United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization convention concerning the protection of the world


STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST



Download 1.36 Mb.
Page16/26
Date31.05.2016
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   26

21 STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST




21(a) STATE OF CONSERVATION OF PROPERTIES INSCRIBED ON THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER



Document: WHC-02/CONF.202/18
NATURAL HERITAGE
1. The Secretariat informed the Committee that reports on only 12 of the 19 natural properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger would be presented to the Committee. For the other seven properties no new information was available due to the shortness of time since the twenty-fifth session of the Committee (December 2001).
Srebarna Nature Reserve (Bulgaria)
1. The representative of IUCN highlighted the improved state of conservation of the property as a success story of the World Heritage Convention.
2. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a)1).

World Heritage sites of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Virunga National Park

Garamba National Park

Kahuzi-Biega National Park

Okapi Wildlife Reserve

Salonga National Park
1. The Secretariat highlighted its major concern about encroachments and what appear to be planned settlements in the south of Virunga National Park.
2. The Delegate of Zimbabwe commented on the worsening of the situation at Virunga National Park due to human and natural causes. He expressed his regret that the visit of the Director-General of UNESCO to the DRC had been postponed to 2003. He expressed his concern that the situation at Virunga was worsening at a fast rate. He said that this was cause for very serious concern by the Committee and called for more rapid action. He asked whether administrative problems relating to project management at Kahuzi-Biega National Park had been resolved.
3. The Delegate of Nigeria noted that the situation in the DRC was of very serious concern and that action should be taken immediately. He asked whether any funds had been committed by UNESCO following the disaster in Goma and expressed regret that the Director-General of UNESCO had not yet been able to visit the DRC.
4. The Delegate of Belgium acknowledged the extreme difficulties in the DRC and the importance of conservation action and for the Director-General to visit the country. He suggested that other dignitaries could also visit the country and also negotiate and mediate with neighbouring countries through diplomatic channels to ensure respect of the World Heritage properties. He also asked whether there might be other ways to raise international awareness of the conservation needs at the World Heritage sites in the DRC.
5. The Delegate of Thailand asked whether there was willingness by the State Party and local authorities to assist and co-operate in finding solutions to better protect the World Heritage sites in the DRC.
6. In responding to the expressions of concern from the Delegates of Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Belgium and Thailand, the Secretariat noted that of the five World Heritage sites in the DRC the worsening situation related particularly to transboundary encroachment at Virunga National Park. In answer to the question from the Delegate of Thailand he noted the co-operation of local authorities and an improvement in the situation at Okapi Wildlife Reserve and Garamba National Park. In response to the question from the Delegate of Zimbabwe concerning Kahuzi-Biega he reassured the Committee that the problems of project management had been addressed. He also informed the Committee that there would be an additional attempt to arrange a visit by the Director-General of UNESCO to the DRC.
7. The Delegate of Zimbabwe acknowledged the magnitude of the problem in the DRC and said that whilst there was no peace in the country the Committee would only be addressing ephemeral issues and not the core of the problem. He commented that there was legitimate reason for the Committee to endorse diplomatic pressure. He therefore called for a visit to the DRC by the Director-General of UNESCO. He said that local action needs reinforcement and commitment from the international community. He also recommended that the Director-General be asked to recommend to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the World Heritage of the DRC be protected and that calls from the region for more peacekeepers be answered.
8. The Delegate of Thailand suggested that the Committee concentrate on areas not affected by armed conflict. He said that the Committee could not do anything in areas of armed conflict as this needs to be handled by the UN peacekeepers. He recommended that the state of conservation of each site be addressed individually.
9. The representative of IUCN noted the comments made by the Delegates of Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Belgium and Thailand. He emphasized concern over the state of conservation of Virunga National Park. He also stressed the need for clear boundary definition at the site and to improve the livelihoods of local people in the area. He agreed on the need to focus on areas of highest priority, such as the northern section of Virunga National Park.
10. The Secretariat answered the question of the Delegate of Nigeria by informing the Committee that assistance had been provided by the office of the Director-General in response to the emergency in Goma.
11. The Delegate of Nigeria asked for an amendment to the draft decision to state that the Committee "welcomes the forthcoming visit of the Director-General led mission".
12. The Chairperson invited the Committee to take its decision with amendments. He suggested that the decision (i) be divided to separate the situation of Virunga from the other four sites in the DRC, (ii) stress the importance of a visit by the Director-General and invite him to act at the highest diplomatic level and to request action by the Secretary General of the United Nations, (iii) endorse action taken to date and (iv) mandate the Chairperson to send letters to promote further conservation action.
13. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision as amended adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a)2).

Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Guinea/Côte d'Ivoire)
1. The Delegate of Thailand commented on the regional boundary dispute and asked whether this would change the demarcation of the World Heritage property or affect co-operation in the conservation of the site.
2. The Secretariat commented that the difference of opinion on forest boundaries was between local authorities. He noted that the Tri-national (Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia) agreement process had established a mechanism for discussion by the two parties. He did not anticipate any changes to the boundary definition or the integrity of the World Heritage property.
3. The Delegate of South Africa congratulated Liberia as a new State Party to the World Heritage Convention. She noted the exemplary co-operation between local authorities and the various UN bodies which would help to improve the state of conservation.
4. The Representative of IUCN commented that a workshop held in February had discussed the issue of boundary ambiguity. He also highlighted the positive co-operation between NGOs and the States Parties which had been one of the elements of the success of the process.
5. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a)3).

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)
1. The Secretariat and the representative of IUCN informed the Committee that the IUCN mission to the site had taken place.
2. The Delegate of Thailand commented that his overall impression was that the situation at the site had improved. He asked whether rebel activity had expanded or reduced.
3. The Delegate of India confirmed that the area under rebel activity was reduced. She noted the objective and realistic conclusions of the IUCN mission report in a very constructive manner. She asked that the Committee include in its decision reference to some of the recent positive developments at the site including finalization of the site management plan, additional funds and technical support under Project Elephant, and economic development committees involving local communities. She suggested that other avenues for co-operation between India and Bhutan were feasible. She expressed the hope that the trust fund set up would mobilise assistance and international assistance. She asked that enough time now be provided for implementation of the IUCN recommendations before another mission be sent to the site. She suggested a period of four years in order to evaluate and assess the impact of implementation of recommendations.
4. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted with the suggested amendments by the Delegate of India (decision 26 COM 21(a)4).

Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Niger)
1. The Delegate of Nigeria asked for an amendment to the draft decision relating to whether funds were being made available at the local level for protection of the sites. He suggested that the text include a specific reference to the management which would read - "as part of the same report the Committee recommends that the State Party address the staffing, infrastructure development and management issues for the site".
2. The Delegate of Egypt supported the comments of the Delegate of Nigeria and asked to add the words "management and security issues" to the decision.
3. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision as amended adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a)5).

Ichkeul National Park (Tunisia)
1. The representative of IUCN informed the Committee that the IUCN Wetlands Programme is working closely with the State Party and that a mission had gone to the site in the previous week. There was agreement on two items: on the workplan to address the management of the entire catchment and on the process to identify and agree on indicators, benchmarks and timetable of work.
2. The Delegate of Thailand asked, in the absence of indicators and benchmarks, if it was possible to determine whether there had been an improvement in the water quality in Lake Ichkeul. He noted that in the draft decision there was text referring to the Committee's satisfaction with the organization of a workshop. He suggested that satisfaction should be expressed once the indicators and benchmarks had been identified as an outcome of the workshop.
3. The Delegate of the United Kingdom emphasized the importance of indicators and benchmarks to the monitoring of many World Heritage sites. He asked for clarification as to the timescale for monitoring of this particular site.
4. The Secretariat referred to fluctuations in salinity and numbers of certain bird species on a year-to-year basis depending on overall rainfall patterns in the area. He therefore indicated the importance of agreed benchmarks to track changes over a period of time (perhaps five year minimum).
5. The representative of IUCN noted that in the past, the broad indicators of salinity and population of bird species indicated deterioration and led to Committee decisions relating to inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. He noted the need for more precise indicators and benchmarks to be evaluated over time with a five year minimum. He stated that the key issues are rainfall and the methods for allocation of water between competing uses such as agriculture, human needs and conservation.
6. The Chairperson suggested adoption of the draft decision with amendments to refer to the Committee's support for the organisation of a workshop and to the need for a monitoring programme over a period of at least five years.
7. The Delegate of Thailand requested that the decision be reworded to refer to results of the workshop and their implementation.
8. The Delegate of Egypt requested access to preliminary results of monitoring in the first year as he considered that waiting for five years was too long. He asked whether data from earlier monitoring exercises would be used and whether financing was available.
9. The Secretariat responded that national monitoring had provided a lot of data. The question related to which benchmarks and indicators needed to be followed. He suggested that this required a minimum period of five years to judge the results. He commented that this was a reasonable duration for an ecosystem rehabiliation project. Intermediate reports would be presented to the Committee on an annual or biennial basis. These details would be refined at the time of the workshop.
10. The Delegate of Egypt asked that the approach recommended by the Secretariat be reflected in the decision.
11. The Delegate of the United Kingdom asked for clarification concerning the financing of the monitoring programme.
12. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the national monitoring programme had been in place for a number of years. He said that it was hoped that a plan for the benchmark monitoring would be developed as a result of the workshop at which time cost implications and financing would be addressed. He recalled the discussion at the twenty-fifth session of the Committee when it was informed that a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project is foreseen for the site, subject to the State Party establishing conditions for preserving the integrity of the site, and noted that the GEF could be one possible source that may contribute towards financing the implementation of the monitoring plan to be elaborated as an outcome of the workshop supported from the resources of the World Heritage Fund.
13. The representative of IUCN referred to the need for short and long term monitoring. The measure of the overall rehabilitation health of the ecosystem would take time. The most important point was to establish clear indicators. In relation to cost, he confirmed that some external funding was likely to be required. One of the objectives of the workshop is to work further on the GEF project for support of conservation and monitoring within the catchment.
14. The Delegate of the United Kingdom asked that the decision include a request for information on the future implementation of the new monitoring programme developed at the workshop.
15. The Delegate of Egypt asked whether the workshop would be national or international and of what scope.
16. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the workshop would be organized jointly by the State Party, IUCN and the World Heritage Centre and would include national and international experts (including members of the Ramsar Convention Secretariat).
17. The Delegate of Egypt requested that Wetlands International also be invited.
18. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus to include the suggested amendments and requests in the draft decision and declared it thus adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a)6).

Everglades National Park (United States of America)
1. The Secretariat informed the Committee that for this site and the next site (Yellowstone), the objective was to develop a process leading to agreement with the State Party for indicators and a timetable to help the Committee in determining when one or both of these sites could be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. He referred to some positive trends in the conservation of both Everglades and Yellowstone National Parks. To date there is however no definition as to how and when the Committee could consider their possible removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. He informed the Committee that discussions had taken place with the State Party on the development of such a process in the past and that this would be further developed.
2. The Delegate of Thailand recalled that at the twenty-fifth session of the Committee he had suggested that the State Party consider removing the Everglades from the List of World Heritage in Danger. With reference to this possibility and the new information in the working document concerning mining he requested clarification from the Observer of the United States of America.
3. The representative of IUCN noted some common elements with the discussion on Ichkeul National Park concerning the need to clarify indicators and benchmarks. He referred to new information concerning limestone quarrying in protected wetlands between the Everglades and Miami. He stated that this area was south of the World Heritage site in the down flow area which would not affect the integrity of the World Heritage site. He commended the State Party for the amount of resources dedicated to the site which he hope would lead to its removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger.
4. The Observer of the United States of America clarified information presented in the working document by informing the Committee that there are plans to improve the Flamingo Waste Treatment system to treat 135,000 gallons (510,000 litres) of water each day. She expressed willingness of National Park Service field staff to meet with IUCN to develop benchmarks and indicators. She informed the Committee that the Everglades Restoration Plan covers a 35 to 40-year timeframe, and that the type of ecosystem would require some time to recover and commented that the conditions for the expeditious removal of Everglades from the List of World Heritage in Danger would not be an easy task. Concerning the permits for limestone quarrying, she stated that both the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did object to the issuance of permits. Mining will not take place for three years and the issue of increased seepage from any mining will be examined. As the permits had only been issued by the Corps of Engineers in the last two months, this research was only in the planning phase.
5. The Delegate of Thailand suggested that the draft decision be modified to refer to the new information provided by the Observer of the United States of America.
6. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus for this proposal and declared the decision adopted as amended (decision 26 COM 21(a)7).

Yellowstone (United States of America)
1. The Observer of the United States of America provided the Committee with clarifications concerning the information presented in the working document. She requested that the document refer to a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement rather than a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. She informed the Committee that 350,000 public comments had been received on the Draft and that these were currently being reviewed. She asked that the second sentence of the draft decision beginning with "the Committee urges the State Party to continue to report on Yellowstone's snow mobile phase-out" be changed as no decision had yet been taken on the issue.
2. The Chairperson proposed to amend the draft decision accordingly. Noting the Committee's consensus he declared the draft decision adopted as amended (decision 26 COM 21(a) 8).

CULTURAL HERITAGE

Butrint (Albania)
1. The Secretariat informed the Committee that a “Development Study for the Butrint National Park” has been prepared which includes a vision for sustainable resource use addressing the needs of the visitors and bringing local communities into the development. A number of management actions are in progress, including the draft legislation for the Park, the application for Ramsar status and a Global Environment Facility (GEF) project proposal for the future of the Park and surrounding communities.
2. The Delegate of the United Kingdom welcomed the progress made at the site. However, he mentioned that in the long term the national authorities, rather than the Butrint Foundation, should provide funding for the site. He also suggested that close watch be kept on developments in the local environs to ensure that there are no adverse impacts to the World Heritage site.
3. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a) 9).

Angkor (Cambodia)
1. The Secretariat presented the following additional information:
(i) The technical assistance provided by The Agence Française de Développement (AFD) to elaborate a short-term action plan in the field of tourism development will contribute towards the implementation of a tourism policy for site conservation and sustainable development.
(ii) The technical session of the International Coordination Committee for the safeguarding and development of Angkor (CIC) was held at the end of December 2001 at Siem Reap. It was preceded by the Sixth International Symposium on the Bayon organized by the Japanese Team for the safeguarding of Angkor (JSA) in close co-operation with the Authority for the Protection and the Safeguarding of the Angkor Region (APSARA) and UNESCO. These meetings, with the presence of the President of ICOMOS, helped to facilitate the conservation work at the site.
(iii) Update of new partnerships for the conservation of the site. Switzerland had joined the group of donors supporting Angkor and is financing a government project for the conservation and presentation of the Banteay Srei Temple. In April 2002, India signed an agreement with the Government of Cambodia concerning the conservation project for the Ta Prohm Temple.
(iv) With a view to strengthening the UNESCO/APSARA International Documentation Centre, UNESCO had obtained from the Paris Municipality the secondment of a librairian-documentalist who will commence work in Angkor in July 2002 to run the Centre and contribute towards training young Cambodians.
(v) With respect to illicit traffic, on 27 April 2002, the Royal Government of Cambodia welcomed the return to the National Museum of Phnom Penh of the two Angkorian heads, thanks to the Academy of Fine Arts of Honolulu.
2. The Secretariat read a proposed draft decision for consideration by the Committee.
3. The President of ICOMOS informed the Committee that he had attended the meeting at Siem Reap in December 2001. He underscored the important role UNESCO played in co-ordinating conservation and management activities being undertaken by governments, NGOs, development agencies and authorities. He drew the attention of the Committee to cases of inappropriate tourism development activities and infrastructure (such as a cable-car projects, balloon rides and sound and light shows) in a sacred place that undermine the spiritual values of the property.
4. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a) 10).

Group of Monuments at Hampi (India)
1. The Secretariat drew the attention of the Committee to the following new information:
(i) The State Government of Karnataka has passed legislation that established an appropriate site management authority empowered to oversee all conservation and development activities within the World Heritage protected areas. The establishment of this dedicated site management authority, which follows a specific recommendation of the Committee, would facilitate the elaboration and implementation of a long-term integrated conservation and management plan for the property.
(ii) To increase the capacity of the national authorities to elaborate an integrated conservation and management plan for the property, the Centre has brokered a Study Tour to the United Kingdom for the Hampi site managers with the co-operation of English Heritage. This Study Tour is expected to take place in October 2002.
2. The Secretariat then read a proposed draft decision to the Committee.
3. The representative of ICOMOS informed the Committee that the corrective measures to mitigate the threats facing the property were welcome, in spite of unexpected delays. Nevertheless, as the threats persisted, ICOMOS recommended that the property be retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as indicated in the draft decision.
4. The Delegate of India expressed her Government's agreement to the draft decision. She recalled the attention of the Committee to the decision taken by the concerned authorities to demolish the footbridge connecting Hampi and Virapapura Gada Island. The authorities were elaborating plans to deviate the roads leading off the large vehicular bridge connecting Hampi and Anegundi, following the recommendations of the two UNESCO missions undertaken by an international expert. She referred to the sincere efforts being made by the Indian authorities to address the recommendations of the Committee and UNESCO experts. She drew the Committee's attention to the need for international assistance to develop a time-bound Action Plan to remove the ascertained and potential threats facing the property.
5. The Delegate of Thailand reminded the Committee that significant portions of the World Heritage Fund could be allocated to assist States Parties with properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger in elaborating and implementing corrective measures. He expressed his surprise that the State Party had not yet made a request for international assistance for the conservation of the site.
6. The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had undertaken consultations with the State Party for the submission of an international assistance request for elaborating the management plan and to undertake corrective measures and was now awaiting formal submission of this request. However, the Secretariat informed the Committee that the international conservation and rural planning expert missions had been funded from the World Heritage Fund's Reactive Monitoring budget.
7. The Delegate of India requested the Committee to place priority on the international assistance request once it is submitted in order to meet the conservation and management needs facing the property. She emphasized that it is very important that the Committee allocate sufficient funds to enable undertaking immediate remedial works when it places a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
8. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus on the new draft decision and declared it adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a) 11).
9. The Rapporteur asked the Secretariat to read new draft decisions, such as the one presented for this site, very slowly for the purposes of interpretation.

Bahla Fort (Oman)
1. The Secretariat informed the Committee that:
(i) a recent mission to the site had reported slow progress with the preparation of a management plan. Furthermore, the mission reported that the quality and detail of survey work conducted in preparation of the management plan did not meet standards established for the project.
(ii) The Secretariat had recently learned of the resignation of the chief architectural conservator at the site and therefore suggested a revision to the draft decision to refer to the urgent need for technical supervision of conservation measures at the site.
2. The Delegate of Oman informed the Committee that the first phase of the Management Plan had just been completed and would shortly be forwarded to the World Heritage Centre. He considered that the work was progressing well and thanked the Committee and the Centre for their continuous support.
3. The Delegate of Thailand expressed his concern over the construction of a new market and asked whether the Delegate of Oman had information as to whether this would affect the integrity or impact the visual integrity of the site.
4. The Delegate of Oman replied that whilst he did not have any new information, two experts from the World Heritage Centre were visiting the site periodically, and may be able to provide further information in the future.
5. The Rapporteur asked that the revised draft decision be read again.
6. The Delegate of Thailand requested that the Secretariat answer his earlier question and also that the amended draft decision be read again.
7. The Secretariat read the amendments to the draft decision that had been presented in the working document. On the issue of the new market he informed the Committee that this had been reported to its last session. The representative of the Secretariat recalled that when he had been on mission to the site that a tender was being launched by the Ministry for Trade for the construction of a new market in the village next to the Bahla Fort. The issue reported to the Committee related to the co-ordination between the Ministries of Culture and Trade. The Ministry of Culture had been requested to revise the Terms of Reference for the tender together with two experts sent to Oman by the World Heritage Centre. The Centre is waiting for further information on this matter.
8. The Delegate of the United Kingdom asked whether the new Terms of Reference would include the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment of the new market on the World Heritage site.
9. The Observer of Canada suggested adding a request for an assessment of the impact of the new market on the site in the text of the decision.
10. The Chairperson declared the revised draft decision adopted with the two additional amendments suggested (decision 26 COM 21(a) 12).

Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Pakistan)
1. The Secretariat recommended that the draft decision in the working document include a final sentence to retain the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
2. The Delegate of Thailand requested a change to the draft decision to refer to the specific threats to the site.
3. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the corrective measures for the site were elaborated by joint UNESCO/ICOMOS missions in the past and at the time of the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2000. The Secretariat suggested that these could be referred to specifically in the decision of the Committee.
4. The Delegate of the United Kingdom commented that the site needs a comprehensive management plan. He referred to this as a trend for many, if not all, sites in Danger. He commented that there is a crucial need for a management plan to be in place and implemented at these sites. This issue should be considered at the time of reviewing nominations for inscription in the World Heritage List.

5. The Chairperson suggested to add to the draft decision a request for a management plan. Noting the Committee's consensus he declared the draft decision adopted as amended (decision 26 COM 21(a) 13).

Chan Chan Archaeological Zone (Peru)
1. The Secretariat presented the latest information available provided by the National Institute for Culture (NIC) of Peru:
(i) Following recent coordination activities between the legal bodies, regional police and the Departmental Direction of NIC, a team of mounted police comprising 6 persons carrying out day and night rounds has been established since April 2002. Furthermore, a dozen guards are present at the site, equipped with a small van and walkie talkies. This new presence has had immediate positive effects upon the protection of the archaeological heritage.
(ii) The illegal occupation of land has been completely halted. All the installations, except for those of some small farmers, have been demolished, and a solution is presently being examined to resolve their situation. A draft project aiming at the relocation of the farmers and protecting the site by declaring "a state of emergency" shall very shortly be submitted to the Congress.
(iii) A Master Plan is being established, including the:


  • setting up of a security system, mentioned above;

  • implementation of emergency preservation projects similar to those carried out for the Uhle Palace, the Virgins Temple and the audience structures of Tschudi;

  • improvement of the signposting in the Tschudi Palace and its entrance;

  • implementation of protection projects due to El Niño (roof repairs, drainage, protection of the frieze).

(iv) Furthermore, international co-operation projects are ongoing, and the Italian Mission is to carry out topographical recordings to document and protect the site; a preliminary mission took place on 15 May 2002, starting with the study of the Palacio Rivero site.


The Secretariat then proposed a draft decision for consideration by the Committee.
2. The Rapporteur asked for clarification as to when the next progress report would be presented to the Committee.
3. The Secretariat suggested that the progress report be presented to the twenty-seventh session of the Committee in 2003.
4. The Delegate of Egypt made a general remark concerning the presentation of draft decisions by the Secretariat for adoption by the Committee. In most cases reports were requested for presentation to the Committee in June 2003. However for Bahla Fort (Oman) and the Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines) reports were to be presented to the Bureau in April 2003. He asked whether this was intentional and asked what was the procedure - should reports on the state of conservation of sites first be examined by the Bureau with a recommendation then passed to the Committee for decision?
5. The Chairperson thanked the Delegate for having highlighted this inconsistency and stated that all reports for sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger should be presented directly to the Committee and that this should be reflected in the decisions. Noting the Committee's consensus, he then declared the draft decision on Chan Chan Archaeological Zone adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a) 14).

Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
1. The Secretariat informed the Committee of the major conservation issues relating to this property as presented in working document WHC-02/CONF.202/18, in particular the abolition of the Banaue Rice Terraces Task Force (BRTTF) by the order of the President of the Philippines. The momentum following the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger could be lost without a permanent site management authority responsible for the management and conservation of this site. The Secretariat proposed a revised wording for the draft decision submitted to the Committee.
2. The representative of ICOMOS underlined the urgent need to take corrective measures to redress the rapid and virtually irretrievable deterioration of the rice terraces within the fragile eco-system. Recalling the statement of the Delegate of the United Kingdom during the examination of the state of conservation of the Fort and Shalimar Gardens of Lahor (Pakistan), he stressed that the comprehensive site management plan was long awaited.
3. The representative of IUCN reminded the Committee of the key findings of the joint IUCN-ICOMOS mission, in particular, highlighting the fact that 25-30% of the rice terraces have already deteriorated. Echoing the concern expressed by the representative of ICOMOS, he underscored IUCN's concern that the early establishment of a permanent, well-resourced management authority and the full engagements of the stakeholders are prerequisites to safeguarding this site. The representative of IUCN expressed the view of IUCN that the draft decision before the Committee was very appropriate.
4. The Delegate of Thailand noted that this property was demonstrative of the need to support traditional management mechanisms which have maintained the rice terraces until now. He recalled that the Committee had approved the emergency technical co-operation assistance (US$75,000) at its twenty-fifth session in Helsinki and asked for clarification on the status of implementation of this project. Expressing his Government's hope that this activity would be implemented without further delay, the Delegate of Thailand hoped that international co-operation could be extended in the future, perhaps through the UNESCO Japan Funds-In-Trust Agreement.
5. The Delegate of Zimbabwe, highlighting the delicate balance between human land-use and natural environment in cultural landscapes such as this site, expressed his Government's concern over the continued abandonment of the rice terraces which is a dynamic socio-economic issue which cannot be solved by financial aid alone. He further lamented on the non-compliance of development and construction regulations within the property, which called for urgent attention. He underlined the need to set up a replacement authority in view of the social and economic change as well as the deterioration of the natural environment. He suggested that the Committee should strengthen the draft decision to urge the authorities to take all possible actions to control the illegal construction within the site.
6. The Observer of the Philippines, underscoring that the situation as described by the Secretariat and the representatives of the advisory bodies called for urgent attention, informed the Committee that her Government had recently billed new legislation to establish a new "Ifugao Management Authority" but emphasized that it could take time for the legislation to be passed and to sufficiently empower the authority. She drew the attention of the Committee to the efforts being made by her authorities for the restoration and conservation of the damaged irrigation system, which included the allocation of US$ 1 million to support 23 restoration proposals. The Observer of the Philippines strongly urged the Committee to support the national efforts for taking corrective measures to remove the threats facing the site as the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger was only the first step to mobilizing significant international and technical support. She stated that her Government views the inscription of this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger neither as a sanction nor a national dishonour but as valuable conservation tool intended to focus both national and international attention on the urgent needs of this threatened site. In this regard she commented that her Government is conscious of and sensitive to the complex character of this fragile cultural landscape and is taking the necessary steps to form a proper management authority which can ensure that a holistic approach is taken to address the environmental and cultural threats to the site. Therefore, she appealed to the Committee for further action, in particular to help her authorities formulate a proper Plan of Action and to elaborate a Master Plan for the site. She also requested the Committee to urgently release the US$75,000 international assistance allocated in December 2001.
7. The Delegate of Zimbabwe invited the Committee to respond to this appeal.
8. The Delegate of South Africa supported the intervention of the Delegate of Zimbabwe. She requested clarification on whether the abandonment of the rice terraces was related to the climate-induced change referred to in the working document.
9. The representative of IUCN replied that the rice terraces have always been vulnerable to cyclones and heavy rains because of their steep slopes. He clarified that destruction of the watershed forests have increased their vulnerability to such normal phenomena.
10. The Secretariat in response to the interventions made by the Delegate of Thailand and the Observer of the Philippines confirmed that there had been delays in releasing the funds for international assistance, also due to the fact that the BRTTF was abolished.
11. The Delegate of Thailand asked why Emergency Assistance was conditional.
12. The Delegate of the United Kingdom requested the Committee to clarify the draft decision. He stated that he understood the temporary arrangement for the management of the site. However, he underscored the urgent need for establishing a management unit for the conservation of the site in light of the information presented to the Committee. He stated that the issue of an effective management authority is perhaps even more important for the implementation of the international assistance activity, especially if the emergency assistance was allocated for use by the previously existing management authority. He stressed the importance of clarifying the situation before implementing the Emergency Assistance.
13. The Delegate of Thailand drew the Committee's attention to the letter of the Governor which responded to the uncertainties raised by the Delegate of the United Kingdom.
14. The Delegate of India, while underscoring the legitimate concerns on the management mechanisms in place, expressed her Government’s view that perhaps the release of the Emergency Assistance could step up the work.
15. The Secretariat recalled that the Committee had allocated US$50,000 under Emergency Assistance for this site at its twenty-second session in 1998. These funds were for establishing a GIS for mapping the rice terraces to define the core and buffer zones of the property. These US$ 50,000 were to be complemented by another US$50,000 by the authorities of the Philippines to ensure the implementation of the US$100,000 GIS project proposal. The authorities were unable to identify the complementary US$50,000, which resulted in serious difficulties in completing the activity. Combined with the abolition of the BRTTF, the Secretariat informed the Committee that, to date, unfortunately this GIS activity remained incomplete as baseline maps were prepared but the trained staff to ensure their use have been replaced. The US$75,000 additional international assistance which was allocated by the Committee in December 2001 was for Emergency Technical Co-operation, subject to the State Party paying its dues to the World Heritage Fund. The Secretariat informed the Committee that constant consultations between the State Party, the Secretariat and the regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region pointed towards the need for careful monitoring of the use of this US$75,000 assistance bearing in mind the absence of a permanent and effective management authority.
16. The Delegates of Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom sought clarification on the plan of action and on how the US$75,000 Emergency Assistance would be used.
17. The representative of IUCN reminded the Committee that a plan of action with a detailed budget was proposed and approved by the Committee in Helsinki based upon the recommendations of the ICOMOS-IUCN mission. He clarified that the question remained on whether or not there was a competent and appropriate authority to whom the funds could be released.
18. The Delegate of Nigeria urged the Committee to adopt the draft decision and release the Emergency Assistance as soon as possible in view of the fact that an action plan was examined and approved at its 25th session in 2001.
19. The Chairperson asked the Secretariat to reformulate the draft decision following this discussion. A new draft decision was submitted to the Committee on Saturday morning.
20. The Delegates of Thailand, India and China, asked to delete the first paragraph related to the BRTTF in order to avoid duplication with paragraph 4.
21. The Delegate of Thailand suggested amendments to the draft to express the wish of the Committee to release the international assistance without further delay.
22. The Delegate of Nigeria, noting that a specific reference was made in the draft decision to the UNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region, requested clarification from the Secretariat on whether or not the involvement of the various UNESCO offices would facilitate or hinder the rapid release of the international assistance.
23. The Secretariat reminded the Committee of Paragraph 121 of the Operational Guidelines that includes a provision stating that:
"States who were in arrears of payment of their contributions to the World Heritage Fund would not be able to receive a grant of international assistance in the following calendar year, it being understood that this provision would not apply in case of emergency assistance and training as defined in these Guidelines".
In this respect, she informed the Committee that the contribution of the Philippines had not yet been received, and therefore the Emergency Technical Co-operation funds of US$75,000 could only be released upon receipt of the arrears. In response to the request for clarification by the Delegate of Nigeria, she informed the Committee that the Centre worked in close co-operation with the Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacific Region (RACAP), the UNESCO Bangkok office and the other UNESCO regional offices in implementing the decisions of the Committee. With regard to the US$75,000 Emergency Technical Co-operation grant, she reminded the Committee that it had approved this assistance while requesting the State Party to implement the activity in close co-operation with the Centre and the RACAP. The Secretariat informed the Committee that the co-operation of RACAP was counted upon by the Centre for the implementation of the activity.
24. The Delegate of Thailand noted that the UNESCO regional offices were not in a position to take administrative decisions on whether or not to release the funds.
25. The Observer of the Philippines thanked the Committee for the amendments made to the initial draft decision. She confirmed that the payment of the outstanding contribution - US$1,445 in 2001 - was under way.
26. The Delegate of Thailand underscored the application of the Operational Guidelines and asked that the Technical Assistance be released without delay as soon as the contribution of the Philippines had been received.
27. The Delegates of Nigeria and India, noted that the advice of the UNESCO regional offices to the World Heritage Centre was valuable.
28. The Chairperson, noting the Committee's consensus on the new draft decision as amended, declared it adopted (decision 26 COM (a)15).

Old City of Zabid (Yemen)
1. The Secretariat informed the Committee that a mission was currently at the site to review progress with the preparation of an Urban Conservation Plan and read a draft decision for consideration by the Committee.
2. The Delegate of Thailand noted that one of the key problems at the site related to the lack of traditional bricks. He suggested that the text of the decision include a request for the construction of a kiln for the firing of traditional bricks.
3. The Delegate of the United Kingdom commented that the state of conservation of this site raised classic issues of a World Heritage site where people live and work, where change is necessary for the place to thrive and for the site to be conserved and where change needs to be managed. He emphasized the importance of preserving the character of the town and to record archaeological evidence above and below ground due to any disturbance.
4. The Secretariat informed the Committee that two new kilns producing traditional bricks have been established in Zabid, with support from the Government of the Netherlands, and reassured the Committee on the inclusion, within the Urban Conservation Plan currently being prepared, of measures to preserve the traditional character and to document the features of all of the historic built environment of Zabid. Prescriptions will also be included to ensure that all infrastructure works and excavations within the Old City are monitored by a professional archaeologist.
5. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a) 16).

Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor (Yugoslavia)
1. ICOMOS informed the Committee that work on the property had been carried out and expressed its readiness to participate in a joint mission to the site as soon as possible.
2. The Chairperson noted the Committee's consensus and declared the draft decision adopted (decision 26 COM 21(a) 17).





Share with your friends:
1   ...   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   ...   26




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page