3 COM XI.35
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List and Guidelines for the evaluation of Nominations to the World Heritage List by ICOMOS and IUCN
In response to specific questions raised by Mr. Michel Parent's report, the Committee adopted the following principles:
(i) States Parties may propose in one single nomination several individual cultural properties, which may be in different geographical locations but which should:
-be linked because they belong to the same historico-cultural group, or-be the subject of a single safeguarding project, or-belong to the same type of property characteristic of the zone.
the geographical zone in which these properties are situated should be delimited and the cultural properties individually ...
3 COM XI.36
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List and Guidelines for the evaluation of Nominations to the World Heritage List by ICOMOS and IUCN
The Committee took note of the typology proposed in Mr. Michel Parent's report. It considered that it was on the basis of the inventories submitted by States Parties that such a typology could be finalized. The question will therefore continue to be studied until its next session.
3 COM XI.39
Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations by IUCN
The Committee considered the complex issues concerning sites occupied by migratory species on a seasonal basis and decided to add to paragraph 11 on integrity in the "Operational Guidelines" a new sub-paragraph (v) as follows:
"In cases of migratory species, integrity will require critical areas necessary for the survival of the species to be included in the nomination. States which are parties to the Convention are requested to seek the co-operation of other States which contain seasonable sites for populations of World Heritage species so as to ensure that these species are protected ...
The Australian Delegation drew attention to the fact that, on several occasions, members of the Committee and representatives of IUCN and ICOMOS had referred to the threat to which certain nominated sites were exposed, and had suggested that this factor should influence the favourable and rapid acceptance of the site in question. The Delegation expressed concern at this development, pointing out that acceptance should be based only on the established criteria dealing with the intrinsic properties of the site and, further, that if the threat affected the integrity of the site, acceptance ...
The Committee took up one by one those nominations which had been recommended by the Bureau for inscription on the List, those which had been recommended by the Bureau not to be entered on the List and nominations which raised a problem of application of the criteria, in accordance with the Committee's decision mentioned in paragraph 15 above. In each case the Committee heard, as appropriate, the comments of the representatives of IUCN and/or ICOMOS who referred to the criteria met by the property in question.
The Committee decided to enter in the World Heritage List the following 45 properties:
No. Name of property / State Party___________________________________________
19 Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar Region / Ethiopia
20 Ancient City of Damascus Syrian / Arab Republic
The Committee noted the reservation expressed by ICOMOS concerning the threat to the site from rapid urban development.
31 Auschwitz concentration camp / Poland
The Committee decided to enter Auschwitz concentration camp on the List as a unique site and to restrict the inscription of other sites of a similar nature.
33 ...
Sites: Abu Mena Amphitheatre of El Jem Ancient City of Damascus Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis Antigua Guatemala Archaeological Site of Carthage Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945) Białowieża Forest Boyana Church Bryggen Chartres Cathedral Dinosaur Provincial Park Everglades National Park Fasil Ghebbi, Gondar Region Forts and Castles, Volta, Greater Accra, Central and Western Regions Grand Canyon National Park Historic Cairo Historical Complex of Split with the Palace of Diocletian Independence Hall Kathmandu Valley Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek Madara Rider Medina of Tunis Meidan Emam, Esfahan Memphis and its Necropolis – the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Ohrid region Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor Ngorongoro Conservation Area Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae Old City of Dubrovnik Palace and Park of Versailles Persepolis Plitvice Lakes National Park Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley Rock Drawings in Valcamonica Rock-Hewn Churches of Ivanovo Sagarmatha National Park Stari Ras and Sopoćani Tchogha Zanbil Thracian Tomb of Kazanlak Tikal National Park Urnes Stave Church Vézelay, Church and Hill Virunga National Park
The Committee decided furthermore to defer the following sites:
No. Name of property / State Party
8 Ichkeul National park / Tunisia
The Committee deferred this nomination until the Tunisian Government has contacted the other States concerned to ensure adequate protection of summering and wintering areas of major migratory species found in Ichkeul.
79 Paphos, Birthplace of Aphrodite / Cyprus
The Committee deferred this nomination until more precise information was available on the possible adverse impact on the sites of the pressing needs of tourism development.
92 Sta. Giulia/St. ...
The Committee furthermore decided not to inscribe the following two sites on the World Heritage List:
No. 5: Zembra and Zembretta Islands National Park (Tunisia) andNo. 73: the Madeleine Island (Senegal).
In order to facilitate the examination by the Committee of nominations, it was decided that in future documents submitting nominations to the Committee would include indication of the criteria under which each nomination was to be considered.
After examining the requests received from States Parties and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical co-operation as follows:
(a) Ecuador
Equipment to enable the authorities to ensure the integrity of tho natural environment of the Galapagos Islands through protective measures.
up to a maximum of $50,000
Sites: Galápagos Islands
After examining the requests received from States Parties and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical co-operation as follows:
(b) Tanzania
Services of an architect-museologist for three weeks in order to draw up a project for the conservation and presentation of the prehistoric sites of Olduvai and Laetolil.
estimated cost $5,400
Sites: Ngorongoro Conservation Area
After examining the requests received from States Parties and the recommendations of the Bureau, the Committee decided to grant technical co-operation as follows:
(c) Egypt
Services of specialists in cultural heritage as well as equipment to draw up a project for the restoration and development of the Islamic Centre of Cairo.
up to a maximum of $ 30,000
Sites: Historic Cairo
The Committee was informed that requests for technical co-operation were forthcoming for the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania and Virunga National Park in Zaire and agreed to delegate authority to the Chairman to approve these requests after consultation with members of the Bureau if he considered it desirable.
The Committee approved the revised nomination form (CC-79/CONF.003/7) subject to the following:
(a) the text should be revised to reflect the decisions taken by the Committee on the criteria for the inclusion of properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations (see session XI above); the attention of States Parties should be drawn, in particular, to the essential criterion of outstanding universal value that should be met by properties nominated;
(b) The form should emphasize the importance of adequate buffer zones and ask for details on measures ...
The Committee heard the report of the working group on the management of the Convention and its financial implications and took note of the following points:
i) The Convention was now entering its operational phase particularly as regards technical co-operation, emergency assistance and the training of specialists, which implied a considerable increase in the workload of the Secretariat. An amount of approximately $210,000 had been spent by the Unesco Secretariat in 1979 under its Regular Budget for the management of the Convention.
ii) Funds actually obligated in 1979 under the World ...
The Committee then decided:
a) that it was not opportune at the present time to retain a fixed percentage such as 14%, as indicated in paragraph 26 of document CC-79/CONF.003/12, to cover direct management costs of the Convention;
b) to ask the Director-General of Unesco to make additional efforts to provide the Secretariat with an adequate permanent staff to enable it to meet the substantial increase in workload due to the fact that the Convention has now entered its operational phase. Until the Secretariat could be fully constituted and a sufficient number of Member States ratified ...
3 COM XVI.55
Presentation of the Statements of accounts of the World Heritage Fund and adoption of a budget
The Committee took note of the statement of account of the World Heritage Fund for the financial period which ended on 31 December 1978 and the interim statement of account of the Fund for the two-year financial period 1979/80 as set out in document CC-79/CONF.003/9.
3 COM XVI.56
Presentation of the Statements of accounts of the World Heritage Fund and adoption of a budget
The Committee adopted the following budget for the period October 1979 to December 1980.
BUDGET (October 1979 - December 1980)
Activities / Brought forward from 1978-1979 / Additional funds allocated / Total funds authorized for period October 78- December 80
I. Preparatory Assistance / $69,234 /$ 80,000 / $ 149,234 (30 m/m)
II. Technical Co-operation / -- / $165,400 / $ 165,400
III. Training / $4,700 / $ 200,000 / $ 204,700
IV. Emergency / $ 70,000 / $ 100,000 / $ 170,000
V. Promotional Activities / $ 500 / $ 36,400 / $ 36,900
VI. Programme Support
- ICOMOS } ...
The working group on natural criteria also reported to the Committee on its concern at the relatively low number of natural properties so far included in the World Heritage List. It considered that, if the List gave an initial impression of being a list of cultural properties, it would deter further nominations of natural properties. The working group was also concerned that the delegations of States Members at the third session of the Committee did not include a sufficient number of specialists in the natural heritage field which reduced the Committee's ability to evaluate properly ...
The Committee shared the concern of the group. It considered, however, that in view of the difficulty of determining precisely whether persons were competent in the fields of nature conservation or of the protection of cultural property, it would not be feasible to introduce such a rule on the quorum for meetings of the Committee. The responsibility for ensuring balanced representation lay with each State Member of the Committee.