink or change the habitats of these species. In
these situations our reactions have been all too slow, or
else steps have been difficult to take on account ofpolitical or other reasons. Therefore, some species will
unavoidably become extinct. Some, fortunately, can stillbe saved with special efforts.
The Convention on Cultural Heritage is an important
instrument in our fight for the preservation of species.
Many states possessing globally important threatened orrare species habitats have already ratified this Convention.
It is important to make it known in states which havealready ratified this Convention. It is important to make it
known in states which have not yet begun ratification. For
instance, the participation of countries in Africa has meantthat game reserves or national parks, which we know fromnature films, have been included as part of the World
Heritage. In the spirit of the Convention they have thus
become part of humanity’s joint heritage, and all parties to
the Convention carry the responsibility for theirpreservation. These areas can now also receive economic
contributions from UNESCO.
The status of World Heritage sites means increased
income from tourism, which is highly important for the
African states. In some areas, eco-tourism has evenexpanded to the extent of becoming difficult to manage.
But the states that are parties to the Convention are notalone in their fight against these problems. They can draw
upon UNESCO’s global funds of expertise as well toidentify and solve the problems arising.
There is hardly anyone among us who doubts that theinclusion in the World Heritage of the African game parks,

Report of the World Heritage Committee

the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador, Australia’s Great
Barrier Reef or the Brasilian rain forests is eminently
justified. All these areas display habitats of globallyunique species, or exceptional biodiversity.
The World Conservation Union, IUCN, plays a central
role in the selection of new natural heritage sites to theWorld Heritage List. Many parties to the Convention,
among them Finland, have realised that the IUCN draws avery neat line. This can be illustrated by the fact that
although Finland ratified the Convention as early as 1987,
so far we have not been able to provide a single natural
heritage site to the List. Nevertheless, we keep on trying.
Finland appreciates the line taken by the IUCN and also
adopted by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, based
increasingly on conscious selection and a Global Strategy.
As far as the natural heritage is concerned, the IUCN
seems to stick strictly to the principle of the Seven
Wonders of the World, that is, the List should only include
objects of outstanding universal value, and among such,preferably only one of each, the best and mostrepresentative one of its kind. It is an excellent idea toname, as “hot spots”, concentrations of biodiversity andareas defined by the WWF calling for urgent action. We
support this policy, but I would like to mention that also in
Finland there are some natural sites of unique value, suchas the western coastline, where the landrise is the fastest in
the world, and northernmost unbroken pine forest in theworld close to lake Inari in Lapland.
Most of the natural heritage sites of the World Heritage
List lie on land. The Global Strategy aims at more marine
sites, for instance in the Pacific. I embrace this endeavour,
too. So far, not nearly all ocean species have yet beenfound. Some researchers think the combined biologicaldiversity of the oceans is more extensive than the landbound diversity. On the other hand, the increasing sea
traffic, unsustainable fishing practices and other kinds ofover-exploitation and collection of the ocean’s resources
and, in places, wrongly placed and misguided tourism,
constitute threats against the varied life in the oceans andtheir littoral areas.
Finland will continue along the lines adopted to work forthe natural heritage, to promote the implementation of theConvention where the globally most valuable and also
most threatened areas are to be found. In practice thismeans that in the Finnish development cooperation we
promote democracy in the Convention states, give aid tohelp nominate World Heritage sites, both natural andcultural sites, and help set up proper administration andmaintenance units for sites already included on the World
Heritage List. Finland has also given aid to help
preserving several World Heritage sites of those I would

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 99

like to mention the programme to protect environment at
the Machu Picchu in Peru and the protection of thesurroundings of the Lalibela rock churches in Ethiopia.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
On my own behalf I would like to wish all of you a very
pleasant meeting and constructive lobbying during lunch
and coffee breaks. As the Minister responsible for bothEnvironment and Development Cooperation I hope that we
receive tangible proposals for how Finland could in best
way contribute to the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention in both fields, in the side of cultural
heritage and in the side of natural heritage, both in Finlandand in the poorer countries, which need the financial helpof richer countries. The humankind is, anyway, one; andall of us are responsible for preserving the World Hetitage
for the generations coming after us.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 100

ANNEX VII
Statement by the Observer of Israel

Mr. Chairman,
I would like to address the issue of the presence of a PLO
Representative in the meetings of the implementing bodiesof the Convention and the Conference of the State Parties.
On November 23, 2001, an Egyptian proposal to amend
the Rule 8.2 of the Rules of Procedure was submitted to
Mr Bandarin. According to the proposal the words“permanent observer missions to UNESCO” will beinserted after the words “non-permanent organizations” sothat permanent observer missions to UNESCO will also belisted among the various bodies that may be authorized by
the Committee, to participate in its sessions. While theproposal was submitted in accordance to Rule 9.2, once
again, it must be pointed out that the purpose of this
proposal is clearly political since its implication will
legitimize the presence of the PLO at the meetings of theCommittee and hence contribute to its politization. Even
if the proposal were to be accepted legally, the PLO will
still not be able to take part in the Committee’s sessions,since Rule 8.2 allows for the participation of bodies which“have activities in the fields covered by the Convention”.

may be authorized by the Committee, to participate in thesessions of the Committee.
In view of the spirit of the Convention and its objectives,
especially the professional character of the Committee, theaim of these articles is undoubtedly to enable theCommittee to invite organizations or individuals for thesole purpose of professional consultation regarding aspects
dealt with by the Convention.
Clearly the PLO
Representative does not fit these criteria and his presence
is nothing but a politically motivated action by states intent
on politicizing the work of this Committee and thus serves
no substantive or functional purpose.
Giving the PLO Representative the opportunity toparticipate and express political views in the discussions of
the Committee, a body whose deliberations are meant tobe purely professional, is obviously in contraction to theletter and the spirit of the Convention and the Rules ofProcedure. Moreover, in doing so, the Committee willitself contribute to the politization of a forum whose
primary missions are to
1.

While such a presence was permitted at the Committee’s
meeting in December 2000, it was understood that it
would not set a precedent or become a justification for any
future PLO participation in the meetings of the Committee.
There is absolutely no justification in the Convention andRules of Procedure for such participation. Suspension of
the Rules of Procedure is clearly not the appropriate way
to deal with the matter. Hence the participation of a PLO
Representative at the Committee’s sessions has no legal
basis.
Israel’s legal position on this matter, which was brought tothe attention of the Committee in its last meeting inAustralia and in further correspondence with Mr Bandarin
and Chairman King, is based on the fact that Rule 8.1 of
the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, requires that
only States Parties to the Convention, which are notmembers of the Committee, may attend the sessions of theCommittee as observers. Since the PLO Representative
does not represent a Party to the Convention or a State forthat matter, this Rule cannot be applied to the PLO
Delegation.

2.

Encourage countries to sign the Convention andensure the protection of natural and cultural
heritage, andEncourage States Parties to the Convention tonominate sites within their national territory forinclusion on the World Heritage List.

In view of the above, I would respectively urge you, Mr
Chairman, to prevent the politization of this Committee
and thus decide not to permit the presence of arepresentative of the PLO at the deliberations of thisCommittee.
At the same time, I want to express my wish that the day
will come soon after a peace agreement is reached, when
Palestinian experts will join their Israeli counterparts in thework of this Committee on behalf of a State Party.
Thank you Mr Chairman.

Article 10(2) of the Convention and Rules 7, 8.2 and 8.3
deal with other appropriate participants that may take partin the meetings of the Committee and are not State Parties
to the Convention: According to Rule 7 and Article 10(2)of the Convention “the Committee may at any time invite
public or private organizations or individuals to participate
in the meetings for consultations on particular problems”.
According to Rules 8.2 and 8.3, various bodies, which“have activities in the fields covered by the Convention”

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 101

ANNEX VIII.A

Budget for Afghanistan Mission

Estimated Budget Breakdown for Fact-Finding & Consultative Mission:

US$32,000(a) Travel Costs:
US$18,000•= International Airfare US$1,500 x 4 persons = US$6,000(Director and Secretariat/World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS cultural heritage expert,
IUCN natural heritage expert)•= Domestic Travel within Afghanistan US$4,000 (approximate)•= Daily Subsistence Allowance 4 persons x US$100 (average) x 15 days = US$6,000•= Insurance and other miscellaneous costs US$2,000(b) Fees:
US$8,000(International expert fees: US$200 x 20 days x 2 experts = US$8,000)(c) Reporting costs:(Photographic, cartographic, and other documentation costs)

US$2,000(d) Organizational support:

US$4,000

ANNEX VIII.B

Budget for Afghanistan Scientific Documentation

Estimated Budget Breakdown for Scientific Documentation:

US$17,000•= ICOMOS/ICCROM Co-ordination Services and Documentation
costs for Cultural Heritage of Afghanistan•= IUCN Co-ordination Services and Documentation costs for
Natural Heritage of Afghanistan

US$10,000

Report of the World Heritage Committee

US$ 7,000

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 103

ANNEX IXSTATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIESINSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
Extract from the Report of the Rapporteur of the twenty-fifth extraordinary sessionof the Bureau, Helsinki, Finland (7-8 December 2002) (WHC-01/CONF.208/4)

PART I: Reports on the state of conservation ofproperties inscribed on the World Heritage List for
examination•=

to maintain a high-level dialogue with government
and inter-governmental bodies, non-governmental andcommunity organisations, academic and professional
institutions and other stakeholders.

NATURAL HERITAGE
MINING AND WORLD HERITAGE
III.1
The Bureau recalled that the results of thetechnical workshop on World Heritage and Mining werereviewed by the last session of the Committee. It was
informed that the proceedings of the workshop were
published by the International Council on Metals and theEnvironment (ICME), IUCN and the World Heritage
Centre. In July 2000 a copy was sent to all Committee
members and in November 2001 to all new Committee
members for information.
III.2
The Bureau also noted the change in theorganization of the mining industry relating to the Global
Mining Initiative's (GMI) decision to put in place a neworganization. On 21 May 2001, the Board of Directors of
the International Council on Metals and the Environment(ICME) agreed to transform the organization into theInternational Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), tobe based in London. ICMM has been given a broader
mandate by the membership to focus principally on
providing sustainable development leadership for theindustry. An environmental scientist has been appointed
the Secretary-General of ICMM in October 2001 and theinaugural meeting of the Governing Council of ICMM has
been held on 24 October 2001 in London. Issues related tomining and biodiversity will continue to be a priority forthis new organization The membership comprises leading
companies from the mining, metals and minerals industry(represented by their Chairmen/CEOs), as well as officebearers of regional, national and commodity associations.
III.3
The objectives of ICMM are as follows:•= to initiate, conduct, promote and communicate
research and analysis into the interaction of theworld’s mining, mineral and metal industries with theeconomy, the environment and communities;•= to seek to lead change within these industries bystimulating discussion and coordinating activities
between and among member companies, others
involved with the industry and the industry’s regional,
national, commodity and international associations;•= to develop and communicate a clear and authoritative
position on global issues affecting the future of themining, mineral and metal industries;•= to determine and promote global best practiceperformance standards within these industries;

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.4
IUCN noted there are a number of initiatives
underway at present relating to mining and theenvironment and reaffirmed its view that mining should
not be permitted within World Heritage sites.
III.5
The Bureau noted that following the creation of
ICMM, the World Heritage Centre and IUCN will review
the proposal for the establishment of a Working Group on
World Heritage and Mining, as proposed by the World
Heritage Committee at its twenty-fourth session and willreport back to the twenty-sixth session of the World
Heritage Committee.
AfricaDja Faunal Reserve (Cameroon)
III.6
The Bureau noted that two articles were
published on illegal poaching in Cameroon, with particularmention of Dja Faunal Reserve.
III.7
IUCN noted that such a situation can negatively
impact protected area relations with local people. IUCN
reported that, in collaboration with the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) and TRAFFIC, thewildlife monitoring programme of IUCN and WWF,
convened a technical workshop in Yaounde, Cameroon
from 17-20 September 2001. The workshop, entitled“Links Between Biodiversity Conservation, Livelihoods
and Food Security and the Use of Wild Meat”, aimed to:forge functional links among the species conservation,
food security/community development and commercial
sectors in order to identify means to address conservationand development concerns linked to the unsustainable useof wild fauna for food; contribute to the process ofidentifying, prioritising and planning practical responses toaddress priority conservation and development concerns
related to the use of wild fauna for food; and provide input
to a GEF proposal related to the use of wild fauna tocontribute to sustainable livelihoods in Central Africa.
III.8
IUCN and the Centre noted that the
UNESCO/FAO African World Heritage Forest Initiative(AWHFI) concept document, currently being developed
for submission to the UNF Board for the July 2002 roundof biodiversity grants, includes Dja Faunal Reserve. The
Centre and IUCN observed with concern that the reports
on poaching and logging, if accurately reported, suggestthat it may be necessary to consider whether the siteshould be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 105

They acknowledged that the problem is due to a
combination of factors including law enforcement,
political commitment, cultural differences, resources, andfood availability. In light of the recent Wild Meatworkshop it is hoped that prompt and effective action will
be taken by the State Party to address these damaging
trends.
III.9
The Bureau adopted the following decision fortransmission to the Committee for examination at its
twenty-fifth session:“The Committee welcomes the recommendations of
IUCN, and calls upon the State Party to take urgent action
to halt illegal poaching in the Reserve, and requests a fullreport from the State Party on this situation by 1 February
2002. This report shall be submitted for consideration by
the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee(June 2002), at which time it will decide on the need for a
mission to the site. Furthermore, the Committee
commends the chief executives of major European logging
firms active in Central Africa, representatives from various
conservation NGOs (WCS, IUCN, WWF) and officials
from the World Bank and the European Union) for theirinitial efforts in bringing stakeholders together to tackle
the environmental problems associated with logging
operations. The code of conduct should be supported, andthe Committee urges the CEO-AWG to strengthen its
efforts to involve Asian companies in the work of thegroup and to undertake every effort to include all logging
companies working in Cameroon.”
Mount Kenya National Park/Natural Forest (Kenya)
III.10 The Centre and IUCN had received a letter fromthe Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) noting that IUCN had
requested KWS to nominate Mt Kenya World Heritagesite for inclusion in the List of World Heritage in Danger,
and expressing opposition to the ‘proposed de-listing of
Mt Kenya World Heritage site'. The letter noted that the
management of the site had recently been transferred fromthe Forest Department to the KWS with the aim ofenhancing management and enforcement. The KWS
reported that it had extended the boundaries of the site toinclude the natural forest, and was in the process of
preparing an integrated management plan. IUCN had
responded to the State Party by: clarifying its role as an
Advisory Body; outlining the process involved in listingsites on the List of World Heritage in Danger; explaining
the implications of inclusion on the List of World Heritage
in Danger, and outlining the purpose of monitoring
missions and the need for such missions to be approved by
the State Party. The Centre and IUCN noted that the delay
in receiving an invitation from the Kenyan State Party fora monitoring mission appears to be related to amisunderstanding on what was requested by the Bureau inJune 2001. The KWS was of the understanding that therequest for a mission with the view to considering whether
the site should be included on the List of World Heritage
in Danger constituted automatic inclusion in this List, as
well as subsequent removal from the World Heritage List.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.11 The
Bureauadoptedthefollowingrecommendation for transmission to the Committee for
examination at its twenty-fifth session:"The Committee requests the State Party to invite a
mission to the site as soon as possible to enable anindependent assessment of the state of conservation of
the World Heritage site."
Banc d'Arguin National Park, Mauritania
III.12 The Bureau was informed that the issue of 23
June 2001 of the New Scientist included an article on Bancd’Arguin National Park. Entitled “Breaking the Banc:
Africa’s largest marine sanctuary is failing”, the article
describes the threat to the Park’s fish stocks posed by ‘tensof thousands of traditional fishermen’ and ‘hundreds ofgiant foreign trawlers’ that fish at the edge of the Park
boundary. The article puts most blame on the large
international trawler consortiums, many of them European(the largest European vessel can hold 7,000 tonnes of fish
and is dedicated full time to Mauritanian waters), whohave the financial power to buy fishing rights from theMauritanian Government. It notes that the trawlers havedisplaced traditional fishermen who are increasingpressure to be allowed inside the Park and the World
Heritage site.
III.13 The Centre and IUCN noted the importance ofworking with traditional fishermen to help address theirconcerns. A vital element of effective management of thecoastal zone is the protection of key ecosystems such as
those within the World Heritage site. The increasing
involvement of international trawlers is a cause for grave
concern as it can potentially negate such initiatives.
III.14 In September 2001 the Park reported to IUCN
that two pre-exploration permits for petroleum exploration
within the Park had been signed by the Government ofMauritania. The Park is currently seeking to undertake anurgent assessment of the legal situation in Mauritania andits obligations under international conventions, including
the World Heritage Convention, in order to halt the
exploration and production permits.
It is seeking
assistance to undertake this assessment. The Park reportsthat the situation with the proposed road between
Nouadhibou and Nouackchott, which will pass close to theboundary of the Park, remains inconclusive.
III.15 The Bureau welcomed the recommendations of
IUCN and requested a report from the State Party by 1
February 2002 for examination by the twenty-sixth sessionof the Bureau. This report should address the following
issues: the status of petroleum permits relating to oil
exploration within the Park; threats to marine resources of
the Park, and the status of the road between Nouadhibou
and Nouackchott.
Niokolo-Koba National Park (Senegal)
III.16 The Bureau learned that an IUCN/Centre
monitoring mission to the site was undertaken from 5 to 15

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 106

July 2001. The full mission report was provided as an
information document WHC-2001/CONF.207/INF.7. As
suggested in the report, IUCN and the Centre proposedthat an aerial survey should be conducted as a matter ofurgency. This survey should determine the number anddistribution of giant eland in Niokolo-Koba NP’s easternpart and the adjacent Faleme Hunting Zone. Because of
the present low density of giant eland, a total coverage ofthe primary giant eland area in Niokolo-Koba NP is
recommended. A sample count following standardised
methodology could be undertaken in the remaining areasof Niokolo-Koba NP and the Faleme Hunting Zone.
III.17 All National Park staff working in Niokolo-Koba
or visiting the Park should be encouraged to record
detailed giant eland information on standardised data
sheets whenever possible. Observations should include
standardised information such as date, habitat type,
locality, group sizes and number of calves. Other regular
visitors to Niokolo-Koba NP, such as tour operators, could
also be encouraged to collect specific information on giant
eland. It is desirable to protect a small number of giant
eland outside Niokolo-Koba NP. The present six giant
eland in Bandia Reserve could serve this purpose. No
further captures and relocations of giant eland from
Niokolo-Koba NP to areas outside the Park should beconsidered for the time being. A short field research
project on giant eland should be considered for submission
requesting support from the World Heritage Fund. This
project should collect detailed population data, movements
and habitat use. A one-year field project should be able toachieve the initial goals. Radio collaring of a few selectedindividuals would be essential to ensure that study animals
could be reliably located.
III.18 Effective law enforcement (anti-poaching
operations) will remain of critical importance, not only as
far as the survival of giant eland is concerned but also
other species in the Park. It was proposed that the servicesof a specialist consultant be sought to consider various
alternative law-enforcement strategies. This must be donein close co-operation with National Parks’ authorities aswell as community representatives in the Niokolo-Koba
region. The project “The protection, reproduction andveterinary control of large antelopes, such as the Derby
eland” proposed by the Tropical and Sub-tropical
Agronomy at the ITSZ CZU in Prague, should be
reviewed by all key stakeholder groups. The project could
play a major role in ensuring the survival of the giant
eland.
III.19 The
Bureauadoptedthefollowingrecommendation for transmission to the Committee for
examination at its twenty-fifth session:“The Committee endorses the recommendations of the
IUCN/Centre mission, and requests the State Party toreview the document and report back with an action
plan for implementation of the recommendations by 1
February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth
session of the Committee (June 2002).”

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Ngorongoro Conservation Area (United Republic of
Tanzania)
III.20 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that theCentre and IUCN had received a report of extensive andincreasing domestic crop cultivation in the Ngorongoro
Crater and wider Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA),
97% of which constitutes the World Heritage site. A letterfrom the Centre was addressed to the Permanent
Delegation of the United Republic of Tanzania to
UNESCO requesting verification of the situation with the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area authorities. The same
letter was copied to the Frankfurt Zoological Society thathas undertaken projects in NCA. Concerns have beenraised over the expansion and the negative impacts on
wildlife and the Masaai traditional pastoralism.
Specifically the concerns raised relate to:
•=
•=

•=
•=

Cultivation on very steep slopes;
Growing pressure for alternative land use which has
reduced most of the Maasai's grazing lands, making
Ngorongoro the last sanctuary with intact grazing
land;
Steady increase in residents in Ngorongoro, mainly
through immigration from other areas;
Changes in the agricultural practices of the Masaai
pastoralists.

III.21 In response to the above report, the Conservatorof Ngorongoro in his letter to the Centre dated 7 August
2001, noted that in 1995 the Ngorongoro Conservation
Area Authority commissioned a team of experts toconsider the issue of domestic cultivation. The study
concluded that the cultivation practised by the Masaai
pastoralists was not a threat to conservation andpastoralism interests. It recommended cultivation carriedout by non-Masaai pastoralists should be halted as it poseda threat to the integrity of the Conservation Area. It also
noted that increasing numbers of immigrants who might
not abide by Masaai relations and customs, could threaten
the functioning of the Masaai’s social institutions which
regulate land use.
III.22 Further, the Conservator of Ngorongoro notedthat the following actions have been enforced:•= Identification of immigrants and human and livestock
census;•= Acquiring alternative land for cultivation outside theConservation Area for resettling of immigrants andwhere domestic cultivation could be carried out;•= Follow up study to the 1995 study;•= Implementation of a DANIDA-funded project aimed
at revitalising the livestock- based economy in orderto ensure that cultivation remains secondary tolivestock;•= Continuing the grain importation scheme to help theresident population gain access to grain at cost price,and therefore discourage crop cultivation.
III.23 The Frankfurt Zoological Society expressed
concern that “without a decision from the government,
cultivation will continue and threaten not only one of the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 107

III.24 IUCN noted that the serious encroachment anddestruction of the highland forests at the northern edge ofthe site continues. IUCN noted further that cultivation,even at a very low level, excludes use of the area by larger
wildlife species in the long term, and that only a verysmall percentage of the NCA is suitable for cultivation
because of rainfall, soil and slope conditions.
IUCN also noted that:

III.27 There have been a series of Environmental
Impact Assessments and discussions on the ENP whichhave held its implementation up. Potential impacts, if
implemented, include downstream effects on Lake Natronin Tanzania (possible extension to the proposed Rift
Valley Lake Reserves World Heritage site) and potential
ecological impact on the Serengeti National Park. IUCN
has received a report by the Frankfurt Zoological Society,which noted potential impacts of the project, if
implemented, on the conservation of the Serengeti
National Park:•=•=

The main feature of the Serengeti Ecosystem, which
extends across several protected areas, including theWorld Heritage site, is the wildebeest migration.
Wildlife numbers in this system are controlled by thedry season rainfall (and consequent grass availability)
in the Mara River system. Presently, the Serengeti
Migration consists of approximately 1.2 million
wildebeest and 200,000 zebras.
This was animportant feature at the time of the inscription of this
site.

•=

If the Mara River were to dry up, most of the wildlife
migrants would perish and the Serengeti Migration
would collapse irreversibly. There is concern thatthough the ENP makes allowances for maintainingsome water flow in the Mara River, even during
severe droughts, these drought times would also
produce the worst power shortages in Kenya.
Consequently, there would be unpredictable pressure
on the demand for channelling all available Marawater into the Ewaso Ng’iro Hydroelectric project.

•=

Even under normal climatic conditions the projectmight endanger the Serengeti World Heritage Site andimpact tourist revenues in Tanzania and Kenya. In
June 2001, Tanzania National Parks, together with theFrankfurt Zoological Society and the AustralianInstitute for Marine Science developed an ecologicalmodel to test the possible impact of the Amala weir
water diversion project on the Serengeti Migration(Modeling the Impact on the Serengeti Ecosystem of
the Proposed Amala Weir Water Diversion Project in
Kenya, Gereta, E., Wolanski, E., and Borner, M.,
2001.).

world’s most famous wildlife areas but also one of the lastgrazing lands for the Maasai cattle”.

•=

•=

•=

the Ngorongoro Conservation Area was separated
from the Serengeti and gazetted as a multi-use
conservation area, hence sustainable use such as
grazing is allowed;
Limited subsistence cultivation was allowed in theearly nineties due to food shortages, declining
livestock and population growth. This alone was not aserious threat. What has become a serious threat is thecommercial farming introduced by immigrant farmers,
and this is what needs to be addressed urgently;
There is some disagreement about the impact of the
Masaai practising agriculture within the NCA. Thereis the possibility that Masaai agriculture (distinct fromtraditional pastoralism or livestock rearing), is also
negatively impacting on the site;
The management of the NCA requires more effective
scientific guidance.

III.25 The
Bureauadoptedthefollowingrecommendation for transmission to the Committee for
examination at its twenty-fifth session:“The Committee requests the State Party to provide areport on the encroachment situation in the northern
section of the World Heritage site and on the impacts
of commercial farming introduced by immigrant
farmers on the integrity and values of this World
Heritage site by 1 February 2002 for consideration by
the twenty-sixth session of the Committee.”

Serengeti National
Tanzania)

Park(UnitedRepublicof

III.26 The Bureau was informed that the Centre and
IUCN had received several reports concerning the
proposed Ewaso Ng’iro Hydroelectric Project (ENP) in
Kenya, and its potential impacts on the Serengeti and Mara
ecosystems.
The State-owned Kenya Electricity
Generating Company is proposing to build three dams
along the Ewaso Ng’iro River that would generate 180
MW of electricity and which would cost 350 million
dollars by the time of completion in 2007. This scheme, if
implemented, would link the Mara River system through a
3.5 km tunnel with the upper drainage of the Ewaso Ng’iro(south) River, thus reversing the Mara’s flow into the
Ewaso Ng’iro River, finally draining into Lake Natron in
the east instead of Lake Victoria in the west.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

It is understood that the East Africa Community has
discussed this issue and the proposal has effectively been
dropped for the time being.
III.28 IUCN has been notified that WWF East Africa
Regional Office is commencing design of a Mara River
Catchment Basin Initiative. This will focus on conserving
the Mara River Catchment’s unique biodiversity; ensuring
the maintenance of natural functions by balancing the
supply and demand of biodiversity products, anddeveloping alternative livelihoods for communities. As
part of the Initiative’s preliminary phase, WWF has
recently commissioned a report on the hydrology of the
Kenyan side of the Mara River, in order to consider theland use changes and impacts of these on the flow and

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 108

quality of the River. IUCN noted that the Serengeti
National Park is one of the field sites for the Enhancing
our Heritage Project funded by the UNF.
IUCN
considered that there is merit in the State Parties of Kenya
and Tanzania establishing a joint committee through theCommission on East Africa Cooperation arrangement toundertake further in-depth studies on the entire catchmentsof the Ewaso Ng’iro, Lake Natron, Mara River systems.
III.29 IUCN noted that the Serengeti is not only aWorld Heritage site and Biosphere Reserve, it is also themain tourist attraction in Tanzania, a country where
tourism revenue is the largest foreign exchange earner. It
also noted that the very reason that the Serengeti is a
World Heritage site - the wildebeest migration, could be
potentially threatened by any future implementation of the
ENP. IUCN recognised that any negative impact on thedry season range of the wildebeest has potentially major
ramifications for the very criteria on which the Serengeti
listing is based. IUCN also noted that the Mara River ishabitat for riverine forest containing many rare forest birds
and other fauna, and upon which large populations of
crocodiles and hippopotamus depend. It is clear that there
is a high element of risk in the diversion of water from theMara. The Mara diversion cannot be considered inisolation, it must be considered in the context of other
ecological problems such as rapidly changing land use anddeforestation in the catchments, as well as the impacts ofclimate change. Most serious ecological/environmental
problems arise because of a complex combination offactors.
In such cases, IUCN believes that the
precautionary principle must be applied to avoid any
actions that increase the risk of the Mara drying up.

the Reef, and recommended minimum targets for pollutant
loads that would halt the decline in water quality entering
the reef. The Plan is available on the GBRMPA web site
at: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ The Plan notes that overthe last 150 years, the sediment load has increased by 300900%, phosphate by 300 –1500%, total nitrogen by 200400%, respectively and that pesticide residues are now
detectable in sub-tidal sediments. For the 2001-2011
decade, the plan proposes the reduction of sediment by
38%, nitrogen by 39%, phosphorous by 47%, andchlorophyll by 30-60%, respectively. It is also proposed toreduce the detectable levels of heavy metals andpesticides.
III.32 The Plan recommends that the targets beincorporated into relevant plans under the National Action
Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural
Heritage Trust. For catchments not covered under the
NAP, the report recommends that the State Government
prepare, and submit to the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial
Council, integrated catchment management plans that set
out the action required to meet the water quality targets.
The Plan suggests specific actions, notably a mix ofregulatory and non-regulatory measures that need to betaken to improve the quality of water entering the World
Heritage site including:•=•=
III.30 The Bureau noted that the ENP project has been
discussed by the East African Community and has beenabandoned for the time being. The Bureau noted thepotential impacts of any implementation of the ENP
scheme on the Serengeti World Heritage site and requested
that it be kept informed of developments by the State
Parties of Tanzania and Kenya.

•=
•=
•=

Asia and the PacificWorld Heritage Properties of Australia
Great Barrier Reef (Australia)
III.31 The Bureau was informed that on 10 September
2001 the Australian Government released a scientificreport addressing the effect of land use activities on water
quality in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
The report - Great Barrier Reef Catchment Water Quality
Action Plan - recommends specific end-of-river pollution
targets for 2011 for all 26 catchments adjacent to the Great
Barrier Reef. The Plan was prepared by the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) at the request of
the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council and theCommonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage. A
scientific working group reviewed available data andexisting national water quality guidelines, prioritised
catchments according to the ecological risk presented toReport of the World Heritage Committee•=•=

Reforms to ensure that all environmentally significant
activities in the catchments are subject to proper
environmental impact assessment and approval
processes and that conditions are attached to ensure
activities are carried out in a manner that protects andimproves water quality
Promotion of ‘constraint mapping’ for current andfuture agricultural development
Protection and rehabilitation of catchment areas at risksuch as freshwater wetlands and riparian vegetation
Establishment and enforcement of standards for
sewage, wastewater and storm- water discharge fromcoastal developments to watercourses
Promotion of environmental management plans for
agricultural activities, which promote farming
practices that minimise downstream impacts
Promotion of full compliance to Industry Codes ofPractice, andInitiation of public and catchment specific education
programmes about the connectivity between land use
and the impacts on the Reef.

III.33 WWF-Australia has estimated that the cost of asignificant restoration programme to mitigate pollution
and to clean up the waters flowing into the Great Barrier
Reef (GBR) would be in excess of AU$300 million. It has
identified the following actions as key to success: (i) an
immediate and permanent moratorium of land clearing in
the GBR catchment; (ii) urgent legislative protection forcoastal freshwater wetlands; (iii) all agricultural activities
to be regulated under the Queensland Environment
Protection Act 1994; (iv) fertiliser and pesticide use to belicensed; (v) legislative discharge limits for acid sulphatesoil to be set; and (vi) a major GBR catchment riparian re-

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 109

vegetation and wetland restoration programme to be
designed and financed.
III.34 IUCN had noted that the Great Barrier Reef
Catchment Water Quality Action Plan initiative directly
addresses one of the major issues raised in the ACIUCN
report on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, relating to
the need for more effective catchment management inlands adjacent to the Park.
III.35 The Observer of Australia noted that since thereport has come out only recently, the Bureau should not
yet urge specific actions to implement the Action Plan.
Time should be given for the Australian authorities toconsider relevant measures for implementation of the Plan.
A meeting concerning the measures to be taken will takeplace shortly. Australia agreed to report back soon after
the meeting.
III.36 The Bureau commended the State Party on therelease of the Water Quality Action Plan, setting targets
for improvements and the recommended actions to achieve
the targets. The Bureau invited the State Party to provide
regular reports to the Committee on the implementation of
the Water Quality Action Plan as well as on theimplementation of the Focused Recommendations andFramework for Management adopted for the site by theState Party and ACIUCN in 1999.
Fraser Island (Australia)
III.37 The Bureau noted that on 30 April 2001, a 9-year
boy was killed by dingoes on Fraser Island. This was thefirst recorded death in Australia by dingoes of a humanover 1 year of age. This death prompted a re-evaluation of
the risk posed to humans by dingoes and a re-assessmentof the management strategies outlined in the draft Fraser
Island Dingo Management Strategy (March 2001). The
revised Strategy is now with the Queensland Government
awaiting approval.
III.38 Immediately following the incident, theQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS)
undertook a cull of 31 dingoes to reduce the immediaterisk to people from habituated dingoes that were
frequenting areas heavily used by people. This cull was a
one-time operation. A Risk Assessment Report (Risk
Assessment: Risk to humans posed by the dingo population
on Fraser Island, EPA, May 2001) was commissioned by
the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Risk Assessment provides direction for the immediate
management of dingoes on Fraser Island and provides sitespecific management recommendations. As such, it iscomplementary to the draft Fraser Island Dingo
Management Strategy. The Risk Assessment outlined
some previously unused management options at particularsites, including: (a) fencing of campgrounds andrecreational areas; (b) active deterrence of animals in thevicinity of popular visitor areas; (c) restriction on taking offood to certain locations; and (d) time restrictions forvisitors at some sites. Additional island wide management
approaches recommended include: (i) limiting visitor

Report of the World Heritage Committee

numbers using a variety of approaches; (ii) significantly
increasing fines and penalties for feeding dingoes; (iii)enhancing public education and awareness programmes;(iv) increasing enforcement through additional ranger
presence; (v) increasing monitoring and research on the
dingo.
III.39 The need for consultation with the Island’s
residents, tour operators, the Fraser Island Community
Advisory Committee, native title claimants and theIsland’s World Heritage Area Management Committee on
appropriate limits and mechanisms is emphasised in the
Risk Assessment Report. IUCN has received expert advice
that the impact of the cull is unlikely to have any adverse
impacts on the long-term viability or survival of the dingo
population. The Fraser Island dingo population is of great
relevance and high importance to the status of Fraser
Island as a World Heritage site. Although the Fraser Island
dingo population is not 100% pure, Fraser Island
represents the best opportunity to establish and maintain aself-sustaining population of wild genetically puredingoes.
III.40 Elsewhere in Australia, and other range countries
in Asia and Africa, most populations are, or will soon be,
predominantly hybrid. The IUCN Canid Action Plan lists
the dingo as a threatened species. With the 2nd edition of
the Plan currently in preparation, the conservation status of
the dingo is under review and may be upgraded toendangered.
III.41 Fraser Island does not have an exclusive Plan ofManagement, rather, it is catered for in the Great Sandy
Region Management Plan (GSRMP). The GSRMP covers
the Great Sandy Region National Park, of which Fraser
Island is a part, and also adjacent marine areas and somelands outside the protected area. Released in 1994, it was
prepared as a regional conservation plan with input fromnumerous government departments. It does not havestatutory status. The GSRMP is about to undergo adetailed review. The process will involve substantial
stakeholder and community input and is scheduled forcompletion in March 2003. The review is explicitly
considering a specific management plan for the Fraser
Island World Heritage property, as well as a commitment
to new legislative requirements for the World Heritagesite.
III.42 On the 27 July 2001 the Queensland Government
announced the allocation of an extra AU$1.75 million
towards the management of Fraser Island. AU$1 million
has been earmarked this financial year for dingo
management on the Island; the other AU$750,000 is to be
spent employing eight permanent rangers for the Island.
The Observer of Australia informed the Bureau that theDevelopment Strategy has been recently released and thata copy of it will be provided for the Secretariat.
III.43 The Bureau commended the State Party/QPWS
on the Risk Assessment and the draft Dingo Management
Strategy and welcomed the State Party’s consideration of avariety of options including the imposition of visitor

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 110

limits. The Bureau invited the State Party to provide
further information on the visitor management strategy as
it is developed. The Bureau welcomed the review of the
GSRMP and its explicit recognition of Fraser Island as a
World Heritage area requiring special management plans
and legislative frameworks to protect the World Heritagesite for perpetuity.
The Sundarbans (Bangladesh)III.44 The Bureau was informed of details of theGovernment of Bangladesh plans to explore “Block 5” of
the Sundarbans Reserve Forest for oil and gas. Shell has
publicly declared that it has no plans for exploration
activities in the Special Reserved Forest (SRF). The
World Heritage site comprises three sections of the SRF at
the coastal edge. Shell has furthermore acknowledged thefollowing:
•=

•=
•=

•=

•=

•=

•=

The Sundarbans is also a Ramsar site. The Ramsar
Convention has confirmed that the Ramsar site issynonymous with the SRF and does not extend
beyond the SRF;
Shell will carry out extensive environmental andsocial studies and stakeholder engagement before
conducting any activities elsewhere in Block 5;
As regards the socio-economic impact zone outside
the northern peripheries of the SRF, Shell will be
discussing the implications of oil and gas exploration
with the Ministry of Environment and Forest;
Shell recognizes that one of the main objectives of the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) -Government of
Bangladesh Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation
Project (SBCP) is to reduce the poverty level of the
3.5 million people living in the impact zone andprovide them with alternative livelihood options inorder to encourage them to leave the forest;
By providing economic activities, and in the case of
successful exploration of clean gas, Shell can add
value to the objectives of the SBCP and be a party toproviding sustainable development opportunities in
the region;
Shell-Bangladesh is aware of the need to consider the
potential indirect impacts on the SRF of any of its
future activities. Such activities, whether inside thesocio-economic impact zone, or elsewhere in Block 5,
will be continued only after full environmental andsocial impact assessments and in consultations withall stakeholders;
The current phase of the project consists of
exploration only. If hydrocarbons are discovered and
it is decided subsequently to develop them, further
EIA and SIA studies will be undertaken, together with
continuing stakeholder consultations.

III.45 On 20 September 2001, Shell convened its firstworkshop in Dhaka to share information about the ensuing
work programme, oil and gas exploration and emergent
issues and questions. It distributed briefing papers tostakeholders and invited responses and discussion. A web
site has been launched with updated information on Shell’s
activities in Bangladesh: http://www.shell.com/bd/. The

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Bureau noted that IUCN Bangladesh is in discussion with
Shell about their activities and will continue to advise
them as and when requested.
III.46 The Bureau learnt that the Steering Committee,
established by the Government of Bangladesh for smooth
implementation of the Sundarbans Biodiversity
Conservation Project (SBCP), has invited IUCN
Bangladesh to be a member. As part of the SBCP, IUCN
Bangladesh will conduct independent monitoring of
biodiversity of the Sundarbans, drawing on wetland,marine and protected area specialists from its international
network. The UN Foundation has provided a planning
grant for another project to be executed jointly by UNDP
Offices in Bangladesh and India for promoting transborder co-operation between the two countries for
improving the World Heritage site's biodiversity
conservation. The planning grant project activities areunderway and a larger proposal for possible financing by
the UNF and UNDP will be the principal outcome of theplanning phase. UNDP has appointed consultants for
preparation of the project proposal.
III.47 A media report claims that “due to the high levelof salinity, 30 Bengal Tigers have died within the past 10
years. Autopsy reports revealed that liver damage has
caused the death of these Tigers". The article mentions a
proposal by the Bangladesh Forest Department for a fiveyear, US$2 million project called "Tiger Project:
Sundarbans" which, though proposed in 1991, has notbeen implemented. IUCN has received advice that salinity
levels are not a special threat to the tigers in the
Sundarbans as they have adapted to water with salinity
levels higher than in other parts of its range in South Asia.
There may well be indirect threats to the tigers if salinityinduced changes impact other components of its habitat;
i.e. its principal prey species, and habitat structures anddistribution.
III.48 The ‘crown death’ of Sundri trees, the dominantmangrove species in the Sundarbans, could be attributableto salinity, sedimentation, pest attack and natural
successional processes, although salinity is frequently
cited as the primary reason. The SBCP has initiated astudy on the death of the Sundri trees. IUCN has received
preliminary media reports of a planned ‘Biodiversity
Project’ - comprised of an ‘Ecopark’ and mangrovearboretum - for Karamjal, situated in the Sundarbans East
Zone under the Chandpai range. Karamjal is a captive
breeding centre for many critically endangered species of
the Sundarbans. The Ecopark will cover an area of 30
hectares and play a vital role in conserving forest resources
while also being a tourist attraction for international
visitors.
III.49 The Bureau commended the State Party for its
efforts, in particular via the SBCP and other projects, tostrengthen conservation of the site, and to provide
alternative livelihood options to forest exploitation so that
local communities acknowledge the positive influence
World Heritage site protection has for the whole region.
The Bureau welcomed Shell’s careful and transparent

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 111

planning of its hydro-carbon exploration activities inBlock 5 and its commitment to undertake full social,economic and environmental impact studies before any
production occurs, and to continuing open dialogue withstakeholders. The Bureau noted that proposals for oil andgas exploration are outside the boundaries of the World
Heritage site and expressed its opposition to any mining or
exploration activities within the site. All oil and gas
exploration as well as other development activities in thevicinity of the World Heritage site must be carefullyplanned to minimise environmental and social impacts.

•=

Sundarbans National Park (India)
III.50 The Bureau learned that the "Project Tiger status
report" for 2001, prepared by the Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MOEF) of India, refers to a system of
National Waterways through the mangrove forests of
Sundarbans including the Tiger Reserve. If implemented,
the project will affect the ecosystem adversely by largescale human activities, dredging of streams and oil spillsof numerous vessels carrying cargo.
III.51 The Bureau expressed its concern over the
potential threats posed by the proposed National
Waterways project to this site and requested that the State
Party submit, before 1 February 2002, a detailed report on
the project and its potential impacts on the site for review
at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

•=•=

Kaziranga National Park (India)
III.52 The Bureau noted that the State Party had not yet
provided the report requested before 15 September 2001 as
requested by the Bureau at its twenty-fifth session in June
2001. The Centre intends to organize an IUCN/Centre
mission to Manas Wildlife Sanctuary in Assam, India, inFebruary 2002, and that mission could visit Kaziranga
National Park as well.
III.53 The Bureau reiterated its request, that the State
Party submit a report on major management issues andwelcomed the possibility of the IUCN/Centre mission
visiting this site during its visit to Assam, India in
February 2002. The Bureau recommended that an up-todate state of conservation report on the site be submitted to
its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.
Komodo National Park (Indonesia)
III.54 The Bureau was informed that the State Party had
submitted a report on the state of conservation of the siteusing the format prescribed in the periodic reporting
brochure and this report has been reviewed by IUCN. The
Bureau learned that:•=

The 25-year Management Plan for the site wascompleted in June 2000. The Plan comprises the
expansion of the Park, to include an extension at Gili
Banta and a connection to Gili Mota. The proposed
extensions will add 504 square kilometres to the areaof the Park, 479 sq.km. of which will be marine

Report of the World Heritage Committee•=•=

habitat. The new Park would therefore comprise 27%
terrestrial and 73% marine areas. The proposed
extension is based on the high level of coral and fish
diversity and associated aesthetic value and theimportance of areas providing migratory corridors forcetaceans.
The plan also includes a new zoning system for thePark, dividing the Park into 7 zones covering bothmarine and terrestrial environments as follows: corezone; wilderness zone with limited tourism; tourism
zone; traditional use zone; pelagic use zone; special
research and training zone; and traditional settlementzone. Regulations have been formulated for eachzone. A map of the Park is being completed and will
be disseminated widely.
According to the ongoing coral reef and fish
monitoring programme conducted by The Nature
Conservancy of USA (TNC) and Park personnel, aslow recovery, i.e. 2% increase in hard coral per year,
has been occurring around Komodo since 1996. Eightdemersal fish spawning grounds have been identified
within the Park waters. As a consequence, the Park
has applied regulations to prohibit demersal fish
exploitation during the spawning season.
In the terrestrial sector, forest fires occur frequently,
largely due to human activities during the dry season.
Deer poaching has been a significant threat to theintegrity of the Park, with poachers using fire to herd
deer. Park patrols involve local police, navy and army
personnel, as Park rangers are not equipped with
firearms.
A floating boat patrol, equipped with communication
systems to allow contact with Park headquarters, hasbeen added to the law enforcement programme.
Overall, the incidences of dynamite and cyanide
fishing and deer poaching have declined significantlywith improved and intensified patrolling.
Park regulations prohibit anyone from entering thePark without a permit, except local people practicing
traditional fishing. Despite this prohibition, illegal
entry by fishermen originating from other islands
continues to be a major issue.

III.55 TNC has been working on an innovative
management scheme for the Park, involving the private
tourism sector and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) in
a partnership to establish sustainable financing for thePark. IUCN has been playing a supportive role andproviding some technical input, in co-operation with theInternational Finance Corporation (IFC) which is helping
to support the project. The Indonesian Government
formally wrote to the UNESCO Office in Jakarta,
Indonesia, requesting UNESCO’s views on the joint
TNC/GOI/tourism sector initiative. The establishment of a
tourism concession is seen as a sustainable financing
mechanism to be tested within the framework of theimplementation of the 25-year Management Plan and has
been supported by IUCN and UNESCO. The need toclosely monitor the work of the concession and all otherprojects designed to support the implementation of the 25year Management Plan has however been stressed by all
stakeholders.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 112

III.56 The Bureau welcomed the several initiatives tostrengthen protection of the site and acknowledged theimportant contributions that TNC, IFC, GEF, the tourism
sector and other partners are making towards the long-term
conservation and sustainable financing of Komodo
National Park. The Bureau noted with concern that theillegal entry of outsiders from other islands continues andinvited the GOI to consider providing increased resources
for patrolling the marine environment of the Park,
especially in the light of the recent extension to the marine
component of the Park. The Bureau recommended that theState Party provide, by 1 February 2002, a status report on
the establishment of the tourism management concession
and a timeframe for nominating the extensions to the Parkfor inclusion in the World Heritage site, to enable the
Bureau to review the information at its twenty-sixth
session in April 2002.
Lorentz National Park (Indonesia)
III.57 The Bureau was informed of the following steps
taken by the WWF Office in Irian Jaya: (i) institutional
strengthening of three local NGOs to develop skills in
Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRA), project planningand monitoring, identification and development ofalternative income sources, community organisation,
advocacy and communications; (ii) promoting communitybased approaches to natural resources management by
documenting traditional practices of the three main ethnic
groups using the Park’s resources; (iii) identifying
alternative sources of income in order to minimisecommunity dependence on forest resources; (iv)encouraging the recognition of community rights andknowledge and enhancing community participation in sitemanagement; and (v) co-operating with Park management
to develop an overall management plan as well as plans forthe utilisation of various management zones.
III.58 WWF-Indonesia has financed a range of activities
up to the year 2001 and is in the process of submitting
proposals for financing a number of new initiatives for theperiod 2001/2002 and beyond. The Bureau noted thefollowing issues identified by WWF as requiring
immediate attention:
•=
•=
•=
•=

Organisation of an integrated planning workshop
bringing together all concerned parties;
Building transparent relationships amongst NGOs,
ethnic communities, private sector and theGovernment;
Establishment of an institution with multi-stakeholder
representation for management of the area; andFinancing programmes targeted to research,communities and institutional development and theoverall long-term planning and development of thesite.

III.59 The US$30,000 grant approved by the twentyfifth session of the Bureau will be used for theorganisation of a series of strategic planning workshops
involving the participation of all stakeholders. The

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Secretariat informed the Bureau that the AustralianGovernment has approved AU$250,000 for capacity
building for the management of the site. The Delegate ofAustralia expressed the interest of his Government to work
together with the Indonesian authorities, IUCN and theCentre to implement the capacity building project.
III.60 The Bureau noted the variety of support that is
becoming available to the site for strategic planning,
capacity building and NGO and community support
initiatives. However, recommendations from these
activities need to be implemented to ensure a positive
impact on the conservation of this site. Hence, the Bureau
encouraged relevant donors to support the implementationof recommended priority actions and to co-ordinate theiractivities. The Bureau requested the Centre and IUCN towork through its partners, particularly the UNESCO
Office, Jakarta and the IUCN Asia Regional Programme
and IUCN/WCPA Vice-Chair for Southeast Asia topromote co-ordinated development and execution ofprojects and activities in support of Lorentz. The Bureau
recalled that in accordance with the recommendation of
the Committee made at the time of the site’s inscription in
the World Heritage List in 1999, a IUCN/Centre mission
to the site is due in late 2002. The Bureau recommended
that a full status report on the conservation of the site andthe planning of its future management be submitted to thetwenty-seventh session of the Bureau in April 2003.
Gunung Mulu National Park (Malaysia)
III.61 The Bureau learnt that the State Party is
considering a proposal to enlarge Mulu World Heritagesite to include Gunung Buda. The proposal however, israising concern amongst indigenous groups and the wider
conservation community because of the reported lack ofinclusion of indigenous peoples and their claims in thedecision to extend the Gunung Mulu World Heritage site.
The recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples inSarawak has been upheld by the historical legal decision
on Rumah Nor. On the 12 May 2001, the High Court ofSarawak upheld the customary rights of the Iban village
Rumah Nor when it found that the Borneo Paper and Pulp
company, which had begun logging the forest claimed by
the villagers, did not have the right to destroy Rumah Nor's
rainforest.
III.62 Following this decision, the people of Gunung
Buda lodged a claim with a land tribunal seeking an
injunction to the rule that they should have a share in the
management of the Gunung Buda area. The Government
argued against this on the grounds that there was noproperly surveyed boundary of their claimed lands, and so
the claim was denied. Thus the indigenous peoples areopposing the inclusion of Gunung Buda in the Gunung
Mulu World Heritage site.
III.63 The Bureau recalled that when it referred thenomination of Gunung Mulu to the State Party at its
twenty-fourth session it had sought, amongst others,“…assurance that the new management plan addresses
issues relating to local peoples’ use of and benefits from

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 113

the Park as well as the new contractual arrangements for
management of the Park…”. The Committee, when it
inscribed the site on the World Heritage List at its lastsession in Cairns, Australia, had suggested that the“…authorities be encouraged to review additions to thesite for their World Heritage potential when the gazetting
process is completed”.
III.64 The Bureau was also informed of three on-going
initiatives aimed at enhancing management of Gunung
Mulu National Park:
•=

•=

•=

Implementation of the Plan for Management of thePark - This plan was reviewed as part of theevaluation of the nomination of the site. Current status
includes examination of options for contracting out
management of the Park to the private sector, while
overall regulatory responsibility remains with the
Ministry of Forestry, Department of National Parks ofSarawak. The Plan of Management for the Park has
been drafted in a manner that supports this possibility;
Community development for areas outside the Park;
this initiative aims to develop options for better
planning and development around the Park
boundaries, particularly in the Mulu area, including
issues of land title, planning processes etc. Thisinitiative could enable locals to manage better, andbenefit from, the opportunities that come with World
Heritage listing;
Preliminary drafting of a project concept to secureinternational assistance with capacity building for
management of the Park - to focus on staff capacity
and skills development.

III.65 The Bureau welcomed the possibility of theextension of the Park and noted with satisfaction theinitiatives to improve site-management and staff capacity
building. The Bureau however, invited the State Party togive due consideration to the involvement of indigenous
peoples and other local communities in planning andimplementing decisions regarding the extension of the site,
and to seek their full co-operation in its management andin extending the site to include Gunung Buda. The Bureau
recommended that the State Party provide a report, before
1 February 2002, on the results of its negotiations withindigenous communities for review by its twenty-sixth
session in April 2002.
Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal)
III.66 The Bureau was informed that in response to its
request at its twenty-fifth session in June 2001, the State
Party has submitted a report, dated June 2000, entitled:“Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) for the Jagatpur
Madi 33 kV Subtransmission Line Project”. The reportstates that the transmission line will pass throughapproximately 6km of the Park and World Heritage site
between Dhrubaghat and Bankatta, and through 500
metres and 1,000 metres of buffer zone forests at the sametwo locations. The project foresees the erection of elevenmetre high concrete poles and the stringing of lines. It willbe aligned along the existing Hulaki road and hence

Report of the World Heritage Committee

require the clearing of a two-metre wide corridor. In total,
331 trees of endangered species - Shorea robusta; Acacia
catechu, Bombax ceiba and Cedrella toona will be
removed. The EIA has not yet been approved by theGovernment of Nepal.
III.67 According to the report, loss or alteration of
habitat, construction disturbances to wild fauna, likely
hunting and poaching by project workers, decline in water
quality associated with erosion and silting, pollution from
temporary workers' camps, and bird deaths from collision
with the transmission lines are foreseen as negative
impacts.
Mitigation measures proposed include:reforestation of two hectares of community land near thePark with the guidance of the Park authorities; aCommunity Forest Support Programme in three locations
to be implemented in conjunction with Park authorities; anEnvironmental Awareness for Conservation Programme(EAC) to be implemented by NGOs, and a Habitat
Management Programme to be implemented by the
Department of National Parks and Wildlife.
III.68 The Kasara Bridge is under construction over the
Rapti River that constitutes the northern boundary of thePark and World Heritage site. No EIA was conducted forthe project. Due to budget uncertainties and restrictions,the road will require a few years for completion. The roadwill pass through the Park and World Heritage site, butwill partly follow the current designated Public Right of
Way to Madi Village. The alignment from Kasara Bridgeto the public right of way has not been decided. One
option is to follow the Park/World Heritage site peripheryalong the Rapti River for 3-4 km.
III.69 The Bureau learnt that the provision of electricity
will help reduce the need for kerosene for lighting andfirewood for cooking, the two major sources of the local
population, and also provide a source of fuel for lodges
and hotels in the area. This should have a positive impact
by reducing the amount of wood collected from the Park.
Nevertheless, the Bureau was concerned about the impacts
associated with the construction of the transmission line
and road within the World Heritage site and noted the
IUCN position that similar threats have prompted Danger
Listing in other cases.
III.70 The Bureau noted that the State Party has not yet
approved the plan to construct the transmission line
through the Park and urged the State Party not to proceedwith the plan to construct this line and seek alternatives
that would have minimal impacts on the integrity of thePark. The Bureau noted that the Kasara Bridge and theassociated road along the northern periphery of the Park
might be a less impacting option to improve transport in
the region. The Bureau recommended that the State Party
take into due consideration these suggestions and informthe Centre of its decision on the proposed transmission line
and the routing of the road and provide a detailed report on
the status of the projects by 1 February 2002, forconsideration at its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 114

Sinharaja Forest Reserve (Sri Lanka)
III.71 The Bureau recalled that at its twenty-fourth
extraordinary session in November 2000 it had requested
the Centre and IUCN to monitor developments with regard
to the resolution of the dispute over land reclaimed by the
Forest Department that had previously been leased to a
private company. The private enterprise concerned,
Sinharaja Plantations Organic (PVT) Ltd., has written to
the Director of the Centre raising preliminary objections
against the reacquisition of land released earlier by theGovernment for organic tea farming. In October 2001 theenterprise informed the Centre that it has placed the actionof the Conservator of Forests to reclaim the land before thejudiciary of Sri Lanka in order to claim compensation. The
enterprise has requested the Bureau to refrain fromarriving at any decisions concerning the parcel of land thatit claims until the question has been settled legally.
III.72 The Bureau took note of the fact that the Forest
Department of Sri Lanka and the Sinharaja Plantations
Organic (PVT) Ltd., have entered a legal process
regarding the 62 hectares parcel of land advised by IUCN
to be outside of the World Heritage area. The Bureau
requested IUCN to monitor the outcome of the legal
process and report on their implications for theconservation of the site to the twenty-seventh session of
the Committee in 2003.
Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)
III.73 In accordance with the request of the twentyfourth extraordinary session of the Bureau in November
2000, the Ha Long Bay Management Department(HLBMD) submitted the sixth annual progress report on
the conservation, management and promotion of the HaLong Bay World Heritage Area. The Bureau learnt that
IUCN reviewed the report and has expressed broad
support for the efforts of the HLBMD to manage thisextremely complex World Heritage site located in an
intensive economic development zone.
III.74 The Bureau noted that the project proposal for theInstitutional Capacity Building of the Halong Bay
Management Department, prepared by IUCN-Vietnam,
HLBMD and the Quang Ninh Provincial Authorities, hasbeen widely circulated and finalised in close collaboration
with relevant institutions and the Province. The proposal iscurrently being shared with potential donors. The
UNESCO Ha Long Bay Eco-Museum Feasibility Project,financed by UNDP, has been completed and a final 135page report on the feasibility study and a video have beentransmitted to the Centre by the UNESCO Office inVietnam on 17 October 2001. IUCN served as a memberof the Steering Committee of this Project. Discussions
have been held in collaboration with the Eco-Museum
project and the Institutional Capacity Building project.
The final proposal of the Ha Long Bay Eco-Museum
Feasibility Project, envisages the development of an“Ecomuseum Hub” in the vicinity of Ha Long Bay and thedesign and elaboration of a variety of interpretation
packages based on themes identified in the study.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.75 The feasibility study follow-up places strongemphasis on the establishment of a project team ofVietnamese staff of the HLBMD supported by twointernational facilitators. Intensive capacity building andskills transfer, particularly in the fields of planning, datacollection and integrated interpretative management of thearea are proposed. A comprehensive analysis to develop
strategic partnerships between the Ecomuseum and key
stakeholders has been undertaken and a number ofthematic areas for collaboration have been identified. For
example, a theme on the fishing traditions of Ha Long will
directly involve floating fishing villages, terrestrial fishingcommunities, boat builders and major institutions such as
the Viet Nam Institute of Oceanography, the Institute ofMarine Products and local authority agencies such as theprovincial Fisheries Department.
III.76 The Bureau learnt that tourism has increased by
135% between 1997 and 2000 and is a criticalmanagement issue at this site. The Bureau noted IUCN’s
satisfaction with the fact that the direct management andcontrol of the caves has been brought under the authority
of HLBMD, and the expectation that this would ensure
appropriate measures to present the caves, control tourism
and minimise impacts. The Feasibility Study’s effort topropose a “Ecomuseum Hub” and an Interpretative
Management Plan aim to spread the visitor resources inand outside of Ha Long Bay and thereby support theintensity of visitation to the World Heritage site without
reducing the number of tourists visiting the broader region.
The feasibility study estimates that total cost of thedevelopment of the “Ecomuseum Hub” and otherinterpretation theme products is likely to cost US$17
million over a 4-year period. The Quang Ninh Province
has committed US$3 million and intends to seek otherfunds from external sources.
III.77 During a visit to Japan in early October 2001, a
representative from the Centre met with officials of theJapan International Co-operation Agency (JICA). These
officials confirmed that the Environmental Management of
Ha Long Bay continues to be one of the priority projects of
JICA and that discussions with the Government ofVietnam are underway in order to implement theEnvironmental Management Plan as soon as possible. The
Delegate of Japan informed that more information
regarding the JICA assistance will be provided at theCommittee session.
III.78 The Bureau commended HLBMD efforts toconserve the site and acknowledged efforts of the State
Party to support the development of a range of projects toaddress management issues at the site.
Given theconsiderable international interest in the site, the Bureau
urged the HLBMD to continue and strengthen its efforts toco-ordinate projects in order to ensure optimal use ofresources and skills available via HLBMD’s association
with IUCN and UNESCO Offices in Vietnam and otherpartners. The Bureau reiterated the recommendation madeat its twenty-fourth extraordinary session regarding theearly implementation of the recommendations of the
JICA/GovernmentofVietnamEnvironmental

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 115

Management Plan for Ha Long Bay and invited the State
Party to submit by 1 February 2002 a progress report onwhat has been achieved in this regard for consideration by
the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in April 2002.

Latin America and the Caribbean

November. The third regulation on quarantine, introduced
species and agriculture is in the process of local
consultation. The fourth regulation, which covers
Environmental Management and pollution issues, is theleast advanced. The President of Ecuador visited the site in
November 2001 and reiterated the Government's support
for the declaration of the Marine Reserve as a World
Heritage site.

Los Katios National Park (Colombia)
III.79 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that noinvitation was received to carry out a mission to Los
Katios following the twenty-fourth session of the Bureau.
The Bureau learnt that an IUCN representative had visited
Bogota, Colombia, in November 2001. IUCN noted that
the Special Administrative Unit for National Parks ofColombia is increasingly implementing management
activities in the area, and that it works with local
communities to enhance their support of management
activities.
III.80 The Bureau acknowledged the efforts made by
the State Party towards the conservation of this site andrecommended that it invites a field mission to the sitewhen appropriate.
Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)
III.81 The Bureau was informed that a progress report
was received on 10 October 2001 from the Director of theCharlesDarwin Research Station noting theimplementation of a number of programmes aiming toenhance the institutional capacity of the Park
Administration. The report also noted the status of
regulations concerning tourism, fisheries and quarantine,
as well as progress achieved in the preparation of theStrategy 2010 for the Sustainable Development of theIslands.
III.82 Galapagos Special Law: On 18 September, 2001,
Ecuador's Constitutional Court voted in favour of theGalapagos Special Law, following a day of public inquiry
held in response to a lawsuit brought forward by the
Association of Industrial Tuna Fishermen (ATUNEC),which challenged the Special Law's constitutionality. The
final decision of the Constitutional Court of Judges - eightvotes in favour and one abstention - represents animportant achievement in the continued efforts to protect
the Galapagos Islands under the regulations of the Special
Law. Since its approval in March 1998, the Galapagos
Special Law has faced continued attacks, primarily fromthe industrial fishing sector based in continental Ecuador,
which seeks fishing rights inside the Galapagos Marine
Reserve (proposed in entirety as an extension to the World
Heritage site). The Special Law granted exclusive fishingrights in the Marine Reserve to artisanal fishermen andcalls for a system of quotes and zoning to control fisheries.
However, the Special Law can only be fully enforced after
all the regulations and by-laws on key management issues
such as fisheries have been approved. According to
information received, dated 19 September 2001, two of the
key regulations (on tourism and fisheries) are likely to beapproved by the President’s Office by the end ofReport of the World Heritage Committee

III.83 Enforcement and Control of the Marine Reserve:
Earlier in 2001, the vessel Sirenian, owned and operated
by the environmental NGO Sea Shepherd Conservation
Society, commenced a five-year tour of duty to help the
Galapagos National Park Service clamp down on illegal
commercial fishing operations within 40 miles of theIslands. This collaborative operation, given a favourable
ruling by the Ecuadorian Court, is the first conservation
patrol of the Galapagos by a foreign vessel officially
supported by the Ecuadorian Government. A loan by theInter-American Development Bank for US$10 million has
been approved for enforcing controls in the Marine
Reserve.
Logisticalassistanceandinstitutional
strengthening are the two most important elements of thisproject. Galapagos National Park hopes to purchase four
more boats and a helicopter to cover the whole area. At the
moment, the Park possesses two vessels, ten speedboats,
twelve wooden boats and personnel of 50 to patrol the133,000 km2 marine area. Despite the assistance of theEcuadorian Navy, this is clearly not sufficient. Only 5% ofentrance fees to the GNP are directed towards controlling
the Reserve.
III.84 Illegal shark fishing: Destructive shark fishing,where the shark fin is cut from the live shark and themutilated animal is dumped back into the sea, continues in
the Galapagos Marine Reserve due to the high demand forshark fins for the Asian market. The fishing techniques
used also negatively affect other species, including marine
birds. During 2001, 22 fishing boats were caught, 5,600
shark fins confiscated and 3,000 pounds of meat seized.
According to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, half
the boats caught fishing illegally in the Galapagos were
not punished. But progress on this matter has been made:Canela II, a Costa Rican long liner caught fishing out ofthe port of Puntarenas, was confiscated by the Local Courtof Galapagos and the order was upheld by the Court ofAppeal. This is a legal precedent, as never before in
Ecuadorian legal history has a fishing boat been
confiscated for illegal fishing.
III.85 Sea Lion Poaching: On the 16 July 2001, fifteen(11 male and 4 female) mutilated sea lion - Zalophus
wollebaeki - corpses were discovered on La Loberia Beachon San Cristobal Island. This is the first time such action
has been reported in the Galapagos Islands. The Charles
Darwin Research Station, the Galapagos National Park
Service and a veterinarian of the Araucaria Foundation
undertook autopsies of nine of the animals. The autopsy
report makes the link between the incident and theincreasing demand from Asian markets for the male
genitals of sea lions and seals for use in traditional
medicine, as aphrodisiacs and amulets.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 116

III.86 Invasive Species Eradication Programme: In
early 2002, the Charles Darwin Research Station and theGalapagos National Park Service will commence a fiveyear programme to combat invasive species. Funding of
US$18 million is being provided over six years from theUnited Nations Foundations and GEF, while other sources
are estimated to amount to US$19 million. Biologists andPark staff will use a combination of measures to remove
some alien species, make a dent in other populations, andbolster controls to keep other exotics out of the Islands.
III.87 Tourism: Progress has also been reported on the
SmartVoyager certification programme, a joint initiative of
the Rainforest Alliance and Conservacion y Desarrollo(C&D) of Ecuador. The programme aims to give a “greenseal” of approval to tour boats operating in the Galapagos
Archipelago that meet certain environmental and social
criteria. Full details of the certification programme can befound at: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/sv/
objectives.html
III.88 The Bureau adopted the following decision fortransmission to the Committee for examination at its
twenty-fifth session:"The Committee, recognising the continued andincreasing threats posed to the marine and terrestrial
flora and fauna of the Islands, urges the State Party tomake all efforts to finalise the specific regulations
under the Special Law and enforce them as soon as
possible. The Committee commends the ruling by theState Party’s Constitutional Court to uphold theGalapagos Special Law. It also commends theEcuadorian Government for supporting the “SeaShepherd” patrols in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, as
well as efforts to protect the marine ecosystem in the
Reserve. The Committee also commends the Smart
Voyager initiative, given the nature of tourism
visitation to the Galapagos and the impacts of tourism
on the fragile environment and in light of the proposed
Marine Reserve. It believes that consideration should
be given to promoting similar schemes in other World
Heritage sites. The Committee furthermore notes thatthe sea lion incident demonstrates the need to enhance
the capacity of the Park to reinforce patrolling andcontrol of the Islands."

Sian Ka’an (Mexico)
III.89 The Bureau was informed that IUCN received areport informing that land on the strip of dunes between
the ocean and the coastal lagoon of Sian Ka’an was being
advertised for sale by a real estate agent in the town of
Akumal. While this is consistent with State Party law andregulations on protected areas that maintain ownership ofprivate lands, including the right to sell those lands, therapid escalation of tourism development in the area since
the mid 1980’s is of considerable concern.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.90 However, in the framework of the UNF “Linking
biodiversity conservation and sustainable tourism at World
Heritage sites” project, it is noted that most of thebeachfront is in private hands. This has been the case since
the Reserve’s conception. The management plan has set a
policy that private lots can be sold, but not divided,
limiting tourism development within the Reserve. The
management plan for the site also sets a moratorium on
further construction on the private land until the
preparation of the Ecological Land Use Plan has been
finalised for the site. Authorities wish to fix tourism
regulations in the near future to try to raise the quality of
tourism and to control its growth. These initiatives will becomplemented by a new one from the Sian Ka'an
authorities on a transferable development rights strategy todeal with all the beachfront holdings. The authorities hope
to identify receiving areas and remove the density(development potential) from critical portions of the World
Heritage site, while compensating property owners inthose areas.
III.91 IUCN has received notification from theMunicipality of Solidaridad, Playa del Carmen, State of
Quintana Roo, Yucatan Peninsula, of a scientific gathering
planned for 5-10 November 2001. The event – “RIVIERA
MAYA ECO’01: Safeguarding the Fragile Ecosystems of
Solidaridad” is being convened with the aim of developing
integrated programmes that consider protection,conservation, recovery and management of the areas
unique biodiversity on a sustainable basis.
The
Municipality of Solidaridad, which includes part of theWorld Heritage site and the Biosphere Reserve, expects
the construction of approximately 80,000 hotel rooms in
the Municipality in the next 10-15 years, associated with a
24% annual population growth. Currently, the area
receives 5,500 tourists a day. IUCN believes thetransferable property rights strategy holds some promisefor reducing development pressures, and if successful, may
have the potential to be applied in other World Heritage
sites.
IUCN therefore acknowledged the innovative
attempt by the Park authorities to find a solution to thedevelopment problems facing the site, and requested theState Party to provide more information on the strategy.
III.92 The Bureau requested the State Party to provide areport on the impact of increased tourism development on
the World Heritage site and strategies to address negative
impacts. It also requested a report on progress achieved
with the revision of the management plan for the World
Heritage site by 1 February 2002.
Canaima National Park (Venezuela)
III.93 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that the
Ministry for the Environment had sent a letter to theCentre dated 19 September 2001 that was transmitted to
IUCN for review. This letter noted that, following one of
the recommendations from the UNESCO/IUCN mission to
the site in 1999, a “Participatory Long-Term Action Plan”
for the site has been developed. The letter also noted theinterest and commitment of the State Party to participate in
the UNF-financed project “Enhancing our Heritage:

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 117

monitoring and managing for success in World Natural
Heritage sites”. Information was received at IUCN that
INPARQUES, in charge of administration for Canaima
National Park, is facing serious financial difficulties, thatare negatively affecting the protection of the site.
Deforestation and rubbish dumping around tourist camps
within the Park has also been reported. According to
information received, tension between indigenous
communities, the Federation of Indigenous People of the
Bolivar State (FIEB) and national authorities remains highwith regard to the issue of the power line project. IUCN
stated that the 1999 mission provides for the framework ofaction. The assessment of the Action Plan is needed andthe capacity of the management agency should be
reviewed.
III.94 The Bureau requested the State Party to provide acomprehensive report on the conservation of Canaima
National Park, including measures taken to enhance thecapacity of INPARQUES to effectively protect andmanage this site. The Bureau urged the Venezuelan
Government to provide a report on the implementation of
all recommendations of the UNESCO/IUCN 1999 mission
by 1 February 2002.

reviewed by IUCN. The report included the following
information on the Territorial Development Plan (TDP)
developed for the Bansko ski zone within the site: The
TDP passed all the Environment Impact Assessment
procedures under Bulgarian Law. It was later submitted to
the High Expert Ecological Council (HEEC) of the
Ministry for Environment and Water that requestedchanges and protection measures. The final version of the
TDP is 818.46 ha, with ski runs and facilities occupying
99.55 ha of this area. The TDP aims to upgrade an existing
ski zone, the most significant element of which is a cablecar. It is considered to greatly reduce the negative impacts
associated with crowding, traffic congestion, and rundown
facilities.
The development aims to ensure theachievement of one of the major goals of the National
Park, namely encouraging ecotourism and generating
income for the local people. The Management Plan for thePark is to be developed with financial assistance from theongoing Bulgarian-Swiss Biodiversity Conservation
Programme. This is expected to be completed in 2001. On
12 July 2001, the sitting of the three-member High
Administrative Court of Bulgaria ended with a rejection of
the BALKANI Wildlife Society appeal against thedecision of the Ministry of Environment and Water togrant permission for the TDP.

Europe and North America
Belovezhskaya Pushcha/Bialowieza Forest (Belarus/
Poland)III.95 The Bureau noted that IUCN reviewed the“Background to Management Guidelines for Bialowieza
Forest”, an outcome of the Technical Working Group(TWG) created within the framework of the Bialowieza
Forest Project. IUCN noted that the Guidelines document
is the result of a trial process for establishing a decisionmaking procedure concerning the future of the Forest, its
social functions, and the protection of natural values ofprimeval forests. The TWG is the only forum assembled todate that has included representatives of a wide range ofstakeholders and has involved intensive consultations
within the communities affected by management of theForest. The Bialowieza Forest Project is supervised by the
Ministry of Environment and supported by Danish Cooperation for the Environment in Eastern Europe(DANCEE). The objective of the Project is to achieve asustainable approach to the management of the Forest,
ensuring the protection of natural values and supporting
development of local communities.
III.96 The Bureau commended the efforts of the TWG
and the Bialowieza Forest Project to bring all stakeholders
together to create a common vision for the World Heritagesite. The Bureau requested the State Party to provide
regular progress reports in relation to the implementationof this project.

III.98 Furthermore, the Bureau noted that the State
Party invited a UNESCO/IUCN mission to the site. IUCN
also received a Brief from the “Save the Pirin Campaign”,
a coalition of over 30 Bulgarian NGOs opposed to thedevelopment. IUCN noted the State Party’s belief that“the only solution to the problem of the sustainable
development of the Pirin NP is to bind the goals of thePark to the interests of the local people”, and that the TDP
offers this opportunity. IUCN acknowledged that it isimportant that local populations benefit, where possible,from World Heritage designation. IUCN noted that any
development in the World Heritage site must be carefullyplanned to minimise environmental impacts.
IUCN
questioned whether the TDP project in Pirin National Park
could be considered to promote ecotourism and whether it
is compatible with World Heritage status. It also noted thatthe total area covered by the TDP is 818.46 ha, whereas
the current proposed ski runs and facilities cover less than
100 ha. This is a substantial increase.
III.99 The Bureau adopted the following decision fortransmission to the Committee:"The Committee notes the concerns over the Territorial
Development Plan (TDP) which it anticipates will leadto further incremental development within theremaining larger area. It requests the State Party toensure that tourism development does not take place inthe remaining TDP area in the future. The Committee
urges that the mission invited by the State Party be
carried out as soon as possible.”

Pirin National Park (Bulgaria)
Gros Morne National Park (Canada)
III.97 The Bureau noted that the Ministry for
Environment and Water submitted a report on theconservation status of Pirin National Park, which was

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.100 The Bureau noted that following its request, theCanadian authorities provided a report concerning the site,

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 118

which was reviewed by IUCN. The report noted thatlogging in the Main River watershed near Gros Morne
National Park has not commenced. Parks Canada isworking with the forestry company and provincial
government to ensure that the proposed harvesting regime
takes into account potential impacts on the World Heritage
values and the ecological integrity of the site. The Bureau
thanked Parks Canada for the report provided andrequested the State Party to inform the Centre as soon as
new developments occur.
Nahanni National Park (Canada)
III.101 The Bureau noted that following it’s request, theCanadian authorities provided a report concerningpotential impacts of increased mining activity in the region
surrounding Nahanni National Park World Heritage site.
IUCN noted that a study is currently underway todetermine preferred boundaries for three adjacent areas
which are proposed as additions to the Park; that the Deh
Cho First Nations have proposed that the Park Reserve be
expanded to include part or all of the South Nahanni River
watershed and that the Mackenzie Valley Resource
Management Act (MVRMA) governs land and resource
use in the Nahanni area and that the Mackenzie Valley
Land and Water Board has authority. The areas potentiallyaffected by this activity are within the watershed of theSouth Nahanni River. In two cases, the areas potentiallyaffected are in one of the three candidate areas that are
identified as proposed additions to the Park Reserve.
III.102 The Bureau noted that Parks Canada isconcerned that the number and location of the proposeddevelopments could result in cumulative impacts onaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, including changes towater quality, habitat fragmentation, changes to wildlife
movement and resulting impacts on biodiversity. Parks
Canada is continuing to work in the processes establishedunder the MVRMA and De Cho Process to address its
concerns. It is continuing efforts to expand the Park
Reserve into the three candidate areas identified and towork with other jurisdictions towards a comprehensive
conservation regime for the balance of the watershed.
III.103 The Bureau noted the importance placed by Parks
Canada on the issue of cumulative impacts from proposedmining near this World Heritage site and the measures
underway to solve or minimise this problem. The Bureau
requested the State Party to provide a progress report on
the implementation of the MVRMA and De Cho Processby 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth
session of the Bureau.
Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst,(Hungary/Slovakia)
III.104 The Bureau was informed that IUCN reviewed
reports concerning the preparation of a new version of themining law by the Slovak Ministry of Economy. The newlaw is believed to remove or weaken the present
restrictions on mining operations in protected areas. The
reports also claimed that mining companies are seeking toReport of the World Heritage Committee

open new limestone mines in the Slovak Karst, and claims
the granting of limestone exploitation licenses by the
Slovak Government is imminent. SOSNA, a Slovak
environmental NGO, has proposed to the Slovak Ministerof Environment the re-categorisation of the Slovak Karst
from a Protected Landscape Area to a National Park andthe development of local sustainable tourism andbiological farming.
III.105 The Delegate of Hungary informed the Bureau
that the issues raised concern only the Slovak part of thistransboundary site.
III.106 The Bureau commended the State Party on theprocess of changing the status of the Protected Landscape
Area of Slovensky Karst to that of a National Park. This
will complement the adjacent Aggtelek National Park in
Hungary and, in doing so, facilitate more cohesive andequivalent management of the two sections of the World
Heritage site. The Bureau requested the State Party toprovide an update on the proposed revisions to the mining
law and specific implications for the World Heritage siteby 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth
session of the Bureau.
Aeolian Islands (Italy)
III.107 The Bureau was informed that IUCN received
reports of legal proceedings taken to oppose theimplementation of the Landscape Territorial Plan for the
Aeolian Islands. The Plan (Piano Paesistico delle Isole
Eolie), which was prepared by the Superintendent ofCulture and Environment on behalf of the Sicily Region,
which is fully responsible for the management of theWorld Heritage site. It covers the seven Islands in their
entirety. The main goals of the Plan are to preserve thenatural condition of volcanic bodies, structures and coastal
areas and to establish clear rules and criteria to guidehuman interventions in relation to the landscape of theIslands. The Bureau also noted that it is understood that
the Mayors of two of the four townships on the Islands –Lipari and Leni - have opposed the Plan and haverequested the Court to deliver a judgement in order tocancel the Plan.
A group of non-governmentalorganisations is supporting the Sicily Region’s Plan in
Court. If the Plan is not implemented, it is understood thatthe rules regarding conservation, new constructions andgeneral human activities on the Islands will be decided ona case-by-case basis by the different City Councils. The
NGO Italia Nostra, has reported that these Councils havestated their intention to increase by at least 4 times thepresent level of tourist accommodation. IUCN noted theactions of Italia Nostra in support of the Landscape
Territorial Plan, which is particularly important given its
significance as the only (potential) plan governing theWorld Heritage site. IUCN also noted that at the time ofnomination, the State Party mentioned its commitment to
the preparation of a separate management plan for theWorld Heritage site, to be placed within the Landscape
Territorial Plan.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 119

III.108 The Observer of Italy confirmed that there was a
court decision on 4 December 2001 which is not yet
public, but that it is hoped to be available soon.
Collaboration with the Region is already underway andnew information may be provided at the time of theCommittee session.
III.109 The Bureau expressed its concern to the State
Party on the local government opposition to the Landscape
Territorial Plan, noting that the inscription of the site waspartly based on the existence of this Plan. The Bureau
requested the State Party to provide information on theimplications the court action has on the preparation of aManagement Plan for the World Heritage site. It also
requested that information be provided to update on:progress in development of the Management Plan; theprotective
andeducational/interpretative
actions
undertaken for the site, and proposed development plans,particularly with respect to tourism on the Islands, howsuch tourism development may affect the World Heritagesite and how it will be dealt with within the Landscape
Territorial Plan and Management Plan. The Bureau
requested that this information be provided by 1 February
2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth session of the
Bureau.
Lake Baikal (Russian Federation)
III.110 The Bureau noted that the State Party invited a
UNESCO-IUCN mission to this site following therecommendation from the twenty-fourth session of theCommittee. The mission took place from 25 August to 3
September 2001. A Representative of IUCN and the
Director of UNESCO-Moscow Office, representing theWorld Heritage Centre, conducted the mission. The
Bureau furthermore noted the full report of this mission
contained
in
information
document
WHC01/CONF.207/INF.8, and reviewed all information as
stated in the working document WHC-01/CONF.207/3. It
noted in particular the series of recurrent problems andnew potential threats that IUCN believed are seriously
threatening the integrity of this site, including:
•=
•=

•=
•=

•=
•=
•=
•=

inadequate implementation of the Federal Baikal Law,
the frequent violations of the Federal Law on theProtection of the Environment and of the Federal Law
on Environmental Impact Assessments in relation to
logging activities, illegal hunting, over fishing anddevelopment/infrastructure,that there is still no overall management plan for thissite, as requested by the Committee at the time of
inscription, andthe abolishment of the Baikal Commission, anintergovernmental body comprising federal andregional authorities as well as scientific institutions, in
2000;
an increase in illegal poaching and logging
decline of the Baikal Seal populationthat the Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill (BPPM)
continues to be a serious threat to the integrity of thissite
pressure on the forests of the Lake Baikal region.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.111 In addition to these recurrent problems, theBureau expressed concern about a number of new
potential threats to the integrity of this site including a
project to develop a gas and oil pipeline to China which
was confirmed and that the Government of the Republic of
Buryatia has granted a license to Buryat Gas Company. A
number of Bureau members noted that no indication wasreceived from the State Party concerning the inclusion of
the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. As theRussian Federation is now a member of the World
Heritage Committee, this question will be raised at thetwenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.
III.112 The Bureau adopted the following decision fortransmission to the Committee:“The Committee notes that little substantial progresshas been achieved towards enhancing the protection of
Lake Baikal, and addressing issues repeatedly raised by
the Committee, and that there are new emerging threatsthat pose unprecedented risks to the integrity of thissite. The Committee therefore decides to inscribe Lake
Baikal in the List of World Heritage in Danger. The
Committee notes that this should be viewed as apositive measure to attract international support toenhance the capacity of the State Party to deal with thecomplex issues related to the conservation of this site.
The Committee furthermore notes the following as key
milestones in assessing future progress:(1) Development and enforcement of all related
regulations and by-laws required for the Federal
Baikal Law to become fully operational. These
regulations and by-laws should be developed througha participatory and transparent process involving
local people and all key stakeholders dealing with theprotection and management of this site.
(2) Development and implementation of an integrated
management plan for the whole Baikal region, withemphasis on the protection of the World Heritagesite. Priority should be given to develop an adequate
ecological zoning of this site to enforce the Federal
Baikal Law.
This plan needs to include acomprehensive monitoring system on the state ofLake Baikal.
Adequate human and financial
resources are required to ensure its long-term
implementation.
(3) Development and implementation of adequate
institutional and co-ordination mechanisms for
implementing the Federal Baikal Law, its regulations
and by-laws. This could take the form of a renewed
Baikal Commission or a similar institutionalarrangement that would enhance co-ordination
between federal and regional authorities while
involving also NGOs, scientific institutions and otherstakeholders.
(4) Development
andimplementationofacomprehensive programme to adequately address the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 120

pollution problems affecting this site, giving
particular priority to the case of BPPM, but also
including other sources of pollution that are affecting
the integrity of this site.
(5) Detailed consideration of various scenarios for the
Baikalsk Pulp and Paper Mill, including total phasingout of the Mill. This requires a long-term strategy
and must be associated with the development ofalternative livelihoods for local people as the BPPM
is the main source of employment in the region.
In addition, the Committee requests that the State Party
provides an urgent response by 1 February 2002 in relation
to these issues, particularly on the development of a gas
and oil pipeline to China, and the potential impacts of thisproject on the integrity of this site, as well as the proposed
oil and gas exploration in the Selenga Delta. The
Committee furthermore requests the World Heritage
Centre to undertake all possible efforts to encourage theWorld Bank, GEF, UNF, and other relevant international
donors to provide urgent support, in the form of soft loans,grants and projects, to enhance the State Party efforts toaddress the complex conservation and development issues
facing Lake Baikal."
Volcanoes of Kamchatka (Russian Federation)
III.113 The Bureau noted that the situation in and aroundthe Bystrinski Nature Park (BNP) remains uncertain: The
Kamchatka Park Service has appointed a new Park
Director, however there has been little progress in dealing
with threats to the BNP as the Park is receiving nofinancial support from the Government. Legal
uncertainties continue: the boundaries of the BNP are notofficially defined, and zoning of the BNP remains
incomplete. This situation constrains the Park Director inmonitoring hunting, preventing poaching and forest fires,and controlling tour operator activities within the BNP
without authorization. Indigenous populations haveexpressed concern.
III.114 The Bureau noted that gold mining operations
have started at Manuch, following an unannounced change
to the boundary of the BNP. The mine is 5km from the‘new boundary’ of the Park in the south-eastern section, or
approximately 12km inside the boundary of the BNP as
inscribed by the World Heritage Committee. Neither theForest Service, the Park authorities, nor leaders of local
indigenous communities were informed of the minedevelopment. IUCN also informed the Bureau of a reportthat a road is planned connecting Esso, in the centre of the
BNP, with Palana, the capital of Koriak Autonomous
Region. The road will bisect the Park, and no monitoring
or control programmes have been outlined. IUCN notedthat this road will open up large areas to poaching andhunting and in the light of the extremely limited capacities
of Park authorities and the Forest Service, the potential for
major impacts on the Park are high.
III.115 The Bureau noted that IUCN has been working
with local and indigenous communities in Esso andReport of the World Heritage Committee

Anavgai in the Bystrinksi Nature Park within theframework of the CIDA-funded project “Building
partnerships for forest conservation and management in
Russia”. The project aims to build partnerships with local
communities for the development and marketing of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) such as mushrooms,
berries, herbal teas and medicinal plants, thereby
improving livelihoods and conserving the forest.
III.116 The Bureau adopted the following decision fortransmission to the Committee:“The Committee notes with concern threats to the
Bystrinsky Nature Park and notes conflicting reports
relating to the gold mine operation and its relationshipto the World Heritage boundary. The Committee
requests the Centre to work in consultation with theState Party to prepare a mission to the site to review
the state of conservation including the issues noted
above and to ascertain whether a case exists forinscribing this site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger.”Western Caucasus (Russian Federation)
III.117 The Bureau was informed that IUCN reviewed acopy of the State Party periodic report for the Western
Caucasus prepared following the June 2001 Bureau
meeting. The report mentions that illegal trespassing
continues to be significant, largely related to the proximityof tourist centres and hostels to the preserve’s boundaries.
Furthermore, there has been a weakening of conservation
controls over the last 5-10 years, with an absence of suchcontrols in the Lagonaki Plateau and Fisht-Oshtensky
Massif, which are popular areas for trekking andmountaineering. In September, IUCN received reports that
the Court of Adygea intended to exclude part of theWestern Caucasus Zapovednik (the World Heritage site) toallow for tourist development and the construction of aroad.
III.118 IUCN noted a number of issues of concern,
including the tourism and ski facilities development, as
well as illegal hunting. Concerning the proposed road,
IUCN noted that in an official letter at the time of theinscription it was stated that: “The Ministry ofEnvironmental Protection and Natural Resources of the
Republic of Adygea informs you that at the present time
the authorities of the Republic of Adygea are considering a
new route for the Maikop-Black Sea Coast highway,
avoiding the Caucasus Natural Reserve and otherspecially protected territories, including the Caucasus
nomination. The above-mentioned activities are being
carried out for the purpose of execution of the order by
President of the Republic of Adygea Dzharimov. So theinsinuations that the Adygean authorities have tried tobuild the highway right through the Caucasus State
Natural Biospheric Reserve have no grounds.”
III.119 The Bureau furthermore noted that the issue of theroad through the Lagonaki Plateau was discussed at thetime of inscription of this site and that assurances of the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 121

State Party to abandon this route was key to the site being
inscribed on the World Heritage List.
The Bureau
requested the State Party to provide information on thedevelopments mentioned-above, and specifically the statusof the removal of areas from the site and the status of theroad by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twentysixth session of the Bureau.
Golden Mountains of Altai (Russian Federation)
III.120 The Bureau noted that following the UNESCOUNDP mission to the site information was received inAugust 2001 from the UNESCO Moscow Office of
support for an international consultant to provide expertiseto the Republic of Altai with regard to the road project.
The Russian authorities, through the Vice Head of theSection of Especially Protected Natural Territories,
informed the Centre that the Federal Road Fund agreed tofinance the preparation of technical and economical
grounds (TEG) for the road project, carried out by the
Omsk Academy of Architecture and Construction, which
will review the three variants of the proposed highway. At
present, this has not been considered by the Governmentof the Republic of Altai.
III.121 The Bureau noted the need for an international
consultant to assist the Government of the Republic of
Altai in the issue of the revision of the road project andencouraged the authorities to submit a well-definedinternational assistance proposal. Such a project should be
reviewed and carried out in close consultation between theState Party, IUCN, the Centre and the UNESCO Moscow
Office.
Doñana National Park (Spain)
III.122 IUCN informed the Bureau about a number ofissues concerning the site: the Expansion of the Port of
Seville up the Guadalquivir River and outside the World
Heritage site, a project funded by sea shipping subventionsof the EU, the National Park Management Plan still underdiscussion, the decline of the Iberian lynx and the imperial
eagle population, the Rocío Pilgrimage, twice a year,
involving large numbers of pilgrims walking through thePark to El Rocío village at the northern boundary of thePark, grazing at the site, and the impact of road building
outside the Park. Furthermore, there are issues of illegal
water extraction and the Restoration Plan for Aznalcollar
Mine. Another concern lies with the funding for therequired restoration works, as Apirsa has declaredbankruptcy, and Boliden Ltd has denied responsibility.
III.123 Concerning the Project Doñana 2005, IUCN notedthat progress continues to be slow despite the importanceof this project. In May 2001 the Project established its
Scientific Board, however there has been little scientificinput into the Project’s activities. A new co-ordinator forthe project has been appointed and it is expected that thiswill help to speed up project implementation. The reportfrom the State Party notes that some of therecommendations from the October 1999 Seminar are still
to be acted upon, for example, in relation to: coordination;

Report of the World Heritage Committee

definition of public riverine domain; watershed
restoration; promotion of sustainable agriculture;development of pilot projects; and prospective studies.
III.124 The Secretariat informed the Bureau of the resultsof the 2nd International Meeting on the Hydric
Regeneration of Doñana (Huelva, 26 - 28 November2001). The Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention,
representatives of UNESCO, and IUCN participated. Boththe representatives of the Ramsar Bureau and the World
Heritage Centre also participated in the meeting of thePatronate of the Park chaired by the Minister for theEnvironment. It noted the Doñana 2005 project is probably
the most ambitious wetland environmental regeneration
project currently underway in Europe. The participants of
the Conference reviewed progress and made a number of
specific recommendations for the improvement of theimplementation of the project. Furthermore, it wasrecommended that the Ramsar Convention meetingscheduled to be held in Valencia, Spain in November 2002
should be an occasion for a review of the regeneration of
Doñana. The Bureau was furthermore informed of an
information note on the situation of Doñana National Park
prepared by the Spanish authorities and received by theWorld Heritage Centre, that reviews a number of issues
indicated by IUCN and stating that the site has amanagement plan since 1984, currently in its 2nd revision,and that grazing remains a concern. At the same time theefforts to alleviate the consequences of the mining
accident have to be acknowledged. The information wasprovided to IUCN for review.
III.125 The Observer of Spain informed the Bureau thatboth IUCN and the Centre were involved in the Doñana
2005 review and that new information was just provided
by the States Party to the Centre. He stated that there wasno need for Danger Listing of this site.
III.126 The Bureau commended the State Party on the
Doñana 2005 initiative, which provides an excellent
framework for integrated land management. The Bureau
noted that a number of concerns have been raised inrelation to the integrity of this site. Accordingly, theBureau requested the State Party to provide a full report on
the threats to the site, and on how they will be addressed,by 1 February 2002 for consideration by the twenty-sixth
session of the Bureau.
St Kilda (United Kingdom)III.127 The Bureau noted that the report provided by the
Scottish Executive was transmitted to IUCN on 18
September 2001 for review. It recalled that the Committee
proposed that the boundaries of the site be expanded toinclude the marine area and the management plan berevised. The authorities informed the Centre that theywould be targeting a submission date in time for thetwenty-sixth session of the Committee. IUCN commended
the State Party on the research and surveys, and formaintaining the moratorium on the issuance of new oil
licenses nearer to the site than those already in existence.
IUCN requested that details of the risk assessment process

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 122

to be put in place be provided along with the draft
management plan as soon as possible and noted thecollaboration of a number of organisations in the processof delineating the proposed new boundaries of the site. It
encouraged the State Party to include in the revised
management plan strict prohibition of all oil, gas and otherexploration, in both the site and the buffer zone.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (United Statesof America)

III.128 The Bureau commended the State Party for the
progress report provided and requested the authorities tosubmit a report by 1 February 2002 for consideration by
the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau. The Bureau
encouraged the State Party to complete the new boundary
identification as soon as possible so that work cancommence in earnest on the management plan. It
requested the State Party to clarify the role andinvolvement of the site authorities in the decision-making
process for issuance of licenses in the site, in the bufferzone and outside the buffer zone. The Bureau also
welcomed the outcome of the consultation meetings held
as part of the preparation of the management plan. The
Bureau reminded the State Party that any revised
nomination dossier for cultural values and revised
boundaries should be submitted by the deadlines
established by the Committee.

III.133 The Delegate of Greece noted that a number ofissues come up regularly, such as mining, tourism andinfrastructure development, and the authority of different
administrative levels. Rather than treating these issues
only on a case-by-case basis, general policy frameworks
should be developed with regard to these issues. The
Chairperson noted that this is a very good suggestion thatwould enable the revision of problems common to many
World Heritage sites in a more systematic manner.

Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast (United
Kingdom)

III.135 The Delegate of Thailand underlined that such ageneral debate would not prevent the discussion of specificproblems of the state of conservation of World Heritage
sites.

III.129 The Bureau noted that the Centre received anumber of letters, notably from the National Trust, raisingconcerns with regard to commercial development in thearea surrounding the site, and the private sale andredevelopment of a complex for visitor facilities. These
letters were transmitted to the State Party for comments
and to IUCN for review. IUCN noted that the Departmentof Environment announced that it would bring forward
proposals for the production of a management plan for theentire Causeway Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
which includes the World Heritage site, later this year.
IUCN noted that major development, including the redevelopment of the visitor centre, should be considered in
the context of such an integrated management plan andmust be compatible with its status as a World Heritagesite.
III.130 The Observer of the United Kingdom informed
the Bureau that concerning the visitor centre and related
development proposals, a decision was taken on 4
December 2001 not to sell any land. Furthermore he statedthat the management plan for the World Heritage site isunder preparation.
III.131 The Bureau requested the State Party to provide areport on the situation of the site by 1 February 2002 forconsideration by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau, toinclude progress with the production of the management
plan for the Causeway. The Bureau expressed its concern
with piecemeal development in and around the site, in theabsence of such a plan.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.132 The Bureau noted that a report on this site would
be presented to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.
General debate

III.134 The Representative of IUCN stated that a generalpolicy framework is a good starting point to review sitespecific cases. For a number of themes this process hascommenced, as in the case of mining and World Heritage.
The World Parks Congress, scheduled in September 2003,
would be another occasion and an opportunity to discussthese issues in a broader context.

MIXED (NATURAL AND CULTURAL) HERITAGE
Kakadu National Park (Australia)
III.136 The Bureau noted that reports concerning the
proposal to develop the Jabiluka uranium mine relevant tothe state of conservation of Kakadu National Park havebeen received since the twenty-fourth session of theCommittee (Cairns, 2000).
Complete details of
information presented to the Bureau are contained in
Working Document WHC-01/CONF.208/10 (see pages 29- 32).
III.137 The Bureau noted that new information on thestatus of the Jabiluka mine site had been received from the
Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC) on 4 December
2001 following a site inspection on 16 November 2001.
The report refers to significant environmental concerns
regarding the “Standby, Environmental Management andPlanning phase” and calls for prompt and appropriate
rehabilitation at Jabiluka. More specifically, the reportraises concerns that social, cultural and environmental
issues are apparently regarded as secondary to costconsiderations in the development of the Jabiluka mine.
The GAC consider the current regulation and indefinite
use of contaminated water to irrigate the Jabiluka mine site
as unacceptable.
Other reported concerns include
reference to the management of the mineralised stockpile
and contamination of groundwater. The GAC report has

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 123

been provided to the State Party, IUCN and ICOMOS forreview and comment.
III.138 The Bureau was informed that the State Party had
written to the Centre on 26 November 2001 advising ofcontinuing progress in reestablishing dialogue between theState Party and the Mirrar Traditional Owners. As a partof that dialogue, the State Party has proposed that the
Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC) consider aprocess for cultural mapping at Jabiluka based on theAustralia ICOMOS Burra Charter. The GAC have agreed
to give their consideration to this process.
III.139 The Delegate of Thailand referred to the fact thatmembers of the Bureau and the Centre had received
reports and information directly from non-governmentalorganizations in Australia. He suggested that the proper
procedure would be, in the first instance, for discussions totake place between the NGOs and the State Party. The
representative of the Centre assured the Bureau that allreports on the state of conservation of Kakadu National
Park had been transmitted to the State Party to verify thesource and content of the reports. In responding to theDelegate of Thailand, the representative of IUCN
highlighted the importance of inviting a representativefrom the conservation NGO community to join the newly
established Independent Science Advisory Committee(ISAC).
III.140 The Representative of ICOMOS noted that withthe current pause in development of the Jabiluka uranium
mine and with the price of uranium dropping worldwide, areprieve to a previously intractable problem had beenfound. He noted that a process for cultural mapping of the
Jabiluka Mineral Lease was being developed by the State
Party in consultation with the GAC. He reported that
Australia ICOMOS would be involved in this process andwas willing to make contributions in the form of seminars
and discussions.
III.141 The Chairperson commented that progress toresolve cultural issues at Kakadu had, to date, not beenadequate. He therefore welcomed the possibility ofserious discussion and progress in developing a process for
cultural mapping with the involvement of ICOMOS. He
emphasized the need to consider in this case both
intangible and tangible heritage values.
III.142 The Delegate of Greece commented on the
reluctance of Traditional Owners to divulge information
on secret sites.
In response, the representative of
ICOMOS outlined the need to devise a culturally
appropriate process of cultural mapping. He informed the
Bureau that ICOMOS had begun work on the preparationof guidelines for cultural mapping of places of importanceto indigenous peoples. The representative of the Centre
informed the Bureau that in a report dated 13 November
2001, the GAC had noted that the Mirrar had alreadyprovided culturally sensitive information regarding the
Jabiluka area on numerous occasions. The Mirrar remain
opposed to providing further information as part of thedevelopment of the Jabiluka Project. As stated in the GAC

Report of the World Heritage Committee

report, “In the interests of advancing dialogue with theAustralian Government on the protection of cultural
heritage at Kakadu, the Mirrar, however, are willing to
examine a process of cultural mapping removed andseparate from the management/development of the
Jabiluka Project."
III.143 The Observer of Australia noted that the pause in
the development of the Jabiluka uranium mine, until atleast 2009, had been beneficial in providing theopportunity to improve the dialogue with the Mirrar.
According to the mining company, development of themine would not proceed without the consent of theTraditional Owners. He noted that the protection of thecultural values of Kakadu National Park required good
consultation and dialogue with all Traditional Owners in
the Park, and that the Mirrar was one of some 25 clangroups. In this regard, discussions were ongoing in the
Kakadu National Park Board of Management on theprotection of cultural values. He noted that Aboriginal
people formed the majority, and chaired the Park Board ofManagement. He emphasized that the process of cultural
mapping at Jabiluka would need to be one in which allparties, including the Mirrar Traditional Owners, would
have confidence. In relation to the new informationreferred to by the Centre, the Observer of Australia, in
support of the observation made by the Delegate ofThailand, noted that his authorities would be able torespond more quickly to any issues if they were raised
directly with them. Direct contact in this manner would
help resolve any issues.
III.144 The Bureau noted that new information isavailable concerning the reestablishment of dialogue with
the Mirrar Traditional Owners and scientific/technicalissues relating to water management and rehabilitation of
the Jabiluka mine site. The Bureau requested the State
Party, Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Centre to
consult during the few days prior to the twenty-fifthsession of the World Heritage Committee to develop a newproposed decision to the Committee. Therefore, theBureau transmitted the state of conservation report on
Kakadu National Park to the Committee for decision.
Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia)
III.145 The Bureau noted that IUCN has provided theCentre with information on two development proposals
relevant to the state of conservation of this site.
III.146 The Basslink project to construct an electricity
connector between Tasmania and the Australian mainland
could change the operating regimes at the current Gordon
River Hydro Electric Scheme, including changes in theutilisation of the turbines (both number of turbines and thetime of their activation) and associated water release. The
Gordon River Hydro Electric scheme is entirely within the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA).
When this site was inscribed on the World Heritage List,
the Committee had expressed concern about the impacts of
the Gordon power scheme on the Gordon River. The
Committee had imposed a set of conditions including

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 124

monitoring of riverbank erosion and the health of themeromictic lakes that are key features of this site. IUCN
has expressed concerns that the proposed project may
impact the meromictic lakes, inter-tidal zone and riparianvegetation and lead to increased seepage erosion and lossof mid-tidal macro-invertebrates and snag habitat.
III.147
The second project concerns a proposed
ecotourism resort at Planters Beach, Cockle Creek East.
The resort will comprise a lodge, 60-80 accommodation
units, an 800-metre extension of the current road into thePark, a jetty, walking tracks, spas, a tavern, 92 car park
spaces and four bus bays. The proposed location of theresort is within the boundaries of the South West National
Park, but outside the World Heritage site. It is however
within the area covered by the Tasmanian Wilderness
World Heritage Area Management Plan of 1999
(TWWHAP). Therefore, for the development project toproceed, the Department of Primary Industries, Water andEnvironment had proposed that the WHA Plan beamended to allow for addition of a new ‘Visitor Services
Site’. The proposal and proposed amendment to the WHA
Plan were publicly announced and submissions called forin April 2001.
III.148 The Centre reported information from the State
Party, received on 26 November 2001, which emphasisedthat assessments of both development proposals were
underway. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of
the Basslink project is under preparation and will beassessed as part of the Combined Assessment andApprovals Process by a Joint Panel comprising
representatives of the Commonwealth, Victorian andTasmanian Governments. The proponent of the project has
prepared an Integrated Impact Assessment Statement(IIAS) and invited public comment; the Joint Panel willtake into account the revised IIAS in its assessment of the
proposed Basslink project.
III.149 The Cockle Creek East development proposal has
been considered under the Commonwealth’s Environment
and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999. On 5 October
2001, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environmentand Heritage concluded that the proposed development isunlikely to have a significant impact on the World
Heritage values of the Tasmanian Wilderness Heritage
Area and therefore does not require approval under theAct. However, the proposal is being assessed under the
Tasmanian State Legislation and under the provisions of
the New Proposals and Impact Assessment Process of the
Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management
Plan 1999.
III.150 The Australian Observer noted with regret the factthat IUCN reports on the two projects were not transmitted
to the concerned authorities in his country for comment
prior to their inclusion in the working document WHC01/CONF.207/3 in accordance with normal procedure. He
stressed the need for the Centre to request the State Party
for information and verification on all reports on the stateof conservation of properties.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.151
The Bureau noted that processes for theassessment of the environmental impacts of the two
projects were currently underway. The Bureau invited theState Party to submit detailed status reports on bothprojects, including outcomes of any EIAs prepared forthese projects, to the Centre before 1 February 2002. These
reports would enable the Bureau to undertake acomprehensive review of these two projects in relation to
the conservation of the Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage Area at its twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in
April 2002.
Tongariro National Park (New Zealand)
III.152 The Bureau noted the report on the state ofconservation of Tongariro National Park concerning themanagement of the ash build-up at Crater Lake, Mount
Ruapehu contained in Working Document WHC01/CONF.208/10 (page 33).
III.153 IUCN emphasized that eruptions within the Crater
Lake are a regular and ongoing natural feature. IUCN
considers that proposed engineering works to manage theash build-up at Crater Lake might establish a precedent
within Tongariro and other national parks.
IUCN
recommends that natural processes be allowed to function
and measures be implemented to protect both public safety
and infrastructure. ICOMOS recalled that the mountains ofTongariro National Park are sacred to the Maori and that aculturally appropriate solution needs to be found to the
management of the ash build-up.
III.154 The Bureau was informed that a representative of
the State Party was expected to attend the twenty-fifthsession of the Committee. The Bureau therefore decided
to transmit the state of conservation report of Tongariro
National Park to the Committee noting that new
information may be provided.
Hierapolis-Pamukkale (Turkey)
III.155 The Bureau noted that preliminary reports on thestate of conservation of this site received by IUCN are
worrying. The reports note that the limestone cliffs are
becoming discoloured and, despite the authorities
prohibiting visitors from entering the travertines and theplacement of signs explaining the fragility of the site,many visitors continue to enter the travertines. In addition,
the collection of pieces of limestone are being taken as
souvenirs. Few guards patrol the site, and there is little orno law enforcement.
III.156 The Bureau requested the State Party to submit areport on the situation of the limestone cliffs, and on theoverall management of the site before 1 February 2002 for
examination by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in
April 2002.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 125

CULTURAL HERITAGE
Europe and North America•=

the erection of additional constructions in concrete
and aluminium, at a short distance from the Cathedral,entirely changing the external appearance of the wallsof the courtyard.

Historic Distric of Québec (Canada)
III.157 As requested by the Bureau at its twenty-fifthsession, ICOMOS undertook an evaluation mission to thesite (15 to 21 October 2001). Following this mission,
ICOMOS made the following recommendations:
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=

the Point-à-Carcy port project is acceptable so long as
it serves as a port-of-call and an arrival port, but not asa homeport;
There should be strict noise and traffic control duringloading and unloading periods;
The planned second phase of the project should be
implemented as soon as possible, so as to make thequay available to the general public;
Immediate consideration should be given to theconversion of the Champlain Maritime Station into aterminal for departing and arriving cruise ships;
The boundaries of the World Heritage site should be
adjusted so as to include the entire Pointe-à-Carcy
esplanade;An urban plan for the area must be agreed upon inasoociation with the Municipality;The
three-member
commission
shouldbestrengthened by the appointment of a non-Canadianexpert;
The Port Administration of Québec should provide theWorld Heritage Committee with a synthesis of the
project as it stands, following modifications overrecent years.

III.158 The Bureau took note of the information provided
by ICOMOS and requested that the full report of the
ICOMOS expert mission be transmitted to the State Party.
The Bureau requested the State Party to provide, by 1
February 2002, a report on the activities undertaken for
examination by its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.
City-Museum Reserve of Mtskheta (Georgia)
III.159 The Bureau noted that the UNESCO-ICOMOS
mission, for the UNDP-SPPD project for the Study andDevelopment of a Heritage and Tourism Master Plan for
Mtskheta, Georgia, identified the following serious
problems at the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral, the mostsignificant monument of the City of Mtskheta:
•=
•=
•=

the construction of two large underground storage
areas, irreversible and disproportionate to themonument;
the on-going construction of a new bell tower rightover the original gate of the wall enclosing thecathedral grounds;
the behaviour of the Cathedral in the case of anearthquake will be difficult to predict due to past andcurrent works carried out in the immediate vicinity ofthe monument;

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.160 The Bureau invited the Georgian authorities torequest an ICOMOS-UNESCO evaluation mission to thesite to ascertain the state of conservation and notably the
progress of the ongoing and future work. This mission
should also identify corrective measures and solutions toestablish appropriate protection and management
mechanisms for the Cathedral. The Bureau requested theState Party to prepare a report on the state of conservationof the site comprising up-to-date information on all therestoration and construction projects at the site, before 1
February 2002, for examination by its twenty-sixth sessionin April 2002. This report should be reviewed by theevaluation mission to the site.
Classical Weimar (Germany)
III.161 During its last session, the Bureau had requested
the German authorities to prepare a progress report on theroad project foreseen in the vicinity of the Tiefurt Castle
and its Park at Weimar, presenting the adopted mitigation
measures. In response to a question from the Delegate ofThailand, the Observer of Germany indicated that theauthorities were still awaiting the report from theMunicipality of Weimar.
III.162 The Bureau requested the German authorities topresent a progress report, by 1 February 2002, forexamination at its twenty-sixth session.
Hanseatic City of Lübeck (Germany)
III.163
In July 2001, the Secretariat learnt of aconstruction project in the centre of Lübeck. Following
discussions and reservations expressed by ICOMOS, theWorld Heritage Centre and the German authorities,
concerning the proposed height and architectural style ofthe buildings, an extensive report was sent to theSecretariat on the construction project by the Mayor of
Lübeck on 12 September 2001. According to this report,
the current buildings (post office building and townhall)which are located in the area of the construction project,
have no national heritage character and are not consideredworthy of protection. The height of the two new buildings
will be compatible with the other buildings in thestreet/square and will therefore not have a negative visual
impact on the World Heritage site. The modern
architecture of the new buildings provides a neutral
framework for the town hall. Following examination ofthis document, ICOMOS had informed the Secretariat that,in their view, the style and the height of the proposed newbuildings on the market square are inappropriate to theensemble of the site and proposed that another solution be
found which is more compatible with the existingbuildings surrounding the open area and the particularskyline of Marienkirche and the Petrikirche.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 126

III.164 The Observer of Germany remarked that theauthorities of the city and notably the conservator, were infavour of this project, which whilst being a contemporary
construction and a new element in the architecturallandscape, respected the historical structure of the City.
III.165 The Chairperson proposed that a working group
comprising the International Committee of Historic Towns
and Villages (ICHTC) of ICOMOS, and the local andnational authorities be set up and meet in Lübeck to
identify appropriate solutions. The Delegate of Hungary,
Chairperson of the ICHTC, stated that this was not aunique case and that the results of a working group could
serve as a basis for a study on historic city centres that facethese situations.
III.166 The Bureau requested that the working groupmeet as soon as possible in Lübeck to identify appropriate
solutions. The Bureau requested that the report of theworking group be submitted to the twenty-sixth session of
the Committee (June 2002).
Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter, and Churchof Our Lady, Trier (Germany)
III.167 The Bureau, at its twenty-fourth extraordinary
session, requested the German authorities to formulate andimplement planning regulations that will ensure the longterm preservation of the archaeological remains in thisarea. At the request of the Minister of Culture of the Land
Rhenanie-Palatinat, ICOMOS undertook a mission to thesite on 23 – 24 September 2001 to assess the state ofconservation of the site. The ICOMOS expert noted that
the Roman Amphitheatre is well conserved, however,there is a conservation problem notably connected with thewater table, concerning the important Roman remains
revealed at the site of the former brewery. In general, theICOMOS mission noted damage to the Barbara Baths,
Porta Nigra and the Imperial Baths caused by bad weather,
deficiencies in staffing, a shortage of maintenancepersonnel to monitor state of conservation of structures,and inadequate on-site interpretation. Furthermore, theICOMOS expert identified two potential extensions to theexisting site which are: the Viehmarkt, where extensive
rescue excavations have revealed substantial remains of alarge Roman thermal establishment and the Simeonstift,
the history and location of which are intimately linked tothose of the Porta Nigra.
The ICOMOS mission
recommended:
•=

•=

•=

A major project for the study and re-excavation of the
Barbarathermen, followed by scientific conservationand the implementation of a management plan, should
be initiated without delay;
A scientific study of the extent and nature ofdegradation of the stones of the Porta Negra, followedby the implementation of appropriate conservation
measures;
Serious consideration should be given to theappointment of additional security and maintenancepersonnel at the archaeological sites;

Report of the World Heritage Committee•=•=

Projects should be undertaken to improve theinterpretation and signage at the archaeological sites;
Consideration should be given to the nomination of
the Viehmarktthermen and the Simeonstift as
extensions to the World Heritage site, subject to the
opening to the public of the Viehmarktthermen andappropriate changes so as to improve its presentation.

III.168 The Observer of Germany thanked ICOMOS for
its mission and recommendations. However, he indicatedthat the problems raised by this mission only concerned
two or three monuments at the site, which comprised nine
in total. He also emphasized that the improvement
projects which concerned notably the conservation and thesignage at the site had been entrusted to a privatecompany. He also indicated that all the monuments at thesite are open to the public, including those that ICOMOS
had suggested to be included in the extension. With regard
to the question of the extension of the site with othermonuments, the Observer of Germany informed the
Bureau that as the work foreseen at the Collegiale St
Simeon had not commenced, the Ministry deemed it too
early to request an extension.
III.169 The Representative of ICOMOS underlined that amanagement plan existed for some of the monuments butthat for others there was no information provided
regarding this point. Several delegates empahasized theimportance of an integrated management plan
encompassing all the monuments at the site.
The
Chairperson proposed that a management plan for eachsite be established and that coordination between theseplans be ensured.
III.170 The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS mission
report and information provided by the State Party. The
Bureau requested the German authorities to continue to
implement the necessary measures for the establishment ofappropriate management plans for each monument and toensure coordination between these plans. It also requested
the State Party to pursue its efforts in the framework of theconservation and presentation of the site, and to provide a
detailed report on the implementation of these measuresfor examination by its twenty-sixth session in April 2002.
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
III.171 The Bureau had requested the German authorities
to collaborate with ICOMOS in the assessment of theHavel waterway improvement project and to submit areport for examination by the twenty-fifth extraordinary
session of the Bureau. Through the German National
Committee of ICOMOS a report was prepared by StiftungPreussischer Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg
which calls attention to the threat the project will cause to
the buildings located at the Havel waterfront. Notably, theHeilandskirche in Sacrow and the Maschinenhaus Park
Babelsberg could be adversely affected by the project.
III.172 The Bureau took note of the concerns raised by
ICOMOS and the Stiftung Preussischer Schlösser undGärten Berlin-Brandenburg regarding the negative impact

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 127

of the Havel waterway improvement on the landscape oneach side of the river. The Bureau also noted that the State
Party had informed of the delay in the project and that an
official decision would not be taken before 2004. In thiscontext, the Bureau requested the German authorities toundertake all necessary measures to ensure that the valuesof the World Heritage site be taken into consideration in
the framework of the official urban planning public
process and the ICOMOS be invited to participate actively
in this process. The Bureau requested the State Party to
prepare, by 1 February 2003, a detailed report comprising
updated information on the status of the project for
examination by its twenty-seventh session in April 2003.
Acropolis, Athens (Greece)
III.173 After examination of information provided by agroup of residents on a 32-metre high building proposal, inthe vicinity of the Acropolis, ICOMOS informed theSecretariat that it considered the project unacceptable due
to its proximity to the World Heritage site. This
construction would significantly block the view fromcertain points, and cause adverse visual impact on the site.
The Bureau noted that numerous protests had been madecomplaining about this project, notably by NGOs, theDepartment of Architecture of the University of Athens
and by the Directors of Institutes of Nordic Countries inAthens, whose buildings are located within the perimeterof the building project. The Secretariat was also informedthat the 3rd Department of Antiquities of Athens had
undertaken archaeological research at the site where theconstruction is foreseen because of recent discoveries ofarchaeological remains.
III.174 By letter of 29 November 2001, the Permanent
Delegation of Greece, informed the Secretariat that theland area upon which the building would be constructed isoutside of the buffer zone of the Acropolis site and also
outside the historic centre of the city of Athens. The
Delegation had also informed that the building licencegranted for the project was provisional mainly because thearea falls under the archaeological jurisdiction of the
Ministry of Culture and that since September, the 3rd
Department of Antiquities of the Ministry has been
carrying out excavations at the site and that remains havebeen found. The Delegation added that the building
licence was dependent upon the results of the ongoing
excavations.
III.175 After examination of this information, ICOMOS
informed the Secretariat that it was satisfactory to haveconfirmation that the parcel of land was under thearchaeological jurisdiction of the Ministry and that the
excavations had been undertaken. However, ICOMOS
noted that the main objection to this project was the size ofthe proposed building that was considered as possibly
causing negative visual impact on the World Heritage site.
III.176 The Delegate of Greece emphasized that thejurisdiction applied to the site concerned by the project
was clear and that this was outside of the buffer zone andthe World Heritage site. She furthermore informed that

Report of the World Heritage Committee

the responsible Ministry was anxious to protect the site
and its visual aspect. She mentioned that, in thisframework, the law forbade constructions above a certain
height. The Delegate of the State Party furthermore,
reaffirmed that no building licence had yet been granted
and that this would only be done in accordance with theresults of the excavations undertaken.
III.177 ICOMOS remarked that the principal concern
remained the height, 32 metres, of the proposed building,and that this would constitute a new emergence in thelandscape. The Chairperson remarked that it would be
useful to carry out a visual impact study. The Bureau took
note of the building construction project adjacent to theWorld Heritage site. The Bureau requested the State Party
to keep the World Heritage Committee informed of theevolution of this project.
Historic Centre of Naples (Italy)
III.178 The Bureau noted that the Italian authorities havetaken action to halt the demolition of 27 ancients buildingin the Historic Centre of Naples and congratulated theState Party for protecting the World Heritage values of thesite.
The Curonian Spit (Lithuania/Russian Federation)
III.179
At the request of the State Party, an
ICOMOS/UNESCO (UNESCO Moscow Office) mission
assessed the impact on the site of a proposed oil extraction
operation. The ICOMOS expert visited the Lithuanianpart, while the UNESCO Moscow Office representative(ecology specialist) had discussions with the Russian side(including the Lithuanian Consulate and World Ocean
Museum in Kaliningrad, Russian Federation). Both experts
obtained similar information. The UNESCO Moscow
Office received documentation on the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project. The D-6
Krakovskaya oil deposit is located at a depth of 27 – 30m
in the Baltic Sea shelf, 22km off the coast of the Curonian
Spit. In 1985 the USSR established that the environmental
aspects of the project were not safe and that the existing
technology could not ensure a safe oil exploitation. In
August 2000 the company Lukoil announced that work
would commence. The Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs repeatedly requested official information on the
project from the Russian Federation. However no reply
was received. During a boat visit of the area, the mission
noted that construction work is being carried out on theplatform and that the construction will be completed by
2002. While the platform has no visual impact on theWorld Heritage site, ICOMOS considers the potential
impact of an oil spill as immense. In case of accident, thewind and sea currents would drive the oil spill in the
direction of the Baltic shores of Lithuania, the Spit and as
far as Latvia. The recommendations of the ICOMOS
mission are:
- An environmental impact assessment (EIA) should be
carried out, by either a joint Russian-Lithuanian teamof experts or by an independent international
consultancy;

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 128

--

The Russian company should allow Lithuanianexperts access to the technical data relating to safety
provisions;
The two countries should collaborate in the
preparation of a risk-preparedness programme.

III.180 The Bureau took note of a fax received on 7
December during its session from the UNESCO National
Commission of the Russian Federation informing thatneither the State Committee for Ecology or its successor,
the State Committee for Natural Resources had agreed toany mining exploration projects. ICOMOS emphasizedthat the mining exploration was located at no great
distance from one of the most fragile cultural landscapes
inscribed on the List and that the risk of an oil spill was
high. If this happened, the impact on the site would begreat.
III.181 The Bureau took note of the information provided
by the ICOMOS expert and the report on the mission ofAugust 2001. It thanked the Lithuanian authorities for theirefforts to ensure the protection of the Curonian Spit. In
view of the urgent situation, the Bureau requested the State
Party of the Russian Federation to submit a report before 1
February 2002, on the project concerning the Russian partof this transboundary site and on technical data relating tosafety provisions, for examination by the Bureau at its
twenty-sixth session in April 2002. Furthermore, theBureau requested that the environmental impact
assessment be carried out, without delay, jointly by a
Lithuanian-Russian team of experts and that the outcomeof this study be communicated to the Bureau, at its next
session.
City of Luxembourg: its
Fortifications (Luxembourg)

Old

Quarters

andIII.182 Following a meeting between the Delegation of
Luxembourg, the Chairperson, the Secretariat and theRepresentative of ICOMOS, the Bureau was informed thatawaiting the opinion of the Secretary General of ICOMOS,
the examination of this site would be referred to thetwenty-fifth session of the World Heritage Committee.
Megalithic Temples of Malta ( Malta)
III.183 The Bureau, at its twenty-fifth session, requested
the State Party to inform the Committee on progress ofactions undertaken following damage caused by vandalismthat occurred in April 2001. A report on the restoration
project of the Megalithic Temples was sent by thePermanent Delegation of Malta to the Secretariat on 18
October 2001. This report informed that a strategic
restoration plan had been prepared by the Department ofMuseums and implemented during May to July 2001. It
also informed that security measures had immediately
been undertaken following the acts of vandalism, as well
as a general reinforcement of security at the site. The
report also contained information concerning ongoing andlong-term protection and conservation projects for the
Megalithic Monuments.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.184
The Bureau took note of the information
contained in the report and expressed its satisfaction as tothe speed with which the remedial actions had been
undertaken and for the conservation and protection
measures established to protect all the Megalithic Templesof Malta. The Delegate of Greece noted that, in thesecases, appropriate measures should be undertaken tocombat vandalism.
Auschwitz Concentration Camp (Poland)
III.185 The Bureau noted that a site visit to Auschwitz
under the leadership of the Chairperson of the World
Heritage Committee, Mr Peter King, took place on 1 and 2
July 2001, to assess the issues relating to the managementof the site and the establishment of a buffer zone. The fullmission report was presented to the Bureau as Information
Document WHC-01/CONF.207/INF.6. The Bureau wasalso informed that it was sent to the Polish authorities forreview and comments.
III.186 The Secretariat informed the Bureau that themission covered the management of the World Heritage
site, its buffer zone (including the 300 to 1000 m silencezones), related sites, government responsibilities and local
communities, as well as management planning andfinancial issues. The report contains very specificrecommendations for each of these issues, including thosefor the International Group of Experts.
III.187 The Bureau noted that as a result of the site visit,
discussions with the Polish authorities and concerned
parties were held in a constructive atmosphere to achieve
progress with regard to the protection of the site andconfidence for the overall future management in
consultation with all stakeholders.
The mission inparticular acknowledged the commitment by the Polish
Government to the preservation of the World Heritage site.
However, the need for a policy for the conservation andoverall management of the surroundings incorporating a
coherent silence and protection zone, an appropriately
zoned buffer area and satisfactory long-term protection or
integration of the area between the two camps wasemphasized. The excellent quality of management at theWorld Heritage site and the commitment and dedication of
the staff of the museum was noted. However, a number ofissues were identified: social and commercial
development, private property rights in neighbouring
areas, longer term suitable investment, appropriate tourism
and education programmes, inventory of related sites, coordination between the different levels and a dialogue
between the city of Oswiezim and the village of Brezinka.
The mission also recommended that the terms of reference
and structure for the work of the International Group ofExperts and the formation of two sub-committees, one onmuseology and conservation and the other one on
urbanism and planning be determined as soon as possible.
This will enable the International Group of Experts toproceed with the work on an on-going basis.
III.188 The Bureau was informed of a letter received
from the Deputy Secretary of State of the Ministry of

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 129

Internal Affairs and Administration of the Republic of
Poland dated 5 December 2001, informing the Centre that
he had taken over the responsibility for the implementationof the Auschwitz Government Strategic Programme. This
Programme will be continued for the period 2002-2006.
The authorities furthermore invited UNESCO to undertakea further visit in the second half of 2002. Concerning thediscotheque, the regional governor has now reversed thedecision and refused to grant permission to operate thefacility.
III.189 The Observer of Israel commended the Secretariat
for the excellent support and underlined that the mission
obtained very positive views concerning the managementof the site. He informed the Bureau, however, that a
number of issues remain to be solved, including thediscotheque, the supermarket and the work and structure of
the International Group of Experts. He requested that thisbe followed very closely, as steps need to be taken to
ensure the work, structure and timetable of theInternational Group of Experts. As no technical assistancerequest was received from the Polish authorities, his
Government would provide an amount of up to US$20,000
for the actions required.
III.190
The Observer of Poland reconfirmed theappreciation of his Government for the mission and its
findings. He stated that his Government was pursuingjuridical procedures with regard to the discotheque and theCarmel Convent. Concerning the technical assistancerequest, he informed the Bureau that this is now underconsideration and that the function, structure, competence
and terms of reference of the International Group ofExperts required clarification.
He confirmed theconclusions of the report and informed the Bureau that thecomplexity of different Government levels should be
acknowledged. He assured the Bureau of a close follow-up
of all matters with UNESCO.
III.191 The Bureau adopted the following decision fortransmission to the World Heritage Committee for action:“The Committee takes note of the report of the site
visit to Auschwitz Concentration Camp and its
surroundings and thanks the Chairperson, Mr Peter
King, for his great commitment concerning this site.
The Committee urges the State Party to implement therecommendations of the mission as soon as possible
and requests the authorities to provide a report by 1
February 2002 with details on the status of theimplementation of the recommendations and atimeframe.“
Historic Centre of Sighisoara (Romania)
III.192 The Bureau noted the information contained in the
Working Document WHC-01/CONF.207/3. It also noted
the information provided by the State Party that underlinedthat the special programme including the "Dracula ParK"
project, as well as the creation of an Interministerial
Committee for its monitoring, had been approved by theGovernment in July 2001, launched in November 2001

Report of the World Heritage Committee

and for which the implementation is foreseen for May
2002. The Bureau also took note that the first phase of thisproject comprised a feasibility study, that the complex
envisaged is located 6 Km from the town centre and will
be constructed on a vast area and a rehabilitation andrevitalisation of the town of Sighisoara was foreseen
thanks to the income from the "Dracula Park".
III.193 The Bureau took note of the view of ICOMOS
who considered that although such a project would permit
an increase in tourism in the region where the economy isweak, its impact could have a negative effect on the values
for which Sighisoara was inscribed on the World Heritage
List. This would include the alteration to the visual
integrity of the historic town itself, even if the project islocated at a distance of 6 Km, and the effects of mass
tourism on the World Heritage site and its immediatesurroundings.
III.194 The Observer of Germany emphasized that thearea covered by the project was foreseen to be sixty
hectares and that there was a risk that the town would
become the focal point of an amusement park on the lines
of a "Disneyland" . He thought that the authenticity of thetown would be greatly threatened by a project of this kind.
He also recalled paragraph 56 of the Guidelines that
invited States Parties to inform the Committee of all
construction projects that could modify the value of theproperty.
III.195 The Delegate of Hungary indicated that this was aserious problem which concerned a project involving mass
tourism and which would be very different from thatgenerated by the town itself. He emphasized that there
was no question of preventing tourism but that one must
be prudent. He also noted that the proximity of the ParK
to the town was very dangerous. He suggested that
another location be found for the construction of the Park.
III.196 The Representative of ICOMOS indicated that the
distance separating the Parc project from the town was 1.5
Km as the crow flies, that the impact on it would be vastand that a large number of elements of the Park would be
visible from the town. He also indicated that a cablecar
project existed to link the Park to the town. He finallymentioned that ICOMOS was not against a project that
could generate income for the region, but he strongly
recommended that another location for the project befound as far away from the town of Sighisorara as
possible.
III.197 After this debate, the Bureau adopted thefollowing recommendation for examination by theCommittee at its twenty-fifth session:"The Committee notes with concern the building
project for an amusement park in the vicinity of thesite, and which could have a negative impact on the
integrity and the ensemble of the site. The Committee
notes with disquiet the information provided by theState Party and notably the fact that the Romanianauthorities had already approved the project as well as

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 130

the implementation of the special programme foreseen
for May 2002. The Committee urgently requests theState Party to undertake the projected environmental
impact study as soon as possible; it informs the State
Party that assistance could be granted for this purpose.
Furthermore, the Committee strongly encourages theState party to explore all other possible solutions for analternative location for the construction of thisamusement park. The Committee requests that a joint
UNESCO-ICOMOS mission be undertaken to the site
as soon as possible and that a report on the mission bepresented at its twenty-sixth session (June 2002)."
Kizhi Pogost(Russian Federation)

III.198
The Bureau took note of the information
contained in the World Document WHC-01/CONF.207/3.
It also took note that a request for emergency assistancefrom the State Party to hold an international workshop at
the site had been received by the Centre and was approved
on 14 October 2001 for a total amount of US$29,540.
This workshop would also include the elaboration of aworkplan for the safeguarding of the site.
III.199 The Delegate of Finland underlined that the site
has been facing permanent and continual problems since
its inscription, notably with regard to the conservation
work, management and security measures. He proposedthat given an increasing number of wooden churches arebeing inscribed on the World Heritage List, or were being
proposed for inscription, a network of experts andresponsible persons at the different sites could be created
to respond to different problems. He also recommended
that in the future, direct assistance from the Committee tothe responsible person at the site be proposed.
III.200 Recalling the structural problems encountered at
the site, the Representative of ICCROM indicated that a
multidisciplinary conservation plan had been adopted forthe site in 1995 but that it had never been implemented.
He supported the proposal of the Delegate of Finland andinformed that ICCROM would provide assistance,
recommending, however, that this approach be global andthat all questions affecting the site be treated.
III.201 The Representative of ICOMOS commended theDelegate of Finland for this proposal. He indicated thatthe services of the International Committee for Wood and
Vernacular Architecture of ICOMOS were at the disposalof the Committee for the study suggested by the Delegateof Finland.
III.202 After this debate, the Bureau adopted thefollowing recommendation for examination by theCommittee at its twenty-fifth session:"The Committee takes note of the information provided
by ICCROM and thanks the authorities of the RussianFederation for having initiated the process to ensure theprotection of the site. In view of the alarming state ofconsevation of the site, the Committee requests the
Secretariat to work in close collaboration with theReport of the World Heritage Committee

authorities of the Russian Federation and the Advisory
Bodies with regard to the international workshop on
conservation measures for Kizhi Pogost. Furthermore,
the Committee requests the State Party to provide a
detailed update of the situation, by 1 February 2002,
and requests the Centre to provide a full report on the
results of the workshop, in collaboration with theauthorities of the Russian Federation and the Advisory
Bodies, for its twenty-sixth session in June 2002."
Spišský Hrad and its Associated Cultural Monuments(Slovakia)
III.203 In June 2001, ICOMOS received information thata travertine quarry below Drevenik, on the south-westernedge of the inscribed site, was operational and that
quarrying was going ahead. The permit is of limited
duration and is scheduled to end in 2002. ICOMOS
considers that the main threat to the site comes from theblasting operations, and to a lesser extent, from the large
quantity of dust produced by extraction and transportation.
III.204 The Bureau took note of the report provided by
ICOMOS and requested the Slovakian authorities toprovide a report on the situation by 1 February 2002, forexamination by the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.
Route of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
III.205 The Bureau took note of the reservations made by
ICOMOS concerning the dam project that represents a
threat for a part of the Route of Santiago de Compostela.
It expressed its concern with regard to the impact of thedam which risks flooding a part of the Route of Santiago
de Compostela and requested the Spanish authorities tostudy all alternative solutions to avoid any negative impact
on the values and integrity of the World Heritage site.
III.206 The Observer of Spain informed the Bureau ofprogress achieved with ICOMOS
on this question
following the recommendation formulated by the Bureau
during its twenty-fourth session. He indicated that after
the meetings to be held between representatives of thenational and regional governments and ICOMOS-Spain
representatives, information would be updated and sent to
the Centre. He also indicated that research would be
carried out to establish the true trail of the Route to its
source. He informed the Bureau that the national and local
Governments would do nothing to endanger the historicalintegrity of the Route.
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated sites (United
Kingdom)
III.207 The Bureau noted the information received fromthe Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the United
Kingdom emphasizing that in order to improve the site’ssetting, the Government proposes to remove two roads
from the immediate vicinity of the monument. In thisregard, it is proposed that the A303 road run through a
2km tunnel near the stone circle, whilst the other road
(A344) should be closed and converted to grass. It is also

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 131

proposed that the present rather poor visitor facilities andcar park should be removed and that a new visitor centre(with car parking and interpretative facilities) should bebuild a short distance away, outside the site. However, theDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport underlined in its
letter that all these proposals will be subject toexamination under normal planning procedures and thatfull consideration will be given to the overallarchaeological and environmental implications. ICOMOS
informed the Secretariat that it was in full agreement withthe proposals and that the cut-and-cover tunnel is afeasible project that will not cause any damage to thearchaeology and the environment on the site.
III.208 Concerning Silbury Hill, part of the World
Heritage site, the Secretariat has been informed bynumerous letters that the site was threatened by collapse.
The State Party informed the Centre that the present
problem has been caused by the collapse of the filling of avertical shaft. In May 2000, a squared-shaped hole about
1.8m wide opened up to a depth of just over 10m. Thiswas covered immediately with a scaffolding cover.
However, before any plan could be implemented further
collapse occurred. Under these circumstances, English
Heritage decided to commission a seismic survey, but thiswas delayed due to the fact that the Hill was situatedwithin an area infected by Foot and Mouth Disease. The
State Party informed the Secretariat that appropriate action
is being taken to repair Silbury Hill and safeguard it fromfurther damage. Furthermore, ICOMOS informed theSecretariat that the existence of the pit at the top of the Hill
had been known for many years and it was not considereda threat to stability until it began to widen under the impactof the unusually heavy rainfall earlier this year. ICOMOS
is of the opinion that both the technical and archaeologicalproblems are being addressed as matters of urgency andthat the long-term future of the monument is notthreatened.
III.209 The British Ministry of Culture has informed theSecretariat that the seismic survey commissioned for
Silbury had been carried out, and that its results which arepresently being analysed, will be transmitted to the Centre
together with proposals for the restoration of themonument, as soon as possible.
III.210 The Bureau noted the information transmitted by
the State Party concerning the planning and the protectionof the site of Stonehenge. The Bureau also noted the viewsof the State Party and ICOMOS on Silbury Hill which ispart of the World Heritage site. It requested the State Party
to work in close consultation with the Centre and
ICOMOS regarding the planning and protection of the site
and to present a progress report to the Bureau at its next
session in April 2002.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Arab States
M’Zab Valley (Algeria)
III.211 The Secretariat informed the Bureau on thefindings of the mission sent to the M’Zab Valley in
September 2001. The expert reported on the adverse
impact on the built and natural environment of the site of
the significant socio-economic changes, which occurred inthe Valley over the past decades. As adequate protective
legislation is lacking, the report stressed the need tourgently provide assistance to the Algerian authorities inestablishing appropriate protective mechanisms for thevarious ksour. In this respect, the Secretariat also informed
the Bureau of the requests for International Assistancesubmitted by the State Party of Algeria, currently underreview, for the organization of training activities and fortechnical co-operation, aimed at improving themanagement of the site.
III.212 The Bureau invited the State Party to co-operatewith the Centre in the elaboration of a Development andSafeguarding Plan for the M’Zab Valley. The
implementation of International Assistance, based oninternational experience and respecting the local artisan
traditions, for on-the-job training on conservation
techniques should also be initiated.
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria)
III.213 The Secretariat confirmed to the Bureau that,
according to recent information received orally from the
Director of the Algerian Heritage Department, the site has
not been particularly affected by the torrential rains ofNovember 2001. The Bureau was also informed on thefindings of the expert mission sent to the Kasbah of
Algiers in September 2001.
III.214 The expert reported on the worrying deterioration
process and lack of maintenance affecting the site, due tothe progressive replacement of the original population withinhabitants of poorer condition from the countryside,
combined with the absence of a protective legislation.
Further to the abrogation of the old law by the new 1998
legislation, the development of a new Safeguarding Plan
was entrusted to local urban planning firms by theauthorities. This Plan, however, has not yet been
completed. Further to the expert mission, the State Party
submitted two requests for International Assistance,
currently under review, for the organization of training
activities, aimed at improving the management of the site.
III.215 The Bureau invited the State Party to co-operatewith the Centre in the elaboration of a Development andSafeguarding Plan for the Kasbah of Algiers, and in theimplementation of the International Assistance for training
activities on conservation techniques and management of
the built heritage.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 132

Archaeological Site of Tipasa (Algeria)
III.216 The Secretariat reported on the findings of a visit
to the site, carried out last September by an international
expert, in preparation for the Emergency Assistanceapproved by the Bureau at its last session of June 2001.
During this visit, the problems raised in the Periodic
Report submitted by the State Party were reviewed anddetailed terms of reference for the team of international
experts identified.
III.217
A major concern is the Safeguarding and
Presentation Plan for the site, prepared in 1992 withsupport from the Committee, which apparently is not
implemented. As a result, new buildings have been
constructed within the buffer zone, while the threatsderiving from erosion and salt winds are not yet undercontrol. Another issue is the impact on the site of over
140,000 visitors per year, mainly schools from the nearby
city of Algiers, which is causing damage to the fragilearchaeological structures.
III.218
The Bureau recommended to the Algerianauthorities to implement without delay the 1992
Safeguarding and Presentation Plan, to reduce pressure on
the site. Furthermore, the Algerian authorities were invited
to keep the World Heritage Centre fully informed of any
project or development concerning the site of Tipasa, andsubmit all studies for approval before theirimplementation.
Islamic Cairo (Arab Republic of Egypt)III.219 The Secretariat informed the Bureau on thefindings of the ICOMOS mission to Cairo in August 2001,
to evaluate the current restoration projects, and reported on
the mission headed by the Director of the World Heritage
Centre in September 2001.
III.220 On the major restoration campaign presently
being implemented in Cairo, with a total of 150
interventions foreseen within a period of eight years and48 monuments currently under restoration, the ICOMOS
report emphasized a number of issues of concern. The
main remarks concerned the need to strengthen coordination among the various institutions involved in the
rehabilitation of the site; the importance of adopting acomprehensive Master Plan with clear land-use andbuilding regulations; the necessity to ensure a compatible
use and proper management mechanisms for restored
monuments; and the overall issue of the varying quality ofthe projects and work being executed, with a tendency
towards ‘complete restoration’, as opposed to conservationof signs of age and patina that has resulted from wear andtear.
III.221 In addition, the report stressed the need for alarger public awareness of the objectives of the restoration
campaign, and for specific training on conservation for the
professional staff of the Supreme Council of Antiquities,
mostly composed of archaeologists, architects andReport of the World Heritage Committee

engineers, taking into account the unprecedented scale andnumber of restoration projects.
III.222 The Secretariat then informed the Bureau of aseries of specific actions, to be partially funded throughthe Egyptian Funds-in-Trust at UNESCO, that the WHC
and the Egyptian authorities agreed to implement together,in order to address the above issues. These actions include:
•=

•=

•=

An International Seminar on the conservation ofHistoric Cairo, with multi-disciplinary planningworkshops focused on specific projects, to beorganized in early 2002. Periodic reviewing seminarsof the current projects will also be held;
The establishment within the premises of a restored
monument, of a permanent Information Centre on
Historic Cairo World Heritage site and current
conservation efforts;
The preparation of a Conservation Manual, withtechnical specifications and detailed descriptions of
the types of work most commonly required for theconservation and maintenance of historic buildings
within the city of Cairo.

III.223 The Delegate of Egypt thanked the Secretariat andICOMOS for their co-operation, but strongly protested
about the leakage of the ICOMOS mission report to the
Egyptian press that occurred before its officialtransmission to the Egyptian authorities, and the letter
written by the ICOMOS President to the First Lady of
Egypt, Madam Suzanne Mubarak, which he claimed,referred in an exaggerated manner, to the poor state ofconservation of Historic Cairo. On this latter point, herequested an official apology from ICOMOS. The
Egyptian Delegate also expressed some reservations on thecontent of the ICOMOS report, and stated that theEgyptian authorities were not provided the opportunity toreview it thoroughly with the Centre and ICOMOS.
Recalling that Historic Cairo has over 600 listedmonuments, he questioned the completeness of theevaluation made by ICOMOS and the conclusions
contained in the report. He then reiterated the Egyptian
authorities’ readiness to continue co-operating with
UNESCO and the WHC, in addition to the initiatives
mentioned above, to ensure the appropriate monitoring of
the site. Finally, the Delegate of Egypt expressed the wish
that the future denomination of the site be, from now on,“Historic Cairo”, to better represent its composite,
multicultural heritage.
III.224 The Bureau commended the State Party for its
great efforts towards the rehabilitation of Historic Cairo,
for co-operating with the Centre in monitoring the state ofconservation of the site, and particularly for supporting thethree above-mentioned actions in collaboration with the
WHC. The Bureau also encouraged the State Party:•=

to improve co-ordination among concerned
institutions within Historic Cairo and to elaborate acomprehensive institutional framework which would
ensure a better management of the site;

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 133

•=

•=
•=

•=

to institutionalise the trend, recently emerged,
whereby appropriate and compatible functions for
non-religious buildings and future management
mechanisms are determined, before starting any
restoration works on a monument;
to ensure consistency in the quality of all restoration
works, in compliance with recognized international
standards;
to invest, as a matter of urgency, adequate resources
towards the capacity-building in the area ofarchitectural conservation for the staff of the Supreme
Council of Antiquities, to enable a more effective
management of the restoration campaign;
to continue the periodic monitoring of the restoration
works, in close consultation with the WHC.

Abu Mena (Egypt)III.225 The Secretariat reported on the findings of a visit
to the site, headed last September by the Director of theWorld Heritage Centre. A land-reclamation programme
for the agricultural development of the region, funded by
the World Bank, has caused in the past ten years a
dramatic rise in the water table. The local soil, which is
exclusively clay, is hard and capable of supportingbuildings when in a dry state, but becomes semi-liquidwith excess water. The destruction of numerous cisterns,
disseminated around the city, has entailed the collapse of
several overlying structures. Huge underground cavities
have opened in the north-western region of the town. The
risk of collapse is so high that the authorities were forced
to fill with sand the bases of some of the most endangeredbuildings, including the crypt of Abu Mena with the tombof the Saint, and close them to the public. A large banked
road, moreover, was built to enable movement within thesite. The Supreme Council of Antiquities is trying tocounteract this phenomenon by digging trenches, and has
enlarged the listed area in the hope of lowering thepressure of the irrigation. These measures, however, have
proved to be insufficient, taking into account the scale ofthe problem and the limited resources available.
III.226 The Delegate of Egypt explained that, while theconstant need for arable land in the country (only 6% of its
territory) totally justifies this irrigation scheme, anappropriate drainage mechanism had not been provided at
the time of the project, thus causing the rise in the groundwater level. He then recalled that a large Monastery,
visited by thousands of people every week, lies east of thesite, adding to the problem. Conscious of the gravity of thesituation, the Delegate of Egypt thanked the Centre for its
support and expressed his agreement on the proposed
inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Chairperson commended the positive attitudeof Egypt for this important step which, he recalled, isaimed exclusively at assisting the State Party in identifying
and implementing the necessary corrective measures forthe safeguarding of the values of the site.
III.227
The Bureau adopted the following
recommendation for examination by the Committee at its
twenty-fifth session:

Report of the World Heritage Committee“The Committee decides to inscribe Abu Mena on the
List of World Heritage in Danger and requests the
Egyptian authorities to co-ordinate with all thecompetent national institutions and the Centre, in viewto rapidly identify the necessary corrective measures toensure the safeguarding of the site.”
Tyre (Lebanon)
III.228 The Bureau was informed of the recent decisions
taken by the Lebanese authorities, specified in an official
letter from the Director-General of the Antiquities
Department to the Centre on 5 October 2001, on the
proposed Tourism Marina project and Urban Master Plan.
III.229 A Feasibility Study on the Tourist Marina project
was to evaluate three possible options: 1) the rehabilitation
and up-grading of the existing Tyre Port; 2) the extensionof the existing Tyre Port; and 3) the construction of a new
port in Mheilib, three kms north of Tyre. The Lebanese
authorities have confirmed that the first option(rehabilitation and up-grading of existing port structures)will be retained, in line with the recommendations of theCentre. The latter, however, conditioned its approval to theaccomplishment by the Lebanese authorities of thefollowing:
•=
•=
•=

Full underwater survey inside the harbour;
Limiting to the maximum of 30 the number of boats
docking in the tourist marina;
Using the marina project as an opportunity to
upgrade the fishing port with the creation of
amenities for fishermen and locations for theinterpretation and presentation of the underwater
heritage of Tyre.

III.230 As concerns the Master Plan, the Department of
Antiquities confirmed the listing and protection, within the
territory of Tyre, of vast areas around the mainarchaeological sites. These areas will be mostly
surrounded by agricultural land, with building coefficients
limited to 5%. The definition of the land-use for all otherareas belonging to the State will be frozen until completionof the archaeological survey.
III.231 The Secretariat also informed the Bureau of a
recent mission to Lebanon carried out by the World
Heritage Centre, to review the scope of a proposed large
World Bank Cultural Heritage and Tourism Development
project, with a significant component for the site of Tyre
(as well as for the World Heritage sites of Baalbek andByblos). As the relevant documents are still underpreparation, the Secretariat will inform the Bureau on thepotential implications of this project for the site of Tyreand other Lebanese World Heritage sites at its next
session, in April 2002.
III.232 The Bureau commended the Lebanese authorities
on the important decisions taken for the safeguarding of
the World Heritage site of Tyre, and recommended that,prior to any building activity within the ancient port, in

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 134

line with the provisions of the Operational Guidelines,
reports and detailed projects be transmitted to the Centre
for submission to the Committee. In relation to the
proposed World Bank project, the Bureau invited the
Lebanese authorities to continue co-ordinating with theCentre in its finalization and future implementation.
Ksar Ait ben Haddou (Morocco)
III.233 The Secretariat recalled that a mission report
dated August 2000 expressed strong concerns for the stateof conservation of the site, and had formulated a numberof urgent recommendations for its safeguarding. These
recommendations included:
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=

Status of the site at the national level: finalising thelisting process of the site, including private properties;
Strengthening the capacities of the Centre for theConservation and Rehabilitation of the Southern
Kasbahs (CERKAS), responsible for the site;
Creating a management commission for the site;
Creating a working group to elaborate a Management
Plan;
Completing the Management Plan by the end of 2001.

III.234 The report also recommended the inscription of
the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
III.235 The Bureau was also reminded that at its twentyfourth extraordinary session, in Cairns, the Chairperson of
the Committee made it clear that, should the proposed
actions not be achieved by the end of 2001, the Moroccan
authorities would submit a request for inclusion of the siteon the List of World Heritage in Danger. A report on the
progress of the activities was also due for submission to
the twenty-fifth extraordinary session of the Bureau. The
Centre has so far not received such a report. During a
private visit to Ksar Ait Ben Haddou carried out in August
2001, the same expert, author of the first report, found thatthe above-mentioned actions had not been completed andthat a Management Plan for the site had not been prepared.
III.236
The Bureau adopted the following
recommendation for transmission to the Committee, forexamination at its twenty-fifth session:“The Committee, pending consultation with the State
Party concerned, decides to inscribe Ksar Ait Ben
Haddou on the List of World Heritage in Danger, andencourages the Moroccan authorities to submit arequest of International Assistance under the World
Heritage Fund, aimed to finalize a conservation andmanagement plan for the site. The Committee,
furthermore, requests the State Party to submit, by 1
February 2002, a report on the progress on therecommendations made in the report of August 2000”.
Old City of Sana’a (Yemen)
III.237 The Secretariat reported on the very worrying
state of conservation of the site, which, despite the positive
achievements of the 1986 International Safeguarding

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Campaign for the Old City of Sana’a, is presently affectedby an uncontrolled urban development, in the absence ofan adequate protective mechanism.
III.238 The historical market area (Souk), which serves
now a much larger community than it used to only ten
years ago, is spreading outside its traditional borders
towards the adjacent residential areas, with a significant
impact on the lower levels’ structure of these ancientbuildings. Numerous new constructions are also being
built within the walls of the Old City, using modern
structures and materials. These constructions include
several high-rise constructions, the height of which is inexcess by several storeys, of the level of other parts of the
Old City. On the other hand, most traditional houses are
not properly maintained by the present inhabitants, mainly
tenants who recently moved into the city from the villages,
due to lack of financial means.
III.239 The Bureau encouraged the Yemeni authorities tosubmit a request for International Assistance to theCommittee, to enable the preparation of a comprehensive
Safeguarding Plan for the Old City of Sana’a, in close
consultation with the World Heritage Centre. The Bureau,
furthermore, invites the Yemeni authorities to consider theopportunity to take urgent measures in order to halt new
constructions, modern additions or alterations within the
traditional urban fabric of the Old City, until such a
Safeguarding Plan has been prepared and adopted.
AfricaNo state of conservation reports. The state of the World
Heritage in Africa, 2001, will be presented to theCommittee.
Asia and the Pacific
The Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple Monastery,
Lhasa (China)
III.240 The Bureau recalled that the state of conservationof the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple of Lhasa had
been examined by the Committee at its twenty-fourth
session and again at the twenty-fifth session by the
Bureau. The Bureau took note of the urban development,
expansion of tourism related facilities, deterioration ofarchitectural structures and mural painting conservation
issues which continue to affect the world heritage valuesof the property.
III.241 The Bureau was informed that a fact-finding
UNESCO Mission was undertaken by a Centre staff with
the Chinese authorities in November 2001. This mission
noted with appreciation that the restoration of thesoutheastern wall of the Potala Palace, which collapsed
partially in August 2001 due to rainfall, was underway.
Concerning the 35 meter high tower commemorating the“Peaceful Liberation of Tibet”, the UNESCO Mission
verified that the new construction was located outside theWorld Heritage protective zones, at the south end of the
new Potala Square.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 135

III.242
The Observer of China expressed her
Government’s appreciation to the World Heritage
Committee, its Bureau, the Advisory Bodies and theCentre for their continued concern and support for theconservation of Tibetan cultural heritage. In relation to the
Bureau’s request at its twenty-fifth session for information
concerning policies for international co-operation forconservation programmes benefiting the World Heritage
protected areas in Lhasa, the Observer of China assured
the Bureau that the authorities wholeheartedly welcomedinternational co-operation, a policy consistent with thenational “open door” policy. However, she informed the
Bureau that Tibet is an autonomous region where allinternational co-operation activities must be undertakenwith the request and support from the local authorities,
involving local experts to the extent possible.
III.243 The Bureau expressed its appreciation to theChinese authorities for facilitating the UNESCO mission
to the Potala Palace and Jokhang Temple in Lhasa in
November 2001. Recalling its recommendation to theauthorities to consider the organization of a mural painting
conservation workshop, the Bureau noted withappreciation that the Central Government of China had
decided to allocate approximately US$25 million for thesecond phase of the Potala Palace Rehabilitiation Project.
This funding, expected to be utilized in 2002, would beallocated for the consolidation of the Norbulingka
Gardens, the Saja Temple, as well as for the conservationof the mural paintings within the Potala Palace andNorbulingka Temple.
III.244 The Bureau, assured by the Observer of Chinathat her Government continues to support the work of the
Lhasa Cultural Relics Bureau for the inventorying andmapping of the “construction restriction zones”,
nevertheless encouraged the Chinese authorities toconsider requesting international technical assistance forsupporting this important activity. Finally, the Bureau
requested the State Party to provide information on the
progress made in the restoration of the collapsed wall for
examination by the Bureau at its twenty-sixth session.
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
III.245 The Bureau recalled that the Committee had
examined at its twenty-third session, the findings of the
ICOMOS-ICCROM Reactive Monitoring Mission to thePeking Man Site at Zhoukoudian in 1999, organized uponrequest for international assistance submitted by the
Chinese authorities to improve the on-site museum. The
Bureau noted that the 1999 mission noted the need toestablish a regular monitoring system and to enhanceoverall conservation and management of the site to
mitigate ascertained or potential negative impact caused byuncontrolled tourism activities, uncontrolled mining andquarrying activities, and industrial pollution. The Bureau
was informed that the Centre had not received further
information concerning the measures taken to address the1999 mission recommendations endorsed by theReport of the World Heritage Committee

Committee concerning the elaboration of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan.
III.246 The Representative of ICOMOS informed the
Bureau that during a recent mission, ICOMOS noted thatthe situation on-site had improved since 1999. The
Representative of ICOMOS expressed his surprise to havebeen informed that UNESCO was organizing an
International Training Course on the Preservation,
Conservation and Management of Zhoukoudian andSangiran Prehistoric World Heritage Sites, taking into
consideration the dissimilarity of the two sites.
III.247 The Observer of China informed the Bureau thatthe root cause for insufficient management andconservation at the Zhoukoudian property was the fact thatthe scientific agency designated at present was the Chinese
Academy of Sciences, which does not have theadministrative authority for comprehensively managing
the site. She stated that her Government was currently
considering taking necessary actions to transfer theadministrative and managerial responsibility to the mostappropriate government authority to ensure that theconcerns of the Committee are addressed.
III.248 The Bureau, noting with appreciation the new
information presented by the Observer of China, requested
the State Party to inform the Committee on the actions
taken since the 1999 ICOMOS-ICCROM Joint Mission for
examination at its twenty-sixth session, especially withregard to the establishment of a systematic low-costmonitoring system for the entire site. The Bureau
encouraged the State Party to elaborate, in co-operation
with the Centre, an international assistance request for thedevelopment of a comprehensive conservation andmanagement plan for the site. Finally, the Bureau
requested the Centre to assist the State Party in submitting
a state of conservation report for examination by theCommittee at its twenty-sixth session.
Ajanta Caves (India)
Ellora Caves (India)
III.249 The Bureau recalled that both Ajanta and Ellora
Caves face long-term progressive structural deterioration
due to the nature of the caves carved within overbearing
cliffs. The Bureau was informed that the Indian authorities
have been taking conservation and preventive measures tocontrol the micro-climate within the caves, to increase thequality of visitor experience and simultaneously todecrease negative impact caused by tourists andpilgrimage activities. The Bureau also took note of theneeds identified by the national authorities to establish
appropriate codes for the restoration and conservation of
sculptures and wall paintings within the Caves.
III.250 The Centre informed the Bureau that a Reactive
Monitoring Mission by an international wall painting
expert was taking place between 1-9 December 2001
following a request by the authorities to examine the stateof conservation of the mural paintings. The main objectiveof this expert mission is to enable the national

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 136

conservation experts to consider various conservation
measures following international standards for long-term
protection and presentation of the paintings.
III.251 Finally, the Bureau was informed that the Centre
was assisting the authorities in the organization of aconservation and management workshop to be undertaken
in 2002 for the Ajanta and Ellora Caves, that would bring
together all the concerned stakeholders to exchange views
on conservation and management of these uniqueproperties. The objective of the workshop would be toreview and integrate the various tourism and siteenhancement development plans into a comprehensive
conservation and development plan.
III.252 The Bureau congratulated the Indian authorities
for their efforts for the conservation, management anddevelopment of the Ajanta and Ellora Caves. The Bureau,noting the World Heritage Centre´s continued assistance tothe authorities in enhancing co-operation between the
numerous national and international conservation anddevelopment activities, decided to examine further
information at its twenty-sixth session.
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)
III.253 The Bureau recalled that the Committee had:•= examined the state of conservation of Kathmandu
Valley in twenty-one sessions of the Committee andits Bureau since 1992;•= debated on the inscription of this site on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger at each session upon
examining the 1993 Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS
Mission, the 1998 Joint UNESCO-ICOMOS-Nepal
Mission, and the reports submitted by the State Party
on progress made in the implementation of the 16point recommendation adopted by the Committee in1993 and the 55 Recommendations for Enhanced
Management and Time-Bound Action Plan for
Corrective Measures adopted by the State Party in
1998;•= dispatched a High Level Mission in September 2000
headed by the former Chairperson of the Committee,
and comprising the current Chairperson, the Directorof the World Heritage Centre among others, forconsultations with His Majesty's Government of
Nepal at the highest level on the merits of the indanger listing as a tool for conservation;•= noted the conclusion of the High Level Mission whichstated that whilst the major monuments were in goodstate of conservation, should no new measures be
undertaken, the deterioration of the historic urban
fabric will persist, irreversibly damaging the
traditional architecture surrounding the publicmonuments, and consequently undermine the world
heritage values of this unique and universallysignificant site;•= expressed its disappointment at the twenty-fourth
session, that the State Party was not convinced of theconstructive objectives of the List of World Heritage
in Danger, as a mechanism for strengthening further
political commitment and mobilizing international

Report of the World Heritage Committee•=

technical co-operation and greater awareness at bothnational and international levels, and underlined theneed to ensure the credibility of the World Heritage
Convention, its Committee and the World Heritage
List, while effectively implementing the mechanisms
provided under the Convention in safeguarding theWorld Heritage properties, especially when the threats
are ascertained and the process in the loss of the world
heritage values have already occurred; but,
decided to defer inscription on the List of World
Heritage in Danger until 2002 in view of the State
Party´s strong desire to avoid inscription on this List.

III.254
The Bureau examined new information
concerning:•= the demolition of the Saraswati Nani Temple within
the World Heritage protected area of Patan Darban
Square Monument Zone by the Guthi Samthan, thelocal guardians and owners of this public building;total reconstruction of the Temple reportedly using
inappropriate new building material; removal anddisappearance of the unique and exquisitely carved
struts originally adorning this Temple. This Temple
was included in the Kathmandu Valley Protective
Inventory and figure in the 1979 nomination dossier
submitted by HMG of Nepal;•= demolition of several historic buildings or illegal
additions within the Seven Monuments Zones ofKathmandu Valley. A photo of an example of atypical illegal addition of a new floor with cantilevers
to a historic building was shown.
III.255 The Centre informed the Bureau that a progress
report prepared by the Government of Nepal requested by
the Committee was received on 8 December 2001. Neither
the Centre nor the Bureau had sufficient time to examine
the content of the report.
III.256 The Observer of Nepal, headed by the Joint
Secretary of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Civil
Aviation, reiterated her Government's strong commitment
to ensure the implementation of the 16 Recommendationsof the 1993 Joint Mission, and the 55 Recommendations
and Time-Bound Action Plan resulting from the 1998 Joint
Mission. She expressed her appreciation for the favourable
response to requests for technical and financial assistancewhich the Committee and UNESCO had been providingfor Kathmandu Valley since the 1970s. With regard to thedemolition of Saraswati Nani Temple, the Observer statedthat the poor condition of the building necessitateddemolition and reconstruction and assured the Bureau thattraditional building material and techniques were being
used.
III.257 During the ensuing debate, the Delegate ofThailand sought clarifications on:•= whether the Heritage Conservation Unit forcontrolling development and preventing illegal
alterations and demolitions of historic buildings aswell as new constructions had been established;•= actions taken to implement the long-standing
recommendation from 1993, repeated in 1998, to

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 137

control illegal demolition or alterations within theWorld Heritage protected areas; and•= the application of existing legal provisions, rules andregulations which would prevent illegal development
within Kathmandu Valley.
III.258 The Chairperson underscored the complexity ofthe site, and emphasized that the principal cause ofconcern is the difficulty in conserving the historic urban
fabric, as the public monuments are in generally goodcondition. He noted with appreciation, the efforts made by
the Government authorities in raising awareness of thelocal communities, which was essential in reversing thedeterioration process of the vernacular architecture
surrounding the public monuments.
III.259 The Deputy Director of the Centre informed the
Bureau that since 1993, the main focus of UNESCO’s
support had been to build national capacities which started
from support in strengthening protective legislation
followed by over three years of on-the-job training in theestablishment and enforcement of regulations concerning
demolition and building permits, heritage resource
mapping and inventory, as well as pilot conservation
projects to demonstrate good practice, all financed fromthe World Heritage Fund and other extrabudgetary
resources mobilized by the Centre. The Bureau wasreminded of the information provided to the Committee in1999 that the services of the trained development control
officers had been terminated in 1999 by the then DirectorGeneral of Archaeology.
III.260 The Delegate of South Africa, recognizing thecontinued difficulties encountered in Kathmandu Valley
by the authorities, which was part of the realities ofdeveloping States, stressed the need for international
solidarity. She suggested that the Centre support the
Nepali authorities in addressing the challenges in urban
heritage protection through establishing city-to-city cooperation with local authorities of developing countries.
III.261 The Deputy Director recalled, for the benefit of
the new members of the Bureau, that Kathmandu Valley
had been the subject of a UNESCO International
Safeguarding Campaign since 1979, and had benefited
from over US$350,000 provided from the World Heritage
Fund and other sources mobilized by the Centre in
institutional capacity building to enhance management forconservation. Regarding the city-to-city co-operation, theBureau was informed that the Centre had brokered
decentralized co-operation between UK local authorities(Chester and Bath) and several municipal authorities of the
Kathmandu Valley and exchanges were initiated in 19992000. The Bureau was also informed that the European
Union approved earlier this year under its EU-Asia Urbs
Programme, a co-financing of Euro 500,000 for a project
involving Chester and Patan. Another request is underpreparation involving Bath (UK), Tours (France) and threesmall local authorities of Kathmandu Valley. Such
activities aim at increasing the capacity of the authorities
concerned in integrating conservation and management

Report of the World Heritage Committee

measures within the integrated urban and tourism
development planning process.
III.262 The Deputy Director drew the attention of the
Bureau to the need to enhance development control andmonitoring capacities at both the national and local levels,and the strong political commitment required to enforce
the protective legislation to protect and conserve theprivately-owned historic buildings located within theseven monumental zones of this site. She indicated that themultiplication of small-scale illegal operations which
individually may not seem grave, has led to thetransformation of the historic urban fabric even within therelatively small area of the protected zones surrounding
the monuments. If allowed to continue, as tangibly
demonstrated in the Bauddhanath Monuments Zone, where
90 traditional buildings had been reduced to 15 by 1998,
the World Heritage site of Kathmandu Valley will be
reduced to a collection of public historic monuments
decontextualized from its surrounding historic urban
fabric.
III.263 The Director of the World Heritage Centre drew
the attention of the Bureau to the Committee decision at its
twenty-fourth session:•= to allow two more years for the Nepalese authorities
to further implement the corrective measures against
urban encroachment and alteration of the historicfabric in the seven Monument Zones to safeguard its
integrity and authenticity; and•= to review the state of conservation and decide on
future actions to be taken by the Committee within
the context of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic
Reporting exercise in 2002.
III.264 The Bureau recommended that another HighLevel Mission be undertaken prior to the finalization of the
Periodic Report for the state of conservation ofKathmandu Valley. The Bureau recommended that theCommittee examine the state of conservation of thisproperty at its twenty-fifth session.
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
III.265
The Bureau recalled that it had regularly
examined since 1999, the state of conservation of the
Maya Devi Temple within Lumbini, a centre of pilgrimage
for the international Buddhist community with a fragilearchaeological site of historical significance. The Bureau
noted that the property was the subject of four Reactive
Monitoring Missions in 2000 and 2001, organized by theCentre at the request of the Bureau or the State Party. It
was also recalled that an International Technical Meetingfor the Conservation, Presentation and Development of the
Maya Devi Temple took place in April 2001 with financial
and technical support from the World Heritage Fund and
UNESCO.
III.266 The Bureau’s attention was drawn to the findingsof the two missions undertaken in July and September
2001 by a UNESCO international brick conservation

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 138

expert. This expert witnessed the inundation of the Maya
Devi Temple archaeological remains during the heavy
monsoon period. It was found that the fluctuation of thewater table was clearly eroding the archaeological remainsof the Maya Devi Temple. The Centre informed the
Bureau that since August 2001, an activity financed fromthe World Heritage Fund was being conducted by thenational authorities and the University of Bradford (U.K.)
to compile basic information to assess pilgrimage
activities, environmental factors and to identify high or
low-importance archaeological areas through nondestructive geophysical surveys.
III.267 The Centre informed the Bureau that the situation
called for serious remedial measures based upon carefulassessment and analysis of the heritage assets and usage ofthe pilgrimage property, prior to the implementation ofdrainage and construction activities. The Bureau was
informed that it was essential to plan intervention only
after the completion of the non-destructive geophysicalsurvey, environmental and visitation analyses werecomplete.
III.268 The Delegates of Greece and Hungary, having
reviewed the state of conservation of the property andnoting the erosion of the archaeological remains,
incoherent landscaping of the sacred garden, and serious
drainage problems of the site, expressed their alarm forthis endangered property which clearly required urgent
conservation. The Delegate of Greece, drawing theattention of the Bureau to Article 6.1 of the World
Heritage Convention, underscored the duty of theinternational community as a whole to co-operate toprotect this common heritage and called for considerationin the future for possible inscription of this site on the Listof World Heritage in Danger. The Delegate of Thailand,
sharing concern over the condition of the property, notedwith appreciation the willingness of the Government of
Nepal to collaborate closely with UNESCO, international
experts and the World Heritage Committee in improving
the state of conservation of the property. He therefore
recommended continued consultation with the State Party
rather than immediately considering the inscription of
Lumbini on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
III.269 The Representative of ICOMOS, the Delegate ofSouth Africa, and the Observer of the United Kingdom
underlined the importance for the authorities, international
experts, and UNESCO to examine the results of the survey
and base-line information analysis prior to the finalizationof the plans for the drainage system, the designing of the“Golden Pavilion” shelter recommended by the April 2001
International Technical Meeting, the conservation of the
Maya Devi Temple and planning of the pilgrimage circuitwithin the core zone of the property.
III.270
The Observer of Nepal expressed her
Government’s deep appreciation for the continued
technical and financial support extended by the World
Heritage Committee, international experts and the World
Heritage Centre. She assured the Bureau that her
Government was taking the appropriate steps inReport of the World Heritage Committee

compliance with international conservation norms toensure that all conservation and presentation interventions
were planned after careful consideration of the long term
impact such measures would have on the site. She
appealed to the Bureau to take note of the politicalcommitment of her Government to the appropriate
management of this politically sensitive, religious
archaeological site visited by thousands of pilgrims fromthe international Buddhist community.
III.271 The Bureau, taking note of the information
presented by the Secretariat and the national authorities,
expressed appreciation to the Government of Nepal, theinternational experts, and UNESCO for closely cooperating to determine the most appropriate conservation
method for the Maya Devi Temple and Lumbini World
Heritage property. The Bureau commended the national
authorities for the efforts made with UNESCO to compile
and analyse information concerning the heritage assets andutilization of this property, necessary to elaborate theguiding principles for the conservation of this fragile but
important pilgrimage site. Finally, the Bureau requested
the State Party and the Centre to report to the Committee
at its twenty-sixth session on the state of conservation of
the site and the final plans for addressing the drainage
problem, shelter options, and long-term presentation andconservation of the Maya Devi Temple.
Rice Terraces(Philippines)

of

the

Philippine

Cordilleras

III.272
The Bureau, recalling previous discussion
concerning the state of conservation of the Rice Terracesof the Philippine Cordilleras, examined new information
contained in WHC-01/CONF.207/INF.5, the report of the
IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission organizedin September 2001 in close co-operation with the national
authorities. The Centre informed the Bureau that thePhilippine authorities had nominated the property for
inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger andrequested international assistance to address theconservation issues facing the site.
III.273 The Observer of the Philippines informed the
Bureau that his Government welcomes and considers theinscription of the Rice Terraces of the Philippines
Cordilleras on the List of World Heritage in Danger, not as
a dishonour but on the contrary, as an essential tool formobilizing effective, decisive and rapid intervention foraddressing the threats facing an endangered World
Heritage property. Referring to the letter dated 26
November 2001 from the Minister of Tourism and Culture
and the Chairperson of the Banaue Rice Terrace Task
Force addressed to the Director of the World Heritage
Centre, the Observer confirmed his Government’s desire
for the inscription of this property on the List of World
Heritage in Danger.
III.274 The Bureau was informed of the concurrence of
the Government of the Philippines with the findings andrecommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS Reactive
Monitoring Mission. In order to address the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 139

recommendations of this Mission, the Government of thePhilippines was now taking steps to:
•=
•=
•=

Develop sustainable tourism;
Establish a permanent and effective body to coordinate and lead efforts to restore and protect theproperty;
Involve all stakeholders including national
government agencies, congressmen, provincial
governors, representatives of municipalities, andprivate individuals in the re-evaluation and updatingof the existing management plan for the protection of
the site.

III.275 The Observer of the Philippines underscored that
the Rice Terraces was a living monument built 1,000 years
ago by the genius of the indigenous Ifugao people.
Drawing the attention of the Bureau to the recently
adopted UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural
Diversity which encompasses the promotion andprotection of indigenous cultures, the Observer of thePhilippines expressed his Government’s hope that the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee and its Bureau
would favourably endorse the request for international
assistance for addressing the conservation andmanagement issues of this traditionally owned and utilized
property. Underlining the need to take all necessary
measures to reverse the rapidly deteriorating rice terraces,
the Observer of the Philippines called upon the Bureau tosupport the international assistance as a matter of thegreatest urgency.
III.276 The Representative of ICOMOS, noting that thisproperty was the first organic cultural landscape to be
inscribed on the World Heritage List, drew the attention of
the Bureau to the vulnerability of properties such as the
Rice Terraces, where the relationship between humanland-use and the environment is continuously evolving. He
underlined the importance of learning from the experienceof the authorities in their efforts to overcome thedifficulties faced in sustainably-managing the fragile
cultural resources of this property.
III.277 The Bureau recommended the following decision
for adoption by the Committee:“The Committee expresses its appreciation to thePhilippine authorities for facilitating the September
2001 IUCN/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to
the World Heritage site of the Rice Terraces of thePhilippine Cordilleras, as requested by the Committee
at its twenty-fourth session in December 2000. The
Committee
examinesthefindings
andrecommendations of the IUCN/ICOMOS mission andnotes with deep concern that:•=

The Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF)
and the Ifugao Terraces Commission (ITC) have
tried to safeguard the property. However, theBRTTF lacks full Government support and needs
more resources, greater independence and anassurance of permanence.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

•=

•=
•=
•=
•=

About 25-30% of the terraces are now abandoned,
which has lead to damage to some of the walls.
This has arisen because parts of the irrigation
system have been neglected, which in turn is due
to people leaving the area. The situation is also
aggravated by the effects of pest species of worms
and snails.
Despite good planning, irregular development istaking place, which threatens to erode the heritage
landscape.
International assistance has so far not been
mobilized to help the area.
The World Heritage values may be lost unlesscurrent trends are reversed within 10 years(maximum).
Little progress has been made in addressing theneeds of tourism. For example, access from
Manila and within the property remains poor.

The Committee therefore endorses the following
recommendations made by the IUCN/ICOMOS
mission:
•=
•=

•=
•=

•=
•=

Establish a permanent and effective body to coordinate and lead efforts to restore and protect the
Ifugao Rice Terraces.
Develop a short and long-term strategy forsupport funding for the Rice Terraces, drawn
from national and international sources and fromtourism.
Identify and implement a programme initiative toremedy past neglect of the rice terraces andensure optimum prospects for future.
Develop a sustainable tourism industry that
supports the future conservation of the riceterraces, placing priority on improving access toand within the site.
Review existing management plans for further
improvement.
Establish an exchange programme with other
World Heritage sites which share similarconservation challenges.

The Committee commends the positive reaction of thePhilippines authorities towards the IUCN/ICOMOS
mission recommendations and requests that theyexamine ways and means of implementing theserecommendations.
Taking into due consideration the conservation
challenges and threats facing the property, theCommittee decides to inscribe the Rice Terraces of thePhilippine Cordilleras on the List of World Heritage in
Danger. The Committee commends the Philippine
authorities for nominating this site on the List of World
Heritage in Danger, demonstrating positive use of thisimportant mechanism within the World Heritage
Convention to mobilise international and national
support to address the conservation challenges facing
this site.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 140

Finally, the Committee requests the World Heritage
Centre and the UNESCO Bangkok Office to continue
assisting the authorities in the elaboration of a longterm comprehensive management plan for the site. The
Committee requests that a progress report on measurestaken to elaborate the management plan and to enhance
the conservation and development of the property be
submitted for examination by the Committee at its
twenty-sixth session.”
Ancient City of Sigiriya (Sri Lanka)
III.278 The Bureau recalled that it had requested theGovernment of Sri Lanka to reconsider the proposed
expansion of the Sigiriya airport which would impact
negatively on the fragile structure of the monument, wall
paintings as well as the flora and fauna of the natural
reserves surrounding the property. The Centre presented
updated information received from the Sri Lankan
authorities by letter of 7 December 2001 to the Bureau.
Accordingly, the Government of Sri Lanka had decided toaccept the recommendations of the UNESCO Reactive
Monitoring Mission, organized at the request of theGovernment authorities:
•=
•=
•=

Not to shift the operations from the Katunayake
Airport to Sigiriya Airport;
To continue using the present airstrip at Kimbissa
only for light aircraft and not for military aircraft;
To construct a military airport at a distance from theSigiriya World Heritage property, in Habarana, where
there are no archaeological sites nearby.

III.279 The Bureau expressed its appreciation to theGovernment of Sri Lanka for its decision not to expand themilitary airport within 2 kilometers of the Sigiriya, which
would have negatively impacted upon the World Heritage
property. In particular, the Bureau took note withappreciation of the commitment expressed by theGovernment of Sri Lanka to the World Heritage
Convention. The Bureau welcomed with deep satisfaction,
this decision taken by the authorities, despite the national
security concerns, which demonstrates the importanceattached to the safeguarding of this irreplaceable World
Heritage site.
Latin American and the Caribbean
Brasilia (Brazil)
III.280 The Bureau was informed that, following its
request at the twenty-fourth extraordinary session in
December 2000, and in the light of the report submitted by
the State Party, a joint UNESCO-ICOMOS mission took
place from 5 to 9 November 2001. Twenty specificrecommendations were formulated regarding legal
framework, local and territorial Master Plans, specificissues related to the conservation and boundaries of thesite.
III.281 The Observer of Brazil noted with satisfaction thereport on the state of conservation of the site of Brasilia.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

The Bureau noted the report of the joint UNESCOICOMOS mission. It supported the view of the mission
that, although changes have occurred to the original
concept of the core of the city, the Plano Piloto, the city
maintains to date, the values on the basis of which the
Plano Piloto was inscribed on the World Heritage List andmeets the test of authenticity and integrity.
III.282 The Bureau endorsed the conclusion of themission that the city is in a critical phase of change andthat this process of change needs to be guided withsensibility and vision and a profound understanding andrecognition of the characteristics and values of the
exceptional urban and architectural creation of Costa andNiemeyer.
III.283 To this effect, it will be necessary to involve all
relevant levels of authority, professional organizations andindividuals as well as different sectors of society in aprocess that should lead to the preparation and adoption ofa Master Plan for the protected area that fully recognises
and ensures the preservation of the values of the city. The
protective documents of 1987 (Federal District) and1990/1992 (IPHAN) as well as the work accomplished byvarious inter-institutional working groups (Grupo deTrabalho Brasilia, 1980-1987; Grupo de Trabalho
Conjunto, 1992-1995) should form the basis for the workthat should be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
III.284 The Bureau requested the Government of Brazil
to consider the report of the mission and its conclusions
and recommendations and to submit a report on the
response it plans to give to each of them by 1 February
2002.
The state of conservation of Brasilia will be
examined again at the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau.
Colonial City of Santo-Domingo (Dominican Republic)
III.285 The Bureau was informed that World Heritage
Centre had received information from the Cultural
Heritage Office of the Dominican Republic about building
activities in Santo Domingo. The State Party requested an
ICOMOS advisory mission to discuss the building project.
The mission was fielded in August 2001. During themission, ICOMOS found that a private international hotel
chain, acting under a concession given by the previous
government of the State Party, was in the process ofextending a pre-existing hotel use from three to fivebuildings, all of which have remnants that date from the16th century, the earliest settlement period. Original
construction of the buildings is attributed to Nicolas deOvando, founder of Santo Domingo.
III.286 Conceptually, ICOMOS stated, that it was clearthat the functional requirements of the proposed new use
were incompatible with the existing layout of thebuildings. The project’s feasibility determinations require
far more room than is available in the site. Space for the
new functions was being created by incorporating andexpanding two structures to the south, and by a massive
three-storey deep excavation meant to accommodate
partially underground construction (overlooking the river,

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 141

and abutting the palisade, which is the natural edge of thecity), as well as above-ground construction. The
programmatic demands for new construction might
overwhelm and distort the existing historic fabric in thesouthern portion of the site. In conclusion, ICOMOS foundthat damage had already been caused to the historic fabric
as well as to the historic urban cultural landscape:Walls dating from the 16th to 18th century weredemolished in the two buildings being integrated
in the hotel;b) Unrecorded archaeological material from the 16th
to the 20th century was lost in the process of deep
excavation;c) The massive excavation in the patio of thebuildings had destroyed the last remaining naturalpart of the cliff facing the river.

a)III.287 More damage could be caused by the infrastructural difficulties to be anticipated due to the locationof the hotel. A further point raised by ICOMOS was thelack of a reliable legal framework for interventions in thehistoric district that protect the State Party’s heritage
effectively. In addition, the Bureau was informed that theCentre had received oral information from the Oficina de
Patrimonio Cultural of the State Party that the hotel project
has been temporarily halted and that the Oficina had
expressed its will to give adequate follow-up to theadvisory mission report.
III.288 The Bureau commended the State Party on its
initiative to request ICOMOS' advice. At the same time,
however, it expressed its grave concerns about the damage
already caused to the site through the building activities. It
encouraged the State Party to take all possible measures tomitigate the impact of the project on the World Heritage
values of the site. Furthermore, the Bureau advised theState Party to improve its heritage protection legislation to
avoid comparable situations in the future. The Bureau
requested the State party to furnish a report on the state ofconservation of the property by 1 February 2002.
Antigua Guatemala (Guatemala)III.289 The Bureau was informed that, following arequest by the State Party, an ICOMOS monitoring
mission was carried out from 9 to 12 June 2001. The
object of the mission was the proposed construction of a
shopping centre in the historic town of Antigua. In fact,
the project has been cancelled. However, the mission
reported on cases of malfunction in the legislation, which
are currently threatening the integrity of the city. The
National authorities, very much aware of these problems,
have announced that they plan to create a buffer zone, andto submit a request for international assistance for the
preparation of a new legislation for Antigua. An
emergency request following the earthquake damage isstill pending.
III.290 The Bureau commended the State Party for themeasures taken to safeguard the World Heritage values of
Antigua Guatemala by preventing the construction of aReport of the World Heritage Committee

commercial centre within the boundaries of the site. It
encouraged the national authorities to implement therecommendations made by the ICOMOS mission in June
2001, in particular the updating of the protective
legislation and its Master Plan, which should include thedefinition of a buffer zone. Awareness-raising programmes
are also to be encouraged. The Bureau furthermore
encouraged the national authorities to work closely
together with the World Heritage Centre concerning thepoints outlined above.
Fortifications on the Caribbean side of Panama:
Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama)
III.291 The Bureau was informed that, following its
request at the twenty-fifth session, a joint UNESCOICOMOS reactive monitoring mission was carried out
from 3 to 11 November 2001, to report on the recurrent
physical and management conditions of the site.
III.292 The Bureau commended the State Party for thework already done in order to safeguard and protect thesites. It encouraged the national authorities to implement
the recommendations made by the joint ICOMOSUNESCO mission in November 2001. The Bureau
highlighted the significance of the finalisation andimplementation of management plans containing clear
structuring of tasks and responsibilities and their explicit
distribution amongst the various stakeholders of both sites.
It noted that the importance of community involvement at
all stages of the process has to be stressed. Special
attention should furthermore be given to the following
issues:•= Definition of values (statement of significance);•= Definition of sites’ borders and buffer zones;•= Clarification of land tenure within and around thesites;•= Harmonisation of planned projects in and around thesites;•= Systematic assessment of the sites’ conditions;•= Preparation of the sites for rising number of tourists.
III.293 The Bureau recognized the difficult financial andstaffing situation of the National Institute of Culture(INAC) but encouraged INAC to valorise its leading rolein the protection and promotion of the State Party’s World
Heritage sites. The Bureau requested the State Party tofurnish a report on the state of implementation of therecommendations and the actions taken by 1 February
2002.
Archaeological site of Chavin (Peru)
III.294 The Bureau was informed of the progressachieved in the maintenance and conservation work
carried out at the site. The Observer of Peru also informed
the Bureau that the Peruvian authorities would present to
the Bureau, in April 2002, a detailed report on progress
made in the Master Plan and that a request forinternational assistance had just been submitted to identify
priority activities to be undertaken for the stabilisation andpreservation of the site.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 142

III.295 The Bureau wished to acknowledge the great
effort the State Party has made to submit a report on thissite. However, it urged the State Party to deliver thereports in a timely fashion and in sufficient detail. The
Bureau encouraged the national authorities to finalise andimplement the Master Plan at the earliest possible date andfurthermore encouraged the State Party to work closely
together with the World Heritage Centre. The Bureau
requested a detailed progress report on the actions taken at
the site as well as on the progress in the elaboration andimplementation of the Management Plan, to be submitted
by 1 February 2002 for examination by the Bureau at its
twenty-sixth session.

reconstruction plan was under preparation in line with the
Master Plan.

Historical Centre of the City of Arequipa (Peru)

III.301 The Bureau wished to take note of the quick
response given by the World Heritage Centre and
ICCROM. It also noted that following the earthquake a
new management plan will have to be developed taking
into account the different social, economic, political andreligious sectors. The Bureau encouraged the State Party torequest technical assistance from the World Heritage Fundfor the preparation of this new plan and recommended that
the Centre and ICCROM work jointly with national andregional professionals on risk preparedness activities. The
State Party is requested to submit a report to the Bureau in2003.

III.296 The Bureau was informed of activities carried out
since the earthquake.
The State Party sent a report
entitled "Evaluation of Damages in the Historical Centreof Arequipa following the 23 June 2001 earthquake andDraft Reconstruction Plan.
III.297 The emergency assistance approved by the Bureau
as its twenty-fifth session is fully implemented, with theremoval of rubble, the construction of a temporary roof for
the Cathedral to protect it from rain damage, and thetemporary stabilisation of the beams of the building. The
first mission of an expert in rehabilitation and restoration
was undertaken in July 2001 to assist the Municipality ofArequipa to revise the Master Plan in the light of the newsituation, setting priority projects, defining a mechanism
for the implementation of reconstruction and rehabilitationin the Historical Centre, and assisting the authorities in theformulation of a first project profile to be submitted to the
IBD. A second mission, in August 2001, had as goal, theexamination of the draft law for the creation of "TheReconstruction Fund for the Historical Centre andMonumental Area of Arequipa" and to "advise on theformulation of the emergency and urban reconstruction
programme of Arequipa". Furthermore, the Bureau was
informed that, following the earthquake, the management
plan of the City has to be completely revised, that thecreation of a management unit was still outstanding andthat the Centre should carry out a mission at the beginningof 2002.
III.298 The Bureau was also informed of the mission
carried out by ICCROM who immediately sent two
Chilean experts in June 2001 to assist the Municipality ofArequipa's conservation laboratory for the safeguarding of
the movable objects from the damaged monuments.
Assistance was also provided to the Municipality ofArequipa bythe Italian Government, the Spanish
International Co-operation Agency and the City of Paris.
III.299 During the debate, the Observer of Peru, thanked
the Bureau for the rapid response to the request for
emergency assistance following the earthquake, andinformed the Bureau of the content of the technical reportthat the Municipality of Arequipa had recently provided
concerning the emergency work carried out for the
consolidation of the Cathedral. He also informed that a

Report of the World Heritage Committee

III.300 The Bureau noted that the Observer of Peru would
inform his national authorities of their recommendation tosubmit a request for emergency assistance for the
preparation of a new Master Plan. It also noted thesuggestions made by the Chairperson that the Centre,
ICCROM and ICOMOS contact the Embassy of Finland in
Lima to ensure the implementation of therecommendations as well as the proposal made by the
Delegate of Mexico to share experience gained by his
country in the domain of risk preparedness.

PART II

Reports on the state of conservation ofproperties inscribed on the World
Heritage List for noting

NATURAL HERITAGE
Australian Fossil Mammal Sites (Riversleigh andNaracoorte) (Australia)
III.302 The Bureau was informed that IUCN had received
several reports with regard to management problems of theRiversleigh section of this serial site. They pertain to thelack of infrastructure, such as on-site security andsurveillance mechanisms, to deter vandalism or control
tourism. Vandalism and theft are reported to have
impacted one of the most important deposits - ‘Burnt
Offering Site’. The reports had also expressed concerns
regarding the lack of interpretation, absence of a ranger
station and visitor centre, and inadequate research funding
to support increased interpretation and better conservationand management of the site. IUCN had noted that the
management of Naracoorte and Riversleigh differ
significantly, having different physical attributes and being
the responsibility of different states; however, there is a
Scientific and Management Advisory Committee thatbrings the two management authorities together.
III.303 The Bureau noted that IUCN recognises thatcurrently efforts are underway to address the different
challenges in managing this serial site. IUCN has been incontact with the State Party and has received detailed
information responding to the issues raised. The Bureau
also noted that these issues will be addressed by the State

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 143

Party in the context of the Asia Pacific regional reportingin 2003.
Greater Blue Mountain Area (Australia)
III.304 In response to the Bureau’s request for further
information on the proposed Clarence Colliery mine
extension before 15 September 2001, the State Party, byletter dated 14 September 2001, submitted up-to-date
information to the Centre. The Australian Government has
examined the referral from the company regarding thepossible extension of the Clarence Colliery mining leaseand determined that additional information is required onwater emissions from the mine. Current mine de-watering
emissions have been determined by the New South Wales
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to exceed statutory
water quality standards and have been causing pollution
problems in the Wollangambe River, which flows throughthe World Heritage Area. The company and the EPA haveagreed to a plan for a trial water transfer system that if
successful, would result in the cessation of mine dewatering emissions to the Wollangambe River. A decisionby the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment andHeritage on the referral on the proposed extension of the
Clarence Colliery mining lease has been deferred until
after the establishment of the trial water transfer system. It
is anticipated that a decision will be made on the referral
by mid-2002.
III.305 The Bureau noted with satisfaction the actions
taken and the information provided by the State Party andnoted that a comprehensive review of this property in thecontext of the Asia Pacific regional reporting due in 2003
would be provided by the State Party.

CULTURAL HERITAGE
Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)
III.306 The Bureau noted that the State Party has beenrequested to submit a detailed state of conservation report
before the end of December 2001 and that it will bepresented to the twenty-sixth session of the Bureau in
April 2002.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 144

ANNEX X

Global Training Strategy for World Cultural and Natural Heritage
The Global Training Strategy for World Cultural and Natural Heritage, based on working document
WHC-01/CONF.208/14, was adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 25th session in Helsinki, Finland, 11-16
December 2001.

A. Background
Following presentation of various elements of the Global
Training Strategy by ICCROM (for cultural heritage) andby the Secretariat (for both cultural and natural heritage)
during the 24th Session of the World Heritage Committee
held in Cairns, Australia, in December 2000, theCommittee asked the Secretariat and ICCROM to produce
an integrated synthesis document in collaboration with theother Advisory Bodies for consideration by the Bureau at
its 25th session in Paris, in June 2001.

c)

A Priority Action Plan which outlines particulartraining initiatives (including suggestions forparticular training modules and programmes) in threebroad areas (implementation of the Convention, sitemanagement and technical and scientific support.
Suggestions focus on both thematic and regional
priorities.

B. Purpose

During preparatory meetings in Rome and Paris, in Marchand April of 2001, the Advisory Bodies and the Centre
initiated efforts to produce a single Global Training
Strategy integrating concern for cultural and natural
heritage. On the advice of the Chair, the initial request by
the Committee to produce a synthesis strategy was also
extended to include an action plan supporting this strategy.
The action plan to be developed was to address inparticular:

The purpose of the WH Global Training Strategy is tostrengthen conservation of cultural and natural
heritage worldwide by increasing the capacity of those
responsible for, and involved with, the management
and conservation of World Heritage sites.

1.
2.
3.

1.

Criteria for reviewing of requests of training activities
Preliminary list of training resources
Preliminary list of training modules to be developed

C. Principles andTraining

Operational

Framework forTraining is a highly cost-effective means to achieve
Committee objectives

Consideration of the revised document was deferred until
the 25th Session of the Committee to be held in Helsinki,
Finland in December 2001.

Training activities should be recognized as providing
important benefits and returns on investment to the various
stakeholders, decision-makers, and managers involved
with World Heritage. The operational implications ofadhering to this principle are the following:This working document has been prepared as a result of
the ensuing collaboration among Advisory Bodies and theSecretariat.

•=

The World Heritage Committee should give priority
to use of training as a means to strengthen
implementation of the Convention.

The working document includes three further sections:A statement of purpose for the WH Global Training
Strategy.
b) A set of supporting principles, and an exploration ofrelated operational implications, including suggested
appropriate follow up actions aimed at strengthening
the administrative and operational framework fortraining, to be undertaken by the Committee, theSecretariat, and the Advisory Bodies. These actions
include the need to review and update the criteria forreview of requests for training assistance andpreparation of a training resources data-base,mentioned above, as well as other measures.

Required action- The Committee should ensure that training issues
have a prominent place on Bureau and Committee
agendas, and ensure budget allocationscommensurate with its importance. (Action by
the Committee)a)•=Training initiatives should be designed to attract
necessary funding from other public and private
sources on the basis of benefits provided. Potential
benefits/returns to target audiences should be analysed
and taken into account in the design of training
activities and programmes.
Required action- The Committee should promote benefits/returns
coming from training activities to potential
partners and supporters, and ensure catalytic use

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 145

developed by Advisory Bodies for review of requests
for training assistance, adjusted to reflect periodically
updated assessments of priority needs.
Wherepossible, these requests should be placed within theframework of existing and planned training initiatives.

of the World Heritage Fund to attract spending byothers. (Action by the Committee)
2.

Training should be integrated into the World
Heritage planning framework

Required actions
criteria and check list developed by
ICCROM in Nov. 1998 to assist the Committee
to review requests for cultural heritage training
assistance should be reviewed to integrate
concern for natural heritage, and updated toreflect current circumstances and priorities.
(Action by ICCROM, the Centre and Advisory
Bodies).
−= Criteria used by the Secretariat and Advisory
Bodies to review training requests should be
adopted by the Committee and annexed to the
Operational Guidelines. (Action by theCommittee)

Training should be mainstreamed within the overall World
Heritage analysis and decision-making framework, so thattraining activities can efficiently and effectively respond to
inputs from all current planning streams, including the
Global Strategy and Periodic Reporting process (at boththe international and regional levels). The operational
implications of adherence to this approach are thefollowing:•=

The World Heritage Committee would benefit fromworking within a single, strategic planning process,integrating all relevant training inputs and assuring
training outputs reflect a synthesis of concerns raised
throughout the system. Until such time as theCommittee implements a fully unified strategicplanning process, training needs should still beidentified within all planning streams (such as the
Global Strategy and the Periodic Reporting process),and results analyzed together so that appropriate
measures can be designed.
Required actions- Training needs should be collected from relevant
planning streams (Global Strategy, Periodic
Reports etc.) and analyzed for presentation to theCommittee and development of appropriate
responsive actions (Action by the Secretariat
and Advisory Bodies)- Training review should be placed within a cycleof regular reporting to the Bureau and Committee.
(Action by the Committee)- The Committee should adopt an integrated
strategic planning process with training as animportant element. (Action by the Committee)−= The3. Commitment to high impact, professionally organised
training activities
World Heritage training programmes and activities shouldbe planned to make best use of existing resources andacquired experiences in order to achieve desired
objectives. The operational implications of adherence tothis principle are the following:•=

A commitment should be made to the use of
professionally developed training methodologies,
targeted to clearly defined learning objectives.
Methodologies should integrate use of “best practice”
case studies, and results of evaluations of past training
experiences, with a view to short term and long term
improvements in efficiency, sustainability, andquality.
Required actions−= Preparation of a “Guidelines for organising•=

Preference should be given to proactive approaches,
which result in training modules and long term
strategic programmes designed to respond to priority
needs.
Required actions
Regular planning of proactive training modules
and programmes, internationally and by specificregions, on the basis of training informationcollected from planning streams, evaluation ofreports of specific training exercises, and periodic
review of the global training strategy (Action by
the Secretariat, Advisory Bodies, and others)- A periodical synthesis meeting on training needs
and issues resulting in specific training
programme proposals to be presented to theCommittee. (Action by the Secretariat andAdvisory Bodies)-•=

Responses to individual training proposals from States
Parties should be assessed relative to the criteria

Report of the World Heritage Committee

−=

−=

•=

effective World Heritage training activities”
document. Use of such guidelines would be aprerequisite for the preparation of integrated
World Heritage training programmes and in the
preparation of requests for training assistance byStates Parties. (Action by the Advisory Bodies
and the Secretariat)
Required evaluations for each World Heritage
training activity should be systematicallycollected by the Secretariat and Advisory Bodies
for use in planning of training activities. (Action
by the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies)
Systematic collection of case study data should beundertaken for easy reference and use in training
situations. (Action by the Secretariat and theAdvisory Bodies)

Experienced trainers and training institutions(operational at the national, regional, and/orinternational levels), where available, should be used
for training activities. These trainers and institutions

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 146

would both support and benefit from the World
Heritage training activities.
Required actions-•=

Establishment of a World Heritage training
database.
This database would include
information on criteria used in assessment oftraining requests, reports of past training
activities, updated regional training strategy
overviews, reports prepared by Advisory Bodies
and others, a directory of training centres andtrainers qualified to support World Heritage
training initiatives, and possible funding sources.
(Action by the Secretariat and the Advisory
Bodies. Note: this database could be linked tothe already existing ICCROM training
directory, and other ICCROM and World
Heritage Centre’s data-bases. This World
Heritage training data-base, still to be fullyrefined, would respond to the Committee’sinterest in a list of training resources forWorld Heritage.)- A global network of institutions involved withWorld Heritage training should be built,
maintained, and linked to the Advisory Bodies
and to the Secretariat. (Action by the Secretariat
and the Advisory Bodies.)- Consideration should be given to establishing afellowship programme that would, as in theprevious Hungarian proposals on the subject,provide ongoing forums for sharing ofexperiences among those in developed anddeveloping countries, and result over time in a
network of experienced professionals andmanagers for World Heritage. (Action by theCentre, and States Parties).
Where practical, training components should be
included in all conservation activities planned forWorld Heritage sites.
Required actions- ICOMOS and IUCN evaluation missions should
include training components where possible.
(Action by ICOMOS and IUCN, in agreementwith States Parties)- States Parties should be encouraged to include
training components within their requests fortechnical assistance for site-based work.
Inclusion of a training component could become
one criterion for assessment of the request.
(Action by States Parties, Advisory Bodies,and the Secretariat.)

D. Priority Action Plan
In the Global Training Strategy document prepared by
ICCROM for the World Heritage Committee, andpresented in Cairns (Dec. 2000), the strategic emphasis
was placed on proactive, programmatic solutions totraining needs. The strategy called for development ofboth off-the-shelf training modules and programmes atboth the international and regional levels. Initiatives at theReport of the World Heritage Committee

international level were proposed to address global themes
or issues of concern for the better implementation of theWorld Heritage Convention. Regional components were
to be designed to meet the specific needs and culturalcontexts of a given region and its heritage. One exampleof this approach, at the regional level, is the AFRICA 2009
Programme, which is now moving from its pilot phase to a
consolidation phase.
The Secretariat in a presentation to the 25th session of the
Bureau in June 2001 on future orientations forinternational assistance, reinforced the importance of aprogrammatic approach, and suggested the importance ofdeveloping thematic programmes, addressed to priority
themes, with selective implementation on a sub-regional
basis. An example of this approach, endorsed by theCommittee in 1996, is ICCROM’s ITUC (Integrated
Territorial and Urban Conservation) programme, focussed
on a particular conservation approach, supported byseminars and research carried out at the international
level, and tests of applied methodologies at regional levels.
An overall training strategy for World Heritage would
include both training modules available off-the-shelf, andlong term training programmes both targeting priority
regions within which important themes are addressed, andpriority themes and their application in selected regions,(the choice of particular instruments depending on context
and circumstances).
Priority areas for the development of training modules andprogrammes have been identified below, based on analysis
carried out during the Global Training Strategy exercise.
(Note that priorities will change with time, and should be
reviewed periodically.)
Efforts should be made to promote use and integration ofexisting initiatives within long term training programmes,
such as the Best Practice Guidelines Series of the IUCNWorld Commission on Protected Areas, the currently
available volumes of the UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOSManagement Guidelines series, and curricular materials
emerging from ICCROM’s ITUC programme for
integrated management of historic cities and landscapes,
among others developed and successfully tested byrenowned institutions worldwide.
It is expected that the priorities identified below will
provide a basis from which training proposals preparedperiodically by the Centre and the Advisory Bodies will bedrawn and updated. The next step in the implementation of
the Global Training Strategy would be the development ofa 5 to 10 year framework programme outlining specificrecommended modules and programmes to be developed
thematically, and by regions.
Area 1: Improvement of implementation of the World
Heritage Convention
The emphasis in the following actions should be on
providing clear, easy to understand materials for those
involved in the implementation of the Convention.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 147

Specific requirements of the Convention should bedemystified, and where possible put into specific culturalcontexts.
Proposed actions- Development of an illustrated guide to the Operational
Guidelines, which would include well developed casestudies and other descriptive materials.
- Production and dissemination of off-the-shelf World
Heritage training modules on selected themes such as
the nomination process, the periodic reporting process,development of tentative lists, reactive monitoring, theglobal strategy, a general introduction to World
Heritage, etc. These training modules should bedesigned to be adaptable to specific regional andnational situations.
Area 2:

Improvement of on-site management of World
Heritage properties.

The emphasis here should be on promoting integrated,sustainable, and participatory approaches to conservationand management of heritage properties based on retentionof their significant heritage values.
Current priorities for development would include:
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=

techniques and practices relevant for conservation ofmaterials such as stone, wood, earth, thatch, and decorated
surfaces. For natural heritage, this should include anemphasis on measures for measuring and promoting
ecological integrity of particular sites. Training in Area 3
should also address specific technical skills useful in
identifying, understanding and managing properties ofheritage value.
Priority areas for development at present would include:
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=
•=

Conservation of masonryConservation of decorated plaster surfaces (mural
paintings)
Development of inventories and evaluation systems
Use of GIS and other mapping tools
Development of indicators for use in monitoring
management effectivenessIntegrating parks into the surrounding landscapeFundraising
Negotiation and conflict management

Proposed actions−= Development of off-the-shelf training modules in coreareas (possibly to be integrated in later programmes),
for the general priority areas mentioned above.

Tourism management
Cultural landscape management
Integrated approaches to historic city management
Risk preparedness
Citizen involvement in management

Proposed actions- Continued
developmentof theUNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS Management Guidelines series,
including translation of existing volumes into key
languages, the development of volumes in new
subject areas, and accompaniment of various
Management Guidelines by related technical notes.
These should be seen as offering useful guidance intheir own right, but also as comprising core materials
within training modules.
- Production of compendia of standards, charters,
conventions, and recommendations as previously
published by UNESCO, and the Advisory Bodies.
- Development of off-the-shelf training modules(possibly to be included in long term programmes), in
the particular areas of risk preparedness, themanagement of cultural landscapes, the integrated
conservation and management of historic cities, thedevelopment of monitoring strategies within sitemanagement, tourism management, and participatory
management planning.
Area 3: Strengthening of technical, scientific, andtraditional skills for conservation of cultural andnatural heritage.
Emphasis here should be initiatives, which focus ontechnical, scientific, and traditional conservation
processes. For cultural heritage, this could include

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 148

ANNEX XI
Speeches of the Young People's Presentation"World Heritage in Young Hands"

Mr. Richard Dawson from Peru
Je suis content de participer à la réunion ici à Helsinki
pour présenter quelques résultats du Premier Forum desJeunes sur le Patrimoine mondial et concernant le tourismeet le développement durable qui s'est tenu à Lima en mars
dernier.
Nous les Patrimonitos venant de 18 pays de l‘Amériquelatine et des Caraïbes, nous avons affirmé :1. Que l’éducation en faveur du patrimoine pour lesjeunes est importante pour le développement durable.
2. La connaissance et l'application de la Convention
concernant la protection du Patrimoine mondial
culturel et naturel est nécessaire pour faire face auxdéfis du 21ème siècle.
3. Il faut d’abord connaître le passé afin de comprendre
le présent et construire un meilleur avenir.
4. Donner à tous les jeunes une éducation relative au
Patrimoine mondial.

Before the Forum, schools were twinned and worked on
topics such as:- How will environmental degradation affect our World
Heritage site and what can we do to help?
- How can tourism affect our World Heritage site? Willthe larger amount of jobs counterbalance the increasein traffic, pollution etc?
Allparticipants
workedontheKarlskrona
recommendations, which concern the future of the World
Heritage Education Project and we would like to quote twoof them:
1. The World Heritage Committee should consider
requesting States Parties to report periodically on thenational implementation of Article 27 of theConvention, with particular regard to heritage
education and the implementation of the World
Heritage Education project in their respective
countries.

Deuxièmement,
En août 2001 un atelier national important a été organisé
au Belize sur le Patrimoine mondial et maritime pour desélèves des écoles associées de l'UNESCO et des jeunes
défavorisés.

2.

We recommend that increased attention should begiven to the valuable contribution of the oral narrativeand other forms of oral narrative of intangible cultural
traditions as an integral part of conservation andinterpretations of World Heritage sites.

Je souhaite présenter au Président du Comité duPatrimoine mondial le rapport de notre Forum au Pérou et
les Recommandations de Belize.

We now have the pleasure to present the Karlskrona
recommendations to the president of the World Heritage
Committee as well as a copy of the Finnish version of the
UNESCO World Heritage Education Kit, which was justreleased last night.

Mr. Per Kristian Krohn from Norway and Ms. Tiina
Helin from Finland
Ms. Djimbou N'Diaye from Senegal
In 2001 two important World Heritage Education eventswere held in the Nordic countries:
1. Third European Course in Restoration for YouthRøros, Norway and2. The 10th International Youth Forum in the World
Heritage education project was held in Karlskrona
Sweden in September 2001.
Teachers and students from 29 countries gathered at theSwedish World Heritage site of the Naval Port ofKarlskrona on the Swedish West Coast.
For the Youth Forum a theme was chosen:
The theme was:Both sides of the coin – how can the dark and the lightsides of my World Heritage help me understand the past,
the present and the future?

Report of the World Heritage Committee

Pour le 30ème anniversaire de la Convention pour laprotection du patrimoine mondial culturel et naturel, et àl'occasion de l'Année internationale pour le patrimoine
culturel en 2002 nous Patrimonitos, nous proposons aux
pays :
1. d'élaborer des plans nationaux d'action pourl'éducation relative au Patrimoine mondial.
2. de lancer à travers le monde entier, des journées
portes ouvertes sur les sites du Patrimoine mondial
pour les jeunes, du 10 au 17 novembre 2002
3. d'organiser la célébration de journées spéciales duPatrimoine mondial.
4. Nous demandons aux écoles de produire et deprésenter un travail artistique ayant trait aux sites duPatrimoine mondial et l'UNESCO sélectionnera lesmeilleurs pour les inclure dans une exposition
itinérante.

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 149

Nous proposons que l'UNESCO nous aide à organiser :- une série de marathons (à vélo, à pieds et à la chaiseroulante) pour des élèves a côté ou autour des sites
du Patrimoine mondial pendant toute l'année 2002.
- des olympiades culturelles- des caravanes pour les jeunes pour découvrir lePatrimoine mondial par bus, train ou bateau
Je voudrais saisir l'occasion qui m'est offerte pourexprimer au nom des Patrimonitos de notre Atelier
international, toute notre gratitude au Président de laRépublique de Finlande son excellence Madame Tarja
Halonen pour avoir reconnu et soutenu le Projet UNESCO”Patrimoine mondial entre les mains des jeunes”.
Nos remerciements vont aussi au Président et aux
membres du Comité du Patrimoine mondial pour nous
avoir permis de partager avec vous nos idées et nos
propositions sur l'éducation relative au Patrimoine
mondial.
Nous remercions aussi la Commission nationale
finlandaise pour l'UNESCO, le ministère de l'éducation
nationale et la coordination des écoles associées de nous
avoir permis de nous réunir cette semaine à Helsinki enmême temps que le Comité pour le Patrimoine mondial.
Nous remercions l'UNESCO, le Directeur du Centre duPatrimoine mondial et l'Agence norvégienne pour ledéveloppement et la coopération pour toute leur assistance.
Nous avons certes des idées, de la volonté et del'engagement mais, nous avons besoin de votre soutien tant
au niveau local, national qu'international pour réaliser nos
objectifs. Ensemble, nous les jeunes avec vous lesspécialistes du Patrimoine mondial, nous pouvons agir
pour protéger et sauvegarder notre précieux Patrimoine
mondial pour les générations présentes et futures.
Je vous remercie.

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 150

ANNEX XIIWorld Heritage

25 COM

Distribution limited

WHC-01/CONF.208/21 Rev
Helsinki, 15 December 2001
Original: English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURALORGANIZATIONCONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL
AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fifth session
Helsinki, Finland
11-16 December 2001
Item 18 of the Agenda: Provisional Agenda and Timetable of the twenty-sixth session of the Bureauof the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO Headquarters, 8-13 April 2002)

INTRODUCTION
1.

Opening of the session by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative2.

Adoption of the agenda and the timetable

PROGRESS REPORTS ON REFORMS AND STRATEGIC REFLECTION
3.

Policy/legal issues concerning inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and the potential deletion of properties from the World Heritage List

4.

Oral report on the progress for the revision of the Operational Guidelines

5.

World Heritage visual identity and legal protection of the Emblem

6.

Progress report on the analyses of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists and theidentification of underrepresented categories of natural and cultural heritage

7.

Discussion on the relationship between the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO

8.

Progress report on the preparation of the proposed Strategic Orientations of the World
Heritage Committee and revised structure of the budget of the World Heritage Fund

9.

Progress report on the preparation of the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 151

10.

Progress report on the organisation of events to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of theWorld Heritage Convention in 2002

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
11.

Reports on state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and theList of World Heritage in Danger

12.

Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and naturalproperties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List

13.

Requests for international assistance

CLOSING
14.

Provisional agenda and timetable of the twenty-sixth session of the World Heritage
Committee (Budapest, Hungary, 24-29 June 2002)

15.

Other business

16.

Adoption of the report of the session

17.

Closure of the session

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 152

PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
26th session of the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, 8-13 April 2002
TIME

MONDAY, 8 APRILAgenda ItemTUESDAY, 9 APRILAgenda ItemWEDNESDAY, 10 APRILAgenda Item

THURSDAY, 11 APRILAgenda Item

FRIDAY,12 APRILAgenda Item

1. Opening of the session by
the
Director-Generalof
UNESCO or his representative

4. Oral report on the
progress for the revision of
the Operational Guidelines

11. Reports on state ofconservationofproperties inscribed on
the World Heritage List
and the List of World
Heritage in Danger

13.
Requests
international
assistance

2. Adoption of the agenda andthe timetable

5. World Heritage visual
identity and legal protectionof the Emblem

8. Progress report on the
preparationoftheproposed
Strategic
Orientations of the World
Heritage Committee andrevised structure of thebudget of the World
Heritage Fund

A.M.

P.M

Policy/legal issues concerning
inscription of properties on the
List of World Heritage in
Danger and the potential
deletion of properties from theWorld Heritage List

REPORT
PREPARATION BY THE
SECRETARIAT

15. Other business6. Progress report on theanalyses of the World
Heritage List and Tentative
Lists and the identification ofunderrepresented categories
of natural and cultural
heritage
7.
Discussion
ontherelationship between theWorld Heritage Committeeand UNESCO

Report of the World Heritage Committeefor

14. Provisional agenda
and timetable of thetwenty-sixth session of
the World Heritage
Committee(24-29June 2002)

3.
Policy/legal
issuesconcerning
inscriptionofproperties on the List of World
Heritage in Danger and thepotential deletion of properties
from the World Heritage List

3. (continued)

SATURDAY, 13 APRILAgenda Item

9. Progress report on the
preparationofthe
Budapest Declaration on
World Heritage

10. Progress report on theorganisation of events tocelebratethe30thAnniversary of the World
Heritage Convention in
2002

12.
Informationontentativelists
andexaminationofnominations of culturaland natural properties tothe List of World Heritage
in Danger and the World
Heritage List

REPORT
PREPARATION
BY
THE SECRETARIAT

16. Adoption of the reportof the session
17. Closure
sessionof

the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 153

ANNEX XIIIWorld Heritage

25 COM

Distribution limited

WHC-01/CONF.208/22 Rev
Helsinki, 15 December 2001
Original: English/French

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURALORGANIZATIONCONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL
AND NATURAL HERITAGE

WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Twenty-fifth session
Helsinki, Finland
11-16 December 2001
Item 19 of the Agenda: Date, place, provisional Agenda and Timetable of the twenty-sixth sessionof the World Heritage Committee (Budapest, Hungary, 24-29 June 2002)

CELEBRATION OF THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
1.

Welcome by the Director-General of UNESCO or his representative2.

Reports on 30 years of the World Heritage Convention

OPENING OF THE SESSION
3.

Adoption of the agenda and the timetable

4.

Report of the Rapporteur on the twenty-sixth ordinary session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee

5.

Report of the Secretariat on the activities undertaken since the 25th session of the Committee

PROGRESS REPORTS ON REFORMS AND STRATEGIC REFLECTION
6.

Ways and means to reinforce the implementation of the World Heritage Convention

7.

Policy/legal issues concerning inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in
Danger and the potential deletion of properties from the World Heritage List

8.

Progress made in assisting Afghanistan in the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 155

9.

Revision of the Operational Guidelines

10.

World Heritage visual identity and legal protection of the Emblem

11.

Progress report on the analyses of the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists and theidentification of underrepresented categories of natural and cultural heritage

12.

Discussion on the relationship between the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO

13.

Progress report on the preparation of the proposed Strategic Orientations of the World
Heritage Committee and revised structure of the budget of the World Heritage Fund

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION
14.

Periodic Reporting: Report on the state of the World Heritage in Africa, 2001

15.

State of conservation of properties inscribed on List of World Heritage in Danger and on
the World Heritage List

16.

Information on tentative lists and examination of nominations of cultural and naturalproperties to the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List

17.

Adjustments to the World Heritage Fund Budget for 2002-2003

18.

International assistance

19.

Revision of the Rules of Procedures of the World Heritage Committee

CLOSING
20.

The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage

21.

Provisional agenda and timetable of the twenty-seventh session of the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee (April 2003)

22.

Provisional agenda and timetable of the twenty-seventh session of the World Heritage
Committee (June 2003)

23.

Other business

24.

Adoption of the report of the session

25.

Closure of the session

Report of the World Heritage Committee

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 156

PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
26th session of the World Heritage Committee, Budapest, Hungary, 24-29 June 2002
TIME
A.M.

MONDAY, 24 JUNE
1. Welcome by
Director-General
UNESCOorrepresentative

the
of
his

2. Reports on 30 years of
the
World
Heritage
Convention

TUESDAY, 25 JUNE
6. Ways and means toreinforce the implementation
World Heritage Convention
7.
Policy/legal
issuesconcerning inscription ofproperties on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger
and the potential deletion ofproperties from the World
Heritage List
8.
Progress
madeinassisting Afghanistan in theimplementation of the World
Heritage Convention

P.M .

3.
Adoption of theagenda and the timetable

9.
RevisionofOperational Guidelines

4.
ReportoftheRapporteur on the twentysixth ordinary session of
the Bureau of the World
Heritage Committee
5.
ReportoftheSecretariat
ontheactivities
undertakenthsince the 25 session of
the Committee

10. World Heritage visual
identity and legal protectionof the World Heritage
EmblemReport of the World Heritage Committeethe

WEDNESDAY, 26 JUNE
11. Progress report on theanalyses of the World
Heritage List and Tentative
Lists and the identification ofunderrepresented categories
of natural and cultural
heritage

12. Discussion on therelationship between theWorld Heritage Committee
and the other UNESCO
bodies

13. Progress report on the
preparation of the proposed
Strategic Orientations of theWorld Heritage Committee
and revised structure of thebudget of the World Heritage
Fund

THURSDAY, 27 JUNE
14. Periodic Reporting:
Report on the state of
the World Heritage in
Africa, 2001

FRIDAY, 28 JUNE
17. Adjustments to theWorld Heritage Fund
Budget for 2002-2003

SATURDAY, 29 JUNEREPORT
PREPARATION
BY
THE SECRETARIAT

18.
International
Assistance

15.
State
of
conservationofproperties inscribed on
List of World Heritage
in Danger and on theWorld Heritage List

19.
The
Budapest
Declaration on World
Heritage
20. Provisional agenda
and timetable of thetwenty-seventh sessionof the Bureau of theWorld
Heritage
Committee (April 2003)
21. Provisional agenda
and timetable of thetwenty-seventh sessionof the World Heritage
Committee
(June
2003)
22. Other business16. Information on
tentativelists
andexaminationofnominations of culturaland natural properties
to the List of World
Heritage in Danger andthe World Heritage List

REPORT
PREPARATION
BY
THE SECRETARIAT

23. Adoption of thereport of the session

24. Closure
sessionof

the

WHC-01/CONF.208/24, p. 157