World Heritage Centre https://whc.unesco.org?cid=305&action=list&searchDecisions=&search_theme=12&year_start=1978&year_end=1978&mode=rss World Heritage Centre - Committee Decisions 90 en Copyright 2024 UNESCO, World Heritage Centre Mon, 06 May 2024 06:30:15 EST UNESCO, World Heritage Centre - Decisions https://whc.unesco.org/document/logowhc.jpg https://whc.unesco.org 2 COM VIII.37 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List The Committee examined these three cases first and stated with satisfaction that appropriate documentation for two properties had in the meantime been received. As regards the third case (National Park of Ichkeul) the Committee decided, in agreement with the delegate of Tunisia, to defer its decision to its next session subject to receipt of the requested information.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2126 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.38 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List The Committee, upon finding itself in full agreement with the list proposed by the Bureau, decided to enter the following 12 properties in the World Heritage List:

NAME OF PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (STATE PARTY)

L'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Park (Canada)

Nahanni National Park (Canada)

Galapagos Islands (Ecuador)

City of Quito (Ecuador)

Simien National Park (Ethiopia)

Rock Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia)

Aachen Cathedral  (Federal Republic of Germany)

Cracow's Historic Centre (Poland)

Wieliczka - salt mine (Poland)

Island of Goree (Senegal)

Mesa Verde (United State of America)

Yellowstone (United State of America)

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2127 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.39 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List The Committee further decided to defer consideration of all other nominations listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 until its third session. All these nominations, as well as those received after the Bureau meeting and listed in document CC-78/CONF.010/7 Add.1 (for which it had been impossible to complete the technical review, translation and transmission to all States members of the Committee in time before the second session) would be transmitted to the Bureau for examination prior to their consideration by the Committee at its next session.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2128 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.40 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List The Chairman then thanked the States Parties for their efforts, which had made it possible to initiate the establishment of the World Heritage List. He also recalled that the time and order of entry of a property in the World Heritage List should by no means be interpreted as an indication of the qualification of a property or judgment on its value in comparison to other properties in the list, as all of them had met the criteria adopted by the Committee.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2129 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.41 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List The Committee continued its work by discussing suitable future closing dates for the submission of nominations and agreed that nominations, in order to be examined at the next Bureau meeting, should be with the Secretariat by 1 March 1979 at the latest. Thereafter, however, the deadline for submission of nominations would be 1 January so that more time would be available to the Secretariat, ICOMOS and IUCN for the processing and technical review of the new dominations.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2130 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.42 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List There followed considerable discussion as to whether the number of nominations per country and year should be limited or not and how to solve the problem of the increasing workload for all parties involved in the evaluation process, which may become rather time-consuming and may even exceed the capacity of the advisory organizations, the Bureau, the Committee and the UNESCO Secretariat in the future.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2131 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.43 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List In this connection, reference was made to Article 11 (1) of the Convention which stipulates no limit for the number of nominations by a single State Party. However, in recognizing this stipulation the Committee, for purely practical reasons, authorized the Chairman to convene, if necessary, a special Bureau meeting after the closing date for submission of nominations in order to examine, together with the advisory organizations and the Secretariat, the possibility of evaluating all new nominations and to adopt a procedure which would take into account the capacities of all parties involved in the processing of nominations.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2132 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.44 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List Following a proposal made by the delegate of Yugoslavia who underlined the importance of the decisions taken by the Committee for the establishment of the World Heritage List, the Committee decided that a document concerning the nominations of States and presenting the recommendations of the Bureau thereon, would be prepared for the Committee which would examine the nominations one by one and would decide on the inclusion or non-inclusion in the List of each individual site.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2133 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.45 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List The delegate of Poland then drew the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the report of the Rapporteur on the first meeting of the Bureau. As noted in the report, Poland was the only State affected by the decision that on this first occasion, States Parties would be limited to nominating only two properties each for inclusion in the World Heritage List, since it had nominated three sites which clearly qualified for inclusion and for which complete documentation had been submitted: Auschwitz, Cracow and the Salt Mines of Wieliczka. It would, therefore, appear justified that the nomination of Auschwitz be referred to the second session of the Bureau with a favourable recommendation.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2134 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST 2 COM VIII.46 Review of Nominations to the World Heritage List In response to this proposal the Committee agreed that in all future cases where eligible nominations were deferred by the Bureau, such nominations would be given priority consideration at the following Bureau meeting, unless these nominations had in the meantime been withdrawn by the State concerned.

]]> https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2135 wh-support@unesco.org Tue, 05 Sep 1978 00:00:00 EST