Oil saturated intertidal waters were common in many of the intertidal habitats.

Claim 5000468 is for expenses for remediation of damage to mudflats.

Kuwait also states that the impact of oil contamination on the remaining areas of mudflats is uncertain and that the mudflats are a fragile but critically important biological area.

The alternative remediation programme in the third F4 report was based on a classification of the damaged intertidal shoreline into five habitat types salt marsh, hard substrate, intertidal, sand beach and supralittoral.

Two of these projects are directly related to the losses to intertidal shoreline habitats.

This claim is the deferred portion of claim No. 5000259 relating to remediation of coastal mudflats.

In order to determine the oil contamination remaining in the mudflats, Kuwait conducted a comprehensive shoreline survey.

The claim relates to damage to shoreline areas, wetlands, mangroves, intertidal and subtidal areas and coral reefs.

Second claim unit Intertidal shoreline habitats Saudi Arabia seeks compensation in the amount of USD 5,369,894,855 for severe and persistent damage to a large area of its intertidal shoreline habitats resulting from the oil spills caused by Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

According to Kuwait, remediation is required in four areas of mudflats located along the north shore of Kuwait Bay.

Recommended award for claim No. 5000460 Claim No. 5000468 Coastal mudflats Claim 5000468 is for compensation in the amount of USD 267,710,202 for expenses of future measures to remediate damage to Kuwait's coastal mudflats resulting from Iraq's invasion and occupation and for future monitoring activities.

The total area identified as requiring remediation is approximately 53.4 square kilometres along the full width of the intertidal zone.

The Panel also considers future remediation of Kuwait's mudflats area under claim No 5000468 at paragraphs 476 490 of this report.

Iraq states that, in any case, all other intertidal habitat types have either recovered or will be addressed by primary restoration.

The bulk of the preserve should consist of intertidal supratidal habitats similar to those most affected by invasion related oil contamination.

The Panel also finds that insufficient evidence has been provided by Kuwait to justify further monitoring activity in any areas of the mudflats.

The Panel finds that the damage to Saudi Arabia's intertidal shoreline habitats is a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

The preserves should consist of intertidal supratidal habitats similar to those that are most affected by oil contamination from the invasion and occupation.

Kuwait provided several reports, satellite images and witness accounts of oil spillage in and around the mudflats area as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation.

The Panel, therefore, finds that Kuwait has not provided sufficient evidence to show that there is remaining damage in the mudflats attributable to Iraq's invasion and occupation.

The Panel notes that the mudflats are characterized by low levels of oil contamination, and the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that the contamination is causing environmental damage.

Species have been found under tree bark, in leaf and pine litter, in soil, in tree hollows, under stones, in caves, at the seashore in the intertidal zone, and within fractured rocks.

Iraq accepts that data presented by Kuwait indicate possible remaining oil contamination in certain locations in the upper intertidal zone of Northern Kuwait Bay that could be a result of the 1991 conflict.

Kuwait also conducted a rapid shoreline assessment ( RSA ) to determine the diversity of biota ( species richness ) in different parts of the mudflats, and conducted chemical analysis of samples taken from the RSA sample areas.

By Procedural Order No. 6 of the fourth F4 instalment dated 30 April 2004, the Panel deferred the portion of claim No. 5000259 of Kuwait relating to remediation of coastal mudflats to the fifth F4 instalment.

In light of the results of the monitoring and assessment studies that were funded by awards in the first F4 instalment for claims Nos. 5000378, 5000397 and 5000398, Kuwait substantially reduced the claimed cost for remediating its mudflats.

In the view of the Panel, two shoreline preserves with a total area of 46.3 square kilometres and operated for a 30 year period, would sufficiently compensate for Saudi Arabia's losses in ecological services in its intertidal shorelines.

For example, with regard to Saudi Arabia's estimate of ecological service loss and recovery time, Iraq states that there is ample evidence in the literature that recovery of all shoreline habitat types except the high intertidal salt marshes can be expected by 1995.

According to Iraq, although acquisition of land for a marine and coastal preserve typically involves an area of seabed and associated intertidal zone, Saudi Arabia appears to have based its estimates of the cost of land acquisition on the value of prime beachfront land.

Further, the evidence provided is insufficient to enable the Panel to determine the proportion of the oil contamination remaining in the coastal mudflats that is attributable to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait, or to assess the importance of other factors, such as natural variability, that may affect the diversity of biota in the area.

The first claim unit is for terrestrial damage the second claim unit is for damage to intertidal shoreline habitats the third claim unit is for damage to marine subtidal habitats the fourth claim unit is for losses of wildlife resources the fifth claim unit is for economic and ecological losses related to fisheries resources and the sixth claim unit is for two other compensatory projects.