• provide a clear definition of the zones granted absolute protection in Aleppo; and
• adapt an urbanization policy analogous to that advocated in the report of the Unesco mission to Aleppo.

As soon as these additional steps have been taken, the Syrian authorities are invited to inform the Secretariat so that the nomination can be re-examined. This information should reach the Secretariat by the end of February 1983 to enable the Bureau to take up this nomination at its next session.

29. At the Committee's request, ICOMOS pursued its examination of the file concerning this nomination. In this examination, ICOMOS took into account the following points :

a) in giving a favourable opinion, in April 1981, on the inscription of this property on the World Heritage List, ICOMOS had already drawn attention to the "severe destruction followed by a rapid urbanization";

(b) the mission of experts, entrusted with the task of verifying in situ "the nature and the extent of the threats", had not been able to proceed to Jerusalem, for reasons beyond the control of ICOMOS;

c) in the absence of a statement dating from 1982, ICOMOS has referred to reports made between 1970 and 1980, at the request of the Director-General of Unesco, by his personal representative, Professor Lemaire.

Consequently, ICOMOS considered that the situation, as described by the personal representative of the Director-General, meets criteria proposed for the inscription of properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger as they apply to both "ascertained danger" and "potential danger".

30. The delegate of the United States, while underlining the universal importance of the monuments and spiritual heritage of Jerusalem, recalled the position taken by his government when the Old City had been nominated to the World Heritage List and explained the reasons for which he was opposed to its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger which would be equally contrary to the Convention. He stressed that a property must be situated in the territories of the nominating State and, in the opinion of his government, Jordan had no standing to make such a nomination. Furthermore, the consent of Israel would be required since it effectively controlled Jerusalem. His Government held that the ultimate status of Jerusalem should be determined through negotiations by all the parties concerned. The urban transformations that had taken place in the Old City did not constitute "serious and specific dangers". The documents referred to in the ICOMOS analysis did not present a compelling case in favour of inscription, the nomination file did not contain the urban plan called for by the Bureau and Jordan was in no position to assume the responsibility stipulated in Article 26 of the Convention. He proposed that the Committee reserve judgement on this nomination and stated that, if the Committee were to take a decision now, his delegation would oppose the inscription and call for a vote to register its position.

31. Many delegates expressed their support for the nomination and unanimously insisted on the exceptional value and unique religious and cultural significance of the Old City of Jerusalem. They recalled that the Old City of Jerusalem must be safeguarded in its entirety as a coherent whole and that the threats to any one of the elements of which it is composed endanger the property as such, as well as its authenticity and its specific character. Finally they considered that the situation of this property corresponds to the criteria mentioned in the ICOMOS note and, in particular, to criteria (e) (significant loss of historical authenticity) and (f) (important loss of cultural significance) as far as "ascertained danger" is concerned, and to criteria (a) (modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection), (b) (lack of conservation policy) and (d) (threatening effects of town planning) as far as "potential danger" is concerned.

32. Finally the delegate of Jordan called the attention of the Committee to the serious and specific dangers which threaten the "Old City of Jerusalem". He specifically pointed out the destruction of religious properties, threats of destruction due to urban development plans, deterioration of monuments due to lack of maintenance and responsible management, as well as of the disastrous impact of tourism on the protection of the monuments. Consequently, he urged the Committee to protect the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls by inscribing the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

33. After discussion, the Committee decided, by 14 votes for, 1 against and 5 abstentions, to inscribe the "Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls" on the List of World Heritage in Danger. One State Member of the Committee was absent when the vote was taken.

34. In explaining the reasons for his abstention which were legal in nature, the delegate of Switzerland recalled the statement made by his delegation when the Committee decided to enter the Old City of Jerusalem on the World Heritage List, regarding the special status of Jerusalem (corpus separatum according to the 1947 partition plan of the United Nations). The Swiss Government considers that the City of Jerusalem is situated neither on Jordanian nor on Israeli territory. His delegation would furthermore have wished to have more complete information on the present state of Jerusalem and he considered it regrettable that the Committee had not been able to obtain a recent expert evaluation.

35. The delegates of Argentina, Nepal and Zaire also explained their vote. These delegations had supported the proposal made by Jordan to inscribe the Old City of Jerusalem on the List of World Heritage in Danger in view of the outstanding cultural and historical significance of this site. They underlined, however, that inscription on the list had no political implications and should in no way be regarded as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by any State.

• Bulgaria - Boyana, Ivanovo and Madara Rider (request 42-43-45.1): $48,000
• Haiti - Citadel Henry, National History Park (request 180.1): $57,200
• Honduras - Maya site of Copan (request 129.1): $24,050
• Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan - Old City of Jerusalem (request 148.1): $100,000
• Pakistan - Archaeological ruins of Moenjodaro (request 138.1): $34,000
• Yugoslavia - Natural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor (request 125.1 rev): $50,000

Sub-total for technical co-operation requests concerning cultural properties: $313,250

• Ethiopia - Simien National Park (request 9.1 rev): $21,000
• Honduras - Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (request 196.1 rev): $67,025
• Nepal - Sagarmatha National Park (request 120.1 3 rev): $61,995
• Panama - Darien National Park (request 159.1 rev): $55,000
• Senegal - Niokolo-Koba National Park (request 153.1 rev): $27,031
• Senegal - Djoudj National Park (request 25.1 rev): $29,132
• Seychelles - Aldabra Atoll (request 185.1): $21,000

Sub-total for technical co-operation requests concerning natural properties: $282,183

TOTAL concerning cultural and natural properties: $595,433

& 25% reserve for small-scale projects: $148,858

TOTAL: $744,291

It expressed its concern, however, concerning the consequences of the changes in the hydrological system on Djoudj National Park which would result from the works envisaged on the River Senegal and suggested that the authorities of Senegal request the inscription of this site on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

• Honduras - Maya Site of Copan: $28,950
• Pakistan - Archaeological ruins of Moenjodaro: $20,000

Sub-total for training requests in the field of cultural heritage conservation: $48,950

• Honduras - Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve: $,4975
• Tanzania - College of African Wildlife Management (Regional training centre): $45,000

Sub-total for training requests in the field of natural heritage conservation: $49,975

TOTAL of requests in the fields of cultural and natural heritage conservation: $94,925

(a) on the state of conservation of the properties;

(b) on the measures taken to protect and to manage the properties;

(c) on the way in which funds allocated under the World Heritage Fund for the safeguarding of sites are used, as well as details on the conservation methods and techniques followed in the projects concerned.

It would also be desirable if the Committee could be informed of action taken by States Parties with respect to the different recommendations formulated by the Committee regarding the preservation of properties at the time of their inscription on the World Heritage List or on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

48. It was felt, however, that the question of reporting by States Parties required careful study before the Committee could take any decision on this matter, although the principle of yearly reporting was considered to be highly desirable. The Committee therefore requested IUCN and ICOMOS, in collaboration with ICCROM, to prepare for the next meeting of the Bureau proposals on the contents of the reports which may be requested from States Parties on World Heritage sites and on the procedure to be followed for the preparation and submission to the Committee of such reports. In this connection, the organizations should take account of the different types of cultural and natural properties in the various regions of the world.

The Committee furthermore expressed an interest in the establishment of guidelines for the protection and management of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List.

50. The Rapporteur drew the attention of the observer from ALECSO to the desirability of producing in Arabic a series of books on World Heritage sites. These would be complementary to the publications which have already appeared or are planned in English, French and Spanish on World Heritage sites.

51. The representative of the Director-General underlined the importance of a sustained effort of high-level promotion for the future of the Convention and he indicated that a detailed plan of action concerning both public information and promotion in general would be submitted to the Bureau at its next session.

54. The Committee took note of recommendation No. 45 adopted by the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico City, 26 July - 6 August 1982) in which the Conference "expresses the hope that the World Heritage Committee will take the initiative of including the Mediterranean in the World Cultural and Natural Heritage List".

55. Following a proposal made by IUCN, the Committee commended and encouraged efforts under way in the United States of America to develop improved water release and delivery plans affecting Everglades National Park, a world heritage site, which will more closely approximate natural, cyclic conditions. These efforts will further assure continued integrity of the site as well as long-term recovery for this world-famous ecosystem.

56. The representative of ICOMOS presented to the Committee the study undertaken by ICOMOS on the heritage of the Jesuit missions in North and South America. The Committee noted that some of these missions would be nominated jointly to the World Heritage List by Argentina and Brazil. Another joint nomination to be made by these two States concerned Iguazu National Park.

57. As concerns the meeting place for its next session, the Committee noted with gratitude the intention expressed by the delegate of Italy of inviting the Committee to hold its next meeting in Italy. The delegate of Cyprus informed the Committee that the authorities of his country have the intention of inviting the Committee to hold one of its future sessions in Cyprus and that they were considering inviting the Committee in 1985, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Antiquities Department. The delegate of Bulgaria stated that her Government would also like to host one of the future sessions of the Committee. The Rapporteur also referred to the wish of the Tunisian authorities to invite the Committee to hold one of its meetings in Tunisia; however, since the term of office of Tunisia on the Committee was due to expire at the end of the 22nd session of the Unesco General Conference to be held in October/November 1983, the Tunisian authorities could not issue an invitation at this stage.

58. The delegate of Guinea, speaking on behalf of the members of the Committee, expressed his appreciation for the admirable way in which Professor Slatyer, due to his wisdom, tranquil force and perfect knowledge of the problems of nature conservation, had chaired the sixth session of the Committee. The delegate also paid tribute to the enthusiasm and dynamism of Mr. Beschaouch, the Rapporteur of the Committee.

59. Following an expression of thanks to all those who had contributed to the smooth running of the meeting, the Vice- Chairman from Bulgaria, acting as Chairman, declared the meeting closed.