World Heritage Centre http://whc.unesco.org?cid=305&action=list&searchDecisions=&search_theme=12&search_session_decision=10&mode=rss World Heritage Centre - Committee Decisions 90 en Copyright 2019 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre Wed, 23 Oct 2019 17:41:14 EST UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Decisions http://whc.unesco.org/document/logowhc.jpg http://whc.unesco.org 3 COM XI.(b).37 Amendments to the criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List and guidelines for the evaluation of nominations by IUCN In view of the difficulty of assessing nominations without an adequate inventory, the Committee decided to encourage States Parties to prepare such inventories. It was furthermore decided to ask IUCN to prepare a proposal for the next meeting of the Bureau relating to the methodology and cost of preparing an inventory on a global basis.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2194 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XI.(b).38 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 decided to instruct IUCN to use great caution in the application of criterion (iv) when it was the sole criterion for recommending sites for the World Heritage List. The sites nominated under this criterion should be habitats where "significant populations" or "concentrations of populations" of rare or endangered species of plants or animals survive, that is, sites representing in some way "superlative situations".

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2195 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XI.32 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 considered that it was absolutely essential that the List contained only properties which were of outstanding universal value. Unless this general criterion was applied to every nomination, the List could rapidly decline in value and indeed in credibility. With this in mind, the Committee recommended that the wording in the "Operational Guidelines" and the nomination forms should more adequately reflect this overriding consideration, and that ICOMOS and IUCN should be instructed to regard this requirement as of critical importance in their evaluation of nominations.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2189 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XI.34 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 On the general question of the number of inscriptions to be entered on the World Heritage List, as well as of the selection criteria to be applied, the Committee recalled that the Convention foresees in Article 11 paragraph 1 that each State Party "shall in so far as possible submit to the World Heritage Committee _an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage_, situated in its territory and _suitable for inclusion_" in the World Heritage List (passages not underlined in the text of the Convention). The Committee recommends that States Parties in future conform to this provision so that the Committee may have access to provisional and non-exhaustive lists of cultural properties for which they intend to submit nomination files. This "inventory" and the nominations should be very restricted, it being understood however that no limit in the number of nominations should be imposed and that assurance be given to each State Party that it may submit nominations for cultural property relating to all the civilizations which have succeeded each other or which coexist in its territory. The Committee was of the opinion that the inventories submitted by the States Parties - inventories which would as it were constitute long-term plans over a period of 5 to 10 years should enable the Committee to have a better global idea of the form that the World Heritage List would take and thus to better define the selection criteria.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2191 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
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 described and also precisely localized.

Each State Party submits only the cultural properties situated on its territory (even if these properties belong to an ensemble which goes beyond its borders) but it may come to an agreement with another State Party in order to make a joint submission.

(ii) In its justification of the outstanding universal value of the property nominated, each State should, whenever possible, undertake a sufficiently wide comparison;

(iii) The Committee should not take into consideration nominations of immovable property which are likely to become movable.

(iv) The authenticity of a cultural property remains an essential criterion.

(v) Particular attention should be given to cases which fall under criterion (vi) so that the net result would not be a reduction in the value of the List, due to the large potential number of nominations as well as to political difficulties. Nominations concerning, in particular, historical events or famous people could be strongly influenced by nationalism or other particularisms in contradiction with the objectives of the World Heritage Convention.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2192 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
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.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2193 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
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 throughout their full life cycle. Agreements of this nature should be noted in the nomination".

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2196 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XII.45 Consideration of Nominations to the World Heritage List 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.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2202 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XII.46 Consideration of Nominations to the World Heritage List 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 Bialowieza National Park / Poland

34 Forts and Castles, Volta Greater Accra,Central and Western Regions / Ghana

36 Medina of Tunis / Tunisia

37 Site of Carthage / Tunisia

38 Amphitheatre of El Jem / Tunisia

39 Ngorongoro conservation area / Tanzania

42 Boyana Church / Bulgaria

43 Madara Rider / Bulgaria

44 Thracian tomb of Kazanlak / Bulgaria

45 Rock-hewn churches of Ivanovo / Bulgaria

58 Urnes Stave Church /  Norway

59 Bryggen / Norway

63 Virunga national park / Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo)

64 Tikal national park / Guatemala

The Committee learned of a tourism development project in the park and expressed the hope that the planned construction would not jeopardize the cultural and natural value of the site.

65 Antigua Guatemala / Guatemala

71 Dinosaur provincial park / Canada

72 Kluane national Park, Wrangell-
St. Elias National monument / Canada & USA

75 Grand Canyon national park / USA

76 Everglades national park / USA

78 Independence Hall / USA

80 Mont St-Michel and its Bay / France

81 Chartres Cathedral / France

83 Palace and Park of Versailles / France

84 Vezelay, Church and Hill / France

85 Decorated grottoes of the Vezere Valley / France

86 Memphis and its Necropolis - the Pyramid fields from Giza to Dahshur / Egypt

The Committee took note of the ICOMOS proposal that a safeguarding plan for the environment of the pyramids should be drawn up.

87 Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis / Egypt

88 The Nubian monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae / Egypt

89 Islamic Cairo / Egypt

Note was taken of the concern expressed by ICOMOS at the problems involved in safeguarding this site.

90 Abu Mena / Egypt

94 Rock drawings in Valcamonica / Italy

95 Old City of Dubrovnik / Yugoslavia

96 Stari Ras and Sopocani / Yugoslavia

97 Historical complex of Split with the Palace of Diocletian / Yugoslavia

98 Plitvice lakes national park / Yugoslavia

99 Lake Ohrid (that part which lies in Yugoslavia) / Yugoslavia

The Committee decided to inscribe this site on the List in view of the assurances received concerning the integrity of the Lake as a whole.

113 Tchogha Zanbil /  Iran

114 Persepolis / Iran

115 Meidan-e Shah Esfahan / Iran

120 Sagarmatha National Park / Nepal

121 Kathmandu Valley / Nepal

125 Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor / Yugoslavia

Following the recommendation of the Bureau, the Committee decided to enter this site in the List of World Heritage in Danger as requested by the State Part concerned.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2203 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XII.47 Consideration of Nominations to the World Heritage List 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. Salvator's Monastery / Italy

The Committee heard the comments of ICOMOS which referred to the outstanding universal value of the property. However, ICOMOS was concerned by the fact that the property had not been presented in the more general context of the cultural heritage of the country as a whole. While recognizing the value of the site nominated, the Committee decided to defer a decision until indications had been received from the Italian Government on the properties situated in Italy which it was considering nominating to the List.

 

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2204 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XII.48 Consideration of Nominations to the World Heritage List 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) and
No. 73: the Madeleine Island (Senegal).

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2205 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST
3 COM XII.49 Consideration of Nominations to the World Heritage List 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.

]]>
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2206 wh-info@unesco.org Mon, 22 Oct 1979 00:00:00 EST